Record number of voters back LP tax approach

A record number of voters agree with the Libertarian Party that tax cuts would help spur economic growth, America’s third-largest party notes Monday.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released March 26 finds 63 percent of all voters now say tax cuts will help America’s economy. That’s an increase from the 56 percent measured in February and the highest number since Rasmussen began tracking the question in the mid-1990s.

Among unaffiliated voters, the number is even higher – 68 percent.

“Libertarians have been cutting taxes since the day we elected our first official nearly 40 years ago,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chair. “Republicans and Democrats have been working together to drive up spending and taxes, and a supermajority of voters agree with over 200 currently elected Libertarians that this is wrong.”

“No wonder interest in the Libertarian Party on the rise. Voters prefer the very popular Libertarian policy of fiscal responsibility and limited government to get the economy moving,” said Redpath.

President Obama is doing little to assuage fears his tax hikes will hurt the economy. The Rasmussen poll also finds 51 percent of voters believe increasing taxes hurts the economy, the highest number since early January.

The Rasmussen poll also finds 52 percent of voters think they already pay their “fair share” of taxes, and more voters prefer a candidate who opposes all tax increases (43 percent) than one who only wants to raise taxes on the rich (42 percent.) Last month, voters preferred the “tax-the-rich” candidate by a 44 percent to 40 percent margin.

A majority of voters, 54 percent, also agree with Libertarians that a tax policy that helps the economy grow is more important than the Democrat/Republican policy of making sure “everyone pays their fair share.” Only 39 percent of voters believe punitive taxation is more important than pro-growth taxation.

While Obama promised to raise taxes only on families whose combined income was more than $250,000 a year, as well as a tax cut for “95 percent of working families,” Americans are skeptical. Sixty-six percent of voters think Obama will raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.

Consumer Advocates Call on President to Fire Treasury Secretary Geithner

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a letter issued today, two consumer advocacy groups called on President Obama to obtain Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's resignation.

The letter, from Harvey Rosenfield, the California-based consumer advocate who authored the state's insurance rate rollback Proposition 103, and Jim Donahue of the Washington-based WallStreetWatch.Org, asserts that Geithner has been unable to transcend his earlier role, while Chair of the New York Fed, as an architect of the failed Bush Administration Wall Street bailouts -- including the initial $80 billion AIG bailout.

Moreover, it appears the Treasury Department was aware of the latest round of bonus and retention payments but failed to announce them until after AIG issued $160 million in checks. Pointing out that the President has often called for "an open, honest government that would fight" for people, not special interests, it concludes that "In these grave days of national reckoning, the citizenry deserves better."

"It is clear that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner cannot provide the requisite independence that is required in an environment in which financial institutions and other businesses are demanding trillions of dollars of taxpayer money," the letter to President Obama states. "With respect, we urge you to ask for his resignation."

Two weeks ago, WallStreetWatch.Org issued a 231-page report pinpointing twelve policy decisions by the federal government that led directly to the current financial calamity -- and how those policies were dictated by Wall Street through over $5 billion in campaign and lobbying expenditures between 1998 and 2008 by many of the same firms who are receiving American taxpayer dollars.

The letter calling for Geithner's resignation, and "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America," are available at: WallStreetWatch.org.

Boehner Expresses Outrage at Obama Administration’s Handling of AIG Bonuses, Abuse of Taxpayer Funds

In a news conference yesterday morning, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made the following remarks regarding the White House’s claim two weeks ago that it was confident it knew how taxpayer dollars were spent by the insurance giant AIG:

“Two weeks ago, the President’s spokesman said that they were confident that they knew how every dime was being spent at AIG. Well clearly, they didn’t know what they were talking about. I think this is outrageous and I think the American people are rightly outraged that their tax money is going to pay bonuses to the very people that got this company in trouble.” (AUDIO)

NOTE: For months, House Republicans have been calling for more stringent accountability regarding the use of taxpayer dollars in financial bailouts. House GOP leaders wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last month, urging him to present an exit strategy to get the federal government back out of the private sector. The leaders sent a similar letter to former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke late last year. The following exchange took place between White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and ABC News reporter Jake Tapper on March 2, 2009.

JAKE TAPPER: AIG, is the administration confident that it, that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG?

ROBERT GIBBS: Is it confident – I’m sorry?

TAPPER: That they know -- that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion.

GIBBS: Yes -- yes, the -- I mean, I don’t think it's a -- well, obviously, you’ve got a huge insurance company that is losing money, not the least of which because of its sheer size and sheer size and decrease in the growth in our economy. It experiences a far bigger drop, largely because of its size. But, again, the steps that -- that Treasury and -- and others took were to ensure a larger systemic problem wasn’t one that we had to deal with here today in letting something just die.

TAPPER: But in terms of specifically the -- I guess it's like $150 billion before, you guys are confident...

GIBBS: Yes.

Obama Economic Advisor Warren Buffett Speaks Out Against Card Check

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Legendary investor and prominent Obama economic advisor Warren Buffett has come out in opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act as Congressional supporters introduced the legislation today. The Employee Free Choice Act -- or "card check" legislation will effectively remove secret ballots for workers in union organizing elections and bind employers to contracts that inhibit their ability to create much-needed new jobs.

Buffett's opposition to card check comes on the heels of the release of a new economic study showing that the card check scheme will eliminate 600,000 American jobs by 2010 and result in severe job losses in future years as the workforce becomes more unionized.

The study, which was conducted by noted economist, Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, concludes that every three percent increase in unionization will lead to a one percent increase in unemployment.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), the leading business coalition opposing card check, has launched an advertising effort this week in Capitol Hill newspapers to educate lawmakers about the negative impact that the Employee Free Choice Act will have on our economy.

"In a time of deep recession, the last thing Congress should do is pass legislation that will cost Americans their jobs. Card check is a poison pill for our ailing economy. President Obama would be wise to heed the warnings of Mr. Buffett," said Brian Worth with the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

Consumer Group Wants Public to Share Profits From Federally Funded Stem Cell and Medical Research

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog today praised President Obama for lifting Bush era restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research and called on him to implement further policy changes that would allow taxpayers to share in any profits from research they have funded.

In a letter to President Obama, the nonpartisan nonprofit Consumer Watchdog said policies developed by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which runs the state's $6 billion stem cell research program, could be a model for federal policy.

"Your action will undoubtedly spur new gains in this vital area of medical research," wrote John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Stem Cell Project director. "Celebrating the change in policy is not enough, however. It is now necessary, more than ever, to examine the regulations governing the way federal funds are distributed to researchers. A change in those rules is needed and we call on you to work with Congress to implement reform of the Bayh-Dole Act."

Most of the federal funding for biomedical research is funneled through the National Institutes of Health. Basic scientific research is usually done at universities and non-profit research institutions, most of it with federal funds. Under the Bayh-Dole Act discoveries that are made at these institutions can be patented by them. They then license the patents to industry. The royalties go only to the universities and research institutions. Nothing is returned to the taxpaying public who funded the research.

"Under Bayh-Dole, the public pays twice for medical discoveries," said Simpson, "First we fund the research; then we are faced with high drug prices protected by the monopoly that the patent guarantees."

Consumer Watchdog said federal policies for public funding of scientific research should incorporate these four principles:

--When a discovery has been funded by the public, the public should share in any profits.

--If the public has paid for key discoveries, then government policies should guarantee affordable access to cures and treatments resulting from those discoveries.

--If the government has funded an invention, but the patent holder does not commercialize it, the government should be able to license the invention to someone who will.

--The results of all federally funded research should be available to all U.S. researchers for further research without a licensing fee. Once taxpayers pay to develop a technology, all researchers should have free access to it for further non-commercial research.

"When venture capitalists provide money to companies they require clearly spelled out conditions and expectations," said Simpson. "There is no reason it should be any different when taxpayers put their hard-earned dollars on the line to fund research."

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was created by the voters of California under Proposition 71 to partially fill the void created when President Bush imposed the stem cell funding restrictions. Its $6 billion program makes it the world's largest funder of stem cell research.

Key elements of its Intellectual Property Policy regulations are provisions for a payback to the state. For example, if there is revenue to a research institution as the result of publicly funded research, 25 percent goes back to the state's general fund. The IP policy also has provisions to help ensure affordability and access by uninsured people to cures and treatments that were developed with public money.

FRC Action Questions President Obama's Choice of Gov. Sebelius for HHS

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- This weekend President Obama decided on Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) to be his pick to be the new Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Tony Perkins, President of FRC Action, the legislative arm of Family Research Council, had this to say:

"President Obama is now zero for two in attempting to pick qualified people to head up his Health and Human Services Department (HHS) and zero for four in defending proven methods that contribute to his stated goal of reducing abortions.

"In a little over a month President Obama has reinstated taxpayer funding of abortionists overseas, been complicit in both the increased taxpayer funding of abortionists in the United States and in the overturning of a long-standing policy that prevented taxpayer dollars from going toward international coercive abortion programs. This weekend the cause for life was struck a double blow by first the halting of conscience protections for health care professionals who might otherwise be forced to perform or assist in abortions and the naming of the extremely pro-abortion Gov. Sebelius to HHS.

"In her time as an elected official in Kansas, Mrs. Sebelius has fought against popular pro-life measures such as parental consent and efforts to curb late-term abortions. Additionally she has had a close personal and financial association with the nation's most infamous abortion doctor, George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions and, by his own count, has performed over 60,000 abortions.

"FRC Action will work to oppose Gov. Sebelius' appointment and continue to work with those who truly wish to stop the blight of abortion. Our nation's need for health care reform that is family-centered, life-affirming and available to all Americans in a free market is great, and these goals are ill-served by this unfortunate and objectionable nomination."

Economic Experts: Will the 2009 Stimulus Act Fizzle?

As a strangled credit market and record-breaking job cuts spur comparisons with the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Obama administration and Congress appear poised to agree on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, an $789 billion broad-based stimulus package designed to kick-start the economy.

But just as a predecessor initiative—the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) pumped money into banks by letting the U.S. Treasury buy equity stakes in financial institutions—appears to have done little to aid the larger economy, the latest taxpayer-funded program may stall out if it doesn’t pump more cash into businesses that can create jobs, say Emory University faculty and other experts.

Washington Tries to Thaw Credit Freeze

The big question, according to Charles F. Goetz, an adjunct professor of organization and management and a distinguished lecturer in entrepreneurship at Emory University's Goizueta Business School, is whether or not the new stimulus bill will truly thaw the capital freeze that is currently blocking business activity.

“Funding, not consumer spending, is the core issue for small businesses,” he says. “Right now lenders are hesitant to extend money to commercial borrowers even when they have a good track record, and in some cases are actually calling in loans that they have already funded.”

He acknowledges that a falloff in revenue is hurting small businesses and notes that the stimulus package could improve that, but says the bill will only fix a very small part of the problem.

“The freeze in funding is hurting small businesses much more than the shortfall in sales is hurting them,” Goetz says. “Without the necessary cash to grease the gears and keep the business going, companies have had no choice but to reduce costs. And that, unfortunately, results in a cutback on capital expenditures and a need to lay off workers. So cash, in the form of loans, is the mechanism that is most important, but the stimulus bill can do little to help in that regard."

So where will that help come from?

"It's going to have to come from the $350 billion still remaining in the TARP; or possibly even more from a future son-of-TARP,” Goetz says. “Whether the TARP is used for a Good Bank/Bad Bank strategy [similar to the Resolution Trust Corp. created after the Savings and Loan failures of the 1980s], or to put direct investment into troubled banks, the only vehicle that has any real chance of freeing up bank lending and truly helping small business is the TARP or some reincarnation of it.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner appeared to allude to a similar plan in his February 10 comments calling for a $500 billion, Public-Private Investment Fund “targeted to the legacy loans and assets that are now burdening many financial institutions.”

Meanwhile, says Goetz, “When consumers are worried about keeping their jobs, they spend less and save more, which results in lower sales for companies and exacerbates the whole cycle.”

Small businesses in particular are concerned that the stimulus package misses the boat. Small businesses are defined as companies with fewer than 10 employees, and they account for almost 80 percent of all U.S. companies, according to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) lobbying group. Small businesses are credited with generating about 70 percent of all new jobs.

“By increasing the federally guaranteed portion of Small Business Administration (SBA) loans, and giving more power to the SBA to expedite loan approvals, we believe we can turn around the dramatic decline in SBA lending we have seen in recent months,” said Geithner.

But Goetz was not very impressed, since the package calls for only about $500 million for the Small Business Administration’s loan-guarantee programs, which he says "is a drop in the bucket" compared to the total drop-off in bank loans.

“Banks, particularly through the SBA guaranteed loan programs, have the potential to help both existing and new small businesses to expand and hire more employees,” he says.

In a February 6 message to the membership of NFIB, the organization’s chief executive officer Dan Danner asks, “Have you heard anything about what Congress is providing for small businesses in the current economic stimulus package being debated in Washington? Unfortunately, the answer is ‘No.’"

Did TARP Spring a Leak?

In fact, Goetz says, the remaining $350 billion in the federal TARP program could do a lot to spur business activity, if it is designed differently.

“Maybe TARP has not been used in the most effective way to date,” observes Goetz. “It was passed in a hurry, and apparently there were no direct requirements for banks to actually make more loans. Instead, many institutions have tightened lending standards and used the funds for things like purchasing other banks, instead of making more loans.”

Although the U.S. Treasury has invested about $350 billion into financial institutions under TARP, about 70 percent of U.S. banks reported they tightened standards on loans to small firms, according to the most recent Bank Lending Practices survey taken by the Federal Reserve Board.

“Perhaps the creation of a Good Bank/Bad Bank entity like the Resolution Trust Corp. (RTC) would have been a better use of the funds,” says Goetz, referring to a limited-life federal organization, created in the wake of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s, which managed and resolved financial institutions placed under conservatorship or receivership from January 1, 1989, through August 9, 1992.

“If my memory is correct, the government actually made money on the RTC and put money back into the banking system that got individuals and business to start spending again,” he says. “And contrary to what most people think, this is actually a good time to start a new business and to expand if you already have a small business. This is because in a recession, competition often shrinks at a pace even faster than demand does.”

Competitors that grew “fat and happy” in an easier time are falling by the wayside as they are unable to adjust in a more difficult environment, Goetz says. “In addition, you can pick up some very good employees that you would not have been able to in a better market. And even if you're not interested in starting a new business, the difficult economic environment means you can often purchase a company that is up and running at a fraction of what it would have cost just six months earlier.”

Some Goizueta faculty members are even more disenchanted with the stimulus proposal.

“In my judgment, this is a very poorly designed package,” says Ray Hill, an adjunct professor of finance. “I believe that only a small portion of the huge debt we will incur will produce any stimulus within any reasonable time frame.”

First, he says, “A big part of the [proposed] package is temporary tax relief directed to individuals. Economic theory and repeated experience—including the tax rebates of the 2008 stimulus package under the Bush administration—tell us that consumers save or pay down debt most of any change in income they perceive to be temporary, including the so-called tax ‘refunds’ to people who don't pay taxes.”

Both versions of the stimulus packages call for billions of dollars to be spent on infrastructure and other “shovel ready” projects that are projected to create jobs. “Although spending on infrastructure is commendable, this spending will take time, even for so-called ‘shovel ready’ projects,” says Hill.

“I believe that the Congressional Budget Office's own projections forecast that most of these funds will be spent in 2010 or later,” he says. By then the economy may already be recovering and the spending will either be inflationary or will take resources from private sector investment.”

Hill also faults proposed investments in alternative energy, noting that “we already have a glut of solar panels so no one is going to start producing a lot more until whole projects are underway, which can take years. Of course, you hear venture capitalists supporting this part of the stimulus package, but that is pure self interest.”

The stimulus package being discussed by Congress may indeed help the economy in some ways, concedes Hill.

“It may provide funds to states and prompt them to maintain spending that would otherwise be cut,” he says. “But it may also have unintended consequences. I have in mind the extension and improvement in unemployment benefits.”

Extending benefits in the weak economy may be good policy, "but we have to recognize that the inevitable result will be a longer duration of high unemployment than would otherwise be the case,” Hill notes.

Some observers argue that permanent tax cuts will provide the most effective and immediate stimulus, Hill notes, adding that “I think experience shows that this probably is the case.”

Car Dealers Suffer as Sales Stall

Automobile dealers, which were hammered by high energy prices and the tight credit market, are one of the economic downturn’s latest casualties.

Based on falling sales, about 5,000 car dealers across the U.S., or nearly 25 percent of the estimated total, would have to close in 2009 to enable average sales per dealer to match 2007's results, according to a study released in January by the accounting firm Grant Thornton LLP.

At least one industry observer who attended a recent National Automobile Dealers Association convention is worried that the stimulus package won’t do much to help those at-risk dealers, many of which are family-owned businesses.

“Banks may be getting TARP financing, but they’re still skittish about providing floor financing [revolving loans that dealers use to finance their inventory],” says Richard Kotzen, a partner in the Dealership Services Group of Crowe Horwath LLP, a Florida-based CPA firm. “Further, some of the TARP money is being diverted to U.S. automobile manufacturers, which encourages them to build more cars and press dealers to take delivery and pay for even more units that may end up sitting on their lots.”

Kotzen says he believes the industry as a whole will eventually recover, but notes that so far, federal stimulus programs have not generated a “trickle down” effect.

“The ‘shovels in the dirt’ approach of the stimulus plan as it stands now will generate jobs down the road, but auto dealers and other retailers need money now,” he says. “Permanent tax relief for consumers and retailers might help. Tax rebates, the ability to depreciate assets faster, and the extension of loss carrybacks [offsetting prior-year profits with current year losses] to five years from the current two, could also help businesses to regain their footing.”

Increased SBA funding in the stimulus package could provide some rapid assistance to small businesses, says Andrea Hershatter, who teaches entrepreneurship and serves as associate dean and director of the BBA program at Goizueta.

“Typically, the propensity for risk taking goes down in a weak economy,” she says. “The typical rounds of early stage financing from friends and family and angel investors depends on excess capital. Reduced wealth means that these usual sources of early venture financing are unavailable to entrepreneurs. Additionally, in the current environment, many banks are not willing or able to provide loans or lines of credit, leaving very few options for entrepreneurs.”

Hershatter points out that the stimulus package must spur the economy on a wide scale basis in order to have a positive long-term impact for entrepreneurs. In the meantime, additional sources of credit for small businesses are needed to help them get off the ground, she adds.

But Hershatter cautions that federal assistance to new and fledgling businesses must employ the same criteria that the private sector would consider, funding only those businesses with the highest likelihood of success.

Additionally, it is crucial to consider the sectors most likely to thrive in the coming years, she says, noting that “funding that flows to businesses whose goals are consistent with the broader ambitions of the federal government have a higher probability of benefitting from the first wave of economic growth.”

The Obama administration “has committed itself to a number of segments, including improvements in healthcare, education and energy efficiency,” says Hershatter. “If economic stimulus funds help to set up or grow businesses that contribute to these agendas, there is good alignment. On the other hand, if the stimulus package simply provides a pool of funds that lend to businesses that are not viable in the long term, it could be a waste of taxpayer money.”

To Stimulate Economy, Obama Should Revive Reagan-Era Initiative, Law Professor Says

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) offers a blueprint for fiscal stimulus that would be far more effective than the stimulus package currently before Congress, says Bill Brown, a visiting professor of the practice of law at Duke University.

“Simply pushing money into the economy via infrastructure projects, no matter how well intentioned, is not the answer,” says Brown who joined the Duke faculty after an extensive career on Wall Street at Goldman Sachs, AIG and, most recently, Morgan Stanley, where he was global co-head of listed derivatives.

At a time plagued by slow economic growth, high interest rates and high inflation, ERTA not only reduced tax rates, but established a powerful set of incentives to promote investment in income-producing “capital assets” -- plant, property, and equipment, according to Brown. It resuscitated the Kennedy-era investment tax credit (ITC), which gave business partial reimbursement for the purchase of every new income-producing asset they acquired. And it added to this subsidy by allowing all those assets to be depreciated extremely rapidly under the new Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS).

“ERTA helped break us out of the economic quagmire of the 1970s,” Brown says. “Sure, it lowered tax rates for everybody, but its most important legacy was in getting this country investing in the economy again. The government essentially said to the private sector ‘you think of where our economy needs the money the most, and as long as you put your money there first, we will follow right behind you.’”

The effect was almost immediate, says Brown. “By 1983, the economy was going like gangbusters. And the best thing about it was that the private sector was allocating the money more efficiently than would have been possible had the government been directing the investments. This meant the money got to people who had no ability to lobby Washington to spend money on their businesses.

“President Obama and Congress should step back from the current spending bill and turn it into a stimulus bill. Identify the overriding strategic visions, invest in infrastructure for those visions and then bring back the ITC and ACRS deductions to get the private sector back in the game,” he says. “They could even provide two tiers of ITC and ACRS: one for old industry and a higher level for the most important parts of President Obama’s vision.”

FAIR: Obama Rushing to Pass the Economic Stimulus Package While Delaying Vital Protections for American Workers

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- President Obama and top administration officials are actively pressuring Congress to pass an expensive economic stimulus package by mid-February, while quietly undermining an administrative rule that would protect American workers. The president has delayed, until May 21, the implementation of an executive order requiring all federal contractors to utilize the E-Verify program to ensure that all workers paid with taxpayer dollars are legally eligible to work in the U.S.

With the federal government poised to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy to create new jobs, the Obama administration appears to be caving in to business and ethnic interest pressure groups to delay, or perhaps eliminate, this vital protection for U.S. workers. Former President George W. Bush issued the executive order last June requiring that companies doing business with the government guarantee that they are employing only eligible workers, effective Jan. 15, 2009. Before leaving office, Mr. Bush delayed implementation until Feb. 20.

"President Obama's single greatest domestic challenge is to get Americans back to work," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR, noting that some 12 million Americans are unemployed. "It defies all common sense to borrow vast sums of money to create new jobs without having a reliable system in place to make sure that American workers will be the ones to fill those jobs."

Amidst a global recession, a massive jobs creation program in the United States is likely to serve as a magnet drawing workers from around the world in search of employment. "E-Verify has proven to be the single most effective tool to protect American workers from losing jobs in their own country to illegal aliens," Stein said. "It is imperative that Congress reauthorize the program and that the administration require companies benefiting from the stimulus package to use the E-Verify system before the first borrowed dollar is spent.

"President Obama came to office promising change and an end to business as usual in Washington. Delaying implementation of an executive order requiring that government contractors hire only legal U.S. workers is a disappointing first gesture on the part of the new administration and one that the president should reconsider before signing any economic stimulus bill," Stein concluded.

32 Million Adults Still Won't Be Able to Read, Write, or Apply for Jobs

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- ProLiteracy, the nation's leader in adult literacy programs and advocacy, today decried the exclusion of Title II of the Workforce Investment Act from the current economic stimulus package.

David C. Harvey, president of ProLiteracy, called on President Obama and Congress to include Title II of the Workforce Investment Act in the economic recovery proposal. "We applaud the efforts of our new president and Congress to craft a stimulus bill focused on creating new jobs," Harvey said. "But it is imperative that they focus on the very people who will have the most difficulty finding jobs -- low-literate workers. An effective recovery bill must provide adult literacy and employment training opportunities."

Harvey pointed out that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to be reviewed by House subcommittees this week, funds job training services for at-risk youth, individuals with disabilities, and older Americans through Titles I, III, and IV of the Workforce Investment Act.

"But inexplicably, Title II, which focuses on adult education and literacy, was left out of the bill," Harvey said. "Many of the nearly 3 million jobs lost during 2008 were held by individuals who need additional help with basic reading, math, or English skills in order to take advantage of the jobs that the Recovery Act will create."

A recent U.S. Department of Education report estimates that 32 million adults in the U.S. don't read well enough to fill out a job application without help. Title II, also known as the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, is the largest source of federal funding for programs that teach adults reading, writing, math, technology skills, and English as a Second Language (ESL).

"The previous administration did not prioritize low-literate adults' needs, so the problems and numbers have only increased," said Harvey. "It is now a new administration and new Congress focused on the economy and job recovery. A basic foundation of a strong, employable workforce is a literate workforce. Now is the time for the federal government to take action to address the issue of adult illiteracy and include Title II funding," Harvey concluded.

Individuals who share ProLiteracy's position can send e-mails to President Obama and members of Congress through ProLiteracy's web site, www.proliteracy.org.

Economic Stimulus Bill Mandates Electronic Health Records for Every Citizen without Opt-out or Patient Consent Provisions

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Institute for Health Freedom (IHF) warns that the economic stimulus bill mandates electronic health records for every citizen without providing for opt-out or patient consent provisions. "Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared -- without their consent -- with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," says Sue A. Blevins, IHF president.

"President Obama has pledged to advance freedom. Therefore the freedom to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system must be upheld," Blevins says. "Unless people have the right to decide if and when their health information is shared or whether to participate in research studies, they don't have a true right to privacy."

IHF calls on Americans who care about health privacy to contact their members of Congress and President Obama to voice their own opinions about the need for opt-out and patient consent provisions, to ensure true patient privacy rights.

Some provisions of the economic stimulus bill include:

-- "The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014."

-- "The National Coordinator shall perform the duties...consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that...facilitates health and clinical research..."

The federal medical privacy rule promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) already permits the disclosure of personal health information without patient consent for treatment, payment, and oversight of the healthcare system. IHF has long called for modification of the HIPAA rule to restore patient consent in order to preserve the confidential doctor-patient relationship. The stimulus bill fails to restore patient consent, while at the same time, mandating electronic health records and facilitating the electronic exchange of every American's health information.