Sunday, August 31, 2008

Would Barack Obama feed the bears?

Politicians and pundits seem to have difficulty sometimes telling the difference between government budgets and the overall economy. This is apparent in two instances this weekend.

First, Sen. Barack Obama's economic "plan" has as one of its main action items a $50 billion transfer to the states to "jumpstart the economy."

Aiding and abetting is, with its unattributed claim that state budget problems are the result of "falling revenues triggered by the housing and mortgage crisis," marring an otherwise very informative article.

They should have talked to Kentucky Sen. Julian Carroll(D), whose recent statement seems to indicate he understands that giving legislators more money to play with may not be the best use of our resources.

1 comment:

Hempy said...

Any transfer of federal money to states or to other entities should be accompanied with clear guidelines for accountability. Money is not to be ladled out to do with as you please. It has to have a well-defined benefit.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 7, "There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquillity of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit."

If money doesn't circulate well and broadly, then we get into the economic crisis that the Repugs are so wont to drive us into. They want to give money to where it will benefit the wealthy few the most, and crumbs left for the rest of us.

The Repugs call this "trickle-down economics." It's failed every time.