Barbara Ehrenreich memorably called the talk about the stimulus "clitoral economics." And that was before we got screwed.
The stimulus deal just announced is being praised more for its existence than its content. Much lamented partisan bickering was overcome; bipartisan cooperation that got it done. WIth Wall Street bankers in panic, better something than nothing. So the parties came together and split the difference and created an agreement (which still has to survive the minefield called the US Senate).
It's worth taking a look under the hood. Despite approval ratings rivaling those of Idi Amin, President Bush set the terms: Tax cuts only. No spending on public works (that is nothing for stuff we need that actually puts people to work). No increase in food stamps. No strengthening of our tattered unemployment system. (That is no money to those who we know most need it) Must include a big package of business tax breaks (that is tax write-offs for investments that would be made anyway, according to any reputable economic study). No money for states that are about to be forced to cut billions to balance their budgets, largely by cutting education and Medicaid spending and deferring basic infrastructure spending (remember the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis or the sewage valve that shut down lower Manhattan?).
Democrats, despite having the majority in both Houses, accepted those terms. They demanded, sensibly enough, that the tax cuts include 45 million people in low income families that the president would have excluded. They demanded the president take extending his top end tax cuts beyond 2010 off the table. They got some help for imperiled homeowners through the Federal Housing Authority and Fannie Mae.
So only $40 billion of the $150 billion package gets squandered on business tax boondoggles. The rebates -- what Jesse Jackson calls Wal-Mart gift certificates -- will get handed out by August at best. It might help a bit, although if the economy is still in bad shape in August, people are more likely to be paying down credit card debt than buying a new TV made in China.
But $40 billion isn't the largest cost. The real price is the continued misdirection of the economy and miseducation of the country. We need what the stimulus package excludes. We need long term investment in rebuilding America -- spending money on mass transit, on basic sewers and water disposal, on the electric grid, on renewable energy, on a green rebuilding of our urban areas, on schools and teachers, pre-K and affordable college. We need to stop squandering money abroad in misbegotten wars -- now approaching $1 trillion spent on Iraq. We need to revive progressive taxation so at the very least hedge fund billionaires stop enjoying a lower rate than their secretaries. We need to develop a national strategy for the global economy, ending our addiction to oil, curbing the casino speculation that will eventually bring down the house, and balancing our trade with the mercantilist nations while capturing the new green industries of the future.
None of this, needless to say, is in the stimulus package. Instead we're taught the wrong lessons: tax cuts are good, particularly business tax breaks; lower interest rates are a free lunch, the "fundamentals" as the president constantly says, "are good."
In fact, the foundation in crumbling. A fundamental change of economic strategy and priorities is vital. And the economic titillation of this bipartisan "stimulus" package will benefit the politicians with their press far more than the economy with its perils.
When the whole economic engine is floated on credit borrowed for conspicuous consumption, it's only a matter of time before it collapses like a house of cards.
Will we stop the squandering of lives and treasury money Iraq (and soon Pakistan)? Will we rebuild the country's crumbling infrastructure. Force the wealthy to pay up on their tax load? Income or asset cap Social Security or Medicare. Deal with any of though issues. Hell no!
No doubt spending on infrastructure would keep more of the stimulus in the U.S. , but of course it would take longer to see any impact – well beyond November.
Bottom line - Bush should come on national T.V. and say to the country, "country, Iraq was a boondoggle disaster, the cost now stands at 1 trillion dollars (a billion billions of dollars). So country for the first time you will make a sacrafice for this war and do without any checks and you will have to ride this thing out as best as you can. Remember, when you reelected me you gave me "political capital" and I have spent it as promised. Hope you enjoyed the ride".
Dan Ashe
Since Greenspan's time, the Fed has come to think that the market should always move up, month after month, year after year. If it doesn't there needs to be intervention to make it so.
As regular percentage growth is based on an ever increasingly larger number this vision for growth becomes exponential. Therefore unrealistic.
Throwing more tax breaks at business doesn't foster business growth. Only the consumers can cause growth if they possess more purchasing power.
Just three words: Elooquently express.
)))))))))))))))))))))))) BINGO (((((((((((((((((((((((
Agape.
in the meantime oil went up because of the package and $ 3.50 is being forecast for this summer. But congress/senate makes money off their Hedge Funds and the oil future's markets.
Oh I did not see Hillary or Obama rush off and save us from the Bush/Cheney FISA Bill.
Don't tell me later you did not know!
The current 'Stimulus Package' is not an action to be taken if you had knowledge that a crash could not be avoided. It simply wastes resources that would be better spent in establishing a safety net.
When one is free-falling, and thinks impact will be fatal, one opts for a few more seconds in the air. If one believes that impact can be survived, delaying impact to extend the fall is a mistake.
Because we have lost the confidence that we can survive a 1930s type Depression, we are open to any scheme that may delay impact. The current 'Stimpak' is ill conceived and will advance us toward out-of-control inflation, a weaker dollar but will not prevent crashing.
More ominously, the American Public is being led by the MSM to believe that its best hope to avoid impact is to embark on further militarism. The consequences, if we go that route, will be far worse and more enduring than suffering through a Depression.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5460
Of all the plans I've seen, it seems the most real, pragmatic, and progressive. Comments?
You would think that, if the wealthy want tax breaks that they would want to put an end to the war. The mantra of "national security" is their sacred cow and creates a political power base and a reason to exist for the Republicans.
The debate last night revealed that have troops all over the world was the express goal of all but Ron Paul. If this isn't an undeclared empire, I would hate to see an empire.
The folks at home are left out. Does the war "the general coffers fill," or coffins fill?
I guess it wasn't that important when it was only us peons in the servant's quarters who were in flames.
But now the big house is getting hot! Holy mother hand out the bottled water and hope the 'people ' use it to put out this fire.