Tax and Spend, Spend, Spend

With his latest column at the Washington Post, Michael Kinsley adds his name to the ever-growing list of Stimulus Semi-Skeptics. Others include David Brooks, whose Friday op-ed is a concise summary of the SSS creed.

Stimulus Semi-Skeptics favor the stimulus, but feel guilty about doing so. It just doesn't seem right to them. I imagine that every time they type something in favor of the billion-dollar national bailout, they get a queasy feeling in their stomach or hear a whistling in their ear.

For years, SSSs like Kinsley and Brooks have looked askance at government spending. They weren't exactly libertarian budget-slashers, but they did advocate for fiscal prudence. And now they're facing a nasty paradox. Just when they've been proven right, they find themselves forced to swallow their words.

Stimulus Semi-Skeptics argue that the stimulus is 1) completely unfair and 2) the only way out of this whole mess. As usual, Kinsley puts its best:

We're going to need a second stimulus package, probably a third chapter of the bank bailout, more for the auto industry and others. It's all going to cost at least two or three trillion. If it works, it will be money well spent. If it doesn't work, that means we should have spent more.

I agree, sort of. Kinsley seems to be saying that as long as we're spending money, we're on the right track. But doesn't it matter what the money is being spent on? If a wild spending spree is the best way out, why don't we load up a dozen 747s with dollar bills and have them jettison their cargo at 40,000 feet up?

Doesn't anybody care where this is going? Doesn't anybody realize this money might be gobbled up with no effect whatsoever? Who's in charge, anyway? That, I think, is the question Stimulus Skeptics--no Semi for them--want answered. And so far, they've got nothing.