This is common criticism among Republicans, who have a vested interest in blaming everything bad that happens on the Democrats.
Everything? Solely on the Democrats? Not at all. Many Republicans, also blame Republican politicians. I'm one of those who does.
The implication is that if voters weren't so stupid and had instead elected John McCain to be president then the budget would be balanced, the debt would have disappeared, and the economy would be booming.
That's a total strawman. You would have to look long and hard to find a single person who would agree with such a statement, if you could find one at all.
Not one penny is due to higher spending.
Every penny is due to higher spending. The baseline Bartlet's using is from a spending level increase that had already increased massively (and which is projected to continue to increase at a pretty good clip).
As if we needed further evidence that transfers have virtually no stimulative effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued a report on the 2008 tax rebate showing that only 30 percent of the money was spent; the rest was saved, thus providing no stimulus to short-run growth.
Further evidence implies some initial evidence, which isn't provided. Also Bartlet's looking at a single one time tax rebate, not a tax cut. Its essentially one time spending. The government already taxed money, now its handing money out. Such a tax rebate doesn't change incentives at all, the decisions leading to the income that was taxed where made without knowledge of the future rebate, future decisions will not rely on the rebate because it was supposed to be one time. The rebate/spending comes from borrowing more money, which implies likely future higher taxes. Saving it, esp. in bad times, is just being prudent.
And even by Bartlett's own statement (quoting the CBO) 30% was spent. If spending is "stimulus" you had 30% stimulus (assuming the CBO's report is accurate), not "no stimulus effect". |
