Replies

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=319334273223204

Harvard economist Robert Barro calls the legislation “probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s.”

“I mean it’s wasting a tremendous amount of money,” he said in an interview with the Atlantic. “I don’t think it will expand the economy. . . . I think it’s garbage.”

Rep. Tom Cole, Republican from Oklahoma, was a bit more refined but no less biting in his commentary. Borrowing from Winston Churchill, he wryly observed from the House floor Thursday morning that “Never have so few spent so much so quickly to do so little.”

Lest anyone think that Barro or Cole is guilty of overstating the situation, consider what’s in this monster:

• It overflows with pork — $2 billion to ACORN, an anti-capitalist “community” group that’s been accused of voter registration fraud; $30 million to restore wetlands and save the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse in the San Francisco Bay Area (a Nancy Pelosi project); another $1 billion for a Prevention and Wellness Fund for education programs on sexually transmitted diseases.

Tens of billions will be spent on high-speed rail lines, which will be of little practical use but of great political service, and projects to expand high-speed Internet access in rural areas.

There’s so much special-interest spending in the bill, says House Republican Leader Rep. John Boehner’s office, that the dollars left over for direct small-business tax relief amount to only “about one-third of 1% of the total bill,” a mere $3 billion out of a $789 billion package. Yet small businesses do most of the hiring in this country.

• The bulk of the spending comes not right away when the economy needs a boost, but in future years. This is typical. Legislative attempts to rescue the economy have been late in the last eight recessions going back to October 1949, when Congress passed an anti-recession bill just as the country was emerging from a 12-month downturn.

• By releasing $800 billion in new welfare spending over the next decade and undermining current work requirements, it will largely undo the successful 1996 welfare reform. Once again, Washington will be paying bonuses to states that expand their welfare rolls. In what world is increasing dependency on government a stimulus for the private economy?

• States that have spent recklessly for years will get bailouts when they should instead suffer the consequences of their actions. The compromise bill includes $54 billion to hand out to state and local governments, a perverse reward for elected officials who can’t control their spending.

What’s missing from the legislation is just as significant as what’s included.

There are no tax cuts to boost investment, just a trifling $13 in tax relief per week that will appear on paychecks in the spring.

There’s no real effort to boost energy production.

There’s no meaningful defense spending.

Tax cuts initiated at the White House gave life to struggling economies in the 1960s, 1980s and earlier in this decade.

Rather than take money out of the private sector and sift it through Washington, from where it is doled out through the political process, it’s more effective to let Americans keep more of what they earn. Tax relief spurs the investment that fuels business expansion, drives productivity upward and feeds job creation.

Helping almost instantly would be an increase in domestic energy production. If Washington were to enact public policy that allowed for more oil drilling and additional natural gas output, the markets would quickly react by cutting prices even more.

Also absent from the package is the stimulative effect of defense spending. Funding the research, development and production of military ware at private companies creates jobs, advances technological innovation and strengthens the security that’s necessary for continued economic growth and improvements to the quality of American life.

The entire mess will eventually cost not $789 billion but $3.27 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that figure by including $744 billion in debt service and $2.527 trillion in spending over the next 10 years if the bill’s 20 most popular programs are permanently extended, which seems likely. There’s nothing in the history of government programs that indicates that won’t happen.

History, though, is the most ignored subject in Washington. Not just American history, but history abroad.

How else could lawmakers rush into this effort? Right in front of them is the lesson of Japan, which made a series of unsuccessful attempts to stimulate its stagnant economy. It spent $6.3 trillion on infrastructure in the 1990s and into this decade, and in doing so amassed the largest debt ever known in the developed world.

Yet all that spending failed to pull Japan from its slump.

But like their Japanese counterparts, American lawmakers soon will return to the trough, demanding more taxpayer cash because, well, they just haven’t spent enough to revive growth.

However, as they do, lawmakers might find taxpayers in a foul mood.

Rasmussen reports that 67% of Americans, when polled about the stimulus, say they “have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress,” while 58% agree that “no matter how bad things are, Congress can always find a way to make them worse.”

Proving that an economic downturn hasn’t caused them to abandon their sense of humor — nor their insight — 44% said they believe a group chosen at random from the phone book “would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress.”