RESULTS FROM OUR GROUPON:
373 TOTAL GROUPONS PURCHASED
275 For CUPCAKES
98 For CAKES
TOTAL UNRECOGNIZED OR NEW CUSTOMER NAMES: 328
ALREADY, PEOPLE ARE CALLING TO REDEEM THEIR GROUPONS. MANY ARE “UPSPENDING” INCLUDING ONE WHO WILL APPLY THEIR CREDIT TO A $200 CAKE
WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 173 NEW EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR OUR CONSTANT CONTACT NEWSLETTER DATABASE
WE HAD A 100X INCREASE IN TRAFFIC AND A 1000X INCREASE IN PAGE VIEWS.
WE WILL TRACK THESE CUSTOMERS FOR THE NEXT FEW MONTHS TO DETERMINE WHERE POSSIBLE IF THEY VISIT AGAIN, BECOME REPEATS, ETC.
ALL IN ALL, A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN IN OUR OPINION.
(Forbes Magazine recently had an article on GROUPON.)
---
A significant development is that Israel may soon become energy independent.
Last year the Tamar field was discovered by a consortium of Noble Energy and the Israeli Delk Group. The discovery is calculated to yield 8.4 trillion cubic feet of gas. This find quintupled Israeli gas reserves and lessens Israel's dependence on external and politically vulnerable sources. (Israel receives about 250,000 barrels of oil per day and extensive gas from Egypt amounting to 98% of its energy needs.)
Another break through could be the Leviathan which is estimated to contain 16 trillion cubic feet of gas and 4.3 billion barrels of oil. A $150 million well to determine the extent of this field will be drilled in October. Lebanon has claimed the Leviathan field is in their coastal waters and Israeli politicians are dickering over raising royalty fees.
To the northwest of Leviathan, closer to Cyprus, is another prospective field and Cyprus is a more tax friendly state.
Stay tuned.
---
Steve Chapman gives a back hand salute to Tea Partiers.
The elitists media folks continue to have a field day reporting on the Tea Paryty fringe members ant portraying the entire movement as a bunch of kooks because that is what the elite media folks are good at. The movement's core understand their protagonists are spending us into bankruptcy and for that they are a blessing - and no longer a disguised one.
Will the Tea Partiers carry the day and bring about needed change? That remains to be seen but to dismiss their impact is a mistake. But then, that is why elitist major news organizations are losing readership, listenership and advertisers.
They have an innate aversion to Americanism, they cannot relate to simple American values because they have little in common with the common folk. Media elites are too intellectually superior to understand their excrement stinks too.(See 1 below.)
---
Rove is mystified why Obama went off message and lost so many of those who helped elect him in the process.
But then, Rove seems to have walked off the reservation as well after his comments about Ms O"Donnell's victory.(See 2 below.)
---
The Democrats may gloat over Tea Party victories but they will do so at their peril because they have become deservedly very unloved. (See 3 below.)
---
Some bright guys point the way to recovery. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Tea Parties and the Value of Craziness
By Steve Chapman
Here's my first impression of the tea party movement: It's a rabidly right-wing phenomenon with a shaky grasp of history, a strain of intolerance and xenophobia, a paranoia about Barack Obama, and an unhealthy reverence for Fox News. Any movement that doesn't firmly exclude Birchers, birthers and Islamaphobes is not a movement for me.
Here's my second impression of the tea party movement: We are lucky to have it.
That's because the tea partiers, who may not all agree on gay marriage or birthright citizenship, are united behind a couple of sound goals: curtailing the cost of government and refusing to live at the expense of future generations. Those are goals that, for eight years, had many rhetorical supporters in Washington, but few authentic champions.
Blame that on George W. Bush, who arrived billing himself as a compassionate conservative, a description that was accurate except for the adjective and the noun. Whatever his ideology, his policy was to expand federal spending at a rate unseen since President Lyndon Johnson, the architect of the Great Society.
He didn't do it alone, though. Had Bush been a Democrat, Republicans would have fought his budget plans at every turn. But since he was one of theirs, they joined in the spree with gusto, even as they cut taxes and piled up deficits.
The prevailing attitude was: Live it up now, and let someone else worry about paying for it later. Budget hawks were left wondering what happened to Republican tightwads, who thought every dollar spent by the government was a dollar that had to be justified as a vital necessity.
The tea partiers were dismayed to see these penny-pinchers replaced by poll-driven insiders with an appetite for earmarks. That's one big reason hard-right candidates have scored so many upsets in recent GOP Senate primaries -- including Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
They didn't get nominated because they look and sound like the popular image of a savvy, experienced, well-informed, practical-minded U.S. senator. They got nominated because they don't.
They are often accused of craziness -- one MSNBC commentator said Angle "sounds like a mental patient." But to the tea partiers, that's not a bug; it's a feature. If a $1.4 trillion federal budget deficit represents sanity, they would prefer a candidate who escaped from the psych ward.
These outsiders profited from a belief that established ways of doing things have led us off a cliff, as well as a widespread alarm at fiscal excess. This combination was neatly, though crudely, captured by Carl Paladino, who won the Republican nomination for governor of New York, in his promise to "take a baseball bat to Albany."
Paladino vowed to kill the Islamic center near Ground Zero by using the state's eminent domain power to seize the property -- not exactly a small-government approach. With his incendiary rhetoric and fondness for racist jokes, he exemplifies the ugly side of the movement. But he would not have won the primary without his demand to curb public employee unions and slash state spending.
Conservatives are sometimes accused of being more interested in finding heretics than converts. Tea partiers offer a wrinkle on that. They are determined to root out RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), who they think have betrayed the party's economic principles. But in their own ranks, they seem happy to have everyone with an aversion to the enlargement of government, no matter how crackpot they may be on other issues.
Back in the 1990s, there was a cranky, conspiracy-minded Texas billionaire who had nightmares about free trade with Mexico and imagined that fixing government was as simple as fixing a car. Like Angle and Paladino, Ross Perot sometimes sounded as though he had gone off his meds.
But railing against budget deficits, he captured a staggering 19 percent of the vote as a third-party candidate in the 1992 presidential race against George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The movement he inspired helped force Democrats and Republicans in Washington to restrain expenditures, balance the federal budget and generally stop acting as though there was no tomorrow.
It would be a great thing if sensible, temperate, consistently libertarian citizens would mobilize en masse to force similar changes today. Until then, the tea partiers will have to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama's Mystifying Strategy: It's too late for the president to turn John Boehner into the Gingrich of 2010
By KARL ROVE
I don't often expect to find myself supportive of President Barack Obama. But I didn't think I'd be as mystified by his actions over the past few months as I have been.
Mr. Obama and his team won a well-deserved reputation during the 2008 campaign for message discipline and a keen appreciation for how Americans would receive his words and actions.
That's why it's so surprising that, in just 20 months, Mr. Obama has lost control of his presidency's narrative. He has done things that are inexplicable, creating the impression of a White House that is clueless, rudderless and arrogant.
For example, what was to be gained by the president attacking the largely unknown House minority leader, John Boehner, last week? Set aside the unfairness of the charges and focus only on the efficacy of the president lowering himself that way.
There is far too little time before the midterm election to demonize Mr. Boehner as President Bill Clinton so effectively did to Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. That took a concerted White House effort over nearly two years that cost tens of millions of dollars for ads.
And does Mr. Obama think this will make it easier to work with Mr. Boehner after Nov. 2 if Republicans take the House and he becomes the speaker? After all, one of the public's biggest disappointments with this president is that he has failed miserably in his promise to change the political tone.
Mr. Obama's personal attacks on the GOP leader may be therapeutic for him and send a thrill up the leg of left-wingers, but it has cost him (and his party) dearly with independents and college-educated voters. In a little more than a year and a half, the president has lost a third of his support among independents, many of whom are ready to punish Democrats at the polls.
Then there's this oddity: Why did the president raise the issue of tax cuts so close to the election? Americans now trust the GOP over Democrats on taxes by 52% to 36%, according to the Aug. 23-24 Rasmussen survey.
The president has yet to offer up legislation that spells out details of his proposal, like the $3 trillion in new taxes to offset keeping the Bush tax cuts just for the middle class. Democrats are in disarray with increasing numbers of them bucking Mr. Obama and endorsing the Bush tax cuts. Mr. Obama's failure to pass anything this fall, when Democrats have big congressional majorities, will simply add to the emerging narrative of incompetence.
So will the failure to coordinate the Democratic message on jobs, stimulus, energy, immigration and other issues. This has led to campaign themes being used briefly and then discarded like tissues, hurting Democratic chances in the midterms.
This reactive, scattershot approach has kept Mr. Obama from laying the groundwork for any major legislative initiative for 2012. And the administration's current policies make it unlikely the economy will grow at the rate of between 8% and 9% per quarter it did in the runup to Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection.
Also puzzling is Mr. Obama gratuitously wading into the mosque issue. The way he handled the issue hurt America abroad. The New York Times headline after his comments at his White House Iftar dinner on Aug. 13 said "Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site." After he backtracked less than 14 hours later, the Washington Post headline blared "Obama: Backing Muslims' right to build NYC mosque is not an endorsement." That flip-flop made him look weak.
There have been other less serious public relations missteps, including lavish vacations and playing more golf in 20 months than his predecessor did in eight years. These are not big deals, but they are unlikely to sit well with American families hard-pressed to get to the beach, lake or park once during this "recovery summer." It's little wonder that 49% of voters in this week's Quinnipiac Poll say Mr. Obama does not share their values.
It is too late for Mr. Obama to do a makeover before the midterms. After suffering a massive repudiation in November, will Mr. Obama continue down this road of attacks, recriminations and self-pity? Or will he return to the conciliatory, inspirational themes of his 2008 campaign? If his choice is the latter, the president will have to prove himself by deeds. His words have been utterly devalued.
Personnel is policy, so the president's choices to replace likely-to-depart White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and perhaps-resigning senior adviser David Axelrod will be telling. Will Mr. Obama chose insularity over outreach and partisanship over leadership? For his sake as well as America's, let's hope the midterms bring about real hope and change at the White House.
Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions, 2010).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)The Tsunami Heads to Shore
The GOP casualties are over. Now the voter uprising is aiming right at the Democrats.
The pros tell us that 2010 will be a "wave" election, and if that's true then think of Republicans as passengers on a ship who have just watched the tsunami roll over them. A few were washed overboard on the port side, but the GOP is likely to suffer no more losses. Now the huge wave is roaring toward shore, heading directly for the Democrats who are running American government.
Democrats and their media retinue are pointing to the tea party upset in Delaware as a sign of GOP "civil war" that will cost them at least a Senate seat. And so it probably will. Christine O'Donnell is the weakest of the successful tea party primary challengers this year, with little career achievement and a history of suing her friends. She is already a two-time loser in the state that President Obama carried with 62% of the vote.
Yet the mere fact of her improbable primary victory speaks to the depth of the public uprising against the ruling political class. The upset owed less to Ms. O'Donnell's virtues than to Mike Castle's 18-year voting record in a primary season when Republican voters want candidates who will clean out the Augean stables, not find a corner to lie in. Until the very end, Mr. Castle's TV commercials were aimed at general election voters, bragging about the pork he had brought home. This is not a pork-selling year, and after 44 years in public life Mr. Castle had lost touch with his small state's primary voters.
The challenge now for Sarah Palin, South Carolina GOP Senator Jim DeMint and the tea partiers who endorsed Ms. O'Donnell is to show they can deliver seats in the Senate rather than merely conduct an intra-party cleansing. If they really want to change Washington with a revived GOP, they will have to deliver Senate victories in November in most of the states where their candidates prevailed—Kentucky, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska and Delaware. Otherwise their insurrection will merely have helped Democrats retain their majority.
The challenge for the GOP establishment, meanwhile, is to focus on feeding the tsunami rather than engage in recriminations over who lost Delaware. The peevish leaks to the media on Election Night that the party apparatus won't support Ms. O'Donnell in November (since repudiated) will only alienate tea party and independent voters who mistrust Republicans as much as they do Democrats.
Even if it does cost the GOP a Senate seat, Mr. Castle's defeat will nonetheless be highly educational for Republicans who have dodged or survived the wave. For the most part in the primaries, the voter revolt against Washington ousted those Republicans who were the least Republican. Don't expect many GOP votes next year for cap and tax or another round of spending stimulus.
Republicans who adapted to this year's public mood, such as former Senator Dan Coats in Indiana or John McCain in Arizona, survived. The Washington press corps has pronounced itself disappointed that their once favorite GOP "maverick" moved right this year, but Mr. McCain would have suffered his second straight loss had he followed the counsel of the same media allies who dumped him in 2008 for their latest infatuation, Barack Obama.
In New Hampshire on Tuesday, former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte won narrowly despite her establishment credentials because she competed for conservative votes on taxes, health care and other issues. Despite a raucous primary, Ms. Ayotte is leading in the polls against Democrat Paul Hodes, a two-term Congressman who has voted for nearly all of President Obama's agenda.
As the tsunami rolls on, it is now heading straight for Democrats like Mr. Hodes. They may save a seat or two by claiming, as Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is now putting it, that GOP candidates "are nuts." Bill Clinton hit this theme this week, as only he can, saying Republicans now make George W. Bush "look like a liberal." He didn't say—but probably thinks—that the Obama Democrats are in such trouble because they have governed far to the left of the way he did after he got his own electoral thumping in 1994.
The real story of this election year is that the voters are massing to repudiate two years of the most liberal governance in two generations. It is Mr. Obama's agenda that has polarized the electorate and set off this voter backlash. Democratic candidates, incumbents or not, are admitting as much by fleeing from Mr. Obama, his priorities and even their own voting records.
In New York, Democrat Andrew Cuomo sounds like New Jersey Republican Chris Christie as he campaigns for governor by running against Albany, which is run by Democrats. In California, Jerry Brown is trying to regain the governorship by saying he won't raise taxes without voter approval. In Missouri, Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan is attacking Congressman Roy Blunt from the right—as an "insider" who supported earmarks. Across the country, the only Democrats running on ObamaCare are those who opposed it.
These stories and so many others show that the primaries have already moved the national debate sharply to the right. They have ended the boasts, so trendy in 2009, about a new era of liberal dominance. The tsunami is about seven weeks from shore, and the only question now is how many Democrats it washes out to sea.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Principles for Economic Revival
Our prosperity has faded because policies have moved away from those that have proven to work. Here are the priorities that should guide policy makers as they seek to restore more rapid growth.
By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, MICHAEL J. BOSKIN, JOHN F. COGAN, ALLAN MELTZER AND JOHN B. TAYLOR
America's financial crisis, deep recession and anemic recovery have largely been driven by economic policies that have deviated from proven fact-based principles. To return to prosperity we must get back to these principles.
The most fundamental starting point is that people respond to incentives and disincentives. Tax rates are a great example because the data are so clear and the results so powerful. A wealth of evidence shows that high tax rates reduce work effort, retard investment and lower productivity growth. Raise taxes, and living standards stagnate.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Edward Prescott examined international labor market data and showed that changes in tax rates on labor are associated with changes in employment and hours worked. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the effective tax rate on work increased by an average of 28% in Germany, France and Italy. Over that same period, work hours fell by an average of 22% in those three countries. When higher taxes reduce the reward for work, you get less of it.
. ..Long-lasting economic policies based on a long-term strategy work; temporary policies don't. The difference between the effect of permanent tax rate cuts and one-time temporary tax rebates is also well-documented. The former creates a sustainable increase in economic output, the latter at best only a transitory blip. Temporary policies create uncertainty that dampen economic output as market participants, unsure about whether and how policies might change, delay their decisions.
Having "skin in the game," unsurprisingly, leads to superior outcomes. As Milton Friedman famously observed: "Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as they spend their own." When legislators put other people's money at risk—as when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought risky mortgages—crisis and economic hardship inevitably result. When minimal co-payments and low deductibles are mandated in the insurance market, wasteful health-care spending balloons.
Rule-based policies provide the foundation of a high-growth market economy. Abiding by such policies minimizes capricious discretionary actions, such as the recent ad hoc bailouts, which too often had deleterious consequences. For most of the 1980s and '90s monetary policy was conducted in a predictable rule-like manner. As a result, the economy was far more stable. We avoided lengthy economic contractions like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the rapid inflation of the 1970s.
The history of recent economic policy is one of massive deviations from these basic tenets. The result has been a crippling recession and now a weak, nearly nonexistent recovery. The deviations began with policies—like the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low for too long—that fueled the unsustainable housing boom. Federal housing policies allowed down payments on home loans as low as zero. Banks were encouraged to make risky loans, and securitization separated lenders from their loans. Neither borrower nor lender had sufficient skin in the game. Lax enforcement of existing regulations allowed both investment and commercial banks to circumvent long-established banking rules to take on far too much leverage. Regulators, not regulations, failed.
The departures from sound principles continued when the Fed and the Treasury responded with arbitrary and unpredictable bailouts of banks, auto companies and financial institutions. They financed their actions with unprecedented money creation and massive issuance of debt. These frantic moves spooked already turbulent markets and led to the financial panic.
More deviations occurred when the government responded with ineffective temporary stimulus packages. The 2008 tax rebate and the 2009 spending stimulus bills failed to improve the economy. Cash for clunkers and the first-time home buyers tax credit merely moved purchases forward by a few months.
Then there's the recent health-care legislation, which imposes taxes on savings and investment and gives the government control over health-care decisions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now sit with an estimated $400 billion cost to taxpayers and no path to resolution. Hundreds of new complex regulations lurk in the 2010 financial reform bill with most of the critical details left to regulators. So uncertainty reigns and nearly $2 trillion in cash sits in corporate coffers.
Since the onset of the financial crisis, annual federal spending has increased by an extraordinary $800 billion—more than $10,000 for every American family. This has driven the budget deficit to 10% of GDP, far above the previous peacetime record. The Obama administration has proposed to lock a sizable portion of that additional spending into government programs and to finance it with higher taxes and debt. The Fed recently announced it would continue buying long-term Treasury debt, adding to the risk of future inflation.
There is perhaps no better indicator of the destructive path that these policy deviations have put us on than the federal budget. The nearby chart puts the fiscal problem in perspective. It shows federal spending as a percent of GDP, which is now at 24%, up sharply from 18.2% in 2000.
Future federal spending, driven mainly by retirement and health-care promises, is likely to increase beyond 30% of GDP in 20 years and then keep rising, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The reckless expansions of both entitlements and discretionary programs in recent years have only added to our long-term fiscal problem.
As the chart shows, in all of U.S. history, there has been only one period of sustained decline in federal spending relative to GDP. From 1983 to 2001, federal spending relative to GDP declined by five percentage points. Two factors dominated this remarkable period. First was strong economic growth. Second was modest spending restraint—on domestic spending in the 1980s and on defense in the 1990s.
The good news is that we can change these destructive policies by adopting a strategy based on proven economic principles:
• First, take tax increases off the table. Higher tax rates are destructive to growth and would ratify the recent spending excesses. Our complex tax code is badly in need of overhaul to make America more competitive. For example, the U.S. corporate tax is one of the highest in the world. That's why many tax reform proposals integrate personal and corporate income taxes with fewer special tax breaks and lower tax rates.
But in the current climate, with the very credit-worthiness of the United States at stake, our program keeps the present tax regime in place while avoiding the severe economic drag of higher tax rates.
• Second, balance the federal budget by reducing spending. The publicly held debt must be brought down to the pre-crisis safety zone. To do this, the excessive spending of recent years must be removed before it becomes a permanent budget fixture. The government should begin by rescinding unspent "stimulus" and TARP funds, ratcheting down domestic appropriations to their pre-binge levels, and repealing entitlement expansions, most notably the subsidies in the health-care bill.
The next step is restructuring public activities between federal and state governments. The federal government has taken on more responsibilities than it can properly manage and efficiently finance. The 1996 welfare reform, which transferred authority and financing for welfare from the federal to the state level, should serve as the model. This reform reduced welfare dependency and lowered costs, benefiting taxpayers and welfare recipients.
• Third, modify Social Security and health-care entitlements to reduce their explosive future growth. Social Security now promises much higher benefits to future retirees than to today's retirees. The typical 30-year-old today is scheduled to get an inflation-adjusted retirement benefit that is 50% higher than the benefit for a typical current retiree.
Benefits paid to future retirees should remain at the same level, in terms of purchasing power, that today's retirees receive. A combination of indexing initial benefits to prices rather than to wages and increasing the program's retirement age would achieve this goal. They should be phased-in gradually so that current retirees and those nearing retirement are not affected.
Health care is far too important to the American economy to be left in its current state. In markets other than health care, the legendary American shopper, armed with money and information, has kept quality high and costs low. In health care, service providers, unaided by consumers with sufficient skin in the game, make the purchasing decisions. Third-party payers—employers, governments and insurance companies—have resorted to regulatory schemes and price controls to stem the resulting cost growth.
The key to making Medicare affordable while maintaining the quality of health care is more patient involvement, more choices among Medicare health plans, and more competition. Co-payments should be raised to make patients and their physicians more cost-conscious. Monthly premiums should be lowered to provide seniors with more disposable income to make these choices. A menu of additional Medicare plans, some with lower premiums, higher co-payments and improved catastrophic coverage, should be added to the current one-size-fits-all program to encourage competition.
Similarly for Medicaid, modest co-payments should be introduced except for preventive services. The program should be turned over entirely to the states with federal financing supplied by a "no strings attached" block grant. States should then allow Medicaid recipients to purchase a health plan of their choosing with a risk-adjusted Medicaid grant that phases out as income rises.
The 2010 health-care law undermined positive reforms underway since the late 1990s, including higher co-payments and health savings accounts. The law should be repealed before its regulations and price controls further damage availability and quality of care. It should be replaced with policies that target specific health market concerns: quality, affordability and access. Making out-of-pocket expenditures and individual purchases of health insurance tax deductible, enhancing health savings accounts, and improving access to medical information are keys to more consumer involvement. Allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines will lower the cost of insurance.
• Fourth, enact a moratorium on all new regulations for the next three years, with an exception for national security and public safety. Going forward, regulations should be transparent and simple, pass rigorous cost-benefit tests, and rely to a maximum extent on market-based incentives instead of command and control. Direct and indirect cost estimates of regulations and subsidies should be published before new regulations are put into law.
Off-budget financing should end by closing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Bureau of Consumer Finance Protection and all other government agencies should be on the budget that Congress annually approves. An enhanced bankruptcy process for failing financial firms should be enacted in order to end the need for bailouts. Higher bank capital requirements that rise with the size of the bank should be phased in.
• Fifth, monetary policy should be less discretionary and more rule-like. The Federal Reserve should announce and follow a monetary policy rule, such as the Taylor rule, in which the short-term interest rate is determined by the supply and demand for money and is adjusted through changes in the money supply when inflation rises above or falls below the target, or when the economy goes into a recession. When monetary policy decisions follow such a rule, economic stability and growth increase.
In order to reduce the size of the Fed's bloated balance sheet without causing more market disruption, the Fed should announce and follow a clear and predictable exit rule, which describes a contingency path for bringing bank reserves back to normal levels. It should also announce and follow a lender-of-last-resort rule designed to protect the payment system and the economy—not failing banks. Such a rule would end the erratic bailout policy that leads to crises.
The United States should, along with other countries, agree to a target for inflation in order to increase expected price stability and exchange rate stability. A new accord between the Federal Reserve and Treasury should re-establish the Fed's independence and accountability so that it is not called on to monetize the debt or engage in credit allocation. A monetary rule is a requisite for restoring the Fed's independence.
These pro-growth policies provide the surest path back to prosperity.
Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of labor, secretary of Treasury and secretary of state, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Mr. Boskin, a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Cogan, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Meltzer is professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University. Mr. Taylor, an economics professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was undersecretary of Treasury under President George W. Bush.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment