The Stimulus Was a Success

...unless you wanted it to stimulate anything.

Here's a billion-dollar piece of news that's shuffling right by while the best minds of our generation debate whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) did or did not create a private jet tax break:

The state of California is getting a cool $838,680,283 in ARRA cash—not to save, create, or fund any jobs but to maintain the unemployment program in a state Standard & Poor’s says still hasn’t got its budget house in order

This fraction of the total stimulus demonstrates an essential truth about the $787 billion Recovery Act, one that the perpetrators of President Barack Obama’s economic policies have just begun to mention in guarded, gingerly terms: The ARRA, either by design or by evolution, ended up functioning as a budget stopgap for existing government programs, not as Keynesian stimulus. 

From Recovery.gov:

The U.S. Department of Labor has certified for release $838,680,283 in unemployment insurance modernization incentive funds to the state of California. California qualified for its full share of the funds available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by including in its law provisions that assist recent entrants to the workforce, part-time workers and workers who become unemployed because of compelling family reasons.

A helpful Labor Department spokesman explains that the modernization involved changing some unemployment regulations. These changes make it easier for recent arrivals who were collecting unemployment in other states to go on the dole in the Golden State. “For example,” this spokesman said, “if a married couple living in Connecticut moves to California because the wife has a great new job, under the old system, the husband would not have been able to collect unemployment insurance. Now he can. As Gov. [Jerry] Brown put it, about 26,000 new Californians would become eligible for unemployment.” 

Other modernizations include allowing unemployment to be collected during maternity leave. The Labor Department says 27 states now operate under the modernized regulations. So if you’re not working, you might as well come out to California and not work in nice weather. 

Though you can’t call it stimulative, you can say some other things about California’s unemployment windfall. Many studies, such as this one [pdf] from JPMorgan, have argued that enhancing unemployment benefits increases the unemployment rate in two ways: by subsidizing idleness, thus driving up the average duration of a person’s unemployment; and by discouraging people from dropping out of the labor force entirely. 

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and the union-backed Political Economy Research Institute question the first part of that disincentive equation—the money-for-nothing part. But the second part—the false elevation in the rate of labor force participation—seems to be supported by Labor Department statistics that show the U.S. rate of labor participation dropped 4 percent over the last 10 years, but has been absolutely flat, at 64.2 percent, since Congress approved $57 billion in extended jobless benefits in December 2010. 

The implications for California’s continuing viability are even less ambiguous. Being able to offload payment of unemployment insurance (UI) to the Federal government might give Sacramento the appearance of having gained a cost-free inbound migrant. (Using Brown’s estimate of 26,000, the DOL’s contribution amounts to $32,256.93 per person.) But the reality is that another non-working person has just moved into a state with an 11.7 percent unemployment rate and an accelerating departure rate of productive business.  

In their May study, “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Public Sector Jobs Saved, Private Sector Jobs Forestalled” [pdf], economists Timothy Conley (University of Western Ontario) and Bill Dupor (Ohio State University) try to provide the mechanism to explain a phenomenon seen throughout the country during the period of maximum ARRA stimulus: As unemployment continued to climb, public-sector jobs grew in number and salary. Here’s the brief explanation: 

ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment.

Conley and Dupor use more equations than a simple-hearted soul should trust, and the necessary data are not all there. (“It is important to note that we do not have enough precision in our estimates to conclude that number of jobs lost/destroyed was (probably) greater than the number created/saved.”) But they detail the nitty gritty of ARRA handouts. Some ARRA funds were relatively fungible, allowing states to use them to boost general funds rather than engage in stimulus. But even when federal payments were legally committed to be spent in a certain way, this allowed states to reduce their own spending in this area. Texas, for example, reduced its spending on highway, bridge, and street construction from $3.38 billion in 2009 to $2.82 billion in 2010—the period when it was receiving $700 million in ARRA infrastructure stimulus. 

In some cases funds came with a requirement that states match federal spending, but the number of states that responded to ARRA funding by diverting spending to other areas is striking. It also makes more sense than anything else we have learned about the stimulus. The states were in, and remain in, the most severe fiscal crisis of the postwar period, and stimulus funds helped cover some of the shortfall. Jared Bernstein, the failed former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, hints at this achievement when he says, “That ain’t nothing” to describe the ARRA’s achievement. 

Of course, it also ain’t what the voters were told to expect from the stimulus. And it turned out to be only a temporary solution, as state and local governments have again run out of other people's money and are laying employees off anyway. But Bernstein's right: By the strictest possible definition, the stimulus was not nothing. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    THE PLUTOCRACY OF HYPOCRISY Vs Scientific Socialism , and or
    Communism

    [HTS ] in reply to Life after capitalism Robert Skidelsky, a member of the
    British House of Lords, is professor emeritus of Political Economy at
    Warwick University, author of a prize- winning biography of the economist
    John Maynard Keynes.

    [Robert Skidelsky Says]: The dishonoring of greed is likely only in those
    countries whose citizens already have more than they need. And even
    there, many people still have less than they need.

    [HTS REPLYS]: The word in the Plutocracy of modern Capitalism is no
    longer a need of the type one would really consider it to mean, it has
    evolved into more of being a stung out junkie , the thrill of each high only
    leaves the user with the craving to have more, they don 't just need public
    transportation, they need private transportation , and then its the latest
    and greatest model of private transportation , not a simple form or mode
    needed for the area of use but one that makes a statement, it does not
    matter if the speed limit is [55 MPH] Miles Per Hour, the vehicle
    must have the ability to beat any vehicle ever made , and say it can do it ,
    just by its make and model. Everything is reduced to economic eye candy,
    its comes down to school yard one ups man ship, control is end game,
    Politically, Socially, Militarily , and Economically .

    [Robert Skidelshy Says]: The evidence suggests that economies would be
    more stable and citizens happier if wealth and income were more evenly
    distributed. The economic justification for large income inequalities – the
    need to stimulate people to be more productive – collapses when growth
    ceases to be so important.

    [HTS REPLYS]: The evidence of Communist or Scientific Socialism would
    support that in the end not only would the [Regional Spheres of Influence]
    be more stable and their citizens much happier if the Worlds Wealth and
    Income were more evenly distributed, but would be safer in the longer
    term, form Plutocracy Capitalisms Wars or Economic Stimulus , which
    grows out of the need to gain access and control of resources need to
    produce the ever increasing demands of the [1 %] of the American - Israeli
    Military Industrial Complex, the [EMPIRE] to continue its exploitation of
    the past decades as deep as possible into the [21 st] Century.

    [Robert Skidelshy Says]: Perhaps socialism was not an alternative to
    capitalism, but its heir . It will inherit the earth not by dispossessing the
    rich of their property, but by providing motives and incentives for
    behavior that are unconnected with the further accumulation of wealth.

    [HTS REPLYS]: The concept of shaming the rich and powerful into change
    have not, does not, and will not be the cause of a change in their
    behavior anymore than the taught of legal forms brought against them in
    some court or tribunal, the answer to the verdict is always the same, now
    try to enforce it. The social revolutions of the [ME ] Middle East were not
    [24 hrs] in the making and will take at least a decade to unfold , they like so
    many before were in works long before they erupted, all the signs were
    there to be seen if one but looked and were able to understand the
    dynamics of change that were coming. One but needs only too look to the
    [EU ] European Union of today , and see that change is coming with
    growing signs of social unrest and disunity among its [NATO ] North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization Members, let alone its [EU ] membership
    heading increasingly towards their breaking point. Revolutions are not a
    picnic they like the tree of liberty must often be nurtured with the blood
    of valiant.

    HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Hercule triathlon Savinien,

    "The dishonoring of greed is likely only in those
    countries whose citizens already have more than they need."


    One ends up facing with a dilema of which is the greater imbecile: The one that made such question-begging assertion, or the one that propagates it on the web without realizing it is pure, circular thinking?

  • Old Mexican||

    Sorry, delete "facing."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Greed = socialist-minded fucks wanting to raise taxes because Person A has more spending money than Person B.

  • don marquis||

    archy got mehitabel to release the caps lock

  • Tony||

    WTF entitles a person to take a portion of the planet earth and declare it eternally his with no qualifications?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Who said anything about "eternally"?

    THAT, is a strawman.

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    And here I thought that this article would finally get Tony to shut his piehole.
    Alas....

  • Tony||

    No such luck.

  • ||

    What make you qualified for anything other than wanking for doughnuts.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Being way too kind to Tony, there, coma.

  • JoshInHB||

    It's actually worse than that OM

    The next sentence is:
    And even
    there, many people still have less than they need.

    So the ideal socialist society where The dishonoring of greed has occurred is also a society where

    citizens already have more than they need. And even
    there, many people still have less than they need.
  • ||

    Dath jeth raythith.

  • ||

    Yes, but all government spending increases the GDP.

    Even if the spending doesn't actually "produce" anything.

  • Brandon||

    It "produces" votes, and that's what matters.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I never really understood why G was a part of Y. Isn't it really just redirected private production?

  • Chupacabra||

    You forgot about the multplier effect.

  • ||

    Unfortunately the multiplier is less than 1.

  • ||

    Yes, via the multiplier effect, G turns into C, so you get to count it twice. Hence the multiplier.

  • ||

    I was going to make a comment, but I think HTS has said it all (I think).

  • ||

    And furthermore, if any more needs to be said, we should consider abandoning any comments what-so-ever at H&R to to HTS, who has a much better vision of just about everything.

  • ||

    We are all HERC now.

  • .||

    I do like people who refer to themselves in the third person [HTS REPLYS].

  • Jimmy||

    Jimmy likes that comment!

  • ||

    George is startin' to get upset!

  • Southerner||

    I think we went over this before, didn't we? The stimulus "stimulates" our economy in rather the same way that a taser "stimulates" the testicles.

  • Platypus||

    Except the tears are money.

  • Paul||

    Threadwinner

  • Not an Economist||

    Come on guys, you got to give Obama a break. According to the President, without the stimulus, the US would be like the Dark Ages in Europe, only without the good parts. Obama wouldn't lie would he?

  • Barack Obama||

    References to the dark ages are Eurocentric, most likely racist and a tragic understatement.

    Our country was facing a collapse unprecedented in scope since the fall of the great Mayan civilization, piece be upon them, triggered by William te Conqueror's Japanese misadventure.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Am I the only person that picture Herc to be a tall, lumbering giant with a tender and loving heart that makes up for his 18 IQ?

  • ||

    Probably. I picture him as a barely sentient duck (probably a mallard), who was given that sentience by a bite from a radioactive tapeworm. An anti-Semitic tapeworm.

  • Richard||

    I hardly ever LOL at anything but I LOL'ed at this. Probably because I'm pretty drunk.

  • The Other Kevin||

    That sounds more like STEVE SMITH. Though, come to think of it, they both have a tendency to use excessive amounts of capitalization.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE SMITH RAPE EYES OF REASON READERS WITH ALL CAPS TYPING!

  • ||

    I dont know but it appears he has a blog. My server has been down but I'm looking forward to perusing it.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    herculetriathlonsavinien.blogspot.com/

    He says he's a voice from the darkness, or some such thing. More like the voice of darkness.

  • Sudden||

    I see him as a modern Tom Bombadil

  • Terr||

    Hodor?

  • DrSleuss||

    HodorHodorHodorHodorHodor

  • Aqua Buddha||

    Y'all do know HTS's name is linked to a gmail address.

    Off to sign up for email porn.......

  • Idiot Savant||

    So our national debt is 53% of the GDP.. so what? I live in over 400% debt with my mortgage, vehicle, and credit cards. I have impeccable credit and haven't even come close to a default on anything I've financed.

    The truth is, government spending should only be kept in check to make sure our creditors are happy and that we're paying it off slowly. Taxing the rich to accomplish any real gains in lowering the debt/income ratio just means the middle class will eventually get pulled into the fight. Why not just be honest and say that "if you want the debt gone, we need ALL of your money".

    I make less than 50k a year and I'm completely comfortable with someone having billions of dollars worth of profit. Wall street, foreign investors, private banks, small business, and individuals all benefit from a strong private sector.

    We've sincerely got to evolve out of this "blame the rich" nonsense. It's approaching a level of bigotry.

  • Brandon||

    According to Balloon Juice, being a non-rich libertarian just means you believe that you will be rich soon or you're stupid.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Confiscating every bit of accumulated wealth =/= getting us out of debt, no matter what liberals say.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    They had a video on ReasonTV a few months back about how, if every cent of "the rich's" savings were spent, it wouldn't get us through the entire year. In fact, they had to tax the hell out of everyone above some # and take $40 from the average joes, and still had to cut all sorts of stuff. Foreign aid elimination bought them a few extra hours.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I saw that, forgot about it, thanks for the reminder.

    It should be mandatory viewing on the House floor. No popcorn, though... the fuckers don't deserve snacks.

  • Mensan||

    Michael more = mendacious Michigan manatee of malevolence FTW!

  • Idiot Savant||

    According to Balloon Juice, being a non-rich libertarian just means you believe that you will be rich soon or you're stupid.

    Aka ambitious, eye-on-the-prize people who believe their hard work and creative ideas will pay off? Yeah, they're stupid.. If only we DID have a country like that.

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    "being a non-rich libertarian just means you believe that you will be rich soon or you're stupid."

    This is surprisingly common believe among Canadian lefties. They can't believe non-rich Americans would vote against Obamacare.

  • Sudden||

    Actually, our national debt is over 100% of GDP, and if you factor in state/county/municipal debt, its inching over 200%. You can't simply not count the money you raided from your 401k with IOUs a la dumb and dumber, those are bills that have to be paid from existing tax revenue instead of savings.

    Moreover, your income is not analogous with GDP, but tax revenue. Considering federal revenue is ~20% of GDP, the more accurate comparison is that the national debt (speaking strictly to federal debt in this instance since I have no data on cumulative tax collections of state/county/municipal levels) is well over 500% of tax revenue. If you want to be really daring, consider the anticipated unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years vs. expected revenue collections over the same period and you'll get an even more collossal clusterfuck of a percentage.

  • Old Mexican||

    Many studies, such as [...] one from JPMorgan, have argued that enhancing unemployment benefits increases the unemployment rate in two ways: by subsidizing idleness, thus driving up the average duration of a person's unemployment; and by discouraging people from dropping out of the labor force entirely.


    Pretty much the same thing that happens in many European countries, where you find 11 to 15% unemployment as people are paid not to work.

  • highmesa||

    If they were smart, Paul Krugman-style Keynesians could use these revelations to say that the post-2008 economy is not the radiant refutation of Keynesian stimulus it appears to be, because the money was misspent.

    Actually that's not true. It is the act of spending that counts, not what it was spent on.

  • Platypus||

    Krugman would probably add that the stimulus wasn't big enough to truly stimulate the economy anyway. But then, no amount would EVER be big enough to work.

  • Doctor Whom||

    True Scotsmen Christians socialists Keynesians would have gotten it right.

  • ||

    I think Kurgman is in the "all spending is stimulative" camp.

    Some saner Keynesians could argue that the stimulus didn't work because it wasn't spent on infrastructure improveme or other projects that might actually benefit economic development directly.

  • ||

    If they were smart, Paul Krugman-style Keynesians ...


    Would be a paradox.

  • Liberal Douche Fortuneteller||

    See??? Our experts SAID the stimulus would prevent global economic devastation!!!

  • Idiot Savant||

    Sorry, these anti-rich people are just bigots. You might as well tell me that we need to stop black people from breeding in order to stop crime.

  • Paul||

    You might as well tell me that we need to stop black people from breeding in order to stop crime.

    Done and done

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki.....n_on_Crime

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I strongly suspect that the key thing is not race, but income, of the parents. Generally, the poor are more likely to commit crimes. Fewer poor kids = fewer poor kids willing to commit crimes. Skin color has nothing to do with it.

  • Idiot Savant||

    No, it's definitely racial

  • cynical||

    Maybe, or maybe people predisposed to commit crimes are more likely to become poor.

  • Idiot Savant||

    Race definitely has something to do with crime. Gender does too.

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    Race definitely has something to do with conviction rates.

    FTFY

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Single parenthood definitely has something to do with crime/illiteracy/poverty/won't behave in school.

  • Mensan||

    This is a fairly valid argument. Many people often point to the incarceration rates versus percentage of population to argue that certain races are more or less prone to crime. I think it’s far more interesting if you compare the demographic distribution of the impoverished population in the U.S. versus the distribution of the prison population.

    Poverty
    44% White (Non-Hispanic)
    27% Hispanic
    23.5% Black
    4% Asian
    1.5% Native American

    Incarceration
    39% Black
    34% White (Non-Hispanic)
    21.5% Hispanic
    4% Asian
    1.5% Native American

  • Stiglizt Alert!||

  • ||

    California qualified for its full share of the funds available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by including in its law provisions that assist recent entrants to the workforce, part-time workers and workers who become unemployed because of compelling family reasons.

    In other words, by further expanding (to the point of nonsense) what is meant by "truly needy" and "truly deserving".

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Define "compelling family reasons." If it goes undefined, Timmy's performance in the talent show (picking his nose, of course) could be defined as "compelling."

  • ||

    I skimmed through that Stiglitz thing earlier.

    It hurt.

  • Sudden||

    The sad reality is that even Keynes would've bitch-slapped the Krugnuts of the modern era. Keynes believed in surpluses during positive economic periods in order to pay the debts of prior ill times. Also, his idea of stimulus was to fund actual productive work, like public infrastructure and what not. He would be ashamed by people using his theories as a means of covering massive shortfalls resulting from severe structural deficits of ponzi-style schemes cooked up generations prior.

  • Paul||

    Yeah, the keynesian "tax it [debt] back to nothing" usually elicits the response "heh, your shoe's untied" from liberals.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Of course, the taxes necessary to pay off the kind of debt I gather Keynes wanted would have put the nation back into a depression.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    "severe structural deficits of ponzi-style schemes cooked up generations prior."

    Such as Social Security?

  • JoshInHB||

    Also, his idea of stimulus was to fund actual productive work, like public infrastructure and what not.

    Only if whatnot includes literally paying people to bury bank notes and then licensing others to dig them up again.

  • ¢||

    Leaves, gears, stars: That's pretty much the whole economy.

    Of Suicide Girls' gynoscopy-scar-hiding tattoos.

    (Is that still a thing? I don't fuck anymore.)

  • Libertylover||

    Whoo-hoo! Millions of people stand ready to lose their jobs and/or homes now that the stimulus has failed. Let's all take delight and enjoy smug satisfaction; after all, we aren't called "glib-ertarians" for nothing right!?

  • Sudden||

    We aren't getting any satisfaction from it. Although, I should add that I am notably not attending the pity party for those who used their homes as credit cards and lost them after successive cash-out refinances. And, home prices did accelerate far beyond any meaninful relationship to actual incomes, myself and many of my peers in their mid to late 20's will gleefully scoop up homes when the return to market clearing levels. No smug satisfaction in "I told ya so." We advocate more successful policies because we want those more successful policies pursued, because we and the people who are suffering would both benefit from more successful policies both the medium and long terms.

  • Tony||

    How about a pity party for yourself then? Want to see the reality of the fact that you can't escape your community? Get pulled down along with everyone else in an economic collapse.

  • ||

    Speak for yourself, pinkbot. Some of us bought gold.

    -jcr

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    And some bought guns & ammo.
    Both good.

  • ||

    + 1 to the guns and ammo. Tony real men don't need the "community" or the "government" to be able to live.

    Men actually can survive just fine with out either. But you "socially conscious" boys will never understand that will you.

  • ____||

    +1 for posting to this community web site on the government created internet over your government regulated telecommunications system.

  • Tony||

    Maybe so, now if only every person in a community were a "real man," libertarianism would be viable.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It didn't take libertarian to see this "stimulus" was going to fall flat on its face. Anyone who's been paying attention to the economy over the last 35 years or so could have seen it.

    The smug satisfaction comes from seeing the know-it-all nerds in the Obama administration and their supporters standing in flabbergasted amazement that their beautiful theories couldn't overcome ugly realities.

  • Tony||

    The stimulus did almost exactly what it was understood to be capable of doing. And declaring something a failure before many of its features have even kicked in is evidence that you're approaching the situation with a little glee.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Nostradamusizing again, Tony?

  • Paul||

    The stimulus did almost exactly what it was understood to be capable of doing

    Wow, I had to read that statement two or three times to unravel it.

    The Stimulus did not do a single thing the Obama administration claimed it would do. Do I have to repost that unemployment graph the wunderkinds on the Obama economic team put out showing where unemployment would go with/without stimulus?

    And declaring something a failure before many of its features have even kicked in is evidence that you're approaching the situation with a little glee.

    I work for a hospital that publicly supported Obamacare, and is now getting fucked sideways by the New Healthcare Economy. I don't take much glee in that-- but I do still say, "Told you so..."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But without it we would have been doom'd!!!

  • DLM||

    The Stimulus did not do a single thing the Obama administration claimed it would do.

    In all fairness, who in their right mind would believe the administration's claims anyway?

  • emperor wears no clothes||

    "And declaring something a failure before many of its features have even kicked in is evidence that you're approaching the situation with a little glee."

    The stimulus didn't fail, it just hasn't worked yet.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The stimulus did almost exactly what it was understood to be capable of doing.

    Stimulating the economy and resulting in an economic recovery? You did see the jobs reports this morning, yes?

  • Tony||

    I will never claim that that law was a panacea. I thought at the time, along with most economists, and think now, that we need more federal spending if we want to see unemployment go down.

    Now, remind me, what is your guys' plan again?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I will never claim that that law was a panacea.

    Irrelevant, since you're claiming it did what it was supposed to do. It didn't cap the U3 at what the administration said it would, and it hasn't stimulated job growth, according to the BLS "A" Tables (the employment to population ratio is still at 30 year lows). So stop lying.

    Now, remind me, what is your guys' plan again?

    The Harding plan--slash government and end bailouts, endure a short, sharp recession which will clean out the businesses which can't survive, and set the foundation for an actual recovery.

    You act as if this has never been done before, and the economy should never crash. Stop listening to your idiot professors and deal with reality for once.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And declaring something a failure before many of its features have even kicked in is evidence that you're approaching the situation with a little glee.

    Since you're claiming that "many" of its features haven't kicked in yet--implying a majority--perhaps you'd be willing to list which ones haven't begun yet.

  • JoshInHB||

    The stimulus did almost exactly what it was understood to be capable of doing.

    Absolutely correct.

    It wasted a tremendous amount of money without improving the economy at all, possibly making it worse.

    Which is all that it was ever capable of doing, despite the bs sales pitch.

  • Tony||

    You're lying if you say the economy hasn't improved at all.

    Here in the real world where there is no such thing as magic, economic stimulus goes only so far as the money available. Thanks to people in government who DO believe in magic, it wasn't enough to dig out of the whole that those same people caused.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You're lying if you say the economy hasn't improved at all.

    Your proof?

  • ||

    Let's all take delight and enjoy smug satisfaction

    After the ten thousandth time of telling a three year old, "If you keep doing that, you're going to get hurt" I confess to a certain grim satisfaction in hearing howls of pain.

  • Sudden||

    It just sucks when 100% of the people reap what 52% of the ~50% of the public that actually votes has sown.

  • Sudden is retarded||

    I don't think it sucks at all, lessons have to be taught, sometimes they hurt. Cry more.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    u mad?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So... this DeVos, thinks all libertarians are right-wing Christian Soldiers?

    Sounds like shrike.

  • ||

    You mean that extending unemployment benefits gives labor greater leverage over corporations in bargaining? And that's a bad thing?

    We know that capital is more mobile than labor for many reasons, most of which can't be fixed by changing public policy. Given the growing income disparity over the last three decades, pushing companies to share more of their earnings with their workforce seems to be good policy. Government needs to be about fixing flagrant market failures, and this is surely one of those

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement