According to a Foxnews.com report, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids. This is a bit peculiar given the loftiness of then candidate Obama's campaign rhetoric:
As a candidate for president in 2008, then-Sen. Obama frequently derided the Bush administration for the awarding of federal contracts without competitive bidding.
"I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all," the senator told a Grand Rapids audience on Oct. 2. "The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I'm in the White House."
Those remarks echoed an earlier occasion, during a candidates' debate in Austin, Texas on Feb. 21, when Mr. Obama vowed to upgrade the government's online databases listing federal contracts.
"If (the American people) see a bridge to nowhere being built, they know where it's going and who sponsored it," he said to audience laughter, "and if they see a no-bid contract going to Halliburton, they can check that out too."
The article continues:
Less than two months after he was sworn into office, President Obama signed a memorandum that he claimed would "dramatically reform the way we do business on contracts across the entire government."
Flanked by aides and lawmakers at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 4, Obama vowed to "end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts," adding: "In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition…And that's completely unacceptable."
The March 4 memorandum directed the Office of Management and Budget to "maximize the use of full and open competition" in the awarding of federal contracts.
Sounds like it's business as usual in Washington, D.C.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
How much have the bailouts really cost YOU?
With the money spent on bailouts the past two years, you and every other working American could have paid zero dollars in federal taxes this year. You read that right. Zero. Dollars. In. Federal. Taxes.
You could have kept your entire paycheck, free to spend it as you see fit. That is, of course, if you're among those lucky enough to still be collecting a paycheck. What did you get instead? 10% unemployment (which is probably closer to 20% unemployment if you use the government's old method for making the calculation) and an economic system built on sand.
What can you do? Support HR 1207 and S 604 and audit the Fed!
You could have kept your entire paycheck, free to spend it as you see fit. That is, of course, if you're among those lucky enough to still be collecting a paycheck. What did you get instead? 10% unemployment (which is probably closer to 20% unemployment if you use the government's old method for making the calculation) and an economic system built on sand.
What can you do? Support HR 1207 and S 604 and audit the Fed!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
A tax on banks is a tax on you!
According to Bloomberg:
As many as 50 financial firms with assets greater than $50 billion each would be hit by a levy President Barack Obama will propose today to help recoup taxpayer bailout money and trim the federal budget deficit, an administration official said.
The article continues:
The fee targets the country’s biggest financial institutions and aims to recoup losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which the Treasury Department now estimates to cost $117 billion, the administration official said.
Banking, like any other enterprise, is a profit-seeking venture. Simply put, banks are in the business of making money. If government chooses to increase the cost of doing business for these banks, this in turn will result in higher costs for consumers. To quote:
“Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea,” JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, 53, said after testifying yesterday at a hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in Washington. “All businesses tend to pass their costs on to customers.”
To be frank, this approach does not truly address any of the problems that lead to the bank bailouts. Regardless, if we truly want to fix the problem we must end the Federal Reserve, return to a gold standard, and do away with fractional reserve banking and the FDIC.
Banks are required by law to keep only 10% of their reserves on hand at any given time. This is called fractional reserve banking. What this means in practice is that if you deposit $1,000 into a bank account, the bank can turn around and make a loan to someone else for $10,000 at an interest rate higher than what they agree to pay you to hold your money. This is how banks make money (as an aside, the inflation caused from the increased money supply makes each dollar that you own worth less). Eliminating fractional reserve banking would force banks to keep customers' money on hand in cash reserves, much like a warehouse, effectively giving them less money to play around with. In turn, this would force banks to be more selective about the types of loans they issue, thus resulting in a sounder financial system.
We need to be honest with ourselves; we are never going to see that TARP money back. If government does by chance recover some of that money they will simply spend it on something else. The most practical course of action is to properly identify and eliminate the root causes of our current financial crisis and to take effective steps to mitigate moral hazard.
As many as 50 financial firms with assets greater than $50 billion each would be hit by a levy President Barack Obama will propose today to help recoup taxpayer bailout money and trim the federal budget deficit, an administration official said.
The article continues:
The fee targets the country’s biggest financial institutions and aims to recoup losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which the Treasury Department now estimates to cost $117 billion, the administration official said.
Banking, like any other enterprise, is a profit-seeking venture. Simply put, banks are in the business of making money. If government chooses to increase the cost of doing business for these banks, this in turn will result in higher costs for consumers. To quote:
“Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea,” JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, 53, said after testifying yesterday at a hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in Washington. “All businesses tend to pass their costs on to customers.”
To be frank, this approach does not truly address any of the problems that lead to the bank bailouts. Regardless, if we truly want to fix the problem we must end the Federal Reserve, return to a gold standard, and do away with fractional reserve banking and the FDIC.
Banks are required by law to keep only 10% of their reserves on hand at any given time. This is called fractional reserve banking. What this means in practice is that if you deposit $1,000 into a bank account, the bank can turn around and make a loan to someone else for $10,000 at an interest rate higher than what they agree to pay you to hold your money. This is how banks make money (as an aside, the inflation caused from the increased money supply makes each dollar that you own worth less). Eliminating fractional reserve banking would force banks to keep customers' money on hand in cash reserves, much like a warehouse, effectively giving them less money to play around with. In turn, this would force banks to be more selective about the types of loans they issue, thus resulting in a sounder financial system.
We need to be honest with ourselves; we are never going to see that TARP money back. If government does by chance recover some of that money they will simply spend it on something else. The most practical course of action is to properly identify and eliminate the root causes of our current financial crisis and to take effective steps to mitigate moral hazard.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Surprised? Public works spending provides no "stimulus"
According to a study completed by the AP, "a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment and only barely helped the beleaguered construction industry." This should come as no surprise to those that have studied history. No matter how much Paul Krugman and others insist that these types of measures bear fruit, in practice this has simply not been the case.
Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn't matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama's argument that more road money would address an "urgent need to accelerate job growth."
Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress that relies in part on more road and bridge spending, projects the president said are "at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth."
The article continues:
Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP's analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.
"As a policy tool for creating jobs, this doesn't seem to have much bite," said Emory University economist Thomas Smith, who supported the stimulus and reviewed AP's analysis. "In terms of creating jobs, it doesn't seem like it's created very many. It may well be employing lots of people but those two things are very different."
There was no difference in unemployment trends between the group of counties that received the most stimulus money and the group that received none, the analysis found.
In spite of this, it seems that the President and Congress are determined to pass another "stimulus:"
Despite the disconnect, Congress is moving quickly to give Obama the road money he requested. The Senate will soon consider a proposal that would direct nearly $28 billion more on roads and bridges, programs that are popular with politicians, lobbyists and voters. The overall price tag on the bill, which also would pay for water projects, school repairs and jobs for teachers, firefighters and police officers, would be $75 billion.
It's time for Americans to insist that our government forgo what is popular in favor of what actually works. The only way to improve our economic outlook is to opt for true stimulus, which involves shrinking the size of government by reducing government spending and cutting taxes for everyone.
Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn't matter, the AP analysis showed: Local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation, raising questions about Obama's argument that more road money would address an "urgent need to accelerate job growth."
Obama wants a second stimulus bill from Congress that relies in part on more road and bridge spending, projects the president said are "at the heart of our effort to accelerate job growth."
The article continues:
Even within the construction industry, which stood to benefit most from transportation money, the AP's analysis found there was nearly no connection between stimulus money and the number of construction workers hired or fired since Congress passed the recovery program. The effect was so small, one economist compared it to trying to move the Empire State Building by pushing against it.
"As a policy tool for creating jobs, this doesn't seem to have much bite," said Emory University economist Thomas Smith, who supported the stimulus and reviewed AP's analysis. "In terms of creating jobs, it doesn't seem like it's created very many. It may well be employing lots of people but those two things are very different."
There was no difference in unemployment trends between the group of counties that received the most stimulus money and the group that received none, the analysis found.
In spite of this, it seems that the President and Congress are determined to pass another "stimulus:"
Despite the disconnect, Congress is moving quickly to give Obama the road money he requested. The Senate will soon consider a proposal that would direct nearly $28 billion more on roads and bridges, programs that are popular with politicians, lobbyists and voters. The overall price tag on the bill, which also would pay for water projects, school repairs and jobs for teachers, firefighters and police officers, would be $75 billion.
It's time for Americans to insist that our government forgo what is popular in favor of what actually works. The only way to improve our economic outlook is to opt for true stimulus, which involves shrinking the size of government by reducing government spending and cutting taxes for everyone.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Health Care "Reform?" America...you're getting hosed!
C‑SPAN has sent a letter to House and Senate leaders asking that negotiations on the health care bill be open to their cameras. Given that President Obama pledged to do as much during the Presidential Campaign, you'd think that this one would be a no-brainer; guess again.
As the Washington Times points out, this is just the latest in a long line of measures that Congress has taken to make this process as convoluted as possible. The House passed their version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 AM and passed their version of the bill Christmas Eve. House and Senate leadership is now taking things one step further by bypassing the traditional conference committee in favor of simply passing the Senate version with an amendment added and shipping it back over to the Senate for a final vote. This vote would need a simple majority and not the typical sixty votes that would be needed otherwise. In doing so, House and Senate leadership can simultaneously castrate any Republican opposition as well as snuff out any opposition from moderate Democrats.
What's with all of the secrecy? This is a dangerous game that Reid, Pelosi, et al. are playing. If you happen to still be of the mind that this legislation is a good thing for Americans, you may want to re-evaluate your position.
As the Washington Times points out, this is just the latest in a long line of measures that Congress has taken to make this process as convoluted as possible. The House passed their version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 AM and passed their version of the bill Christmas Eve. House and Senate leadership is now taking things one step further by bypassing the traditional conference committee in favor of simply passing the Senate version with an amendment added and shipping it back over to the Senate for a final vote. This vote would need a simple majority and not the typical sixty votes that would be needed otherwise. In doing so, House and Senate leadership can simultaneously castrate any Republican opposition as well as snuff out any opposition from moderate Democrats.
What's with all of the secrecy? This is a dangerous game that Reid, Pelosi, et al. are playing. If you happen to still be of the mind that this legislation is a good thing for Americans, you may want to re-evaluate your position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)