One of the cornerstones of the stimulus bill was to create jobs and help the economy get back on its feet. The Obama administration estimated that between 3 and 4 million jobs would be created or saved once the bill was enacted.
Obama Administration Proposal Would Cost U.S. Jobs
The Obama administration keeps coming forward with proposals that would undermine the economic recovery even as it claims to be trying to save it. At least $1 trillion has been spent to supposedly “stimulate” the economy and the budget deficit is at a record level. Yet, the economic gurus within the executive branch have floated another proposal that is both incongruous and counterproductive.
Public vs. Private: May the Best Contractor Win
The government should not compete with its citizens; it should rely on the private sector for commercially-available goods and services. This is a common-sense idea: allow individuals, small businesses, and entrepreneurial companies to contract with the government, instead of creating duplicative and expensive government-run agencies and programs.
A Word of Caution for President Obama
President Obama and Congress are in the process of putting together a “stimulus” package in order to spur the economy and create or save 3 million jobs. The House of Representative’s proposal contained $275 billion in tax cuts and $526 billion in “carefully targeted priority investments” for a total cost of $820 billion. It would be better to call it a de-stimulus package because each of the 3 to 4 million jobs that the President and his allies claim to be saving and creating will cost taxpayers about $275,000.
Stimulus Turns Federal Funding Spigot Into a Raging Firehose
With our nation’s faltering economy, businesses, communities, and families are undoubtedly suffering. However, they will not receive relief in the near future from the Democrat’s new federal fiscal stimulus proposal. According to a stimulus spending outlay chart released by Appropriations Committee Republicans, only seven percent of the funding will be spent this fiscal year and […]
The “Not-So-Big Three” Beg for a Bailout
The so-called “Big Three” domestic automakers, General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford have kicked into overdrive to lobby Congress to salvage what is left of their business operations using taxpayer funds. General Motors, which has entered negative cash-flow territory, is widely predicted to go belly-up unless it receives massive infusions of money. Analysts predict that GM’s demise would drag the other two down as well. After two days of contentious hearings on Capital Hill on November 18 and 19, auto executives departed without a deal and, at least for now, Congress has slammed the brakes on a straight bailout. Instead, lawmakers have tasked automakers with furnishing a detailed plan for long-term industry “viability and sustainability” before any legislative action is taken.
The 111th Congress: House of Card Check
Ironically, as Congress debates a bailout for the auto industry partly as a result of its massive, union-stimulated legacy costs, there are widespread expectations that Congress and the Obama administration will quickly try to push though the so-called “card check” legislation after the inaugural parties wind down.
European Resource Bank Update
Since 2004, Citizens Against Government Waste has been attending the European Resource Bank (ERB) Meeting. This year’s annual meeting of free-market think tanks was held in Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, hosted by the New Economic School in the Republic of Georgia. Even though the ERB was originally planned to be held in Georgia because of the free-market reforms pushed by the country’s prime minister and president, Mikheil Saakashvili, events preceding the meeting (the Russian invasion) gave it even more urgency.
Gasp!
In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Massachusetts v. EPA. The lawsuit’s intent was to force the EPA to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) as pollutants because of their supposed contribution to global warming. The basis of the suit was EPA’s contention in 2003 that it lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2).