News

Veronique de Rugy shows that stimulus money was allocated for political gain

1 Comment
Veronique de Rugy

Story here on National Review. (H/T The Other McCain via ECM)

Excerpt:

As it turns out, when controlling for state capitals and a host of other potentially relevant variables, we find that the original findings still hold. We learn a few other things, too:

  • First, how and where the money is spent doesn’t seem to be related to unemployment or decline in employment in the district where it is spent.
  • Second, the district’s party affiliation matters in where the money is spent. (We still don’t know how much it matters compared to other factors.) The average Democratic district receives 81 percent more than the average Republican district. Even after taking out the money spent through state capitals, the average Democratic district receives at least 30 percent more than the average Republican district.
  • Third, whether a district has part of a state capital in it is an important factor in how stimulus money is spent. However, controlling for this factor, or even taking the money going to state capitals out altogether, doesn’t negate the finding that the district’s party affiliation matters in where the money is spent.
  • Finally, how long the district’s representative has been in office seems to have a small but significant impact on how the money is spent (this is a new finding, as well).

There is still much more to learn on the question “How are stimulus funds being spent and why?”

The more I dig into this, the more important the question seems.

George Mason University is a pretty moderate school, but they boast a fine conservative economics department. Jennifer Roback Morse used to teach there, and Walter Williams still does. It’s probably the best place for a conservative or libertarian student to do an economics degree.

Now seems like a good time to re-post Michele Bachmann’s denunciation of gangster government, too.

Michelle Malkin calls them Corruptocrats. It fits.

Related posts

Mentoring

Paul Copan discusses tactics for preaching the gospel

3 Comments

This article talks about 10 factors related to talking about sin (bad news) during evangelism. (H/T Apologetics 315)

Here’s one factor from his list that I’m a little uncomfortable with:

2.  I have met plenty of “the encountered” who report that those who “witness” by telling the bad news first commonly come across as judgmental, legalistic, arrogant, scolding, and morally superior.  Yes, rebels against God love darkness rather than light.  Does this mean we never mention the need to turn away from the lifestyle of the spiritually dead?  Not at all.  (See the comments on idolatry below.)  Our consciously taking on Paul’s chief-of-sinners title would go a long way in building bridges.  In the words of the evangelist D. T. Niles, we are like one beggar telling another where to find bread.  We should remember that friendship commonly helps lower defenses and helps create a context for people to connect with the gospel.

I believe in objective morality, so I like it if someone who is morally superior to me judges me and scolds me. I’m ok with that. What’s the big deal? It’s only annoying to be judged if you’re a relativist. I think it’s fun to be judged. FUN!

And here’s one that I agree with:

5.  How many of us came to trust in Christ because a stranger told us that we were sinners?  While this certainly occurs, we more likely turned to Christ through believing friends or relatives who modeled an attractive, redeemed life. Statistics reveal that up to 90% of those who have come to Christ and faithfully continue in their discipleship were introduced to the Christian faith through believing friends and relatives.  This personal connection to the gospel came through love, acceptance, and a patient modeling of the Christian faith.  (See, for example, the Arns’ The Master’s Plan for Making Disciples.)

A more recent piece of research comes from Bridge Builders’ David Bennett.  He describes how adults become Christians — which, we should remember, is typically more of a process than it is for kids at a Christian summer camp!  His survey shows that times of crisis/felt needs (death, illness) present an open door for Christian friendship; in his research, this has been the most effective means of seeing people respond to Christ.  Ninety-two percent (92%) of those surveyed first had a Christian friend before they responded to the gospel. The research showed that those who found Christ did so through a gradual process.

This article is kinda nice, gentle and Christian-y. Blech! But I thought some of you (you know who are – MARA!) would like it. Paul Copan is a great philosopher. He knows when to be mean (his response to John Dominic Crossan at the Greer-Heard Forum was fantastic!), and he knows when to be nice.

Related posts

Commentary

Walter Williams advocates a return to federalism

Leave a comment
Walter Williams

A popular editorial from Investors Business Daily.

Here is the question he wants to answer:

If one group of people prefers government control and management of people’s lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?

The problem is that the federal government is not supposed to tell the states what to do. Every state is supposed to decide how much to tax and what government programs to spend on for themselves.

He continues:

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget.

[…]James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.

Williams ends by hoping for a restoration of respect for the Constitution. That would mean that the Democrats, (the party that advocates top-down control of other people’s lives), would have to be voted out of power.

Walter Williams is my second favorite living economist. Thomas Sowell is still number one, and he has the most popular post on National Review right now.