... And then i decided to do something useless: blog about it.
As I typed out my personal relationship to the bill as written, I tried to hold back my urge to whip out my cynical fears.
I am, of course, scared to death. It seems there's little to look forward to but hopeful swells and gutwrenching disappointments.
As I wrote, I thought about an exchange I'd had with a co-worker last week:
He went into the mimeographed standard rant we've all heard a billion (or is it 1.2 trillion?) times about how socialism and government programs decrease incentive. He attempted to explain to me that the small business I work for would have been unable to start up under Obama's proposed socialist policies.
I held my tongue.
Within hours of our exchange, our employer announced shortened hours for everyone in our wing. We were advised to convene in the conference room to fill out Workshare paper work for partial unemployment claims.
I chose a seat directly across from my conservative colleague. While everyone else carefully listened to the HR Director's instructions and filled out their forms, he stared blankly at his pencil. Several minutes elapsed.
Finally, I leaned over the conference table and whispered, "You gonna sign up for this socialist shit, or what?"
"Yes," he groaned, exasperated. What a damn dark punchline.
I studied domestic policy in school, so I've dug out all my old books on the New Deal, Rexford Tugwell, Adolf Berle, etc. Many things about our current crisis are strikingly unlike the environment of the 1930's -- but many are the same. Businesses still react to government injections the same way - they shore up their savings and hunker down, freezing credit. Nothing FDR did could ever convince them to wade out into the open market waters until the War.
Republicans still reject any proposal that lays blame at the feet of Status Quo.
And these things make me think, as I wait to receive my first Workshare check:
Suppose there was no Unemployment Insurance Program? And suppose a bill creating an Unemployment payment program was brought before the current Congress. Would it win Republican support? Would today's republicans recycle the same stern, dispassionate rhetoric they wielded against the program in 1935? Would they, on the force of Free Market principle, deny America the only source of income they may have while they look for one of the 12.2 jobs that are left in this great Country (one of which is a temporary position as a bra-washer at Hooters)?
Why am I asking myself this stupid question? OF COURSE TODAY'S REPUBLICANS WOULD VOTE AGAINST FUTA if it was brought before them (point of finesse - of course, the Social Security Act essentially created the program).
If the Republicans can be counted on for this kind of prehistoric economic thought, why should anyone give a right damn what they think about the stimulus bill?
So I wrote to my senators:
Dear Senator X,
I am a young land surveyor. I entered this profession during the latter peak of the building boom that helped to fuel the mortgage and value crisis in our current economy. Work was abundant and upward mobility was within easy reach of those committed to it.
Times have clearly changed. Today, if I were to be laid off -- which looks to be more likely each week -- it would take at least months to find employment in the area. I have taken a 10% pay cut and am working more hours than I will ever be paid for, taking on workload from those who've already been laid off.
The hard work and uncertainty of this present time will all be wasted sacrifice to me if significant change is not brought to the economy I contribute to. I have seen and contributed to the shameful wastefulness of consumer-driven, inflated development policies. The key talent in the civil engineering field has been channeled towards such destructive endeavors for too long.
I see elements in the current stimulus package before the Senate that will initiate a dialogue for responsible use of our land resources, and that will direct greater energy to the preservation and enhancement of our existing infrastructure.
In the desire to maintain the current size of the bill's allocation, it is my understanding that adding tax cuts to it (in order to bolster republican support) will necessitate cuts to portions requiring spending. This is not acceptable. There will be plenty of time for tax cuts in the future -- but if there is a solution to our current crisis, it can't come soon enough. And it must come with a tangible, renewable investment in our future as well as in our current need. To add tax cuts is essentially a concession to forces invested in status quo, and an admission that innovation comes second to dogma.
If I must gamble with my future -- and indeed we all must, now -- I want to gamble big. I want to be a part of something that makes a difference. If it fails, we will know why and we will know how. The needs identified by this bill are not casual - they are urgent and they must be addressed. The republican contingent of Congress will always oppose progress in these areas, but they should not be allowed to do so when they have clearly lost their message and their willingness to negotiate.
I urge you to fervently advocate for the passage of the stimulus bill AS IT IS WRITTEN. It might already be too small. Tax cuts can come later.
Thank you for your service.