Commentator deems ‘stimulus’ bill a ‘trillion-dollar mulligan.’
I missed last night’s edition of Special Report on Fox News Channel, a show I try to catch whenever possible, as it bypasses the largely irrelevant news in favor of the political give and take that could sink or swim the United States of America. The folks over at The Corner at National Review, however, did not miss the show. And, thankfully, they were taking notes when Charles Krauthammer spoke about the possibility of a second “stimulus” package, as well as the continuing coverage of Michael Jackson.
I love Charles Krauthammer. His columns are always must-read, and his near daily insight on Special Report always has me nodding my head and wishing I could be as clear, concise and convincing as he. So, thanks to the folks at NRO for watching and listening when I just couldn’t.
On the possibility of a second “stimulus” package, a plan being tossed around by Democrats on Capitol Hill even though much of the first so-called “stimulus” money hasn’t been spent, and certainly–but not surprisingly–hasn’t provided the promised results:
Well, as Nina says, it’s [the stimulus package] a trillion dollar mulligan. You know, the first rule in Washington is if you’re in a hole, stop digging. And this is digging more and more into the hole.
The administration argues that the reason unemployment is higher than they projected is that the stimulus hasn’t yet kicked in. Well, if that is the case, why would you argue for a second stimulus that’s going to add another $1 trillion to the debt when there is no evidence yet, admittedly—you would admit yourself there is no evidence—that the first stimulus had worked.
And secondly…if you’re going to add on a second stimulus after arguing that the lag in the effect of the stimulus is large—and that’s why we haven’t seen any effect yet—that means that the effects of the second stimulus would be way down the road. It would be kicking in at a time when the administration itself is projecting that the economy will be rising and in recovery.
So it will overheat and over-stimulate the economy, add to inflation rates, and add hugely to our debt at a time when we already have rumblings from the Russians, the Chinese, and even the Indians today of removing the dollar as the world reserve currency.
And on the continuing coverage of Michael Jackson’s death, contrasted with the dearth of coverage with regard to deaths of American soldiers overseas:
Well, soldiers die dignified, sacrificial lives, and they are not celebrities. I think the pathology here is the celebrity culture, which is why you have the media coverage.
We haven’t seen anything like this outpouring of sentiment since Princess Diana, and at the time of her death, you had to ask yourself, what did she accomplish? What exactly had she done?
Winston Churchill got a third of a million at his funeral; she got 10 times as much. He saved the Western civilization; she wore clothes nicely. And Jackson was sort of the apotheosis of that here in America…She was never accused, Princess Diana, of the monstrous deeds that Michael Jackson was, [nor] some of the less monstrous of which he admitted to. That was whitewashed away on account of his celebrity.
And I think that is the feeling of unease people have, the adulation and the worship a man who had a tragic and deeply flawed life.