I would really like to see the new "stimulus bill" result in new jobs and growth in our economy, even though a Cato Institute report estimates that each new job will cost the taxpayers of America $225,000 over the course of this borrowing and spending splurge.

But I do find it disturbing when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel exhibits a wide streak of cynicism by insisting, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste".

And it makes me uneasy when a President who campaigned on "openness in government" shills for the biggest spending bill ever and it was passed behind closed doors. Plus, Mr. Obama has eagerly violated his pledge to have at least five days lapse between passage of a law and his signing of it to allow for public comment.

Lobbyists had copies of this bill before it reached Legislative desks. Does that suggest anything?

Perhaps there will be new jobs here in Maine if some of the nearly one trillion dollars being parceled out by Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts winds up in our state, but I suspect that the "16,000" jobs being touted in our local media will consist of positions currently filled and bolstered by stimulus funding plus the return of some workers who have been recently laid off from various local government positions.

Another problem is that the jobs that might be generated by this bill don't match the jobs that have been lost.

Think about it. The majority of new jobs are created in the private sector, as are the layoffs. Does such an economic base exist here in Maine to provide that many truly new jobs?

This bill provides $30 billion or so for infrastructure, but there are just not that many "shovel-ready" projects available. Do you believe that spending on "neighborhood stabilization activities" (read, ACORN), livestock insurance, polar bear exhibits (Philadelphia Zoo), STD Prevention, etc. is really going to get the economy moving?

I am familiar with the argument that if, say, a new Special Education Teacher is hired with some of this taxpayer money, then this person will spend on groceries, dry cleaning, etc. and strengthen the economy by creating new jobs in the service sector. Is this a different form of "trickle-down economics"?

One has to look no further than our own state to discover the problem with this theory. Maine's biggest employment base is Federal, State and Municipal positions. We have lost much of our manufacturing, agricultural, fishing and woodland products industries and basing our economy on the service sector has failed to provide sufficient revenue to run our local government (Augusta is already salivating over the prospect of "new" money to rescue the administration from its failure to impose fiscal responsibility).

More and more jobs propped up by taxpayer funding (or worse, more spendthrift government borrowing) is not the answer to economic distress. Taking more money out of the taxpayers' pockets to pay the salaries of government-sponsored employees - and how else would you classify jobs created through "stimulus" funding - is not going to put more money in our pockets. Instead, it is a prime example of the old "shell game", hoping that we cannot keep track of where our money is going.

A state-run economy will guarantee crushing debt. This most recent piece of legislation adds a huge amount to our National Debt (didn't that used to be a major complaint of the Democratic leadership against the Bush administration?) and I would confidently wager that another "stimulus" package will appear on the horizon before the year is out.

We are in dire need of leadership to reverse our economic downward spiral. I doubt that we are going to get it from this President, nor from the Democratic Left who exults in being in the position to force their wildest dreams of social restructuring upon an American public who has yet to awaken to the potential dangers resulting from their decision to follow a new and destructive Pied Piper.

E-mail this entry to a friend