Share it fairly but dont take a slice of my pie
Deal Reached in Congress on $789 Billion Stimulus Plan
I won't post the whole article, as it is quite long. I will, however, comment on it, as if you actually read it. Firstly, how is it that Republicans, now firmly out of power, can argue that they are the party of fiscal responsibility under the current circumstances? Only 3 Republican Senators voted for the current measure, and in order to do so they cut over $50 billion from the initial bill. Their reason for not voting for this stimulus bill? Yep, you guessed it: too much money.
Have they forgotten that they presided over the biggest spending spree ever, taking a $230 billion budget surplus in 2000 (source) and turning it into a budget deficit of $438 billion in 2008 (source), for a difference of $668 billion?
$668 BILLION in 8 years. Obama and the Democrats inherited a broken system, created by the Bush tax cuts and deregulation (some of the latter admittedly took place during Clinton's presidency, but GWB took it to a whole new level). Yet the Republicans are still playing the part of concerned, fiscally responsible citizens, who just want the government to spend what money it already has. Why is nobody calling bullshit on this self-righteous display of collective amnesia, a mere two weeks after the inauguration?
Secondly, even if they have turned over a new leaf and are now true fiscal conservatives, how are they ever going to win votes by cutting funding for schools and health care?!?
Says the article: Despite intense lobbying by governors around the country, the final deal slashed $25 billion from a proposed state fiscal stabilization fund, eliminated a $16 billion line item for school construction and sharply curtailed spending to provide health insurance for the unemployed.
Schools in the US are sharply underfunded, and yet instead of using this unique opportunity to begin the development of a first-rate education system, they instead agreed to $282 billion in tax cuts, renewing the failed policies of Mr Bush. Those tax cuts, by the way, included a whopping $250 one-time payment to Social Security recipients (i.e., old age pensioners), and "$400 for individuals and $800 for families within certain income limits."
The problem I see with this plan is that, given the record high personal debt load Americans are carrying these days, most of that tax relief will go to paying Visa and MasterCard, and not into the economy. That money's already been spent. I guess paying down personal debt is never a bad thing; however this will do nothing to stimulate the economy. Building a school certainly would. Likewise with insuring the poor: they tend to avoid visits to the hospital entirely if they are uninsured, leaving the healthcare market with what economists would call underutilised capacity. Insuring the unemployed would allow them to begin/continue treatment for medical problems which a) would fill up the capacity in the market, thus creating more jobs and spurring on the economy in that sector; and b) costs less money in the long term.
In Canada, the party that cut school construction funding and health insurance in favour of a tax cut would be run out of office on a rail. Or at least I hope they would.
That is all.
I won't post the whole article, as it is quite long. I will, however, comment on it, as if you actually read it. Firstly, how is it that Republicans, now firmly out of power, can argue that they are the party of fiscal responsibility under the current circumstances? Only 3 Republican Senators voted for the current measure, and in order to do so they cut over $50 billion from the initial bill. Their reason for not voting for this stimulus bill? Yep, you guessed it: too much money.
Have they forgotten that they presided over the biggest spending spree ever, taking a $230 billion budget surplus in 2000 (source) and turning it into a budget deficit of $438 billion in 2008 (source), for a difference of $668 billion?
$668 BILLION in 8 years. Obama and the Democrats inherited a broken system, created by the Bush tax cuts and deregulation (some of the latter admittedly took place during Clinton's presidency, but GWB took it to a whole new level). Yet the Republicans are still playing the part of concerned, fiscally responsible citizens, who just want the government to spend what money it already has. Why is nobody calling bullshit on this self-righteous display of collective amnesia, a mere two weeks after the inauguration?
Secondly, even if they have turned over a new leaf and are now true fiscal conservatives, how are they ever going to win votes by cutting funding for schools and health care?!?
Says the article: Despite intense lobbying by governors around the country, the final deal slashed $25 billion from a proposed state fiscal stabilization fund, eliminated a $16 billion line item for school construction and sharply curtailed spending to provide health insurance for the unemployed.
Schools in the US are sharply underfunded, and yet instead of using this unique opportunity to begin the development of a first-rate education system, they instead agreed to $282 billion in tax cuts, renewing the failed policies of Mr Bush. Those tax cuts, by the way, included a whopping $250 one-time payment to Social Security recipients (i.e., old age pensioners), and "$400 for individuals and $800 for families within certain income limits."
The problem I see with this plan is that, given the record high personal debt load Americans are carrying these days, most of that tax relief will go to paying Visa and MasterCard, and not into the economy. That money's already been spent. I guess paying down personal debt is never a bad thing; however this will do nothing to stimulate the economy. Building a school certainly would. Likewise with insuring the poor: they tend to avoid visits to the hospital entirely if they are uninsured, leaving the healthcare market with what economists would call underutilised capacity. Insuring the unemployed would allow them to begin/continue treatment for medical problems which a) would fill up the capacity in the market, thus creating more jobs and spurring on the economy in that sector; and b) costs less money in the long term.
In Canada, the party that cut school construction funding and health insurance in favour of a tax cut would be run out of office on a rail. Or at least I hope they would.
That is all.