October 4-5, 2011
Oct 04 02:03 Taking President Obama's threats lightly Oct 04 04:37 Dayton to host Duluth jobs summit Oct 04 05:24 Daily Kos previews campaign against Mitt Oct 04 07:39 Adams' book, New Black Panther pictures, paint Obama as black radical Oct 04 08:49 How appropriate: Guest of Honor at DFL Founders Day Dinner is Socialist Bernie Sanders Oct 04 14:29 DFL didn't learn Stimulus didn't work Oct 04 14:52 BREAKING: Christie Isn't Running Oct 05 09:23 Setting Jeff Rosenberg straight
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Taking President Obama's threats lightly
According to TPM , This administration is yapping that not taking his American Jobs Act seriously will cost Republicans in the next election:
The White House Monday continued its war of words with House Republicans over their unwillingness to move his entire jobs package, confidently vowing to let voters decide how to react to Republicans' refusal to pass provisions such as infrastructure spending and retaining teachers.
"Congress can take it up, vote on it...then if there's a desire to take things out, we would accept that although we would not be satisfied by that...[President Obama] would say, 'Where's the rest of it? What about teachers and construction workers...or incentives to hire veterans?" White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters during a briefing Monday.
This is laughable. President Obama can't talk Senate Democrats into sponsoring his bill. Harry Reid is saying that it'll be awhile before the bill gets consideration. In fact, it was reported that Democrats didn't even have enough Democrat votes to reach a simple majority at a time when they need 60 votes to pass it.
It's difficult taking seriously a man's threats when his own political party isn't enthusiastically supporting him.
Nothing's changed since the last hard poll, aka the last election. That election was mostly seen as an emphatic refutation of this administration's policies.
Considering the fact that people trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issues of the economy, the debt and spending, why should Republicans worry? When the campaigns kick in in earnest next year, Republicans will publish both their vision going forward and the lengthy list of legislation that they passed as solutions for America's most difficult problems.
It'd be different if Republicans were doing nothing except rejecting President Obama's initiatives. Though that's this administration's storyline, it isn't reality. When the reality is 'published' in campaign commercials, the results will be predictable: a bad election cycle for Democrats will turn into a rout.
It isn't like much of President Obama's Son of Stimulus is popular. It isn't like a person's going to go into the voting booth and say "my congressman didn't vote for the infrastructure repairs in the American Jobs Act. I simply can't vote for him."
There's a couple of nice ideas in the legislation but there isn't a thing in the bill that's a vote-changer. The only exception to that is the debt that this bill will create.
Posted Tuesday, October 4, 2011 2:03 AM
No comments.
Dayton to host Duluth jobs summit
WDIO-TV is reporting that Gov. Dayton is hosting a jobs summit in Duluth this Friday:
Minnesotans will know that this is a sham if Gov. Dayton only hears policies that he already supports. Gov. Dayton's idea of a jobs bill, as proved during the last session, is a warmed over stimulus bill, aka bonding bill. That might get the unions fired up but it won't have a substantial positive impact on Minnesota's economy.
ST. PAUL - Gov. Mark Dayton will hold a Regional Economic Development Summit in Duluth on Friday. The summit will be held in the Kirby Ballroom at UMD at 1 p.m.
In a statement Monday, the governor's office said Dayton will be joined by Lieutenant Governor Yvonne Prettner Solon for the summit, which is aimed at gathering the best ideas on job creation from Minnesotans and to highlight Minnesota's strong business climate and economic development opportunities.
It will be the seventh in a series of summits Dayton has held around the state, including stops in International Falls, Virginia, and Brainerd. The summits will culminate in a statewide jobs summit later this month.
Stimulus, aka debt, bills take money from the private sector to give money to political cronies.
If Gov. Dayton is serious about creating jobs, he should take a trip to DC, not the Orient, to knock heads with the regulators that are preventing the PolyMet mining project from happening. If he got the feds' approval for moving that project forward, the impact to Minnesota's economy would be profound and immediate.
Turning the PolyMet project into reality would be a major boost to Minnesota's economy. That project, along with similar projects in the area, coupled with the increased shipping activity, would change the budget outlook within 3 years.
If Gov. Dayton isn't willing to go to DC and shake things up with the EPA and the oppressive regulators, then he can't be taken seriously as a job creator. The record will show that.
The stimulus thing has been tried on a federal level. It's failed. It's time to chart a different path, one that doesn't rely on constantly taking money from the private sector.
Posted Tuesday, October 4, 2011 4:38 AM
No comments.
Daily Kos previews campaign against Mitt
I haven't kept it a secret that I don't like Gov. Romney much as a presidential candidate. Thanks to his constant repackaging and flip-flopping, it's difficult for me to vote for such a dishonest man. That's why, just this once, I have to agree with this Daily Kos post :
Oh Mitt. We all know how utterly unprincipled you are, how you'll say absolutely anything if you think it might help you to secure the Republican nomination, even if it's the exact opposite of what you've said before. And it's not as if you haven't spent the past several years trying to pretend that you never gave full-throated support to protecting women's reproductive rights.
The 1994 Romney package was quite clear that he supported abortion rights:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country...I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it and I sustain and support that law and the right of the woman to make that choice...And you will not see me wavering on that."
The certitude with which Gov. Romney made that statement about abortion rights is identical to the certitude with which he currently says he's a limited government conservative. The Kos post ridicules Gov. Romney's flip-flop mercilessly and effectively:
Of course, there's no way that 1994 Pro-choice Romney could have known just how much he'd need to "waver" on women's rights in order to have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the uber-crazy vote known as his party's base. And as Jed Lewison pointed out last week, Romney has a perfectly valid reason for completely reversing himself on his supposed principled positions:
"In the private sector," he said, "if you don't change your view when the facts change, well you'll get fired for being stubborn and stupid. Winston Churchill said, 'When the facts change I change too, Madam." What do you do?"
-----
But other than that, it's perfectly obvious that Romney has simply changed his position based on the facts. See, in 1994, Romney supported women's reproductive rights because Roe v. Wade had been the law of the land for 20 years. But, see, that's no longer true. Now that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 30 years, that fact has changed. His whole reason for supporting women's rights in the first place is invalid. And what kind of principled leader would Romney be if he continued to support women's rights on the faulty basis that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 20 years when that quite obviously is no longer true?
For those in the conservative movement who might take exception to my citing the Daily Kos' post, deal with it. The reality is that I'm being mild compared with the firestorm that the left has planned for Gov. Romney. They'll rightly characterize him as unreliable, a slick, unprincipled politician who'll say anything to get elected.
When that barrage hits, and it will, Mitt won't "look presidential." He'll look like a cheap, unprincipled politician. That's precisely what TEA Party activists and independents alike are rejecting without hesitation.
Forget the polling. It doesn't mean a thing right now. Think which campaign translates into the Obama administration's worst nightmare. The Obama campaign, I believe would jump for joy at the prospect of running against Mitt because he can easily be portrayed as a typical politician.
That's why, again in my opinion, Newt is the Obama campaign's worst nightmare. Newt's record of reforming welfare, balancing the federal budget and puttiing in place policies that helped create 11,000,000 jobs in 4 years is a stark contrast with President Obama's record of record deficits, cronyism and lost jobs.
UPDATE: Commenter Ryan posted the link to a devastating Youtube video that utterly devastates Mitt Romney. It's almost 9 minutes long but it's worth watching even if you're supporting Mitt. At least then you'll know what's waiting for him:
Posted Tuesday, October 4, 2011 6:24 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Oct-11 09:33 AM
Tool of Wall Street is how I expect Romney will be characterized. As a Wall Street insider, with a fortune based on that gaming table, he is open to that criticism and I don't think that Wall Street is popular among the Tea Party grunts anymore than with progressives. That shoe really fits, and could pinch.
In focusing on Kos views of Romney, are you conceding something?
Have they even bothered to say much about Perry or Newt? Or Herman Cain?
Bachmann and Santorum, yes, since each is so easily the butt of jokes and derisive commentary.
But Romney, they take seriously.
Perhaps it says more than you'd concede, Gary.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 04-Oct-11 01:36 PM
I wish we would stop playing silly games like trying to out-conservative one another. That just destroys the chance our eventual nominee has to win the conservative vote, thus destroying the country under 4 more years of Obama's Mad King impression. Obama KNOWS this and is happy to help us savage our nominees to where none of them is acceptable. They'll destroy our candidates with conservatives first, then turn around and claim they are far too conservative for the general population. And it will work, dang it!
I like Newt, even with his baggage. But I like every one of the candidates more than I do Obama. I'm going to vote for the GOP nominee regardless of who he/she is, and urge millions of others to do likewise. Anything less could be hazardous to my health.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-11 01:48 PM
Jerry, with all due respect, Mitt isn't a conservative. He's a liar. I won't support him because he's a serial liar who shouldn't just be opposed but demolished. Mitt would throw cold water on the conservative movement, thereby weakening the conservative movement almost as much as President Obama has revived it. Why give him the chance to ruin the conservative movement?
Finally, let's understand that Newt won't throw cold water on the conservative movement. He'll add to its list of accomplishments. Isn't that what we should be fighting for?
Adams' book, New Black Panther pictures, paint Obama as black radical
J. Christian Adams' book about the corruption in the Obama administration's Justice Department is damning enough towards President Obama. New pictures depicting President Obama's tight relationship with the New Black Panter Party might hurt him more than the DoJ's corruption. First, the pictures:
Here's what Big Government is reporting:
New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.
The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media's failure to examine Obama's extremist ties and radical roots.
In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation.
The images, presented below, also renew doubts about the transparency of the White House's guest logs-in particular, whether Panther National Chief Malik Zulu Shabazz is the same 'Malik Shabazz' listed among the Obama administration's early visitors.
No serious civil rights attorney thinks the Obama Justice Department thinks dropping the NBPP case is justified. That includes legendary civil rights attorney Bartle Bull. First, it's important to know that Bartle Bull isn't a far right wing ideologue :
O'REILLY: All right, federal authorities charged three Black Panthers with various election violations. But this week, those charges were dropped by attorney general Eric Holder. Some are not happy about it. With us now, civil rights lawyer Bartle Bull, who once ran Robert Kennedy's New York campaign for President and Jimmy Carter's as well. So you're an old liberal, right?
BARTLE BULL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I'm an old liberal.
O'REILLY: Attorney?
BULL: I would say a John Kennedy Democrat. And I was a civil rights lawyer in Mississippi for a time. And I am a liberal.
O'REILLY: And that's interesting, because you are leading the charge here against these Black Panthers. Now what did you see yourself on election day? What did you see?
BULL: I saw two armed uniformed threatening men blocking the door to a polling place, screaming rudeness at voters.
O'REILLY: What was their intent?
BULL: I can't answer for what was between their ears.
O'REILLY: Well, what were they screaming, though?
BULL: I heard, well, one of them, for example, screamed, 'Now you will see what it is like to be ruled by the black man, cracker.'
O'REILLY: Okay, did they have their Black Panther regalia on?
BULL: They wore jack boots, black boots, black combat boots, black paramilitary uniforms, black berets.
O'REILLY: All right, so they were intimidating as this young man who photographed them said. You concur with that assessment?
BULL: Oh, absolutely.
O'REILLY: And how many were there?
BULL: There were two at the place I was. I was at seven different polling places. At this place, there were two.
O'REILLY: All right, so you made your report.
BULL: Yes.
O'REILLY: And the federal government, the U.S. Attorney filed charges against three people. Now the charges have been dropped. Now we called Holder's office. And they said, here's what basically, this is not a quote, ladies and gentlemen, but here's basically what they said: It's just not big enough for us, it's not that important, we're letting it go. And you say what?
BULL: I think it's extremely important. I've worked in very difficult campaigns in Mississippi. I worked for Charles Ables when he ran for governor as the first black man. I was a civil rights lawyer in Hattiesburg who got arrested there practicing civil rights law. I worked against Strom Thurmond in South Carolina. I have never in my life, and I've seen nooses over trees outside polling places where I stopped voting in Mississippi. I have never, ever seen anyone blocking the door to a polling place with a weapon and yelling at people.
O'REILLY: All right. Now, if there are only three of them, is it worth the federal government's time and money to put them away?
BULL: Of course it is. Of course it is. The senior lawyer working on this matter, Christian Adams, said to me if this is not a case of intimidation, nothing is. Intimidation is Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That act was the keystone of all the civil rights legislation fought for and passed by the Kennedy's, Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King.
The Black Panthers' actions warrant convictions of voting rights charges. Still, President Obama's Justice Department dropped the cases against these thugs. As appalling as that was, it's more appalling to hear that President Obama campaigned with these militant thugs. In fact, he shared a microphone with them before marching with them.
An administration so corrupt that they ignore voting rights violations isn't seeking justice. That administration is as thuggish as the black militants they campaigned with. That isn't equal protection under the law.
It's this administration's protecting militant black activists from the law.
Posted Tuesday, October 4, 2011 7:39 AM
No comments.
How appropriate: Guest of Honor at DFL Founders Day Dinner is Socialist Bernie Sanders
When I got this picture, my initial reaction was stunned amazement. My lasting reaction, though, was "How fitting."
What better guest speaker could the DFL find to help John Marty feel moderate?
The reality is that Bernie Sanders' policies are the most liberal in the U.S. Senate. That's no small accomplishment considering the fact that the U.S. Senate is home to Patrick Leahy, Al Franken, Chuck Schumer, Dick Blumenthal, Christopher Coons, Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, Barbara Mikulski and Babs Boxer.
Sen. Sanders' appearance at the event will help Lori Sturdevant rationalize talking about John Marty as a moderate. Even then, Sen. Marty will give Sen. Sanders a run for his socialist money.
Let's remember that Sen. Marty thinks that health care is a community need, on a parallel plain with the police and the fire department .
The only question still unanswered is how they'll raise money when socialists don't accumulate wealth. They're more famous for redistributing wealth.
Sanders and Marty are birds of a feather. The only question remaining is whether the DFL is the rest of the flock.
Posted Tuesday, October 4, 2011 8:49 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Oct-11 09:18 AM
Thanks for the heads up. You advertise DFL events more effectively than the DFL.
Sanders should run a primary challenge against Obama. My guess is he may try a third party campaign, which is why I'd guess the progressive DFL wants to co-opt and advance him as an Obama primary challenger, but not a general election factor.
And Marty is right, you are wrong, about health care. It is only a matter of time before this nation shifts to single payer. Nothing else is sustainable. That would be despite the strongest lobbying congregation assembled against it, one that Obama and Romney have pandered to.
Obama gets low marks among progressives, but the only GOP alternative of any interest in your camp is Ron Paul, due to his war and Fed positions. From the other end of the spectrum, true conservatism vs the phony neo-con and Tea Party stuff, Ron Paul has the ring of legitimacy and ongoing integrity that a Rick Perry surely lacks while Romney carries the stench of second generation corporate elitism, born on third base, etc. That is so while Bachmann and Santorum are narrow competitiors for the same base, with neither of them being attractive to anyone even for the second ticket spot. Credit Bachmann and funding weakness for taking Timmy to the sidelines but he always was in it running for Vice President, and is still in that race because he got some name recognition before folding his hand when the chips ran out. I expect a Romney-Pawlenty ticket with Pawlenty easily taking on the hatchet-man role as Nixon did for Eisenhower.
Gary, I know we probably disagree on a lot of that.
However, I think, Gary, we might agree that the press and its corporate ownership would love a contest between Obama and Romney, which would be no contest at all on what corporate and banking America likes and can expect. It would be mainly if not only a contest on which gang gets the spoils. My bet there - Obama.
Gary, and readers, one thing I'd like a reaction on, the corporate big media, in this case Rupert Murdoch so don't give back the "liberal press" canard, but how do you react to this poll result reporting:
www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/04/perry-slides-in-two-new-polls/
My take, Rupert is in play to bury Perry not to praise him. The one sentence that stood up like a loose deck nail, editorializing on the news page for sure, "The telephone poll from Sept. 29-Oct. 2 of 1,002 adults also showed that Perry, who performed poorly in recent debates and whose immigration positions are at odds with most of the GOP base, has seen his support among self-identified Tea Party backers drop from 45 --10 percent in one month, in September he had a 3 to 1 advantage over any other candidate."
In the middle of reporting poll results, slanted against Perry, there is that "... who performed poorly in recent debates ..." thing, insinuated to imply Perry is not a viable candidate based on someone's judgmental biases that have nothing to do with polling numbers.
Does anyone else see that as Fox at fault? Am I being overly critical? Anybody? Agree or disagree?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-11 01:33 PM
To Ron Paul's supporters: Paul would take a greater percentage of votes from President Obama than he'd take from the GOP nominee.
Eric, we disagree on just about everything but, for the most part, we're gentlemen about it. I'd love hearing King, the economics professor, weigh in on the sustainability of a single-payer system, though I'm pretty certain I know what his opinion is.
Single-payer is a God-awful system that should be rejected each time it's proposed. First, it's a lie for the government to say that their overhead is cheaper than an insurance company's. A clinic executive once explained to me how they get away with that claim. What it amounts to is a scam. Anything other than the money it costs to bill the patient is considered as going to patient-care. Next, there's nothing about government that would reduce health care costs. Price controls might sound like the same thing but they're the opposite. Price controls limit the amount of money a health care provider, whether we're talking a clinic, doctor or hospital can charge for a procedure, test or visit.
That doesn't change the cost of an MRI or angioplasty. It just limits the price that can be charged. The electricity to run the MRI didn't change. The cost of the MRI didn't change. The cost of the anesthesia didn't change. What changed is the government limited the price they'd pay for the procedure or test. It's the fastest way to bankrupt clinics, doctors & hospitals.
That's before considering the capital drain that's led to most, if not all, of the miracle drugs & medical breakthroughs we've seen over the past 25 years. We're paying more for health care but that's mostly because of government's meddling. Governments tell health care professionals what they must do. They tell insurance companies what things they must cover. Both things drive up health care & health insurance premium costs.
Explain to me what's so great about government intervention there.
The worst thing about the government's intervention is that it assumes that health care consumers aren't smart enough to know what they need. That's the height of I-know-better elitism. A health care consumer, working in concert with their primary care physician, can put together a significantly better policy that meets the consumer's needs.
That's something single-payer can't allow.
Comment 2 by eric z at 04-Oct-11 09:23 AM
Apologies for the typos. The workstation is acting up, not displaying text until well after typed. I thought I corrected all, but ended up missing some.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-11 01:49 PM
That's ok. I cleaned it up.
Comment 3 by eric z at 05-Oct-11 12:55 PM
All your stuff about provider and consumer presumes a fair distribution of wealth, so that each citizen can meet needs. The fact is my need for an appendectomy is, as a medical fact, little different from yours, but if you have Hemsley's wealth you have no problems except recovery pain, and I might die on a gurney in a public hospital emengency room area because I lack cash. To me that is highly offensive and immoral. To you it's just fine, business as usual is what's usual and why change?
That's the main point of disagreement and the rest is fluff and rhetoric.
I say there are moral absolutes a government must be held to , in order to be a just and proper one. You say caveat emptor and let the market [existing wealth distribution] put a thumb every time on the balance.
As to the botched up private insurance situation, and the Obamneycare version favored by the insureres as if it were "reform," it is similar to the way the Government handles Unemployment Insurance. All employers have to pay DEED taxes, call them assessments, whatever, it is taxes. Rates are adjusted based on "experience" and it's the big reason that "early retirement" payouts were invented. Pay up front a severance bonus and then UI eligibility is gone, and the jacking up of rates with it.
Clearly, any sensible unemployment program should be funded from general funds, not special little Balkanized programs here and there.
Take in general funds, disburse from general funds, and the disbursement priorities are made more clear and there is not built-in inertia that keeps a status quo running.
If you intend to tax, tax simply, whether on a graduated scale or not, but stop using loopholes and credits to engineer behavior of those earning enough to take advantage of loopholes and credits.
The idea that gasoline taxes need to be earmarked for road expansion is stupid. Taxing is one thing. Spending is another. Neither should be biased, especially in terms of alleged "self sustaining " funds.
The only exception should be capital budgeting. There bonding requires future years to allocate revenue toward debt service and retirement.
Governments should tax as one thing - into general funds - and then disburse from general funds. And all spending and all loopholes should have sunset provisions - not to automatically continue unless renewed.
But alleviating the burdens of unemployment and of health impairments should be general societal goals, and funded as such. Instead extra burdens are placed on the employment relationship, with loopholes so that benefits and UI payments are deductions. A saner approach would be to say societal goals are government funded and then with revenue needs set by spending goals, the tax allocation battles can be fought without prejudicing things.
Can you imagine having a military budget tied to the spoils of war? You are only funded by what you bring in? That is like saying gasoline and vehicle licensing fees must go to road work and that road work funding levels are accordingly to have to be in balance with the special cash flows.
Specialized balancing that way is inexact and a bias to setting spending goals session by sesion. So each time, set the spending goals, and then set taxing policy to fit the amount needed and the priorities the lobbyists can sell to the for-purchase politicians. And because the lobbyists are so effective at that the middle class takes a screwing every time - but it is not because of the spending it is because of the tax avoidance - not paying fair shares by special interests with power to influence the political process - unlike citizens who are powerless to do much of anything and are told democracy is great while being given in each slot, president down to state house seats, a choice between each of the two party candidates with the parties being Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum and hence the two candidates being the same, or essentially so with only distribution of the spoils being different. Who gets appointed to the airport board, etc. Pawlenty appointed his cronies, Dayton his. Or if not personal cronies, then cronies of cronies.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Oct-11 02:32 PM
Eric, Please try & follow this. When people have a variety of choices, companies have to compete or go out of business. That's why markets actually work. In the early 1980's, people lamented the facts that Montgomery Ward & Sears & Roebuck were having difficulty selling product. They did the same thing with IBM. Nevermind the fact that PC's were taking over for mainframes & Walmart was taking market share away from Montgomery Ward & Sears & Roebuck.
The reason why insurance isn't working right is because government is telling it what it must cover as if consumers aren't capable of figuring out what coverages they need. Government also tells the insurance companies that they can't sell across state lines. What's the logic behind that? Does that help or hurt consumers? I'd argue it hurts them. Again, government getting in the way of giving consumers the best options. (Are you detecting a pattern yet?)
Shame on you for saying Big (Fill In The Blank) puts their thumb on the scale of justice, thus oppressing the middle class. A little paranoia apparently goes a long way. Why wouldn't companies want consumers to have lots of options? Creating options for a healthy middle class creates opportunities for entrepreneurs. Creating wealth strengthens the middle class, not weakens it. Applying oppressive regulations like this administration has done sidelines capital, which weakens the middle class & causes economic stagnation.
Comment 4 by eric z at 05-Oct-11 01:21 PM
Gary, on that paragraph about Ron Paul, there's some truth there - and it is insightful that you dismiss the possibility of Ron Paul BEING the Republican nominee. As if favoring four more Obama years over a chance to win - cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Oct-11 02:17 PM
Ron Paul is a foreign policy disaster. That's why he isn't taken seriously at the GOP debates.
DFL didn't learn Stimulus didn't work
This is the first edition of Stimulus Econ 101, aka Pounding Economic Sense into the DFL. (I know that isn't the smoothest-sounding name but it's early.) Apparently, some DFL's bloggers think that repeating a mistake is better than learning from it. Jeff Rosenberg's post is a perfect example of how the DFL hasn't figured it out that the stimulus wasn't a success:
I have to laugh when conservatives adamantly insist that there is nothing the government can do to help the economy. I understand that they have a knee-jerk, irrational hatred of our government of the people, but common sense still applies. Of course government can help the economy - but our policymakers have to be willing to let it.
Unfortunately, many are not willing to help the economy. After the first stimulus saved millions of jobs , the economy began a new downturn when we ran out of stimulus funds. The proper response to the downturn is an even larger stimulus; instead, the super-geniuses in Congress have vowed not to pass another stimulus.
What Rosenberg won't admit is that the initial stimulus only postponed the inevitable. It artificially propped up the economy. It didn't repair the fundamentals of the economy. It just propped things up until the money ran out.
Just like Cash for Clunkers, the stimulus didn't give businesses an incentive to put their capital at risk. It just artificially propped up a system badly in need of reform. This administration, in addition to piling up trillions of dollars of debt, is burying capitalists with an avalanche of regulations.
Most of these regulations throw cold water on the economy. They don't strengthen the economy. Obamacare adds tons of costs to everyone. Dodd-Frank cripples small banks while extending too-big-to-fail policies.
Government spending won't get us out of this recession. The debt from this expansion of government is putting us into a deeper recession. I know this might sound strange to socialists like Jeff Rosenberg but here's what's needed: Give capitalism a chance.
Finally, let's understand that the DFL's mantra about the " failed policies of the last eight years " is myth. The numbers show it, especially with the unemployment rates:
Unemployment by year:
2001 -- 4.7
2002 -- 5.8
2003 -- 6.0
2004 -- 5.5
2005 -- 5.1
2006 -- 4.6
2007 -- 4.6
2008 -- 5.8
The annual unemployment rate for 2009 was 9.3%. The unemployment rate for 2010 was 9.6%. Again, it's worth asking which president's policies have failed.
Finally, Fed Chairman Bernanke today announced that the economy is teetering on the brink of another recession :
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says the economic recovery "is close to faltering" and the central bank is prepared to take further steps to support it.
First, is this upcoming recession President Bush's fault, too? What amount of stimulus is enough for the Jeff Rosenbergs of the world? In addition to the money wasted in the stimulus, let's factor in the money that the Fed printed and pumped into the economy. Is Mr. Rosenberg arguing that that doesn't count as part of the stimulus? Shame on him if he doesn't.
The good news is that President Obama and his team of voo-doo economics doctors will be fired in 14 months and part of history in 16 months.
Originally posted Tuesday, October 4, 2011, revised 05-Oct 8:17 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 04-Oct-11 03:16 PM
The generosity of Mr. Gross seems boundless. Not only did the stimulus delay the inevitable sorting out of capitalist winners and losers, but it also left us with nearly a trillion dollars of additional debt.
There is little doubt that, had government not dabbled in social engineering, interfered with the efficiencies of free-market equilibria and left us encumbered with debt, the United States today would be leading a global recovery.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 05-Oct-11 01:01 AM
Lets remember Obama's economic team predicted in January 2009 what will happen if we did nothing. We did something and the results are far worse than if we did nothing.
Logic dictates that the stimulus failed and made the economy worse since if we had done nothing we would've been better off.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
BREAKING: Christie Isn't Running
It's now officially official. Chris Christie isn't running for president :
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who spent more than a year denying he'd run for president in 2012, said he won't join the race to challenge President Barack Obama.
The 49-year-old Republican, who has been considering making a bid in recent days, announced the decision during a news conference at the state capitol in Trenton.
'For me the answer was never anything but no,' Christie told reporters. 'Now is not my time.'
Christie has said repeatedly that he would have to 'commit suicide' to convince people that he wouldn't run, and that he didn't feel ready to be president. Still, talk of a bid swirled after the governor used a Sept. 27 speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, to comment on foreign policy and defense, while attacking both Obama and Congress over what he called gridlock in Washington.
Republican leaders and business executives stepped up calls for the first-term governor to enter the primary field following stumbles by Rick Perry in a nationally televised debate on Sept. 22, according to a party member close to Christie who declined to be identified because he isn't authorized to speak for him publicly.
Now Ann Coulter can stop stalking the poor guy. Now Gov. Christie can return to straightening out a state ruined by liberalism and corruption knowing that he made the right decision.
If there's anything politicians should learn from Gov. Christie, it's that it's best to exercise the proper humility in knowing when your time is and isn't. There's a reason why only 44 men have been president.
Gov. Christie is good at his current job. I don't think he would've been a great president. Like Paul Ryan staying as Budget Committee Chairman, for now, Gov. Christie is doing something extremely valuable by staying where he's at.
Christie's message of lean government and tax cutting resonated with voters at a time when consumer confidence was near record lows, said Brigid Harrison, a professor of law and politics at Montclair State University. No sitting president or nominee of the same party since 1972 has won election to the White House when the consumer confidence number was below 90, she said.
The index produced by the business-backed Conference Board in New York increased to 45.4 in September from a revised 45.2 in August that was a two-year low. The reading has been less than 90 since December 2007, at the start of the longest recession since the Great Depression.
It's nice seeing statistics that say President Obama will be fired after being a one-term failure. Nice in the sense that failures shouldn't be rewarded. Good riddance.
It's great to have Gov. Christie staying right where he's most effective.
Posted Tuesday, October 4, 2011 2:52 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-Oct-11 12:57 AM
Gary:
Because the media gave him a pass on the day he was sworn in you don't get a pass. It's true that Obama is the 44th President of the United States, but he is just the 43rd man to serve as President of the United States.
If you look at your American History Grover Cleveland was elected the 22nd President of the United States in 1884. Benjamin Harrison defeated him in 1888 becoming the 23rd President of the United States. In 1892 Cleveland defeated Harrison and became the 24th President of the United States, but he was the 22nd out of 23 men who served as President at the time.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Oct-11 12:21 PM
Gary, do you suppose this Christie decision is related to how he shot his mouth off in Vail, and the audio record Brad Friedman publicized of it?
Busting the teachers union, etc., as goals?
And he never told other state officials he was going off to swing on the Koch Brothers' equipment.
Is it that he saw other candidates burning through tons on money and did not have the war chest?
To me it looks as if the powers that be, including the Koch Brothers, are quite happy with Romney - and semi-satisfied with Obama to the extent they don't want any loose cannon on deck?
And, hey, if Ann Coulter is/was stalking Christie, you could shift a little weight between the two of them and then have two normally proportioned people.
Do you have links for Ann Coulter and Christie? The way you phrase it sounds interesting, probably more so than the actual facts.
Setting Jeff Rosenberg straight
Apparently, I didn't explain things in a way so Jeff Rosenberg could understand them. I'll type slower this time in an attempt to help walk him through the Bush policies and the failure of the Obama stimulus. First, here's Mr. Rosenberg's snarky, yet amateurish comments about my post :
That damn Barack Obama! Things were great until he came along and ruined things! As you may recall, Michele Bachmann made a similar claim earlier this year . It seems it took months for her long-discredited talking points to make their way down to Gross.
First, here are the annual unemployment rates of the Bush administration:
Unemployment by year:
2001 -- 4.7
2002 -- 5.8
2003 -- 6.0
2004 -- 5.5
2005 -- 5.1
2006 -- 4.6
2007 -- 4.6
2008 -- 5.8
The annual unemployment rate for 2009 was 9.3%. The unemployment rate for 2010 was 9.6%.
I'll explain this clearly so Mr. Rosenberg can understand my point. The event of the credit crisis must be seperated from the Bush administration policies. It's important to not that the Bush administration's policies were passed in budgets, though his tax cuts were passed through reconcilliation.
The credit crisis wasn't caused by Bush administration policies. It happened during his administration but it wasn't his policies that caused the collapse.
The poliicies that led to that collapse were in place for over a decade. Subprime mortgages, borrowing 125% of a home's inflated value and mortgage-backed securities weren't the result of the Bush administration's policies.
Now that we've cleared that up, it's important to note that huge job losses did happen as a result of the crisis. By the time the Obama stimulus went into effect, the huge monthly job losses were coming to an end :
2008:
October: 554,000
November: 728,000
December: 673,000
2009
January: 779,000
February: 726,000
March: 753,000
April: 528,000
If Mr. Rosenberg wants to claim that the stimulus was responsible for stemming the job losses, that's his right. It just isn't based in reality. In fact, let's look at the job losses of the next few months:
May: 387,000
June: 515,000
July: 346,000
Statistics aside, the reality is that the stimulus postponed, to put it gently, a real recovery. Cash for Clunkers didn't increase car sales. It just shifted the purchase date. The minute the money ran out, the sales dropped precipitously.
This year, we found out from President Obama himself that there weren't as many shovel-ready jobs as he initially talked about during Recovery Summer:
Job creation and economic growth have been minimal at best during this administration. President Obama is now forced to argue that 'it would've been worse if not for my stimulus', an uphill fight if ever there was one.
Besides being the wrong question, there's the ability to prove his claims with anything other than assertions. Let's stamp a big We don't know that on that argument. In fact, it isn't just unknown; it's unknowable.
The right question, in fact, is whether a different package would've strengthened the economy and fixed our problems. Again, that's unknowable but there's at least a possibility that it would've been.
What is known is that businesses don't incur the costs of Obamacare, most notably the tax increases, if they don't hire people. Likewise, regulatory compliance costs don't exist if new employees aren't hired.
That's why capital is on strike. Executive after executive, study after study, show that Obamacare is a major reason why entrepreneurs aren't putting their companies' capital at risk. Their capital will remain on strike until President Obama's either changes his policies or a new president is elected and changes President Obama's policies.
I sincerely hope Mr. Rosenberg understands this explanation. Nonetheless, I'm not holding my breath that it'll sink in.
Posted Wednesday, October 5, 2011 9:23 AM
Comment 1 by Jeff Rosenberg at 05-Oct-11 10:01 AM
You're somehow presenting unemployment numbers while simultaneously ignoring them. They say the exact opposite of what you say they do.
You wrote "By the time the Obama stimulus went into effect, the huge monthly job losses were coming to an end." But the first significant decrease in job losses came two months after the stimulus passed.
Sure, you can argue that it was just a coincidence. But it seems like an incredible coincidence that unemployment just so happened to turn around about a two months after the stimulus went into effect.
As to your other arguments, the problem with our economy isn't "capital on strike." Supply-side economics has always been based on magical thinking. What's killing our economy is a lack of consumer demand -- yet the right continues to insist that the middle-class and the poor must sacrifice to pad the pockets of the wealthy.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Oct-11 10:40 AM
It can't be argued that the stimulus was the reason for decreasing the job losses. It's substantially easier to make the case that TARP played the major role in stabilizing the economy. I'd argue that 6 months is time enough for TARP to work.
Considering the fact that there weren't many shovel-ready jobs at the time, it isn't likely that the stimulus would have an effect, albeit a temporary positive effect, until a year later.
If that's your definition of the stimulus working, then you're on the opposite side of that issue than the public.
Then again, that's why Democrats will suffer another national thrashing this cycle.
