Friday, February 06, 2009
A stimulus bill will be passed, and it will be loaded with massive construction projects. Now, it has become very difficult to do big projects in this country because of the labyrinth of federal and state regulation and the propensity of anti-growth and environmental activists to delay projects by litigation. This ability to prevent development has been one of the great "accomplishments" of the left of the Democratic Party in the last generation, in symbiosis with the merely self-interested trial bar.
So, what if conservatives filed lawsuits to block, delay, harrass, and vex every project funded by the stimulus bill? You know, use the tactics of the left to prevent the waste of taxpayer money. Bonus feature: Vexatious anti-development litigation aimed at stimulus projects would put the Democrats in a terrible position, because it would cause at least some of them to renounce, at least implicitly, the very regulation and tactics that have been promoted by their most anti-business constituents. We might even get some of these laws repealed.
Your comments are most welcome.
I think you've missed the entire point.
These projects are going to start from the existing square-one. The administrative kick-off projects will be funded with taxpayer money and staffed with community organizers and union deadbeats.
Should lack of progress ever become a complaint (may not happen since all the professional troublemakers will be on the payroll), the lackeys are going to point to the bureaucratic and legal hurdles to explain why their boondoggles don't show movement.
These massive projects are just a ruse to get the budget cover they need to hire and pay the army of no-good thugs they will trot-out every other November to make sure the elections go their way.
The first and worst mistake when dealing with lefties is believing they are anything but disingenuous.
The Daleys are famous for contracting projects that never get built. But one way or another the Outfit and the Machine always get their cut.
I predicted this after the election, but noboday wanted to listen then, so here goes again. I predict that this will be the most scandal ridden administration since the Harding era. And everybody will be ready to ride Obama out on a rail in two years, tar and feathers optional.
A stimulus bill will be passed, and it will be loaded with massive construction projects.
This morning I was thinking that the real power struggle is over who is going to distribute the pork (last year known as earmarks.) Then I read in the Washpost that Obama actually asked Nancy Pelosi t draft the stimulus bill!!!
No wonder it's porky....what was he thinking of??
i would take the opposite approach. i would ask pelosi and the dems to waive all of the environmental studies, union contract requirements, licenscing, etc so the money can spent fast and the impact can be great. then we can watch them sweat when they are not willing to compromise with all these constintuencies to actually help stimulate the economy.
this is a tried and true negotiating tactic to call BS on someone
TigerHawk knows what he's talking about. He's on to what terrifies Obama & Co. more than anything; namely, that Saul Alinsky's rules will be applied against THEM by their opponents. Indeed, to a certain extent, this is already happening:
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty."
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Get my drift?
Nice idea in the abstract, but horrible in the concrete. As Conservatives, we should not throw our morals out the window at the first sign of trouble, or we are little better than Liberals.
Anon 2:36 has it right. We should *demand* that the Dems show their sincerity (what little there is) by suspending Federal restrictions on projects the new spending is to be burnt on, and hold their noses to the issue by going on TV with a consistent message.
Unless you are going to stop the spending in the first place, litigation is just going to end up being wasteful for America. While most of these projects and spending probably have a value about equal to the dollar value of the project at best after interest is considered (which means the "stimulus" is just massively redistributive and debt-increasing), that doesn't mean they are without value at all. The worst thing that could happen for America is to borrow $900 billion and not spend any of it on anything except bureaucracy and lawyers. And I'm a lawyer!
In the late 1970s I worked at the General Electric Test Reactor (GETR) outside of Pleasanton , CA. The federal government required that we install more earthquake protection facilities to cope with a local fault, which the company's experts believed was just an ancient earth slide. Anyway, we had to get a local building permit to build the facilities and anti-nuke activists from the Bay area were constantly at the hearings causing extended delays. Finally with government pressure for action and the inability to get the permits, GE shut down GETR.
Around the same time a refinery was to be built northeast of the Pleasanton area which would employ around 5000 workers during construction. The refinery needed pipelines and the environmental activists used the local zoning boards to stop their construction. The oil company canceled the project and built it instead in Indonesia.
Those groups have gotten stronger and now have champions in both congress, the judiciary and now the executive. Good luck in your recovery America.
Along this line of thinking, there is another solution - recapture states rights and do not cooperate with the feds.
One part of our American history I learned after having attended the government schools as a child, was that the "American Civil War' was primarily a war over state's rights (and not over slavery as I had been taught). The North wanted a strong centralized government, and the South wanted decentralized government with strong state's rights. We know who won that conflict. We also could imagine how our country might have evolved if the South had won.
At any rate, I have thought about the idea of stronger state's rights for years, and believe it is one part of our country's long term solution. If you have a large problem (national problem), and are able to break it down into smaller, more manageable pieces (individual states), solving the individual state's segments solves the whole national problem.
I have been able to verify the following states with sovereignty legislation currently in process:
New Hampshire: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3382
I suspect the states may be finally fed up with federal coercion similar to what happened in the following story about the uniform speed limit imposed during the 1970s.
On November 29, 1973, the United States House of Representatives reported out H.R. 11372, a Bill to conserve energy on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
On December 13, 1973, the United States Senate reported out H.R. 11372, a Bill “proposing establishment by the states of a uniform maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour on all highways until June 30, 1975, or whenever, as determined by the President, a fuel shortage no longer exists, with Amendments.” (S. Rept. 93-239)
The Senate and House passed H.R. 11372 on December 21, 1973 and it was adopted as Public Law 93-239 on January 2, 1974.
The Secretary of Transportation at the time, Mr. Brock Adams, candidly admitted in the following interview that he had the power, and did, in fact, control the state’s governors and legislators:
Question: “Are you running into resistance in some states on the 55 mile an hour speed limit?”
Answer: “Yes. It’s a tough fight particularly in the western states, where highways span long distances between towns and cities. We’re trying to encourage people in those areas to make greater use of commuter airlines, buses and the AmTrak train system. But where that effort isn’t enough we use what I term the ultimate stick with governors or legislators: every time a bill comes up in the state legislature that would raise the speed limit from 55 to 65, I tell them ‘if you pass it, we’ll cut off your federal highway funds.’“ Interview in U.S. News & World Report, August 15, 1977, page 43.
I don’t believe the sovereign citizens of any of the states have authorized their state legislatures to enact any state statute/law based on bribery, duress, coercion and/or blackmail from any foreign government, including the U.S. federal government.
It would then logically follow the U.S. Congress has no basis of authority to impose such laws on the states, and secondly, even if they did, the state legislatures would be under no obligation to surrender the rights of their citizens to such coercive tactics.
TH, I, too, believe you've missed the point. The theoretical purpose of the "stimulus" is to jump start spending that will create jobs. We ALL know that that can't and won't happen. The stimulus will FAIL (although, millions of illegal Mexicans will move north). The socialist also know the "stimulus" will fail but they are not concerned because their primary objective is the destruction of the middle class in America. The socialists just want the thing to simmer, knowing the inflation that will surely follow will be devestating. All they want to do is (1) declare victory, no matter what the observable facts indicate, and (2) blame others for no-new-jobs. Any opposition to a specific squander project will be labeled obstructionism. And, remember where you read it, we will soon reach a point where verbal/written opposition to an Obama spending project will be called a violation of some secret provision.
It could work. As long as the obstacles are noted in the planning stage. A long list of them could be nailed to the bureaucrats door and given to the press. The engineers and architects in the planning committee could then go public with the cost estimates of the legal obstruction. A good design-build team could save the taxpayers millions and keep the lawyers at bay, also.