- ‹ previous
- 1724 of 2798
- next ›
Stimulus Pills
STIMULUS PILLS?....Conservatives are pretty good at picking tiny pieces out of big bills and making hay with them (remember midnight basketball?), and it was in that spirit that John Boehner spent the weekend complaining that the $800 billion stimulus bill includes $200 million in spending on contraceptives. 
Today Steve Benen provides the details of what's really in the bill, and concludes:
It's likely that Boehner, Drudge, and others hope that they can simply say, "Democrats want to spend $200 million of your money on contraceptives" and the howls will be so loud, the money will be stripped from the spending bill. As is too often the case, they're assuming the public won't hear, or care about, the details.
True, but I suspect this is mostly just a base play. Most of the public probably won't ever hear about this, but you can bet that every religious right newsletter in the country will get the news out to their readers. And they'll know that John Boehner is working to keep family values safe.
Whatever. But here's the funny thing: culture war issues aside, this is probably pretty good stimulus. If you eliminate the requirement for states to get Medicaid waivers in order to fund family planning, lots of low-income women will take advantage of it, and they'll probably take advantage of it pretty quickly. That's a boon for the contraceptive industry and all the fine people who work in it. Just be sure to buy American!
"Don't want people engaging in stimulus", says the Boehner.
Boner complains about the pill, but does he complain about V1agrA?
You had two posts in January entitled "Leverage". This is causing problems for browsers.
Won't someone think of the browsers?
How can these people be against this? Don't they know that Democrats are more likely to use these pills, leading to less future Democrats?
And like anonymous at 2:24 said, are they against boner pills, too? Of course not.
Would this include that new male birth control pill the Chinese invented?
You put it in your shoe and it makes you limp.
The attack I heard from Boener, which I think had some validity, was the attack that said how much (most) of the stimulus would go to pay for things in a year or two or longer down the line.
To the extent that part of the stimulus is to secure continued funding for projects that do start in the next year that's fine.
But to the extent they are paying for activities two years from now that have no effect on the depression, I think that's a possible bogus use of the stimulus package and doesn't accomplish what PK and others say is necessary.
Is there a CBO or other non-partisan analysis of the spending of the stimulus package?
Boener may be a total dick, and a bit short (on smarts) but he may be a stand up guy in erecting this argument so we shouldn't just wipe it away and flush.
When did mainstream Republicans decide to start opposing contraception? It seems like not long ago birth control was universally considered to be a good thing.
I'm with Jerry on this, Boehner has a point, this really doesn't belong in a stimulus package.
I'm all for free contraception, but I'm also for a really big stimulus package. I'm not so confident that low income women will take advantage of free contraception, though I wish they would. And stuff like this makes the package appear larger than it really is.
That something like this was put in a stimulus bill at all, begins to confirm my worst fears of stupid Congressional Democrats acting more stupid cuz we now have the White House.
When did mainstream Republicans decide to start opposing contraception?
Republicans jumped on that bandwagon when they realized their was a big group (about 25%) of voters who are gullible and easy pickings. I'm speaking of authoritarian followers, of course.
Revisionist history states the GOP wooed that group after Roe v Wade, but that is untrue. What galvanized the AF's was a different federal court case requiring the de-segregation of Church's or they would lose their tax exempt status.
Yup. Racisim got the AF's organized, and the GOP took advantage of that and has been riding that incredibly irrational and gullible horse ever since. The GOP has equated birth control with abortion and the gullible swallow that hook line and sinker.
It looks like the latest GOPers are gonna ride that 25% horse right off the cliff rather than give it up.
Haven't heard a single argument that this even has any pretense of stimulating the economy. Seems more like Democrat interest group (in this case, the abortion lobby) appeasement to me. What is it doing in a stimulus package?
Leaving aside the fact that the guy complaining about this is named "Boener", I would say that consequence-free sex is always stimulating.
If you're complaining about this from a stimulus perspective I'd say: read the linked articles.
This saves 400 million dollars over 10 years(onerous paperwork) for states and will cost the feds 200 million. That's a no brainer, unless you're opposed on moral grounds.
"This saves 400 million dollars over 10 years(onerous paperwork) for states and will cost the feds 200 million. That's a no brainer, unless you're opposed on moral grounds."
...or unless you're utterly cynical, think the American people are idiots, and are just trolling for headlines.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2009 Grand Old Party.
Since Brad, who says he hasn't seen anything with a "pretense" that this stimulated the economy, was busily trolling over at Steve Benen's, he could have learned the following, if he weren't just being contrary:
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that eliminating the waiver requirement would save states $400 million over 10 years. Reducing state outlays to this tune, of course, keeps the economy from floundering (the way it did in 1937) by the states having to cut expenditures further or raising taxes. Note that the Congressional Budget Office agrees, here.
Also, Brad, you might have read this, in response to your question, "[T]his is supposed to help the economy how?":
You mean other than preventing a burden on the state for the costs of Medicaid, AFDC, TANF and WIC that would be incurred for each unplanned pregnancy, leaving aside the added burden for public schooling, publicly-funded child care, etc? Especially when a very small expenditure (say $100 per year for the Pill) can prevent thousands of dollars in state welfare payments?
Gosh, other than those thousands of dollars saved that could be put towards job creation and job training instead, I guess there is no reason.
Brad must be getting paid by the post, since he doesn't even pretend to pay attention.
Mark, I read the linked articles and they don't mention when the various payouts or savings will occur, and as I am sure you know, a dollar tomorrow is worth less than a dollar today.
Is the $200M a present day payout? To save 40M this year, and less and less of today's dollars in future years? That may not be a good purchase.
Plus, as I'm sure you know, there are opportunity costs.
We need a big stimulus package, but since we don't live in your bedroom, our Daddy doesn't have quite as big a wallet. Are there things that we could be spending on for stimulus that would provide a bigger bang for the buck (admittedly, free contraception should provide a pretty good bang, but perhaps not as big an economic bang as fixing the roads leading to the hospitals.)
You and all the articles left out the multiplier you want to use to claim that free contraception stimulates the economy at all.
For all we know, having a kid will be more of a stimulus boost as it incurs lots of health care related flows through the economy, as well as gets parents/relatives/friends/etc. to purchase gifts, and it gets the parents to remodel bedrooms.
Your last sentence is what truly offends me though. I am all for free contraception, and your attempt to shame/silence/defame people is total bullshit and total propaganda.
It's quite reasonable to ask for the numbers on this, and then to be opposed to it on grounds of opportunity costs, on grounds of insufficient stimulus, on grounds of bad politics, on grounds of trying to keep a stimulus bill from becoming a pork laden special interest serving bill in a (vain) attempt to keep us Dems in control in 2 years.
Your "no brainer" indicates far more about your own lack of critical thinking and communication skills than it does my moral stature, thank you very much.
If you want to redo your work showing the NPV equations and discussing and substantiating the multiplier you assume as well as the opportunities lost, I will happily relook at your efforts.
Bipartisan doesn't have to mean agreeing with everything the Republicans demand. But in a 1T or 2T stimulus bill, it's stupid of us (Kevin and Atrios) to blindly defend everything that appears in the bill that the R's complain about. Because the bill is going to have crap in it, and the voters will see that, and will smear our noses in it if all we do is wag our tails and bark approvingly about what a proud bill we have made.
If you want a free contraception bill, have a free contraception bill. I'll support it.
If you want to claim it is an economic stimulus, be prepared to bring your economists and accountants and defend it as such. And stop with stupid arguments about sex, religion, or your moral superiority over others.
The whole thing is a joke
Tripp,
what's wrong with you? I don't need a pill to make me limp!
Jerry, from the links above, what is being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Moody's 2008 report Assessing the Macro Economic Impact of Fiscal Stimulus (the report's pdf can be found on Moody's economy.com site) estimated a one year increase of $1.36 in real GDP for every $1 in federal aid to state goverments, which was a higher multiplier than any of the tax cut/rebate proposals that they looked at.
From the report:
Another economically potent tool of the federal government is aid to financially-pressed state governments. This could take the form of general aid or a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate, to help ease the costs of health coverage. . . .
As most state governments are required by their constitutions to quickly eliminate their deficits, most are already drawing up plans to cut funding for programs ranging from healthcare to education and cutting grants to local government. Cuts in state and local government outlays are sure to become a substantial drag on the economy later this year and into 2009. . . .
States that receive a check from the federal government will quickly pass on the money to workers, vendors, and program beneficiaries.
I actually agree with Boehner...and he didn't even have to cry about. Please tell me how, in any way, shape or form, is putting more money to contraceptives going to "stimulate" the economy? And no, the fact that low-income women will be able to get contraceptives doesn't do it for me. If you are really in such dire straits that you can't even put aside money every week or month for proper birth control, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T BE HAVING SEX!!!!
This ain't alegebra people.
And stuff like this makes the package appear larger than it really is.
Now that's a stimulus I can get behind, so to speak!
TW, you do know you spelled algebra wrong, right?
"Alegebra" is much harder than simple algebra. It is algebra under conditions of uncertainty.
When your main concern is increasing the money flowing through the economy then the concerns with this 'pill' are secondary. That said, it would be extra double good if said stimulus money went to something which we would call productive, rather than reproductive. So, Boehner has something to complain about, but spending the money is still probably the right thing to do.
If it were only important to inject money into the economy, then simply mailing checks would do. But, all that does is let companies fold up and lay off people. In this case it's better to route money through state govs to individuals to businesses who make products and pay their employees. That process is maintained!
Boehner can use inflammatory rhetoric out the wazoo, but he can't conceive of a truly sound reason not to lay back and take it.
You think alegebra is tough, try bourbongebra sometime!
I won't care if they dump this to give the GOP cover for voting for the stimulus. They can always pass it later when they do health care.
Teresa is correct.
This will be dumped to make the GOP happy. One win for them. But we all knew this would be dumped, didn't we?
Then the Dems pass a free contraception bill on it's own merits, hopefully. But please don't try and sneak something like this in a stimulus bill. Stuff like this gave Dems a bad name.
Chris Friggin Matthews bought this hook, line and sinker tonight. "This should be a family matter and government shouldn't have anything to do with contraception."
Getting his RC up again, I suppose.
He likened it to China and said the government wants "fewer babies born."
Uh, yes, Chris. If it means that people can PLAN their families, people without other means (i.e. poor people), it might me fewer people being born, but it might also result in HEALTHIER people born. It might mean families not breaking up. It might actually result in MORE babies being born if they can be spread apart instead of tearing their families apart emotionally and financially.
Sheesh. Proves again that MEN should have nothing to say about PREGNANCY until they EXPERIENCE it personally.
Oh, and all of you who say "contraception" shouldn't be in the bill?
It's not. Among other ways it helps states (allowing the states to get to work on infrastructure) it allows states to use Medicaid funds for family planning without obtaining a waiver. It doesn't provide money for contraceptives, it provides money for family planning.
Not necessarily the same thing.
Yes, Sarah, one idiot making his statement proves to you that all men are idiots. By your own faulty logic, so goes all women. If only we had smarter feminist ideologues....
In the meantime Kevin, Joseph Stiglitz says Geithner is an idiot and we should nationalize the banks.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/stiglitz.finance.crisis/index.htm...
"Please tell me how, in any way, shape or form, is putting more money to contraceptives going to "stimulate" the economy?"
It is simple, stupids.
It will cause an increase in the use of condoms and condom manufacturers (ditto birth control pills) will hire more people to meet the extra demand.
What difference does it make if its condoms or widgets? Cause a greater demand and supply will be increase to meet the demand. Increased supply means more jobs.
So let me get this straight: $200 million in tax money for contraceptives is a silly made-up issue, but corporate jets are a major factor in the success or failure of our economy and a totally legitimate political concern? Yeah, right.
Increased supply means more jobs.
Sure, but then there is no multiplier effect.
"Haven't heard a single argument that this even has any pretense of stimulating the economy. Seems more like Democrat interest group (in this case, the abortion lobby) appeasement to me. "
Now that's interesting. This talking point is coming from Boehner and the GOP. (Or, I suppose, Brad might have hit upon it independently, which is even worse). Boehner's press release, for example, has two references to how it would make taxpayers fund "contraception and the abortion industry". [my emphasis]
But the rest of the details in the release (such as they are), talk about contraceptives only. And my understanding is that (given the Hyde Amendment, etc.), Medicaid cannot claim abortions as a family planning service (limited federal funding is allowed for abortions to save the woman's life/ in cases of rape or incest (and a number of states also cover abortions for health reasons and/or fetal abnormalities out of their own funds) - but this is quite specifically not included as family planning).
Of course, expanded access to family planning services such as contraception means fewer unwanted pregnancies, which of course means fewer abortions.
Now, this actually is what the "abortion industry/lobby" wants, being pro-choice and all - to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies, and have kids when - or if - they choose to. You know, to plan their families and all? But antichoicers tend not to get this (indulging in lurid, twisted fantasies about (nonprofit) clinics coercing women into horrible baybe-killing because it's just so incredibly lucrative), so it just doesn't make any sense. Besides the fact that the anti-choicers oppose contraception as well, because it lets women control their fertility and plan their families, and allow them more opportunities to do things like higher ed, work, etc. - not to mention having s-e-x without being punished by "the consequences". ( I mean, really, how can you control people if you can't keep 'em afraid?)
(And as Christina Page points out,
"The only conclusion that this path leads to is one: The modern family is deeply offensive to the Christian right. The family structures in which we are living today, in which both parents are equal and they both bring home a living, they get to choose the number of children they have to what they can support and want -- that is offensive to the pro-life establishment. The whole reason why none of their programs are leading to fewer abortions is because that's simply not the point. The point isn't about abortion, it's about the family. It's about what the family looks like, it's about who's in it, who's leading it, who has the power, and who's the spiritual head.")
" If you are really in such dire straits that you can't even put aside money every week or month for proper birth control, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T BE HAVING SEX!!!!"
As Amanda put it back in '06 (riffing off a post by Tristero), what we have here is another example of The War on Peons F*cking. (scroll down to the third post from the top - trying to avoid modertion-filter-tripping link text . . .)
(Tristero brought up the "war on f*cking" angle - not rightwing opposition to sex per se, but specifically to f*cking, to "[t]he ecstatic, transgressive, transcendent, life-affirming, overwhelmingly selfish and also ego-obliterating ecstasy . . ."; Amanda pointed out that "The truth of the matter is that conservatives don't oppose f*cking in and of itself. They just think a pleasure that delicious doesn't belong in the hands of people who don't make enough money or have the right connections.") [my asterisk]
If you're not making a lot of money, a box of condoms isn't all that cheap. And of course, that's a form of birth control that's quite literally in men's hands. If you're uninsured, lack Medicaid coverage for family planning, and/or don't have a family planning clinic anywhere nearby . . . .well, in that case, birth control pills can cost up to $50 dollars a month , and simply getting a prescription can cost up to $250.
The War on Peons F*cking. I mean, how dare they presume to have some pleasure, some joy in life, if they can't pay for it? Clearly they don't deserve to, unlike [the speaker].
Wow, I can't imagine why it would make more sense to put a little money in poor women's pockets than to follow Boehner's advice and continue to put money in the pockets of rich people and big corporations with another round of Bush tax cuts.
Literally, the absolute worst case scenario here is poor women have more pocket change for stuff like food and rent and even the occasional pack of bubblegum (go stimulus!), and they have fewer abortions.
Boehner's real fear here is that contraception will drive down demand for abortions. If fundies don't have abortion clinics to protest, they 're going to start noticing those tax cuts for the rich, they don't really work...
Birth control pills are expensive. Raising a child is expensive. What's not to like about helping to fund contraception? Aren't the Republicans the ones who are always harping about welfare moms?
Also, as I said before: Boehner-head is wrong! Actually, spending on contraceptives does help the economy, and saves taxpayers money on average. To add to Kevin's take: Short-term, it reduces the revenue loss from deductions and child tax credits, and releases money (net even after loss of credits) and productive time to parents or would-be parents. Long-term, it reduces demand on basic resources (like oil, copper, etc.) and reduces the cost and pressure for alternatives to the rest of us. BTW there is no legitimate advantage of any kind, social, economic, etc; to population growth once density like ours has been reached.