Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I believe old Al's theory is just as applicable in spotting idealogues as it is lunatics. Which brings me to our president's proposal to spend $450 billion on Stimulus II. Compare the laundry list of spending from the $867 billion sinkhole of spending called Stimulus I to Bailout Barry's "new" offering: "Shovel ready" construction projects? Check. Teachers? Check."Green" boondoggles? Check. Considering that 1.7 million Americans joined the ranks of the unemployed after the Stimulus was passed why would Pres. Obama propose throwing more money at a failed agenda?
Simple. He's attempting to show his voters that he has their backs while designing such a partisan plan to pay for it that he knows it will never pass. In fact, the NY Times has found many Democrats wary of the president's plan: "Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide." Yet, this opposition from his own party hasn't prevented him from barnstorming the country blaming republicans for his failure to fix the ecomomy. Former Democratic Rep Martin Frost admitted "The most likely explanation is that his jobs program was a campaign document — not a real plan for putting people back to work". Let's take a look at the members of the president's base set to benefit should republicans fold and his plan pass.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka was demanding the creation of an "infrastructure bank" before the ink was even dry on Stimulus I. Needing their votes and millions in dues money for his campaign the president ponied up billions to satisfy big labor's wish. In what would be the third bailout for teachers in his young administration Obama wants more money to "put teachers in the classroom". Since 1970 staffing has increased 83 percent while the number of students in public schools has grown by only 7 percent. The College Board just announced the lowest SAT reading scores in history so it doesn't appear we're getting good value for the money being spent now. Finally,we come to Solyndra and our bright "green' future. Solyndra went bankrupt last week taking $535 million of taxpayer money with it, reminding MA residents' of the millions lost on our "investment" in Evergreen Solar. Instead of being chastened by this waste, Stimulus II promises billions more. From the Hill: "the administration is arguing that the Solyndra incident underscores the need for the United States to double down on investments in clean energy."
How does President Obama propose to pay for this? From the AP: "The bulk of the payment comes from nearly $400 billion from limiting the deductions on charitable contributions and other items that wealthy people can take." So, with 46.2 million living in poverty(US Census)the highest level since 1993, President Obama wants to kill charities that help the poor? John Hinderaker of Powerline stated "The essential effect of Obama’s proposal, with its tax increases, is to transfer wealth from upper-income taxpayers to construction workers, teachers and other public employees–that is, from people who earn $200,000+ to people who earn $60,000+ (or more, if their families have two incomes)." To that I would add taking food and shelter currently provided by nonprofits from the poor. For the 14 million unemployed the president's proposal is deeply cynical, callous and cruel. America deserves better.