The $825 billion package slated for a House vote later this week will exceed more than $1.1 trillion when adding in the interest ($300 plus billion) between 2009-2019 to pay for it
A pretty feeble point, especially given it was bush who presided over huge deficits that means the government needs to borrow lots more to fund a fiscal stimulus. No details given on whether inflation was factored in, if so what inflation rate was used, or the interest rate for the money borrowed - will it be on a fixed rate for the 10 years, or has one been assumed and if so what rate was used?
The Capitol Hill Democrats’ plan includes funding for contraceptives
No mention of how much (unless it was buried away in the linked article). Besides government funding for contraceptives isn't necessarily a bad thing - it can help reduce the rates of STD's, thus improving the health of the population. It also encourages couples to wait until they can cope with a baby before getting pregnan (which probably means they'll be more likely to have sufficient income to provide for that child and thus not be reliant on state handouts, and also less likely to have to abandon education to see to the child, thus meaning the skills of the nation improve slightly, meaning it's in turn a slight investment in the future)
The legislation could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups
Could? Not very specific, suggesting it's put in to allow a more sensationalist 'fact'
Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats’ proposal:
Don't know enough about the digital TV coupons to comment either way. Maybe it's a program to give poor households plasma TVs, or maybe it's funding to help the switchover between analogue and digital tv. The latter could have some merit. New cars - are they energy efficient? If so then this is a nice investment in the future. No details are given as to the current level of spending on replacement cars for the government either, or whether this figure is ontop of such levels. Money for colleges/universities - on what, bursary funds, or improvements to the colleges+universities? The latter is an investment in the future, focusing on improving the skills of the workforce, helping improve their productivity/earning potential, meaning a healthier long term economy (and increased tax revenues from those workers helping to pay for some of the money spent). Repairs: Well you'd hope things would get repaired rather than left to collapse and cost even more to then fix. Without knowing the specifics of this it's difficult to see just how much of this would be cost efficient repairs, and what wouldn't be. Regardless in the context of the overall amount it's a tiny tiny figure, as is the arts funding.
The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion
So? If those government programs achieve stuff worth roughly that amount of money, then what's the issue?
The plan provides spending in at least 150 different federal programs, ranging from Amtrak to the Transportation Security Administration. Is this the “targeted” plan Democratic leaders promised?
Shouldn't the key focus be on getting the most effective plan, rather than getting the plan that provides spending to the fewest amount of federal programs?
Even though the legislation contains at least 152 separate spending proposals, the authors of the plan can only say that 34 have any chance at keeping or growing jobs
I'd prefer a reference to this point since it sounds like a potential twisted and/or out of context point. If the government flew over a neighbourhood and dropped bags of money randomly it would have a chance at keeping or growing jobs. If the government decided to throw billions of dollars into providing free contraceptives it would have a chance at keeping or growing jobs.
Just one in seven dollars of an $18.5 billion expenditure on “energy efficiency” and “renewable energy programs” would be spent within the next 18 months
The author(s) seem to be struggling to make up their mind. In point 1 they seem to be attacking spending a ton of money now (via borrowing) due to the interest costs. Now they seem to be attacking spreading out that spending/borrowing over time.
9-12: 4 different ways of just saying $825bn.
13: Something tells me that more things might come under the transport+infrastructure category than just roads+highways spending.
Don't have time to cover the rest, although I thought point 16 was amusing - $22.3bn is a "scant" amount when it's for small businesses, while $44m for repairs is singled out in an earlier point (presumably as an example of an excessive amount).
