Showing posts with label economic stimulus package. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic stimulus package. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Obama stimulus pachage utter failure????

There was fair reporting in the Detroit Freepress this past weekend ("Billions For State, But here are Jobs?") as the newspaper did a thorough review of reports from those receiving money from the "massive" $787 billion economic stimulus package. The article basically stopped short of noting it has been an utter failure to this point as far as the residents of Michigan are concerned.

Which, mind you, is what many economists had predicted would happen despite Obama claiming it would prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8%, although we all know that did not happen, as it is currently greater than 10% nationally, and state high 15.3% in Michigan.

According to the review:
  • The vast majority of grants, contracts and loans in Michigan so far have created or retained virtually no jobs.
  • Others who have been promised or have received stimulus money have overstated the number of jobs created or protected.
  • The biggest impact of the stimulus was spurring or protecting public-sector (government) or summer jobs, and has done nothing to create jobs in the private sector. Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 14%.
  • Officials reported that by Sept. 30, some 22,500 Michigan jobs were created or retained thanks to the promise of $5.2 billion of which had arrived.
  • Of that money, less than 700 awards had received some money, and nearly half of those -- 327 -- had created one job or less, at a cost per job of $2.7 million

I suppose to suppose it's too early to decide for sure whether it has been an utter failure. We have to consider that after the Reagan tax cuts it took a while for the economy to turn around. But those tax cuts actually were meant to create an incentive to save and invest, which (according to economics 101 and history) is the best way to recover jobs and grow the economy.

When the government spends money, there is a lot of waste, which this report show. Likewise, most of the jobs created are only temporary, so the economy will only improve "temporarily" and when those jobs expire (which many already have) the economy will tank again.

Obama's economic stimulus package has produced essentially no jobs, and therefore this pretty much proves one of two things:

  • a) that Obama and liberals know nothing about how to boost an economy
  • b) that there purpose in the first place was to tank the economy
  • c) that the whole purpose of this bill was not to save the economy but to spread socialism and gain more control over our lives. (which I believe is the same purpose of Cap and Trade and Obamacare.

For more information please check out Freep.com which did a very thorough review how Michigan benefited, or has yet to benefit, from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Kudos to Todd Spangler for his great reporting.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Here's where our stimulus money is going

I'll let other bloggers debate whether the Obama stimulus package is working yet, as it's really (in my opinion) too early to determine this.

While Obama's stimulus packages is supposed to stimulate the economy, he is adamant that nothing in the bills were wasted spending. I'll let you decide:
  1. $1 million to study red snappers. Yep, there's no income tax in Florida, so they rely on us to flip the bill for this.
  2. Free cars to people on welfare in one state
  3. $500,000 payment to make lights in one town more historically accurate
  4. $578,000 to combat homeless problem in one city that does not have a homeless problem. The good folks in that town were actually shocked to get the money.
  5. $590,000 to turn a barn into a storage facility
  6. $120 million to create a waste water plant in Maryland
  7. $479,000 for beaver management and control in Mississippi
  8. $2.8 million in Rochester, NY, to extend art walk at museum
  9. $162,000 to control rodent population in Hawaii
  10. $500,000 in Nebraska to create a walking trail shortcut
  11. $1.7 million to research honey bees in Texas lab.
  12. $1.3 million in New Jersey to repair a bridge that's going to be torn down anyway
  13. $190,000 to digitize and edit research project
  14. Study wheat disease that poses no threat to humans
  15. $380,000 in Main to pay for lighthouse preservation for (get this) just three of the 60 lighthouses in that state.
  16. $27 million to make Colombian river deeper.
  17. $637 million on solar farm to create energy for only a hundred homes in a state that has 6 million people.
  18. $119,000 on blackbird management in Kansas
  19. $100,000 to do something for lobster in Gulf of Mexico
  20. $2.1 million to get homeless off streets. Now, how does that help the economy.
  21. Study potato disease
  22. $15 million to maintain a border crossing that has only 2 cars crossing it a day.
  23. $37 million on a house project that will cost $180,000 per job. The people employed to do this will only have jobs for this summer.
  24. 6.5 million in Louisiana for Termites
  25. $187,000 to turn old railroad depot into nice facility. The depot is not used.
  26. $292,000 in NY state to study grape genetics.
  27. $100,000 i Pennsylvania to determine density of population. Why not wait 'till 2010 census?
  28. $1 million to build solar panels in one state
  29. $100 million to pay salaries of volunteers in one state.
  30. $7.5 million in Delaware to refurbish boardwalk. The irony is project will not begin until fall/winter season just before snow will fall.
  31. $935,000 for pasteurization of shell eggs
  32. $170,000 on gang prevention efforts in one city
  33. $253,000 in Oregon to study Shell fish
  34. $125 million to clean bridges in New York state (to stimulate the economy?)
  35. $400,000 to close secondary road that leads to park. Ironically, in 2007 money was allocated to close this road too. Waste? Or good use of your money?
  36. $300,000 for traffic control project in town of 4,000 people
  37. Study alternate use of tobacco
  38. To build a skate park
  39. $950,000 to improve aquatic habitat in Jackson, Wyoming
  40. $200 million to repair alternate runway in three flight a day (20 passengers) airport (this was John Murtha's project.)
  41. $451,000 to study cranberry/ cranberry breeding habits (Huh?)
  42. $30 million to cover bill in Texas port of entry.
  43. $8 million to repave roads in Illinois. The project will only create 20 jobs for summer at $60,000 per week per worker.
  44. $3.85 million in Nebraska to convert old bridge to bike and pedestrian path. Experts claim the bridge may not even hold.
  45. $9.8 million for visitor center
  46. $94,000 in Louisiana to study blackbirds.
  47. Build a firehouse in in Connecticut. Ironically, this is the same firehouse that is is going to the supreme court because of a Sodomyer ruling.
  48. Money to city officials to pay for railroad projects to block access to a lake.
  49. $118,000 to clean up radioactive waste @ nuclear waste plant that's $184 million over budget already. Plus there are safety concerns.
  50. $4.1 million to fund signals and turning lanes in one city
  51. $254,000 in Montana for sleep institute.
  52. $30 million so one school district can feed 20 teachers.
  53. $700,000 to fund treatment for meth addicts in one city.
  54. $4.4 million to create historical waterfront that is buried in snow more than 1/2 year.
  55. $2.5 million at University of Maryland for security cameras that many say is a violation of civil liberties act.
  56. $469,000 to study fruit fly facility
  57. $381 million in NY city Lincoln Center for Jazz program. I'm sure there's a shortage of performance art in NY.
  58. $500,000 to subsidize cost of fish food in Missouri fish farm
  59. $250,000 for wool research
  60. To build a bridge in Missouri that will create 100 jobs and few people know why bridge is needed.
  61. Tear down remains that burned in a fire in 1971 in one city. If this needed to be done, don't you think it would have been done before now.
  62. $1 million to build a fence on bridge to prevent people from suing city.
  63. More $$ to pay for historical lights on a main street that aren't needed.
  64. $800,000 for catfish genome research in Alabama
  65. $3 million to improve state run liqueur warehouse.
  66. $25 million to fund wind technology testing center.
  67. $250,000 to a woman who has been dead for 40 years.
  68. $37.5 million to repave road in Alabama by a company in Kentucky.
  69. $2.5 million to build airport ramp in New Hampshire.
  70. $9.5 million to reserve habitat of warble in Michigan
  71. $11.4 million in Washington D.C. for National Zoo.
  72. $1.1 billion to fund skateboard, basketball and tennis court. This will create no jobs once it is built.
  73. Thousands to build walking trail in a park in Shoreline, Michigan that is out of the way and seldom used.
  74. $200,000 for weed removal
  75. $870,000 to move wolves to private location.
  76. $800,000 at University of Alabama for oyster rehabilitation project.
  77. $60 million to build bridge many don't want and is not needed.
  78. $1.9 million for Connecticut to fix a town that burned down years ago and no one lives there.
  79. $100,000 to conduct endangered species bat research
  80. $20 million to build a bridge in Florida that may not be needed, and there is already a bridge right next to it. The bridge is to an island.
  81. $230,000 to replace public restrooms in town of 130 residents.
  82. $3.6 million in Kentucky to build pedestrian trail along Ohio River.
  83. $120,000 for Nat. History museum in Vegas.
  84. $4 million in Motown for conservation project to save old Tiger Stadium that has already been torn most of the way down.
  85. $11 million to pay for beach re nourishment in Miami.
  86. $340,000 in Hawaii to replace air conditioning systems and restrooms.
  87. $4.3 million to upgrade NY traffic system lights to LED lights.
  88. $103,000 to Nat. Guards Facility lights.
  89. $1.4 million to rebuild 50 year old well in town of 272 homes.
  90. $13.5 million to enhance program for repeat drug offenders so they don't have to go to prison. They couldn't be rehabilitated the first time, so the stimulus package should be able to provide enough money to do that now.
  91. $128 million in Palm City to build a new bridge that they wanted to build decades ago but could not fund locally. So now we all have to pay for it. Oh, and by the way: it's not needed. They already have a bridge. It's being build because people have to wait three minutes at light at current bridge. Oh, and the project won't begin for 2 years.
  92. Convert signs back into miles in one city. The signs were converted to kilometers because it was expecting a conversion to metric system.
  93. $1 million to pay for removal of crickets.
  94. Improve landscaping in front of Hotel.
  95. $11 million to build garages for bikes. It seems if it were raining no one would ride bikes anyway.
  96. 11 million in Connecticut for building adjacent to Microsoft. I wonder if Bill Gates had a hand in this bill?
  97. Illinois road signs
  98. Swine odor research.

So, are these projects needed so bad that we all should flip the bill, or should they be paid for by local residents or private companies. Likewise, one might wonder how the government decides who should get which dollar? One also might wonder if it is even Constitutional to pick and choose who gets what dollar?

All this, and only 10-15% of the money has been spent.

Well, you can decide for yourself if Obama's stimulus plan was about stimulating the economy, or a guise to increase the size of government.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

A question to ponder

It is my humble opinion that when the economy was sailing right along in the 1990s and until about 2007 or so states were spending money irresponsibly instead of saving some of it and preparing for an inevitable downturn.

The Michigan leaders in Lansing were talking even up to a few weeks ago about making cuts and creating more disclipline in Michigan. That was the talk until Obama's Stimulus plan passed the House.

Now Lansing, as per Granholm's State of the State, is changing its tune and trying to find out how they can spend this "new" money INSTEAD of making cuts -- which I think will create even more problems down the road.

So, my question I'd like to post today is: "Does Obama's Stimulus package encourage states to continue spending irresponsibly."

Discuss!!!

Friday, January 30, 2009

Hundreds of economic experts sign Cato Institute ad opposing Obama's economic stimulus package

I've humbly and honestly stated many times on this blog that I'm not an economic expert, nor a political expert. However, I am a thinker. And I am a person who loves to come to conclusions based on facts.

And, based on the Cato Institutes latest advertisement, I am not supporting an economic view that is not supported by the worlds greatest economists. As you can see for yourself by clicking on this link, there are hundreds of economists who support my beliefs on how the recession should be handled (rather, I share their beliefs).

The ad states simply:
"Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all upport a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
As usual I will continue to keep an open mind, but one can't help but feel some comfort knowing there are economic experts who disagree that a trillion dollars worth of spending will stimulate the economy.

There are many economists who have studied their history books and have noted that never has government spending lifted a faltering economy.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Spending has NEVER ended a recession

I am so thrilled that the republicans stood together as a team in opposition of Obama's supposed stimulus package. I am ardently opposed to this bill because it is not a stimulus package, all it is is a huge spending bill.

You take all the spending measures democrats wanted to get through Congress in the past eight years, and it is in this bill. It's a major spending bill under the guise of a stimulus package.

Political Wisdom #1: We must remember that NEVER in the history of civilized governments has a government EVER been able to spend its way out of a recession, or get out of a recession by increasing taxes. It has never happened.
So why is Obama and dems (minus 11 in the House) working to pass this bill? If it somehow stimulate the economy it will be the first time it has ever happened. Why do they wish to try it again?

It's pretty bad when a leader of the free world is taking advice from Communist governments like China and Cuba. Those are not the kind of governments we want to emulate in America (although it appears most dems do).

We have many examples of how tax cuts work in this country. But we can also look at Japan in the 1990s. In the 1990s Japan was going through a recession. So its leaders chose to increase spending. The recession did not go away until tax cuts were tried many years after the recession started.

Spending has failed and failed and failed, less government has succeeded every time it has been tried. Hmmmmm, does this take a genius to figure out.

I suppose I'm getting redundant here, but if something has failed every time it has been tried, why try it again. Only a government would do something so stupid and get away with it.

This is a perfect example of how there are repercussions of who you vote for. Although, it appears many Americans are blind to what is going on here.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Thankfully repubs vote no on anticapitalism

This is exactly the headline I wanted to see really bad: "House OKs $819B stimulus bill with GOP opposition."

There is simply way too much pork in this bill that has nothing to do with recovering the economy. And there is way too much spending that won't even take effect until 2010, at which time the economy may well be recovered by then.

So then you'd have all this government spending occurring to save the economy when it's no longer needed. However, that -- I think -- is the whole point of this bill in the first place: the recession is merely an excuse for democrats to create more government programs to trap more people in poverty, because people in poverty (needy people) tend to vote democrat.

When republicans are in office, they do the opposite in an attempt to create wealthy, prosperous people who will, in turn, vote republican.

Which tells you a lot about both parties. Republicans want you to succeed, and democrats want you to fail.

And that is exactly why I think it's important for republicans to oppose this bill. When it fails, which bills like this historically do (I can think no example of which government spending has ever ended a recession), repubs will have the ammo they need to win senate and house seats in 2010.

Realize here that I don't care whether repubs or dems are in power. What I want is people in power who respect the constitution and capitalism.

So much for Obama being a bipartisan president.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Do you want Obama to succeed or fail????

A friend of mine asked me the other day, do you want Barrack Obama's economic stimulus package to succeed. I said: "It depends."

He said, "What do you mean , 'It depends.' Either you want America to succeed or you do not."

So I had to explain myself. It went something like this. Now, if you hear other republicans -- or conservatives -- explaining this, you can expect the media to take certain parts of it out of contexts. So, bear with me here.

I want America to succeed. I want my children to live in a prosperous and opportunistic world where they know if you work hard you can be anything you want to be. If you educate yourself and work hard, you can become as rich as you want.

However, if we punish the rich by taxing them, that pretty much takes away the incentive to be rich. If you make the hard working upper class no more powerful than the middle class person, you will take away any incentive for people to become rich.

Of course, based on his campaign, we really don't know what Obama is going to do. If he endorses an economic package similar to Ronald Reagan where their are tax cuts to stimulate growth. If he endorses a package that puts faith in the people to solve their own problems, then, yes, I do want him to succeed.

However, if he endorses an economic stimulus package that calls for tax cuts, even tax cuts on the rich; if he proposes to take money from the earners and give them to the people who are poor; if his final plan calls for building more unproven government programs like the New Deal;
if he proposes using government to solve people's problems, and thus growing the beast that is government, then I hope he fails.

I am a person, who at the core, believes that the people have the ability to solve the economic problems that ail us, and the government will only make those problems worse. You can look back at Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and the first seven years of W's administration to see what happens when you trust the American people to solve problems.

On the contrary, you can see what happens when you trust government to solve problems by looking at FDR and the New Deal. If you look back in history, you will see that the economy, that the depression, was far worse in 1936 after six years of the New Deal's big government programs, than it was in 1929. Unemployment was way higher in 1936 than it was in 1929.

I do not want that to happen again. I believe, as Reagan did, that if you have a crisis, and you want to stimulate an economy, you have two choices. One, you can trust the government to spend this money as FDR did with his failed New Deal. Or, two, you can trust the American people.

History has shown that the people are fully capable at solving the problems that ail us and the government has failed every time it has happened. And, therefore, I do not -- at the core of my heart -- believe that the government should be used to end this recession.

Likewise, I believe that adding programs such as Universal Health care and redistributing of wealth as Obama proposes, will create a more socialistic -- stagnant -- economy like that of Europe. Where there really is no incentive to save and invest in capitol. There is no incentive to start new businesses.

Speaking of this, why is it that people start new business? Why is it that people and businesses put so much time and effort into inventing and discovering new products? It is because they want to get rich. And, with government barriers in the way, such opportunities will be stymied.

And that is why I do not want Obama to succeed if his plan to save the economy is by using government. Sure I might be better off in the short term with his middle class tax cut. But, in the long run, I believe it is not about me. I believe that country should come before me. As McCain said, "Country first."

Democrats, liberals, want to create an America where the economy may be slower, where the poor may be trapped in poverty because of welfare. They want this because the more victims, the greater the power of democrats. Democrats want to give things to people to buy their votes. Democrats "feel your pain." Democrats tell you that you don't need to worry about paying your bills" when they are in power.

Essentially, they are telling you exactly what you want to hear. I hear a lot of people saying things like this since Obama was elected: "Now that Obama is president I don't have to worry about paying my bills. I don't have to worry about paying my mortgage."

Um, is that the message we want to send to our kids, that if you vote for a liberal president you don't have to go out and work hard and create a living for yourself. That you don't have to be competitive if you want to get rich because you can't get rich anyway. That you might as well sit at home on your couch and let the rich make the money, pay the taxes, and give that money to the government so the government can give it to you.

Personally, I believe that if we are going to give money to anyone it should be back to the people. I think that the people know far better, and are far more capable, of knowing how and where to spend that money than any government program.

And that is the core difference between liberalism's economic views and conservatism. And I pray, from the bottom of my heart, that republicans to not fall to democrats and vote for Obama's economic stimulus package that doesn't have the needed tax cuts that will in turn empower the people.

I, at the core of my heart, do not believe that government is the answer to solving our problems, and, most important, I do not want the kind of America that would result. I do not want my children to be dependent on the government. I do not want them to have the attitude that I don't have to work as hard to make a living. Why? Because that attitude is the attitude of failure.

It has failed every time it has been tried by individual businessmen. It has been failed every time it has been tried in the history of the world. And therefore, again, if Obama's plan is for a larger government, I hope he fails and fails big time.