Debit cards for everyone!.....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/12/beck.stimulus.package/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Debit cards for everyone!

By Glenn Beck

CNN

Editor's note: A version of Glenn Beck's commentary originally

appeared last Sunday in the New York Daily News. "Glenn Beck" is on

Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- When it comes to our economy, politicians on both

sides of the aisle are quick to say that a stimulus package shouldn't

have anything to do with political ideology. But while that's nice in

theory, it's impossible in practice because economics and ideology go

hand in hand.

Show me an economist who thinks that giving tax rebate checks to our

poorest citizens is the best idea and I'll show you two economists who

say that business tax cuts provide the most bang for the buck. Show me

a statistic that proves stimulus packages keep an economy out of

recession and I'll show you two that prove they do nothing but

stimulate the deficit.

It reminds me of that old saying, "statistics don't lie, but liars use

statistics" because, when it comes to the economy, almost everyone is

a liar. People simply find the statistics and studies that prove their

economic plan is the right one. It's just a coincidence how that plan

happens to match up nicely with their own political ideology.

The stimulus package awaiting the President's signature is no

different. Instead of spending weeks having ideological debates about

whether the rich or poor, individuals or businesses are more likely to

spend their rebate checks, our politicians should instead have been

focusing on finding a way for it not to matter.

And I have one.

After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA needed to get money to victims fast, so

they tried something new. Instead of issuing checks, they issued

$2,000 emergency debit cards for evacuees to use for food, water, and

supplies.

As you probably remember, 2005 wasn't exactly a banner year for FEMA.

Along with food and water, some hurricane evacuees also bought Louis

Vuitton purses, diamonds, and even breast implants. That caused major

embarrassment for the government (at a time when they weren't exactly

in the market for any more of it) and the debit card program was

scrapped.

But while purchasing frivolous items may not have been what FEMA was

hoping for, it's exactly what the government is hoping for now.

Frivolous items have far higher profit margins than boring necessities

like food and water, and it's that profit that will (at least in

theory) trickle down to help create more jobs and eventually stimulate

economic growth.

Debit cards also would have another big benefit over rebate checks: a

deadline. One major concern about the checks is how much time it will

take for the IRS to issue them (they're a little busy processing 140

million tax returns right now), then for people to cash them and

eventually for that money to be spent. But all of those problems could

be avoided by issuing debit cards with an expiration date. Give people

three or six months to use up the value of the card and, after that,

it's worthless. Use it or lose it.

Just so we're clear, I actually hate this idea. I believe the

government should stay out of the way and let the markets correct

themselves. I also happen to think that the only economy that will

benefit from this package is China's. But let's face it: the stimulus

ship has sailed and I hate this idea a lot less than the one that was

just jammed through Congress.

Issuing tax rebate checks will not only cost us billions of dollars

that we don't have, but there's absolutely no guarantee that the money

will ever actually be spent. Issuing debit cards would also cost us

billions of dollars, but at least we'd know that every single one of

those dollars would be put back into the economy. And debit cards also

have the advantage of looking exactly like credit cards, which will

reinforce the behavior that got us into this mess in the first place.

It's win-win! Or, is it lose-lose?

Debit cards come with one other benefit as well: we wouldn't have to

debate who's more likely to spend them, because it wouldn't matter. If

they're not spent, they cost us nothing. That means neither party will

have to needlessly grandstand in front of the television cameras about

how they're fighting for [insert political base here] -- and that's

also exactly why an idea like this was likely never even considered.