Emergency, huh?

If they really thought that spending more money to keep people from working was important, why did they lump it in with other general budget items? If this is such a great idea, not to mention a noble one, why don't we all just quit working and let the government pay us to do nothing? I mean, why am I going at it 70+ hours a week? So I can pay for the others' right to not work? Does that really seem right to you?

And, just because the Times says it's so, doesn't make this emergency spending, exempting it from pay-go rules. You want this, find a way to pay for it, preferably a cut somewhere else, not a tax increase.

Finally, taxing the "carried interest" of Hedge Fund managers as normal income strikes me as a really friggin' bad idea. All you'll do is start to throttle back one of the few drivers of new private employment out there today.

in reference to: Editorial - The Unemployed Held Hostage - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)