Today’s Q’s for O’s WH
EmailYunji de Nies: Nobody wants to fire teachers or firefighters or police officers. But what about the Republican complaint that this is just kicking the can down the road, that this is essentially pressing the snooze button on a problem that is inevitable?
MR. BURTON: I guess we just disagree with the premise that we have to inevitably let 160,000 teachers go; that we have to make our streets less safe by taking cops and firefighters off of them; that we can't help out some of these states to keep these jobs and to keep our economy growing.
This was done in the most fiscally responsible of ways. It's all paid for, in part by ending foreign tax cuts. And the president's view is that we've got to do all we can to keep people in their jobs and keep our economy growing. That's our charge right now when we're in this economic mess.
de Nies: There are a number of Republican governors that we've spoken to today who say they may not take the money. What do you say to that?
MR. BURTON: I would say that they should take any assistance that they can get to keep teachers in their classrooms. This is bigger than an ideological fight. It's bigger than just right-and-left politics.
When it comes to teaching our kids, it's about making our nation competitive in the long term. The president's speech yesterday, I think, was very important on this point. The president's speech yesterday I think is very important on this point. We cannot have a situation where America is continuing to decline as it relates to math and science and all the other different aspects. If we aren't continuing to excel, if we aren't graduating kids from college, we are going to be out-competed in the future. And the president just doesn't think that that's — just doesn't think that's right.
de Nies: Do you foresee other sort of emergency injections of money like this down the line? I mean, at what point does it stop? There are other priorities that could be just as important as keeping kids
in school. I mean, at some point you have to say, okay, some fiscal responsibility here.
MR. BURTON: Well, yeah, of course the president is for fiscal responsibility, and that's why he did this in such a way that this is all paid for. This does not add to the deficit. And it's critically important that people understand that. This is — this is a common-sense measure that's going to keep people in their jobs, that's going to keep teachers in the classroom, and it's going to help our economy.
de Nies: At the expense of people who are receiving food stamps.
MR. BURTON: I'm sorry?
de Nies: Some of the money is coming from not fully funding food stamps.
MR. BURTON: Well, I think that, you know, when you look at how the — how the money's broken down and where it goes, this money is going to go to the people who are effected the most by this lagging economy. And the lion's share of how this is paid for is the foreign tax cuts that were eliminated.
Ann, did you have a follow up on that?
Ann Compton: I had a follow-up. If a state like Illinois still has $670 million of education stimulus money that it's been allotted that it hasn't spent, why doesn't it use that money before you have to give it more?
MR. BURTON: Well, a lot of these — what we did was we looked at what was the most responsible way to repurpose some of the stimulus money. And in this specific case, there was an opportunity to pay for part of what we're doing with that money. Now, the vast majority of the stimulus has already been spent.
It's either out the door, or it's allocated to a specific project, or it's going to go out in the form of a tax cut that people are going to get in their paycheck. We don't think that we should turn any of that around. We can't take one job-creation program and eliminate it at the — and create it at the expense of another that we're eliminating. We need to build on the progress that we're making.
So, in this case, we think that we've found the right formula to do this in the most fiscally responsible way.
Compton: Just the figures that Illinois still has $670 million, West Virginia has $274 million unspent in the education money that they've already been given.
MR. BURTON: I'm not necessarily disputing those numbers. I haven't seen specifically where those numbers come from.
Compton: Congressional offices.
MR. BURTON: But I will say that, you know, in this specific case, what we're concerned about — what we're focused on is making sure that this money is being spent in the most responsible way; that we are making sure that we're not eliminating some program at the expense of another.
So, like I said, I don't know where you got that specific number from. I don't necessarily doubt it. But what we need to do is make sure that we're not eliminating something just because maybe the money's still in the bank account, but it hasn't been spent on the specific program that it's allocated for, at the expense of another program.
###
Biden Reflects on Grief, Suicidal Thoughts 
Is Congress Sounding Dumber?
..that line is stolen from the POTUS.. kicking the can down the road..
Posted by: Dontget818 | August 10, 2010, 4:04 pm 4:04 pm
Obama is basically using tax payer money to underwite the jobs of union members that supported him in the election.Where is the support for the private sector who actually create new jobs and is the engine for the rest of the economy?
Posted by: bobmac | August 10, 2010, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
Compton: Just the figures that Illinois still has $670 million, West Virginia has $274 million unspent in the education money that they’ve already been given.
Burton: So, like I said, I don’t know where you got that specific number from. I don’t necessarily doubt it. But what we need to do is make sure that we’re not eliminating something just because maybe the money’s still in the bank account, but it hasn’t been spent on the specific program that it’s allocated for, at the expense of another program.
In other words, it doesn’t matter if they still have money, the Democrats HAD to do this to kiss the butts of Labor Unions. After all, it is election season. Pitiful.
Posted by: Shoe | August 10, 2010, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm
“I guess we just disagree with the premise that we have to inevitably let 160,000 teachers go; that we have to make our streets less safe by taking cops and firefighters off of them; that we can’t help out some of these states to keep these jobs and to keep our economy growing. ”
You know it is amazing but with answers like these you would think that the governments only funds teachers, firemen and police officers. Why it wouldn’t be prudent apparently to reduce other services, those other services are essential, even though we never hear about them. Which is why politicians (especially liberal ones) always go right to the cuts that generate the most press and get the most sympathy from the uninformed masses. That way those in power get to keep everything and merely put off the tough decisions until later. what a joke.
Posted by: J.R. | August 10, 2010, 5:58 pm 5:58 pm
The Leaders of our country have no spine. Or basic understanding of 8th grade math.
Posted by: Aaron | August 10, 2010, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm
Where’s Dilbert today?
Great questions from Ms. de Nies and Ms. Compton.
Can anyone credibly argue that this is NOT a not a “bail-out” (or pay-out) for the teacher’s and government employee unions?
So this will be paid “in part by ending foreign tax cuts”. Great thinking, cut profits to companies in a time of double-digit employment. These “progressive” Democrats are fiscal geniuses.
Posted by: tjp612 | August 10, 2010, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
tjp612 wrote:”Can anyone credibly argue that this is NOT a not a “bail-out” (or pay-out) for the teacher’s and government employee unions?”
.
Why stop at bail-out or pay-out… this is just a super-large taxpayer funded bribe. More money is going to find its way into Democrat campaign coffers this way than through another shot of stimulus money…. and surprise…just in time for the November elections.
Posted by: gk | August 10, 2010, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
“Why stop at bail-out or pay-out… this is just a super-large taxpayer funded bribe”
So $26 billion is a super large bribe eh? What do you call Bush’s multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the richest Americans?
Posted by: Skip | August 10, 2010, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm
skip, hey we’re not talking about Bush! Get over it! Obama wanted the job and he got it. It is time for all you liberals to stop the whining and start working. Everytime Obama does something stupid you all say “well Bush did this” When do you guys start holding Obama responsible for his own failings? how’s that summer of recovery going for ya?
Posted by: whatsgoingonhere? | August 10, 2010, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
“hey we’re not talking about Bush!”
I am. You’re not going to foist a multi-trillion dollar giveaway to the wealthy on the middle-class and then cry like babies about 26 billion for folks like teachers policemen and firefighters and expect us to just conveniently forget about it.
Posted by: Skip | August 10, 2010, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
You’re not going to foist a multi-trillion dollar giveaway to the wealthy on the middle-class and then cry like babies about 26 billion for folks like teachers policemen and firefighters and expect us to just conveniently forget about it.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 9:57:29 PM
Skip, letting people keep their own money is not a “giveaway”. Tax cuts do not “cost” anything. Stop perverting the language…
Only spending programs have a “cost”. It’s not the government’s money, so letting people keep more of it is not giving them anything.
Giving means taking money from one group and providing it to another. No where in the Constitution, the social contract that binds us together, is there any power for the Government to seize the money of one citizen and give it to another…
Don’t push it too far… if that social contract is finally broken… who knows what will follow…?
Posted by: Quo Warranto? | August 10, 2010, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
“letting people keep their own money is not a “giveaway”
Why don’t you just stop paying your electric bill then and offer that explanation to the collection agency.
Posted by: Skip | August 10, 2010, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm
Why don’t you just stop paying your electric bill then and offer that explanation to the collection agency.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 10:36:08 PM
Really, Skip, my electric bill concerns service received… for which I am happy to pay…
Taking my money and giving to others in exchange for letting me keep my freedom is more like armed robbery…
Get a grip…
Posted by: Quo Warranto? | August 10, 2010, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
“my electric bill concerns service received”
Yes right-wingers like to pretend self-righteously that they don’t rely on government protections and services in order to be able to generate their wealth. It’s the pinnacle of arrogance, and utter baloney. Those government services have costs and you are obligated to help pay those costs.
Posted by: Skip | August 10, 2010, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
What do you call Bush’s multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the richest Americans?
Posted by: Skip |
Intact. Why don’t your people raise them? Cojones deficit?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | August 10, 2010, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
“my electric bill concerns service received”
Yes right-wingers like to pretend self-righteously that they don’t rely on government protections and services in order to be able to generate their wealth. It’s the pinnacle of arrogance, and utter baloney. Those government services have costs and you are obligated to help pay those costs.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 10:51:24 PM
Au contraire, cher ami, I do depend on the Government for services called out in the Constitution… for the Common Defense, for example, that would be the Military… I also depend on them to control immigration, but they have been sorely wanting in that area…
The Federal Government has absolutely no business acting in many of the areas it is now acting…
The State are the proper venue for much of what the Feds are doing… think about how much more diverse our country would be it the Feds would stand down and let our states assume their proper role.
That will happen, sooner or later.. wait for it…
Posted by: Quo Warranto? | August 10, 2010, 11:03 pm 11:03 pm
“The Federal Government has absolutely no business acting in many of the areas it is now acting…”
That is a matter of opinion which we will ultimately decide in the voting booth. However your allegations of perfidious theft by taxes have no more philosophical validity than complaining your electric company is robbing you because they charge you too much and you don’t like the services. I realize they sometimes give away electricity to poor people too and you probably think it’s so unfair.
Posted by: Skip | August 10, 2010, 11:21 pm 11:21 pm
That is a matter of opinion which we will ultimately decide in the voting booth. However your allegations of perfidious theft by taxes have no more philosophical validity than complaining your electric company is robbing you because they charge you too much and you don’t like the services. I realize they sometimes give away electricity to poor people too and you probably think it’s so unfair.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 11:21:32 PM
I never said my electric company charges me too much… that is something I can control… if it costs too much, and it does, I can cut my consumption, and I do…
And why should an electric company take money from one consumer and give it to another based on income…
If a poor person needs aid… he should get it from a willing donor, not rely on theft.
Posted by: Quo Warranto? | August 10, 2010, 11:34 pm 11:34 pm
“If a poor person needs aid… he should get it from a willing donor, not rely on theft”
If somebody receives assistance from a utility it means they asked for help [applied for it] and it was given. There is no theft of any kind involved in the transaction.
Posted by: Skip | August 10, 2010, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
If somebody receives assistance from a utility it means they asked for help [applied for it] and it was given. There is no theft of any kind involved in the transaction.
Posted by: Skip | Aug 10, 2010 11:57:11 PM
You are confusing “applied for it” and “was given” with “paid for it” and “received it”…
If anyone is provided service they did not pay for, someone else did… either the ratepayers under mandate from the State Utilities Commission, or indirectly through taxes in terms of subsidies to the electric company, or in terms of welfare to the eventual recipient… probably all three…
Electric companies should be providing electricity… not charity… let the charities provide charity… they do it better and more justly…
Posted by: Quo Warranto? | August 11, 2010, 12:43 am 12:43 am
Great questions, and followup questions keep it up MSM!
Posted by: Downwithsocialism | August 11, 2010, 9:36 am 9:36 am
bobmac, how is Obama using tax payer money when the dollars for this bill is coming from ending foreign tax cuts? (I’d like to know who approved the foreign tax cuts in the first place.)
And how dumb can anyone be to think it is a good idea to lay off teachers, police and firemen, all doing essential services?
This recession won’t last forever but it is important to not lay off people, as that could very well extend it.
Also, there was an interesting study that showed companies that did big layoffs recovered slower than companies making the same products, that didn’t do big layoffs. Worker moral can make or break a company. Apparently layoffs not only demoralize those left, wondering if they are next, these workers must pick up the slack, which exhausts them, leading the best workers to seek employment elsewhere at the first opportunity, many of them going to competitors.
Too many conservatives can’t see the forest for the trees.
Posted by: Lydia | August 11, 2010, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
If there is a greater supply of college graduates, what’s the likely effect on the income of college graduates?
If people want to go to college, they should go. But it’s not the government’s job to say how many people should hold a college degree. And it’s certainly not the government’s job to take money from Joe the Plumber and give it to someone who may never earn a living commensurate with his degree.
Posted by: Lightduty | August 11, 2010, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm
“And it’s certainly not the government’s job to take money from Joe the Plumber”
Sam the Plumber’s helper was a tax cheat on welfare.
Though its a great illustration of how the right wing’s hero is complete fraud.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 11, 2010, 7:36 pm 7:36 pm
Sam the Plumber’s helper was a tax cheat on welfare.
Though its a great illustration of how the right wing’s hero is complete fraud.
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 11, 2010 7:36:50 PM
::::::::::::::::::::::::
And that’s a prime example of how liberal kool-aid drinkers lie. Joe the Plumber wasn’t a tax cheat at all. He owed a small amount of back taxes, as many many people do. That’s not a tax cheat, not like the left’s hero Geithner, who ANNUALLY signed papers swearing that the EXTRA income he was paid specifically to cover his taxes would be used to pay those taxes, and then he never paid them, for several years. So for the left, that made Geithner the only person qualified to deal with the entire nations economic problems, ‘uniquely qualified’ – but Joe the Plumber gets vilified for owing a small amount of back property taxes. Really good logic there, Ryan C. And by the way, can’t you guys get it thru your heads that there are people who actually go by their middle names rather than their first name? Are you really that thick?
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | August 11, 2010, 8:15 pm 8:15 pm
“Joe the Plumber wasn’t a tax cheat at all.”
Sam the plumber’s helper was a tax cheat to the point the state issued a lien.
Enjoys welfare but hates socialism.
He’s the right wing poster boy.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 12, 2010, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm
Sam the plumber’s helper was a tax cheat to the point the state issued a lien.
Enjoys welfare but hates socialism.
He’s the right wing poster boy.
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 12, 2010 2:40:20 PM
:::::::::::::::::::
I have no idea what ‘helper’ you are referring to. Joe the Plumber had a tax lien – they’re not that uncommon, and its not being a ‘cheat’ its being LATE on your payment. The official in charge of that lien stated that there was a 99% chance that he had no idea there even WAS a lien. Nor have I seen anywhere that he was on welfare – he was earning over $40K/year. You’re just pulling this stuff out of your… thin air.
Posted by: Who Wants to Know | August 12, 2010, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm