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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Stimulus-Backed ‘Green’ Bankruptcy of the Week: Ener1
January 26, 2012 03:06 PM by Doug Powers
67 CommentsObama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 CommentsWhite House Calls Solyndra Subpoena ‘Unreasonable Burden on the President’s Ability to Meet His Constitutional Duties’
November 5, 2011 10:22 AM by Doug Powers
84 CommentsCalifornia High Speed Rail Project Triples in Projected Cost, Won’t Be Ready for 22 Years
November 1, 2011 09:02 AM by Doug Powers
117 CommentsThe Latest Dept of Energy Loan Recipient to Declare Bankruptcy Is…
October 31, 2011 02:00 PM by Doug Powers
75 CommentsWhite House Orders Review of Energy Department Loans
October 28, 2011 04:49 PM by Doug Powers
52 CommentsWhile you were sleeping: Sneaky midnight-hour Senate moves; EduJobs rejected, Commerce nominee/solar subsidy mogul approved, Fannie/Freddie loan limits increased
October 21, 2011 02:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
46 Comments
Categories: fiscal stimulus
Patterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hit
JustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On Stupid
Gateway Pundit
» White House Says They Won’t Budge on HHS Birth Control Mandate: “Our Position Is Clear” (Video)

Gateway Pundit
» Sarah Palin on HBO Palin Movie: I’ve Created More Impersonators Than Obama’s Created Jobs (Video)
Weekly Standard
» ‘No Precedent for the Government Ordering Private Companies to Offer a Product for Free’
Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your way
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooks










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.