Are federal stimulus funds going to destroy Oklahoma's economy?

1. Begin with the fact that our state's budget gap (as a percentage of the annual state budget) leads the nation at 18.5%, ahead of California, Michigan and New York. Source: Today's Wall Street Journal.

2. Then consider that most of the federal stimulus funds come with significant strings attached to the states what accept them, mostly by requiring the state to provide matching funds and/or increase state spending. It's a short-term benefit with killer long-term effects that are only in the fine print. Two governors - Mitch Daniels of Indians and Rick Perry of Texas - saw the potential for disaster and turned down the funds. Link: The States and the Stimulus - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628633460370644.html))

So when today's Daily Oklahoman reported that the state is about to receive $2.6 billion in federal stimulus funds, I wonder: "Can we afford to accept them?" Is anybody at 23rd & Lincoln reading the fine print?

Give me a break. Most of my friends would have been fired last year if the state hadn't accepted the funds, which made up for a shortfall of $700 million in the state's budget. I'm thankful there are actually more available, or the shortfall we have would be almost insurmountable.

A lot of state workers are already taking furlough days and facing layoffs. Without the prospect of the stimulus money, they would most certainly be facing unemployment.

Also, Rick Perry accepted about 80 percent of the stimulus funds for Texas, and "turned down" a small percentage of them. Same with Bobby Jindal. Ever heard of politics?

Your source is an editorial by the way, not a news report. If you actually look up the facts of the matter you will see that Texas and Louisiana accepted billions in stimulus funding.

Also, this is NOT the political board. Take the politics there, please.

States that are using "stimulus" money to supplement their budgets are just prolonging the inevitable, we should have refused the stimulus money and dealt with the problem head on. Gov. Henry will escape the brunt of the financial problem/heartaches, but is leaving a huge mess for the next Governor.

Step one in breaking the spending addiction - take away the money. This is the very reason we are nowhere near the bottom. The entire country is now built on a funding bubble that will disappear soon. So now not only will Soonerguru's friends still lose their jobs, but the rest of us will be stuck with a large bill owed to China.

Well, surely, Republicans at the State Capitol will be promoting state tax cuts as a way to improve the state economy. And why shouldn't they? Doing that can lead to further cuts in government and so doing precisely what Republicans want to see happen, according to their conservative philosophy.

Well, surely, Republicans at the State Capitol will be promoting state tax cuts as a way to improve the state economy. And why shouldn't they? Doing that can lead to further cuts in government and so doing precisely what Republicans want to see happen, according to their conservative philosophy.

In most cases, this IS the correct action. But if the state;s budget decificit is to be as large as advertised, they can't take this action. Bunty, basic economics and historical cases have proven that tax cuts spur an economy. We came out of the Carter-bred recession because Reagan cut taxes. Put more money in people's pockets and they will spend it, the money they spend rolls through the economy multiple times boosting the economy. The difference is that this time, people have no extra money and they seem to be saving money rather than spending any they may have. This is a different recession.

Cutting government? Generally, its a positive thing.

Oh boy, here we go again...

Guru - You misinterpreted this to be a political post, which it isn't; I'm soliciting information and facts about a monumental budget shortfall, and how it might be exacerbated by accepting federal stimulus funds. This is the first I've read about that.

Your friends wouldn't be the first bureaucrats who did something stupid and contrary to the public interest in order to protect their jobs. And dismissing a story because it's on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page won't get you very far - they may lean to the right, but their facts are usually spot-on. Instead of challenging me to "actually look up the facts," why don't you present the facts to support your inferences?

So taking it AWAY from a political discussion and back to one of economics, my question stands: With Oklahoma's huge fiscal shortfall looming, will accepting $2.6 billion in stimulus funds ultimately require us to dig out of an even deeper hole?

OK, here are the facts:

Gov. Perry of Texas attempted to turn down $500 million in stimulus funds. But he ACCEPTED $17 BILLION!

Here's an article about it from the Dallas Morning News.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-perry_23tex.ART.State.Edition1.4ad958f.html

Most of this stuff amounts to political grandstanding against the President. When push comes to shove, states won't turn down this money and they shouldn't.

We are in the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.

Some of you folks have no problem with our government paying more than $1 trillion to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan but have a problem when our government invests even less less than that in America during its worst financial meltdown in several generations?

And RCJunkie continues to peddle the fantasy that Reagan's tax cuts (which he by the way also raised while in office) were a benefit to the economy. They led to a massive build-up in government debt, you know, the debt you GOPers keep going on and on about now that Obama is in office.

It is true that President Kennedy's tax cuts stimulated economic growth, but Reagan's did not. Remember, his own budget director resigned because of the fiscal insanity of his administration.

We will need the stimulus money this year or there will be drastic cuts to public services, and it won't just affect my friends.

And by the way, I believe the original poster should explain precisely how accepting this money is going to hurt Oklahoma. Please give concrete examples.

Will continuing to pay teachers be a problem for Oklahoma? More money for highways and bridges? Please explain how this federal largesse is going to hurt Oklahoma, and keep the right-wing Reagan-loving rhetoric out of it. Facts only please.

In fact, this same challenge should apply to every bomb-throwing tea partier weighing in on this thread. Please explicitly show how Oklahoma accepting money from the federal government is going to create a "hole to dig out of" for Oklahoma.

Kerry seems to think Oklahoma is going to have to write checks to the Chinese.

Facts only, righties.

Now, now... ..."right-wing" and "Reagan-loving" are NOT synonymous. Or even especially connected, depending upon who you talk to.

Thus concludes my participation in message board political discussions for calendar year 2010.

States that are using "stimulus" money to supplement their budgets are just prolonging the inevitable, we should have refused the stimulus money and dealt with the problem head on. Gov. Henry will escape the brunt of the financial problem/heartaches, but is leaving a huge mess for the next Governor.

How is Henry "leaving a mess?"

Please explain using facts.

Are you suggesting that by accepting federal stimulus funds Henry is creating a "mess." How's that work, Einstein?

And I was wrong on my initial post. Governor Blow Dry Perry accepted 99 percent of stimulus funds.

But his game worked well enough to convince the original poster that he "turned down" the stimulus funds. Politicians can be tricky like that.

Now, now... ..."right-wing" and "Reagan-loving" are NOT synonymous. Or even especially connected, depending upon who you talk to.

Thus concludes my participation in message board political discussions for calendar year 2010.

chicken! (LOL)

In most cases, this IS the correct action. But if the state;s budget decificit is to be as large as advertised, they can't take this action. Bunty, basic economics and historical cases have proven that tax cuts spur an economy. We came out of the Carter-bred recession because Reagan cut taxes. Put more money in people's pockets and they will spend it, the money they spend rolls through the economy multiple times boosting the economy. The difference is that this time, people have no extra money and they seem to be saving money rather than spending any they may have. This is a different recession.

Cutting government? Generally, its a positive thing.

So what? After all these tax cuts eventually comes a recession. I suspect cheap oil and cheap borrowing rates have more to do with a strong economy.

I'm not following you. You can stand on your head and sing in the rain and eventually a recession will come.

Cheap oil and cheap borrowing rates will certainly help an economy grow but people have to have money in their pockets to spend in order to drive the economic machine. Thats not just something that will help, that is essential. Its also the reason recovery from this recession will be extraordinarily slow, because we are tapped out and we will have even less to spend as inflation kicks in and the government takes away more of our money by raising taxes.

I'm not following you. You can stand on your head and sing in the rain and eventually a recession will come.

Cheap oil and cheap borrowing rates will certainly help an economy grow but people have to have money in their pockets to spend in order to drive the economic machine. Thats not just something that will help, that is essential. Its also the reason recovery from this recession will be extraordinarily slow, because we are tapped out and we will have even less to spend as inflation kicks in and the government takes away more of our money by raising taxes.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here but I don't envision a tax increase in the near term.

To combat inflation, they are going to gradually raise interest rates as long as the recovery can sustain itself.

I'm not following you. You can stand on your head and sing in the rain and eventually a recession will come.

Cheap oil and cheap borrowing rates will certainly help an economy grow but people have to have money in their pockets to spend in order to drive the economic machine. Thats not just something that will help, that is essential. Its also the reason recovery from this recession will be extraordinarily slow, because we are tapped out and we will have even less to spend as inflation kicks in and the government takes away more of our money by raising taxes.
A major reason the recovery with new jobs will be slow is because companies are adopting new ways of doing things. This can either mean obtaining the latest in advanced technology for more efficient operations with fewer worker needed or moving labor overseas. That's also why the recovery from the Bush recession was so slow.

How is Henry "leaving a mess?"

Please explain using facts.

Are you suggesting that by accepting federal stimulus funds Henry is creating a "mess." How's that work, Einstein?

Think this goes back to the post that started the thread


2. Then consider that most of the federal stimulus funds come with significant strings attached to the states what accept them, mostly by requiring the state to provide matching funds and/or increase state spending. It's a short-term benefit with killer long-term effects that are only in the fine print. ...

How is Henry "leaving a mess?"

Please explain using facts.

Are you suggesting that by accepting federal stimulus funds Henry is creating a "mess." How's that work, Einstein?

Are you trying to impress someone with the name calling.
I only respond to mature, intelligent posters.

Ditto that for me. People are just stupid. They can't reason. It's either way over here or way over there....

I don't disagree with what you're saying here but I don't envision a tax increase in the near term.

How do you think they are going to pay for Obamacare? Not only that but Obama said 2010 was going to be the year where he focuses on deficit reduction. What do you think Obama means by that?

Probably the same thing when Cheney said deficits do not matter...

chicken! (LOL)
Nah. I just figured out long ago how futile (and poisonous) it is to argue politics on Internet message boards. Those who drink a beer with me from time to time find out I'm pretty willing to be and interested and interested in talking politics.

Nah. I just figured out long ago how futile (and poisonous) it is to argue politics on Internet message boards. Those who drink a beer with me from time to time find out I'm pretty willing to be and interested and interested in talking politics.

Do yourself a favor and stay out of on-line politics. I resisted for many years on the this site but finally caved. Now I can't get out.

I, like Kerry, resisted the temptation to engage in on-line politics, but I'm hooked. While it's at times rewarding to see/hear opposing views, it often goes from being productive and enlightening to nothing more than constructive stupidity---present party included.

How do you think they are going to pay for Obamacare? Not only that but Obama said 2010 was going to be the year where he focuses on deficit reduction. What do you think Obama means by that?

I guess you haven't read the CBO report showing that the health care proposals will lower costs, or if you have, you don't agree with their findings. Fine.

Obama probably will raise your taxes if you make more than $300k, but he's not going to do it in the thick of a recession.

Think this goes back to the post that started the thread

Larry,

I asked for facts. What, exactly, "hidden costs" are associated with accepting this stimulus money? Please spell them out specifically, rather than relying on a slanted editorial piece from the WSJ.

Please use facts to support your claims.

Are you trying to impress someone with the name calling.
I only respond to mature, intelligent posters.

rcjunkie,

You can dish it out, too, don't try to be coy.

Respectfully, my question, how will Henry accepting stimulus funding create a "mess" for the next governor?

Please use specifics.

I guess you haven't read the CBO report showing that the health care proposals will lower costs, or if you have, you don't agree with their findings. Fine.

Obama probably will raise your taxes if you make more than $300k, but he's not going to do it in the thick of a recession.


According to CBO, average premiums in the individual market would increase 10 to 13 percent because of provisions in the Senate health care bill, but, crucially, most people (about 57 percent) would actually find themselves paying significantly less money for insurance, thanks to federal subsidies for low- and middle-class consumers, than they would under current law

What I read here is the only people who will pay less out of pocket expenses for their health insurance under the plan are those who will receive federal subsidies.....meaning the more wealthy (as to what this term constitutes is a mystery) will subsidize the less wealthy.

What I read here is the only people who will pay less out of pocket expenses for their health insurance under the plan are those who will receive federal subsidies.....meaning the more wealthy (as to what this term constitutes is a mystery) will subsidize the less wealthy.

That is happening anyway, although indirectly, when people show up at ERs with no health insurance but receive care.

Those of us who have insurance pay more to subsidize the costs of those who don't but still receive medical care.

I don't have the numbers but do you ever wonder how many people in the medical field are employed in billing and collections? It must be extraordinary.

There is no business, industry or agency that can't benefit from centralization. That's why there are only a handful of integrated oil and gas companies, a handful of pharma companies and a handful of automakers. If you're trying to say we should have nationalized health care just because the number of people working in billing and collections could be consilidated, you could make the same statement for any industry.

I guess you haven't read the CBO report showing that the health care proposals will lower costs, or if you have, you don't agree with their findings. Fine.

Obama probably will raise your taxes if you make more than $300k, but he's not going to do it in the thick of a recession.

Explain this to me. In the current plan the tax increase will start right away, but the benefits don't start for 3 years. So that means they have to collect taxes for 10 years to pay for 7 years of benefits (the CBO only reviewed the first 10 years). In the second 10 year period we will have 10 years of benefits. How are we going to collect 13 years of taxes in that 10 year period?

Larry,

I asked for facts. What, exactly, "hidden costs" are associated with accepting this stimulus money? Please spell them out specifically, rather than relying on a slanted editorial piece from the WSJ.

Please use facts to support your claims.

These aren't my claims as it wasn't my post but OKCTalker's, would have to ask him. Have read articles that spelled out the the increased cost to states that are accepting the funds.

Good day.

There is no business, industry or agency that can't benefit from centralization. That's why there are only a handful of integrated oil and gas companies, a handful of pharma companies and a handful of automakers. If you're trying to say we should have nationalized health care just because the number of people working in billing and collections could be consilidated, you could make the same statement for any industry.

The current health plan that passed the Senate is not a "nationalized" health plan. Frankly, I would be hugely in favor of that, but that is not what has been proposed.

Explain this to me. In the current plan the tax increase will start right away, but the benefits don't start for 3 years. So that means they have to collect taxes for 10 years to pay for 7 years of benefits (the CBO only reviewed the first 10 years). In the second 10 year period we will have 10 years of benefits. How are we going to collect 13 years of taxes in that 10 year period?

If you're trying to say that it will cost money, yes, of course it will cost money. On that we do not disagree.

The flip side is that if it's successful in lowering costs -- or even slowing the increase in health care costs -- it would be deficit neutral.

I should point out this has nothing to do with the stimulus, and whether Oklahoma should accept approximately $2.6 billion, which is the subject of this thread.

There is no business, industry or agency that can't benefit from centralization. That's why there are only a handful of integrated oil and gas companies, a handful of pharma companies and a handful of automakers. If you're trying to say we should have nationalized health care just because the number of people working in billing and collections could be consilidated, you could make the same statement for any industry.

Actually, what you're saying has absolutely no connection to what I was asking. None at all. It was as if you didn't apply any thought whatsoever to my question and just began composing some bizarre, parallel argument (with a tiny lecture intertwined.).

My question was genuine, as I did not have or offer facts, and was a speculation, mainly owing to the fact that so many people welch on their bills at hospitals in the US.

rcjunkie,

You can dish it out, too, don't try to be coy.

Respectfully, my question, how will Henry accepting stimulus funding create a "mess" for the next governor?

Please use specifics.

All your here for is to disagree and argue, I refuse to stoop to that level.
I would have better luck and probably a more intelligent conversation trying to explain things to my 3 year old grand daughter or one of my Great Danes.

Move on to your next gripe, take care and stay warm.

This thread went sideways right after I posted my question. I don't engage in "did too" - "did not" arguments with people who would rather fight than learn. I provided a link to my source - the Wall Street Journal - which resulted simply in defaming an arguably excellent publication.

I was - and am - very concerned about the state of Oklahoma's fiscal future, and brought up a specific issue for discussion and illumination. Instead, this turned into another political hijacking involving unrelated issues.

I'm no longer disappointed with the lack of intelligent, respectful discourse elsewhere in the world, but I am disappointed to find it in such short supply here at OKCTalk.

All your here for is to disagree and argue, I refuse to stoop to that level.
I would have better luck and probably a more intelligent conversation trying to explain things to my 3 year old grand daughter or one of my Great Danes.

Move on to your next gripe, take care and stay warm.

Suit yourself. I'm still open to understanding how accepting stimulus funding will create a "mess" for the next governor.

This thread went sideways right after I posted my question. I don't engage in "did too" - "did not" arguments with people who would rather fight than learn. I provided a link to my source - the Wall Street Journal - which resulted simply in defaming an arguably excellent publication.

I was - and am - very concerned about the state of Oklahoma's fiscal future, and brought up a specific issue for discussion and illumination. Instead, this turned into another political hijacking involving unrelated issues.

I'm no longer disappointed with the lack of intelligent, respectful discourse elsewhere in the world, but I am disappointed to find it in such short supply here at OKCTalk.

Don't despair.

The Wall Street Journal is widely recognized for outstanding journalism. It's opinion section, however, has a mixed reputation.

Not trying to "defame" WSJ, I pointed out that your "source" was an editorial, not an article.

As respectfully as I can, I'm asking you to provide hard statistics to back up the outrageous suggestion that accepting stimulus funding would destroy Oklahoma's economy. The stimulus, among other things, has been used to keep teachers employed, build roads and bridges, build broadband Internet infrastructure, offset huge deficits in Medicare funding and cover gaps in unemployment insurance and food stamps. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Given the fact that our state is facing a deficit of as much as $1 billion in the coming fiscal year, I'm having trouble understanding how the stimulus won't be a good thing for our state.

Please provide examples of the "hidden costs" and additional spending required by the stimulus that you suggest will damage our economy.

I think we're all smart enough to do a cost-benefit analysis of accepting stimulus funding, provided we have the facts to make an informed decision.

Have read articles that spelled out the the increased cost to states that are accepting the funds.


Where? Can you cite them?

Nah. I just figured out long ago how futile (and poisonous) it is to argue politics on Internet message boards. Those who drink a beer with me from time to time find out I'm pretty willing to be and interested and interested in talking politics.
"And interested and interested?" What a dope.

Thought I would make an attempt at addressing how the acceptance of stimulus money could impact the next govenor for guru's benefit. First though I would state that I do not blame Henry for accepting the money because if you are bleeding badly it might be silly not to stem the flow and put a band aid on it. But what happens when the stimulus runs out and the bleeding starts again at an even worse rate of flow. The new govenor will have to deal with it. Say things keep getting worse and instead of an 18 per cent shortfall, there is a 30 percent shortfall with no stimulus to fall back on because the nation's creditors have placed a stanglehold on our credit. The impact on state government at that point would be huge. Maybe Obama will keep printing money to help out but the former strength of the dollar will drop to lows never seen before. A question for Urbanized. If you can call posters names is it fair to call you one or would that damage your sensibilities?

Popsy,

I'm fairly certain that Urbanized was kidding.

I think I understand your point, but most economists believe we've seen the bottom -- if not the end -- of the recession. What we're looking at is sluggish growth and high unemployment in the near future.

Oklahoma has not had the mass layoffs other states have had. That's not to say we have not had layoffs, we have, just not to the same degree.

Realistically, Oklahoma will fare better and sooner than other states. We're just suffering right now because it took longer for the ugly tide to reach us and we're in the midst of it right now.

Again, we're fortunate there's a second round of stimulus funding available, because if it weren't, we would be looking at a draconian situation right now.

It seemed to happen shortly after we were all patting ourselves on the back for being "recession proof." Let's remember that next time Forbes exalts and/or decries cities and states in the future for any reason.

Guru. I hope the economists are right, but if they are not, I feel certain you know it will get ugly.

Where? Can you cite them?

No, because I didn't save them or bookmark them, but I distinctly recall reading that info in the Oklahoman.

No, because I didn't save them or bookmark them, but I distinctly recall reading that info in the Oklahoman.

Not doubting you, I just encounter a ton of uneducated hearsay about this and other current legislation. For example, "death panels" on healthcare, "the destruction of medicare," the "end of employer-provided healthcare," the "government confiscation of individuals' guns," etc. etc.

These are ridiculous, fear-based statements that are effective at getting people really freaked out about Obama.

A local article I can recall about the stimulus funding involved Tulsa. Tulsa's city council had the opportunity to accept stimulus funding to hire a dozen officers. The funds were enough to keep the people employed -- with benefits -- for four years.

There were a couple of well -- there's no other way to describe it, extremely partisan Republicans -- on the council who argued against accepting the money. Tulsa's version of Mark Shannon on the radio was railing against it, etc. etc. Their argument was, what happens after four years? How will Tulsa pay for the officers?

Well this was before Tulsa announced they were having to lay off officers.

Tulsa set an all-time record for homicides last year and their crime situation is much worse than OKC's.

Obviously, they chose to accept the stimulus money and hire the officers because the city believes -- wisely, in my opinion -- that its tax revenue situation will improve in the next four years. And they're right.

There are also people who are opposed to spending money on some of the stimulus items. Of course there are! You couldn't get four elected officials to agree on a paint color, let alone a spending initiative.

The bottom line here is there is an awful lot of specious, sensationalistic discussion about how stimulus funding is going to end up costing the states, but I have seen little to no actual evidence that this is true.

I have seen abundant evidence, however, that there is massive, and possibly unprecedented, Republican partisan opposition to literally anything and everything the Obama administration proposes, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

...A question for Urbanized. If you can call posters names is it fair to call you one or would that damage your sensibilities?
Uh... ...if you had actually read my post and looked at who I quoted, I was calling MYSELF a dope. I don't call other posters names on message boards. Ever. Once you resort to namecalling the person on the other end has won. Actually, IMO, once you resort to heated argument, the other person has won. Or, at the very least, you have lost. Sorry to go all Zen.

http://i767.photobucket.com/albums/xx319/urbanizedokie/internet_arguing.jpg

I have seen abundant evidence, however, that there is massive, and possibly unprecedented, Republican partisan opposition to literally anything and everything the Obama administration proposes, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.
I have seen abundant evidence, however, that there is massive, and possibly unprecedented, Democrat partisan opposition to literally anything and everything a Republican administration proposes, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

I have seen abundant evidence, however, that there is massive, and possibly unprecedented, Republican partisan opposition to literally anything and everything a Democrat administration proposes, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

Both of those above statements are fundamentally correct, as yours is...welcome two the world of two party politics....
The Republicans are doing nothing much different than they did when Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kenneday, etc. was in office just as it is no different than what the Democrats did when Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. was in office. It's just the same 'ol crap over and over, the main goal of the party in power is to retain their power and nothing else. The same thing will happen again when power flip flops, that is the only constant.