Quick! Pass that sucker before anyone notices

[lblanchard]

It's really all about patronage jobs, according to this talk-show caller:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/02/smoking-gun-caller-explains-stimulus-as.html

Of course, those of us who actually read the provisions of the bill already figured that out.

Comments

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

No argument here, but that's a secondary concern for me. I've read the H.R. 1 version, and what bothers me most is that at least 98% of the spending is unconstitutional. Before worrying about efficacy, I worry about the Constitution.

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Okay. Let's parcel out the worrying in the name of efficency. You worry about the Constitution; I'll worry about the patronage; and we'll get someone else to worry about the total lunacy of it all.

National Review Online did a piece titled something like "50 things not to like about the stimulus bill." They itemized a whole boatload of stuff but never did the math. I did: $585,000,000 of crap.

Perhaps, if that much of it is unconstitutional, the Cato Institute can bring a lawsuit?

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

Sure, but if it's unconstitutional, then we can short-circuit any worries about patronage. After all, even if a bill would ostensibly be "good" for the economy (and this one won't, by a long shot, just as the New Deal wasn't), it must pass constitutional muster.

Cato is a rather weak ally when it comes to the Constitution. Their writers have supported the unconstitutional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (making them rather mediocre examples of libertarians as well, since our sine qua non is eschewing the initiation of force).