Is there anything Arlen Specter, RINO Senator from Pennsylvania, gets right? He has long been a disaster on judicial appointments, having, for example, done more than anyone except Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy to deprive the people of the United States of the keen, dispassionate intelligence of Robert Bork on the Supreme Court.
Now Specter has wheeled into print in The Washington Post to explain why he supports the great non-stimulating atrocity poised to assault the U.S. Economy and give aid and comfort to every left-wing Democratic initiative from ACORN ($4 billion to those vote-stealing, Democratic storm troopers) to the teachers’ union on down (Down? Is there any deeper ideological dungeon than the NEA and ACORN?).
Why does he support the package whose name I will not type but which you know perfectly well?
I am supporting the economic [HERE BE MONSTERS] package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.
“One simple reason.” “Simpleton” is more like it. We have a problem. We must do something. Ergo, give the Democratic-controlled Congress a trillion dollars to shore up their various left wing initiatives.
Specter seems to think that from the premise that something must be done, doing something counterproductive is just as good as doing something productive. (Who was it who told a busybody bureaucrat: “Don’t just do something: stand there”?)
Specter warns that “the cost of action” in three or six months will be “much greater.” But what if acting now in the way Congress proposes will itself make the “cost of action” incalculably greater in three or six months?
Do you want to stimulate the economy? How about cutting the corporate tax rate and the marginal rate on personal income tax to the tune of $500 billion? Instant result: increased consumer confidence, more money flooding into the economy, more money available for businesses to spend on jobs, infrastructure (more jobs), research and development (yet more jobs). Instead, our duly elected representatives are about to push through a bill whose complete provisions have yet to be made public and so has been exempted from normal review and oversight. Is this a democratic (as distinct from a Democratic) procedure? To quote Bob Dole, Where’s the outrage?