We were told that it would keep people from winding up on the streets. Only $11 billion goes to housing assistance.
We were told that it would help Americans who got laid off. Only $4.6 billion goes to employment and training programs, and $27 billion to expand unemployment benefits. (By contrast, the bill raises Medicaid spending by $89 billion.)
We were told that it had to be passed immediately. But the Congressional Budget Office notes that large portions of the spending cannot even begin until spring and will take three to eight years to complete.
The Wall Street Journal calculated that only 12 percent of the bill's provisions can accurately be called stimulative. The rest is simply being thrown at favored constituencies by Congress. The bill even includes a provision forbidding the use of foreign steel in the construction projects it funds. Does no one in Congress remember Smoot-Hawley?
And in an Op-Ed from former HHS Commissioner John Stephen:
The premise behind the "stimulus" bill is a belief in the debunked Keynesian notion that government spending creates a multiplying effect that accelerates economic activity. This belief continues despite numerous failed attempts at this policy, including in Japan and during the New Deal.
What those proposing this irresponsible plan miss is that the money for this spending has to come from somewhere, and that means borrowing it. However, taking money out of the economy only to put it back into federal programs gets America right back to square one. The only way this will improve the economy is if the federal government can use that money more efficiently than the private sector can. Anyone who believes this should call me because I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to sell.
No comments:
Post a Comment