Please, Call Me Comrade

Yes, change has come to Washington...a chunk of change, that is. In case anyone thinks the $820 billion stimulus package is a good idea, please consider these figures from The American Spectator:

• Only ten percent of the "stimulus" is to be spent on 2009.
• Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions.
• For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000.
• We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.

In sum:

"This has been a punch in the solar plexus to the kind of responsible, far-seeing, mature government processes that are needed to protect America. This is more than the pork barrel. This is a coup for the constituencies of the party in power and against the idea of a responsible government itself. A bleak day."

I'm no listener nor fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I do like his bipartisan test idea, as printed Thursday in the Wall Street Journal:

"Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth."

Again, the problem is not Obama (remember, I like the guy); it's his ideology/idolatry of government-as-God that is. As David Brooks noted today in the New York Times:

"A stimulus package was always going to be controversial, because economists differ widely about whether or how a stimulus can work. But this bill also permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency."

I hate to say "I told you so" (well, not really) but I did. Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

Comments

[Ed Eubanks]

STILL not taking the bait...
:)

[Craig]

Exactly what fish do you think I'm trying to catch, Ed, and (if I were) why assume it's you?

[Charliam]

I too am lamenting the proposed "stimulus package." I appreciate the information you shared above; and I am also tired of the "news" networks bringing on "experts" who keep saying 'no one knows what will work . . . .' The more history I read, the conclusive it seems that what is proposed in the majority of this proposal has been tried several times throughout history and yet failed.

This reminds me of two expressions: 1) the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, and 2) the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

There seems to be growing consensus that when FDR did much the same thing it not only didn't bring the tough economic times to an end, but rather extended them.

Hope is one thing . . . but 'stick your head in the sand' journalism is another.

(I'm probably not what you're fishing for either . . . but I'll take the bait) :0)