Libertarian Party blog: Misnamed Obama ‘stimulus’ spending package costs could top $1 trillion

Posted by Donny Ferguson at LP.org. Reposted to IPR by Paulie.

The Politico today reports when interest costs are added to the $825 billion government spending plan proposed by President Barack Obaama, the total costs to taxpayers could top $1 trillion.

In a letter to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf reports the interest cost would be $347 billion over 10 years, meaning the $825 billion plan could cost as much as $1.172 trillion.

"Such costs are not included in CBO’s cost estimates for individual pieces of legislation and are not counted for Congressional scorekeeping purposes for such legislation. Under CBO’s current economic assumptions and assuming that none of the direct budgetary effects of H.R. 1 are offset by future legislation, CBO estimates that the government’s interest costs would increase by $0.7 billion in fiscal year 2009 and by a total of $347 billion over the 2009- 2019 period,” writes the head of Congress’ non-partisan research service.

Erroneously called a "stimulus package," the bill commits billions of dollars in new government spending that does not create significant numbers of jobs, but fund unrelated proposals favored by the Obama adminstration.

4 thoughts on “Libertarian Party blog: Misnamed Obama ‘stimulus’ spending package costs could top $1 trillion

  1. Pingback: Libertarian Party

  2. David Dzidzikashvili

    The trillion dollar stimulus package contains some of the spending that is not necessary and we’ve got to look at the package in terms costs and benefits. If creating a $40k-$50k a year job costs taxpayers $200-$300K, then this does not make sense and such programs are not necessary. We’d be better off transferring that money directly to struggling homeowners and giving further larger tax breaks for laid off workers and the middle class. I think we need to concentrate on further empowering the middle class, rather than spending taxpayers money on unnecessary spendings such as opening/renovating museums and constructing water parks.

  3. paulie cannoli Post author

    The tax breaks are a good idea. The transfers to homeowners, not so much. Why should those of us who don’t own homes subsidize those who do?

  4. paulie cannoli Post author

    Correcting myself slightly: those of us who don’t own homes, as well as those who own homes they can actually afford, would be asked to subsidize those who are failing to pay off homes they can’t afford, if I understand you correctly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *