Government benefits accounted for 16.2 percent of personal income in the first quarter of 2009 according to new figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. This is the highest level since the data began being recorded in 1929. According to a recent article in USA Today government spending on benefits will be more than $2 trillion in 2009, which comes to about $17,000 per household. The dramatic increase is a result of poor economic conditions leading to increased spending mainly on unemployment, food stamps, and Social Security. USA Today reports: …
Add together NASA since its inception, the cost of Hurricane Katrina and spending on the New Deal. Adjust for inflation. What do you get? Not quite the amount of money a cap and trade program would generate in energy taxes on consumers. The $1.9 trillion generated over eight years from a cap-and-trade bill would still be larger than the $1.5 trillion from NASA, the New Deal, and Hurricane Katrina. Granted, this is comparing apples to oranges to lemons as NASA and the New Deal are government spending projects, Hurricane Katrina …
Saturday Night Live opened their show this weekend with a parody of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner: Unfortunately, Treasury policy is just as rudderless as seen on SNL. What’s needed now, more than ever, are ideas based on principles; not ad hoc, “solutions” that don’t provide people enough information to make rational economic decisions for the future. If people want to lambast these principles as “ideology”, so be it. At least we’d have verified experience directing our economic policy.
We just finished watching President Barack Obama’s press conference on his plan to save taxpayers $40 billion a year by reforming government contracting. And with apologies to the Wendy’s franchise, “Where’s the beef?” There was zero substance in that speech. Not one specific idea for exactly how he will achieve this alleged $40 Billion in savings by removing blank checks for defense contractors. If he were serious about reforming business as usual, he could have started with all the defense earmarks in the latest omnibus bill. But it looks like …
Or should the question be how much will they waste? Economist Arnold Kling has a list of risks associated with a large stimulus. Number one on the list is: It is harder to spend larger amounts quickly and cost-effectively. One of Obama’s chief economists, Larry Summers, emphasized that stimulus spending must be quick and temporary. That doesn’t seem to be the case with the energy projects in the bill. From the WSJ: Minnesota’s Sage Electrochromics Inc. has been ready for months to move on just the sort of project the …
Government spending does not create economic growth. Regrettably, many in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, have ignored this fact. Just today, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), declared in his Wall Street Journal op-ed How to Make Sure the Stimulus Works that, “it is fairly obvious that serious deficit spending is needed immediately.” While his four rules for an effective stimulus bill are generally correct, government spending does not lead to economic growth. This notion is grounded in the outdated and often disproved Keynesian economic theory that more government spending invariably increases …
