On The Contrary

TPI suggests this is not the way to run a democracy. I contend, however, that he is liberally wrong.

As I wrote here, the stimulus package was an engineers dream...spending for infrastructure, renovated buildings, and green design abounded. But all that has been cut. That doesn't make me happy.

Neither does it make me happy that I'll be paying taxes to support avian flu prevention.

But what does make me happy is when one party cannot strong-arm the other through "public opinion" and Presidential fear-mongering. Obama on Friday morning: "A failure to act, and act now will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

Really? I mean, really? What was it Bush (who every liberal loudmouth in history railed on) said about the bank bailout (that had literally no oversight because it was passed too soon)?
Bush: "Failure to act, and act now, would have broad consequences far beyond Wall Street. It would threaten small business owners and homeowners on Main Street."
Neato.

And I love you, TPI, but there was (and is) so much stupid un-stimulative crap in the stimulus that it makes my head spin. I'm not even going to bother listing it, I'm sure there is a wiki entry.
The point of democracy is for there to always be a loyal rebellion, a dissenting vote, a minority who still gets their say. The point of a republic, which this nation was supposed to be modeled after, was a large group of elected representatives whose sole job was to keep all the other representatives from doing anything stupid. Rome, at its best, was when it ran itself and the Senate spent its time talking about how to best spend its time. The more the Senate gained power, and the more power the Triumvirate seized that power from the Senate, the less well off the state of Rome was. Of course, history is always arguable.

But what isn't arguable is that tax breaks do not help lobbyists. The beauty, or silver lining rather, of the infrastructure spending and building renovation spending getting cut is that Halliburton clones will not reap hundreds of millions of tax dollars for subpar work. Yes, it sucks, and I'm sad that "green buildings" will continue to be a pipe-dream. But on the other hand, tax breaks play no favorites, and Republicans and Democrats are handshaking like I've never seen on creating tax breaks all across the economic board. Although tax breaks usually benefit the upper class and higher income brackets the most, so too is the tax burden most strongly felt by the rich. Liberal idealist arguments against a mountain of empirical evidence will fall on deaf ears.
And the argument that tax breaks will push this nation back into consumptionism flies would go against the argument that tax breaks will only benefit the rich: if the rich get the tax breaks, and become consumptionists, and boost the economy, but the lower and middle class are forced to continue their current income strategies in a strengthened economy, then all groups benefit. The rich get the opportunity to spend more money (that they by and large earned). The economy gets the boost in spending from people who have gotten tax breaks. The lower and middle classes benefit by the job growth (in sectors that mainly serve lower and middle classes) to support the spending by the upper class. Like I said, all benefit from tax breaks to the wealthy.

The major problem I see with the anti-tax-break argument is that it assumes a "redistribution of wealth to the wealthy" argument. This is simply fallacy. The majority of taxes are being paid by the wealthy to support programs for the poor. If they get a tax break, and the government eventually will have to repay the loans used to create the tax break, then it will be the wealthy that will pick up the tab for the repayment of the tax credit they received. In essence, they are the ones getting screwed, not the poor; they will have to pay back their own loan, with interest.

So cry me a river about the tax breaks, and the poor and huddled masses who won't get them. Instead, what they'll get is to keep their job.




Disclaimer: I am and always have been against stimulus, and bailouts. Economies fix themselves. But if forced by the Democratic majority to stimulate (immediately), we might as well do it right, and do it bipartisan.
_