/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As President Barack Obama signs into law the trillion dollar spending package promoted under the guise of economic "stimulus" and rushed through Congress by Friday, February 13th, Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of six things you should know about this package and the circumstances under which it passed:
1.) The House of Representatives has broken a commitment to posting the legislation online for no less than 48 hours before a vote.
Only a few hours after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1 mandating that the conference report be posted online in a searchable and downloadable form for no less than 48 hours before it may be voted on, negotiations began under the cover of night behind closed doors with no representatives of the Congressional minority present. Ultimately, the Democratic House leadership did not make the bill's language available until around 11:00 p.m. on Thursday, giving the public a mere 15 hours to scrutinize the bill (mostly overnight hours during which most Members of Congress were no doubt sleeping), of which only 5 hours were working hours. Congressional Record, page H1096.
2.) In signing this bill today, President Obama is violating his own transparency pledge.
Consider his campaign promise: "No more secrecy. ... when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you, the American voter, will have five days to look online and find out what it is before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing."(1) Manchester, New Hampshire, June 22, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/dl2wog (time: 20:20) Today, the bill will have been posted for only four days - not five.
3.) No Member of Congress voting for the bill confirmed prior to the vote that they had read the bill.
Americans for Tax Reform had asked all Members of Congress intending to vote for the conference report to sign and fax back/email to ATR the following form:
I, _____________________________, commit to the taxpayers of the (___________________ district of the) State of _______________________, that my vote in favor of the conference report on H.R. 1 will be an informed vote, because I will have read the full text of the bill and the conference report by the time I cast my vote.
All Members who voted for the package refused to make this commitment. http://atr.server278.com/even-one-democrat-read-bill-a2887
4.) No Member of Congress voting for the bill confirmed that they were not looking to personally benefit corruptly from the bill with their vote.
Americans for Tax Reform asked all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted in favor of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" and U.S. Senators planning to support the package to commit to their constituents in writing that they will not accept political contributions from any recipient of "stimulus" funds, nor will seek or accept employment with any recipient.
All Members who voted for the package refused to make this commitment. http://atr.server278.com/atr-challenge-pelosi-obama-reid-spending-a2858
5.) In signing the bill, President Obama also breaks his promise to enact net spending cuts
During a discussion about government spending in the second presidential debate on October 7, 2008, Obama said "So we're going to have to make some investments but we've also got to make spending cuts, and what I've proposed -- you'll hear Senator McCain say 'he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending' --but, actually, I'm cutting more than I'm spending. So that it will be a net spending cut."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM0Eri8VWiw
6.) The "Stimulus" package will undo much of the progress of the 1996 welfare reform.
The package contains language that would essentially abolish the accomplishments of the 1996 welfare reform which drastically reduced welfare rolls and child poverty. Further, it would add large amounts in new welfare spending over the next decade. http://tinyurl.com/dax6xf
Says ATR president Grover Norquist: "President Obama hasn't even been in office for a full month yet - but, aided by the Democratic majority in Congress, he has already managed to break a series of promises in an effort to burden taxpayers with a massive spending package that will do nothing to promote economic growth, but will permanently grow the size of government undo much of the progress made in the mid-1990s in the area of welfare reform. If this first month is a sign of what's to come, then taxpayers will be in for a rough ride."
(1) Conveniently, that pledge was later massaged to only extend to "non-emergency" bills, however even by that standard, the President has already twice violated that commitment with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the S-CHIP reauthorization bill that contained a tax increase (and broke another one of his campaign promises not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000).
Showing posts with label stimulus plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stimulus plan. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
U.S. bailout package will spark inflation and shift the burden to foreign investors: CIBC World Markets
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- CIBC (CM: TSX; NYSE) - To pay for its multi-trillion dollar bailout and stimulus packages, the Obama administration will print money at an unprecedented rate, a course that will drive up inflation and drive down the greenback while shifting a large part of the financial burden onto foreign investors, finds a new report from CIBC World Markets.
The report predicts that like Argentina in the late 1980s and Zimbabwe today, the U.S. government will simply create more money to fund its plans. "If the central bank prints it, someone will spend it," says Jeff Rubin, chief economist and chief strategist at CIBC World Markets. "Already U.S. money supply is growing at a nearly 20 per cent rate in the last three months and the printing presses are just warming up. And there's no shortage of more troubled assets to monetize along with $1.5 trillion-plus federal deficits to keep money supply growth chugging along in the future.
"As it buys up spread product, the Fed will leave Treasuries to be mopped up by foreigners. Since outsiders, like the People's Bank of China, now own over 50 per cent of America's debt, there has never been a better time to reflate. Why default on your taxpayers when you can default on someone else's? A 10-year Treasury bond will, of course, mature at par, but who's to say the greenback won't sink 40 per cent against the Yuan over its term like it did against the Yen between 1971 and 1981?"
Mr. Rubin notes that while the prospect of reflation may seem incredulous on the cusp of negative U.S. CPI numbers, past deficits that were a mere fraction of what they are today in relation to the size of the American economy, were readily monetized. And without fail, that monetization led to an explosive bout of subsequent inflation.
"The huge World War II deficits saw inflation peak at almost 20 per cent in 1947," adds Mr. Rubin. "When the printing presses were turned up to pay for the Korean War, inflation moved from negative territory to over nine per cent within the space of nine months in the early 1950s. And when Arthur Burns greased the Fed's presses after the Vietnam War, inflation soon made a triumphant return back to double-digit territory.
"Headline U.S. CPI inflation will grab a negative handle in the next few months but it will be running north of four per cent in less than a year."
Adding to these inflationary forces in the next year will be increased pressure on oil prices. While global demand is expected to be down about one per cent in 2009, oil supply is also declining. The plunge in oil prices caused by the recession has put the brakes on a number of new supply projects that were expected to address the depletion loss of nearly four million barrels a day this year alone.
"The IEA (International Energy Agency) recently estimated that the industry will have to spend well over half a trillion dollars annually to meet future demand and counter depletion," says Mr. Rubin. "No one is going to finance those money-losing mega-investments at oil prices anywhere near $40 per barrel. If yesterday's record high prices haven't spurred supply growth, what chances do oil prices a third or a quarter of those record levels have?"
A year ago, Mr. Rubin estimated that production would grow from about 86 million barrels per day in 2008 to around 88 million by decade's end, based on data for 200 pending new projects. However, recent announcements of project cancellations and postponements not only cancel out the expected two million barrel per day increase in global production by 2010, but they are likely to actually drive production down a million barrels per day below last year's levels.
In Canada, a region the IEA expects will be the single largest source of new crude supply, almost three times as important as Saudi Arabia over the next 20 years, cancellations or delays in recent months have already affected about one million barrels per day of planned oil sands capacity. Now, rather than grow by close to 400,000 barrels per day by 2010, total Canadian production is likely to rise by only a third of that.
"That's only the tip of the iceberg since the vast majority of cancellations have been on projects whose first flow dates are well after 2010," adds Mr. Rubin. "If oil prices were to stay at current levels, production, instead of plateauing around 88 million barrels per day by 2012 as we had previously forecast, would decline at an accelerating pace between now and 2015. By 2015, production would decline to around 76 million barrels per day, a level of roughly 10 per cent lower than last year's level. Unlike past oil shocks, there is no longer any newly discovered $10 per barrel North Sea oil to meet a rebound in demand."
He notes that higher prices will ultimately change that supply outlook by reversing some of the cancellations announced in the wake of oil's price plunge. Global demand snapped back at around a three per cent pace after the two declines in oil consumption seen in the early 1980s. Even a 2-2 1/2 per cent bounce back would leave the world facing even tighter supply conditions than it did in 2007 when oil prices moved from $60 to $100 per barrel.
"Back then, demand was about 1.5 million barrels per day more than supply. This imbalance, not only led to a very rapid inventory drawdown, but also attracted speculative activity in oil markets. By our estimates, we expect to see an even larger imbalance, almost two million barrels per day, between recovering demand and shrinking supply as early as 2010.
"When that happens, global oil inventories will plunge, and global oil prices will once again spike. That may well reverse some of the supply destruction that is currently taking place, but not before world oil prices print triple-digit levels again."
The report predicts that like Argentina in the late 1980s and Zimbabwe today, the U.S. government will simply create more money to fund its plans. "If the central bank prints it, someone will spend it," says Jeff Rubin, chief economist and chief strategist at CIBC World Markets. "Already U.S. money supply is growing at a nearly 20 per cent rate in the last three months and the printing presses are just warming up. And there's no shortage of more troubled assets to monetize along with $1.5 trillion-plus federal deficits to keep money supply growth chugging along in the future.
"As it buys up spread product, the Fed will leave Treasuries to be mopped up by foreigners. Since outsiders, like the People's Bank of China, now own over 50 per cent of America's debt, there has never been a better time to reflate. Why default on your taxpayers when you can default on someone else's? A 10-year Treasury bond will, of course, mature at par, but who's to say the greenback won't sink 40 per cent against the Yuan over its term like it did against the Yen between 1971 and 1981?"
Mr. Rubin notes that while the prospect of reflation may seem incredulous on the cusp of negative U.S. CPI numbers, past deficits that were a mere fraction of what they are today in relation to the size of the American economy, were readily monetized. And without fail, that monetization led to an explosive bout of subsequent inflation.
"The huge World War II deficits saw inflation peak at almost 20 per cent in 1947," adds Mr. Rubin. "When the printing presses were turned up to pay for the Korean War, inflation moved from negative territory to over nine per cent within the space of nine months in the early 1950s. And when Arthur Burns greased the Fed's presses after the Vietnam War, inflation soon made a triumphant return back to double-digit territory.
"Headline U.S. CPI inflation will grab a negative handle in the next few months but it will be running north of four per cent in less than a year."
Adding to these inflationary forces in the next year will be increased pressure on oil prices. While global demand is expected to be down about one per cent in 2009, oil supply is also declining. The plunge in oil prices caused by the recession has put the brakes on a number of new supply projects that were expected to address the depletion loss of nearly four million barrels a day this year alone.
"The IEA (International Energy Agency) recently estimated that the industry will have to spend well over half a trillion dollars annually to meet future demand and counter depletion," says Mr. Rubin. "No one is going to finance those money-losing mega-investments at oil prices anywhere near $40 per barrel. If yesterday's record high prices haven't spurred supply growth, what chances do oil prices a third or a quarter of those record levels have?"
A year ago, Mr. Rubin estimated that production would grow from about 86 million barrels per day in 2008 to around 88 million by decade's end, based on data for 200 pending new projects. However, recent announcements of project cancellations and postponements not only cancel out the expected two million barrel per day increase in global production by 2010, but they are likely to actually drive production down a million barrels per day below last year's levels.
In Canada, a region the IEA expects will be the single largest source of new crude supply, almost three times as important as Saudi Arabia over the next 20 years, cancellations or delays in recent months have already affected about one million barrels per day of planned oil sands capacity. Now, rather than grow by close to 400,000 barrels per day by 2010, total Canadian production is likely to rise by only a third of that.
"That's only the tip of the iceberg since the vast majority of cancellations have been on projects whose first flow dates are well after 2010," adds Mr. Rubin. "If oil prices were to stay at current levels, production, instead of plateauing around 88 million barrels per day by 2012 as we had previously forecast, would decline at an accelerating pace between now and 2015. By 2015, production would decline to around 76 million barrels per day, a level of roughly 10 per cent lower than last year's level. Unlike past oil shocks, there is no longer any newly discovered $10 per barrel North Sea oil to meet a rebound in demand."
He notes that higher prices will ultimately change that supply outlook by reversing some of the cancellations announced in the wake of oil's price plunge. Global demand snapped back at around a three per cent pace after the two declines in oil consumption seen in the early 1980s. Even a 2-2 1/2 per cent bounce back would leave the world facing even tighter supply conditions than it did in 2007 when oil prices moved from $60 to $100 per barrel.
"Back then, demand was about 1.5 million barrels per day more than supply. This imbalance, not only led to a very rapid inventory drawdown, but also attracted speculative activity in oil markets. By our estimates, we expect to see an even larger imbalance, almost two million barrels per day, between recovering demand and shrinking supply as early as 2010.
"When that happens, global oil inventories will plunge, and global oil prices will once again spike. That may well reverse some of the supply destruction that is currently taking place, but not before world oil prices print triple-digit levels again."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
No Policies From Obama to Stop Diversion of Federal Small Business Contracts to Fortune 500 Firms
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Since 2003, over a dozen federal investigations that have uncovered billions of dollars in federal contracts intended for small businesses actually wound up in the hands of Fortune 500 firms.
Any plans from President Barack Obama to adopt the recommendation of the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General to address the problem have been conspicuously absent from any of his stimulus plans or proposed policies.
President Obama has also ignored repeated pleas from small business groups around the country to adopt legislation and policies to stop Fortune 500 firms and thousands of other large businesses from commandeering up to $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts.
ABC, CBS and CNN have all released investigative stories on the issue, which found that firms such as Lockheed Martin, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, John Deere, Xerox, Dell Computer, Northrop Grumman and Home Depot all received millions of dollars in federal small business contracts.
Even some of the largest firms in Europe such as British Aerospace (BAE), Rolls-Royce and Dutch giant Buhrmann NV have received hundreds of millions a year in U.S. government contracts intended for small businesses.
Thousands of middle class firms have been forced to close their doors as they struggled in vain to compete with Fortune 500 firms for even the smallest government orders for goods and services specifically set aside for small businesses.
Small business advocates are concerned that President Obama will not only allow federal small business contracts to continue to be diverted to Fortune 500 firms, but that he will support a new federal policy that will create a new loophole in federal law allowing even more government small business contracts to be diverted to firms controlled by some of the nation's wealthiest investors.
The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) has contributed millions of dollars to President Obama and key members of Congress, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to try and have federal law changed to allow some of the wealthiest investors in the country to masquerade as small businesses and take billions of dollars in federal contracts designated for legitimate small businesses.
President Obama's appointment of Karen Mills, a multi-millionaire venture capitalist, to the post of Administrator of the SBA is seen by small business groups as a confirmation that President Obama will attempt to create more loopholes in federal contracting law, which will divert more federal small business contracts away from middle class firms and into the hands of wealthy investors.
Any plans from President Barack Obama to adopt the recommendation of the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General to address the problem have been conspicuously absent from any of his stimulus plans or proposed policies.
President Obama has also ignored repeated pleas from small business groups around the country to adopt legislation and policies to stop Fortune 500 firms and thousands of other large businesses from commandeering up to $100 billion a year in federal small business contracts.
ABC, CBS and CNN have all released investigative stories on the issue, which found that firms such as Lockheed Martin, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, John Deere, Xerox, Dell Computer, Northrop Grumman and Home Depot all received millions of dollars in federal small business contracts.
Even some of the largest firms in Europe such as British Aerospace (BAE), Rolls-Royce and Dutch giant Buhrmann NV have received hundreds of millions a year in U.S. government contracts intended for small businesses.
Thousands of middle class firms have been forced to close their doors as they struggled in vain to compete with Fortune 500 firms for even the smallest government orders for goods and services specifically set aside for small businesses.
Small business advocates are concerned that President Obama will not only allow federal small business contracts to continue to be diverted to Fortune 500 firms, but that he will support a new federal policy that will create a new loophole in federal law allowing even more government small business contracts to be diverted to firms controlled by some of the nation's wealthiest investors.
The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) has contributed millions of dollars to President Obama and key members of Congress, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to try and have federal law changed to allow some of the wealthiest investors in the country to masquerade as small businesses and take billions of dollars in federal contracts designated for legitimate small businesses.
President Obama's appointment of Karen Mills, a multi-millionaire venture capitalist, to the post of Administrator of the SBA is seen by small business groups as a confirmation that President Obama will attempt to create more loopholes in federal contracting law, which will divert more federal small business contracts away from middle class firms and into the hands of wealthy investors.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Obama's 'Newer Deal' Likely to Raise Deficit
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As President Barack Obama takes office, he is promising a bold stimulus plan for the declining economy. Some of his proposals mirror those of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. A new report from Casey Research, "Obama's Newer Deal," examines Obama's plan in comparison to Roosevelt's and concludes that it is even more risky.
The Obama plan relies on both spending and tax cuts to raise incomes and promote recovery. The Obama administration believes people need to have money to spend in order to get the economy moving.
Casey Research's analysis shows that what is needed is a "great deleveraging: using assets to pay down debts. Like a household with finite income and too many credit cards, there comes a time when the piper has to be paid. Getting more credit cards only temporarily makes the problem go away and surely makes it all worse."
There are other key differences between the New Deal and the Obama plan. In 1933, the federal debt was $360 billion in 2008 dollars and 40% of the GDP. In 2008, the federal debt was just under $11 trillion and 70% of the GDP.
The government is likely to add $3 trillion to the national debt in 2009 alone.
"The time will come and probably in 2009," concludes Casey Research, "that the only way the U.S. will be able to fund its deficits is to create money by printing it. The Treasury will have to sell bonds, and in the absence of foreign buyers, the Fed will have to print the money to buy them. The consequence will be runaway inflation, increasing interest rates, recession, and inevitable tax increases."
"The era of runaway U.S. consumerism is over. The economy's eventual turnaround will only occur after the debt that permeates the economy is substantially reduced. It's going to be a painful process," says Casey Research.
Casey Research is a team of highly experienced investors and trained economists who spend countless hours researching powerful economic trends and the very best ways to profit from same. Their clientele is made up of individual and institutional investors who share the costs - through subscription fees - in exchange for unbiased research and information they can use in managing their portfolios to produce above-average returns.
The Obama plan relies on both spending and tax cuts to raise incomes and promote recovery. The Obama administration believes people need to have money to spend in order to get the economy moving.
Casey Research's analysis shows that what is needed is a "great deleveraging: using assets to pay down debts. Like a household with finite income and too many credit cards, there comes a time when the piper has to be paid. Getting more credit cards only temporarily makes the problem go away and surely makes it all worse."
There are other key differences between the New Deal and the Obama plan. In 1933, the federal debt was $360 billion in 2008 dollars and 40% of the GDP. In 2008, the federal debt was just under $11 trillion and 70% of the GDP.
The government is likely to add $3 trillion to the national debt in 2009 alone.
"The time will come and probably in 2009," concludes Casey Research, "that the only way the U.S. will be able to fund its deficits is to create money by printing it. The Treasury will have to sell bonds, and in the absence of foreign buyers, the Fed will have to print the money to buy them. The consequence will be runaway inflation, increasing interest rates, recession, and inevitable tax increases."
"The era of runaway U.S. consumerism is over. The economy's eventual turnaround will only occur after the debt that permeates the economy is substantially reduced. It's going to be a painful process," says Casey Research.
Casey Research is a team of highly experienced investors and trained economists who spend countless hours researching powerful economic trends and the very best ways to profit from same. Their clientele is made up of individual and institutional investors who share the costs - through subscription fees - in exchange for unbiased research and information they can use in managing their portfolios to produce above-average returns.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
