I never fail to get a laugh out of how Democrats expect solutions but they walk into problems with the idea that only more government will solve the problem, even if the problem is government created in the first place.
A perfect example is the "question" to all candidates running for federal office posted on Blue Hampshire which you can read in full HERE. Now that we're seeing what many predicted, that the stimulus package would create a temporary bubble in the economy which once the money dried up would pop leaving us worse off then we were before. Blue Hampshire's Mike Hoefer points to a couple "economic thinkers" who all point out that we're seeing the signs of a "Double Dip Recession" but all draw the same wrong conclusion, that we must spend more which leads us to the question Mike posts for candidates seeking federal offices:
"What new spending or stimulus programs will you sponsor, champion, work for if we elect you to the office you seek? Please note, 'Create Jobs' without an associated spending program is not an acceptable answer."
In other words if the government isn't spending then you couldn't possibly find a way to "create jobs" in the minds of Democrats.
Here's an idea, instead of taking money from the businesses that actually hire people and create the jobs and filtering it through government having much of it line the pockets of buerocrats who do nothing to help the economy then giving handouts with whatever is left to people who also do nothing to help the economy, why not actually let businesses keep that money. If we cut government spending and were able to lower taxes businesses would have more money to invest in new development and creating new jobs. Those who earn the money in the first place could use that money to invest in future growth.
Democrats don't seem to understand that the rich guy is the same one who uses that money to invest in a start up company, perhaps even one of those "green" companies they keep saying we need more of. If you take the money away from the investor to create temporary jobs paving highways for the 3rd or 4th time you do not create jobs that last. You create what we saw already with the first stimulus plan, a bubble that pops once the money dries up.
The best response I can give to Blue Hampshire who quote the likes of Paul Krugman to justify their out of control spending habits is to quote from an article from CNN Money.
Of all the highlights of Allan Meltzer's half-century as a distinguished monetarist -- advising Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, producing celebrated books on John Maynard Keynes and the history of the Federal Reserve -- none proved more memorable than a crisis session at 10 Downing Street in mid-1980.
A group of 346 noted economists had just written a scathing open letter to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, predicting that her tough fiscal policies would "deepen the depression, erode the industrial base, and threaten social stability." Thatcher wanted to make absolutely certain her unpopular attack on huge deficits and rampant spending, in the face of high unemployment and a weak economy, was the right one.
So Thatcher summoned Meltzer, along with a group of trusted advisors, to explain why the experts were wrong. Even leaders of her own party advised Thatcher to make what they called a 'U-Turn,' and enact a big spending program to pull Britain out of recession. "Our job was to explain why lower deficits and spending discipline were the key to recovery," recalls Meltzer.
Thatcher was regally unamused by arcane jargon. "Being right on the economics wasn't enough," intones Meltzer. "She made it clear that our job was to explain it so she could understand it. If we didn't, she made it clear we were wasting her time. She'd say, 'You're not telling me what I need to know.'"
Thatcher stuck with draconian policies, invoking the battle chant "The Lady's Not for Turning." She launched Britain on years of balanced budgets, modest spending increases, falling joblessness, and extraordinary economic growth.
Meltzer is right, and most of the "experts" -- from Paul Krugman to Ben Bernanke -- are wrong. The best stimulus is a solid, credible plan to radically reduce government spending, starting right now.