• Freedom
  • Innovation
  • Growth

Here Come the Useless Economic Stimulus Proposals

It was former Obama White House chief of staff and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel who once revealed the liberal modus operandi: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” He goes on to explain, “It’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Liberals’—or in the nomenclature du jour, progressives’—only solution to anything is to redistribute wealth.
With the spreading of the coronavirus, liberals see yet another opportunity to achieve their redistributionist ends—by proposing big-spending, yet worthless economic stimulus plans.
Enter Jason Furman, former Obama White House chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he calls on Congress “swiftly but thoughtfully to pass fiscal stimulus.”
You might think this is satire, since Congress never does anything “swiftly and thoughtfully,” but he’s a liberal so he’s serious.
He wants $350 billion for the first round of funding, and suggests there might be more later.
The ghost of John Maynard Keynes is alive and thriving in the Democratic Party.
Who gets the money?  Everyone! A “one-time payment of $1,000 to every adult who is a U.S. citizen or a taxpaying U.S. resident, and $500 to every child who meets the same criteria.”
Furman acknowledges that his plan “is similar to, but somewhat more generous than, what President Bush did in 2008.” Yes, and it would be just as worthless as the Bush stimulus. 
The underlying notion behind such redistributionist schemes is that people, and especially lower- and middle-income families, will spend the money thereby providing an economic boost.
But taking a dollar from Peter and giving it to Paul—which is what redistributionist policies do—just means that Paul has one more dollar to spend and Peter one dollar less.
It’s like pulling a dollar out of your left pocket and putting it in your right pocket. Nothing’s changed but the location of the dollar.
IPI rejects such Keynesian-based stimulus plans. Economic growth comes from savings and investment, not from borrowing and spending. If the government is determined to do something, the best option is to reduce taxes in a way that encourages business investment.
President Trump has proposed a short-term reduction in the payroll tax, which may not stimulate the economy, but at least has the benefit of the government taking less money from individuals, rather than redistributing it. He also proposes to help the businesses that are hardest hit by the outbreak.
But liberals want to use the crisis as “an opportunity to do things they could not do before,” in this case, redistributing more money. And Republicans may feel enough political pressure to cave to such demands.
Raising the question of which could do more damage to the U.S. economy: the coronavirus or liberals’ useless, big-spending efforts to stimulate the economy?