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