Tag Archives: Economics

Commentary

What would happen if Paul Ryan headed the Budget committee?

Leave a comment

r

Rep. Paul Ryan
Rep. Paul Ryan

Politico has a profile of Paul Ryan and discusses his policy ideas.

Excerpt:

Ryan will easily win a seventh term in this swing district. But as this budget wonk is poised to take command of the Budget Committee chairmanship in a Republican House, he’s going to have to navigate factions of no-compromise conservatives and angry post-election liberals if he expects to find a Goldilocks-type solution on the federal budget.

Ryan stands to be the most important player in what may be the most consequential budget debate since the government shutdown of 1995. He is perhaps the only Republican in Congress who seems able to negotiate with both John Boehner and Barack Obama, but he still has to prove that his legendary budget expertise can be translated into real action if he’s granted the power of the Budget Committee gavel.

[…]His critics concede that Ryan is the federal official who has offered the most detailed plan — titled the “Roadmap” — that is currently on the table. Democratic budget experts have begun to measure his approach and his skills, but they voice uncertainty over whether they can do business with him.

“Because of Ryan’s open and engaging personality and intelligence, people like to deal with him. But it’s unclear whether he can reach agreement on big contentious budget issues with people on the other side of the aisle who have strong philosophical differences with him,” said Bob Greenstein, executive director of the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Will he be willing, despite the radical nature of his proposals, to work out significant compromises in the next two years? We shall see.”

[…]“Paul is more of a detail guy,” said Mike Sommers, policy director for Minority Leader John Boehner. “The road map takes on big issues in a serious way. It is a logical progression of his work. He is dealing in depth with the leading issue of the day.”

Former Sen. Bob Kasten (R-Wis.), who hired Ryan immediately after his 1992 graduation from Miami (Ohio) University, remains a huge fan. “His road map is the real thing on where we need to go. Even Democrats who criticize him respect Paul Ryan for having the courage to show what needs to be done.” Although many of its details may not survive, Kasten said, “the road map will become overarching in the emphasis on reducing spending in the next two years.”

Asked about Ryan’s deal-making skills, he added, “Obama will have to make a decision. If he continues with his Keynesian policies, it will be a nightmare. … Paul doesn’t want to blow up the government. He wants to see it work in a fiscally responsible way.”

As an undergraduate, Ryan majored in economics and he hoped to pursue further studies in economic modeling, notably on currency forecasting. But his job with Kasten led to staff positions with the late Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) at Empower America and then with Sam Brownback of Kansas in both the House and the Senate. He returned to Wisconsin in 1998 to run for an open House seat and was elected at age 28 with an impressive 57 percent win.

If the Republicans take the House, he should be given the Budget Committee gavel.

Commentary

Harvard economist says stimulus was designed to reward Democrat constituencies

6 Comments

EVERYONE  PLEASE GO VOTE TODAY! (NOVEMBER 2nd, 2010)

Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute comments on a new published paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, which explains why the stimulus failed to stimulate the economy and to create more jobs.

The paper is here. (PDF)

Excerpt:

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron explains why the $800 billion stimulus package failed in a recent article.

What’s interesting about Dr. Miron’s critique is that he shows how the stimulus was a failure even if you take for granted liberal assumptions about economic policy (such as Keynesian economic theory), since it was so badly designed and executed that it failed to achieve its goals, spending wastefully while failing to revive the economy.  Indeed, the stimulus was so poorly tailored to the economy (and the goal of reducing unemployment) that Miron concludes that it was designed to reward politically connected “constituencies” and special-interest groups, like public-employee unions, rather than being focused on ”economic stimulus.”

Other Harvard economics professors like Robert Barro have also criticized the stimulus package. Barro called it “the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s.”  Former Obama economic advisor Martin Feldstein, a Harvard professor who is a big believer in stimulus packages in principle, said that the stimulus designed by Obama and congressional Democrats was “poorly done”

Much stimulus money has been wasted.  It has gone to prisoners and dead people, wasteful welfare spending, abandoned bridges to nowhere, and unnecessary government buildings.  The stimulus subsidized foreign green jobs and wiped out jobs in America’s export sector.

The “’stimulus’ is not the road to economic recovery. It’s the problem, not the solution, writes Nobel Prize winning economist Vernon L. Smith.” Other Nobel Laureates like Gary Becker have also criticized the stimulus package.  200 economists signed a statement publicly opposing the stimulus package in an ad published in the Washington Post and New York Times.

So the stimulus bill was a failure because it was not designed to grow the economy or create jobs.

What was the real purpose of the stimulus bill?

George Mason University professor Veronique de Rugy looked at recovery.org and found that Democrat districts got more stimulus money than Republican districts.

Here’s the first chart:

Stimulus spending by voting district affiliation
Stimulus spending by voting district affiliation

She writes:

…based on my new analysis of the Recovery.org data, Democratic districts are getting 1.8 times more money on average than Republican districts. Using Recovery.gov data, and cleaning it up seriously to be able to use it, we find that Republican districts are getting on average $260.6 million in stimulus awards while democratic districts are getting on average $471.5 million. The average is award per district is $385.9 million.

Interestingly, my data also confirms that the stimulus funds are not allocated based on unemployment rates or even variations in unemployment rates. So basically,  if the administration believes that government spending can create jobs, the allocation of the funds doesn’t show it.

And here’s the second chart showing which government departments got stimulus money.

Stimulus spending by government department
Stimulus spending by government agency

She writes:

Based on the Recovery.gov data, more than two third of the 594,754.3 jobs “created or saved” with the stimulus funds were “created or saved” in the Department of Education (see chart).  Basically, what the administration meant by shovel ready projects was funding for your next door teacher.

[…]A third of all union jobs are in Education

33 percent of the education industry is unionized

The union boss, Andy Stern, was appointed to be on the president’s debt commission.

The stimulus bill was never about stimulating the economy. It was about rewarding Democrat special interest groups. Remember, people who disagree with Obama are his “enemies”. And that means he isn’t there to govern for all the people equally. He’s there to reward his people. With Your Money.

News

Does Mark Driscoll know anything about economics, politics and foreign policy?

45 Comments

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from Peter Lumpkins. Thanks for the link, Peter.

I find this article on religion and politics by shallow, trendy metrosexual pop star pastor Mark Driscoll to be extremely disturbing.

Excerpt:

People are longing for Jesus, and tragically left voting for mere presidential candidates. For those whose candidate wins today there will be some months of groundless euphoric faith in that candidate and the atoning salvation that their kingdom will bring. But, in time, their supporters will see that no matter who wins the presidency, they are mere mortals prone to sin, folly, and self-interest just like all the other sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. To help extend naïve false hope as long as possible, a great enemy will be named and demonized as the one who is hindering all of the progress to atone for our sins and usher in our kingdom. If the Democrats win it will be the rich, and if the Republicans win it will be the terrorists. This diversionary trick is as old as Eve who blamed her sin on Satan rather than repenting. The lie is that it’s always someone else’s fault and we’re always the victim of sinners and never the sinner. Speaking of repentance, sadly, no matter who wins there will be no call to personal repentance of our own personal sins which contributes to cultural suffering and decline such as our pride, gluttony, covetousness, greed, indebtedness, self-righteousness, perversion, and laziness.

And, in four years we’ll do it all again and pretend that this time things will be different. Four years after that, we’ll do it yet again. And, we’ll continue driving around this cul de sac until Jesus returns, sets up his throne, and puts an end to folly once and for all.

From this regrettable post, I understand that Mark Driscoll thinks that Christians should not try to assess which party best promotes policies that will promote liberty and goodness in the world. And that they should not take seriously their duty to vote, and to convince others to inform themselves and vote. Instead, I understand that he thinks that it doesn’t really matter who wins. Democrats, Republicans – who cares?

What does it mean when someone says that it doesn’t matter who wins elections?

  • It means that the pro-life and pro-abortion positions are equivalent
  • It means that traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are equivalent
  • It means that intact families and single-mother families are equivalent
  • It means that Iran and Israel are equally threatening to world peace
  • It means that North Korea and the United States are equally free
  • It means that Zimbabwe and Canada are equally prosperous
  • It means that sex education and abstinence education are equivalent
  • It means that public schools and homeschooling are equivalent
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether Darwinism is taught as dogma or taught critically in schools
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether there is another terrorist attack and millions of Americans are killed
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether people have jobs or enough money left over after taxes
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether tax dollars go to fund abortion, ESCR, IVF or sex changes
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether religious liberty is limited by repressive fascist policies
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether Iran nukes Israel back to the stone age
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether poor children have the choice to go to a better school
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether people die while waiting in line for health care
  • and so on…

Back in the days of slavery, it wouldn’t have mattered to such a person whether the slavers or the abolitionists won the election.

Avoid Mark Driscoll at all costs on these political and economic issues – stick with Wayne Grudem on politics/economics. Grudem actually knows about how reality functions. He studies the Bible and then he studies how the world actually works. Unlike Driscoll. Driscoll needs to spend less time on his hair and clothes, and more time reading actual books on economics, social policy and military affairs.

Here is my previous article about how Mark Driscoll minimizes women’s responsibility for their own poor choices.