Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 16 May 2012

Blogging the Stimulus

Tuesday, 3rd March 2009

Steve Coll, late of the Washington Post and now ensconsed at the New Yorker and the New America Foundation, is a brave, brave man. He's actually going to read the stimulus bill Barack Obama signed into law. All 407 pages of it. And then he's going to blog about it. I suppose someone in "traditional" media might have read the whole thing and written an account of the actual bill, but this seems another area in which the format and style and rythmn of blogging is better suited to the task of revealing what's actually in the legislation than anything likely to be provided by more traditional publishing platforms. Coll's first post also suggests he approaches his task armed with the necessary wry (and, perhaps, rye) spirit to endure this marathon:

I will limit this first entry to the law’s title, the table of contents, and the three sections of preamble. And already there is so much of interest! The bill is divided into two legally distinct divisions. Division A is organized around appropriations, and it involves all of the money that has been poured into the existing federal bureaucracy in order to stimulate new economic activity (a lot of physical construction, but also weatherizing and science investments, extensions of existing school-lunch programs, etc.). Division B covers tax relief, unemployment relief, health-care provisions, state relief, and miscellany such as investments in broadband technology and caps on executive pay at bailed-out banks. I peaked ahead to Division A, which begins, in alphabetical order, at the Department of Agriculture, and I can see this is going to be entertaining, although it is also clear that at some point I am going to require expert advice to figure out exactly what existing programs the bill is describing...

To be continued, as they used to say...

Filed under: Washington (169 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Conservative Cabbie

March 3rd, 2009 3:42pm Report this comment

Well it's more than politicians who actually voted for it did, so that's something.

Well, President Obama did say there was a crisis and that meant that the bill had to be rushed through without any proper deliberation. It was so important in fact, that rather than sign it once it was passed, President Obama decided that a weekend holiday was more important. One wonders whether more deliberation may have been more apropriate while the President (exhausted by two months in a new job) took his holiday.

ndm

March 3rd, 2009 5:24pm Report this comment

Matthew Yglesias discussed the reading or not of the stilumulus bill and got to the heart of the matter: "[t]he fact of the matter is that this is one of these areas where common sense fails us." Yglesias continues:

-- Indeed, one should recall that trying to read the bill would likely not tell you very much. Legislative language is hard to read and typically functions by amending other bits of legislative language that are already on the books and would need to be looked up separately.

[I would have phrased this most differently if the Spectator comment engine correctly formatted posts containing paragraphs that do not span the entire width of a column.]

Conservative Cabbie

March 3rd, 2009 9:11pm Report this comment

ndm

"Indeed, one should recall that trying to read the bill would likely not tell you very much. Legislative language is hard to read and typically functions by amending other bits of legislative language that are already on the books and would need to be looked up separately."

That's why American legislators hire research assistants, to do that sort of grunt work. Are you really suggesting that legislators should ignore the contents of a bill - that's ridiculous.

It's interesting to note, that on the first house proposal of the bill, legislators were only given paper copies of the initial bill proposed rather than an electronic version. This was so that search algorithims couldn't be used to find the 'interesting' parts of the bill so easily. It had to be gone through page by page. This stimulus bill was railroaded through the legislature, there was no opportunity for due diligence and when the total spend is on the upside of a trillion dollars, anyone with a democratic bone in their body should be disgusted.

ndm

March 4th, 2009 7:25am Report this comment

Conservaitvie Cabby - I am well aware that representatives and senators have a small army of staff whose role is to oversee and understand the actual content of legislation. But then I do not expect a representative or a senator to read the actual text of bills - which is largely uninformative to the uninitiated.

The following is a random example from the stimulus bill

TITLE II--HOUSING GSE AND FHA LOAN LIMITS

SEC. 201. TEMPORARY CONFORMING LOAN LIMIT INCREASE FOR FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.

(a) Increase of High Cost Areas Limits for Housing GSEs- For mortgages originated during the period beginning on July 1, 2007, and ending at the end of December 31, 2008:

(1) FANNIE MAE- With respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, notwithstanding section 302(b)(2) of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1717(b)(2)), the limitation on the maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage that may be purchased by the Association shall be the higher of--

(A) the limitation for 2008 determined under such section 302(b)(2) for a residence of the applicable size; or

(B) 125 percent of the area median price for a residence of the applicable size, but in no case to exceed 175 percent of the limitation for 2008 determined under such section 302(b)(2) for a residence of the applicable size.

(2) FREDDIE MAC- With respect to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, notwithstanding section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2)), the limitation on the maximum original principal obligation of a mortgage that may be purchased by the Corporation shall be the higher of--

(A) the limitation determined for 2008 under such section 305(a)(2) for a residence of the applicable size; or

(B) 125 percent of the area median price for a residence of the applicable size, but in no case to exceed 175 percent of the limitation determined for 2008 under such section 305(a)(2) for a residence of the applicable size.

(b) Determination of Limits- The areas and area median prices used for purposes of the determinations under subsection (a) shall be the areas and area median prices used by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in determining the applicable limits under section 202 of this title.

(c) Rule of Construction- A mortgage originated during the period referred to in subsection (a) that is eligible for purchase by the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation pursuant to this section shall be eligible for such purchase for the duration of the term of the mortgage, notwithstanding that such purchase occurs after the expiration of such period.

(d) Effect on Housing Goals- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, mortgages purchased in accordance with the increased maximum original principal obligation limitations determined pursuant to this section shall not be considered in determining performance with respect to any of the housing goals established under section 1332, 1333, or 1334 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C.

A summary of the intent of this is vastly more useful and informative to a decision maker than is the actual text, which is written for lawyers not legislators.

Post comment