Your policies are increasingly unpopular because they are no good. Take the $787 billion stimulus package. Fifty-six percent of Americans now oppose the stimulus, with only 42 percent supporting it. A year ago, those numbers were reversed. The American people have learned what economists such as Robert Barro and Valerie Ramey could have told you a long time ago: that a dollar increase in government spending results in no more (and almost certainly less) than a dollar increase in economic activity. Your estimates about how many jobs would be "created" by the stimulus package—a term of art later modified to "saved or created," then downgraded further to "funded"—have been slippery, unconvincing, and wildly off-base. The same goes for your estimates on the unemployment rate, still in double digits and not improving despite confident predictions that the stimulus would cap the bleeding at 9 percent.
The stimulus is not unpopular because of evil lobbyists or hypocritical Republicans (many of whom voted for George W. Bush's forgotten and equally ineffective 2008 stimulus); it's unpopular because it transfers money from Main Street to Wall Street (despite your many protestations to the contrary), and it's unpopular because it doesn't work. It can’t work, because government can only spend money by taking it from the current or future economy. Not only that, the artificial props of federal spending puts off the day of reckoning for the very sectors of the economy that melted down in the first place: Housing, mortgage finance, and banking. The best thing you can do for the economy right now is give it a break from some sort of real or imagined "transformational" program that requires continuously increasing debt ceilings.
Your spending priorities are less than compelling. You campaigned on a promise to enact a "net spending cut" in federal outlays, a commendably (if unconvincingly) plain-spoken vow after the brazen irresponsibility of the Bush years. Yet the first big spending bill you signed last March helped set what in the most hopeful case will be the equivalent of Bob Beamon's Olympic long jump of 1968—a record for spending that won't be touched for decades. Despite your promise to cut earmarks, the bill was packed with more pork than the Oscar Meyer WeinerMobile, which is only one of the reasons why overall federal spending in fiscal year 2009 increased 32 percent over the previous year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Your policies are increasingly unpopular because they are no good. Take the $787 billion stimulus package. Fifty-six percent of Americans now oppose the stimulus, with only 42 percent supporting it. A year ago, those numbers were reversed. AMERICANS ARE FICKLE. The American people have learned what economists such as Robert Barro and Valerie Ramey could have told you a long time ago: that a dollar increase in government spending results in no more (and almost certainly less) than a dollar increase in economic activity. GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STIMULATE DEMAND IN A RECESSION - ECON 101 - THE GANEM THEORY IS JUST LIKE THE HOOVER THEORY AND WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME RESULT IF YOUR SILLY APPROACH HAD BEEN TAKEN. Your estimates about how many jobs would be "created" by the stimulus package—a term of art later modified to "saved or created," then downgraded further to "funded"—have been slippery, unconvincing, and wildly off-base. The same goes for your estimates on the unemployment rate, still in double digits and not improving despite confident predictions that the stimulus would cap the bleeding at 9 percent. YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THE SAME ESTIMATES IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY. THE ADMINISTRATIONS NUMBERS WERE MAINSTREAM.
The stimulus is not unpopular because of evil lobbyists or hypocritical Republicans (many of whom voted for George W. Bush's forgotten and equally ineffective 2008 stimulus); it's unpopular because it transfers money from Main Street to Wall Street (despite your many protestations to the contrary), and it's unpopular because it doesn't work. IT DID WORK - WE HAVE RETURNED TO GROWTH. It can’t work, because government can only spend money by taking it from the current or future economy. THAT IS TRUE - SAME WITH TAX CUTS. REMEMBER THE WISE MAN THAT SAID "TAX CUTS NOW MEAN HIGHER TAXES LATER". IT IS OKAY TO ROB FROM THE FUTURE DURING RECESSION TO PAY BACK DURING GROWTH (SEE: KEYNES). Not only that, the artificial props of federal spending puts off the day of reckoning for the very sectors of the economy that melted down in the first place: Housing, mortgage finance, and banking. AGAIN, GANEM THEORY = COLLAPSE (WHICH STANDS TO REASON AS GANEM BUSH AND HOOVER ALL THE SAME PARTY) The best thing you can do for the economy right now is give it a break from some sort of real or imagined "transformational" program that requires continuously increasing debt ceilings.
Your spending priorities are less than compelling. You campaigned on a promise to enact a "net spending cut" in federal outlays, a commendably (if unconvincingly) plain-spoken vow after the brazen irresponsibility of the Bush years. Yet the first big spending bill you signed last March helped set what in the most hopeful case will be the equivalent of Bob Beamon's Olympic long jump of 1968—a record for spending that won't be touched for decades. THAT WOULD BE GOOD - IT WOULD MEAN THAT SPENDING IS GOING DOWN. Despite your promise to cut earmarks, the bill was packed with more pork than the Oscar Meyer WeinerMobile, which is only one of the reasons why overall federal spending in fiscal year 2009 increased 32 percent over the previous year.
STAND BACK, DOC, THE DEMOCRATS ARE CLEANING UP THE MESS CAUSED BY BUSH & GOP CONGRESS. IT WON'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.
Post a Comment