Posts Tagged ‘government spending’

h1

Unloved Stimulus

July 16, 2009

IBD: 15 July 2009

Spending: The stimulus isn’t working, and Americans don’t want another. At least, that’s what our latest IBD/TIPP Poll shows. So why is Congress mulling a second stimulus when the first has so obviously failed?

In our national poll taken last week, 53% said the $787 billion stimulus plan passed in February was “not effective” in “getting the economy going in the right direction.”

……

So while we have very little economic activity to show for all the stimulus and bailout money spent, we’ll have a massive debt hanging over our collective heads for decades to come.

……

With joblessness now at 9.5%, White House economic adviser Christina Romer on Tuesday admitted there was no way to tell how many jobs were created or saved. Stimulus, it seems, is faith-based economics.

……

Hasn’t anyone noticed that despite a 20% jump in spending over the last year, tax revenues have plunged 18% — largely because many of the “millionaires” Congress is going after are going broke?

So are the rest of us. Web site E-forecasting.com estimates the U.S. has lost over $108 billion in real GDP since the stimulus began.

h1

Demands Are Only Growing Bigger

July 6, 2009

Demands Are Only Growing Bigger For A Shrinking Base Of Taxpayers

By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A. ROBBINS | IBD 2 July 2009

The old-fashioned term “taxpayers’ money” has recently resurfaced in Washington — but only to describe some of the TARP funds used in the government takeover of auto companies and financial institutions.

“Taxpayers’ money” is almost never used in Washington to describe any of the other dollars in the $3.5 trillion federal budget. These dollars, divided into familiar categories of entitlement and discretionary spending, are thought of by most Washingtonians as the “government’s money.”

Washington is awash in moneydollars taken by the IRS from the people who earned them and dollars borrowed all around the world.

In Washington, success is measured by how many new federal spending programs get enacted. Washington’s champion spenders — from the president on down — appear to suffer from a delusional psychosis about money. They believe that federal spending is a healing balm. It has magical powers. If applied often enough in large enough quantities, it will cure everything.

Applied in the right places, federal money also enhances their political powers and control. That is the main reason for thousands of spending programs added to the federal budget since 1965. President Obama is now expanding federal spending by a whopping 30%.

Privileged Washingtonians forget that real people have had to work, save and invest, often at great sacrifice, to produce the money that government spends so extravagantly. In pursuit of their careers, federal spenders pretend not to know that the taxpayers of America would have been greatly benefited had they not been forced to send their money to Washington.

Hardworking families could have paid a lot of bills and sent a lot of kids to college with the $300,000 of “taxpayer money” the government spends every week or so to fly Speaker Nancy Pelosi home to San Francisco for a round of political fundraisers and parties.

American taxpayers could do a lot of good for themselves and others with the $400 billion in taxpayer money that Washington spends each year on the 55% of government programs that admittedly fail to accomplish their purposes.

When retained and put to work by the skilled, industrious people who produce it, taxpayers’ money tends to multiply — usually by a factor of 3 to 1, according to a study by distinguished economist Christina Romer (now President Obama’s chief economic adviser).

When government commandeers the taxpayers’ money and spends it, the money tends to shrink. Nearly all modern economic analyses confirm that the “multiplier effect” of government spending is less than 1. Predictably, the highly touted “stimulus” package has not had its hoped-for effect.

Years ago, Milton Friedman told his students that a dollar of government spending produces less than a dollar of economic growth. He was right. The government doesn’t create wealth. It just takes money from people who produce it and moves it around.

More than 85% of the personal income tax is paid by a small, overtaxed band of Americans who in number are less than 25% of eligible voters. The total number of income-tax payers is less than 55% of eligible voters. These people also bear the economic burden of nearly all the income tax collected from corporations.

Taxpayers pay government’s bills — but they have little control over how much of their money government spends or for what.

Obama plans to spend another $1.5 trillion of their tax money in nationalizing health care, even though the taxpayers who will pay 80% to 90% of that are overwhelmingly opposed to socialized medicine. If the president succeeds in forcing it upon them, they will get less health care (at a higher price) and suffer a backbreaking tax increase to boot.

The plight of taxpayers and their money is likely to get even worse after the next election.

Extrapolating from data compiled by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, and taking into account the president’s plan for “credits” that will remove more of his supporters from the income-tax rolls, we estimate that a majority of people who vote in the next election will be nontaxpayers, fully able to tax an oppressed minority with impunity, without themselves paying any income tax at all.

To them, government spending will seem free — and their demand for more of it will be infinite.

Christian is executive director and Robbins the chief economist at the Center For Strategic Tax Reform in Washington, D.C.

h1

Cartoon: Pass the Bill

April 7, 2009

h1

Cartoon: Government Spending?!?

March 30, 2009

h1

Commission Urges Taxing Drivers More

March 16, 2009

Commission Urges Taxing Drivers More

By Christopher Conkey

WASHINGTON — The government should make it a lot more expensive for Americans to drive and should install devices in cars that levy a fee for every mile traveled, according to a report being released Thursday by a congressionally chartered commission.

The report lands in the middle of debate over how to pay for roads and other transportation projects and recommends an array of potentially controversial increases in the cost of driving.

Among the proposals: raising the 18.4 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax by 10 cents, or 54%, and then indexing future increases to inflation. The study estimates that would cost American households about $9 more a month. The plan also calls for adding 15 cents a gallon to the 24.4 cents-a-gallon tax on diesel fuel.

[re-paving the way]

Longer term, the study calls for shifting away by 2020 from a fuel-tax system to a technology-enabled system that levies taxes based on how many miles people drive.

The Obama administration has expressed opposition to increasing gasoline taxes and to the idea of taxing motorists per mile driven.

The recently passed stimulus bill devotes more than $45 billion to transportation projects, but officials say significant cuts in other transportation funding are in store. Last year, Congress temporarily patched an $8 billion shortfall caused by a slump in fuel-tax revenue after Americans cut back on driving as the economy slowed and fuel prices surged.

The Obama administration has said the current gas-tax structure is becoming obsolete but it hasn’t put forward any fix, saying it will consult with Congress this year before taking action.

“The situation we’re faced with on surface transportation…is complex, difficult and important. … We’re looking at every option,” said Bill Adams a spokesman for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We’re not going to be ready overnight.”

The bipartisan National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission began studying the transportation-funding problem two years ago at the behest of Congressional leaders. Congress often uses such commissions to generate ideas for solving politically touchy problems.

The commission’s report says if current policies aren’t changed, the gas tax and other federal revenue streams will generate about $32 billion annually in the years ahead, far below the $100 billion required to address the nation’s transportation needs.

In addition, the commission says the government should make it easier for states to put tolls on all sorts of roads, including those that are currently free. It also says private interests should be encouraged to invest more in transportation projects.

Private investors are pushing Congress to give businesses a greater role in funding transportation projects, as Australia, Canada and many other countries have. In his confirmation hearing last month, Mr. LaHood signaled interest in allowing private firms to construct or manage more of the nation’s highways and other infrastructure. His spokesman declined to comment directly on the issue Wednesday.

“There’s an awful lot of private-sector money that’s waiting to go into infrastructure,” said Christopher Lee, founder and managing partner of Highstar Capital, a New York-based private-equity firm. Highstar says it has invested $6 billion in ports and other infrastructure over the last two years, including its acquisition of U.S. properties previously owned by Dubai Ports World. “The U.S. could do a better job of accessing that capital.”

h1

Stealth Care

March 5, 2009

Stealth Care

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Spending: The stimulus provides for the creation of a federal health care bureaucracy not unlike Hillarycare. Decisions that should be made by doctors and patients will belong to bureaucrats deciding cost-effectiveness.


IBD Exclusive Series: Inside The Stimulus


The stimulus bill commits $19 billion to accelerate adoption of Health Information Technology (HIT) systems by doctors and hospitals. It involves the creation of electronic medical records to be stored in a central database. This is said to be for reducing treatment errors and increasing efficiency in the delivery of medical care.

It also authorizes the creation of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology — and the appointment of a 15-member board of officials from federal agencies and others — charged with developing this nationwide health information database

It further creates an entity called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which will decide which treatments you should get, whether you should get them, and whether they should even be available. It is modeled after a British board which helps run the notoriously inefficient and bureaucratic National Health Service.

These agencies will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is caring for you in a way the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective. Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard that would lead to health care rationing. It would determine what medical care should be provided and who should get it.

The U.K. board approves or rejects treatments after dividing the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is expected to benefit. Such a formula is found on page 464 of the stimulus bill.

Under these formulas, younger patients likely get treatment for whatever ails them before granny can get her hip replacement. In 2005, the Orwellian-named British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence proposed that the National Health Service use age as a measurement of a patient’s worthiness for treatment.

In 2006, for example, a U.K board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other. After all, how many years would they be needing two good eyes?

The system that will store everyone’s medical records electronically, which was supposed to make health care delivery more efficient, will make it more subservient to government whim by providing a system to monitor doctors’ treatment.

Medical treatments should be determined by doctors and patients and not by a bureaucracy that will ration your health care, deciding whether you really need it and are really worth it.

h1

Out of Money?

February 23, 2009

What do you mean where out of money?