If Obama really wants to fund teachers, police and firefighters, it needs to be longer term.

[dkf]

The states are not going to recover so much by next year that they will be able to take on this funding soon.

It puzzles me why we would sell this as a short term one time thing. Or are we kind of assuming once we fund it we will continue funding it? Is that how the Feds fund everything?

[tridim]

1. Do you think the idiot Repubs would support a long-term bill?

[rfranklin]

2. They won't support anything that might make his reelection more likely...

as you imply. Denigrating Obama is Job Number One!

[deacon]

5. It's the GOP first, America second. n/t

[dkf]

6. Maybe if we cut something else that isn't as directly supportive of jobs.

You would think in a budget this large we could find something that makes sense.

[tridim]

9. It doesn't matter, the Repukes have already proved they don't support job creation

As long as that job creation is spearheaded by a black President.

It's really stunning that after all this time you still don't get it.

[emulatorloo]

10. Republicans will not support anything that actually helps people. Get rid of the Republicans.

That is the answer.

[Guilded Lilly]

3. Shorter term needs to refer to the length any Republican remains in office.

VOTE THEM OUT.

[leftstreet]

4. 'If Obama really wants to fund...' Kinda answered your own question n/t

[emulatorloo]

8. Bullshit. Stop giving the Republicans a free pass.

Until you include Republicans in your world view, you are either out of touch or you are a deliberate propagandist.

[leftstreet]

13. Voters annihilated the GOP in 2006 & 2008. Why are they back?

:shrug:

[OHdem10]

7. Very simple. The Government can only do stop gap funding.

It is never intended to be long term.

Obama is constrained by economics and the RWers.

He has to pay for every thing. Since Republicans
refuse Stimulus spending, there is only so much
Obama can do.

BTW, three Conservadems blocked Obama.

Until we recognize a President is limited by Congress
and only has limited powers, people will be disappointed.

We need to focus on getting real Democrats in the House
and Senate if we want true change.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. The three cross overs did not matter. 60 were needed

[dkf]

12. Is that because of the times we are in or is that how it works period?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Its the process

Cops and teachers are local issues and locally funded. Plusing their budget up for a few years from outside means that the locality will have to find a way to maintain that funding level when the plus up goes away. When that doesn't happen there are layoffs and cutbacks.

Solve the local funding issues for the long term is the correct answer

[dkf]

16. How do you get long term federal funding?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. You shouldn't make Federal funding a cornerstone of local services

You need to fund them locally. It is better to cut Federal taxes and raise local ones.

[sad sally]

21. States and local govts continue to give huge tax breaks to all kinds

of corporations to woo them into creating jobs - like security brokers, custom software developers, big banks, cosmetic surgeons, private jet owners, agribusiness and sports arenas . These tax exemptions deprive the state treasury of the revenues needed to keep schools/teachers, infrastructure, fire depts, etc. from operating. The beneficiaries of these tax breaks many times pack up and go to the next generous state/locality leaving taxpayers holding the bill.

In my state, there's a $5 billion budget shortfall for the next two years; tax exemptions to corporations is $6 billion - doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what the problem is. Will this ever change? I doubt it as long as elected officials/politicians are under corporate influence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. In California, Gov Brown has stopped certain programs that fund localities

Programs that had been there for years and were an integral part of small town funding plans. To solve the state problems, he screwed the small towns. Feds will do the same to the states etc. Each level of government needs to be appropriately funded is clearly the better approach.

As for bidding wars for companies (big and small), the exodus from California is scary. Texas and other places are bragging about how many they get to move.

California is well under revenue projections as well.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Prior short term funding approaches have not gone well

These are long term local matters that should be taxed for locally. I would fully support reallocation of revenue to local matters from the state and federal level, since going through them adds no value and increases cost. Not going to happen, but it should.

[dkf]

19. I do agree with that and have said it before.

I'm just wondering what Obama's angle is.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. He is a pol, so elections are in there somewhere

While many are disappointed in that he has only created smaller changes, I am not. The expectations were way way to high coming into office. He has done about as expected by me.

[FarCenter]

17. Federal funding should be for things that improve local economies and expand their tax bases

Once local economies are in better shape and tax revenues rise, then the communities can afford to hire more teachers and first responders, assuming that there is an actual need for them.

Without sustainable improvements to the local economies, the direct funding of public employee salaries just delays their inevitable firing while burdening the federal government with more debt and further impairing our overall economic position.

It's not clear whether the teachers and first responders will be let go anyway, or whether there are other elements of state and local budgets that could be cut further. Teachers and first responders are always put up for reductions, since reducing them will cause more public outcry than reducing other state and local staff and expenditures. But they are not always a large part of the budget.

[Johonny]

20. I agree

There needs to be some long term planning for this country. The whole countries political vision feels like a day trader at the moment. There is no clear long term energy policy, trade policy, tax policy, military policy, domestic programs policy... Every political move at the moment feels like a stop gap to get you to the next stop gap. If you try to make a long term plan like the health care bill, the bill gets watered down, you get killed politically for thinking long term, the press kills you for not taking care of needs of today and you get voted out of office. Which sums up as currently politicians generally don't talk at all about the real problems of the country, when they are force to do so only talk in short term solutions (or solutions that aren't solutions at all) because recent history has shown that voters reward short term reactionaries over long term planning. People call out more and more for some long term vision for this country, yet come voting time in many districts they tend to vote for reactionaries over and over...