‘Stimulus’ distorted by Republicans

Humans have an impact on the environment. People in the nation’s highest law-making body should attend law school. Certain things make sense.

The Republican Party’s campaign message does not.

 Everyone agrees the economy sucks. But should we distort the truth about it?

"The government has taken over everything,” reads Dino Rossi’s apocalyptic statement in this 
year’s Washington state voter’s pamphlet. Rossi adds that we have supposedly “amassed massive debt our children and grandchildren will have to pay” and that “taxes on working families keep rising.” 

Although united and effective, the Republican Party’s campaign message is just false. 

Although the health care overhaul, which will cost $940 billion over 10 years, may be a lot for taxpayers to swallow, it does not end there. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the health care reform bill will pay for itself and reduce the national debt by $130 billion. All of this without increasing taxes. Sweet, right?



In addition, 95 percent of working families actually received tax cuts.

According to a Seattle Times article aptly titled “The Tax Cut You Didn’t Notice,” $288 billion out of the $787 billion within the Recovery Act went toward working families through tax cuts.

 Yet the Republican Party is actively opposing the largest middle class tax cut in American history.


While denying the fact that the stimulus is working, Republicans such as Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are requesting stimulus funds, and having their pictures taken with giant novelty checks.


For example, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the Recovery Act created up to 1.6 million jobs. This is not an opinion — this is a fact. 

Decreased spending when in debt is not entirely irrational, however.

During an economic crisis, sensible people save money and try to repay their debts. But if the government follows suit, demand halts entirely and the economy plummets into a fiscal bottomless pit. 

Despite spending, the Obama administration has actually reduced the budget deficit. This year’s federal budget deficit is $125 billion less than under the Bush administration. Stan Collender, founder and editor of the Federal Budget Report, said this is “by far is the biggest one-year nominal drop in the deficit that has ever occurred.” 

Meanwhile, Republicans have revealed their plan to increase the national debt by $4 trillion by keeping the Bush tax cuts, according to a Sept. 15 Washington Post article titled “Senate Republicans Unveil Plan to Make Bush Tax Cuts Permanent.” 

In order to prevent perpetual financial hell, the United States will have to eliminate 20 percent of its discretionary budget. This includes education and transportation, such as the Seattle Metro. You think the No. 13 bus is late now? After these elections, it might not exist.

 Does decreased spending still sound plausible? The United Kingdom is living it out.

George Osborne, chancellor of Exchequer, is cutting government spending like former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on cocaine.

What are the anticipated results? Approximately 83,000 people will be forced out of their homes, families living on benefits losing 1,000 British pounds a year and 490,000 public sector jobs being eliminated, according to an Oct. 21 article in the New York Times titled “Britain Plans Deepest Cuts to Spending in 60 Years.” 

Allow me to elaborate on the last time the United Kingdom eliminated 20 percent of its discretionary spending on a crusade to pay off the national debt; this was in 1918. Consequently, unemployment soared from 6 percent to 19 percent, the economy collapsed and the debt rose. 

Stephen Colbert was right when he said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Now it is time Republicans own up to it.

This article was imported from The Falcon’s Records
If you find an error, mistake, or omission due to the import process, please contact us.
Original Metadata about the article can be found below

Title: ‘Stimulus’ distorted by Republicans | Author: Cyan Quinn | Section: Opinions | Published Date: 2010-10-27 | Internal ID: 7261