Stimulus III would be no more successful than I and II

Published: Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:02 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 

WASHINGTON — Economic policy, which became startling when Washington began buying automobile companies, has become surreal now that disappointment with the results of the second stimulus is stirring talk about the need for a ... second stimulus. Elsewhere, it requires centuries to bleach mankind's memory; in Washington, 17 months suffice: In February 2008, President George W. Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who normally were at daggers drawn, agreed that a $168 billion stimulus — this was Stimulus I — would be the "booster shot" the economy needed. Unemployment then was 4.8 percent.

In January, the administration, shiny as a new dime and bursting with brains, said that unless another stimulus — Stimulus II wound up involving $787 billion — was passed immediately, unemployment, which then was 7.6 percent, would reach 9 percent by 2010. But halfway through 2009, the rate is 9.5. For the first time since the now 16-nation Eurozone was established in 1999, the unemployment rate in America is as high as it is in that region, which Americans once considered a cautionary lesson in the wages of sin, understood as excessive taxation and regulation.

Story continues below

"Everyone guessed wrong" about the economy's weakness, says the vice president, explaining why Stimulus II has not yielded anticipated benefits. Joe Biden is beguiling when unfiltered by calculation, as he often is and as he was when he spoke about guessing ("Meet the Press," June 14) and how everyone "misread" the economy ("This Week," July 5). To be fair, economics is a science of single instances, which means it is hardly a science. And it is least like one when we most crave certainty from it — when there is a huge and unprecedented event and educated guessing is the best anyone can do.

But before embarking on Stimulus III, note that only about 10 percent of Stimulus II has yet been injected into the economy in 2009. This is not the administration's fault, the administration's defenders say, because government is cumbersome, sluggish and inefficient. But this sunburst of insight comes as the administration toils to enlarge governmental control of health care, energy, finance, education, etc. The administration guesses that these government projects will do better than the Postal Service (its second-quarter loss, $1.9 billion, was 68 percent of its losses for all of 2008) and the government's railroad (Amtrak has had 38 money-losing years and this year's losses are on pace to set a record).

Recent comments

This just more puss flowing from the festering Obama infection...

The "stimulus" | July 13, 2009 at 12:12 a.m.

Oh they all knew it was bad. They went around talking about the...

Cameron | July 12, 2009 at 8:21 p.m.

Did you even read the article?

No, you just attack conservatives...

RE: WILL NOT | July 12, 2009 at 6:24 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Nothing proposed would keep young adults from learning of the reality of sex,...

Utes pound winless Lobos

the only "decent" team we played we lost to? I guess that Air Force isn't a...

I am watching the game again, and it is awesome!!!

Utes pound winless Lobos

I can't help but laugh inside when I read comments from YBU/TCU fans who...

(from the independant) I like Dennis Miller.... and Bill Maher, although I...

As a BYU alumnus, I can't justify to myself ever donating another dollar to...

Not a chance. Don't get me wrong they are both studs, but if Asiata wasn't...

Titan Fan, sorry that some of your best players got hurt. I hope they...

Utahns in House oppose reform bill

So sad how fear based so many are.

Will the Jazz even make the playoffs this year. The way they are playing it...

Advertisements
Advertisement