The Pew Charity Trust’s Subsidyscope website just released a report on the Export-Import Bank, which is a government agency that helps finance U.S. exports through loans and loan guarantees. As it turns out, Boeing is hands down Ex-Im’s biggest beneficiary.
The Washington Post is full of so many stories about government failure these days, it’s hard to keep up.
Today, on page A19 we learn about a Small Business Administration subsidy program that has a 60-percent default rate. On the same page, we learn that the U.S. Postal Service will lose $7 billion this year.
Benjamin Franklin said: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” I would add a third certainty: cost overruns at the Pentagon. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that the Pentagon’s space program is facing multi-billion dollar cost overruns and multi-year delays.
The U.S. Department of Energy recently awarded $2.4 billion in stimulus money to develop and manufacture electric vehicles. The ostensible purpose of the government’s effort is to set the nation on a path toward more environmentally friendly transportation. But as the USA Today notes, electric cars might not provide the environmental benefits that proponents cite:
I haven’t followed the controversies surrounding Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to President Obama. However, her tenure as the CEO of a company that received federal money to run a public housing project deserves further scrutiny.
The Washington Examiner reports on projects funded by the economic stimulus package passed earlier this year that most taxpayers will find either dubious or objectionable.
The federal government is running $1 trillion deficits, but that hasn’t slowed down the government’s corporate welfare gravy train. As a microcosm of the business subsidy problem, I happened to notice in an Ohio newspaper that the U.S. Department of Commerce is footing the bill for the Youngstown/Warren Regional Chamber to fund a 16-day junket to China and Taiwan.
A new NBER study from two Harvard economists analyzed substantial fiscal policy changes and the economic consequences in twenty-one OECD countries from 1970-2007. Their findings are at odds with the approach of U.S. policymakers who insist that the government can tax and spend the country back to prosperity.