Tax cuts are good, but so are jobs -- any jobs
So, with all this economic stimulus talk bouncing around, I started wondering -- why doesn't the government just give each person a chunk of the money -- like it did early last year with the rebate checks.
Yeah, I know, that's probably a way too simplistic way of looking at things. But it worked for me, until I checked my calculator and talked to an economist.
If my math is right -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- if you divide 900 billion -- the number of dollars, give or take a couple hundred billion in the stimulus package -- and divide that by 300 million (the number of people the U.S.) you get $3,000.
I don't know...$900 billion to fix an economy, or $3,000 to fix my bank account.
Somehow, fixing the economy resonated more. Three thousand won't do me any good if there's no economy to save or spend it in.
Plus, Nancy Sidhu, chief economist and vice president at the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp, put things into perspective for me.
"They are giving money to anybody who has a tax account," she said.
If it passed in the form Sidhu and I talked about on Monday, we're all going to see larger paychecks -- assuming we still have jobs.
That makes sense, especially since people held on to their rebate checks the last time.
The idea of such tax cuts is appealing. But I can only go so far, based on what I heard the other day from the Republican Chairman Michael S. Steele.
He was on the "This Week" on Sunday morning, touting the Republican line on President Barack Obama's proposed economic stimulus plan.
But he said something that really ticked me off.
He opposed the spending part of the stimulus plan, in part, because the jobh it would create via infrastructure spending would be "temporary."
Is he serious? Jobs are jobs, and in this economy -- especially whenit comes to building things -- all jobs are temporary.
At least their jobs. It struck me that he said this, because I couldn't believe this was a reason why Republicans were holding this thing up.
Of course, longer term jobs are better than shorter term.
But I'm not sure we have the time to sit around and debate that point, when "jobs' in general can be created with this bill, and people can get to work.
1 Comments
Leave a comment
About this blog
Economic Alert is a daily blog on business and the economy in the San Gabriel Valley and beyond, featuring updates and observations from the staff of the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group. SGVN includes the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Pasadena Star-News and Whittier Daily News.
Your hosts:
Kevin Smith is business editor for the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group. Over the past 15 years, Smith has covered development, housing, employment, technology and financial trends for a variety of newspapers.
e-mail
Ryan Carter covers business and the economy for the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group.
e-mail
Your hosts:
Kevin Smith is business editor for the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group. Over the past 15 years, Smith has covered development, housing, employment, technology and financial trends for a variety of newspapers.
Ryan Carter covers business and the economy for the San Gabriel Valley Newspaper Group.
The probem is that almost all economists don't have any confidence, at all, that this spending bill- it is most definitely not a true stimulus bill- will succeed in producing jobs. I totally object to your reference to "a reason why Republicans were holding this thing up." For the record, all house republicans and 7 democrats, and all but three very liberal sentors voted against. Are you saying that the republicsns should just go along, even though we know the bill is crap? This riddiculus bill is simply a grab bag of liberal big spending programs they wanted to pass for decades, but couldn't because 1. their arguments failed and 2. due to republican opposition in a balanced congress. Now that the dems have total control, they're like kids in a candy shop indulging their pet pork (Harry Reid's $billions for his train from LA to Vegas; Pelosi's millions for field mouse research; hundreds of millions for STD research and prevention; and on and on and on (BTW- not a SINGLE senator or congressman read the bill before voting on it! This is Obama's supposed transparency. Nice.).
Conservatives don't want to do nothing. Targeted spending, limited to what is absolutely essential. Tax policy to promote spending and investment. Yes. But to pack a partial stim bill with hundreds of billions in liberal pet projects that should be argued separately on their merits in a true, unhurried democratic fashion- not simply added to this monstrosity of a spending bill which will keep us in huge debt for decades, and turn our system into Euro-USA.
The people grow the economy and jobs, not the government. It has never worked anywhere, ever (check out Japan's efforts and their miserable failure), and it won't here.
Obama hs shown that he is just a liberal hack who couldn't stand up to Pelosi and Reid. I did have hope that he'd suprprise and give Harry and Nancy the moe howard head-knock treatment and show his independence, but ... Hope and change? Yea, right.