A Wall Street Journal story today was about this poll of millonaires (a real poll commisioned evidently by a private jet company--see next entry on this). The polling company, in an act of courage or whimsy or total stupidity, put in a question as to whether these millionaires intended to reduce gifts to their mistresses (those that had them) because of the present bad economic times. 80% said they did intend to reduce gifts to their mistresses. But evidently only 12% said they intend to give up their mistreses altogether. 192 out of 518 (or some such numbers) answered the question Although you are crazy if you believe this poll, or any poll, this does raise a burning question: Do we need to bail out mistresses to help the economy? Mistresses, after all, are known to spend money, and the failure to get gifts that they usually get will obviously hurt the economy.
Wait. I know you think I can't be serious. But there was a somewhat analogouse story linked on Drudge today. Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi" stuck 30 million dollars in this "stimulus" bill to help "save" the salt marsh harvest mouse, or something like that. This is a San Francisco Bay area project, and Pelosi represents that area. Drudge's headline: "30 million dollars for Pelosi's mouse". You just gotta love Drudge.
Now the question here is: Which provides more "stimulus" for the economy? Bailing out mistresses or bailing out "endangered" mice? I have no doubt on this point. "Bailing out mistresses wins--hands down. Whether there is any case for helping the mouse or not, it is not a legitimate part of a "stimulus" bill. It is an earmark, pure and simple, which is true of a good part of the bill.
P.S. Rush Limbaugh insists that his North Carolina mistress has nothing to worry about, because Limbaugh has not been affected by the declining economy. Limbaugh seemed to indicate that he never gave his North Carolina mistress anything anyway, but you might legitimately be skeptical of that.