Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The Ivy league Idiot Series, Episode 648: Princeton's economic embarrassment, Alan Blinder

Someone claiming to be a Princeton University professor of economics named Alan Blinder penned an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal ("Stimulus Isn't a Dirty Word"). Blinder's article is only noteworthy because of its record-breaking levels of dishonesty, partisan hackery, and rhetorical buffoonery all wrapped up into a nice little log by a so-called "professor".

Consider these delightful lowlights:

Many Democrats also want to build and repair more roads, bridges, tunnels and the like—taking advantage of the rare combination of historically low government borrowing rates and historically high unemployment among construction workers.

Gee, Einstein: didn't we just deficit-spend a record-setting $5 or so trillion dollars -- thanks in great part to a so-called "Stimulus" program -- that was an utter and complete failure? What happened to all of that money? How about we get a detailed accounting of that disaster before we borrow more from generations yet unborn, Sparky?

Most Republicans reject that idea, too, even though the argument for more public capital is the same as the argument for more private capital—each promotes growth.

Actually, genius, the private sector produces goods and services. That's called productivity. See, what the government does is suck productivity out of the private sector to fund its ever-increasing bureaucracies that serve -- primarily -- to perpetuate themselves. Government never seems to get smaller, does it, Bucky? In good times and bad, government gets bigger. Does that sounds sustainable to you, Perfesser?

In the near term, we need modest stimulus, focused tightly on creating jobs. But that stimulus should be paired with a vastly larger dose of long-run deficit reduction—perhaps 10 to 20 times as large as the stimulus—over the 10-year budget window... Economically, this can be done; it's not even that hard. But if Republicans continue to reject even deals comprised of $10 of spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases, it's hard to see how we get there politically.

Say, Al, did the Republicans reject a budget that proposed $10 in spending cuts for each $1 of tax increases? Because I -- and the rest of the country -- must have missed that, what with all of the golf, vacations and suing states for enforcing voter ID and enforcing immigration laws. In fact, if memory serves, it's been over 1,200 days since the Democrat-controlled body of Congress actually passed a budget. So email me the link to that budget with the 10:1 budget cut ratio, would ya, Alvin?

The U.S. government can now borrow for five years at about 0.75% and for 10 years at about 1.7%. Both rates are far below expected inflation, making real interest rates sharply negative. Yet legions of skilled construction workers remain unemployed while we drive our cars over pothole-laden roads and creaky bridges. Does this make sense?

It sure does if: (a) you don't have a plan to ever pay back your debts, which the Democrats don't; (b) you've got a president who has already rung up more deficit spending than anyone in human history; (c) the Congressional Budget Office and the president's own advisers admit that the current borrowing trajectory is "unsustainable"; and (d) your sovereign debt got downgraded from AAA for the first time. Make sense, Aloysius?

...education is critical to American leadership in the world... Where things do get partisan is in choosing between working harder on traditional public schools versus relying on vouchers, charter schools and the like to provide competition. Here, the research is interesting. It suggests that, on average, charter schools perform neither better nor worse than public schools.

Well, Alston, on the very same editorial page the day before, there was a far more interesting, accurate and relevant article entitled "Why Charter Schools Work" by Deborah Kenny. Ms. Kenny, an author and founder of Harlem Village Academies, describes the two attributes that always drive parents with a choice to send their kids to charter schools: accountability and freedom of choice.

In Washington, DC, for example -- where Democrats obliterated charter schools -- the district spends about $30,000 per student annually, or "about triple what the DC voucher program spends per pupil—and the voucher students have a much higher graduation rate."

Don't you believe in evolution, Alex? Don't you believe in the survival of the fittest? Are you a denier? Because only competition, only Darwinism, only free market principles advance society. But don't ask me, ask your ideological predecessors over in the Soviet Union who also demanded that the state run the entire educational system. Wait, you say there is no Soviet Union any longer?

We've experimented with moving the top rate up or down a few percentage points several times. Under President Clinton in 1993, we raised it to 39.6% from 36% and one of the greatest periods of prosperity in U.S. history followed. Then in 2001, under President George W. Bush, we cut the top rate to 35% from 39.6% and . . . well, you know what followed.

Well, Alton, given that President Clinton enjoyed these two tiny, inconsequential events -- the invention of the World-Wide Web and the Y2K IT spending bonanza -- it would seem to me that even an impeached, disbarred pervert who sold missile secrets to China for campaign donations would be able to preside over a booming economy. And, as for President Bush, I believe revenues to the government improved dramatically after the tax cuts and that it was a mortgage meltdown -- and nothing to do with tax rates -- that caused the economy to collapse.

And we all know who was behind the housing disaster, don't we, Alphonse?

* * * * * * * * *

With embarrassments like this teaching "economics", it's no wonder Princeton doesn't have the temerity to operate a business school.


Monday, June 25, 2012

Shock: In spite of record-setting Obama deficit spending on welfare, poverty meter hasn't moved a bit

Turns out that the old socialist progressive adage that candidate Obama expressed to Joe the Plumber -- you know, "when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody" -- is just as wrongheaded as everything else the SCOAMF has tried.

Despite an unprecedented increase in federal anti-poverty spending, the national poverty rate has not declined, the study finds.

“[S]ince President Obama took office [in January 2009], federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year,” the study says.

Federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2011 totaled $668 billion, spread out over 126 programs, while the poverty rate that remains high at 15.1 percent, roughly where it was in 1965, when President Johnson declared a federal War on Poverty.

In 1966, the first year after Johnson declared war on poverty, the national poverty rate was 14.7 percent, according to Census Bureau figures. Over time, the poverty rate has fluctuated in a narrow range between 11 and 15 percent, only falling into the 11 percent range for a few years in the late 1970’s.

...In fiscal year 2008, anti-poverty spending was $475 billion. In fiscal year 2009, when Obama took office, it had risen to $590 billion.

“But the dramat­ically larger increase also suggests that part of the program’s growth is due to conscious policy choices by this administration to ease eligibility rules and expand caseloads,” the Cato report says. “For example, income limits for eligibility have risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007 and are now roughly 10 percent higher than they were when Obama took office.”

The study concludes with some salient and rational points -- which make them certain to be ignored by the party of failed ideologies.

All [of] this spending has not bought an ap­preciable reduction in poverty... [T]he poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending...

...It would make sense therefore to shift our anti-poverty efforts from government programs that simply provide money or goods and services to those who are living in poverty to efforts to create the condi­tions and incentives that will make it eas­ier for people to escape poverty.


But Democrats apparently believe that borrowing 40 cents of every dollar to spend on failed program after failed program is good governance.

But November is coming.



Sunday, June 24, 2012

Congratulations to President Obama For Completing a Record-Setting 101st Round of Golf Today

Fortunately there are no no significant pressing matters of concern on either the domestic or foreign fronts:

The president is golfing with White House chef Sam Kass, staffer Mike Brush and White House trip director Marvin Nicholson, a frequent golf partner of Obama’s... This will be the president’s 101st round of golf since entering office...

In related headlines:

US unemployment aid applications little changed

Housing: Jumbo Borrowers Trapped Underwater

Be afraid: Some in U.S. see shades of 2008 in euro crisis

Egypt Falls to the Muslim Brotherhood: The Muslim Crescent Greener on Obama’s Watch

Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi: "Jihad Is Our Path and Death in the Name of Allah Is Our Goal"

Turkey blames Syria for jet attack, consults NATO

Fore!


NYT: Democrats shocked to discover that 2,700-page Obamacare bill that no one read or understood could be ruled unconstitutional

At least, that's what The New York Times-Democrat claims:

In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”

Congress held no hearing on the plan’s constitutionality until nearly a year after it was signed into law. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. “Are you serious?” she asked. “Are you serious?”

Opponents of the health plan were indeed serious, and so was the Supreme Court, which devoted more time to hearing the case than to any other in decades. A White House that had assumed any challenge would fail now fears that a centerpiece of Obama’s presidency may be partly or completely overturned on a theory that it gave little credence. The miscalculation left the administration on the defensive as its legal strategy evolved during the past two years...

...The first lawsuits were filed the day Obama signed the plan in March 2010. By the end of January 2011, judges in Florida and Virginia had ruled it unconstitutional. Only then did the Senate and the House hold hearings on its constitutionality, and the administration grew worried.

...A three-judge panel for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, however, declared the insurance mandate unconstitutional. The administration chose not to ask the full court to rehear the case and appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who became solicitor general last June, rehearsed in multiple moot court sessions. But on the critical day of Supreme Court arguments on March 27, he momentarily choked on a drink of water and was hammered by justices skeptical of his argument. He gave a rambling answer about the limits of congressional power and had a hard time controlling the discussion as he was peppered with questions. Commentators gave him harsh reviews, but Obama called him to show support.

Either way, administration lawyers were more disturbed by what the justices had said. They were disheartened that Justice Antonin Scalia, who had joined a ruling upholding a previous commerce clause case, seemed so hostile. And Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, was said to be disturbed that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the swing vote, suggested the government had a “heavy burden.”

But current and former administration lawyers hold out hope.

Where are the limits on the federal leviathan? If the federal government can demand that you enter into private contracts, what are the contours of this power? Because all human beings require food, shelter and clothing, does the federal government have the power to demand you purchase certain kinds of food, shelter and clothing?

If not, why not?

Because once the Constitution's limits on government are breached, I have yet to find the liberal who can explain where these new federal powers end. You and I -- the rational segment of Americans -- know our history. We know that once government has the power to tell you what kind of health care you must purchase, what kind of light bulbs you can buy and how much water flow is permitted through your shower heads, you have a government that is completely out of control.

You have a government on the road to tyranny.


Related:
Top 10 Reasons Obamacare IS Constitutional...
Applying the Individual Mandate to your retirement account

Friday, June 22, 2012

President Faceplant imitates the U.S. economy

Because that's the way he rolls, don'tcha know?



Seeing as how the only places President Carter 2.0 Obama can visit without catcalls are community colleges and airplane glue factories, it appears Michelle Malkin is right.

In other words, s*** just got real for the Democrats.


The economic history of the last 2,000 years in one graph

That's what The Atlantic calls this graph:

That headline is a big promise. But here it is: The economic history of the world going back to Year 1 showing the major powers' share of world GDP, from a research letter written by Michael Cembalest, chairman of market and investment strategy at JP Morgan. 



...Before the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't really any such thing as lasting income growth from productivity. In the thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution, civilization was stuck in the Malthusian Trap. If lots of people died, incomes tended to go up, as fewer workers benefited from a stable supply of crops. If lots of people were born, however, incomes would fall, which often led to more deaths. That explains the "trap," and it also explains why populations so closely approximated GDP around the world...

Which is why the chart is interesting, but misleading. A better illustration would use multiple logarithmic scales to depict the size of aggregate GDP.

The Industrial Revolution and the technological advances in the West during the 19th and 20th centuries transformed global GDP and permitted the United States, especially, to scale productivity at a record-setting clip.

Of course, that was when the U.S. had a true, unfettered free market system and not a federal government that intrudes on every aspect of human activity -- be it the size of your toilet tank, the kind of light bulbs you're allowed to buy, and how much you should pay for your health care.

Funny. I didn't see any of those powers enumerated in the Constitution.


Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Another economic chart you won't see in vintage media: When it comes to the U.S. economy, 'Something is wrong'

And that something is you-know-who. James Pethokoukis points us to a Strategas Research report that delivers the not-so-shocking news.

The significant risk of an economic slowdown in the U.S. economy, which is still 71% consumer spending, tends to come when you have the saving rate rising at the same time you have a shock, such as an energy & inflation spike. Looking at 2012, the personal saving rate has declined to 3.4%, and with inflation now trending lower (following the drop in energy prices), it does not appear that we have the typical pre-conditions for a domestic recession this year, despite the uncertainty in Europe. WTI oil at $82 is significant.

However, we must stop short of saying that these 2012 developments make the U.S. economy robust to shocks, including the 2013 “fiscal cliff.” The main reason is that nominal GDP still looks vulnerable, running at just below a 4% pace. A more robust expansion would typically be characterized by nominal growth of at least 6%, ie, something is wrong.



Not many investors we visit with watch nominal GDP closely. Many people got burned in the 1970s – you had 9% growth, but it was with 9% inflation, so there was zero real growth. That’s certainly a fair calculation. But there’s still some information in nominal GDP as well – it is telling us how rapidly the nominal dollar “pie” is expanding. All companies report revenues, costs, and profits in nominal dollars. With sluggish nominal GDP, it’s not clear we have fast enough growth to see both profits expand and labor compensation grow (to support future top-line growth).

That’s the “something” that is wrong. It’s tough to say you are in a self-reinforcing wage-income-sales spiral with the “pie” expanding so sluggishly. This doesn’t mean you have to be in recession, in inflation-adjusted terms, right away. But it does suggest the U.S. economy is vulnerable to shocks, especially if other exogenous sources of demand are waning (Europe is weakening, China is slowing, India is slowing, etc).

And, yes: it's still Bush's fault. And James Buchanan's. And ATMs. And the Japanese Tsunami. Oh, and solar storms. Sorry, forgot those.


Tuesday, June 19, 2012

It's still Bush's fault: the U.S. economy looks like it's losing jobs again

So says James Pethokoukis, the economic expert that Paul Krugman wishes he could be.

The private sector is not fine, as some extremely worrisome economic news today emphasizes.

The government’s April Job Opening and Labor Turnover report was, in the words of JPMorgan economists, “soft, lending some credence to the view that the April-May slowing seen in the payroll report was real and not a statistical fluke.”

– The number of job openings in April fell 325,000 to 3.416 million. That’s the lowest level since November of last year.

– But here is the real red flag. Private job openings fell 282,000 — the most since early 2009 — to 3.080 million. Early 2009, if you recall, saw the economy just hemorrhaging jobs.



– One bright spot in this report in March was the rising in people quitting their jobs, showing some confidence in the economy. But that “completely reversed itself in April.”

This comes on the heels of last month's report that the Labor Force Participation Rate is the lowest since 1981.

So if this administration isn't doing its best to implement The Cloward-Piven Strategy, it's doing a damn fine imitation.


Monday, June 18, 2012

Escape from Grove Parc

After reading this article, the only question that remains is how much longer until the south-side of Chicago is abandoned to nature, like much of Detroit?

More Killed in Chicago this Year than Afghanistan

As many as 200 Chicago police officers were assigned to provide extra security for the wedding of White House adviser Valerie Jarrett’s daughter, despite the fact that this year Windy City residents have been slain in greater numbers than U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan...

While 144 Americans have died in Afghanistan in 2012, a whopping 228 Chicago residents have been killed, and the murder rate is up a staggering 35 percent from last year. That’s a rash of homicides quadruple the rate of New York City’s, and police and crime experts fear it may only get worse.

...In the midst of a recent homicide spike and prediction of a weekend weather scorcher, Sneed is told somewhere between 100 to 200 police officers will be dispatched to help “secure the perimeter” of a high-profile wedding in Kenwood.

If you've heard of Kenwood but can't remember why, it's because that's where Barack Obama's home is located. You know, the one that convicted felon Tony Rezko helped the Obama family purchase.

And isn't it striking that where ever Democrats achieve unfettered control of government, society begins to unravel? Detroit and Chicago serve as only two of the most obvious examples, but entire states like California and Illinois are close on their heels.


Postscript: for those unfamiliar with the Grove Parc scandal, gather the entire family around and read the illustrated story entitled 30 degrees below zero.

Michelle Obama rips ‘corporate’ work and ‘fat paychecks’ that actually pay for her lavish lifestyle including $600,000 vacations in Spain

The First Lady, who is well known for her hard work and spartan lifestyle, is in the news for decrying the very system that allows her and her husband to live in the lap of luxury.

Michelle Obama slaps ‘corporate’ work, ‘fat paychecks’

First lady Michelle Obama took her inspirational family story on the road over the weekend, telling the graduating class of Oregon State University that having a corner corporate office and a big paycheck isn’t the prize it looks like when entering the job market...



“After graduating from college, we did everything we thought we should do to be successful -- Craig went to business school, I went to law school, we got prestigious jobs at an investment bank and me at a law firm. We soon had all the traditional markers of success: the fat paycheck, the fancy office, the impressive lines on our resumés. But the truth is, neither of us was all that fulfilled,” said Obama. “I was living the dream, but it wasn’t my dream. And Craig felt the same way, unbeknownst to me.”

So they quit; she went to work in the Chicago mayor’s office and her brother became a basketball coach.

The article's comments are classic. Some of the highlights:

She went from earning $121,910 in 2004 as an executive director at the hospital to making $316,962 in 2005 as a vice president." Oh, and the huge increase happened to coincide with Barack Obama becoming Senator Obama in January 2005. Purely coincidental, of course.

A job she got after her husband was elected to congress and was in a position to help the university. A job that was so important that it was not re-filled after she left to go to DC

Hasn't it been over a week since you have taken a lavish vacation at taxpayer expense, Michelle? Yet another leftist hypocrite!
Her job was moving poor black patients to other hospitals, for which she was censured and lost her law license. She is an awful, evil person, with a hate-scowl that would curdle milk.

Oh Yea, I forgot to mention her brother at Oregon State. They tried to fire him but, miraculously a very large and I mean LARGE sum of money appeared at Oregon State suddenly and the powers to be decided to keep the mediocre coach. Now, is that not strange or what? that Oregon received a "Fat Corporate Paycheck".

Her 'job' at the University of Chicago Hospital was 'granny dumping'. She was in charge of finding neighborhood clinics and other cheaper facilities that would take in the patients at the University of Chicago Hospital that were on Medicaid or Part A Medicare. There are photos floating around the Net of these poor people being loaded into wheelchairs and ambulances and carted away from the hospital...

She's just pissed because the King's "re-election" committee has told her to lay off the multi-million dollar vacations for the time being.

Michelle, is it true that you had to surrender your law license because you committed insurance fraud?

The Obama's and most of the "progressives" are very much capitalists when it comes to their own money. These rantings about how big others paychecks are are just red herrings attempting to cover their own greed. When you boil it all down what she's saying is that you little people are nowhere near worth what we are and for you to remember your place.

More to the point, I would love someone to find a single instance where Barack or Michelle -- at any point in their lives -- promoted the free market, individual liberty, competition and capitalism.

Truthfully, though I've read thousands of pages about the couple, I've never seen such an instance. Ever.


Sunday, June 17, 2012

Counter Revolution

These are the miners waiting for their last paycheck after new EPA regulations went into effect, forcing thousands of layoffs. The agency's rules are forcing "utilities across America to abandon coal as a fuel for power generation" according to Pennsylvania State Senator Tim Solobay, a Democrat.

These are some of the 2,500 Sallie Mae employees who were laid off in 2010 after the federal government took over the student loan industry. Tens of thousands of additional private sector employees also lost their jobs after the industry was nationalized.

These are the doctors who quit their profession after Obamacare prohibited them from building clinics, MRI imaging centers or hospitals. The nationalized health care bill controls one-sixth of the American economy; even if it is struck down by the Supreme Court this month, much of its damage will have already been done.

These are a few of the car dealers who were forced to close their dealerships after the federal government nationalized two auto companies using funds authorized only for bank bailouts. Abrogating bankruptcy law, the White House redistributed $26.5 billion of taxpayer funds to the auto unions, an apparent reward to their political supporters.

These are some of the laid-off construction workers at 25,000 non-unionized small businesses which were prohibited from bidding for 'Stimulus' projects and other projects by President Obama. The Association of Building Contractors says that this unprecedented step increases "construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate[s] against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership."

These are a few of the 12.7 million unemployed workers, many of whom initially supported the $840 billion Stimulus program because President Obama and Congressional Democrats promised unemployment would not reach 8% if it were passed. Instead, three-and-a-half years later, official unemployment remains over 8 percent. The true unemployment figure (U-6) remains at 15 percent. The number of persons who were unemployed for more than six months remains over five million as of last month. And the labor-force participation rate continues to drop; it is now 63.6, "the lowest rate since 1981" according to CNN.

These are the "Black Panthers" who waved batons at voters during the 2008 election, "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" some civil rights experts had ever seen. Despite this, the Attorney General declined to -- or was ordered not to -- prosecute the case, raising the potential for similar incidents in successive elections. The current Justice Department is also embroiled in a series of other scandals, including its shipment of thousands of firearms to the Mexican drug cartels, its lawsuits against states attempting to enforce voter ID, and its legal actions against states attempting to enforce immigration law.

These are the leaders of two of America's staunchest historical allies -- the United Kingdom and Israel -- who have been shunned by this administration in an unprecedented series of diplomatic maneuevers. London's Daily Mail went so far as to report that, "Britain's special relationship with the U.S. is over." And the BBC recently reported that "Ties between Israel and the US are the 'worst in 35 years'."

These are the masterminds behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. They are known terrorists who were initially granted the rights of American citizens in order for the Obama administration to hold trials near Ground Zero in Manhattan. Only a subsequent firestorm of bipartisan opposition prevented that from occurring.

These are the "millions of 'green jobs'" President Obama pledged to create. Even though "Cap-and-Trade" and other energy-related laws could not pass Congress, the "EPA is now effectively legislating climate policy for the nation."

These are the illegal immigrants empowered by President Obama's extra-Constitutional power grab that effectively implements the controversial 'DREAM Act' , though it could not pass a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2009 and 2010. This act promises to speed the unchecked flow of illegals into the U.S. and is intended to ensure a permanent Democrat majority. Further, their presence promises to bankrupt a welfare state already teetering on the brink of economic calamity.

* * * * * * * * *

No federal government has damaged the American free market more than this one. No federal government has stolen more employment, more freedom, more private property -- from this and future generations -- than this one. No government has created more regulations, more unconstitutional dictates, more -- dare I say it -- slavery than this one.

Now, given all of these facts: can there be any doubt what Barack Obama meant when he twice proposed, "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military?

The Obama-Democrat Left has mounted the first successful counter-revolution -- against the American Revolution -- in our history. Using an incessant series of attacks by a fifth column, the intent of the counter-revolution is to eradicate the effects of the American Revolution. The most magnificent society ever created hangs in the balance.


The elections in November represent our last chance to salvage the American experiment.

Marshal your parents, your children, your siblings, your neighbors, your coworkers -- marshal everyone you know, because the stakes could not be higher.


Saturday, June 16, 2012

Under the Radar, Obama Undermines the USA [Dan from NY]

Dan from New York:

More and more, Obama is ruling by fiat, bypassing Congress, the Constitution and the will of the people. Read the National Review item below and click the link provided after that. Then pass the word around. This is very serious business. Obama is eating away at our Foundation, and the media has Obama’s back. We made a terrible mistake in 2008. The last chance we have to correct it is now.

National Review, June 15, 2012

Are We in Revolutionary Times?

Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

Politically, Obama calculates that some polls showing the current likely Hispanic support for him in the high 50s or low 60s would not provide enough of a margin in critical states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, or perhaps also in Florida and Virginia, to counteract the growing slippage of the independent vote and the energy of the clinger/tea-party activists. Thus, what was not legal or advisable in 2009, 2010, or 2011, suddenly has become critical in mid-2012. No doubt free green cards will quickly lead to citizenship and a million new voters. Will it work politically? Obama must assume lots of things: that all Hispanics vote as a block in favoring exempting more illegal aliens from the law, and are without worry that the high unemployment rate hits their community among the hardest; that black voters, stung by his gay-marriage stance, will not resent what may be seen as de facto amnesty, possibly endangering his tiny (and slipping) lead in places like Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And because polls show overwhelming resistance to non-enforcement of immigration law, Obama also figures that the minority who supports his recent action does so far more vehemently than the majority who opposes it. Time will tell; but my gut feeling is that his brazen act will enrage far more than it will delight — and for a variety of different reasons. As with all his special-interest efforts — the Keystone cancellation, war-on-women ploy, gay-marriage turnabout, and now de facto amnesty — Obama believes dividing Americans along class, ethnic, gender, and cultural lines will result in a cobbled together majority, far more preferable than a 1996 Clinton-like effort to win over the independents by forging a bipartisan consensus.

Economically, why would we formalize nearly a million new legally authorized workers when unemployment is approaching its 41st consecutive month over 8 percent — especially when Democrats used to label 5.4 percent unemployment as a “jobless recovery”? Here in California, the slowing of illegal immigration, due mostly to the fence and tough times, has led to steep wage hikes for entry-level and farm labor, and given a little more clout to Americans in so-called unskilled-labor fields. In other words, it really is true that the real beneficiaries of border enforcement are low-paid Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans who become more valued when they are not competing with virtually unlimited numbers of illegal-alien workers.

When you collate this recent act with the class-warfare rhetoric, the “punish our enemies” threats, the president’s and Eric Holder’s serial racialist statements, the huge borrowing, the national-security leaks, the takeover of health care, the push for redistributive taxes, and even the trivial appointments like a Van Jones, Anita Dunn, or Armendariz, you can fairly conclude that Obama most certainly did not like the way the United States operated for the last 30 or so years, and has tried his best, through hook or crook, to change America in ways that simply were not possible through legislative or even judicial action. Give the president credit. He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my vision of the way the new America should work — and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November, if you dare.

###

Now watch Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell quietly, dispassionately and matter-of-factly peel the onion back on Obama’s assault on the First Amendment.


Exclusive Movie Trailer: THE DESTROYER



Rep. Allen West (R-FL) on the Obama Administration's Illegal Executive Order Implementing the DREAM Act

If this Republic can be saved, it will be men like Allen West who will be among those leading the way.

As I am writing this today, I really cannot believe that President Barack Obama and his administration have failed to grasp the three fundamental premises of our Constitutional Republic: representative democracy, limited government, and separation of powers (recognizing the maxim of co-equality of branches of the Federal Government).

I say that because Friday we received another surprise from the Obama Administration. At around 9:30 am, my BlackBerry buzzed as I was wrapping up speaking to the Palm Beach business forum. Once outside, I checked my messages to find, to my absolute amazement, that Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, would be announcing, effective immediately, that certain young people who were brought to the United States as young children (who do not present a risk to national security or public safety and meet several key criteria) will be considered for relief from removal from the country or from entering into removal proceedings.

...This is yet another example of Executive Branch overreach. We have a legislative process that ensures representative governance by the consent of the American people. This action should be crafted into legislation, debated in committee and brought before the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate for vote, in accordance with the process in our Constitutional Republic. Secretary Napolitano is an unelected administrative bureaucrat who does not have the right to make governing decisions for this country.

It is apparent that the goal of the Obama Administration is not to govern, but to rule by edict, or executive order, particularly as November draws near.

I do find it ironic that Secretary Napolitano would not assist our State of Florida with ensuring the integrity of the voting process, but is happy to implement a decision about who can reside in America.

Furthermore, where are the details about how the American economy is going to handle this influx of people? There are currently more than 23 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or just discouraged and no longer accounted for. How will this affect the employment situation in our country, as this policy introduces new competition with Americans for jobs? Will there be any analysis of the economic impact for the American taxpayers who will have to carry this burden? What are the increased demands on additional guaranteed services and will they be guaranteed government benefits? These are the kinds of details that are to be hammered out during the legislative process, and appear to be completely overlooked by the Obama Administration.

Finally, will these young people be allowed to petition for immunity for their illegal immigrant parents as well?

Our constitutional republic was created so one branch of government could not run roughshod over another. If President Obama does not like a certain policy, he must bring the debate to the United States Congress, not attempt to impose it on the country unilaterally. If the American people, through their representative government, reject the DREAM Act, it is not within the enumerated rights of the President to then enact the policy by Executive Order. If that becomes the case, then why have a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate? There would no longer be any separation of powers, and certainly the Executive Branch would not have any limit in exerting its power.

This decision is not just about relaxing rules or laws for young illegal immigrants, it is about the respect of the foundational principles and values of America, a Constitutional Republic. The precedent established is dangerous and the overreach threatens the fabric of our Nation.

This policy is wrong. If this Administration continues to make decisions without the consent of the governed, the governed always have the ability to rescind their consent.

Call Congress now and demand that your representatives stand up against this outrageous, unconstitutional act.


Friday, June 15, 2012

One More Chart Democrats and RINOs Don't Want You to See

Never mind that it's completely accurate.

Newt Gingrich had fun calling President Obama the “food stamp president,” but many Republicans are just as responsible for the exploding costs of this welfare state program.

The chart shows that federal outlays for food stamps (officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) roughly doubled under President Bush and then doubled again under President Obama.



Despite the quadrupling of food stamp spending, 13 Republicans in the Senate yesterday—including supposed conservatives Bob Corker and Rob Portman—joined Democrats to defeat reforms to the program sponsored by Senator Rand Paul.

If you have a couple of bucks to spare, please consider donating to Jim DeMint's Senate Conservatives Fund. We need to reinforce our class of 2010 with true Constitutional conservatives.

Because Democrats and big-government Republicans need to go.


Thursday, June 14, 2012

Helpful Chart: Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?

Share this with your family members, friends, colleagues and neighbors.




Spotted at: Texas Ags.


President Obama Hits the Economic Trifecta!

Let me take a wild guess: it's still Bush's fault.

Foreclosures up for first time in 27 months

Foreclosure starts rose year-over-year in May for the first time in more than two years as banks resumed dealing with distressed properties after a mortgage abuse settlement earlier this year, data firm RealtyTrac said on Thursday.

Overall foreclosure activity, which includes default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions, affected 205,990 properties in May, a 9.1 percent increase from April.

...Foreclosure starts grew 12 percent from April and 16 percent on an annual basis after 27 straight months of year-over-year declines. Foreclosure starts were filed on 109,051 homes in May, the first month-to-month rise since March.

Bank repossessions increased 7 percent after sinking to a 49-month low in April, with 54,844 homes repossessed in May.

But, wait -- that's not all!

Unexpectedly: Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Rise to 386,000

In the week ending June 9, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 386,000, an increase of 6,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 380,000. The 4-week moving average was 382,000, an increase of 3,500 from the previous week's revised average of 378,500...

...The average has been between 363,000 and 384,000 all year, and this is near the high for the year.

And here is a long term graph of weekly claims:



This was above to the consensus forecast of 375,000.

All of this follows last week's news that the already dire unemployment situation continues to worsen.

Broader Jobless Rate Jumps to 14.8%

The U.S. unemployment rate ticked up to 8.2% in May and a broader measure rose even more to 14.8%...



Meanwhile, the broader unemployment rate, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, was up even higher in May. The U-6 figure includes everyone in the official rate plus “marginally attached workers” — those who are neither working nor looking for work, but say they want a job and have looked for work recently; and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want full-time work but took a part-time schedule instead because that’s all they could find.

In May, there were more marginally attached workers and the number of part-time employees who want full-time work also increased.

Despite this trifecta of failure, President Obama visited Cleveland to offer Ohio voters more Obamanomics.

We'll see how that goes over in November.


You're Welcome, America! Up to 600,000 College Students to Lose Health Care Coverage or Face Dramatically Higher Costs

Well, this might knock off a few points off the Hopey-Changey vote.

Thousands of college students face serious sticker shock this year if they want school-subsidized health insurance... The cost is expected to be sharply higher at some schools, while others have dropped coverage altogether.

They’ve discovered that the health care reform law sets dramatically higher coverage limits for student insurers [which] will require higher premiums that colleges and students, particularly at smaller schools, are worried they can’t afford.

...Some schools won’t even try [to offer insurance any more]... This year, for the first time in decades, Avila University will not offer health insurance plans for domestic students. Bethany College in Lindsborg, Kan., also opted out of health coverage — leaving more than 100 students potentially uncovered — after premiums were projected to rise from $450 a year to $2,500.

“It’s going to be scary given the number of students who were participating in those plans,” said Bob Schmoll, Bethany’s vice president for finance. “It’s going to be a lot of people who aren’t covered.” ...Federal studies suggest roughly 600,000 students — about 7 percent of those attending college — get their insurance at school...

...Diana Boyd McElroy, dean of student life at Park University, said she anticipates some concern when students see their health insurance premiums double this year from $600 to $1,200...

Not to worry, dear citizens. Maybe the Obamacare program really will be the first time in human history that a massive, centralized bureaucracy enforcing draconian rules and price controls works out as well as the free market.

But I wouldn't count on it.


Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Good Times: Chicago Teachers Union Demands 30 Percent Pay Raise

Because working Americans are doing so well under the Obamaconomy.

It takes a lot of nerve to ask for a 30 percent pay raise. You’d better be sure you had a banner year. Yet in Chicago, where just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading (and just 56 percent of students graduate), the teachers union is set to strike if the district does not agree to a 30 percent increase in teachers’ salaries.



The average teacher in Chicago Public Schools—a district facing a $700 million deficit—makes $71,000 per year before benefits are included. If the district meets union demands and rewards teachers with the requested salary increase, education employees will receive compensation north of $92,000 per year.

According to the Illinois Policy Institute, the average annual income of a family in Chicago is $47,000 per year. If implemented, the 30 percent raise will mean that in nine months, a single teacher in the Chicago Public School system will take home nearly double what the average family in the city earns in a year.

According to the union, 91 percent of its members voted for the ability to strike. That vote gives the union the ability to walk out of public school classrooms as children return to school this fall... The union argues [that] the requested salary increase would compensate them for extending the school day from 5.5 hours—among the nation’s shortest school days—to 7.5 hours.

This is the liberal madness that Ace captions as follows: "The Public Sector Has, In Fact, Lost Jobs. But Does Obama Understand Why?

We're paying more than ever for public sector employees.

So why isn't employment in that sector going up?

Because each employee demands higher and higher raises (even in a recession) and greater and greater retirement benefits (even in a depression).


They will not permit the smallest adjustment in their steady march to become Bureaucrat Millionaires.

Ergo, states are finding that even with more money to pay them, they can't pay as many of them.

That's why, champ...

...Obama's prescription is not to reduce these ridiculous payments to Democratic Clients, of course. He simply wants to give state and local government more money, to pay for the same number of workers, to insure than public employees never have to modify their pigs-at-the-trough appetites for taxpayer dollars.

Not to mention the fact that most of these union members are compelled to pay dues, which are conveniently recycled into President Obama's campaign coffers.

As I said below, the level of wanton lawlessness of this administration -- borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from future generations to pay off his favorite fundraisers and union bosses -- makes Bernard Madoff look like Mother Theresa.


Hat tip: BadBlue.com. Images: ABC-7 and Chicago Tribune.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Real-time financial news, pulled straight from the social networks

Biff Spackle relays a report that he's added the third channel to the BadBlue.com social news network: BadBlue.com/money.



This follows Spackle's outstanding work with your favorite news portal (BadBlue.com/news) and technology hub (BadBlue.com/tech).

Following in the footsteps of President Obama, any problems you may encounter are Bush's fault. Or the fact that ATMs have replaced bank tellers.