Pick your own debate 3!

The President and every supporter in Congress called it a "Stimulus" Plan. The President said it must be passed within a month, "We can't afford three, four, five, six more months ..." Speed in passing the bill was so important that Obama sent a plane to fetch Sen. Sherrod Brown from Ohio on a Saturday to vote on Saturday night and then return the Senator home in time for his mother's funeral on Sunday. Lawmakers were given half a day to read and analyze the 1000 page bill before voting on it. http://www.cnn.com... It is completely appropriate to judge the success of a bill by what it's supporters claimed it would do. Con's idea of "no intent" is not shared by anyone. By July, liberal-to-a-fault Time Magazine proclaimed: "Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure "... two of [Obama's] chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983." http://www.time.com... Con claims "The legislation itself mentions nothing about time, speed, or immediacy." Con's claim is false. The bill has a statement of intent to provide rapid stimulus, which includes: "The President and the heads of Federal departments and agencies shall manage and expend the funds made available in this Act so as to achieve the purposes specified in subsection (a), including commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible consistent with prudent management." http://www.debate.org... My points 1, 2, and 3 show the included goals were not achieved. Points 5 and 7 demonstrate the goal of prudent management was not met. The purposes specified in subsection (a) are "(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. (2) To assist those most impacted by the recession. (3) To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. (4) To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. (5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases." The purposes do not include doling out pork, rewarding Obama supporters, or punishing Republicans. [4] Con queries, "In reference to Union wages, I ask my opponent to suggest an alternative." The alternative is obviously to give work to the lowest-cost qualified bidder. That was allowed under Federal aid bills prior to the Stimulus and it worked fine. That provides more jobs and creates more infrastructure for the same amount of taxpayer money. Those are the goals stated by supporters and given in subsection (a). [5] Con argues "Without this restriction, states will undoubtedly cut education, which is detrimental as this recession may last a long time." Cuts could be done by cutting administrative spending, maintenance, or pension benefits without necessarily reducing the education delivered to the student. However, it is bad legislation to risk forcing states into default for the purpose of preserving high cost union jobs. Education is not served by[6] bankruptcy, because education suffers even more when that happens. [6] Con asks, "In reference to Obama supporters getting more, did the ARRA actually mention that this would not be the case?" Yes, the bill specifies "prudent management" and it does not include "paying off supporters" as an objective in subsection (a). [7] Con points out that pork may be considered a good thing by someone. I agree, it surely is loved by whoever proposed it. The question is whether things such as funding glorified electric golf carts, $150 million for parking improvements at a Little League facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico, and $6 million for a "snowmaking and maintenance facility" at Spirit Mountain ski area in Duluth, Minnesota are within the bounds of prudent management. They are not because they do lead to many long term jobs or much productive infrastructure. Instead, Congress might have given $100 billion to venture capital firms for innovative startups. The bill includes virtually nothing for small business, who are cash-starved and provide more than half the jobs in the country. Con argues that while the bill is corrupt and inefficient, it shouldn't be considered "bad legislation" because the bill itself doesn't exclude those purposes. Well, the bill does exclude them, and if it did not, it should be fairly judged against the promises made by its supporters when it was rammed through virtually unread.