The Washington Post's
lead editorial today, while polite about the Obama
op-ed appearing nearby (and which Phil Klein discussed here
this morning), also punctures many of its and his stimulus
package's pretensions:
As credible experts, including some Democrats, have pointed out,
much of this "long-term" spending either won't stimulate the
economy now, is of questionable merit, or both. Even potentially
meritorious items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or
billions more to computerize medical records, do not belong in
legislation whose reason for being is to give U.S. economic
growth a "jolt," as Mr. Obama himself has put it. All other
policy priorities should pass through the normal budget process,
which involves hearings, debate and -- crucially -- competition
with other programs.
Too bad the editorial goes on to explain how Sen. Susan Collins
could help Obama out of this mess.
bright spot today is Obama has set up a faith-based initiatives
office. the catch is it will be multicultural, which means
interminable "wheatgerm-wars" lasting until kingdom come. guys
wearing all sorts of headress and robes will wrangle about who
has been more oppressed and who ought to get more funding.
Marc Jeric| 2.5.09 @ 2:08PM
Faith-based initiatives? Look for ACORN thugs get rapidly dressed
in clerical garbs to grab that money bag! In addition to the $5.1
billion already in the "stimulus" bill dedicated to them.
Alan Brooks| 2.5.09 @ 2:17PM
Marc,
you're right, i didn't think about that. it used to be
'for love or money'.
now it's merely the latter.
Alan Brooks| 2.5.09 @ 12:47PM
bright spot today is Obama has set up a faith-based initiatives office. the catch is it will be multicultural, which means interminable "wheatgerm-wars" lasting until kingdom come. guys wearing all sorts of headress and robes will wrangle about who has been more oppressed and who ought to get more funding.
Marc Jeric| 2.5.09 @ 2:08PM
Faith-based initiatives? Look for ACORN thugs get rapidly dressed in clerical garbs to grab that money bag! In addition to the $5.1 billion already in the "stimulus" bill dedicated to them.
Alan Brooks| 2.5.09 @ 2:17PM
Marc,
you're right, i didn't think about that. it used to be
'for love or money'.
now it's merely the latter.
ruth| 2.5.09 @ 10:35PM
'For love of money'.