Yes, this is being written on Valentine's night, a night that every romantic device and provocative clothing merchant tells us all is solely for romancing our beloveds, or at least whomever we're bedding that night. There have been many rants over the past years about Valentine's Day, and it's time to make it political, or at least more in keeping of the normal themes here. If the American government was feeling really smart, they would have moved Valentine's Day to May this year, for at least one time only. Why May? Well, according to the latest bill President Bush signed, the
economic stimulus checks will be in the taxpayers' hands by then. The synergy of giving people money then convincing them they need to spend it all on chocolates, teddy bears and dinner on the town is just what the economy needs and will take all the hypocrisy out of the holiday. Let's face it, that's what Valentine's Day is all about, spending money on women (yes, I am aware some women spend more money on their men, but let's face it, men and half of the lesbians are told to spend money on the women they love). And while it might not be the best for feminism, sense of equality or the rise of male fear of being used coming and going, it is possibly the best thing for the American economy.
One of the greatest fears about the new stimulus bill is that the money will be spent "wrong", or in places that will not actually boost the American economy. It's been said
before in this blog about how this money should be spent to best boost the economy. Mostly, American made consumables followed by the service sector (restaurants and the like), and what part of that formula ISN'T Valentine's Day? Some California
Methode Champagnoise by the fire after a nice dinner out on the town is a hundred, one hundred fifty dollars. Pure gold for the economy right there. Expensive piece of jewelry on top of that, spends the rest of the 600 (or 1200 per couple, plus 300 per rugrat) and generally puts the rest of the money back into the economy. This the best possible outcome of the stimulus checks. Although May is not a bad idea, since people may spend it on summer vacations or graduation presents for whomever is being graduated, if it could have been paired with a holiday that society tells people it is required to spend money for, it would have been two birds with one stone.
We all love the idea of being able to do something wonderful for those we love. Beyond the dictates of a random holiday, we want to be able to do something special when we can. It has been painful, if not damned inconvenient that February 14 is right BEFORE many people's payday. generally on the 15th or the 16th of a given month, and generally when people are the most broke after paying and before real spending checks come in. But now, the checks will be coming in May, so hopefully people will spend it like we usually spend on Valentine's Day: on junk we don't need but will consume/try to use anyway. We could have used Valentine's Day to political advantage for the good of all people, which is a pretty rare thing in this country. This entire bill is one of the rare things in American politics, a payday for the common man that is done for all the right reasons to boost government AND possibly provide some kind of increased profit margin for big business to keep re-investing in America. People get money, the government gets better revenues and the economy doesn't die. It's much better planning than Valentine's Day was, and on a shorter time table.
In what can only be accidental, the Bush administration is doing something good for average people and big business. And oddly, it might be better for the common people than big business; it does bear repeating that Hank Paulsen, Secretary of Treasury, came up with this plan, not Bush very much. It should be noted this plan has its opponents, notably
Glenn Beck. In referencing the disaster that was giving Katrina victims
debit cards that ended up getting wasted on all kinds of consumer goods that was a waste of what the funds were designed for. Those cards were designed for people to get hotel rooms and get back on their feet, and they were used for designer goods they wouldn't have bought otherwise. Beck said he doesn't mean this plan and in fact hates the stimulus package (why should he like it, he earns too much to get anything from it and he hates everyone who isn't him), but the debit cards, seemingly, would be great for encouraging spending, since it would force people to not save as much.
Problem is, this is America and government giving back money should be as easy as possible.
So it is written, so do I see it.