"Stimulating" the Economy

Whatever else it may be, good or bad, President Bush's plan to ward off recession is a nearly foolproof political move.

Scenario 1. Congress approves the plan, it works, and fiscal conservatism looks good. Score Republicans.

Scenario 2. The Democrats in Congress block the plan and the Democrats take the blame for the economy tanking.

I can only see one possibility for a loss here, and then only a partial loss:

Scenario 3. Congress approves the plan, and it fails. While Bush and political conservatism could be blamed, the Democrats would have to share the blame since they (the Congress) approved it.

So what about the plan on merit?

Ignoring any political dirty tricks as contributing causes of "the recession", I see two major issues: Gas prices and the mortgage meltdown. I don't think any long-term economic stability is coming until these issues are solved (and I don't see any simple solution).

Meanwhile, the President's intent to put money in the hands of individuals is almost certain to get people buying, at least for a little while, and at least a little bit. That may be enough in the short term. If people are spending, product is selling, retailers are restocking, and manufacturers are producing and workers are working and earning, so workers are spending.

(This classic cycle may break down, though. The part where "manufacturers are producing" does not necessarily lead to American workers working and earning. "Manufacturers producing" may lead to Chinese workers having more to spend, or more likely, to manufacturers having more profit without any workers making more money.)

The Democrats are already posturing.

They want the money to go to the working poor. Fine; they'll probably spend it--then it'll be gone and they'll still be the working poor, but they'll be further appreciative of the Democrats whom they believe have "helped" them.

They want new government programs. Figures; give a liberal a chance to make government bigger and guaranteed s/he'll do it. No matter what it costs the taxpayer. Bad idea at any time, and especially bad now because the result would be more government, increased taxes, and the programs (even if they ever worked) would not affect the economy for months to come. (Oh, wait. That's good, because then, the recession would still be on at the elections, and once the programs finally take hold, maybe a Democrat would be in the White House to take credit for the turnaround.)

"The Economy is Falling!"

Chicken Little is alive and well and is a Liberal Democrat.

Anybody remember the recession of 1991-1992? As we headed into the Christmas shopping season of 1990, sales figures were looking good. Even so, the press started talking about recession, and guess what: Retail sales dropped off. Recession came on.

Did the press forecast the recession, or cause it? Well, sales were good, then the reports of recession, then sales fell off, then the economy tanked. You decide what happened.

By the way, incumbent Republican President Bush was defeated by somebody named Clinton, whose campaign emphasized the economy.

So here we are at a Presidential election. Here we are with a Clinton running and a Bush incumbent. Here we are with talk of recession. Interesting!

One difference now is that we really do have a housing and mortgage crisis. We really do have gas prices fluctuating (another area where it seems to me the press is helping to drive up prices by giving a message along the line of "you think this is bad, just wait", which I think only desensitizes the public to the price increases).

But will either of these, or even both, bring us to recession? Only if the public believes the reports. If we do, consumers will buy less, manufacturers will delay expansion, new product releases, etc., and the cycle of pessimism will self-generate and we'll be in recession.

And then the Democrats will blame Bush and his policies and will probably win the White House and Congress. And all it will have cost them is thousands unemployed, production down, and thus government tax receipts down and the deficit up. A real bargain!

So far, though, the public has not bought the story. We'll see if this rare act of intelligence continues. I certainly hope so. My family's income is recession-proof, and mostly we stand to get ahead (make some opportune purchases) if there's a recession. However, I really don't think that's good for the country, and I don't want to see the "little guy" (the one the Democrats claim to be champion of) hurt.

I call for optimism!

There will be no recession! There will be no recession! There will be no recession!

Keep saying that.

California is the new New York?

As California voters approach not only the primaries but referendums on increased gambling on so-called Indian land (which would allegedly give the State more money), Gov. Arnold has released his new budget, with massive cuts in education, public safety, recreation, and prisons, to name a few areas.

Such phony-baloney! This is what they do in New York and other political-hack-run states: Threaten cuts in the most obvious, most emotionally-charged areas, and then get a budget through with no cuts at all.

Hello! There are so many areas where real, meaningful cuts could be made! (That's if anybody actually wanted to cut the budget.)

But this time around there's a twist: The Governor favors--in fact, he arranged--these deals with the gambling interests.* Looks like the voters are being scared into voting for increased gambling and increased dependence on the tribes to fund the State government. If history repeats, 1. the voters will pass this "easy money" set of measures, and 2. the State will not benefit.

Several years ago, based on a promise that Education would benefit, the voters approved a state lottery. Education budgets were tight before the Lottery and have stayed tight; the only changes have been CUTS in the education budget!

Hillary sheds tears. Arnold cuts the muscle and bone out of the budget but leaves the fat. And the voters keep on voting. P.T. Barnum** was right; there is a sucker born every minute!

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." H.L. Mencken.

----------
*Sometime maybe I'll say something about the First Americans and "gaming". Bad deal.

**Or whoever actually said it.

"Can't we all just get along?"

Big news last weekend was Oprah's big deal for Obama. I'm afraid I'm not enthused. People, isn't it time we got away from this racism? Here was Oprah saying, essentially, that she's supporting Obama because he's black. And there's much being said about Hillary being a woman.

I'm not impressed by either of them. If they were white Protestant males, I wouldn't be impressed with them. (I am not now nor have I ever been impressed with Jimmy Carter.) I don't like their views, I don't trust Hillary as a person. I don't want either one or anyone like them to be our President. (For the record, I wouldn't object at all to either Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice as President.)

But that's not what this rant--er, post--is about. Should Mayor Giuliani be boosted by Italian-Americans? Should Senator McCain be touted as the candidate of the white male population? NO!!!!!! RACIST!!!!!!!

But where are the cries of racism following Oprah's blatant statements?

My favorite story about ethnic politicking: LaGuardia was running against a candidate who was Jewish, and who told the Jewish voters that LaGuardia couldn't represent them. LaGuardia challenged the Jew to a public debate--on the condition it be held in Yiddish. He knew something his opponent didn't: LaGuardia, the non-Jew, spoke fluent Yiddish; the Jewish opponent didn't.

The point I like most about this story is that LaGuardia shot down the appeal to racism. Can we PLEASE see racism shot down more often, in politics and out?

Meanwhile, I predict that Oprah's racist support will hurt or kill Obama's campaign. People who have been trying to see him as an individual and evaluate him as candidate without regard to race are going to see him now as black. That is, as a black person being black and running as the representative of the black population, i.e. as a racist candidate.

And Oprah is in jeopardy too. People have now seen a different Oprah, one who appeals to race, who supports a candidate because he's black, and touts him as the candidate of the black population.

Can you say "backlash"?

And one other point: Oprah is only the most recent and highest-profile I've heard cite Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and then act totally opposite of what he dreamed: "...that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. That is NOT what Oprah is proclaiming!

Let's start looking at the "content of their character"! Are you hearing me, Oprah? Are you hearing me, Michael Vick? Are you hearing me, all you rappers? Are you hearing me, Hillary?