Some Thoughts on GOP Candidates after the Debate of November 22

Newt Gingrich at CPAC FL 2011. Photo: Dreamstime.com

In the Tuesday (November 22) GOP debate, we have been treated to a Thanksgiving feast of discussion of foreign policy, in which all the candidates did an acceptable job of making their points. There were no major gaffes. All the candidates seemed confident and competent. Any of these candidates would be greatly preferable to Mr. Obama.

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in the polls for now among GOP presidential candidates. His debate performances have been impressive and, for his campaign, efficient, since it doesn’t cost anything (other than transportation and scheduling) for him to participate. With his campaign all but written off earlier, he has come back to score substantially improved poll numbers.

Gingrich looks like a candidate with the depth of knowledge and ability to articulate his positions that a president needs to have. He has years of experience in government and in study of the important issues. It appears that he can be trusted with presidential responsibility. He has avoided shouting matches with his GOP opponents and saved his strong criticism for Barack Obama and the Democrats. He correctly foresaw the failure of the super committee and early and rightly pointed out the foolishness of that process.

(It’s a campaign video, but his assessment of the super committee is quite correct.)

On immigration, he said that long-time residents who came to the U.S. illegally, but have become productive workers, taxpayers, and contributors to the community, should not have their families broken up through deportation. This would represent a minority of illegal immigrants. Gingrich’s “humane” approach sounds mainly like common sense. 

If Newt is the nominee, he will be under intense scrutiny and will be attacked for his personal moral failures. If he succeeds in getting elected, it will be because the voters see him as such a great improvement over Obama that his past sins can be overlooked, or at least left in the past. Presumably, he has overcome the personal mistakes of past years.

I’m sure I wouldn’t agree with him on every issue, but I don’t agree with anyone on all the issues. I think he would make a fine president, and that he would get America on track back to normalcy. He understands the threat of radical Islam and the threat represented by our soaring budget deficits and incessant borrowing.

Brit Hume of Fox News commented on Newt’s poll numbers improvement (Daily Caller via Yahoo! News):


Another candidate showing depth of understanding is the much-unfairly-maligned Rep. Michele Bachmann. She demonstrated an impressive knowledge of complex foreign affairs issues, such as Pakistan policy. Given this and her previous debates, she has shown a good grasp of economic and social issues. I think she is thoroughly qualified to serve as president. She is hampered mainly by liberal smears against her that too many people unthinkingly accept, as with Sarah Palin. Generally, whom liberals fear, they smear.

Speaking of smears, Herman Cain was given the treatment by the Democrats, being accused by a woman who (just coincidentally – not!) lives in the same building as David Axelrod, and another woman who happens to work for the Obama Administration. These charges didn’t stick because voters have better access these days to sources other than the toadying Mainstream Media, and could find no substance to them. Cain’s defenders appear far more reliable than his accusers.

Probably none of the candidates can really be written off now, but, in my view, the race is going to get down to Romney vs. an anti-Romney in the person of Gingrich, Bachmann, or Cain. Possibly Rick Perry, if he can continue his improved debating. Ron Paul is still a factor. As for Santorum and Huntsman, their numbers remain very low, but it’s a year until the election and a lot can happen. There’s also a vice-presidential slot to fill.

As for “electability,” if Republicans can get together on a nominee, and run a reasonably competent campaign, they should be able to defeat Obama very decisively. America’s hopes for prosperity, military strength, freedom, and constitutional government increasingly depend on that.

Related article

• Newt Gingrich Would Beat Mitt Romney in Head to Head Match Up (elections.firedoglake.com)

Cain’s Current Skirmish Shouldn’t Stop Him

Herman Cain      Photo: Dreamstime.com

A new industry has sprung up, started by Politico and their numerous articles about sexual harassment accusations against Herman Cain. Many articles appeared, articles which contained no names or specific allegations, even noting that the supposedly offending actions were “not overtly sexual.” The writers were protecting the accusers, who had signed agreements of confidentiality after agreeing to cash settlements from the National Restaurant Association.

Now, a woman has come forward to accuse Cain of something specific, which supposedly happened in 1997, but was not dealt with at that time. The allegations against Cain appear to be politically motivated attacks, likely dug up by political opponents, and eagerly pounced upon by the liberal media, anxious to destroy Cain’s candidacy even though numerous articles were printed, stating no facts, offering no evidence and no justification.

Of course, liberal Reuters was quick to find three criminal lawyers who agree that Cain could have been accused of sex abuse by his latest accuser, if she had chosen to press charges, though prosecutors likely wouldn’t have wanted to take up this type of he-said-she-said case. In any event, it would be time barred now.


Herman Cain’s campaign success is definitely not liked by liberals or by some members of the Republican establishment, not to mention his GOP rivals. But this whole scenario smacks of the “politics of personal destruction” favored by the socialist liberals. Much like the vicious and spurious attacks on Sarah Palin.

Most Americans have enough of a sense of justice to understand that an accusation is not enough. Cain confidently maintains that these allegations are baseless, and his supporters have responded with increased financial contributions to his campaign. His poll numbers are holding up well.

Whether Cain’s enemies can do him real damage through these allegations remains to be seen, but a great many people see it, correctly, I think, as a media circus designed to cut down a black conservative who is also an unconventional candidate. It’s their choice of methods to avoid dealing with the serious problems for which he is offering solutions.

For media liberals, this circus is hypocritical, since there is no actual evidence to support the allegations, while they went all out to protect Bill Clinton, who actually was guilty of sexual improprieties. As Rush Limbaugh has said, for liberals, this type of behavior is a resume enhancement.

Scott Whitlock at Media Research Center reported on Friday, November 4, that networks had aired “a staggering 63 stories in just four and a half days.”

Further,

The ABC reporter [Brian Ross] also talked to Ricki Seidman, who he simply identified as a "political operative." Ross left out the fact that Seidman has worked for Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis and other Democrats.

Of Cain's accusers, who are anonymous, the political operative sympathized, "They've been called by all kinds of names already by people who have no idea who they are." (Ross did explain that Seidman worked with Anita Hill when she testified against Clarence Thomas.)

Of course, since there’s a woman who has come forward to accuse Cain and is represented by Gloria Allred (who else?), Cain’s enemies probably think they’ve sealed the deal. But if this doesn’t work, they’ll try something else. Cain has a thick-enough skin that he will weather this, and he knows he can expect every kind of phony charge the liberal media can blow up against him.

All this obscures Cain’s debate/discussion with Newt Gingrich, carried on C-SPAN, which was quite a refreshing change from the usual debate format. Cain demonstrated considerable knowledge of the entitlement issues, as did Gingrich. So far, Cain hasn’t missed any speeches or events. He continues to hammer away on his message. I’m listening, and I am sure a lot of others are. (See brief interview dated November 6 here).


I’m about ready to send a check to his campaign. Through his campaign, he’s earned my respect and admiration. I believe him when he says the charges are baseless, and there doesn’t seem to be anyone proving him wrong. Guilty until proven innocent? I don’t think so.

Government Policies Are Bringing About America’s National Decline

Occupy Wall Street protester.  Photo: Dreamstime.com

The New York Times reports that “a deep sense of economic anxiety and doubt about the future hangs over the nation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, with Americans’ distrust of government at its highest level ever.”

Further, “Not only do 89 percent of Americans say they distrust government to do the right thing, but 74 percent say the country is on the wrong track and 84 percent disapprove of Congress — warnings for Democrats and Republicans alike.”

The distrust of government and impatience with the status quo is reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” period. The cure for the “malaise” turned out to be serious changes in economic policy, a sense of cheerful optimism, and pride in America, things championed by President Ronald Reagan.

Today, the Tea Party represents a responsible citizen movement with actual ideas for improving the nation’s economic situation, and actions taken toward accomplishing an improvement. The mob known as Occupy Wall Street (or Occupy ---) demands that the government redistribute the wealth of the rich to them in the form of free college tuition, housing, health care, etc. They are in sympathy with Europeans who have demanded to keep their government benefits uninterrupted, despite the fact that their nations' governments are on the verge of default and bankruptcy.

As Chris Adamo at Renew America points out,

Throughout Europe, the spurious and unsustainable promises of socialist utopia, Ponzi schemes all, are collapsing, leaving entire segments of the population in the throes of riots and revolt. The few remaining adults on the continent are faced with the reality that the massive funding needed to prop up the sham was bound to eventually run out, and now no longer exists. As a result the dream of socialist beneficence simply cannot keep going, no matter how hysterically the short-sighted and morally vacant masses demand it.

These OWSers seem convinced that there is plenty of money to go around, if only the wealthy would “pay their fair share.” More likely, they have no clue about it except they don’t like the idea of people having more than they have – unless they’re celebrities. Actually, America’s public debt obligations are so huge that even if the rich gave up all their annual income to be redistributed, it would not even begin to solve the problem.

The challenge the GOP candidates face is this: Somehow, face up to the fact that nothing being done by the Obama Administration, nothing being suggested by OWS, and nothing the “super committee” is likely to come up with will help in the least. In fact, any of these are making and will make the situation much worse. The results of the 2012 presidential election will in all probability mean the difference between economic and currency collapse, or a real chance at a recovery that everyone can recognize as a recovery.

How the OWS protesters could support Barack Obama in view of the economic damage his administration has done, can be explained only by the fact that the protest’s money and energy is coming largely from people who have no use for America as it has been anyway, and would like to see the whole system fall. Communists, Socialists, Nazis, and fascists are eagerly awaiting what they hope will be the collapse of capitalism and the inauguration of a socialist paradise.

Economically, what they want is not only not feasible, it is not possible, unless they want something like Soviet communism, which is bound to fail. This involves the end of individual liberty and the institution of slavery. We are on Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” already; we need to reverse this, not accelerate it. People who are willing to trade their liberty for government “benefits” will be disappointed if they get their request.

See short video depicting the ideas of Hayek’s classic book in cartoon form here. The presentation is a bit dated, but the ideas are not:

Class warfare, stirring up the mob against the supposedly unjust success of the wealthy is the classic appeal. Liberal agitators, and probably the mainstream media, are just waiting for more violent outbursts to occur.

People who want some corrections made, but not a violent upheaval, ought to consider the fact that it is possible to address America’s economic situation in a responsible way that would bring about substantial improvement fairly quickly. This involves electing a competent Republican president and a Congress that will get rid of the “super committee” and reverse their results, and face up to the task of cutting the size and scope of the federal government and reining in the ridiculous spending.

At the least, it should be recognized that Obama has accomplished nothing positive for the economy. Actually, he has brought about much economic, social and cultural destruction. Short of direct divine intervention, four more years of Barack Obama would bring about the tragic failure of American freedom and prosperity for many years to come. That’s how serious our plight is.

Related articles

• Government Lowers The Standard of Living (economicnoise.com)
• Why It's the Mises Institute (lewrockwell.com)
• United Socialist States of America? (fidlerten.com)

Democrats’ Last Stand? or, This Ain’t the Tea Party

Image via WikipediaThe Occupy Wall Street protest, trying to become a movement, is in essence another left-wing demand for a socialist utopia. Lacking identified leaders and lacking a focus on issues, and finding a convenient scapegoat in “Wall Street,” the protests appear to be an attempt to reawaken the 1960’s protests against things in general. It is basically “juvenile rabble,” as Rich Lowry calls it, and only in a very narrow and superficial sense is it anything like the Tea Party.

Those Democrats! They’ve got no record that they can run on, so now their tactic is to stir up some of those people who are always wanting to protest something (people whom Obama’s policies have failed) and direct them toward blaming “Wall Street” for their troubles. The entire Occupy Wall Street event has been to some extent coordinated, supported, and/or financed by the usual DNC suspects: MoveOn.org, George Soros, White House advisers, etc. In supporting this reprehensible mob action, the White House, already grasping at straws for some kind of election advantage, may be holding on to their last one, for they are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel with this. Rather than simply “embracing” the OWS thing, it’s more likely that they had a hand in drawing it up and implementing it. Hopefully, American voters will see the foolishness of this whole episode.

It’s as if the protesters like what Obama has done for them so far, so much that they’re wanting four more years of his kind of “change.”

The White House continues its much-used, but false, line, with more than a hint of “Blame Bush,”

“If you’re concerned about Wall Street and our financial system, the president is standing on the side of consumers and the middle class,” senior White House adviser David Plouffe said when asked about the demonstrations during an interview today on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “And a lot of these Republicans are basically saying, ‘You know what? Let’s go back to the same policies that led to the Great Recession in the first place.’” [Emphasis added]

No, Republicans are saying let’s not continue with those policies. They’re saying, we should stop bailouts, profligate spending, over-regulation, and basically get the government out of the way of prosperity. At least some Republicans are saying that. And Obama isn’t “standing with the middle class,” he’s destroying the middle class through harebrained economic policies designed to increase dependence upon government.

Funny, guess who some of Obama’s biggest donors are. Right. Wall Street firms. The “proposed” lists of demands, such as, cancelling all debt, free college education for all, etc., demonstrate the protesters’ profound ignorance of anything to do with actual economics. Of course, the Marxist supporters of OWS see it as a way to help bring about the downfall of capitalism, a goal shared by top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, who applauds the effort.


An OWS web site referred to how they stand in “solidarity” with the people of Greece, who are just lately starting to pay the price for receiving the goodies they wanted from the government: impending default, bankruptcy and poverty. But everyone is supposed to bail them out, for reasons that are very unclear. America is already on the route taken by Greece, and if these protesters have their way, the end result is chaos, then tyranny.

The OWS protesters are a mob and are proving Ann Coulter’s point in her recent book Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. Leftists like mobs and operate through mobs, dating back at least to the French Revolution. And that was well before George Soros and Saul Alinsky.

Fox News via The Daily Caller

Eugene Robinson, token liberal columnist for Investors’ Business Daily writes,

Occupy Wall Street and its kindred protests around the country are inept, incoherent and hopelessly quixotic. God, I love 'em.

I love every little thing about these gloriously amateurish sit-ins. I love that they are spontaneous, leaderless and open-ended. I love that the protesters refuse to issue specific demands beyond a forceful call for economic justice.

Apparently he loves the fact that some of these people are defecating on police cars and the American flag, and are otherwise creating a huge mess that some other people, who actually work for a living, are going to have to clean up. And that’s even if the OWSers don’t turn violent and start burning and looting.

To compare this thing to the Tea Party is like comparing the latest Nancy Pelosi speech you’ve heard to the Gettysburg Address or Hamlet’s soliloquy. Put simply, as Ann Coulter said it: “I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.”

But OWS too shall pass, and the sooner the better.

Related articles

• Herman Cain Has Some Advice For Occupy Wall Street (timesunion.com)
• Occupy Wall Street (swcrocker.wordpress.com)
• Ann Coulter Works The Room At Yale... And A Look Back At Her Other Controversial Speeches (huffingtonpost.com)

Keynesians Keep Trying to Control the Economy

Henry Hazlitt

President Obama’s economic policies have been based largely on his administration’s interpretation of John Maynard Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1936). Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke likes Keynesianism also. Keynes became popular largely by proposing massive deficit spending as a key element for getting out of the Great Depression. Politicians loved the idea, because they like to spend money, and Keynesianism gave them cover to do so without raising taxes, should they so choose.

America has been accumulating the results of Keynesianism for decades, and is now dangerously close to a real day of reckoning concerning our huge national debt. Europe is already considering seeking a bailout from China. What Americans often fail to think about is: Who’s going to bail the U.S. when we get to that point? And we surely will unless some serious changes in direction are made fairly soon. The answer: No one. There is no one to bail us out. Would we end up repudiating our debt? Would we write it off in bankruptcy, allowing treasury bills to become worthless? Who knows?

Henry Hazlitt’s 1959 book, The Failure of the New Economics: An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies (D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.) refutes Keynes at numerous points, quoting extensively from his book. (Ebook version of the Hazlitt work is available for free download at Mises.org.) Hazlitt was closely associated with Austrian school economics of Ludwig von Mises, Fredrich A. Hayek and others, and was a prolific writer and champion of individual liberty. [1]

Since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Keynesians have dominated government economic policy and academic instruction, countered somewhat by classical theorists and monetarists, vastly growing the government, with some relief along the way, but leading to the distress we have experienced since the 2008 financial crisis and the concurrent recession. Keynes held “full employment” as the goal, but the Keynesians have delivered now-chronic high unemployment.

When Michelle Bachmann says that it “wouldn’t take that long” to turn the economy around, and when she says that her policies would lead us back to $2.00-a-gallon gasoline, she should be taken seriously, because she has a much better grasp of our economic situation than the current powers that be. She has some understanding of market forces, and does not have the contempt for the free market that the socialist regime has.

It is an axiom of economics that for economic growth, there must be saving and investment, and profits. Saving leads to availability of credit and it leads to investment. Keynesianism has led the Federal Reserve to set interest rates at near zero, and they have announced plans to keep them there for a long time. This stifles saving and investment. The Fed has encouraged easy availability of credit by pumping money, created out of thin air, into the system. Keynes discouraged individual saving and wanted low interest rates. He also wanted government to control investment. Small excepts from Hazlitt:

“The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live,” Keynes begins, “are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes” ([Keynes] p. 372).

There are four chief things wrong with this statement:
(1) The vagueness of Keynes's "full employment" concept …
(2) Prolonged mass unemployment is not the fault of our economic “society,” but of governmental interventions in labor-management relations, wage-rates, and money and
banking policy—the very kind of intervention that Keynes wished to increase.
(3) The distribution of wealth and incomes is in the main neither “arbitrary" nor “inequitable” in a competitive free market system. As John Bates Clark showed so brilliantly in “The Distribution of Wealth” (1899) “free competition tends to give to labor what labor creates, to capitalists what capital creates, and to entrepreneurs what the coordinating function creates.” Individual inequities are bound to occur, but they are not systematic. Capitalism itself tends constantly to reduce them by its rewards to production. If we are looking for really “arbitrary” and “inequitable” distribution, we can find it in the East, or in backward and “underdeveloped” countries, or in Communist Russia and China—in short, in either pre-capitalistic or socialist societies.
(4) It is even a misnomer in capitalist countries to call this process “distribution.” Income and wealth are not “distributed” but produced, and in general go to those who produce them. [Hazlitt, Pp. 374-375]

Keynes's arguments against “liquidity” and against “speculation” are untenable. Speculative anticipations and risks are necessarily involved in all economic activity.
Somebody must bear them. What Keynes is saying is that people cannot be trusted to invest the money they have themselves earned, and that this money should be seized from them by government officials and spent or “invested” in the directions in which those officials (seeking to hold on to political power) deem best. [Hazlitt, Page 430]
(Emphasis added)

President Obama has been accused of a “class warfare” attitude because of his insistence upon raising taxes on millionaires. His liberal base likes any policy aimed at going after the “rich,” or, redistribution of income. The president in his September 20 speech accused House Majority Leader John Boehner of having a “my way or the highway” position for not being willing to accept any tax increases, but Obama himself adopts a “my way or the highway” stance with the opposite position.

Obama wants to take more money out of the hands of job creators to “invest” in things his administration would like to “invest” in, i.e., spend for. Government, in their view, owns all the money, and they only let us keep whatever portion of it they choose.



Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) appeared on Fox News Sunday the day before the president’s speech and indicated that Republicans would not be able to accept much of what the president was expected to propose, and characterizing it as “class warfare” approach. Ryan explained why more new taxes are not the answer:



Socialist policies lead to authoritarian controls and less freedom. Obama’s jobs bill and tax proposal, though unlikely to become law, do illustrate the Keynesian tax and spend philosophy. Obama’s wish is to get higher taxes now, and make “cuts” some time in the future – cuts which are unlikely to happen if liberals have their way.

As I have said before, class envy is the very lifeblood of liberalism, and exploiting and promoting the class struggle is the process. It has this in common with communism. Obama, the great uniter, is now reduced to pandering to labor unions by threatening “the rich” with higher taxes and more regulations, for his own political purposes. Neither his “jobs” bill nor his proposal for “paying for it” is likely to gain any ground, nor would they help with the actual problems if they were to be passed. The proposals are certainly no better than the previous “stimulus” and would create at least one more new government agency, the “Infrastructure Bank.” As if we didn’t have enough slush funds already (see Fannie and Freddie).


[1] See Keynes vs. Hayek rap video here. Sequel here.

Photo: Ludwig von Mises Institute, via Wikipedia.

Economic Principles That Should Be Put into Practice

Image via Wikipedia

Paul Volcker, President Obama, and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt

The same people in government who create economic crises and problems for America are the ones who propose to solve them, by doing more of the things that created them. The futility of this approach should be obvious, but somehow isn’t. Since so many economists have been taken in by Keynesianism, they are thereby largely precluded from considering other approaches. Therefore, we have things like President Obama’s latest “jobs” bill proposal. It’s like the previous “stimulus” plan, except it would also add an “infrastructure bank,” i.e. a slush fund/piggy bank for liberal politicians to fund union-friendly projects that would create little to nothing in terms of addressing the actual problems of unemployment.

The “jobs” bill would cost nearly half a trillion dollars, which the president proposed to pay for, initially, by letting the super committee figure it out, and then, more recently, proposed raising taxes on those awful oil companies and rich people.

Government officials could get a clue about how the economy works if they would listen to Peter Schiff in the following video of Schiff’s appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe (video via The Daily Bail, dated March 25, 2009) [1]:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Quoth Schiff: “Keynes. It's nonsense. He's like a witch doctor in medicine. You can't follow Keynes. Keynes didn't understand economics.”

That the economy should be based on savings, investment, and production, rather than endless borrowing and spending, ought not to be such a hard concept to grasp. Also, politicians should understand that propping up, even enshrining the mistakes that led to the crisis simply compounds the errors and prevents market corrections.

The more spending the government does to try to jump-start the economy, and the more money the Fed prints to put into the system, the worse the situation will become. Unless definite measures are taken to reduce the size and scope of government and to make actual significant cuts in federal spending, and to stop all bailouts, subsidies, and other corporate welfare, the outlook is for more economic deterioration to an extent determined by how much of this is not done.

Obama calls for “investment,” meaning government spending, but what is needed is for government and the Fed to step aside and let private saving and investment take place. If there could be some certainty as to low taxes and less regulation (get rid of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, and rein in the EPA), the business climate would look much more favorable, and the economy would soon improve. If interest rates could be set by the free market, investors could experience acceptable returns, and would be willing to risk capital.

Until the GOP can take control of House, Senate, and White House, there won’t likely be a lot of progress, and even if they do, it will remain to be seen how they would proceed. But it isn’t yet too late to start improving things. It’s over a year until election time, and during the interim, we’ll have to cope with high unemployment, high deficits, and whatever the “super committee” comes up with. If the economy can be interfered with less by government and the Fed, some good things can still happen over the next year or so. Let the recession play itself out, and the market will begin correcting the economy.


[1] “Look Out Krugman, Belief In Keynes Is Belief In Self-Delusion: Peter Schiff Tells The Truth About The Recession And Government Spending (MSNBC Morning Joe Video),” The Daily Bail.

Related articles

• The Followers of the Prophet Keynes (adamcollyer.wordpress.com)
• A High Stakes Clash of Economists (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Economy and Recession: Chance of Recession Is as High as 80%: Study - CNBC (livingstrongandhappy.blogspot.com)
• Barackabaloney (lewrockwell.com)

Infrastructure Bank – Another Plan That Won’t – and Can’t – Work

                      Image via WikipediaWhen you see a “jobs creation” approach that didn’t work, doesn’t work, and can never work, why urge Congress to try it again?

Back in March of this year Eric Jaffe at Infrastructurist.com wrote

Democrats John Kerry and Mark Warner joined Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison to propose the BUILD Act yesterday. The bipartisan legislation would create a national infrastructure bank the senators are calling the American Infrastructure Financing Authority — the term “bank” being anathema these days. [1]

I’ve always admired Sen. Hutchison, but this may be evidence that her decision to retire from the Senate is a good one.

This proposal didn’t get anywhere at the time, but the “Infrastructure Bank” is on President Obama’s list of ideas for job creation. According to Jaffe’s article, the Federal Government would provide billions of dollars and many billions more would come from private investors (Wall Street, etc.) and these funds would be invested and applied to infrastructure projects. Wow, what an idea.

According to Jaffe, “The upside is clearly good. Less clear is whether the plan can get off the ground.” Of course it didn’t, fortunately, at the time.

Conn Carroll at The Washington Examiner (08/14/2011), has a better evaluation of the idea: it’s just another “stimulus.”

The first thing to note about this proposal is that it's not really a bank. Banks use deposits from some customers to fund loans to other customers, and they make money by charging interest to borrowers at higher rates than they offer to depositors.

Obama would run his bank a little differently. Instead of forcing borrowers to pay money back, Obama's National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund would “directly provide resources for projects through grants, loans, or a blend of both.” Another word for “grant” is “gift,” so basically Obama's infrastructure bank would be just giving money away.

But then how would Obama's bank stay in business? Simple. Congress would give it $5 billion to spend every year…. [2]

Tackling those “shovel ready” jobs, I suppose.

Carroll mentions other similar failed measures associated with “stimulus” projects. The article is well worth reading.

It’s clear that Keynesian spending will not bring about the desired recovery, but will likely put us back into recession. The August jobs figures (zero net jobs added, prior month revised downward, nominal unemployment rate still 9.1%) suggest that nothing being done now is helping much at all. And more billions added to the debt? As Victor Davis Hanson observes, the ever-present Keynesian excuse is that we haven’t spent enough.

But how much would be enough? We already have so much debt it will never be paid back except through massive inflation.

The entire approach of government intervention, and Federal Reserve intervention in the free market not only doesn’t help the situation, but promotes the false idea that somehow the free market has failed. In fact, the entire financial crisis and the current economic downturn are the fault of government and the Fed. Private sector blame consists of failing to adequately protest bad government policies, creating bad securities, and, understandably, accepting the bailouts when bankruptcy was deserved, which would have liquidated the debts rather than sticking the taxpayers with them.

But Keynesianism, as currently practiced, knows no real limit of spending to try to stimulate the economy. See how it has stimulated things so far.

[1] Eric Jaffe, “Kerry, Hutchison Propose National Infrastructure Bank,” 03/16/2011, Infrastructurist.com.


[2] Conn Carroll, “Infrastructure bank is just another stimulus boondoggle,” 08/14/2011, The Washington Examiner.

Related articles

• Infrastructure bank could be part of jobs package (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Back to Big Government-Spending as Usual (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Are Infrastructure Projects the Answer to America's Jobs Problem? (usnews.com)