4 ms·

Answers: How much went to temporarily prop up state govt budgets? Zero, even though preventing a teacher layoff would've been about the most efficient use of

by jbooth 17y ago

Answers: How much went to temporarily prop up state govt budgets? Zero, even though preventing a teacher layoff would've been about the most efficient use of stimulus dollars possible. The twins from Maine held the bill hostage until no money was given to state government. (If you're wondering how much went to tax cuts, that figure is around 40%). How was texas so successful while refusing this temporary windfall? I don't know, but they definitely didn't refuse anything. Rick Perry made a bunch of noise, got his headlines, convinced you that he's a true believer and then took the money. The weatherization project you got about right, although those studies finished on schedule a month ago or so.. that was a stupid provision and they should have eliminated it, they probably didn't realize it would lead to a bureaucratic snafu. Hopefully, what Mr. Tufte will show us, are some very compelling and illustrative graphs that do a good job of explaining where the money went. There seems to be some confusion abounding, especially on the tax cut part. EDIT: A further hope I have is that people who normally respect things like statistics, figures and Mr Tufte don't immediately do a 180 and disown the guy if he doesn't produce a pie chart of the stimulus money that says "100% = SOCIALISM"

hga 17y ago
While the details of the $44.5 billion for local education aid were indeed changed by "the twins from Maine" (although I'm not sure to the degree you claim), you're not counting the $40 billion for unemployment benefits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Aid_to_low_income_workers.2C_unemployed_and_retirees_.28including_job_training.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm...) and the required changes in state law to get that money, or the $86.6 billion for Medicaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Healthcare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm..., "More than 11% of the total bill is allocated to help states with Medicaid"; I can't remember if there were eligibility changes required there). For you to be right about no state aid and there being no strings attached, you'd need to explain why there was all that furor about the governors of Texas and one of the Carolinas (I think) refusing the aid, and the provision in law to bypass a governor, and how the governor of Florida's figurative and literal embrace of Obama is helping to destroy his campaign for Senator. WRT to tax cuts, putting the annual relief ($70 billion this year) for the not inflation indexed Alternative Minimum Tax into the stimulus was pure political theater. And I just can't see how Perry "took" the Texas share of the remaining $167 billion in individual tax cuts (perhaps he should have instituted a state income tax to capture that "windfall" for the state???) or how he "took" the Texas share of $51 billion in business tax cuts, but I don't know anything about Texas business taxes. Anyway, I don't need to see graphs to get a rough idea from the listed breakdowns at Wikipedia or any of the other zillions of sites.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Ok, you're right, there was a lump sum allocated to the Fed Dept of Ed which will eventually make it's way to the states through various reform-based programs -- programs, which, btw, are based on teacher accountability in a way that the teachers' unions are hugely opposed to. I thought conservatives would eat that up? Between that and the tax cuts, I can see how the party-over-substance crowd would have a big problem with this guy actually documenting where the money went. It's a lot easier to just shout "socialism!" than to talk about the numbers. Regarding aid "to states to shore up their budgets", there was precisely zero, funding unemployment benefits and medicaid is not grant money going to states, it passes straight through to the recipients. There was originally a big item that involved the federal government contributing to state budgets in order to forestall state layoffs for a year, which I thought would be a great example of counter-cyclical spending. Unfortunately, it also made great hay for those who wanted to attack the bill in general as "big spending", so it got jettisoned. That's what I was referring to, not pass-through expenditures like medicaid, unemployment, etc.
  - hga 17y ago
    "I thought conservatives would eat that up" Again, watch for the attached strings, which I've read include a Federal curriculum. And we've yet to see if these programs actually make it in the face of union opposition. Last time I checked 1/5 of the members of any given Democratic presidential nominating caucus are unionized teachers, and the shutdown of the D.C. voucher program, the one that provides among other things scholarships to the school Obama's children go to, does not inspire confidence. Conservatives don't think much of temporary tax cuts, you only get changes in behavior with permanent changes in fiscal policy (and as for permanent 1-1.5 trillion dollar deficits...). People just pocket one time a few hundred dollar things like the Bush stimulus or this. And we have a tendency to ask, "Is this worth the price?" You have to look at both sides of the ledger. While unemployment and Medicaid may be "pass-through" in terms of mechanism, the fact remains that the states are on the hook for most of that money anyway and would have had to pay it out if not for this temporary Federal windfall.
    - 17y ago

by jbooth 17y ago

hga 17y ago

While the details of the $44.5 billion for local education aid were indeed changed by "the twins from Maine" (although I'm not sure to the degree you claim), you're not counting the $40 billion for unemployment benefits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Aid_to_low_income_workers.2C_unemployed_and_retirees_.28including_job_training.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm...) and the required changes in state law to get that money, or the $86.6 billion for Medicaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Healthcare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm..., "More than 11% of the total bill is allocated to help states with Medicaid"; I can't remember if there were eligibility changes required there). For you to be right about no state aid and there being no strings attached, you'd need to explain why there was all that furor about the governors of Texas and one of the Carolinas (I think) refusing the aid, and the provision in law to bypass a governor, and how the governor of Florida's figurative and literal embrace of Obama is helping to destroy his campaign for Senator. WRT to tax cuts, putting the annual relief ($70 billion this year) for the not inflation indexed Alternative Minimum Tax into the stimulus was pure political theater. And I just can't see how Perry "took" the Texas share of the remaining $167 billion in individual tax cuts (perhaps he should have instituted a state income tax to capture that "windfall" for the state???) or how he "took" the Texas share of $51 billion in business tax cuts, but I don't know anything about Texas business taxes. Anyway, I don't need to see graphs to get a rough idea from the listed breakdowns at Wikipedia or any of the other zillions of sites.

jbooth 17y ago
Ok, you're right, there was a lump sum allocated to the Fed Dept of Ed which will eventually make it's way to the states through various reform-based programs -- programs, which, btw, are based on teacher accountability in a way that the teachers' unions are hugely opposed to. I thought conservatives would eat that up? Between that and the tax cuts, I can see how the party-over-substance crowd would have a big problem with this guy actually documenting where the money went. It's a lot easier to just shout "socialism!" than to talk about the numbers. Regarding aid "to states to shore up their budgets", there was precisely zero, funding unemployment benefits and medicaid is not grant money going to states, it passes straight through to the recipients. There was originally a big item that involved the federal government contributing to state budgets in order to forestall state layoffs for a year, which I thought would be a great example of counter-cyclical spending. Unfortunately, it also made great hay for those who wanted to attack the bill in general as "big spending", so it got jettisoned. That's what I was referring to, not pass-through expenditures like medicaid, unemployment, etc.
- hga 17y ago
  "I thought conservatives would eat that up" Again, watch for the attached strings, which I've read include a Federal curriculum. And we've yet to see if these programs actually make it in the face of union opposition. Last time I checked 1/5 of the members of any given Democratic presidential nominating caucus are unionized teachers, and the shutdown of the D.C. voucher program, the one that provides among other things scholarships to the school Obama's children go to, does not inspire confidence. Conservatives don't think much of temporary tax cuts, you only get changes in behavior with permanent changes in fiscal policy (and as for permanent 1-1.5 trillion dollar deficits...). People just pocket one time a few hundred dollar things like the Bush stimulus or this. And we have a tendency to ask, "Is this worth the price?" You have to look at both sides of the ledger. While unemployment and Medicaid may be "pass-through" in terms of mechanism, the fact remains that the states are on the hook for most of that money anyway and would have had to pay it out if not for this temporary Federal windfall.
  - 17y ago