At www.recovery.gov, the website set-up by Obama for outlining his "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act", a friendly bar graph is displayed, roughly breaking down where "your money" is going.
Note the bar "Tax Relief" listed as the number one expenditure.
Wow! That's the biggest piece of the pie, you say! We all know from history that "tax cuts" are the best vehicle for recession busting.
Just under the graph is a link named "Learn more" (not shown). Oh goodie! More information as to where these "tax cuts" will be implemented. THIS is what we want!
Clicking that brings us to another graph, this time in pretty-colored bubble form, which shows the same information.
Note, however the ominous asterisk next to "Tax Relief". It denotes some fine print at the bottom of the page with this information (Emphasis mine):
* Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy.
The bulk of this "Tax Relief", $123 billion, is geared toward the spending side of this bill, presumably in the form of tax credits. No where in this bill does it list anything labeled as "Tax Cuts".
Transparency was supposed to be a hallmark of this administration, and specifically this bill (clicking on the "Read the bill" link doesn't work). This "tax relief" is really just more spending under a different name.
Nice try, Obama.
Note: Link is now fixed.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
2009 Spendulus Bill
Comments (17)
Worse than that: most of th... (Below threshold)1. Posted by kevino | February 18, 2009 7:57 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Worse than that: most of the little bars under the "tax relief" bar are spending measures. If you think about tax cuts versus spending, compare the two numbers. The total amount of spending is far greater than tax relief, even using the White House numbers.
Still, it's good PR.
1. Posted by kevino | February 18, 2009 7:57 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 07:57
2. Posted by jwehman | February 18, 2009 8:06 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
And has anybody determined what "protecting the vulnerable" is? Is that some sort of mortgage bail-out? They're spending 220B on it (140B tax-cuts and 80B in spending)...
2. Posted by jwehman | February 18, 2009 8:06 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 08:06
3. Posted by WildWillie | February 18, 2009 8:07 AM | Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
Are we surprised Barry is nothing more then a Chicago lying politician? I expect this. Just a majority of americans still fall for his BS. ww
3. Posted by WildWillie | February 18, 2009 8:07 AM |
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 08:07
4. Posted by tyree | February 18, 2009 8:29 AM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
"This "tax relief" is really just more spending under a different name."
The next thing you know, they will be trying to redefine what words like "is" and "marriage" mean.
I think many liberals read George Orwell's "1984" and said afterward, "Gee, we could totally make this work!"
4. Posted by tyree | February 18, 2009 8:29 AM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 08:29
5. Posted by JFO | February 18, 2009 8:30 AM | Score: -9 (13 votes cast)
Mallow
The numbers cited for infrastructure and science etc. are not spending numbers but are an enumeration of where the non-personal tax relief goes.
It'd be nice if you'd at least try to get your facts right in your haste to exhibit your ODS. See the reaction you get from the wingnuts when you post something as bad as this?
5. Posted by JFO | February 18, 2009 8:30 AM |
Score: -9 (13 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 08:30
6. Posted by iwogisdead | February 18, 2009 8:44 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I couldn't find anything on the website (I couldn't get the link to work) which explains how much of the "tax relief" number is really money paid out to people who don't pay taxes in the first place.
6. Posted by iwogisdead | February 18, 2009 8:44 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 08:44
7. Posted by dave | February 18, 2009 8:58 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I'd recommend everyone go to the following to "share your recovery experience"
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/share-your-experience
7. Posted by dave | February 18, 2009 8:58 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 08:58
8. Posted by JLawson | February 18, 2009 9:04 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I started poking around there (You might want to fix the first link, Shawn - http://www.recovery.gov/covery.com ain't gonna work.) and I'm a bit puzzled.
Under Tax Relief, you find the following -
Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for energy.
I'm surprised they didn't institute a Department of Redundancy Department, the way they've got their categories spread. How do you give tax relief for 'Energy'? Or 'Infrastructure and Science'? Will R&D suddenly become tax-free? (If so, THAT will help - but somehow, I don't see that happening.)
Pretty graphics - but they do a piss-poor job of explaining what's what.
8. Posted by JLawson | February 18, 2009 9:04 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 09:04
9. Posted by Jay Tea | February 18, 2009 9:13 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Pretty graphics - but they do a piss-poor job of explaining what's what.
Silly JLawson -- that's not a bug, that's a feature!
J.
9. Posted by Jay Tea | February 18, 2009 9:13 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 09:13
10. Posted by JLawson | February 18, 2009 9:26 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
D'oh!
10. Posted by JLawson | February 18, 2009 9:26 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 09:26
11. Posted by Falze | February 18, 2009 9:28 AM | Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
And JFO proves they don't even understand the terms of the argument before charging in blindly. Tax relief that comes as a form of government SPENDING is SPENDING even if it is considered "tax relief". If you give someone back more than you collected from them, you are SPENDING, not giving them "relief". At least pay attention the very basics of the debate before you show how ignorant you are. For Pete's sake, Shawn specifically noted this in his post, troll.
11. Posted by Falze | February 18, 2009 9:28 AM |
Score: 10 (12 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 09:28
12. Posted by Dan Irving | February 18, 2009 12:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm by no means an Obama supporter but your math is off: 288B - 15B - 61B - 25B - 22B leaves 165B. Your 123B isn't 'the bulk' of the tax relief though it is not an insignificant portion.
12. Posted by Dan Irving | February 18, 2009 12:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 12:17
13. Posted by JLawson | February 18, 2009 12:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Dan - The way they seem to have categories mixed looks pretty sloppy to me. $61 bil in 'tax relief' for 'protecting the vulnerable' - AND an additional $81 billion for 'protecting the vulnerable' under another line item?
And what, specifically, is 'Protecting the vulnerable' supposed to be in the first place - and why is there money for it under 'tax relief'? Don't really know - but it seems to have a total of $142 billion allocated to it, so it must be pretty important!
Something like Recovery.Gov should be laid out so you can find the information quickly - but it's just not there. You can link through two more sites (to Whitehouse.gov and then to PDFs of the Congressional Record) but there's no clear, concise accounting of what's going to be going where.
You'd think they'd have that - wouldn't you?
13. Posted by JLawson | February 18, 2009 12:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 12:43
14. Posted by SDW | February 18, 2009 1:22 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
So ... all you Obama-haters gonna refuse any money or services that will help you as a result of the stimulus package?
14. Posted by SDW | February 18, 2009 1:22 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 13:22
15. Posted by Jason | February 18, 2009 1:57 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lies. Get used to 'em. Obama won.
http://www.rightklik.net/
15. Posted by Jason | February 18, 2009 1:57 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 13:57
16. Posted by Dan Irving | February 18, 2009 3:54 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree they *should* have taken measures to make the site more informative. At the very least link external references to relevant areas of the actual bill. But then again what would be responsible and we have had a responsible government for some time now.
16. Posted by Dan Irving | February 18, 2009 3:54 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 15:54
17. Posted by Sue | February 18, 2009 4:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So ... all you Obama-haters gonna refuse any money or services that will help you as a result of the stimulus package?
Sure. But by the same token then we don't have to pay any taxes, fees or anything else in order to pay for the "stimulus package". Right?
17. Posted by Sue | February 18, 2009 4:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 18, 2009 16:51