The Minimum Wage is a Terrible Economic Policythemattbrown
In my Communications class, we had to give a Persuasive Speech. I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to explain a policy that most people are for yet don't understand it.
I had a great closing argument regarding the fact that unemployment is up 2% since July, which is also the same time the minimum wage was raised.
Back in 2013, President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to call for raising the federal $7.25 minimum wage, which has been in place since 2010, to $9. In his address on January 28, he appealed to Congress and employers to raise the minimum wage to $10.10.
Heritage Foundation economist Bill Beach presented on the difference between the progressive and conservative models for government and the economy at a meeting sponsored by the Tucson Committee for Heritage on February 4, 2010.
Presentation by Bill Beach, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, during a panel discussion sponsored by the Colorado Committee for Heritage on July 28, 2009.
The Minimum Wage is a Terrible Economic Policythemattbrown
In my Communications class, we had to give a Persuasive Speech. I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to explain a policy that most people are for yet don't understand it.
I had a great closing argument regarding the fact that unemployment is up 2% since July, which is also the same time the minimum wage was raised.
Back in 2013, President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to call for raising the federal $7.25 minimum wage, which has been in place since 2010, to $9. In his address on January 28, he appealed to Congress and employers to raise the minimum wage to $10.10.
Heritage Foundation economist Bill Beach presented on the difference between the progressive and conservative models for government and the economy at a meeting sponsored by the Tucson Committee for Heritage on February 4, 2010.
Presentation by Bill Beach, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, during a panel discussion sponsored by the Colorado Committee for Heritage on July 28, 2009.
Gar Alperovitz HAT -STRAIGHT TALK THE ABOUT THE NE.docxshericehewat
Gar Alperovitz
HAT -
STRAIGHT TALK
THE
ABOUT THE NEXT
UST
AMERICAN REVOLUTION
E DO?
Chelsea Green Publishing
White River Junction, Vermont
A Note About What Can Be
Talked About, and in What Ways
J\ s is pretty evident, or will be in a few pages, this book is written in a very
.1"'1.informal, conversational style-especially for someone like me, who is
an academic and a former Washington insider (also an activist on things
that matter).
The reasons are several.
First and foremost, I've been talking to lots of people the last few years
about these things, all around the country, and I've found that it is possible,
easiest, and best to discuss the really important points about our crumbling
American system, and what to do about it, in language that is understandable
and accessible .
Second, many of the really big issues covered in the pages ahead can't be
handled in any way other than what is best termed informed speculation. In
other words, judgments about what it makes sense to actually do politically
all depend upon ( usually unspoken and unacknowledged) assumptions about
what is possible in the future.
And the problem-as historian Lewis Namier once quipped-is that we
all tend to "remember the future." By which he meant that we don 't and can't
document what will happen in the future. Instead, most of us unconsciously
project forward assumptions about what is possible based on our actual
experience of the past. We "remember" forward that which we unconsciously
take for granted.
This works most of the time, but it works terribly in times of great change.
Most academics and Washington insiders-like most people, including
most activists-aren 't much better than anyone else about avoiding this
pitfall. They also tend to "remember " the future, projecting ( often telling us,
with seeming academic or political authority!) what is and is not possible.
So a really big reason to write the way folks talk when they're relaxing over a
couple of beers or a cup of coffee is to break out of this particular foolish spell.
ix
WHAT THEN MUST WE DO?
I'm from Wisconsin . I recall the 1950s when Senator Joe McCarthy had
everyone trembling for fear of being called a Communist. It was pretty dark
in Wisconsin in the 1950s. And accordingly , at the time ordinary citizens and
academic scholars alike knew that if you remembered the future, nothing
could ever really change .
Then , of course, came the 1960s-and the explosion of the civil rights
movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movement, the anti-
Vietnam War movement. All largely unpredicted, and especially by those
who claimed academic or political-insider authority to forecast what is, or
was, possible.
So not only is it more enjoyable to try to write the way we talk, and even
to play with the language-especially when we're facing a pretty dire and
profound set of issues-but doing so is a not-so-subtle hint that it i ...
How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American DemocracyBusiness didPazSilviapm
How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy
Business didn't always have so much power in Washington.
LEE DRUTMAN
APR 20, 2015
JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS
Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures—more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It’s a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.
Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business.
One has to go back to the Gilded Age to find business in such a dominant political position in American politics. While it is true that even in the more pluralist 1950s and 1960s, political representation tilted towards the well-off, lobbying was almost balanced by today's standards. Labor unions were much more important, and the public-interest groups of the 1960s were much more significant actors. And very few companies had their own Washington lobbyists prior to the 1970s. To the extent that businesses did lobby in the 1950s and 1960s (typically through associations), they were clumsy and ineffective. “When we look at the typical lobby,” concluded three leading political scientists in their 1963 study, American Business and Public Policy, “we find its opportunities to maneuver are sharply limited, its staff mediocre, and its typical problem not the influencing of Congressional votes but finding the clients and contributors to enable it to survive at all.”
Things are quite different today. The evolution of business lobbying from a sparse reactive force into a ubiquitous and increasingly proactive one is among the most important transformations in American politics over the last 40 years. Probing the history of this transformation reveals that there is no “normal” level of business lobbying in American democracy. Rather, business lobbying has built itself up over time, and the self-reinforcing quality of corporate lobbying has increasingly come to overwhelm every other potentially countervailing force. It has also fundamentally changed how corporations interact with government—rather than trying to keep government out of its business (as they did for a long time), companies are now increasingly bringing government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.
If we set our time machine back to 1971, we’d find a leading corporate lawyer earnestly writing that, “As every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stock ...
BOOKLehne, Richard, Government and Business (L)PLEASE ANSW.docxAASTHA76
BOOK
Lehne, Richard, Government and Business (L)
PLEASE ANSWER TWO OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
1. In the introduction, Lehne suggests that a new “social compact” between business and society/government is being forged. What does he mean by that remark? What was the previous compact and, what changes have there been? Discuss the social compact for another country. Which would you argue is likely to yield a more favorable outcome? Discuss what you would regard as an appropriate social compact for the American of the 21st century. On what basis did you devise that construct? Explain, considering what you know about the prevailing social and constitutional landscapes.
2. In Chapter 2 of the Lehne texts there is discussion provided of both roles of government (framework, promotional, regulatory and social service) and models of business/government relationship (market, stakeholder, capitalism). Select the governmental role-type and model that you feel has been applied to solve a problem in the 21st century. Discuss the problem, the policy that was enacted to solve it and, how it reflected a government role and relationship model. Would you have selected that policy? Why? Why not?
3. Corporations enjoyed considerable popularity when they first began to appear in the 19th century. To what would you attribute their popularity? What developments contributed to their decline in popularity? What is their status today, in your opinion? Explain. Considering the reasons stated for their unpopularity, what would you suggest government do to effect positive change?
4. What is meant by the term “positive government”? When did positive government emerge in the United States? What brought it about? Would you characterize the government of the United States as positive in the first decade of the 21st century? Explain. Has it been more or less positive in the second decade? Explain. What role has the Constitution and distribution of political power had to do with the conditions of the first and second decades of the 21st century, respectively?
5. Who was John Maynard Keynes? How does his approach to macroeconomic management depart from the previous status quo? How was American society transformed to make the Keynesian approach more salient than its predecessor? How was the Keynesian approach manifest in macroeconomic policymaking? If you were advising the government of the United States would you suggest more or, less, Keynesianism? Explain. Is the US government likely to become more or, less Keynesian in the coming 12 months? Explain.
6. Discuss subgovernments. Does the Constitution of the United States support them in your view? Explain, citing relevant Articles. When did they begin to appear? Why? What role did they play in policy making a century ago? Explain. What happened to bring about a change in their role, if any change has occurred? Which would you suggest has had the more positive impact, the situation today or, that of a century ago? Explain.
...
This presentation: "Shifting the National Dialog: Why America Needs to Talk About Fairness" is dedicated to changing the focus from obscure agendas to one that reflects the needs and interests of all Americans. This is the first in a series of presentations provided by the Fairness Coalition...
Gar Alperovitz HAT -STRAIGHT TALK THE ABOUT THE NE.docxshericehewat
Gar Alperovitz
HAT -
STRAIGHT TALK
THE
ABOUT THE NEXT
UST
AMERICAN REVOLUTION
E DO?
Chelsea Green Publishing
White River Junction, Vermont
A Note About What Can Be
Talked About, and in What Ways
J\ s is pretty evident, or will be in a few pages, this book is written in a very
.1"'1.informal, conversational style-especially for someone like me, who is
an academic and a former Washington insider (also an activist on things
that matter).
The reasons are several.
First and foremost, I've been talking to lots of people the last few years
about these things, all around the country, and I've found that it is possible,
easiest, and best to discuss the really important points about our crumbling
American system, and what to do about it, in language that is understandable
and accessible .
Second, many of the really big issues covered in the pages ahead can't be
handled in any way other than what is best termed informed speculation. In
other words, judgments about what it makes sense to actually do politically
all depend upon ( usually unspoken and unacknowledged) assumptions about
what is possible in the future.
And the problem-as historian Lewis Namier once quipped-is that we
all tend to "remember the future." By which he meant that we don 't and can't
document what will happen in the future. Instead, most of us unconsciously
project forward assumptions about what is possible based on our actual
experience of the past. We "remember" forward that which we unconsciously
take for granted.
This works most of the time, but it works terribly in times of great change.
Most academics and Washington insiders-like most people, including
most activists-aren 't much better than anyone else about avoiding this
pitfall. They also tend to "remember " the future, projecting ( often telling us,
with seeming academic or political authority!) what is and is not possible.
So a really big reason to write the way folks talk when they're relaxing over a
couple of beers or a cup of coffee is to break out of this particular foolish spell.
ix
WHAT THEN MUST WE DO?
I'm from Wisconsin . I recall the 1950s when Senator Joe McCarthy had
everyone trembling for fear of being called a Communist. It was pretty dark
in Wisconsin in the 1950s. And accordingly , at the time ordinary citizens and
academic scholars alike knew that if you remembered the future, nothing
could ever really change .
Then , of course, came the 1960s-and the explosion of the civil rights
movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movement, the anti-
Vietnam War movement. All largely unpredicted, and especially by those
who claimed academic or political-insider authority to forecast what is, or
was, possible.
So not only is it more enjoyable to try to write the way we talk, and even
to play with the language-especially when we're facing a pretty dire and
profound set of issues-but doing so is a not-so-subtle hint that it i ...
How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American DemocracyBusiness didPazSilviapm
How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy
Business didn't always have so much power in Washington.
LEE DRUTMAN
APR 20, 2015
JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS
Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures—more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It’s a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.
Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business.
One has to go back to the Gilded Age to find business in such a dominant political position in American politics. While it is true that even in the more pluralist 1950s and 1960s, political representation tilted towards the well-off, lobbying was almost balanced by today's standards. Labor unions were much more important, and the public-interest groups of the 1960s were much more significant actors. And very few companies had their own Washington lobbyists prior to the 1970s. To the extent that businesses did lobby in the 1950s and 1960s (typically through associations), they were clumsy and ineffective. “When we look at the typical lobby,” concluded three leading political scientists in their 1963 study, American Business and Public Policy, “we find its opportunities to maneuver are sharply limited, its staff mediocre, and its typical problem not the influencing of Congressional votes but finding the clients and contributors to enable it to survive at all.”
Things are quite different today. The evolution of business lobbying from a sparse reactive force into a ubiquitous and increasingly proactive one is among the most important transformations in American politics over the last 40 years. Probing the history of this transformation reveals that there is no “normal” level of business lobbying in American democracy. Rather, business lobbying has built itself up over time, and the self-reinforcing quality of corporate lobbying has increasingly come to overwhelm every other potentially countervailing force. It has also fundamentally changed how corporations interact with government—rather than trying to keep government out of its business (as they did for a long time), companies are now increasingly bringing government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.
If we set our time machine back to 1971, we’d find a leading corporate lawyer earnestly writing that, “As every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stock ...
BOOKLehne, Richard, Government and Business (L)PLEASE ANSW.docxAASTHA76
BOOK
Lehne, Richard, Government and Business (L)
PLEASE ANSWER TWO OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
1. In the introduction, Lehne suggests that a new “social compact” between business and society/government is being forged. What does he mean by that remark? What was the previous compact and, what changes have there been? Discuss the social compact for another country. Which would you argue is likely to yield a more favorable outcome? Discuss what you would regard as an appropriate social compact for the American of the 21st century. On what basis did you devise that construct? Explain, considering what you know about the prevailing social and constitutional landscapes.
2. In Chapter 2 of the Lehne texts there is discussion provided of both roles of government (framework, promotional, regulatory and social service) and models of business/government relationship (market, stakeholder, capitalism). Select the governmental role-type and model that you feel has been applied to solve a problem in the 21st century. Discuss the problem, the policy that was enacted to solve it and, how it reflected a government role and relationship model. Would you have selected that policy? Why? Why not?
3. Corporations enjoyed considerable popularity when they first began to appear in the 19th century. To what would you attribute their popularity? What developments contributed to their decline in popularity? What is their status today, in your opinion? Explain. Considering the reasons stated for their unpopularity, what would you suggest government do to effect positive change?
4. What is meant by the term “positive government”? When did positive government emerge in the United States? What brought it about? Would you characterize the government of the United States as positive in the first decade of the 21st century? Explain. Has it been more or less positive in the second decade? Explain. What role has the Constitution and distribution of political power had to do with the conditions of the first and second decades of the 21st century, respectively?
5. Who was John Maynard Keynes? How does his approach to macroeconomic management depart from the previous status quo? How was American society transformed to make the Keynesian approach more salient than its predecessor? How was the Keynesian approach manifest in macroeconomic policymaking? If you were advising the government of the United States would you suggest more or, less, Keynesianism? Explain. Is the US government likely to become more or, less Keynesian in the coming 12 months? Explain.
6. Discuss subgovernments. Does the Constitution of the United States support them in your view? Explain, citing relevant Articles. When did they begin to appear? Why? What role did they play in policy making a century ago? Explain. What happened to bring about a change in their role, if any change has occurred? Which would you suggest has had the more positive impact, the situation today or, that of a century ago? Explain.
...
This presentation: "Shifting the National Dialog: Why America Needs to Talk About Fairness" is dedicated to changing the focus from obscure agendas to one that reflects the needs and interests of all Americans. This is the first in a series of presentations provided by the Fairness Coalition...
Fixing the Issues with American Politics.pdfWajid Khan MP
Fixing the Issues with American Politics
Is American politics in disarray? According to a recent survey of Harvard Business School graduates, the answer may be yes, and the unstable political climate may be one of the biggest dangers to American competitiveness. Wajid khan Mp says In a poll on American competitiveness, alumni were asked about 17 aspects of the business climate, and 60 percent of them responded that the "efficacy of the political system" was poorer in the US than in other advanced nations. Only the "complexity of the tax code" was evaluated more negatively, receiving low scores from 61% of those polled.
What justifies their worry?
According to studies on the American political system, there are currently more significant differences between the two competing views of government in Congress than ever before. Many people in the media and Congress lament the overly ideological nature of the country's politics. As Wajid khan mentioned the co-chair of the super committee formed to reduce the budget deficit, Congressman Jeb Hensarling has stated, "The committee did not succeed because we were unable to bridge the gap between two profoundly divergent conceptions of the role that government should play in a free society."
Although there has been much finger-wagging about the ideological gap, it is unclear whether it is the real cause of the breakdown. If you study American history carefully, you'll discover that profound philosophical divisions are nothing new and that some of the most politically charged periods resulted in significant policy advancements, frequently delivering the best ideas from opposing viewpoints. This dynamic that combines the most remarkable aspects of both worlds may contribute to America's economic success.
Politicians' rising propensity to prioritize winning over all else
To treat politics like war—runs antithetical to fundamental democratic principles and may be impeding Washington's capacity to find solutions that draw on the best ideas from all sides of the political spectrum. It is crucial to revitalizing the democratic culture of the country. Business executives must be vital since the financial stakes are so high.
Competition Encouraged Development
The conflict between opposing political ideologies is as old as America itself (it was already visible, for example, in the great debates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton). Canadian Politician Wajid khan discusses. There are two typical viewpoints.
Fixing the Issues with American Politics.pdfWajidKhanMP
Is American politics in disarray? According to a recent survey of Harvard Business School graduates, the answer may be yes, and the unstable political climate may be one of the biggest dangers to American competitiveness. Wajid khan Mp says In a poll on American competitiveness, alumni were asked about 17 aspects of the business climate, and 60 percent of them responded that the "efficacy of the political system" was poorer in the US than in other advanced nations. Only the "complexity of the tax code" was evaluated more negatively, receiving low scores from 61% of those polled.
What justifies their worry?
According to studies on the American political system, there are currently more significant differences between the two competing views of government in Congress than ever before. Many people in the media and Congress lament the overly ideological nature of the country's politics. As Wajid khan mentioned the co-chair of the super committee formed to reduce the budget deficit, Congressman Jeb Hensarling has stated, "The committee did not succeed because we were unable to bridge the gap between two profoundly divergent conceptions of the role that government should play in a free society."
Although there has been much finger-wagging about the ideological gap, it is unclear whether it is the real cause of the breakdown. If you study American history carefully, you'll discover that profound philosophical divisions are nothing new and that some of the most politically charged periods resulted in significant policy advancements, frequently delivering the best ideas from opposing viewpoints. This dynamic that combines the most remarkable aspects of both worlds may contribute to America's economic success.
Politicians' rising propensity to prioritize winning over all else
To treat politics like war—runs antithetical to fundamental democratic principles and may be impeding Washington's capacity to find solutions that draw on the best ideas from all sides of the political spectrum. It is crucial to revitalizing the democratic culture of the country. Business executives must be vital since the financial stakes are so high.
Competition Encouraged Development
The conflict between opposing political ideologies is as old as America itself (it was already visible, for example, in the great debates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton). Canadian Politician Wajid khan discusses. There are two typical viewpoints.
One is based on a fundamental mistrust of government, especially the federal government; one believes that it is ineffective, intrusive, and susceptible to corruption and that its interference in private affairs is frequently destructive. The other personifies a practical faith in the ability of government to serve society—a conviction that it can be used for good and that the public sector, despite its flaws, can be used to address issues that people and private businesses cannot manage on their own.
Although the competition between
Essay QuestionDear Constituents,It is my privilege to serve y.docxSALU18
Essay Question:
Dear Constituents,
It is my privilege to serve you as a senator of the great state of Oregon. I am looking forward to representing you in the effort to bring peace and prosperity to America, and more specifically, to our beloved state.
We can all agree that welfare state has been a controversial subject for a long time. As far as its pros are concerned, welfare state provides everyone with the basic minimums they need for survival. Secondly, its ideal is to foster social and economic justice, eliminating monopoly of wealth. However, the cons indicate that the current poverty level is not reflected by the economic status making it very difficult to determine who is liable for benefits. It is also true that welfare state can create a pattern of dependence. Personally, I think welfare state is a very positive thing to have in our society and we can simply work on the cons together to make it better
Welfare is not the only social policy that is controversial. Healthcare under the Affordable Care Act has been as well. The ACT has increased the number of Americans with health insurance. It has also made it more affordable. However, the premiums are higher and it has also increased taxes. I therefore believe that reforms should be made to help improve it.
The United States’ foreign policy role is also important to our success. It makes it possible to have better relationships with other countries. It also improves sectors dependent on foreigners such as tourism and economic cooperation/trade. It, however, makes a country dependent on the other and a wrong step could dilute all the good work done to keep the relationship working. Personally, I think the US should have an extensive foreign policy either way as the cons can be avoided easily.
In conclusion, I am confident that with your support, we will achieve our domestic and international goals to make the United States peaceful and prosperous!
Short Answer Questions:
1. Identify and give a brief description of four U.S. institutions that were created to help manage its financial affairs.
Financial affairs are generally managed by the department of treasury, headed by the secretary of treasury. There are four institutions under the office of treasurer, office of domestic finance, office of international affairs and office of terrorism and financial intelligence. Domestic finance deals with all domestic financial affairs including public affairs, legislative affairs, tax policies etc.
2. What are the U.S. foreign policy goals (identify and provide brief description)? What counts as success?
The U.S. foreign policy goals include promoting peace, preserving national security and securing a global environment by maintaining the balance of power among all nations. The presence of peace in the entire world would guarantee security and a balance of power. As long as all these are in place, then it is safe to say that the policy goals are a success.
3. Contrast contributory programs w ...
Sound Public Policies. Political economic digest series - 7Akash Shrestha
In this series, we’ll be discussing about the principles of of sound public policies and their role in economic progress.
Public policy can be generally defined as the course of action or inaction taken by governmental entities (the decisions of government) with regard to a particular issue or set of issues.
Public policies determine to a large extent how a country or an economy functions. In context of Nepal,
we keep hearing either how bad policies are ruining our country or that even though our policies are
good, it is the lack of proper implementation that’s hampering our progress. Included in the readings is
an article entitled “7 principles of sound public policy” and as well as a satirical article on how to achieve poverty. We hope after this series, you will be able to analyze the policies of our government and their implication of our economic growth.
On not less 150 words discussWhat have you learned that clarifi.docxmccormicknadine86
On not less 150 words discuss:
What have you learned that clarifies the process of policymaking on health related topics? Is there anything that you would change?
On two different paragraph with not less than 75 words each give your personal opinion to Samantha Thompson and Dianna Adair
Dianna Adair
It’s somewhat difficult to put down all the things I have learned that clarify policymaking without writing a novel. I think we are all tired of writing gigantic papers, now! I have learned that policymaking is largely political; It is even more so than I believed before this class.
I’ve learned that there are a lot of steps that go in to making a policy, and many of them are circular. As an example, when a law is introduced for public comment it can be done several times before it is finalized and put into a final draft (Longest, 2016).
I would definitely change the way interest groups and politicians interact if I could. I would ban outright lobbying and perhaps find a way to stop bills from being passed if the main parties involved went to work for the companies lobbying for the bill after it was passed. Perhaps something like this could be achieved by a stringent waiting period before the law goes into effect with a clause that invalidates it in case of shady activities. I’m not sure that could work outside of just theory, but it would be nice to prevent this blatant corruption.
Regards,
Dianna
References:
Longest, B. B. (2016). Health Policymaking in the United States (Vol. Sixth edition). Chicago, Illinois: Health Administration Press.
Samantha Thompson
I had no idea about what policy-making was. I knew there were laws and that someone in government started the process, however I never know that interest groups were a part of it or the fact that I can even submit anything afterwords to make changes as a citizen. I feel so much more prepared for not only my future administrative job but also my future conversations. The image on the current election has changed as well. I see the promises different and understand the steps that will need to be taken to change or make something happen. This is probably one of the most mindful classes I have had since in enrolled. Good luck to all in the future.
.
Similar to American Politics and Business are on a Collision Course (18)
2. This comment from reader eteksearch
provided an interesting perspective:
Sounds like [a lot] of conservative
whining and very little suggestions of
solutions, who has a better idea? Let's
[hear] it. It's a mess, [let's] all make an
effort where we are to clean it up the
best we can.
I agree with much of eteksearch's
sentiment (but not the partisan aspect).
My criticism of the stimulus bill was
equal parts content and methodology