JOHN BOEHNER

Any stimulus package should consist of permanent tax cuts rather than spending increases. The (limited) available evidence suggests that tax cuts are at least as effective as spending increases in stimulating the economy. Tax cuts help reduce the adverse incentives caused by high tax rates. And spending increases are likely to include numerous projects that do not pass normal cost-benefit criteria and are instead merely pork (e.g., repairing bridges to nowhere).

I worked 7 years as a Federal Reserve staff economist and have done research in and taught macroeconomics for 27 more years. There is no convincing evidence that stimulative fiscal policy is either feasible or effective. The recognition and action lags (ancient terms from the bygone Keynesian era) alone virtually always mean that the stimulus arrives after the recession is over, thus causing an undesirable distortion that impedes recovery…These aspects of fiscal policy have been known for more than a quarter century. However, if one does not like old evidence, Greg Mankiw on his blog recently cited more recent scholarship showing that Keynesian theory is inconsistent with the data. This I am strongly skeptical of President-elect Obama's plans. Both theory and evidence are against them. What else do we require to reject them?

Japan in the early and mid 1990s engaged in major fiscal stimulus focused on infrastructure projects with deficits equal to 7-8% of GDP and a cumulative Debt/GDP of almost 150%. None of this led to economic recovery until the late 1990s when the Bank of Japan engaged in quantitative easing of monetary policy and the Government of Japan finally introduced a taxpayer bailout of the banks. The Fed and Treasury in the US have already taken such actions. The Japanese experience suggests that additional fiscal stimulus will only add to the Debt without helping the economy.

“... votes by secret ballot were in order but never taken. We therefore believe that we need to follow proper rules of procedure and hold a vote by secret ballot.”

“[I]t is important that the integrity of the [Congressional Hispanic Caucus] be unquestioned and above reproach.”

“This is, I think, an affront to the American people, and we will do everything we can to stop it.”

Organized labor helped elect Barack Obama and now eagerly awaits his promised support for its top priority—a bill that would make it easier to set up union locals... The so-called card-check bill would not protect workers and it would not be "free choice." It would strip away their right to vote in secret, making it more likely they would face intimidation from organizers and other workers. The pressure would be on to check the card, whether or not they actually wanted a union. It's clear why union bosses want this law. Union membership ticked up last year, but it has been plunging for half a century....Union leaders prefer to blame the decline on federal labor laws, which they say make it too hard to organize. That's a pretty flimsy argument. Present law allows the National Labor Relations Board to call for an election by secret ballot after 30 percent of employees at a work site have requested a vote. That's hardly a high hurdle. There are ways to recast the nation's labor laws so workers' interests are protected, without subjecting them to more intimidation by union organizers...In short, create more incentives for labor and management to negotiate in good faith and preserve the workers' right to a secret ballot... The inaptly named Employee Free Choice Act would be good for labor bosses. But it wouldn't be good for laborers.

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner said Democrats' use of secret ballots to chose its leadership was ironic because the party wants to nix workers' rights to a secret voting in deciding whether to unionize. "The secret ballot election is a cornerstone of our American democracy," Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Thursday. "If it is good enough for House Democrats to rely on during today's high-stakes vote, shouldn't it be good enough for millions of American workers across America who value their workplace privacy?" He vowed Republicans would stand firmly against the Democrat's "card-check" legislation - dubbed the Employee Free Choice Act or EFCA. It would allow organizers to unionize a workplace by gathering enough singed cards rather than the current process of employees deciding by secret ballots... ...Enacting the card-check law is a top priority for organized labor and the unions are confident it will be passed by the Democrat-led Congress and signed by President-elect Barack Obama, a top AFL-CIO lobbyist told The Washington Times this week. "I have no doubt it will pass and will be singed," AFL-CIO government-affairs director William Samuel said in an exclusive interview. Mr. Obama and House Democratic leaders supported the bill during House and Senate votes last year.  Critics of the card check process say it leaves workers vulnerable to coercion and intimidation from either the management or the union organizers. Mr. Boehner highlighted House Democrats' use of a secret ballot Wednesday in deciding a bitter showdown between two Democratic titans - Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California and Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan - over control of the Energy and Commerce Committee. House Democratic Caucus voted 137 to 122 to install the fiercely liberal Mr. Waxman and outs Mr. Dingell, whose close ties to U.S. automakers and the utility industry had put him as odds with the environmental agenda of Democratic leaders, including Mrs. Pelosi. Mr. Boehner noted that Rep. Louise Slaughter, New York Democrat, earlier in the week expressed relief her vote in the Dingell-Waxman conflict would not be public. "It's a secret ballot, thank the Lord," she told Congressional Quarterly. "Killing secret ballot rights in the workplace may be a priority for the special interests that have placed Democrats in charge of Washington, but it is not in the best interest of workers or our democratic system," Mr. Boehner said.

Thanks to GOP.gov: