The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that at least some of those “shovel-ready” projects we heard so much about aren’t so ready for a shovel after all. The problems run the gamut from local opposition to specific projects to lengthy bidding and contracting processes required by law.

That should be no surprise to anyone who scratched the surface of the claims made by those who said the money could be spent fast or those who complained the bill didn’t spend money fast enough. Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan wrote in an OpEd in early February that, “The spending isn’t only poorly targeted but also neglects the urgency of our crisis. Only a small fraction of the money will be spent in 2009, and half of the outlays will be unspent at the start of 2011.”

While that’s not what the Congressional Budget Office found, it is true that hundreds of billions will not be in the hands of workers and taxpayers in the next few months. (According to the CBO about 1/3 of the direct spending will come in 2009 and roughly 3/4 will be pent by the end of 2010.)

On the other hand President Obama repeatedly made it seems as if the bill would work quite quickly. After a terrible jobs report released in early February while the Senate and House bickered over a compromise stimulus bill, he said, “these numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay and politics, while millions of Americans are being put out of work.”

The fact is to spend any more than was contemplated any faster would guarantee a boondoggle of fraud, corruption, and waste. Governments are not supposed to be able to spend money too quickly lest it vanish into the pockets of connected companies and campaign donors. There’s plenty of good reason for checks and balances that require open bidding and oversight — requirements that necessarily slow the spending of taxpayer money.

Last fall when searching for “shovel-ready” projects to highlight in New Jersey, I was directed to a school in Jersey City that was already slated for replacement (the official said the stimulus money would free up money that would go for that school to planning for other school projects — sure there are planning jobs but, c’mon!). Another official sent me to a huge roadway project also in Jersey City — a project well underway and fully-funded (this time the argument was the flood of stimulus dollars would speed the repairs along but it was hard to see how much more they could possibly do and keep the road open).

The fact is both sides are right (or wrong) depending on how you define “fast.” Democrats say the money will go into the economy quickly and create jobs. Republicans say much of the money will not be spent fast enough entering the economy a  year or more from now when (they predict) the recession will be over.

The lesson is (as it often is in politics): You can’t have it both ways. If Americans want their government to spend their money to restart the economy and they want it spent prudently, it can’t also be spent quickly. Unless by “quickly” you mean, in the next couple of years.

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana)

Forget the performance critiques of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s Republican response to Barack Obama’s State-of-the-Union-in-name-only speech Tuesday night. Plenty of Democrats sucked in the same role following the far less gifted orator George W Bush (remember Tim Kaine in 2006 or Harry Reid in 2005? Lordy they were bad!). Jindal’s problem wasn’t performance, it was substance and it reaffirms our diagnosis that the Republican Party is in critical condition.

Many Republicans leaders, egged on by right-wing radio hosts like Rush and Hannity, have charted a course of total opposition to the stimulus plan. It’s a big gamble that looks a lot like they’re doubling down on a 40-year political ideology that voters appear to have rejected.

The meat of Jindal’s speech was this:

“Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It’s irresponsible. And it’s no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.”

In other words government is bad. That has been the (successful) message of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign and it  reached it’s apex during the second Bush term. The problem is poll after poll — including two prominent ones released late Monday and covered here — make a very persuasive case that a fairly healthy majority of Americans simply don’t believe that any more. And faced with very visceral economic fear they trust the government more than they trust corporations.

Jindal’s talking-points-list of “wasteful spending” doesn’t even make sense. It’s not hard for Americans to see how replacing $300 million worth of government cars would help the auto industry and therefore the economy. Even people who’ve never ridden on a train get why $8 billion for high-speed rail is an investment that will stimulate the economy by putting people to work. And the $140 million for volcano monitoring is one of those red-meat for Republicans lines that has made no real headway with shellshocked voters.

Republicans are talking to a shrinking group of primarily rural and exurban older white men from mid-west and southern states. “High-speed rail” and “government-run” anything may be hot buttons for them but they aren’t for the majority that elected Obama. A majority made up primarily of urban and suburban women and young people from coastal and big mid-western states. The country has changed but some in the GOP don’t seem to have dealt with that fact yet.

Remember that by substantial majorities voters say they approve of the stimulus bill AND the Obama’s housing plan. Republicans are now playing with fire, essentially betting that none of this will work and they can blame Obama and Democrats for it. It’s a long-shot that runs counter to the most basic rules of politics: It’s the economy stupid. If the economy is still in the tank a 18 months from now when campaigns for the next Congressional elections will be hot and heavy Republicans will try and use their opposition to win.

The problem is you can’t beat something with nothing and the public has not heard any realistic Republican big picture alternative. Cutting taxes and government isn’t selling any more. For now they simply see the GOP as being good at one thing: Saying ‘No’.

CNBC's Rick Santelli Rants

Last week the media formed a now-normal closed loop regurgitating the “news” that Americans were “deeply split” (NY Post) on Obama and his housing plan.

The cable nets went full-tilt especially after a CNBC reporter checked his credibility at the door of the Chicago Board of Trade and went on a stream-of-consciousness rant about how Obama’s housing plan reminded him of nothing more than Cuba under Castro.

By Sunday when the nets rolled out their gabfests it was no longer a question. The debates were over how bad Americans hated the housing plan, and by extension how diminished the President was because of it. But the idea that true populism could come from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade where CNBC’s Rick Santelli actually said with a straight face as he turned to the crowd of well-to-do traders, “a pretty good statistical cross-section of America, the silent majority.”

So anyway…. Monday brought a reminder of how the incestuous media coupled with the inside-the-beltway brigade are so often absolutely wrong about what average Americans actually think. Two big polls showing Obama’s plans broadly popular with voters.

The New York Times/CBS News Poll found that voters approved the housing plan 61% – 20%. The ABC/Washington Post Poll reports voters approve the stimulus plan 64% – 35%. What was that about the “silent majority” Rick?

The most telling numbers about what Americans think of what’s happening in Washington, however, are these: In both surveys roughly three-quarters of those polled say they believe Obama is trying to work with Republicans. Fewer than a third believe Republicans are trying to work with Obama.

Of course what other conclusion could voters draw when not a single Republican House member voted for the stimulus, some Republican Governors say they would rather not take stimulus money if it means expanding unemployment benefits, and other Republicans fresh from arguing the stimulus didn’t do enough about housing now say they don’t like Obama’s housing bill because it may help some people who shouldn’t have gotten a mortgage in the first place.

The media bigshots and the markets and the bankers and the traders and the normally Republican-leaning financial industry types may all be in a tizzy about the new Administration’s historic interventions in the economy — they may claim there’s a wave of “populist revolt” spreading across the country — but Americans who actually live outside the cultured cocoons of comfort have a different, far more visceral understanding of our economic plight and what might be required to fix it.

Unlike the denizens of drummed-up “news theater”, regular Americans know plenty of people who no longer have jobs. They know plenty of people who got no severance with their pink slip and have no prospects for work. They know the desperate look of the family breadwinner facing foreclosure. And they know that we are all in this together. Your neighbor’s plight could spread like cancer.

And so perhaps the talking heads in media and money and politics could take a breath here and realize what the people got long ago: This isn’t — cue the dramatic music and animated segment intro — “America on the Ropes.” It’s not an excuse for silly gamesmanship and wordsmithing. This is a deep economic abyss that is sucking in our fellow citizens. We need clear-headed fact-based reporting. Not fancy graphics and pseudo-populist on-air ravings.

Amtrak Acela Train

Amidst the more than half a billion Federal dollars to be spent as stimulus (and another $287 million in tax breaks), there is great news for Amtrak but maybe not so great news for the people who ride it most — those in the Northeast Corridor.

The final stimulus bill will give Amtrak $850 million for capital projects — tracks, trains, stations — with an emphasis on projects that can be started quickly thereby putting people to work. But there’s one final proviso: No more than 50% can be spent on projects in the Northeast Corridor.

That’s nuts!

Putting aside the lines Amtrak is paid to run by states (such as the commuter lines in California), nearly three-quarters of Amtrak’s paying riders use the Northeast Corridor (72%) while those trains cost less than 30% of Amtrak’s budget to operate. Put another way, the biggest share of Amtrak’s spending goes to routes that carry just 28% of the railroad’s passengers.

In fact long-distance lines lost $668 million dollars last year while the Northeast Corridor made Amtrak $94 million in profit. Imagine what would happen to ridership and revenue if Amtrak was able to actually invest money to improve the Northeast Corridor. But no. Not any time soon.

Instead of investing that $850 million where it’s really needed and where projects await (high-speed electrification, bridge rehabs, track improvements, etc), Amtrak is being forced to spend perhaps half of those funds on lines that lose money and have relatively little traffic.

Take the Sunset Limited (no one else is). A storied train that last year carried just 71,000 passengers. It’s just dumb. If Congress wants Amtrak to run long-distance money-losing routes it should fund them separately as some sort of “Rail-Buff Gift Act”.

Instead for years while some Republicans have said Amtrak should be broken up, Congress always ends up giving the railroad  just enough to keep going and just enough to run ruinously expensive cross-country trains through Congressional districts in states where rail travel is a quaint notion — not a realistic possibility.

So, thanks Congress for actually giving Amtrak at least a little of what it needs to run the railroad. But next time, put the money where it’s needed and where it will serve as an investment for future growth. Not on a line for tourists on a nostalgia binge.

President Obama at his First News Conference

Barack is back, baby!

That’s what liberal bloggers are writing about the President’s first prime-time newser where he seemed to get some of his campaign mojo back. With the stimulus bill on it’s way to passing the Senate and then facing a potentially messy time in the sausage factory known as “conference committee” where the House and Senate versions must be meshed, Obama came out firing.

It began during his first road show Monday afternoon in Indiana and continued at the White House: “I’m happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed. And that’s what part of the election in November was all about.”

Republicans have been pretty masterful over the last couple of weeks in helping Americans forget who won the election in November by successfully repositioning the “stimulus” bill as a “wasteful spending” bill. Aided by 24/7 cable anchors who were incapable of rebutting almost any arguments made by Republicans (or Democrats for that matter), the GOP stole the show.

So what if Obama had said this early and often:

“More than 90% of the jobs created by this plan will be in the private sector. These will not be make-work jobs, but jobs doing the work that America desperately needs done. Jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, and repairing our dangerously deficient dams and levees so that we don’t face another Katrina. They will be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil, and modernizing a costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives. They’ll be jobs creating 21st century classrooms, libraries, and labs for millions of children across America. And they’ll be the jobs of firefighters, teachers, and police officers that would otherwise be eliminated if we do not provide states with some relief.”

All of that is TRUE. There are honest arguments among economists about whether the government should be helping to create these jobs or whether the amount of taxpayer money used is a good investment but the underlying facts (as we have pointed out for two solid weeks here) remain the same. Almost all the money being spent will be used to do things that require workers. And that means jobs.

For now it looks like the President took the risk of reaching out to Republicans and ended up getting his hand bitten. Maybe. But perhaps that’s exactly what he wanted. Republicans got the upper hand on Congressional Democrats more than they did on Obama. If anything he has gained power at the expense of Senate and House leaders. And Monday night we got a glimmer of how Obama’s bipartisan political game ought not be underestimated.

When Chip Reid asked Obama if he had underestimated “how hard it would be to change how Washington works?” the President tipped his hand:

“You know, when I made a series of overtures to the Republicans, going over to meet with both Republican caucuses, you know, putting three Republicans in my cabinet — something that is unprecedented — making sure that they were invited here to the White House to talk about the economic recovery plan, all those were not designed simply to get some short-term votes. They were designed to try to build up some trust over time. And I think that, as I continue to make these overtures, over time, hopefully that will be reciprocated.”

In other words, I made a real concerted effort but…

“There seems to be a set of folks who — I don’t doubt their sincerity — who just believe that we should do nothing. Now, if that’s their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we’re probably not going to make much progress, because I don’t think that’s economically sound and I don’t think what — that’s what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.”

…if the folks who got us into this mess (Republicans) are so crazy as to want to let America fail, what more can I do?

Obama risked a bit of his political capital during the opening days of his Presidency but it may just be that between Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Congressional leadership, conservatives fell right into his trap. He’s the adult. They believe the earth is flat.

Of course if the economy stills sucks and people are still losing their jobs in a year, none of this will much matter. Presidents get blamed (rightly and mostly wrongly) for the economy and this time will be no different.

Then again Reagan took his lumps early with a brutal recession and then rode to a landslide reelection in 1984. Obama is a student of politics and history. He could do worse than emulating Reagan on that score.

Is Going Green Stimulating?

It’s February. Americans are losing their jobs at a rate almost none of us have ever seen. The economy is collapsing in a deepening tailspin of fear and gloom. Wallets are shut. Companies are closing. And in Washington, the “debate” over what makes a stimulus bill stimulating drags on.

Republicans have won the spin war hands down. The stimulus bill has been successfully reframed as a pork-filled mess. And as the Senate works today to get something passed Republicans and their media friends continue to pick out specific items in the bill that they argue are “wasteful spending.”

As usual the New York Post lards it on the heaviest: ”Is it worth spending $6 billion to make federal buildings more green? Maybe — but what in God’s name does that have to do with saving our bacon?”

The paper then quotes President Obama on another aspect of the proposal, “‘Now is the time to save billions by making 2 million homes and 75 percent of federal buildings more energy-efficient, and to double out capacity to generate alternative sources of energy within three years.’ Actually, no. The time to do that is after everybody has a job and enough to eat.”

Wow! Really? I’m not an economist and I’ve already spent some of the last two weeks pointing out what economists across the spectrum say about government spending as stimulus but doesn’t it take workers being paid wages to do these projects? How is that any different from building roads and bridges which has broad bi-partisan support?

The Washington Post editorialized yesterday, “Even potentially meritorious items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or billions more to computerize medical records, do not belong in legislation whose reason for being is to give U.S. economic growth a ‘jolt’.” Why not?

Where would that Head Start money go? To hire more Head Start teachers. That sounds like it would help the economy, no?

And how would those billions to be spent on computerizing medical records? On software and hardware and training all of which would need workers. Stimulating the economy. Why is this so hard to understand?

The New York Post continues on what it thinks should be in the bill: “One packed with funding for shovel-ready projects, one that incentivizes small businesses to hire, one that cuts everybody’s taxes and puts money in people’s checking accounts so they can spend it on the barely-breathing retail sector.”

Oh where to begin?… All of that is already in the bill.

Let’s start with “shovel-ready projects.” There have been numerous reports about the relative shortage of “shovel-ready projects” and how the money in the bill is enough to do pretty much all of them. But there’s also this from the entirely non-political magazine Popular Mechanics which argues focusing on “shovel-ready” projects is a pretty crappy way of stimulating the economy. And again, how is employing people to repave a road any different from employing people to make Federal buildings or people’s houses more energy efficient? It isn’t.

Republicans and Senate Democrats have already changed the stimulus bill to add help for small businesses. But wait a sec. Wasn’t last year’s stimulus bill, pushed by the Bush Administration and signed off on by most Congressional Republicans, supposed to be a big boon to small business? Well that worked out pretty well didn’t it?

And finally that bit about putting money into people’s checking accounts. Get your story straight folks! Republican Senators are on the floor this morning arguing simply giving people a check for $500 won’t work because it didn’t work last year when Bush did it.

That’s why this bill would not do that, instead reducing the amount of taxes withheld from each paycheck. Small amounts get spent. Larger amounts get saved, not spent. The Post is simply wrong and virtually every economist has said as much.

All of which is not to say there isn’t some real crap in the bill the Senate is debating. Republicans and Democrats have put plenty of it in there. We just learned, for instance, that the Republicans most-favored amendment giving homebuyers a $15,000 credit for purchases made in 2009 would now cost twice as much as the GOP thought — $36 billion. That’s real money spent on something that would neither create jobs nor solve the underlying real estate crisis. And Democrats certainly could not really defend a couple hundred million bucks on family planning (even if it saved money down the line by preventing unwanted pregnancies).

So listen carefully and then think. Just a little. When someone brings up something that’s in this bill that they say is a waste, ask yourself a simple question: “Would the spending employ people?” In almost every case the answer is “Yes.” That’s the point, to paraphrase the President.

Incredibly Democrats let this bill be named a stimulus bill and then rechristened a “porkulus” bill by Republicans. It’s a jobs bill and that’s what Democrats should be calling it.

President Barack Obama

Having just wrapped up a round of radio interviews with stations around the country it looks like the proverbial “Is the honeymoon over?” story is gaining traction. The cumulative effect of a badly marketed (and some say badly devised) stimulus plan coupled with his nominees’ tax problems is that Barack Obama has used up a fair amount of his political capital in a few short weeks.

Of course Obama started with more political capital than any President since FDR so he’s still got plenty of it and his mea cupla yesterday (“I screwed up”) was the perfect antidote to the start-up troubles his Administration has faced. His admissions of mistakes coupled with his acceptance of responsibility is the kind of thing Americans have forgotten people in power actually do.

Remember George W Bush was famously unable to think of any mistakes he had made as President when asked  at televised prime-time news conference in April 2004 what his biggest error had been. And Bill Clinton “did not have sex with that woman.” In Japan executives resign in disgrace when their companies lose money and have to lay people off. In America passing the buck is a time-honored way to the top and failure (especially on Wall Street) is a surefire way to make a fortune.

So what a refreshing change for the President to fess up. But it won’t help keep the honeymoon alive if Obama doesn’t move quickly to restore voters’ faith in him and his party.

Democrats have rebounded by being the party of 1) competence and 2) the working man/woman. When several of Obama’s nominees are discovered not to have paid taxes it undercuts those central themes. If Tom Daschle really didn’t know about the taxes he owed, is he competent to reinvent America’s health care system? And how close to the working folk can Democrats and the Obama White House be when those unpaid taxes were for the use of a privately-supplied limo? That’s what Republicans are supposed to get caught doing!

Obama still enjoys a deep well of support with Americans even if polls show his approval ratings have now come down into the range of mere mortals. A majority of Americans want him to succeed because his failure will be their failure. But their patience is not unlimited.

The nominee problems (if they are over) will be quickly forgotten because right now — and for the foreseeable future — it’s the economy stupid. The stimulus bill (why didn’t they call it a jobs bill? PR 101 folks!) will take time to kick in so the next few weeks are more important to Obama than he may realize. If the American people begin to believe that Obama can NOT turn this economy around then the honeymoon will, at that point, be over. The clock is ticking.

Tom Daschle

When you’re up and your opponent’s on his back the last thing you do is give him a hand. But that’s just what Barack Obama has done for Republicans.

After wracking up a historic win over John McCain and leading his party to big, increased majorities in the Senate and House, Obama has squandered some of his political mojo on one of the oldest White House stumbling blocks — nominees.

When it was just Bill Richardson and some ongoing, not particularly noteworthy investigation, it was manageable. Richardson withdrew and the storm passed. But on this Wednesday, just a few weeks into his first term in office, Obama faces choppy waters that are his (or at least his staff’s) own doing.

First, his pick for Health Secretary, Tom Daschle, withdrew his name. Then his choice to oversee the reinvention of government, Nancy Killefer, did the same. Both falling on their swords over unpaid taxes.

Coincidentally (perhaps) Obama was scheduled to do the network rounds, sitting with the five network anchors Tuesday afternoon to talk up the stimulus bill. Instead the big play was on Daschle’s withdrawal. Smartly Obama sucked it up admitting, “I’ve got to own up to my mistake, which is that ultimately it’s important for this administration to send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes.” There’s something new and refreshing…. For that entirely uncharacteristic (in a modern President) admission we give a Presidential Mea Culpa!

Tom Daschle may have seemed like the perfect choice to lead Obama’s health care reform push — after all Daschle knew Congress inside out and wasn’t the biggest problem with Bill Clinton’s health care plan that he (and Hillary) didn’t really consult Congress in crafting it? But in picking the consummate insider Obama went against the central tenet of his campaign — “changing” Washington.

Sure the Obama team’s vetting process obviously isn’t as Grade A as we’ve been lead to believe. Sure Daschle’s mistake (not paying income tax on the imputed income of the use of a limo) was probably totally understandable. Sure Daschle (the former Senate Majority Leader) seemed well on his way to Senate confirmation despite the tax issue. And sure, as the Boston Globe pointed out, none of this is new. But that’s all beside the point.

Americans may believe Los Angeles is the land of artifice but Washington isn’t far behind. What matters in DC is perception — not fact. And the growing perception now (courtesy of a reinvigorated GOP) is that Obama is maybe not so different from every other politician — that he, like Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan-etc before him, is just another politician who will say anything to get elected but in the end will do all the venal, slightly corrupt things that politicians do.

Obama still has an incredible amount of good will built up with the American people and he still has a solid majority of Democrats in Congress working with/for him. Nothing that Richardson, Daschle, Killefer, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, or Attorney General Eric Holder has done or alleged to have done would disqualify them from getting elected to Congress if the past is any guide. But Obama set a higher bar and the Republican pseudo-populist narrative — Obama wants to give away your tax dollars while surrounding himself with people who don’t even bother paying taxes themselves — has taken root as a result.

The biggest question now is whether this distraction is enough to seriously derail the stimulus bill and whether Americans, so desperately worried about their jobs and the economy, really care about the partisan charges and counter-charges that make Washington both familiar to it’s inhabitants and repulsive to the rest of us.

New York City Subway

Even with the Feds potentially spending about $15 billion on mass transit in the next 18 months, the MTA’s proposed big fare hikes and service cuts would still have to happen according to MTA insiders.

That’s because while the amount of money in the stimulus bill for mass transit seems to grow every day, the money is for capital programs — building stuff — not operating systems already up and running.

Last week transit money in the stimulus jumped from $9 billion to $12 billion just before the House passed it’s version. Now Sen. Chuck Schumer wants the Senate version to spend even more — roughly $15 billion if he has his way. Schumer is proposing spending $10.4 billion on capital  programs, $2 billion on rail modifications (improvements to existing systems), and $2.5 billion on so-called “New Starts”.

Note that none of that money would go to pay for the actual costs of running current transit systems (the Feds don’t generally pay operating costs) so all that money would do almost nothing to help the MTA right now. If approved, several billion could be transferred to the MTA but only to be used on current projects like the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access (LIRR into Grand Central), and the Fulton Transit hub. These are the kind of “shovel-ready” projects the stimulus is designed to tap in order to put the money to use immediately.

To be sure these are important and expensive projects and any increase in Federal dollars will help the MTA in crafting it’s next capital program later this year. But $100 monthly Metrocards and disappearing bus lines are still on track to be implemented because the MTA’s operating budget (passed in December) needs a different kind of help. Operating aid.

Saving the fare and the service depends on actions not in Washington but in Albany where the state legislature (under the guidance of then-Governor George Pataki) forced the MTA to borrow every red cent it spent on buying new trains, rehabbing stations, and rebuilding tracks over the last ten years. The cost of repaying those loans is now staggering and impossible to do with the MTA’s current funding stream.

So forget about DC saving us, it’s up to the often hapless crew in Albany to figure out a new “revenue source” (taxes or tolls) for the MTA that will keep the agancy’s doomsday budget from becoming reality.

Bring on Some Geeks!

I know you’re all waking up this morning talking about the stimulus football but I can’t let pass what happened earlier on Sunday without notice.

The US government is about to spend 800 billion or 900 billion or a trillion dollars on a stimulus “program” and that was, rightly, the topic of every one of the major Sunday political television talk shows. Shows that are the closest thing America still has to relatively thorough discussions of critically important issues. Ha!

This week ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC showed just what they think of any serious discussion about the largest single spending bill in the history of this country — a bill that could stave off another Great Depression or sink us deep into one. There were plenty of politicians and analysts to trade talking points and, as usual, virtually no intervention from any of the hosts to insert some reality into the mix. Incredible assertions passed by with nary a peep. And worst of all, amidst all the various guests on all the various shows there was but one, count ‘em, one economist.

Now I know economists aren’t the first people who come to mind when you are programming television but we’re talking about a trillion bucks folks! Bring on some geeks!

NBC’s Meet the Press was the lone show that bothered to have an economist on to ask him about the stimulus program and what he thought about it. Unfortunately David Gregory invited an economist who was also an advisor to John McCain’s Presidential campaign! Mark Zandi is the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com and actually supports the stimulus plan as it is unfolding. But really, couldn’t NBC find an economist who wasn’t on the payroll of a recent political candidate?

I guess beggars can’t be choosers. Especially when you have to undergo head-snapping drivel from elected officials who can’t even be bothered to read the stimulus bill. Check out Arizona’s other Republican Senator Jon Kyl (on Fox News Sunday): “The centerpiece of this is a $500 rebate to folks, about 27 percent of whom don’t even pay federal income tax. That didn’t work last year. It’s not going to work this year. And so that’s not a good place to start.”

Where to begin? First it is NOT a “$500 rebate to folks” it is instead roughly $10 a week less taken out of workers’ checks for taxes. Second the rebate checks Kyl says didn’t work (and he’s right) were the work of the President he supported (Bush) and were mailed out as a single check. People did exactly what most economists said they would do with it — pay off debts and put it in the bank. They did not spend it. So third, Kyl’s contention that this stimulus program’s tax rebate won’t work is absurd on it’s face and he knows it. Too bad Chris Wallace didn’t bother reminding the fine Senator of that.

And then there’s David Gregory questioning John Kerry:

MR. GREGORY: “Martin Feldstein, conservative economist at Harvard but a proponent of the stimulus plan, offered criticism this week about that.  This is what he said: ‘The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each unemployed person. That’s not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year’s tax rebates led to additional spending.’ Senator Kerry, will people go out and spend this money?

SEN. KERRY: “Probably not. Some of them will, obviously, pay down debts; some of them will pay their rent, stay in their–hopefully stay in their rental home at this point.”

Whoa! These guys are unbe-fricken-lievable. Gregory quotes from an economist who simply gets what’s in the plan wrong and then Kerry doesn’t bother to correct him. Senator Kerry, in the form known as “Sunday Morning Political Show” you are the designated Democrat. The least you can do is understand a central element of your party’s stimulus bill — an element that the GOP has been using against you by lying about it — and correct the record.

Of course what would really have been nice is to discuss any of this with an honest-to-God independent economist. But I ask too much. Gaahhhd! (Thanks Napole0n)