Month: November 2008

Dems Wrong Yet Again – Temporary Stimulus Doesn’t Work

Tickler Leave a comment

This all makes such perfect, logical sense. I can’t believe they refuse to see it.

From the Wall Street Journal . . . .

The incoming Obama administration and congressional Democrats are now considering a second fiscal stimulus package, estimated at more than $500 billion, to follow the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. As they do, much can be learned by examining the first.

The major part of the first stimulus package was the $115 billion, temporary rebate payment program targeted to individuals and families that phased out as incomes rose. Most of the rebate checks were mailed or directly deposited during May, June and July.

The argument in favor of these temporary rebate payments was that they would increase consumption, stimulate aggregate demand, and thereby get the economy growing again. What were the results? The chart nearby reveals the answer.

The upper line shows disposable personal income through September. Disposable personal income is what households have left after paying taxes and receiving transfers from the government. The big blip is due to the rebate payments in May through July.

The lower line shows personal consumption expenditures by households. Observe that consumption shows no noticeable increase at the time of the rebate. Hence, by this simple measure, the rebate did little or nothing to stimulate consumption, overall aggregate demand, or the economy.

These results may seem surprising, but they are not. They correspond very closely to what basic economic theory tells us. According to the permanent-income theory of Milton Friedman, or the life-cycle theory of Franco Modigliani, temporary increases in income will not lead to significant increases in consumption. However, if increases are longer-term, as in the case of permanent tax cut, then consumption is increased, and by a significant amount.

After years of study and debate, theories based on the permanent-income model led many economists to conclude that discretionary fiscal policy actions, such as temporary rebates, are not a good policy tool. Rather, fiscal policy should focus on the “automatic stabilizers” (the tendency for tax revenues to decline in a recession and transfer payments such as unemployment compensation to increase in a recession), which are built into the tax-and-transfer system, and on more permanent fiscal changes that will positively affect the long-term growth of the economy.

Why did that consensus seem to break down during the public debates about the fiscal stimulus early this year? One reason may have been the apparent success of the rebate payments in 2001. However, those rebate payments were the first installment of more permanent, multiyear tax cuts passed that same year. Hence, they were not temporary.

Read the full article here.

Ignorant Teacher Confronts McCain Kids

Tickler Leave a comment

This is the quality of teacher they allow in Cumberland, North Carolina. She can’t even put two intelligent words together and yet she beats up a 5th grader.

Cumberland County, North Carolina

Cumberland Schools Superintendent William C. Harrison:

910-678-2300

This genius, Diantha (tehehe) Harris, teaches 5th Grade at:

Mary McArthur A+ Elementary School, 3809 Village Drive, Fayetteville, NC, 28304

http://www.mmes.ccs.k12.nc.us

Principal Lola Williams:

LolaW@ccs.k12.nc.us

910-424-2206

Harris’ contact page:

http://www.mmes.ccs.k12.nc.us/email/diathaharris.htm

Cumberland Schools Website

Board of Elections

301 E. Russell Street, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Phone: 910-678-7733 · Fax: 910-678-7738
Director: Terri Robertson

Board of Election Supervisors:

lll@nc.rr.com
KimberlyPFisher@aol.com
GregWest@nc.rr.com
MacWilliams@nc.rr.com
hfarrior@nc.rr.com
DLaHuffman@nc.rr.com
fkbarragan@nc.rr.com
Royalme@nc.rr.com
MackyH@nc.rr.com

NO ID NEEDED! I Just Voted and Found Inconsistencies

Tickler Leave a comment

I wish I had video of this, but I only have the audio. I’ll do the best I can to describe the missing visuals…

I watched several people walk to the table and point out their name, sign and go into the booth to vote. Not a single person was showing ID, no was asked.

My wife went before me and simply pointed to the paper worksheet with all of the name on them and said “That’s me”. The poll workers both pointed her to the booth and away she went to vote. She could have been anyone Obama bused in from out of state, like he’s known to do.

Me Poll Monitor 1 Poll Monitor 2
“Last name, sir?”
“[My Last Name]”
(flipping through pages to find my name, finds the right page)
“That’s it right there. [First and middle initial].”
(pushes page to me and gives me a pen, pointing to the signature line)
“Do I need to show ID?”
(stands up) “Yes, sir! We have to see ID.”
“No, no, not the ID.”
“Let…”
“Here…”
“Can I see the ID, sir?”
“Are you asking for ID for everyone?”
“No, we don’t need ID”
“No one does?”
“No”
“Sir.”
“So I could be anybody?”
“Sir, can I see the ID, I just said it.”
“So you want it.”
“Yes.”
“After I asked?”
“I’m gonna ask anyway.”
“Were you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“No.” (laughs awkwardly)
“That’s interesting, cause she didn’t want it.” (I pointed to poll monitor 2)
“Sir, I am the chairperson here because … waiting out there so I have to ask.”
“Ah”
“Ok?”
“But my wife just went without showing ID.”
“Who, who, who is the person that just came? Maybe when I went down to the dock.”
“No. You were standing right here. Right in front of me. This woman.” (pointing to the space my wife had just vacated on the floor in front of me) “Who’s in the poll right now.” (pointing to the booth) “Did not show ID.”
“Maybe, I didn’t take notice.”
“She didn’t show ID!”
“I said I did not. I said ‘I’, my mistake.”
“Yes, but shouldn’t you notice?”
“Yeah. Really that’s my mistake. People have to show ID, especially right here…” (points to another persons name on the list) “and then right there” (points to another name on the list)
“But I just watched her not show ID, so how many people have not showed?”
“Yes, but you see, for you…”
“She, she will not show ID here. For you, you have to show ID. Because it is recommended that…”
“For you they’re asking for ID.”
“They ask us. You have to.”
“Uh, that’s not me.” (pointing to the name they are looking at, a few people below mine)
“Ok. We are just saying people like that. People like this…” (pointing back at my name) “we don’t have to ask them.”
“Why is that?”
“Because maybe they a, they, they, they ah, submit your papers they was in… uhhhh”
“I don’t know.”
“The same. (pause) That was why they asked, and they made a special ballot for those people anyway. Another booklet.”
“So for you they didn’t need it, you see?”
“You see, we don’t need it! Anyway…”
“OK”

What else can you say to that? I considered lecturing them about how to run a fair and accurate polling place, but it was clear they were completely in the dark and I’d only be wasting my time on them.

Audio to be included as soon as I can verify that is was legal in my state.

Tickler on Spreading The Wealth

Tickler Leave a comment

The Socialist believes in ‘spreading the wealth around’. His methods require an overlord, with naive good intentions, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but based on tried and failed principles of socialism. The Capitalist, by tried and proven principles of capitalism, knows that the result of staying clear of the machinery of business, and instead stimulating it, will allow business to spread wealth automatically without the overlord, the theft, and without the resentment.

-Tickler

Once Again, the Press Leaves Obama’s Tax Numbers Unchallenged

Tickler Leave a comment

Another great op-ed from the WSJ on the random tax numbers quoted by the Obama campaign and the loving press’ unwillingness to put up a question mark. Some highlights:

In the last debate, Sen. Obama said, “We both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for. . . . The centerpiece of [McCain’s] economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.”

That $200 billion figure is false. Yet FactCheck.org and most reporters never bothered to ask Mr. Obama where he came up with it. FactCheck.org did discover that Mr. Obama’s claim about “$4 billion in tax breaks for energy companies” came from a two-page memo from the Center for American Progress Action Fund — a political lobby headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, with tax issues handled by two lawyers, Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, former policy directors for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaigns. Those lawyers confused average tax rates (after credits and deductions) with the 35% statutory rate on the next dollar of earnings, so that cutting the latter rate from 35% to 25% would supposedly cut big oil’s $13.4 billion tax bill by 28.5%, or $3.8 billion. That is not economics; it is not even competent bookkeeping.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, by contrast, correctly notes that, “Senator McCain has called for the repeal and reform of a number of tax preferences for oil companies,” which would raise the oil companies’ taxes by $5 billion in 2013.

Read the full article here.