Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Worse And Worse, The Open Theft Becomes...

The economic "stimulus" plan that Our Fearless Leader is supporting has undergone a metamorphosis.


When it was first introduced to the House, it was 258 pages long.

Now, with the same degree of inevitable predictability as the tides, it has grown into a massive, 647-page monstrosity.

So, what's in it?

Well, as my initial discussion covered, only about $90 billion of the requested $825 billion can actually be called "stimulus" activity. Some of that is tax rebates for people who don't pay taxes,  of course, but in theory even if it IS communism, it will still result in mildly positive effects on the economy, because the recipients will spend the money.

But where's the rest of it going?

Well, aside from the 4 billion dollars to ACORN I mentioned earlier today, it appears to be a Democrat wishlist, at this point; funding for every program they've been unable to pass for the last 40 years, or so.


Let me help you with that.

It isn't.

Scratch this bill entirely, and instead of creating $825 billion in new federal debt, try turning ALL of it out as tax cuts.

This bill on the other hand, is crap.

$400 million for global warming research? The (former) head of all NASA climate research - the guy who used to be James Hansen's boss - says that there's simply no way to use their data to justify the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? Really? Lots of jobs from there.

$650 million for MORE coupons for people for digital TV conversion boxes. Look, if you haven't heard about the switch by now, it's sure gonna suck for you when they do the switch. But you know what? That's not an issue that's my fault, and so I shouldn't have to pay for YOUR TV to work.

And none of us should have to pay for this bill.

But apparently we will, because House Republicans are having "bipartisan" discussions over it with Our Fearless Leader, in total defiance of their constituents.

We need new Congressional representation.

0 Comments: