Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on December 22nd, 2008
Since putting out the call for outside economists’ opinions on President-elect Obama’s proposed $1 trillion economic “stimulus” spending plan, we’ve been contacted by dozens of economists and academics eager to add their name to the list of stimulus spending skeptics. Below you will find selected entries from experts that agree that tax relief for families and small businesses, not more government spending, will help to get America’s economy moving again:
Any stimulus package should consist of permanent tax cuts rather than spending increases. The (limited) available evidence suggests that tax cuts are at least as effective as spending increases in stimulating the economy. Tax cuts help reduce the adverse incentives caused by high tax rates. And spending increases are likely to include numerous projects that do not pass normal cost-benefit criteria and are instead merely pork (e.g., repairing bridges to nowhere).
I worked 7 years as a Federal Reserve staff economist and have done research in and taught macroeconomics for 27 more years. There is no convincing evidence that stimulative fiscal policy is either feasible or effective. The recognition and action lags (ancient terms from the bygone Keynesian era) alone virtually always mean that the stimulus arrives after the recession is over, thus causing an undesirable distortion that impedes recovery…These aspects of fiscal policy have been known for more than a quarter century. However, if one does not like old evidence, Greg Mankiw on his blog recently cited more recent scholarship showing that Keynesian theory is inconsistent with the data. This I am strongly skeptical of President-elect Obama’s plans. Both theory and evidence are against them. What else do we require to reject them?
Michael Keran
Retired, Former Sr. VP & Director of Research
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Japan in the early and mid 1990s engaged in major fiscal stimulus focused on infrastructure projects with deficits equal to 7-8% of GDP and a cumulative Debt/GDP of almost 150%. None of this led to economic recovery until the late 1990s when the Bank of Japan engaged in quantitative easing of monetary policy and the Government of Japan finally introduced a taxpayer bailout of the banks. The Fed and Treasury in the US have already taken such actions. The Japanese experience suggests that additional fiscal stimulus will only add to the Debt without helping the economy.
New Choice for Labor Secretary Supports Secret Ballots For Democrats, Opposes Them for Workers
Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on December 19th, 2008
According to press reports, President-Elect Barack Obama will name Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) as his choice for Labor Secretary later today.
As a member of Congress, Rep. Solis co-sponsored the highly-controversial Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would end a worker’s right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to join a union. She also voted for this anti-worker bill when Democrats passed it through the House on March 1, 2007.
However, Rep. Solis took a different tack on secret ballot elections when it came time for internal Democratic Caucus elections. Specifically, she co-signed a letter criticizing the absence of secret ballots in electing the Congressional Hispanic Caucus leadership on January 5, 2007. The letter explained:
“… votes by secret ballot were in order but never taken. We therefore believe that we need to follow proper rules of procedure and hold a vote by secret ballot.”
The letter continued:
“[I]t is important that the integrity of the [Congressional Hispanic Caucus] be unquestioned and above reproach.”
So Rep. Solis strongly supports secret ballot elections for Democrats, but opposes them for working Americans. Ending secret ballots, as Democrats and their Big Labor allies have proposed, would leave workers vulnerable to coercion, pressure, and outright intimidation and threats – from either the management or the union side of the election. And nearly 80 percent of Americans strongly oppose this bill.
That’s why Republicans are working to preserve the decades-old secret ballot election in the workplace – to prevent workers from being intimidated into doing something they don’t believe is in their best interests. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said on Fox News Sunday that Republicans will do everything they can to stop the efforts of Democrats and Big Labor to kill the secret ballot, saying:
“This is, I think, an affront to the American people, and we will do everything we can to stop it.”
Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on December 3rd, 2008
Today the Chicago Tribune takes a closer look at The Employee Free Choice Act:
Organized labor helped elect Barack Obama and now eagerly awaits his promised support for its top priority—a bill that would make it easier to set up union locals…
The so-called card-check bill would not protect workers and it would not be “free choice.” It would strip away their right to vote in secret, making it more likely they would face intimidation from organizers and other workers. The pressure would be on to check the card, whether or not they actually wanted a union.
It’s clear why union bosses want this law. Union membership ticked up last year, but it has been plunging for half a century….Union leaders prefer to blame the decline on federal labor laws, which they say make it too hard to organize. That’s a pretty flimsy argument. Present law allows the National Labor Relations Board to call for an election by secret ballot after 30 percent of employees at a work site have requested a vote. That’s hardly a high hurdle.
There are ways to recast the nation’s labor laws so workers’ interests are protected, without subjecting them to more intimidation by union organizers…In short, create more incentives for labor and management to negotiate in good faith and preserve the workers’ right to a secret ballot…
The inaptly named Employee Free Choice Act would be good for labor bosses. But it wouldn’t be good for laborers.
