The below special column is authored by RLC endorsed candidate for Congress, Steve Beren of Seattle. Steve has run twice for Congress against Jim McDermott, one of the most liberal members of Congress. He has given us permission to reprint his article below.
“Stimulus” – Wasteful, harmful, job-killing, and a threat to liberty
by Steve Beren
Eric Earling of SoundPolitics.com, under the heading “Hope-n-Change,” cites a Washington Post report that “[s]ome Democratic leaders … said … they will seek to cut provisions that would not provide an immediate boost to the economy.”
If we take this phrase literally and examine it carefully, the “stimulus” bill is composed of provisions that WOULD provide an immediate boost to the economy, and that WOULD NOT provide an IMMEDIATE boost to the economy (implying that those provisions would provide a boost to the economy a little later on).
Like last fall’s $700 billion “bailout,” this $900 billion “stimulus” is wasteful spending, counter-productive, harmful to the economy, restrictive of liberty, and a job-killer.
Whether it goes by the name of “stimulus,” or “bailout,” or “rescue,” or “recovery,” the recent and proposed measures are dangerous to our prosperity and to our liberty.
The sheer size of these wasteful measures attempt to soften up the American people to accept further expenditures of billions and trillions.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) is proposing a $25 billion INCREASE in the “stimulus,” while just one year ago that amount — $25 billion — would have been considered outrageous as a stand-alone proposal. Now, it is just a small fraction of a much bigger, much more wasteful, much more harmful package.
The increased deficit and increased taxes that will result are bad enough, but the threat to liberty is the worst danger of all.
The government does not just expand in its spending — it also expands in its scope of control, regulation, and authority over our lives.
Increasingly, the Obama administration will seek to tie “bailout money” and “stimulus money” to rules and regulations about how businesses should be run – salaries, office renovation, travel, expansion, etc.
Don’t bet on government control over a company’s spending to be limited just to the top executives. The (socialist) principle is the same — what’s to stop Obama from asking for controls not just on pay to executives, but also to secretaries, receptionists, bookkeepers, and other staff?
Also, don’t bet on government interference and dictates to companies to be limited to companies that receive so-called “bailout” money. The (socialist) principle is the same – such government control and mandates could also be applied to companies that receive so-called “stimulus” money and/or receive tax cuts as part of the “stimulus” package.
Considering the vast reach of the “stimulus” proposal, and considering how many types of industries it purports to “help,” this is a dangerous threat to liberty indeed.
This understanding is the substantive basis and rationale for Senators to oppose the stimulus bill.
Also, before we get too carried away in thinking this bill consists of “provisions” that will benefit the economy “immediately” versus “provisions” that will benefit the economy “later” …
Kirby Wilbur on KVI this morning cited a Wall Street Journal article by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), in which Coburn evidently states that at least 90% of the bill is not a stimulus at all. Not beneficial at all. Not immediately, not later.
If Coburn is right, than something less than 10% of the bill could potentially (theoretically) help the economy. That, of course, is if we just assume the Obama-Pelosi-Reid promises and projections are definitely true and trustworthy.