Read Sen. Talent’s article in the The Daily Caller today on how Congress and the Administration missed the mark again.
Today marks the one year anniversary of the$787 billion “stimulus” bill. The English language — as rich as it is — is not adequate to describe the stupidity of the whole exercise. But the American Spectator makes a noble try.
Using the Administration’s own numbers, the stimulus bill “funded” (not “created”) between 800,000 and 2 million jobs, which means our government spent about $400,000 for each admittedly temporary job it “funded”.
This week marks the anniversary of the $800 Billion stimulus bill. It was supposed to reduce unemployment to 8%. It didn’t work. This new stimulus won’t work either.Economies grow when people use capital or labor in ways that produce more goods and services at lesser costs. Example: If Emerson Electric changes its production process to a motor at $100 instead of $110 dollars, they have just added value to the economy as a whole, because now the economy has the same motors but more money to spend on other things. The technical term for this process is: “free enterprise”. Permanent tax cuts help free enterprise because they increase the returns people get and lead to more work and investment.By proposing various temporary, narrow tax cuts, the Administration is conceding all this in principle. So here’s my question. If tax cuts don’t drive economic growth, why is the Administration proposing these little bits of tax relief? And if they do drive economic growth, why is Washington planning to raise taxes later this year?
We’re posting two articles today: one on scientific disagreements about global warming, and the second about the Obama Administration’s “green” defense policy.
The first article: World may not be warming, is typical of what you will read on the science of this issue. There is increasing doubt surfacing about the basic science underpinning the global warming theory. Typically, the proponents of the theory respond to critics by saying that in fact they are as certain as ever about the science, and then a technical back and forth ensues among the experts. This is why I caution so strongly against taking climate change measures that hurt our own economy. The scientific opinion on this issue is in flux, and we don’t want to ship millions of American jobs overseas to stop a problem that science may soon decide doesn’t really exist.
The second article refers to the “Quadrennial Defense Review” (QDR), which is the Department of Defense’s foremost defense planning document, issued every four years. The Obama Administration’s QDR mentions “climate change” more often than it mentions North Korea, Russia, and China put together. What that says about the current risk assessment in Washington is obvious.
Today, President Obama sent his draft budget for Fiscal Year 2011 to Capitol Hill. Like his State of the Union Address, it is filled with inconsistencies. He says jobs are the top priority, while calling for cap and trade legislation that will have a negative impact on job creation. He proposes a 3-year freeze on domestic spending programs, but at the same time wants to borrow $100 billion for a new stimulus bill. That bill will cost more in one year than the savings he proposes over three years. He condemned Washington over and over, yet now calls for more and more federal action as the solution to our problems.
Here is a suggestion for the President. Stop giving speeches and truly listen. Assemble a group of successful Democratic entrepreneurs — people he trusts. Ask them what will get the economy moving. They will tell him to freeze government for a while. Don’t raise taxes. Don’t add new regulations that aren’t strictly necessary. Just let the business sector adjust.
I proposed that months ago. Mark Steyn said the same thing on NRO recently. It will work.
The federal government is considering another “stimulus” plan, by which they mean that they will try to get the economy moving through more government spending. I want to ask a good faith question. What would have to happen for the advocates of such a policy to conclude that it doesn’t work?
The government has passed two stimulus plans already. Yet the recession lasted twice as long as the average postwar recession, and – what is worse – the recovery looks and feels an awful lot like the recession. (If this is what prosperity is like, what will the unemployment rate be if we have another downturn?). Let’s suppose that they pass more government spending, and unemployment stays the same. Will they then concede that government spending doesn’t generate economic growth? What if unemployment actually goes up?
One other point. Will this new “stimulus” plan have any money for defense modernization? The last one didn’t. Consider this. If there is an historical example of government spending stimulating the economy, it’s when the government, after TEN YEARS of the Depression, geared up for World War II beginning in 1940. Yet the last “stimulus” package of $800 billion didn’t spend a dime on defense modernization or the defense industrial base.
.
