He claims that there is a consensus among economists that we must pass this bill quickly. But no such thing exists.

OK, so we have a bill that has passed both the House and the Senate, both of which are controlled by the Democrats. In both houses, they were rushed through with little debate, and in the House, it was almost entirely crafted by the Democratic leadership, without even significant input from the Blue Dogs, let alone the Republicans. It is hundreds of pages, and totals close to a trillion dollars (a mind-numbing number that may necessitate updating the old Dirksen quote) in new spending, paid for with money that the nation doesn’t have. It has many items in it that are not obviously aimed at stimulating the economy, but rather in advancing various social and political goals, but it’s hard to be sure because few have had the opportunity to even read, let alone comprehend the whole thing.

Now which is the more likely scenario?

A. It is the output of a sober, long-debated process that was totally focused on improving the American economy, carefully considering the potential unintended consequences of every item in the bill, with associated committee hearings and qualified witnesses, or

B. It is an overnight cut’n’paste concatenation of every item on pent-up Democrats’ wish lists going back to 1994, when they lost control of the Congress, because everyone wants to get a ride on the late-Christmas tree that is sure to go through via fearmongering by a popular new president.

Come on, folks. William of Ockham had just the tool for this conundrum.

I know where my money is.

One of the (no doubt many) economic time bombs in the bill could force employers to extend COBRA for decades. What’s the problem?

The HR departments for large employers are looking at this provision with great alarm, as indicated in this policy brief. PricewaterhouseCoopers produced an analysis which pegs the ten-year cost of this provision at $39 billion to $65 billion just for those current COBRA-eligible workers age 55 to 64. The estimated costs would be even higher if the analysis assumed, as is reasonable, that many more workers would elect early retirement if they were assured of access to group-rated insurance.

What would employers do if faced with the costs of implementing this provision? It’s fairly predictable. They would hire fewer workers, and pay their current employees less. Not exactly “stimulus.”

Indeed, this is exactly the kind of complex provision which should be considered by Congress only after careful study and a hearing or two to avoid unintended consequences. Certainly it has no business on a bill purportedly aimed at promoting short-term job growth. Unfortunately, logic and reason may not be enough to prevail in the current mad-dash rush to “pass something.”

I suspect that most of the bill is like that. This is madness. The Founders would be appalled at what has happened to the Republic.