Chuck Grassley: “But we need to know what happens in years 4, 5, and years 6 through 10. I have asked that question because there is a…”

“But we need to know what happens in years 4, 5, and years 6 through 10. I have asked that question because there is a reasonable fear that the spending might have a negative effect on the economy from years 4, 5 and so forth. The spending might "crowd out" investment and that crowding out could adversely affect economic growth later. It is kind of like the difference between a carbohydrate diet and a protein diet. Under this bill, there is a lot of carbohydrate-spending. The spending is like eating a sugary doughnut. It tastes good going down, but shortly thereafter the effect wears off and you are hungry again. In this case, we have a spending surge, but we might face the effects of too much spending with crowdout. On our side, we would prefer a protein-type of stimulus. We want investment nourishment up front. Like protein, the economic body will become stronger after the investment stimulus is digested. Now, I am not saying there shouldn't be any spending stimulus. What we need is a balanced stimulative diet. This bill's stimulus diet is too carb-oriented. It needs more protein investment stimulus.”