June 7-9, 2009
Jun 08 00:40 DFL Obstructionism Jun 07 09:02 Is the Solution Worse Than the Crisis? Jun 08 01:35 The High Cost of Liberalism Jun 08 03:30 Pelosi Changing the Dems' Tune? Jun 08 11:55 Is ObamaCare Justified? Jun 08 15:06 The Trouble With One Time Money Jun 09 03:38 Obamanomics: More Fiction Than Fact Jun 09 15:17 Repackaging Won't Help Sell ARRA Jun 09 16:31 Rep. Lee Terry On Cap & Trade
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
DFL Obstructionism
According to the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget, Minnesota will be facing a $2,700,000,000 deficit when the FY2010-11 budget goes into effect on July 1,2009:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the state's revenues are not anticipated to be sufficient to support planned spending in the upcoming biennium. I expect that the spending authorized for the 2010-11 biennium will exceed revenues by $2.7 billion.That's the official finding of Tom Hanson, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget. I won't be surprised if revenues fall short of Commissioner Hanson's predictions, though I won't say I expect his predictions to be off much.
Now that we've gotten definitive word that we're dealing with a deficit, there's a bigger question to be resolved, namely, will the DFL be as refor-resistant as they currently are? I wrote here that Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan was defeated on a 72-60 vote when it reached the House floor. Minnesota voters should care that the DFL didn't pass this legislation because it saves Minnesota's taxpayers a bunch of money.
The DFL has a rich history of ignoring the House and Senate GOP's cost-cutting measures. Will they feel more pressure to be sensible or more pressure to continue following the same path that they're currently taking?
It's time that the DFL paid a price for being an obstructionist party. They're currently standing in the way of a thoughtful reform to MinnesotaCare that provides better health insurance than they're currently getting while saving Minnesota's taxpayers $30 million a year.
For the lefties that are reading this, yes, it's possible for the majority party to be obstructionist if they're preventing thoughtful, well-constructed reforms from being enacted, especially when they're being stopped for purely political reasons.
Let's hear why Larry Hosch and Larry Haws didn't co-sponsor HF1865. Let's hear why Tarryl didn't co-sponsor SF1735 in the Senate. What justification does Tarryl have for not getting this bill moving? After all, she is the assistant Majority Leader in the Senate. For that matter, Larry Hosch could've used his influence as Assistant Majority Leader in the House to get this reform enacted.
Rep. Hosch's and Sen. Clark's inactions speak volumes about their priorities. They should be ashamed of themselves for not doing everything possible to save Minnesota's taxpayers $30,000,000 annually. Their inaction is especially damning considering the fact that we're facing a record deficit.
It's time that the DFL answered why they've rejected proposals that would've saved Minnesotans hundreds of thousands of dollars. At a time when people are hurting, the DFL is playing political games in the hopes of experiencing political gains. It's time that the DFL is held accountable for their actions.
Posted Monday, June 8, 2009 12:40 AM
No comments.
Is the Solution Worse Than the Crisis?
Anytime you start with a premise that can't withstand close scrutiny, you're starting from a position of weakness. That's the situation that global warming activists are faced with. This TNR article starts with the same flawed premise that other articles start with. Here's what I'm talking about:
As the U.S. energy secretary, Chu has been tasked with reshaping the country's trillion-dollar energy economy, to reduce America's reliance on fossil fuels and cut greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent or more by mid-century, essential to avoiding catastrophic climate change.What proof do we have that greenhouse gas emissions are producing "catastrophic climate change"? We've got al Gore's eccentric allegations but his allegations don't constitute proof. We have the IPCC report but that's a political document, not a scientific document. (Since when did consensus equal scientific proof?)
Entertainer Penn Jillette recently said something profound that the global warming people haven't addressed. Here are the five questions that he asked about the government getting involved in 'solving' this 'crisis':
1. Is the climate changing?
2. If it's changing, is man causing the change?
3. If it's changing and if man is causing the change, it the change good or bad?
4. If the climate is changing and man is causing the change and if it's change for the worse, can man do anything to reverse it?
5. If the climate is changing and man is causing it and it's bad and man can do something to reverse it, why do we think that government is capable of providing the solutions?
For the record, I think everyone agrees that the climate is changing because it's scientifically provable. After that, things get dicey. It's possible to make a case both ways whether man is causing the change. At this point, I'm certain only that it hasn't been proven that man has caused climate change.
Point three is the point that Al Gore's climate change fanatics have a difficult time proving. They've talked about rapidly melting ice caps, sea levels rising dramatically, etc. Their proof? They don't have any. The models that global warming activists cite are questionable at best. the Hockey Stick Graph is woefully inaccurate because it omits the Greenland Warm Period at the start of the second millenium AD. It also omits several mini-ice ages.
I'd add these questions to Mr. Jillette's questions: Is the cost of the 'cure' worth the economic hardship that the 'cure' would cause? Let's suppose just for the sake of discussion that we answer yes to Mr. Jillette's questions. How likely is it that we'll find a cure to this alleged crisis? What would this alleged crisis-averting solution cost? What proof would we have that a crisis had been averted? (Let's stipulate that allegations aren't proof.)
Finally, let's ask this question: Given the Obama administration's fumbling of things thus far, from Tim Geithner's TARP rollout to the Chrysler and GM bailouts, why would we think that this administration is up to the task of solving anything?
We were told to overlook Tim Geithner's tax evasion problems because he alone was equipped to handle the banking crisis. After several major stumbles, the latest of which is his telling Chinese economic students that America-held debt is solid, Geithner has become somewhat of a laughingstock. (That statement was greeted with laughter by the students.)
Car Czar Steven Rattner, with President Obama's help, bullied Chrysler and GM secured bondholders into accepting less than the UAW, an unsecured debtor, got. The Supreme Court could dramatically change the bullied agreements within the next couple days.
Why should we trust an administration that is at times inept, at other times corrupt? Why should we trust an administration that told us that passing ARRA would cause unemployment to top out at less than 8 percent but failing to pass ARRA would lead to unemployment topping 9 percent? Last Friday, the unemployment rate hit 9.4 percent despite the passage of ARRA.
Now this administration is teling us that dramatically changing our energy infrastructure isn't just required but that people who disagree are out of touch. At this point, I'm not willing to trust this administration on much of anything, much less on their alleged solution to this alleged crisis.
Posted Sunday, June 7, 2009 9:05 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Jun-09 09:24 AM
I keep thinking that we ought to demand an "environmental impact statement" from this proposed "solution" to global warming. Aren't we entitled to know exactly how much global temperatures will be reduced for these outrageous taxes?
Comment 2 by FarLeftRx at 08-Jun-09 08:38 AM
Good stuff here. From what I've studied, for the past six years the planet has been cooling even while CO2 levels continue to rise. So much for our causing the planet to warm.
The High Cost of Liberalism
Sunday, I questioned whether the alleged solution to global warming was better than the alleged crisis in this post . After reading Jeff Johnson's post , all questions have disappeared. Here's what Jeff wrote on his Hennepin County Taxpayer Watchdog blog :
We in Hennepin County government have recently been congratulating ourselves about the new solar panels just installed on the county's Public Works building in Medina. The panels are touted as a great success story for county taxpayers because they are saving $15,000 per year in energy costs.In other words, this green energy project wasted nearly a million dollars. What's worse is that Minnesota isn't ideally suited for solar power. Solar power is best suited for places like Southern California, Arizona, Utah and Texas. States like Minnesota have too many cloudy days. That's why it takes longer for solar panels to pay for themselves in Minnesota. The thing is that people would've known that if they'd done their due diligence.
I believe this sort of project can be a great use of taxpayer dollars. If there are "green" improvements that we can make to county buildings that save us money down the road (within a reasonable period of time), I'm on board.
When I was first told about the panels, I asked what I assumed was a simple and relevant question: How much did the panels cost; how long before they have paid for themselves and the taxpayers start realizing this $15,000 annual savings?
Before I provide you the answer to my question, let me say that there is no magic pay-off period for such projects. Some argue that an energy conservation project is successful if it pays for itself in 7 to 8 years. Others argue it can be 10 to 12. I've even heard a few people argue that it should be slightly longer than that, based on the positive effect (regardless of how small) such projects allegedly have on the environment. I don't have a firm opinion yet as to where I fall on the pay-off period, but I'm certainly comfortable with something in the 10-year range for a project such as this.
The Public Works Solar Panels? Well, after some explanation to me about how this project is not "all about the bottom line" I learned that they cost about $900,000.
There's no way this expenditure should've been approved if the first consideration was whether the taxpayers would actually benefit from this expenditure. I dare the Hennepin County commissioners to justify this project, especially considering this:
Yes, these solar panels will begin to save the taxpayers of Hennepin County $15,000 per year in 2070. My 5th grade son, Thor, will be 71. I will be dead. And I'm willing to wager that the Hennepin County Public Works building in Medina will be long gone.This is a perfect illustration of how liberalism wastes money and needlessly raises taxes. This is what happens when liberal politicians spend money on things without considering the consequences to the taxpayers.
What's particularly infuriating to me is that this money was spent at a time when we can't afford it. Did the commissioners think that money spent on this project might be better spent on important things? Did the commissioners consider that Hennepin County's taxpayers might've been better served if the money hadn't been spent?
It's time that conservatives started wearing out boot leather and telling the people about the high price of liberalism. It's time we told people that liberal spending habits cost them in the form of higher property taxes. It's time we told people that their money is being spent without enough consideration being paid to the benefits that the taxpayers will get from the money spent.
Most importantly, it's time we started asking people in our neighborhoods if they prefered their money being spent wisely and in limited amounts or if they prefered their money being spent foolishly on things that aren't important.
Finally, it's time we told people that if they want their taxes spent foolishly, then they should keep voting DFL. It's time that they knew that the only way their money will be spent wisely on the most important things is by voting conservatives into office.
Posted Monday, June 8, 2009 1:35 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Jun-09 08:20 AM
I put a solar room on my house because I wanted one and because the State offered a tax credit (on which they later reneged, a different story). I KNEW, with just a few minutes of research (or a year of experience, take your pick) that January in Minnesota has about 3 sunny days in it. This thing is not going to pay for itself in 20 years, as it should. Maybe 60 years is about right, but if they knew that, why did they do it?
Comment 2 by The Lady Logician at 08-Jun-09 12:22 PM
Solar is great for states like Utah where we are on the edge of the desert and we get lots of sunshine. But solar just does NOT make sense in MN where you have 4 months of winter.
LL
Pelosi Changing the Dems' Tune?
Speaker Pelosi visited Minnesota this weekend. During the visit, she was asked about why the stimulus wasn't having an immediate impact. Here's Ms. Pelosi's response :
When asked about criticism that the stimulus money will help stave off more layoffs, but won't have a huge impact on creating new jobs, lawmakers' key goal in passing the measure, Pelosi said programs such as the one at the center will ensure long-term job growth. "It's a bigger picture," she said of battling unemployment.As the Lady Logician notes in this post , the Obama administration wasn't singing a 'long-term tune' when the pushed for quick passage of ARRA:
Obama touts stimulus planLet's remember, too, that President Obama said an economic catastrophe might happen if ARRA wasn't passed ASAP :
Jan 9, 2009
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Barack Obama said Saturday his economic stimulus plan will "save or create three to four million jobs" as the president-elect sought to stem criticism of the 775-billion-dollar package designed to revive the ailing US economy.
In his weekly radio address, Obama cited a 14-page analysis that predicted his plan would generate big numbers of jobs as his aides pressed Congress to adopt it amid a deepening recession and signs of opposition from his fellow Democrats.
His top economic adviser Lawrence Summers and political strategist David Axelrod are set to return to Congress on Sunday to brief lawmakers on the package that includes a mix of tax cuts and public works projects.
"The report confirms that our plan will likely save or create three to four million jobs," Obama said in his address.
"Ninety percent of these jobs will be created in the private sector. The remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs we save, like the teachers, police officers, firefighters and others who provide vital services in our communities."
Obama had previously said his plan addressed three million jobs, but the analysis released Saturday by his top advisers Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein suggested the proposal could generate or salvage up to four million jobs.
In the absence of a stimulus package, advisers warned, the economy could shed up to four million more jobs over the comings months and years, on top of the jobs already lost in the current downturn. "Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least five million," the analysis said.
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece titled, "The Action Americans Need."President Obama, ARRA passed. Unemployment is approaching 10 percent despite its passage. QUESTION: Who's doing your predictions? Larry Summers? Rahm Emanuel? David Axelrod? Whoever is doing the forecasting needs to be terminated with a footprint on their backside because, frankly, his/her forecasting is pathetic.
Whether they like it or not, this is now the Obama recession. They didn't start it but they were elected because they said they had the solutions. Thus far, their solutions haven't worked. Day after dy, more people are questioning whether the Obama administration's 'solutions' are taking us in the wrong direction. Each day, Tim Geithner and the rest of President Obama's economic team give us reasons to question their competence.
It doesn't help politically when a high profile Democrat leader like Ms. Pelosi starts moving the goalposts. That's what happened this weekend in St. Paul.
Posted Monday, June 8, 2009 3:35 AM
No comments.
Is ObamaCare Justified?
Each time that liberals talk about universal health care in the context of health care reform, taxpayers cringe. Taxpayers cringe mostly because they're worried that they won't like how We The People pay for it. Think that last sentence through a bit. Fred Hiatt's article isn't reassuring:
Obama's plan to extend insurance would cost, by his estimate, $1.5 trillion over the next decade. He has said, rightly, that the country has to find a way to pay for that. But his proposals don't come close to showing how, and Congress doesn't like even the down payment he did suggest.Why should we think that this plan will save us any money? I wrote about Penn Jillette's criteria concerning global warming in this post . A few of his criteria aren't applicable to health care but this one is applicable:
If the climate is changing and man is causing it and it's bad and man can do something to reverse it, why do we think that government is capable of providing the solutions?In fact, let's see if we can't put together a set of questions to determine whether government-run health care is a good deal. Here's what pops into my mind about government-run health care:
1. Is the health care/health insurance system broken? If you say yes, what proof do you have that it's broken?
2. If the health care/health insurance system is broken, can we identify what broke it? If we're able to identify what caused the problem, shouldn't we isolate that?
3. If the health care/health insurance system is broken and we can identify and isolate the source of the problem, what is the appropriate solution to the problem? In fact, is the solution multifaceted and multitiered?
4. If the health care/health insurance system is broken and we're able to identify and isolate the problem and the problem isn't complex or multifaceted, is the health care plan being put together the right solution to the problem?
5. If the health care/health insurance system is broken and we've identified and isolated the problem and the solution isn't complex and multifaceted and we've got the right solution, what proof do we have that government can administer such a program more efficiently than the private sector can?
At this point, I haven't seen proof that our health care/health insurance system is broken, at least not badly enough to warrant a dramatic transformation of our health care system.
If that's the case, what's the justification for Obamacare? Is spending in excess of $1,500,000,000,000 of the taxpayers' money for this dramatic reform justified? Most importantly, what proof do we have that the federal government is flexible enough to make adjustments as market conditions and consumer needs change?
BONUS QUESTION: If it's going to cost us trillions of additional dollars, should it be considered a reform?
Most importantly, isn't health care reform more about the Obama administration grabbing control of a major portion of the economy than it's about reforming a broken system?
Finally, given the ineptitude of the Obama administration's cabinet, why should we think that this bunch is capable of handling anything properly? It isn't like Tim Geithner and the Obama economic team have earned our respect.
The American people should reject Obamacare until the Obama administration can truthfully answer yes to these basic questions.
Posted Monday, June 8, 2009 11:57 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Jun-09 08:32 PM
Best question I've heard is: If the only problem with American health care is that it costs too much, why does Obama's plan cost 600 billion dollars MORE by his own estimate, and 2 trillion by other estimates?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Jun-09 02:04 AM
Jerry, Let's get this straight. The $634,000,000,000 in President Obama's budget is a down payment.
Comment 3 by Walter Hanson at 09-Jun-09 08:41 AM
Gary:
Two great ways to reduce the costs of health care and it won't cost a cent.
* Doing medical practice reform. Doctors being sued or fear of being sued are driving up costs. This year I have had doctor's order me into a hospital for parts of three days (though that I will defend), I was ordered to go from my doctor's office to the hospital by ambulanace because no one came with me (that I thought wasn't needed), take a colonoposy because he thought I was bleeding (which I wasn't), and the doctor who performed that colonoposy has ordered another test. That is thousands of dollars that might not have been spent.
Two, right now congress mandates that every health care policy has a bunch of things. Why don't you narrow the list and make people buy something as options or force price competition. Hasn't the price of lasix eye surgey come down in part because doctor's have to compete for people who to pay their own money?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 09-Jun-09 08:46 AM
It is still true that we could save HALF of the costs of medical care if government would just butt out.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 09-Jun-09 09:46 AM
Walter, THE BIGGEST THING we can do is eliminate 75+ percent of the mandates. Medical malpractice law is something that needs reform but that isn't the biggest thing that's driving prices higher.
Jerry, That's true. It's also irrelevant because it's never gonna happen.
The Trouble With One Time Money
President Obama is pledging to speed up the spending of ARRA money to "create 600,000 new jobs."
Eager to show action on the ailing economy, President Barack Obama promised Monday to speed federal money into hundreds of public works projects this summer, vowing that 600,000 jobs will be created or saved.Action isn't what the American people are looking for. They're looking for solutions. Activity just means that people are doing something. That something isn't automatically good or bad. Solutions require putting the right policies in place to positively impact people and put them on a path to sustained prosperity.
Surrounded by his Cabinet, Obama emphasized what has become a dominant issue of public concern-an economy that keeps bleeding jobs-on the day after returning from a week of diplomacy and sightseeing in the Middle East and Europe.
He concentrated in his remarks on the billions of dollars from a taxpayer-funded plan that will be disbursed this summer, although much what he was described was already in the works, spurring new debate about just how much the $787 billion stimulus plan is helping so far.Why shouldn't people be suspicious of the Obama administration's policies? The Obama administration's economic team is in disarray, the first sign that they don't play well together .
People are starting to notice the ineptitude of Team Obama's economic team:
While 67% of Americans view President Barack Obama favorably, his overall job approval rating and his ratings on specific areas are less positive. At the low end of the spectrum, only 45% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of federal spending, and 46% of his handling of the federal budget deficit.Specifically, 45 percent of poll respondants said that they approved of President Obama's controlling spending while 51 percent said that they don't approve of his controlling spending. Only 46 percent of poll respondants approve of President Obama's handling of the deficit vs. 48 percent disapproved. This marks the first time that President Obama has had a negative job approval rating on these issues since taking office.
Ed Morrissey points out why this is significant in this post :
Even worse, a majority now opposes his spending practices, 51%-45%. The latter number comes closer and closer to the base level of his own party, which means Obama is now losing independents on spending. This shows the big opportunity for the GOP in next year's midterms, when the lack of economic progress from Porkulus will become even more obvious.If President Obama's support with independants continues slipping, which it will if the economy doesn't sharply improve, Democrats running for re-election will be running into a headwind.
House GOP Leader Boehner's statement questioning the wisdom of whether we should be "doubling down" on President Obama's stimulus bill is the type of communication I can appreciate because it makes the issue personal:
Today's announcement is an acknowledgement that the Democrats' trillion-dollar stimulus is not working, and the American people know it. When they passed this spending plan, Democrats said it would immediately create jobs, yet nearly four months later unemployment has continued to climb and none of their rosy predictions have come true. These policies are harming middle-class families when they can least afford it, and adding to the massive debt we're passing on to future generations.Let's remember that the CBO originally predicted that ARRA does more harm than good :
The American people know that we can't borrow and spend our way back to prosperity, and that's why House Republicans offered a better solution. Our plan to let the American people keep more of what they earn would have created twice the jobs at half the cost of the Democrats' bloated government spending scheme. But instead of shifting course, Democrats are doubling down on their plan to spend taxpayer dollars as fast as possible, even as their own Vice President admits that the American people are being scammed. Wasting more money that the government doesn't have, money that is borrowed from China and the Middle East, and will have to be paid back by our kids and grandkids, is the wrong choice. I believe our economy will improve, and Republicans support policies to make that happen faster. But it will not recover because of more wasteful government spending.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.The release of these additional funds inevitably leads to higher inflation sooner. What isn't inevitable is that the accelerated release of these funds guarantees accelerated job creation rates.
CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.
Let's say, though, just for discussion's sake, that this money will lead to accelerated job creation. The next logical question is whether that short burst of money will create sustained consumer spending. I don't think it will but I can't prove that. At minimum, though, the best we can say at this point is that it's possible.
That isn't the type of hope the American people voted for last November.
Originally posted Monday, June 8, 2009, revised 09-Jun 2:07 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 09-Jun-09 08:36 AM
Gary:
Your average person understands that if you have a $1,000 of income every two weeks you can't spend $2,000 every two weeks. One major reason why the economy is slowing down individuals and businesses are working to reduce their debt and to refrain from spending money they don't need to spend. In part because a lot of people and businesses are getting ready for worse (remember the Bush tax cuts will expire 1-1-2011).
On the other hand Obama is just spending away and ignoring warnings. One reason why people supported Obama was that they really expected him to cut spending and get the government's fiscal act together and not get it worse.
And one thing about that poll you said. I can like President Obama personally (I don't like his policies, but I can't say anything negatively about him personally) it will add up when more and more of his positions-aka the Democrat party- are seen as being out of touch.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Jun-09 01:50 PM
Walter, I've been talking alot lately about people using this one-time money to pay off credit cards & student loans or putting some money away for future rainy days.
Money used that way doesn't help the economy expand.
It's worth noting that Democrats in general can't get away with the things that President Obama gets away with. That's why I think things are stacking up nicely for Republicans in 2010.
Obamanomics: More Fiction Than Fact
The story Monday was that the Obama administration was accelerating the rate of spending of stimulus money. In making this announcement, the Obama administration is admitting that ARRA hasn't had an impact yet. Everyone in America knows that. The other mistake the Obama administration made Monday is predicting that 600,000 jobs will be created as a result of the accelerated rate of spending:
President Obama billed it as an adrenaline jolt to a depleted economy -- a $787 billion stimulus that would not only put people back to work, but underwrite new construction and energy projects the U.S. had long neglected. But with the economy still sputtering and some economists questioning whether the program is meeting its goals, Obama doubled down on his promises, vowing to accelerate stimulus spending with the goal of creating or saving 600,000 jobs by summer's end.Holding down expectations isn't something that the Obama administration has to work at. At this point, people have wearied of the bad economic news. People's confidence in President Obama's spending and his economic team is shrinking . If President Obama's latest plan doesn't quickly change the direction of this economy, people's confidence might be shattered permanently.
Emerging from a meeting with Cabinet officers, Obama sought to claim substantial progress but at the same time hold down expectations.
In this post , I said that President Obama's policies had failed. Let me explain what I meant by that. It isn't that I think we won't see some economic growth during President Obama's term in office. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we have economic growth early next year. It's that I suspect that unemployment will hit 11 percent, that the debt that President Obama is creating will dramatically slow the future growth of the economy and that inflation and high interest rates will happen as a direct result of his policies. Given all those dire things happening, it's impossible for me to think of that as success.
During his interview with Neal Cavuto, Rupert Murdoch said it's a virtual certainty that unemployment will hit 11 percent. We're only a point and a half away right now so it's impossible to think that we won't hit 11 percent by Thanksgiving.
From a political point, weak economic growth might doom Democrats. I'll remind voters that President Obama raised expectations by saying that ARRA was the only thing standing between us and 8 percent unemployment. I'll remind people that we spent $787,000,000,000 on a bill that's dramatically backloaded for after 2010 and another $410,000,000,000 on the omnibus bill to run government for the rest of FY2009.
The next thing I'll do is I'll ask people if feeble economic growth, coupled with high unemployment, high inflation rates and high interest rates is a good enough return for $1,197,000,000,000 worth of spending. I suspect a majority of people will agree with me that it isn't a good return on investment.
Finally, I'll remind people that the last time we faced this combination of economic statistics was the Carter Admininstration. I'll remind them that that's when the term misery index was coined. (Actually, Jimmy Carter coined the phrase during the 1976 campaign.) I'll remind them that the misery index is calculated by adding the inflation rate with the unemployment rate. I'll remind people that the alltime high misery index number was 21.98 during Jimmy Carter's administration.
By the time the midterms roll around, we might be approaching Jimmy Carter's record, though I'll defer to King on that.
It's disheartening to hear the Obama administration talk about the jobs saved statistic. At best, jobs saved simply means that alot of money was spent to preserve existing jobs. Any idiot can do that. I'm sure that people who did't get terminated are thankful but that isn't a measuring stick of economic growth. Economic growth is required to create jobs. I don't think that many people are optimistic about that at this point.
President Obama's economic team has dramatically underperformed thus far. Treasury Secretary Geithner was laughed at by Chinese economic students when he told them that America debt was secure. The stimulus plan hasn't worked as advertised.
With that set of facts, why should people have confidence in Team Obama's predictions?
Posted Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:42 AM
No comments.
Repackaging Won't Help Sell ARRA
President Obama is finding out that his rhetorical abilities won't exempt him from criticism when his policies don't produce as he predicted. He's spent yesterday and today trying to put lipstick on one of the ugliest pigs in recent history. People aren't buying it. Still, he's got to keep going to the well :
President Barack Obama assured the nation his recovery plan was on track Monday, scrambling to calm Americans unnerved by unemployment rates still persistently rising nearly four months after he signed the biggest economic stimulus in history.Creating or saving 600,000 jobs by summer's end sounds nice but it's an unimpressive number, especially when you consider that 125,000 of those jobs are temp jobs. If ARRA created 600,000 new jobs that were sustainable, then I'd be impressed. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.
Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.
"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.
He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.
That won't happen as a result of ARRA, either, because creating sustainable jobs requires entrepreneurial activity. What sane investor is willing to put their money at risk knowing that President Obama will either tax your profits into nonexistence or change the rules of the game because it's to his political allies' benefit?
If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, it will give the executive branch the authority to rewrite any contract it wants. This is just plain wrong. That's why bankruptcy courts were established where, theoretically, their rulings are based on evidence presented at trial and on established bankruptcy laws.
Having the White House rewriting contracts is an appalling idea because they might, as they appear to have done in this instance, rewrite contracts for purely political reasons. This administration hasn't hesitated in ignoring the laws when it helps their political allies.
But I digress.
The stimulus plan wasn't designed to jumpstart the economy. It was designed to increase government spending. This article breaks down an earlier version of the bill but it's still fairly accurate. According to this article, $40,800,000,000 is appropriated to health insurance assistance for the unemployed, another $89,700,000,000 is appropriated to a temporary increase in federal medical assistance. Another $27,100,000,000 is appropriated to extending unemployment benefits.
While it's possible to debate whether these appropriations are justified, what isn't possible is debating whether they'll create jobs or spur increased entrepreneurial activity. In my opinion, that isn't a debate. Debates require intellectual rigor. Whether ARRA spurs increased entrepreneurial activity requires just a simple recitation of the appropriations. That's all that's need to make my case.
There is some news from the White House:
For the first time, the administration admitted the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were overly optimistic. "At the time, our forecast seemed reasonable," Vice President Joe Biden's top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, said Monday, explaining that the White House underestimated the scope of the recession. "Now, looking back, it was clearly too optimistic."Yes, their predictions were overly optimistic. In fact, it's reasonable to question whether their predictions weren't outright fabrications. The Obama administration was alone in predicting robust growth so quickly. King had a particularly fun time with this graphic :
Some analysts believe the White House is still not being realistic, that Obama will be lucky if any real job creation from his recovery effort is seen by the end of the year, let alone the employment explosion he predicts. "I think these estimates are overly optimistic," said Arpitha Bykere, a senior analyst with RGE Monitor.That's politespeak for "That's a bunch of crap." There's no reason to trust this bunch. They're better at politicking than they are about policies. BY ALOT!!! I've been asking why people trust this bunch ever since the dog ate Little Timmy's lunch .
Now the Obama administration wants us to think that they're being serious about the deficit because they're interested in returning to PAYGO. Here's what Leader Boehner thinks about that:
PAYGO is a thinly-veiled excuse for Democrats to raise taxes in order to bankroll more wasteful government spending. And who will pay? The American middle class. Time after time this year, Democrats have ignored calls for fiscal responsibility and added more than a trillion dollars to our deficit, all of which will be paid by working families and their kids and grandkids. In the coming weeks, they plan to raise taxes to finance a government takeover of health care, once again putting a bulls-eye on the backs of the American middle class. We don't need more rhetoric and gimmicks. We need action to tackle the tremendous fiscal challenges facing this nation, including reining in the Democrats' budget plan for trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.Here's Mike Pence's thoughts on PAYGO:
Later today, President Barack Obama will push Democrat lawmakers to follow pay-as-you-go budget rules. Now, PAYGO rules, as they're known, in theory would require new federal spending or tax cuts be offset by spending cuts or even tax increases elsewhere. This may sound reasonable to some Americans, but the devil's always in the details.We know that President Obama won't slow their spending so the only way they can do health care is if they raise taxes. Don't think that raising taxes on the rich will pay for that monstrosity, either. They'll have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for us to 'save' money on health care.
The American people have reason to be skeptical about newfound calls for fiscal responsibility from this majority. Under Democrat control, the federal budget deficit is projected to approach nearly $2 trillion. In the last several years, non-defense spending has increased by 85 percent. The budget the President and congressional Democrats just passed will double the national debt in five years and triple it in ten years.
And now they are calling for new budget rules? With Democrat plans for more borrowing, more spending, more bailouts and more debt, the Democrat definition of PAYGO is all too clear to the American people: you pay, and they go on spending.
As Allahpundit likes to say: What could go wrong?
The Obama administration won't like me saying this but they won't be judged on President Obama's speaking ability. They'll be judged solely on their solutions.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 9, 2009, revised 14-Jun 4:19 PM
No comments.
Rep. Lee Terry On Cap & Trade
I just finished interviewing Rep. Lee Terry, (R-NE), about the House Cap and Trade legislation. I'd like to thank Rep. Terry, who was more than generous with his time today.
The first question I hasked Rep. Terry was whether there was any breaking news from today's hearing. He said that David Sokol's testimony put the Democrats on the defensive. Rep. Terry said that his staff will be posting the video of that later today.
Rep. Terry also made mention of the fact that the Blue Dogs had either been bought off or they were threatened into supporting this legislation. Rep. Collin Peterson threatened to kill the bill unless he got some concessions for Red River Valley farmers. It was Rep. Terry's understanding that Rep. Peterson has now agreed to hold a single hearing on the bill and that he's now supporting it. Rep. Terry said that he couldn't confirm whether Rep. Peterson had won any concessions from Waxman-Markey.
What he was sure of is that alot of additional allowances were given on a purely political basis to buy Democratic votes. I asked whether the committee used a formula to determine their caps. Rep. Terry confirmed that that hadn't happened. Rep. Terry noted that Republicans weren't in the room when these caps were determined.
I said that it sounded like the bill was a purely political bill than a science-based bill. Rep. Terry said that that was an accurate description. On the issue of science, I asked whether CO2 was considered a pollutant prior to the writing of this bill. Rep. Terry said one of the provisions in the bill is to designate CO2 as a pollutant.
I asked Rep. Terry if Republicans were putting a graphic together showing which congressional districts had won additional allowances. I was told that that type of chart hadn't been put together but that he'd put his staff on that ASAP. Check back to this blog to look the chart over.
What I'm looking for is to see if there's (a) a correlation between the additional allowances and Blue Dogs, (b) a correlation between the additional allowances and Democrats in general and (c) there are any Republicans who got additional allowances. I'll be surprised if any Republicans got additional allowances.
Finally, I told Rep. Terry about Minnesota State Rep. Mike Beard's, (R-Prior Lake), contention that solar and wind will never produce enough energy to be a baseline energy. Rep. Terry agreed that that won't happen anytime soon. I asked Rep. Terry if he agreed that, at this point, green energy was an expensive form of energy. Rep. Terry strongly agreed with that.
Again, I'd like to thank Rep. Terry for taking the time for this interview and I'd like to thank his staff for putting this interview together. This was an informative interview, something that gave me alot of information to process.
Finally, I was impressed with Rep. Terry's on-point, concise answers. I didn't get any answers that were evasive or long-winded. I just got alot of facts about the process and about the minor role that science is playing in putting this bill together.
Posted Tuesday, June 9, 2009 4:36 PM
No comments.
