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

Red Shirt, Your response at 12:15 p.m. is exactly why we should be scared to...

Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world

Yes, let's google Kurt Bestor and get totally accurate information on his...

What Anderson did was wrong. Yes, he lied, and should be held accountable....

I hope they go against the Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists now too.

I wonder if our beloved Pres. Obama will tell the Iranian students (as he...

This is hard to understand, that JW's are hard working, tax paying, community...

Obama urges major new stimulus

Sorry to say this BUT guess what?. We were BORN into this world,...

To "thanks redshirt | 12:31 p.m. " what conspiricay have I touted?

Abortion can legally only be performed by a physician. To seek the assistance...

TCU versus BSU unpopular

BCS - how do we deal with these BCS buster teams? Just let them play each...

Advertisements