Reason and Sanity

Raise your hand.  Who thinks changing a light buld would qualify as stimulus to the economy? Yet in the first paragraph in this Columbus Dispatch article, Jill and Jonathan show how ignorant and ill conceived the idea of the stimulus package is.  The problem is that I don't think they even realize how absurd they sound.

"Ohio mayors say they can put nearly 100,000 people to work in the next two years on projects ranging from changing light bulbs to digging swimming pools."

Yes, sir.  I always wanted to work for the government.  And I always wanted to be a light buld changer.  Who knew that there are mayors in cities the the great state of Ohio who are looking for people just like me.

The feds start talking about handing out the cash and everybody and their brother from all corners across the fruited plains show up with their hands out and their pride mysterioulsy hidden.

Ohio mayors from more than 2 dozen cities have a $4.2 billion dollar wishlist that include nearly 850 projects.

Here is how some of the mayors from some of the cities intend to "stimulate" the economy.

• • $3.5 million for Dayton to restore a historic structure "associated with the Wright brothers."


• • $2.3 million for Cincinnati to renovate a swimming pool and create a streetscape in Over-the-Rhine, an urban neighborhood known for its poverty and crime.


• • $500,000 for trees in Lima.


• • $200,000 to replace a generator at Marion's City Hall.


• • $70,000 to replace the roof on the dog pound in Euclid.

Not one of these sounds like long term job creation to me.  They sound like projects that every city in every state in every country in the world have to deal with on a daily and ongoing basis.

Raise your hand.  Who thinks the good people of Arizona or New York or Florida or Nevada should pony up a half million dollars for trees in Lima, Ohio?  Heck, I live in Ohio and I don't want to spend money to plant trees in Lima.  They can pay to plant their own trees.

If you did raise your hand, then please send a check to the appropriate city for the appropriate project.  I am sure they will be greatful.

Robert Leighninger, a professor at Arizona State University who has sritten about Public Works Administration aprograms created by FDR said this:

"The idea was to get the money into the hands of the people who would spend it -- the poor. The middle class will save it, and the rich already have it."

You would think in all his research that Professor Leighninger would have come across this tidbit of information from Roosevelt’s treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau.

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work.

I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt, to boot."

The professor talks of putting the money into the hands of the people.  Wouldn't tax cuts do just that?  Wouldn't lowering the tax rate on businesses allow them to create jobs that would put money into the hands of the poor?

And I am talking about real jobs that last; not some government project that has an end date attached to it. The more people employed by government means less people in the private sector which means less money for government.  Is anybody home?

Don't we already have millions on the government payroll, in the form of welfare, who could clean parks, plant trees, dig swimming pools, and yes, even change light bulbs.

Raise your hand if you think that is a good place to start.

Read the full article here.