I keep thinking I must be misreading many of the critiques of the stimulus plan -- the critics can't possibly be making the easily refutable arguments they're making, can they? Surely there's a catch, or a nuance I'm missing.
Here was the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday (hat tip Tom Hilton):
Economic stimulus or just more pork?
Is $200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall a crucial way to stimulate the U.S. economy? How about $276 million to fix the computer systems at the State Department? And what about $650 million to repair dilapidated Forest Service facilities? ...
I expected the haters and skeptics to complain about outlays that are only indirectly stimulative -- but on what planet is rehabilitating federal facilities or upgrading computer systems not directly stimulative? Are these tasks somehow not going to be performed by human beings, doing what I believe are technically referred to as "jobs"? Have "landscaper" and "IT guy" ceased to be employment categories while I was asleep?
The editorial page of The Wall Street Journal has a similar list today:
... The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus" ...
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts....
... Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator? ...
Amtrak? No jobs there, right? Mysterious supernatural beings actually run the trains. It's a Polar Express kind of thing -- right?
And cars -- gee, buying a whole bunch of new (and, we hope, more fuel-efficient) cars wouldn't put anyone to work, would it? Oh, maybe in some city where they actually make cars. But really, how much help do those folks need?
And child care -- nobody needs child care in order to continue holding a job, right? And child-care facilities don't actually employ people, do they?
And arts funding -- arts funding! People don't actually pay to go to plays or museums, do they? People don't actually buy paintings, right? I mean, can you imagine if FDR had tried something like this in the 1930s? Subsidizing people who paint and write? Isn't that just inconceivable? Why, it would have destroyed capitalism!
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEit0GtlhyphenhyphenbNn2fPnjovrVPV5YYMbBQTl0stjamLcF1EE_RJHSOS2YjJp4yb6H39pAk0JGprygRjZ63N9e09olJou4IXS3cgnE0g0vRXMzivPui8tR63IyUL73Wryta7XKYDloU/s320/329605703_622cec133c.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9PrG1YX9O8Azz56qrfR5z4qntC1wpnfoqkRVhlrplJ1WWCgOg-4026fzdQSNp4px1llLtVHaAacevZGzcwB3ldN-OJ4HqNJN7T-gZ3QScZY4iGTTNRL8TDFFGhEFdI3e2ADw/s320/28902202.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5eC4Bu3R5BcACSfOFrlOjxgXnC3O2ujd9ZuKpiVQzJXBONdW0vXhAJk9hDPW4BLow1VMBLMFGgYKlckk0lQPY651AksGWGmmKYn5hUNd6wMj34odsK0wR-TUyuZoQHlke6Aw/s320/bold_fig02b.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQIQWv7ebarJrZvUqWvtOdzr_7TS9BpRCxUymvj8OpM7Tp4yXJaBtFa748Ipv98a6QYa3p3j_rUybuiiSwV01jGLCFfeAHdLWY7da9yzi_Zv9y4NMFOkauePwjGqdR3IxzP_I/s320/26004826.jpg)
Of course, the Journal editorial goes on to complain about spending that expressly is for construction, gasping at the realization that "Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects." Needless to say, no outlay will satisfy the Journal editorialists unless it falls into one of three categories: (1) tax cuts, (2) tax cuts, or (3) tax cuts.
****
UPDATE: Agreement problem in header now fixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment