The Inky Weighs In On The Economy

I have to remind myself not to devote so much time and attention to the Philadelphia Inquirer, especially when they produce a lede like this in one of their editorials today on the “tax cut, more debt” smoke and mirrors gimmick from Bushco in response to the nose dive our markets are currently performing, bringing other world markets down right along with it.

You don't need a degree in economics to know where Congress should send rebates to stave off a recession: to people who will spend the money faster than Paris Hilton in a shoe store.

I think that speaks volumes about what the paper thinks of its audience.

What is truly bizarre about this column is that the Inquirer actually gives Democrats credit for trying to provide rebates “for working families who don’t earn enough to pay federal payroll taxes.”

I should back up for a minute, though, and say something about the farcical notion that some cosmetic, one-time gift of cash to people in this country who have been hosed every financial way possible by this cabal of crooks can somehow address the endemic problems of our markets that have led to the current calamitous state of affairs…OK, there I said it.

Continuing…

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified to Congress last week that the greatest economic effect of the stimulus "would come from people with lower incomes." Families of four with income below $41,000 are the ones who most need the money, in Bush's words, "to help meet their monthly utility bills, cover higher costs at the gas pump, or pay for other basic necessities."

As if he would know (and by the way, I'm currently reading a profile of Bernanke in last Sunday's New York Times magazine, and I believe he's an improvement over "Bubble Boy" Alan Greenspan, who handed Bernanke a first-class mess before he cashed in - I'll try to say more about it later).

Not so a family with income of $200,000, who might just save the rebate or use it to pay down a credit card. That's not to say that higher-income families shouldn't receive a rebate; but the immediate impact on the economy from their rebates isn't likely to be as great.

Because poor people, being good consumers, will automatically spend whatever they get (and families pulling in low-to-mid-level six figure incomes will be much more practical, of course).

For the same reason, a relief package should include a temporary increase in unemployment insurance benefits beyond the normal 26 weeks. This is not incentive for the unemployed to remain so; rather it will put money in the hands of people most likely to spend it right away. Increasing the funding for food stamps would have much the same effect.

Uh…I know from my own experience with unemployment that you have to nurse your “maximum benefit entitlement” carefully to take care of the necessities of living because it will be at least a third below that of what you had earned previously in full-time employment, and it will run out at 26 weeks at the earliest; spending it right away is exactly what you DON’T do.

But I suppose no one on the Inquirer editorial board has ever had to file for unemployment in the state of Pennsylvania. They should count their blessings.

When the Inky is in “finger pointing” mode such as this, preaching to those about whom they apparently have very little understanding, they seem to aspire to be a junior varsity version of the Wall Street Journal or something without the nuanced layers of propaganda.

Well, at least they didn’t call their “Paris Hilton in a shoe store” recipients “lucky duckies.”