Michelle Malkin » Question of the morning

Question of the morning

By Michelle Malkin • January 27, 2009 09:28 AM

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.

Posted in: fiscal stimulus

Printer Friendly

comments (108)

trackbacks (4)

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

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#603658

On January 27th, 2009 at 1:08 pm, bluesoc said:

Let’s just say what you said is true. Why should the government stop at $10 – why not spend $1000. Then the economy will benefit by $100,000.

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.
#603679

On January 27th, 2009 at 1:20 pm, Speakup said:

Senator Barry Goldwater in 1958:

This bill and the foregoing remarks of the majority remind me of an old Arabian proverb: “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” If adopted, the legislation will mark the inception of aid, supervision, and ultimately control of education in this country by the federal authorities.[1]

The liberal controlled government is on quick time march towards controlling every single human in this country.
#603681

On January 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pm, nail49 said:

it’s up to the voters to put better politicians in office.

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 $$$”???
#603683

On January 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm, b-cat said:

The government will likely want to spend more than it needs to

That I agree with. Only it should be government will spend more than it has.

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.

It isn’t justified now, and sooner or later the Marxists in government will do away with elections.
#603689

On January 27th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

Socky:
Do you believe that poster might merely/actually be lgm, our buffoon relief-supplier, with a new, secret identity?

I do not have another identity… and I resent that you might even remotely think that.
#603691

On January 27th, 2009 at 1:36 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

oh shoot, i forgot to log out first
#603784

On January 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, bluesoc said:

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 $$$”???

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).

sooner or later the Marxists in government will do away with elections.

that’s a bit extreme, don’t you think?
#603795

On January 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pm, sonofdy said:

that’s a bit extreme, don’t you think?

Given obamas past, no.
#603805

On January 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm, bluesoc said:

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?
#603841

On January 27th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, sonofdy said:

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.
#603884

On January 27th, 2009 at 4:09 pm, vsatt said:

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.