Got Bucks?

Some interesting things in today's paper. This is actually The Paper; this is the first day when we're trying out getting just the local paper and one major one, instead of two majors, no local. I realized awhile back that while I don't get the same stories coming to the forefront of my attention when I read the WashPost as I did when reading the Times, I felt that what I read in the Times was more substantive -- as if the WashPost was, in their way, trying to appeal to a younger, groovier demographic. Yes, I know; my choice of adjectives leaves something to be desired. But I don't know what the current version of that word is. In fact, the only new piece of slang I've heard lately is 'beat', as in 'thats so beat', and its possible that that word has been around for a couple of years, easily. But anyway == the plan is to read the local paper primarily for the comics (sadly, they don't have Tank McNamara, though my daughter likes that they have Cathy; her phrase was You have to buy this paper forever; they have CATHY!), as well as some local information, relying on the Times to get the bigger, graver picture. Not that the Times is free of pandering, either -- their style and arts pages are fascinated with the groovy people, too. I guess its a tough balancing act for them.

Anyway -- what caught my attention was an article about how people are tending to use the tax rebate checks to pay bills, or saving it; most are not doing spontaneous purchases that they otherwise would not have made. I don't know what the Official Position on this is; as they say, you could lay all of the economists in the country end to end, and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. In this case, the article says that its still too early to judge the effect of this windfall (presumably, in terms of Stimulating The Economy), but I think its pretty obvious that if most people aren't doing extra spending, its not going to have much of an effect -- though it could help in terms of stabilizing, rather than reinvigorating, the economy. (That's not particularly insightful of me; the article cites people ranging from a senior economist at Goldman,Sachs to a self-employed computer technician who hold the same opinion.) Though some are spending freely, its not common. You just have to hope that something damned brilliant is being planned as a second act for this show, to keep the ball rolling. Is anything? I'd bet not. Its like the story I heard years ago of a guy who went to a fast food place, gave his order, and it was repeated into a microphone by the clerk. The guy, though, could see that there was no one at the grill, and he pointed this out to the clerk, who turned, looked at the grill, and then shrugged, saying 'well, I did my part'. I don't think Bush would actually say that... but I do think that'd be his attitude. Hey, I sent them money, where's the problem? After all, he's already said that his after-office plans are to occasionally give a speech to 'refresh the coffers'. Would that we could all do that.