what works = what's right

The Best Thing for the Economy, the Right Thing for the Poor

by Jim Wallis, 02-12-2009

First, economists across the political spectrum agree that the economy desperately needs to be stimulated by federal investment in things that will generate immediate economic activity and jobs. Second, the same analysts also agree that benefits to low-income families will result in immediate economic stimulation as people in distress will spend the money they receive because they have no other choice. In other words, directly helping vulnerable people works because it will quickly help stimulate the economy, and it’s right because it will immediately help poor and vulnerable people. How often do we get to do what works and what’s right at the same time?

...

Helping those who have fallen on hard times — and helping states avert cuts in a range of critical services — will do more to help the economy and create jobs than poorly targeted tax cuts.

So... what I want to know is, why in the world are we spending upwards of $2 trillion dollars on some complicated bailout bills for corporations, banks, the housing market, etc...?  Can you imagine if $2 trillion dollars were instead distributed directly to people starting at the bottom of our economic ladder?  Say... $10,000 per person... that would give the 200 million poorest people in the US a huge boost.   If the population of the US is around 400 million, that means we'd be helping out the poorest half of the country directly, instead of the richest top percentage.  And if there were restrictions on the money, so that it had to go towards paying off debt first, then it would also help corporations and banks who are not getting paid because people are defaulting on loans.

Anyway, just a thought. I'm no economist, so I'm sure some eloquent person could explain why such an idea wouldn't work...