Liberal article written about a year ago this month.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I found this article to be very insightful. Also amusing under the circumstances.


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/...-not-tax-cuts/


Stimulus Package Is Welfare, Not Tax Cuts
Posted by Chris Edwards

The Bush administration’s propaganda sheet on the ridiculous stimulus package claims that it includes $100 billion in individual “tax rebates” or “tax relief.” The sheet goes on to claim that the relief is “not federal spending that would have little impact on the economy.”

In fact, the $100 billion is simply extra spending; it is a giant one-time welfare program. To pay for it, the government will borrow an added $100 billion, which will impose $100 billion of higher taxes on future generations.

Suppose there was a Democrat in the White House and she proposed $100 billion in cash hand-outs to families. She could structure it exactly the same way as Bush has, but call it a “Family Food and Health Care Supplement.” The minority GOP would probably denounce it strongly as wasteful welfare, which it would be.

But, as we have seen dozens of times since 2001, because the political operators in the White House call themselves Republicans and conservatives, many members of the Republican party appear to be going along with this nonsense.

The $50 billion business tax relief (capital expensing) is a little different. As a temporary break, it makes no sense. If businesses just pull some of their 2009 investment into 2008 to get the break, it just means we’ll have an investment slump next year. All we will have done is, once again, screw around with corporate business plans instead of making permanent reforms to help companies compete in the global economy.

I’m a supporter of making capital expensing a permanent part of tax law. But enacting expensing temporarily, as we did a few years ago, just makes politicians think of it as a gimmick to be enacted every two years before an election.

Chris Edwards • January 24, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Filed under: Tax and Budget Policy

[jimnabby]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

Stimulus Package Is Welfare, Not Tax Cuts
Posted by Chris Edwards

This would be Chris Edwards, director of Tax Policy Studies for the Cato Institute? What gave you the impression that he's a liberal?

[hairic]

I don't think he realized that the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank.

His usage of the term welfare should have given you a hint to his position. He's saying in this article that he leans further right economically than the Republicans ("conservatives") in Congress.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

This would be Chris Edwards, director of Tax Policy Studies for the Cato Institute? What gave you the impression that he's a liberal?

Edwards claimed to be a Republican early in his career but, given the fact that he wrote this article about Former President Bush, voicing his opposition to independant stimulus funding, but turned around and supported Obama for proposing the same things, might be a subtle hint. However, if you know anything about Edwards, you know that he does what is expediant for his career and at the moment, that career is as a State Representative in Oregon. Oregon is a heavily Democratic state and Edwards was elected as a Democrat.

[arglebargle]

Isn't his description of the Capitol Hill behavior accurate though?

[jimnabby]

Originally Posted by ABQCOWBOY

Edwards claimed to be a Republican early in his career but, given the fact that he wrote this article about Former President Bush, voicing his opposition to independant stimulus funding, but turned around and supported Obama for proposing the same things, might be a subtle hint. However, if you know anything about Edwards, you know that he does what is expediant for his career and at the moment, that career is as a State Representative in Oregon. Oregon is a heavily Democratic state and Edwards was elected as a Democrat.

Ok, now I'm confused. This is Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute (who wrote the article). This is Representative Chris Edwards. Two completely different guys.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by arglebargle

Isn't his description of the Capitol Hill behavior accurate though?

I agree with the article itself. I was not in favor of the Bush Stimulus Package (Welfare Check Program) any more then I am in favor of the Obama version of Change thru Welfare. I just don't believe that giving people money in the hopes that they will invest in homes as opposed to cases of beer will work. I believe in this country and I believe that if people want to work or want an education or want to get ahead in life, they can. If people are not doing this, then that probably means that they are in that situation by choice as opposed to circumstance. Now, that's not every single person out there but it's probably most of them. If you want to live your own life and be responsible for yourself, you can be in this country.

If you give people who have no incomes, by choice, free money, they are going to do with it what they have always done with it. They are going to spend it in none productive ways. That doesn't help the economy in a long lasting and meaningful way.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Originally Posted by jimnabby

Ok, now I'm confused. This is Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute (who wrote the article). This is Representative Chris Edwards. Two completely different guys.

OK, I can see how this was confusing. Clearly, I thought the two were one in the same. You have my appoligy. Having said that, I still find it amusing. It did not work for Bush and based on this, President Obama is going to use the same line of thinking to try and right the ship. The proponant of change will, in all likelyhood suffer the same abject failure of his predecessor, using the same failed strategy. Or, if by some intervention of Godlike proportions should, it happen that he succeeds using this strategy, he has former President Bush to thank for it. The guy who he has spent the last two years telling the American people has zero knowledge of how to fix the economy and who's failed economic stratigies lead us to the place we currently find ourselves.

Do you know see the irony in that?