June 4-6, 2009
Jun 04 04:21 Are the Democrats Next? Jun 04 15:03 Microsoft to Obama: Drop the Tax Hikes Or Else Jun 04 13:19 Whip Blogger Conference Call Notes Jun 04 17:03 Democrats Holding Troops Hostage Over IMF Bailout Jun 05 01:58 What A Tangled Web They Weaved Jun 05 11:33 Obamanomics' Failed Policies? Jun 06 02:06 Are People Betting Against Obamanomics? Jun 06 09:04 Democrats Outraged; Republicans Tell the Whole Truth Jun 06 23:51 *****BREAKING NEWS*****
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Are the Democrats Next?
With the British Parliament on the verge of a vote of no confidence in Gordon Brown's government, Democratic politicians must be thinking that their house of cards is in danger of crumbling. Here's what the Telegraph is reporting :
In a move that left the Prime Minister fighting for his political future, rebels claimed that as many as 50 Labour MPs were prepared to put their names to an email demanding that he step down.Gordon Brown has done in Britain what President OBama has done in the United States: he's done everything except drain his country's treasury. To say that Brits aren't happy with Brown is understatement.
Details of what party insiders described as an attempted "cyber coup" emerged after his authority was dealt a potentially critical blow by the resignation of Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary. Her departure threatened to precipitate a sweeping Cabinet reshuffle being planned by Mr Brown.
Alistair Darling was said to be resisting a move to the Home Office, opening a dangerous rift between the Prime Minister and his Chancellor.
Miss Blears became the second minister to walk out of the Cabinet in as many days, after the resignation of Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary and her departure left Mr Brown facing the most serious crisis of his premiership on the eve of elections that will decide whether he stays as Prime Minister.It's apparent that Miss Blears isn't much interested in party unity. She shouldn't be, either, because Gordon Brown has done nothing other than drive Britain's economy into the ground.
The timing of the resignation of Miss Blears, the day before the local and European elections and just hours before Prime Minister's Questions, was designed to maximise the political damage to an already severely weakened Mr Brown.
Meanwhile, American anti-spending outrage is building. Anytime that California prevents their politicians from raising taxes, it's news. Anytime that Californians tell their politicians that they'd better not raise taxes by a 2:1 margin, they're not yelling Hell No. They're screaming at the top of their lungs HELL NO!!!
There are lots of moderates who supported Obama in 2008 who are pissed with him eight months later. These moderates aren't happy that President Obama is in the process of nationalizing financial institutions. They're equally upset that President Obama has all but nationalized GM and Chrysler. But what they're most upset about is that his administration has borrowed more money in the first few months of his administration than all other administrations for the last 30 years have COMBINED.
Young people, who supported then-Candidate Obama, are upset with the deficits he's running because they know that that means they'll have to pay extra taxes for money that's getting spent now on President Obama's multi-billion dollar political payoff borrowing spree.
It's worth remembering that Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter were the only Republicans who voted for the stimulus bill. It's worth remembering, too, that the only people who voted for the omnibus spending bill were Democrats. Ditto with President Obama's budget.
In short, the Democrats fingerprints are all over this drunken spending orgy. They own this mess.
While it's true that this mess started under President Bush's watch, it's equally true that President Obama's spending has made things dramatically worse. It's equally true that President Obama doesn't have the solutions to this problem that's quickly becoming a crisis.
You know it's quickly becoming a crisis when Chinese economists laugh at Tim Geithner for saying that China's bonds are safe. People know they aren't because we're spending money at just as fast a rate as Gordon Brown spent money in Great Britain.
If Washington's politicians, aka Democrats, don't change their free-spending ways soon, they will be swept aside like Gordon Brown's government is about to get swept aside.
Posted Thursday, June 4, 2009 4:23 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Jun-09 01:08 PM
I certainly hope you are correct, but of course much depends on Republicans having their act together-- i.e. party unity, common cause and steadfast purpose-- to supply a viable alternative.
I have to comment on one thing, though. I keep hearing conservatives say that Obama's (and our historic) deficits/debt will "require taxes to rise." That's not true, unless you entertain the one scenario under which it is. That is, to fund all of the outstanding debt and obligations of the federal government, the income tax rate would need to be set to 100% for the next 8 years! Some will suggest that is impractical, but it is the only way that "raising taxes" solves this problem, and I doubt that most taxpayers would approve of raising taxes that high.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Jun-09 02:35 PM
Frankly, Jerry, Obama is the 'Great Uniter' of Republicans. Whether we're united as a party is almost irrelevant at this point. Each of the different GOP factions vehemently disagrees with major parts of President Obama's agenda.
Everybody hates his GM & Chrysler takeovers. Everybody hates the thought of his National Energy Tax. Moderates & conservatives alike vehemently oppose his health care reform initiative.
There just isn't much to like about President Obama's agenda.
During today's House Whip Office blogger call, Rep. Terry said that they'd be putting a comprehensive, detailed energy policy next week.
Frankly, I wish more people visited GOP.gov because that's where the GOP's alternatives are found. They've given us this great tool. Now it's our responsibility to utilize it to defeat the Democrats.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 05-Jun-09 07:16 AM
I'm still worried. We not only have GOP "factions" (in spades), but we have all kinds of conservative groups out there who are conservative first and Republican second. There tendency is to be issue-oriented (not that there's anything wrong with that) but it sometimes leads them to NOT vote for a Republican because of disagreement over a single issue, thus letting Democrats win. If we could depend upon everybody who disagreed with ONE thing the Obamacrats did voting for Republicans, rather than those disagreeing with one thing Republicans did voting for Democrats, our victory would be assured.
Microsoft to Obama: Drop the Tax Hikes Or Else
According to this article , Microsoft sent a shot across President Obama's bow:
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made headlines when he publicly attacked President Barack Obama's plan to cut tax breaks on U.S. companies' foreign profits, a plan which is currently awaiting Congressional approval.President Obama's economic plans are a disaster. First, he spent hundreds of billions of dollars on ARRA, then followed that up with his omnibus spending bill to fund his supersized government for the rest of this fiscal year. These bills, along with the money he's spending bailing out the UAW, are producing deficits that are well beyond anyone's wildest imagination. President Obama's, and congressional Democrats', irresponsible spending is forcing major tax increases to pay for his spending.
Mr. Ballmer suggests that if the tax succeeds, Microsoft may begin a significant move out of the U.S., taking with it tax revenue and jobs. He states, "It makes U.S. jobs more expensive. We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."
Microsoft's reply is essentially a shot across the Obama administration's bow. Here's the message they're sending him: Get things under control or you'll be responsible for forcing the most prosperous high tech company to relocate.
Mr. Ballmer, perhaps the most outspoken critic, did acknowledge that the Obama proposal preserved research and experimentation cost tax breaks. He warned, though, that the cuts to foreign exemptions would raise the cost of Microsoft's 56,552 U.S. employees. He says this could necessitate moving them overseas. Microsoft was previously embroiled in a controversy over whether it should lay off foreign workers before U.S. ones.The tax fairness people can whine all they want. This is a matter of 'evil capitalists' being able to change locations to keep their companies profitable. President Obama can attempt to raise Microsoft's taxes if they'd like but that won't raise revenues if Microsoft relocates to a Pacific Rim country.
The only real, longlasting solution to President Obama's obscene deficits is cutting the spending that President Obama raised with ARRA and with his omnibus bill. The other thing that's needed is what ARRA was theoretically supposed to provide: job creation. That's best accomplished by cutting taxes, not raising government spending.
Had President Obama done that in the first place, and if President Obama hadn't twice bailed out the UAW, we'd be on a pathway to recovery. He and tim Geithner made some ill-advised decisions. Now we'll spend the next generation paying for their ill-advised decisions.
Posted Thursday, June 4, 2009 3:05 PM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 05-Jun-09 08:50 AM
Hey the state of Washington has been voting for the Democrats for years. I don't see a problem with Microsoft moving all of its employees out of the state. Let the Democrats in the state try to figure out how to get the money that Microsoft was paying. Than they might vote out Murray and the other Democrats when they realize the damage they have done to the state of Washington.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Jun-09 09:06 AM
Walter, the move Microsoft is thinking about isn't just about moving from Washington. They're thinking about relocating to a Pacific Rim country.
Comment 3 by FarLeftRx at 05-Jun-09 10:58 AM
Ballmer is bluffing, so Obama is unfazed. Besides, Microsoft won't have to relocate to another country, within a few years of Obama and the Dhimmicrats, we'll all be living in France West anyway.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 05-Jun-09 11:43 AM
Far, I wouldn't bet on it. Obamanomics is radical. It isn't working. Why stick around when President Obama wants to make life miserable?
Comment 5 by Walter Hanson at 06-Jun-09 08:10 AM
Gary:
My point was the Democrats are so mismanaging the state of Washington like California and New York has been mismanaged that it might take Microsoft if they left the state whether it was to another state or country so the taxes and jobs weren't in Washington.
Eventually there are enough voters who voted Democrat who will wake up don't we need jobs and businesses to have a good life to end this disaster. The question is how many states will have to go through hell (so far Minnesota has been saved by Pawlenty veoting those plans to turn Minnesota into another version of horrible California).
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Whip Blogger Conference Call Notes
I just finished participating in the bi-weekly GOP Whip blogger conference call. The subject of today's call was the National Energy Tax, aka Cap and Trade. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.), started the call and was joined by Rep. Lee Terry, (R-NE) and Rep. Bob Latta, (R-OH).
In his opening statement, Rep. Terry said that the coal-fired power plants in his district of Omaha would have to buy credits to offset the CO2 emissions. These credits would cost these power plants $74,000,000 the first year of the program. He then said that that total would jump to approximately $400,000,000 per year by 2020 .
Rep. Terry noted that that's money paid out before these power plants invested a penny in clean-coal technology or other capital improvements to the power plants.
Next was Rep. Bob Latta, who represents a district near Bowling Green, Ohio. Rep. Latta said that he's got several large manufacturing plants in his district, including a plant that makes Heinz Katsup. These manufacturers have told him that they'd be better off moving to a Pacific Rim country than staying in Ohio. These manufacturers said that it'd be cheaper to move their entire operations than to pay Obama's and Pelosi's National Energy Tax.
Rep. Latta also said that people who think that wind and solar can be relied on as a baseline source of energy, especially in districts with lots of manufacturing plants in them, is "pure fantasy."
They also said that nuclear power plants are essentially forbidden. While solar and wind have the Democrats' blessing, nuclear power is offlimits. Waxman's committee wouldn't even allow amendments to be discussed.
Another point that was brought up is that Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Charlie Rangel, (D-NY), and Rep. Collin Peterson, (D-MN), have issued conflicting statements on the timeline of the bill. Speaker Pelosi initially said that all markup work had to be finished by June 19th. Chairman Rangel initially said that Ways and Means should do a full markup of the bill. Chairman Peterson was adamantly opposed to the National Energy Tax.
Yesterday, Speaker Pelosi said that June 19th isn't a hard deadline, that it's ok if they're working on the bill at that time. Chairman Rangel has dropped his demand that the bill go through a full markup in the Ways and Means Committee. Meanwhile, Chairman Peterson isn't dedicated to stopping the bill anymore. He just wants to change it now.
I used my question to highlight Bob Weisman's statement after the Bachmann-Horner event at SCSU that the National Energy Tax. Here's what Dr. Weisman said:
"Like the Kyoto treaty, it won't bring down global warming," Weisman said. "You'd need something more like a 40 percent cut in emissions (to do that)."Here's the question I asked: Considering the minimal effect this legislation would have on actual climates, why shouldn't we think of this as a tax increase masquerading as environmental policy.
The final question of the call was from Jennifer Rubin. She asked for their impression on President Obama's statement that it was ok for Iran to build nuclear power plants, especially in light of the fact that new nuclear power plants in this country are forbidden. These representatives said that President Obama's statement wasn't just ironic, that it defied logic, too.
One final interesting factoid from the call: We need to build 60 new power plants to keep up with our electric-generating needs over the next 25 years. That will be almost impossible considering the amount of money energy companies will be paying into the National Energy Tax.
In my opinion, the National Energy Tax isn't just bad energy policy; it isn't just bad environmental policy. It's also awful economic policy because of the money it sucks out of the economy.
It's my further opinion that this legislation wouldn't stand a chance of passing if John Q. and Jane Public had a vote on the matter.
Posted Thursday, June 4, 2009 1:21 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Jun-09 02:01 PM
Always the diplomat. It's not only a bad energy policy, or environmental policy, or even fiscal policy. It's STUPID! What is there about having American consumers ship another $1 or 2 trillion dollars off to the federal rathole that is going to do one THING for reducing the planet's temperature? Even if manmade CO2 caused warming, and even if US CO2 emissions drop by 25% as an unintended side effect of this tax bill, that's still only 1 part per million!
Democrats Holding Troops Hostage Over IMF Bailout
It's apparent to serious economists that ARRA hasn't been effective. Despite the stimulus's failure, House Democrats are scrambling to "come up with enough votes to pass" an IMF stimulus bill. Here's Leader Boehner's statement from earlier today:
"We may be able to borrow enough money to solve America's problems, but I guarantee you we don't have enough money to solve the rest of the world's problems. And going down this path is going to lead to more economic harm here."The IMF provisions aren't popular. Rep. Brad Sherman, (D-CA), is upset with the provisions:
"Now, just think about this a moment. We're going to provide the International Monetary Fund $108 billion that we don't have. So we're going to borrow $108 billion from the Chinese, we're going to give it to the IMF, and we're going to expect our kids and grandkids to pay for it. Americans aren't buying this. And I tell you what: Republicans in the House aren't going to buy it, either."
"We face the very real possibility that some of the world's worst regimes will benefit from the additional resources provided to the IMF, World Bank and other international institutions, unless the U.S. works vigilantly to deny this assistance."It's bad enough that we're thinking about bailing out anyone. It's worse that we're thinking about borrowing money we don't have to bail out other countries. What's worst is that sizeable chunks of that money might wind up in the terrorists' coffers.
Great Britain emptied its coffers in an attempt to revive their economy. As a result, Gordon Brown's government is about to become part of British history. President Obama's stimulus hasn't provided the jolt he told us it would provide. Let's remember that President Obama spent a month telling the American people that we'd dip into a catastrophe if we didn't pass ARRA :
Republicans tried to push back against the ballooning size of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan Wednesday, even as he warned that the financial crisis will turn into "a catastrophe" if the bill isn't passed quickly.With the British stimulus bill having already failed and with ARRA on the brink of failure, it's insane to think that another stimulus bill will change the dynamic of the world economy. The thought that generations of American taxpayers should pay for the IMF's stimulus should disgust American taxpayers.
It's time to stop President Obama's bailout insanity. It's time that the American people start organizing a revolt against the most fiscally irresponsible administration in American history before our economy doesn't exist.
This administration's policies aren't just ineffective; they're irresponsible and counterproductive. According to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke , the Obama administration's debt "threaten financial stability":
"Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth," Bernanke said in testimony to lawmakers today. "Maintaining the confidence of the financial markets requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance."Notice Bernanke's wording. He said that it's vital the United States started "planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance." If we were already charting a fiscally balanced approach, we wouldn't have to start planning for following that course.
It's time for the Obama administration stopped spending money we don't have for something as sinister and ineffective as bailing out the IMF. It's just that simple.
Posted Thursday, June 4, 2009 9:01 PM
No comments.
What A Tangled Web They Weaved
The Sunlight Foundation's Paul Blumenthal put some graphics together to chart the earmarks that Rep. Visclosky 'won' for his Indiana district and the campaign contributions that flowed to him as a result of those earmarks. He's also put together a great post on Visclosky's hijinks.
In the past two weeks, Visclosky's offices and campaign committess have been subpoenaed and he has reliquished control of the Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee to Rep. Ed Pastor.This is just the tip of the Democrats' ethical iceberg. The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting that Kuchera Industries, a firm that won many earmarks thanks to John Murtha, "received an infusion of cash during its start-up years from a narcotics trafficker..."
According to this Washington Post article , Jim Moran is mixed up in this ethics quagmire, too:
Visclosky has been among the largest recipients of donations from PMA lobbyists and their clients , along with Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Jim Moran (D-Va.). All three men have authored earmarks that benefited PMA clients.It's time for the courts to sort things out and determine whether it's an official pay-to-play scheme. Whether the investigations prove their case or not, one thing's perfectly clear: Mssrs. Murtha, Moran and Visclosky need to be expelled from the House for acting in such a way that their constituents and their colleagues can trust them.
The firm was founded by a former House committee staffer close to Murtha and later hired senior aides to both Visclosky and Moran. Murtha, in particular, has come under intense scrutiny in recent months for his ties to PMA and to several different defense contractors.
It's time for this trio to go.
Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 2:00 AM
No comments.
Obamanomics' Failed Policies?
Though this morning's jobs report wasn't as bleak as past months have been, it isn't anything to celebrate. I don't think that 345,000 more Americans losing their jobs is a positive thing, though the administration will likely spin it that way.
The way that they'll spin it is by saying that we're on the right track because the number of jobs lost is dropping. That spin is flimsy and won't be taken seriously.
House GOP Leader Boehner isn't sitting silent while this news is fresh. Here's the statement he issued this morning:
Today's unemployment rate is the highest in more than a quarter century, and it's another reminder of how Washington is hanging middle-class Americans out to dry. More than 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs this year, and what have the Democrats in charge of Washington given them? A trillion-dollar 'stimulus' that isn't producing jobs immediately, as the Administration promised, and that Vice President Biden admits is ripping off the American people. Another $400 billion spending bill loaded with 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks. And bailouts that reward irresponsible behavior and bad business decisions. These policies are harming middle-class families when they can least afford it and adding to the massive debt inherited by future generations.I don't know that this administration is serious about creating jobs. I suspect it is but I'm not certain of it. I can't look at their irresponsible spending and see a purpose to it other than they're satisfying their thirst for spending tons of money.
There is a better way. Doubling down on the Democrats' plans to tax more, spend more, and borrow more from our children and grandchildren is not the right answer to this economic crisis. Republicans have offered better solutions to create more jobs, curb spending, cut taxes, rebuild savings, and control the debt, and we have reached out to our Democratic counterparts to work on these policies in a constructive way. I urge Democrats in Congress and the Administration to finally follow through on their promises of bipartisan cooperation.
Leader Boehner is right on the money in saying this:
Doubling down on the Democrats' plans to tax more, spend more, and borrow more from our children and grandchildren is not the right answer to this economic crisis.In fact, the stimulus bill helped hide the jobless numbers:
For weeks, Greg Noel roamed the spine of the Green Mountains with a handheld GPS unit, walking dirt roads and chatting with people as he helped create a map of every housing unit in the United States.I've said before that temp work won't restore people's confidence in the economy. In fact, it's likely to have the opposite effect. Thus far, the only jobs that the Obama administration has created are temp jobs and government jobs. They haven't shown proof that they're interested in creating private sector jobs.
Work was good: The sun was out, the snow was gone and the blackflies hadn't begun to hatch. But now that work is over and Noel, 60, and more than 60,000 other Americans hired in April to help with the 2010 census are out of work once more.
The Obama administration hasn't been strong on changing from Plan A to Plan B when Plan A is an abject failure. They've been more stubborn and more arrogant than they claim the Bush administration was. Potentially, that's a bad thing because their policies have failed.
In the end, it might be left to the American people to elect conservatives so that we stop heading in the direction President Obama is taking us.
Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 11:41 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 06-Jun-09 08:05 AM
hey Gary lets not forget a couple of points:
* When Obama put together his projections for the year he said unemployment will reach 8.9% if we didn't pass the stimulus. Um last time I went to school 9.4% is greater than 8.9%.
* As part of this report they increased the number of people who lost jobs in March and April. Thus helping cause the jump.
* Not only should you count the offical unemployed a parson who isn't looking or is getting fewer hours than they want. This group is like 16% of the labor force I heard yesterday.
* Where are all those Democrats who were harping on 5% unemployment being bad and not giving real wages. Shouldn't they be attacking the President? Oh wait a minute they are responsible for that the Unemployment now so they don't care they are doing worse because they have the power.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Are People Betting Against Obamanomics?
Greta van Susteren interviewed Dick Morris about the economy. Something that they talked about was the savings rate in relation to ARRA money being spent. Here's the first key exchange in the interview:
MORRIS: I'm not basing my contention that it's failing on rising unemployment rate. That is a lagging indicator and could go up for some time even once the economy begins to grow.That's the what part of the interview. Clearly, people aren't spending their money. What's important is why they aren't spending this money. That's explained in this exchange:
But if you look at the statistics for April, which I took a real bath in the other day, the household income in the United States of all the country put together rose by $121 billion. And of that increase, $45 billion was from the federal government, direct financial stimulus money that flowed into people's pockets.
So the input is taking place. But while the income rose by $131 billion, savings rose by $121 billion; savings rose by $131 billion, $10 billion faster. In other words, what happened was the people are taking all the extra income and all of the stimulus money and not spending a penny of it.
What they are doing is what I said they would do when we were talking about this a couple of weeks ago. They are putting it in T-bills or paying down their credit cards or paying off existing bills or student loans, or putting it under the mattress. But the point is it's not flowing into the economic lifeblood of the country.
So what's going on is, on the one hand, the federal government is running all over the place, trying desperately to borrow enough money to push it out the door in stimulus spending. Interest rates have almost doubled since January 1st.
And because of that, and the stimulus money isn't doing any good, because people are sitting on it and not spending it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me try to simplify it. So let's say that the government wanted to take $100 billion of the stimulus right now and push it into the economy, that would have no value, if $100 billion got pushed into the economy and $100 billion got put under the mattress, right?
MORRIS: Right, if $100 billion got put under the mattress, it wouldn't do anybody any good. It would in the long-term, it would lower credit card debt. But it doesn't help the economy.
VAN SUSTEREN: How do you get that $100 billion, in my hypothetical, to go into the economy and not to pay down bills or into savings? That seems to be the choke point.It's predictable that people won't spend money if they expect the economy won't improve. It's my opinion that people are worried about a plethora of economic data, including china's refusal to buy more of our debt, ARRA being a failure thus far and the failed bailouts of Chrysler and GM.
MORRIS: That's the key question. And, by the way, in my book Catastrophe, I have a whole section on it. The idea that you give them $100 billion and they spend it is Keynesian economics. But that's been replaced by economists, by the theory of rational expectations.
And what that says is that when you get $100 million bucks, a billion bucks, if we don't think the economy is getting better and we're worried about losing our jobs or our homes, we're going to hang on to that money because we think it's the last money we will ever get.
But if we think that this is a long-term thing with this money will continue to flow, we're likely to go out and spend it.
So what he should have done is given a long-term commitment, for example, cut the tax rate by 10 percent, and tell everybody you are going to pay 10 percent less in taxes for the next decade. And then you know if you are going to be in better and better shape, and then you will spend that money, and it will do us some economic good. But instead, he cranked out the spending, and it didn't work.
I wrote months ago that President Obama thought that the way to stimulate the economy was the government just spending lots of money :
" So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)"I can't blame people for thinking that President Obama doesn't have a plan beyond having government spend billions of dollars. I can't blame people for not having confidence in Obamanomics after seeing so many of his plans fail. President Obama warned of an economic catastrophe if ARRA wasn't passed. According to this report , the economy has lost 2,200,000 jobs since the start of February. According to this article , President Obama's predictions are off badly:
Obama says the stimulus plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs in the next two years. But the jobs numbers show that even if that happens, the economy won't be back to even.This article was written in early March, approximately 3 weeks after ARRA's signing. The economy isn't showing signs of righting itself. Politically speaking, this can't continue much longer without Democrats paying a price.
John Q. Public is still willing to cut the Obama administration some slack. The longer this lasts, though, the less willing the public is likely to cut the Obama administration slack.
I think it's wrong to say that the public has totally turned against President Obama's economic plan but I don't think it's a stretch to think that they aren't thinking about changing their mind.
Posted Saturday, June 6, 2009 2:15 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Jun-09 06:30 AM
Once again the brilliance of Reagan shows up this poseur President. Reagan's wisest statement on the economy was saying, and I paraphrase, "Businesses and individuals need to be able to plan, and for that they need stability. We're going to cut the tax rates and that is where they will stay as long as I'm President." Obama, on the other hand, says he will "experiment with the economy."
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Jun-09 07:49 AM
You're EXACTLY right, Jerry.
Comment 3 by Walter Hanson at 06-Jun-09 07:59 AM
Gary:
Lets not forget that the people (especially those with investment income) they know the capital gains rate is going up. They know the dividend tax rate is going up. They know that their marginal income tax rate is going up. They know that a massive energy tax might be coming. They know an expensive health care package is coming up. What Morris didn't say or mention last night is that the rich people who can really invest to help move the economy are saving their money in less productive ways to preserve their cash flow for those tax increases.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 06-Jun-09 09:14 AM
The National Energy Tax isn't happening. They don't have the votes to invoke cloture in the Senate.
Democrats Outraged; Republicans Tell the Whole Truth
House Democrats are upset with Republicans after a House Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations meeting. Here's what the Hill is reporting :
Republicans ignited a firestorm of controversy on Thursday by revealing some of what they had been told at a closed-door Intelligence Committee hearing on the interrogation of terrorism suspects.Cry me a river. The Democrats weren't upset when President Obama declassified the so-called Torture Memos even though those documents included sources and methods. Now they're freaking out over Republicans telling reporters about a briefing by the intelligence community that says the EITs prevented terrorist attacks.
Democrats immediately blasted the GOP lawmakers for publicly discussing classified information, while Republicans said Democrats are trying to hide the truth that enhanced interrogation of detainees is effective.
GOP members on the Intelligence Committee on Thursday told The Hill in on-the-record interviews that they were informed that the controversial methods have led to information that prevented terrorist attacks.
When told of the GOP claims, Democrats strongly criticized the members who revealed information that was provided at the closed House Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing. Democrats on the panel said they could not respond substantively, pointing out that the hearing was closed.
I'd be upset with Republicans if they'd given these Hill reporters specific details on what information led to the thwarting of the attempted terrorist attacks. That didn't happen:
Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), a member of the subcommittee who attended the hearing, concurred with Hoekstra.The Hill's reporters note that Rep. Kline's comments didn't violate the subcommittee's rules. If that weren't the case, Democrats could file ethics charges against Republicans who talked. That that isn't happening speaks volumes. If Republicans had violated the committee's rules, ethics charges would've been filed within minutes of that violation.
"The hearing did address the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been much in the news lately," Kline said, noting that he was intentionally choosing his words carefully in observance of the committee rules and the nature of the information presented.
If these Democrats had any integrity, they'd be investigating Speaker Pelosi for saying that the CIA routinely and frequently lied to Congress. Knowingly misleading Congress is a crime. Until the Democrats investigate Speaker Pelosi's comments, I won't take their whining seriously.
President Obama can clear this up by declassifying the memos that former VP Dick Cheney has requested be declassified. Then we could determine whether the EITs prevented terrorist attacks.
Democrats lambasted their Republican counterparts for discussing the information that was provided behind locked doors.I wouldn't trust Rep. Schakowsky as far as I could throw her if I had two broken arms and a bad back. She's a political hack and a mindless one at that. If I'm forced to choose between trusting her or trusting Rep. Kline, that decision won't take a split-second. I'll trust Rep. Kline in a heartbeat because he's a man of integrity.
"I am absolutely shocked that members of the Intelligence committee who attended a closed-door hearing,then walked out that hearing, early, by the way, and characterized anything that happened in that hearing," said Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). "My understanding is that's a violation of the rules. It may be more than that."
This next quote is rich:
Both Schakowsky and Reyes accused GOP members of playing politics with national security.If Rep. Schakowsky weren't such a hyperpartisan, I might give her statements serious consideration. If President Obama is going to tell the world that EITs are wrong by releasing documents that include sources and methods, then the American people have a right to know the entire picture so they can decide whether President Obama made the right national security decision.
"I think they are playing a very dangerous game when it comes to the discussion of matters that were sensitive enough to be part of a closed hearing," Schakowsky said.
Posted Saturday, June 6, 2009 9:12 AM
No comments.
*****BREAKING NEWS*****
The AP is reporting that "opponents of Chrysler's sale to Fiat are asking the Supreme Court to block the deal."
Opponents of Chrysler's sale to Fiat are asking the Supreme Court to block the deal.I can't imagine the Obama administration winning this fight. They're on the opposite side of well-established bankruptcy law. I'd have to believe that these pension funds could make a respectable case involving the Takings Clause, too. Certainly these pension funds can argue that they weren't given fair market value, especially in comparison to what the unsecured creditors, aka the UAW, got.
Three Indiana state pension and construction funds filed emergency papers at the high court early Sunday to put the sale on hold so they can pursue an appeal.
The federal appeals court in New York approved the sale Friday, but gave objectors until Monday afternoon to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene. Chrysler wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a group led by Italy's Fiat as part of its plan to emerge from bankruptcy protection.
The emergency request goes first to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who handles such matters from New York. She can act on her own or refer it to the entire court.
The Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund and the state's Major Moves Construction Fund claim the deal unfairly favors the interests of the company's unsecured stakeholders ahead of those of secured debtholders such as themselves.
The funds also challenged the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the Treasury did so without congressional authority.
If the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration, it's likely that the deal will have to be dramatically altered. For instance, if the Court finds that secured bondholders deserve a higher price for their bonds than do the UAW workers drawing their pensions, that part of the deal would surely be dramatically reconfigured.
Such a ruling would be a shot across the Obama administration's bow. They wouldn't dare try bullying these bondholders with the Supreme Court watching. Until now, the bondholders were bullied because it was just them vs. the leader of the free world. That dynamic might change into Pensioners and the Rule of Law vs. President Obama and the UAW.
That last fight isn't a fight the Obama administration is likely to win.
Posted Saturday, June 6, 2009 11:54 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Jun-09 09:28 AM
Finally! Somebody questioning the constitutionality of government takeovers of private industries!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Jun-09 06:12 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. When I read that article, I put on a BIG SMILE!!!
