Letters to the Editor
-
The Free Gasoline for Everybody Party
Rather than invading Iraq, we should have taken the 1 billion dollars that war will cost, and given it to the American consumer to spend on their energy needs. That subisdy would have rippled through the economy, naturally. It would have also added new tax revenues to government, since most people pay more in sales tax in a year than they pay in income tax.
What are the comparative cost benefits of having Uncle Sam borrow $100 for Joe Consumer, instead of making Joe C go out and borrow the money himself? The first advantage is that payment can be deferred indefinitely, after a time inflation will have reduced that debt to nothing. Secondly rates are much lower, the government need only issue bonds at the prime rate, plus half a percent, and give the proceeds to Main Street.
We all know inflation is a good thing, which is why the Fed has inflation targets. Deflation is the enemy.
While promising to protect the American people, this government went to war in Iraq, creating a trillion dollars of new spending. Check the chart of the DJIA in 2003 when the index bottomed, at exactly the time the war started. Half a million Iraqis died so that the Bush economic team could force feed a trillion dollars into the coffers of the military and defense companies which call Wall Street home. Very little of it trickled down to Main Street.
That's the old Plutocracy at work.
It's not too late for Democrats to advocate deficit spending for goods and services vital to the health and well being of the American people. It would have made a lot more sense to make a meaningful fiscal stimulus package before Bush went off on his crusade, and they drove the price of oil to $100. As a sidelight, Congressional Republicans were considering a $500 energy subsidy as a campaign ploy, in 2004. Why stop there?