Michael G. Franc has posted a summary of the most troublesome aspects of the stimulus bill, aside from the irresponsible spending orgy. Must read stuff...
Over the last three weeks the policy experts at my institution, the Heritage Foundation, have published dozens of biting critiques of literally every aspect of the House and Senate versions of this legislative monstrosity. They agree on one thing: Under the guise of stimulating the economy, this one bill contains a generation’s worth of liberal policymaking, an entire Great Society-scale agenda, one that advances the liberals’ view of man and his relationship to government enough to cause LBJ himself to turn red with envy.The pork and the overall spending are every bit as bad as the critics say, but in the long run, they are mere distractions. The real damage comes from other, less noticed provisions in the bills.
The House and/or Senate stimulus bills would undo the 1996 welfare reforms, explode entitlement spending by a cool quarter trillion dollars, lay the groundwork for the federal government’s takeover of our health care system, double Uncle Sam’s already overbearing role in education, require taxpayers to pick up the bail tab for potentially dangerous felons, allow unemployed Wall Street executives to qualify for Medicaid, and reignite the fires of trade protectionism, thereby risking a global trade war.
Not bad for the first month of unified liberal rule in Washington, eh?
Also, at Reason.com...
800 Billion Reasons To Be Worried
UPDATE 2/12: Jim Manzi, a man with a plan. I am in particular agreement with his suggestion No. 4..."Demand accountability from state governments." The House version of the stimulus bill contains $20 billion to bail out the state of California, the Senate version $40 billion. That's an incredible amount of money to be paid by the taxpayers of 50 states, to bail out the irresponsibility and out-of-control government of one state. (I understand California is $10 billion in deficit this year, and will be $30 billion in deficit next year)
I realize that it's important to keep California viable, but this would appear to excuse their excesses, not incentivize them to reform the system, unless some of Manzi's suggestions are implemented...
If this appears to be the in the national interest, OK, but it should be provided in the form of a loan with conditions. The U.S. government should have authority to seize sales tax and other tax revenues until the debt is repaid. In order to prevent this from simply becoming a driver of yet more state deficits, the federal government should also have the authority to hire, fire and make all spending cuts that it chooses in California’s budget until the debt is repaid. Ultimately, the debt should have recourse to state assets. You don’t want the taxpayers of the other 49 states to start selling oil drilling rights to the area off your cost, or selling off your state beaches to build condos? Then pay back your debt. If you don’t want these conditions, then don’t come to me with your begging bowl. This would have the effect of mitigating the moral hazard of this part of bailout in a very direct way: by humiliating the governors and legislators of states who have gotten themselves into this position.
Roger Kimball rewriting some Aesop's fables.
Posted by dan at February 12, 2009 11:50 AM