Once More Politicians Plainly Tell Us How Smart They Think We Are

1. 87

   GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

   The publicly released Infrastructure bill information is the latest example of our politicians, (both parties), plainly telling us they think we are idiots. And, as in previous examples, we continue to prove them right by re-electing them.
   
   "Look, here's the deal."
   
   A quick cut & paste of their `explanation' of funding sources plainly show they think we are idiots.
   
   Follow the money:
   
   "And here’s a breakdown of the `pay-fors in a Republican summary of the plan:"
   
   — Tapping about $205 billion in unspent COVID-19 relief aid. . .
   
   We have to borrow the money to pay for the Covid relief funds—it is not a source of free funds. Isn't this just putting your money in a different pocket and claiming it is different from when it was in the other pocket?
   
   — Drawing on about $53 billion in unemployment insurance aid that the federal government was providing to supplement state unemployment insurance. . . .
   
   Ditto. Repurposing borrowed money doesn't turn it into a money source.
   
   — Drawing on about $49 billion by further delaying a Medicare rule . . .,  . . . but the Congressional Budget Office had projected that it would increase taxpayer costs by $177 billion over 10 years.
   
   Delaying? Does that mean that $49 Billion will have to be replaced? I wonder if that $49 billion was explained as a funding source for another program cost when it was first proposed? (that money was a pre-infrastructure Trump admin action). And what does that CBO statement mean?
   
   — Raising an estimated $87 billion in spectrum auctions for 5G services.
   
   I didn't bother to check but wasn't that 5G auction income already planned and committed well before this year's infrastructure bill? Isn't this another of the above examples—taking money from one source, (meaning that lost money will have to be replaced), and claiming it is different?
   
   — Restarting a tax on chemical manufacturers that had expired in 1995, raising about $13 billion. The money had been used to help fund the cleanup of Superfund sites. Also, selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would add about $6 billion.[/i]
   
   There were honest, they admitted to a tax increase as a funding source. But, they are taking it from a committed expenditure. (the Super Fund).  Are they defunding the Super Fund and repurposing its income source?
   
   And what about that Strategic Reserve money, Are we reducing our projected national reserve needs—so that money really will be a new funding source, (all puny $6 billion of it LOL), or, will we have to replenish that sold Reserve, making that puny $6 billion just more debt instead of income? Left pocket or right pocket?
   
   — Strengthening tax enforcement when it comes to crypto currencies, raising about $28 billion.[/]
   
   Honest again. Admitting to a new tax on something they don't even understand yet, and, I think, won't have the authority to create this tax until they vote themselves that authority.[i]
   
   — Relying on projected economic growth from the investments to bring in about $56 billion.
   
   When was the last time dynamic scoring of a legislative proposal was accurate, or even close? Doesn't that make this simply a wishful funding source?
   
   And to rub salt into those wounds, not only do they get away with this stuff, we gleefully reward them by giving them our votes.
   
   I know this is not a new thought and that it is just the latest example, but seeing as we all think of ourselves as savvy pundits it's like having our nose rubbed in it. Again and again.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The post was a little difficult to follow. 
      
      And if one is not versed in funding and taxing issues ongoing, then I would imagine it could appear rather nonsensical to the reader.
      
      Truth is, the politicians are correct, the vast majority of Americans are clueless about these matters, the MSM helps keep them that way, it takes a certain level of commitment and involvement to even be aware of issues such as these.
      
      Quite honestly, when we have stunning representatives like AOC and Frederica Wilson being elected and re-elected does it surprise you any that they don't have any concern about the voters?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Politicians do have one of the highest IQs of any group.
         The downside on the federal level is they are one of the leading tarrants, give unethical lies and puppets. They are human, it's just they won't admit they are no better or worst than the rest of us. Just extremists with a extremes downside too.

         replyreport
   2. 79

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I had a look at the list that Congress provided in regard to how the infrastructure bill would be paid for. These three proposed financing sources jumped out at me.
      
      Proposed Financing Sources for New Investment Reduce the IRS tax gap ---   The nonfiling gap is defined as the amount of true tax liability that is not paid on time by taxpayers who do not file a required return on time (or at all). It is reduced by amounts paid on time, such as through withholding, estimated payments, and other credit
      ( would gathering these types of funds not depend on an 'if come"? It would require in some cases long reviews of amounts of money owed, and possibly money that would be impossible to retrieve.  These funds in many cases would be hard to collect.  These funds can not be relied on.
      
      Another shaky source that has been listed as to where funds would come from  --  Unemployment insurance program integrity going after those that cheat and or falsify claims. Again money that can not be relied on, would require increasing staff, and in some cases lawsuits.
      
      At the top of the list, Redirect unused unemployment insurance relief funds  ---   Several states have ended expanded unemployment benefits, which offered $300 weekly payments financed by the federal government.  The supplemental payments were meant to be available through September, but because some states cut the benefits early there is an estimated $25 billion that will not be spent. The infrastructure bill hoped to allocate this cash to help fund the infrastructure costs. Using the $25 billion on infrastructure rather than unemployment amounts could be seen as budgeting nothing more than “trickery” As you said, "from one pocket to another".
      
      What I find most disturbing is that the Biden tax plan is being depended on to pay for most of the bill... This is my view is the biggest "if come'.
      
      IMO Biden will not get his tax bill through Congress. So, this leaves a gaping hole in the grand plan to pay for this infrastructure package.
      
      All that has been listed in regard to paying for the bill depends on speculation, can the funds be squeezed out of taxpayers in one way or the other.
      
      It would appear they think we are not very smart...  However,  I think many have this administration figured out. It's old-school politicking and shell games.

      replyreport