There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don't believe his is a "stimulus plan" at all -- I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This "porkulus" bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects -- schools, roads, bridges -- is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.

Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there's an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It's important to remember that it's the people's money, not Washington's.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, "I won. I'm going to trump you on that."

Yes, elections have consequences. But where's the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the {this} Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.

I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.

In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy -- and if elements of both work, so much the better. The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn't know the difference. This is about jobs now.

The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let's stop the acrimony. Let's start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?

Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Good ole USA!

But tax rebates for illegal immigrants, big bucks to ACORN, and birth-control are wonderful stimulus items.

Only ten per cent of the “stimulus” to be spent on 2009.

Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions.

This bill is sent to Congress after Obama has been in office for seven days. It is 680 pages long. According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote. Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for President Obama to have read the entire bill.

For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.

We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.

For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.

We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.

Right.

Giving illegals money in their pockets, hell, they're gonna go buy TVs and automobiles, right? I guess they'll stop sending the money back to Mexico like so many do now, right, Venen?

Regardless, the Dems removed those bits from the bill to appease Republicans. None of whom ended up voting for the bill anyway.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (”LCCR”) is a far left interest group.

The group opposed conservative judges. The group agitates for card check. The group is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. It is chiefly an agitator for affirmative action programs and tries to pressure banks into giving high risk loans like those that caused the housing crisis. If you oppose them, they label you a racist.

LCCR operates like ACORN. And the Senate Democrats are about to give the $90 million of your money.

Under the cover of the digital television conversion delay, the Senate Democrats want to give the LCCR $90 million.

On page 38 of the Senate version of the stimulus, under the section “Digital-to-Analog Converter Program”, the Senate carves out “$90,000,000.00 . . . for education and out-reach, including grants to organizations for programs to educate vulnerable populations, including senior citizens, minority communities, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people living in rural areas, about the transition.”

Sounds innocuous. Here’s the catch:

The program is managed by the Department of Commerce. And the Department of Commerce gave access to the DTV education money to only two groups exclusively: the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) and the LCCR’s Education Fund.: the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) and the LCCR’s Education Fund.

Here’s where it gets funny. Each group is now only getting about $2 million.

The Senate believes it needs to give $90 million more — and only these organizations will be able to get their hands on the money. Only these two groups — one group that helps senior citizens and one group whose members were Democrat foot soldiers in 2008 and, with the “administrative costs” they’ll be able to take in overhead, will be well funded for coming elections.

Even if legitimate, and it's not - 90 million for digital TV conversion? Venen, I'm breathlessly awaiting your reasoning for how that helps the economy

This could be a fun game.. maybe we could do a scheduled webcast. Kind of like AskaNinja, but with you, instead of the ninja. I honestly think you're capable of explaining any spending as a way to stimulate the economy. Quick, your thoughts on the effect of forming a government-sponsored underwater basketweaving department...?

Only $4 billion of the $30 billion allocation for highway improvements and $3 billion of the $18 billion for renewable energy would be spent by 2011. Meanwhile, the measure provides $16 billion in grants for college students; $6 billion for colleges and universities; $4 billion for local law enforcement; $3 billion for a “prevention and wellness fund”; $2.1 billion for Head Start; $1 billion for community development block grants; $726 million for after-school snacks; $650 million in subsidies to help people buy digital televisions; $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. These provisions have almost nothing to do with short-term economic stimulus.

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. (lol)

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Obama also promised a more intensive effort to weed inefficient and bloated programs out of the federal budget in the short run, creating a White House position to "scour this budget, line by line, eliminating what we don't need, or what doesn't work, and improving the things that do."

"If we do nothing," Obama said, "then we will continue to see red ink as far as the eye can see."

I've lived in a number of small New England towns, and one or two employers tend to be the lifeblood. If "the plant" closes, the entire town or possibly region suffers beyond the initial job losses, as restaurants, retailers, etc. lose business as well.

White Southerner and Rich People Party

Sarissa, I think that what we're witnessing is the political equivalent of a geek who finally manages to land his first girlfriend and goes crazy engaging in embarassing PDAs. The Dems are giddy with anticipation after years of being thwarted by Republicans and tossing in everything they can think of. Most of them have never been in a Dem majority with a Dem President.

I guess as a Democrat, I consider it embarassing but inevitible. Unfortunately, the new and improved White Southerner and Rich People Party has alienated so much of Main Street that they can't put up a really effective opposition. There's probably a shitload of crap that could/should be stripped out of the bill. But who is going to do it?

Unfortunately, the new and improved White Southerner and Rich People Party has alienated so much of Main Street that they can't put up a really effective opposition.

Much of the $550 billion in spending is divided among these areas: $142 billion for education, $111 billion for health care, $90 billion for infrastructure, $72 billion for aid and benefits, $54 billion for energy, $16 billion for science and technology, and $13 billion for housing.

There isn't a single Republican in the House of Representatives from New England. The delegations from the West Coast and the Midwest shrunk. The GOP elected officials of 2009 are predominantly white, and predominantly southern, mountain west, and plains states. How is it "injecting race" to state the obvious?

It's pretty sad that want to talk about the impact of race rather than shoving it under the carpet is considered an "obsession."

I have no idea where you got the concept that I was looking to debate race.