I agree 100% with you that the sec 179 deduction on 6000lb GVW is criminal, and has likely killed Detroit, when in fact, it was designed to help them. LOL!
However, I'm not sure what your main point is. There are all sorts of ways to alter energy use, and of course there are issues that impact how consumers feel about it.
The question I have is will anything that Obama is proposing in his 2.5M jobs program look like it will do much good for the stated cause of helping get us out of the current economic slump? I don't think so, UNLESS he is very aggressive and most likely, very lucky in implementing it.
Which is the reason I pointed out solar energy conversion as a remote possibility. The costs are ballpark for what we are going to spend. It has good long term financial benefits because of the ForeEx problem we currently have with energy. The technology all exists (at the price point anyway) and that is key. There are other things like technology in health care that would also meet some of these goals, but IMO, they require technology development, and that makes their utility for the current crisis less because of the time factor.
The bang for the buck in roads and bridges is just not there. Our roads and bridges are reasonable, what net improvement in the economy would we get for the $ spent? Very little! You could argue that more spent on schools is good long term, but way too much of the $ spent there (judging from my local schools) goes into appearances (pretty buildings) so once again, the bang for the buck is lacking. There could be great progress made in healthcare, just on the IT side (why can't I get my records online for example, talk about an industry in the dark ages!) and such things as expert systems and imaging. Obama could say that every stripmall will have a $10 whole body scanning service with expert system analysis of the results as the frontline for medicine 5 years from now, and he expects to create 2.5M jobs to get there and save $200B a year once it is in place.
Economists, just like Generals, are always ready to fight the last war. This is not the 1930's, it is much different. Yet here is Obama talking about jobs programs that would have fit in nicely in the 1930s.
But I don't expect any far sighted such plans. I expect plenty of bridges to nowhere employing union workers, half of whom are paid to sit on their butts and watch the cars go buy. In retrospect, the Keynesian fans will say, "It was not a good test of our theories because Obama wasted most the $". I suspect he will waste most the $, but that does not mean Keynesian economics is vindicated either. |
