This is a pretty tough question. I mean I could spend maybe a billion dollars buying houses and cars and other stuff. With that I'd be pretty well set. After that I could easily give away billions and billions of dollrs to help people in need and people who are hungry and people who need wells dug so their communities can have safe drinking water and people who simply need $10 mosquito nets so they can sleep at night and not worry about getting Malaria. I could sponsor 182,291,666 kids through Compassion International for the next ten years. I can think of a lot of ways to spend a lot of money, but $700 billion? I just don't know that I could actually think of ways to spend that money wisely without buying golden toilet seats and making square circles.
Apparently, Congress couldn't figure out how to do it either. That's why what was once a $700B plan morphed into a $810B plan before it went through the Senate and back to the House. What's with the extra $110B you ask? Good question. Well its what some have called "sweeteners." They are called sweeteners, because they do just that, they sweeten the bill up. So, the bill now includes $100 million for NASCAR. Seriously? I mean, I like NASCAR, but what is money for NASCAR doing in an economic bailout/recovery plan? Want to know what else was in the additions? $2 million for wooden arrows for children. Again, are you serious? A few other additions, or earmarks as they're known in Washington:
- $10 million in benefits for employers to offer employees who commute to work via bicycle
- Allowance for production companies to deduct the cost of producing their films from their taxes. This measure will cost taxpayers $478 million over the next 10 years.
- Tax break on rum from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. This tax break for them will cost the taxpayers $192 million.
- Extension of a measure that helps wool fabric makers and clothing manufacturers. This will cost taxpayers $148 million.
Call me crazy, but I fail to see just how these additions have anything to do with the current economic crisis. What got us into the situation that we're in now is the push by the federal government in the 1990's to make homeownership a real possibility for everyone. That meant loaning more money to people than they could afford. While I would love for everyone to be a homeowner, the fact of the matter is that not every can own a home. Some people simply can't afford it and some people can afford to own small homes, but not large homes. That's okay. I feel comfortable saying this because at this point in time I don't own a home. We were approved by a bank for a home loan that was more than we could afford, but we didn't take it. Hear that? Just because you're approved for a certain amount of money doesn't mean you have to take it all, especially if you know you can't afford the monthly payments, or what the monthly payments will be once the balloon inflates.
Implications for the Presidential Race
Remember those two guys who are running for president?
Barack Obama and
John McCain. Well, both of them have been saying that they are going to lower taxes. Obama has been saying that his plan would lower taxes for 95% of Americans (in actuality his plan will only lower taxes for about 80% of American households) and McCain says that he's going to lower taxes too. John McCain has been vehement about saying that he doesn't vote for earmarks and accusing Barack Obama of voting for millions of dollars in earmarks. Well, I think the playing field is pretty level now. Both Obama and McCain voted for this economic bailout plan, earmarks and all. Do either of them truly have what's best for the American people in their sights? I really wonder.
Other Reservations
I know I seem to be being pretty hard on this economic bailout plan. Maybe you're wondering, "Thomas, would you be happier if the bill took out all the nonsense and simply helped the people in trouble?" Truthfully, no. I certainly think it's fine to help people in trouble, but have we forgotten that we live in a capitalist country? Well, we used to anyway. We are moving closer and closer to socialism. Before you hear me knocking socialism, I am not. I am actually a big fan of socialism, just not in this country. We are not and can never truly be a socialist country. If you want socialism, move to Sweden. It truly is wonderful there; I know.
However, what the American people have to remember while basking in the glory of socialism is that socialism costs money. It is plain and simple. We cannot have universal healthcare without increasing taxes. We cannot make everyone a homeone without increasing taxes. We cannot make everyone even remotely close to equal without increasing taxes. So, before you start thinking how necessary this bailout plan was and how great universal healthcare would be (no matter who's proposing it), take a step back and think about it. My dad always says, "Son, nothing in life is free." You know the truth of this as well as I do. Just because money didn't come out of my pocket doesn't mean money didn't come out of anyone's pocket or that it won't come out of my pocket later.
One last reservation I have. The bailout plan essentially gives Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson all the money to do with as he sees fit. The language throughout the bill says that the money should be used "at the Secretary's discretion" multiple times. Are we really okay with giving one person that much money, that much control over what happens with $810B in taxpayer dollars? I'm not.
This issue isn't a Republican or Democrat issue; this is an American issue. At the heart of this is the question of what our American ideals are. Are we capitalist or are we socialist? Are we okay with Congress continuing to build Bridges to Nowhere or do we want them to finally singularly address the issue on the table without adding in money for everyone else and their grandmother except the average American citizen?
Remember, there's no such thing as free lunch.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Posts
