• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Serial hysteria

It's way too late to even wish for this, but "doing nothing" is a lot better than being stupid:

Instead of fighting over what should go in the economic stimulus bill, pitting infrastructure spending against tax cuts and contractors against contraceptives, they say lawmakers should be fighting against the very idea of any economic stimulus at all. Call them the Do-Nothing Crowd.

“The economy was too big. It was all phantom wealth borrowed from abroad,” says Andrew Schiff, an investment consultant at Euro Pacific Capital and a card-carrying member of the stand-tall-against-the-stimulus lobby. “All this stimulus money is geared toward getting consumers spending and borrowing again. But spending and borrowing were the problem in the first place.”

"Spending and borrowing" were the problem in the first place. That could be the motto of the baby boom generation, which is now reacting to its first "self-created, big-time recession" with predictable hysteria:

The reaction to the economic panic was sort of analogous to the call to 'charge it!' after 9/11 (cf. Ike's fights about the surtax to pay for Korea), or to the Iraq 2006 upsurge in violence, when suddenly our leaders declared the war lost, blamed the nebulous "they" for tricking them into voting for the war, and calling for immediate withdrawals and retreats. Ditto the Stalag-Gulag Guantanamo that, by January 19, had ruined the Constitution, shredded the Bill of Rights, and forever tarnished our reputation. Yet, on the 20th, it was suddenly complex and problematic, and required a "task force" to do a year-long inquiry into the bad and worse choices confronting us. At some point in all this serial hysteria, we are beginning to see the problem is not in the stars of the economy or of the war, but in ourselves—a weird generation that, when it finally came of age, proved to be just about what we could expect of it from what we saw in its youth.

And how much of that "stimulus" package wll actually be stimulative? Well, about 12 cents on the dollar, if we want to be generous:

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Comments

tim zank
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 7:17pm

It's not a "stimulus" package at all. It's a hugely funded social engineering plan. The Dems have the country by the balls and they know it. I don't care what your poitical affiliation is, if you have ANY common sense at all, you have to see this spending is wrong on sooooo many levels it boggles the mind.

To restate the obvious, if spending money we didn't have created this mess, how in the fark is tripling or uadrupling the spending going to correct it? Seriously, answer me that.

If you take all the hopey-changey feel good horsesh&t out it and simply do the math, it's INSANE. Does no one understand that SOMEONE has to be left holding the bag?

William Larsen
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 2:18pm

The speal now is to give tax rebates to low income workers to compensate for the payroll tax, amazing! Inthe early 70's they raised the payroll taxes signficantly only after there were no workers not covered by SS to snooker. To compensate the low wage worker, they created the Earned Income Credit to compensate workers for high payroll taxes in the form of a rebate using General Revenue Taxes instead of lowering the payroll tax.

Today, we hear talks of a payroll tax holiday for two months. The stimulus package would rebate payroll taxes up to 6.2% of wages for a maximum of $500 per person. They also propose incresing the Earned Income Tax Credit again.

Call me silly. Why not just cut the tax that is causing the problem? Each time the payroll tax was increased, the US savings rate decreased, wage growth slowed, jobs were shipped overseas, families found it more difficult to buy a home, pay for college or pay for healthcare.

When you walk into a mind field, you stop and retrace your steps. This is no different. If you want to increase savings, reduce dependency on government eliminate the payroll tax along with all the unfunded liabilities these this tax supports. Stop the back door subsidization of Social Security and Medicare using general revenue taxes.

Kevin Knuth
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 4:29pm

If Zank and Larsen are against it, I am all for it.

tim zank
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:46pm

I love it when I'm right. Thanks Knuth. Good post Bill!

Steven T.
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:43pm

My friend Mr. Knuth: No personal philosophic choice should ever be entirely automatic. A knee-jerk politician's knees are the same as everyone of his species, while the "jerk" almost always accrues to the public's estimation of an individual.

In the larger context, while "doing nothing" is indeed better than "being stupid," so is everything else you can name. There is no honor in a politician's doing nothing on the excuse that his or her only alternative was acting stupidly. That explanation is no excuse, it is utter incompetence. IMHO, as always.

William Larsen
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 1:58pm

I hear that the bailout will increase taxes in the future, but right now, we spend it. When was the last time government spent a large amount of money and paid it back? Anyone who believes they will raise taxes in the future to pay back the principal and interest on borrowed money today has beein sipping to much fermented cider. The last budget surplus was 1957!!!!

Since 1957 our elected representatives have never once paid the principal on of the deficits since. It has borrowed money to pay the interest on top of the money it borrowed to cover the yearly deficits.

In all honesty, we need to cut spending enough to create a surplus budget using the current taxes and pay down the national debt.

Does Knuth have no respect for his children? Maybe he has no children?

tim zank
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 2:28pm

Whether Knuth has kids or not wouldn't matter to him. The important thing in his mind (and all politicians) is what's right in front of them at this time. It's all about right now, not planning, or foresight. That requires common sense and planning, something totally abstract to democrats especially, but to be fair all politicians in general.

Bob G.
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 4:39pm

I've also heard that most politicians are considered EXPERTS in this field of abstract logic, Tim.
"X" being an UNKNOWN QUANTITY, and SPURTS being sudden jets of water from a faucet.

(yeah, that about covers it)

;)

Quantcast