SIMS : ROCKS ARE FREE, AND SLINGSHOTS EASILY STOLEN.
I'm so hungry, I could
eat a baby deer.
sims is on Twitter
Atom feed, yo
Free Website Counter
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Stimulus For Dummies
A great deal of talk about economic stimulus packages this week, as the US economy careens toward recession, all the while dragging the rest of the world with it.
So far, it appears that people making less than $75k a year will get $600 bucks each, plus $300 per kid. Thus a married couple with three kids and a combined income of $110,000, will get a check for $2100 from the party of fiscal restraint.
It's a nice chunk of dough, and theoretically, we'll all run out and buy flat screens, and the economy will be saved. I'm not exactly sure how the purchase of Asian electronics will help US workers get raises to save their foreclosed homes, but I freely admit that I am not an economist.
What I am is a person with a long-term memory. In some cases, I can even remember things that happened six months ago. It's an inherited trait known as "not being a drooling moron."
On August 1 of last year, the I-35 bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed. We all shook our heads and wondered how this could happen in America, and we talked about how under-funded our infrastructure is, and how this is the tip of the iceberg. But then, some other stuff happened, pennant races, steroids, Labor Day sales, and we forgot about it.
In the meantime, the subprime scams have helped the economy take a giant shit. People can't afford their homes, jobs with good wages evaporate as unemployment rises, and no one can think of anything that can be done except mail out checks to us like we were a nation of apocryphal welfare queens.
Well, I thought of something.
Every state in this country, every damned one of them, has infrastructure problems. Roads, bridges, schools, parks, sewers, all of it in disrepair. No one has any money to fix this stuff. Bush's answer, as it was after September 11, 2001, was to ask us to go shopping. I think people would rather have jobs with good wages. I'm thinking construction jobs.
Why can't the federal government (who again, is about to mail out $150 billion dollars for no guaranteed return) organize a 21st century Works Projects Administration? During the Great Depression, millions were out of work, and the government put Americans to work building and repairing everything from freeways and dams to local projects like parks and common areas.
Why can't we do this again? Even someone like me who knows nothing about construction could learn enough to be useful. I can use a shovel, put hammer to nail, or any number of things. We would be government employees, similar to the military, and we would be paid good, fair wages to repair America.
It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, yes. Maybe even trillions. But if America's infrastructure is being improved, then commerce benefits. If out of work Americans are making good wages, then they are paying taxes, and spending freely. I don't understand how this isn't the type of win/win situation that everyone claims to want all of the time. We end up with a better country, both in a physical sense, and in terms of our mental outlook. We will all be far more invested in the place we live.
I doubt I'm the only one who has thought to combine these two problems in order to reach a decent solution, but if so, why haven't I heard or read about it? Is it possible that things are the way they are for a reason, and that the people who make the important decisions simply want them this way? Again, I'm no economist, but is the disappearance of the middle class really so advantageous to the wealthy, that they might prefer the nation to struggle in large measure, rather than prosper as a whole?
I want someone to explain to me why this can't work. And if all you can come at with me with is "they'll have to raise taxes," then I'll know I'm right. You get what you pay for.
posted at 7:07 PM
I was right. Six months ago, in the awful summer heat, I was right. God dammit.
If Edwards doesn't make a strong showing Saturday in South Carolina, it is going to be bleak around here.
posted at 11:35 PM
Sort This Out
A dozen years later, still one of the best music videos I've ever seen.
Cibo Matto - Sugar Water
posted at 12:06 AM
21st Century Poll Tax
The Supreme of the United States is currently listening to a case regarding whether the state of Indiana can legally require voters to show ID as they go to the polls. The law's proponents claim that it will stop voter fraud in that state, but the funny thing is, there has never been one single previous case of in-person voter fraud in Indiana.
This law is so good, it even works retroactively!
Meanwhile, there is strong evidence that fraud does exist in regard to absentee voting, but this case doesn't address that. Opponents argue that requiring a state-issued ID to vote puts an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.
"Just show your driver's license, you babies!"'
But what if you don't have one?
"Then use your state-issued ID card!"
Will you please drive me to the office to get one? And what's more, will you pay for it?
This is really the simplest way to explain the issue, that requiring a citizen to pay a fee in order to be able to vote is effectively a poll tax. Even if IDs are issued at no cost, well, you still need to travel to get one, and in some states, government offices can be hours away, and certainly aren't accessible by public transportation.
The bill obviously affects poor people disproportionately, which is the point, since people with lower incomes are more likely to vote for Democrats, if you go by past voting trends.
"Now you're just being paranoid!"
Maybe, but not about this. It was a Republican-led legislature in Indiana that proposed and passed this law in 2005. There are 400,000 people in that state eligible to vote, who have no qualifying ID, and 200,000 of them are registered to vote. Studies in Georgia and New Mexico show that blacks are 83% more likely than whites to lack such ID, and Hispanics are twice as likely. Anyone care to speculate which party these groups tend to vote for in overwhelming numbers?
It's a clever gambit, and I'll give conservatives credit for coming up with it. But it's still illegal, so that's that. Except...
See the opening sentence.
In days of yore, the Supreme Court listened to a case, and judged it on its own merits, mainly whether or not it was legal or illegal. Nowadays, almost any case you can name starts of at a 4-4 deadlock, based solely on the personal ideologies of the justices. Anthony Kennedy is considered a swing vote, but he's pretty reliably conservative.
I wonder if we will ever see a time when the justices will get back to reviewing a case such as this voter ID scam, and simply say, "This law is illegal. You knew it was when you wrote it up, you knew it when you passed it in the legislature, and you knew it when you were disenfranchising American citizens at their polling places. You have done nothing less than stolen the hard-earned right of people to vote, and you deserve to be castrated with a potato peeler."
That last part is only valid if I can get that whole "cruel and unusual punishment" law passed by the Indiana legislature. Fingers crossed!
posted at 11:10 AM
|maystar maystar maystar designs | maystar designs ||