Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.
The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.
More strange behavior: Obama's June 15, 2010 speech in response to the Gulf oil spill focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans "consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources." Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill? Would the calamity have been less of a problem if America consumed a mere 10% of the world's resources?
The oddities go on and on. Obama's Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed's "stress test" was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.
The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%. Yet he wants to spend even more and is determined to foist the entire bill on Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren't paying their "fair share." This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing. This does indeed seem unfair--to the rich.
Obama's foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.
Recently the London Times reported that the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans. This was an eye-opener because when Scotland released Megrahi from prison and sent him home to Libya in August 2009, the Obama Administration publicly and appropriately complained. The Times, however, obtained a letter the Obama Administration sent to Scotland a week before the event in which it said that releasing Megrahi on "compassionate grounds" was acceptable as long as he was kept in Scotland and would be "far preferable" to sending him back to Libya. Scottish officials interpreted this to mean that U.S. objections to Megrahi's release were "half-hearted." They released him to his home country, where he lives today as a free man.
One more anomaly: A few months ago nasa Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America's space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world. Come again? Bolden said he got the word directly from the President. "He wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering." Bolden added that the International Space Station was a model for nasa's future, since it was not just a U.S. operation but included the Russians and the Chinese. Obama's redirection of the agency caused consternation among former astronauts like Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, and even among the President's supporters: Most people think of nasa's job as one of landing on the moon and Mars and exploring other faraway destinations. Sure, we are for Islamic self-esteem, but what on earth was Obama up to here?
Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution.
Showing posts with label stimulus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stimulus. Show all posts
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
U.S. borrowed and stimulated big; Germany went small & won
American economists accused German policy makers of risking a long depression. The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, countered, “Governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand.”
The two countries followed different policy paths. According to Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to 6 percent of G.D.P. in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent about 1.5 percent of G.D.P. on their stimulus.
This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right?
The early returns suggest the Germans were. The American stimulus package was supposed to create a “summer of recovery,” according to Obama administration officials. Job growth was supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month. Instead, the U.S. economy is scuffling along.
The German economy, on the other hand, is growing at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate. Unemployment in Germany has come down to pre-crisis levels.
Results from one quarter do not settle the stimulus/austerity debate. Many other factors are in play. For example, Germany is surging, in part, because America is borrowing. Essentially, we Americans borrowed from our kids, spent some of that money on German machinery, and ended up employing German workers.
But the results do underline one essential truth: Stimulus size is not the key factor in determining how quickly a country emerges from recession. The U.S. tried big, but is emerging slowly. The Germans tried small, and are recovering nicely.
The economy can’t be played like a piano — press a fiscal key here and the right job creation notes come out over there. Instead, economic management is more like parenting. If you instill good values and create a secure climate then, through some mysterious process you will never understand, things will probably end well.
The two countries followed different policy paths. According to Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to 6 percent of G.D.P. in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent about 1.5 percent of G.D.P. on their stimulus.
This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right?
The early returns suggest the Germans were. The American stimulus package was supposed to create a “summer of recovery,” according to Obama administration officials. Job growth was supposed to be surging at up to 500,000 a month. Instead, the U.S. economy is scuffling along.
The German economy, on the other hand, is growing at a sizzling (and obviously unsustainable) 9 percent annual rate. Unemployment in Germany has come down to pre-crisis levels.
Results from one quarter do not settle the stimulus/austerity debate. Many other factors are in play. For example, Germany is surging, in part, because America is borrowing. Essentially, we Americans borrowed from our kids, spent some of that money on German machinery, and ended up employing German workers.
But the results do underline one essential truth: Stimulus size is not the key factor in determining how quickly a country emerges from recession. The U.S. tried big, but is emerging slowly. The Germans tried small, and are recovering nicely.
The economy can’t be played like a piano — press a fiscal key here and the right job creation notes come out over there. Instead, economic management is more like parenting. If you instill good values and create a secure climate then, through some mysterious process you will never understand, things will probably end well.
Meet the Democrat backer behind "green industrial complex"
One may call it the “green industrial complex.”
Enter John Doerr, a billionaire venture capitalist at the Silicon Valley firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers (KPCB). There, Doerr has been responsible for the firm’s successful investments in companies like Compaq, Intuit, AOL, Amazon, Netscape and Google.
No one would argue that Doerr hasn’t earned his spot on Forbes magazine’s annual richest people in the world list. However, in recent years, Doerr has redirected his talent from picking out successful start-up companies to successfully lobbying the Obama administration into supporting “green” initiatives.
While Doerr considers himself “a raging capitalist,” what he has been doing the last few years may be more akin to crony capitalism. With his lobbying, political advising and picky investing, Doerr has been one of the main movers behind green policy initiatives in Washington D.C, creating a web of players within a new industrial complex of green initiatives and renewable energy. He’s also been one of the biggest profiteers from it.
Since 2000, Doerr and his wife Anne have donated approximately $800,000 to Democrats. Moreover, KPCB has donated more than a million dollars to Democrats since 2005. Doerr has since been rewarded by being given at least some input in shaping the administration’s economic policy. In February 2009, President Obama named Doerr to the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB).
“I think Doerr, like most, supports people he knows will support him,” Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller.
“He [Doerr] is invaluable to them as a committee hearing witness. And, because they [politicians] are promoting the coercive transfer of wealth to ‘investments’ of his – investments that he made on the cheap because they’re uneconomic, but can reap tremendous ‘rents’ if their agenda of taking effective control of the energy sector is affected – they are invaluable to him,” said Horner.
He added, “I don’t know if he has been trading tit for tat, but it is clearly a mutual benefits society.”
In the stimulus bill that passed Congress, $86 billion was earmarked for “green initiatives,” something that was heavily lobbied for by Doerr. The Department of Energy (DOE) was then put in charge of choosing which companies to award grants to.
Enter John Doerr, a billionaire venture capitalist at the Silicon Valley firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers (KPCB). There, Doerr has been responsible for the firm’s successful investments in companies like Compaq, Intuit, AOL, Amazon, Netscape and Google.
No one would argue that Doerr hasn’t earned his spot on Forbes magazine’s annual richest people in the world list. However, in recent years, Doerr has redirected his talent from picking out successful start-up companies to successfully lobbying the Obama administration into supporting “green” initiatives.
While Doerr considers himself “a raging capitalist,” what he has been doing the last few years may be more akin to crony capitalism. With his lobbying, political advising and picky investing, Doerr has been one of the main movers behind green policy initiatives in Washington D.C, creating a web of players within a new industrial complex of green initiatives and renewable energy. He’s also been one of the biggest profiteers from it.
Since 2000, Doerr and his wife Anne have donated approximately $800,000 to Democrats. Moreover, KPCB has donated more than a million dollars to Democrats since 2005. Doerr has since been rewarded by being given at least some input in shaping the administration’s economic policy. In February 2009, President Obama named Doerr to the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB).
“I think Doerr, like most, supports people he knows will support him,” Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller.
“He [Doerr] is invaluable to them as a committee hearing witness. And, because they [politicians] are promoting the coercive transfer of wealth to ‘investments’ of his – investments that he made on the cheap because they’re uneconomic, but can reap tremendous ‘rents’ if their agenda of taking effective control of the energy sector is affected – they are invaluable to him,” said Horner.
He added, “I don’t know if he has been trading tit for tat, but it is clearly a mutual benefits society.”
In the stimulus bill that passed Congress, $86 billion was earmarked for “green initiatives,” something that was heavily lobbied for by Doerr. The Department of Energy (DOE) was then put in charge of choosing which companies to award grants to.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Stimulus spending and unemployment: no correlation
By Veronique de Rugy
Here is an update based on Recovery.org data (stimulus money reported spent). There is still no relationship between unemployment levels and stimulus spending.
Why the economy refuses to recover: Americans are on strike against Obama's anti-American, big government policies
Hoist by his own petard.
That's President Barack Obama.
Having assumed office with an illusory mandate to "transform America," he tossed aside public opinion, ignored voters' traditional preference for moderate, not radical, change, and set out to impose his vision of dominant government and a citizenry willing to say, okay, when a designated bureaucrat tells them their time has come to die. In doing so, Obama's minions bribed lawmakers to vote for measures opposed by a majority of voters and made a mockery of the legislative process.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be an unduring symbol with her call for Congress to pass a bill cobbled by insiders so that rank and file members could find out what's in it.
As the nation's debt grew by trillions of dollars, voters recoiled in horror while Obama remained unfazed, and perhaps unwitting. There is, after all, little evidence that Obama has any understanding of economics aside from the obvious fact that many of America's corporate elite will throw money at radical politicians so long as those politicians protect and nurture their corporate interests.
As a leftist nurtured in marxist truisms, he is, of course, dedicated to Keynesian economics, a dressed up ideology that encourages politicians to pay off voting blocs and interest groups that share their aspirations in the guise of "stimulus."
Now, 19 months into his presidency, Obama expresses puzzlement at the stubborn refusal of the American economy to recover despite more than a trillion dollars in "stimulus" spending. Speculation is rife that the economy will turn down again, producing a dreaded double-dip recession.
What's going on?
Sane America has gone on strike against the Obama administration's obsessive effort to impose rule by a leftist elite, including "czars," that has seized control of government and uses it to impose policies that most Americans oppose.
To counter this bizarre assault on American values, individuals, families, small businesses and large corporations are reasserting their individuality and desire for freedom by hoarding cash, withholding spending to thwart a government that some regard as wayward, and many view as their enemy.
If the economy were to recover strongly and quickly, the Democrat-controlled Congress could ramrod the rest of Obama's statist agenda and complete the government takeover of matters traditionally reserved for individual discretion. That is, for many of us, a frightening vision.
By hoarding cash, American individuals and businesses are slowing or stopping the recovery and thwarting the onset of death panels, carbon taxes, social engineering by the Environmental Protection Agency and other nightmarish aspects of the Obama scheme.
So far, the citizenry is defeating Obama and his thug army - the left wing of the Democrat Party.
In 71 days the voters can derail the Obama agenda and begin the process of repealing the parts that have been enacted by reducing the Democrat Party to minority status in the House and Senate.
That's the stimulus that unhappy and frightened voters are looking for, and it would begin to revive the economy.
Once Obama has lost his congressional accomplices, the leftist assault on individual liberty will lose its thrust and American consumers will again be willing to spend and businesses to invest in future growth.
A full blown recovery is unlikely to happen, however, until Obama has an epiphany or is clearly headed for the ranks of easily ignored ex-presidents. At that point, celebratory spending will begin, to be followed by the normal pursuit of things we didn't know we needed until we started believing that we still have a future.
That moment is not yet at hand. If Democrats want to speed its arrival, they could initiate a repeal of Obamcare, begin the abolition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and start neutering the EPA.
Watching the death throes of costly, redundant, wayward and sometimes corrupt government institutions would be the best stimulus of all.
That's President Barack Obama.
Having assumed office with an illusory mandate to "transform America," he tossed aside public opinion, ignored voters' traditional preference for moderate, not radical, change, and set out to impose his vision of dominant government and a citizenry willing to say, okay, when a designated bureaucrat tells them their time has come to die. In doing so, Obama's minions bribed lawmakers to vote for measures opposed by a majority of voters and made a mockery of the legislative process.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be an unduring symbol with her call for Congress to pass a bill cobbled by insiders so that rank and file members could find out what's in it.
As the nation's debt grew by trillions of dollars, voters recoiled in horror while Obama remained unfazed, and perhaps unwitting. There is, after all, little evidence that Obama has any understanding of economics aside from the obvious fact that many of America's corporate elite will throw money at radical politicians so long as those politicians protect and nurture their corporate interests.
As a leftist nurtured in marxist truisms, he is, of course, dedicated to Keynesian economics, a dressed up ideology that encourages politicians to pay off voting blocs and interest groups that share their aspirations in the guise of "stimulus."
Now, 19 months into his presidency, Obama expresses puzzlement at the stubborn refusal of the American economy to recover despite more than a trillion dollars in "stimulus" spending. Speculation is rife that the economy will turn down again, producing a dreaded double-dip recession.
What's going on?
Sane America has gone on strike against the Obama administration's obsessive effort to impose rule by a leftist elite, including "czars," that has seized control of government and uses it to impose policies that most Americans oppose.
To counter this bizarre assault on American values, individuals, families, small businesses and large corporations are reasserting their individuality and desire for freedom by hoarding cash, withholding spending to thwart a government that some regard as wayward, and many view as their enemy.
If the economy were to recover strongly and quickly, the Democrat-controlled Congress could ramrod the rest of Obama's statist agenda and complete the government takeover of matters traditionally reserved for individual discretion. That is, for many of us, a frightening vision.
By hoarding cash, American individuals and businesses are slowing or stopping the recovery and thwarting the onset of death panels, carbon taxes, social engineering by the Environmental Protection Agency and other nightmarish aspects of the Obama scheme.
So far, the citizenry is defeating Obama and his thug army - the left wing of the Democrat Party.
In 71 days the voters can derail the Obama agenda and begin the process of repealing the parts that have been enacted by reducing the Democrat Party to minority status in the House and Senate.
That's the stimulus that unhappy and frightened voters are looking for, and it would begin to revive the economy.
Once Obama has lost his congressional accomplices, the leftist assault on individual liberty will lose its thrust and American consumers will again be willing to spend and businesses to invest in future growth.
A full blown recovery is unlikely to happen, however, until Obama has an epiphany or is clearly headed for the ranks of easily ignored ex-presidents. At that point, celebratory spending will begin, to be followed by the normal pursuit of things we didn't know we needed until we started believing that we still have a future.
That moment is not yet at hand. If Democrats want to speed its arrival, they could initiate a repeal of Obamcare, begin the abolition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and start neutering the EPA.
Watching the death throes of costly, redundant, wayward and sometimes corrupt government institutions would be the best stimulus of all.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Congress racing blindfolded, heaving huge fraudulent bills
A Gallup poll reveals that only 11 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in Congress, and though it's the lowest ranking ever, one wonders what malady afflicts the yea-sayers. Might a review of reality correct their misperceptions?
To do the task justice would require at least as many pages as some of the bills Congress passes, but that itself is a place to start -- mention of a debt-stimulating stimulus bill over 1,000 pages long, of a topsy-turvy health-care remake over 2,000 pages long and of a recent financial-regulation mishmash also over 2,000 pages long.
Members of Congress maybe have some study-guide notion of what's in these bills, but no grasp of all the possible catastrophes hidden in multiple unread clauses. Passing them is therefore akin to the blindfolded racing of a bus down a busy highway. The public -- the passengers -- knows even less, of course, and has to guess at what might happen to it.
At least some of the devilish details do emerge in time, and so you learn that even if an $862 billion stimulus was defensible in theory, the political handouts got out of hand, virtually ensuring any assault on the recession would be feathery at best.
The health bill, it turns out after inspection by various nonpartisan groups since its enactment, was pretty much a fraud from beginning to end. It's going to control health costs? Just the opposite, and here is more bad news -- this fiercely expensive entitlement comes on top of old entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- that already threaten to help create fiscal chaos and uncontrollable debt in not so many more years.
Our economy is hugely at risk, and Congress did this to us.
To do the task justice would require at least as many pages as some of the bills Congress passes, but that itself is a place to start -- mention of a debt-stimulating stimulus bill over 1,000 pages long, of a topsy-turvy health-care remake over 2,000 pages long and of a recent financial-regulation mishmash also over 2,000 pages long.
Members of Congress maybe have some study-guide notion of what's in these bills, but no grasp of all the possible catastrophes hidden in multiple unread clauses. Passing them is therefore akin to the blindfolded racing of a bus down a busy highway. The public -- the passengers -- knows even less, of course, and has to guess at what might happen to it.
At least some of the devilish details do emerge in time, and so you learn that even if an $862 billion stimulus was defensible in theory, the political handouts got out of hand, virtually ensuring any assault on the recession would be feathery at best.
The health bill, it turns out after inspection by various nonpartisan groups since its enactment, was pretty much a fraud from beginning to end. It's going to control health costs? Just the opposite, and here is more bad news -- this fiercely expensive entitlement comes on top of old entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- that already threaten to help create fiscal chaos and uncontrollable debt in not so many more years.
Our economy is hugely at risk, and Congress did this to us.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Tax cuts under Reagan; Keynesianism under Obama; you decide
Democrats have been running Congress for nearly four years, and President Obama has been at the White House for 18 months, so it's not too soon to ask: How's that working out? One devastating scorecard came out Friday from the White House, in the form of its own semi-annual budget review.
The message: Tax revenues are smaller, spending is greater, and the deficits are thus larger than the White House has been saying. No wonder it dumped the news on the eve of a sweltering mid-July weekend.
Mr. Obama inherited a recession, so let's give him a pass on the budget numbers for 2009. Clearly the deficit would have been large no matter who was President, even if the David Obey-Nancy Pelosi $862 billion stimulus made it larger than it otherwise would have been. What's striking about the latest budget estimates, however, is that the White House is predicting the numbers won't improve much through 2011, the third year of the President's term.
As a share of the economy, the White House now says the deficit in fiscal 2010, which ends on September 30, will be even larger than in 2009: 10%. That's after a full year of economic growth, given that the recovery began last summer. More remarkable still, the deficit will barely fall in fiscal 2011, declining only to 9.2% of GDP in the second year of a recovery that ought to be gaining steam.
The message: Tax revenues are smaller, spending is greater, and the deficits are thus larger than the White House has been saying. No wonder it dumped the news on the eve of a sweltering mid-July weekend.
Mr. Obama inherited a recession, so let's give him a pass on the budget numbers for 2009. Clearly the deficit would have been large no matter who was President, even if the David Obey-Nancy Pelosi $862 billion stimulus made it larger than it otherwise would have been. What's striking about the latest budget estimates, however, is that the White House is predicting the numbers won't improve much through 2011, the third year of the President's term.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Stimulus cash will now stimulate Democrats' electioneering
There's no better definition of government waste than the estimated $192 million President Obama is forcing cash-strapped state officials to spend on road signs touting his failed stimulus program. Even so, with a critical congressional election coming in November, Americans will see a proliferation of these politically self-serving signs in coming months as Obama tries to convince voters who think his "Recovery Summer" is just an economic Potemkin village.
Such signs would not be needed if Obama's program had succeeded. Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., recently discovered that the Obama propaganda signs are required for all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That's the official name for the $857 billion economic stimulus program Obama promised would keep unemployment below 8 percent. A White House memo Schock obtained told stimulus fund recipients they must display the newly designed ARRA logo. According to the memo, the logo is "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American People to invest their tax dollars wisely to put Americans back to work." Instead of "symbol," a far more appropriate word to describe this would be "propaganda."
The memo is wrong on both counts. It's not a wise expenditure of tax dollars when government spends as much as $10,000 apiece for propaganda signs, especially when unemployment remains near 10 percent. And the president's stimulus program has not put Americans back to work, as the latest jobless figures make starkly clear. A bunch of expensive road signs won't change the fact that only 6 percent of Americans believe that the Obama stimulus program has created new jobs, according to a New York Times/CBS poll.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has demanded that the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board investigate whether the signs violate federal anti-propaganda laws. Schock also plans to introduce a bill to yank funding for the signs. Doing that has been the top vote-getter on YouCut, a Web site set up by House Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., that lets ordinary Americans choose federal programs to send to the chopping block.In just six weeks, more than a million people have voted to save $93.7 billion by axing old-style welfare programs, eliminating raises for federal employees, reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, selling excess federal property, not hiring more Internal Revenue Service agents to enforce Obamacare's individual insurance mandate, and not subsidizing union activities.
Meanwhile, here's another sign, this one from Tea Partiers who are sick and tired of government profligacy, that has a more accurate description of Obama's policies: "Central Planning: Destroying Human Prosperity Since 4000 B.C."
Such signs would not be needed if Obama's program had succeeded. Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., recently discovered that the Obama propaganda signs are required for all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That's the official name for the $857 billion economic stimulus program Obama promised would keep unemployment below 8 percent. A White House memo Schock obtained told stimulus fund recipients they must display the newly designed ARRA logo. According to the memo, the logo is "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American People to invest their tax dollars wisely to put Americans back to work." Instead of "symbol," a far more appropriate word to describe this would be "propaganda."
The memo is wrong on both counts. It's not a wise expenditure of tax dollars when government spends as much as $10,000 apiece for propaganda signs, especially when unemployment remains near 10 percent. And the president's stimulus program has not put Americans back to work, as the latest jobless figures make starkly clear. A bunch of expensive road signs won't change the fact that only 6 percent of Americans believe that the Obama stimulus program has created new jobs, according to a New York Times/CBS poll.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has demanded that the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board investigate whether the signs violate federal anti-propaganda laws. Schock also plans to introduce a bill to yank funding for the signs. Doing that has been the top vote-getter on YouCut, a Web site set up by House Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., that lets ordinary Americans choose federal programs to send to the chopping block.In just six weeks, more than a million people have voted to save $93.7 billion by axing old-style welfare programs, eliminating raises for federal employees, reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, selling excess federal property, not hiring more Internal Revenue Service agents to enforce Obamacare's individual insurance mandate, and not subsidizing union activities.
Meanwhile, here's another sign, this one from Tea Partiers who are sick and tired of government profligacy, that has a more accurate description of Obama's policies: "Central Planning: Destroying Human Prosperity Since 4000 B.C."
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Obama administration shoveled out cash and got no result while Reagan cut taxes and slowed spending, stimulating recovery
The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Upturn coming; let the bogus back-patting begin
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.
In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years -- but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.
NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won't affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring "moderately."
But the economists see conditions improving. More than half of respondents -- 57% -- say industrial demand is rising, while just 6% see it declining. A growing number also said their firms are increasing spending and profit margins are widening.
Nearly a quarter of those surveyed forecast that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, will grow more than 3% in 2010, and 70% of NABE's respondents expect it to grow more than 2%.
In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years -- but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.
NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won't affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring "moderately."
But the economists see conditions improving. More than half of respondents -- 57% -- say industrial demand is rising, while just 6% see it declining. A growing number also said their firms are increasing spending and profit margins are widening.
Nearly a quarter of those surveyed forecast that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, will grow more than 3% in 2010, and 70% of NABE's respondents expect it to grow more than 2%.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Obama: accounting is an "inexact science," phantom districts and errors a "side issue"
President Obama brushed off criticism over his administration's inaccurate reporting on job creation Wednesday, telling Fox News the accounting is an "inexact science" and that any errors are a "side issue" when compared with the goal of turning the economy around. He said job growth is his No.1 responsibility.
Obama flack has 'no idea how phantom congressional districts...received stimulus funds"
Ed Pound, the director of communications for the Obama Administration’s “stimulus” website (recovery.gov), dropped a bombshell in interview with the New Orleans Times Picayune, stating that the Obama Administration has no idea how phantom congressional districts - such as Ohio’s 00th or Louisiana’s 26th - received “stimulus” funds. The Times Picayune story reported:
‘We’re not certifying the accuracy of the information,’ said Pound ….Asked why recipients would pluck random numbers - 26, 45, 14 - to fill in for their congressional district, Pound replied, ‘who knows, man, who really knows. There are 130,000 reports out there.’
Problems surrounding the Democrats’ $1 trillion “stimulus” aren’t limited to Louisiana. Last night, ABC News’ World News TONIGHT with Charles Gibson reported on false claims of jobs “saved or created” by the “stimulus” in real congressional districts (as opposed to the phantom congressional districts that we found out about yesterday).
But “stimulus” waste, fraud and abuse isn’t just limited to nine pairs of work boots in Kentucky or phantom congressional districts in Louisiana, as stories in newspapers across America have confirmed:
‘We’re not certifying the accuracy of the information,’ said Pound ….Asked why recipients would pluck random numbers - 26, 45, 14 - to fill in for their congressional district, Pound replied, ‘who knows, man, who really knows. There are 130,000 reports out there.’
Problems surrounding the Democrats’ $1 trillion “stimulus” aren’t limited to Louisiana. Last night, ABC News’ World News TONIGHT with Charles Gibson reported on false claims of jobs “saved or created” by the “stimulus” in real congressional districts (as opposed to the phantom congressional districts that we found out about yesterday).
But “stimulus” waste, fraud and abuse isn’t just limited to nine pairs of work boots in Kentucky or phantom congressional districts in Louisiana, as stories in newspapers across America have confirmed:
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Feds spent $6.4 billion on stimulus in 440 phantom districts, one being North Dakota's 99th
Just how big is the stimulus package? Well for one, it has doubled the size of the House of Representatives, according to recovery.gov, which says that funds were distributed to 440 congressional districts that do not exist.
According to data retrieved from recovery.gov, nearly $6.4 billion was used to “create or save” just under 30,000 jobs in these phantom congressional districts–almost $225,000 per job. The web site operates on an $84 million budget and is tasked with monitoring the distribution of the $787 billion stimulus package passed by Congress–which, for the record, counts 435 members–in early 2009.
The site’s monitors, however, are not too savvy about America’s political or geographic landscape. More than $2 million was given to the 99th District of North Dakota, a state which has only one congressional district. In order to qualify for 99 districts, North Dakota would have to have a population of about 60 million people, almost 24 million more people than California.
The stimulus revived 8 recently retired congressional districts. Pennsylvania’s 21st District has received just under $2 million in funds. Mississippi’s 5th District and Oklahoma’s 6th received $1 million from the legislation, respectively. All three were eliminated by the 2000 census.
According to data retrieved from recovery.gov, nearly $6.4 billion was used to “create or save” just under 30,000 jobs in these phantom congressional districts–almost $225,000 per job. The web site operates on an $84 million budget and is tasked with monitoring the distribution of the $787 billion stimulus package passed by Congress–which, for the record, counts 435 members–in early 2009.
The site’s monitors, however, are not too savvy about America’s political or geographic landscape. More than $2 million was given to the 99th District of North Dakota, a state which has only one congressional district. In order to qualify for 99 districts, North Dakota would have to have a population of about 60 million people, almost 24 million more people than California.
The stimulus revived 8 recently retired congressional districts. Pennsylvania’s 21st District has received just under $2 million in funds. Mississippi’s 5th District and Oklahoma’s 6th received $1 million from the legislation, respectively. All three were eliminated by the 2000 census.
And on the seventh day The Savior created jobs in districts that were not...
Here’s a stimulus success story: In Arizona’s 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have beensaved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that’s what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
There’s one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
Stimlulus magic: new jobs in nonexistent districts
Here’s a stimulus success story: In Arizona’s 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have beensaved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that’s what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
There’s one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.
“We report what the recipients submit to us,” said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.
Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients – state governments, federal agencies and universities – of stimulus money about what program is being funded.
“Some recipients clearly don’t know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes,” Pound said.
The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill
There’s one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.
“We report what the recipients submit to us,” said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.
Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients – state governments, federal agencies and universities – of stimulus money about what program is being funded.
“Some recipients clearly don’t know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes,” Pound said.
The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Abominanble Obamanomics: 85 % of clean energy stimulus stimulated foreign firms
Of the $1 billion in clean-energy stimulus money spent since the beginning of September, $850 million has gone to foreign wind companies. It doesn't take a bunch of experts at a hastily planned "jobs summit" to discover this isn't the way to bolster employment in America.
Indeed, the 11 U.S. wind farms that received stimulus money from the Treasury have imported 695 of the 982 wind turbines to be installed, creating 4,500 jobs overseas. That's far more overseas work than the stimulus money has created in the United States.
On Oct. 29, a joint venture of American and Chinese companies unveiled plans for a new $1.5 billion wind farm in West Texas consisting of 240 Chinese-made turbines. The project is seeking 30 percent of its funding in government stimulus dollars. At best, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars will create a grand total of 30 permanent jobs. That's $15 million for each job if the project gets the expected level of federal funding.
Indeed, the 11 U.S. wind farms that received stimulus money from the Treasury have imported 695 of the 982 wind turbines to be installed, creating 4,500 jobs overseas. That's far more overseas work than the stimulus money has created in the United States.
On Oct. 29, a joint venture of American and Chinese companies unveiled plans for a new $1.5 billion wind farm in West Texas consisting of 240 Chinese-made turbines. The project is seeking 30 percent of its funding in government stimulus dollars. At best, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars will create a grand total of 30 permanent jobs. That's $15 million for each job if the project gets the expected level of federal funding.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Stimulus has failed, but liberal certitude lives on
A familiar definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. So in the wake of yesterday's report that the national jobless rate climbed to 10.2% in October, we suppose we can expect the political class to demand another "stimulus." Maybe if Congress spends another $787 billion in the name of job creation, it can get the jobless rate up to 12% or 13%.
It's hard to imagine a more complete repudiation of Keynesian stimulus than the evidence of the last year's job market. We've now had two examples of such stimulus—President Bush's $160 billion effort in February 2008 and President Obama's mega-version a year later—and neither has made even the smallest dent in employment. As the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's economic advisers sold the stimulus by saying it would keep the jobless rate below 8%. Actual results may differ, as they say.
The economy shed another 190,000 jobs in October, taking the total job losses to 3.5 million since January. The larger measure of joblessness that includes marginal and part-time workers jumped 0.5% to 17.5%. And the average hours worked in a week stayed the same at 33.0, which means that millions of Americans working part-time will have to become full-time before employers start hiring new workers.
It's hard to imagine a more complete repudiation of Keynesian stimulus than the evidence of the last year's job market. We've now had two examples of such stimulus—President Bush's $160 billion effort in February 2008 and President Obama's mega-version a year later—and neither has made even the smallest dent in employment. As the nearby chart shows, Mr. Obama's economic advisers sold the stimulus by saying it would keep the jobless rate below 8%. Actual results may differ, as they say.
The economy shed another 190,000 jobs in October, taking the total job losses to 3.5 million since January. The larger measure of joblessness that includes marginal and part-time workers jumped 0.5% to 17.5%. And the average hours worked in a week stayed the same at 33.0, which means that millions of Americans working part-time will have to become full-time before employers start hiring new workers.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Fifty states were stimulated; only one added jobs
Seven months after being stimulated, Washington style, 49 of the 50 states have lost jobs. In other words, Washington it achieving its customary rate of success. With just one more stimulus measure the last state, North Dakota, should fall into line. Click on the headline to see state by state results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
