Stimulus Gone Bad
The words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt come to mind: “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.” And the worst of it is that the Democrats, who should have been in a strong position ... appear to have caved in almost completely.By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
House Democrats and the White House have reached an agreement on an economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, the plan — which essentially consists of nothing but tax cuts and gives most of those tax cuts to people in fairly good financial shape — looks like a lemon.
Specifically, the Democrats appear to have buckled in the face of the Bush administration’s ideological rigidity, dropping demands for provisions that would have helped those most in need. And those happen to be the same provisions that might actually have made the stimulus plan effective.
Those are harsh words, so let me explain what’s going on.
Aside from business tax breaks — which are an unhappy story for another column — the plan gives each worker making less than $75,000 a $300 check, plus additional amounts to people who make enough to pay substantial sums in income tax. This ensures that the bulk of the money would go to people who are doing O.K. financially — which misses the whole point.
The goal of a stimulus plan should be to support overall spending, so as to avert or limit the depth of a recession. If the money the government lays out doesn’t get spent — if it just gets added to people’s bank accounts or used to pay off debts — the plan will have failed.
(Continued here.)
Labels: Franklin Roosevelt, stimulus package
1 Comments:
I am not sure if Krugman is right that the Democrats caved or if they think business stimulus is needed. But I agree that “basically they allowed themselves to be bullied into doing things the Bush administration’s way. And that could turn out to be a very bad thing.”
Krugman (by design) elected to ignore the Republican side of the stimulus package related to providing business “generous tax cuts” but my commentary addressed the issue. And I knew I was correct when Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute [AEI] said “Breaks in taxes for corporations are unlikely to make a difference, There’s waste in it.”
After 9/11, Congress reacted in haste with the Patriot Act while Bush told us that the only thing we needed to do was go to the mall and spend.
It is Deju Vu all over again.
I hope that Tim Walz, who made the right vote on AMT, will take a hard look at this proposal and reject it.
The interesting sidelight is we have no idea how much the world stock markets sank on MLK day due to the $ 7.2 billion fraud perpetrated at the French bank Société Générale. The Federal Reserve managing interest rates may be enough without Congress adding $100 billion to the deficit.
Post a Comment
<< Home