Thanks, Washington, but the economy doesn't need your help

I have a few cherished Philadelphia Phillies bobblehead dolls on a bookshelf in my basement. When M and I aren't looking, our 3-year-old son likes to play with them. So not surprisingly, one day I came home to find Mike Schmidt with his arms snapped off.

"I've told you before: DO NOT TOUCH," I admonished my son while super-gluing Schmidty's limbs back into place. "It's not your toy to play with. Now leave it alone because you'll break it even more."

The "broken" economy
I find myself saying the same things today--except directed at President Bush, Bernard Bernanke, Nancy Pelosi, and all the others in Washington scrambling to "fix" the economy. The stock market is swooning, economic growth is slowing, and people--make that voters--are screaming: "The economy stinks and Washington doesn't care!"

So to show they have a heart, our government officials will offer up what many want: $150 billion to spend in the form of tax rebates, and lowered interest rates for borrowing money "more affordably." But isn't spending and borrowing how we got here in the first place?

As I see it, economic and investing forces aren't broken; they're working quite well. For example, when demand exceeds supply, prices drop (as with the housing market today). And with high risk can come punishing losses instead of soaring gains (as banks and mortgage companies have had to relearn).

No short-term fixes
What is broken is general perception: that Washington must do something to fix the economy. No, it shouldn't. Tax rebates while fighting a multibillion dollar war fought on two fronts and running up a monstrous federal deficit is a bad idea. Making borrowing more attractive while more people are struggling to pay the debt they already have is a bad idea.

No doubt, things look bleak right now. They will likely get worse in the months ahead. Unwinding the housing bubble of the last few years will take some time and involve some pain. Believe me, I don't enjoy seeing that M's and my 401(k) is down about $13,000 since the end of the year alone, and that our townhome has lost about $15,000 in value over the last several months.

But I have little faith that Washington's short-term fiscal band-aids will make things better in the long term. They won't change $90-$100 per barrel oil or fast-rising health care and education costs. Or Americans' general tendency to spend more than they earn.

Instead, the President and Congress should just leave the economy alone. "Don't touch it. It's not your toy to play with. You'll just end up breaking it even more."

Then again, those warnings don't really work with my son, either.

A dose of humility on a Sunday morning

I was just lamenting this morning to M about our disposal income--or lack of it. After paying all our fixed bills, accounting for groceries and household expenses, there isn't much breathing room left each month for for additional saving, such as for a down payment on a new house or our kids' college (we're pretty well-covered for retirement, primarily thanks to generous contributions from my employer).

And then I came across this headline in today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

Donor built millions on $11 an hour

Paul Navone is a retired mill factory worker from Vineland who made a fraction of what most people make today. Yet he just gave $2 million to a community college and a prep school.

Granted, Navone has never been married, is childless, doesn't own a TV, and shops in thrift stores for his clothes--a lifestyle that isn't exactly appealing and has definitely contributed to his stored-up wealth. It's a tradeoff I'd never want to make.

But it's still humbling to think about. I'm fortunate to have a stable job that produces a good income--well-above $11 an hour. Why the heck am I complaining? And what could I be doing differently to change the situation?