There has been much controversy over the proposed stimulus plan recently and it is with due cause. The proposal is huge in terms of both money and scope. Yet, many supporters of the plan are saying that we should just pass it quickly because it is an emergency. Is this really the way huge government decisions should be made? That is like saying a doctor should quickly give a suffering patient any medicine he or she sees because it is an emergency. Obviously, that is not a good choice because there could be side-effects, which could be avoided. It is the same thing with this plan. We can’t jump into a near-trillion dollar expenditure just like that.
Some of the money in this plan is just ridiculous, going to things that really aren’t important at all. It has been loaded with pork spending and thankfully Senate Republicans are fighting it to reduce the cost. Meanwhile, a lot of the opposition, including the President, insists on passing it as soon as possible. Do these people really think we have an unlimited supply of money? Trying to boost the economy is one thing (I don’t agree with many of their plans on that either, but that’s another story,) but adding billions in random costs really isn’t acceptable considering our immense debt and financial condition. We need to learn fiscal and monetary responsibility as a nation if we hope to return to prosperity.
Even if you want to spend the money, please at least take the time to think over where all the money is going. As we saw with the TARP, speedy stimulus often leads to money basically disappearing. You can make the argument that waiting a week or two to further review the package would mean a week or two of more grief in the marketplace and more job cuts (although that is still going to happen sooner or later,) but even then, wouldn’t you rather have that then realizing a month later that most of the money was wasted and it really hasn’t helped with the problem? To everyone fighting for a fast stimulus: think about it first for the sake of not losing the money.
Update 2/06/09 (later the same day): Apparently, the bipartisan group of Senators working to reduce the cost of the plan have agreed to a new $780 billion plan, which will go up to vote sometime tomorrow. All of the details have not been released yet, but atleast they cut it down. Of course, personally I still oppose most of the money being spent, but at least it was cut a little. I still think more time should have been spent on reviewing and cutting down the bill, but I doubt that will happen again as it will probably pass this time around (although I’m still hoping it won’t.)
No Comments »
Today, President Obama reversed what is known as the “Mexico City policy,” which prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion. President Reagan had originally put the policy into place, only to have it reversed by President Clinton, then restored by President Bush, and now again reversed by President Obama. I understand that these decisions were made based on where these presidents stood on the abortion issue, but have we forgotten the other aspect of it?
Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, this is U.S. taxpayer money, so don’t you think that we should spend that for doing good in our own nation instead of funding abortions internationally? We are currently in trillions of dollars of debt and this only allows for more U.S. money to go abroad for a cause that isn’t nearly as important for the United States government as is solving the nation’s domestic problems. I understand that by revoking this policy, the U.S. won’t necessarily spend more money on international clinics, but it does mean that some of the current money going over can now be used for abortions. It is not like there will be an epidemic or something else horrible if someone can’t get an abortion, so is it really necessary to spend even part of the money on that? It is not the job of the United States government to fund abortions internationally. This is U.S. taxpayer money. Then why is it being sent abroad for a procedure that isn’t really necessary for America or its people and one which doesn’t even help solve any major health problems?
2 Comments »
Well, I didn’t expect this, but I am actually happy with President Barack Obama’s first day in office. For those of you who have read my earlier posts, you probably know that I am pretty conservative fiscally and hence, many of my viewpoints differ with the new president’s. I doubt he will cut back on spending (even though he has said it) and I probably won’t be happy with him everyday, but today I am due to the new executive orders concerning a more open government.
In a press conference, the President spoke about how the government should be more transparent and open to the people. Although he obviously can’t talk about everything within government, it is a good move to be more open with the people that he and the government represent. He has also taken a quick stance against lobbyists, by cutting down on their rights and influence on government officials by banning gifts to his administration and setting firmer restrictions on what lobbyists can and cannot do. It is certainly a good move, as lobbyists have grown to have way too much power in government. The government represents the people, not the lobbyists. Thanks to President Obama on a good first move.
No Comments »
It is a historic day for our nation as the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, was just inaugurated. It is a happy day for our nation and it is a day to put aside politics and come together as a nation as we witness yet another remarkable, peaceful transition of power. I love this country and I have all the respect for President Obama, even though I may not always agree with all of his stances on the issues. It is a wonderful day for our nation.
No Comments »
Currently the Federal Reserve sets the interest rate for the United States. This is one of the most inefficient things that the government does for this country. Why? Because the market is simply too large and too vast for any one group of people to gauge it. Everything including emotions, news, government actions, and even estimates effects the market and no one has the knowledge to analyze all that information. This is why the market should compete to set the rate and hence provide the best rate for borrowers that is still sustainable for the economy in the long run.
The central bank setting the interest rate has only created recessions, led to bubbles, and stunted growth. When the Fed makes the rate too low it leads to more loans (for the obvious reason,) which often end up creating artificial growth that is unsustainable. This can clearly be seen with the bubbles in recent history, especially with the housing bubble that just burst. Alan Greenspan’s dangerously low rates ended up created a large influx of growth in the housing market, only for it to all come crashing down because it was artificial growth pushed by the low rates. When the Fed pushes rates too high, people take out less loans and hence sustainable growth could be stunted.
If the Federal Reserve didn’t set the rate, supply and demand would set it naturally through the market. If there was a shortage of borrowers, rates would go down to encourage growth and if there were too many borrowers, rates would go up in order to stunt artificial growth. It is a system that works itself out.
The Fed setting the rate has only led to trouble and it will continue to do so unless we let the market set the rate. Why not allow the banks and the people actually giving the loans to compete with each other? Why not allow the market to set the rate?
No Comments »