College Students Not Keen On Saving Rebate Checks

BILL'S EFFECTIVENESS BASED ON WILLINGNESS TO SPEND

HAYWARD, Calif. - The success of the $150 billion stimulus plan that President Bush and Congress agreed to last week depends on one thing: that people will spend the potential $1,800 rebate checks quickly, but many Cal State-East Bay students are not buying the premise.

“I would spend some and save some,” said Joe Pecoraro, a senior majoring in accounting, “I tell my friends to save, too, but they usually don’t.”

In interviews across campus, he and others expressed various preferences for the use of the possible funds, which the Bush administration hopes may jumpstart an ailing economy.

Freshman Aurelio Padilla travels from Oakland to school using BART and buses and might put a rebate check from Uncle Sam towards some new wheels somewhere down the line.

“I would probably save it and put it towards buying a car,” said Padilla.

Others like Angelica Gonzalez, freshman majoring in nursing, are inclined to save the money to use later in the year.
“I would probably save it for books in the fall,” said Gonzalez.

But, she also admitted that she might spend it during her yearly summer vacation in Mexico, which would benefit that country’s economy more than the U.S.

The problem is that saving the money or paying off a delinquent credit card bill is not what the stimulus bill is intended to do.
The Federal Reserve, which oversees the nation’s treasure chest, would rather have people spend, not save the checks, which could run anywhere from $300 to nearly $1,800 for taxpayers who have the maximum four dependents.

Most economists agree that the economy needs a quick injection of money to lessen the burden of a shaky housing market and a precipitous rise in foreclosure due to iffy sub-prime loans.

If the stimulus bill is passed by Congress, the rebate checks, which could arrive in the mailboxes of many households in May, will carry no conditions on how they are spent, but, instead, present a policy gamble by Washington that they will wiggle the economy out of the grasp of a possible recession.

CSUEB economics professor, Lynn Paringer, believes the best way to help the economy is to get the money into the hands of people with lower incomes.

“It’s fair to say that lower income people are more inclined to spend it more quickly,” said Paringer.

Depositing the checks in your savings account will help the economy in the long run, but not as quickly as the government wants.

“If it goes to a bank you won’t see it helping until after a cycle,” but Paringer added, “If you put it under your mattress, nothing happens.”

Paying your debts with the money will help your personal finances, but also won’t do much for the economy in the short term.

Graduate student, Moises De Loera, who is closing in on his teaching credential, might apply the check towards his school loans.

“I need to pay some bills and I have school debts,” said De Loera, “and it’s almost time to pay those bills.”

Paringer says if that paying off your bills will help the economy, but not until that money is able to be invested down the line.

She believes that the key to helping the economy is through targeting the stimulus towards businesses, but details of the stimulus bill will have to limit what areas they invest.

“What if your business is working at capacity? Will you invest? And what’s to say they don’t invest in the U.S.? Will this create incentive for businesses to build new factories or hire more workers,” said Paringer.

The agreement that President Bush; Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner arrived at last week did not include demands from Democrats that the stimulus include extending unemployment insurance and bolstering food stamp programs, but did include tax incentives for small businesses that Republicans favored.

Senate Democrats said Monday that they will seek to include benefits for unemployment insurance and food stamps in their plan, both areas that economists believe people will quickly spend their checks on rent or staples food and clothing.

During his State of the Union speech, President Bush said any attempt to deviate from his agreement with Congress will “delay or derail” the stimulus bill.

He also reiterated that the bill must be passed quickly to have any effect on the economy.

The Slippery Slope Of Low Expectations Politics

Thompson Is Not Dumb, He's Disinterested; So Beware

It's interesting that a seasoned Washington journalist like Roger Simon would bite on the Fred Thompson as the bumbling politician who surprises the capitol establishment meme. But he did in a column yesterday for Politico.com.

Thompson has been portrayed as disinterested, unprepared and downright dumb. Saturday Night Live even lampooned him saying, "I want to be your president...kind of." (Watch it here)

Is this a media creation by the Thompson campaign? Who is Fred Thompson? Is he dithering country fool who campaigned in Florida without knowing the issues and wore a baseball cap that read "Cocks", a reference the mascot of the University of South Carolina that could be easily misunderstood to anybody outside of the Southeastern Conference or the eloquent lawyer who made a name for himself during the Watergate hearings?

The lowering of the bar for Thompson is a purely political ploy by his campaign. His candidacy is an entire media creation from the beginning. Nobody knows him as a presidential candidate. What does he stand for? What is his record? His "character" is needed for conservatives because a true righty is not accounted for among the candidates.

Why would Thompson put himself before the electorate wholeheartedly when he already ranks second in the polls without doing a thing? Voters know Rudy Giuliani. They have an idea what Mitt Romney is trying to be and John McCain's appeal lies somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.

To buy into Thompson's ploy is dangerous because of the precedent set by George W. Bush.

Bush the younger brilliantly played up the political dope persona against the erudite Al Gore. At the turn of the last century, Bush correctly read a growing perception that Gore was the smarty-pants kid everyone hated in school and surprised voters by actually showing up to the debates and even uttering simple sentences.

I think people are wise to this tactic in 2007 and they also see the tragedy of their decision to give him the White House. I also don't think the entire storyline is contrived by the Thompson campaign only because of this one reason: lowering the bar of expectations is wise for a weak candidate, but the perception that the candidate's heart is not in winning the office is political poison.

George Bush Hates Kids And So Do I

George Bush hates kids, correction; he hates poor kids. You have to hand it to the guy he knows how to kick a man--a kid--when he's down.

This is actually something W. and I can agree on. I don't hate kids, I just hate other people's kids.

When Bush used his extremely rare presidential veto on a bipartisan bill that would have funneled tens of billions of dollars from cigarettes to fund an increase in health care for poor children some thought the "Decider-in-Chief" had stepped over the line. (Watch John Stewart's take on this story on the Daily Show here)

First, Iraq now health care for kids. I can't agree with the first, but I can with the second.

Bush believes in bringing yourself up by the bootstraps. You know that ancient Republican line? Is there a shoe company that makes shoes with bootstraps anymore?

In this case, I can see where George is coming. Have you ever seen a snivelling, runny-nosed kid at the docktor's office? Crying because his ear is throbbing or his tum-tum is hurting. Quit being a baby (or are you actually a baby?)and stop crying and go to work. Those Dora the Explorer mitten aren't going to knit themselves.

You see, children need to learn from oppression. Kids these days are coddled more than my copy of Jenny McCarthy nude in Playboy (the December issue when she's sitting on Santa's lap). What will happen to kids these days when they grow up and think they're entitled to buying a mansion with no money down and $5 in the bank at age 18. Oh, sorry 24-year-olds already think they can do that.

Other than making Johnny boy resort to a cocktail of Tiny Tarts and Robitussin to combat his cold, we need to be tougher on our children and, at least in this case, follow our President.

Case in point, last Saturday while dining at Fuddrucker's in Emeryville I witnessed the sort of tough love the President is espousing.

At the air hockey table was a match between a woman in her late thirties and her eight-year-old son. The boy was slight and whiny and without health coverage. He was clearly peeved. The game started and his mother promptly drilled the plastic disc into the goal. She did it again and again and in the process completely annihilating her son's dreams.

He whimpered to his mother, "Can you let me score once." She said, "Why would I do that?" And that's exactly what George Bush is saying to kids this week, whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.

Payback's A Bitch: Dems Take Control Of Congress

FIGHT BACK AGAINST TROOP SURGES IN IRAQ

Washington is a buzz as the Democrats take control of Congress Thursday. After President Gerald Ford's death last week, the Capitol is dripping with nostalgia of a bygone era when Democrats and Republicans actually spoke decently to each other.

Hold on. Only half of D.C. is spewing this talking point and its Republicans.

After six years of nearly complete marginalization by the Republicans in Congress, the new majority party is poised to give the GOP a dose of their own medicine and it should be as costly as the over-priced medication millions of uninsured American dole out everyday.

There is no reason for the Dems to concede anything to their GOP colleagues, at least until next year when conciliatory gestures will go well with a cocktail of Hillary, Obama or John Edwards.

The Dems constituency made it implicitly clear last November that the ultra conservative direction of America needed a correction in the direction of the center. I have no allusions of Democrats achieving anything more than their pre-programmed first 100 hours of a minimum wage hike, stem cell research and reduction student aid interest rates, but if they do anything they must contain President Bush's maniacal grasp on leading this country by the slimmest majority of popularity and logic.

After those first 100 hours, Nancy Pelosi must vigorously lead the party and a possible sizable chunk of the GOP caucus against the President's blood lust for further entrenching the U.S. in Iraq. The position must be clear and concise; nobody in America except for the men in Bush's shrinking inner circle believe a troop surge is anything but folly.

Pelosi must realize the basic duty of their service is to lead the country by the wishes of the people and they have spoken. Take a stand, Madame Speaker.