<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >

	<channel>
		<title>Government Bytes</title>
		<description>The Official Weblog of NTU/NTUF</description>
		<link>http://blog.ntu.org/</link>
		<language>en-us</language>

		<item>
			<title>GM's Money-Back Guarantee</title><description><![CDATA[From the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog:
In a rousing, campaign-like address, Obama hailed the return of 150 workers here yesterday, and the pending return of more than 1,000 more in the next three weeks as the plant gears up to build more Chevrolet Cobalts. Inventories of the small cars were depleted by the "cash for clunkers" program, and the Lordstown plant is preparing to launch the Chevy Cruze, a small, high-mileage car next year, just the sort the Obama administration has hoped GM would embrace.

Obama said he hadn't run for president to run a car company. "It wasn't on my to-do list. It wasn't even something on my want-to-do list."

But, he said, "For me to just let the auto industry collapse, to vanish, would have done unbelievable damage."
Sounds great, but as NTU's Pete Sepp observed:  "This Sunday, General Motors launched a new marketing campaign, 'May the Best Car Win,' and will offer car buyers a 60-day money-back guarantee. Perhaps a more fitting slogan is 'Taxpayers, You Lose.'"  Anyone else concerned that what might "vanish" is the billions of tax dollars that Americans have "invested" in GM?
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:23:09 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4867</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>UK foreshadows political future for US banks</title><description><![CDATA[The BBC is reporting that Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (roughly equivalent to our Treasury Secretary), is interested in questioning banks over whether their interest rates for small business loans and mortgages are too high.

According to the BBC article, 

Mr Darling's comments come after a report by financial website Moneyfacts said banks had increased the interest rates they charge for personal mortgages nearly fourfold in recent months, despite the base rate remaining at a record low of 0.5%.

Angela Knight, the chief executive of the British Bankers' Association (BSA), said banks had to pay a lot more than 0.5% for the funds they themselves borrowed in the wholesale money markets, and they had to pass this on to customers....

However, Stephen Alambritis, chief spokesman for the Federation of Small Businesses, said the chancellor was "quite right to haul in the banks".

"It is hugely important that Mr Darling keeps tabs on the banks to ensure they are lending money to firms, and at fair rates. Firms need to be able to reap the benefits of the historically low base rate," he said. 

We've already heard some of this kind of stuff from Barney Frank and friends, but prepare for it to get much worse, not least because the TARP Inspector General, Neil Barofsky, recently said that there's no way to know what banks have done with their bailout funds.

What the politicians forget is that banking is an extremely competitive industry.  If interest rates seem stubbornly high for loans, the reason is simple: The perceived risks to lenders remain stubbornly high.

Not only is it perfectly rational for a bank to worry about being paid back on a business loan or a mortgage in the current situation, but it's also perfectly rational to wonder whether government will compound the problem, such as by allowing judges to alter the principal amounts due on mortgages.

Think about it another way:  Let's say that in 2004 you had some extra cash lying around that you were willing to lend.  Someone asked you for a loan to buy a house and you offered him a loan at 8% based on what you knew of his employment, the housing market at the time, etc.  Now what if the same person came to you asking for the same loan for the same house (and let's assume that in that neighborhood, prices are now roughly where they were in 2004)?  Would you still offer that loan at 8%?  Of course not (if you're sane.)  The rate would be higher to compensate for a myriad of additional risks, regardless of the so-called lower interest rate environment.

Mr. Darling said that the UK government didn't bail out banks "out of some charitable act". But that's exactly what they did if the intention of the bailout was to get banks to lend money at rates which don't compensate them for the risk they're taking. (The charity, in that case, is to potential borrowers, not the banks.  Though even that analogy isn't quite right because it's only liberals who believe that if A steals B's wallet and gives most of the money to C then A has been charitable rather than a criminal.)  Of course, they also did it out of typical left-wing economic and political idiocy, thinking that they would be able to buy votes the way they always do. But this time it's not going to work because "public choice" economics and the ability of politicians to get away with spending a lot of money to provide a benefit to a narrow set of people is based on the cost to the broad majority of taxpayers being too low for them to notice or care.

In the US, the Obama Administration is obviously saddling us and our children with new debt that's as great as the total debt from the time of the nation's founding until the time of Obama's inauguration -- including the disastrous spending of George W. Bush.  Even the usually unaware average American voter, particularly the average American Democrat, will not look kindly on what Tom Coburn accurately termed "Generational Theft". (I think John McCain stole the term from Coburn, but if I got that backwards, I apologize to Senator McCain.)

Some more from the BBC article:

"The public will not understand it if they [the banks] don't seem to be doing their part," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show.

"I want them to rebuild their balance sheets... but at the same time, because of the particular circumstances we're in now, because of the fact we've got this recession, we also need them to lend money," said Mr Darling. 

Allow me to translate what Darling really means:

If the banks don't go out and lend money at lower rates, regardless of the business case for those loans or those rates, we will pillory them in public until they do. After all, I didn't divert billions of dollars of taxpayer money to those banks just to help my golf buddies (or at least not as far as the public knows.)  Don't they realize that my political needs trump their fiduciary responsibilities; after all that was in the fine print of the "loan" documentation we made them sign.

Can't you just hear Tim "the software made me do it" Geithner saying the same thing, flanked by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the other scoundrels who have primary responsibility for the original mess?

Chancellor Darling's words will with almost 100% certainty be parroted by Obama-loving bureaucrats and Democratic politicians in coming months as any so-called recovery fails to reduce unemployment and the high unemployment rates continue to dent Democrats' standing in public opinion.  It's the necessary outcome of letting politicians get their stinking claws into the economic body of our nation.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:29:01 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4795</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Fiscal Advice from Jack Handey</title><description><![CDATA[With billions and billions for bailouts and stimulus spending, Congress seems to have taken fiscal advice from that renowned financial expert Jack Handey:  "I hope that when I die, people say about me, 'Boy, that guy sure owed me a lot of money.'"
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:14:34 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4740</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Novel Idea</title><description><![CDATA[Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska, a first-termer who has shown real promise thus far into his tenure, is introducing the Free Enterprise Act.  It contains a simple (and terrific) idea: requiring Congressional approval for release of TARP funds that would end up with government owning shares of a business.  Too bad Congress didn't think of that when drafting TARP, huh?

Johanns, BTW, wasn't around when that abomination was passed, and he's been one of the foremost advocates for taxpayers during subsequent fights over TARP and stimulus.  Here's his announcement of the Free Enterprise Act...Why America Needs the Free Enterprise Act
By Senator Mike Johanns, U.S. Senator for Nebraska

The announcement that the government would provide $30 billion dollars more in TARP funds to General Motors in exchange for a 60 percent ownership interest in the company is unprecedented and almost unbelievable.   

Who ever imagined the taxpayers would wake up Monday morning and find out a deal was cut behind closed doors to make them majority owners of General Motors?  If you add all of the government aid GM has or will receive, the taxpayers, with zero input, have invested $50 billion dollars in a high risk bankrupt company. That’s almost one-million dollars per job retained by GM.

Sadly, there is no longer a dividing line between these private companies and the government. 
The government is now running or deeply involved in major industrial sectors of the economy: housing, banking, insurance, and automobiles. This is extremely troublesome and marks a fundamental shift in the way business is conducted in America.

I believe this is the wrong approach and I am adamantly opposed to it. Some of my colleagues disagree with me.  They believe the government should bailout the autos.  Right now, none of us – whether for it or against it – has any say in whether the action goes forward.  The legislative branch has effectively given the executive branch a free pass to do as it wishes with seven hundred billion dollars. 

TARP has become a license for government to experiment with private business.  How do you think the original TARP vote would have gone back in September if members knew then what they know now?  Remember, TARP was first presented as a toxic asset purchasing program to revive financial markets and to get credit flowing to consumers.  That is what Congress approved.  That’s all Congress approved.  Then it became a blank check for failing banks; and the struggling insurance giant AIG; and the floundering housing market.  

Despite a December vote by Congress that rejected a bailout of the auto industry, TARP is now being used to bankroll the auto industry.  How could anyone have predicted that an original plan to buy up toxic assets would be warped and twisted into the revolving slush fund it is today?  People would have looked at me in disbelief if I had said - just a few months ago - that TARP funds would be used to buy General Motors.  All this is happening without Congressional approval. 

The Free Enterprise Act would fix that.  It’s simple and straightforward.  It says any release of TARP funds that results in the government owning common or preferred stock will be allowed only if there is prior Congressional approval. 

Congress must reclaim its voice and duty to provide proper oversight of TARP.  Let me be frank. I was not in the Senate when the first TARP vote occurred nor was I in office yet for the vote against providing emergency funds to the automobile industry. I was present in January and voted to disapprove President Bush’s request to release the second tranche of TARP.  I did not agree with the way the first half of TARP was used, and I did not have faith that the second half would be spent in a more responsible manner, or that taxpayers would be fully protected. 
It passed anyway and now the Administration has a blank check – actually a stack of blank checks – to use TARP as a revolving fund for risky experiments in nationalizing private enterprise.

As of right now, there are no checks and balances planned before we dole out $30 billion more to GM.  My bill would ensure that Congress provides the oversight we were elected to deliver.  It asks only for a simple majority, applying the regular rules of the Senate. But, it makes a very significant statement that Congress has not fallen asleep at the switch.
 
We must fulfill our duty to provide checks and balances to the executive branch - as our Constitution demands.  Whether my fellow senators support or oppose funds for private industry, they should support this bill to reclaim Congress’ role in the operations of our government.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:44:30 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4707</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>TARP - A Big (Really, Really Big) Mistake</title><description><![CDATA[An appropriately titled column ("The $787 Billion Mistake") on TARP at Forbes.com.

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:45:58 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4702</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>"Bailout" for Transportation Agencies?</title><description><![CDATA[CQ.com is reporting the following:  "Passenger rail and bus advocates are pressing conferees on the war supplemental bill to include a Senate-passed provision that would allow public transit agencies to spend some of their stimulus dollars on operating expenses, instead of capital improvements."  According to the article, transit agencies received $8.4 billion in stimulus funds.

Does this not sound like a bailout in the making:  "Many transit agencies are facing budget deficits that leave them unable to keep up with dramatic increases in ridership. As a result, service and personnel cuts are being proposed in cities across the country."  

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:02:29 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4697</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Looking Out for Our "Investment"</title><description><![CDATA[Following on Ross's post from yesterday regarding Government Motors, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin wants to protect "our" investment.  From CQ.com:
"I have some concerns about things that have been expressed in bankruptcy courts, and I’m going to explore those," Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin told reporters, referring to the recent government-guided bankruptcy of General Motors Corp., which will give the federal government a 60-percent stake in the once-mighty automaker.

"But this is new territory for most of us — to think that the American people are the majority owners of a major corporation — and, as the president said, we don’t want to be too involved in the day-to-day business of this company. We also want to make sure that our investment in General Motors is going to be protected," the Illinois Democrat said. 
If you've read Ross's piece at Human Events, you know that Durbin has his work cut out for him.

On a related note, the happy go-lucky folks at Despair.com, bring you Government Motors:  An AmeriKan Revolution.


Standard disclaimer:  Of course, this blog doesn't officially endorse products or beg for swag, but if you buy anything from Despair.com you might keep them off of a future bailout list.  And, if the unkind folks at Despair.com were to read this post, I'm a medium.

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:27:09 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4680</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Government Motors</title><description><![CDATA[For those of you interested in my view on GM's bankruptcy and the future emergence of Government Motors, please see my article at HumanEvents.com.  (My agreement with Human Events does not permit me to post the text of the article here.)see “GM Bankrupt: Obama Takes Over", Ross Kaminsky, HumanEvents.com, 6/1/09 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32085]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:48:28 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4678</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Vote Alert: Housing Bill Amendments</title><description><![CDATA[******************************************
National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert 

NTU urges all Senators to vote “YES” on Amendments #1016 and #1026 to the Housing Bill, S. 896. Offered by Senators Vitter and DeMint, respectively, these amendments would add some sorely needed taxpayer protections to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which has been a miserable failure so far. 

Senator Vitter's Amendment #1016 would simply allow banks that are properly capitalized to return TARP funds to the Treasury (and thus, the American taxpayer) without huge amounts of red tape. This no-brainer of an amendment would ensure that taxpayer dollars are not trapped by bureaucratic strictures in businesses that don’t need them.

Senator DeMint's Amendment #1026 would put the brakes on the appalling trend toward nationalization of the banking sector by preventing the federal government from using TARP funds to purchase common stock in failing businesses.

"YES" votes on Amendments #1016 and #1026 to the Housing Bill are the pro-taxpayer positions and will be significantly weighted in our annual Rating of Congress.

If you have any questions, please contact 
NTU Director of Government Affairs Andrew Moylan at (703) 683-5700
******************************************
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 12:35:29 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4585</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>No more bailouts, Br'er Durbin?!?</title><description><![CDATA[Last week brought a rare victory for the free markets and the sanctity of private contracts: By a 51-45 vote, the Senate defeated a measure championed by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois) which would have allowed judges to reduce the principle amount of a mortgage on a primary residence during a bankruptcy proceeding. Twelve Democrats, including Arlen Specter, voted against the plan.

The idea was typical Democrat fare, representing a complete lack of understanding of the importance of contracts. Can you imagine the chilling effect on the mortgage industry if lenders had to figure into their interest rate determinations the probability that they would be forced by judges to lose money on loans? If you were a bank and you knew that some percentage of your loan portfolio would be forced into greater-than-necessary losses by judges, you would have to increase the interest rate you charge on every loan – or at least every loan to people who don’t have absolutely stellar credit – in order to make sure you’re maintaining the return on capital you need to justify being in business.

In other words, Durbin’s program would have made home ownership more difficult for millions of moderate income earners who would be trying to buy a home, often a first home, in order to let judges interfere in the voluntarily-made contracts between a much smaller number of prior home buyers and lenders. Durbin’s plan was thus not actually an attempt to help the housing market (as if that were a proper role of government anyway) as much as it was another step toward government involvement in and control of as much of our economic lives as possible. This is the true goal of today’s Democratic Party and the common thread among all their economic policies.

There was an important lesson during the discussions between Durbin and the industry: The only bank to support the plan was Citigroup, i.e. the recipient of the most TARP money, a company which gave 61% of its 2008 political contributions to Democrats, and a company which, because of its soon-to-be-completed conversion of preferred equity to common stock, will be 36% owned by the Federal Government. They do us the occasional courtesy of saying the stake will be “taxpayer owned”, but we all know just how much respect we-the-people will garner during closed-door discussions of how the bank should operate, which is to say none at all.

This unholy alliance between the federal government and the corporate Board Room is the essence of economic fascism. Citigroup’s behavior certainly pleased Durbin; it would have pleased Mussolini as well. The company’s support of a plan which would likely be a negative for its shareholders but pleasing to its left-wing political champions is a stark reminder that government “bailouts”, particularly when ongoing participation is clearly, despite all administration rhetoric, not intended to be temporary, is an unvarnished disaster for the principles of economic liberty and the realities of day to day life in a free-market system.

So, as if the defeat of Durbin’s ill-conceived plan weren’t a tasty enough meal for a starved minority of congressional fiscal conservatives, Durbin himself offered a delicious dessert: According to a Roll Call story, Durbin said the following on the Senate floor following defeat of his measure: “This Senator wants to put the banking interests on notice. I am not going to be a party to shoveling billions more in taxpayers’ dollars your way if you won’t lift a finger to help these people who are facing foreclosure across America today.”

What? No more bailouts?!? Please, Br’er Durbin, don’t throw us into that briar patch!

In a sense, I understand Durbin’s frustration: Anyone who gives enormous amounts of money to a corporation expects some level of influence over that corporation, roughly proportionate to the size of the financial contribution. The problem is that the investor/lender in this case is the government, and that changes everything. Since the money government hands out in bailouts isn’t actually the politicians’ money, the politicians’ goals could frequently be antithetical to building shareholder value. As Milton Friedman warned, there’s no less responsible spender of money than someone who is spending someone else’s money on things to benefit yet another party. A spends B’s money on C….do you think A or C really care about B? And YOU are B.

Durbin is frustrated that his support of bank bailouts didn’t make him the Senate’s effective bank czar, with recipients of his largesse (in the form of our money) groveling at his feet, willing to accede to demands – demands which non-government investors would never make – that would diminish the companies’ profitability.

Many banks took TARP money, but only Citigroup – the sole bank likely to have massive government ownership of voting stock – caved in to Durbin’s pressure. Other banks realized that their primary duty is to their shareholders. Citi decided that sucking on the teat of the TARP is more important than their bottom line or their fiduciary responsibility. Alternatively, maybe their decision to fawn at Durbin’s feet was made considering their financial situation, leaving one to wonder about Citigroup’s financial stability.

I don’t believe that Senator Durbin won’t support giving taxpayer money to banks or other corporations in the future. Instead, he’ll just work to ensure that his ability to control those corporations is cemented before he’ll sign off on any deal. The good news is that corporations have seen the true nature of these bailouts: When you make a deal with the devil, you’re always the junior partner.]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 11:24:23 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4584</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Don't Turn America Into Another France</title><description><![CDATA[Our friends at the Center for Freedom and Prosperity and Reason.TV have put together this terrific video warning of the dangers of the French model....

The economic model, not their first lady.  She's not so bad.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 14:55:39 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4581</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Vote Alert: Oppose Senate Cramdown, FDIC Borrowing Bills</title><description><![CDATA[The National Taxpayers Union distributed the following Vote Alert to all Senators earlier today:

NTU urges Senators to vote “NO” on S. 896, the so-called “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act,” as well as S. 895, the mortgage “cramdown” legislation that will likely be offered as an amendment. 

In a report on House legislation that embodied many concepts of S. 895, the Congressional Budget Office noted that “Economists and bankruptcy experts have found that the greater the financial benefit gained from filing for bankruptcy, the greater the likelihood a household will file.” NTU believes this bill does indeed create such an incentive, whose ultimate outcome could be higher interest rates for more responsible borrowers who are struggling every day to “Save Their Homes” without government bailouts. Opinions vary on the latitude courts would take under cramdown provisions, but the past year’s events ought to serve as a caution for policymakers against any further rash forays into financial industry policy. 

S. 896, meanwhile, would add to the already huge pile of liabilities which Washington has loaded onto the backs of taxpayers. With one mere vote, the Senate would boost FDIC and NCUA borrowing authority from the current $30.1 billion combined to $106 billion – an unconscionable expansion of the Treasury’s already bloated portfolio of potential commitments. Any lawmaker who scoffs at the notion that these obligations might someday come due simply hasn’t been paying attention to federal policy debacles such as the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

In late 2007, an NTU study of subprime mortgages noted that reforms must “carefully balance a government role for regulation with the need for borrowers, lenders, and investors to bear responsibility for their own actions.” The Senate can begin reversing a long string of failures to do so by rejecting S. 895 and S. 896. Roll call votes on this legislation will be significantly weighted in our annual Rating of Congress.
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:08:01 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4576</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Sen. McCaskill No Fan of Tax Cuts</title><description><![CDATA[Missouri House Republicans have proposed using $1 billion of the federal stimulus package to cut state income taxes. The plan would reduce the top personal income tax rate from 6 percent to 5.5 percent. To be clear, that top rate kicks in at $9,000 of income, so this isn't exactly a "tax cut for the rich."

This is one of the few true stimulus proposals across the country. Of course, US Sen. Claire McCaskill has publicly come out against the tax cut. According to her, the massive spending provisions of the stimulus would pay "dividends for our children and grandchildren."

In my mind, easing the economic burden on Missouri families would be preferable to saddling their children with debt. But the Senator's position should come as no surprise, as she received an F on NTU's Congressional rating.]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:38:11 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4565</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Vote Alert: Support Senate Amendments to Limit TARP Bailout</title><description><![CDATA[NTU sent the following Vote Alert earlier today in support of Amendments offered on the Senate floor to limit the taxpayer-funded financial industry bailout:               

                As Senators undertake consideration of S. 386, NTU urges “YES” votes on amendments sponsored by Sens. DeMint, Ensign, Inhofe, and Vitter, which would establish badly needed limits and reforms on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

	Although many Members of Congress appear to have joined the Administration in excoriating the financial industry and issuing threats about new regulatory crackdowns, the government has failed miserably in regulating itself as it administers TARP. Roughly six months after this program’s enactment, our economy is in largely the same place as before the bailout. Meanwhile, the taxpayers who have underwritten this ill-fated scheme remain in the dark about the disposition of their money. 

	Clearly, a course correction is urgent. Sen. DeMint’s proposal would slow the dangerous trend toward nationalization of banking by blocking federal purchases of common stock in ailing entities. Sen. Ensign’s amendment to implement oversight recommendations from the Special Inspector General for TARP is a sensible, nonpartisan approach. Sen. Inhofe’s proposal would provide an honest and open accounting of all TARP disbursements, while Sen. Vitter’s amendment seems the most non-controversial of all – it would simply allow banks with proper capitalization to return TARP funds to the Treasury without red tape. 
	
	Senators should embrace every opportunity to heed the American people’s call for fiscal discipline. Accordingly, roll call votes on these four “TARP Limitation Amendments” to S. 386 will be heavily weighted in our annual Rating of Congress.
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:31:23 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4552</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>"Stimulus" Rewarding Failure</title><description><![CDATA[The USA Today has an exclusive report on 61 housing agencies that have repeatedly failed audits but have been cleared anyway to get $300 million in "stimulus" funding:Congress gave the Obama administration permission to withhold stimulus aid from housing authorities that the Department of Housing and Urban Development lists as "troubled" because of factors such as poor maintenance and financial management. But HUD decided to release the money to these authorities because they "should have the opportunity to improve their housing," spokeswoman Donna White said.The more things CHANGE!, the more they stay the same.

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:04:45 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4506</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>TPPF: Stimulus a job-killer in Texas</title><description><![CDATA[The Texas Public Policy Foundation released a report on the impact the stimulus package will have on the state's economy. The results don't look so good.

The report, "The Economic Impact of Federal Spending on State Economic Performance - A Texas Perspective", finds that the stimulus package would adversely effect the state's economy to the tune of a 2.5 percent reduction in net business output and a loss of at least 131,400 jobs. 

Additionally, once the federal money for expansion of unemployment benefits runs out, the business community will be left with a higher tax burden to foot the bill. Last month, NTU praised Gov. Rick Perry's decision to reject the stimulus dollars earmarked for larger unemployment benefits. 

]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:09:09 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4504</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Now they realize the Big Three aren't viable?</title><description><![CDATA[I'm somewhat pleased to say that the Obama Administration is rejecting the restructuring plans of GM and Chrysler.

The bad news is that the Administration has already given them billions of our (taxpayer) dollars and will continue to fund them (Chrysler for 30 days and GM for 60 days) with taxpayer money, at the end of which the companies will likely (in my opinion) have to file for bankruptcy.

I just hope the government is getting to the "front of the line" as far as debtor priority goes so that taxpayers are reimbursed when the companies' assets are sold off.

The stock market is collapsing today (Monday) on the news, not just because GM and Ford stocks are going down (Chrysler is privately-held) but also because financial stocks are weak on worries about the ripple effects if the Big Three default on their billions of dollars of debt.  The market is right to be worried.

The real problem here is government involvement and the confusion it causes.  The government saved Bear, Stearns and then let Lehman fail.  They give the automakers billions of dollars and then say the companies aren't viable.  The government is apparently making decisions based on worst possible combination of incompetence and politics.  It's no wonder Tim Geithner said on "Meet the Press" that he knows he has to get people to work with him at Treasury who actually have real-world experience rather than just being "policy" people.  Because government is not making decisions based on real-world experience or any principle greater than helping their political donors, markets and entrepreneurs have no idea what to expect next.  And that's at least as dangerous as knowing to expect a particular bad decision.  Maybe today's announcement regarding the Big Three is the first step in the right direction: It shows that Obama may be willing to make decisions which dramatically weaken unions, and it shows businesses yet again that they want government as their partner in the same way that an honest businessman wants the mafia as a "partner".

We are living "Atlas Shrugged" right now.  It's going to be painful for some time, but it's the only way out of the country's current infatuation with a slick, pretty-boy econo-moron named Barack Obama and his siren song of socialism/fascism with which he is luring the country into financial destruction.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:13:01 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4475</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Cartoon Blogging</title><description><![CDATA[

HT:  Tim Wise

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:54:44 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4471</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Jared Polis, in context, warns businesses against getting too close to government</title><description><![CDATA[[Update: At about 6:50 of THIS VIDEO CLIP, economist Arthur Laffer praises Jared Polis' remarks made in the House of Representatives.] 

[Update 2: Conservative anti-tax stalwart Tom McClintock (R-CA) made the following statement about HR1586: "I reluctantly supported HR 1586 for a simple and singular reason: it will stop or slow the corporate bailouts that are bankrupting our country."] 

Yesterday I heard a newscast playing a recording of Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO, representing the district I live in) saying “We will hunt down your executives with pitchforks, we will subpoena your boards and haul you before Congress…”

I know Jared Polis a little bit and I am well aware of his success in the private sector (something far too few members of Congress have accomplished). So, despite his being a "Boulder liberal", I simply couldn’t imagine him meaning what he appeared to be saying in that obviously carefully-edited-by-a-news-department quote.

Listening carefully, it seemed to me that Congressman Polis’ words were tinged with irony, or some such characteristic that made me think he was actually making fun of statements like that and opposing the sort of Congressional behavior we’ve seen in the past few days.

I sent Congressman Polis an e-mail saying just that. And I’m glad I did, because he responded with the full text of his remarks which show that the quote I heard on the radio turns Polis’ intent on its head: He was making a strong argument against the nationalization of businesses and against business running to government for “help".

As you’ll read in a moment, the intent of the Congressman’s words could have been made much clearer had the audio editor simply included the short sentence immediately preceding the quote they played. In fact, I called the radio’s news department and suggested they do just that. (I don’t know whether they did so.)

The entirety of Congressman Polis’ text is worth reading…and applauding. And that’s not something I’ve said about a Democrat’s comments on the intersection of business and politics in quite a long time.

In particular, I ask you to note the 4th paragraph of the text, beginning with “Businesses beware:” and see how the news reporters leaving out that introductory sentence essentially reversed the true meaning of Polis’ words. (I’ve emphasized the sentence to make sure you don’t miss it.)

And Polis’ closing sentence is one that should be repeated from every street corner (at least in downtown business districts near companies that may be considering getting too cozy with government.)

————-

Remarks of Congressman Jared Polis before the House of Representatives, Tuesday March 19th 2008

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Today I rise in support of HB 1586 and destroying the creeping socialism imposed on by the Bush administration before it takes over our entire economy. Executives and boards of private companies must know that to call in the federal cavalry means that you will be run out of town.

I am reminded of Emperor Alexius I of Byzantium, who called forth the Christian kings of western Europe to help him hold off the Turks at his gates. Help us, he said, prevent the heathens from taking the holy land.

The Christian kings of the west responded in force. At first the crusades served Alexius’s goals, there were some initial “bonuses” such as the taking of Antioch and Jerusalem. But with time many crusaders saw a richer and easier target in Constantnople itself and soon the very forces that Alexius called forth looted his own capital and hastened the demise of the Byzantine empire.

Businesses beware: You do not want the federal government or the American people owning your business. We will hunt down your executives with pitchforks, we will subpoena your boards and haul you before Congress, we will use personal rhetoric to decry your greed, we will make life so miserable that you will leave. And no, our cruelty will not be reserved for your executives. Your workers will be bureaucratized, your competent managers squeezed out, your travel and conferences canceled, your work hours extended, your incentive structure turned upside down. I dare say that with a different party in the white house and congress, as unfortunately happens from time to time, your union will be busted and your jobs lost.

I will be supporting this bill, and hope that it serves as a siren call to executives, shareholders, and workers to oppose nationalization of your companies. My voting for this bill today, Mr. Speaker, we are demonstrating that there is a fate worse than death, and that this is it.

And if your business might be “too big to fail” then by all means, please spin-off divisions and downsize because “too big to fail” means that you will end up in this eternal purgatory of misery, blame and scapegoating.

Let your companies die quietly, silently, and call forth not the mighty crusaders from Washington DC lest we loot and pillage your company as the Christian crusader innocently called forth by Alexius I went on to loot the center of eastern Christiandom itself.

Pillage not our public troughs lest ye be pillaged.]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:24:14 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4445</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Obama administration "incorrect" about deficit estimates</title><description><![CDATA[I used the word "incorrect" in the title because I'm feeling momentarily generous.  A more precise word would probably have been "lied".

Today's news about deficits is, not surprisingly, much worse than the already-bad picture painted for us by the Obama administration and their ridiculously rosy economic forecasts.

An AP article entitled "$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years" explains that:

*  "Congressional Budget Office figures predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget."  Since economic forecasts have not worsened in the few weeks since the Adminstration made its proposal public, it means that they underestimated the debt they're piling on future generations by a full 30% with no excuse to be made about changing forecasts.

*  "Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level."

Nobody who has been paying attention is surprised by this news.  But now that it's come from the CBO instead of from evil supporters of liberty and free markets, maybe the public and -- dare I say it -- Democratic legislators will start pushing back against the destruction of our nation's economy.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:50:13 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4443</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The AIG tax bill's possible benefits</title><description><![CDATA[In a fit of economic idiocy driven by misdirected populist outrage, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1586 on Thursday afternoon, subjecting to a 90% tax rate any bonus paid to a person who works at any institution which has received at least $5 billion in TARP money whose:

(1) family income is over $250,000
(2) individual income is over $125,000 if he/she is married but files a separate tax return, or
(3) bonus is larger than his adjusted gross income

I have not yet heard anyone in the media mention either (2) or (3) above. But even beyond these details, the bill is more draconian than most people understand.

First, it defines a bonus as any amount paid over an employee’s base salary, including any sort of retention or performance bonus.

Second, the bill covers any partnership (which could be in terms of its business operations entirely unrelated to the business of the bank or investment house which received the TARP funds) which is majority-owned by one or more persons who would be covered under the above definition.

Imagine that an executive at one of the 9 institutions which have received more than $5 billion in TARP money (Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, PNC, and US Bancorp) has a family partnership that runs another business; say a farm or a dairy or a small factory. And imagine that the terms of the partnership are essentially a modest salary for the participants and then bonuses based on a combination of the firm’s overall performance and the quality of the work of each partner. H.R. 1586 would seem to tax at a 90% rate each partner’s “bonus” which is in excess of his base salary from the operation of his family’s farm. And it apparently does not exclude those family members who have nothing to with a bank, TARP, or anything else; it simply targets the partnership.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, during the House debate on the bill, said “Are you kidding me? This is a joke. Vote no!” Earlier he called the idea a “sham” and an “attempt to cover someone’s rear end”, which it undoubtedly is given the news that someone from the administration, specifically the Treasury Department, added bonus-protection language to Christopher Dodd’s amendment to the “stimulus” bill. The feigned anger by Tim Geithner earlier this week makes the “sham” claim that much more believable since we learned that the New York Federal Reserve told the Treasury Department about the bonuses more than two weeks before they were paid. Geithner is either a liar, incompetent, or (based on his excuse for filing incorrect tax returns) both. I predict that Dodd will join some Republicans in calling for Geithner’s resignation in an unsuccessful attempt by Dodd to prevent losing his own re-election in November.

As with everything done by government out of anger, the negative consequences of this measure if it emerges without major changes from a House-Senate conference will be substantial. But just as liberals’ “good intentions” frequently cause bad outcomes, the accidental effect of this bill might be good news in the fight against the current trend toward economic fascism.

It’s true that this bill will likely cause good employees to leave AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, causing the taxpayers to lose much more in value than Charlie Rangel and friends are trying to “claw back” through this legislation. Indeed, preventing this “brain drain” was almost certainly one of the Treasury’s goals when asking Senator Dodd to protect the bonuses though I don’t doubt that there was also some political payback involved for all the donations AIG had given Democrats.

But the bill will also likely cause the firms listed above to move as quickly as they can to return their TARP money, or at least to return enough so that their total participation is under $5 billion. Citigroup and Merrill Lynch may not be able to return the money quickly because of their financial situations, but most of the other institutions probably could…and their total participation is just under $75 billion. Since compensation structures in investment banking (and to a lesser degree in standard banking) are frequently heavily geared toward bonuses, we could see firms moving rapidly to throw off the chains that come with government/taxpayer money, and a corresponding lessening of the control by Democrats in Washington of our financial industry.

A secondary benefit of H.R. 1586 is that it will remind the many Wall Street hypocrites who earn good livings through capitalism but gave large campaign donations and their votes to our sometimes socialist, sometimes fascist, but always anti-capitalist president that they can not buy the affection, nor even respect, of a life-long enemy any more than Israel can buy the affection of Hamas. AIG, which gave about 3 times as much money to Democrats as to Republicans in 2008, with Chris Dodd and Barack Obama being the top two Senate recipients truly embodies the maxim that “people get the government they deserve.” ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:30:18 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4436</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>TARP Still Needs Real Transparency</title><description><![CDATA[Americans are outraged that AIG used taxpayer funds through TARP to give out bonuses to its upper level employees. In addition, AIG paid out billions to Goldman Sachs (was this the source money it wanted to use to repay its own TARP-infusion early?) and billions to European banks.

Finally some light has been shined on the this program, but who knows what other shenanigans the TARP companies are up to? Just last week Representatives were complaining about the inability to track TARP funds and the Administration's apparent foot-dragging on the process to improve transparency.

Congress could do more besides summoning CEOs to Washington for a good grilling, or threatening punitive taxes against employees who received bonuses. Last year NTU backed a set of guidelines that should be implemented to minimize waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars under this program.  Senators Feinstein and Snowe have introduced a related bill, S. 133, with some sensible reforms which would also prevent TARP recipients from using the funds for lobbying and political contributions. So far it has just 11 cosponsors. It's House companion, H.R. 1095, has 2 sponsors.

Politicians could also take personal initiative and donate to the Treasury any political contributions they received from the TARP companies, and refuse to take any in the future from companies on the dole. OpenSecrets.org reports on the amount of money donated to politicians last year:161 companies approved for TARP money gave $37.5 million to federal candidates, parties and committees in the 2007-2008 election cycle, with 57 percent of that going to Democrats (post-election data is not yet available). The employees of these companies, rather than their political action committees, gave the bulk of that, at $26.1 million, or 70 percent. These two groups of donors seem to have differed in their partisan allegiance--individual employees gave 61 percent of their donations to Democrats, while PACs were more evenly divided, giving 51 percent to Republicans. Some of the companies to give the most in contributions, including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley, are also among the biggest donors of all time to U.S. politics.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:16:15 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4413</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>AIG: "A Mistake at the beginning"</title><description><![CDATA[The media and political furor of the week is the employee bonuses paid by AIG under contracts that existed prior to the government’s effective takeover of the company.  And while the President as well as politicians of both parties are fulminating about the payouts, voter anger should be directed more at those very politicians than at AIG.

In a truly remarkable statement yesterday, GOP Senator Charles Grassley (R-Farm Subsidies, or R-Iowa) said this of AIG executives: “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they'd follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things -- resign, or go commit suicide.”

And NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo demanded (and presumably received) a list of everyone who received a "bonus" check.  Think about that for a minute...

And then Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of the people who received the bonuses, "If you don't return it on your own we will do it for you."  Think about that for two minutes...

I'm not saying that these bonus contracts were wise or even that they weren't a minor level of corruption in their own way. But they shouldn't distract us from the fact that it was politicians and bureaucrats who gave AIG your money and mine.

By now we all know (and by “we”, I’m including idiots like Grassley) that the bonuses were due to current and former employees based on pre-existing contracts…and that the top management of the company is not receiving them.

But even after that was clear, politicians from the President on down are trying to figure out how to block or recover those payments, including some Democrats suggesting a special surcharge tax on bonuses from firms which are receiving TARP money with the effect of creating a 100% tax rate on those payments.

Of course, just two years ago, the President's Press Secretary said the administration was "confident" they knew where AIG was spending taxpayer money.

The upcoming government program called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (“TALF”), which was already delayed once, is now getting the cold shoulder from many would-be participants over the level of government interference in their business which they may be subject to if they participate.  Not just the risk that government may retroactively try to change employment or other contracts, which would make it more difficult to attract quality employees who would prefer to go to a non-participating firm without that risk.  But also other know-nothing protectionist measures such as the provision in the stimulus bill that restricts the ability of recipients of government “rescue” money to hire foreign workers on H-1B visas.  These are not tomato pickers we’re talking about here.  They are educated, important members of the American economy who will simply leave the US and go to compete against us because of Congress’ boneheaded “America First” nonsense.

There’s another very important point about the money that went to AIG.  It seems that AIG tried to keep secret (probably for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons) just where it sent the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars it received.  The majority of payments to AIG were distributed to other banks and investment banks, each of which was made whole on contracts at taxpayer expense even though almost all of those banks could have withstood losing much or all of the amount paid.  In other words, American taxpayers just covered nearly $100 billion in potential losses, including at least $58 billion which went to foreign banks, especially in France and Germany!

Goldman Sachs, which has had tremendous impact on and some might say control of the US Treasury for much of the time since Robert Rubin was Bill Clinton’s second Secretary of the Treasury, received about $13 billion!  No wonder Hank Paulson wanted AIG bailed out.  And no wonder he appointed as the new CEO of AIG Edward Liddy…who serves on the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs.  Anyone smell a rat?

While nobody likes to lose money, these giant American and foreign institutions could have withstood losing a few billion dollars each.  Instead, the government simply paid out $100 billion of our money to cover their potential loses.  

While part of me thinks government should demand a return of part of that money from all the AIG counterparties so that they’re at least sharing in the loss, another part of me says that would just be further government meddling in existing contracts.  Hindsight is 20/20, but clearly the government should have let AIG go into bankruptcy protection and then work out an orderly closing-down of the company, including letting its counter-parties take all, or at least much, of their losses.

And now the politicians want to scream about $165 million actually paid to employees?  

To put it another way, dividing the $165 million in bonuses over the roughly 6,400 people who will receive them, we’re talking about an average of just under $26,000 per person.  But these are the same politicians who passed an economic stimulus plan that Democrats claim will cost around $100,000 per job created and stimulus opponents claim will cost over $200,000 per job created.

It’s truly amazing for a President who is proposing a budget with a $1.75 trillion deficit (and it will be higher than that) and a Congress that passed a “stimulus” bill that will likely end up costing over $3 trillion in the next decade (not the $800 billion nominal price tag on the disastrous piece of legislation) is complaining about $165 million going to Americans who are due it under contracts.

They’re simply tried to cover their asses for being responsible for the single biggest waste of taxpayer money in American history.  We must not let them get away with it.

The Treasury Department and the Fed, either knowingly or unknowingly (my guess is the former) simply redistributed your money and mine to Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Societe Generale, and Deutsche Bank, just to name a few.  They made the argument (which I believed, to a degree) that the counter-party risk could take down the entire financial system.  But it turns out that the counter-party risk was so widely distributed that it would have been just a small bruise on an industry which was being so severely beaten for other reasons that the additional losses from AIG would have been little more than a minor additional nuisance.

Barney Frank is one of the key villains in the whole financial meltdown, but he got one thing right this week, speaking of how the government threw more than $100 billion of taxpayer money at AIG with no strings and no oversight: “Clearly there was a mistake at the beginning.”

And today, if I understood him right, Barack Obama is saying that he will be proposing legislation to allow government to regulate executive compensation. It is an all-out war on capitalism, but unfortunately for those of us who prefer capitalism to the current trend toward economic fascism, the left is using AIG as the poster boy for free-markets when any true capitalist would have said "let them fail."

It’s far past time to insist on an end to government bailouts, to stop accepting “too big to fail” and instead to consider some thing “too big to save.”  And it’s time to hold our elected officials accountable for wasting our money on a nearly unimaginable scale.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:47:20 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4411</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Applauds Governors Sanford and Perry for Refusing "Stimulus" Money</title><description><![CDATA[(Alexandria, Va.) – The 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has applauded South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for their decisions this week to refuse part of the federal stimulus package earmarked for their respective states. Sanford will accept $700 million only if the President allows him to use it to pay down debts rather than create new spending obligations. Perry has refused outright $555 million for expansion of state unemployment benefits.

“In the midst of the current economic downturn, politicians across the country are suffering from bailout fever,” NTU State Government Affairs Manager Joshua Culling said. “Rather than blindly accepting the President’s massive stimulus check, Governors Sanford and Perry understand that the expansion of government based on one-time revenue leads to structural deficits and significant tax hikes down the road.”

NTU also called on state legislatures in South Carolina and Texas to resist calls to overturn the Governors’ decisions. “Refusal of this money is the best long-term option for both of these states,” Culling continued, “even though it may not be the most politically popular.”

President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package passed last month and included over $100 billion in direct aid to the states. With 46 states currently facing budget deficits, many are relying on this infusion of federal cash to balance their budgets without necessary spending cuts. In the future, when the stimulus money is no longer flowing, states will have to make tough decisions about whether to cut programs or increase taxes to continue to fund them.

“Once a government program is created, politicians are adamant about keeping it,” Culling concluded. “Taxpayers in South Carolina and Texas are grateful to their Governors for realizing this, and avoiding this federally imposed expansion of government that would surely lead to tax increases in the future.”

NTU is a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizen organization founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes, smaller government, and economic freedom at all levels. Note: For more information, visit www.ntu.org.
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:20:44 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4400</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>US Rep. Devin Nunes before, during, and after the bailouts</title><description><![CDATA[Here's a video that compiles clips of US Rep. Devin Nunes opposing the bailouts:

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:50:39 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4398</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Sanford: "The first order of business is to stop digging"</title><description><![CDATA[In a letter to the South Carolina legislature yesterday, Gov. Mark Sanford outlined his plan to reject calls for new spending programs using the portion of federal stimulus dollars under his control. Sanford's claims that his office has discretion over $700 million. Instead of new spending, he will use that money to pay down the state's debt. He also takes the general idea of a federal stimulus package to task in his letter:
As a believer in federalism, I find it appalling tha tWashington would seek to effectively remake the entire budget process of the states. But phiosophy aside, in the case of our state, doing so would lead to potentially disastrous budgetary consequences in future years...We believe it is not only financially reckless to borrow from future generations to attempt to address today's economic problems - but in this case, along with digging a larger financial hole from which to dig out of in 24 months, it would allow us to gloss over changes long overdue in South Carolina.
I would point out that South Carolina will be paying down its debt because of the federal government's increase in its debt burden. But Gov. Sanford claims that he has no other choice than the lesser of two evils. He can either create new spending obligations funded by a one-time burst of federal cash and destined for insolvency, or pay down some debt. Let's hope the rest of South Carolina's stimulus dollars are treated with the same scrutiny.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:50:38 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4393</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Open Letter: Ensure Transparency and Accountability by Posting Stimulus Expenditures Online</title><description><![CDATA[Dear Governor:

Recently, President Obama signed into law a $787 billion package that supporters claim will stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, the legislation is packed with wasteful spending, most of which will fail to reverse the downturn and will, instead plunge our country further into debt. On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union nationwide, I ask you to reject the portion of the stimulus package to be directed toward your state. It is unfair to ask federal taxpayers throughout America to subsidize state governments, and rejecting the bailout would demonstrate your principled and vital resistance to increasing the debt burden on future generations of Americans.

If you do decide to accept this federal largesse, however, it is imperative that you make the process as transparent as possible. The best way to achieve this end is to create a searchable online database of all stimulus monies earmarked for your state, along with the agencies or contractors receiving the funds, and the date and amount of each individual expenditure. Citizens in your state and across the country deserve to know where their hard-earned dollars are going.

The Center for American Progress estimates that 69 percent of the stimulus package will be administered by state governments. That comes to over $541 billion destined for transportation, alternative energy, education, and other projects. With that large price tag comes a phenomenal capacity for waste and inefficiency. Now more than ever it is important that taxpayers be able to see how their money is being spent, giving them the ability to hold government accountable for this massive spending package.

The best course of action would be to refuse the stimulus money outright, as it will increase our nation's long-term debt while doing little to pull the economy out of recession. But in the event that you choose to accept a federal bailout, I implore you and your colleagues to serve as guiding lights of fiscal transparency and accountability in a process that remains shrouded in fog.

Sincerely,

Duane Parde
President

Link here.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:16:51 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4390</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Come join our Taxpayer Tea Party!</title><description><![CDATA[Sick of bailouts, mind-boggling spending, and politicians in DC and your state that just don't get it?  Join the crowd!  NTU is joining together with several other conservative organizations to start a "New American Tea Party" protest.  When the colonists got sick of the out-of-touch British and their absurd taxes, they revolted and pitched shipments of tea into Boston Harbor.  Let's reprise that effort and start a new Tea Party of our own!  Join us Friday at noon in front of the White House.


*************
TAXPAYER TEA PARTY PROTEST TO BE HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C. FEBRUARY 27 

NewAmericanTeaParty.com launches latest in a nationwide series of protests over stimulus 

WASHINGTON – Up to 300 taxpayers of all political stripes are set to descend on the nation's capital to protest wasteful spending and bailouts to undeserving speculators in the recently passed economic spending bill. 

“This isn't a conservative or liberal thing,” said Washington event organizer J.P. Freire. “This is about government forking over billions of dollars to businesses that should have failed. This is about government listening to and acting on the will of the people. Taking hard earned money from the responsible to bail out the irresponsible is offensive to every taxpayer. We’re here to show that that isn’t a fringe opinion.” 

The protest has been organized by e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media. Since the passage of the stimulus, protests in Seattle, Wash., Denver, Colo., Mesa, Ariz., and Overland Park, Kan. have seen larger and larger crowds – the protest in Kansas numbering over 700. 

Event Agenda will be announced on Thursday on NewAmericanTeaParty.com 

WHAT: 	Washington Tea Party Protest 
WHO: 	About 300 nonpartisan taxpayers 
WHERE: 	White House Sidewalk 
WHEN: 	Friday, February 27, Noon to 2:00 p.m. 

Credentialed media and bloggers are invited to cover this event. For more information, or to interview J.P. Freire, email newamericanteaparty@gmail.com. 

### 

The New American Tea Party (www.NewAmericanTeaParty.com) is a self-organized group helping to coordinate the activities of tea party protesters across the nation. Sponsors for the DC event are The American Spectator, Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Conservatives Coalition, the Heartland Institute, National Taxpayers Union, FreedomWorks, and the Institute for Liberty.
*************
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:02:26 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4347</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The real cost of the Generational Theft Act</title><description><![CDATA[It's a sad day for America, as The Chosen One flew to Denver (what a sad statement about our formerly excellent state) to sign one of the most ill-conceived pieces of legislation in American history.

If anyone tries to defend it to you in the next 48 hours, please ask him (or her) what percentage of the bill he has read or believes he understands.

One point that must be made: The media is talking about this bill as if it's $787 billion...already an astoundingly irresponsible number.

But at the request of Congressman Paul Ryan, the Congressional Budget office did an analysis of the 10-year cost of the new law including assuming the extension of the newly-created or expanded programs that the measure cynically assumes will just go away or be returned to their original size after two years.

As Ryan noted, Reagan told us that there's nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.

The CBO's answer:  

Extending the programs as they likely will be will increase the budget deficit and our national debt by another $1.7 trillion.

Interest on all this spending, which is not included in the media-reported cost will be another $745 billion.

Therefore, the total cost of this bill over 10 year is $3.27 TRILLION

Yes, the angry cries from fiscal conservatives about the government's waste of $800 billion of taxpayer money was aimed at a travesty only 1/4 the actual size of what President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, and their friends just did to us, our children, and future generations.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:32:29 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4314</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>What $13 Trillion Means</title><description><![CDATA[My good friend Cord Blomquist over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute posted some truthy goodness over at OpenMarket today where he explains exactly what $13 trillion really means.

Here's the portion that really struck me:"Then there’s the interest on this staggering debt, which isn’t exactly small.  Paying the interest on the current $10.7 trillion debt cost Americans $451.1 billion last year alone.  How big is that?

    * That’s $1478 dollars in interest for every man, woman, and child in the United States.
    * That’s bigger than the annual budgets of  New York ($121.1 billion), California ($111.1 billion) and Texas ($83.8 billion) combined."Now, that $451.1 billion in debt service is a pretty incredible number.  That's almost as much as our entire defense budget.  And that was for LAST YEAR, before the utter insanity of a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street and an $800 billion "stimulus" (and the impending TARP II bailout) ever came into the picture.

So I'd like to take a moment to say thanks, Congress, for saddling the child that's in my wife's belly with a staggering debt before she's ever drawn a breath on this Earth.  It's nice to know that my first-born already has a price on her head as though she had crossed the mob or something.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:00:28 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4304</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Markets to Obama Administration: Here's what we think of your bailouts</title><description><![CDATA[On Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) dropped 382 points, or about 4.6%, to 7889, its biggest drop since December 1st, 2008, its lowest close since November 20th, 2008, and its second-lowest close since March 14, 2003.

And what happened on Tuesday?  The Senate, with the help of 3 RINOs, at least one of whom (Arlen Specter) I hope to see lose a primary challenge in less than two years, passed its version of the "stimulus" bill.  And Treasury Secretary Geithner announced the Administration's newest version of the TARP plan, a plan which will not only get government much more deeply involved in the operation of banks, but will also, according to Geithner, involve up to $1 trillion, most of which is taxpayer money.  Some analysts think it will be much more.

I've written in other articles that 1) the market doesn't lie, at least not for long, and 2) the market doesn't feel very good about the Obama administration.  The market made its point louder and clearer on Tuesday.

While many liberals have argued that bailouts should be spectacularly large (a "triumph of hope over experience" as Carlos Alberto Montaner in THIS must-read article), investors voted on the simultaneous passage of two grotesquely massive wastes of our money and the vote was an unmistakable thumbs-down.

Many in the media are spinning Tuesday's sell-off as the market "not having enough details" about the TARP expansion. But I don't think that's it at all.  I think the market has all the details it needs.  Despite the media, I think what investors really want is a signal that Geithner and Obama realize that bigger government action will not fix the problem in the short term and will exacerbate our national bankruptcy in the longer (but not very long) term.

Obama, Pelosi, Dodd, and friends keep reminding us that the Democrats won the election. Indeed they did, and although it's costing me money, I eliminated most of my stock investments some months ago because I expect this to look in retrospect like a much better selling opportunity than buying opportunity.  I hope I'm wrong.  But despite the pleas of some liberal readers who probably have very little in investments, buying stocks is not a patriotic duty.  What is a duty is protecting one's capital in order to be able to provide for one's family. 

An IDB/TIPP poll shows very strong support for cutting taxes to help the economy:



And a Rasmussen poll shows "62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending."

What does this mean?  As I wrote in October, just before the election, "Liberals will learn the wrong lesson from the election".  Senior Democratic politicians believe, erroneously, that Democrats did so well in the election because voters substantially like Democratic policies.  This is just as untrue as Republicans winning in 2004 and believing that the public's biggest issue was gay marriage.  No, the Democrats won because people were justifiably sick of the GOP, but not because voters support big government liberalism.  This wrongly-learned lesson will cost the Democrats dearly in the next couple of elections if and only if the GOP can put up solid, essentially libertarian candidates who focus on limited government and low taxes and not on abortion and gay marriage.  In the meantime, we're living the maxim that people get the government they deserve.  And boy are they getting it now...good and hard.

It's only a liberal who could think that one of the worst stock markets in American history is due to government not spending enough.  It's only a liberal who can't seem to remember that the government doesn't have it's own money...it has yours. (Except of course for the money it just prints, which is little different from just taking yours.)

There's an often-quoted phrase: "If you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging."  The Obama Administration just keeps buying bigger shovels, however, and the stock market just keeps falling deeper into the pit, and your retirement savings, your kids' college funds, and the solvency of our own state, local, and even federal governments.

One thing I should apologize for: During the election, I said that I thought the economic turmoil would curtail the Democrats' ability to turn us into a socialist country.  I was wrong.  McCain's behavior in the past week makes me wonder "where was that guy four months ago?"  He's been right on target in opposing this "stimulus" which will stimulate only the massive and permanent growth of government.  If only he'd been today's John McCain when the first stimulus vote came around.  In any case, the stimulus bill now includes a heavy poisonous dose of Daschle-care.  So, to the extent that I caused anyone to have some hope that an obviously socialist president might not be able to destroy our economy and our capitalist system, I apologize.

Politicians are no smarter or wiser than most other Americans. And they certainly live in an insular world of power-grabbing.  This means that the Democratic leadership will continue to believe that they won the election because voters like their ideas.  It's a self-delusion, but one whose cure will be extremely painful to the rest of us.  The worst thing that happens to Chris Dodd is that he'll retire into his "friends of Angelo" mortgaged-home with his large government pension and benefits.  As for the rest of us, we'll be paying for the economic sins of him and his idiot Keynsian leftist colleagues for the rest of our lives...and if you think that's hyperbole, read some history of the New Deal.  No, friends, we have a generation or more of suffering coming because the GOP was stupid enough to give stupid voters a reason to vote in stupid liberals in essentially incontestable majorities.  Yes, we're all getting the government that Obama voters deserve.  The stock market is just making it clear to those who were still, through all this Congressional horror-show, too stupid to notice.

Dow Jones Industrial Average to Obama and Geithner: "Take your bailouts and shove them."]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:01:15 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4285</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Stock market shows little hope for Obama</title><description><![CDATA[For those of you who haven't been paying attention to financial markets (which is probably somewhere between 0% and 2% of my readers), I'd like to point out that the Dow Jones was not only down 9% in January, but it's down 17% since the election of The Chosen One. 

Here's the LINK for a chart of a few days before the election up to the end of January. (Click on the word LINK above.)


Financial markets aren't taken with the charisma of the Obamessiah. They don't see hope for profits or any change for the better.

Instead, they see with the clear vision of the aggregation of business people and investors who recognize the dead hand of government growing larger, with a longer reach, than ever.  They see government spending which would make FDR blush and which will likely never be turned back because, as Ronald Reagan said, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.  And these Democratic changes aren't intended to be temporary.

As the "stimulus" bill brings us socialized medicine, massive debt, payoffs to corrupt organizations like Acorn, fealty to the dangerous cult of Algore and the hoax of man-made global warming, and while the NY Attorney General threatens criminal charges for employees receiving bonuses down 44% from the year before, the stock market clearly sees our capitalist system flopping around like a just-gutted fish that squirmed briefly out of the fish-monger's hands before dying on the floor.

A chart by the Heritage Foundation makes a dramatic point, even if it's not entirely fair to compare the stimulus bill, which would probably be money spent over several years, to one year's expenses for a family:



As I've said in prior notes, markets don't lie...at least not for long.  This market's verdict is already loud and clear and my guess is that the market is a better sale with the Dow at 8,000 than a buy.  Why would you want to own part of an American corporation with a government completely dominated by people who hate not just oil companies and banks, but also free trade, low taxes, and the most essential requirement of a successful free-market economy: Profits.

As Steve Moore and others have mentioned, we're living "Atlas Shrugged". The looters are firmly in charge.  There's one important difference between the situation in the book and the situation in America today: In the book, the public were as socialist as their government.  I don't believe that's the case in our nation in 2009.  The Democrats are getting this stuff done behind screams of panic, while people are distracted by a serious recession, without any debate or any input from Republicans.  On the bright side, it will create a huge political liability for the Democrats in coming elections. But the downside, which is much larger, is that those elections are far too distant to prevent the Democrats doing tremendous and likely permanent damage to what used to be the economic engine and envy of the world.

It's certainly true that the economic downturn began during the Bush presidency.  But the market lows have happened since the election and soon enough this will be Obama's recession despite the media's attempts to block for him.

People get the government they deserve.  And for electing that government, the American population is seeing their retirement savings, their employment prospects, and the prospects for a better life for our children shredded.

Hope and Change? Not according to one of the few measures that answers honestly and really matters.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:50:34 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4241</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>TARP Junket</title><description><![CDATA[If it is wrong for companies that have taken TARP funds (these companies shall henceforth be referred to as GSE's, as in Government Sponsored Enterprises) to buy jets or to provide productivity incentives (i.e., bonuses) to their employees, then it is surely wrong for one of these GSEs to send Congressmen on a junket to St. Marten.

If only the original GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were subject to as much scrutiny as the new breed of GSEs, we might not be as deep in a mess as we are now.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:28:54 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4232</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Totally Predictable Bailout Outrage of the Day</title><description><![CDATA[Banks who have received bailout money are continuing to lobby the feds, racking up millions in costs while taxpayers shovel billions onto their balance sheets.  But of course there's no connection between the two...No siree, not at all.

GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, actually more than tripled to $4.6 million in 2008.  This is the same GMAC that got a big fat $6 billion check from taxpayers to bail them out from their many bad business decisions.

Gee, I'm sure glad this bailout has worked so well to improve the economy....except it has worked like these people trying to drive.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:27:26 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4193</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>House Passes TARP Disapproval Resolution</title><description><![CDATA[Too bad the next $350 billion will get spent anyways!

The House just passed a resolution of disapproval for the second half of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout by a vote of 270-155.  On the surface, that seems like a good sign, but to quote the prophets from Public Enemy, "Don't believe the hype!"

The Senate already failed to pass its disapproval resolution, so this vote was essentially irrelevant.  Because the House knew that the money would be spent anyways, a lot of them saw this as a free vote to pander to their constituents.

My honest guess is that if this vote had mattered, it would have narrowly failed, meaning that the House too would have been on board with flushing an additional $350 billion of your money.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:19:43 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4189</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Vote Alert on House TARP Disapproval Resolution</title><description><![CDATA[January 22, 2009

******************************************
National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert 

NTU urges all Members to vote “YES” on H.J. Res. 3, introduced by Representative Foxx, to disapprove releasing the second $350 billion of the bailout program.

Despite the federal government’s actions to exhaust the first installment of $350 billion worth of taxpayer money through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), our economy is in largely the same place as before the bailout: scarce credit, rising unemployment, and plunging consumer spending. Meanwhile, the taxpayers who have underwritten this ill-fated scheme remain in the dark about the disposition of their money, the firms that are helping the Treasury Department spend it, and the actions of the Federal Reserve.

Many Members doubtless felt as though they had no choice but to support the bailout last year because of the dire predictions of economic doom if they failed to do so. We can now see that many of those predictions have come true regardless, and we have little to show for our enormous infusion of resources into failing institutions. The time has come to stop the bleeding, end the bailout program, and instead focus on drafting legislation to address some of the root causes of this crisis. Throwing good money after bad is a profound mistake, not a solution.

Roll call votes on H.J. Res. 3, the bailout resolution of disapproval, will be heavily weighted and among the most important votes of the year in our annual Rating of Congress.

If you have any questions, please contact 
NTU Government Affairs Manager Andrew Moylan at (703) 683-5700
******************************************
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:13:02 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4187</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Senate Votes to Flush $350 Billion More of Your Money</title><description><![CDATA[The Senate just voted 42-52, FAILING to pass a resolution of disapproval on spending $350 billion more on the TARP bailout plan.  That means that they supported the second half of the bailout.  The measure will now move to the House where, if it passes, it will certainly be signed into law.

FAILout, part II.  Apparently that first $350 billion was so effective that the Senate couldn't help itself but to vote for the second half, too.  It's times like these when I have to fight the urge to throw my hands up and say, "Screw it."  Can somebody talk me down?  Please?

UPDATE: Roll call vote here.  Five Republicans voted against the resolution...Lamar Alexander (TN), Judd Gregg (NH), Jon Kyl (AZ), Dick Lugar (IN), Olympia Snowe (ME).

Nine Democrats voted for it...Evan Bayh (IN), Maria Cantwell (WA), Byron Dorgan (ND), Russ Feingold (WI), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Bernie Sanders (technically an Independent-VT), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), and Ron Wyden (OR).]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:54:39 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4167</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Vote Alert on Senate TARP Disapproval Resolution</title><description><![CDATA[January 15, 2009

******************************************
National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert 

NTU urges all Senators to vote “YES” on S.J. Res. 5, introduced by Senator Vitter (R-LA), to disapprove releasing the second $350 billion of the bailout program.

Despite the federal government’s actions to exhaust the first installment of $350 billion worth of taxpayer money through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), our economy is in largely the same place as before the bailout: scarce credit, rising unemployment, and plunging consumer spending. Meanwhile, the taxpayers who have underwritten this ill-fated scheme remain in the dark about the disposition of their money, the firms that are helping the Treasury Department spend it, and the actions of the Federal Reserve.

Many Members doubtless felt as though they had no choice but to support the bailout last year because of the dire predictions of economic doom if they failed to do so. We can now see that many of those predictions have come true regardless, and we have little to show for our enormous infusion of resources into failing institutions. The time has come to stop the bleeding, end the bailout program, and instead focus on drafting legislation to address some of the root causes of this crisis. Throwing good money after bad is a profound mistake, not a solution.

Roll call votes on S.J. Res. 5, the bailout resolution of disapproval, will be heavily weighted and among the most important votes of the year in our annual Rating of Congress.

If you have any questions, please contact 
NTU Government Affairs Manager Andrew Moylan at (703) 683-5700
******************************************
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:49:29 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4165</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Vote Alert on Frank TARP Bill</title><description><![CDATA[******************************************
National Taxpayers Union
Vote Alert 

NTU urges all Representatives to vote “NO” on H.R. 384, the “TARP Reform and Accountability Act.”

This legislation, sponsored by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), would authorize the disbursement of an additional $350 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), while attaching some conditions and provisos to supposedly “fix” the defects encountered with the first half. Unfortunately, this bill amounts to sprinkling sugar (and some dirt) on top of a fundamentally sour bailout package that wastes hard-earned taxpayer dollars for questionable economic benefit. Furthermore, it contains several provisions that simply worsen the situation, such as expressly broadening what was intended as a financial industry bailout to include struggling auto companies. 

No matter how much ornamentation is added, the bailout package cannot overcome its basic flaws: throwing taxpayer money at a private-sector problem, rewarding bad actors, and failing to address the root causes of the crisis. H.R. 384 does nothing to change that equation.

Roll call votes on H.R. 384 will be heavily weighted in our annual Rating of Congress.
	
If you have any questions, please contact 
NTU Government Affairs Manager Andrew Moylan at (703) 683-5700
******************************************
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:12:32 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4164</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Cut "Ax-Ready" Waste Before Funding "Shovel-Ready" Projects</title><description><![CDATA[NTU and CCAGW are offering an alternative to the U.S. Conference of Mayors' list of "shovel-ready" projects to stimulate the economy: an updated list of "ax-ready" programs and legislation that would reduce wasteful spending.

Instead of the mayors' $96.6 billion wish list of "ready-to-go"  projects to allegedly create jobs and improve the nation's infrastructure, NTU and CCAGW are highlighting "ready-to-cut" programs that would reduce wasteful spending.

NTU's research arm, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), through its BillTally program has compiled a list of legislation that would reduce federal spending. In the last nine Congresses, 2,150 spending-cut bills were introduced that totaled over $9.5 trillion -- only 69 of which were eventually signed into law (for a savings of $89.6 billion).

CCAGW's research arm, Citizens Against Government Waste, just issued its "2009 Prime Cuts," which has 700 cut recommendations totaling $1.9 trillion over five years.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:55:48 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4152</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Congress Should Reject 2nd Half of TARP</title><description><![CDATA[NTU Government Affairs Manager Andrew Moylan sent a letter to Congress today urging lawmakers to reject the authorization of the remaining $350 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). What about that first $350 billion? Oh, that's right -- it was a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Andrew explains:
Despite expenditures of $350 billion to prop up financial (and non-financial) institutions, our economy remains in largely the same place: slow credit markets, rising unemployment, and reduced consumer spending as Americans rich and poor conserve their dollars during this rough patch. There is little reason to believe that another $350 billion would reverse the current market correction any better than the first $350 billion did.
Not to mention the fact that we have little idea of how or where that money went. In December, NTU led a coalition of 78 organizations across the political spectrum in demanding greater bailout transparency.

The 111th Congress has an opportunity to stand up for taxpayers. Hopefully they'll take it.

]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:01:28 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4149</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>An Economist's Appreciation of Failing Firms</title><description><![CDATA[While visiting family in California over the Christmas holidays, I passed a lot of former  Mervyns stores with their doors permanently closed.  Another casualty of our current times.  I have to admit it was a depressing sight as many past Mervyns purchases floated through my mind.  After the third such store, the economist within me finally woke up and I reflected that such visions are an important part of successful economies.

It is easy to see the disheartening closed doors, but impossible to see the resources that are now freed up to be used for ventures that will make people better off.  Failed businesses represent efforts where the value of resources used in production exceeds the value of resources created.  Society is better off when resources are moved to products that people value more.  It may take time for resources (or rather the entrepreneurs using them) to discover where they will be best used, but this dynamic process is what makes us prosperous.  

Some may argue that bailouts for struggling firms will benefit society by preventing job loss, but such actions actual hinder societal progress.  Bailouts make us poorer not just in their monetary cost, but also in the fact that they keep resources in inefficient products (and firms) that society values less than they cost.  Change (and the temporary dislocations that come with it) is not easy, but endeavoring to prevent it makes us pay twice.  The country would be well served if the legislative and executive branches of our government would consider the unseen benefits of letting failing firms fail.

]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:09:12 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4125</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Not Exactly a "Free" Press</title><description><![CDATA[After emerging from a deep depression caused by yesterday's unpleasantness I assumed today would have to be better.

But then I learned that our "free press" might not be so interested in being free anymore.  That's right, bailout fever has hit local newspapers.

So just to recap:  The banks were too big to fail, so they got a bailout.  The Detroit Three were too important to fail, so they got a bailout.  And now some politicians think local newspapers are too vital to the marketplace of ideas to be required to compete in the actual market.

I can't help but think that maybe if the press wasn't acting like the New York Times they'd all be in better shape.  Of course, I guess with some of your taxpayer dollars, everything will be just hunky dory without being forced to do unsavory things like cutting costs or producing a better product.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:15:27 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4122</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Guess who else wants a bailout?</title><description><![CDATA[Amtrak!  I eat breakfast and watch Washington Journal on C-SPAN every morning (yes, I'm that much of a nerd), and today's guest is Joseph Boardman, Amtrak's President and CEO.  One quote stood out to me...(I'm paraphrasing after quickly scribbling this down)"We need billions, maybe even beyond billions, to move people in an economy that will be very different by 2025."Wait, so you mean to tell me that Amtrak, a company that has been hemorrhaging money for decades and is incapable of operation without boatloads of taxpayer dollars, might need billions or TRILLIONS of our hard-earned money in the future?

I found it miraculous that a man who heads up a such a failure of an entity would talk in such glowing terms about the importance and future of passenger rail in this country.  Despite his sunny disposition, Americans have made it quite clear that passenger rail is NOT going to be a big part of our present or, in all likelihood, our future either.  Except for the area between Boston and Washington, DC on the East coast, there simply isn't the kind of population density that makes rail useful.

For example, I just went online to search for comparable plane and train tickets to my home town of Detroit for a hypothetical long weekend from January 8th to the 11th.  For $139, I could fly a major airline from Reagan National Airport to Detroit Metro Airport with my choice of dozens of schedules for the 1.5 hour flight.  I could arrive in Detroit on the 8th on a non-stop flight as early as 7:42am or as late as late as 11:03pm, depending on my preference.

How'd Amtrak do?  Well, there are exactly two choices.  One leaves DC at 4:05pm on the 8th and arrives in scenic Toledo, OH at 4:56am.  That's 4:56 in the morning.  Then I'd get the pleasure of riding a bus from Toledo up to Detroit for a little over an hour, ultimately arriving at 7:35am.  I don't know if you've ever driven on that section of I-75, but it's hardly fit for cars, much less buses.  That would take a total of 15.5 hours and cost me $68.

What if I didn't want to take a bus?  The other option available is to take a train that leaves DC at 4:05pm on the 8th and arrives in Chicago at 8:40am, then hop on another train taking me back East to Detroit, ultimately arriving at 6:45pm on the 9th.  This route takes 26.5 hours and costs a total of $131.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I'd rather pay the extra $8 and take a 1.5 hour direct flight that gets me home whenever I want.  Sorry, Mr. Boardman.  Until that calculus changes, Amtrak's going to continue to fail.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:48:29 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4118</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Say Goodbye to $17 Billion</title><description><![CDATA[I've had my fair share of disappointment with President Bush.  His Medicare plan is a disaster.  His unwillingness to veto any bills (especially spending bills) in his first term was sad.  And his full on embrace of pork, well, it made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

But all that would have been forgiven if he resisted the urge to bailout GM and Chrysler.  After the Congress (you know the folks that are supposed to make laws) refused to use taxpayer funds to bailout these failed companies, this morning President Bush decided he would give them $17.4 billion of your tax dollars anyway.

Now of course, they'll tell you there are important and strict conditions on the cash.  But does anyone actually believe the terms will be upheld?

To become "viable" the firms will need to slash employee compensation so they'll be at least in the realm of the compensation paid to other car manufacturers.  That means making the United Auto Workers union unhappy.  And, well, when an organization gives your political party 99 percent of its political contributions, there are lot of reasons to make sure they're not unhappy.

So GM and Chrysler, who are hemorrhaging money have been given $17 billion.  There's virtually no chance that they'll become competitive.  And President Bush is insisting he saved the free market system.

I don't know if he saved the free market system.  But he won't get any argument from me about his claim that he abandoned free market principles.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:01:33 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4108</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Get ready for massive deficits...BEFORE any stimulus</title><description><![CDATA[Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution posts a terrific graph detailing just how bad our national debt, as a percentage of GDP, will be even if we simply extend current law!

This, of course, is before we even talk about President-elect Obama's $600 billion stimulus plan.  Or $1 trillion stimulus plan.  Or whatever enormous number it ends up being.

Somehow, some way, you always end up paying the piper.  Our federal government has, unfortunately, been operating in La-La Land for decades now.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:26:33 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4103</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>14 People to Thank</title><description><![CDATA[Thanksgiving is over, but there are 14 people that you NEED to thank if you oppose bailouts.  14 is the number of Senators who voted against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout AND the auto company bailout that failed last night.  From an email I got from a policy friend here in DC, these are the few Senators that managed to get both votes right and stand up for taxpayers...

Wayne Allard (R-CO) - Call Allard and thank him at (202) 224-5941
John Barrasso (R-WY) - Call Barrasso and thank him at (202) 224-6441
Jim Bunning (R-KY) - Call Bunning and thank him at (202) 224-4343
Thad Cochran (R-MS) - Call Cochran and thank him at (202) 224-5054
Mike Crapo (R-ID) - Call Crapo and thank him at (202) 224-6142
Jim DeMint (R-SC) - Call DeMint and thank him at (202) 224-6121
Mike Enzi (R-WY) - Call Enzi and thank him at (202) 224-3424
Jim Inhofe (R-OK) - Call Inhofe and thank him at (202) 224-4721
Pat Roberts (R-KS) - Call Roberts and thank him at (202) 224-4774
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) - Call Sessions and thank him at (202) 224-4124
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - Call Shelby and thank him at (202) 224-5744
Jon Tester (D-MT) - Call Tester and thank him at (202) 224-2644
David Vitter (R-LA) - Call Vitter and thank him at (202) 224-4623
Roger Wicker (R-MS) - Call Wicker and thank him at (202) 224-6253]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:31:31 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4089</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Is the Bailout Dead?</title><description><![CDATA[The cloture vote on the bailout bill fell eight votes short in the Senate tonight, with 52 senators voting in favor and 35 voting no.  The other 12 were gone fishing.

See if your senator gets a gold star here. 

Of course, if we learned anything with the last round of bailouts, it's that it takes more than one vote to kill a big government boondoggle.  You can keep the pressure on Congress by visiting Beyond Bailouts.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:13:22 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4086</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>So That's Why She's Wearing Red</title><description><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer (D-Ca), just made my favorite argument for bailouts ever.  Clad in red (just like Santa), the Senator from California (who has scored an F every year she's been in Congress) passionately argued:
This is the Christmas Season.  My goodness, let's take a chance on this.  Let's take a chance on this.
That's right, bailout Chrysler because it's Christmas.

You can watch the ridiculousness here.  Her speech is not for those with a weak stomach.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:04:22 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4085</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Bailout Passes House</title><description><![CDATA[Last night the House of Representatives votes 237-170-1 to pass a $14 billion auto bailout.  205 Democrats and 32 Republicans supported the bailout.  150 Republicans and 20 Democrats opposed it.  John Campbell (R-Ca) voted present.  And 26 members didn't show up.

According to the New York Times, the bailout bill is a "government rescue of the American automobile industry."  Although everyone who watched the bailout hearings knows, the money will be about as much use to Detroit as throwing Waterpals Arm Floats to 
Jack Dawson: It may make you feel better, but it's not going to stop them from going under.

The bill is now headed to the Senate.  You can contact your senator, via NTU's Beyond Bailouts website here.
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:46:29 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4083</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>
</channel>
</rss>