Joel Achenbach: Just how big is that stimulus package?
For those of you impoverished souls who didn't see the print edition today, there's a great graphic on the front page showing the relative cost of big-ticket items in our nation's history. It's a way of trying to get a mental grip on the dimensions of this $850 billion "stimulus package." At this point in the economic crisis, the numbers all blend together and lose their meaning. Is $850 billion really all that much? Sure, sounds like quite the econoaphrodisiac, but what if it fizzles? The U.S. economy, measured in Gross Domestic Product, is something like $13 trillion a year last I looked. So maybe the $850 billion will cause merely a momentary pause in a death-spiral. Maybe we should have, say, a $5 trillion stimulus package. Plus a moratorium on parking tickets. Plus a complete ban on negativity and whining. The new Obama mantra: No Sniveling. The point is, we need to think big, and stop nickel-and-diming this crisis with just $200 billion here, $700 billion there, $850 billion over yonder, and so on.
But wait: Back to that graphic. It tells us that, adjusting for inflation and so forth, the Louisiana Purchase cost the equivalent of $217 billion. So let's see: We doubled the size of the nation [note heroic refusal to make snide North Dakota joke] for about a quarter of what this stimulus package, which may or may not have the intended effect, will cost.
The Marshall Plan: $115.3 billion. Rebuilt Europe, supported democratic government in shattered nations, won decades of respect and formed lasting strategic alliances. A bargain.
Men on Moon: $237 billion. The stimulus package is like three-and-a-half Apollos. With $850 billion we could probably put a man on Mars [insert obligatory Dick Cheney joke here].
Vietnam War: $698 billion. Iraq War: $597 billion. Korean War: $454 billion. So the stimulus package could properly be described as "war-sized."
The only thing in our history that cost more was World War II ($3.6 trillion), which merely saved Europe and the Pacific from fascist imperialism and whatnot.
There are solid, macroeconomic, Keynesian reasons for spending $850 billion to juice the economy (number one reason being that the economy remains in an exceedingly precarious situation, in which things could go downhill dramatically), but this is going to test the discipline of Congress, where the easiest thing to do, always, is reward supporters with money, or try to buy support where it didn't exist before. A congressman the other day was telling me about how he hoped a project dear to his heart would get some of the money in the stimulus package. Now multiply that thought by 535 members of Congress. And by the thousands of registered lobbyists in Washington. Think of how many people are making pilgrimage into Pelosi's office to ask for their taste.
This is an old issue, by the way. Those of us who are long in the tooth recall the first months of Bill Clinton's presidency, when he, too, pushed for a stimulus package to get the economy going again.
The amount he asked for: 16.3 billion.
And, oh yes, it sparked furious debate.
Here's an excerpt of a story that ran in The Post on March 30, 1993:
"Several conservative Senate Democrats agreed yesterday to drop their opposition to President Clinton's $16.3 billion stimulus package, but soon afterward the president suffered an important defection and then lost to the Republicans on an important test vote.
"Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), generally viewed as a Clinton ally, announced yesterday he would oppose the spending part of stimulus package, describing it as a sop to special interest groups that would undermine efforts to reduce the deficit."
Read entire article at Washington Post blog
But wait: Back to that graphic. It tells us that, adjusting for inflation and so forth, the Louisiana Purchase cost the equivalent of $217 billion. So let's see: We doubled the size of the nation [note heroic refusal to make snide North Dakota joke] for about a quarter of what this stimulus package, which may or may not have the intended effect, will cost.
The Marshall Plan: $115.3 billion. Rebuilt Europe, supported democratic government in shattered nations, won decades of respect and formed lasting strategic alliances. A bargain.
Men on Moon: $237 billion. The stimulus package is like three-and-a-half Apollos. With $850 billion we could probably put a man on Mars [insert obligatory Dick Cheney joke here].
Vietnam War: $698 billion. Iraq War: $597 billion. Korean War: $454 billion. So the stimulus package could properly be described as "war-sized."
The only thing in our history that cost more was World War II ($3.6 trillion), which merely saved Europe and the Pacific from fascist imperialism and whatnot.
There are solid, macroeconomic, Keynesian reasons for spending $850 billion to juice the economy (number one reason being that the economy remains in an exceedingly precarious situation, in which things could go downhill dramatically), but this is going to test the discipline of Congress, where the easiest thing to do, always, is reward supporters with money, or try to buy support where it didn't exist before. A congressman the other day was telling me about how he hoped a project dear to his heart would get some of the money in the stimulus package. Now multiply that thought by 535 members of Congress. And by the thousands of registered lobbyists in Washington. Think of how many people are making pilgrimage into Pelosi's office to ask for their taste.
This is an old issue, by the way. Those of us who are long in the tooth recall the first months of Bill Clinton's presidency, when he, too, pushed for a stimulus package to get the economy going again.
The amount he asked for: 16.3 billion.
And, oh yes, it sparked furious debate.
Here's an excerpt of a story that ran in The Post on March 30, 1993:
"Several conservative Senate Democrats agreed yesterday to drop their opposition to President Clinton's $16.3 billion stimulus package, but soon afterward the president suffered an important defection and then lost to the Republicans on an important test vote.
"Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), generally viewed as a Clinton ally, announced yesterday he would oppose the spending part of stimulus package, describing it as a sop to special interest groups that would undermine efforts to reduce the deficit."