The name still makes me cringe, "bailout." It sounds like quit, escape, run away, etc. Now, I know that the goal of the so-called stimulus package is to create jobs, prevent bankruptcies, and improve confidence in the market, but I just don't see it working (I will have difficulty arguing that it is or isn't, see below).
From my perspective, this policy effort is masking pork and other special-interest-but-maybe-not-locationally-based projects. Sure, the economy is in a heap of trouble; it makes it a good day to be a politician. I hear you citizenJoe, you need help because no one wants to buy your company's outdated product (read: American car); well, I am going to help you by borrowing a huge load of money and "investing" it in happy jobs.
[Aside: I can just imagine the conversations that must go on in the back rooms when these guys argue about which areas should get "investment." Somebody must be ready to remind them when they get too realistic that we only want to have people work in carbon-neutral positions. *sigh*]
It is a sad day for conservatives. See the official National Review RIP for William F. Buckley, Jr. here.
Today, in his weekly newsletter, Senator Isakson introduced S 2676 to his constituents. In the bills defense he said, "One of the problems we have in Congress with deficit spending is spending money on projects that shouldn’t be funded with tax dollars and programs that have outlasted their usefulness." (read more)
This statement got me thinking about out of control government spending (as if I ever stopped). (Not to say that Senator Isakson has been tight with the purse.)
The way I see it, MOST "projects" shouldn't be funded with tax dollars. It seems, however, that politicians are fine with spending money on projects because it is nice to give something to those who are down/poor/devastated, those who have been mistreated, those who are minorities of some sort, children, and anyone in his/her district. However, this view is fundamentally WRONG.