Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


How to make a bad situation worse

posted at 5:55 pm on September 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

How can anyone make a financial crisis which could eat up to a trillion dollars in government funds any worse?  Demanding an appetizer of $50 billion more in government spending.  Democrats have assessed that as their price for supporting the biggest federal bailout in history, and Barack Obama leads the chorus:

Congressional Democrats are pushing for a new $50 billion economic-stimulus plan as a way not only to jolt the economy but also to help themselves politically in November’s elections. The plan would include new spending for infrastructure, an extension of unemployment benefits, energy assistance to lower-income families and aid to states to help pay Medicaid health-care costs for the poor. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama touts the plan almost daily.

“This plan can’t just be a plan for Wall Street,” he told a Charlotte, N.C., audience Sunday. “It has to be a plan for Main Street. We have to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, to pass a stimulus plan that will put money in the pockets of working families, save jobs and prevent painful budget cuts and tax hikes in our states.”

Most Republicans sharply disagree. They note that negotiators from Congress and the Bush administration already are eyeing a financial-rescue package that’s estimated to cost $700 billion.

With this fiscal year’s federal budget deficit already headed over $400 billion, and next year’s likely to top that, “sooner or later there will have to be a reckoning,” said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.

What’s the best argument against the stimulus package?  How about the complete lack of impact from the last stimulus package?  Instead of offering a useful set of tax reforms that would create a real stimulus, Congress and the Bush administration handed everyone back $600 of their own money and treated it as some sort of gift.  That was just a few months ago, and it did so little to fix the structural problems of the economy that now Democrats think we need another round.

The argument from the stump is that we’re bailing out Wall Street but ignoring Main Street, and so we should spend even more money in order to pander to the middle class.  It’s this kind of logic that explains why we have hundreds of billions in deficit spending each year, and we face another financial catastrophe in a few years regarding entitlement spending.  Instead of prioritizing spending and making tough decisions, our political class decides instead to spend money everywhere in order to look like Santa Claus to everyone.

Indeed, that’s what started this credit crisis in the first place.  Politicians wanted to force lenders to take more risks in offering credit, so they passed mandates for lenders to sell mortgages to marginally qualified buyers, or in many cases flat-out unqualified borrowers.  Instead of demanding fiscal responsibility from GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they encouraged reckless behavior so that they could take credit for putting people in houses they couldn’t afford.  Of course, Congress hardly serves as an example of fiscal responsibility at the best of times anyway.

Now we learn that the reckless fools who brought us the sub-prime meltdown want to keep spending money in order to make us feel “good” once again.  If they really wanted to solve the problem, they would start cutting government spending in order to absorb the massive losses that taxpayers will underwrite.  They could also take less of our money in the first place and perhaps end capital-gains taxes in order to encourage investors into kick-starting the economy. Congress could also take the limits off of oil exploration and extraction, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and keeping American wealth inside America for the next few years to create more revenues to pay for the bailout.

That would be a real stimulus plan, not some one-time giveaway that does nothing to boost the economy but works to boost the populist street creds of free-spending politicians.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I thought that this all started in the Clinton administration and the banks were being threatened by Janet Reno that they would be prosecuted for redlining if they didn’t approve subprime loans. That’s what Rush said today on his show and I’d have to believe Rush Limbaugh before someone named mike volpe.

I’ve also read that it was an effort to win votes for the Dems in 2000 from the sub prime electorate.

It all makes sense to me. The “hot market” was a result of the banks being forced into the subprime market. Greed may have been the after affect but not the cause. Am I daft?

Mr_Magoo on September 22, 2008 at 8:20 PM

According to excellent reporting by Ed last week, this was caused in part by the Community Reinvestment Act which was signed into law under that Master of Unintended Consequences, Jimmy Carter. It wasn’t enforced largely until Clinton, I believe, from the info. Ed gave in his analysis. I’m too lazy to look it up. Look back thru last week and you will find it.

JAM on September 22, 2008 at 9:53 PM

This guy also wants to send a bunch of money to the un to buy off somebody.50Billion of yours and my money. This jerk needs a day job.
J Wm.

Col.John Wm. Reed on September 22, 2008 at 10:07 PM

I’ve also read that it was an effort to win votes for the Dems in 2000 from the sub prime electorate.

It all makes sense to me. The “hot market” was a result of the banks being forced into the subprime market. Greed may have been the after affect but not the cause. Am I daft?

Mr_Magoo on September 22, 2008 at 8:20 PM

If you really want to know…

Mark Levin has been educating people on this subject for weeks. His show yesterday was exceptionally thorough.

Saltysam on September 22, 2008 at 10:28 PM

I pray that John McCain stands up for the taxpayers and opposes this disastrous bailout plan with a plan like what Newt Gingrich suggests.

It would allow Republicans in congress to follow McCain’s lead and abandon George W. Bush’s sad & ineffective leadership.

Right_of_Attila on September 22, 2008 at 10:37 PM

What if our government is a broken and disfunctional as it appears to be? The politicians are looking out for number one instead of the country, and if Frank and Dodd are in charge of the recovery, there is no hope. Look for the continued bickering as the markets flail.

The question Ed asked earlier today, do we really want to put so much power in one man as Financial Czar, is not even being discussed in the MSM or Congress.

richard_223 on September 22, 2008 at 10:53 PM

What money, exactly, is he talking about? What with that fancy degree and all, you’d think he’d be able to tell we’re freaking broke.

angelat0763 on September 22, 2008 at 11:03 PM

The question Ed asked earlier today, do we really want to put so much power in one man as Financial Czar, is not even being discussed in the MSM or Congress.

richard_223 on September 22, 2008

It looks like the way Congress appoints commissions to determine their pay raises. That way they have political cover and avoid accountability. Question: Do they come to Congress as miserable, gutless, soulless cowards or does Washington make them that way?

SKYFOX on September 23, 2008 at 6:23 AM

It would be better to let the bail-out fail than to agree to this blackmail.

That way if things aren’t improving by Nov. then the politicians can point to the Democrats as blocking needed reform.

PS: I’m not very thrilled with the structure of this bail-out bill anyway. So having it go down to defeat at the hands of the Democrats would be a win/win.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2008 at 7:09 AM

If the Democrats want something to be stimulated, go call Heidi Flies. Otherwise, hands off my money.

MarkTheGreat on September 23, 2008 at 7:10 AM

Hey Congress. Pay MY mortgage.

Worst idea ever. Sign the bailout bill, end your career in politics.

Angry Dumbo on September 23, 2008 at 8:27 AM

I smell bacon-everywhere. Yikes!
BTW-there’s pork everywhere. In grants, in loans, etc. to regular people.
The ag pork is tremendous, but now needed bcs Congress won’t enforce laws on the books so now small ag NEEDS that $$ to survive.
Looking at whoring out myself now. Cattle producers as part of the disaster aid in the farm bill can get I believe $52/cow in affected drought areas.
Then look at packer lobbyists & COOL. Think I should take it now?

Badger40 on September 23, 2008 at 2:06 PM

and perhaps end capital-gains taxes in order to encourage investors into kick-starting the economy

Lowering the capital-gains taxes encourages the rapid buying an selling of stock, which, in some sense, is what got us into this mess.
Now, if you were to lower the total tax on dividends (corporate tax + dividend tax) in one way or another, that would encourage real, long term investment (and probably better corporate management as well).
Think about it: stocks are really only supposed to have value because of the dividends they are supposed to provide.

Count to 10 on September 23, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.