[SeMissourian.com] Mostly Cloudy ~ 64°F  
River stage: 14.03 ft. Rising
Friday, Oct. 9, 2015

Editorial: Returning our cash

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

There is a growing consensus that the $150 billion stimulus plan -- remember the checks sent out by the IRS earlier this year? -- did not do what it was intended to do: resuscitate a stagnating U.S. economy. But that was before we learned all the details of the widening credit crisis created by bad mortgages and trillions of dollars tied up in congressionally authorized gambling on the economy's future. Nor did we know that the crisis wasn't contained in the U.S. but was, in fact, a world crunch of unprecedented proportions.

While the economic tailspin has clouded the results of the stimulus plan, some economists -- and politicians who voted in favor of mailing out checks -- wonder what the effect of not having such a plan might have been.

The stimulus plan was followed, after financial markets started reeling from the credit crisis, by a $700 billion bailout plan, called a "recovery plan" by many White House advisers and many in Congress who are trying to explain to voters why they supported the massive infusion of government funding into the private sector.

Again, some economists and politicians are wondering now what the effect would have been without the bailout.

A third round of throwing cash at the crisis may be in the works. Some Democrats in Congress want another stimulus package that would mean mailing more checks to taxpayers from the IRS. The first checks didn't have much effect, they say, but another infusion of cash might do the trick.

Or not.

One way of looking at the stimulus checks is to regard the federal cash outlay as government's way of fiddling with the economy. If it works, backers gain political justification. If it fails, it was because opponents wouldn't go along with everything the supporters wanted to give away.

Another way of looking at the stimulus checks, however, is to regard them not as government giving something to taxpayers, but rather returning to taxpayers what is rightfully theirs: hard-earned wages. In effect, the stimulus checks represent temporary tax cuts that, over time, have proven to be effective in bolstering the economy.

The question is: Will such a plan work in light of the worldwide economic meltdown?

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

One would think that if the government spent or wasted less, they could return some of our hard earned tax dollars and we would reinvest it into substantial economic activity. Especially if they returned it to those who actually paid it. In a totally unrelated measure, if they would actually allow our appointed regulators to regulate as they were intended, and apply some reasonable oversight to maintain the accountability of these incredibly large bureaucracies, then maybe we wouldn't have to worry how doing one good thing might prohibit us from doing another. But that would require Congressional leadership, the mother of oxymorons.

-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 2:04 PM

Funny, the word 'wasted' was ****** out. A four letter word?

-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 2:05 PM

The word was 'w a s t e d'. Why the asterisks?

-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Oct 28, 2008, at 2:07 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: