/PRNewswire/ -- With the economy leading all headlines, and a never-ending stream of opinion polls flowing daily, The O'Leary Report, in conjunction with Zogby International, conducted the first comprehensive survey of America's business leaders to see what they think of Obama's policies to date. The survey found that a clear majority of business leaders staunchly oppose the President's actions over the past two months.
Below are some of the poll's results. This was an online survey of 884 business leaders, who are also likely voters, and it has a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points. To see more results, go to www.olearyreport.com.
Question 1: In regard to the bank rescue plans and economic
stimulus, do you feel the Obama administration is trying to do too
much, is disorganized, needs more time, or is right on target?
Fifty percent of business leaders think the Obama administration is
disorganized, while only 10 percent think it is "right on target."
Twenty-eight percent think the Obama administration needs more
time, another 10 percent think it's trying to do too much, and one
percent are "not sure."
Question 2: How do you rate President Obama's efforts to free up
credit markets in his first 60 days?
Fifty-two percent of business leaders rate Obama's effort as
"poor," while only 15 percent say it is "excellent." Twenty-two
percent give Obama a "good" rating and 10 percent say "fair" (one
percent are not sure).
Question 3: Do you think the budget recently proposed by President
Obama spends too much, not enough, or the right amount?
A solid 62 percent majority think President Obama's budget spends
too much, while only 13 percent say "not enough." Only 16 percent
of business leaders think it spends the right amount, and nine
percent are not sure.
Question 4: The Employee Free Choice Act is a proposed bill that
would effectively eliminate the secret ballot used by workers in
deciding whether or not their plant, business, or small business
should be unionized. Do you favor or oppose the bill?
Seventy-two percent of business leaders oppose this bill, which
Obama supports. Only 19 percent favor the bill, and 10 percent are
not sure.
Question 5: Do you agree or disagree that President Obama's
proposed tax hikes for those making $250,000 or more will hurt
businesses, forcing them to lay-off employees?
Fifty-two percent of business leaders agree that Obama's tax hikes
will hurt businesses and increase unemployment; while 42 percent
disagree (six percent are not sure).
Showing posts with label failure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label failure. Show all posts
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Growing the Economy: Three Models of Failure, Three Models of Success
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following release was issued today by Americans for Tax Reform:
There's a debate raging in Washington over how to improve economic growth. On the one side, President Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the liberal establishment wants to "stimulate" the economy by stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to unionized government make-work projects. On the other side, free market conservatives favor lower marginal tax rates, full business expensing, tax-free savings, free trade, sound money, and lower government spending. In the recent past, there have been three models of "stimulus" failure, and three models of free-market success.
Failed "Stimulus" Plans
1. In 1997, Argentina's economy began to worsen. In response, Argentine non-interest government spending grew from 23% of GDP in 1997 to 25% of GDP by 2001. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $300 billion. Despite this, average real GDP growth in the period was just 0.7%. (1)
2.In the 1990s, Japan tried to grow government to "prime the pump" of the economy. Government spending grew from 32% of GDP in 1991 to 38% of GDP in 2000. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $900 billion. After this experiment, Japan's per-capita national income fell from 86 percent of the U.S. level in 1991 to only 74 percent in 2000. The people of Japan became poorer after this massive government "stimulus." (2)
3. In 1929, the U.S. entered the Great Depression. In the decade following, a Republican failed president (Herbert Hoover) and a Democrat failed president (FDR) increased federal spending from 3.4% of GDP in 1930 to 10.3% of GDP in 1939. The equivalent today would be an immediate increase in government spending of $1 trillion. Despite all the spending of the New Deal, the U.S. economy actually shrank from $97.4 billion to $89.1 billion, or nearly 10 percent in 10 years. (3)
Successful Growth Models
1. In late 1963, Congress implemented the Kennedy tax cut, which lowered the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91% to 70%. Until LBJ raised taxes to pay for the Vietnam War and Great Society, average annual real GDP growth from 1964-1966 was 6.2%.
2. In 1983, the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented. They reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50%, and also cut the corporate income tax rate. The top personal rate was reduced to 28% in 1986. Average annual real GDP growth from 1983 to 1989 (the last year before the George H.W. Bush tax hike) was 4.3%.
3. In 2003, President George W. Bush cut the top personal rate from 38.1% to 35%, the dividend rate from 38.1% to 15%, and the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%. Until Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and announced the imminent end of these lower tax rates, real GDP growth averaged 3.0% per year.
There are two models at work here:
-- Keynesian Stimulus. The government spends taxpayer money on projects
to "create jobs." The only jobs that are created are in the sprawling
government bureaucracies. Because the government cannot spend any
money on the economy it did not first take from the economy, this
model cannot create economic growth. It failed in Japan and Argentina
in the 1990s, and right here in America in the 1930s. Economic growth
was stagnant or negative in all three cases. The government purely
and simply wasted taxpayers' money.
-- Growth Economics. When marginal tax rates on work, saving, and
investment are cut, incentives to produce more work, savings, and
investment go up. The Kennedy tax cuts worked. The Reagan tax cuts
worked. The Bush tax cuts worked. In all three cases, lowering
marginal tax rates caused economic growth to rise and for all
Americans to be better off.
How to Grow the Economy Now and Permanently
1. Cut the top personal income tax rate from 35% to 25%
2. Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%
3. Cut the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 0%
4. Move to full business expensing of all business investments
5. Stop double-taxing U.S. employers on their income earned overseas
6. Kill the Death Tax
7. Kill the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
8. Cut the payroll and self-employment tax rate in half, from 15.3% to 7.5%
9. Cap government spending to the pre-Bush level of 18% of GDP
10. Require full government transparency to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal, state and local tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or at jkartch@atr.org.
Permalink: http://www.atr.org/content/html/2009/feb/020909pr-growing_the_economy_three_mo dels.html
Notes:
(1) http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2002/071702.htm
(2) http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2222.cfm
(3) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/sheets/hist01z2.xls
(4) All real GDP growth figures in the successful models taken from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts.
There's a debate raging in Washington over how to improve economic growth. On the one side, President Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the liberal establishment wants to "stimulate" the economy by stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to unionized government make-work projects. On the other side, free market conservatives favor lower marginal tax rates, full business expensing, tax-free savings, free trade, sound money, and lower government spending. In the recent past, there have been three models of "stimulus" failure, and three models of free-market success.
Failed "Stimulus" Plans
1. In 1997, Argentina's economy began to worsen. In response, Argentine non-interest government spending grew from 23% of GDP in 1997 to 25% of GDP by 2001. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $300 billion. Despite this, average real GDP growth in the period was just 0.7%. (1)
2.In the 1990s, Japan tried to grow government to "prime the pump" of the economy. Government spending grew from 32% of GDP in 1991 to 38% of GDP in 2000. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $900 billion. After this experiment, Japan's per-capita national income fell from 86 percent of the U.S. level in 1991 to only 74 percent in 2000. The people of Japan became poorer after this massive government "stimulus." (2)
3. In 1929, the U.S. entered the Great Depression. In the decade following, a Republican failed president (Herbert Hoover) and a Democrat failed president (FDR) increased federal spending from 3.4% of GDP in 1930 to 10.3% of GDP in 1939. The equivalent today would be an immediate increase in government spending of $1 trillion. Despite all the spending of the New Deal, the U.S. economy actually shrank from $97.4 billion to $89.1 billion, or nearly 10 percent in 10 years. (3)
Successful Growth Models
1. In late 1963, Congress implemented the Kennedy tax cut, which lowered the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91% to 70%. Until LBJ raised taxes to pay for the Vietnam War and Great Society, average annual real GDP growth from 1964-1966 was 6.2%.
2. In 1983, the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented. They reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50%, and also cut the corporate income tax rate. The top personal rate was reduced to 28% in 1986. Average annual real GDP growth from 1983 to 1989 (the last year before the George H.W. Bush tax hike) was 4.3%.
3. In 2003, President George W. Bush cut the top personal rate from 38.1% to 35%, the dividend rate from 38.1% to 15%, and the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%. Until Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and announced the imminent end of these lower tax rates, real GDP growth averaged 3.0% per year.
There are two models at work here:
-- Keynesian Stimulus. The government spends taxpayer money on projects
to "create jobs." The only jobs that are created are in the sprawling
government bureaucracies. Because the government cannot spend any
money on the economy it did not first take from the economy, this
model cannot create economic growth. It failed in Japan and Argentina
in the 1990s, and right here in America in the 1930s. Economic growth
was stagnant or negative in all three cases. The government purely
and simply wasted taxpayers' money.
-- Growth Economics. When marginal tax rates on work, saving, and
investment are cut, incentives to produce more work, savings, and
investment go up. The Kennedy tax cuts worked. The Reagan tax cuts
worked. The Bush tax cuts worked. In all three cases, lowering
marginal tax rates caused economic growth to rise and for all
Americans to be better off.
How to Grow the Economy Now and Permanently
1. Cut the top personal income tax rate from 35% to 25%
2. Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%
3. Cut the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 0%
4. Move to full business expensing of all business investments
5. Stop double-taxing U.S. employers on their income earned overseas
6. Kill the Death Tax
7. Kill the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
8. Cut the payroll and self-employment tax rate in half, from 15.3% to 7.5%
9. Cap government spending to the pre-Bush level of 18% of GDP
10. Require full government transparency to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal, state and local tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or at jkartch@atr.org.
Permalink: http://www.atr.org/content/html/2009/feb/020909pr-growing_the_economy_three_mo dels.html
Notes:
(1) http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2002/071702.htm
(2) http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2222.cfm
(3) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/sheets/hist01z2.xls
(4) All real GDP growth figures in the successful models taken from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Stimulus Bill Misses the Mark for Education
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- While a broad base of national educators, leaders and policymakers have agreed that the nation's education system requires fundamental operational changes, the federal government is poised to subsidize the systems that have failed American students, allowed them to fall behind their international counterparts and left a yawning achievement gap that sees barely 50 percent of African-American males graduating from high school.
"The achievement gap between white kids and most children of color is downright scary... alarmingly, as one study reveals, a growing number of the largest school districts are showing African-American male graduation rates of less than 40 percent. Across the country, the numbers are grim." - This according to Mandate for Change, a new monograph from the Center for Education Reform (CER) edited by Senior Fellow Samuel Casey Carter.
Unlike Washington's financial band-aid, CER's Mandate for Change offers a five-part cure for education in America that unites federal and state policies with substantive proposals for school improvement.
As another Mandate for Change contributor, former three-term governor of Michigan John M. Engler, makes clear, the problem starts with the public not having access to enough performance information about what we're getting for the money currently being spent before we even discuss whether more money can solve the system's ills. "If we can verify the quality of a product every step of the way as it moves along the manufacturing process, the education of our children deserves the same careful attention."
Journalist Richard Whitmire argues that without varied teacher compensation systems, there can be no improvement in teacher quality, writing, "Teachers should be hired, promoted, or fired based on their effectiveness in educating children. That simple formula, however - judging employees by the outcome of their efforts - although commonplace in the rest of society, remains elusive in the teaching profession... Effective teachers make a difference and the current system does next to nothing to reward effective teaching."
The proposed education aspect of the forthcoming federal stimulus package seeks to fund the continuance of all teachers' jobs, not ensure that our best and most effective teachers are rewarded for elevating the performance of the system as a whole.
"The stimulus package is supposed to be a tonic for the nation. Instead this may be just another quick infusion of cash to keep the status quo afloat. While teachers' unions, school districts and construction companies may benefit, this plan will not directly improve education for America's children. Money alone, not focused on student performance, will not improve the results," says Center for Education Reform president Jeanne Allen.
"The achievement gap between white kids and most children of color is downright scary... alarmingly, as one study reveals, a growing number of the largest school districts are showing African-American male graduation rates of less than 40 percent. Across the country, the numbers are grim." - This according to Mandate for Change, a new monograph from the Center for Education Reform (CER) edited by Senior Fellow Samuel Casey Carter.
Unlike Washington's financial band-aid, CER's Mandate for Change offers a five-part cure for education in America that unites federal and state policies with substantive proposals for school improvement.
As another Mandate for Change contributor, former three-term governor of Michigan John M. Engler, makes clear, the problem starts with the public not having access to enough performance information about what we're getting for the money currently being spent before we even discuss whether more money can solve the system's ills. "If we can verify the quality of a product every step of the way as it moves along the manufacturing process, the education of our children deserves the same careful attention."
Journalist Richard Whitmire argues that without varied teacher compensation systems, there can be no improvement in teacher quality, writing, "Teachers should be hired, promoted, or fired based on their effectiveness in educating children. That simple formula, however - judging employees by the outcome of their efforts - although commonplace in the rest of society, remains elusive in the teaching profession... Effective teachers make a difference and the current system does next to nothing to reward effective teaching."
The proposed education aspect of the forthcoming federal stimulus package seeks to fund the continuance of all teachers' jobs, not ensure that our best and most effective teachers are rewarded for elevating the performance of the system as a whole.
"The stimulus package is supposed to be a tonic for the nation. Instead this may be just another quick infusion of cash to keep the status quo afloat. While teachers' unions, school districts and construction companies may benefit, this plan will not directly improve education for America's children. Money alone, not focused on student performance, will not improve the results," says Center for Education Reform president Jeanne Allen.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Major Media Excuse Obama Nominee's Failure to Pay Taxes
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Rather than provide a check on the abuses of those in power, Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid says the media are making excuses for Obama Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner's failure over the years to pay a variety of taxes and to make sure those he hired as domestic help had legal status in the U.S. The media, Kincaid argues, are functioning as arms of the Obama Transition office. The most popular excuse, first put forward by the Obama office, is that Geithner just made "honest mistakes." This excuse has been picked up by the media, he notes.
In a column on the subject, Kincaid says, "based on the documents that have come out, he [Geithner] is either a tax cheat or a dummy when it comes to his basic personal finances and tax matters. Do we want either one as head of the Treasury Department?"
Kincaid suggests poor coverage of the scandal by NBC News may be related to the fact that Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and chief executive officer of NBC parent company General Electric (GE), is on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose president is Timothy Geithner. "It is also interesting to note that a subsidiary of GE, GE Capital, is getting some of the federal bailout money that Geithner, if he is confirmed, will have a role in managing," Kincaid notes. He asks, "Conflict of interest, anyone?"
He adds, "Another member of the board of the New York Fed is Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who serves on the board of the Washington Post Company. This is the media conglomerate whose media properties include the Washington Post newspaper, Newsweek, and Slate."
"Connections like this help explain why Geithner's tax problems won't become a scandal or even much of a controversy for major elements of the media," the AIM editor concludes.
In a column on the subject, Kincaid says, "based on the documents that have come out, he [Geithner] is either a tax cheat or a dummy when it comes to his basic personal finances and tax matters. Do we want either one as head of the Treasury Department?"
Kincaid suggests poor coverage of the scandal by NBC News may be related to the fact that Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and chief executive officer of NBC parent company General Electric (GE), is on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose president is Timothy Geithner. "It is also interesting to note that a subsidiary of GE, GE Capital, is getting some of the federal bailout money that Geithner, if he is confirmed, will have a role in managing," Kincaid notes. He asks, "Conflict of interest, anyone?"
He adds, "Another member of the board of the New York Fed is Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, who serves on the board of the Washington Post Company. This is the media conglomerate whose media properties include the Washington Post newspaper, Newsweek, and Slate."
"Connections like this help explain why Geithner's tax problems won't become a scandal or even much of a controversy for major elements of the media," the AIM editor concludes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
