EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Asks for $50 Billion in Additional Stimulus for Local, State Aid
In the clearest indication yet that the White House believes the economy needs more stimulus to keep the recovery going, President Barack Obama sent a letter to the Congressional leadership of both parties, begging that they add into upcoming bills measures to keep poor people on their health insurance and aid struggling state and local budgets.
President Barack Obama makes remarks in Washington June 11, 2010. In the clearest indication yet that the White House believes the economy needs more stimulus to keep the recovery going, President Barack Obama sent a letter to the Congressional leadership of both parties, begging that they add into upcoming bills measures to keep poor people on their health insurance and aid struggling state and local budgets.(REUTERS/Jim Young) In the long, four-page letter, Obama says that “we are at a critical
juncture in our nation’s path to economic recovery,” and that more
support must be given to the economy in upcoming bills before Congress.
Specifically, Obama wants Congress to pass a $6-8 billion measure to
extend the 65% subsidy for COBRA eligibles, so jobless Americans can
keep the health insurance provided by their former employer. He wants
$23 billion in FMAP funding to go to the states so they don’t have to
cut back on their Medicaid rolls. Both of these measures were cut from
the tax extenders/jobs package in the House, a concession to Blue Dogs
nervous about short-term deficits.
In addition, Obama calls on Congressional leaders to include $25 billion for state education and public safety jobs for state and local governments in the war supplemental. The Senate passed that bill in late May without the state aid, and while House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey has vowed to include it in his version of the bill, he has wavered in recent days, talking about cutting back the $25 billion to $10 billion. Finally, Obama touts the Home Star program of rebates for energy efficiency audits of commercial and residential buildings, and his $30 billion small business lending fund which he promoted in a speech this week. He does nod to some of his medium-term measures, like the budget freeze on discretionary spending, and the bank tax to pay for TARP losses, selling off federal property and expediting rescissions to the budget (a form of the line-item veto).
Here’s an excerpt from the letter, which should leave no doubt about the attitude in the White House, that the recovery is perilous without emergency measures:
I am concerned, however, that the lingering economic damage left by the financial crisis we inherited has left a mounting employment crisis at the state and local level that could set back the pace of our economic recovery. Because this recession has been deeper and more painful than any in 70 years, our state and local governments face a vicious cycle. The lost jobs and foreclosed homes caused by this financial crisis have led to a dramatic decline in revenues that has provoked major cutbacks in critical services at the very time our Nation’s families need them most. Already this year, we have lost 84,000 jobs in state and local governments, a loss that was cushioned by the substantial assistance provided in the Recovery Act. And while state and local governments have already taken difficult steps to balance their budgets, if additional action is not taken hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost.
That’s about as clear as you can get. Obama only withholds the fact that the kind of assistance necessary to the crisis in state and local budgets was originally present in the Recovery Act, but Ben Nelson, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter deleted $100 billion from the final cost on a whim and to look moderate. Most of that money came from state and local governments, leaving those “moderates” directly responsible for that job loss.
Rather than lament this, the Administration at least recognizes the need for action. He notes that allowing hundreds of thousands more layoffs just adds more costs in automatic stabilizers like unemployment and job training, as well as lowered demand for goods that can no longer be afforded, and lower tax revenue as jobs vanish. “That is why the actual cost of saving state and local jobs is likely to be 20 to 40 percent below their budgetary cost,” Obama writes.
So far, the President has not been able to persuade lawmakers of the importance of more stimulus in the short term to just maintain, let alone further, economic recovery. But this is the strongest statement yet, clarifying what some Congressional aides have considered mixed signals on deficit reduction and job creation. Here, the President is affirmatively asking for over $50 billion dollars in new stimulus.
The next move would be in the Senate, where the tax extenders bill is on the floor. But Senate leadership has not rounded up 60 votes, and while they’ve re-inserted the FMAP funding, the COBRA subsidy has only been offered as an amendment.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

27 Comments so far
Show AllActually, teachers, firefighters and Cobra benefits have nothing to do with corporate interests... Quite the opposite. These investments actually give the most bang for the buck.
Sorry, but this is where stimulus money should always have gone. I wonder if any of it is avaialbe for public transit syatems? Our system is in near collpase due to republican refusal to enact even the most common sense taxes.
Obama begs... there's your problem right there!
Some day, I guess not under this President, we are going to have to quit spending money we don't have. It is not going to get easier. The longer we wait, the bigger the fall is going to be.
Stimulate the rapid exodus of current corrupt, in for life, politicians by not voting R or D.
Any 3rd party or write in your own name.
This should have been at the beginning. Many economists said that bailing out the states at the beginning would have eased a lot of pain, but that if Obama came back later asking for this money it was unlikely to happen. In other words, the first stimulus had to be big and had to be meaningful, otherwise the chances of getting more would be nil. This is what we're seeing today.
Fifty billion dollars, half going to 65% subsidies? What happens when costs rise again? Will he beg for a $100 billion so that half of that can go to cover those subsidies? Didn't some incompetent say of the last round of stimulus that that would be all and the unemployment wouldn't get higher than 10%? What did this guy learn in college?
To speak of economic recovery is already a lie.
There won't be one. Peak oil is not going away, and the phrase 'peak oil' is a shorthand way of saying, among other things, that the era of cheap oil is over.
Without cheap energy, no economic recovery, no return to the good old days of the wasteful use of our energetic resources. Henceforth, the holy economy will be exhibiting chaotic patterns, ups and downs, just as the stock market and the price of oil have already been doing. After some years of ups and downs, there will come the time of gradual and irreversible decline.
Only one solution: get local, get a vegetable garden, chickens and bees, save money, stop consuming as if there were no limit to consumption, get out of the stock market if you have investments, move to a small scale city or town if you live in a big city, encourage your children to choose farming as a life, live green, do local community organizing, forget about the federal government (it's a hopeless nest of corruption on a suicidal course), get a bicycle, get horses, reintroduce horse drawn vehicles, et cetera.
Briefly stated, the Amish were right all along.
Reading I recommend: "The Long Emergency" by James Kunstler; "The Long Descent" by Michael Greer; any book by Richard Heinberg and, especially, his monthly online Museletter; "When Technology Fails: A Manual for Self Reliance and Planetary Survival" by Matthew Stein; Chris Martenson's blog and course on his Web site; "Out of Gas" by David Goodstein (physicist); "The Way of Ignorance" by Wendell Berry or any of his other books of essays.
"move to a small scale city or town if you live in a big city,"
Actually, my carbon footprint was deeply reduced - and access to local produce greatly increased, by moving TO the big city.
It is the small cities and towns across the vast swath of the US midwest and west, which are unsustainable, completely car-and-big-box dependent, and one cannot find local produce anywhere.
Om witch ya dare. (Brooklyn)
Joe
Did anyone see the Robin Hood Movie that recently came out? I didn't, but ya know, it brings to mind a really interesting idea. I wonder how far the excess money of the uber- rich and just regular rich would go if we got our hands on it and started distributing. I mean, it's not like they really worked for all of that money. There pay rate is grossly overated.
This comment would probably make a lot of them very angry. I guess it gives them further excuse to hire Black Water.
Where are you when we need you Little John, Friar Tuck, Maid Marian and Pretty Boy Floyd?
Joe
I think the Amerikkkan government is spending about $12 billion per month in its never-ending wars. Barry proposes giving the jobless table scraps while he allows the MIC to feast. How about we bring all the troops home and use that money to build green jobs in our own country?
Agreed.
Joe
I second that.
The have noticed that the suits at the American Enterprise think tank and such are increasing their rants against "big government". To them big government never means trillions in military spending for pointless wars, 800 military bases worldwide or generous subsidies to megabusiness. Big government never means a government with the ability to spy on everyone, operate without respect for standards of justice and pay for the imprisonment of over 2 million citizens, more than any other country in the world. Big government never refers to the disbursement of hundreds of billions to banks and brokers without any public accounting to the citizenry.
To them big government means any health, safety and environmental requlations that cramp the style of enterprises like the energy giants.
They also keep repeating the need to get rid of "entitlements", by which they mean any benefit that was ever won by ordinary people and has not yet been taken back.
They do not really want smaller government. They just want everything in government to be designed to assist their class. They like the government money that flows to military profiteering. They want the government to help suppress competition and to punish anyone who challenges them.
These are the arguments that will be made against things like helping laid off people with health insurance. These are the arguments that so-called conservatives* will make even against the tepid assistance that Obama is proposing to cool the fires of public discontent. We cannot accept these false arguments for one minute. Tell them where they can put those arguments.
*I say so-called conservatives, meaning hugely hypocritical and self-serving conservatives. Consistent conservatives would be against all big government spending, not just that which helps ordinary people.
Joe
Spot on!
We saved Wall Street billionaires. Stimulus is now needed to put ordinary people back to work.
Its been a while since I read Zinns " A peoples History of the United States" but I do recall him citing a letter by Helen Keller. She was writing to a person fighting for womans suffrage in England and in it she mentions the situation in the USA..
She points out (this is 1910 therebouts) that men having the Vote in The USA made no real difference as all they had to choose from was a different head of the same beast.
She then pointed out that in Britain some 200,000 people controlled over 90 percent of that countries wealth and that the rest of the 40 million had to settle for the remaining 10 percent.
She then mused..."What good did/does having the right to vote do for the millions of men that DO vote in England"?
Thats 100 years ago and nothing has changed...save women can now vote in both the US and Britian...
Is there really any wisdom in attempting to rescue this corrupt economic system? Since we all must learn to live within the limits of sustainability, why not do it now. Capitalism is a dead corpse. It failed. It's time to move on.
Are 32 states bankrupt?
California ($6.9 billion borrowed), Michigan ($3.9 billion), and New York ($3.2 billion)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19292
Is the federal government doing a shadow bailout of these states by covering their unemployment benefit obligations?
What's wrong with that? That's what should have been done from the beginning.