Not All Spending Is Pork...But I Hope Pigs Can Fly.

Enough already! Don't make me pull over!

I've had enough of the partisan bickering about the Stimulus Bill. Thus far, much of the media coverage about the bill has failed to seriously analyze the efficacy of the bills...including the C-SPAN footage of the debate on the Hill. Instead, the conversation has consisted of little more than name-calling...on both sides. The Republicans are so obsessed with "pork," you'd think they had the Swine Flu. All the while, we are left to conclude that we are more likely to see pigs fly, than to see Congress pass an effective recovery plan. 

Let's have a little less food-fighting and a little more substantive debate...please.

For starters, I would like to see some coverage that does more than ask the question: 

"Which is better, 'tax-cuts' or 'pork-barrel spending?'" 

The truth is, it's a complex bill, with numerous components...all with the stated intention that they will help to stimulate the economy. So which things will actually do that? And why, or why not? 

A recent article, from Washington Monthly's Political Animal, makes some interesting points to that end:

"The authors of the legislation emphasized a point we used to hear more from the White House: this spending package is intended to offer stimulative benefits and lay the groundwork for future gains.

So, for example, when the bill includes $6.7 billion for renovations and repairs to federal buildings, it creates jobs for those doing the work, and it saves the government in the future because current buildings haven't been weatherized. When the bill includes $2 billion in Head Start and Early Head Start funding, it creates educations jobs, and it pays dividends with long-term benefits to students. When the bill invests a $2.6 billion in advanced battery technology research and development, it creates engineering jobs, and it pays dividends in energy costs, U.S. manufacturing, and a competitive edge."

Okay, now those are actual theories on how this bill might improve the economy. I would like to see more explications of exactly how and why the authors of this bill think it will work.

On the other hand, I'd like to hear the opposition rebut those specific arguments...if they can. Don't just tell me that any government spending is bad. That may be your ideology, but it isn't mine. Make your case.

The Democrats argue that spending money on infrastructure has a positive ripple effect on the economy. The way they see it, the process begins with construction workers, steel workers, etc, then it flows through the manufacturing and retail industries as the workers consume, before feeding back into the coffers of the government in the form of new tax revenues from all those who would otherwise be unemployed.

If the Republicans see flaws in that reasoning, tell me what they are. We know that tax-cuts can fail to stimulate the economy when people don't spend them. What I'd like to know is: 

"When do new construction, manufacturing and retail jobs fail to stimulate?"

I look forward to some more substantive and specific arguments in the coming daze...from either side...and I hope pigs can fly.