Stimulating dead people or stimulating U.S. to death

I had a few observations about the following story:

"Dead People Get Stimulus Checks
Published : Thursday, 14 May 2009, 5:28 PM EDT
MYFOXNY.COM - This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.
Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He'd been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United States for a seven-month visit in 1969.
The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.
The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange this is, some of the checks were made out to people -- like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system."

On a relatively light note, I wonder how many of these same dead people voted in the last election. Anytime I hear about a state, district or county with more votes than registered voters (Washington state governor's race a few years ago or Minnesota's Senate race last year), it makes me wonder about the reason for the difference.

On a more serious note though, see that the feds blamed a "rushed schedule" for the error. As noted on an earlier post, why do they have to hurry? Why must these bills be rushed through Congress? Why must the resulting laws be written in such a way that implementation must be done so quickly? It strains credulity that, even as bloated as these bureaucracies already are, there are still not enough people and resources to execute these laws. Maybe that's why they were the only major sector to add jobs last month...to keep up with this massive expansion of federal power.

Secondly, what if a private entity conducted their business in this manner? For instance, suppose an investment company begins paying out your retirement funds to another person at a different address or to someone who was an investor living at your address but is now dead. Would you continue doing business with them? Would you invest with them if you heard of such a track record of negligent practices? Private entities realize that if they conduct their affairs in such a manner, they will be out of business. This is why competition and free markets are good; it is a natural check on errors, accidental or purposeful. Most people don't need to be told to look for the lowest cost, highest quality product or service.

Folks, we only have one federal government hence its Constitutionally-limited powers, of which cutting stimulus, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, bailout etc. checks is not one. If it becomes too burdensome and error-prone, what recourse do we have? The states have almost infinite latitude in their laws (limited only by the Constitution); let them experiment with such affairs. Then watch people migrate away from irresponsibly-run states and towards responsibly-run states. Again, this will act as a natural check on errors, accidental or purposeful.

Finally, how does a one-time $250 check stimulate the economy? What would you do with it? Prudent people would or should pay off debts if they have them; that's what we did with last year's checks. Others will buy merchandise which will help clear business' stock this month, but what happens the next month? Unless people get that money every month, they will not change their buying habits, and businesses will not hire people to produce and sell more merchandise that will only sit on the shelves. They need to see steady strains on supply and higher demand. Instead of taking a portion of people's money only to give it back to them later to spend one time, why not let them keep a greater portion of their money to spend every month? I would not buy a new car and assume a payment based on a Christmas bonus, but I would do so based on a raise which is all a tax cut really is.

Let us insist that our government foster a stimulating environment for the all of the living by getting out of our lives with their rules and taxes.