Showing posts with label Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reid. Show all posts

Monday, August 16, 2010

Perfect Timing: Media Matters Beclowns Itself Just as FDA's New Death Panel Begins Process of Denying Access to Breast Cancer Treatment

If you look up schmucks in the dictionary, odds are you'll see this logo. The nutters at Media Matters selectively spliced Jim Hoft's pick-up of this story to apply their typical Streicher-style spin.

While I appreciate the free P.R., what you'll want to note is what the cretins forgot to mention. That is, the Susan G. Komen for The Cure Foundation -- not exactly a bunch of wingnuts -- are among those protesting the FDA's discontinuation of Avastin "for metastatic breast cancer patients, noting that it is effective for some patients and warning of a chilling effect on new drug development if approval is withdrawn."

In the kind of exquisite timing at which Media Nutters specializes, Ace o' Spades reported the following delightful development earlier today, complete with flaming skull.

Ho Boy: FDA May Rescind Approval Of Anti-Breast-Cancer Drug As Political Favor To Obama


The FDA is not supposed to consider costs of treatment. Their mandate is to determine if a drug is "safe and effective," period. If it's safe and effective, it gets approved. Period. That's their job. Officials there recently re-iterated that cost considerations are not part of their mandate.

...This presents a political problem for Obama in the case of anti-breast-cancer drug Avastin. Apparently it's quite expensive. His new head of Medicaid and Medicare, Berwick, who makes a point of talking up controlling costs by denying some treatments, is going to deny reimbursement for an anti-prostate-cancer drug, Provenge. Or, well, they're still mulling it over, which means they're considering not covering it.

And now there is the anti-breast-cancer drug Avastin. Like Provenge, it has already been approved by the FDA. But that creates a political problem -- how can Obama control costs and reassure the public that he's not, as maintained by his critics, denying useful and effective drugs to seniors in order to free up money for ObamaCare?

Oh -- here's a great idea! We'll just get the FDA to rescind its previous approval of the drug so that Medicare and Medicaid don't even have to consider reimbursing for it, thus sparing Obama a political headache, and merely at the cost of taking off the market, from anyone suffering from breast cancer, a drug already deemed "safe and effective" by the FDA.

Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope... The FDA is not supposed to consider costs in its decisions, but if the agency rescinds approval, insurers are likely to stop paying for treatment.

This is criminal. To avoid a difficult political debate -- and the honest confession that "bending the curve" of Medicare costs to free up money for ObamaCare is going to require a lesser standard of treatment -- the FDA is killing a safe and effective drug and thereby outlawing for anyone, including those who can be helped by this drug and no other, and who are paying for the drug with their own private insurance or own out-of-pocket money.

Ace points out that your betters -- i.e., the Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangels of the world, who are above the law -- will certainly have access to any drug they need.

As for the peasants?

We're just numbers in one of Donald Berwick's actuarial tables.

And what will you drones at Media Matters do now? The pencil-necked geek named TBogg appears to have proffered an invitation for you. Of course, it could be time for you to have another slumber party so you can regroup.


Astoundingly excellent automatically generated headlines o' the day

Spotted at Memeorandum.

Mr. Krugman, meet Mr. Ponzi. Mr. Ponzi, meet Mr. Schmuckman. I mean Krugman.


Saturday, August 14, 2010

Berwick's First Strike: Susan G. Komen Foundation and Ovarian Cancer Alliance Decry First-Ever Medicare Denials of FDA-Approved Cancer Drugs

Just days after the recess appointment of Donald Berwick, the controversial new head of Medicare and Medicaid, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance posted the following grim news: for the first time in history, an FDA-approved anti-cancer therapy may not be covered by Medicare.

Provenge, a vaccine to treat the recurrence of prostate cancer, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)... Medicare usually covers the cost of FDA-approved anti-cancer therapies. However, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is still reviewing whether it will cover Provenge, and at what rate.

The CMS statute states that Medicare must cover therapies that are reasonable and necessary, while the FDA is instructed to approve drugs that are safe and effective. Because of the conflicting Federal coverage and approval requirements, there are some non-FDA approved drugs (called off-label drugs) that are paid for by CMS. However, with respect to Provenge, it appears that CMS is arguing that while the treatment is safe and effective, it may not be reasonable and necessary. For the first time, an FDA approved anti-cancer therapy may not be covered by Medicare.

A life-saving cancer treatment "may not be reasonable and necessary"? Gee, that kind of decision-making by an unelected federal bureaucracy certainly sounds like a death panel to me.

Say, I thought the President said that pre-existing conditions would always be covered. Isn't cancer a pre-existing condition?

Oh. What's this?

Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Ovarian Cancer National Alliance Appeal to FDA and Key Lawmakers on Avastin Issue

Patient Access and the Impact on Development of New Treatments at the Heart of Komen for the Cure's Concerns


Susan G. Komen for the Cure® and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance (OCNA) today urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue to allow the use of the drug bevacizumab, commonly known as Avastin, for metastatic breast cancer patients, noting that it is effective for some patients and warning of a chilling effect on new drug development if approval is withdrawn...

...In a joint letter sent to the FDA and key Congressional lawmakers Thursday, Komen for the Cure and the OCNA wrote, "We are particularly concerned about patients who are presently receiving bevacizumab and the message that this decision sends about drug development for women with advanced breast cancer."

...According to Komen, the decision to use Avastin should be made between a woman and her doctor after a thoughtful conversation that carefully considers the drug's benefits and risks. Komen does not want to see access limited by Medicare and Medicaid.

Gee, and I thought no one would be denied coverage by ObamaCare.

Didn't the President himself say, "I want seniors to know, despite what some have said, these reforms will not cut your guaranteed benefits."

That's what President Obama told us, endlessly and repeatedly, for months on end.

Do you mean to say he was lying?

Folks, this is precisely why the cancer survival rate for the U.K. is so much lower than that of the U.S. -- and, in some cases, lower than Eastern Europe's. And why Donald Berwick's nickname is Dr. Death.

America's seniors are about to find out that having coverage is not the same thing as receiving care. And our seniors are about to pay the piper.


Update: Under Dr. Berwick, Death Panels Coming to Life. Hat tips: Valerie Ward and Mark Levin.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Oh, Noes! Now Even Black Democrats Reconsidering Party Affiliation

And it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Marxists.

Michelle Rena Jones cheered when candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden visited south-central Michigan in 2008. She supported Mr. Obama that November along with a slate of Democrats, including Mark Schauer in the 7th congressional district.

Now, the 40-year-old is rethinking her lifelong support for the party. She has been without steady work for two years, lost her home and car and began receiving cash assistance from the state for the first time. This year, she says, "I'm willing to take a chance on something different."

Ms. Jones is part of an unmeasured, agitated mass: unemployed Americans who don't believe the Obama Administration and Congress have done enough to produce jobs. With elections coming up, their unease is especially troublesome for the Democrats, who control both chambers. [Ed: and have for four -- count 'em -- four long years.]

One of the busiest places in Albion is Michigan Works!—a work force development office that provides services for job seekers and employers... It is early in the morning but the building is full. Ms. Jones, who supported the Democratic slate in 2008, scrolls through job postings on a computer terminal. The mother of two now lives in public housing and is receiving $403-a-month public cash assistance while she waits for employment... One interview, for a job at the Michigan secretary of state's branch office, recently fell through simply because Ms. Jones couldn't get there. She has no car and there is no local public transportation. She was counting on her employment program to give her a ride. But the interview site in Kalamazoo, more than 50 miles away, is beyond the program limit... [Ed: note the public sector theme...]

...Susan Kruger, 51, is living on $1,300-a-month unemployment—well below the $41,000 a year she earned as a librarian before she lost her job in October. It's the first time she has been without a job in a library since she was 16. "I never thought I'd be out of work and I sure never thought I'd be out of work this long," she says...

The welfare state is collapsing as we speak. The public sector, at every level of government, must shrink in order for all of us to survive.

And all Americans -- African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, Native Americans and every other form of hyphenated citizens -- must reject the Democrat Party that loves to divide us. Freedom is our watchword and hatred of slavery is our creed.


Hat tip: Ace o' Spades, via my bookmarks, via my muscle memory, via waaay too much time online.

'Dual Capacity': The Straw that Broke the Economy's Back

Easy-to-follow instructions: how to kill the economy in four easy steps -- and touch off the Dempression of 2011:

Step 1: Create an unbelievably onerous new regulation that hits small businesses particularly hard.

To partly fund ObamaCare, Democrats altered 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses beginning in 2012. Via a Google search, you can see the backlash from small business here. For a specific reaction, from one of many industries with serious concerns, see the National Restaurant Association. The move would saddle small businesses everywhere with a huge new administrative burden, as well as raise their taxes at a time when we need job growth from them.

Step 2: After weathering the outcry, pretend to listen to the American people and reconsider the new 1099 reporting regulations.

Late yesterday Majority Leader Reid re-filed a substitute to the small business jobs bill [which modifies] the expanded 1099 reporting provision enacted as part of the health reform bill.

Rather than simply repeal the regulation (as the GOP had attempted to do), the Democrat alternative will raise taxes on oil and gas companies in the U.S. only.

Step 3: Enact new taxes on domestic energy companies by taxing their foreign profits -- which are already heavily taxed in each foreign country in which the companies operate.

In the Obama administration’s 2011 budget proposal, included are provisions to change existing “dual capacity” rules, which are laws that grant tax breaks to American companies who generate income in foreign countries. These tax credits are used to offset the U.S. income tax on foreign income. Plans to change this policy would result in double-taxation on domestic oil and gas producers... [Foreign energy companies] carry on ...free of this added expense. State-controlled competitors in countries like Russia, Venezuela and China will secure energy sources at our expense.

In short, this will make domestic energy production completely unprofitable and will kill American jobs deader than Benito Mussolini.

Step 4: Profit! Well, the public sector profits, but Joe and Jane taxpayer take it on the chin, again.

It's a triple-whammy: energy prices will definitely increase (because there's less competition); Americans will lose jobs (as domestic energy companies cut unprofitable staff); and America will become even less secure (as more of our plentiful domestic energy sources lie fallow).

* * * * * * * * *

Add in the expiration of the evil Bush tax cuts on January 1st, 2011, and we have the recipe for a stake in the heart of the economy.

And should it be allowed to proceed unchecked, the "Great Recession" will henceforth be known as the "Dempression".

You've got to act in November, folks. That really is our last chance to set things right for our children. I'm not kidding -- it's happened throughout history and it can definitely happen again. That's not fear-mongering -- that's a fact.


Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Summer of Recovery: 'The IMF has... pronounced the U.S. bankrupt'

For your consideration, an eclectic montage of upbeat economic stories:

U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It: Laurence Kotlikoff


Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund released its annual review of U.S. economic policy... the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”

The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years...

Sounds sustainable!

Looking for a more positive assessment? How does a comparison to a Disney character sound?

America is a "Mickey Mouse economy"


America is a "Mickey Mouse economy" that is technically bankrupt, according to Jochen Wermuth, the Chief Investment Officer (CIO) and managing partner at Wermuth Asset Management.

"America today looks like Russia in 1998. Consumers, companies and the government are all highly indebted. America as a result is a bankrupt Mickey Mouse economy," Wermuth told CNBC.

Kewl! Thanks, Mister Prezodent!

Deficit in July Totals $165.04 Billion


The U.S. government spent itself deeper into the red last month, paying nearly $20 billion in interest on debt and an additional $9.8 billion to help unemployed Americans.

Federal spending eclipsed revenue for the 22nd straight time, the Treasury Department said Wednesday...

The $165.04 billion deficit, while a bit smaller than the $169.5 billion shortfall expected by economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires, was the second highest for the month on record...

The highest was $180.68 billion in July 2009...

That level of deficit spending comes to, uhm, $2 trillion a year. For you leftists out there, that would pay for about... carry the one... 20 years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- combined. Oh, and it's another Obama record for economic master FAIL.

Freddie Mac requests $1.8B more in aid after 2Q loss


The government rescued McLean, Va.-based Freddie Mac and sibling company Fannie Mae from the brink of failure nearly two years ago...

The new request means they have needed $148.2 billion to stay afloat, about $63.1 billion of which is being used by Freddie Mac.

Freddie Mac is losing money from bad loans it backed, many of them before the housing market went bust...

It had $118 billion in bad loans at the end of June, up from $103.4 billion at the end of last year. It owned more than 62,000 foreclosed properties in June, up from about 35,000 a year earlier.

To put it all in perspective, please recall the following:

The Democrats' so-called "financial reform bill" completely ignored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To have truly repaired these government-sponsored entities -- which triggered the 2008 economic calamity -- would have exposed some very, very embarrassing truths.

And the real reasons for the mortgage meltdown.


Best. Drudge. Headline. Ever.

Put some ice on that, Harry. It's gonna leave a mark.

After that (rhetorical) beat-down, I think "Stretch" Pelosi is gonna need another face-lift.

Yesterday economist John Lott summarized the borderline criminal behavior by the Obama Democrats.

• The new $26 billion Democrat "jobs bill" has nothing to do with jobs, it is designed to fund the teachers' unions

• $16 billion of the $26 billion goes to public teachers (and several billions go to subsidizing other public sector workers). $87 billion of last year's $862 billion stimulus also went to public school teachers' mandatory wage increases as well as more hiring of public teachers

• Between 1.0% and 1.5% percent of teachers' salaries goes directly to union dues. That means at least $160 million of money borrowed from the taxpayers' is going directly to teachers' unions

• And, to complete the circle, the teachers' unions are directly funding Democrat campaigns so they can keep the cash faucet turned on

The money culled from this "jobs bill" is stolen from you, the taxpayer, and given to Democrat politicians. They would like to retain power so that they can steal more money from you in the future.

Teachers' unions not budging on wage freezes

Furthermore, teachers' unions are refusing wage freezes even on planned increases in the future. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie (R) asked that teachers contribute 1.5% of their salaries to help pay for their benefits and agree to a one-year wage freeze. The union bosses refused.

Why are taxpayers rewarding this behavior?

One other point to consider: teachers are compensated based upon the negotiations between school boards and teachers' unions at the local level. Some areas have done a good job in these negotiations and are much healthier than other communities.

Why are taxpayers in responsible cities and towns subsidizing the failed policies of irresponsible locales?

In short, the Democrats' "jobs bill" is designed to funnel $100 million into their own campaign funds through the teachers' unions.

Remember in November.


Monday, August 09, 2010

AFL-CIO's Trumka: Democrats Will Pass Card Check. Even In a Lame-Duck Session. Even If it Kills Them. So to Speak.

ShopFloor scoops the world.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, was on the CSPAN “Newsmakers” show this morning. Asked whether the Employee Free Choice Act will be considered in Congress this year, Trumka said: “I think you’ll see the Employee Free Choice Act come up again. I think you’ll see it probably before the end of the year.”

Before the elections or in a lameduck session? Trumka: “Either one.”

The reason the Employee Free Choice Act has not passed Congress is because 40 Senate Republicans have blocked it, he said.

Oh, pshaw, Trumka. The reason EFCA has not passed is because the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to what the bill would do, opponents have made an effective case that “card check” and forced unionization are antithetical to democratic principles and economic growth. The legislation is extraordinarily unpopular, which is why key Senate Democrats joined Republicans in preventing the bill’s consideration on the floor this Congress.

If it were popular, the President would have already signed the Employee Free Choice Act into law instead of planning to put its provisions into effect through Executive Orders, presidential nominations, and regulatory enactments. (See Shopfloor post, “If EFCA Won’t Pass the Senate, We’ll Turn to Federal Labor Boards.

Trumka also continued pounding the table for more federal stimulus spending, dismissing concerns about the federal deficit, saying we have a jobs crisis in this country, not a deficit crisis. (UPDATE, 10:58 a.m.: Here’s the exact quote: “We have a job crisis right now, we don’t have a debt crisis right now. The only thing that can possibly make this recession, and this recovery from not stalling and going back into recession is if government continues to do some stimulus spending. And unfortunately, the states aren’t in a position to do that, so it’s going to take aid from the federal government.”)

Yes, by all means, let's force Americans into unions whether they like it or not.

Because unions have been so successful for California, GM and Chrysler.


In Limited Government We Trust

"Greece would not have fallen had it obeyed Polybius in everything, and when Greece did meet disaster, its only help came from him" Pausanias, 8.37.2, Inscription on the Temple of Despoina near Arakesion.

In Book VI of his Histories, the ancient Greek historian Polybius described three basic forms of government, each categorized by the number of those in power. He listed monarchy (rule by the one); aristocracy (rule by the few); and democracy (rule by the many). Polybius described, over time, how each type of government would gradually decline into their various corrupted forms of tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule, respectively. His aim was to illustrate the inherent fallibility of man as exemplified by the truism Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Polybius believed that Republican Rome had designed a new form of government that could help check this inevitable decline. Rome combined all three forms of government -- monarchy (its elected executives, called consuls); aristocracy (the Senate); and democracy (the popular assemblies). In this mixed form of government, each branch would check the corrupting ambitions and power of the others.

Aristotle and Cicero were among those who praised the construction of a "mixed constitution" and the innovative idea to separate powers within a government.

The French nobleman and legal expert Charles-Louis de Secondat, the Baron de Montesquieu, studied the rise and fall of the Roman Republic. He believed that a properly designed government, in order to prevent tyranny, would require three branches of government. He wrote, "If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have certain features. First, since 'constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it … it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power' . This is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government... [to prevent any one] from acting tyrannically."

The British philosopher John Locke was also keenly interested in a design for government that would prevent its descent into tyranny. In the late 17th century, Locke argued that monarchs had no "divine right" to rule; instead, he asserted that the source of power lay in the people. Furthermore, he stated that humans were born into this world with certain natural and "inalienable" rights including to "life, liberty and property". Locke believed that government could not grant these rights because they were God-given; therefore, no government could take them away or withhold them from the people.

Thomas Jefferson used Locke's concepts as the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. He proclaimed the government's duty to protect the sacred attributes of the individual: "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form..."

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

As well, America's Founding Fathers repeatedly cited Baron de Montesquieu's seminal Spirit of the Laws and its emphasis on checks and balances within government. As James Madison wrote, "the oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu."

The Constitution was carefully designed -- based upon thousands of years of bloody experience -- to construct a federalist system of government. It divided powers not only between the three branches of government, but also between the federal government and the states. The Constitution reserved almost all powers to the states, or to the people, and enumerated a very limited set of responsibilities to which the federal government was constrained.

We conservatives are originalists: if the Constitution's meaning is not interpreted as the framers intended, if it can be altered at will, then what protects any law from arbitrary interpretation, from the capricious whims of the ill-intentioned?

If the Constitution is "living and breathing", an amorphous guidebook of suggestions that may freely be interpreted based upon current events, trends, whims or biases, what then are the limits on the federal government? And if the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, what protects the individuals from the encroachment of government intrusion into every aspect of individuals' lives?

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution strictly limits the power of the Federal Government. It states, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. In the Founders' view, state and local governments were free to experiment -- to serve as "laboratories" in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis -- in areas prohibited to the federal government. In the 1980's, for example, Oregon's successful welfare reform efforts became the models for subsequent actions by other states.

When the federal government ignores and breaches the Tenth Amendment, it represents an illegal diminution of representative government at the state and local levels.

The once-powerful states, which created the federal government by ratifying the Constitution, have become -- in the words of Mark Levin -- "administrative appendages of the federal government." The states are subject to ever-increasing federal regulation, strangled by dictates from agencies old and new, and held hostage through billions in federal tax dollars. Levin asks, "Does anyone believe that the states would have originally ratified the Constitution had they known this would be their fate?"

The path the modern federal government is on today was accurately described by Stuart Chase in 1942. He wrote that the agenda of the Fabian Socialists -- who had launched a counter-revolution against America's founding -- was to create an authoritarian, centralized government. The agenda of the Fabian Socialists include:

• Strong, centralized government
• Government-controlled banking, credit and securities exchange (TARP, etc.)
• Government control over employment (the "Employee Free Choice Act" to speed unionization of the workplace)
• Unemployment insurance, old age pensions (lengthy unemployment benefits, Social Security)
• Universal medical care, food and housing programs (socialized medicine, food stamps, HUD)
• Access to unlimited government borrowing (massive deficits)
• A managed monetary system (an opaque Federal Reserve)
• Government control over foreign trade (China tire tariffs)
• Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production (drilling prohibitions, Cap-and-Trade)
• Government regulation of labor (the Wagner Act, monopolistic power of trade unions)
• Heavy progressive taxation.

This indeed describes "the road we are traveling"; the direction accelerated by the branches of government controlled by modern Democrats. The Fabian Socialist counter-revolution began in earnest in the U.S. in 1933 with the imposition of the "Welfare State" and has been steadily progressing since. It confiscates ever more taxes, consolidates ever more power, while bankrupting program after program. And always -- always -- the federal government proclaims its need for more money and more power, promising that if only it can levy one more tax, enforce one more regulation, it will be able to solve all of mankind's woes.

The Greek historian Thucydides observed that “The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.” And in writing about the calamitous Peloponnesian War that engulfed and ultimately destroyed his society, he added that, "Few things are brought to a successful issue by impetuous desire, but most by calm and prudent forethought."

History teaches us that the decline of a society and the demise of a government comes with the institutionalization of corruption and a wanton disregard for the written law. Such is our situation today, wherein the states have become puppets of an all-powerful federal government that confiscates more and more private property while exerting increasing control over every aspect of our lives.

If we are to protect our society from despotism and decline, whose counsel should we then cherish? Should we abide by thousands of years of experience and the wisdom of history's greatest philosophers -- Polybius, Aristotle, Montesquieu, Locke, Jefferson, Adams and Madison among them? Men who understood the nature of a government's despotic decline and sought to construct a system to counter it?

Or should we disregard their guidance and follow instead the Fabian Socialists? Should we heed Cass Sunstein, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama? Should we follow the direction of a few lawless bureaucrats that intentionally ignore their oaths of office? Who believe not in what the founders believed but instead in the infallibility of an authoritarian, centralized government?

The greatest bulwark against tyranny in America has always been the Constitution, which instantiates our carefully designed system of private property, God-given individual liberties and free enterprise.

If we are to protect our society from despotism and Fabian decline, whose counsel should we then cherish? I contend that we must fight the socialist counter-revolution using every political weapon possible. We must return our country to the rule of law as defined by our founders and codified in the Constitution. Anything less condemns our descendants to the fate that Thucydides described.


Saturday, August 07, 2010

'Smith, get a motorcade to take me over to Bethesda Country Club. I grow tired of the people's incessant complaints about unemployment.'

Tyler Durden once again lifts the veil on the real economy and finds the true unemployment (U-3) rate is roughly 14.7%.

The first chart below demonstrates the LFP [Labor Force Participation] rate, which a derivative of the chart we presented earlier, has now plunged to the lowest level in over 25 years, or 64.6% (gotta go back to December 1984 for the first time this was passed). So we decided to "normalize" the LFP by keeping it at the peak achieved at the turn of millennium, or December 1999, when it hit a peak of 67.1%. Now as everyone knows the US population has been soaring since then, and with the cost of living increasing ever more with each day, and as more and more family members are forced to join the work pool, it makes sense that in a normal economy, the LFP should continue rising instead of declining. We thus kept it constant at the 67.1% level (instead of doing the conservative thing and pushing it higher along the trendline), and ran the unemployment numbers through, assuming this part of the jobless equation was constant. To our surprise, we found that the U-3 rate (not the U-6), which today was supposed to be 9.5%, in fact turns out to be 13.0% as of July: an all time record save for the 13.6% recorded in December 2009. And if instead we use the trendline number of a 68.5% LFP rate, the unemployment rate today would be 14.7%. In retrospect we sympathize with Christina Romer's decision to get the hell out of Dodge... Reported and adjusted labor force participation rate:


Running these numbers through the actual unemplyment calculation, reveals the following: while assuming a declining LFP rate we obviously get the 9.5% unemployment rate, assuming a peak 67.1% LFP results in a 13.0% unemployment rate. And if the labor force participation rate were to grow according to trendline, the jobless rate in the US today would have been reported at 14.7%, just about where the U-6 was reported, but based on an entirely different methodology.


Pity the geniuses who work in legacy media haven't figured out that (a) this kind of story is newsworthy; and (b) it sells papers.

Because the logical follow-up question is: when will these jamokes figure out that the economic damage is intentional?


Maine's Free-Spending RINOs Love Running Up the National Debt

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, the twin "moderate" Republican Senators from Maine, have accumulated a troubling and inconsistent track record when it comes to upholding the Constitution. Their latest move: voting to confirm Elena Kagan when they know full well that the new justice is a political operative appointed with a single mission. Her job is to uphold the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the most intrusive federal over-reach in American history.

Snowe and Collins held the crucial swing votes for the Orwellian 'DISCLOSE Act', a blatant attempt by Democrats to squelch free speech. Thankfully, they voted the right way, but only after high drama (likely involving billions in bribes earmarks) in the upper chamber.

While Maine contributes only $6 billion annually to federal coffers, Snowe and Collins exhibit no qualms in spending the rest of the country's money. Or, rather, many subsequent generations' money, which will have to be repaid with interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

Federal tax revenue (2007)

Rank State Gross collections (2007) Population (2007) Revenue per capita
44 Maine $6,289,216,000 1,317,207 $4,774.66

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/olympia_snowe.htm
  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending.(Jul 2009)
  • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
  • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
  • Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Aug 2009)
  • Voted YES on Congressional pay raise. (Jul 2009)
Missing is the latest state bailout bill.

This is how Collins and Snowe maintain their power. They play footsy with Democrats in order to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money -- Collins is directly responsible for $377 million in pork over the last couple of years; Snowe is at $368 million.

This is why "moderate" Republicans must be primaried and defeated. The country is bankrupt. It can't afford any of this garbage. Yet Snowe and Collins -- vote after vote -- flirt with the radical leftists who control the Democrat Party. That's the same Democrat Party which appears to have launched a Kamikaze attack on the entire U.S. financial system.

The welfare state is dead. And, despite their high positions, Collins and Snowe appear to be the last so-called Republicans in the country to have received the memo.


Hat tip: K.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

The 5 Scariest Jobs Charts of August

Excerpted from The Business Insider's comprehensive view.

5. The small business hiring situation: deplorable.

4. The number of government workers -- despite the catastrophic debt at every level of government -- continues to explode upward.

3. The average weekly hours for those employed in manufacturing continues to drop.

2. The average length of unemployment continues to increase -- and is now at almost 9 months.

1. The number of Americans unemployed for at least half a year continues to skyrocket with no end in sight.

So I would encourage you to send this article -- along with a thank you note -- to each person you know who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.