Today's New York Times had a sobering reminder of how infrequently the government gets it right when it tries to either predict future trends or change behaviors that run contrary to basic incentives. Here in the Midwest over the past couple of years you couldn't drive a mile without seeing some new ethanol or bio-diesel plant. All of them, ALL OF THEM were built for one reason only - heavy government subsidies. It appears that it hasn't worked as many are now in economic trouble even with all of this support.
Now we've just decided to spend 789,000,000,000 dollars of OUR MONEY, not the government's, in order to pursue a policy designed to inspire us to spend more money. Setting aside for a moment that it seems illogical to me that somehow spending more of our money will get us to spend more money, as I've noted before, these are the same people who just a year or so ago warned us about taking on debt and spending too much money.
Harry Reid this morning said, not predicted, that this plan will create more than 3 million jobs. For the sake of argument, let's assume this bill does create 3 million jobs (which I really doubt). Folks 789,000,000,000 divided by 3,000,000 equals (drumroll) $263,000 per job. We are going to spend $263,000 per job to create 3 million jobs. Is it just me, or does that seem like a lot of money per job?
I've got a better idea - let's give the 24,000,000 unemployed in this country checks for $32,875. It's the same amount, and it will get them through a couple of years of life. Also, it will give them a chance to start businesses and start spending or keep them in homes.
It won't go to banks, Wall Street, special interests, big businesses, unions, construction companies, state governments, or anybody with their head in the government's trough. If we are going to spend that much of our money, let's simply do a direct transfer to the folks who need it. How about that for a plan?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know that I would certainly have some fun stimulating the economy under your plan! My only fear is that too many people would put all of their eggs in the basket of the PajamaGram.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, if they were really serious about trying to stimulate the economy through government action, then they would have done something along these lines, or cut taxes. But it's obvious that they aren't...they're simply taking this opportunity of crisis to fulfill in one month about a half a century's worth of unfulfilled liberal wet dreams (excuse my crudeness). Because we're all such stupid creatures (silly taxpayers), tax cuts or reimbursements likely won't be spent on 'greater-good' items and services....like abortions, greenie products, and water parks. So they'll just do it for us. John Kerry said as much in a speech last week:
"I've supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is non-targeted.
If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there's no guarantee that they're going to invest that or invest it in America.
They're free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest."
I guess maybe he secretly shares my fear that all that money would go toward the PajamaGram too...or maybe lots of Snuggies.