« President’s pricey palate | Main | Let’s hope Obama doesn’t fail »

February 05, 2009

U.S. needs jobs now

Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas recently voted against the $819 billion job-stimulus package because of certain perceived objectionable provisions of the bill. She praised the tired and non-workable solutions of tax breaks for businesses and the wealthiest Americans that got us in this mess in the first place (1/30, Opinion, “As I See It: “Billions for stimulus bill that does not stimulate”).

Perhaps Rep. Jenkins should have attended the much-ballyhooed job fair at the Marriott Hotel on Main Street in Kansas City on Monday, where hundreds lined all around the block and through the hotel lobby and up the stairs and waited longer than an hour and a half to get a chance at 21 employers.

Maybe then Rep. Jenkins would have seen the error of her vote.

Bill Emerson



Nice one Bill, too bad the stimulus bill won't do much to create jobs. Just passing out billions to various agencies for whatever they want to use it for is beyond stupid. Government spending is probably the most inefficient way on earth to stimulate the economy but that is what the Democrats want to do. Most of the crap in that bill won't even create jobs. Why is there stuff in there for thinning out forests, smoking cessation programs, after school programs, government building energy saving retrofits, etc?

None of those things I just mentioned will stimulate the economy or create jobs. Its an almost trillion dollar boondoggle! Good thing its not our money. Oh wait, it is!


solomon, old friend
Why does your post remind me of the "box traps' that, in my youth, I used to set up for rabbits? I have no idea of how you go about spending $800 or $900 Billion in a couple of years. I am not even sure that I comprehend what that amount of money is. I would suggest a FICA holiday for a year or two and other tax breaks that would help small businesses. Some of the things included, such as extended unemployment compensation and increased food stamps, would have an early impact. Unfortunately, most large infrastructure projects will tend to have a delayed impact, useful as they may be.


I'm still in the fence about the bill. I see some of the provisions as being extremely beneficial in the short term, but I also see provisions that don't appear to meet the "jobs, now" mandate and seem to be there to ride the coat tails of the more immediately beneficial parts.

I also have a little heartburn about the CBO's estimate of negative GDP growth in three years once the provisions begin to disappear and the debt service cranks up. This "bad news" from the CBO seems to be tempered by the fact that they are projecting about 3% GDP growth for two years before the decline, and with what we're facing, maybe a >1% decline a few years from now is a fair price to pay for recovery in the short term. Like I said, I'm still on the fence about this one.

That being said, this is EXACTLY what I'm afraid of with the bill:


It seems as though Daley won't release his stimulus project list until he's granted the money. Why? Because, as he says, "you know, the newspapers, the media is going to be ripping it apart,". There is NO justification for this type of secrecy to avoid scrutiny by taxpayers, and if the bill passes, let's hope that ALL projects have been openly discussed.


"You know 11 Demcocrats voted against the Porkulous bill..."

11 out of 233. Apparently that's an overwhelming mandate to people who can't count.

This incoherence is unsurprising, since the examples given of supposed "pork" in the stimulus bill make up almost 1% of the entire spending in the bill. Some aren't even in the bill at all. Facts matter little to hacks like Buttrag.


You know 11 Demcocrats voted against the Porkulous bill as well, something the Lame Stream types do not advertise.....


"...the tired and non-workable solutions of tax breaks for businesses and the wealthiest Americans that got us in this mess in the first place." Huh? Which business tax breaks are you talking about, Mr. Emerson, and exactly how did they, plus tax rate reductions, cause what we're experiencing now? A little analysis please.


Even if she supported the package, there is no way she would vote for it. As a freshman Representative, Lynn Jenkins' entire term will focus on not making waves with her party's leadership. If they say 'jump', she will jump as high as she can in hopes that she will get some dollars for the next election.

Of course, if she were a Democrat the above statement would be just as applicable.


Esteemed old Engineer guy,

I see your criticisms often on this topic, which clearly you keep up with it better than I. Please detail what you know will get this ship aright again.


Rep. Jenkins was and is right. The bill is high on programs that will be with us for a long time and low on immediate stimulus. Let us hope that something better will come out of the Senate.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright