Oregon Elephant

Alexander Hamilton on the role of states vs. the federal government

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:29:00 +0000

I have been watching the "John Adams" miniseries on HBO, and it has me fairly obsessed (my wife is getting a little irritated with me starting every sentence with "methinks"). It has gotten me thinking about the founders, and what they envisioned. I came across this quote from Alexander Hamilton in #45 of The Federalist Papers:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Sometimes people will say that the Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government, and it was. However, even a strengthened federal government via the Constitution was still significantly smaller and more limited (especially in times of peace) than the state governments, and as Hamilton states, they viewed state governments as being responsible for seeing to the welfare of citizens.

U.S. Tax Rates Compared to the rest of the world–a.k.a “U.S. Corporations are not the evil empire”

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:40:00 +0000

Below is a graph showing our tax rates compared to the rest of the industrialized world (taken from Wikipedia):

Two things to note:

Our personal income taxes are not as bad as some anti-tax zealots would have you believe…they are lower than most.
Our corporate rates, however, are horrific. They are higher than any other industrialized country save Japan.

Lesson to be learned: it’s easy for politicians to sell lower taxes for individuals. Much harder to sell lower rates for corporations. And very easy for liberals to paint corporations as getting off easy (the “big, bad conglomerate” schtick). However, it’s just not true.

“Facts are stubborn things.” - John Adams

Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:43:00 +0000

Michael Cannon offers a great analysis at National Review online of the experiment Oregon undertook in 2008 to provide a lottery-picked group of Oregonians with Medicaid coverage. Some of the interesting tidbits:

"medical consumption was no higher in the first half of the year, suggesting there was no “pent-up demand” for medical care."
"Though President Obama has claimed that broader health-insurance coverage and consumption of preventive care would lead to a reduction in emergency-room visits, the OHIE found no discernible difference in ER use between Medicaid enrollees and the control group."
" Though the president has claimed his health-care law will “save lives,” the OHIE detected no evidence that extending Medicaid to 10,000 adults did so in the first year. "
There was an improvement in patient's own assessment of their health. However, "two-thirds of the improvement in self-reported health occurred almost immediately after enrollment, before any increases in medical consumption. The authors posit that much of this improvement could reflect “an improved overall sense of well-being” rather than “changes in objective physical health.”".

The whole article is worth a look.

NW Republican: Ronald Reagan was more than an actor

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:42:00 +0000

This is a GREAT post in NW Republican:

NW Republican: Ronald Reagan was more than an actor

He is basically making the point that I've made...that while I agree with Christine O'Donnell on points of policy, she was a terrible candidate. We mock Joe Biden for being prone to gaffes, but she was almost as prone to it as he is. We mocked Barack Obama for being unqualified to be President, but what are her qualifications? What has she actually done?

We need to get to a point where someone needs to actually be a good candidate with significant life achievements, not just have the right views and look good on TV. The ones who fit that bill in the last election (Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Rob Portman are examples) won.

Here is a link to the original column by Peggy Noonan that he refers to in his blog post:

"Americans Vote for Maturity", by Peggy Noonan, WSJ, 11-5-2010

Rudy Giuliani tears it up on "The View"

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:42:00 +0000

This is worth a look for sure. Rudy on "The View" completely in command...he talks Sarah Palin, Obamacare, elections, and terrorism.

Things you didn't know about Judd Gregg

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:37:00 +0000

He's held all major electoral positions in New Hampshire, serving as Representative (representing the district that includes Nashua) from 1981 to 1989, Governor from 1989 t0 1993, and Senator from 1993 to the present.
His father, Hugh Gregg, was Governor of New Hampshire from 1953 to 1955
Gregg stood in for John Kerry during practice sessions held by George W. Bush in preparation for the 2004 United States Presidential Election Debates. Four years earlier he had played the part of Al Gore for the same purpose.
Gregg won more than $850,000 in 2005 after buying $20 worth of Powerball tickets at a Washington, D.C. convenience store.
Gregg endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008, and is considered a fiscal conservative and social moderate

Gov. Kulongoski wants to make a "green school" in Vernonia...hopefully the kids will get taught, also

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:28:00 +0000

Governor Ted is assembling a team to ask the feds for stimulus money to rebuild a school in Vernonia, damaged by the flooding in 2007. I think this is great - schools are a good thing to spend stimulus money on. But...then his train goes off the tracks...

He wants to make the main thrust of the request that we will build a "green school"...now, I'm not opposed to doing responsible things to care for the environment, but I'm guessing doing extra stuff out of the ordinary, would make it much more expensive. With our economy the way it is, I just think that the people in charge of giving the money out are going to look at what can be done in a state, and how cost-effectively it can be done. If Oregon wants $5 million (I'm just making these numbers up) for a school to teach 1000 students, and Arizona will build a school, with the same facilities, same everything else, except they can do it for $3 million becuase it isn't a "green" school, and that means I can give $2 million to some other school for improvements, so that more kids can benefit, that's what I am going to do.

Shouldn't educating kids be the main thrust of a school? The article says nothing about how well the kids will be educated, just how "green" the school will be.

Stimulus/Spending Plan link o'rama

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:09:00 +0000

The House-Senate came to an agreement...

Suspicion is that Reid pulled a fast one on Pelosi...

Larry Kudlow says the "tax cuts are why we're here" argument of Obama's is bunk (sound familiar?)

Bill & Melinda Gates like the stimulus...

Moderate Declan McCullagh thinks the bill is a dog (or, more accurately, a pig)

Thinking of Reagan...

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:27:00 +0000

I'm not usually one to look backwards, but I was listening this morning, to Ronald Reagan's famous "A Time for Choosing" speech, given in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater. In speaking about the greatly-expanding government and rapidly higher levels of taxation occuring at the time, he said:

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations.
For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism."
Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.
Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best.
And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."
Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

Mr. President, we disagree - from 300 leading economists

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:53:00 +0000

President Obama at his press conference stated that:

There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan
that will help to jumpstart the economy.

In fact, this is clearly not true. Over 300 leading economists, from places like Stanford University and Columbia University, took issue with Obama's statement and wrote an open letter to Obama, published in leading newspapers.
For the complete letter, click here.

"Coraline", a concise review

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:41:00 +0000

Well, I saw the movie "Coraline" over the weekend...it's made by Portland-based animation studio Laika (owned by Nike co-founder Phil Knight). This is their first movie, so it's a big deal around here. Lots of people have been asking me what I thought, so I thought I'd put down some thoughts here...

First of all, the look of it is very unique. We're so used to the computer-animated look, thanks to movies like the "Ice Age" franchise and movies like "Flushed Away" and "Surf's Up" that it's a refreshing change to see a stop-motion animation movie. This is where, instead of images being computer-drawn, there are puppets or sculptures that are moved incredibly small amounts for each frame shot. Needless to say, it's VERY labor-intensive, but definitely it gives a movie a "made by hand" look.

The story is inventive and engrossing, for young ones and adults. I saw the movie with my wife, 12 year old stepson and our 8 month old daughter. We all liked it (well, I can't speak for my daughter...she wasn't talking). The plot concerns Coraline, a ten-ish girl who has just moved to Oregon from Michigan. Her parents are writers of gardening books, and fairly harried and distracted. The house they are renting, the "Pink Palace", is creaky and old. Coraline is lonely and bored, and discovers a window to another place, where all the same people are there, but they are more fun, the food is better...and everyone has buttons on their eyes. At first, Coraline toys with the idea of staying with her "new" family...but then...well, things change for the worse.

As a Portlander, I of course was rooting for Coraline to be a good movie. I'd definitely give it a solid three stars. It got very good reviews, nationwide, which helped it to an opening weekend in 3rd place, with $13.6 million. It's well-deserved.

Obama's press conference, and the art of straw man building

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:32:00 +0000

Well, I watched most of the press conference...most of it was pretty much what I expected, Obama re-reciting the talking points of his proposal. He is defiinitely getting good at creative distortion. Some examples:

But as we learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone cannot solve all our economic problems – especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it has only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.

OK, this part isn't a straw man, as much as it's just plain wrong. Does he seriously think that unemployment is at 7.6% and the stock market is in the tank because of tax breaks? Not because of banks making bad loans? Not because of lack of government oversight of the mortgage business? But because of tax cuts? This is just insane. I'm going to give the president the benefit of the doubt and assume he is just playing politics here.

I am struck by how he has turned the building of straw men in attacking Republicans to an art form. Look at this quote:

First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history.

"Folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt"? Democrats were in charge for six of those eight years, and there was a junior Senator from Illinois for four of those eight years...voting for many of those programs that increased the debt. I'm not for looking backwards, but if you're going to do it, Mr. President, don't do with with such, dare I say it, partisan eyes.

There are more examples...dare I say it, I tended to disagree with much of what he said. We'll see how it plays out.

Moving to new location

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:44:00 +0000

I'm moving to using Typepad, so my blog address is moving to http://oregonelephant.typepad.com. It's live now, so feel free to have a look and change any links you might have to my blog.

I'll be posting in both locations the rest of this week, and starting next week the blogspot location will be available, but I won't post to it any more.

GOP hosting a tech summit...why not make it a webcast?

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:46:00 +0000

The GOP is hosting a web summit on Wednesday, Feb 11th...but the very fact that this isn't a webcast (or at the very least something that interested people can call into and listen to live) shows the amount of work we have to do.

Bloggers have to let the party leaders know how much we can help them. If you are a blogger and want to give suggestions and ideas, send an email to ecampaign@gop.com with the words "Tech Summit" in the subject.

Pakistan frees A.Q. Khan...and the world's a little less safe

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:59:00 +0000

The New York Times has the story...A.Q. Khan, Pakistani scientist and proliferator of nuclear weapons material and technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran, has been release from house arrest by the Pakistani government. Our reaction was predictably concerned:

In Washington, officials condemned the move. While it is almost
inconceivable that Mr. Khan would again be actively involved in Pakistan’s
nuclear program, which has created an arsenal of roughly 100 weapons, there was
broad concern that he could reactivate an international black market network
that was only partly dismantled.

“He’s still a proliferation threat,” said Robert A. Wood, the spokesman for
the State Department. “We’re very troubled by this.”

Khan himself was defiant and unapologetic:

Washington’s concerns were defiantly dismissed by Mr. Khan, who, beaming
and smiling, was thronged by supporters and television cameras outside his
residence in an affluent neighborhood upon news of his release.

“Let them talk,” he said. “Are they happy with our God? Are they happy with
our prophet? Are they happy with our leaders? Never, so why should we bother
what they say about us?” Mr. Khan added, “I would be more worried about what you say about me, not what Bush says or what Dick Cheney says.”

For a good analysis of why this is a big deal, check out Michael Anton's post on the NewMajority scroll.

Lars goes off on Brandon Mayfield

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:44:00 +0000

At Oregon Catalyst, Lars goes off on Brandon Mayfield, the incorrectly-apprehended Portland lawyer who was subjected to surveillance, then apprehended for two weeks before being released. He won a $2 million settlement and an apology from the DOJ, but apparently Lars is not in much of an apologizing mood:

A finger print was found on a bag of detonators, confirmed to be Mayfield’s fingerprint even by a fingerprint expert hired by Mayfield’s lawyer.

Lars goes on to then take him on for using his newfound money to go after the Patriot Act:

In the meantime, his work financed with our money, is gutting the Patriot Act that has saved American lives. Brandon Mayfield, not a terrorist, but definitely a threat to my country.

Wow, where do we start. OK, to begin with, this is what Wikipedia has to say about the fingerprint issue:

As was discovered during the court case, even the FBI's own records show that this finger print, despite the sworn testimony of FBI and DOJ agents, was in all reality not an exact match but only one of 20 "similar" prints to the ones that were retrieved from Madrid.

So, now for the Patriot Act. Again, from Wikipedia:

On September 26, 2007, two provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act were declared unconstitutional. Finding in Mayfield's favor, Judge Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment," which violates the Constitution of the United States.

Bottom Line:
It strikes me as beyond explanation how someone who would claim to be a conservative and a lover of liberty would be so eager to allow the U.S. Government to do the following to a U.S. citizen, on American soil, without a warrant:

Spy on them (including bugging their phones)
Execute searches of their home and seizing their property
Apprehending them without charging them or giving them access to an attorney or the courts

Does this really sound like America? It's no wonder it was struck down. Does anyone really wonder which side of this issue Thomas Paine would have come down on?

One other point to remember...safety is good...but to give up our liberty for safety, that is a price I will not pay.

MaxRedline on Adams-gate...and "Adams as Nixon"

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:59:00 +0000

MaxRedline had some thoughts on Sam Adam's comments that he is staying on as Mayor because he wants to help the city. Here's a tidbit:

This is not a gay issue or a sex issue, this is an honesty issue…or that’s what we were saying before it was confirmed that the boy was seventeen. People feel violated, and don’t think they can ever trust Sam Adams again. How can the city stand behind some one who would lie like this?

My thoughts:

I agree, it's ultimately an honesty and ethics issue. The problem for liberals is that when you sacrifice your sense of right and wrong for some other benefit, you start down the road of political destruction. It, of course, has happened to Republicans...every day, Sam looks more and more like Richard Nixon.

Maybe to understand Sam...we should go see Frost/Nixon.

Unemployment - some long-term perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:32:00 +0000

The unemployment rate isn't good (and if you just lost your job, it doesn't matter at all)...but it IS interesting to look at how it fits into the last 40 years or so. Here is a graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that shows the rate since 1970:

As you can see, the rate is somewhat high, but not unprecedented. As Clueless Emma notes, one-third of the months since 1970 have been worse than now.

Moral of the story: let's all just take a breath.

Sen. Collins won't support the final stimulus bill if it grows in size...

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:12:00 +0000

Maine Senator Susan Collins, one of the moderate Republicans to craft the stimulus compromise in the Senate, just said on Fox News that if the bill balloons above $800 billion or contains more spending projects in it in its final form, she won't support it (which would mean that Reid would have to maneuver politically to break a filibuster).

Interesting...

Michael Steele delivers GOP weekly address

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:53:00 +0000

Here is Michael Steele delivering the weekly Republican address:

Transcript:

This is Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Democrats have controlled both branches of government for less than a month. And you have to wonder if all that power has gone to their heads. For the last two weeks, they've been trying to force a massive spending bill through Congress under the guise of economic relief.

All of us - Republicans and Democrats - agree the government must act to kick-start the American economy. American families are doing their best to balance their own budgets and pay their mortgages. The fastest way to help those families is by letting them keep more of the money they earn. Individual empowerment: that's how you stimulate the economy.

But the Democrats have a different philosophy. Instead of leaving money in the family checkbook, they want to send it to Washington, run it through a slow and inefficient government, and hope that does some good.

When families keep the money, they spend it, save it, or invest it. And the private sector economy benefits when families and businesses buy consumer goods or invest it for the future. But when Washington spends the money, some of it may flow into the economy, but all too often, much gets wasted.

Democrats in Congress want a one-trillion dollar spending bill. You've heard about the pork-barrel programs they want to fund... 45 million dollars for ATV trails and removal of fish passage barriers is one that caught my eye. Exactly what is a fish passage barrier and why does it cost 45 million dollars to stimulate the economy with it?

That's why Republicans in the House voted against uncontrolled spending. This is not a bragging point, but rather a statement that at least Republicans would stand with the American taxpayer.

But voting 'no' is not enough... and Republicans have offered innovative ideas to help struggling families and small businesses. We've offered plans to spark job creation and investment through lower taxes, to stop the taxation of unemployment benefits, and to help Americans keep their jobs and their homes.

The comprehensive Republican plan would lower taxes for all working American families. If you're married, the first 16,750 dollars you make this year will be taxed at ten percent. Why don't we cut that rate in half to give instant buying power to every working American family?

Good ideas... lots of them... all left out of this plan by the Democrats in Congress.

Republicans stand ready to work with reasonable Democrats to do what is right for America.

But it will take more than bipartisan words from the President. It will require fair minded action from Democrats in Congress.

Thanks for listening.

Link o' rama on the stimulus

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 05:44:00 +0000

Well, it looks like there is a deal on the stimulus in the senate...Republicans to support the bill: Collins, Snowe, Specter. Not really surprising, moderates all.

Some other stuff on the stimulus:

Mark Hemingway at the Corner on National Review lists items that got cut in the compromise (it looks like Jeff Merkley's pet projects for forest work aid got cut).
Douglas Holtz-Eakins at NewMajority finds Obama's praise of House Democrats' "discipline" to be more than a little shocking.
The Wall Street Journal quotes the Congressional Budget Office as saying the stimulus may not create any jobs right away...

and here is the CBO's page that contains their reports on the stimulus.

Jeff Merkley thinks any government program that employs someone is worth doing

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:26:00 +0000

This from Jeff Merkley in the Huffington Post today:

Whether it's logging to reduce wildfire hazards, teaching children, laying new light rail tracks, or preventing floods along the Mississippi, people will be paid to do these jobs - that's not wasteful spending, that's the whole point.

Sooooo...let me get this straight. If it's a government program and it employs someone, it "creates jobs". This has got to be the most expensive economic philosophy in existence.

The point of a stimulus plan, obviously, is to stimulate the economy (in other words, business) such that businesses flourish and there are lots of new jobs. Although some programs involving employing more government employees might be laudable, and in theory some of these programs might be stimulative to the economy, it''s clear that the job provided by a salary paid for directly from the stimulus is hardly a job "created".

My bottom line on the stimulus plan:
I think Democrats should take a much closer look at this spending bill...because even if they get a few Republicans to vote for it, it clearly is their bill. As Ross Douthat points out, plenty of Democrats voted for the Iraq war, but it still became a millstone around the neck of virtually every Republican. If this bill doesn't work (get the economy moving again), Democrats will be very, very damaged. So if I were them, I'd make sure they listen to the blue dogs.

Tiernan asking legislature to look into Courtney' cozy dealings

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:12:00 +0000

The Oregonian is reporting that Oregon GOP Chairman Bob Tiernan is filing a complaint against Senate President Peter Courtney:

Tiernan has filed an ethics complaint against Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, and says that he thinks there should be an investigation of Courtney's handling of a $175 million public works package. That bill, which calls for the state to borrow money to quickly begin work on a series of job-producing maintenance and repair projects, includes $30 million for Courtney's employer, Western Oregon
University.

What's amazing to me (although maybe it shouldn't be) is some of the comments on the article:

Posted by jppatches on 02/03/09
at 10:34PM
Here we go - Tiernan AGAIN. This is the best possible thing that can happen for the Democrats and moderates - Tiernan's mean, angry approach will help to keep the conservatives on the same track they've been on for a long time. Interesting to see Tiernan's early actions as leader of the Republican party be in the negative, attacking tone rather than in any positive and constructive efforts.
Oh well, nothing has changed. Good on ya', Bob!

and:

Posted by TheChinuk on 02/04/09
at 3:06AM
Well, really, what else can Mr T. do? He hates Democrats and he hates State Employees.Peter Courtney working for WOSU to him is double-evil. But hey, anything to prevent the business of the people from being done, yes? If those Republicans can't have power, they'll see to it that nobody does!!
Nyah hah hah!!!!

Apparently, it's dirty pool to ask that a legislator be investigated for clearly questionable behavior. You stay classy, Democrats.

BlueOregon's Carla Axtman and the liberal-conservative divide

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:57:00 +0000

Recently, BlueOregon’s Carla Axtman took Oregon GOP Party Chair Bob Tiernan to task for saying that government should be run like a business:

Ummm...okay Bob. You guys have been telling us that you're "running the country
(state) like a business" for years. Our government isn't a business or any other
for-profit enterprise. Its a structure that's supposed to protect the rights of
the people. Y'know..that whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
thing.

I realize that there's going to be an ideological divide on
how to repair the mess we're in. But its going to be tough to get started if
only one of us (not you) understands the basic premise of government.

My take:
I think she entirely misses the point, and then arrogantly attacks Tiernan’s statement by accusing him of not understanding the basic premise of government. When a conservative says that a government should be run like a business, they mean that there should be some sense of accountability. A business is accountable in that if it doesn’t turn a profit, it fails (well, unless it’s a big bank, that is). Government, too often, finances its failure by simply borrowing more money. Also, because government has the power to tax, it can increase its revenue by simply taxing more – business can’t increase its available tax flow so easily – it has to actually do a better job of providing goods and services.

Conservatives (and even right-leaning moderates like me) think that government should be restrained in its reach...that it should be limited to those things that truly do promote liberty, rather than being expansive and all-encompasing.

Jim Cramer on "Hardball"...talking about the alleged stimulus package

noreply@blogger.com (Jim Knowlton) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:08:00 +0000

Jim Cramer was on "Hardball" yesterday, and was asked by Chris Matthews to talk about the stimulus package. It's pretty interesting...he hates it. Basically, he says:

It's not enough
It goes to the wrong things (crazy stuff that won't stimulate the economy)
There aren't enough tax cuts

I pretty much agree. I thought it was fascinating that he talked about how, at a time when we have city infrastructure crumbling all around us, Caterpillar is doing layoffs. He was noticing the total lack of logic in this, and wondering why we can't get the road and bridge work that needs to be done together with the companies and individuals that need work.

Makes sense to me.