How are you spending YOUR stimulus check?

Recently the government mailed taxpayers a so-called "stimulus" check (these didn't go to the people who need them most, of course, namely those who didn't earn enough to have to pay taxes in the first place). The idea was that grateful Americans would rush out and spend their $600 windfall (actually, more like a rebate on the taxes they DID pay) on wide-screen televisions and investment broker fees, all in the name of shoring up our sagging economy. Realistically, it probably went into the tanks of all those 15-20 mpg SUVs.

It cost me $52 to fill up my Subaru last week. I can't even fathom the cost of filling the cars I see most often in my area: Navigators (12c/17h mpg), Land Cruisers (12c/15h mpg), Caravans (12c/24h mpg), Odysseys (12c/24h mpg), Escalades (12c/18h mpg), Suburbans (13c/17h mpg), and Hummers (12c/17h mpg). Makes my Subaru (20c/26h mpg) seem like an engineering marvel.

The Hummer has to be the prime example of the American Dream gone horribly wrong. It's a bad joke: an urban assault vehicle (almost none of them go off-road) that's exempt from federal fuel economy standards—because it weighs too much!—AND the gas guzzler tax (because it's a "truck"). At today's prices it costs about $120 to fill the tank, and given the average commute (and 85% of people drive to and from work by themselves), at 15 mpg...let's just say that the "stimulus" check would probably go towards a tank of gas and a cartful of groceries. (BTW: I'm not alone in my disdain. At least all I wield is vitriolic prose, unlike these guys.) See also this BBC story on the Hummer v. Prius twaddle.

This paragraph is an intentional digression. We will return to our regular programming following this message from our sponsor (me). There has been a Rush Limbaugh-fueled hoax burning its way through the Internet blogosphere to the effect that "the Hummer is ultimately more environmentally friendly than the Toyota Prius." Like most of what Limbaugh spews, this is patently ridiculous. While there are many posts that try to put this lie to rest, the best, most-reasoned, point-by-point discussion of why this statement is horse doo-doo is this article by Brenden I. Koerner in Slate.

Recently I read an article that tried to explain to me (mathematically challenged) why not cashing a $600 stimulus check actually made better financial sense than cashing it. The bottom line, as I understand it, is that thanks to Bush's $3.5-billion-a-week boondoggle, the government had to borrow the $168 billion it cost for the stimulus package. Now, if I fully understand it, this is about like charging those $300 and $600 checks against a big old VISA card. Speaking as one who cringes whenever she hears the words "Capital One," I can say that this is a very bad idea. The author, former stock broker Max Keiser, can explain it better than I, but I like his idea of holding onto the checks as mementos, and maybe even trading them on eBay. Now there's some creating financing.

I'd love to hear where you spent YOUR stimulus check (if you got one). Add your comments here. Maybe I'll set up a poll, too. I know if I HAD received a check it would have gone to Capital One...though it probably wouldn't even cover the interest on that debt given the exorbitant rates/fees credit card companies are allowed to charge. But that's a rant for another time...


Gas pump © Robert Mizerek | Dreamstime.com
(That's his typo, too.)

Up In Arms

What did Hillary say? Her exact words were these: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June." (In fact, while celebrating his win four hours earlier in the California primary.)

Suddenly, everyone is accusing her of saying that she is staying in the race because if Obama were to be assassinated, she would win the nomination by default. While I repeat that I am by no means a great fan of Hillary, I can't understand how you could listen to what she actually said and reach that conclusion—unless, of course, you are predisposed to hear everything she says in the worst possible way. I tend to believe her explanation:

"Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968. I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That's a historic fact."

She went on to add that "the Kennedys have been much on my mind that last days," and this rings true. The Kennedys have been much on my mind as well; any mention of tragedy and Kennedy in the same sentence brings me back to my preschool self, hearing the news from Dallas and seeing everyone around me stuporous with shock and grief. I must admit that one of my first thoughts when I heard the recent news about Senator Ted Kennedy's brain cancer was not, perhaps, in the best of taste. Rather, it was a dark thought equating the effects of a bullet with that of the admittedly slower but just as devastatingly fatal effects of a glioma, and mourning the fates of all three Kennedys.

What I really wanted to point out was that even if she had somehow meant to suggest that there was a chance that Obama might be assassinated, she would hardly have been anything like the first to think it, or even to say it out loud. More than a few African-Americans have admitted (e.g., from February 2008) to the fear that supporting Obama in his bid for the presidency might somehow put him in danger. Read the daily news. It is all too easy to imagine some whack job feeling compelled to pull a trigger to "protect" his racist existence. Reading the news, though, will also remind you that there may be even more whack jobs out there willing to do whatever it takes to prevent a woman holding the country's highest office. After all, women hold fewer than 15 out of every 100 board seats in the Fortune 500 companies today. (An aside: you may recall that John McCain opposed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, on the grounds that women weren't earning the same amount of money as their male counterparts because they needed more "education and training," not because of any silly old glass ceiling or the prevalence of misogyny in the workforce.)

But I digress. My main point is that I don't think Hillary is staying in the race with the thought that her opponent might be "taken out" of the running. Secondary to that is my acknowledgment that even if she did think such a thing—and only the most bitter of cynics could believe this—she would only be speaking aloud what so many of us are afraid of, which is that the U.S. may still be so far behind other developed countries that many voters can't imagine having anyone behind that desk except a wealthy white man.