Mike Huckabee wants infrastructure jobs 'you cannot outsource'

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

It seems that Gov. Mike Huckabee is the latest conservative on Team Trump to fall victim to the Keynesian delusion that infrastructure spending is the way to revitalize the economy. A tweet by Fox News yesterday quoted Huckabee as saying, “The most effective way to put people on a job is to do infrastructure jobs b/c it’s the one thing you cannot outsource.”

The tweet does not offer a link to a clip of the segment, so Huckabee’s comment cannot be viewed in full context, but the statement comes after other members of the Trump transition team, including the president-elect himself, have signaled that infrastructure spending, most likely financed by debt, will be a top priority in the new administration.

While Huckabee is technically correct that construction jobs cannot be exported to foreign countries, the construction industry is a major employer of illegal immigrants. In 2012, four years into the unemployment crisis brought on by the Great Recession, Pew Research found that about 15 percent of construction and extraction jobs were held by illegal aliens.

During the campaign, it was pointed that Donald Trump had even used illegal aliens in the construction of the Trump Tower in the 1980s.  The Washington Post reported that Trump was also using illegal workers in the construction of his new hotel in Washington, DC, a charge that he denied.

Even without possibility of government infrastructure money going to illegal workers, Huckabee’s infrastructure comment shows a lack of deep thinking on the issue of jobs. Government spending on infrastructure can create jobs in the short term, but what happens when those projects are finished? Government projects often run behind schedule and over budget, but eventually they come to an end. If the underlying problems with the economy are not fixed the result will be a country with a lot of nice, new roads and bridges, a lot more debt and a chronic high unemployment rate.

The key to revitalizing the economy is to create a climate in which American companies can create things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. Tax and regulatory reform would allow American businesses to build things at prices that are competitive with the rest of the world.

When the federal government takes on more debt, it needs more tax money to pay back what is borrowed. Higher taxes and more government spending make the US less competitive. Neither families nor countries can borrow their way to prosperity.

The infrastructure stimulus has been tried and has failed numerous times. Most famously, President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” created the Works Progress Administration, an entire government agency whose purpose was to create infrastructure jobs for unskilled laborers. The WPA was responsible for many roads, bridges, parks, and post offices, but what it did not do was end the unemployment crisis.

More recently, President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 spent $787 billion on “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs. The success of Obama’s program can be judged by the fact that unemployment is still a problem eight years later.

One conservative critic of Obama’s stimulus said at the time, Republicans in Congress “were elected to represent their constituents, but they can’t hardly do that and vote to pile on unimaginable debt on their grandchildren.” He continued, “If you think future generations of Americans can afford a congressional version of ‘shop-til-you-drop,’ then just remain silent, but I don’t plan to.”

Who was that outspoken critic of Obama’s stimulus boondoggle? It was Mike Huckabee.

When did borrowing money to create jobs paid for by the government become a conservative policy, governor?

Originally published on The Resurgent

Economist proposes “space alien” stimulus

In a tacit admission that the left is out of ideas on how to fix the economy, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently proposed a new stimulus program in the form a military buildup to ward off an invasion by extraterrestrial aliens. Drawing upon the history of the Great Depression and an episode of “the Twilight Zone,” Krugman postulated on CNN that government spending on military hardware to combat aliens would revitalize the U.S. economy in short order. Krugman subscribes to the Keynesian belief that World War II and the debt-financed military buildup that followed finally ended the Great Depression after ten years of FDR’s debt-financed social programs failed to restart the economy.

In reality, the military buildup of the 1940’s and the New Deal stimulus programs were very similar. The military draft that removed hundreds of thousands of workers from unemployment rolls had civilian equivalents in the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration and other New Deal government organizations that hired workers for make-work projects. Similarly, government orders for military hardware that busied factories were akin to New Deal construction projects commissioned by the Public Works Administration and the Civil Works Administration.

Krugman doesn’t actually believe that an alien attack is imminent. He merely favors a hoax to provide a rationale for spending:

“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat - and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that - this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake there aren't actually any space aliens.”

“There was a Twilight Zone episode like this, which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.”

Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, misses several important points here. The most obvious is that the U.S. is already at war. We don’t have to invent an extraterrestrial enemy because we have a very real terrestrial enemy in the form of Islamic terrorist groups. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused wear and tear on military equipment. The government could spend money to replace and refurbish our existing military hardware, as well as purchasing more F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II advanced technology fighters that would ensure air superiority against a new generation of high-tech Chinese and Russian fighters. The F-22 is a built by Lockheed Martin at its plant in Marietta, Ga. Presumably real world military spending is not large enough in Krugman’s eyes.

The second point that Krugman misses is that spending on WWII did not actually jumpstart the economy. The problem is that removing hundreds of thousands of idle workers from the economy and purchasing millions of dollars of tanks, aircraft, and other equipment is not a change that could be sustained indefinitely. When the war was over, as the armed forces demobilized these workers would likely return to the unemployment line and the factories would go idle if the government did not fund new New Deal programs to provide jobs and demand for material goods. In reality, this is not what happened.

In the Wall Street Journal, Burt Folsom, author of “New Deal or Raw Deal,” notes that Congress, led by Georgia Senator Walter F. George, rejected President Truman’s attempts to revive New Deal policies after the war. According to Folsom’s research, Congress reduced income tax rates across the board, cut the corporate tax rate, and repealed the Excess Profits Tax. According to tax.org, the tax reforms and reductions began even before the war ended with the Tax Adjustment Act and the Revenue Act of 1945. The Revenue Act of 1948 was smaller, but included more comprehensive and controversial reforms.

Senator George, a resident of Vienna, Ga. who served on the Senate Finance Committee at the time, is quoted by Folsom as saying that if the tax reform “has the effect which it is hoped it will have, it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total  revenue." As a chart on USgovernmentrevenue.com shows, federal revenues increased dramatically in the 1950’s even though tax rates were lower than they had been during the New Deal and war years.

Finally, Krugman ignores the fact that federal debt levels today are much higher than they were at the onset of WWII. Data from USgovernmentspending.com reveals that the federal debt as a percentage of GDP is almost as high today as it was at the end of WWII, not the beginning. The government could afford to spend billions on tanks and armies in 1941 because, even after a decade of New Deal spending, the federal debt was less of a burden than it is today. If the U.S. tried to engage in another massive military buildup today, the debt would shortly become unmanageable and the result would either be a default or inflation (which Krugman also advocates).

Krugman’s idea of an anti-alien buildup is simply a sci-fi twist on the same old Keynesian policies that have failed to work for President Obama in the past. President Obama should instead follow Senator George’s example and enact broad-based, permanent tax reforms that would encourage businesses to invest.

Photo credit:  Vince DeVries/Wikimedia

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/economist-proposes-space-alien-stimulus

Serious questions for Democrats, liberals and other Obama supporters

As President Obama’s first and possibly only term begins to draw to a close, it is fitting to look back over the past three years and evaluate his performance. President Obama began with an ambitious reform agenda that included leading the nation out of the Great Recession, enacting what became his signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, and changing the image of America abroad, in part by closing the detainment facility for terrorists at Guantanamo and withdrawing from Iraq.

Some of these goals have been accomplished while others obviously have not. In the case of the accomplished goals, often the result has been far from what the president intended. There are several questions that we must consider in light of the past three years.

First, given that Democrats began President Obama’s term with strong majorities in both houses of congress and were able to pass whatever legislation they wanted over ineffective Republican attempts at filibusters, how do liberals explain the abject failure of their multiple Keynesian stimulus laws to recover the economy? Recent statistics show that the U.S. economy has experienced virtually no growth over the past two quarters and unemployment remains above nine percent. In Georgia, unemployment remains at 9.9 percent, almost a full percentage point above the national average, according to Georgia Department of Labor. The recovery is proving to be an illusion.

Second, how do we resolve the problem of the federal debt? The federal debt has increased markedly from 2008 to 2011. The increase is even more stark when examined in terms of control of Congress rather than the presidency. Since 2006 when Democrats gained control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the debt has grown from $8.68 trillion to $14.34 trillion according to data from treasurydirect.gov. This is a 65 percent increase in the federal debt over a five year period.

In budget debates so far this year, Democrats have resisted virtually all attempts to cut federal spending. The recent debt limit compromise brought the government to edge of default to enact a measly five percent in spending cuts. Vastly larger cuts will be needed since federal spending will still outpace tax revenues by a large margin. America’s future will be like that of Greece and the other European basket-cases if we continue along the path toward a European-style social democracy.

Under Keynesian theory, government theory can provide a boost to the economy. Alternatively, when the stimulus spending is removed, the economy must necessarily contract. When do liberals and Democrats believe that it is ever proper and beneficial to reduce spending or are we doomed to ever-increasing budgets in order to prevent another recession or depression?

Third, what do liberals suggest for a foreign policy since President Obama’s theories of engagement have failed? Polls show that the U.S. is even less popular in the Arab world under President Obama than under President Bush, a remarkable feat in itself. Far from giving up its nuclear program, Iran is stepping up enrichment of uranium and growing ever closer to a nuclear weapon. Such a weapon could target Atlanta if launched from a cargo ship just beyond Savannah’s territorial waters. Further, President Obama’s engagement of dictators just as Libya’s Gadhafi, Syria’s Assad, and Iran’s Ahmadinejad have not stopped them from ruthlessly cracking down on democracy protests. Russia’s Putin and Medvedev and Venezuela’s Chavez have also expanded their power under Obama’s tenure.

The Atlanta Conservative Examiner would welcome a serious response from liberals and Democrats in answer to these questions. Please leave your answers in a comment below or email them to the address listed in the author’s profile. The definition of insanity is said to be doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Regardless of party affiliation we should examine the mistakes of the past and open a dialogue on how to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

Photo credit:  Wikimedia/Denelson83

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/serious-questions-for-liberals-democrats-and-other-obama-supporters

 

<a href=" http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/serious-questions-for-liberals-democrats-and-other-obama-supporters"><img src="http://www.examiner.com/assets/images/Examiner-Badge.jpg" border="none"></a>

Is it foolish to argue with fools? A new perspective on the evolution debate

Walter J. Pilsak, Waldsassen

While on a recent trip to Florida, I visited the church of a friend and coworker.  The guest speaker that day was Eric Hovind, an evangelist with DrDino.com.  Hovind preached at several services and, while I expected to hear a sermon about proofs for creation, the message that I heard was very different.

I am a Christian.  I believe that God created the world and everything in it.  Most Americans believe as I do.  By extension, since Georgia is a central part of the Bible Belt, most Georgians likely believe in Theistic Creation, the idea that God created the world “pretty much in its present form,” as well.  In fact, a majority (40%) of Americans believe in Theistic Creation.  That statistic has declined very slightly over the past twenty years.  Theistic evolution, evolution directed by God, is America’s second most popular view of origins with 38%.  That number has remained relatively constant.  The percentage of Americans who believe in Naturalistic Evolution, evolution without input from God, is a small minority (16%) that has grown slightly in past decades.

I have examined the evidence for both evolution and creation.  Evolution in terms of adaptation is a fact.  Evolution in terms of life coming from nothing to one-celled organisms and eventually to higher life forms is unconvincing for many reasons.  I am unconvinced, but I have an open mind and have looked at a lot of the evidence from both sides.

Ultimately, I came to a realization that neither side can prove their theory.  The origin of earth and man happened a long time ago and there were no witnesses.  All we can do is to look at the evidence and try to interpret it.  This is why I normally don’t get involved in the creation-evolution debate.  When I have done so in the past it has taken a lot of time and effort and nothing was ever decided in the end.  If either evolution or creation could be conclusively proved, it would be a scientific law rather than a scientific theory. 

Charles Darwin

As with other topics, the ridicule and scorn by evolutionists of those who hold a skeptical viewpoint is itself a motive for questioning their claims.  If evolution is so easily proven, then evolutionists should welcome debate rather than subjecting skeptics to ridicule.  Yet repeatedly they attempt to shut off debate, even in classrooms where a free exchange of ideas should be welcomed.  For instance, a few years ago a federal judge ruled in favor of six parents who sued Cobb County because the school system placed a sticker in science textbooks that read “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

The judge ruled that the sticker was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.  There were several problems with the ruling.  First, the sticker did not mention creationism or religion.  Second, evolution is by definition a theory.  Lastly, it would seem that people who truly support science and critical thinking would want to encourage keeping open minds, careful study, and critical consideration as opposed to blindly accepting the prevailing wisdom without question.

Nevertheless, what Hovind said interested me.  Preaching from Romans 1:18-23, Hovind explained that God has written His truth in plain sight and that those who deny His existence and His creation are denying the truth that they know in their own hearts.  Essentially, everyone can see from creation that God exists and is in control.  The skeptics think themselves wise, but are really fools (v. 22).  I do not make the claim that atheists are fools, but God does.

In effect, atheists and evolutionists shape the argument.  As Hovind said, God created logic and science and apart from Him there can be no logic or science.  Nevertheless, atheists and evolutionists start with a preconceived belief that there is no God and then attempt to use science and logic, God’s own creations, to disprove His existence.  It is a fallacy to believe that with the brain that God gave you and using laws of logic, science, and morality that God created, you can disprove the existence of God.  The very fact that people have the ability to reason and question is a proof that God exists.

In essence, Hovind says that atheists and evolutionists have made up their minds and will continue to believe their theories regardless of what evidence is arrayed against them.  It isn’t a matter of science; it is a matter of worldview.  Therefore, skeptics will almost never be convinced by evidence and arguing with them is useless.

As I listened to Hovind make his case, I realized that his argument could apply to other areas of debate as well.  For example, many of the same people who are atheists and believers in evolution are also believers in socialism and Keynesian economic theory.  These systems are recurring failures yet they still have many supporters in spite of the overwhelming evidence against them.  This evidence is even more apparent than the evidence in the evolution debate.  The failures of socialism and Keynes have occurred in front of our own eyes.  We don’t have to rely on a fossil record.

John Maynard Keynes

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and communist Europe, as well as the current collapse of Western Europe’s social democracies and the utter failure of the New Deal and President Obama’s Keynesian stimulus, should easily convince everyone that we should try something else.  Yet many people remain convinced that there is merit to the ideas of Marx and Keynes.  Why?  Because they have a preconceived belief that their ideas are correct and interpret everything else through this worldview.

In any case, it seems logical to focus persuasion efforts on people who are undecided and have open minds.  People who have an open mind can look objectively at the evidence against naturalistic evolution and central economic planning and some of them can and will be convinced.  People with an agenda and a closed mind cannot be convinced of anything.  Arguing with them is like talking to the proverbial stone wall.  The only recourse in this case is prayer that God will soften their hearts (which should be the first resort and not the last in any case).

Ironically, believers in creation probably make better citizens.  Someone who believes in naturalistic evolution have no incentive to do anything for anyone except themselves.  It is survival of the fittest.  To them, there is no God to encourage charity and no evolutionary reason for altruism.  Why help someone else if doing so does not help them?  To do so would be irrational. 

On the other hand, people who believe in creation often believe that God wants them to help the poor and sick.  Christians are also taught to be obedient to governmental authority and to pay taxes.  In their personal lives, religious believers are taught to be moral and ethical, even if it is to their disadvantage.  If everyone looked out only for himself, our country and world would be a much different, darker, place.

Dragon art is found around the world 
by sean in japan

In the interest of reaching out to people with open minds, here are a few of the issues that raised questions about evolution for me.  I encourage everyone to do their own investigation with an open mind.  God is rational and doesn’t expect us or want us to have blind, unquestioning faith. 

Entropy:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that a system moves from high to low order.  The Theory of Evolution contradicts the Law of Entropy.

The Cambrian Explosion:  The fossil record shows that large numbers of organisms appeared rapidly and fully formed rather than over millions of years of slow evolution.

Irreducible complexity:  The idea that Darwin provided to refute his own theory.  It holds that some organs are so complex with specialized parts that will not function without all parts.  Similarly, the parts are useless without the whole system in place.

Timelines:  There are many indications that fossils, canyons, geologic strata, etc. don’t take millions of years to form.

The possibility of humans and dinosaurs coexisting:         Dragon fables around the world and references in the Bible as well as cave paintings of dragons and dinosaurs suggest that people may have had contact with dinosaurs.  If true, this would be a major blow to evolutionary theory.

Logical proof that God Exists:  proofthatgodexists.org

Mike Huckabee in a 2008 Republican debate answering a question about evolution.