GOVERNMENT & POLITICS Income Redistribution: Speed Up Failed Policies

09-23d.pdf (application/pdf Object)


The $787 billion "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," otherwise known as the stimulus package, was signed into law by President Barack Obama in February. Since then, the economy has lost two million jobs, and unemployment has risen to 9.4 percent, -- well beyond the administration's top-end prediction of 8 percent if Congress would only spend the money. In Obama's parallel universe, his so-called stimulus has thus far "saved or created" 150,000 jobs, and The One now promises to "save or create" another 600,000 jobs in the next 100 days. After that, he'll part the Red Sea and turn water into wine.



Obama's oft-repeated and utterly ridiculous "save or create" mantra has gone unquestioned by what radio
talk-show host Rush Limbaugh calls the "state-run media." In fact, while 49,000 jobs lost in a month
was deemed disastrous when George W. Bush was in the White House, 345,000 jobs lost in a month is
reason for hope with Obama. However, at least one Democrat isn't fooled.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) recently told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, "You created a situation where you cannot be wrong. If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs."

Obama also said this week, "We've done more than ever, faster than ever, more responsibly than ever, to
get the gears of the economy moving again. ... We're in a position to really accelerate." Accelerate what?
Why, spending, of course.

The administration intends to accelerate the pace of stimulus spending, much of which is not slated to
occur until 2010 or later. As Vice President Joe Biden put it, "We're going to get more dollars out the door, more shovels into the ground and more money into the pockets of workers and families who need it
most." He cautioned, however, "A lower job-rate loss [sic] is not our goal. 'Less bad' is not how we're
going to measure success."

Outside of Obama World, "less bad" means "more bad." A look at this chart of unemployment numbers
reveals what we mean. The Washington Times further notes, "The stimulus actually has dampened
economic projections. In January, before the stimulus was passed, 53 business economists and forecasters
surveyed by the Wall Street Journal expected gross domestic product (GDP) for the third quarter
(July through September) to rise by 1.2 percent at an annual rate. Predictions became gloomier after the
stimulus passed.... In May, these experts forecast only a 0.6 growth rate for the third quarter."
Despite these facts, Obama addressed his skeptics with a combination of smooth talk and sophistry:

"Now, I know that there's some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don't believe in the
necessity and promise of this recovery act. And I would suggest to them that they talk to the companies
who, because of this plan, scrapped the idea of laying off employees and, in fact, decided to hire
employees. Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying, 'Come back to work.'"

Uh, Barry, what about the two million Americans put out of work since Congress passed your stimulus
package?

Meanwhile, the president had the audacity to call for a return to the pay-as-you-go, or "Paygo," rule
for federal spending -- a rule under which each expense or tax cut would have to be offset by another
spending cut or tax increase. The principle sounds good enough, but Paygo has been little more than a
Democrat gimmick in the past. In an outstanding summary of "The 'Paygo' Coverup," The Wall Street
Journal reveals that it "only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs
such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does Paygo apply to discretionary
spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget." Furthermore, Obama
has exempted his health care plan. And isn't it odd that as Obama blames the "reckless fiscal policies of
the past," he pleas with Congress to return to Paygo in order to feign control over his own reckless
spending?