So Rand Paul proposes giving a $10,000 stimulus check to each individual
And then he makes this speech:
“A colleague said my new proposal of $10,000 stimulus checks is ridiculous. I said: Why? On what basis were $600 checks considered? And then, instead, $2,000 checks? The government handed out almost three trillion dollars last spring; now another trillion before the end of the year. The government doesn’t have revenues to cover any of this … not $600 per, not $1200 per, not $2000 per, not three trillion, not one trillion. It’s clear that we’re now operating on a new principle that the government can print money and hand it out. If the criteria for doing so has nothing to do with available funds or potential revenues, where do the figures come from … $600 or $1200 or $2,000? Why is $10,000 ridiculous? The truth is that I think it’s all ridiculous.”
I’m exaggerating to make a point, but here’s what he actually said on the Senate floor last Monday:
“If free money was the answer… if money really did grow on trees, why not give more free money? Why not give it out all the time? Why stop at $600 a person? Why not $1,000? Why not $2,000? Maybe these new Free-Money Republicans should join the Everybody-Gets-A-Guaranteed-Income Caucus? Why not $20,000 a year for everybody, why not $30,000? If we can print out money with impunity, why not do it?”
* * * *
I don’t understand how they can do it. Suddenly the balance between revenues and expenditures no longer matters, deficits no longer matter. Why did they matter forever until 2020? Is there someone somewhere saying, “We’ll get back to reasonable-size deficits after the emergency passes?” I don’t hear that. The truth is that the extent of the ballooning national debt will never be able to be reined back in from here.
But maybe Stephanie Kelton now is the policy authority. It’s kind of unbelievable, but maybe they’ve all suddenly accepted that it’s OK for the government to print and distribute without limit. If so, that surely constitutes a dramatically new era of fiscal policy. Have you noticed articles in the press saying so? Or discussing what the criteria for distribution might be if the balance between revenues and expenditures doesn’t matter anymore?
Maybe it all happened so fast that the new reality hasn’t been widely recognized yet.
Or … maybe … there will be repercussions that haven’t been thought through yet.
