This is even more egregious, in that Democrats are trying to stimulate the government, and not the economy!

These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.

We're on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we've borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.

We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they've got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.

Businesses aren't stupid. They're not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What's needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.

Fourth, if we're going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.

There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing -- from the budget deficit and from the stimulus -- world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won't be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

And finally, let's exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?

n/t

This is not an interpetation concern, it is clear and in black and white . It applies to DC, as well as Puerto Rico, US VI, etc.

Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…

Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) [The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.]…

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular VoteRatified 4/8/1913.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Rep. Tom Price can make the point crystal clear for you.

Listen, they have a District of Columbia Committee in the House.

No, I think 535 representatives is quite enough.

People are not anti-American because they disagree with your view of the Constitution or the limitations of government.

That needs to be said to every idealogue in the country..... .but mainly to conservatives, because they are the ones that 99% of the time throw out the "anti-American" label at those that disagree with them.

I think Red_Wing is misinformed and wrong-headed in his views... but I would never use the words un-American, unpatriotic, anti-American, or traitor to describe him.  

But the right in this country has no qualms about calling those that disagree with them "traitors".  And that kind of bullshit needs to stop.

...absurdity.

Because he is not a global warming neophyte, he can not tell the difference between true productive spending, and crap? Nonsense.

This stinker of a legislative boondoggle's stench is everywhere, pick your poison.

You may not use Mao, yet, but you might consider it, because certainly no voice from the left has made any other reasonable argument defending $750B worth of  excrement, or explains why, in a time of national crisis, we are not putting any stimulus - in our stimulus bill.

But instead, like the good little sheep that you are, you're justifying the borrowing of yet another trillion + dollars from China, the printing of even more soon to be worthless money, and for what, to expand our government, create even more federal programs, inrease long term federal spending, grow the national debt... and unltimately manifesting even bigger problems for the economy.

What are you thinking? You're not, at least not for yourself.

Anyway...bad mouthing conservatives is your pastime, and we understand that, but at a minimum back it up with some facts and figures (I realize that's the problem for you on this one), make a case for your position, that, or piss off back to where you came from. Perferably the latter. ;-)

is the crux of the issue.

"Any money the government spends is stimulus"

So very wrong, but it seems so common-sensical to you, doesn't it?  And it has the added appeal of being emotionally satisfying.   I don't know how to get past that with you, nor anyone else here who is caught up in the romantic idea that this $trillion is going to save jobs and minimize upheaval and has to be passed right-this-second or the world will end.  That we're going to be able to have our cake and eat it too.  Better writers than I have tried. 

We've spent a trillion on Iraq, and that "stimulus" has certainly saved our economy, hasn't it?  /end satirical attempt at exposition.

At this point, it's moot.   Some type of gargantuan spending bill will pass using this crisis as political cover and we will all just have to wait for the future to reveal itself. 

n/t

If taking your money or property and giving it to me benefitted all citizens equally, then it would fall under "common welfare", no?

That's the problem with reading that clause in that way.  I can make the case that food stamps benefits us all; therefore, it is constiutional.  In fact, I can make the case that any government program benefits us all; therefore any government program is constitutional.

The astute reader will notice that I dropped the word "equally" from the phrase "benefits us all equally".  No government program benefits us all equally, not even the military.  Being from a small town, I can safely say that the military benefits people from large cities and other targets of strategic value more than it does the people from my home town.

You also made the case that endangered species protection is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.  That's actually a very good defense of any collectivist program of which you can think.  I didn't know you were such a bleeding heart, RW! :-)

...more interested in party than country.

Not that the Dems were any better during Bush's years.... 

As for this:

For Republicans to support the stimulus would be for them to throw away their only good shot at a comeback.

Maybe their "comeback" should be predicated on them bringing their views more in line with the American people's instead of wishing for Obama and the Democrats to fail.

The American people sent them a clear message in the last election... and they're not getting the message.

They're turning into the Whig party before our very eyes.

 The best tact for the GOP would be to try and broaden their base.

 Here's a bit of a jolt for those that favor going further right, or think that not supporting American Job recovery by being obstructionist on the stimulus is clever.

 A letter to Rush Limbaugh from John Feehery who worked in the Republican Leadership who castigates Rush rather sarcastically for all the 'good' he is doing for the party.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18564.html

Ouch.