Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

To Government, Every Penny Is Sacred

New programs mean emptier pockets.

John Stossel | 2.20.2013 12:00 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | SS&SS (Flickr)
(SS&SS (Flickr))

President Obama has new priorities. That means new spending.

In his State of the Union, he said, "The American people don't expect government to solve every problem." But then he went on to list how, under his guidance, government will solve a thousand problems, including some (like climate change and a loss of manufacturing jobs) that are probably not even problems.

The president bragged about creating "our first manufacturing innovation institute" in Ohio and says that he will create 15 more. Politicians claim actions like this are needed to solve the "decline of manufacturing" in America. John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Pat Buchanan also fret about this. But what they call "decline" is myth. There is no decline in manufacturing.

The Federal Reserve says that U.S. manufacturing output is up from 2000, and up almost 50 percent from 1990. Yes, manufacturing employment is down because automation and government's labor rules led companies to automate and produce more with fewer employees, but that's OK.

Manufacturing jobs are no better than other jobs. Few parents today prefer their children work in factories rather than offices.

When the need for people in one type of industry decreases—say, making wagon wheels—they are freed up to work in other areas. What America needs is a flexible economy that provides new jobs. For years, we had that.

Workers who lost factory jobs found new work in the fast-growing service industry. Creating software, movies and medical innovation is just as valuable as manufacturing and often more comfortable for workers. Anyway, politicians don't know where new jobs will appear.

"Yet the president wants 15 'manufacturing hubs,' which I guess will be like Solyndra cities," lamented Deroy Murdock, one of three libertarian reporters who came on my show to react to our president's plans.

Murdock's right. Politicians should accept the fact that making things is something the market does pretty well on its own. This month, the Energy Department's inspector general reports that, three years after being awarded a $150 million federal grant, a taxpayer-backed battery plant in Holland, Mich., has not produced a single battery. At one point, the company's workers were paid to do nothing.

"Then we have a 'college scorecard' that Obama will bring," said Murdock. "U.S. News & World Report updates which colleges do a good job, but (now) government will do that?"

Then came the president's call for more spending on preschool.

"I am sympathetic to people wanting to shove their kids out the door," joked Katherine Mangu-Ward, "but Head Start, our pilot program for universal preschool, has a not-great record. We spend $8 billion to get very, very little in terms of results. … We suck at education."

Well, government does.

Michael C. Moynihan was disappointed that President Obama's speech contained no talk of significant reform of Social Security and Medicare. "Even in this sort of dire circumstance: no change whatsoever."

Both parties are guilty of avoiding our "dire circumstance," said Moynihan. "There was a big announcement in 2011—$300, $400 billion in spending would be cut, (but) this was a mirage, there were no spending cuts. … (What) cuts in Washington mean is that you reduce the rate of increase a little."

Instead of letting obsolete government programs die, bureaucrats come up with new excuses to keep spending. "Like the Rural Electrification Administration," said Murdock. "That was put in by FDR to bring power to Appalachia. (Now) they put in broadband Internet."

The Washington Post reports on a federally supported program that is so bad that even President Obama wants it cut. The Christopher Columbus Fellowship spent 80 percent of its money on overhead. Three Republicans introduced legislation to end it, but the subsidy lives on, because one senator, Thad Cochran, R-Miss., likes it.

So America continues to move toward bankruptcy. Instead of addressing that, the politicians will spend  more.

Instead of announcing 15 new "manufacturing" hubs, the president should just announce 300 million "do whatever you want with your own money" hubs. Then American citizens can do as they please.

That would actually do some good.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley Wants to Hike Gas Tax

John Stossel is the host and creator of Stossel TV.

PoliticsPolicyState of the UnionBig GovernmentGovernment Spending
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (25)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Almanian!   12 years ago

    SOTU speech is bad, mm’kay?

    1. Janine W. Chambliss   12 years ago

      If you think Eva`s story is nice…, three weeks ago my brother’s mom in law basically also recieved a check for $7894 grafting a sixteen hour week from there house and their co-worker’s step-aunt`s neighbour has done this for 9-months and earned over $7894 parttime at their computer. applie the guidelines here… http://www.Ace60.com

  2. $park?   12 years ago

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    1. phandaal   12 years ago

      What you did there: I see it.

  3. DarrenM   12 years ago

    President Obama has new priorities.

    To the average person, new priorities implies cutting back on former priorities. With Obama, as with many politicians, it means slightly less urgency in throwing more money at them.

  4. mtrueman   12 years ago

    ?Instead of announcing 15 new “manufacturing” hubs, the president should just announce 300 million “do whatever you want with your own money” hubs. Then American citizens can do as they please.?

    I?ve thought this was a wonderful idea – a social wage or universal dole that would allow everyone to live in modest comfort without having to seek employment. It would mean that only those who wanted to work would really have to work. Those who didn?t want employment would be free to pursue other past times, whether it?s working on a grand unified theory in physics or just sitting watching TV while enjoying an ale or three.

    1. WittyName   12 years ago

      Or just fly their unicorns around spreading skittles about the countryside making everything all better.

      1. mtrueman   12 years ago

        It?s not up to me to determine how you spend your time or dictate your interests

        1. WittyName   12 years ago

          But it is up to you to determine how much the productive must give to the unproductive?

          1. mtrueman   12 years ago

            Who is to say that those without wage paying jobs will be among the ?unproductive?? Thanks to the comfortable living provided to the English clergy, they were able to pursue other, less ecclesiastical, interests. Thanks to the ?unproductive? tinkering of these men we have the Jack Russell terrier and Bayes? theorem.

            Americans mustn?t let their puritanical roots stand in the way of a good idea.

            1. Calvin Coolidge   12 years ago

              Also a huge upsurge in peophilia! Giving the clergy more time to pursue their inclinations isn’t a good thing.

            2. WittyName   12 years ago

              But, again, you get to decide for the rest of us? As long as you think its good, surely the rest of us will be happy too, right?

              Your example is a voluntary action, while your proposal is government enforced coercion. Not the same at all.

              1. mtrueman   12 years ago

                ?Your example is a voluntary action?

                Looks like someone could benefit from a little bit of study about the Church of England and its role in society. What?s wrong? Too busy chasing wages to educate yourself? I have a solution for that!

                1. WittyName   12 years ago

                  Smug and stupid is no way to go through life.

            3. JWatts   12 years ago

              “Thanks to the comfortable living provided to the English clergy, they were able to pursue other, less ecclesiastical, interests.”

              They were paid to do a job. Your example has nothing to do with somebody being on the dole.

              1. mtrueman   12 years ago

                ?They were paid to do a job?

                You?re not following me. The ?job? they were being paid to do was ministering to the spiritual needs of their congregation, which were as often as not ignored. Their dog breeding and theoretical pursuits were done on their own initiative, and were by any measure productive.

                1. JWatts   12 years ago

                  “The ?job? they were being paid to do was ministering to the spiritual needs of their congregation, which were as often as not ignored.”

                  All you really have is a ‘just so’ story.

                  Do you have any proof that their job was “ignored”? Did their congregation think they weren’t doing their job? Did the higher ups at the church think they weren’t doing their job?

                  If the answer is ‘Yes’ to all 3 of these you might have a point.

                  However, I strongly suspect that if both the congregation and the church hierarchy thought the clerics weren’t doing their job they would have fired them.

                  1. mtrueman   12 years ago

                    ?any proof that their job was “ignored”??

                    Are you joking? You give me an idea of what exactly you want me to prove about whom, and I?ll see what I can do. You might find it more satisfactory to consult an expert on the clergy of the 19th century, and not just some guy on the comment board at Reason, or even read yourself a book on the subject. If you feel you need anything from me, I?d be happy to advise. I?ll be frank with you, my spider senses are telling me that you?re not going to like anything I have to say, no matter what I tell you. You haven?t agreed, it seems, with a single thing I?ve written here, and I see nothing in your comments to show me that?s about to change.

                    ?if both the congregation and the church hierarchy thought the clerics weren’t doing their job they would have fired them.?

                    Hehe. Look up the word ?sinecure? if you have a moment.

  5. neoteny   12 years ago

    The Christopher Columbus Fellowship spent 80 percent of its money on overhead.

    All govt. is entitled to hand out some sinecure appointments. As it was previously observed on Reason, what good power is if you can’t wield it arbitrarily at least some of the time?

  6. polnick   12 years ago

    Demographics of the nation are changing there will be more of Mexico and less of Europe. Production and construction will never return to its peak, a more humble lifestyle must be accepted. Erotic lifestyles will become more prevalent, sperm is cheap and always available.

    1. neoteny   12 years ago

      Erotic lifestyles will become more prevalent, sperm is cheap and always available.

      That reminds me of the old Q&A:

      What do you say if she gives you head?

      Nice!

      What do you say if she lets you come into her mouth?

      Sweet!

      What do you say if she gargles with it?

      Showoff!

    2. grey   12 years ago

      What does ‘a more humble lifestyle must be accepted’ mean exactly?

  7. jecobjesan   12 years ago

    my roomate’s step-mother makes $70 every hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 9 months but last month her pay check was $14503 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more http://www.WOW92.com

  8. Warrior88   12 years ago

    Connor. if you think Edward`s stori is something, on monday I bought a gorgeous Chrysler after having made $4163 this – five weeks past and just a little over ten grand this past month. it’s by-far my favourite-job I have ever had. I began this five months/ago and pretty much straight away was earning minimum $82.. per-hr. I follow the details here, http://WWW.FLY38.COM

  9. grey   12 years ago

    Instead of announcing 15 new “manufacturing” hubs, the president should just announce 300 million “do whatever you want with your own money” hubs. Then American citizens can do as they please. – Stossell

    Well said.

    The media completely ignores the central planning aspect of Manufacturing Hubs. Forget socialism, this skips right over to communism. Who gets to be the winners and losers for the federal money to drive these hubs? I’m sure union enclaves in liberal cities.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit.

Billy Binion | 6.10.2025 5:30 PM

Aspiring Barbers and Cosmetologists in Iowa Can Now Learn on the Job Instead of Paying Thousands for Classes

Autumn Billings | 6.10.2025 5:15 PM

Gavin Newsom Defends Federalism Against Trump's Unilateral National Guard Deployment

Jacob Sullum | 6.10.2025 4:00 PM

The Tom Cotton Do-Over

Matt Welch | 6.10.2025 3:36 PM

SpaceX's New Company Town Considers Adopting NIMBY Zoning Code

Christian Britschgi | 6.10.2025 2:10 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!