AYLMER, QUEBEC | Historians advise that nations should not clam-up when faced with a financial implosion. Our governments add to the implosion when they cut their budgets and spend less (because they are earning less, with tax revenues dropping); this creates a runaway collapse.

The collapse carries the negative message Ð don't freeze the economy Ð but there's also a positive one: we can utilize the immense economic weight of our national budget. We can use national spending to stimulate demand and buying power. The more that people are spending, the more money is circulating Ð more demand, sales, jobs.

Historians point to cycles of recessions and to governments which spend their way out of a collapse -- some with wars and their need for massive spending -- and of governments that did not.

Where it becomes controversial is on the question, "spend it on what?"

If war was a good answer, the USA should be doing well, with its two wars and troops stationed around the world. But a national mobilization Ð like the mobilization required by war Ð becomes political. Basically the neo-conservative view is to put government spending into the corporate sector; if the nation's corporations are working, jobs are created. This is trickle-down economics.

The other side says if the goal is to have the money trickling into the hands of ordinary people, then why not just put the money there in the first place? Why wait for trickling? If the people have money to spend, they'll spend it on cars, homes, appliances, eating out and holidays, plus daycare and university education. Getting money into their hands gives the quickest response, which creates jobs early

More jobs means more paycheques and less needed from government, and then more tax revenue to governments (to pay down their debt).

Who the government helps out is hard to decide; recipients should have a moral claim to that help. This is why the public objects to the present bail-out of banks and financial corporations Ð they don't deserve it, most people think; banks have no moral claim. There are groups and purposes which do have a good claim Ð from municipal infrastructure spending to schools, from the homeless and mentally ill to small business start-ups, local sports teams, and so on. Who has the strongest moral claim?

Mothers and families.

Isn't this the time to introduce a national salary for mothers? Mothers are creating our next generation. Our kids deserve help. How better to get help to kids than through mothers? As income, it would be taxed back from wealthier families, and as income on the family level it will stimulate spending on the basics: food, shelter, clothing.

Today's conditions are right for the introduction of a national mothers' salary.

---

Copyright © 2008 Fred Ryan/Log Cabin Chronicles/11.08