Remember, it's no longer the size of government that
matters. The president said so.
Thus, we finally now know what makes up "hope" and
"change". Snippy come backs (a la "I won"). The refusal to
answer the press' questions ("I just came down to meet you
guys"). Nominating lobbyists even if he said he wouldn't
(wait, that is change...). And, most substantively,
spending a lot of money.
(For the record, I would like my Democrat brethren to take
everything Obama says, pretend Bush said it, and replay it
in your head and then decide if you like it. I think we
would be hearing a lot more about "divisiveness" and
"arrogance" at the moment, but that's just me).
So, really, Obama is taking Bush's spending habits, the
most liberal in recent memory, and doubling down. There
is a change in magnitude, but not in direction. I suppose,
technically, that is change. The deficit projected for
this next fiscal year will reach approximately 7.5% of GDP.
Folks, that is a big number, and does not count what may
come from Obama's spending spree.
Here is why I call it a spree. Look at the raw numbers
themselves. Obama claims the plan will create 4 million
jobs. Some of these jobs (supposedly) are to come from
infrastructure improvement work. At present, the estimated
cost is $830 billion. That means each job created by the
fiscal fairy dust of the federal government will cost the
taxpayer $207,500.00 - in debt.
There are also significant subsidies for alternative fuel
development. Since studies have shown that subsidies are
responsible for approximately 70% of the record increase in
food commodity prices over the last five years, perhaps
this sort of thing needs to be re-thought.
Of course, Bush didn't spend a few hundred million on
condoms and have his House leader claim it would stimulate
the economy. It may stimulate something, perhaps, but not
the economy. No one's perfect.
If we are going to try to spend this kind of money, it
needs to be targeted. As of now, it is a smattering of
social spending payouts with little discernible rhyme or
reason. More pre-K funds are not going to stimulate the
economy. On the other hand, the proposal to allow
businesses greater write-offs on losses is a good thing.
Then again, a few hundred million on condoms is stupid (on
the upside, maybe you'll get a new Trojan plant in your
town).
To be fair, there are places where there has been real
change. We have seen the (somewhat) closing of Guantanamo
Bay. There is the desire to ban space weapons (why in the
world would we want to employ our competitive technological
advantages to bolster our defenses? I know! I know! It will
make the Russians and Chinese mad. If only Obama would look
into Medvedev's soul - not Hu Jintao's, since he is still
technically communist and all... ). And finally, lifting
Bush's executive order keeping federal money from
government and NGO abortion funds.
It's been a big first week, really.
I would prefer to see Obama work on expanding free trade,
moving past the stated goals of the dead Doha talks and
working to get the Yuan and the myriad protected currencies
of Middle Eastern oil producers floated. This sort of
effort would do more to provide real and sustainable
economic growth faster than anything that's been talked
about thus far. Alas, it's just not as sexy as buying
contraceptives by the pallet.
* for those of you who got the reference to Terrell Owens'
publicist. Kudoes!
----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Moore is a rare breed - a conservative thinker,
author and criminal defense attorney. He lives in
Nashville, Tennessee, and co-authors the political blog
MooreThoughts.com with his wife, and maintains his own
criminal defense blog, the Moore Law Blog.
To read more, go to http://www.moorethoughts.com .
EasyPublish this article: http://submityourarticle.com/articles/easypublish.php?art_id=50753
0 comments
Post a Comment