In the nineteen months that President Obama has been in office, there’s no action that he’s taken, no policy that he’s supported that’s received more undeserved criticism than the federal stimulus. Consistently maligned by conservatives, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which passed the Congress with no Republican votes in the house and only 3 in the Senate, has significantly eased the impact of the Great Recession and continues to do so, while at the same time laying the foundation for a true 21^st Century America.

Intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the recession, it’s difficult to reconcile Republican objections to the ARRA, better known as the Stimulus. After all, they had all supported the TARP bailout, which sent the better part of a trillion dollars to the nation’s richest banks. But the Republicans stood in unity against a stimulus directed at helping middle and working class Americans. Some say that the opposition was purely political, just one of many attempts to block actions that might help the economy and improve the standing of the Democratic leadership.

That may well be the case, as there have certainly been a record number of obstructionist actions taken by Senate Republicans since Obama took office. But whether or not the Republican disregard for common Americans is behind their original opposition, it seems clearly to be reflected in their conspicuous attempts to discredit the positive impact the Stimulus has had.

Most recently, while unveiling first looks at the Republican plan for the future, House Minority Leader, John Boehner said that the Stimulus, “has gotten us nowhere.” Oddly enough, he made that statement after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the stimulus had been released. The CBO analysis concurred with the majority view on nonpartisan economists and found that the stimulus had raised the GDP by 1.7% to 4.5% and increased the number of people employed by 1.4 to 3.3 million. The report also concluded that the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs had been raised by between 2 million and 4.8 million. The truth is that the facts don’t support the conservative spin, so the Republicans don’t offer any facts, just sound bites like John Boehner’s fallacious claim.

Few and far between are any economists who would even marginally agree with Congressman Boehner. There may be debate over the extent of the impact, but no reputable person would even attempt to argue that the Stimulus has “has gotten us nowhere.”  Mark Zandi, former economic advisor to John McCain, took issue with Boehner’s falsehood and stated that, “Without the stimulus spending, instead of a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, we’d have an 11.5 percent unemployment rate.” But of course, when people are still struggling in a stalled economy, it’s exceedingly difficult to sell the fact that it would have been so much worse.

Caring more about partisan politics than the health of the American economy or the wellbeing of the American people, Republicans have chosen to ignore the facts and rail on about how ineffective the Stimulus has been. The trouble is that, since they have no credible argument with which to discredit the macroeconomic effects of the program, such as the number of jobs created, they’ve been forced to try to put the spotlight on “waste.”

Reports of “wasteful projects” started the moment spending targets began to be identified. But the Republican spin machine hit a crescendo in early August when Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) released their report highlighting 100 projects they deem to be wasteful. Headlining their list is a $308 million contract the senators identify as being with oil giant BP. Of course, their report fails to mention that the money was actually given to Hydrogen Energy California, a BP subsidiary, in September 2009 — long before the oil spill. The report is also conveniently silent on the fact that the award actually went to a 50/50 joint venture, so BP isn’t even the primary awardee, and also that only $175 million of the total came from stimulus funds, while the private sector invested seven times as much money in the project as did government.

This is not to suggest that the Stimulus is without waste; any program with thousands of discrete expenditures totaling over $800 billion is going to incur some spending that could be considered wasteful. But does this justify raking through the contracts in an attempt to find anything and everything that can possibly be labeled waste? Does it justify using half-truths to cast expenditures in an illegitimate light?

The report tags the $71,623 awarded to Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center as funding a study on, “Monkeys Getting High for Science.” The truth is that monkeys are being used, but the study is actually directed at research regarding cocaine addiction and relapse in humans. Along similar lines is the report’s characterization of $554,763 spent to replace windows at a Mount St. Helens visitor’s center as wasteful — because the facility “was closed in 2007.” Terrible, huh? . . . unless you consider that the Forest Service is performing the renovations in order to repurpose the center, so that they can, “protect the original investment and ensure continued good use of taxpayer dollars.” 

These are but a few examples of the distortions contained in the McCain/Coburn report. But whether or not you agree with Senator McCain that, “all of them are waste,” you still have to question his use of spin and what it says about his motives. This is especially true when, at the end of the day, even if you accept their entire list as “wasteful,” the $1.7 billion total is less than one-quarter of one percent of the total stimulus. This money is obviously nothing to sneeze at, but .002 waste is pretty damn good by any objective measure. The Pentagon, which David M. Walker, President of the conservative Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former comptroller general of the U.S., identified as a system, “so fundamentally flawed that billions of dollars in waste is virtually guaranteed every year,” would have to completely reinvent itself to even approach such efficiency. Yet do you hear any Republican cries to cut defense?

The honest truth is that the ARRA could have been handled better. It does include some waste and should probably have been more focused on very specific job-creating investments. But to say that the stimulus, “has manifestly failed,” as Republican candidate for Senate, Carly Fiorina did during last night’s senatorial debate, is to take spin and wind it up to the level of outright falsehood.

The ARRA, originally estimated to cost $787 billion but recently revised at $814 billion, was essentially divided into thirds, with one part each allocated for tax relief, entitlements, and contracts/grants. The tax relief component, with $223 billion spent out of the $288 billion allocated, provided tax cuts for 95% of Americans and also included $51 billion in tax relief for business. Entitlements, funded at $224 billion with only $143 billion spent thus far, consisted mostly of aid to states in the form of $86.8 billion for Medicaid, $53.6 billion to help local school districts and prevent further layoffs, and $82.2 billion to assist low income workers, the elderly, and the unemployed.

While little of the expenditures in these categories went directly to create new jobs, the money did save thousands of people from joining the ranks of the unemployed. It also ensured that those most adversely affected by the recession received relief. And it accomplished these ends while also putting the majority of the funds where they would be immediate spent and returned into the economy. This factor ensured sustainment of consumer spending, which amounts to 70% of the economy, and created the largest stimulating effect possible.

The final portion of the Stimulus, that marked for contracts, grants and loans, is really the forward facing job creation engine of the program. The original intent of this spending was to identify “shovel-ready” projects where the money could be put to immediate use. But far too few projects of that kind were found, so at present only $139 billion of the $275 billion allocated has been spent. But even so, exciting progress has been made, and if people can remove their partisan lenses for just a moment, they will see that this program is building the foundation for a better government, a stronger America, and a brighter future for all Americans.

Recipients of funding through the direct investment part of the Stimulus had reported a total of nearly 750,000 jobs funded by the program through the end of this past June. But these jobs are really just the beginning. The program has made over 215,000 awards, but because of the time requirements to ramp up production, less than 40% of the award money has been disbursed. The real promise of these investments is still in the future, and it will come in the form new jobs, new industries and a transformation of government and certain sectors of American business.

Stimulus investments are focused in five critical areas: 1) to seed research and development, 2) to modernize transportation, 3) to jump start alternative energy, 4) to promote ground-breaking medical advancement, and 5) to establish a platform to enhance private sector infrastructure. Together, these areas represent a game plan for, not only moving our nation away from dependence on environmentally damaging foreign oil, but also for creating a new energy economy, building American capacity for the future and infusing existing industries with new technology.

One exciting example of how the Stimulus is paving the way to a prosperous green economy is the investment in advanced battery technology. Advanced batteries are critical to the deployment of alternative energy technologies from electric cars to smart grid-storage. Prior to the Stimulus, the U.S. produced only 2% of the world’s advanced batteries. But stimulus funding will create 30 new factories thereby increasing the U.S. share of battery production to 20% by 2012 and to 40% by 2015. Most of the associated projects are being seeded through grant money, like that awarded to A123 Systems of Watertown, Mass., who will be building two U.S. based factories with stimulus money. A123 is already a big player in the market, with 5 factories in China, but the Stimulus is moving them home. According to company CEO, Bart Riley, “Without government, there’s no way we would’ve done this in the U.S.” It should be noted that A123 held an IPO to raise the private capital that’s required to match public funding on all grant projects.

Carving a foothold for America in the growing market for advanced batteries is but one example of the Stimulus taking our nation where it needs to go. Funding has also been awarded to finance three of the world’s first electric-car plants, and because those cars will need charging, the Stimulus will also increase battery-charging stations by 3,200%. Other energy related projects include, $3.4 billion for clean coal, loan guarantees to facilitate the first new nuclear power plants in 30 years, and investment in wind and solar, including building the nation’s largest photovoltaic plant in Florida and the world’s two largest solar-thermal plants in Arizona and California. All together, $90 billion has been allocated to fund alternative energy infrastructure and efficiency — a fact that may provide a little more insight into Republican objections — since the Oil and Gas industry represents the only “Strongly Republican” lobby in Washington, sending 73% of their contributions to the right.

One signature project, also in the energy space but designed to address the nation’s woeful record on energy efficiency is the Weatherization Assistance Program. Most Americans know that the U.S. is the planet’s number one energy customer, actually consuming more than 20% of world supply. But much less widespread is the knowledge that over 57% of what’s consumed is actually wasted. With a goal to weatherize 600,000 homes, the weatherization program will begin to address this issue. The program has already completed 200,000 homes and continues to move forward at a rate of 25,000 homes per month and has created more than 13,000 jobs.

Energy is without doubt the center focus of stimulus spending, as it rightfully should be. Our nation’s ever-increasing dependence on foreign fossil fuels is amongst our most serious concerns in terms of national security, economic wellbeing, and environmental health. Energy independence should be a national priority, but the transition is extremely expensive, so market forces work against change and instead serve to preserve the status quo. The writing has been on the wall for more than 30 years, yet industry has moved forward at glacial pace. The sad truth being that it’s more profitable to continue to push fossil fuels. This is precisely the type of situation that demands government intervention — when the good of the nation is at conflict with the profit motive of business. The Stimulus is meeting this need and is on track to meet its goal of doubling alternative energy by 2012.

Rounding out other stimulus highlights are investment in transportation, healthcare, and infrastructure. One notable public transportation component is an $8 billion contribution for high-speed rail projects across the nation, including $2.3 billion for the system to connect the San Francisco Bay Area and Orange County. There’s also a $27.5 billion slice working to fund highway and bridge projects across the country. On the healthcare front is $20 billion to move health records into the digital age, an endeavor that constitutes real healthcare reform and promises to deliver both improved care and lowered costs. Other infrastructure investments include $7.2 billion to extend broadband access, much into rural areas, and also $11 billion for electrical grid improvements. The focus on a smart-grid is essential for maximizing energy efficiency, and both the broadband and grid improvements will lay the groundwork for trillions of dollars in future utility investments.

And not only is the Stimulus transforming America, but also the federal government. Unlike the Defense Department tradition of doling out contracts without bids, the Stimulus launched the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) to ensure fierce competition for grant money. Modeled after DARPA, the Pentagon agency that gave us the Internet and GPS, ARPA-E recruited a host of outside experts to evaluate grant applications and winnow the 3,700 received down to the 37 awarded in the first round. Several of these grants will fund research that would otherwise be too expensive for profit-minded businesses, and if successful, the upside is absolutely immense. The intent is to create new industries, to solve longstanding problems, to reinvent the economy — these investments have the potential to create millions of jobs.

Anyone who really believes in America owes it to themselves to look deeper into the success and potential of the Stimulus. They should visit Recovery.gov and get more information. They should understand that this is the most transparent program ever instituted by the federal government, that all program details are readily available online, that program administration provides a 24-hour response to all state and local government queries, and that the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board was established to prevent fraud and waste. The Board gives citizens the ability to help police projects with several means to report suspicious activity, and has already helped to block some 260 projects for skate parks, picnic tables and highway beautification.

It’s difficult to understand the mindset that would hold the Stimulus program in a negative light. Detractors want to discredit the program with trumped up examples of waste. Deficit hawks want to derail progress by convincing the people we can’t afford the investment, when in truth they simply want to maintain the status quo. They know that our nation recovered easily from a debt that was 122% of GDP after World War 2, and that we currently sit at only 94%. But they also know that it was higher taxes on the most wealthy that funded the recovery and paved the way to a flourishing economy and a strong middle class. And this they will fight with every lie and distortion they cab muster.

The stimulus is exactly the prescription for America’s prosperous transition into the 21^st Century. Where better to spend American tax dollars than on the core needs and functions of our society, on our infrastructure, on healthcare, on education, on creating industries to fight energy dependence and create American exports? Are we better served with spending trillions on foreign wars, on maintaining a military presence to defend Europe and Japan? Perhaps the money should go to bigger bonuses on Wall Street or higher pay for CEOs? The answers are clear. The stimulus investments are our future. They are the path back to prosperity, to jobs, to the strengthening of the American middle class. The Stimulus program represents the way a government of the People, by the People, and for the People should act. 

The only real negative about the Stimulus is that President Obama listened to Tim Geithner and Larry Summers instead of Christina Romer. Had he taken her sage advice, the Stimulus would have been $1.4 trillion, and America would be that much closer to emerging from this greed-spawned recession into a bright and green future.

---

 

There are 537 elected officials representing all Americans in our federal government. So, disregarding the inequalities that result from congressional district sizing and the 2-per-state allocation of Senate seats, this means that each elected official represents, on average, around 575,000 Americans. This number alone should raise an eyebrow or two, in that it begs the question of adequate representation, but while the ratio does further dilute the voice of the average person, its impact pales when compared to the effects of a government sold to the highest bidder.

Washington, long ago, lost any semblance of legitimate representation of The People. Being one voice in a half-million may seem weak, but the reality is that the average person’s voice is far smaller than that. Both the Presidency and the Congress of 21^st Century America have been purchased, and unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to contribute to election campaigns, you really have no voice at all.

Elections are costly. Contributions for the 2008 federal campaign totaled $5.3 billion. The average winner of a House seat spent $1.4 million while the average Senate seat went for $8.5 million. Sure, there are many small donors; in fact, about half of the 2008 money came from donations of under $200. Unfortunately, that means the other half came from larger donations, with $1.9 billion coming from donations over $2,300, and $974 million in large donations — over $10,000.

It’s these large donations that do more than merely help support a candidate; they are the currency of government. The average Joe, who donates $10 or $25 to their favorite candidate, expects nothing specific in return, but such is not the case for the Goldman Sachs of the world. As expected, in the shadow of the housing/banking crash, the 2008 election was largely financed by big banks, insurance companies and real estate. The largest contributor to the 2008 election, this sector donated $477 million. And companies like Goldman, who topped bank spenders at more then $7 million, and JPMorgan and Citigroup, who each coughed up over $5 million, don’t spend money unless it improves profits.

The fact that no financial reform legislation was passed, for more than two years after Bear Stearns crashed and started the collapse of the economy, is prima facie evidence of the power of campaign capital. It’s no coincidence that the top donor for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the chair of the Senate’s committee for banking and housing, is the securities and banking sector — the very people he’s charged to oversee. The nearly $5 million investment the sector made in contributions, over the 2008 and 2010 cycles, to Dodd and the ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), not only helped stall legislation for years, but it paid for the diluted excuse for “reform” that was finally passed.

This is but one example of business-as-usual in Washington.  Healthcare legislation wrangled its way through Congress for most of 2009, while the Health industry was busy greasing the skids with $84 million in campaign donations. Their investment was not in vain. It actually produced excellent returns, netting 32 million new government sponsored patients and nothing in the way of real reform. Energy, Communication/Electronics, Trial Lawyers, they’re all present, and they’re all spending millions to make sure that any legislation that’s passed is favorable to their business profits. With government so clearly under the control of big-business, is it any wonder why the 61.7% voter turnout for the 2008 election was the high-water mark since 1968?

American voters feel increasingly frustrated with Washington politics, and there’s good reason for it. Regardless of which party people support, it’s becoming more evident with every passing year that the will of The People is being ignored, their voices unheard beneath the din of the corporate campaign hijacking.

Angry conservatives are already gathering under banners proclaiming, “Take our country back!” But the loss of voice in Washington politics isn’t a partisan issue. Campaign funding for the 2010 election, and the control that goes with it, is nearly split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. There may be legitimate political differences being liberal and conservative voters, but neither is served when special interests have bought and paid for the federal government.

If indeed the country is ever to be taken back, Americans from left and right must join forces on this critical issue. Together, they can put an end to big-money control of Congress. It’s time voters stop falling for the blatant misdirection of party talking points and start demanding results. The American people can take back control of the nation, and the surest path to that end is through real campaign finance reform.

The sad truth is that while votes are the mechanism by which politicians are elected, it’s money that makes campaigns — and campaigns are the means through which votes are secured. Today’s system ensures that elected officials are beholding to the big-money donors who finance their election. The People are but pawns in this game of quid pro quo, and they will remain so until and unless they unite and change the system that allows this corruption to exist.

Like students left with the huge loan balances, the present system ensures that our elected officials are left with huge favor balances on their books. To think that politicians will bite the hand that feeds them and vote against the interests of their big-money benefactors is delusional at best. To take back the country, The People must take back the Congress, and to take back the Congress, the politicians must once again be beholding, not to influence peddling special interests, but to the people who elect them. One person, one vote must again reflect the control of the nation.

There’s only one way to make this happen, and that’s through public financing of elections. It’s already working in several states in the form of Clean Elections. And there’s a bipartisan bill in the House and also the Senate to bring similar reform to Washington. Public financing will require that candidates secure significant funding in small donations from their constituents before qualifying for public money. But once established as a viable candidate, public funding would be allocated in amounts sufficient to finance a competitive campaign.

The power of such a system is obvious. For a relatively small investment, American voters could actually ensure that elected officials would owe their loyalty to no one but the people who elected them. It would in essence break the favor bank.

But the benefits of public campaign financing don’t end with properly placed loyalties. The investment would also pay dividends in productivity, as it would mitigate the demand for fund raising by incumbents. In the present system, officials start focusing on the next election cycle as soon as they’re elected. Estimates place fund raising efforts for members of Congress at 20% to 40% of their time. With so much misuse of time, is it any wonder they get so little done? It’s like a business that pays its employees to look for another job two days out of every week.

Public campaign finance is not a silver bullet; it won’t by itself bring the federal government back under the control of The People, but without it — there is no hope of that happening. The removal of special interest influence on election campaigns is a critical first step for Americans to take back the country. Couple public financing with preferential voting, which would allow a significant increase in votes for third party candidates, add congressional term limits and weld shut the revolving lobbyist door, and America may once again return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

---

There’s not much argument that Republicans as a whole support business and the free-market. They’ve long espoused their belief in government’s responsibility to support the private sector and its role in job creation. With machine like consistency, they’ve beat back efforts to spawn government jobs, always asserting that small business is where the jobs are. So, one would think the Republicans would support an attempt to assist small businesses. But such was not the case yesterday, when Senate Republicans voted unanimously to defeat a bill to stimulate investment in small business.

The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 is intended to spur investment by eliminating capital gains taxes for investment in small firms, and also creating a Small Business Lending Fund to underwrite loans through community banks. It would also waive fees on Small Business Association loans and allow increased tax deductions for new equipment and other expenses. For many this sounded like a reasonable shot in the arm for beleaguered businesses, but Republicans filibustered yet again — and another potential jobs bill failed to pass.

This comes after weeks of Republican fighting to strip the job creation provisions from the bill to extend unemployment benefits, which they subsequently stalled even after stripping. Democrats in the Senate did finally pass the extension last week with the help of 2 Republicans, but not before 2.6 million Americans had seen their benefits run out. If this all seems more than a little counter-production in an environment where real unemployment is still over 16.5%, that’s because it is.

So, what is the reason for the seeming incongruity between Republican rhetoric and their voting record? The answer just might be found in their position on the Bush tax cuts.

When defending the extension of the Bush cuts for the wealthy, Republicans routinely cite the detrimental impact the “hikes” would have on small business. This slant certainly makes good political sense, since according to the Small Business Administration (SBA), 90% of U.S. firms have fewer than 20 employees. And considering the current state of unemployment, coupled with the fact that small business creates between 66% and 88% of net new jobs, it’s patently obvious that efforts to stimulate job growth must be focused on this segment of business.

So, Republicans profess support for the little guy, and typically rely on Grover Norquist’s 2008 estimate stating that two-thirds of small businesses would be adversely affected by expiring the cuts for the rich. Asserting their allegiance, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) recently appeared on CNBC to make his case for extending all tax cuts and claimed it was because of the Republican desire to, “commit ourselves to help small business.” Indeed, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director who now runs a Republican think tank, tied it all back to jobs, claiming that the tax increase would reduce small business hiring by 18%.

Of course, all of this is as much nonsense as the Republican spin on tax cuts paying for themselves. In truth, only a small fragment of small businesses would be affected by ending the cuts for those making over $250,000. Tax expert Len Burman put the number at 3% of small businesses that are subject to the top two individual tax rates. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities set the number even lower, at 1.9%. As it turns out, Norquist’s calculations looked at the percentage of income, not of firms. What he was attributing to the ranks of small business was the wealthiest hedge funds, law firms and lobbying outlets in America.

Fortunately, once the layers are peeled off the onion, the Republican message at least becomes consistent. It’s not small business that they support, not unless you consider multi-million-dollar sole proprietorships or partnerships as small business — just because they have few employees. The sad truth is that Republican support for small business is as ephemeral as their concern over the unemployed. It only lives in the rhetoric they use to justify their policies while hiding their true and undying loyalty to the richest 2% of Americans.

Let all voters wake up and beware. A line has been drawn in the sand. We no longer need to debate the sides based on some nebulous idea of who Democrats and Republicans support. All ambiguity has been removed — the Republican Party supports big business and will gladly sacrifice small business, the unemployed, even the nation if it will increase the profits of their elite minority.

People need to take a serious look at this and ask themselves which side of the line they’re on. And if they make under $250,000 per year and still choose to vote Republican, they need to do so with full understanding that they’re contributing to their own demise.

---