President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 28, 2011 07:42 PM UTC
6 Comments
I can’t believe we didn’t hear anything about this. But then again, I guess I can believe it. $800 could mean the difference between getting my kid orthodonture this year, or having to wait a little longer. $800 is what some young people out of college spend on a clunker car to fix up. $800 is rent for many people. $800 is what they will owe on their credit cards for their kid’s Christmas presents.
I won’t dis the messenger, but this sucks.
I was beginning to be worried that this is a topic only CPA’s (like me) would love.
Responding to Nancy, Ohwilleke, and Phoenix:
In general, I believe it is good policy to put money in people’s hands during especially bad economic times like now. To be effective, though, the money should be given to people who are going to spend it, thereby stimulating the economy. And, the people who receive the money should be aware that they are getting this bonus so that their (consumer) confidence is increased, stimulating the economy even further.
The Making Work Pay credit does put money into people’s hands who are going to spend it (hence, the cutoff to those making over $190,000). But, no one actually knew that they received this bonus. So, it had little positive effect on consumer confidence.
The payroll tax credit also puts money into people’s hands (the effective cutoff is on wages over $106,800). But, it is dribbled out in about $20/week paycheck increases that is unnoticeable by most wage earners. This also does little to improve consumer confidence. Moreover, now that it has become a political football, I don’t see when it will be politically feasible to ever reinstate the tax.
I would have preferred to see large checks paid out to people last year and next year. It has been said that people don’t spend those large checks, but I’m unconvinced from the studies I’ve seen. Sure, personal income increases when they receive the checks because few go out and spend it all at once. But, it will be spent in a few months, I believe.
Can you imagine getting a check of say, $1,500 or $2,000 in the mail next week and what that would do for your overall sense of economic well being?
Finally, using one (or two) time checks allows the giveaway to be stopped without cries of “raising everyone’s taxes”.
to everybody is great policy, although it did have something to be said relative to policy failures like the homebuyer tax credit or cash for clunkers as pure stimulus that was top heavy.
Cash for Clunkers did wonders for the auto industry just when they needed it most; it drove down inventory and probably kept a few factories running for a while. It also improved the efficiency of vehicles on the road, which can’t be a bad thing.
Handing out money isn’t the best policy, but if your choices are handing out money to the masses and nothing, handing out money is better stimulus than nothing.
This assumes that the economy needs stimulation. Handing out money pretty much indiscriminately like the $800 stimulus tax credit does is not good policy in good times – better to adjust the tax rates to whatever is sustainable and suitably balanced to maintain and/or grow a healthy middle class.