A stranglehold on food and medicine
Two, three, many capitalisms
What government can learn from the market
Beijing fills a vacuum
Building America's electricity system was one of the great achievements of the twentieth century, providing inexpensive energy to homes and businesses throughout the country. But in the twenty-first century, two crises occurred. In 2001, California experienced massive electricity shortages, leading to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing electrical bills. And in 2003, a blackout swept across eight states in the Midwest and Northeast, leaving tens of millions in the dark. Why did these problems arise now, after a century of progress? Were they the result of ill-advised attempts to deregulate the utility industry? Or is more deregulation actually the solution?
How much does the gap between rich and poor matter? In 1979, for every dollar the poorest fifth of the American population earned, the richest fifth earned nine. By 1997, that gap had increased to fifteen to one. Is this growing income inequality a serious problem? Is the size of the gap between rich and poor less important than the poor's absolute level of income? In other words, should we focus on reducing the income gap or on fighting poverty?
In the last decade and a half, India and China have both engaged in extensive economic reforms, in effect bringing their joint population of some 2.3 billion into the worldwide system of capitalism and free trade. Those 2.3 billion people, many of whom are extremely well educated, are by and large willing to work harder and for less pay than are Americans. Are India and China's expanding and modernizing economies threatening America's long global dominance of science, technology, and industry? If so, what should we do about it? Peter Robinson speaks with Craig Barrett, Stephen Moore, and Peter A. Thiel.
Our society continues to assign considerable value to higher education and, for the most part, desires to have it in the reach of deserving students. Differences arise, however, over the definition of deserving and who should pay for that education. When limited financial resources are available from government as well as from the private sector, student financial aid resources must be used efficiently. The congressional elections of 1994 and 1996 seem to indicate that the majority of the electorate desires to downsize big government, with its bureaucracy and red tape, and to bring decisions on policy and resource utilization closer to the affected populations and the taxpayers who must finance them.
The model presented in this essay seeks to assign to the three sources of student financial aid--the federal government, state governments, and the institutional and private sector--responsibility for helping to fund specific college costs that students and their parents cannot pay. The roles stipulated in the model for federal and state government adhere to the provisions of the United States Constitution. More than $50 billion is awarded each year in student financial aid; $35 billion of that comes from the federal treasury so federal programs receive particular attention.
Reducing the multiplicity of federal student aid programs will certainly be challenged by those who fear that their largesse from Washington will diminish. Resistance to the changes proposed in this essay can be expected, including the argument that these programs have worked well over time and simply need more funding to make them even better. This essay presents what it is hoped are compelling reasons for reengineering all student financial aid now. The changes will bring about greater effectiveness, efficiency, and equity.
Stanford talks to Hoover Institution research fellow about government funding gaps over the past 35 years.
The Welfare State Denies Homes to Thousands of Foster Children.
SIDEBAR: Conna Craig: Director, Institute For Children
Federal subsidies to U.S. businesses now cost American taxpayers nearly $100 billion a year. If all corporate welfare programs were eliminated, Congress would have enough money to entirely eliminate the capital gains tax and the death tax. Alternatively, Congress could cut the personal and corporate income tax by 10 percent across the board. Either of these alternatives would do far more to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. industry than the current industrial policy approach of trying to help American companies one at a time.
Federal subsidies to corporate America take many forms: direct grant payments, below-market insurance, direct loans and loan guarantees, trade protection, contracts for unneeded activities, and unjustified special interest loopholes in the tax code. Despite their promises to downsize government, congressional Republicans have retreated from any serious attempt to reduce business subsidies. The Clinton administration has routinely requested budgetary increases for corporate handouts, including the Export Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program.
This study refutes common myths about corporate welfare programs: that they create jobs and promote growth; that they =`level the playing field=' with our foreign competitors; that they help small businesses; and that the payments are provided without regard to political considerations. The main effects of industrial policy programs are to undermine the free enterprise system and corrupt the political system. Congress should get businesses off the dole and use the savings to cut taxes, reduce the national debt or both.
Reforming current legal immigration and refugee legislation.
Senator Rob Portman on passing legislation to get the economy going and the United States back on track.
This week on Uncommon Knowledge, a conversation with author and historian Amity Shlaes on her new book, Great Society: A New History.
As the COVID-19 crisis continues, Peter Robinson sat down (virtually over Zoom) with Kevin Warsh, the Shepard Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a former member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. They discuss the nuts and bolts of the Federal Government’s 2 Trillion dollar (and rising) recovery and aid package, why it was needed, and its chances of staving off a depression.