President Obama and Congress are mighty generous. They’re worried we citizens don’t have enough money to go out and shop till we drop. They’re specially concerned about grandpa and grandma.
So, a check from the federal government will soon be mailed. Thanks, Obama. We sure appreciate it, Hu Jintao.
It’s not yet a done deal, of course, but our Nobel Laureate in Chief has proposed sending $250 to 57 million senior citizens. If we had only invested more money in education during past years, we could all now do the math to figure out how much this will actually cost.
On the other hand, math is such an uncaring subject.
Democrats in Congress have quickly signaled they just love the idea. House Republican Leader John Boehner likes the concept as well. Though, to show his new fiscally responsible attitude, he’s suggesting the money come from the already borrowed and unspent stimulus funds previously passed by Congress.
Boehner has, indeed, put his finger on one of the strange new problems facing our Republic: Government’s inability to spend our money fast enough.
Let’s face it: If some of us don’t have 250 new reasons to go splurge a little at the mall, the economy won’t be pumped up enough to create more jobs. Plus, without ever larger deficits, the Red Chinese will have to go back to the drawing board to figure out where to invest their excess cash.
Why should the money go to seniors? Well, it’s only fair. After all, Social Security recipients aren’t getting a cost of living increase this year — for the first time in over 30 years.
Why no cost of living raise in benefits? Well, due to a mere technicality — the cost of living didn’t actually increase last year (thanks, recession!).
Seniors also deserve a reward for coming out to vote so regularly. We don’t want them discouraged about our great country with a congressional election next year. Call it an investment in democracy.
Let’s at least be thankful that no unfair technicalities (such as having to actually vote on it or that pesky 27th Amendment to the Constitution) prevented our hard-working congressmen from receiving their cost of living raise back in January. Still, the average congressman only makes $174,000. Without the bennies from lobbyists, it’s hardly enough to break out of the middle class. Sure, the congressional leadership gets paid a little more, but only because they have to fetch, lift and toss around even heavier sacks of dough. Speaker Pelosi, for instance, makes a mere $223,500 — a pittance compared to what she’s worth to ACORN, SEIU, teachers’ unions, Goldman Sachs and so many other wonderful Americans with paid lobbyists in Washington.
Surely, no one can argue with the logic of borrowing billions that future generations will be taxed to repay in order to give a cost of living bump now to those whose cost of living hasn’t increased. After all, future generations never even bother to show up at the polls.
Still, a nagging question remains: Why a mere $250? Why not $500? Or $1,000? Or even $250,000?
Come on, the Chinese probably have the money to lend us.
And if the stimulative effect of a new $250 in the hands of 57 million Americans is good, think how much better drop-shipping these folks several thousand dollars would be.
Worried about the national debt? Don’t be silly. As Congressman Pete Stark (D-Calif.) explained a few years ago, the larger the national debt, the wealthier we are.
Who would have thought that
(a) borrowing money from dictators to
(b) give it away to high-turnout voters in the hopes that
(c) they’ll ignore the frightening economic times and
(d) show up at both the polls and the mall
(e) in a good mood
was such a critical part of restoring American capitalism?
Losing Jobs Over Ex-Im’s Expiration? Don’t Believe ItLosing Jobs Over Ex-Im’s Expiration? Don’t Believe It | Ed Feulner