Linda Chavez put forward this proposal in a column to in contrast to the proposal floated by the Democrats.

Why not give every man, woman, and child in the United States $3,000 to spend on pretty much anything they choose. The price tag would be about $900 billion, barely more than what is in the House package now. But unlike the Democrats' plan, which has government making the decision about how the money should be spent, people would get to decide for themselves.

There'd be no limits on who could receive the money -- a rich man would get the same three grand that a poor woman or child received. The program isn't intended to redistribute wealth, but to infuse the economy with cash. The only rule that would apply is that the money would have to be spent within a certain period of time, say 18 months. In addition, most of the money would have to be spent on buying things: payment toward a new or used car, down payment on a home, some new appliances, home remodeling, clothes, electronics, or even a vacation. Hey, you could even use it to put solar panels on your roof or erect a windmill in your background if that's what you wanted. But only a portion of the money could go to paying down credit card or current mortgage debt -- say, a third -- and then only if the person was already two months in arrears in their payments.

In order to keep this cash distribution about as simple as possible but still allow the money to be tracked so that we know that people are actually buying stuff not hording the money in their bank accounts, the government would disperse it in the form of debit cards linked to the individual's Social Security number. The government could surely subcontract this out to one of the large credit card companies for a small administrative fee charged to the cardholder, similar to what some companies charge now for gift cards. And recipients would receive a statement that they would have to submit with their tax return within the time period to ensure they played by the rules.

While I prefer this idea of putting money in the hands of the people, I don’t know that I like the idea of a government bureaucracy tracking our spending and telling us how we can spend money that is, essentially, our money. But the idea did get me to thinking, and I have an idea that just might work – and would have the advantage of bailing out both banks AND people, while putting money in the hands of people to spend.

What, you may ask, is the idea? Well, it came to me when I encountered this statistic quite by chance.

Revolving credit in November stood at approximately $973.5 billion and was falling at a 3.4 percent annual rate.
Bank credit card debt, except from credit cards from gas stations and stores, comprised 85 percent of total revolving credit, or $830 billion.

My proposal? Pay off all that consumer debt. After all, the total is approximately the amount that was to be spent under the stimulus plan. Instead of sending it to various special constituencies for projects that wonÂ’t be implemented for months or years, spend every penny of it right now. What would the result be? In effect, putting the total amount of individual monthly credit card payments in the pockets of real people immediately, and for every foreseeable month. After all, many Americans would find themselves with an extra $300 or more in disposable income EVERY MONTH.

Now some might argue that this unfairly rewards those who spent too much and incurred debt while doing nothing for those who remained debt free. I’ll agree that there is a disparity – but is it any less fair than giving cash to businesses and groups that were unwise in their business practices or are politically well-connected? And more to the point, a direct bailout of average Americans does two things – it not only allows the Americans whose spending is most encumbered to spend, but it has the effect of putting more money in the hands of financial institutions to lend by taking nearly $1 trillion off in loans off the books of banks, freeing that money up for loans to business and consumers. That would further encourage spending, which would require additional production and additional jobs.

Mind you, I donÂ’t like bailouts as a matter of principal. I donÂ’t favor government give-aways. But if we are going to have one, letÂ’s have one that directly benefits the average American and which will have the added benefit of working to stimulate economic growth immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 796 words, total size 5 kb.

1 My plan is similar in that the money would be spent at the individual level rather than by government; however, mine would be constitutionally legal and so simple. Do away with income tax for a few months and instead of waiting until the end of the tax year, individuals would have that money since it would not be taken out as withholding on their weekly or monthly check. Those not working would not get any benefit so it would be a step in the right direction. Those working here illegally and who get paid cash under the table wouldn't benefit either, another step in the right direction. Government will still print money faster than a hostile New York cab driver can honk his horn so they won't have justification for hollering at the loss of tax revenue. What do you think?

Posted by: T F Stern at Sat Jan 31 02:39:12 2009 (Ruh11)

2 Oh, why not? It would work just as well as anything else. And since both Blue Guys and Red Guys just don't give a gosh darn about spending....

Posted by: Ms Cornelius at Sun Feb 1 09:42:27 2009 (VA5bl)

3 pvljljqq kgdexryucqkbw yob

Posted by: Tilngqjy at Sat Feb 7 01:58:44 2009 (tPIn/)

4 ttktfrbv 43873ahfzpkjg :]]

Posted by: Uqboeeln at Sat Feb 7 05:01:47 2009 (GxAro)

5 , pyfzdxey, 29768, subyjdaf, :-]]], yokzfifm, krqyim, iexzgspj, 8945, tjqcdvky, qvsar, jdhintkw, 095,

Posted by: Imqsgmjk at Fri May 1 05:42:40 2009 (QgiFH)

6 sop, uzdmsiae, > , fuqdtgpa, 568712, lvfghvri, hwtosd,

Posted by: Hmlnuvvw at Wed Oct 7 10:53:49 2009 (nUgwk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment