Unemployment Rate Falls To 9.7%, But 20,000 Jobs Were Lost?

The national unemployment rate declined in January to the seasonally adjusted rate of 9.7% from 10.0% in December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rate beat consensus expectations of remaining unchanged at 10.0%. But even though the national rate declined, 20,000 more jobs were lost. That was worse than consensus expectations, where economist expected a gain of 15,000 jobs. This is one of those months where the decline in rate should warrant little more than cautious optimism. In reality, the economy still lost jobs and the employment situation is quite ugly

also

Congresswoman Donna Edwards Is Only The Latest Head of the Hydra

Submitted by Laryn

So the Democrats want to amend the Constitution…

Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-Md) has introduced an amendment to attempt to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United vs FEC. The proposed amendment will read:

‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’

Their reasoning?

The Court’s action dramatically dilutes the vote and the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury. The decision unleashes billions of dollars in corporate money to dominate legislatures and elections.

Sounds reasonable, huh? We don’t need huge conglomerations pumping zillions of dollars into politics to screw the little guy, right? But wait… Here’s the most telling thing about this abomination amendment. From the Q&A, emphasis mine:

Will the Free Speech for People Amendment prevent people from joining together into political parties, citizens’ organizations, associations, unions or other groups to participate in elections and public debate?

No. The Free Speech for People Amendment applies to corporate entities and has no application to voluntary associations and does not change constitutionally protected freedom of association. People are always free to associate with others to promote their speech or engage in political activity.

That’s right. They’re going to level the playing field. By making sure the only enormous political donors will be unions.

This is no accident. This is a willful attempt to take over the political process entirely. This is a blatant power grab by the Democrats on behalf of the unions who put and keep them in office.

Think I’m exaggerating? I spent half an hour digging through the folks involved in freespeechforpeople.org, and what I turned up is infuriating. A list of their sponsoring organizations, and the people employed by those organizations, is very telling.
(more…)

Stephen A. McIntyre

About a year ago I saw an article about the Argentinean Government proposing a bill that would in effect nationalize all of their 401K/IRA type retirement accounts.

Well as of November, 2009 that has now become a reality, over $29 Billion in retirement accounts have now been seized by the Government and they will use that money to pay down debt.

As I remember the plan the poor owner of that account would get Government issued bonds that will pay between 2 and 3% to replace those monies the government takes. You can read this article from the London Telegraph here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/5504137/Argentina_seizes_pension_funds_to_pay_debts_Whos_next/

Now when I read that about a year ago I predicted then that it would only be a matter of time before some “bright” people on the Democratic Party’s Left would see this and think that would be a good idea here.

Well in Karl Denniger’s Market Ticker, dated 1/8/2010, there is such an article about plans being made in this country to do the same thing.

The following story is from Businessweek:

Americans Oppose Initiatives Limiting 401(k) Choices, ICI Says

By Jeff Plungis Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) — U.S. investors oppose federal initiatives that would force them to give up control over their 401(k) accounts, the Investment Company Institute said.
(more…)

Glenn Beck DESTROYS Richard Blumenthal

Submitted by Laryn

“Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s borrow $787 billion from the Chinese… and spend it on a Stimulus package! We’ll claim it will ’save or create’ millions of new jobs! Wait, what’s that you say? We did that? Seriously? Oh. Well, let’s organize a ‘jobs summit’ and figure out how to do it all over again without any retrospective examination of how the first one failed! It’ll be awesome!”

Dear America, brace yourselves. Prepare for a new litany of lies to rival the ten biggest fabrications of the first Stimulus disaster.

1. UNEMPLOYMENT “AT EIGHT PERCENT OR BELOW”

CLAIM: “Obama’s top economic advisers claimed unemployment would remain at eight percent or below through this year with passage of an economic stimulus package (Associated Press, 6/14/09).
FAIL: The nation’s unemployment rate now stands at over 10% with 17% underemployment.

2. IMPACT FELT “IMMEDIATELY”

CLAIM: “Q: If the president gets his way and gets this package approved, he signs it into law, how soon before — the American public starts to feel results, the creation of jobs? NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR LAWRENCE SUMMERS: You’ll see the effects begin almost immediately.” (CNN, 2/9/09)
FAIL: Oh, we felt it immediately, alright. Right in the kiester, so to speak. The U.S. economy has lost more than three million jobs since the trillion-dollar ’stimulus’ was signed.

3. “90 PERCENT … PRIVATE SECTOR”

CLAIM: “More than 90 percent of the jobs created by this plan will be in the private sector.” – President Obama (News conference, 2/9/09)
FAIL: “…well over half of the jobs claimed so far have been in the public sector” (The New York Times, 11/4/09). But, after all, isn’t that what Democrats do best? Grow government and diminish the individual?

4. “NO EARMARKS OR PET PROJECTS”

CLAIM: “There will be no earmarks or pet projects in this bill.” – Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Floor statement, 2/13/09)
FAIL: The trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ has produced countless examples of wasteful government spending, including repairs to a bridge that reportedly carries about 260 cars per day, many to a place called Rusty’s Backwater Saloon in Wisconsin, and in North Carolina, where ‘stimulus’ funds were reportedly used by one town to hire a new worker whose job is to apply for more ‘stimulus’ funds from Washington. Sounds efficient!

5. “A VERY FISCALLY SOUND PACKAGE”

CLAIM: “We must make sure the public understands this is a very fiscally sound package.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Talk Radio News Service, 3/10/09)
FAIL: With the help of the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus,’ the Obama Administration spent more in its first 100 days than all previous presidents have combined. The national debt has topped $12 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. The federal government is now operating on a budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in ten. Care to guess what happens to the economy when all of those debts come due — and Social Security and Medicare collapse? Ah, but that’s the genius of the Democrats: it’s all intentional!

6. “A LOT MORE JOBS CREATED”
(more…)

from Big Government

The White House recently began claiming that the “Recovery Act” had “created or saved” 640,000-plus jobs. This was a political mistake, since the “jobs saved” measure allows for creative accounting. But the White House also erred by providing (supposed) details, making it very easy for reporters to do a bit of fact checking, which has generated a spate of stories showing that the White House’s numbers are wrong, even using make-believe methodology. The Washington Examiner has put together a very useful interactive map which links to many of the news reports debunking the Administration’s fraudulent numbers. With the White House now talking about a second stimulus (though it appears they will call it a jobs bill), it’s time to remind ourselves with a three-part series that government spending is not stimulus. Part I is this video debunking Keynesian economics.

also:

HCAN = SEIU = ACORN

We have already established the Healthcare for America Now (HCAN) is a front group primarily staffed by former SEIU members and financed by the SEIU. And we’ve established HCAN’s role in the angry intimidating tactics employed to bully the town hall protestors during the month of August. So, who is HCAN?

In short, HCAN is ACORN. (more…)

First From Red Maryland

How Brown Wants to Screw You

Perhaps the best explication of how rent-seeking corporations use government regulation to stifle competition.

And what are the result of all this socialist, anti-competition, economic policies?

US Beating Europe…..In Numbers Unemployed

The left got what they wanted….we’re like Europe now:

Unemployment is now higher in the U.S. than in Europe, reports the Washington Post. “The official U.S. unemployment rate, reported last Friday, now stands at 10.2 percent,” compared to “9.7 percent” in Europe. This is the highest rate in more than 26 years, and marks a huge change from the recent past, in which unemployment was double the American rate in much of Europe.

Unemployment is at 10 percent in France, which refused to adopt a U.S.-style stimulus package, and only 7.6 percent in Germany, which adopted a stimulus package that was smaller relative to its economy than ours was. (Countries that refused to adopt big stimulus packages have fared better than those that imitated President Obama. And the biggest-spending countries have suffered worst in the recession.)

A “broader measure of U.S. unemployment,” including discouraged workers, puts U.S. unemployment at 17.5 percent, reports the New York Times. (more…)

from Flopping Aces

Rush said earlier that he doesn’t believe Obama really cares what happens in Afghanistan…only what the war can do for him, and now the dithering liberal is dithering some more. 10 months wasn’t enough you see:

Axelrod said Obama would announce a war strategy “within weeks.” A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press that Obama has still not yet decided what to do, and it remains unclear whether he will decide before he goes to Asia on Nov. 11.

Here is what Rush said earlier and it’s dead on accurate:

WALLACE: Let’s talk about a couple of the big issues the president is dealing with now — first of all, Afghanistan. You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left-wing base on board for health care reform.

RUSH: Well, it’s partly that, but I also don’t think he cares much about it. I think once…

WALLACE: Well, come on.

RUSH: No, I — no, see, this is — I know this is going to sound controversial, but I don’t think he cares that — if he — Chris, if he cared about — we’ve got soldiers and their families worrying about what we’re going to do. The general on the ground said we need some more troops.

The policy that he implemented in March he now doesn’t like and is trying to figure out how best to make everybody happy here politically on his side of the aisle and also for his image. Democrats have a tendency to be seen as weak on defense, so he’s battling with that.

But again, if he cared about victory — remember, he said about Afghanistan victory is not something he’s comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very uncomfortable.

He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says these things. I don’t know if people actually listen and have them register when he does.

WALLACE: But you say you don’t know that he really cares. Do you at least give him credit for going to Dover, Delaware to honor the remains of soldiers, dead soldiers, who came back from Afghanistan?

RUSH: You know, see, the politically correct thing to say here would be, “Oh, yes, I am very impressed that President Obama decided to go show his concern for the remains, troops who’ve given their lives for freedom in this country.”

It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he’s having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. He found one family that would allow photos to be taken. None of the others did.

And of course, when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression that he has all this great concern, but the — Bush did this…

WALLACE: Well, no…

RUSH: … but no cameras.

WALLACE: I don’t know that he ever went to Dover, Delaware.

RUSH: No, he went to see the families.

WALLACE: Yes, he certainly went to see the families.

RUSH: But he didn’t make photo ops out of it. The…

WALLACE: Well, but the argument would be that it was political of Bush not to be seen with the coffins because he was trying to hide it, hide the cost of war from the American people.

RUSH: Well, I have the benefit of knowing George Bush a little bit, and I — I — I’ve seen him cry talking about missions that he’s ordered. I think he has a great, profound, deep respect for the families of all military personnel, and those who have died…

WALLACE: But I don’t disagree with that…

RUSH: … and I — he’s not going to use them.

WALLACE: But you don’t think that Barack Obama has a profound respect for our soldiers and the families that are giving the sacrifice?

RUSH: Chris, throughout the Iraq war, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military. They convened hearings and accused General Petraeus of lying. They said the surge would not work.

Harry Reid stands up, waves the white flag — this war is lost. Jack Murtha is out saying our Marines at Haditha are guilty of rape. John Kerry is accusing our Marines of committing terrorism acts by going into the homes of Iraqis at midnight in the dark terrorizing, looking for Al Qaida or whoever was there.

Yeah. I mean, look. I hate to be honest with you here, but I do question their commitment to national security. I question their commitment to the U.S. military. They’ll put their political survival and their political power being gained over anything else. They’ll use anybody and throw anybody away in order to achieve it.

Full interview of Rush with Chris Wallace below:

from Flopping Aces

Hope, Change and a Nobel Peace Prize don’t cut the mustard with the Mullahs!

It was supposed to be Obama’s first big achievement in foreign affairs. Michael Adler, who has been gushing about a new age of diplomacy and peace called it possibly “an “Audacity of Hope” moment in foreign diplomacy, a potentially transformative development.” That was 12 days ago. Thursday, the Iranians announced that they rejected the deal to ship uranium out of the country for processing and asked instead for a new round of negotiations which can have only one purpose: to stall for more time as Iran works to build a bomb.

Look back over the past nine months since Obama took office. He’s gone out of his way to be nice to the mad Mullahs who run Iran. He found it difficult to condemn Iran even as it was butchering it’s citizens in the streets of Tehran. He bashed his own countries “arrogance” and offered to reset relations with the world. All that hope and change with nothing to show for it.

The day before Michael Adler gushed about Obama’s “transformative development” Charles Krauthammer showed his prescience once again:

What’s come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.

What’s come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama’s shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told)? China hasn’t moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed, it’s pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

What’s come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? “The settlement push backfired,” reports The Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have “arguably regressed.”

And what’s come from Obama’s single most dramatic foreign policy stroke — the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.

But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it’s too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal.

The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get?

“Russia Not Budging on Iran Sanctions; Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart.” Such was The Post headline’s succinct summary of the debacle.

Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that “threats, sanctions and threats of pressure” are “counterproductive.” Note: It’s not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure.

The Iranians know that Obama is a pussycat, or as Gerald Warner at the U.K. Telegraph describes him: “President Pantywaist: the new surrender monkey on the block.” Our allies know Obama won’t be providing the strong leadership which most of them complain about in public but demand in private (except in the case of the French President who demanded it at the UN Security Council in September). Strategic competitors like Russia and China know all they have to do is string the Obama Administration along all the while asking and most likely receiving gifts like the termination of the Polish/Czech missile deal while giving up nothing in return.

The Obama Administration demonstrates such naive incompetence on foreign policy that it’s actually making Jimmy Carter’s disastrous presidency look good by comparison. As an example of the idiocy which pervades Obama land, take that of Scott Gration, Obama’s envoy to Sudan:

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration, who was
appointed in March. “Kids, countries, they react to gold stars, smiley faces,
handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”!

also:

Anti- Free Speech Hate Crime Legislation Attached to the Defense Spending Bill

Matthew Shepard’s death was a tragedy. But I think it’s a shameful political hoax to make him the poster boy for the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

President Obama signed this into law Wednesday:

This year, with enlarged majorities in Congress, Democrats attached the hate crimes law to a $681 billion defense spending bill this month over GOP objections. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the approach put “radical social policy” on the “back of our soldiers.”

The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin. Under the law, judges can impose harsher penalties on crimes that are motivated by such animus, and the Justice Department can help local police departments investigate alleged hate crimes.

I truly do not understand the redundancy of hate crime laws- especially at the federal level. Why punish the thoughts behind crimes rather than just the action of the crime itself?

But, it’s one of those things that make liberals feel good about themselves; that they are fighting the good fight. President Obama’s remarks:

Now, speaking of that, there is one more long-awaited change contained within this legislation that I’ll be talking about a little more later today. After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we’ve passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are. (Applause.)

I promised Judy Shepard, when she saw me in the Oval Office, that this day would come, and I’m glad that she and her husband Dennis could join us for this event. I’m also honored to have the family of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought so hard for this legislation. And Vicki and Patrick, Kara, everybody who’s here, I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help this day — make this day possible. So — and thank you for joining us here today. (Applause.)

So, with that, I’m going to sign this piece of legislation. Thank you all for doing a great job. All right.

I guess the Nobel Peace Laureate has now officially accomplished something this year. Still amounts to a big nothing for me, though.

Incidentally, also attached to the bill was a revival of military trials for Guantanamo detainees, expanding their legal rights, but not to the extent that the ACLU would have liked.

Update: This is a reprint of an article from Laryn on the same legistislation:

Democrats to Curtail Free Speech

by Laryn

Byron York blows the whistle on Democratic legislation, about to be enacted by Congress, which purports to partially repeal the First Amendment:

The [hate] crime bill — which would broaden the protected classes for hate crimes to include sexual orientation and “gender identity,” which the bill defines as a victim’s “actual or perceived gender-related characteristics” — passed the House earlier this year as a stand-alone measure. But it’s never had the votes to succeed by itself in the Senate. So over the summer Democrats, with the power of their 60-vote majority, attached it to the defense [appropriations] bill.

Republicans argued that the two measures had nothing to do with each other. Beyond that, GOP lawmakers feared the new bill could infringe on First Amendment rights in the name of preventing broadly defined hate crimes. The bill’s critics, including many civil libertarians, argued that the hate crimes provision could chill freedom of speech by empowering federal authorities to accuse people of inciting hate crimes, even if the speech in question was not specifically related to a crime.

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback offered an amendment saying the bill could not be “construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the First Amendment” and could not place any burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights “if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.”

The Senate passed Brownback’s amendment. After that, several Republicans, their fears allayed, voted for the whole defense/hate crimes package, which passed the Senate last July. …

Then it was time for the House and Senate bills to go to a conference committee, where the differences between them would be ironed out. That’s where the real action began.

First, the committee — controlled by majority Democrats, of course — inserted the hate crimes measure into the House bill, where it had not been before. Then lawmakers made some crucial changes to Brownback’s amendment. Where Brownback had insisted, and the full Senate had agreed, that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights, the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights “unless the government demonstrates … a compelling governmental interest” to do otherwise.

That means your First Amendment rights are protected — unless they’re not.

Needless to say, the First Amendment does not contain a “compelling governmental interest” exception. Legally, of course, no statute can trump the Constitution. But that doesn’t mean the Democrats can’t try, and it doesn’t mean that Barack Obama’s intensely politicized Justice Department won’t try to bring criminal prosecutions against the administration’s political opponents. Indeed, that appears to be the destination the Democrats have in mind when they continually try to demonize opposition to left-wing policies as “hate speech.

New Federal Hate Crime Statute Still Allows Free Speech, to the Extent Government Deems It Prudent

They’ve attached new hate crime categories and penalties to a military budget bill, trusting that Republicans won’t vote against it, and if they do, they’ll have ads taken out against them for doing so.

To make sure that Republicans were damned if they do, damned if they don’t, our civil libertarians and First Amendment fans in the Democratic Party made sure they drafted the provisions as odiously and as unconstitutionally as humanly possible.

First, the committee — controlled by majority Democrats, of course — inserted the hate crimes measure into the House bill, where it had not been before. Then lawmakers made some crucial changes to Brownback’s amendment. Where Brownback had insisted, and the full Senate had agreed, that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights, the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights “unless the government demonstrates … a compelling governmental interest” to do otherwise.

That means your First Amendment rights are protected — unless they’re not.

Finally:

AP Uncovers Stimulus Jobs Created Are a Fiction

Associated Press confirms what we first reported a few days ago…

Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO
Associated Press
Oct 29,2009

WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government’s first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:
(more…)

From Flopping Aces

Remember it was a bill that was too important not to pass immediately without reading!

The following is from Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI), the Ranking Member on the House Ways and Means Committee:

7 Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs
America Now Over 6 Million Jobs Shy of Administration’s Projections
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The table below compares the White House’s February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.

With such a poor record of performance on jobs, what makes people think Democrats can deliver on their promises for health care?

also:

Another Study That Shows ObamaCare Will Ensure Cost Spiral Upward

Shocking!….not:

The nation’s medical costs will keep spiraling upward even faster than they are now under Democratic legislation pending in the House, a report from government economic experts concluded Wednesday.

Republicans said the report is a warning sign that health care legislation is likely to fall short of President Barack Obama’s goal of “bending the cost curve” by slowing torrid rates of medical inflation.

~~~

Unlike previous estimates that have focused mainly on the legislation’s impact on the federal deficit, the actuaries’ report looked at total costs, public and private, over the next 10 years. It found that the nation’s health care tab would increase somewhat more rapidly with the legislation than if nothing is done. The main reason: Newly insured people will seek medical care.

The nation’s health care tab, now at about $2.5 trillion annually, is projected to approach $4.7 trillion in 2019 without the legislation.

With the legislation, national health care spending would be nearly $4.8 trillion in 2019.

Health care would account for 21.3 percent of the U.S. economy in 2019, slightly more than an estimated share of 20.8 percent of the economy if no bill passes. Economists have warned such increases are unsustainable.

“With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare … (the legislation) would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates,” the report said. Moreover, it’s “doubtful” that proposed Medicare cuts will stay in place, the analysts concluded.

~~~

It also cautioned that tens of millions of newly insured people could put a strain on the health care system.

“The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage,” the analysts concluded.

We all knew this to be the true months ago…well, those with common sense understood this. This study is just one more that shows the exact same thing, that ObamaCare will in no way reduce the amount of money spent on health care and in fact will worsen the system, worsen the health care product, worsen the service, and worsen our economy.

The public understands this now so Obama and company actually break the law to get it passed:

Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns that a Department of Health and Human Services Web site that urges visitors to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan may violate rules against government-funded propaganda.

The Web page is accessed through a “state your support” button featured prominently on the HHS Web site and carries a disclaimer that the Web site is maintained by HHS.

In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, Grassley warned that “any possible misuse of appropriated funds by the executive branch to engage in publicity or propaganda in support of an Administration priority is a matter that must be investigated and taken seriously,” noting that in 2005 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that “the use of official funds for similar activities were ‘underhanded tactics’ and that these tactics ‘are not worthy of our great democracy.’”

It’s propaganda plain and simple.

But now Pelosi and the left think nothing of it.

Finally:

Former V.P. Cheney Offers Critical Review of Obama National Security Policy

And he answers the “blame Bush” theme still so prevalent in the Obama Administration!

On CNN’s State of the Union program on Sunday (transcript), White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was questioned about the Obama Administration’s indeciviseness in Afghanistan. Attempting to change the subject, Rahm fell back on the standard “blame Bush” defense suggesting that Afghanistan was just another mess that they had to clean up.

You have literally got into a situation, is there another way you can do this? And the president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side, and the strategic side. What is the impact on the region? What can the Afghan government do or not do? Where are we on the police training? Who would be better doing the police training? Could that be something the Europeans do? Should we take the military side? Those are the questions that have not been asked. And before you commit troops, which is — not irreversible, but puts you down a certain path — before you make that decision, there’s a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it’s clear after eight years of war, that’s basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked.

And what I find interesting and just intriguing from this debate in Washington, is that a lot of people who all of a sudden say, this is now the epicenter of the war on terror, you must do this now, immediately approve what the general said — where, before, it never even got on the radar screen for them. That — everything was always about Iraq.

Amazing. As if no one will realize what a pack of lies that is.

Well, Dick Cheney realized it and in an address to the Center for Security Policy on Wednesday Cheney responded (transcript) (video of entire speech):

(more…)

Powerline

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, our friend Lawrence Kadish had a sobering op-ed on the nation’s exploding debt and the dangers posed by the growing cost of servicing that debt:

It is the interest on the national debt that makes our future unstable. The exploding size of that burden suggests that, short of devaluing the dollar and taking a large bite out of the middle class through inflation and taxation, there is no way to ever pay down that bill.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the national debt was almost $12 trillion and interest on that debt was $383 billion for the year, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 7 estimated the 2009 budget deficit to be almost $1.4 trillion (about 10% of GDP). In August, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated total government revenues at about $2 trillion. The revenue estimate included $904 billion from individual income taxes. This means the cost of interest on the debt represented more than 40 cents of every dollar that came in from individual income taxes. …

During Jimmy Carter’s years in the White House, Treasury yields reached 15%. The 2009 average interest rate on the debt was only 3.2%. With our mounting national debt and budget deficits, it is reasonable to assume that in the near future interest rates on new and refinanced debt could double or triple.

In stark but simple terms, unless Americans are made aware of this financial crisis and demand accountability, the very fabric of our society will be destroyed. Interest rates and interest costs will soar and government revenues will be devoured by interest on the national debt. Eventually, most of what we spend on Social Security, Medicare, education, national defense and much more may have to come from new borrowing, if such funding can be obtained. Left unchecked, this destructive deficit-debt cycle will leave the White House and Congress with either having to default on the national debt or instruct the Treasury to run the printing presses into a policy of hyperinflation.

It is against this background that Washington is now debating whether to create social programs it can’t afford. (more…)

The falling US dollar is giving ammunition to the critics of the Obama administration and fuelling broader concerns about the potential erosion of America’s reserve currency status.

Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential Republican candidate, on Wednesday sought to link the dollar decline to rising US indebtedness and dependence on foreign oil. “We can see the effect of this in the price of gold, which hit a record high today in response to fears about the weakened dollar,” she wrote on her Facebook page.

With other nations also expressing concern about dollar weakness, the administration is at pains to emphasise that it understands the responsibilities that come with issuing the world’s reserve currency and will live up to them.

“It is very important to the United States that we continue to have a strong dollar,” Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, said at the weekend. “We recognise that the dollar’s important role in the system conveys special burdens and responsibilities on us and we are going to do everything necessary to make sure we sustain confidence.”

Angst about the dollar – which has fallen 11.5 per cent on a trade-weighted basis over the past six months – extends beyond ideological conservative political circles.

Last week, Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, warned that “the United States would be mistaken to take for granted the dollar’s place as the world’s predominant reserve currency.”

Much of today’s debate echoes the traditional political response in the US whenever the currency depreciates. But it is now accompanied by warnings from America’s creditors, many of which are widely rumoured to be eyeing large purchases of US real assets such as property and companies.

“The dollar has always been a testosterone issue among America’s political classes,” said Norm Ornstein, a veteran analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. (more…)

The link is here.

by Peter Schweizer,

As we try to shake off the financial crisis, here’s a bright idea. Take a law that has led to the writing of an enormous amount of bad mortgages and expand it. Then take enforcement away from bank examiners and give it to housing activists.

Sound like a poisonous cocktail? Well, it is what the Obama administration and Democrats are currently stirring up on Capitol Hill.

The White House and Congress want to expand a 30-year-old law–the Community Reinvestment Act–that helped to fuel the mortgage meltdown. What the CRA does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are underserved.

In short, the CRA encourages banks to make loans they would not ordinarily make. What’s more, these agreements often require that banks offer no-money-down mortgages and remove caps on how much debt a borrower can take on. All of this is done in the name of “financial democracy.”

Liberals pooh-pooh the idea that a 30-year-old law could have contributed to the current subprime crisis and credit crunch. But what they ignore is the massive expansion of CRA-commitments forced on banks in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.

For some reason, the for profit group cited, “National Community Reinvestment Coalition”, disagrees with the actual data that shows mortgagees with the highest default rates had the least interaction….

According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, in the first 20 years of the act, up to 1997, commitments totaled approximately $200 billion. But from 1997 to 2007, commitments exploded to more than $4.2 trillion. (Keep in mind this is more than four times the size of the current health bill being debated in Congress.) The burdens on individual banks can be enormous. Washington Mutual, for example, pledged $1 trillion in mortgages to those with credit histories that “fall outside typical credit, income or debt constraints,” and was awarded the 2003 CRA Community Impact Award for its Community Access program. Four years later it was taken over by the Office of Thrift Supervision. In 2004 Bank of America ( BAC - news - people ) agreed to provide $750 billion in CRA loans to applicants with poor credit who had previous difficulty obtaining a mortgage. By 2008 Bank of America was reporting that CRA loans represented only 7% of its portfolio but 29% of its losses. Numerous large banks are now in the middle of enormous CRA commitments. In 2004 J.P. Morgan Chase ( JPM - news - people ) agreed to provide $800 billion of such loans over the course of 10 years.

For all the talk of unsold condos in Miami and foreclosed McMansions in California, the epicenters of the mortgage crisis are inner-city urban areas–precisely those areas where the CRA was most applicable. As the Boston Federal Reserve put it in a massive 2008 study, “In the current housing crisis foreclosures are highly concentrated in [urban] minority neighborhoods.” The study found that borrowers in these areas were seven times more likely to be foreclosed on than the general population. Analysis by the Pew Research Center and another by The New York Times found that mortgage holders in these areas had foreclosure rates four times higher than the national average.

In short, the CRA is compelling banks to make trillions in loans to individuals who have poor credit and who often can’t or won’t make their payments.

Now comes Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and 50 other co-sponsors (all Democrats) of H.R. 1479 the “Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009,” who want to expand the CRA to include not just banks but also credit unions, insurance companies and mortgage lenders. Congressman Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has supported the idea in the past. The SEIU and ACORN, along with a host of other activist groups, are also behind the effort.

President Obama has been a staunch supporter of the CRA throughout his public life. And his recently announced financial reforms would make the law even more onerous and guarantee an explosion in irresponsible lending. Obama wants to take enforcement of the CRA away from the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and other financial regulators who at least try to weigh bank safety and soundness when enforcing the law, and turn it over to a newly created Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). This agency’s core concerns would not be safety and soundness but, in the words of the Obama administration, “promoting access to financial services,” which is really code for forcing banks to lend to those who would not ordinarily qualify. Compliance would no longer be done by bank examiners but by what the administration calls “a group of examiners specially trained and certified in community development” (otherwise called community activists). The administration says, in its literature about the reforms, that “rigorous application of the Community Reinvestment should be a core function of the CFPA.”
(more…)

By Dick Morris

What will be our economic trajectory? How will we do as we come out of the recession of 2008-2009?

There are those foolish optimists who predict a “V” shaped recovery - the swift crash will be followed by a buoyant surge. Others, more sober, believe in a “U” - the crash will gradually ease and slowly be followed by gradually increasing growth. Pessimists see an “L” - the crash will be followed by a long period of stagnation and no growth.

I believe a “W” is more likely. Foreign stimulus (e.g. China) will rekindle export markets for American manufacturing and government lending will start the housing industry. But consumer demand, which accounts for 70% of America’s growth, will continue to be stagnant in the face of high unemployment and lingering fears. The rebound will be short-lived and followed by a further downturn, the second part of the “W”.

But this second dip will be accentuated by inflation. We will face, not the stagflation of the 70s, but depressflation, negative growth and high inflation simultaneously. Unfortunately, the policies that would cure one condition will only worsen the other one. The low interest rates and economic stimulus necessary to kindle growth will exacerbate inflation while the high rates that would cure price increases would depress the economy further.

There is just too much debt out there and inflation is inevitable. The United States now borrows between 40 and 50 cents of each dollar it spends. The deficit has tripled since 2008. And, with all the world’s governments following the U.S. into debt and deficit, governments cannot find enough lenders and have to print their own money, a sure portent of disaster.

Voters are getting that the cycle of deficit, debt, and inflation is the inevitable consequence of statist economic policies. (more…)

From Powerline

The New York Post reports that unemployment among young people is at a post-WWII high:

The unemployment rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent — a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. — meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time. …

During previous recessions, in the early ’80s, early ’90s and after Sept. 11, 2001, unemployment among 16-to-24 year olds never went above 50 percent. Except after 9/11, jobs growth followed within two years.

A much slower recovery is forecast today. [Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute] believes it could take four or five years to ramp up jobs again.

These numbers caused me to go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ site for some additional comparisons between the present recession and recent history, as it relates to unemployment. The numbers are surprisingly (to me, anyway) bad. This recession has hit men especially hard, as many have noted.

I don’t think anyone can deny that the employment numbers are very bad. The article linked above includes quotes from Al Angrisani, an assistant Labor Department secretary under President Reagan, who places the blame squarely on the Obama administration:

“There is no assistance provided [in the Democrats’ stimulus bill] for the development of job growth through small businesses, which create 70 percent of the jobs in the country,” Angrisani said in an interview last week. “All those [unemployed young people] should be getting hired by small businesses.”

There are six million small businesses in the country, those that employ less than 100 people, and a jobs stimulus bill should include tax credits to give incentives to those businesses to hire people, the former Labor official said.

“If each of the businesses hired just one person, we would go a long way in growing ourselves back to where we were before the recession,” Angrisani noted. …

Angrisani said he believes that Obama’s economic team, led by Larry Summers, has a blind spot for small business because no senior member of the team — dominated by academics and veterans of big business — has ever started and grown a business.

(more…)

by Laryn

Energy Secretary Steven Chu believes that Americans are acting like teenagers and aren’t acting the way they should act on changing behavior to reduce green-house gas production.
Chu also believes the world is at a tipping point on climate change.
The Wall Street Journal reported:

When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” (In that case, the Energy Department has a few renegade teens of its own.)

The administration aims to teach them—literally. The Environmental Protection Agency is focusing on real children. Partnering with the Parent Teacher Organization, the agency earlier this month launched a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.
(more…)

Somehow I do not think this issue will get much attention in the MSM!

From Powerline:

Sweden Slashes Income Taxes to Promote Job Growth

We noted before that the United States has the most progressive income tax system in the developed world. That’s right–embarrassingly enough, more progressive than Sweden’s.

Actually, a generation of economic stagnation has taught the Swedes a lesson. They’ve learned that government does not produce wealth, and if they want more people to work, jobs have to pay better, after taxes. Sweden is therefore in the midst of a series of tax cuts aimed at preserving the long-term viability of its economy. Today’s headline: “Sweden slashes income tax further to boost jobs.”

It’s an interesting comparison: Sweden experimented with the nanny state, learned that it was devastating to the economic and moral health of its people, and is moving back toward individualism. Here in the U.S., we had the world’s most dynamic economy, and the lesson we took away from that–some of us, anyway–was that we were doing something wrong and needed to socialize everything. (more…)

Obama’s Race to the Past

By Peter Ferrara

Barack Obama explained the principles behind his economic stimulus package last Sunday on ABC’s This Week with former Clinton Administration official George Stephanopoulos. Obama said:

“But our general philosophy is….we don’t have pride of authorship. There are a couple of basic principles I laid out. We’ve got to move quickly. We’ve got to make sure that any investments that we make have good long term benefits for the economy, not just short term….We can’t have waste and abuse in it. We can’t have earmarks in it….If people have better ideas on certain provisions, if they say, you know, this is going to work better than that, then we welcome that.”

That’s all. Just good government principles. No ideological blinders here. We are completely open to whatever works. Or as his spokeswoman said last week, “We are guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests.”

This is political propaganda coldly calculated to distract the public from Obama’s highly ideological agenda that studiously avoids everything that would work, because Obama and his ultraliberal Democrats ideologically object to it, and studiously focuses only on what was tried and failed long ago, because Obama and the retro Ds are all ideologically so nostalgic for that.

What Works

We know how to get the economy booming again. The fundamental, practical principles of economics have worked over and over again, wherever they have been tried, throughout human history. Reagan’s economic recovery program was based on these principles, with 4 concrete components reiterated over and over again throughout his campaign, and implemented after he was elected.

Those components were (1) across the board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, starting and expanding businesses, job creation, entrepreneurship, and work, (2) removing the costs of unnecessary regulation, which today would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production, allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, and revival of the nuclear power industry, (3) controlling government spending, which contrary to longstanding liberal propaganda Reagan did do, as explained in my article in the November 2008 American Spectator, “When the Republicans Cut Spending,” and (4) sound anti-inflation monetary policy.

We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today’s, suffering from multi-year double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. What we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but The Worst Economy Since Jimmy Carter, which was the last time Obama’s ultraliberals were dominant, politically and intellectually.

Indeed, these Reagan policies not only ended the disastrous stagflation of the 1970s, but created what economists Art Laffer and Steve Moore have rightly noted was the 25-year economic boom, from 1982 to 2007, the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. This was recounted in detail in my October 8 column, “Prepare for the Worst.” So, yes, we do know how to create an economic boom. But notice how the Obama/liberal Democrat stimulus package so carefully avoids all of the above components of the successful Reagan economic recovery package. That is for ideological reasons, not practical reasons.

Let’s Try What Never Worked Instead (more…)

From Red Maryland

It is obvious to everybody that President Obama’s handling of the economy leaves much to be desired. With monetary giveaways to any company with their handout, our “investment” in the auto industry, and record deficits on the way, Obama’s fiscal policy seems more like a call for the limbo than it is a plan for fiscal recovery.

And apparently, as I have noted before…..we’ve seen this movie:

Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression, according to a new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan.

His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.

There are “troubling similarities” between the US President’s actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.

In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House’s plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.

The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: “[Franklin D Roosevelt’s] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows.”

Well, that’s a cheery way to spend your Labor Day. But I think it is incredibly illustrative of the arguments being put forth not just in Washington but also in Annapolis. Both Obama and O’Malley are hellbent on trying to spend our way to fiscal prosperity while, at the same time, making it harder and harder for middle and working class families to compete on a level paying field. Both the President and the Governor are taking us on a reckless fiscal course that will lead to higher deficits at the national level, long-term inflation, and a reduction in earnings and income for most Marylanders.

At the Maryland level, this is a particularly damning problem. With our state Constitution requiring balanced budgets, it is painfully obvious to everybody the danger that comes with proposed overspending. When you combine liberal belief in the myth that Maryland has a recession proof economy with a senseless devotion to Keynes, you wind up with a hyper-bloated state budget that requires piecemeal cuts. And Governor O’Malley, instead of showing leadership and reducing state spending and the size of state government, instead tries to finagle his way out of it.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

also:

The Audacity of One Final Act of Political Corruption

My heart goes out to Massachusetts senior Senator Ted Kennedy as he battles fatal brain cancer. No one should have to suffer slowly toward their demise. That said, Kennedy’s latest–and perhaps his last–major act as a senator constitutes nothing short of blatant political corruption.

Usually, politicians try to keep their wrongdoings shrouded from view in darkened rooms. It’s easier to get away with what you want when the lights are off. For example:

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford went to Argentina to have an affair.

John Edwards fathered a child out of wedlock while his wife had cancer and convinced a loyal aid to initially take the fall. Cue the National Enquirer and federal grand juries.

Congressman John Murtha met in private with undercover federal agents posing as Middle Eastern businessmen during the ABSCAM scandal 30 years ago but avoided prosecution by testifying as an unindicted co-conspiritor. When asked about accepting $50,000 in bribe money, Murtha said he was not interested “at this point” but could be later as they got to know each other.

Former Congressman Mark Foley resigned in disgrace after it was discovered he had sent sexually explicit messages to a former page.

Congressman Barney Frank’s former “roommate” was running a gay prostitution ring out of their DC apartment.

There are many others on both sides of the aisle who’ve had their private sins exposed. Some committed crimes while others committed only acts of paramount stupidity. But all were done in a clandestine fashion for obvious reasons.

That’s what makes Senator Kennedy’s impolitic public pronouncement that he is seeking to change his state’s senatorial succession law in anticipation of his death so shocking in its brazenness.

Democrat-controlled Massachusetts changed the state’s senatorial succession law in 2004. Previously, the state’s governor had the power to appoint a replacement senator until an election could be held. You’ll recall, however, in 2004 the state’s junior senator, John Kerry, was the Democrat nominee for president but the governor at the time was a dastardly Republican: Mitt Romney. So, in an effort to deprive Romney of this power in the event of Kerry’s election, the state legislature changed the rules to require a special election for the replacement.

Fast forward to 2009. Massachusetts now has a Democrat governor and Senator Kennedy’s condition will soon render him unable to serve and the end of his life is hastening. The timing couldn’t be worse for Kennedy because of his career-long interest in the issue of health care for all Americans–unless, of course, your last name is Kopechne.

It’s also poor timing for Congressional Democrats. If Kennedy vacates his seat during the health care reform debate (or is it health insurance reform now? I can’t keep it straight), then the special election must be held between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy. That’s five months of Massachusetts having only one senator and Senate Democrats being short of the filibuster-proof majority.

The Democrat solution to this thorny problem? Change the law back! It sure would be nice to change the system now that someone friendly is in the state house. To that end, Kennedy sent a letter to Governor Duval Patrick pushing for the change already pending in the state legislature. “It is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election,” Kennedy said in the letter supporting the legislation to Governor Patrick.

In response to which I posit this query: Why?

Senator Kerry is certainly pompous and windy enough to speak for the people of Massachusetts by himself. Another far-left voice replacing Kennedy’s would add nothing new to the discussion. Kennedy’s letter also suggests the governor, if re-vested with the power to appoint an interim replacement, select someone who commits not to run in the special election. In other words, “Here, warm this seat in the Senate for a few months while we find someone better.” The state would have as much influence if it kept the chair empty. The fact is the Democrats dominate both houses of Congress and control all legislation, whether there are 1 or 2 Massachusetts senators seated. There is virtually nothing stopping them from passing any law they get behind but they are acting as if they have a razor-thin margin.

And yet the health care debate has become a debacle for them and President Obama. The grass roots–and, yes, they are real as I know and hear from hundreds of them–are energized and mobilized to prevent a socialist legislative takeover of the industry. The Democrats’ plans won’t do that in one fell swoop but will be a big step in that direction. The revelation that relatives and associates of chief presidential aides, including David Axelrod, are financially benefiting from the debate is not exactly the kind of “change” President Obama championed during the campaign. Indeed, it’s more of the type of corruption we’ve come to expect. That will do nothing to dissuade the protestors.

But, cancer or no, Senator Kennedy’s attempts to change the law just to protect Democrat power is nothing short of incredible. It is gamesmanship of the most cynical variety with politicians granting and denying powers like demi-gods.

I suppose, given the corruption we’ve witnessed, Kennedy’s acts should come as no surprise. They are just the most fragrant example of our political system’s putrescence and the stench is getting worse. Fortunately (and mercifully) for Senator Kennedy, he’ll shuffle off soon enough and the State Run Media will wring their hands in anguish while lionizing the trust-fund multi-millionaire for his life long service to “The Little Man”. Unfortunately for us, he’ll leave behind arrogant abuses of power, corruption and decay for us to fix.

It might be a good thing for there to be one less senator for awhile. It’ll be one less politician to pick your pocket while shaking your hand. One less politician who conveniently forgets his family while freely dropping his pants for paramours. One less politician looking to have his personal interests and accounts padded with special interest money, sweetheart deals, and exemptions from onerous burdens they strap on you. One less politician to act out of expediency by continuing to raise taxes and increase spending instead of making the hard choices true leaders are supposed to make. One less politician to put power and politics above the people and the Constitution.

Let’s hope the Massachusetts electorate will eventually take the opportunity to fill Kennedy’s seat with someone worthy of the office who’ll listen to and lead the constituents, not abolish their power to satisfy a political lust for hegemonic control.

Crossposted from The Los Angeles Examiner

By Dick Morris
The stimulus package used up all the wiggle room he had to increase the budget deficit. He probably could have passed the healthcare program without a tax increase had he not already sent the deficit soaring with his massive spending. (Hillary and Bill pretended that there was no need to raise taxes to pay for their 1993 reform package and few questioned their presumption.) But now that the deficit has soared to 12 percent of the gross domestic product, everyone realizes that taxes must go up to pass healthcare “reform,” making its adoption even less likely. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) has passed $550 billion of tax increases, but everyone knows that at least $1 trillion is required. And, in the current environment, Congress will not vote to add the balance to the deficit, even if Charlie wants to “charge it.”

Finally, Obama has laid a trap for himself. Just as the economy is coming out of its recession — in 2010 and 2011 — and he begins to run for reelection, he is going to face massive inflation. The money supply has more than tripled since October of 2008 and is going up each week as the Fed buys Treasury bills and other securities to “monetize the debt” (i.e., give other people money so they can lend it back to the government and charge it interest for doing so). With each new infusion of cash, the problem of avoiding inflation becomes particularly severe. Obama could well lose the elections of 2012 because of the inflation his deficit has created.

Of course, we all know that the only way to put the inflation virus back in the test tube is to trigger a new recession, this time caused by massive increases in interest rates, as Fed Chairman Paul Volcker did in 1979. If the recession doesn’t doom Obama to a single term, the inflation will. And if the inflation doesn’t get him, the subsequent recession will.

The deeper he gets into his term, the more it is apparent that he threw it all away when he first took office and demanded over $1 trillion in stimulus and supplemental appropriation spending. (more…)