Nearly $30 of government intervention to create $1 of economic growth.
"The failure of the stimulus was a failure of the neo-Keynesian belief that economies can be jolted into action by a wave of government spending. In fact, people are smart enough to realize that every dollar poured into the economy via government spending must eventually be taken out of the productive economy in the form of taxes. The way to jolt an economy to life and to sustain long-term growth is to create more incentives for people to work, save and invest. Let’s hope Washington’s next stimulus plan is aimed at reducing the tax and regulatory burden on American job creators."
“The other thing that happened though, this goes to the point you were just making, is there are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers…. If you see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you use a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate”
President Obama should read Henry Hazlitt who put this economic fallacy to bed all the way back in the 1960s in his essay, “The Curse of Machinery”:
Among the most viable of all economic delusions is the belief that machines on net balance create unemployment. Destroyed a thousand times, it has risen a thousand times out of its own ashes as hardy and vigorous as ever. Whenever there is long-continued mass unemployment, machines get the blame anew. This fallacy is still the basis of many labor union practices. The public tolerates these practices because it either believes at bottom that the unions are right, or is too confused to see just why they are wrong.
If it were indeed true that the introduction of labor-saving machinery is a cause of constantly mounting unemployment and misery, the logical conclusions to be drawn would be revolutionary, not only in the technical field but for our whole concept of civilization. Not only should we have to regard all further technical progress as a calamity; we should have to regard all past technical progress with equal horror. Every day each of us in his own capacity is engaged in trying to reduce the effort it requires to accomplish a given result. Each of us is trying to save his own labor, to economize the means required to achieve his ends. Every employer, small as well as large, seeks constantly to gain his results more economically and efficiently—that is, by saving labor. Every intelligent workman tries to cut down the effort necessary to accomplish his assigned job. The most ambitious of us try tirelessly to increase the results we can achieve in a given number of hours. The technophobes, if they were logical and consistent, would have to dismiss all this progress and ingenuity as not only useless but vicious. Why should freight be carried from New York to Chicago by railroads when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to carry it all on their backs?
Fans of economic policy may recall that during one of the many recent debt ceiling showdowns, the idea to mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin came to the fore. It turns out that the Obama administration took the idea seriously enough to have the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel draft memos pertaining to its legality, a fact belied by the White House’s out-of-hand dismissal of the option in January.
President Obama has been decrying the growing gap between rich and poor. But his own policies have produced record levels of income inequality.
It makes sense when you have the fed handing billions of dollars to big banks and tax rates that fall increasingly on the middle class. Big government is expensive and those that benefit from its growth are the wealthy, politically connected. Wealth is literally redistributed from the bottom up.
The report, “Presidential Calendar: A Time-Based Analysis,” used the official White House calendar,Politico’s comprehensive presidential calendar, and media reports through March 31, 2013 to calculate its results.
GAI’s findings may actually understate Obama’s recreational hours.
Last year, Obama told CBS News that playing golf is “the only time that for six hours, I’m outside.” But instead of six hours, GAI counted a round of golf as taking just four hours. Likewise, for presidential vacation hours, researchers attributed just six hours of any day of vacation to leisure activity.
That seems to be what AP scribe Bob Lewis wants everyone to think, anyway. Here’s the lede to his story about the effects of Obamacare on part-time faculty:
RICHMOND, Va. — Many adjunct instructors at Virginia’s 23 community colleges will see their hours cut starting this summer thanks to Virginia’s response to the new federal health reform law, a change that could cripple or kill livelihoods teachers like Ann Hubbard worked hard to build.
The Affordable Care Act mandates that employers with more than 50 workers provide coverage for any full-time worker, with full-time defined as 30 hours a week or more. This has presented a problem for many large employers. It’s not just Virginia that’s slashing hours; many big companies are doing the same thing.
As USA Today reports, “Many businesses plan to bring on more part-time workers next year, trim the hours of full-time employees or curtail hiring because of the new health care law, human resource firms say.”
Granted, all of these are “responses to the new federal health reform law.” By the same token, a stampede for the exits is a response to a fire in a movie theater. But the stampede is only a proximal cause. The ultimate cause is the fire. And the ultimate cause of the hour-cutting is not Virginia’s response — it is Obamacare.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released jobs numbers for January Friday showing that nonfarm payroll employment increased by 157,000 and the unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent.
Lost in these headline numbers was another rise in the number of people not in the labor force.
This number now stands at a staggering 89 million, up from 80.5 million when President Obama took office.
This means that there are currently 8.5 million more Americans not in the labor force than just four years ago.
Also, the U-6 measure of unemployment which is viewed as a more accurate measure because it takes into account part-time workers and those who left the labor force, has unemployment at 14.4%
So the number the White House and the media jump on is 7.9% because it’s smaller. But if you take into account all the people who want more hours, any hours, or people who have given up on their search for work, the number spikes to 14.4%.
There’s been lots of discussion lately regarding the minting of a “trillion dollar platinum coin.” The scheme was first promoted by Krugman less than a week ago, and has been discussed heavily the last few days - with “progressive” statists diligently supporting the cause.
House Speaker John A. Boehner said Wednesday that the House will pass his bill that would raise taxes on millionaires but extend tax cuts for everyone else, and said it’s then up to President Obama to either accept that plan or be responsible for a tax increase on everyone.
"The president will have a decision to make. He can call on the Senate Democrats to pass our bill, or he can be responsible for the largest tax increase in American history," Mr. Boehner said as he briefly appeared before reporters to respond to Mr. Obama’s press conference earlier in the day.
I don’t think people fathom how much taxes need to go up in order to accomodate our “new normal” of spending levels. Let the tax rates go up on millionaires so that in 2 months we can get back to talking about the 17 trillion dollar debt, 2 trillion dollar annual budget deficits and exploding entitlement spending. This tax increase solves nothing even though it’s the largest one in American history (referring to the tax increases following the sequestration in the event of a no “compromise” solution). This “compromise” bill Boehner is bragging about is a drop in the bucket.
The stimulus cost American taxpayers 831 billion dollars and allegedly “created” about 2.5 million jobs. If these numbers are true then the federal government spent approximately $332,400 per job created.
And supposedly that’s a wonderful success for America. To me that’s an incredible failure.
While the figures themselves have been gloomy enough, there is considerable debate over whether the Labor Department’s headline numbers present the true picture.
A measure that takes into account those who have stopped looking for jobs as well as those working part-time for economic reasons has hovered near 15 percent. The so-called "real" unemployment rate, or U-6 measure, is above 20 percent in Nevada and California.
On a national level, that more encompassing rate edged higher to 15.0 percent.