This past September, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, announced the central bank’s QE3 plan— a decision to buy more bonds with the hope that lower interest rates will goose domestic spending and kick start economic growth. However, it is unlikely that QE3 will have any palpable effect on the economy after QE1, QE2, and Operation Twist failed to.
The Manhattan Institute just released the latest in its Issues 2012 series of policy briefs, “Why Savings are Suffering: Fed QE3 Policy Costs Seniors.” Authored by MI senior fellow and former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the report argues that while the Fed is hedging that people who have been saving during the economic downturn will start spending, the lower interest rates will hurt those who live on fixed incomes and rely heavily on their savings—most specifically, senior citizens.
Mitt Romney said that the amount of money that President Obama has wasted on green jobs programs could have hired two million teachers. Green jobs programs are truly a waste—of the 33 energy loan guarantees or grants made under the Energy Department’s programs, 26, or almost 80 percent, have filed for bankruptcy or have missed production goals.
Plus, as I show in my new book, Regulating to Disaster: How Green Jobs Policies Damage America’s Economy, green energy is more expensive and raises Americans’ utility bills. Generating a megawatt hour of electricity from natural gas in 2015 will cost between $49 and $79. A megawatt hour from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, and from solar photovoltaic will cost between $242 and $455.
"…Obama’s energy policy rests on moral superiority. In Wednesday’s debate, Romney should make the case that green energy is neither moral nor superior, but merely condemns America to slower economic growth with only smugness to show for it."
Diana Furchtgott-Roth in today’s Washington Examiner.
"The challenge for America lies in getting the 47% who don’t pay income taxes into a position where they can. Now, all Romney has to do is say how."
Marketwatch.com, Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Dan Disalvo, author of Engines of Change: Party Factions in American Politics, and Howard Husock explore the nature of Democratic and Republican party factions and how they shape political movements.
“We often look at our big tent parties as these big monolithic blocks or we look at individual political actors, but what we miss is this intermediate unit, the faction is often the party behind the party or the source of energy behind the party…”
Listen to the discussion
If a picture can speak 1,000 words, then this graphic on BarackObama.com[i] clearly shows where coal fits – or rather, doesn’t fit – in the president’s energy strategy.
The graphic, which has been on the president’s Web site for several weeks, continues Obama’s claim that he has an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. But as you can see by looking at the graphic, coal apparently doesn’t count as “all.” Indeed, a look at the Democratic National Committee’s 2012 platform shows that coal won’t have much of a future if the Democrats are in control of domestic energy policy. Their platform mentions coal exactly once, and it’s in a reference to “clean coal.”[ii] By contrast, the Republicans’ platform mentions coal nine times, and claims the party will “will end the EPA’s war on coal.”[iii]
President Obama and others in Congress argue that higher tax rates are justified because of the growing consensus that the rich don’t pay their fair share. Unless we do something to spread the burden more equitably, the argument goes, American society will become more unfair and the economy more unsustainable with each passing year.
The Manhattan Institute just released the latest in its Issues 2012 series of policy briefs, “The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?” Authored by Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board senior economics writer, the report addresses the campaign season’s most-debated talking points.
“Chairman Ryan has been one of the most articulate voices in Congress on reforming Medicare and Medicaid, and how we can make those programs sustainable for future generations without bankrupting the nation. Governor Romney’s choice of Congressman Ryan as his running mate will give the nation an opporunity to have a real conversation about health care reform, and discuss how we can use the principles of competition and consumer choice to make health care truly patient- and family-centered. The contrast with President Obama’s vision - which is dependent on handing more control over to bureaucrats and increasing taxes on the rest of the economy - could not be more profound…” - Paul Howard, Manhattan Institute senior fellow