Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Questions and Concerns About the Stimulus

Concerning What the Senate Passed Today:

Analysis using the President's own financial model has shown that more tax cuts with less spending and a smaller price tag will yield more dividends, and sooner.

Is it partisanship that is ignoring the Republican plan that does that? I don't think Republicans are worked against this bill because of partisanship. They're working against this bill because most of it doesn't match the intended outcome and their alternative using the same economic models showed they'd yield better results, faster, and with less money.

If given the choice between two options, why not choose the one predicted to work better and for less money?

The CBO has shown that the long term effects of this legislation will be detrimental. It seems to me that we still ended up with way too much spending and not enough tax cuts.

I also noticed in reading through the elements of the bill that so much of it is spread out over 10 years. While many of those items (spending and tax cuts) are noble causes, does a 10 year plan actually belong in a bill that is intended to stimulate the economy now? Though I'll take tax cuts of any kind at any time, why not do things that truly make some immediate impacts like reductions to payroll taxes?

I still have trouble understanding why my tax dollars should go to propping up states who've been irresponsible with their finances. Maybe they should all be required to take lessons from Nebraska?

Also, much of the bill falls under the classic definition of "welfare." Is there a cease and desist date for this welfare? One thing we learned during the 90's from welfare reform that programs with a deadline get people working again and the economy churning much faster than an endless supply of welfare.

Through all of this, no one has yet answered, or asked that I'm aware of, how are we going to pay for this?

And what about the impact of the inflation that's sure to follow?

Lastly, I think the vote on any conference agreement should be delayed so that we all have time to comb through the bill and find the hidden little agenda items, such as the one which denied funding to educational institutions if they allowed any religious organization use of facilities. What others may lie in the bill?

I've had several calls from those concerned that there's some item that will limit conservative or religious talk radio, though I can't find it. Page 164 has been mentioned as the source???? Either way, I think that we should have the time to scrutinize all the devils in the details instead of having this rushed through.

No comments: