Stimulation
The House of Representatives was the field for quite a bit of political maneuvering over the past week. House Democrats (along with President Obama’s new administration) penned a massive stimulus bill to the tune of $800 Billion. It was split as one third tax cuts and two thirds government spending. Together, the goal is to get people working again on useful projects. It’s funded 100% through government debt (like everything else these days) but at least we might have a few new bridges to show for it.
House Republicans were indignant that the stimulus plan would include so much government spending. In the world of Republican politics, any amount of spending is too much and any amount of tax cuts is too little. (Unless of course you’re spending that money on war-related goods and services, in which case no limit need apply.)
The Republican argument goes that the stimulus is needed NOW, so projects like road repair and bridge building are too slow. Tax cuts, on the other hand, are relatively quick to implement.
The watchword in this whole discussion is jobs. With unemployment nearing the dreaded double-digit mark, politicians are desperate to get people back to work. This is where the tax-cuts-only idea starts to drift.
If I’m a business owner and my tax bill goes down, that difference falls straight to the bottom line. I have no incentive to turn around and hire more workers with my new found riches. Add to that the fact that most businesses are already watching inventory pile up and it’s clear that money is not the limiting factor on employment–the fact of the matter is that there’s just not as much work to be done.
Which brings us back to spending: large infrastructure projects require large workforces. While it’s true that some planning is required before boots hit the ground, it’s as close to a guarantee of job creation as you can get.
Could it be that the Republicans opposed the spending bill due to deep-rooted ideology and not a fair read of the goals and methods therein? Gasp!
To be fair, the House Democrats also packed in some other spending on basic human services and such, which isn’t technically a stimulus to the economy. That said, I would rather see our citizenry clothed and fed than on the starving and in rags.
Try as he may to bring a few moderate Republicans to his side, Obama watched as the House voted straight down the party lines on the stimulus package. Maybe we’re not ready for change just yet.
Filed under politics : Comments (3) : Jan 30th, 2009 by tadfad
January 30th, 2009 at 23:13
Good blog. Better than what gets written in mnost local newspapers.
unfortunately, America will see way above double-digit unemployment rates w/ in the next year or two, I’m afraid. Simple tax breaks aren’t going to change that. Massive infrastructure investment will help more in both the short and long term. At least that’s my $0.02.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:08
[...] defender of the the “stimulus” is Tad Johnson, a friend of mine and a local Wisconsin blogger. I think his argument is typical of my liberal [...]
February 8th, 2009 at 22:31
“See, when the Government spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of Taxpayers, God only knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs. ”
-Dave Barry