Under Construction

Welcome. This is the future site of the political posts I currently have made on my other blog. I will transfer them over sometime in April.

Politics as Usual

It has been said that democracy is the worst possible form of government, with the exception of all the others. I agree. It's source of strength is also it's greatest weakness: the government is chosen by the people.

Being able to choose your own leaders certainly is best; it ensures a high level of accountability to the citizens of the nation. On the other hand, it requires a high level of accountability to the citizens of the nation, as well. A little redundant? Let me explain.

As we watch the events unfold surrounding the economy, I see that politics as usual continue to play out. Despite the fact that the government is digging itself more heavily into debt, no one seems to want to be the one to say "Wait a minute, we can't afford some of these programs." Why? Because that isn't what their constituents want.

Congress is often held hostage by their constituents and special interest groups. If they don't get government support- often taking the form of government programs and money- for these groups, they don't get reelected. Hence, no one wants to be the one to volunteer to make sacrifices.

We want more government services- subsidies, health care, public works, etc. but we don't want to pay taxes to fund them. We wish the government would be more prudent in their spending- but others should take the cuts; we want the same services as we've always had. And we only elect representatives who will do this for us.

We've long lost the sense of sacrificing for the greater good. Now, it's all about maintaining and improving our standard of living at the expense of future generations. Politics as usual.

Government Budget

With the average American so heavily in debt that they can't save enough- or any- money for retirement, it's a small wonder that the government who represents those people has the same problem. The federal government, like most American's, is barely making ends meet due to their lack of fiscal responsibility when it comes to spending.

When some people can't afford something they want, they go without it. They focus on what is truly essential and leave the "I Wants" for times when they have a windfall. All too many people, though, are allured with the prospect of having something NOW, and pay for it on credit. The government has been doing the same thing.

It would be nice for the government to provide free health care for everyone, but we can't afford it. It would be nice to finance a complete shift to renewable energy, but we can't afford it. It would be nice to replace all the states' infrastructure, but we can't afford it. Yet, we try.

The government should do what personal financial advisors recommend for those in debt: stop spending money on things that aren't essential. If the government allocated some money, say $10 billion, for just one year to pay towards the national debt, they would save hundreds of millions of dollars the next year in interest payment. This money could then be used to further reduce the debt, and the saved interest used the year afterwards. The debt would, essentially, pay itself off after one initial investment, provided the government stayed within it's means otherwise.

The problem, though, is it would require fortitude not to spend that extra money on something else, the way most people and governments are prone to.

What's In This Thing?

Today, the House passed the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Far from being a bipartisan effort, every Republican voted against it, as did several Democrats; the final vote was 246-183.

A major problem arises, though, when we note that the bill is 1,071 pages long. According to CNS News (http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478), not ONE representative had read the entire bill, and only one claimed to have read the preliminary bill.

As quoted in the above source, "Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), President Barack Obama's successor in the Senate, seemed baffled by the thought of actually reading the entire bill--as did his press secretary." Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) also mentioned that reading entire bills is something that usually doesn't happen.

It is a little disturbing to me that so much legislation is passed without Congress knowing exactly what is contained within it, especially this nearly-trillion-dollar stimulus package. This explains why so much pork gets passed: no one knew it was in there.

Aren't we paying these people to pass laws? Couldn't they at least have someone on their staff read it? Apparently that doesn't happen either. Such practices would never pass in the private sector; less oversight has resulted in poor management practices.

Economic Stimulus

If I have one problem with the proposed economic stimulus package being debated, it is because there is too little actual stimulus involved. Instead, it is a collection of government projects being cast as economic stimulus. I'm not going to argue for or against whether these need to be done; rather, that they aren't going to do what they are being touted as.

Here is a select breakdown of spending, according to foxnews.com (I'll use the Senate version), and my inexpert analysis:


$47 Billion in increasing unemployment benefits- the problem with welfare is that it discourages work when it is handled irresponsibly. I saw this during my time in South America. Most of the people I met were unemployed and not looking for work. The beginning of the month was marked by lines outside the banks that dwarfed Disneyland's: people waiting for their unemployment checks. This money would be better spent creating new jobs, like tax credits for new businesses, instead of expanding an already ineffecient system.

$17 Billion to give $300, one time payments to social security recipients. This one kind of makes sense in my mind. When you give people money, they generally spend it very quickly. This would increase the economy very briefly. However, it won't solve our problems on any way, since it is only a one-time payment.

$46 Billion in infrastructure projects. Building roads and bridges will not improve the economy. I'm not saying it doesn't need to be done, but it won't provide any significant improvement in the economy. The one part that I think will work is on improving energy grids to prevent waste; more efficiency is usually cheaper. Spending money on cleaner energy would create jobs in research and development and result in defrayed costs in the future. However, a separate $13 Billion is proposed on this, already.

$5.5 Billion on homeland security, mostly on new screening equipment. Again, not arguing whether it is needed or not (I think it is), but screening equipment won't improve the economy. More jobs would be better.

$4 Billion to law enforcement to hire new officers. This makes sense: more jobs which result in less loss and accidents. Theft and accidents cost billions annually. Reducing these costs makes sense, since businesses are the ones hurting the most.

$142 Billion to reduce taxes. This will help. Workers will see about $20 a month in fewer taxes. Since people usually spend this money, it will give a bump in spending, which will increase business.

$19.5 Billion in tax refunds for money-losing companies (eg. those that post losses for five consecutive years). I hate to seem cold, but if businesses aren't making enough money to survive, should we be propping them up? If people aren't ever buying from them, there is probably a reason why. Use this money to start new businesses.

22.8 Billion to subsidize bonds for school construction, teacher training, and structural improvements. Good idea: more schools means more teachers and support staff. More jobs=good.


My main point is that there is too much "government project" in this bill, and not enough actual stimulus. Very little in here will create permanent jobs or help businesses. In order to help the economy, they need to pump money into the economy; not simply make infrustructure improvements or buy equipment. We need to support businesses that cater to individuals and other businesses, since they will be a more permanent buying force. Businesses that cater to the government won't benefit the economy in the long run.