Obama's Staffing Wage-freeze
So I still haven’t heard Obama’s inauguration speech and I probably won’t bother to check it out. I heard it was very glib - intended to alleviate some of the pressure of expectation I'm sure. The day after his speech though, I did hear some clap-clap-hoorahs in and around the office over his “firm-footed” decision making after promising a wage-freeze on White House staffers making over $100k. According to an article published in the Washington Post, the freeze is expected to save the government ~$440k next year. Note: I only have a hard copy but I’m sure you can find the article on their website at washingtonpost.com
A savings of $440k…Whoop, whoop!
*more like clap-clap-clap THUD*.
Obviously Obama is trying to set a tone at the start of his administration by making an example of his own staff. Clap-clap-clap for Obama’s PR skills, but we already knew he led smoothly in that category anyway. What exactly does this accomplish? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing good anyway. I’m not balking over a government wage freeze, but hailing this move as a bold stroke from our new, fearless leader seems egregiously underserved, especially considering Bush already increased salaries via executive order on December 18th. DOH!
Did Obama forget to mention that? * Obama says, “My bad.” *
During Obama’s campaign, his economic plan for getting the country out of a recession was essentially government supply side economics. When private enterprise isn't able to stimulate the economy, the government steps in with new spending and government programs to keep money afloat and people in jobs until the country is out of recession. When that happens, government spending takes a backseat while the free market economy flourishes.
And so when government steps in with all these great things, where does the money come from? Tax payers..duh. And this of course, leads us to the conservative argument that increasing taxes during an economic recession is well, stupid.
To stimulate the economy, you want people to spend.
Nevertheless…I guess that just means that the extra taxes off the $440k we might have otherwise received to help pay for Obama’s spending programs, will not be coming from his high-seat government staffers – just everyone else.
Labels:
News and Politics
6 comments:
How did this guy get elected anyway??? We obviously enjoy shooting ourselves in the foot over and over again. This kind of government stimulus package didn't work for Hoover's administration after the Great Depression. Dems CONSTANTLY compare our recession to the great depression but they don't pay attention to any of the lessons. Hoover increased spending nearly 47% over 3 years after the GD and unemployment continued to hold steady at 14% - even 10 years into. Apparently looking over times of the GD is only relevant to help win elections, not to rule common sense thinking. Republicans in 2012! Palin in 2012!
SUCKER-
SORRY. PALIN IN 2012? TALK ABOUT AVERSION TO COMMON SENSE THINKING!
DEANNA,
GET OFF YOUR OBAMA TRIP. ELECTIONS ARE OVER! SUPPORT YOUR PREZ.
Screw Nobama's stimulus plan. The whole thing makes me mad. We don't need it. Put government oversight on the fed reserve system, cut out the hundreds of useless social and welfare programs that suck the life and dollars right of our system, reduce government at the same rate as our shrinking economy, and revisit our immigration policies – does anyone really know how it impacts our economy? How much is illegal immigration costing us and why aren't we able to just get off our duffs to actually do something about it. Look at it, analyze, assign some measurable dollar benefit or loss and let’s get on with it.
Whoa Craig. You're really coming out! Did you really post as taxpayingsucker too....
Matt,
If supporting our President means turning a blind eye to stupid policies that hurt us more than they help us - no thank you. Try selling that in China, NK, Germany or a hundred other places that breed ignorance (or require silence).
Matt, And YOU talk of aversion to common sense thinking!! Of the 800+billion pacakge, only 530 will be pumped back into the economy. It's idiotic spending with little return, piled atop pork, pork, and more pork. How much of the stimulus package is for condoms and abortion funding?? $200 million. What, kids don't have a buck to buy a pack themselves? Right. As if the need for condoms is going to solve the problem.
$4.1 billion to fund radical groups like ACORN not to mention special legal protections for CA and providing medical care to illegal immigrants.
Billions going towwards endowments for the arts, billions to Amtrak and it loses millions every year, studying "climate change" and the list goes on and on. 35% of the stimulus package is wasteful spending.
Why should we (I) have to pay for all these things. Damn Pelosi and all her ilk for moving us towards a socialist socieity. Damn all the morons who put Obama in the White House in the first place.
The pork spending, agreed, is rediculous but I'm more considered with the concentration of efforts for bulk spending - i.e., renewable and alternative energy resources and standardized healthcare.
I'm against standardized healthcare but even if I weren't, I can't monetize the value from a stimulus perspective. I'm for renewable and alternative energy - not because of climate change but because it makes good business sense - however, a stimulus package should focus on short term and sustainable capital creation. So unless the billions going out for these efforts are intended to build factories and plants today to employ more workers (short term stimulus) and those factories are going to be producing goods and services for long-term capital (long term stimulus), then such large government spending doesn't belong in a stimulus package.
As far as I can tell, a good third of the package includes house and legislative bills that have been squeezed in because Obama knows the likelyhoood that these things will get voted through now in a needed stimulus package versus in a year or two from now, as separate bills.
Post a Comment