TARP and Stimulus

Here is the huge difference...

TARP, to my surprise, has been largely paid off and did the job (reportedly) that it was supposed to do.

This shouldn't have come to me as a surprise, a side note of a comment heard on Fox and Friends this morning, but I have spent my time working, not researching the net for political knowledge. That said, why has it been repaid so relatively quietly? The loudest comments made regarding this, and indirectly so (to retain plausible redefining, I'm sure) have been made by Harry Reid. Reid is making the argument that TARP saved the U.S., perhaps the world, from entering another depression. According to CBS news, the Obama administration has been working hard to show that the program actually made money for taxpayers. This story from The Washington Post attempts to put to rest some of the myths about TARP, a program that I was not in favor of. I was always of the impression that TARP was one of those things about the economy that Obama "inherited", as if it was something he'd need to correct. But Obama is very careful not to define what he's talking about. If this was supposed to be one of the giant negatives, if not THE giant negative, inherited by the Obama Administration from the Bush Administration, why not trumpet it's repayment and attempt to spin this positively for Obama?

The simple answer, The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, or better known as the stimulus package, has not worked out as well as Obama wanted it to.

Yeah, I think this is a cased of spite.

This article from the Texas Insider.org gives the best example of a "saved job" I have seen yet, through the stimulus of a government project. This has been the argument, that government paid contracts puts money in the pockets of people who buy things made by private business. It works beautifully on paper, so why are we are still looking at unemployment around 9.5%.

Because of one of the very arguments made about the Bush Tax Cuts made in 2001.

The Heritage Foundation gives a terrific analysis of ten of the myths about the Bush Tax Cuts, and can be read here. I will not repeat that list here, but instead write from a simpler perspective. Not simple as in lacking intellect, but simple as in easy to understand (cause I have a headache).

See, the government can help to stimulate the economy in one of a couple of ways. It can reduce taxes, allowing people to keep more of what they earn to spend as they wish, or it can provide money to companies, and paychecks, through government programs. The problem with the former, for Democrats, is that they do not control which businesses benefit from what they see as the use of wealth that is rightfully theirs to begin with, in fact the government loses control of the money all together. But if they grant funds to companies through government programs, the government gets the say of who the money goes to. It's a facade, I know, but it makes them feel better about themselves, and it's always interesting to see who owns the companies that get these funds. I remember during 2001, one of the arguments against the Bush Tax Cuts was that people would only pay debts with the initial stimulus money, not go buy goods to stimulate commerce. But how is that any different now? This is why unemployment is so high, and under-employment even higher, the people benefiting from the Stimulus Package aren't putting that money back into the system in the form of purchasing new goods, they are merely staying afloat with it. What's worse for Obama is that the Bush Tax Cuts provided an economic environment that allowed for job creation, and subsequently an increase to the Treasury through greater numbers of people paying taxes. This has been nowhere to be found for the stimulus, because once the government funded project is over, the workers simply go back on unemployment, a draw on the fiscal system.

So, put in even simpler terms, the Bush Administrations method for dealing with economics worked better than the Obama Administration's. Many will disagree with that sentiment, but numbers are numbers. I had multiple jobs during the Bush Administration, and I was ok with that because of the career I was attempting to build for myself. I made my own decisions with money, and for good or ill, they were mine based on my needs, not some bureaucrat's based on the needs of the government. I didn't become wealthy, for many reasons. Is that "fair"? Ultimately fair, as I amassed the wealth I was able to earn for myself.

Back to TARP.

Since the Bush Tax Cuts worked to provide a better, more profitable economy than the Stimulus, it should be no surprise that the TARP fund has gone off so well, nor should it be a surprise that Obama would prefer to keep it's success as quiet as possible.