Biden Says Stimulus Fraud at “Surprisingly Low Level”

Judicial Watch

In yet another delusional assessment of the administration’s disastrous stimulus program Vice President Joe Biden claims that fraud and abuse has been kept “to a surprisingly low level” thanks to rigorous oversight.

The laughable estimate comes just a few months after Biden made a fool of himself touting a scandal-plagued welfare program to make low-income houses energy efficient as an example of success in stimulus spending…

Biden conveniently omitted reality (9.6% unemployment rate) by failing to mention that tens of billions of dollars have gone to wasteful projects, including international ant research, studying why monkeys react negatively to inequity, a “tunnel to nowhere” in Pennsylvania and a $3 million turtle crossing in Florida, to name a few. At least $20 million has been spent on road signs declaring that the stimulus is “putting Americans back to work” and tens of millions more on a number of other frivolous projects that have been documented in several different reports.

Read more.

Congressman Issa: Congress Must Oversee Executive Branch

Congressman Darrell Issa, Floyd Reports

The unparalleled encroachment of the federal government in the private sector and the lives of individual Americans that began during the Bush Administration and continues in the Obama Administration (see, for example, the Troubled Assets Protection Program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the rapid growth of the federal workforce, and the health care and financial overhauls) has led to concerns of an oncoming tsunami of opacity, waste, fraud, and abuse. This trend must be met by vigorous Congressional oversight of the massive federal bureaucracy.

The vast expansion of the power and reach of the executive branch of government under both Republican and Democratic administrations has only increased the need for vigorous, unflinching congressional oversight. Under one-party rule in Washington, with Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress and the executive branch, the majority reiterated its commitment to congressional oversight.

Unfortunately, since President Obama took office 19 months ago, the country has seen the emergence of a large accountability gap. Congress’ chief watchdog committee has failed repeatedly to conduct meaningful and sustained investigations and hold federal executives and bureaucrats responsible for the unprecedented levels of waste, fraud, and abuse that such rapid growth has nurtured.

Despite repeated requests by the Republican minority for oversight hearings, joint investigations, and subpoenas, and despite myriad news reports raising allegations of waste, fraud, and other misconduct, the Oversight Committee and the Democratic-controlled Congress have overwhelmingly shunned responsible but tough oversight of the Obama administration.

As of August 2010, the Republican members of the Oversight Committee had sent 46 letters to the Democratic Chairman of the committee or its subcommittee chairs requesting hearings, additional witnesses at hearings, or subpoenas of important documents related to significant investigations. Formal responses were received for only six of those requests.

Read more.

Cash for Clunkers Hurt the Poor – and Obama’s Advisers Love It

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

The Democrats’ “Cash for Clunkers” program had one major impact on the market: it raised prices almost $2,000 per car in a way that disproportionately hurts the poor.  And Obama’s Green Left advisers could not be happier.

The automobile industry authority Edmunds.com has found used car prices are up 10.3 percent over last summer. The average used vehicle costs $1,800 more than it did one year ago. The price hike is even greater for larger vehicles. Warner Todd Huston of Gateway Pundit has the details. (Also h/t to Mass SNAFU.)

The program (which most Americans opposed) cost $3 billion. In the end, taxpayers shelled out $24,000 per car sale generated. A study conducted at the University of California-Davis found even the environmental benefit cost us at least 10 times the ‘sticker price‘ to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.” As usual, the Obama administration could put up with zero dissent. When the automobile industry authority Edmunds.com pointed out the program’s failure, the White House website carried a savage denunciation, and a Transportation Department official sniped at Edmunds by name. (His claims were later debunked.)

Now we see just how helpful it was: the average citizen paid $24,000 in taxes per unique sale for the privilege of paying $1,800 more per car this summer. Joe Spina of Edmunds.com explained how this happened:

It’s believed that the program delayed purchases prior to the program and also pulled sales forward while in place. The program also eliminated inventory of older vehicles that were traded and then scrapped.

In other words, as soon as Obama announced the Cash for Clunkers program, everyone considering buying a used vehicle waited until the rebate kicked in. Those on the fence hurried to buy a car before the money ran out, causing a short-term boom. And since the program required all the “gas-guzzling” trade-ins to be scrapped, there are fewer used cars available this summer, driving up prices. (After all, the point of the program was not just to provide an economic stimulus but to destroy automobiles with lower fuel standards that emitted more greenhouse gases.) With “Recovery Summer” turning into Recession 2.0, fewer people want to purchase new vehicles and are getting less expensive, used models.

So, greater demand plus lower supply equals higher prices.

Since wealthier Americans, who would ordinarily buy a new car, are now purchasing “pre-owned” vehicles, they can outbid poorer Americans. The people really hurt by this are the poor and lower middle class, who needed to buy a new-to-them minivan or SUV to take the kids to practice. They have been priced out of the market and have to stick with their decrepit vehicles. (That puts a new twist on the phrase, “Cash for Clunkers,” doesn’t it?)

Rest assured, run-of-the-mill liberals will look at the damage their policies have created and suggest it can be fixed by an even bigger “stimulus.” But Obama’s Green Left advisers have a different reaction.

Higher prices were not an unintended consequence for them. They are ideologically committed to reducing America’s carbon footprint, ideally by herding more poor people into public transportation. Pricing the poor out of the market for used cars is one step in that direction.

Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren has dedicated his life to imagining a future radically different from the one envisioned by our Founding Fathers. He wrote a 2006 paper that analyzed reducing “GDP per person” — that is, cutting your personal wealth — in order to reduce greenhouse gases. While he said this is “not a lever that most people would want to use to reduce emissions,” it a possibility. After all,  “People are not getting rich as fast as they think” if their happiness comes “at the expense of the environmental underpinnings of well-being.” In 1997, Holdren said raising the price of natural gas was “actually a good idea.” His close friend Dr. James Hansen, whom Holdren called “one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world,” suggested to Obama in late 2008 that he should tax gasoline up to “$4/5 gallons again.”

Higher prices for cars and gasoline — and the misery they inflict on the poor and middle class — fulfill their purposes.

Unfortunately, the higher cost of used cars is  the least important price we are paying for putting Barack Obama into power.

Stimulus Surprise: Companies Retrench When Government Spends

Harvard Business School

 Stimulus? Not so much

Recent research at Harvard Business School began with the premise that as a state’s congressional delegation grew in stature and power in Washington, D.C., local businesses would benefit from the increased federal spending sure to come their way.

It turned out quite the opposite. In fact, professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy discovered to their surprise that companies experienced lower sales and retrenched by cutting payroll, R&D, and other expenses. Indeed, in the years that followed a congressman’s ascendancy to the chairmanship of a powerful committee, the average firm in his state cut back capital expenditures by roughly 15 percent, according to their working paper, "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?"

"It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending," Coval reports.

Over a 40-year period, the study looked at increases in local earmarks and other federal spending that flowed to states after the senator or representative rose to the chairmanship of a powerful congressional committee.

We asked Coval about the relationship between the government and the private sector, and how policymakers should critically evaluate federal stimulus plans to help local companies.

Read More: