Response to Cato Insitute Avertisement:government spending

http://www.cato.org/fiscalreality

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government,
a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
- PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

"Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that
we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the
undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to
improve economic performance.
More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United
States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government
spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is
a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending
will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should
focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and
production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government
are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

I do not have a Ph.D. in economics. I have an M.B.A. in Finance-
Investments,International Business and Government Contracts from the
George Washington University,1979. I was asked to be in the Ph.D.
program at the Graduate Business School.They recognized my brilliance.
I chose to pursue experience in the defense industry,another masters
degree in computer science and creating 10 businesses in the inner city
of Boston,Masschusetts.

Let's start off with their first supposed statement of fact:"More
government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United
States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s." They are
correct when they say that. However,more government spending did prevent
millions of people from starving to death.This is not important to
any of these "free market economists". All they seem to be concerned
with is the "economy". I wonder how they would define "economy".
Furthermore,just because the government spending did not stop the Great
Depression, it may have prevented much worse suffering of our citizens.
A free market economy and stock market run by "capitalists" destroyed
our economy to such a horrendous extent that even the massive amounts of
govenment spending was not enough. If a free market and private investment
is so important,how come private capital did not pull the econmy out of the
Depression?
One of the many projects that both Hoover and Roosevelt had a hand
in was the Hoover Dam that supplies most of the electricity for Las
Vegas which would still be a sage brush hole in the road without
the Hooer Dam. Since these economists are so unknowledgeable,let me
add a little history:
"Hoover Dam, originally known as Boulder Dam, is a concrete
arch-gravity dam in the Black Canyon of the Colorado River,
on the border between the U.S. states of Arizona and Nevada.
When completed in 1935,it was both the world's largest
electric-power generating station and the world's largest
concrete structure. It was surpassed in both these respects
by the Grand Coulee Dam in 1945. It is currently the world's
35th-largest hydroelectric generating station.[3]
This dam, located 30 miles (48 km) southeast of Las Vegas,
Nevada, is named after Herbert Hoover, who played an instrumental
role in its construction, first as the Secretary of Commerce and
then later as the President of the United States. Construction
began in 1931 and was completed in 1936, more than two years ahead
of schedule. The dam and the power plant are operated by the Bureau
of Reclamation of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Listed on
the National Register of Historic Places in 1981, Hoover Dam was
designated a National Historic Landmark in 1985.[2][4]
Lake Mead is the reservoir created behind the dam, named after
Elwood Mead, who oversaw the construction of the dam."

The general argument is that government involvement and investment is
not necessary,misguided by their statement "it is a triumph of hope
over experience to believe that more government spending will help the
U.S. today". Well,this is simply not true and is blatantly obvious to
any 5th grader who has studied U.S. History for more than 6 months. I
do not beleve any of these Ph.D. economists have any knowledge or com-
prehension of U.S. history.
Let me review of few minor points about U.S. history.
1. What would we have done if the government had not financed the Lewis
& Clark expedition?
2. What would have happened if the goverment had not paid France for
the Louisiana Purchase where all that oil is located?
3. What would have happened if the U.S. Army had not broken every treaty
they ever made with all American Indians and stole all their land and
then created the Homestead Act? If you want to read exactly how that
was done then please read "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee".
4. Who invented nuclear energy? Nuclear energy supplies 20% of all energy
the United States uses. Oh, don't you remember something called
the Manhattan Project to invent the atomic bomb?
5. Who invented satellites? Oh if I remember there was some agency called
NASA.
6. Who invented radar? German Christian Huelsmeyer was the first to discover
the effect of radar in 1904, but radar as we know it was invented and
the acronym established in 1935 by three British scientists, Sir Robert
Watson-Watt, A F Wilkins and H E Wimperis along with Sir Henry Tizard
discovered its use putting it to exellent effect in World War 2. These
scientists wored for the British government.
7. Who invented the modern tank? Winston Churchill during World War I.
8. What would have happened if we had not bought Alaska from the Russians?
The United States bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $72,000,000
(72 million) or 2 cents per acre and was known as Seward's Folly
(after Secretary of State William H. Seward, who negotiated the purchase)
until gold was discovered in the late 1800s. Alaska became the 49th state
in 1959. Sarah Plin might have even got that question correct.
We would not have all the oil that Mobil Exxon makes so much money off of.