Stimulating...Kinda Sorta

One of the better things I’ve read today…written by Martin Feldstein in yesterday’s WSJ: “The Tax Rebate Was a Flop. Obama's Stimulus Plan Won't Work Either.” A few excerpts:

Congress enacted the tax rebate program earlier this year because it perceived a growing risk of recession. In addition, it feared monetary policy alone would not be effective because of the dysfunctional credit markets. As American taxpayers know, most of the rebate checks have now been mailed and cashed.

Those of us who supported this fiscal package reasoned that the program would boost consumer confidence as well as available cash. We hoped the combination would cause households to spend a substantial fraction of the rebate dollars, leading to more production and employment. An optimistic and influential study by economists at the Brookings Institution projected that each dollar of revenue loss would increase real GDP by more than a dollar if households spent at least 50 cents of every rebate dollar.

The evidence is now in and that optimism was unwarranted. Recent government statistics show that only between 10% and 20% of the rebate dollars were spent. The rebates added nearly $80 billion to the permanent national debt but less than $20 billion to consumer spending. This experience confirms earlier studies showing that one-time tax rebates are not a cost-effective way to increase economic activity.

These conclusions are significant for evaluating the likely impact of Barack Obama's recent proposal to distribute $1,000 rebate checks to low- and middle-income workers at an estimated cost of approximately $65 billion. His plan, to finance those rebates with an extra tax on oil companies, would reduce investment in refining and exploration, keeping oil prices higher than they would otherwise be.

[…]

The distinction between one-time tax rebates and permanent changes in net income is also important for the debate about Mr. Obama's proposal to raise income and payroll taxes. Because those tax increases would be permanent, they would cause a substantial reduction in consumer spending and aggregate demand. Moreover, as taxpayers begin to focus on the possibility of such a future tax hike, they will reduce spending without waiting for such legislation to be enacted. If Mr. Obama is looking for a way to stimulate the economy, he could begin by discarding his proposal to increase future taxes.

The recent trend of our congresscritters dispensing “free money” to us plebes really worries me. First of all: the money ain’t “free,” no way, no how. It’s our tax money, which should be spent buying boxes of 7.62 mm ammunition, F-22s, and repairing the nation’s infrastructure… which sorely needs it… much more so than you or I need an extra $600.00 ~ $1,200.00 (recently) or $1,000.00 (as The Obamanon has proposed). The recent “stimulus,” which I was never fond of, also smacks of “bread and circuses.” And “smacks” is far too kind, coz freebies are freebies, and they’re highly addictive… to a certain class of people. OK, so I didn’t send MY stimulus check back, and I could have… as the US treasury still accepts checks, as far as I know. Nope. I spent it. All of it. And more. And my money went to The JA Pan Company’s Canon subsidiary. The great portion of America’s recent unexpected and highly stimulating extra money probably went to China, or Taiwan, or India… by way of Wally-World and the like. So…what good did the stimulus checks do us? Precious little, I’ll submit… and Mr. Feldstein’s analysis seems to support my gut feeling on this subject.

I’m amazed and saddened that The Obamanon’s supporters seem to like his $1,000.00 “rebate” proposal. But I suppose I shouldn’t be. We’re looking more and more like ancient Rome…every freakin’ day… complete with barbarians at the gate and politicians who simply don’t care.

Interesting times. Still.

―:☺:―

Via Blog-Bud Barry… here’s an interesting lil diversion, or, “Using your browser URL history to estimate gender.” Here are my results:

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 24%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 76%

Site Male-Female Ratio

youtube.com 1

washingtonpost.com 1.15

pbs.org 0.9

timesonline.co.uk 1.56

lavasoft.com 1.25

realclearpolitics.com 1.82

eons.com 0.85

That raised my eyebrows a bit. Specifically the results for PBS’ site (slightly more women than men visiting) and the eons site, which is one of those oh-so-lame Boomer sites that seem to be popping up like weeds of late. I subscribed to eons last year and then forgot about it… only to return earlier this week because the site notified me that I had a “new message,” which turned out to be spam. So. I get the feeling Mike’s algorithm isn’t comprehensive… coz I’ve been to WAY more sites (today, even) than the results would indicate. As for the gender probability itself? That makes me wonder, too, as Barry’s results were 98% male. I’m thinking I need to pay more attention to my macho-quotient… or something.

But Mike’s toy is fun! Go have a look.

―:☺:―

Today’s Pic: Is yet another re-run. This time it’s one of my favorite shots from my “on the road” days… taken just outside the lil burg of Point Blank, Tejas… which is near Livingston, my home of record in The Lone Star State. I have absolutely NO idea why the name of the town tickled my fancy, but it certainly did.

Somewhere north of Houston... November, 1999.