787 is the number that scares the GOP.

[denem]

787 is the sound of (non military) government spending lifting off afters decades oof falsie starts. It is the end of "the era of small government is over". Morse so than the $750B bailout before it, it's a game changer. I remember Obama's "ambitious"GE proposal to spend $15 billion a year on grean energy. A whole 15 billion? Imagine that!

The $787-billion price tag -- along with the expected $1-trillion-plus cost to bail out the financial services industry -- has increased concern about the ballooning federal deficit and may lead to more second-guessing of other priorities. On the other hand, having visited the $1-trillion threshold, the $100-billion-plus cost of Obama's healthcare plan may look like a rounding error. http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-na-stimulus-collision15-2009feb15,0,7341287.story?page=2

The jig is up and not a moment too soon. ProgressiveEconomist called out the GOP here on taxation:

Why do tax cuts for the poor seem to be anathema to Republicans, even though targeting tax cuts disproportionately toward the poor surely would provide the greatest stimulus to the economy?

An idea crystallized in my mind last night after years of thinking about the evil political genius of Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, and David Stockman. The idea is this: much of the Republican political hold on poor working people since Reagan may have come from the very payroll taxes Reagan shifted onto them massively (see below the line in this post), while cutting marginal income tax rates for the wealthiest by two thirds. After Reagan and company shifted the tax burden from the vast incomes of rich people to the meager pay of the poor, the poor would become much more susceptible to Republican anti-tax, anti-government propaganda. But, unlike the rich, the poor never would get relief from their hefty tax increases. This cynical political ploy may have been part of what Stockman called his "SHIFT AND SHAFT" fiscal strategy. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8186612

It's the same calculus on the spending side: Shift the burden onto the states and local government and Shaft those on low incomes with higher local taxes.

The Clinton administration was right to home in on government efficiency. Who can argue against getting the most bang for the buck?. Republican rorts seldom get much press, but a Democratic Administration is always under the microscope. Nevertheless, SPENDING is itself is no longer politically incorrect per se. The second pillar of "tax and spend" is falling. Reaganomics 1980 - 2008. "They own their failure" Barack Obama.

[ej510]

1. This states why we need to do more to improve public education. If improve public education...the

republican is to receive a major hit to their voting block.