Coast to Coast Criticism of Democrats’ “Stimulus”
Posted by Kevin on February 11th, 2009
Newspapers and commentators from coast to coast have continued to criticize the House Democrats’ trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ bill as an ineffective and costly plan in editorials and columns this past week.
The more Americans hear about the contents of the Democrats’ so-called stimulus bill, the less they seem to support it. In fact, according to Rasmussen, only 37% of Americans support the Democrats’ “stimulus”; 50% of voters say the “stimulus is likely to make things worse; and, 62% want stimulus plan to have more tax cuts and less spending.
Here’s what editorials and opinion makers are saying about the Democrats’ bloated “stimulus” bill:
“Stimulating welfare,” Rocky Mountain News:
Several provisions in the stimulus package would immediately grow the welfare state. One would make Medicaid, the federal health program for the indigent, available to anyone who’s unemployed - former millionaire CEOs and laid-off retail workers alike. Another measure would, for the first time, provide taxpayer subsidies under the COBRA health-insurance law. Either of these proposals would undermine individual responsibility, allowing people who can afford to pay for medical insurance from their own pockets to collect taxpayer subsidies.
“Mission Creep,” The Chicago Tribune:
We’ve been skeptical about this whole process. The mantra on this page has been that if the U.S. has to do this, the spending has to be timely, targeted and temporary. In other words, try to jump-start the economy, but don’t let the rush to a “stimulus” package become the smoke to hide a lot of ways to permanently expand government.
“The President must improve stimulus legislation to get the biggest bang for America’s buck,” New York Daily News:
The spree extended to paying for a campaign against sexually transmitted diseases, for efforts to help smokers quit, for the Coast Guard to design an icebreaker, as well as for many more things having nothing to do with stimulating the economy.
It was probably too much to hope that Pelosi, Obey & Co. would behave as anything other than entrenched Beltway insiders - even with the nation’s fate in the balance.
“A Spending Education,” The Wall Street Journal:
To understand the problem with the stimulus bill, it helps to focus on specific parts. Take the $142 billion for schools, which is nearly double the total outlays of the Department of Education in 2007. Now consider that much of this cash would go to public-school systems that don’t even need the money for its earmarked purposes. The Milwaukee Public School system, for example, would receive $88.6 million over two years for new construction projects under the House version of the stimulus — even though the district currently has 15 vacant school buildings and declining enrollment.
“Taxing and borrowing to prosperity,” The Orange County Register:
The stimulus argument ignores half the equation, the side of things the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat described as “that which is unseen.” Borrowing money may create some government or government-supported jobs, but unseen is the resources taken from the productive private sector of the economy and therefore unavailable for other uses. That simply redistributes money. And the vast amount of money in the “stimulus” package quickly is likely to overwhelm government procurement processes, leading to great inefficiency, waste, and corruption.
“What’s that smell?” Union-Leader (NH):
A rose “by any other name would smell as sweet,” Shakespeare wrote. Likewise, manure by any other name would smell as foul. And that is the problem President Barack Obama is trying to overcome in selling his $838 billion stimulus bill. He can call it a rose all he wants, but its stench gives it away.
“Too big, too expensive, too fast,” Indianapolis Star:
No one disputes that the nation’s economy is in sorry shape. The pressure on Congress and the president to act quickly is substantial. That’s no excuse, however, for signing off on a bad bill, one that would add to the already expansive national debt and might do little to revive the economy.
“Slimming the Stimulus,” National Review:
What is a new and permanent government bureaucracy doing in a supposedly temporary stimulus bill in the first place? If major changes to our health-care system don’t qualify for a separate debate-far removed from the apocalyptic rhetoric that has characterized the current one-then there is probably nothing that would not count as “stimulus” for the Democrats’ purposes. The word literally means whatever they want it to mean.
“Spend Now, Think Later,” by Paul Greenberg:
A major part of this gargantuan spending package seems devoted to make-work projects, politically correct causes, and even programs that may be worthwhile in themselves but have no discernible connection with the kind of economic stimulus the country could use right now. Such as smoking-cessation, “comparative effectiveness research” on the cost of health care, digital television conversion, sex hygiene, models of possible global warming patterns. … Everybody and anybody with a pet panacea seems to have inserted it into what was supposed to be a plan to revive the economy.
“Stimulus: A History of Folly,” by James K. Glassman:
The truth is that we have learned almost nothing about the use of fiscal stimulus since the Great Depression, and it is a fatal conceit to assume that we can hurriedly construct a fiscal policy that will produce the prescribed results today. Economists seem to admit this fact by advocating what they prefer anyway, for political or ideological reasons.
“The Return of Welfare As We Knew It,” by Benjamin Sasse and Kerry Weems:
Through a little noticed provision of the stimulus package that has passed the House of Representatives, the bill creates a fund for TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families] that is open-ended — the same way Medicare and Social Security are.
In the section of the House bill dealing with cash assistance to low-income families, the authors inserted the bombshell phrase: “such sums as are necessary.” This is a profound departure from the current statutory scheme, despite the fact that, in this particular bill, state TANF spending would be capped. The “such sums” appropriation language is deliberately obscure. It is a camel’s nose provision intended to reverse Clinton-era legislation and create a new template for future TANF reauthorizations…. All who are concerned about our nation’s unfunded obligations should be on guard against attempts to slip “such sums” language into any conference committee bill. Welfare policy is too important to change with a stealth maneuver.
“Last Gasp for Limited Government?” by Rich Lowry:
[The size of the federal government relative to GDP] bounced back to 20.9 percent last year, and could conceivably go as high as 28 percent this year. According to Newsweek (latest cover: “We Are All Socialists Now”), in 2010 total U.S. government spending will be 39.9 percent of GDP, only about eight percentage points below the average in the socialistic eurozone countries. Is American exceptionalism about to be bundled off on a long trip to the Continent, never to return?
Randolph Bourne posited that war is the health of the state. True. But one wonders: What isn’t the health of the state? Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Newt Gingrich intent on limiting government during the past 25 years have succeeded in a limited way: From 1983 to 2000, the size of the federal government relative to GDP declined from 23.5 percent to 18.4 percent. Federal spending didn’t shrink, but it grew at a slower rate than the economy, providing more breathing room for the private sector.
“The Costanza-Hoover Principle,” by Jim Manzi:
When I hear politicians say that “we’re borrowing this money from our kids” or whatever, this can seem abstract. It turns out that it’s not a metaphor. If we enact the stimulus legislation, there will people from Beijing to Dubuque who will hold pieces of paper saying, roughly, that on a specified date they can show up at the door of the United States government and demand trillions of dollars.
“There’s No Stimulus Free Lunch,” by Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy:
Whatever the merits of other government spending, the spending in this package is likely to have less value. A very large amount of money will be spent quickly over a two-year period: $500 billion amounts to about one-quarter of the total federal government annual spending of $2 trillion. It is extremely difficult for any group, private as well as public, to spend such a large sum wisely in a short period of time.
“Washington Could Use Less Keynes and More Hayek,” by Dick Armey:
If the government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If the government raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul. If the government prints the money, it will increase inflation, which will decrease the value of the dollar. That would, in effect, rob Paul to pay Paul back with devalued currency.
Taking money out of the private economy — either through taxes or inflation — and spending it in a way that doesn’t offset the loss of money with real economic gains is worse than doing nothing.
“The Fierce Urgency of Pork,” by Charles Krauthammer:
It’s not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It’s not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.
It’s the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus — and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress’s own budget office says won’t be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish.
“On Stimulus Bill, Centrists Are Over the Line,” by Jonah Goldberg:
Putting aside the question of whether the ornaments dangling from every branch of this legislative Christmas tree amount to good policy, there’s still the matter of why Democrats are afraid of the normal process. Sneaking into the package hundreds of millions for, say, sex education, the National Endowment for the Arts, and sod for the National Mall doesn’t suggest a lot of confidence that Americans support such liberal priorities.
“800 Billion Reasons To Be Worried,” by Veronique de Rugy:
Instead of rushing through legislation that will likely have no short-term effect on the economy, is guaranteed to have negative long term ones, and that serves the traditional interest groups that politicians are always busy catering to, the Senate should have cut spending like Ireland is now doing and cut marginal tax rates across the board. That would not only have stimulated the economy, it would have been fiscally responsible considering the massive entitlement crisis that is coming our way.
Permalink |
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pm and is filed under Stimulus.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
February 11th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Wow. That’s a great run-down from coast to coast. Most of the people in my circle of friends feels pretty much the same way. And I read somewhere today that it’s big enough to just give every American $10,000.00. I would find that stimulating.
But there’s one thing I’ve not heard and wonder about. What happens to the new jobs and the saved jobs once they’re all paid out?
If the local governments can’t afford to keep people employed now without FED money what happens when after a year of employment there’s no more money?
And most infrastructure jobs do not come under the bid price and typically last longer then bid. At least that’s been my experience here in Florida.
The markets didn’t really look all that great today with the sub 8,000 dow close, so I’m guessing that Wall Street remains skeptical of DC.
Only thing that seems to be doing well is the precious metals I watch with ExactPrice.
Gold jumped almost to $950 and ounce! Silver came within sight of $14 and platinum is surprise me in spite of all the bad auto news.
Just tells me that investors are trying to hedge against the dollar.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
This stimulus is a farce. Seems like promises made to people are getting what they want at our expense. People who need the benefits of the stimulus package will not recieve it. Tax credits for new homeowners will not work if people don’t have money or jobs to purchase homes and make mortgage payments. Why do we need to spend 300 Mil on condoms? Build schools with a declining school population? Why are they trying to sneak in the backdoor Universal Healthcare? The three Repulicans and the other members who voted yes should really think about the long term effects. Cut spending now and lets do in the right places. I am also appalled that persons who bombed the USS Cole were allowed to go free. This is a travesty. I apologize to the service members who gave their lives. Might as well take all the US troops home now. Obama won’t support them.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
To all Congressmen/women:
RE: Bailout Bill: Remove health & medical provisions for consideration in a separate bill
Then vote no on the entire bill
The health care provisions in the bailout bill include a massive federal invasion of privacy and interference in doctor-patient decisions. All health issues need to be considered as a separate bill and be given time for debate.
The entire bailout bill also is a massive federal takeover of private enterprise. It is loaded with provisions directed as specific companies/projects that should be eliminated as earmarks. The very concept that the economy can be stimulated by taking money from the same economy is doomed to failure. It should be defeated. At the very least, no Republican should vote for it. Do not allow Democrats to claim bipartisan support for this extremely bad legislation.
I am very concerned about other provisions which I have not had time to study. The tenor of the bill and the secretive way it has been constructed lead me to be very fearful for our very liberties in this nation.
February 13th, 2009 at 8:59 am
[…] thinker has now written what is turning out to be an influential piece in some circles. For one, House Minority Leader John Boehner cites it on his blog.1 I even saw some people reading print-outs of the article on my train - which […]
February 13th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
[…] a poitician, and he is certainly not an economist, but has has done us a small favor by assembling this list of links to writings of people who do know more. One of the links is to There’s No Stimulus Free […]
February 13th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
NO PORK!