Stimulating is not just about how much you spend.

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Jun 23, 2008
16,692
2,248
88
Michigan, USA
Everyone is talking about how much money the government is spending, but very little attention is being paid to where they are spending it or what they are buying with it.

The government is putting money into banks, even when the banks don't want it, in hopes that the banks will put it into circulation. But the latest statistics shows that banks are lending even less money now than they were before the government dumped all that cash on them.

Even if it had worked, putting cash into banks, in hopes that they would put it into circulation, seems a rather ROUNDABOUT way of doing things, especially when the staggering sums of money involved are being justified as an ‘emergency’ measure.

Spending money for infrastructure is another time-consuming way of dealing with what is called an immediate crisis. Infrastructure takes forever to plan, debate, and go through all sorts of hearings and adjudications, before getting approval to build from all the regulatory agencies involved. Despite claims about "shovel Ready projects.

Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.

Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.

If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.

If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.

None of this is rocket science. And Washington politicians are not all crazy, even if sometimes it looks that way. Often, what they say makes no sense because what they claim to be doing is not what they are actually doing.

No matter how many times President Barack Obama tells us that these ‘extraordinary times’ call for ‘swift action,’ the kind of economic policies he is promoting take effect very slowly, no matter how quickly the legislation is rushed through Congress. It is the old Army game of hurry up and wait.

If the Beltway politicians aren't really trying to solve this crisis as quickly as they could, what are they trying to do?

One important clue may be a recent statement by President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, that ‘a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.’

This is the kind of cynical revelation that sometimes slips out, despite all the political pieties and spin. Crises have long been seen as great opportunities to expand the federal government's power while the people are too scared to object and before any opposition can get organized.

That is why there is such haste to do things that will take effect slowly.

What are the Beltway politicians buying with all the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending? They are buying what politicians are most interested in -- power.

In the name of protecting the taxpayers' investment, they are buying the power to tell General Motors how to make cars, banks how to bank and, before it is all over with, all sorts of other people how to do the work they specialize in, and for which members of Congress have no competence, much less expertise.

This administration and Congress are now in a position to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s -- use a crisis of the times to create new institutions that will last for generations.

To this day, we are still subsidizing millionaires in agriculture because farmers were having a tough time in the 1930s. We have the Federal National Mortgage Association (‘Fannie Mae‘) taking reckless chances in the housing market that have blown up in our faces today, because FDR decided to create a new federal housing agency in 1938.

Who knows what bright ideas this administration will turn into permanent institutions for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with?
 
Is the Stimulus a Bad Investment?
by Michael F. Cannon

Michael F. Cannon is the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.

Added to cato.org on February 19, 2009

This article appeared on National Public Radio on February 19, 2009

President Obama says the $787 billion stimulus package he signed into law this week will provide "direct investment" that will "help our economy grow again, now and in the future." Put me down as skeptical.

For one thing, only a third of that spending will occur this year. Two-thirds won't occur until 2010 and thereafter. Both the Congressional Budget Office and a Wall Street Journal survey of economists predict the economy will be growing again by then, even if Congress does nothing. President Obama committed us to borrow and spend $524 billion to fight a recession that will already be over.

True, the CBO also predicts that the stimulus law will make GDP grow even faster. But GDP is a funny thing. If you and I paid each other $100 to dig holes and then fill them up, that would accomplish absolutely nothing. But GDP would go up by $200.

So how much of that $787 billion borrow-and-spend package passes the cost-benefit test, and how much is just make-work? Consider the billions allocated to health care.

We desperately need research on the effectiveness of medical treatments, and the law includes $1 billion for that. Yet experience suggests the benefits of taxpayer-funded research may be zero. Historically, every time a federal agency produces research that questions the value of some medical treatment, health care providers convince Congress to shoot the messenger. I've been meaning to look this up, but that may be the only reason Congress ever eliminates federal agencies.

We also need better health information technology. For one thing, IT that keeps track of the images from your first MRI can avoid the expense of a second MRI. Yet the law's $33 billion for electronic medical records also fails the cost-benefit test. The CBO estimates it would be cheaper just to do the second MRI.

The law includes $115 billion in health insurance subsidies. Economists have no clue whether that passes the cost-benefit test either. Half the money will likely go to people who would have had health insurance anyway. And one-third of medical spending does nothing to make patients healthier or happier — though we still count it in GDP.

Other provisions make even make-work look good. The law will finance expanded COBRA benefits with a $65 billion hidden tax on other workers' health insurance premiums. That hidden tax will actually reduce wages and job creation.

Some may say the time for debating the stimulus package has past because that train has left the station. But has it left the station? Or is it just spinning its wheels?
 

Forum List

Back
Top