Free Markets, Free People

White House Job Summit Results? Spend More Borrowed Money

How did I know that would be the inevitable outcome?

President Obama will propose using $200 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to support creating jobs, White House officials confirmed Monday.

The president, in an economic speech before the Brookings Institution on Tuesday, will argue that the money would be well spent by funding projects to build bridges and roads, weatherize homes, and provide other assistance for small businesses as well as the unemployed.

Fund projects to build bridges and roads? I thought that was the purpose of the 787 billion “stimulus”. Shovel ready projects correct? The great and wonderful stimulus, if passed, was guaranteed to keep unemployment at 8% or below, remember? How’s that worked out for us?

And, the funds will come from TARP which was borrowed to begin with. Instead of not spending (and paying back the lenders), we’re now going to create jobs weatherizing homes, oh, and giving “other assistance for small business as well as the unemployed”? It may come as a surprise to the people in Washington DC, but extending unemployment and giving the unemployed other benefits does not create jobs. Nor does some complicated bureaucratic adventure in “weatherizing”.

Initiatives which make the decision to hire and expand easy will do that, and there are none on the horizon. Instead we’ll see another 200 billion added to the 787 billion (yes, friends, a few billion shy of a trillion) on this spending boondoggle that’s worked so well in dampening unemployment.

In case you’ve forgotten (via Patterico), here’s the adjusted projected 10 year Obama budget:

revised deficit

The dark red CBO shows the actual cost, not the sanitized cost from the White House. This is our future in terms of spending. We’ve certainly seen all the excuses for spending at that level due to the financial crisis (reasons I am still not convinced are necessarily valid), but what are the excuses for the years beyond 2010? And where is that money going to come from?

It is hard to deny this isn’t planned deficit spending on a level we’ve never even contemplated before. You have to wonder how any politician of any stripe could see those budget numbers as doing anything other than worsening a bad situation. The question some are beginning to ask is whether or not this future is based on the naive assumption that government can spend its way out of financial crisis or another thing altogether.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

13 Responses to White House Job Summit Results? Spend More Borrowed Money

  • So the sudden “focus” on job creation is just another gambit designed to allow the administration to misspend billions of tax dollars?  I’m shocked… that they stopped at $200 billion.  I’m not shocked at the brazenness of it.  Let’s see… they promised that the stimulus would keep unemployment from passing the 8% mark, then watched it pass 10%.  Then, after telling us (at least a few times) that the economy is recovering, they tell us that we need to spend $200 billion more to reverse a decline that they couldn’t even slow when they spend four times as much.
    You’d think that these guys were from Chicago, or something.

  • President Obama will propose using $200 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program…

    Say… Didn’t the White House revise down the cost of the bailout just yesterday?  By $200 billion?

    “HEY!  Looky-here!  We didn’t spend $200 billion (that we didn’t have in the first place) on one project, so that means we can spend it on some other boondoggle!  LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL!”

    It’s like Politico hinted last week: Imeme thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money.

    Ah, hell: a few more years of his policies and the dollar WILL be Monopoly money.

    TonusYou’d think that these guys were from Chicago, or something.

    No, I’d think these guys are a pack of retards or liberals, or something.  Oh, wait…

  • So what changed that has the Democrats spooked ?

    Believers in the overuse of the “birth” side (i.e. they fudged the numbers monthly) of the <a href=””>Labor Dept’s birth/death model</a> have been prediciting, that the annual “death” update (i.e. annually they sync it with actual data), to be in the January numbers that come out on Feb 5, 2010, will drive the unemployment number easily past 11%.
    This makes a political move by Democrats absolutely necessary before that date.

  • I, for one, cannot wait until 2011-12 when The Clown™ has to run and will be asked, “You did nothing about the deficit, instead exploding it. And you want to have a second term? Are you kidding us?”

    What will his answer be? “I was handed this”? “I inherited a bad situation”? He says that now, and it is selling about as well as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad autographed photos in Israel.

    • Obama has shot his “wad” of “stimulus” money already.
      What does he think he is .. and “economic Mandingo” ?

    • Imeme’s ahead of you on this.  Look at the remarks he’s made just today (he’s STILL claiming 1.6 million jobs “created or saved”!):

      President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to “spend our way out of this recession” until more Americans are back at work.

      “We avoided the depression many feared,” Obama said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. But, he added, “Our work is far from done.”

      He said that soon after taking office, he and congressional Democrats took “a series of difficult steps” to try to stabilize the financial system and pull the economy out of a deep recession.

      “And we were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it to others to solve.”

      While acknowledging increasing concerns in Congress and among the public over the nation’s growing debt, Obama said critics present a “false choice” between paying down deficits and investing in job creation and economic growth.

      Short version: It’s all Bush’s fault, I did exactly the right thing, if you criticize what I’ve done you’re a liar, and shut up about how much it costs because we have to destroy the village to save it spend money to save the economy.
      Is it a stretch to imagine that MiniTru will continue to back him up, and to imagine that the same damned fools who voted for him in ’08 will swallow another big ol’ cup of Koolaid and do that same thing in ’12?

  • Let’s see a show of hands for: “another thing altogether.”

    • So 9 of 10 of the years in next decade’s spending are Obama’s – right?

      Oh, dear.

    • I think Bush definitely shares his part of the blame (and he was running some pretty big deficits even before 2008/2009).  But I was under the impression that the 2009 FY budget was not presented to Bush for his signature, and that it was Obama who signed it in March.  It’s interesting that congress would bother with such maneuvering– did they think that Bush wouldn’t have signed off on it?

  • Just think they could have created the equivilent of 11 million jobs at appx. $30,000 each if they had just split the money up and handed it out to citizens on a first come first served basis.

  • ” the money would be well spent by funding projects to build bridges and roads, weatherize homes,”

    Someone needs to look at a calendar or, better yet, the weather (NOT climate) reports. It would also be nice if at least one of his economic advisors had at least a little actual experience in the real world of construction.