Comment E-mail Print Bio Archives

Democrats, and three RINOs, just spent nearly $800 billion to: (1) stimulate the economy; (2) create or save 2.5 million jobs; and (3) reduce dependence on foreign oil, according to President Obama, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Neither Wall Street nor Main Street believes the massive expenditure will achieve the goals.

These goals could be achieved, however, with no new spending at all. In fact, a very simple policy change could achieve these desired goals and produce $2 trillion in new tax revenue as well.

Democrats could easily repeal the ban on domestic oil production and achieve all their stated goals with no new expenditures. A detailed study shows that by simply allowing access to off-shore resources the economy could realize an $8 trillion shot in the arm. The economic stimulus that would come from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been known. Democrats have blocked every effort to utilize these domestic resources.

The Democratic leadership says we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil, now nearly 70% of our supply. But, at the same time, they prohibit the use of domestic oil resources. Is this hypocrisy, or what?

Congress could vote tomorrow to open domestic oil reserves, and the next day, private dollars would begin to flow into the economy, and continue to flow, producing new tax revenue for governments, and new jobs. In three years, or less, dependence on foreign oil would begin to decline, as would the dollar amount flowing to foreign governments. Even if no new reserves were ever found, the known supply of domestic oil would last for at least 70 more years.

Instead, Democrats, and three RINOs, chose to pile another $800 billion on top of the last $700 billion borrowed to create Roosevelt-type government jobs and to subsidize wind and solar research. Incidentally, not all the borrowed bucks are to stimulate the economy. Depending upon what the meaning of "earmark" is, quite a few of the bucks are being spent to benefit the Democratic leadership. For example, Nancy Pelosi's district will get a bunch of bucks to buy up wetlands. These landowners are happy to get rid of their unusable swampland for a tidy profit, and will remember the source of profit at election time.

Harry Reid's earmark amounts to multiple billions to build a mag-lev rail system between California's Disneyland and Nevada's dizzyland in the center of Las Vegas. A free market could never support such a scheme, but they who proclaim that there is not a single "earmark" in the stimulus bill, have borrowed billions to benefit Harry Reid. Is this hypocrisy, or what?

Economists are in general agreement that Roosevelt's make-work government jobs extended the depression for years. When government money stopped flowing, the government jobs vanished. It was the war that created the need for products that the free market produced.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2