Economic Ridiculous Plan -- by Nate Winter

It's the season of green here in the good old U.S. of A. With the almighty Economic Stimulus Plan already underway, hard-working Americans like you and me are set to pick up some extra dollars courtesy of Uncle Sam. But is this notable plan the answer to helping the U.S. grow more green?

As economic models go, the "Trickle Down" theory might've been fine for the '80s, but today's society needs a more dramatic metaphor. Something like "Deluge and Evaporate." And, no thanks to global warming, that's pretty much what we've got.

Through the Economic Stimulus Plan, the IRS will distribute rebate checks to 130 million households between May and July of this year. We're promised up to $600 for individuals, $1200 for couples, and $300 for each child. The program adds up to a taxpayer windfall of approximately $152 billion. If all goes according to plan, patriotic recipients will then spend the money with American businesses and revive the lagging U.S. economy. Everybody spends, everybody wins.

While $152 billion covers a lot of ground, it's not a complete cash free-for-all. According to the IRS there are three conditions: "To receive a payment, taxpayers must have a valid Social Security number, $3,000 of income and file a 2007 federal tax return."

This makes sense, I guess. The government wants to ensure it's helping the hard-working, taxpaying Americans who fear the looming shadow of the big, bad "R" word (not "Robots"). The catch to "everybody spends, everybody wins" is that Uncle Sam can't force people to spend their rebates instead of saving or investing them. You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink Perrier.

According to Advertising Age, "While many [taxpayers] plan to save the money or use it to pay down debt, the National Retail Federation estimates that about $43 billion still will make it into the coffers of cash-starved local and national businesses."

While $43 billion in additional economic activity is not exactly chump change, that means, for a $152 billion investment, the predicted result is that one-third of the funds will be used for their intended purpose. ONE-THIRD?! Maybe it's me, but that doesn't seem like such an impressive success rate. And that one-third only refers to rebate money spending. It remains to be seen if those consumer expenditures will actually bolster the economy as expected.

The IRS website goes on to say, "Millions of retirees, disabled veterans and low-wage workers who usually are exempt from filing a tax return must do so this year in order to receive a stimulus payment."

Excellent thinking, IRS, but these groups have already done their patriotic duty to the Nth degree. Are they prepared to sacrifice for their country one last time? We all know how good retirees and disabled veterans are at spending their hard-fought greenbacks, but I just don't foresee a great deal of willy nilly spending on moxie tonic and kick-a-poo joy juice. I understand the government wants to be fair to everyone, but the last thing the treasury teat needs is more selfish sucklers with no intention of a star-spangled shopping spree.

Naturally, I have a plan to improve on that measly one-third success rate. It means changing the Economic Stimulus Plan's requirements for income and tax returns to include a frequently overlooked consumer group: homeless people.

Transients, vagabonds, hobos, bums, whatever you call them, they are the ideal candidates for this plan because spending is their only feasible option. Investments are out of the question. They don't have bank accounts. And they won't keep $600 cash on them for fear it will get stolen. Get a bag lady too close to her flaming steel drum and that rebate could literally burn a hole in her pocket.

The only options left for the homeless are consumables: food, drink, tobacco, and drugs. Give a homeless guy $600 in the morning, and by 4 PM he'll be sleeping like a baby surrounded by a mountain of McDonald's wrappers with a bottle of Five O Clock vodka vice gripped into his palm. Is this a cruelly stereotypical depiction? Probably. Is this man an economically minded national hero? Undoubtedly.

And how about a strategy for the timing of these payments? I propose a plan where taxpayers ages 18 to 25 receive their rebate money in January and February instead of May and June. College kids and high school seniors eager to quell their own political complaints and do something for the good of the nation would piss away those rebates on spring break trips faster than you can say "wet t-shirt contest."

Have you ever seen a diamond-encrusted Girls Gone Wild trucker hat? Me neither, but pro-American spending like that can blow in the breeze right next to Old Glory, as far as I'm concerned.

To prevent treasonous international travel, the government could simply restrict passport renewals and hike up the rates on international flights. This way, all those self-sacrificing spring breakers end up in Vegas and South Beach instead of Cabo and St. Thomas. Best. Economic Stimulus Plan. Ever. And there'd be plenty of regrettable tattoos to prove it.

Giving the money to taxpayers who deserve it is a nice thought. Giving it to people who are most likely to spend it and thereby save the world from certain destruction is also an idea. It's a debate between a policy that subjugates American tax payers into a sugar mine-like maze of sweet deception and a policy that will actually solve the economic issue at hand by giving power to the impulsive, dark horse minorities of homeless people and college students.

Ultimately the existing Economic Stimulus Plan is a PR stunt disguised as capitalistic nationalism and a pacifier for frustrated Americans concerned about recession. On the surface it seems to make sense, but its true purpose is to keep us all blissfully ignorant while the fate of the American economy and, by extension, the whole universe spirals irreparably out of control. I can't condone it and I won't support it.

Now, where's my 600 bucks?

-- by Nate Winter