Tag Archives: Unemployment

Commentary

How Obama’s opposition to free trade raises unemployment

Leave a comment

From Investors Business Daily.

Excerpt:

…the president said all the right things Wednesday about boosting exports, opening markets and getting Congress to approve free-trade deals with Colombia, South Korea and Panama.

[…]But as good as the speech sounded, it was no more than a reiteration of statements Obama has already made, always promising to get on it, soon. If he wants these treaties passed, he should submit the deals already negotiated and let Congress vote, up or down.

[…]Thirty-nine House Democrats and virtually all the Republicans have indicated their support, and a host of others intend to vote “yes,” though they won’t say so.

That’s why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to permit any vote on the Colombian pact, which was submitted to Congress two years ago. She doesn’t fear it’ll fail; she fears it’ll pass.

[…]Overall joblessness of 9.4% is bad enough. But among blacks, male unemployment is averaging 19.5%, and the 13.2% rate for Latinos is double what it had been most of the decade. Then there’s the 52% of young people who can’t find work.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warns that if Congress fails to act on the three pending trade pacts, 585,000 U.S. jobs will be snatched away by rivals such as Canada. That would be a big chunk of the 3.5 million jobs Obama promised to create by year-end.

American businesses do better when they can pay less to buy the things they need to make their products from trading partners who have signed free trade deals signed with us. More efficiency means they can sell the products and services for less. That means that people buy more of those products. And then they hire more people.The number of jobs gained by improving the efficiency of businesses is higher than the union jobs saved by not signing the free trade deals. And who cares about unions anyway – unions make consumers and businesses pay too much! And they’re Democrats! So they’re crap on social issues and foreign policy anyway.

Among economists, being opposed to free trade is the equivalent of being opposed to a round Earth. But Democrats have to believe in protectionist nonsense – they are beholden to the unions that elected them who oppose choice and competition. Unions don’t want consumers to have a choice, and they don’t want to have to compete with anyone. They want to screw consumers into paying higher prices – and Obama has to cater to their delusions.

News

Can government create jobs more efficiently than private businesses?

2 Comments

Consider this story from CNS News.

Excerpt:

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the federal government helped pay the home air conditioning bills for more than 11,000 dead people, 1,100 federal employees, and 725 convicts in fiscal year 2009.

The payments were made by a $5 billion program known as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is designed to provide federal assistance, administered by the states, to help people pay the energy bills to heat their homes in the winter and cool them in the summer. The funds are disbursed by the Department of Health and Human Services and are distributed based on a formula that takes into account a state’s weather and the size of its low-income population.

The GAO examined the LIHEAP programs in seven states: Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey.  The agency found evidence of fraud in each state.

“Our analysis of LIHEAP data revealed that the program is at risk of fraud and providing improper benefits in all seven of our selected states,” reported the GAO.  “About 260,000 applications–9 percent of households receiving benefits in the selected states–contained invalid identity information, such as Social Security numbers, names, or dates of birth.”

Think that’s an isolated event?

Consider this list of government spending projects from Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government. (H/T The Blog Prof)

Excerpt:

  • $5 million to create a geothermal energy system for a shopping mall in Tennessee. The mall is over half empty of tenants and has had falling shopper attendance for years *
  • $1.57 million to Penn State University study fossils in Argentina *
  • $100,000 to a puppet theater in Minnesota *
  • $2 million to build a replica railroad tourist trap in Carson City, Nev. *
  • A boat cruise company in Chicago got almost $1 million to “combat terrorism” *
  • $500,000 went to Ariz. State Univ. to study ant genetics *
  • Another $450,000 went to Uinv. of Arizona to study ants *
  • Almost $400,000 went to Univ. of New York to pay students to drink beer and smoke marijuana for a study there *
  • $219,000 to the Nat’l Institute of Health to study if young people “hook-up” after getting drunk *
  • $210,000 to the Univ. of Hawaii to study bees *
  • $700,000 to crab fishermen in Oregon to pay for lost crab pots *
  • $5,000 a person tax rebate if you buy a new electric golf cart (Wall Street Journal)
  • Up to $1 million went to prisoners in $250 stimulus checks (FoxNews)
  • $54 mil to a New York Indian tribe to run its casino (New York Post)
  • $1 billion for a power plant in Mattoon, Illinois that is based on speculative science and may not even work **
  • $15 million to back-road bridges that get little traffic in Wisconsin **
  • $800,000 for a practically unused airport in Pennsylvania **
  • $3.4 million for an animal walk way under a road in Florida **
  • $1.15 million to install a guard rail for a lake that doesn’t even exist in Oklahoma **
  • $10 million to renovate a rail station that has stood unused for a decade **
  • $578,000 to battle homelessness in Union, New York even though the town says they have no homeless people there **
  • $233,000 to the Univ. of Calif. to study why Africans vote… in Africa ***
  • $2 million to build a new fire house in a Nevada town that has no firemen ***
  • North Carolina schools got $4.4 million for literacy and math coaches… to teach their teachers! ***
  • $54 million for a railroad project in Napa Valley went to a minority-owned company that then hired a local construction company for half the price, pocketing the rest ***
  • A California company was given $15 million in stimulus money to monitor water quality in a stream it was under indictment for polluting previously***

I’m sure that no small business has money to waste on boondoggles like these – but they are being taxed to pay for the government to do it! And that leaves less money for them to create jobs.

Obama’s spending spree is about one thing and one thing alone – buying votes from the constituencies that voted for him so that they’ll vote for him again. That’s why public sector employment, public sector salaries and public sector benefits are all up during this massive recession, while millions of jobs have been lost in the private sector.

Economics in One Lesson

Perhaps it is time to review Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, chapter 4, entitled “Public Works Mean Taxes”.

Excerpt:

Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, television technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

Excerpt that the government, lacking a profit motive, is never as efficient as private business is in spending money – government wastes money that it never earned in the first place.

And consider Chapter 5 as well, entitled “Taxes Discourage Production”.

In our modern world there is never the same percentage of income tax levied on everybody. The great burden of income taxes is imposed on a minor percentage of the nation’s income; and these income taxes have to be supplemented by taxes of other kinds. These taxes inevitably affect the actions and incentives of those from whom they are taken. When a corporation loses a hundred cents of every dollar it loses, and is permitted to keep only fifty-two cents of every dollar it gains, and when it cannot adequately offset its years of losses against its years of gains, its policies are affected. It does not expand its operations, or it expands only those attended with a minimum of risk. People who recognize this situation are deterred from starting new enterprises. Thus old employers do not give more employment, or not as much more as they might have; and others decide not to become employers at all. Improved machinery and better-equipped factories come into existence much more slowly than they otherwise would. The result in the long run is that consumers are prevented from getting better and cheaper products to the extent that they otherwise would, and that real wages are held down, compared with what they might have been.

There is a similar effect when personal incomes are taxed 50, 60 or 70 percent. People begin to ask themselves why they should work six, eight or nine months of the entire year for the government, and only six, four or three months for themselves and their families. If they lose the whole dollar when they lose, but can keep only a fraction of it when they win, they decide that it is foolish to take risks with their capital. In addition, the capital available for risk-taking itself shrinks enormously. It is being taxed away before it can be accumulated. In brief, capital to provide new private jobs is first prevented from coming into existence, and the part that does come into existence is then discouraged from starting new enterprises. The government spenders create the very problem of unemployment that they profess to solve.

George W. Bush cut taxes in his first term and created 1 million NEW JOBS. Government spending is a job killer. In fact, you can even see it failing today in Japan: Did massive government spending succeed or fail in Japan?

News

Obamacare’s impact on ER wait times and low-wage workers

2 Comments

First, ER wait times. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

As the number of insured people goes up while health care reform takes place, the long waits and crowded lobbies at emergency rooms are anticipated to increase as well.

“We’re starting out with crowded conditions and anticipating things will only get worse,” American College of Emergency Physicians president Dr. Angela Gardner told the Associated Press.

Nearly 32 million more people will have health insurance as a result of changing health-care laws, and about 16 million are to be added to the Medicaid system, but that apparently won’t keep them out of the ER, the AP reported.

“Just because we’ve insured people [that] doesn’t mean they now have access,” Dr. Elijah Berg from Boston told the AP. “They’re coming to the emergency department because they don’t have access to alternatives.”

[…]Since 2006, when it began offering government-run health care to its residents, Massachusetts has been considered the test model for the federal health changes, requiring health coverage for everyone, but data has shown visits to the ER have continued to rise since the Massachusetts law took place.

ERs are already overly crowded, with the biggest users being those under the federal Medicaid plan. Many doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients that they see because of the low rate of reimbursement from the government.

Here’s what should have happened. Voters should have looked at Massachusetts and Tennessee and seen what government control of health care does to health care. Universal coverage increases demand, but supply stays the same because of onerous certifications, taxes and regulations that block new entrants. Somewhere along the line there will be a shortage. And that means waiting lists, abortion, denial of care, and eventually euthanasia in order to keep costs down.

But there’s more – from the Heartland Institute.

What about Obamacare’s impact on low-wage workers? (H/T Rob)

Excerpt:

The requirements of President Obama’s new health care regime could penalize low-wage workers and cause a further slowdown of hiring for positions at chain restaurants and other small businesses.

White Castle, a national fast food chain, recently announced it would slow planned expansion in the United States and curtail hiring at its numerous restaurant outlets thanks to Obama’s law, which the chain says will cut its earnings in half.

According to a White Castle representative, the requirement that employers pay a $3,000 fine to the federal government for every employee whose out-of-pocket cost of health insurance exceeds 9.5 percent of their income will destroy their business model.

[…]Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a health care analyst at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, says much of this process is out of the employer’s control.

[…]Furchtgott-Roth says this aspect of Obamacare is part of a larger trend toward government pricing low-skilled workers out of the U.S. economy.

“The burden of all these Obamacare provisions is going to fall more on America’s low-skilled workers—the workers at White Castle, Burger King, and so on. Because their labor will become more expensive for companies to use, we’re going to see more mechanized solutions, a trend that is already happening in Europe,” Furchtgott-Roth said.

Well, some of these people who don’t pay income taxes are certainly going to be getting a wake-up call. Larger companies like John Deere, Verizon, Valero, Caterpillar, etc. already announced that they were going to be taking huge hits to their bottom line as a result of Obamacare. All these good intentions and high-minded blabberings don’t amount to any benefits for American working families. Happy-talk wins elections, but it doesn’t pay the bills or feed the children.

Next time, we need to be more diligent at looking at what actually happens in other countries and even in our own states when people try to nationalize health care in order to provide universal coverage. We can have universal coverage – we just need to let people choose what level of coverage they want and we need to make market reforms to the health care industry. Choice and competition works better for consumers. That’s real health care reform.