Barney Frank says if we had more government stimulus spending, we would have less people on Food Stamps. But Democrats have repeatedly said that spending money on Food Stamps is stimulus spending.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack touted the “economic stimulants” that food stamps provide, arguing that such benefits curb unemployment and funnel millions of dollars into the hands of American business owners: “Well, obviously, it’s putting people to work. Which is why we’re going to have some interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it’s also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times.”
Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said that the continuance of funding government welfare programs is vital to a struggling economy. “If you talk to economists,” Hoyer contended, “they will tell you there are two things that are the most stimulative that you can do — one’s unemployment insurance, the other’s food stamps, okay?”“Why is that?” Hoyer posited. “Because those folks who receive those resources must spend them. And they’ll spend them almost upon receipt. Most economists with whom I talk believe that those with significant discretionary income — that that’s not the case.”Anyway you slice it, the Democrats want to spend more and drive us further into debt.
If you are looking for a statement that best summarizes the mindset of the Democratic Party, and unfortunately some Republicans too, it was just uttered by former Sen. Chris Dodd.
Dodd is now a multimillion dollar lobbyist for the movie industry. Making the case for regulation of the Internet, Dodd said, “You can’t just have a legal, free environment where there aren’t any restrictions whatsoever. It’s dangerous,” he continued. “It would be dangerous for the Internet.”
What would the world do without government regulation of the Internet, or for that matter, any industry?
Dodd has a long history making these scurrilous arguments. He is, of course, the author of the Byzantine labyrinth of banking regulations, known as Dodd-Frank. As a Senator, he advocated regulations for almost every industry known to man and now as a lobbyist he wants the government to regulate what is, perhaps, the last unregulated bastion in America — the Internet.
The lack of faith modern day politicians and the public have in the free market is not surprising after a century to red tape and regulation. But Dodd is demonstrating another reality of regulation — under the rhetoric of safety — there are always those who benefit when one industry is shackled under the restraints of government. In Dodd’s case, regulation of the Internet would hurt prosperity, ingenuity and technology but Hollywood would certainly benefit. Isn’t all what government regulation is all about?