More Unintended Consequences

From the same group (Congress) which last year brought the unintended consequences of starvation in various third world countries by pushing ethanol, we now already have unintended consequences showing up from the soon-to-be-law stimulus bill.

An AP writer and Congress were apparently surprised to find that restricting executive pay would result in less tax revenues.  The following is a quote from the just-released article:

The Congressional Budget Office issued a new estimate that put the cost at $838 billion, an increase from the $827 billion figure from last week. Ironically, the agency said provisions in the bill intended to limit bonuses to executives at firms receiving federal bailout money would result in lower tax revenues for the government. {italics mine}

 It is only ironic if the result is unexpected.  Limiting taxable income has a corresponding effect on tax revenues.  It is obvious to those of us who think.

Congress has a habit of not thinking things through before acting.  They thought it would be nice if everyone could afford to be in a house.  They forced banks to allow customers to include welfare income when attempting to qualify for loans.  That resulted in lots of poor people losing their homes last year.  It was also key in the overall collapse of the housing market.

Can anyone tell me again why our President and Democrats in Congress (along with three turncoats) are in such a rush to push this so-called stimulus package?  Can we not allow a few weeks of thinking about this to determine if there are other unintended consequences lurking in the bill?