"It’s easy to see why Democrats decided to do this. They could rush through permanent policies they believe in. Plus, they could pay for them with borrowed money. By putting a little of everything in the stimulus package, they avoid the pay-as-you-go rules that might otherwise apply to recurring costs.
But they’ve created a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord, which has spun off a series of unintended consequences. First, by trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well. The money spent on long-term domestic programs means there may not be enough to jolt the economy now (about $290 billion in spending is pushed off into 2011 and later). The money spent on stimulus, meanwhile, means there’s not enough to truly reform domestic programs like health technology, schools and infrastructure. The measure mostly pumps more money into old arrangements."
Friday, January 30, 2009
Morning Read: David Brooks on the Democrat 'Stimulus'
Great David Brooks op-ed in the New York Times today explaining why the stimulus bill passed by the Democrats and opposed by Shuster in the House is a bad deal.
Take away lines from the Books piece include:
The stimulus bill is a cure that could easily be worse than the disease it was intended to defeat. Instead of using targeted spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy, Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues in the Majority decided to pack the bill with nearly 40 years of pent up liberal social spending and wasteful programs. The Books article explains some of the reasons why Shuster opposed the bill on Wednesday and instead, supported a Republican alternative that focused on tax cuts and spending reductions.
Posted by: Press Secretary