Mitt Romney - The Stimulus
Summary
Although he is not opposed to stimulus spending in general, Governor Romney strongly opposed the 2009 stimulus plan. In January of 2009, Governor Romney testified before the Economic Stimulus Working Group and argued against one time "tax rebates" and spending money on projects that would not normally be undertaken, and urged Congress to use the stimulus to move up projects that were already planned and in permanent reductions in tax rates.
When the first whispers of the content of the stimulus were leaked, Governor Romney immediately opposed the bill noting such was as additional contraceptive funding, and stating that most of the legislation appeared to be payback to Democratic allies. Governor Romney criticized the plan as doing nothing to create jobs that would last beyond the stimulus funding, and criticized the level of spending within the bill as dangerous and an immoral debt to leave to our children.
ESWG Testimony
On January 15, 2009 Governor Romney gave testimony to the Economic Stimulus Working Group. He spoke about the need for a stimulus and what the content of that stimulus should be. He warned against pursing items such as card check.
Economic Recovery Solutions
Testimony before the Economic Stimulus Working GroupMitt Romney
Former Governor of the Commonwealth of MassachusettsJanuary 15, 2009
Leader Boehner, Congressman Cantor and members of the working group, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss options for a stimulus package.
I also appreciate the President-elect’s willingness to solicit input from our party. We are committed to working together to strengthen the economy.
These are not ordinary times. Yes, we have had bubbles before. And we have experienced recessions. But this was no ordinary bubble and this is no ordinary recession. This bubble encompassed the largest investment sector of our economy—housing. And when it deflated, it evaporated not billions, but trillions of dollars.
The first impact was to our nation’s pool of investment capital—capital that sustains businesses, capital that finances new enterprises, capital that promotes education and discovery. This pool of investment capital was held by banks, by investment banks, by institutions and even by individual investors. And it has shrunk by trillions of dollars.
It didn’t take long for America’s families to feel the impact either. The net worth of American families has shrunk by approximately $11 trillion. This translates into about $400 billion less annual spending by consumers. And that $400 billion drop in consumption would lead to a deepening downward spiral of business failures and unemployment.
Exports won’t make up the shortfall: most of the world is in a recession and the dollar has strengthened as fear has struck the currency markets. Investment won’t make it up either given the hit taken by the pool of investment capital. What’s left is the government sector.
There are two ways Washington can put money into the economy—one is by sending it back to the taxpayers and the other is by spending it. Of the two, it’s the former that has the bigger bang for the buck. Research by Christina Romer, the President-elect’s Chairwoman for the Council of Economic Advisors, shows that tax cuts have a substantially greater multiplier effect than does spending on infrastructure projects.
Tax cuts should be the centerpiece of any stimulus plan. The President-elect has proposed refund checks for taxpayers. Experience shows, however, that a one-time check has very little positive impact. The 2008 stimulus led to checks being sent out in May, June and July of last year. Sure enough, disposable income rose in those months, but as Hoover Institution economist John Taylor has shown, consumption did not.
And further, even if consumption were to bump up, it would not lead businesses to expand and to add jobs. Business people are smart enough to recognize a one-time, short-lived bump for what it is.
The best medicine for a sick economy is permanent tax relief. I’d recommend eliminating the tax on savings for middle income Americans—no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. This accomplishes three things: it puts money into the consumer’s pocket, it helps replenish the pool of investment capital, and it encourages more Americans to become owners of American business.
The same principles apply to business tax relief. A rebate check would be a welcome sight to every businessperson. But a rebate check isn’t going to incentivize businesses to expand, to invest for greater productivity, or to hire more people. It’s lower future tax rates that do that. And there sure is room to cut corporate tax rates—we are at the top of the heap, along with Japan, the nation that has suffered through a decade-long downturn.
In my view, sending out one-time refund checks to consumers and to businesses is not the best course—it adds to a monstrous budget deficit without significantly boosting the economy. The right course is permanent tax relief, designed to spur growth, investment, and jobs. It should go without saying that raising taxes should be out of the question. It is a positive development that the President-elect has chosen not to seek an immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts. We should go further to seek a permanent or even a temporary extension.
President-elect Obama has also proposed a short term business incentive tied to hiring new workers. That’s not a terrible idea, but it would be less effective than allowing businesses to expense capital equipment purchased this year and next. That would lead them and their suppliers to add employees, and it would boost productivity, raising wages and improving our competitiveness abroad.
The spending portion of the stimulus should be limited to those things which are urgently needed and which we had already planned to buy in the future. Infrastructure projects will be included, but because they invariably face delays for engineering, environmental reviews and contracting, they can take a long time to actually boost the economy. They should be part of the picture, but not the whole canvas.
I would like to see a significant portion of new spending to be devoted to the maintenance, repair, replacement and modernization of our military equipment and armament. Since the 1990’s dismantling of our military, we have tended to live off the assets that had been purchased in the past. These have been extensively employed in two Gulf wars and in Afghanistan. Bringing forward needed replacement and repair will boost the economy, enhance our national security, and importantly aid our men and women in uniform.
I would also add spending for energy research and energy infrastructure. Energy independence is an economic and strategic imperative.
With new spending on the agenda, Republicans should make sure that there is no parade of pork. All spending projects should be selected by the responsible federal agency according to explicit and public criteria. Republicans should commit to vote “no” on any stimulus bill with earmarks that have not been voted upon by the entire body. I know that cities and states have various financial challenges of their own. Some have built rainy day funds for times like these. Others have not. As a governor who welcomed the help you provided to us in the last recession, I won’t prescribe zero help for the states. But I do believe that it is critical for cities and states to use this time to finally align
spending with revenues.Today, we are rightly focused on a stimulus to stop the economic decline and end the recession. But if we are not careful, it could add to the risk of something even worse than a recession. If we continue to leverage the public sector, to pile on more and more debt, and to ignore the looming entitlement liabilities, we could precipitate a worldwide collapse of confidence in America—in our currency, in our credit-worthiness, in our competitiveness, in our future. We cannot write bailout checks to every petitioner, spend hundreds of billions on a laundry list of infrastructure goodies, nor reduce taxes without also reducing government obligations. The ballooning deficits must be balanced with budget restraint and responsibility when the economy recovers.
This stimulus package should include a commitment to reform entitlements—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Senator Gregg is right to have proposed a bi-partisan commission to do just that. He is right, and now is the right time. A stimulus bill, combined with a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion, could send us down the road to ruin if we do not muster the courage to reform entitlements and to rein in future government spending.
Let me add a thought about regulation. Smart regulation is good; dumb regulation is bad. Housing finance is one of the most highly regulated sectors of our economy. And no one will claim that that regulation was very smart. Yes, we need to improve regulation, in housing and in financial services. But the right course is to make regulation that is effective. Smart regulation will make these sectors more productive and more competitive. Simply layering on burdensome regulatory schemes will depress these industries, kill more jobs, and slow economic recovery.
And there is one very bad idea that is being promoted by a special interest group. It is an idea that would have devastating impact on the economy—short term and long term. It would lead investors to send their funds elsewhere, businesses to expand elsewhere and jobs to relocate elsewhere. It is the plan to virtually impose unions on all small, medium and large businesses by removing the right of workers to vote by secret ballot. Card check is a very bad idea under any circumstances. In these circumstances, it would be calamitous.
In sum, we are presented with economic peril unlike anything we have faced during our lifetimes. I do indeed believe that careful, skillfully crafted stimulus can improve the prospects for recovery. But excessive and sloppy spending and one-time refund checks could have the exact opposite effect than that which the stimulus seeks. And in the final analysis, we must remember that it is the private sector—the home of entrepreneurs, workers, managers, and visionaries—the private sector, not government, that creates jobs, boosts wages, and provides for our future. What gives me my confidence is this: I believe in the American people. Thank you.
Neil Cavuto Appearance
On January 28, 2009 Governor Romney appeared on the Neil Cavuto show and discussed the stimulus. He notes his opposition to the stimulus bill and that so much borrowing and high debts could lead to stagflation in the future.
NEIL CAVUTO: Well, Mitt Romney urging Republicans on the Hill to vote against this stimulus bill tonight — the former Republican presidential candidate telling me that he hopes they stand their ground.
MITT ROMNEY: Well, it's a — a bill that has a lot to do with stimulus, but a lot to do with other things as well.
And, frankly, I think the American people recognize that we're walking on an economic tightrope right now, and that this is not the time for excessive borrowing. It's also not the time for spending money on a wish list of congressional favors that people have been asking for.
This is a time to be very serious about helping build our economy. And spending hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives or hundreds of millions of dollars even on nice things like helping teenagers understand the risks of sexually-transmitted diseases, this has nothing to do with economic stimulus.
And it's the wrong course for the Democratic House to have taken. I think you're going to see the Senate do something very different. I hope so. And Barack Obama should be given credit for saying he's going to talk to Republicans, but he needs to listen and — and incorporate some of the — the clear objectives that I think the nation has.
CAVUTO: You know, Governor, the president already did get Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi to remove the contraceptive stimulus in the stimulus, I guess. So, he's trying to work with his party, but it has not been easy.
Are — you had said that that would be his most difficult battle. Is this a preview of coming attractions?
ROMNEY: Yes, I think — I think what you're seeing is that congressional Democratic leaders want to pay back the people who helped get them elected. They have some pet projects they want to see carried out.
The sexually-transmitted disease initiative, several hundred million dollars, is a new one that has been put in.
There are other spending programs that — that the Democrats have put in. And I think Barack Obama may or may not like them. But, you know, he needs to put his foot down and say, we really are planning on bringing change to Washington, and — and bills that are filled with a parade of pork are not going to be accepted by the presidency.
And, frankly, at a time like this, when too much spending and profligate borrowing could cause us to potentially fall into stagflation or a collapse of our currency, we're — we're in a bit of a tightrope here.
We've got to be very, very careful that we're not spending too much, we're not borrowing too much. You know, when I was running for office...
CAVUTO: Well, they argue, though, Governor — but they're arguing that if...
ROMNEY: Yes.
CAVUTO: Those are future fires you're referring to that might be very real. But the real fire now, they argue — this is from the White House and from Democrats — this is the fire now. We've got to get going, and that, even if you're against all of their spending — even economists against this have said, Governor — something should stick here and should stimulate here, whether you like it or not.
What do you make of that?ROMNEY: Well, that's absolutely right.
And I — and I wrote an op-ed several weeks ago saying we should have a stimulus plan. We need a stimulus bill. But we have to make sure that we spend the right amount of money, not too much, to cause a crisis in our currency.
And, at the same time, if we're going to be spending some additional money, we want to spend those dollars on things that are absolutely essential and on things that we would have spent money on anyway, regardless of the circumstances.
We would just pull those dollars forward. And that would be, for instance, rebuilding the helicopters that have been shot down and — and damaged in — in the conflicts over the last several years. It would include some infrastructure projects, but only those that are essential. Grass for the Mall is probably not one of them.
And, so, you have to measure it as — as what's the right size and what kind of spending will actually encourage the economy to grow. You know, the — the Democrats talk about a big-spending — or — excuse me — a big tax cut, but there's not a big tax cut in this bill. It's a check to everybody.
And we have already seen in the last stimulus bill that sending people checks doesn't grow the economy. That — those dollars are just not spent.
CAVUTO: So, you would be favoring more like tax rate relief, something people could plan on for the foreseeable future, because we know, with even the rate relief, that can change, too, but something of more enduring value?
ROMNEY: Yes.
You — you recognize, of course, and everybody in America understands, that we're not going to have everybody working for government, that — that, if you want to see more jobs and expansion of our economy, you're going to have to get the private sector to decide to invest and to hire people.
And they're not going to do that if — if consumers come into their store loaded with a $500 check, because they're going to recognize this is a one-time blip. It's a short-term thing. It's not something you invest to sustain in the future.
But, instead, if you give people a permanent tax cut, and you bring down the burden on middle-income families, you're going to see businesses recognize that this is an opportunity for — for expansion.
And, frankly, Christina Romer, who is the — the president's designate as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, her analysis said a tax cut has three times the multiplier effect. And compared to something like — like infrastructure spending, with only 1.4 times multiplier effect, this is better.
CAVUTO: Yes, but she said that before she — she said that before she joined this administration.
Let me ask you...CAVUTO: Let me ask you, though, about Democratic criticism of the very points you raise, Governor. And that is, I think it was Bill Clinton who said something like, you know, Republicans, every time there's a problem, cut taxes, cut taxes. It's the — it's their same old argument. That dog don't hunt.
In other words, referring to what's happening in the economy, it was because Americans gave Republicans a shot with these tax cuts, and they didn't seem to do anything.
What do you say?
ROMNEY: Well, actually, every time there have been tax cuts, going back to John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, tax cuts have in fact spurred the economy. And what has happened in our most recent turndown has virtually nothing to do with tax policy. It has everything to do with the excessive lending by banks and excessive borrowing by homeowners to buy homes, in many cases, where they couldn't afford to pay back those mortgages.
And that has caused a — a worldwide economic crisis. It has nothing to do with tax — tax rates in the U.S. On the other hand, if you want to get the economy going again — and this has been proven time and time again — you have to give people a — a sense of permanence in a reduction in a tax rate.
And that's why Christina Romer — you're right — she said this multiplier — three times multiplier was — was much bigger than an infrastructure spending.
CAVUTO: Right.
ROMNEY: She said that before she was in the administration.
ROMNEY: I hope she's making that point loud and clear in the administration, because Republicans want to do what's right for America, and want to get this economy going again. We want the president succeed.
O'Reilly Factor
On February 9, 2009 Governor Romney appeared on the O'Reilly Factor and spoke almost exclusively about the stimulus plan. Governor Romney states that he would support a stimulus, but not one in the form that is being proposed by President Obama.
O'REILLY: In the "Back of the Book" tonight, let's bring in Governor Mitt Romney from San Diego, where he watched Obama's press conference.
Did you learn anything? I'm asking this to everybody. Did you learn anything, Governor?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I learned that there's a very great rhetorical benefit in being able to set up straw men, like the one you just showed, and then knock them down.
Dealing with the real problems associated with Barack Obama's stimulus plan was not something which he was prepared to do, and you know, you understand why he's doing what he is doing. He's had a pretty tough couple of weeks here.
O'REILLY: But let's...
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: The stimulus plan, he let get away from him with Pelosi and Reid running it. Afghanistan and Iran looked tougher than he thought. He put out overtures to Iran and to Russia, and they both bit his hand. So he's doing what he does best, which is speaking, and I thought he did a fine job.
O'REILLY: OK. But let's walk through it now. Barack Obama to me believes that this $800 billion package is going to work because he's staking everything on it. There's no wiggle room for him. OK? If it doesn't work, it's a disaster for him. All right. So he believes it.
Why he believes it, I'm not sure, because I'm not that astute in economics. You're a business guy, all right. So you've got to put yourself in Obama's shoes now. You're a Republican, but you've got to put yourself in his shoes. Why does he believe it's going to work?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, he has to believe it's going to work, and he's spending an awful lot of money hoping, against all hope, that he'll be able to get the economy going again. And, of course, the economy will at some point right itself on its own accord.
But he's right to try and push the stimulus plan, in my view. But he — instead of spending money on a whole host of long-range programs that don't create jobs, he should have said, "Look, let's spend $450 billion or so, and let's use that money to do two things: one, reduce taxes on a permanent basis for middle income Americans, and No. 2, spend money on urgent priorities of our nation and not on things that are going to do anything other than create jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs, that's what it's about."
Unfortunately, by letting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid put this bill together, they've come up with something which is not going to work as effectively as if they would have done what, frankly, what John McCain proposed. He put out a bill, a $400+ billion bill, to get the economy going. He was voted down on purely partisan lines, and it had at its centerpiece a middle-class tax cut and spending on urgent priorities.
O'REILLY: But Obama is giving the middle class a tax cut, and he actually is sending them $1,000 in the mail and giving them tax credits on buying cars, on mortgage and home acquisitions. He's doing all of that.
What I can't ascertain with any kind of accuracy is how quickly the economy is going to stop disintegrating. I don't know that, and I don't think anybody knows it, Governor. I don't think you know it. Anybody but the deity. That's probably it. Because once they pass this bill, it's going to take time to get this stuff in motion. It's going to take time for this stuff to flow around, and I mean, anything could happen in the next six months. Am I wrong?GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, no, you're right, and actually, we have some pretty good evidence about what works and what doesn't, because it was just about a year ago that a stimulus package was put in place. Money was sent out to the American taxpayers with the expectation...
O'REILLY: And it didn't work.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: ...that that would get the economy going again. It did not work.
O'REILLY: No.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: And that's why when Barack Obama is saying he's giving us a tax cut, Republicans are saying, "No, no, no. That's a check in the mail." It's a nice thing. Everybody likes them, but that's not a tax cut.
Eliminating payroll taxes, for instance, for some class of individuals or reducing them, or reducing the tax rate for middle-income Americans, that's a tax cut, and that would have had a bigger effect on getting the economy going. That's what Republicans have been arguing. Let's do what's necessary and proven to get the economy...
O'REILLY: All right. That's always the argument. That's always — the smaller government, give the folks back more money. Let the folks, other then the larger government. Let the government, you know, target things and this and that.
All right. Now, I think that most Republicans are going to sit it out, saying, "Look, if it works, he's in for eight years. If it doesn't, we come back." I think that's the mentality in Washington today.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You know, I think Republicans are devoted to doing in this instance what is absolutely the right thing for the country.
O'REILLY: But they're going to lose.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: I don't think they're right in saying — you know, I don't think they're focused on winning or losing. I think we, as a party, are focused on doing what's right for America.
Barack Obama, you're right, is sending out billions of dollars to American taxpayers. And we're saying, look, that's a wonderful thing to do, but give it to them in the form of a tax reduction...O'REILLY: Right.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: ...because that has a bigger proven impact on creating jobs. Likewise on your spending. Don't spend all this money on new programs that will take years and years to get underway. Let's get the jobs going now.
O'REILLY: All right, Governor. Thanks very much for taking the time.
Hannity Appearance
On February 26, 2009 Governor Romney appeared on the Sean Hannity Program and discussed the stimulus plan and overall spending. Governor Romney referred to the stimulus plan as dangerous and immoral.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Thanks, Sean. Good to be with you.
HANNITY: $4 trillion, $1.75 trillion deficit. Your initial thoughts? I doubt this would be the Romney plan.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I'm afraid it is actually dangerous. I don't think people in this country generally understand that we face, not just a short- term economic strain right now with a potential of falling into a more severe recession, but also a risk that if we continue to borrow excessively that the world may decide that the dollar isn't worth very much. There may be a run on the dollar. We could have a kind of economic collapse which would, which would wipe out the savings of middle class Americans and put us in a very long-term, depressed situation. And as a result of that we've got to be very careful about our spending and — as well as our borrowing, and the idea that Barack Obama, at a time like this, putting aside the stimulus to get the economy going, at a time like he'd be forecasting down the road running up budget deficits of $500 billion.
It's simply dangerous. It's the wrong course for us to take as a nation. We have to rein in the kind of spending, particularly in entitlements that are really have put the country in a very jeopardized position.
HANNITY: You know, I've been very critical of pork but I agree with you that entitlement spending is where the real money is going to be spent, and we're not going to have that money for our children and grandchildren.
What do you make of this aspect, though, Governor, and that is, when he talks about this top 2 percent that he's going to tax, well, that's 80 percent of small business owners in America. 80 percent of — the top 2 percent, that's 80 percent of business people.
How is that going to impact them, and how does that impact jobs?GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I think there's a general misunderstanding on the part of some people in Washington. They presumed that jobs just happened, that the economy just happens, that businesses just grow and thrive on their own, but they have to have an environment where that's possible, and raising taxes on small employers will kill jobs. It will make it more difficult for new businesses to get going.
He's laid out a whole series of things he wants to accomplish, Barack Obama has, but listen to what he said the other night. He said he's going to be responsible or government should be responsible for a child's education from birth until their first job. Is that universal preschool? Is it universal college?
He also said universal service corps.HANNITY: Sure.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: He said we're going to have a universal health care plan. These are massively expensive programs the way he's outlined them, and we, frankly, cannot take on these additional costs at a time when our economy is feeling such pain.
HANNITY: One other thing you talked about during the campaign, and now this has now come to fruition, he's going to raise the top marginal tax rates from 35 to over 39.6 percent. He's going to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so-called wealthy. And on top of this, $634 billion for health care. They're saying it's only a down payment.
Let's talk about the sustainability of that in terms of the sheer numbers of it all.GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, it's too much to add to our federal budget, and I know that there are a lot of people across the country that say hey, I'd love it if someone would pay for my child's education, and I'd love it if someone would pay for five years of preschool, that would be nice, but the truth is it's us. The American people are the one who're going to be the asked to pay for these things.
We'd be adding enormous deficits and burdens to our kids and to their kids. It's not just wrong and bad economics. I think it's immoral to place this kind of a burden on future generations.HANNITY: Let me ask one last question because they're using — and I'll get into with Karl Rove, perhaps, deeper in the next segment, they're using rosy numbers, rosy scenario numbers. What if things go below what they are projecting? How dangerous then does it become?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I think we've seen over the past multiple years that the forecasts of improving economic circumstances do not always come to pass, and as a result, you could see a $500 billion deficit four years from now become much larger than that.
But look, even $500 billion, a half a trillion is an unthinkable number for us to have to burden future generations with, particularly in good economic times, which we would anticipate four years down the road.
Look, I think the economy is going to get stronger. I'm one of those who believes that the American people are going to start new businesses, we're going to add jobs, and we're going to come out of this. But I don't believe that we're going to be able to be secure economically long term if we so lard up our federal budget that we just shrink the availability of capital for every new business that wants to get started.
Fox News Appearance
On January 28, 2010 Governor Romney appeared on Neil Cavuto's show to discuss the reappointment of Ben Bernanke, TARP, the Stimulus, and other items.
Neil Cavuto: You know, he (Ben Bernanke) will forever be remembered, fairly or not Governor, for that rescue in the fall of 2008 and judged historically on what he did then. And he argued, as did Tim Geithner yesterday in a grilling yesterday on capital hill ... talking about the Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ... and most of that grilling as you know coming from fellow Democrats who said that "you know, we wasted a lot of money back then, and the proof is that they all paid the money back in short order." Tim Geithner's argument is that if we didn't do that then, we would have been in a free fall meltdown. Do you agree with that?
Governor Romney: Well, first of all if the money is being paid back, which it is, we didn't waste a lot of money back then. That was an investment made to try and keep a collapse of our entire financial system from occurring. I think that that's the case. I think that had President Bush, and Secretary Paulson, and Ben Bernanke not pushed for a TARP type program, we would have been in a free fall that would have caused not just the collapse of a few banks on wall street, but banks all across the country, killing not only a few jobs but all the jobs in this country.
That's what we were facing, and the TARP program kept that from occurring, and fortunately the money is now being repaid and that's the right thing to happen.
But the big loss ... and this is of course what a lot of folks are doing is diverting attention from the real failure of this last year, this lost year, where President Obama and Congress spent $787 billion dollars and got nothing to show for it. They said that they would hold unemployment to 8%, it rose to 10%. That was the number that was supposed to happen without that plan. Look, that was the failure here. TARP got paid back and it kept the financial system from collapsing.
Neil Cavuto: So you feel that it was well worth it?
Governor Romney: Well, it was the right thing to do. You know, I remember talking to Senator McCain when he was in the middle of a Presidential campaign when it came up. He said "Look, it is very bad politics to be for TARP, on the other hand it's the right thing for the country." That's why he voted for it, and that's why a lot of Republicans voted for it. They knew that it was bad politics, but they also realized that if we saw a cascade of bank failures, one after the other, after the other that the entire free economy would grind to a halt in this country and probably other parts of the world. We were on a precipice which now we can sit back and say "Aw, it wasn't that scary." Well frankly it was a very scary time for a lot of people.
And that's something which is resolved. But the bigger issue, which was not resolved, is how come this economy is not up and growing again and did the $787 billion dollar stimulus plan actually stimulate anything. Or, did it create a bigger debt burden that we're gonna have to pay for for many years to come.
References
[1] Website: Mitt Romney Central Article: Full Transcript of Romney's Testimony for Economic Stimulus Working Group Author: Nate Gunderson Accessed on: 06/22/2011