Apparently, President Obama’s economic handlers seem to believe that a so called stimulus package dripping in the trappings of “social justice” will foster economic growth and bring us out of the down economy created in large part because of . . . well . . . social justice.
Please remember that it was the relaxed lending standards forced onto lending institutions as part of the same homeownership-as-a-right culture championed by former President Bill Clinton–and widely considered, at the time, to be a success of his administration–which snowballed into credit difficulties and much of the general malaise we see today. Yet, with regard to the money earmarked for this new stimulus” package, we’re right back to where we started.
Let’s assume, for a second, that printing more money at the expense of the taxpayers and the taxpayers’ children actually will work to stimulate our economy (it won’t, we know that, but bear with me). If we are going to write an enormous blank check, shouldn’t the money go to those who can best and most efficiently turn that money into economic growth? Shouldn’t that distinction be made based upon capability, not color? And, for that matter, shouldn’t the infrastructure projects be completed by those with the requisite experience, rather than those who simply need the work?
Not anymore. If we gave the money to those who knew how to handle it, if we paid for workers qualified to do the work, those who would squander the money would be unfairly treated. From a WorldNetDaily piece:
“It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that will have a high social return, that also can be done with the greatest speed possible,” Reich said.
“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers,” he said.
The hearing took place two weeks before Obama was inaugurated.
“I have nothing against white male construction workers,” Reich said. “I’m just saying there are a lot of other people who have needs as well.
“There are ways in which the money can be, criteria can be set so the money does go to others, the long term unemployed, minorities, women,” he said.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., appeared to agree, suggesting federal money be directed to specific groups of people.
The federal government, he said, must “remove the discretion” about where the funds go, or what projects would be involved, even to the point of eliminating any input from governors or state legislatures.
Reich agreed: “Governors ought to be, should be given a choice of signing on the bottom line or not.”
Then Rangel noted the “middle class” would be unlikely to create any opposition to funds directed to minorities.
“One thing that you can depend on, you don’t have to be worried about what the middle class is going to do. Things are so bad, they have to put food on their tables, get clothes for their kids, get them in school,” he said.
I think I finally get the whole “hope” and “change” thing now. We’ve changed presidents since Bill Clinton disregarded common sense in favor of increased government control and in the name of “social engineering,” and we can only hope that Barack Obama’s plans to disregard common sense in favor of increased government control and in the name of “social engineering” will somehow go better now than it did the first time.
Look at it this way: Obama, through the thick and thin of his first 72 hours as president of the United States, is keeping one of his campaign promises — transparency. When we look at his economic advisers and their plans, after all, spotting the socialism and the penchant for a bloated, overreaching federal government is easy.