NetworkedBlogs
In An Odd Position
Big government interference in the economy and the personal lives of individuals is inconsistent with liberty: every decision made by the government is a decision that individuals and families can't make for themselves; every dollar taken by the government in confiscatory taxation is a dollar that individuals and families can't spend on their on their own prosperity; every favor endowed by the government on one group comes, ultimately, at the expense of another.
With that in mind, I find myself in an odd position: I am actually hoping that the so-called "stimulus" bill, passed by the House, gets loaded down with intrusive government programs and economic disincentives that would actually hurt the economy, such as extended unemployment benefits and other giveaways.
I want to see a "Christmas tree" bill so laden with bad ideas that the whole thing comes crashing down, or at least delayed. Filibuster and debate in the Senate, then rancorous debate in the House-Senate Conference Committee, maybe even a Presidential veto. In the meantime, while the politicians alternate between back room deals and patting each other on the back for "doing something" and feeling our pain, the economy will correct itself and get back to growing and creating jobs and wealth.
The central theme of the "stimulus package" is government checks — supposed "tax rebates". The thinking is that the government can send us checks, and we'll go out shopping and cure the economy. Never mind that that the total of the checks amounts to 1% of the economy, or that to pay for the checks the government must borrow money (thus providing a future liability that must be paid back, most likely with higher taxes), raise taxes (which would most likely fall on the richest Americans, those most likely to start job-creating businesses), or print money (causing inflation and a decrease in the actual value of the checks). Never mind that the "stimulus" would amount to, as one economists put it, like taking a gallon of water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end. Never mind that a one-time, temporary "gift" would do nothing to influence behavior — no incentives for someone to start a business, or for a business to invest in new equipment or research or hire more people.
So, in the meantime, I'll keep hoping for the Senate to do what it does best: Talk. Delay. Load the bill down so it creeps glacier-slow through the legislative labyrinth. In the meantime, the economy can cure itself and perhaps we can be spared such an embarrassment of a "cure".
With that in mind, I find myself in an odd position: I am actually hoping that the so-called "stimulus" bill, passed by the House, gets loaded down with intrusive government programs and economic disincentives that would actually hurt the economy, such as extended unemployment benefits and other giveaways.
I want to see a "Christmas tree" bill so laden with bad ideas that the whole thing comes crashing down, or at least delayed. Filibuster and debate in the Senate, then rancorous debate in the House-Senate Conference Committee, maybe even a Presidential veto. In the meantime, while the politicians alternate between back room deals and patting each other on the back for "doing something" and feeling our pain, the economy will correct itself and get back to growing and creating jobs and wealth.
The central theme of the "stimulus package" is government checks — supposed "tax rebates". The thinking is that the government can send us checks, and we'll go out shopping and cure the economy. Never mind that that the total of the checks amounts to 1% of the economy, or that to pay for the checks the government must borrow money (thus providing a future liability that must be paid back, most likely with higher taxes), raise taxes (which would most likely fall on the richest Americans, those most likely to start job-creating businesses), or print money (causing inflation and a decrease in the actual value of the checks). Never mind that the "stimulus" would amount to, as one economists put it, like taking a gallon of water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end. Never mind that a one-time, temporary "gift" would do nothing to influence behavior — no incentives for someone to start a business, or for a business to invest in new equipment or research or hire more people.
So, in the meantime, I'll keep hoping for the Senate to do what it does best: Talk. Delay. Load the bill down so it creeps glacier-slow through the legislative labyrinth. In the meantime, the economy can cure itself and perhaps we can be spared such an embarrassment of a "cure".
Comments