Sunday, February 01, 2009

Stimulus Plan

Mr. President:
The House stimulus bill is awful. Dangerous. Counter-productive. It has a very high probability of making things worse!. Your man Rahm Emanuel is supposed to be a tough guy: turn him loose on the House Dems - they are selling you down the river.
Some simple tests: the spending will improve long-term productivity; the spending will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the spending will happen fast; very, very fast.
There may need to be some legislation to enable spending without years of environmental review. For example, spending on wind farms would improve long-run productivity and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But let's say the wind farm is a couple of miles offshore. You can't have environmental groups stopping the development to see if some fish will be harmed. This spending has to happen now.
And, no tax cuts with the possible exception of AMT. People aren't going to spend any tax savings; they are going to pay their credit card bills or repair their destroyed 401(k) accounts. This economy needs spending in the first half of 2009.

Don't let them off the hook - make them send you a real bill.
Sincerely,

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not even sure what position you are taking. These so-called conservatives are behaving as if Obama has been President for the past 8 years. Don't get it twisted, this guy has only been in power for a couple of weeks. Where were all you conservatives for the past 8 years who now take it upon themselves to lecture us about fiscal discipline. Give me a break. There should be a stimulus package as everyone agrees and I am sure the President would do his best to get something that will work for all the working and middle class people of this country. I know as it stands the stimulus package needs improving to get rid of those special interests in the bill. But to be honest who would blame these liberals to get their way after years of being in the desert where the so-called conservatives run down this country to the drain. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves and hide behind your porous veil of morality.

Russ said...

Typical Socialists comment. There is no free lunch. I completed my 2008 tax return this weekend. The amount of my income that is "paid" to the Federal Government is disheartening, then I have to pay State Taxes in a State (IL) where the coffers are empty and the corruption is overflowing, furthermore I have to pay sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, tolls to drive on horrible roads...the list goes on and on. Enough! Quit babbling on about conservative(s) or Liberal(s). We, the American People, are going out of business. We are dying! We are out of money, we have to stop spending. The United States is failing and the current administration is going in the wrong direction, just like the previous administration. You should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the same mindless rhetoric and try to regain your own self-sufficient individualism, otherwise you will remain un-interesting and defeated.

Anonymous said...

Here is another ideologue coming up with the same old tired and stale arguments like all the problem is government; all what we need is small government; and accusing anyone who mentions a role for government as socialist.

I've got news for you. The era of pragmatism is at hand and the argument is no longer whether government work or doesn't work but how the government can deliver programs and services smartly, efficiently and effectively.

I am concerned about people incapable of bringing new thinking to the table and arguments that don't meet the test of relevance and ultimately fail to make meaningful contributions to the debate of the future.

Russ said...

Dear to ashamed to post your name,

Who is the "Government"? It is you and I, we, us, not some mysterious intellectually superior group of glorified americans. What are you talking about, "deliver programs and services smartly"? You can't name one program or service that the "government" has delivered smartly, not one! Our future is in our hands, my hands...I do not want to be dependent on you! There are too many that are too dependent on my money to provide for them. We are out of MONEY! Quit being so stupid, we can not spend what we do not have. I can't write a check when the account is empty, you can't either, we are the Government...we can't keep writing checks, we are out of MONEY! Quite spending.

Dangerous Dick said...

Anon..., you wrote "I am concerned about people incapable of bringing new thinking to the table and arguments that don't meet the test of relevance and ultimately fail to make meaningful contributions to the debate of the future."

First, your concern about "people incapable..." is judgmental and eliteist.

Second, what is this "test of relevance"? Is it yours? Who decides what is relevant, on what basis, and why?

Third, your worry about the
"debate of the future" is premature. We can have that debate if tomorrow becomes today.

DD

Dangerous Dick said...

You write, "... government is there to provide such public good that the private sector ... cannot do." This is not consistent with government's role as stated in the Declaration of Independence. That is, governments are instituted to secure the "certain inalienable rights". Net, our Founding Fathers saw government as a guard dog to be fed, not a cow to be milked. Consistent with the "cow" methphor, too many have come to see public service as a means for self-service. Indeed, contray to Lincoln's vision expressed at Gettysburg, our government has become a government of the governors, by the governors and for the governors and their friends.

You conclude saying we could argue "on and on". I agree. Unless and until we can agree on a standard, in this case the purpose for government, we will make as much progress as a dog chasing its tail. To our national detriment, we have lost the original purpose for our government, and if we do not quickly return our governors to that purpose, they will continue to enrich themselves while reducing us to paupers.

Anonymous said...

You provided a critique of only a few lines of the Declaration, while the whole document contains phrases that would render your arguments impotent. The Founders, including Jefferson himself had no difficulty with taxation - his concern was that taxation takes place with the consent of the people.

It is true that there was a lot of conjecture in the 18th century about "man's rights in the state of nature" but most of it was in error. The truth is there is no law in the natural state that support rights of any kind let alone the ideas in the Declaration. This is because there is only one law in nature: The law of the jungle, which dictates that the strong devour the weak and the survival of the fittest.

Take away government and try to return to some laissez faire fantasy of the " natural state" and you will see all of your rights you now take for granted evaporate.

I will caution to be wary of this kind of philosophy. Those who preach the most about the evils of a strong activist government know full well the benefits of governmental power and use it to their own privilege and benefit. But what they fear most is that this same government might one day try to level the playing field, and, God forbid, actually believe that "Life" "Liberty" and most of all (horrors!) "The Pursuit of Happiness" is the right of every schmuck and not just them. It is the stuff of their deepest nightmares.

Dangerous Dick said...

Anon..., are Genesis Chapters 1-3 false or true?

Anonymous said...

If what you are asking is whether I believe in God or not? Here it is: I am a theist, I believe there is a God. Apart from my christian upbringing, I have come to believe that God exists through the chain reaction of reasoning and reflection.

I believe that anyone who is thinking about these big questions risks being relegated to the realms of dogma which might cloud your objective assessment of scientific evidence.

Dangerous Dick said...

Anon..., are Genesis Chapters 1-3 false or true?

Also, what is "scientific evidence", and who decides:
what evidence is scientific,
upon what basis, and
why?