STIMULUS is one of those neutral, unexceptional words that is suddenly appropriated by politicians and debauched, so that ever after it will have connotations that are sinister, ironic and sleaze-ridden. Barack Obama's "stimulus" plan will be long remembered as the occasion when political euphemism triggered economic disaster.
There is no terminology available to express adequately the appalling irresponsibility of this naked political banditry. To have squandered a fraction of the near-$1 trillion cost of Obama's pork barrel in days of prosperity would have been more tha
n reprehensible; to do so at a time of financial crisis is unforgivable. Obama likes to pose as the heir of Abraham Lincoln: as this shameless bribery demonstrates, he is heir only to the Chicago Democrat political machine that spawned him.
Where is the stimulus to the economy from throwing $6bn at colleges and universities, many of which, unlike their British counterparts, already have billion-dollar endowments? Or in throwing $1bn at Amtrak, a railway re-enactment society that will appeal only to those nostalgic for the masochistic pleasures of British Railways? Or in the more modest $100m being squandered on reducing lead-based paint?
Even the temporary boost that such ploys as spending $5.5bn on the "greening" of federal buildings may give the construction industry have been blunted, at least in the Senate bill, by omitting the E-Verify mandate that was in the House bill. This would allow an estimated 300,000 illegal aliens to parasite on construction jobs; they are even awarded tax breaks in another part of the package.
To call this spendthrifts' wish list a "stimulus" is an insult to America's intelligence. Instead, it is a hotch-potch of politically correct liberal obsessions: $75m to promote "smoking cessation" (that will stimulate retailers); a $246m tax break for Hollywood trash merchants; and even an extra $300m medical appropriation to treat Casanovas who, in the coy euphemism, have been kissing girls with runny noses.
The most blatantly sinister item is the allocation of $4.2bn to "neighbourhood stabilisation", the programme that will enrich the far-left organisation ACORN which played so controversial a role in voter registration during the recent presidential election. In tandem with that goes $1bn to forward Obama's ambition to control the 2010 census, rich in electoral opportunity for the promoters of the one-party state.
This pork barrel is open and stinking. Senate majority leader Harry Reid had concerns about re-election, so he lobbied Obama and was duly gifted $8bn to develop high-speed rail lines between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Presumably easier access for punters to Sin City is designed to stimulate the economy. New York Democrat senator Chuck Schumer insouciantly claimed last week that the American people really don't care about "little tiny, yes, porky amendments".
The plummeting support for Obama's confidence trick – down to 37% in one poll – suggests that they do care. They will care even more when they see this toxic package within the context of America's overall indebtedness. That context is what makes the difference between writing off the stimulus as a piece of irresponsible, but ultimately affordable, Keynesian self-indulgence and recognising it as a supreme act of folly.
Firstly, there is the poisoned heritage from the Republicans. The Bush administration, in its last six years, ratcheted up deficits totalling $3.35 trillion. No wonder these pseudo-conservatives were repudiated by their voters. All the more reason for Obama, the new broom, to shame their memory with a policy of fiscal frugality. Instead, he has committed himself to programmes that will record a cumulative budget deficit of $8.4 trillion by 2017.
For do not forget that Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who displays a boyish unfamiliarity with tax returns, is standing by to throw a further $2.25 trillion at banks. If you add up the US government's commitments, the sums are: Federal Reserve, $5.5 trillion; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, $1.5 trillion; Treasury, $947bn; Federal Housing Administration , $300bn – total $8.34 trillion. There is, however, one key component missing: the costs of nationalising Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which adds $5 trillion, producing the grand total of $13.3 trillion.
No wonder Barack Obama, bereft of his auto-cue, was uncharacteristically hesitant at his press conference last week. The messiah has to borrow $3.5 trillion over the next two years. This could prove a burden that even the legendarily resourceful and productive citizens of the United States cannot shoulder.
