Here we go again

Well, just to show that spending, like death, never takes a holiday in Washington, D.C., members of the House of Representatives interrupted their summer recess to return to the Capitol for a day and pass what was termed an “emergency” jobs bill. Oops, there goes another $26 billion.

Naturally, the legislation, which previously had been passed in the Senate, was wrapped in compassion and concern for teachers, police and others who might have faced layoffs due to state budget problems. And there was an underlying tone that it was done for all the poor children who might return to a teacherless classroom in a few weeks.

Supporters touted the expenditure as a way to save 300,000 jobs. Left unsaid, at least by the majority, was the fact that this magnanimous gesture came as fall elections loom. 

But opponents didn’t shy away from calling the bill a giveaway to teachers’ unions and an example of wasteful Washington spending. 

At any rate, it amounted to yet another government stimulus package, although the “s” word isn’t used all that much anymore since it has acquired a bad connotation.

Then President Obama made the whole thing official by immediately signing it into law.

On one hand, opposing the legislation made a politician a target in some circles. How could you turn your back on teachers and police officers, two of the more noble callings in our culture?

But from another standpoint, the “gift” rewards states that haven’t kept their houses in order. Sure, some were hard hit by the recession. However, it also might be asked why they hadn’t built a rainy day contingency in their budgets.

And where are the conditions that those states find ways to keep those teachers, police officers and other essential personnel at work once the “free” money runs out, which it will? Otherwise, a $26 billion Band-Aid has been applied.

The answer to those questions, of course, is that lawmakers in these money-poor states had a good idea that they could count on Uncle Sam to play the role of Daddy Warbucks, and will expect another bailout when another crisis arises. 

In justification, boosters of the big outlay pointed out that it will be paid for — key word being “mostly” — by closing a tax loophole used by multinational corporations and by reducing food stamp benefits for the poor. And one day in the not-too-distant future, we’ll probably see legislation to re-subsidize those folks who can’t make ends meet with their smaller food stamp allocations.

This attitude goes beyond even the drunken sailor comparisons. This is akin to giving a bunch of kids unlimited access to a candy store and telling them they can worry about paying off the tab when they grow up.

The lesson, for both lawmakers and candy fiends, is that it’s not so sweet when it comes time to pay the piper.