Tuesday, Sep 28
M. President, I rise today to discuss something I regret. I regret that Democrats have allowed the word "stimulus" to become a dirty word, one we avoid using. The President spoke a few weeks ago about his new plan to invest $50 billion in new infrastructure-projects that will improve safety and transportation. But he never once mentioned the words "stimulus" or "recovery." And that was probably a smart move on his part. Because frankly, the stimulus has gotten a bad rap. But this is a reputation that it absolutely does not deserve.
There are members of this body who opposed the Recovery Act because they thought it wouldn't work. It didn't jibe with their theory of economics, or how the government should address recessions. And that's fine. They were entitled to vote the way they thought best. But now, a year and a half later, we've been able to see the economic effects of the Recovery Act. And to deny that it has been a success is simply ignoring the data.
A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe that the stimulus bill either did nothing to help the economy, or made it even worse. The economic data, however, indicate otherwise. How do we explain this disparity between what people believe and what the data support?
Members of the American public don't form opinions out of thin air. They engage themselves-they watch the news, they listen to speeches by elected officials. And one would expect that watching the news and listening to your elected officials would be a decent way to form an opinion about something. But unfortunately, the talking heads on the news shows, along with many elected officials, having been feeding the American public half-truths about the Recovery Act. And that, frankly, is cheating the American people out of the facts.
Today I'd like to go through some of these claims made by the talking heads and elected officials, and then follow it up with some data. And that way the American people can use the facts to decide for themselves.
<...>
Another vital component of the Recovery Act that is often overlooked is its expanded funding for unemployment insurance that helped keep 3.3 million people, including 1 million children, out of poverty in 2009. Another overlooked but critical program in the Recovery Act is the funding for Head Start. The $2 billion allocation preserved Head Start and Early Head Start programming for 64,000 children across the country-over 900 in Minnesota alone. These programs are helping the most vulnerable kids in our communities.
It's simple-economic analysis suggests that the Recovery Act boosted demand, created millions of jobs, kept families in their homes, and helped the economy start growing again.
Let me tell you what I love about being a Senator. As opposed to being a candidate for Senate. I think most of my colleagues can relate to this. When you're a candidate, you're speaking mainly to your own party. When you're trying to get the nomination, when you're getting out the vote. But as a Senator, you talk to everyone. I travel all over the state of Minnesota and meet with mayors and city council members, and county commissioners, and small businesses.
And everywhere I go, they thank me for the Recovery Act. They thank me for the teachers and firefighters, for the Workforce Investment Act funds, which they used to train people for jobs. For the highway extension or the wastewater plant or the funds for rural broadband or for weatherization of public buildings.
In fact, Michael Gunwald, writing for Time Magazine, said this: "the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet."
A few weeks ago I heard a prominent conservative talking head on one of the Sunday news shows describe the Recovery Act this way. He said:
If I pay my neighbor $1,000 to dig a hole in my backyard and fill it up again and he pays me $1,000 to dig a hole in his backyard and fill it up again, according to the national income statistics, that's a $2,000 increment to GDP and two jobs have been created. The American people understand, however, there's no real wealth created in this kind of transfer payment.
How out of touch. How downright offensive. And yet this is why so many Americans believe that the Recovery Act hasn't created any jobs or just created jobs for bureaucrats.
You know, I worry that my speech today is too little, too late. I worry that many Americans have already formed their opinion about the Recovery Act-based on the inaccuracies they hear from beltway pundits or from their elected officials.
But, I challenge the talking heads and the elected officials to find the Spencers, Sheilas, Cecils, and Randys in their state-go out and watch them work. Or talk to a teacher in the classroom or a cop on the beat. They're not digging and filling holes in their neighbors' backyards. They're doing skilled, hard, necessary work-rebuilding our roads, teaching our kids-and getting paid for it. With their paychecks, they buy food for their families-which generates more demand. And that's an economic recovery in the making.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
