Could it be true that the biggest appropriations joke in American history may be staggering to an unexpected defeat?

...to keep from crying.

The mad genius behind this is, of course, Iowahawk.

Good news from Georgia.

Via Q and O, here's Democratic Congresswoman and Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY):

"What makes people think that six people chosen at random would have more ethics, more intelligence, more judgment than we have?" (Rules Committee Meeting, February 27, 2008)

The proper response to such idiocy would run along the lines of this, from the late, great William F. Buckley:

"I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University."

Adjust the figures and the names for Congress instead of Harvard, and you've got your answer.

Dissecting Leftism notes this interesting passage in an editorial from Investors Business Daily:

We're so used to Democrats pushing tax hikes as the answer to all of America's problems that we were taken aback to find the following words buried in Pelosi's release on the stimulus deal: "Economists estimate that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth."

Gee, that sort of sounds familiar. It's almost, though not quite, like what the much-reviled supply-side economists have been saying for, oh, 30 years or so.

Pelosi, and other Democrats now suddenly touting tax cuts, may be on to something. We might demur on the notion that all tax cuts must be "broad" to be effective. Evidence really lies more strongly with giving tax cuts to those who would start new businesses or expand old ones. But it's refreshing to hear a Democrat admit the obvious — that tax cuts work.

Also noted - this wonderful encapsulation of the whole stupid business:

"It's like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end. Funny thing -- the water in the shallow end doesn't get any deeper."

That's how George Mason University economist Russell Roberts describes the logic -- rather, illogic -- of the economic "stimulus" proposals that everyone and his uncle are proposing.

In the end, sure - I'll take my money back from the idiots in Washington. It's just too bad that they take it in the first place to do moronic things like this "economic stimulus package."

There is, of course, a big debate going on in DC right now about an "economic stimulus" package that will supposedly include a bunch of rebate checks for all of us poor lil' taxpayers out here that we will then turn around and spend, thus stimulating the economy. And naturally, there is now a major bare-knuckle brawl over who exactly will be eligible to receive a "rebate":

Bush’s tax cuts means that no taxes are paid by, in Hillary’s words, “the 50 million Americans who most need an economic shot in the arm.”...

...Actually, not only did the Bush tax cuts shift the burden of taxation from the poor to the rich, but President Bush pushed 50 million working Americans off the federal income tax rolls entirely.

That’s double the number of workers who paid no federal income tax at the end of her husband’s term.

And under Bush, the child tax credit doubled, meaning millions of Americans pay a negative income tax.

How do I know this? From the anti-Bush rhetoric from Mrs. Clinton this weekend. Although the details of the stimulus package have not been made public, Bush apparently cut a deal. His tax cuts will be made permanent in exchange for a tax rebate.

But that will be an income tax rebate.

But 50 million Americans pay no income taxes. A few of them are in the upper half of workers, I suppose, but the alternative minimum tax is supposed to catch them.

Most are in the bottom half of earners.

Which explains the weekend demagoguery by Mrs. Clinton.

“For the White House to propose spending over $100 billion to jumpstart the economy, while shortchanging assistance to the 50 million families who are struggling the most and are most likely to inject those funds into the economy makes no sense,” she said in a press release. “The Bush approach would fail to fully help the millions of lower income senior citizens who live on fixed incomes and are under enormous financial stress. And it would disproportionately leave out African American and Hispanic families who have, on average, lower incomes than white families.”

The reason [they] get no rebate is they pay no federal income taxes.

Emphasis mine. Remember, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get a "rebate" check from the government. You get welfare. Or, put another way, you get a bribe. It is, after all, an election year.