The naming of legislative bills is getting out of hand.
Instead of Stimulus V (or whatever we are up to), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Dem-Ill) has introduced the Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act, which she announced on Twitter:
I doubt the Act will save anyone’s American Dream, because creating incentives to hire the unemployed doesn’t create jobs. It just shifts around who will get a particular job.
It’s a perverse version of the “jobs saved and created.” You deprive an employed person of the job, which would have created a job opening anyway in the position the person vacated. So no net new jobs.
All it will do is cost us money, which we are not entitled to keep anyway.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m very disappointed in Rep. Schakowsky. She should know that proper moonbat nomenclature for obfuscating the true purpose of legislation requires the gratuitous use of children.
Thus, the bill should be named:
The Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream for the Children Act.
I only half-kid. Quite a few of the laws dealing with pesticide use have the word “Children” in their title, just to add that extra bit of scare mongering.
perhaps a more appropriately named act would have been…
“Last Ditch Effort to Politically BS America Into Getting Comrade Obama Reelected Act”
How about naming it the, “Hey, Let’s Propose Wasting Another Half Trillion We Don’t Have and When Tea Partiers Reject it We’ll Call Them Terrorists and Suicide Bombers Who Hate Everybody Except the Koch Brothers and Billionaire Christian Corporate Jet Owners Act of 2011”.
Liberals believe in the magic of names and don’t believe in unintended consequences. In this case, both these things happen at once. Whoever runs against her next has a perfect campaign ad describing the “American Nightmare of Perpetual Unemployment Act.”
Let’s just cut to the chase, shall we: “The Democrat Vote Purchasing Act.”
Their wonderful incentive to give employers a tax break for hiring new employees doesn’t take in the fact that hiring employees is a long time venture not just for one year. Employers will still be responsible for the costs of that employee for years to come. Libs never seem to understand this. Like when they offered the states incentives to implement their policies for one year but after that the states had to foot the bill. Do the libs really think these things are good ideas or good solutions or do they think we are too stupid to understand the risks?