One of the things I’ve learnt in my short life in politics is the ability to live in the conditions of capitalism while fighting it and defeating it.
Hint: Not Barack Obama. Answer here.
The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.
All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan.
The start-up company set up shop in Salinas in the summer of 2009, after the city gave Ryan a $300,000 community development grant.
When the company still ran into financial trouble last year, the city of Salinas handed Ryan an additional $240,000. Green Vehicles also received $187,000 from the California Energy Commission.
So, here's Mr. Obama a year and a half or so before the presidential election and the economy is showing all signs of sinking back into recession. Now, the President and his administration may not know much about economics, but they do know that increased government spending over the next year just might be enough to keep the GDP statistic above water.
It wouldn't be much to crow about, but it would save him the humiliation of an officially declared recession. Now, you and I understand full well that more government spending will not hire the unemployed and won't re-open closed businesses. But when you hear Obama and his apple-polishers screaming that cutting government will harm the economy, just substitute the word "GDP" for economy and you'll know why they're so desperate.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the health summit: "It's about jobs. In it's life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately."[Link added]
Despite the fact that I don't believe those numbers for a minute, what can she and her party possibly be thinking? Do they really believe that 400,000 jobs created by government edict and paid fully by the shrinking number of American workers in the private sector are really an answer?
Of course this is the woman who once proclaimed,
Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.
So, I guess I've answered my own question.
But of greater concern are the unintended consequences attending a policy that would induce millions of Americans to continue working into their late 60s rather than retiring at 65. What would this mean in terms of workplace productivity and opportunity for younger workers? Nobody has given it much thought.