The Financial Times' Clive Crook makes the cogent argument that the real benefit of last year's stimulus was it's impact on taxes, particularly at the state level. What's refreshing here is the plainness of the analysis as rebuttal to the more dogmatic critics of last years spending.
image copyright Getty Images
"But as Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution points out, more than half the stimulus took the form of tax cuts – either directly, or by avoiding increases in state taxes that would otherwise have been necessary. As the recession took hold, state governments saw their revenues drop. They face limits on their borrowing. Without federal assistance, they would have had to put their taxes up."
After suffering through glib phrases like the "Keynesian myth," assertions that the stimulus has failed to "significantly slow job loss" and the vulgar opportunism of men like Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), this clear dissection is long overdue.