Thinking Out Loud - H.R. 1, Can We Really Afford It?

The title of H.R. 1 passed by the House of Representatives is "Making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes."

Sounds impressive, eh? Well the House passed this bill 244 to 177, with one not voting (that would be Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida). That vote was 244 Democrats for the bill and 166 Republicans against the bill. The other 11 votes against? Democrats, including Schuler from North carolina who asked Speaker Pelosi to vote against the bill since there had been such an uproar from his district opposed to this piece of legislation.

The only bipartisan aspect of this legislation was the ones who were opposed to it. And it took five votes for it to pass. There were good things about this particular passage of H.R. 1. First, every Republican stood their ground and were in unison against it. Second, there were those who voted against it because their constituents did not want it passed. And because of House resolution 5 on procedural rules, no Republican wrote one word of this total disaster and mortgaging of America's future.

Some little known provisions of this bill:

- $14 million for the Board that will be overseeing the distribution of monies

- $44 mil for necessary construction repairs and improvements of Agricultural buildings

- $209 mil to work on deferred maintenance of said buildings

- $245 mil for modernization and information technology improvements of said buildings

- $350 mil to purchase and restore floodplains

- $50 mil for watershed rehabilitation

- $5.838 BILLION for rural community advancement programs (i.e. LOANS)

- $1.8 BILLION for more loans to the rural communities

Well, there are even billions more in this section for the Department of Agriculture to carry out, but you get the idea.

Under the Department of Commerce, there is a $250 mil provision for Economic Development Assistance. Yet the Periodic Censuses and Programs will receive $1 Billion. Why is that? But wait, there is more. Over $2.8 billion will go to Broadband Deployment. Yet for Scientific and Technical Research there is only $100 mil. Same for Industrial Technology Services. And Construction of these facilities only gets $300 mil.

Onto the Department of justice. $1 billion will go toward hiring / rehiring career law enforcement officers. (Same as the Census Programs?) Aside from $3 billion to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, this is all Justice gets. (There is an ironic analogy in there somewhere.)

NASA gets $600 mil. Huh? That's it? With all that the space program has provided not only in jobs but in technological advancement, and they only get $600 million from this packaged? (See my article "Why do we need NASA and the Space Program?")

The National Science Foundation gets a total of $3 billion. (Wonder who NASA ticked off to not even get what the Census Programs are getting.)

There is the usual moneies going to the military and the Army Corp of Engineers. Except that nothing goes toward pay increases.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy gets a totla of $18.5 billion. Most of the money goes for non-descript references to this existing program or that. The only real destination of note is $2 billion for research and development of efficient and renewable energy, and $1 billion for development of "advanced batteries." No definition, of course, to what exactly an advanced battery is, but hey, its somewhere to throw money. Right?

There is also a section where they are allocating $2.4 billion for demostration of carbon capture and sequestrationtechnologies. Not development of this silly technolgy, just a demonstration of it. And NASA only gets $600 mil, sheesh. (Oh, by the way, if you want to know what sequestration means, Websters defines it as the act of siezing property from an owner who is in default. Just thought you'd like to know.)

Further down there is a section for setting up business loans and a new administration of loans to the small business community. But no specific amount is discussed nor is there any date other than two years associated with this section.

Then there is a section dealing with buying up toxic assest not to exceed $10 billion.

There is $3 billion for repairing roads and bridges associated with various agencies, $500 mil for fixing Indian scholls and facilities, and $1 billion to the EPA for Hazardous waste and leaking tanks.

$4 billion will go to training and employemnt services, including $1 billion for dislocated workers (read UAW workers), $120 mil for older workers, $1.2 billion for summer jobs (huh??), and $750 mil for training programs in high growth and emerging technologies.

There are sections of the bill that talk about "greening" our schools; no dollar amount attached.

$30 billion will go for Highway Infrastruture repairs. $10 billion for rails.

Then there are a slew of tax cfredits it would take an accountant to unravel. Some other provisions within the tax section of the bill provide incentives to hire veterans and "disconnected youth." The latter is defined as a youth between 16 and 25 who are not attending school, nor have a job nor are able to get a job due to a lack of basic skills.

All in all, there is very little here to address the real problems facing Americans today. Much of the money for this bill will not even be made available until 2010. According to the Congressional Budget Office, there would be $92 billion in 2009, $225 billlion in 2010 and $159 billion in 2011. Further, they say that revenues would decrease by $76 billion in 2009 and $131 billion in 2010.

Douglas W. Elmendorf, the Office's director, notes that there is a traditional lag between budgeting and spending. He advises that most federal agaencies would find it "difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs."

So if the Cressional Budget Office, a non-partisan group that advises on the fiscal feasability of Congressional spending measures thinks this is a bad idea, why on earth would anyone pass this kind of irresponsible spending and unnecessary expansion of government?

This is reckless, politicized and a plan that will not only backrput us, our children and grandchildren, it will put an unbelievable burden on an untenable situation such as we find ourselves in today.

Call me an alarmist and ahteful partisan, or hail me as a beacon in America's darkest days. Agree or disagree, either way, it makes no matter to me. This is just me, thinking out loud.

Have a great day!

Sources:

Director's Blog

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=199

THOMAS (Library of Conrgess) H.R. 1

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111LAVQbv:e6210:

WahingtonPost - 111th Congress: Bill H R 1 (Congress votes database)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/bills/h_r_1/