The House just passed an 819 billion dollar stimulus bill with the hope that it will jumpstart the economy. I personally find this remarkable on many levels especially since Barack Obama has only been president for 8 days.
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (shudder) said of the measure, "The ship of state is difficult to turn, but that is what we must do." Wait...that is what you must do? I understand that Madam Speaker has the power to pass such legislation, but does the constitution, the unanimous source for legitimacy in our country's government, grant her and her congressional counterparts, as well as the president, the authority to take such a monumental role in our capitalistic economy? I doubt whether any of the Founding Fathers, with the exception of Alexander Hamilton and others of his opinion and persuasion, would agree that the constitution grants any branch of the government to play such a large role.
There was expected opposition to this bill on behalf of House Republicans. What wasn't expected was that the hostility towards it was unanimous among the GOP. It was the belief that the president had made great strides among representatives of the minority party, and that he might have convinced a few Republicans to “sip the kool-aid” as Rush Limbaugh would unaffectionately say, and get on board with his much anticipated stimulus plan. As the vote played out, however, it became quite clear that Republicans would be sticking to their guns by opposing the bill across the board.
I personally have no problem with government aid. I understand that in dire times like these, even conservative experts say that federal intervention is necessary. What I have a problem with, and what House Republicans have a problem with, is all the special interest groups and wasted spending there is outlined in the bill. For example, millions of dollars are going to build ATV trails and millions more to finance STD research. Granted, this is all well and good, but will it help stimulate the economy? I was watching Glenn Beck the other day and he received an e-mail from a fellow who suggested that congress go line by line determining whether each beneficiary of the stimulus package would in turn stimulate the economy. If the answer was no, then that beneficiary would be crossed off the list. Sorry, can’t do that, it would make too much bloody sense! When I hear proposals like this from ordinary citizens and see the lack of competence people like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd flauntingly display, I question whether the Founding Fathers were justified in not trusting the common man to make governmental decisions over elected officials.
Since he was elected on November 4th, I have to admit, Barack Obama has grown on me. I really would like to see him succeed, because if he does, America will too. That, along with my confidence in his intelligence, is why I am not so ardently against government aid. I, however, would be in favor of the alternative bill House Republicans conjured up in response to the 819 billion dollar bill that eventually passed. Though the GOP bill failed, the president himself acknowledged there were positives in it, the biggest being the claim that there would be 6.2 million jobs created at half the cost as the Democrat supported bill. Brushed aside as impractical and insufficient, this alternative failed in the House. Unlike House Republicans, I do not feel defeated, in fact, for some reason; I’m willing to trust Washington despite the recently passed bill’s size and ambiguity as to how it will evolve in the Senate. My only fear is that there is no guarantee that this isn’t just the beginning.
In electing Barack Obama, America has essentially entrusted the revival of our economy in one man. Though he obviously has advisers who help him in the decision making process, it is clear that Obama is sticking to a core belief that it is his duty to jump-start the economy by all means necessary. Hail to the Chief.