The stimulus package is now law, it became law regardless of overwhelming GOP opposition to it in Congress and because of GOP love for federal dollars from state and local levels. So, did the news media miss bipartisanship when it came to passing out "free" dollars? Gary Crooks "Smar Bombs" went into the particular details of GOP opposition for the package in Congress and among some state governors. That particular column is published twice a week in the Spokesman-Review. What got me to chuckling over his column was where he pointed out select Congressional GOP and governors who expressed their opposition for varying reasons, even to claiming socialism (apparently, "socialism" is that argument you use when you are called on to account for how you spend the money), or increased business taxes, etc. once the stimulus money was gone.
Well the presumption is, that the money wouldn't just be lying around but put to somewhat good use. Critical infrastructure repair takes time to do. It can take years. But in the time that critical infrastructure is taking place, those at work spend money they have earned and bring business to the towns and cities where they work. At least, that's the idea. From the business they do, they begin to increase the tax base. From the business they do, they increase the likelihood of more people being hired, also providing business because of the money they earned, and etc. Why would we assume—re Republicans—that we shall continue to plead poverty and cry about businesses being burdened with excessive unemployment taxes? Why would there be unemployment if the concept of the stimulus package works out to any extent as it has been touted.
You get the impression that a welfare argument does exist. And it is "keep giving me money even as I decry "socialism." Coming back to "Smart Bombs," Mr. Crooks presumes that the so totally in opposition to the package GOP in members of Congress and among the governors were none the less prepared to take the money and run with it. Among the GOP members of Congress he named, (let me add here that they no doubt did a lot of hand wringing over a package laden with pork) they secured federal dollars for their districts (that they had initially voted against). Which does argue that pork is good as long as it is delivered to GOP hands. Now that is a good reason for laughing out loud.
Well the presumption is, that the money wouldn't just be lying around but put to somewhat good use. Critical infrastructure repair takes time to do. It can take years. But in the time that critical infrastructure is taking place, those at work spend money they have earned and bring business to the towns and cities where they work. At least, that's the idea. From the business they do, they begin to increase the tax base. From the business they do, they increase the likelihood of more people being hired, also providing business because of the money they earned, and etc. Why would we assume—re Republicans—that we shall continue to plead poverty and cry about businesses being burdened with excessive unemployment taxes? Why would there be unemployment if the concept of the stimulus package works out to any extent as it has been touted.
You get the impression that a welfare argument does exist. And it is "keep giving me money even as I decry "socialism." Coming back to "Smart Bombs," Mr. Crooks presumes that the so totally in opposition to the package GOP in members of Congress and among the governors were none the less prepared to take the money and run with it. Among the GOP members of Congress he named, (let me add here that they no doubt did a lot of hand wringing over a package laden with pork) they secured federal dollars for their districts (that they had initially voted against). Which does argue that pork is good as long as it is delivered to GOP hands. Now that is a good reason for laughing out loud.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment