Gregg offers “1789” Amendment

Continuing with the theme from his radio address on Sunday, Senator Judd Gregg today introduced an amendment to the Senate budget legislation that would prohibit "the consideration of any budget resolution, amendment, or conference report that shows an increase in the public debt over the following ten years by an amount equal to or greater than the debt accumulated from 1789 to January 20, 2009.”

In a press release Senator Gregg said, “The budget will double and ultimately triple the debt.” He continued, “It creates more debt than under every President from George Washington to George W. Bush combined. By the end of the five-year budget window, debt held by the public will be close to 67% of GDP.

Gregg’s office claims the President’s budget will add another $11 trillion to the debt over the next ten years.

Stimulating Social Security Recipients

Deep within the 400 plus pages of President Obama’s stimulus bill (page 336 to be exact) is a section titled “Economic Recovery Payments to Certain Individuals.” This section authorizes most recipients of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to receive a $250 one-time recovery payment that the Administration says will “inject more than $13 Billion into Economy.”

$250 is $250 – nothing to shake a stick at, especially for some older Americans who may have lost considerable portions of their retirement savings in the market. But, as Mrs. Obama noted when criticizing President Bush’s $600 tax relief check, you really cannot do a whole lot with that amount of money.

However, when considered in the aggregate and after accounting for the millions in administrative costs authorized to carry out this section, these one time payments will cost the American taxpayer close to $14 billion.

Instead of using this money to shore up the Social Security system, or paying back some of the monies Uncle Sam has "borrowed" from the trust fund in recent years, this provision simply continues the recent trend in Washington of opting for short-term spending solutions instead of putting the country on stable footing for the long haul.

Stimulus Emerges as a Wedge Issue in TX Gubernatorial Primary

Although the match up hasn’t yet been made official – sparks have begun to fly in the Texas Gubernatorial Primary over Governor Perry’s decision to refuse some of the stimulus funds.

Republican Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison yesterday criticized Perry for refusing portions of the stimulus funds. The Dallas Morning News reports:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, delivering her sharpest critique of the young campaign for governor, said Monday that Gov. Rick Perry is making a mistake turning down hundreds of millions of dollars in federal unemployment money.

Perry has actively labeled Hutchison part of a spendthrift culture in Washington, but until now, she has largely avoided directly engaging her rival.

On Monday, she fired back on two fronts: chiding him for taking undue credit for the state's business climate and warning that Perry's rejection of federal money will mean a tax increase on employers to replenish the state's unemployment fund.

"A leader would be taking time to look at all aspects and coming up with a better solution," she told reporters. "I would hope he is looking for innovative ways not to dock the taxpayers of Texas with $555 million turned down."

Perry defended his action and suggested the senator, a fellow Republican, stay out of state business.

"The last thing we want is Washington coming down here to Texas and telling us how to run our state," he said.

Hutchison’s campaign is still in the “exploratory” phase, however recent polls show her leading Governor Perry among likely primary voters. How or if those numbers will shift based on the candidates' stimulus views remains to be seen.

Gregg Warns Obama's Budget Will Bankrupt the Country

Demonstrating some of the "irresolvable conflicts" that prevented him from becoming President Obama's Commerce Secretary, Senator Gregg today issued a stark warning that the Administration's spending plans will bankrupt this country. On CNN's State of the Union, Gregg said:

The practical implications of this is bankruptcy for the United States. There's no other way around it. If we maintain the proposals which are in this budget over the 10-year period that this budget covers, this country will go bankrupt. People will not buy our debt; our dollar will become devalued.

It is a very severe situation. And I find it almost unconscionable that this administration is essentially saying, well, we're just going to blithely go along on this course of action after they're getting these numbers which show that they're not -- they're not sustainable, and they know they're not sustainable.

The way I've described it, it's as if you were flying an airplane, and the gas light came on, and said you've got 15 minutes of gas left, and the pilot said, "Oh, we're not going to worry about that. We're going to fly for another two hours." Well, the plane crashes and our country will crash. And we'll pass on to our kids a country that's not affordable.

Here is Sen. Gregg's full interview:

Getting Ready for More

As the outrage over the AIG bonuses continues to fester, and folks being to realize that the payments were in effect “ok’d” by stimulus bill, the Administration appears to be laying the groundwork for the next round of stimulus-linked complaints: contractor fraud, waste, and abuse.

Today, the chief auditor overseeing the stimulus’ cautioned that, "he thinks federal agencies will have great difficulty attracting and hiring enough contract professionals to minimize the risks associated with moving the money fast enough to accomplish the recovery act's goals.”

In both cases, AIG and future abuses, the common link is the general rush our government appears to be in - leaving no time to evaluate soundness of any policy or decision.

Senator Max Baucus hit the nail on the head when he said, “Frankly it was such a rush -- we're talking about the stimulus bill now -- to get it passed, I didn't have time and other conferees didn't have time to address many of the provisions[.]”

Constitutional Support for the Anti-Stimulus Governors

A report issued today by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), “concludes that it likely would be unconstitutional for a legislature to supplant a governor in accepting and using economic stimulus money.”

The report contends that a provision in the legislation designed to allow state legislators to go around the objections of their Governors in order to accept stimulus monies is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Simply put, the federal government does not have the authority to create loopholes in state constitutions.

STEWARD is working to obtain a copy of the report. Check back soon for further analysis.

Stimulus Speed Bumps

The AP yesterday ran a story detailing the newest “speed bump” to the President’s stimulus bill: state lawmakers.

Speed is supposed to define President Barack Obama's $787 billion federal stimulus plan, but that theory is being tested in statehouses from Jefferson City, Mo., to Sacramento, Calif. The bulk of more than $250 billion going through state governments requires legislative appropriation or review. … [L]egislatures rarely move fast, and even the sharpest number crunchers in statehouses still don't have a grip on all the details and implications of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The AP points out that more than 7,000 lawmakers in all 50 states will have the opportunity to impact how the stimulus will be spent. This process is likely to slow the release of funds at every level, and even more so when there are significant ideological disputes related to the funding.

In New Hampshire, where local spending is truly controlled by local governments via town meetings and warrant articles, the process of distributing funds could face compounded delays.

New STEWARD Poll

A new poll commissioned by STEWARD has found vast public pessimism concerning the stimulus' ability to positively impact lives here on Main Street.

The Washington Times reported on some of the poll's key findings, including:

"78 percent of New Hampshire residents believe the $800 billion bill will not improve their financial outlook. ... Less than a fourth believed it would improve the economy in their state."

"54 percent of those surveyed also opposed increasing the deficit to pay for the spending in the bill, 58 percent said states that mismanaged funds should not be bailed out and 69 percent opposed giving General Motors and Chrysler any additional loans."

Stay tuned for further analysis of this and other upcoming STEWARD polls.

Texas' Perry Joins the Anti-Stimulus Governors

The Dallas Morning News reports:

Gov. Rick Perry, joining a handful of his fellow Southern Republican leaders, said Thursday that he was rejecting $556 million in federal stimulus money for unemployed Texans because it had too many strings attached.

He said the federal provisions would require unprecedented changes in state rules on who is eligible for unemployment payments. He also argued that the funds – which Democrats say would update benefits so that more women, elderly and student workers could qualify – would place additional burdens on businesses, leaving them to pay the added costs when the federal money ran out.

Instead, businesses should be able to use the money to create jobs, Perry said.

"That is why I am so concerned about the belief that has gained a foothold in our national consciousness that the best and only way to solve our nation's problems is to drown them with taxpayer dollars," said Perry, announcing his decision at a Houston hardware store.

Governor Perry was also on Fox News yesterday discussing his objections to the plan. Perry’s best argument was simply that Texas is the number one job creating state in the nation and that these funds would hurt the state’s businesses now and into the future. Perry was quick to emphasize that his state’s comparative well-being was created “in spite of Washington” and certainly not because of the federal government’s help.

Just Words?

In an attempt to paint for the nation a rosier economic picture, President Obama yesterday told a group of business leaders the economy wasn’t all that bad. Huh?:

"A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooohh, we're down on the dumps," Obama said. "And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment."

"I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say," Obama added. "Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now."

This is an interesting reversal from the purely apocalyptic language Obama used sell the stimulus last month. For example, in a Washington Post article, Obama warned we were in the midst of “an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression.” He continued:

[E]ach day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

There are two possible explanations for Obama’s about face. One, the stimulus worked, we are now at least on the road to recovery, and now we can all relax. Unfortunately this isn’t the case – unemployment and foreclosure rates have risen and the markets have plummeted since passage. As of yet, there is nothing to illustrate the stimulus has worked, which is why top Democrats keep asking the public to give it time.

The other explanation, then, is that Obama is again substituting oratory for sound policy. He forced through a poorly conceived billion dollar spending bill based solely on his warnings of doom and gloom. Now, he is trying to silence critics who contend that his Administration lacks the focus necessary to bring the country out of this downturn by convincing the public that things really are not that bad.

This approach has worked in the past. It will be interesting to see how it plays out this time around.

A Tough Row to Hoe?

The Wall Street Journal today discusses the potentially bumpy road ahead for the Anti-stimulus Governors:

Republican governors who opposed the economic stimulus package and suggested they would refuse some money are sparking tension within their states -- and, in one case, pitting Republicans against each other.

In South Carolina, Gov. Mark Sanford, a high-profile critic of the stimulus package, may become the first governor to reject a significant portion of the stimulus money. Meanwhile, the Mississippi Legislature moved last week to challenge Gov. Haley Barbour's decision to refuse some funds. A bill has also been introduced in the Alabama Legislature to challenge Gov. Bob Riley. And Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana -- another high-profile critic -- will announce Friday whether he will make good on his threats to reject some funds. …

The governors object to a requirement in the stimulus law that would force their states to extend unemployment benefits to more low-wage and part-time workers in exchange for some federal funds. They say that could lead to increased state taxes to cover jobless benefits once the stimulus money runs out. …

Even if state legislatures pass resolutions accepting all the stimulus money and altering jobless eligibility, their governors could still veto the bills. Lawmakers then would have to override the governors to receive the funds. And if the states fail to use the money within a 120-day span, it would be returned to the Treasury.

The Governors are under a substantial pressure to cast principle and prudence aside to appease various interests throughout their states and in Washington, D.C. However, their apparent willingness to use the veto pen coupled with the stringent time lines included in the legislation may provide the Governors with a slight advantage in this fight.

(The WSJ also has created an informative and interactive map detailing how much each state is likely to receive though various portions of the package).

Public Opinion Squarely Against a Second Stimulus

Rasmussen released a poll yesterday detailing scarce public interest in a second stimulus bill. The poll found:

Just 27% of voters nationwide favor passage of a second economic stimulus package. The latest Rasmussen Reports nationwide telephone survey found that 55% are opposed and 19% are not sure.

Despite the public opposition, 74% say it’s likely that Congress will try to pass another stimulus plan before the year is out. That figure includes 45% who say it’s Very Likely that Congress will do so.

The most telling statistic here is not simply that Americans oppose another package – it’s that the vast majority are resigned to the fact that Congress will try to ram a second stimulus through whether the people want it or not.

STEWARD 2.0

With the stimulus passed and the funds beginning to flow, STEWARD is in the process of transforming into a spending watchdog resource. The transition was profiled in today's Union Leader:

After making a splash by opposing the $787 billion economic package, Nashua businessman Fred Tausch says he is transforming his "STEWARD" organization and Web site into a spending watchdog resource for interested citizens.

Now that the stimulus has passed and dollars are flowing, Tausch says he will "take STEWARD from an anti-stimulus site to something that will attempt to provide as much information and transparency to New Hampshire citizens about what is going on in the federal government and in the state, with a particular focus on tracing the stimulus."

An economist will soon provide a study forecasting the effect the stimulus will have on the state and then follow up reports on how it actually does impact the state.

Tausch's site will also have freelance reporters write about the effect of the stimulus on citizens, groups of citizens and the business community.

Stay tuned for futher updates to the site, this blog, and more. Also, visit STEWARD on Facebook and follow our Twitter feed to stay connected and track STEWARD's evolution.

The Spending Spree Continues

Illustrating his discomfort with the legislation, President Obama today signed the $410 billion omnibus-appropriations bill in private. The signing ends the difficult legislative battle over the massive spending bill which Obama contends was actually left over from the Bush Presidency.

Fox News Reports:

Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated the package contained 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion.

"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama said, adding that he would use it as a "departure point" for enacting new reforms.

He did not respond to a question asking why was not signing the spending bill in public.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who opposed the earmarks in the bill, criticized his former election opponent Wednesday for not pledging to "use his veto pen" to stop pork-barrel projects.

"The president's rhetoric is impressive, but his statement affirms we will continue to do business as usual in Washington regarding earmarks in appropriations legislation," he said in a written statement. "This is an opportunity missed."

Here is a clip of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs trying to explain the lack of a public signing:

Just Not Too Transparent...

The Washington Independent reports:

Internet junkies and wonks alike may have jumped the gun in looking forward to the new online transparency hyped by House members who vowed to put contracts doled out from the $800 billion stimulus package online.

That promise, included in the initial House bill, was hailed by watchdog groups, who pointed to it as real reform in government contracting. However, in a major concession to government contractors, which opposed having the contracts made public, the final bill requires only a “summary of the contracts” to be posted online; and even the summaries will only be available for contracts worth more than $500,000.

Moreover, The Independent points towards a study released by the government watchdog group OMB Watch that notes another major change in the advertised vs. finalized level of transparency:

[T]he enacted bill adds the word “federal” before “government” in a couple of paragraphs that specify on which contracts data would be reported on the recovery website (e.g. “The website shall provide detailed data on contracts award by the federal government…”). The implication is that data from contracts awarded by state and local governments would not be required to be reported on the website.

When he launched the stimulus-tracking website Recovery.gov last month, President Obama commented, "The size and scale of this plan demand unprecedented efforts to root out waste, inefficiency and unnecessary spending. Recovery.gov will be the online portal for these efforts," to ensure stimulus funds will be spent in a "timely, targeted and transparent manner."

Given the Administration’s insistence on transparency, maybe someone can clearly explain why Congress appears to have changed the rules at the last minute?

Digging In

Governor Mark Sanford and Governor Bobby Jindal are back in the news today. The two Southern Republican Governors are digging in against the stimulus and further explaining their objections to the federal monies being forced upon their states.

McClatchy reports:

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is expected Wednesday to become the first governor to formally reject some of the federal stimulus money earmarked by Congress for his state. …

'Our objections to the so-called stimulus bill have been well-chronicled for the way it spends money that we don't have and for the way this printing of money could ultimately devalue the American dollar,' Sanford said on Tuesday[.]

Sanford’s compatriot to the Southwest, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, spoke to Fox News this morning, saying:

We are turning down approximately $100 million … of temporary federal money that would require permanent changes in state law and permanent increase in state spending. ...

That money is not free. That's money that our children, our grandchildren, are going to have to pay back. They don’t get to just print that money; we have to pay that money back.

Check out the video for more from Governor Jindal.

Chapter Two?

As can be expected, the lack of immediate results and negative market reactions have resulted in mounting criticism of President Obama’s stimulus package. In response, and in some ways rightfully so, Democrats are asking the public to give the plan time to work.

On Sunday, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh said: “Let's give this a little time … there is a lag between when you put policy into effect and when it actually starts having an effect in the real world.”

Just yesterday, Christina Romer, a top White House advisor, said: "We have to let the medicine work for a while to see if it does the trick."

Unfortunately, it appears as though top Democrats in the House of Representatives aren’t so patient and have another ideas:

'We are going to need more taxpayer money,' Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com and a key economic adviser to congressional Democrats, said after the meeting. 'I think another stimulus package is a reasonable assumption because of the way things are going.'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), standing with members of her leadership team by Zandi’s side, said she agreed that another stimulus bill is being considered.

On one hand, Democrats are pleading for patience regarding the stimulus’ slow start. On the other, House Leadership is pressing ahead with legislation intended to stimulate the stimulus.

While most in Congress haven’t finished reading the first stimulus bill, it appears as though the House of Representatives has already begun writing the next trillion-dollar chapter.

Stimulating Illegal Immigration UPDATE

On Fox News this morning, US Senator Jeff Sessions discussed a proposed amendment which would prevent stimulus contractors from using tax dollars to fund illegal labor. As mentioned in the interview, the Senate is expected to vote on his amendment today.

Watch the video and then call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask to speak with your state's Senators and request that they start fixing the stimulus by supporting the Session's amendment.

Stimulating Illegal Immigration

USA Today reports on two recent studies warning that many of President Obama’s stimulus jobs may go to illegal aliens:

Tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants, particularly in big states such as California where undocumented workers are heavily represented in construction, experts on both sides of the issue say.

Studies by two conservative think tanks estimate immigrants in the United States illegally could take 300,000 construction jobs, or 15% of the 2 million jobs that new taxpayer-financed projects are predicted to create. …

The version of the stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives included a provision requiring employers to check immigration status with the E-Verify system before hiring. The Senate did not include such a provision, and it was not in the version sent to President Obama. The Obama administration has delayed until at least May 21 a Bush administration executive order requiring federal contractors to use the E-Verify system in hiring. It had been scheduled to take effect in January.

Obviously, the number of illegal workers sneaking onto job rolls here in New Hampshire will be minuscule compared to some other states. However, these reports highlight one of STEWARD's major objections to the stimulus. Not only are our tax dollars headed cross country to fund California’s projects, it turns out they will also fund California’s illegal workforce.

With New Hampshire's unemployment rates rising, wouldn't our tax dollars be better spent in our state? Or at the least, on our coast!?

The Fullerton Tea Party

Via Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

As many as fifteen thousand Californians turned out yesterday for the most recent in a growing number of cross-country “tea parties” staged to protest big government spending.



This one, organized by two SoCal radio hosts, was designed to protest recent tax increases approved by Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature as a solution to California’s mounting budget crisis.

Big Signs Against Big Spending

Jack Kimball of Portsmouth, NH (despite what the anchors said in their introduction) was a guest on Fox and Friends this morning. Mr. Kimball visited the show to discuss his now famous billboard protesting the stimulus and other spending measures now moving through Congress.

Some of you may have seen the billboard from the Route One Bypass out in Portsmouth. If not, take a drive by and be sure to thank Mr. Kimball for standing up against government waste!

Shortsighted

The Congressional Budget Office released a report detailing a ten-year estimate of stimulus’ effect on the economy.

On the positive side, the stimulus is expected to help the nation recover in the short term. According to the report, the bill will “raise GDP and increase employment by adding to aggregate demand and thereby boosting the utilization of labor and capital that would otherwise be unused because the economy is in recession.”

However, the long-term impact of the package is not so positive. “Most of the budgetary effects of the legislation are estimated to occur over the next few years, and as those effects diminish, the short-run impact on the economy will fade.” “In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the legislation will reduce output slightly in the long run” because “the law will result in an increase in government debt.” Moreover, because the report projects the nation will return to full employment, “the reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages[.]”

Simply put, the Administration has chosen to mortgage the nation’s future, and all of our future wages, in order to provide a short-term solution to our economic woes. In fact, CBO projects that less than a third of the bill’s debt accumulating costs will add to long-term output.

With the government’s own accountants again warning that the current strategy has dangerous long-term consequences, STEWARD wonders, would now be a good time dramatically alter the trajectory of this stimulus package?

Stimulus Scams

The Federal Trade Commission has begun issuing warning to consumers to be on the look out for stimulus related scams (as if the whole package wasn’t a bit of a scam in itself):

Right now, on the Web and in e-mail, scammers are telling consumers they can help them qualify for a payment from President Obama's economic stimulus package. All they have to do is provide a little information or a small payment.

E-mail messages may ask for bank account information so that the operators can deposit consumers' share of the stimulus directly into their bank account. Instead, the scammers drain consumers' accounts of money and disappear.

PC Magazine reports that scam ads have also begun to appear through web search tools and on social networking sites.

Be careful out there! The government has already pick pocketed you once to pay for the stimulus.

UPDATE - HCR 6

Not unexpectedly, HCR 6 failed in the New Hampshire House earlier today:

The New Hampshire House killed a resolution affirming state sovereignty on Wednesday, dashing the hopes of conservative activists who say the federal government should quit meddling in local affairs.

The House rejected Republican Daniel Itse's resolution by a vote of 216-150. Itse's supporters booed from the gallery when the vote came down, briefly disrupting the session.

The resolution said New Hampshire could ignore any federal laws or policies that violated the Constitution. Itse had targeted many policies, including the stimulus bill[.]

As noted in an earlier post on this topic, Itse’s legislative focus here was on an issue much larger than the stimulus. However, the widespread discontent over the package surely contributed to the audience of “hundreds of activists gathered outside the Statehouse before the vote.”

Selling the Stimulus

ABC News reports the Administration has created two new logos to advertise our tax dollars at work through the stimulus.



By plastering these images on any and all projects funded by the package the President hopes to prove to those on Main Street that big government spending can have a local impact.

According to the President, “These emblems are symbols of our commitment to you, the American people -- a commitment to investing your tax dollars wisely, to put Americans to work doing the work that needs to be done.”

We wonder, how many “wisely invested” tax dollars and man-hours went into the design of these government propaganda tools?

HCR 6

The Associated Press yesterday ran a story highlighting the efforts of various state legislators, including NH’s Rep. Daniel Itse (Rockingham-9), against the stimulus.

Via the AP:

For small-government die-hards, the $787 billion economic stimulus bill recently passed by Congress isn't a life saver. It's the last straw.

Lawmakers across the country are sponsoring resolutions — most of them only symbolic — asserting state sovereignty, in effect the right to ignore any federal law or policies they deem unconstitutional, including the stimulus bill, the No Child Left Behind Act and any new assault rifle ban.

In New Hampshire, the House is scheduled to vote on Republican state Rep. Daniel Itse's resolution Wednesday. Supporters are planning a rally at the Statehouse before the vote.

"I think that the specter of some assaults on our liberty have become so real and immediate that there is a reaction," Itse said.

Lawmakers in at least 15 states are sponsoring similar resolutions. They say they're fighting back against decades of federal overreach, culminating in the stimulus package.

Itse’s legislation is about more than just the stimulus, as he explains in the clip below. However, framing the budget-busting package as the most recent front in a larger war appears to be winning a number of frustrated converts to the cause.

Show Me The Money!

Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta is speaking out concerning what he sees as Concord slow walking the stimulus bill monies slated for the Queen City and other municipalities around the state:

“There has been growing frustration among towns and cities because the stimulus has now been passed and information regarding access to dollars has been very slow, … either the information is flowing into the state and the state is slow to disseminate it or they’re still sifting through the actual legislation to try to determine how this money will be distributed.”

Moreover, Guinta and other state officials have recognized that the projected influx of federal dollars will be far smaller than first thought. Simply put, “the total amount of money sought for projects in municipal applications will ‘substantially exceed’ the available funds.”

Of course, these are the sort of hiccups and oversights that can be expected when trying to implement a hastily contrived trillion dollar spending package without enough staff and which no one has read.