Interesting how all the presidential candidates--as well as President Bush--are posturing to see who can give the biggest check, to the most voters, the quickest.
Also interesting to see how just like during yesterdays Bernanke testimony, as soon as Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson got on the airwaves and started speaking, the stock market went from +100 points to minus territory before they finished speaking. A crisis of confidence in our collective leadership?
The money has to come from somewhere though, since Bernanke I believe cautioned yesterday that, in addition to being a temporary move that the stimulus does not increase the budget deficit in a meaningful way. Therefore, the money given to an as yet to be determined group of people (those who would spend it the fastest) has to come from another group of people (presumably those who would do something stupid like save it or invest it).
Maybe they should just have the states send everyone 1,000 lottery tickets each instead of $1,000 and reimburse the states from federal coffers/printing press. That way we can further reinforce stupid, short-term economic decision making.
Isn't this type of quick fix, short-term, band-aid approach to the economy what got us in the deep a pile of fiscal doo-doo we are in right now? I'm just asking.
But don't just take my word for it.
------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE CATO INSTITUTE http://www.cato.org
In the Cato Daily Podcast "Cash Advance Stimulus," Chris Edwards, Cato's director of tax policy studies, comments: "I think that Mr. Bernanke has been drinking the same sort of Keynesian Kool-Aid that other prominent economists like Larry Summers have been drinking. I don't believe it works. I think it simply pushes debt onto future generations of Americans, so I actually think there is a moral question here. A stimulus package simply is the federal government borrowing more money, giving it to people now, just sort of randomly and then putting the tab on taxpayers and our children in the future. It seems to be very immoral for the federal government to go ahead and do this when frankly they have no idea what they are doing with the economy.
"Economists have a horrible track record on forecasting what the economy is going to do, even a few months ahead of time. This sort of stimulus package is just a shot in the dark, it's a big waste of money and it just increases the nation's debt."
Cato senior fellow Dan Mitchell comments: "The president’s proposed stimulus based on 'temporary' tax cuts designed to boost 'consumer spending' will not work. It is a disappointing re-run of the misguided policies of Jimmy Carter. Rebates are particularly disappointing because they resuscitate the discredited Keynesian notion that an economy benefits when the government borrows money from people in one sector of the economy and distributes it to people in another sector of the economy. Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in national income, not a redistribution of national income. That is why lower marginal tax rates on work, saving, and investment are the best short-term and long-term strategy for faster growth. But such tax rate reductions should be permanent since temporary tax cuts -- even well-designed tax rate reductions rather than rebates -- do little more than generate economic activity today at the expense of less activity in the future."
MOODY'S SAYS U.S. BOND RATING IN JEOPARDY
Moody's Investors Service said on January 10 that soaring healthcare and social security spending could threaten the United States' "triple-A" government bond rating. "These two programs are the largest threats to the long-term financial health of the United States and to the government's Aaa rating," said Moody's analyst Steven Hess.
------------------------------------------------------------
So clearly, those who say "doesn't Congress have better things to do?" have a case given the lingering, long-term problems that Congress has failed to adequately deal with and that they are directly responsible for:
The Budget Deficit, Health Care, The War, Terrorism, Social Security, National Security, Economic Issues like the housing crisis, the lending crisis, Immigration policy, and on and on. All these are issues where Congress can make a real and lasting impact and affect the lives of adults and children in this country, yet they fail to do so. The buck keeps getting passed to future Congresses, future administrations and oh yeah, future generations. And the clock keeps ticking in the background like a time-bomb. But Congress sure can attempt to divert our attention with these side issues can't they?
You know Congressmen and women, your lack of progress on these substantive, everyday issues will affect the lives of our children, now and when they inherit this mess we leave them with. Why not show you really care about the lives of kids by getting out of the playground of sports and getting back to work? Or is that too hard for you to do?
Congressmen and women, you are not fooling anybody by using this issue to demonstrate your level of competence to the people. If anything you are reinforcing the majority of citizens perceptions regarding your competence, as demonstrated by public opinion polls which show the approval rating of Congress to be lower than that of the President. I'm not sure this type of grandstanding is an effective use of your time, nor is it an effective way to curry favor with the majority of your constituents, I would bet.
Roll up your sleeves and get back to work on the major issues of the day and quit fooling around and dilly-dallying while these other, clearly more important issues turn into crises.
---------------------------------------------------
ROBIN HOOD from Wikipedia:
Robin Hood is a figure in archetypal English folk tales, whose story goes back to medieval times. In popular culture he is painted as a man known for robbing the rich to provide for the poor and fighting against injustice and tyranny. His band consists of "seven score" group of fellow outlawed yeomen – called his "Merry Men.
In the oldest legends the outlaw's enemy is the sheriff due simply to his profession,[8] but in later versions the sheriff is despotic and gravely abuses his position, appropriating land, levying excessive taxation, and persecuting the poor.
In some tales the antagonist is Prince John, based on the historical John of England, who is seen as the unjust usurper of his pious brother Richard the Lionheart.
In some tales he is the champion of the people, fighting against corrupt officials and the oppressive order that protects them, while in others he is an arrogant and headstrong rebel, who delights in bloodshed, cruelly slaughtering and beheading his victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment