Republicans Test 2010 Message: Cancel the Stimulus

By
Friday, July 10, 2009 at 8:46 am

obamastimulusad

The day after President Obama signed the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took to the airwaves to offer voters a different kind of new deal.

“If the American people will let the Republicans back in charge,” said Gohmert on the Feb. 19 episode of Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, “the 60 percent of this bill that won’t be spent until after the next election, we’ll cut it off and let it go to the Americans.”

Image by: Matt Mahurin

Image by: Matt Mahurin

That idea didn’t immediately take. In February, support for the economic stimulus package that passed with no Republican votes in the House and only three (including that of Sen. Arlen Specter, who later switched parties) in the Senate, was above 50 percent. The March 31 special election for New York’s upstate 20th congressional district, an early test of a hard-edged Republican message opposing the stimulus, ended with an upset victory for now-Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.).

But as unemployment numbers rise, and as the Obama administration is forced to admit that its early projections of what the stimulus package would achieve were overly optimistic, Republicans are returning to that February vote and hanging it around the necks of vulnerable Democrats. Increasingly, they are echoing Gohmert’s enthusiastic pledge to scrap whatever stimulus money is left in January 2011. On Monday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Republican whip in the Senate, said that he agreed with a recent poll that suggested Americans want to “cancel the rest of the stimulus spending.” On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) took to Twitter to make a similar argument: “Admin spent $110B of the $787B and job loss abounds. They should give the remaining $687B back to the taxpayers and stop this terrible idea.” Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kans.), who is running for U.S. Senate in 2010, has offered multiple amendments to bills aimed at cancelling all of the remaining stimulus money. And the Republican National Committee gave its first-ever Grassroots Logic Award to Matthias Shapiro, a Utah IT consultant who directed a viral video that portrayed the spending and job growth promises of the stimulus as stacks of pennies being shoved off of a coffee table.

The return of the stimulus as a political weapon for Republicans as members in both houses of Congress have pre-emptively pushed back against the unpopular idea of a second crack at an economic rescue bill. It also comes as the party and its candidates grow increasingly confident that the stimulus, by failing so far to meet the projections of President Obama and congressional Democrats, is the key to a midterm election argument that the majority party is making matters worse by spending so much money.

“We’re hitting this message every day,” said one House Republican aide, who boiled the party’s mantra down to three words. “Where’s the jobs? Where’s the jobs? Where’s the jobs? [Democrats] can’t answer that.”

There is some variance in the anti-stimulus mantra. Not all Republicans are going as far as Gohmert, Hatch, or Kyl. On a Thursday conference call that was organized to rebut Vice President Joe Biden on his trip to Ohio, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), would only say that Republicans would “certainly revisit” the stimulus, and the money left to be allocated, if they won a majority in the 2010 elections. “Whatever is left in January 2011 ought to get a lot of scrutiny,” Boehner said. “I would suggest to you that a lot of it could be cut, because at the end of the day, most of the stimulus money was about creating more government, not creating more jobs.”

At an event promoting his book “Saving Freedom,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said Republicans would miss an opportunity if they didn’t talk about the stimulus in those terms. “We need to start talking about it,” DeMint said, referring to the money that might be left to be allocated in 2011, “because we need to turn it into tax cuts instead of government spending.”

According to Republican pollster John McLaughlin, Republicans are benefiting from an “evolution” in the way voters view the stimulus, and the way that it has become blurred with banking industry bailouts, foreclosure prevention plans, and other Democratic plans as a wave of spending that has failed to stem rising unemployment. “Initially,” said McLaughlin, “in February, if you asked people if they were against a stimulus program, it was like asking: Are you against stimulating the economy? Since then there’s been more of a consensus that the level of spending is too high.” Voters aren’t grateful for the small tax cut included in the stimulus, said McLaughlin, because “very few people will say they got it, and it’s been overwhelmed by the state taxes they pay, which have been going up.”

Republicans such as DeMint have argued that doubts about the stimulus reflect increasing doubts about the growth of government and increases in spending. Dan Schnur, a Republican strategist who is now a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, said that a much more simple worry was at play. “It’s never been clear that people vote on the deficit,” said Schnur, who worked for Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign. “Right now, anti-deficit concerns may be a placeholder for broader concerns about the economy. For the Democrats to take this back and get credit for the stimulus, the economy doesn’t have to be recovered, but voters have to believe it’s recovering. You can be a mile inside of hell as long as you’re heading out.”

Steve Stivers, a Republican who lost a congressional race by a razor-thin margin in Ohio last year in a district carried by Barack Obama, is one of the 2010 candidates betting that voters won’t be taking the Democrats’ side on the stimulus. He launched his bid this month, attacking Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) for “spending trillions, growing the size of government” and creating a debt that “our children can’t afford.” In an interview with TWI, Stivers declined a chance to say, like Hatch or Kyl, that he would cancel the rest of the stimulus money. “There were good parts and bad parts of the stimulus,” Stivers said. “Some of the spending eased human suffering, and no one wants that, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. What you need to stay focused on is how to improve the economy in the long term. Government spending is not going to do that unless you want a bigger government sector, and that’s not something that creates wealth for the rest of the economy.” Stivers debated a recent argument made by Christina Romer, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, that cutting back on spending during a recession led to disaster when it was tried in 1937. “I don’t think too many historians will argue that anything brought us out of the Depression except for World War II.”

Republican pollsters and strategists agreed that opposing the stimulus is a safe bet for Republicans; Schnur suggested that unless some recovery was visible by March 2010, the electorate would decided that the president’s policy had failed and be more receptive to Republican attacks on spending and deficits. Liberal-leaning economists don’t disagree. “Obama hurt himself politically from the outset,” said Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “I don’t think he ever clearly made the case for the stimulus. Also, Democrats have been demagoguing about the deficit for years. It would have been very difficult for them to turn around and explain why they didn’t want small deficits right now. They decided that they couldn’t make the case.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee has confirmed those worries, dogging Democrats in vulnerable seats with attacks on their votes for the stimulus. On Thursday, NRCC spokesman Paul Lindsay pointed to a special election in upstate New York — a district being vacated by Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) which, as it happens, borders the district Democrats won on March 31 — as the next test to see how the stimulus will play politically.

“Democrats have painted a large target on NY-23,” Lindsay said. “It’s district they see as competitive. They see it as one they can win. So you’ll probably see a lot of signs there as to whether they want to make stimulus an issue or not.”

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

35 Comments

Name
Comment posted July 10, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

Real Republican message: We won't let you fix what we broke.


Ron
Comment posted July 10, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

So wait, they are literally promising voters cold, hard cash if they win? That is the level of desperation they have arrived at?

Wow.


strangely_enough
Comment posted July 10, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

Remember Bush's tax cuts?


Name
Comment posted July 10, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

I wish the finger pointing would stop. Everyone needs to work together as a team to bring about change. There needs to be some middle-ground where all parties can come together and get these issues resolved. I agree that the stimulus hasn't had a huge impact on the economy. It hasn't done a thing for me. My family is not as well off as some, but doing better than others. We still can't put money in the bank and are living check to check. We lost tons of money in the market and I don't even want to talk about the 401K. We still rent an apartment. Would love to own a home, but can't afford the still inflated prices in my area. More Government is the last thing I want to see grow. Show me instead reasonable interest rates for loans. Show me increased job growth. Show me banks that give you more than .5% interest on your money to insure growth on your investment. Show me a country that is willing to invest in it's own well being and people by encouraging companies to keep jobs here. I ask you what do we manufacture in the United States. I'll tell you, NATIONAL DEBT!


Frustrated
Comment posted July 10, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

A 5 cent history of the Great Depression
1929 Stock Market Crash results in massive loss of paper wealth.
1929-1933 Little done by Federal government. Depression grips US with massive job losses and economic contraction.
1933-1937 – New Deal is adopted tough weakened by conservative opponents and Supreme Court. Depression remains, though some improvement in employment and economic activity occurs.
1937-1939 – Conservatives, both Democratic and Republican, slow New Deal spending claiming that the New Deal had failed to fix the Depression. Depression situation worsens in the US, unemployment begins to rise again.
1939-1941 – US begins to mobilize and increase production due to the prospect of war. Depression starts to abate as government begins to spend amounts of money that dwarf the New Deal in order to mobilize and arm the US, UK, USSR and other allies.

The New Deal wasn't successful because it didn't spend enough, not too much. Only the massive government spending that came with WWII forced the US to spend enough to move the country out of the Depression.


Name
Comment posted July 10, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

you could say the Dems have been trying out their 2010 strategy if NY20 &23 were such big targets and the Repugs are just now catching up(?)…


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted July 10, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

Please, put the moronic corrupt crooks and tail chasers of the GOP's Schickelgruber Bund back in charge of the country they already ruined. If Obama doesn't get off his shiny precious ass and start prosecuting the torturers and naming names on just who did what to the economy it will be no problem for the GOP to rebrand itself as “not the guys who wrecked the country” and shift blame to the milquetoast, sissy Democrats who did nothing when they had the chance.


Soapm
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 12:13 am

The republican's fail to acknowledge the stimulus that was passed has tax cuts for average American's and small businesses. The alternative they offered was going to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and cut taxes for corporations, not small businesses as they keep saying. If the Bush tax cuts were going to work, we wouldn't be in this mess since they are active now. If the easy fix for the economy and tax cuts for average Joe and small businesses, then the stimulus passed has that.

All of this talk about the stimulus and economy is to take American's focus off health care. The problem is it seems to be working. They believe if they can shift public attention from health care, then health care will loose the little steam it has getting through congress. I sure hope America wakes up and doesn't let this happen. We need health care reform and now.


susanai56
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 4:10 am

……..you missed the stamping of the feet.


swj
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 4:29 am

It's really simple, but I'll have to explain for those on the left.

When our money goes through the government, on the way to being spent, loads of bureaucracy are funded, and dubious projects, that no one but a moron would approve, get funded and called stimulus.

At the end of the day, when all the money is spent, no one will be able to point to any concrete evidence that our nation got diddly squat for all that money.

Do you people on the left, who trash business at every turn, actually believe that our prosperity (for 200+ years, even with the current difficulties) is somehow government's doing. Do you actually believe that handing more money over to bureaucrats will make us wealthier?? I know the answer, and find it astonishing. You people actually believe that government somehow produces wealth.

Remember you read it here. When unemployment hits 15% (early next year, I guarantee it), and so much productive capacity has been shut down permanently that the mere whiff of increased demand sends prices skyrocketing, you won't be able to blame Bush any more. Of course, you will try, but like the new person at work who takes over a mess, at some point around 9 months in, you can't blame the guy who got fired any more.

I'm no fan of much of what the Republicans did the past several years, but the crowd in there now is TRULY an embarassment. Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, Obama, Markey, Kerry, Boxer etc. If you actually think these people have a clue about running this nation, you're about to get a painful lesson.

This will, without a doubt, be one massive tidal wave of rejection for you and your crowd of treehuggers in 2010.

I can't wait.

PS: I'm prepared for all your venom, secure in the certainty that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Mark my words, this economy is going down bigtime, and the left WILL get their backsides kicked in, severely.


Guest
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 8:15 am

If the economy “goes down big time” (SWJ), it will rightly be put down to BushCo and his merry band of thieves. So 2010 will not bring the masses back into the Republican fold, no matter their message.

I feel your pain though.


evangelical
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 9:26 am

This is the end of the Democratic party. A new American concensus is about to be formed around the Republican party similar to that old concensus around the Democratic party which ended in 1994. 2/3rds of Americans say they are conservative and there is no such thing as a conservative Democrat anymore. The Democrats killed their party in the year 2009 believing it was time for a second progressive movement. They were wrong.


Dolmance
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

If you have to find a “message,” then you obviously haven't got one. Which is something I've never heard from a political party. I would have thought some core beliefs come first, then a message – and then the political party, and certainly not the other way around.

So let's see – the sanctimonious hypocrite prattling on about sexual mores isn't getting any traction, even though when a Republican gets caught each week or so cheating on his wife or soliciting sex in a public toilet, it becomes an occasion for Republican Party to proudly point to how guilty the miscreant feels as an example of their moral superiority. And the economic philosophy isn't working either, considering the Republican's rigid “free market,” and “greed is good,” ideology has ruined every financial instrument in the country, so that's not working either.

No, the GOP doesn't have a message. They have a desperate strategy. They're hoping they can use their media outlets to convince the American people that the Democrats are responsible for the pain associated with cleaning up the mess the Republicans made of everything.


Dolmance
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

Don't hold your breath.


Dolmance
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

The economy did go down big time. And as a particularly loathsome Republican said recently – “hunger is a wonderful motivator.”

Somehow parroting the nonsense from a bunch of religious fanatic hillbillies doesn't seem so seductive when you're wondering how you're going to put food on the table.


bruce_webb
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

The stupid! It burns!

The stimulus spending might be less effective than projected, and unemployment may be uncomfortably high heading into the 2010 elections. But a hell of a lot of whatever jobs there are next summer are going to be riding on federal government funding. And guess what a lot of the people holding those jobs are going to be eligible for unemployment again. Under those circumstance simply cutting off the stimulus throws even MORE people out of work while sticking the state and federal government with a huge unemployment tab.

I get that not everyone agrees with the Keynesian argument, even among those who think they actually understand it, but even those people who think all of this is just pork need to consider the reaction of the people collecting the paychecks at the time.

Plus exactly what we do with all the half-completed projects is a good question. The whole argument is moronic, maybe accounted for by the fact that the only people quoted in the story are politicians, pollsters, and political consultants. But then again this is the party that draws its expertise about FDRs stimulus spending effectiveness from a 'senior scholar' with a B.A. in English.


Micheline
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

Dean Baker should remember that 60% were in favor of the stimulus.


bruce_webb
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

“At the end of the day, when all the money is spent, no one will be able to point to any concrete evidence that our nation got diddly squat for all that money.”

True enough, because if you squint really, really hard you can't see either Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge to point to as concrete evidence. And I-95? Gosh that too must be a mirage.

I did a little exercise over at the web-site Angry Bear when the Senate Stimulus package was released. The series was called “Pick your Pork” and asked for actual examples from the actual bills that in dollar or percentage terms made up a major portion of the stimulus. The response?

Chirp.

Anyone who doesn't understand that the wealth of this country in large part rests on past public works spending is frankly a moron himself. As to “I can't wait”, well sorry all I can see is “wait and watch”. It is people like you that seized on the post election dip in the Dow as “Proof! Proof I tell you!” that we were on course for Dow 4000 by now. That somehow didn't happen.

I fully expect double digit unemployment and soon, but I don't see even many right wing economists predicting 15% and still less guaranteeing it. I do see a lot of bluster and bullshit though.


bruce_webb
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputSer…

I think some of the commenters downthread need to examine the numbers on the BLS page linked above. Obama economic planners before and after the election predicted their stimulus package if enacted would keep unemployment below 8%. Well it didn't and the reason is pretty clear, at the end of Dec. 2008 the rate was already up to 7.2%, by the end of January up to 7.6%, by February up to 8.1%. The President's Budget was not released until Mid-March and was not scored until the 20th.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/03/cbo-preli…
That is by the time we STARTED debating Obama's actual budget and stimulus plan we were ALREADY well over 8%. Arguments that say the plan was a failure because it didn't keep unemployment below the figure used in preliminary planning six months plus before actual legislation was introduced is just special pleading. Some people need a calender and/or some links to the BLS website.


Joe
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

Dems and their supporters ought to remember that Repugs had control of the whole government too and spent their way right out of it. Dems will too and do it with the same arrogance the GOP did. It's just too much power for hogs to have…

Americans understand frugality, desire it from their governments (federal, state and local) and they understand that government solutions always cost more than private sector ones. We have too big of a government, the Founders were violently against that and if you read your colonial history you will realize that is a true statement. Both sides need to shrink SIGNIFICANTLY, but won't until the people rise up and then it will be too late.

OK….go ahead hit me with your pithy little comments and go screw yourself…


evangelical
Comment posted July 11, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

I'll say it again, the Democratic party is dead. After 2009 Americans don't want to have anything to do with the liberals.


Soapm
Comment posted July 12, 2009 @ 12:20 am

I don't know if the Republican's can get America to forget who was in charge when the economy collapsed. I am sure the democrats will send out plenty of reminders during the next elections. I know they are adamant for Obama to stop blaming Bush and take ownership of this mess. Sure he is the president and it is his to fix but the out of control fall happened before he got the wheel.

I do believe, no one is forgetting who lead us into the great depression and now the greatest depression since the great depression. Now they are asking to be put back in charge with a promise to do better… Not this soon…


terrycsa
Comment posted July 12, 2009 @ 3:47 am

“…if the Republican's can get America to forget who was in charge when the economy collapsed”

Yep, we remember very well…a democrat controlled congress.


Soapm
Comment posted July 12, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

Yes, in 2006, America began dismantling the effects of the Bush tax cuts which sent America's jobs overseas, rose the cost of seniors medicines and began voting to do something instead of do nothing and lets see what happens.

We remember…


Mike
Comment posted July 12, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

Who can forget, now that we have the Internet:

Save Your Tax Rebate – You'll Need It
Bush has wiped out the budget surplus — now he's looking at Medicare and Social Security
If you get a tax rebate check this fall, consider yourself lucky. Many working families will get nothing from Bush's tax cut. And even though your $300 or $600 check is chump change compared to the million-dollar tax cuts that America's wealthiest families will realize, you'd better hang onto it.

Charles W. Jones
International President EmeritusYou're going to need every penny of it to start a retirement account or buy health insurance. President Bush's tax cut is his first step in a plan to take the “security” out of Social Security and the “care” out of Medicare. Workers retiring after 2020 will be the ones who get hurt the most, but all workers should pay close attention to what the White House is doing in these areas.

The problem is that Bush's tax cut and our economic slowdown have combined to completely eliminate the projected budget surplus. The surplus for 2001 will be only about $1 billion, not counting the Social Security surplus. A billion dollars may seem like a lot of money, but it is less than $4 for each American citizen. Not exactly savings you can count on in an emergency.

And even that billion-dollar figure is overstated. At the request of President Bush, the U.S. Treasury has changed its method for reporting the budget, shifting an additional $4.3 billion from the Social Security surplus to other government accounts. Without this accounting gimmick, the non-Social Security part of the budget would be in the red.

Keep this deceptive trick in mind when Bush claims his tax cut didn't force the government to dip into the Social Security surplus. They did. They just found a way to hide it.

Like his father, who, as president, oversaw the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, George W. Bush is determined to keep our country in the red. In less than nine months in office, he managed to reverse the trend toward surpluses that began appearing in 1998.

While many write off his penchant for red ink as incompetence, it is more likely part of a cunning plan to destroy Social Security, Medicare, and many other programs that help working families. Hints of the Bush administration's true agenda come from his advisers. He's too savvy a politician to tell the nation directly that he would like to dismantle our social insurance programs and make corporations exempt from federal taxes, but his lieutenants have been spreading that word.

An article this past May in The Nation magazine quoted Grover Norquist, a Bush spokesman and adviser, as saying his goal is “to cut government in half. To get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

I don't have to tell you what programs they will drown in the bathtub. They will start with Medicare and Social Security.

Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill said as much in an interview with the Financial Times. He said he is committed to abolishing corporate income tax and capital gains taxes, shifting the entire federal tax burden to wage earners.

He then proposed doing away with Medicare and Social Security, saying people should put money aside for their retirement and medical needs. That advice is easy to follow when you make $59 million a year, the amount O'Neill made last year as CEO of Alcoa. Working families live in a different world — a world where unexpected illnesses, layoffs, and other family emergencies can wipe out savings overnight.

We need the safety net of Medicare and Social Security.

During last year's election campaign, Bush promised not only to protect that safety net, but also to improve Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit. But now that he's squandered the surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich, there is no money left to do so. His prescription drug plan for Medicare is a joke — asking insurance companies to voluntarily sell low-cost plans to retirees.

His plan for Social Security is even worse — reducing benefits through privatization. A Congressional Research Office study shows that the added administrative costs of privatizing Social Security would reduce retirees' benefits anywhere from 4.7 to 10.8 percent for those workers who retire after 2020. Privatizing would cost $40 to $800 billion annually — mostly fees paid to financial managers; current administrative costs are less than $3 billion.

When you look at the long-term cost of the Bush tax cut, that tax rebate check seems awfully expensive.

If Bush continues to get his way, you'll need a lot more than $600 to get yourself back to even.

http://www.boilermakers.org/resources/commentar…


Monday weekend round-up « wrightandleftreport
Pingback posted July 13, 2009 @ 12:33 am

[...] this the GOP’s method to recapturing the house and [...]


terrycsa
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Hey Mike, It is 2009. Bush isn't president. You left wing loons elected a moron to office who quadrupled the deficit in less than 30 days.

Get help for your “Blame Bush” syndrome. Bush may have sucked, but this new bozo makes Jimmy Carter look smart and makes Marx look like a Candy Striper.

Get over your messiah worship and realize we have the worst politicians in office that we have ever had on both sides of the aisle.


Soapm
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 2:31 am

Now that the GOP worships Palin, I would think you guys would ease off the messiah comments. But hey, we can say the GOP has a messiah soon to be without a kingdom.


Mike
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 2:44 am

LOL – Did I get your white sheet in a twist? You elected the stupid brother,not the smart brother, you do know that, right.

Oh well, soon you'll die out.


evangelical
Comment posted July 13, 2009 @ 6:24 am

How do you not understand that the Democrats destroyed the Economy when they forced the real estate market to become vastly over-leveraged and created a huge artificial bubble?

How do you not know this you idiot.


Mike
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 1:11 am

maybe because I listened to Bush's June 17th 2002 speech in Atlanta, when he asked bankers to make it easier for for people to buy with out a proper downpayment, loosen the requirements that people had wages that would pay for the morgage, get rid of the “fine print” that stopped people form buying.

But don't forget, Wall Street was living off Credit Default Swops and Derivatives – if you think home loans have gone south, wait for CDS and Derivatives to totally collapse (and then ask your self why Phill Gramm and the other Republicans who wrote the legislation easing oversight of Wall Street FORBADE SEC oversight fo thodse financial instruments).

Here's Dubya's 2002 speech to the bankers meeting in Atlanta:

HOMES LOANS EASIER TO GET.
“Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a home ownership gap in America. The difference between Anglo America and African American and Hispanic home ownership is too big. (Applause.) And we've got to focus the attention on this nation to address this.And it starts with setting a goal. And so by the year 2010, we must increase minority home owners by at least 5.5 million. In order to close the homeownership gap, we've got to set a big goal for America, and focus our attention and resources on that goal. (Applause.)” –

Three-quarters of white America owns their homes. Less than 50 percent of African Americans are part of the homeownership in America. And less than 50 percent of the Hispanics who live here in this country own their home. And that has got to change for the good of the country. It just does. (Applause.)

And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment. And that's important.

One of the barriers to homeownership is the inability to make a downpayment. And if one of the goals is to increase homeownership, it makes sense to help people pay that downpayment. We believe that the amount of money in our budget, fully approved by Congress, will help 40,000 families every year realize the dream of owning a home. (Applause.) Part of the success of Park Place is that the city of Atlanta already does this. And we want to make the plan more robust. We want to make it more full all across America.

Secondly, there is a lack of affordable housing in certain neighborhoods. Too many neighborhoods, especially in inner city America, lack affordable housing units. How can you promote homeownership if people can't afford a home?

And so what I've done is propose what we call a Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, to encourage the development of affordable housing in neighborhoods where housing is scarce. (Applause.) Over five years, the initiative amounts to $2.4 billion in tax credits. And that will help. It will help a lot to build homes where people can — where when fully implemented, people will be able to say, I own my home.

A third major barrier is the complexity and difficulty of the home buying process. There's a lot of fine print on these forms. And it bothers people, it makes them nervous. And so therefore, what Mel has agreed to do, and Alphonso Jackson has agreed to do is to streamline the process, make the rules simpler, so everybody understands what they are — makes the closing much less complicated.

We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home. We can change the print, and we've got to. We've got to be wise about how we deal with the closing documents and all the regulations, but also wise about how we help people understand what it means to own their home and the obligations and the opportunities.
George Bush June 17, 2002 —–

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06…


Mike
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 1:12 am

ROFLMAO!


Mike
Comment posted July 14, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

You people actually believe that government somehow produces wealth.
================

Go study the history of government help in building the early canals, then later the railroads, then the Interstate Freeway system, all to help the Industrial Revolution get a firm grip here, then spread our industrial base to al lparts of the continent, then to expand the ease of movement of the goods, produce and peoplel within the United States.

Go study what DARPA does, go study how the government gave corporate America free access to the technology that came out of military reasearch paid for by our taxes and mostly given away for free).

Then go study how we the taxpayer, by increasing our taxes so that companies can have fewer taxes to pay, continue to support Corporate America.

Ask your self why haliburton, receiver of such largesse, is now incorporated OUTSIDE of America.

But first you must get an education so that you don't make such dumb statements as “You people actually believe that government somehow produces wealth” ever again.


LONE_STAR_TEXAN
Comment posted July 21, 2009 @ 4:41 am

When you disagree pull out the race card. That ship has sailed you nitwit.


Are the Democrats too liberal? « Geoff Robinson
Pingback posted August 23, 2009 @ 1:54 am

[...] tangled up with the case for an expansionary fiscal policy. Thus public opinion on the stimulus has become increasingly unfavourable and this has made further stimulus impracticable despite the strong macroeconomic case for this [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.