There's an episode of The Simpsons where the town, faced with impending destruction from an approaching comet, turns to the federal government for help. The local news shows the House of Representatives, where the Speaker announces that "it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield, in the great state of . . ." He is then cut off by another representative, who tacks onto the bill "$30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts." When the vote is taken on the "Springfield/Pervert bill," the Congressmen and women resoundingly oppose it, thus defeating the legislation that would otherwise save the town. When researching the proposed stimulus plan now in the Senate, this is precisely the image that came to my mind. Now, I'm not comparing the current stimulus bill to funding for "the perverted arts," but the lesson is the same: trying to add unpopular spending programs to an otherwise essential piece of legislation simply doesn't work. Everyone can agree that some sort of stimulus package is necessary to help our sinking economy, but liberals in Congress shouldn't use this opportunity to muscle through their social agenda.

The stimulus package is all about spending money, both at the individual and federal levels. The tax cut provisions of the stimulus are intended to encourage individuals to spend more, thereby helping struggling retailers. The problem with the stimulus tax cuts is that they do not come in the form of the rebate checks we are accustomed to from past stimuli, but rather through a reduction in taxes withheld from wages. The $500 proposed tax break will amount to less than $10 a week. It seems highly unlikely that the economy is going to be rescued by people buying an extra Chipotlé burrito each week, or filling up their SUVs an extra time each month. Even if someone had the willpower to set aside this money for the entire year, it doesn't even amount to a decent flat-screen TV. Pretty weak.

The bulk of the stimulus package right now is instead made up of government spending. I consider myself a pretty moderate conservative, and thus I break from most "on the right" views in that I don't view all government spending in this package as a bad thing. Infrastructure projects such as highway repairs and updating power systems to be more efficient are both badly needed and will create jobs on multiple levels: from the people actually working on the projects to the factory workers manufacturing the equipment used in their implementation. Other money, like that used to update and modernize government administration will probably save taxpayers in the long run by streamlining the bureaucracy and increasing efficiency.

But the problem with a lot of this spending is twofold. First, many of the programs funded by the building have no bearing on stimulating the economy. Such programs as the now-infamous Medicaid funding for family planning services and other social-welfare type provisions will have little to no effect on creating or saving jobs, increasing consumer spending, or benefiting businesses. The second issue with these programs is that, unlike a fixed project like construction or modernization, funding for social-welfare programs lacks an end date. For a highway, contractors draw up proposals and hand the government bids for a fixed amount of money. The construction may go over time and budget, but everyone knows there will be a point where no more money is needed for the project. Social-welfare programs, in contrast, carry on indefinitely. Sure, the package may say "X million dollars for Y program over Z years," but at the end of Z years, that program or organization is going to come back to Congress with its hand out, and most representatives will be loath to say no, especially if the program is popular with their constituents. Moneys set aside for education, scientific research, and health care are exemplary of this problem. Giving handouts to everyone who comes asking will create a dangerous habit of perpetual spending at a time when the federal deficit spirals increasingly out of control.

The stimulus bill has also reinstated a regime of partisan politics at a time when Americans were looking forward to coming together and a break from the way government used to be. Although the spending bill is often labeled as Obama's, the fault doesn't truly lie with him. It lies instead with Congressional Democrats, itching to use their control of the two branches of government to push their agenda through as soon as possible. While President Obama has decried the divisive politics of the past and spoken to Republican leaders in a forum for debate on the stimulus, the majority members of the House have unilaterally put together a bill laced with issues so partisan that there is no hope of building consensus. As I stated in my last column, President Obama has to try and maintain support from moderates and even some conservatives, and so far he has made a concerted effort. However, Pelosi and others in Congress have no such concerns, because they do not represent as diverse a constituency as does the President. As a result, they are free to push their partisan and polarizing agendas with little fear of political backlash, even as they go against the desires of an extremely popular president.

Right now the federal government has adopted a very dangerous stance of looking for places where they can spend money instead of thinking about where they should spend it. Education is important, but without any available jobs that degree isn't going to get you very far. Yes, the National Mall looks like crap, but so does the economic outlook. The government needs to learn the lessons that an era of overspending and extravagance have taught and come up with a bill that prioritizes instead of polarizes.