Question of the morning

From Conn Carroll at The Foundry: “What Is the Spending Multiplier on a Pack of Condoms?”
The entire intellectual underpinning of President Barack Obama’s spending plan rests on the belief that certain types of government spending creates a “multiplier effect” which raises national income beyond the size of government’s initial spending increase. So, for example, Mark Zandi has concocted a table which purports to show that for every one dollar the government spends building “Infrastructure” GDP will grow by $1.59. There is also an entry on Zandi’s table for “General Aid to State Government” which Zandi knows for an absolute fact has a 1.36 spending multiplier. So if Obama’s stimulus plan bails out California’s spendthrift government, and Sacramento then spends that money buying condoms for Nancy Pelosi’s constituents, Mark Zandi wants us to believe that this entire transaction will increase GDP by $1.36 for every $1 in condoms Sacramento buys. Does anybody really believe this?
Again, the family planning issue is just one example of how the left is using the cover of the stimulus to advance their long-term goals of increasing the size of the federal government. The stimulus plan increases Washington’s control over spending on education, spending on health care, spending on the environment, and even spending on local law enforcement. As the Washington Post editorialized this weekend: “All of those ideas may have merit, but why do they belong in an emergency measure aimed to kick-start the economy?”
They don’t.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Fiscal Suicide: #biteme « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- The Other McCain: Hey, it worked!
- Shut Up Hippy » Blog Archive » Question of the morning
- Stimulating Notes « 36 Chambers - The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: fiscal stimulus
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Republicans won't eat the juicy, tender crap sandwich they cooked up all on their own
Green Room
» Miss Me Yet? Bush Billboard Mystery Solved
Mudville Gazette
» New Standards in Journalism
JustOneMinute
» He Played It Left Hand, But Took It Too Far
Ed Driscoll
» The Night Chicago Died

Mudville Gazette
» In this case I'm pro-abortion









The idea is that the gov’t only steps in when the markets are failing (which arguably is the case here). They should not spend the $1,000 if that money would be better spent by private companies. Of course, this is more difficult in practice than in theory. The government will likely want to spend more than it needs to (and that’s when voters need to act).
IF, however, (and it’s a big if) this is a situation where the private markets are failing, the stimulus package might be justified. If the government continues to spend after it is no longer justified, then it’s up to the voters to put better politicians in office.
The liberal controlled government is on quick time march towards controlling every single human in this country.
For exactly which candidate do you think those voters will cast a ballot? The one who tells them, “Things are tough, suck it up!” or, “You poor thing, have some government $$$”???
That I agree with. Only it should be government will spend more than it has.
It isn’t justified now, and sooner or later the Marxists in government will do away with elections.
I do not have another identity… and I resent that you might even remotely think that.
oh shoot, i forgot to log out first
If that logic held, fiscal conservatives would never be elected to office, except in times of prosperity. I’m not sure if the historical record indicates that (I doubt that it does).
that’s a bit extreme, don’t you think?
Given obamas past, no.
I’m willing to bet my entire income, for the remainder of my life, that Obama will not do away with elections. Any takers?
You might be glad nobody took you up on that some day.
If Obama ever does away with elections it would only be after he had long done away with the idea of private earned income. Bluesoc would have nothing to lose at that point.