August 1-6, 2011
Aug 01 03:17 Michele's Minor Misstep, Mitt's Major Mistake Aug 01 12:32 Mitt Leading From Behind Again Aug 02 01:46 Chip Cravaack's Principles vs. Keith Ellison's Melodrama Aug 02 16:09 Exposing the Left's Mindless Spin Aug 03 01:27 Bond ratings only part of economic worries Aug 03 07:07 Ratings Houses, Stock Market, Mock Franken Aug 04 02:46 Gov. Dayton, DFL Misdefines Job Creation Aug 04 14:31 Pelosi Pens Jobs Op-ed Aug 06 02:03 Following credit downgrade, Bachmann calls for Geithner's firing
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Michele's Minor Misstep, Mitt's Major Mistake
Whatever you think about Michele Bachmann's policy initiatives, it isn't possible to say she isn't willing to take a principled stand. That isn't always a good thing, though. Last week, when Michele said that she'd oppose any debt ceiling increase except if it included the repeal of Obamacare, she took herself out of the national dialogue on potentially game-changing issues.I'd consider that a minor misstep that lots of people could make.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney weighed into the debt ceiling debate with this wimpy answer :
"The answer for the country is for the president to agree to cut federal spending and cap federal spending and put into place a balanced budget amendment,' said Romney. 'That for me is the line in the sand.'
'It is within the president's power to say to the leadership in the house and the senate that 'I'll cut spending I'll cap the amount of spending and I'll pursue a balanced budget amendment and if the president were to do that this whole debt limit problem goes away,' he said.
If I were Mitt's communications guy, here's what I would've written for him to say:
"America stands at a crossroads, a crossroads of President Obama's and the Democrats' own making. Do we keep spending like they've done since the start of President Obama's administration? Or do we change directions and avoid becoming Greece?
It's President Obama's responsibility to lead this nation through this historic crisis. Cutting spending is the vital first step, with the GAO report being the mandatory starting point for cutting. After cutting spending, it's important that we not return to reckless spending. That's why it's important to cap spending levels for the rest of the decade.
Finally, it's imperative to push for, pass and ratify, a balanced budget amendment so we never put ourselves in such a position again.
I commend Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor and Minority Leader McConnell for their tireless efforts to reach a deal that puts our financial house in order.
Why didn't Mitt's response lend support to House Republicans? They certainly would've appreciated his support.
The thing that I'm disappointed about is the GOP presidential candidates not uttering a peep about making the March GAO report the starting point for a debt ceiling increase. I'm disappointed that they didn't talk about the need to end baseline budgeting.
At minimum, cutting the annual anticipated spending growth from its current 8% annual increase, perhaps by 2 points or more, would dramatically change the federal government's spending tragectory.
Frankly, I hope these ideas are injected into the presidential campaigns ASAP. The sooner they're injected into the presidential campaigns, the quicker Republicans can put President Obama and the Democrats on the defensive.
In the final analysis, Michele's mistake cost her additional time in the national spotlight. That's a totally correctable mistake. Mitt, on the other hand, shied from the spotlight for the most part. His latching onto the CCB Act was a great example of leading from behind.
Michele's telling people where she stood didn't keep her in the spotlight but at least people know who she is and what she stands for. You can't say that about Mitt.
Posted Monday, August 1, 2011 3:17 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 02-Aug-11 09:50 AM
Allow me to take gentle issue with you on this. From at least a polling standpoint, I feel Bachmann took the correct tack on this issue.
Right up until the end, majorities of voters said they didn't want the debt ceiling raised and the last Rasmussen poll I saw showed 57 percent now want DeathCare repealed. Bachmann is triangulating toward positions people claim to hold.
Bachmann didn't take herself out of the debate, she positioned herself to appeal to the base of her party which has, once again, been abandoned by its leadership. Other sites I frequent are giving Bachmann praise, not brickbats, for her stand.
One further note here: I have no dog in this fight. All I know right now is that my candidate won't be Romney or Huntsman.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Aug-11 01:46 PM
Frankly, it's irritating to think of Michele playing politics with this issue. Keeping herself alive with her type of voters shouldn't be her first priority.
I'm not saying she shouldn't insist on killing O'Care. I'm saying that her insisting on it in that setting gave the media the excuse to ignore her, which they quickly did.
Had she played it smart, she could've influenced the debate longer, which would've meant a better outcome for We The People. That MUST BE Republicans' focus because that's what wins elections.
Again, I'm not advocating the abandoning of principles. I'm advocating that Republicans play negotiations smart.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 02-Aug-11 03:06 PM
First, thank you for the reply, Gary. Love the blog, it's always good reading.
I guess I wouldn't say that she's playing politics with this -- you'd have to be really not paying attention lately to not know that Michele Bachmann detests Obamacare to its core. I do see her as being consistent with her previous positions on this.
What I consider to be playing politics is the Senate leadership, particularly McConnell, cutting the legs out from under the House after it passed CCB. That is Republicans playing politics against themselves, and it's the biggest tragedy in a debate that has been full of them in my view.
Great point, though, about longer influence in the debate. However, I think that enough people are up in arms about this deal that it can't help but influence 2012 regardless of how long Bachmann may have been part of that debate.
Even more deficit spending isn't going to work, people know it isn't going to work, and the issue will still be there. It will be THE issue of the 2012 elections and Bachmann is on the right side of it. Whether that helps her or not remains to be seen.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 02-Aug-11 03:37 PM
Bob, McConnell didn't play politics with CCB. He just made a foolish decision.
As for influencing the debate longer, Michele saw things from a narrow POV. If she'd thought about how she could influence the debate & get the spending cuts frontloaded, it would've improved the final deal immensely.
By doing that, she would've gotten recognized as a leader in winning the negotiations. That would've given her a huge boost heading into the Iowa Straw Poll & into the primaries.
Winning more frontloaded cuts would've helped immediately and it would've helped Michele for 2012.
Wouldn't that have been the smart move?
Comment 5 by Bob J. at 02-Aug-11 10:20 PM
I guess that depends on how you view McConnell. I look at him as a moderate, who evidently was willing to undercut his own party in the House. I can't explain his proposal in any other way.
The Senate leadership should have been fighting for CCB or bust. As Erick Erickson said at Redstate, that was 'the hill to die on'. Well, I think we died on that hill, but not because of fire from our front. It came from behind, in the form of retreating 'leaders' like Mitch McConnell. That's what I mean by playing politics.
Please explain, because I'm genuinely curious, your thoughts about Bachmann's 'narrow POV'. I am becoming more and more convinced in the aftermath of this deal that the narrowest POV would have been the best for the country because it ... well, it would have been the best for the country instead of the best for the next election. In Bachmann's case, though, I do feel they intermix. Am I misunderstanding you? I have no wish to do so.
Winning more frontloaded cuts was the goal all along, but Bachmann could do no less than stay true to her long held positions. She has earned praise from no less a person than Sarah Palin for having done it.
She has a media that is foaming at the mouth to marginalize her. How would this media allow Bachmann to frame the debate? The positions she holds are shared by the majority of Americans in most polls I've seen, so why would the Obama-controlled media go, if you will, off the reservation?
Please believe me, I agree with your overall angle on this. I just don't think Bachmann misstepped. On the contrary, after the initial fiasco involving Ed Rollins criticizing Palin, she's been better than just about everyone at staying on a focused message.
Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
Mitt Leading From Behind Again
Earlier today, I wrote about Mitt's major mistake in not putting out a more forceful statement on the debt ceiling debate. Now that the deal's been negotiated, Mitt's finally speaking up :
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) broke his silence on the congressional debt-ceiling fight on Monday, emerging to say he couldn't back the final deal announced Sunday.
Romney, who had refused to weigh in during recent weeks on the specifics of various proposals to raise the debt ceiling, said he couldn't personally back the deal brokered over the weekend between congressional GOP leaders and President Obama.
"While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama's lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal," he said in a statement.
It would've been nice if Mitt hadn't led from behind. Had he been outspoken on the subject, he could've led the fight for fiscal sanity. He could've changed the terms of the debate.
Instead, he hid until the heavy lifting was done. After breaking silence, Mitt didn't offer anything but criticism. I won't tolerate whining from the sidelines when Democrats only offer criticism. I certainly won't tolerate it when liberal Republicans offer only criticism.
I won't tolerate it because that isn't the type of leadership the United States needs right now. As the DFL proved all session long, anyone can devote their time solely to criticizing their opponents.
To their credit, Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty have put together substantive proposals outlining their economic agendas. Comparatively speaking, Mitt's run a 'resume campaign', relying mainly on his reputation and resume.
That's nice but it isn't telling America what he's about. People are looking for a leader with a compelling vision, not just a well-known guy with a nice resume who lacks a vision for leading this nation forward.
That's who Mitt is. For that matter, a number of his ideas have failed miserably, meaning his reputation isn't as impressive as he'd have us believe.
Posted Monday, August 1, 2011 12:32 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 02-Aug-11 09:42 AM
No Romney. Period.
Chip Cravaack's Principles vs. Keith Ellison's Melodrama
Last fall, I predicted that Chip Cravaack would defeat Jim Oberstar :
If Chip can start running ads about Oberstar's voting for Cap and Trade and his indifference towards getting the PolyMet mine running, rest assured that Chip will cast Rep. Oberstar in an extremely negative light.
In fact, I'll take a big step here. If Chip gets the money to run those ads on Oberstar's voting for Cap and Trade and his indifference toward getting PolyMet up and running, Chip will win.
Chip didn't have a deep arsenal of ad topics. In fact, he ran one ad during the campaign. The ad was so pitch-perfect that people who voted for and/or supported Chip knew what type of man they'd be getting.
Monday, Chip cast the vote he said he'd cast. Then he issued this totally sensible explanation for why he cast that vote:
'I could not support the amended Budget Control Act passed by the House this evening. While I applaud this bi-partisan effort to avert a default on our nation's debt, the measure approved by the House does very little to reduce our bloated deficit; it merely slows its growth. This legislation will not ensure our nation's AAA credit rating nor provide for a Balanced Budget Amendment before the debt limit is raised. Regrettably, this compromise risks cuts to seniors' Medicare and veterans' benefits, and up to a 50% cut to military funding, all the while the U.S is conducting three military operations abroad and China continues to emerge as a global super power and rival model of governance.
We must do better to protect our nation's prosperity for future generations.
Just recently, I voted for 'cut, cap, and balance' and to raise the debt ceiling; however, I gave my word to advocate the core, fiscally conservative principles my constituents in the 8th District entrusted upon me last November. I will remain an independent voice in Washington; if the numbers don't add up, I'm not voting for it.'
Let's compare Chip Cravaack's statement with what Rep. Keith Ellison said in an NPR interview prior to the House vote:
MELISSA BLOCK, host: There has been vocal pushback some Democrats against the debt ceiling compromise. The Congressional Progressive Caucus held a news conference this afternoon laying out strong objections. Earlier today before the House vote, I spoke with the co-chair of that caucus, Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota. He explained his opposition to the bill despite some serious lobbying today from Vice President Joe Biden.
Representative KEITH ELLISON: Well, you know, I think that Vice President Biden is a great leader and I admire him but quite frankly he was given a bad situation to start with and they tried to do some things to mitigate the harm but ultimately this thing takes the country in the wrong direction. Basically, we're taking money out of the economy at a time when the country needs there to be more economic activity.
ELLISON: When you start cutting programs, cutting a trillion dollars out of the economy, what you're literally doing is you're laying off people; you're discontinuing spending that could well go towards putting people to work. And let me tell you, I don't care if you work for the government or not, a government check spends like any other check and the people who sell those folks groceries don't care whether their workers are from the government or from the private sector. So, the bottom line is this is rejectionary(ph) at a time when our country's trying to recover from a recession. And if you look back at 1937, when people just like the Tea Party Republicans forced Roosevelt to put the brakes on spending, they caused a double-dip recession and I'm afraid that's just going to happen now.
Though both men voted against the debt ceiling increase, they voted against it for dramatically different reasons. Chip Cravaack voted against it because the federal government can't continue racking up debt at the pace Rep. Ellison prefers.
This Ellison statement is quite telling:
Basically, we're taking money out of the economy at a time when the country needs there to be more economic activity.
If Rep. Ellison gave that answer in John Spry's economics class at St. Thomas University, the students would laugh him out of the classroom. Before the federal government can spend money, it must take it from the private sector.
Government doesn't create things. It can't sustain itself. Without a steady stream of taxes, government couldn't exist.
Rep. Ellison's type of thinking, combined with President Obama, Sen. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, has led America into the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Chip Cravaack's votes are rooted in the principles that a) it's the private sector that creates jobs and that b) the private sector does best when government isn't taking capital out of the private sector.
Though Chip is the freshman and Rep. Ellison is supposedly the veteran legislator, it's Chip that's schooling Rep. Ellison on creating jobs.
Posted Tuesday, August 2, 2011 1:46 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 02-Aug-11 09:39 AM
I'd love to hear Ellison explain how $2.4 trillion MORE in new debt is 'taking money out of the economy'.
The Marxists won. They're just too stupid to realize it.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 03-Aug-11 10:29 AM
Ellison and McCollum showed sense. McCollum was a surprise. Franken AND Klobuchar were a disappointment.
It would be interesting if there were a primary challenger to Klobucher, a progressive, to test things.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 03-Aug-11 02:29 PM
Klobuchar is an expert at photo ops. She's devoid of real qualifications, however.
I'd argue that Ellison has the integrity of a carnival huckster or a used car salesman except that it'd demean canival hucksters & used car salesmen.
Franken is a blithering idiot.
Comment 4 by Dave at 18-Aug-11 11:27 AM
Guess the markets have told us who is right!!
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Aug-11 12:59 PM
Actually, the government has failed us. The free market hasn't failed. Government protected former Clintonistas like Jamie Gorelick & Franklin Raines. Government protected longtime DNC operative Jim Johnson. Barney Frank & Christopher Dodd protected Fannie, Freddie & Wall Street Banks that caused the housing bubble.
The market certainly didn't protect them. The market wasn't given the opportunity to work. In fact, government short-circuited the markets from imposing discipline.
Exposing the Left's Mindless Spin
If I got paid $10 for each time a public figure, whether they're a journalist or the Vice President of the United States, called TEA Party activists terrorists, I'd have enough money to go on a lavish vacation.
Peter Nocera's column is just the handiest example of the radical Left's mindless spin:
These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America's most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn't care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that's what it took.
Like ideologues everywhere, they scorned compromise. When John Boehner, the House speaker, tried to cut a deal with President Obama that included some modest revenue increases, they humiliated him. After this latest agreement was finally struck on Sunday night, amounting to a near-complete capitulation by Obama, Tea Party members went on Fox News to complain that it only called for $2.4 trillion in cuts, instead of $4 trillion. It was head-spinning.
What a nutjob this guy is. The reality is that TEA Party activists and those that agreed with them that Washington had gone on an historic spending binge put these alleged terrorists into office.
There's little doubt but that progressives like Mr. Nocera are terrorized by the TEA Party. Progressives went on an historic spending binge that's put the United States' credit rating at risk.
These so-called TEA Party terrorists' goal was to... force the United States into returning to responsible spending habits . That's earned TEA Party activists the criticism of Vice President Biden, pseudo-journalists like Chris Matthews and Paul Krugman.
Shame on these idiots. First, they're defending this administration's economic policies even though they've driven the economy into the ground. That's understandable from the Vice President. He's expected to defend the administration he serves in.
What's Chris Matthews' and Paul Krugman's excuses? They're defending the administration they serve in? While that might be their thinking, that isn't who they should be serving.
America's real crisis is not a debt crisis. It's an unemployment crisis. Yet this agreement not only doesn't address unemployment, it's guaranteed to make it worse. (Incredibly, the Democrats even abandoned their demand for extended unemployment benefits as part of the deal.) As Mohamed El-Erian, the chief executive of the bond investment firm Pimco, told me, fiscal policy includes both a numerator and a denominator.
'The numerator is debt,' he said. 'But the denominator is growth.' He added, 'What we have done is accelerate forward, in a self-inflicted manner, the numerator. And, in the process, we have undermined the denominator.' Economic growth could have gone a long way toward shrinking the deficit, while helping put people to work. The spending cuts will shrink growth and raise the likelihood of pushing the country back into recession.
Government doesn't have anything to do with creating longlasting, private sector jobs. Government spend money that artificially inflates GDP. That's what's happening now that the stimulus fund money is essentially spent. That's what led to last Friday's pathetic GDP numbers, especially the revision of the Q1 GDP numbers.
Whether you're talking about Cash for Clunkers or other stimulus-related programs, all they did was get people to spend their money sooner than they'd anticipated. Jobs weren't created. Spending was shifted, artificially at that.
If Mr. Nocera had been paying attention, he'd know that entrepreneurs just want government to stop interfering with their opportunities to make money. When the NLRB interferes with Boeing, it causes the economy to weaken. When the EPA, working in concert with militant environmentalist groups, interferes with oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico, it weakens the economy.
When President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial regulations bill into law, he created roadblocks for community banks to lend to small businesses. These small banks weren't the problem with the financial crisis of 2008.
President Obama's perscriptions for the various problems have created additional difficulties instead of providing solutions.
Unfortunately, Mr. Nocera hasn't noticed.
Posted Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:09 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 02-Aug-11 10:24 PM
You couldn't be more right, especially in reference to Dodd-Frank. If Obama's goal was to drive business to 'too big to fail' banks that he has under his thumb, he couldn't have picked a better way to do it.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 03-Aug-11 09:08 AM
Gary:
I think if we had just a penny for everyone of those comments we can take a vacation for several weeks.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Lynna at 07-Aug-11 04:03 PM
That is a little something I have to do more research into, thanks for the posting.
Bond ratings only part of economic worries
With the debt ceiling lifted, the stock market and the bond rating houses are focusing on other things. The DJI dropped 266 points, with most of those losses coming after President Obama signed the bill raising the debt ceiling. Bond rating house Fitch sent a shot across this administration's bow :
On Tuesday, Fitch said the agreement to raise the debt ceiling and make spending cuts was an important first step but 'not the end of the process.' The rating agency said it wants to see a credible plan to reduce the budget deficit 'to a level that would secure the United States' 'AAA' status.'
Fitch expects to conclude its review of the U.S.'s debt rating by the end of August. Given the terms of the debt deal signed Tuesday, it is possible the U.S. debt rating could be downgraded at that time, Fitch said.
David Riley, managing director at Fitch, said in an interview with The Associated Press: 'There's more to be done in order to keep the rating in the medium-term.'
In other words, President Obama and the Democrats better not think about not following through on the promises they made in this legislation. If the Democrats or President Obama hint that they'll just pull out of these promises, bond rating houses like Fitch will downgrade the nation's AAA rating in a heartbeat.
Democrats have said that we needed to get a deal done because not getting it done would cause the stock market to take a major hit. The deal got done but the DJI and other major indices took massive hits. The reality is that the economy stinks, which is why the stock market is hitting a major slump:
Analyst Meredith Whitney said she's seeing signs of a double-dip as cities and towns continue to get squeezed by cuts in federal funding.
This is certain to get worse as Congress and President Obama try to work out a deal on the debt ceiling, she said.
"I never envisioned we would come to this point where Congress couldn't agree on raising the debt ceiling or we'd be in this dire situation politically," the head of Meredith Whitney Advisory Group told CNBC Monday.
"Our GDP number on Friday was an indication that states and local governments, which make up 12 percent of GDP, are really pulling back," she added. "We're certainly in a double dip on housing," which is putting "enormous pressure on the economy."
The states most tied to housing have had to cut social programs and raise taxes, which, in turn, pushes home values down even further, she said. Those states with "clean" balance sheets in areas she calls "the emerging markets of the United States" attract more business, have more tax surpluses and don't have to raise taxes.
Some states are in bad shape because they relied so heavily on federal stimulus money, which ran out at the end of June, she said. Forty-six states have passed balanced budgets that include big cuts.
"This affects the macro environment, this affects employment, this affects spending, this affects every corporation within the United States because so many corporations are reliant on contracts from state and local governments," Whitney said. "So this [debt crisis] situation in D.C. exacerbates it, but the states are in a bad situation even without the situation in D.C.
President Obama's policies haven't worked. The stimulus is spent, unemployment is rising, companies are starting a new round of layoffs. Some economists think we're already in another recession.
When President Obama made a brief speech in the Rose Garden, one of the things he cited as hope for economic growth was patent reform. That's pathetic. That won't jumpstart this economy.
The reality is that Dodd-Frank and Obamacare are the millstones around the U.S. economy's neck. Until they're repealed, economic growth will be minimal, if not nonexistent.
The first Tuesday in November, 2012 can't arrive soon enough. Only then will we have a chance of getting the economy running again.
Posted Wednesday, August 3, 2011 1:27 AM
No comments.
Ratings Houses, Stock Market, Mock Franken
During his interview with Esme Murphy this past Sunday, Sen. Franken said that it was important to pass a debt ceiling bill to prevent economic calamity. He said that our bond rating would get lowered if Congress passed a shorter debt ceiling fix. Sen. Franken also said that a shorter fix wouldn't help the markets.
These were lines straight from the Democrats' talking points central. They didn't have anything to do with reality.
The bond ratings houses didn't downgrade the United States' bond rating yet but that's only temporary. The real problem is the spending. Tuesday's stock market performance , coupled with Friday's GDP Q2 report and Q1 revision, indicate that Franken is wrong.
Certainly, the Q1 revision of GDP from 1.9 percent growth to .4 percent annual growth had nothing to do with whether Congress passed a long- or a short-term debt ceiling bill. That had everything to do with President Obama's policies not working.
President Obama's policies are why analysts are saying we're alreay in another recession:
Analyst Meredith Whitney said she's seeing signs of a double-dip as cities and towns continue to get squeezed by cuts in federal funding.
This is certain to get worse as Congress and President Obama try to work out a deal on the debt ceiling, she said.
'I never envisioned we would come to this point where Congress couldn't agree on raising the debt ceiling or we'd be in this dire situation politically,' the head of Meredith Whitney Advisory Group told CNBC Monday.
'Our GDP number on Friday was an indication that states and local governments, which make up 12 percent of GDP, are really pulling back,' she added. 'We're certainly in a double dip on housing,' which is putting 'enormous pressure on the economy.'
Franken might have the title of senator but he's still nothing more than a mindless liberal hack who hasn't proven he's capable of thinking for himself.
One entrepreneur after another say the they need government to get out of their ways, especially with regulations. Sen. Franken has voted for increasing businesses' regulatory burden each chance he's had.
That's why he's part of the problem. It's why he'll never be part of the solution.
Posted Wednesday, August 3, 2011 7:07 AM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton, DFL Misdefines Job Creation
Throughout the 2011 legislative session, Gov. Dayton and the DFL talked about jobs, creating jobs and passing a jobs bill as though there was a bill that creates jobs by itself.
In that light, Gov. Dayton and the DFL talked about a bonding bill creating jobs. That's misinformation and Gov. Dayton and the DFL know it. This year more than other years, the bonding bill is spending money on more useful things and spending fewer dollars on pork than in the past.
That said, the bonding bill won't create short- or medium-term jobs. They've never created longlasting jobs. This bill won't be different in that respect. Money will be spent. Projects will be started and completed. Jobs won't be created. The bonding bill might postpone layoffs but it won't create longlasting jobs.
Creating longlasting private sector jobs requires entrepreneurs putting their capital at risk. Bonding bills don't put entrepreneurs' capital risk. They spend taxpayers' money. They take money out of entrepreneurs' hands, too.
The economy won't rebound until the federal government puts the EPA on a leash, until Congress repeals Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley and replaces those bills with legislation that actually prevents corruption without killing business.
Finally, the 800-pound gorilla that people haven't talked about lately is Obamacare. Until Obamacare is repealed by Congress or is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, job creators will hesitate before hiring more workers or expanding their company.
In short, Gov. Dayton and the DFL have followed DC's lead too frequently the past 2 years. Thankfully, voters gave Minnesota Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
Posted Thursday, August 4, 2011 2:46 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 06-Aug-11 06:40 PM
Don't tax the wealthy fairly.
Magic trickle down will fix everything.
Flying pigs will be happy, happy, happy.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Aug-11 09:48 PM
Define fairly.
Pelosi Pens Jobs Op-ed
Nancy Pelosi's op-ed in the USA Today is pure liberal drivel, starting with the premise of spending America into oblivion:
In Congress, our work must be putting people back to work. To meet that charge, Democrats have proposed our "Make It In America" initiative, led by Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer. It presents ideas backed by both parties: to rebuild our roads, bridges, and rail lines; to invest in innovation, broadband, clean energy, and new technologies to create the jobs of tomorrow for our businesses and workers.
This is nothing more than the outline for another stimulus bill. This is the same old, same old. It didn't work the first time. Why think that it'll work this time?
Investing in "clean energy" and "new technologies to create the jobs of tomorrow" has no chance of succeeding. Clean energy, at least the type that government subsidizes, is a loser. Anytime government thinks it's proficient at identifying "the jobs of tomorrow", we should eliminate that from consideration.
Government doesn't excel at identifying the next FedEx or the next Microsoft. In fact, it's worthless at it.
During more than 200 days in the majority, House Republicans have put our economy at risk by threatening a first-ever default on our debt and refusing to propose legislation to create jobs. Instead, they've passed bills that would destroy up to 2 million jobs, nearly 10,000 jobs per day. And every time Democrats have brought a jobs initiative to the floor, 10 times so far, Republicans voted "no."
TRANSLATION: Since We The People restored the majority to Republicans, Democrats have introduced one big spending bill after another. For obvious reasons, Democrats didn't want to call them stimulus bills. Instead, they chose to call them jobs bills.
Put all the lipstick on those pigs, Ms. Pelosi, but the reality is that they're stimulus bills with a new name.
The reality is that Democrats haven't had a new idea for creating jobs since the close of the Clinton administration. Ms. Pelosi's op-ed is just the latest proof of that.
Posted Thursday, August 4, 2011 2:31 PM
No comments.
Following credit downgrade, Bachmann calls for Geithner's firing
About 90 minutes ago, Michele Bachmann called on President Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner:
BACHMANN: That's right Greta. Tonight's decision by S & P to downgrade our credit rating from AAA to AA+ is historically significant. It's a very serious event for the United States because our country has had a AAA bond rating since 1917. That rating has never been downgraded since before the Great Depression, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the terrorist attacks on 9-1-1.
This president has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through failed economic policy and his inability to control government spending by once again raising the debt ceiling. We were warned by all of the credit agencies that a failure to deal with the debt would lead to this downgrade in our credit rating. But instead, this president submitted a budget that had a $1.5 trillion deficit and then he requested a $2.4 trillion blank check on top of that.
President Obama is destroying the foundations of our economy one beam at a time. I call on the president to seek the immediate resignation of Treasury Secretary Geithner and to submit a plan with his list of cuts that balance the budget this year, turn this economy around and put our people back to work.
I'm very concerned that this administration tomorrow might look for anyone else to blame. They may blame the TEA Party. They may blame the rating agencies or anyone else. They knew this was coming this year in January but they didn't write a plan and they still don't have a plan.
That's letting this administration have it with both barrels, something that should've happened weeks, possibly months, before this.
There isn't a sentence in Michele's statement that I'd disagree with. President Obama's policies aren't just failing. It's that they're expensive and adding trillions of dollars of debt in just 3 years.
Think about this: This year's deficit will be equal to or more than the debt added by the Bush administration. What's worse is that President Obama's plan hasn't created enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics certainly hasn't created a real economy, either.
Geithner's resignation is the minimum requirement, actually. Entitlement reform must be on the Supercommission's agenda. The Supercomission members must be sober-thinking people, not bombthrowers like Chris van Hollen, Chuck Schumer and the like.
We can't afford to play politics with this anymore. Naming Paul Ryan as the chair of the committee is essential, as is naming Tom Coburn, Jim Jordan, Dave Camp, Marco Rubio and Jim Demint to the commission.
One part of the group should work on reforming entitlements, with the other group working on reforming government, especially focusing on regulatory reform. The first group should be chaired by Paul Ryan; the other group should be chaired by Jim Jordan.
Obamacare must be repealed. Simply put, we can't afford it any longer. We never could. Dodd-Frank must be repealed too. The EPA and the NLRB must be reined in. Domestic energy production must start ASAP, too.
In short, hardline progressive policies must be rejected.
Tonight, S & P essentially told President Obama that his isn't a serious administration in terms of creating a great economy or being fiscally prudent.
Tonight, they, along with Michele Bachmann, told President Obama that his will be a one-term administration.
Posted Saturday, August 6, 2011 2:03 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 06-Aug-11 08:01 AM
This president and his administration have been a complete failure yet the media keeps blaming the country's demise on the GOP and your common person on the street laps it up like a dog. Until the GOP gets rid of all the RINO's and starts fighting fire with fire when it comes to getting their message across, the liberals/progressives/socialists will continue to win the information or rather misinformation war.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Aug-11 09:09 AM
We haven't gotten rid of the RINO's but we're winning the information war.
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Aug-11 06:37 PM
Yes, get rid of the bankers' banker.
Geithner is worthless to the nation, precious to the Wall Street heavy hitters, and bailed out plungers.
While at it, the Bush holdover, Bernanke needs to hit the job market.
While we are at it, Michele Bachmann seeing the same folks who said subprime securitizations were hot, are saying "Oh, dear, the sky is falling," and the fire the bastards feelings should reach further than only Geithner.
But I think progressives agree with you, for perhaps more far-seeing reasons, that Geithner and the Obama banking policy are bad news.
However, the main reason the traditional Republicans such as Bachmann are in anger mode, their coffers are being raided, and so - the grapes beyond reach are sour anyway:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/06/24/obama-raises-2-4-million-from-wall-street-in-one-evening/
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, in bed together and who took the money, who took the jobs?
Only - keep a level head please. The rating agencies saying whatever they say, does NOT mean the sky is falling. It is still there. And it's not a falling sky but a death by a thousand cuts that the two parties are inflicting on the body politic. BOTH OF THEM, GARY.
BE FAIR.
How about ignore the rating agencies who foisted off for years the securitized mortgages as "rock solid." It's do it yourself time:
RATE THE DOLLAR. EASY.
LOOK AT THE FX TRENDING. DON'T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO SEE WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 06-Aug-11 09:47 PM
First, calling Michele a traditional politician is pure foolishness. Next, the reality is that Dodd-Frank didn't fix a problem, it created one. It's tightened the rules on small banks which weren't the problem but it ignored Fannie & Freddie & Countrywide, which were the problem.
BTW, Fannie's & Freddie's executives are filled with Clinton administration people while Countrywide had bought off Chris Dodd & a senator named Barack Obama.
Next, I won't defend the ratings agencies. Anyone that gives mortgage-backed securities a AAA bond rating isn't doing their job. PERIOD.
Finally, Michele's had this right for months now. She's been the leader on this. While Republicans, especially Senate Republicans have played the go-along-to-get-along game, Michele's been talking about what actually needs to happen.
Comment 4 by terry at 09-Aug-11 07:07 PM
Michelle Bachmann will not acknowledge her part in the plight that our country is going through. I find that when you hate someone your whole aim is to destroy them. when I listen to her speak about Obama she does not sound like a Christian as she espouses to be: .she sounds like someone who is angry about an African American holding the highest office in our land and she is not about to be a part of aiding him in anyway no matter how it impacts the country as a whole. as a matter of fact I had never heard anything about her until this election. Hatred , though seemingly invisible and easy to conceal behind so called patriotism, is destructive . I am so sadden to see profess that what s he does is in the name of goodness and righteousness. I hope she will have the humility to pray to see what her motives are.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-11 03:18 AM
Michelle Bachmann will not acknowledge her part in the plight that our country is going through.What part did she play in ruining the U.S. economy and credit rating?
She sounds like someone who is angry about an African American holding the highest office in our land and she is not about to be a part of aiding him in anyway no matter how it impacts the country as a whole.That's pure BS. She isn't a bigot or racist. That's purely part of your imagination.
As for not helping President Obama, that's probably because President Obama refuses to admit that his policies have failed miserably.
