"Stimulus" can take many forms. Las Vegas is the consummate student of the subject and has applied its knowledge to great effect. Every year, millions are stimulated to excitedly empty their wallets and purses to benefit "the house." In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA's snazzy new logo above), the US Government has attempted to use its own special blend of stimulus to address the economic crisis.
Congress brewed up a mighty big batch of the stuff, $787 billion's worth! But it's for a noble cause, as the "full title" makes very clear: An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. Obviously, this is a very noble cause, indeed! The specific provisions of the bill have been much debated. So I thought it might be helpful, instead, to deconstruct the concept of "stimulus." Let's ask the simple question, "What is it about this bill that renders it into 'stimulus?'"
A good place to begin is in the retelling of a common story used to illustrate the "two sides" of stimulus. Once upon a time, a vandal named Rufio threw a brick through a shop-keeper's storefront window. Geppetto came outside to examine the damage where he was met by some of his fellow townsfolk. Wanting to help Geppetto "look on the bright side," they encouraged him in the knowledge that this unfortunate event would have positive consequences. They first observed how the town glazier would have the benefit of gainful employment. He, in turn, would be able to use what he earned replacing Geppetto's window to pay for food for his family. This act would put money in the pocket of the grocer who would spend it for clothing, thereby aiding the local tailor. As their creativity waxed on, the original scofflaw seemed the perfect hero of economic recovery.
But, there is another side to what happened. Rufio's actions stole a choice from Geppetto. Before his window was broken, the money that it would cost to replace the glass was his to use as he chose. He could have saved it, if he wanted, or spent it for whatever purpose he deemed most desirable. But when Rufio did his work of "stimulating" the local economy, he imposed upon the shop-keeper's liberty. He compelled Geppetto to use his own money to pay for something that Rufio determined should be purchased.
Without Rufio's vandalism, Geppetto's decisions about how to spend his money would have had no less stimulatory effect on the local economy. The same domino effect would have occurred, albeit without its necessary starting point at the glazier's shop. Rufio stole from Geppetto the right to choose how he would use his own money. Rufio's brick was simply about control.
Is this not the heart of what is euphemistically being called "economic stimulus?" Our government (the Rufio counterpart) is collecting money from us, the Gepettos of America, and thereby curtailing our liberty. Instead of allowing us the freedom to decide for ourselves how best to use our money, Rufio / Uncle Sam is compelling it to be spent as he sees fit. Some might object, "Isn't this what government does, take our money to buy what it decides to?" Precisely! This is just bloated government doing what bloated government does, but with a new label intended to dress up the whole business as something noble.
Alas, what Uncle Sam is doing is actually even more egregious than Rufio. The ARRA bill spends almost a trillion dollars that the government does not have in its possession. So where does the money come from? Ultimately, from "future Geppetto." Uncle Sam takes out a loan to get his hands on the dollars to fund his bill. He is able to secure this loan from creditor nations on the promise to pay it back (with interest) from future tax revenue. Uncle Sam has limited the freedom of "future Geppetto" by saddling him with a debt obligation for the things that Uncle Sam has determined should be purchased right now.
The Cash for Clunkers program which "ran out of cash" yesterday (thankfully) took "stimulus" to new heights: It incentivized Geppetto to voluntarily smash his own window. He would be given a cash incentive to buy a new "energy efficient" window, which Uncle Sam would partially pay for by taking money from "future Geppetto."
So tell me, Geppetto, what does this "stimulus" stimulate in you?
What I love about this article is that it gets to the very heart of the matter. The debate should not hinge on whether a capitalist system, socialist system, or some mixture of the two is the most economically "efficient." While one system may indeed be more efficient than another, that is not the point.
The point is: will we be a free people, or not? Will we indenture ourselves to our government in exchange for "comfort" we can believe in, or not? Will we march lock-step into slavery, or not? I don't just want Uncle Sam's hands out of my wallet, I want his boot-heel off my back.
I always laugh when politicians say "look how much money we could save you if only you would give us control of your life." No matter how "cheaply" oppression can be financed, and no matter the cost of freedom, "give me liberty or give me death."
Posted by: Austin | August 26, 2009 at 01:18 PM
Two thoughts (note, I'm not really trying to take a stand on this particular stimulus bill. These thoughts are more general than the particular bill in discussion):
First, I struggle with reconciling Christianity with a call to "give me liberty or give me death." It seems like a very significant part of Christianity is saying we are giving up our "liberty" because we are acting as servants of Christ. If our loyalty as Christians belongs with God and with doing his will, then it seems really out of place to demand our own personal freedom. Granted, there is some difference between our "spiritual" service to Christ and political liberty. But I also don't believe that our service to Christ is completely separated from our life in this world, a life that includes our political "rights" and "liberties." In fact, I think (and I'm certainly not accusing Jim or Austin of this, but I do think this attitude has crept into the mindset of many supposedly evangelical leaders) that there is a danger in elevating political/economic liberty to the point of making idols of ourselves. I don't think that I necessarily need to be free in every sense. In fact, a very basic premise of human society is that we are not free in every sense but have taken upon ourselves some community obligations/limitation on our freedom. The question is what is the extent of those limitations? Too much emphasis on a need for freedom seems to challenge both the foundation of human society itself and the foundation of Christianity- that we worship God, not an idol (including ourselves or our own autonomy).
Second, given that our primary loyalty as Christians lies with Christ, and our primary duty lies in fulfilling his will, it seems like this should put certain guidelines on our political ideology. Perhaps you can make an argument for a different view of Christian politics, but I am of the persuasion that our primary "motive" politically should be to do the most good for our fellow man. Obviously, there is some discussion about how to measure that good- we're not talking about making available every selfish whim of mankind (that just plays to the idolatry of the self problem)- but a basic movement towards improving the overall standard of living for our society should be part of our "agenda" as Christians (again, in my persuasion). So given this, it seems like a stimulus with the noble aim of making life better for the people of this country is indeed noble and not a masked attack on some supposed "absolute claim" of freedom. Again, the foundational question of any society is not "are there limits on my freedom?" but "what are the limits?" What makes democracy different isn't that there are no limitations on freedom but that the people get to decide what those limits are rather than a self-appointed ruler. Granted, the system is far from perfect. And again, I'm not commenting on this particular stimulus. But whatever flaws the current legislation may have, I don't necessarily think the ideology/concept behind them needs to be totally trashed with the details.
Posted by: Alex Marshall | August 26, 2009 at 11:50 PM