Congress considers the stimulus package

Ed makes a good point, to wit that opposing this stimulus pork pie carries certain risks. But then so does going along with it, which would completely and utterly shred any remaining Republican credibility on fiscal responsibility.

Clearly it isn’t enough to simply oppose, however. The anti-pork faction has to make their case and they have to provide alternatives, but each are becoming easier by the moment, and if the bill can be delayed long enough, the weight of evidence against it – and the sheer partisan outrageousness of the bill – will land it in the deep fryer.

Jed Babbin today points out that a consensus or economists (both Dem and Republican) is developing against the bill:

As a Sunday Washington Post editorial said, “Former Clinton administration budget director Alice Rivlin fears that “money will be wasted because the investment elements were not carefully crafted.” Former Reagan administration economist Martin Feldstein writes that “it delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit.” Columbia University’s Jeffrey D. Sachs labels the plan “an astounding mishmash of tax cuts, public investments, transfer payments and special treats for insiders.”

I think, as they say, “the science is settled” on this.

Meanwhile, over 63 percent of Americans now disapprove of the job Congress is doing in the last RealClearPolitics poll average. Has a Congress ever squandered it’s political capital so fast?

And Republicans have come out with lots of positive alternatives. In the Washington Post last week, Feldstein suggested a bunch of great ones, including “a temporary refundable tax credit to households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for businesses… Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements… In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much more spending and employment.”  He also called for: “Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends and capital gains would raise share prices, leading to increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of capital, more business investment.”

It’s always hard to fight something with nothing, but more and more it looks like we’ve really got something to fight back with.