Her take is that the package merges both short-term stimulus and long-term projects.
It sounds to me that there is some mixing of long-term projects in the guise of a short-term emergency stimulus package.
Sounds like the Senate might add more $$$ to the package.
If one actually wants to plow through the thing, check ReadTheStimulus.org. If their pie charts are accurate, 79% of the money will kick in 2010 and beyond. This does give the feeling that there is a certain amount of political payoff to Democrat interest groups after 8 years of being shut out of power
Amity Shlaes who has written a best-seller about the Depression posed the thesis that the New Deal wasn't all that helpful in solving the Depression.
In the end, it was WW2 that really got the engine of the American economy moving.
Does that mean we should have defense spending? Or will any old spending do? Or is it just a matter of time before the recovery occurs?
Economics would seem to be an inexact science.
Perhaps, a more basic question should be asked: is a stimulus package really needed?
Is it possible to make it too big such that any short-term benefit gets outweighed by long-term deficits?
Is it possible to make it too small that nothing happens.
I suppose a stimulus of some sort is needed if only for a psychological boast without crossing over into wasteful spending?
But that is easier said than done.
Since I'm not president, and just a blogger sitting in my pajamas, I can say anything I want. I'd look at a package that included the following:
(1) Extend unemployment benefits to help people stay afloat while they look for work
(2) Tax breaks to small businesses to help struggling businesses keep their employees at work. What is the definition of a small business? Is it a certain number of employees and below? Is it a certain dollar amount in annual revenue and below?
(3) Income tax breaks to the middle class and below ... would you say a household earning $100,000 or less is "middle class?" Or maybe let's define the middle class as the median household income and below? I wonder what $$$ amount that is?
(4) One year cut in payroll tax for those below say $50,000?
To be honest, I think any other kind of spending would really NOT be short-term and should be debated on their own merit apart from an emergency stimulus package.
An infrastructure project takes a long time to get going. You don't build a bridge or a highway in a matter of months. You don't build wind farms and nuclear plants in just a year or two.
Thus, to be fair to the proper use of language, there are short and long-term aspects to the current package. It may be politically expedient to lump them together but it is not honest.
UPDATE: Even the left-leaning Los Angeles Times, has expressed concerns. Excerpt:
Because any legislative effort to boost employment and end the recession will take months, if not years, to deliver its full benefits, it's important that the psychic benefits are felt immediately. If people and businesses believe that the effort will improve job security and increase the demand for goods and services, they'll be more likely to spend more and take more risks. But if they see the stimulus package as just another boondoggle for special interests, they'll continue the miserliness that is exacerbating the downturn.
.....
... right now, the country is looking for leadership on one thing: the economy. Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill will have plenty of opportunities to advance their views on education, healthcare, poverty and other social issues. But those are battles for another day. They shouldn't use the stimulus package as a way to circumvent those debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment