You’re A Rich Girl Now, Michelle!

What a vacation. $75,000 a day on Taxpayer’s expense. Oh, she’s pad for her room. Oh, her Gynecologist lost her Dad. Sorry about that. But why does that give Michelle Obama the right, in the worst recession in American history, to soak the taxpayers?

It’s that elitist mentality. She’s a rich girl now. It’s party time.

If this is shared sacrifice, I want some.

Daryl Hall and John Oates had Michelle’s number when she was just 13 years old.

Now, hurry back Rich Girl. You wouldn’t want to miss the Martha’s Vineyard vacation or the Florida vacation you have planned.

What a tough life. You would have gotten along famously with Marie Antoinerre. Wiki describes Antoinette like this:

Her name has become a byword for ostentatious luxury by the super rich in the face of national problems and the hardships of the poor.

I think that says it all, Rich Girl.

Posted at Disrupt the Narrative –

According to National Journal Christina Romer has decided to call it quits. “She has been frustrated,” a source with insight into the WH economics team said. “She doesn’t feel that she has a direct line to the president. She would be giving different advice than Larry Summers [director of the National Economic Council], who does have a direct line to the president.” “She is ostensibly the chief economic adviser, but she doesn’t seem to be playing that role,” the source said. The WH has been pounded for its faulty forecast that unemployment would not top 8% after its economic stimulus proposal passed. http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/08/romer_to_leave.php Prior to joining the Obama regime Romer and her husband David published a paper espousing that if stimulus is necessary during a recession, it is much better to do it with monetary policy rather than fiscal because fiscal stimulus is slow to get through the pipeline and it tends to be ineffective. The 847 billion dollar failed stimulus has provided Romer with a steaming pile of evidence to support her premise. I …

See the rest here:
I can’t wait to read the book!

For Over A Year The White House Has Told Unemployed Americans “The Worst May Be Behind Us,” & That Their Economic Plan Will “Literally Drop-Kicks Us Out Of This Recession”

SEC. GEITHNER: “Welcome To The Recovery … A Review Of Recent Data On The American Economy Shows That We Are On A Path Back To Growth.” (Sec. Geithner, “Welcome To The Recovery,” The New York Times, 8/3/10)

Over A Year Ago The Obama Administration Predicted Economic Improvement “Immediately,” Or In “Weeks To Months”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “This Morning, We Received Additional Signs That The Worst May Be Behind Us. … I Am Convinced That We Can See A Light At The End Of Tunnel, But Now We’re Going To Have To Move Forward With Confidence And Conviction To Reach The Promise Of A New Day.” (President Obama, Press Conference, 8/7/09)

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN – FEBRUARY 25, 2009: The Stimulus Will “Literally Drop-Kicks Us Out Of This Recession.” “This is a monumental project, but I think it’s doable. But I just think we got to stay on top (inaudible) and we got to stay on top of that on a weekly basis. Because this is about getting this out and spent in 18 months to create 3.5 million jobs and do — to set — tee this up so the rest of the good work that’s being done here literally drop-kicks us out of this recession and we begin to grow again and begin to employ people again.” (Vice President Biden, Remarks At Recovery Plan Implementation Meeting, The White House, 2/25/09)

• BIDEN – SEPTEMBER 24, 2009: “In My Wildest Dreams, I Never Thought It Would Work This Well.” (“Biden On Stimulus: ‘Never Thought It Would Work This Well,’” The Wall Street Journal, 9/24/09)

PETER ORSZAG, WHITE HOUSE BUDGET DIRECTOR – FEBRUARY 5, 2009: Americans To See Stimulus Benefits In “Weeks To Months.” BLITZER: “If it [the stimulus bill] passes the way you want it, more or less, without huge changes, when do you think the American public will begin to feel some benefit from this? In other words, jobs will stop being lost and maybe some of them will actually be created.” ORSZAG: “Well, it’s going to take a bit of time, and we have to remember we’re inheriting -” BLITZER: “Define a bit of time.” ORSZAG: “It will take weeks to months.” (CNN’s “Situation Room,” 2/5/09)

LARRY SUMMERS, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 9, 2009: “You’ll See The Effects Begin Almost Immediately.” BLITZER: “It’s a tough call, obviously, right now for these members of Congress. But 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?” SUMMERS: “You’ll see the effects begin almost immediately.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/9/09)

` Americans want us to focus on jobs, but by taking us off the small business bill and moving to this one, Democrats are proving the jobs they care about most are their own. Think about it. Here we are in the middle of the worst recession in memory, and Democrat leaders decided to pull us off a bill that’s meant to create jobs in an effort to pass this election-year ploy to hold onto their own.’

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following statement Tuesday regarding the DISCLOSE Act:

“Eight years ago, Congress passed and the President signed a bill known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. This bill was the culmination of a long and protracted battle, in which I played a major part, as many of my friends on both sides of the aisle will recall. It garnered bi-partisan support and bi-partisan opposition. Many hearings were held, studies were conducted. And a lengthy record on both sides of the issue was developed.

“I strongly opposed that bill. But I commend its authors for one thing: in drafting and passing BCRA, they made every effort to ensure that everybody would have to play by the same rules — rules, moreover, that would not take effect in the middle of an election year. They wanted to make sure there was no appearance of giving one party a partisan advantage. And in that, they succeeded.

“Now fast forward to today. Late last week, Democrat leaders decided to take us off the Small Business bill to move to the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that is the mirror opposite of BCRA in the partisan way it was drafted and in the partisan way it’s being pushed ahead of an election.

“Let’s be perfectly clear: this bill is not what its supporters say it is. It is not an effort to promote transparency. It is not a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United — which has now been the law of the land for seven months and which, contrary to the breathless warnings of some, has not caused the world to stop turning on its axis.

“This bill is a partisan effort, pure and simple, drafted behind closed doors by current and former Democrat campaign committee leaders, and it’s aimed at one thing and one thing only: this bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of November.

“The supporters of this bill say it’s about transparency. To that, I say it’s transparent alright. It’s a transparent effort to rig the fall elections. And they’re so intent on their goal that they’re willing to launch an all-out assault on the First Amendment in order to get there.

“Democrats achieved something truly remarkable in drafting this bill. They united the ACLU and the Chamber of Commerce — both in opposition. Why? Because it’s as obvious to these groups as it is to me that the DISCLOSE Act is a clear violation of the right to free speech.

“And as usual with Democrats in this Congress, the process hasn’t been any better than the substance. Over in the House, the Democrats’ campaign committee chairman sprung a rewrite of substantial portions that Republicans and even Democrats hadn’t seen shortly before this bill was voted on. Not to be outdone, Democrats here in the Senate introduced a version last week that had been substantially rewritten since it was first introduced in April. In other words, the original Senate version was replaced under a veil of secrecy late last week, and that’s the one Democrat leaders want us to vote on today.

“A massive rewrite of the laws that govern elections and Democrats want to give six full days between introduction and a vote. A massive re-write of the nation’s campaign finance laws without hearings, without testimony, without studies, without a markup. Another bill produced without a single hearing and placed directly on the calendar to bypass even the Rules Committee, which is supposed to have jurisdiction over this issue. A bill written behind closed doors with the help of lobbyists and special interests.  All of this — in the name of transparency! Forget the DISCLOSE Act, Mr. President. What we really need is a “Transparency in Legislating about Elections Act.”

“This approach to this bill couldn’t be more different than BCRA. However much I disagreed with that bill, it treated all groups, corporations, unions, parties and individuals the same. From the ban on party non-federal dollars to advertisement limitations within proximity of an election, BCRA’s restrictions and prohibitions were applied evenly. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite: 117 pages of stealth negotiations in which Democrats pick winners and losers, either through outright prohibitions or restrictions so complex that they end up achieving the same result.

“The unions don’t need a carve-out because they got exemptions. The new law applies to government contractors, but not their unions or unions with government contracts. It doesn’t apply to government unions. It applies to domestic subsidiaries, but not to their unions or international unions. Through threshold and transfer exemptions, unions are the ultimate victors under this bill.

I would note that numerous attempts were made to provide parity in the House Administration Committee mark-up — all were defeated on a partisan basis with no credible explanation. And this is what they’re calling transparency.

“In their efforts to pass this partisan bill ahead of the election, Democrats have been forced to do the same kind of horse-trading we saw in the health care debate. Some of the deals they struck were aimed at attracting special interest support, while others were aimed at quelling special interest opposition. In the end, they came up with a bizarre carve-out construct that grants full First Amendment freedoms to the chosen ones. And the results aren’t any prettier than the health care bill.

“Follow this logic: The exemption applies to 501c4s, with 500,000 members in all 50 states plus Puerto Rico and DC, in existence for 10 years who receive less than 15% of their money from corporations or labor unions. In case you don’t know who this provision is aimed at, it’s a carve-out for the NRA — as well as the AARP and the Humane Society, among unknown others, but not to groups like AIPAC or groups formed to advocate for victims of the oil spill or Hurricane Katrina.  So if you have 400,000 members, sit down and shut up. If you were founded in 2002, nice try, sit down. If you don’t have the ability to recruit members in every state, zip it. These are the contortions the authors of this bill had to go through to get it this far.

“Worse still, the DISCLOSE Act mandates that its provisions shall take effect without regard to whether or not the Federal Election Commission has promulgated regulations to carry out such amendments.  This, of course, will have the practical effect of paralyzing those who want to participate in the political process. If they don’t know what the rules are, they’ll take themselves out of the game, which is clearly what the authors of this bill want.

“Let me ask a question. All these new reporting obligations, filing requirements, certification mandates and transfer burdens are to occur, how?  Are there magic forms out there we don’t know about?  Do folks write emails to the FEC, FCC or SEC?  Maybe we bring back telegrams or use a Harry Potter Owl or the Pony Express?  Under threat of criminal sanctions, this provision is a clear message from the Justice Department to anyone covered by the new restrictions in this bill: go ahead and speak, make my day.

“Lastly, Mr. President, recognizing the important constitutional questions at issue with BCRA, an expedited judicial review provision was included in that bill.  Not so with this one.  In order to make sure this bill isn’t held up by something as inconvenient as a challenge on first amendment grounds, its authors have made sure no court action interferes with their new restrictions this election cycle and maybe next.  They add multiple layers of review.

“No provision addressing an appeal to the Supreme Court.  No time limits for filing, and no Congressional direction to the courts to expedite.  Again the goal of the proponents of this speech rights reduction act is clear: slow the process and secure new rules that help incumbent Democrats for the upcoming elections, and for the foreseeable future.

“Their one goal here is to get people who would criticize them to stop talking about what Democrats have been doing here in Washington over the past year and a half.

“The authors of the bill labored behind closed doors to decide who would retain the right to speak; In direct defiance of what the Supreme Court made clear this past January, when Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said, `[W]e find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.’

“That is precisely what the Disclose Act does. It imposes restrictions on speech. And I would note that the one category of speakers upon whom the so-called reformers have bestowed the greatest speech rights in this bill are corporations that own media outlets.  So a company that owns a TV network, newspaper or blog can say what they want, when they want, as often as they want.

“BCRA was debated over the course of many years.  Its authors also recognized the importance of not changing the rules on the eve of an election, which is why the legislation went into effect the day after the 2002 midterm elections.  The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite. Seeking to achieve exactly what BCRA avoided, this legislation has an effective date of 30 days after enactment. If it weren’t already obvious that this bill is a partisan exercise, the effective date should be proof positive.

“And those, Mr. President, are the facts.

“Now, I must admit it’s been a few years since I was in law school. So after I learned about all these special deals, I went back to the First Amendment to look for an asterisk or something indicating that only large entrenched and wealthy special interests get the `freedom of speech’.

“I didn’t see it. So I pulled out this Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution thinking maybe it could be found there. I looked and looked, again to no avail.

“Then it occurred to me. Perhaps on that winter day in 1791 when the First Amendment became effective, these rights were meant to apply to all. Perhaps it is true the First Amendment was adopted to protect the people from Congress, to protect them from laws like this.

“To protect them from a government that picks winners and losers.  To protect them from an overreaching government that’s supposed to derive its powers from the consent of the governed.

“The Disclose Act is not about reform. It is nothing more than Democrats sitting behind closed doors with special interest lobbyists choosing which favored groups they want to speak in the 2010 elections — all in an attempt to protect themselves from criticism of their government takeovers, record deficits and massive, unpaid-for expansions of the federal government into the lives of the American people.

“In other words, a bill to shield themselves from average Americans exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.

“Americans want us to focus on jobs, but by taking us off the small business bill and moving to this one, Democrats are proving the jobs they care about most are their own.

“Think about it. Here we are in the middle of the worst recession in memory, and Democrat leaders decided to pull us off a bill that’s meant to create jobs in an effort to pass this election-year ploy to hold onto their own.

“What could be more cynical than that?

“A yes vote on this bill will send a clear message to the American people that their jobs aren’t as important as the jobs of embattled Democrat politicians.

“In closing, let me just note that hundreds of ideologically diverse organizations oppose this bill and have provided us with valuable information on its various absurdities. But I think the ultimate test of this bill’s legitimacy is pretty simple. If the Founding Fathers were here, they’d remind us. They’d hold up the Constitution and remind us of the oath we took to support and defend it.

“As members cast this vote today, they’ll come to the well and look at the desk to see what the well description says — the sheet of paper that sums up what this vote is about. On the Democrat side I’m sure it will include words like transparency and disclosure and talk about the threats to Democracy if this bill isn’t passed.

“On our side Mr. President, it will be simpler. This copy of the Constitution will serve as our well description, and, more importantly, it will remind us of why we’re all here.  We’re here to protect the Constitution, not our own hides.

“I yield the floor.”

This morning, President Obama went to the podium in the Rose Garden to accuse Senate Republicans of blocking an extension of unemployment benefits. USA Today writes, “A Republican filibuster that has three times blocked the extension ‘reflects a lack of faith in the American people,’ Obama said. ‘They’re not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work. It’s just that right now, they can’t find a job.’ The president said ‘It’s time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics.’” The AP adds that Obama “accus[ed] them of holding the public hostage to Washington politics.” All of this is, of course, absurd.

Republicans are simply asking that assistance for the unemployed be paid for at a time when our nation’s debt exceeds $13 trillion and when the country is facing its second straight year of a deficit larger than $1 trillion. As the AP points out, “The $34 billion needed to extend benefits would be borrowed, adding to the nation’s mounting debt.”

It’s particularly audacious for the President to insinuate that Republicans have callous disregard for the plight of the unemployed as his administration is in the midst of a campaign to claim that their failed stimulus bill is creating a “Recovery Summer.” Of course, this was also a day after he returned from a conspicuous weekend trip to a popular vacation spot in Maine.

Even more ridiculous is Obama’s charge that Republicans are holding these benefits “hostage” to Washington politics. In fact, back in November 2009, Obama called fully paid for unemployment benefits “fiscally responsible.” But just during the month of June, Democrats objected to 4 different GOP requests to extend unemployment benefits without adding to the debt. A month ago Sen. John Thune (R-SD) offered an amendment to extend benefits to November, cut the deficit by $55 billion, and cut spending by $100 billion. But even that was unacceptable to Democrats: 57 voted to kill the Thune amendment.

It’s pretty amazing to have the Democrat president accusing Republicans of playing politics with unemployment benefits given this track record from Democrats in the Senate. But it’s even more ridiculous considering what’s going to happen tomorrow: In the afternoon, the new Democrat senator from West Virginia is going to be sworn in, and 15 minutes later he’s expected to join Democrats in using his new government credit card to pay for unemployment benefits through deficit spending by voting for cloture on their bill. So why didn’t Democrats hold the vote last week? They didn’t have the votes for the deficit spending. And yet President Obama is accusing Republicans of playing politics.

In the eight months since Obama called paying for extending unemployment benefits “fiscally responsible,” the debt has grown $1.25 trillion. Does he expect Americans to believe it’s somehow responsible to not pay for them now? On CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Somewhere in the course of spending a trillion dollars, we ought to be able to find enough to pay for a program for the unemployed. . . . If we can’t pay for a program like extension of unemployment insurance that virtually every member of the Senate — I think, in fact, every member of the Senate wants to extend, then what are we going to pay for?  When do we start?”

Yesterday, the Senate passed the severely flawed Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. Though the Obama administration has long promoted the bill as a signature agenda item, it’s clearly lost its luster politically and with the general public.

It’s not hard to see why. Speaking on the floor prior to the vote yesterday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell laid out some of the key flaws in the Dodd-Frank bill. “This bill grew out of a bill that was meant to rein in Wall Street, but which is now supported by some of Wall Street’s biggest banks and opposed by the small community banks in my state; a bill that’s meant to help the economy, but which is widely expected to stifle growth and kill more jobs in the middle of a deep recession, and a bill that, according to the papers, a vast majority of Americans don’t think will work.”

The New York Times reports today, “The legislation will be carried out mostly by the same federal workers who were on duty as the financial system collapsed. The new consumer bureau, for example, mostly will be staffed with employees transferred from the consumer divisions of the existing banking regulators, which have been excoriated by Congress and other critics for failing to protect borrowers from obvious and widespread abuses.”

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal editorialized on many of the problems with the bill: “[T]he biggest financial players aren’t being punished or reined in. The only certain result is that they are being summoned to a closer relationship with Washington in which the best lobbyists win, and smaller, younger firms almost always lose. New layers of regulation will deter lending at least in the near term, and they are sure to raise the cost of credit.”

Not only that, the NYT points out, “Even the bill’s political luster no longer seems certain. Despite public anger at Wall Street, the vast majority of Republicans opposed the bill with loud confidence, betting ahead of hotly contested midterm elections that the public dislikes government even more. Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, described the bill as ‘a 2,300-page legislative monster.’  ‘It creates vast new bureaucracies with little accountability and seriously, I believe, undermines the competitiveness of the American economy,’ Mr. Shelby said on the Senate floor before the final vote. ‘Unfortunately, the bill does very little to make our system safer.’”

Americans seem to agree with this assessment of the Dodd-Frank bill. On Tuesday, Bloomberg News reported, “Almost four out of five Americans surveyed in a Bloomberg National Poll this month say they have just a little or no confidence that the measure being championed by congressional Democrats will prevent or significantly soften a future crisis. More than three-quarters say they don’t have much or any confidence the proposal will make their savings and financial assets more secure. A plurality — 47 percent — says the bill will do more to protect the financial industry than consumers.”

And all of this leaves aside the gaping hole in the bill: its complete failure to address the problems of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed entities that helped spark the financial crisis with their irresponsible lending and politically influenced policies. Even Democrats have long been aware of this failure. Back in May, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told CNBC, “I think it’s a fair claim to make that we haven’t done enough to fully address Fannie and Freddie. It is the big elephant in the room that hasn’t been addressed.” And yet Warner and almost every other Democrat eagerly voted to approve the Dodd-Frank bill.

As Sen. McConnell summed up yesterday, “So here’s a bill that fails to address the root causes of the kind of crisis it’s meant to prevent.  This is a bill that creates a vast new and unaccountable bureaucracy that, if past experience is any guide, will lead to countless burdensome, unintended consequences for individuals and small businesses, that will constrict credit and stifle growth in the middle of the worst economic period in memory. But perhaps most distressing of all, this is a bill that punishes farmers, florists, doctors, retailers, and countless others across the country and far away from Wall Street who had absolutely nothing to do with the panic of 2008.

“In other words, once again, the administration and its Democrat allies in Congress have taken a crisis and used it, rather than solving it. How else do you explain the fact that a bill that was meant to address the excesses on Wall Street is expected to hit individuals and industries that had nothing to do with the crisis it was meant to prevent?”

I knew the Young Turk Kwasi Kwarteng would distinguish himself in Parliament.  I figured it might be months or years but in Kwarteng’s maiden speech he came out firing ideas.  No fluff speech here!  As ConservativeHome reports: 

“I have to say—even though this is a maiden speech, I will be controversial—that to hear Labour Members in many of these debates is to be in never-never land; they have not once accepted any blame for what happened and they seem to think that we can just sail on as before.

As they say in Parliament, HERE HERE!  But there’s more.  Here’s Kwarteng’s answer to soak the rich:

In many of their eloquent speeches it appears that they have forgotten that wealth creation is the most important element in getting us out of this recession. I heard the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who I believe has been in the House for 40 years, say that he was going to tax those in The Sunday Times rich list. Of course, one of the results of their being rich is that they can leave the country in about half an hour, so if he were to go down that route, a lot of them would leave and he would not bring in any more money to the Exchequer.

Create wealth!  The rich can leave the UK and take their money with them?  Imagine that!  There’s more:

“I should say that the truest words said in this debate were uttered by someone making a maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who said that the private sector is the “backbone of our economy”. In my few weeks in the House, I have not heard any truer words uttered in it. That is something that we have to be absolutely focused on, in terms of getting out of the recession. I hate to say this, but I find it staggering that Labour Members have not had the good grace to come to the House to apologise and to show some recognition of the very real problems that we face and the solutions that we need to get out of this situation.”

Can we borrow him for a few years?  WELL DONE, Mr. Kwarteng!   Thanks to ConservativeHome.com for this story.  I recommend this webpage for serious UK Tory watchers.

Why is that bad news?

Because the US Census Bureau and the government hired 1.2 million workers to count people. Note: This number counts Government Jobs Created or Saved.

These are temporary government jobs that will go away when the counting is done. And they are paid for with tax dollars. Or more precisely more government debt.

And while the Mainstream Media will be shouting from the rooftops that the recession is over, with no mention of the 1.2 million temporary Census jobs, when these jobs go away in a few months is anyone so blind to believe the sudden explosive job losses will not be “explained” as Census Jobs ending. No big deal.

Senator Mitch McConnell

In formulating a plan to repair the damage done by the Socialist Democrats and to bring America back from recession, Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Mike Pence (R-IN) are talking to various outlets about Republican plans.

HOTLINE ON CALL: “‘I can tell you with the campaign that will continue with the American people, I think the slogan will be “Repeal and Replace,”’ McConnell told reporters after a weekly lunch with fellow members of the GOP Conference.”

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/03/mcconnell_signa.php

THE HILL: “House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said that while the GOP is dedicated to push for repealing healthcare legislation to be signed into law today by President Barack Obama, they would seek to replace it with their own reforms.”

‘I think House Republicans are determined to stand for both repealing and replacing Obamacare with an approach that gives Americans more choices instead of more government,’ Pence said in a news conference on Capitol Hill.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88507-gop-looks-to-repeal-and-replace-strategy-on-healthcare

Senator Mike Pence

‘Taking a bill that House Democrats are too embarrassed to vote on, adding more than $150 billion in new taxes and slashing $60 billion more from our seniors’ Medicare and keeping sweetheart deals may make some Washington Democrats ‘giddy,’ but it’s not reform’

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding health care reform and the most recent CBO estimate:

“Democrat leaders in the House say that they’re ‘giddy’ because of the CBO’s latest estimate of their trillion-dollar health spending bill.

“That’s what you call trying to get out in front of the news.

“If you look at the details — if you look under the hood — you’ll see that this latest bill is even more painful than the Senate bill that Democrats are afraid to take a vote on.

“Democrat leaders are bragging about this bill’s impact on the deficit.

“They say it reduces the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years.

“The more important question is, how do they get there?

“They get there with even higher taxes and deeper Medicare cuts than the first Senate bill.

“Let’s start with Medicare cuts.

“The Senate bill that Speaker Pelosi said Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on cut Medicare by $465 billion.

“This latest bill increases those cuts by about $60 billion more.

“How about taxes?

“The Senate bill that Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on raises taxes by $494 billion.

“This bill increases those tax hikes by at least $150 billion.

“So if you were worried about raising taxes in the middle of a recession, this bill raises taxes even more.

“If you were worried about cutting Medicare for seniors, this bill cuts it even more.

“So here’s how Washington works.

“Democrats want to spend trillions of dollars on this bill in order to save $130 billion — one week after voting to add nearly that much to the deficit in a single vote.

“If Democrats are giddy about this CBO score, then they must get a kick out of higher taxes and Medicare cuts — because that’s what this bill will mean: even higher taxes and deeper Medicare cuts than the Senate bill.

“And if wavering Democrats needed any more evidence that this bill is actually worse than the Senate bill, they got it from the Chairman of the Budget Committee this afternoon.

“If our Democrat friends in the House were counting on the Senate to fix the Senate bill that they’re too embarrassed to vote for, don’t.

“The Budget Committee chairman is already warning you that if a reconciliation bill comes over to the Senate, it will have to go back to the House for changes. So don’t count on us to fix this bill for you.

“Republicans have been saying for nearly a year now that this bill is unsalvageable. This latest CBO score proves our point.

“The President shouldn’t scrap his trip to Indonesia. He should scrap this bill and start over on a bill that Americans can embrace and that lawmakers from both parties will actually be proud to vote for.

“Taking a bill that House Democrats are too embarrassed to vote on, adding more than $150 billion in new taxes and slashing $60 billion more from our seniors’ Medicare and keeping sweetheart deals may make some Washington Democrats ‘giddy,’ but it’s not reform.”

According to Reuters:

WASHINGTON, March 1 (Reuters) – White House economic adviser Larry Summers said on Monday winter blizzards were likely to distort U.S. February jobless figures, which are due to be released on Friday.

“The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics. So it’s going to be very important … to look past whatever the next figures are to gauge the underlying trends,” Summers said in an interview with CNBC, according to a transcript.

Construction activity was hit particularly hard by the storms, but many restaurants and stores also had to close, putting the brakes on hiring plans and temporarily throwing some employees out of work.

Can you smell it? The BS?

Sure we had blizzards. Some people even missed a day or two. But the likelihood that anyone was out of work long enough to collect unemployment is pretty close to nil. Construction activity has been hit pretty hard by the recession. The majority of construction jobs are all Federal “make work” projects. New housing starts are way down and building permits have seen one of the biggest drops in history.

Restaurants managed to dig out, several times. Stores, too. But, seriously, Putting the brakes on hiring? That’s the problem. Hiring is going in reverse.

The only significant effect the snow had was to delay workers that are already laid off from applying for first time unemployment. The government run employment offices were closed. And non of them lost their jobs. Not one government employee was laid off and added as a statistic in February. If anything, more people are in the process of obtaining benefits and were delayed by the snow. So February is likely to be worse once the adjustments are done in a week or two.

We begin Part IV in the Great Recession Series.

To read the rest in the series:

The Great Recession Part 1: Caused By Y2K – The Storm of the Century
The Great Recession Part 2: Y2K Fallout
The Great Recession Part 3: The Housing Bubble

So, blame it on Bush? Well, OK if it makes you feel better. But that would be inaccurate.

So, blame it on Barny Frank, or the Democrats in charge since 2006? Again, if it makes you feel better, go ahead. But you would be incorrect.

Clinton? Blame him? Are you kidding? Go ahead, but inaccurate. And Obama gets a free pass on starting this because he was not around.

Remember Part 1? Y2K? That’s your culprit. And unless you want to blame some pimple faced geek from the 1960′s who was only trying to save on RAM (computer memory) which was in very short supply back then, well, the only conclusion you can reach is no one is really to blame for causing the meltdown. It was inevitable.

Well, you can blame some people and corporations for playing a part in it all, but that is really a moot point.

So what could we have done? And who did things right and wrong?

First, the wonderful economy that Clinton and the Democrats like to take credit for was all Y2K. Nothing Clinton did caused that to happen.

Now, here’s something that is going to blow your mind. Clinton actually did something that probably kept the problem from being any worse than it is. But he did so accidentally.

What did he do? Ok. Here goes your mind again. He raised taxes! There. I said it. A Democrat raised taxes and the editor of Virginia Right! said it was a good thing. It is snowing and hell is freezing over.

How can a Republican say the Clinton tax increases were a good thing? Ok. My mind is still intact. Clinton’s tax increase slowed down the economy. As all tax increases do. Although he didn’t know the economy was about to turn into a runaway train, the increases helped to smother some of the growth.

But then he went and spent the extra revenue. Some managed to pay down the debt, but only because they couldn’t spend it fast enough. But he still managed to grow the government overall, so his accidental good deed was not a good thing overall.

What he should have done was increase taxes a bit more on the Y2K income, cut spending and paid down the National Debt. We had the opportunity and we let it pass us by. But nobody knew.

So, the 2001 recession and tax cuts Bush put through must be a problem, right? No. The tax cuts were absolutely needed at the time. And they did the trick. The economy recovered.

But shortly after that, the real estate bubble began to grow. Here is another bubble. We all know there are problems when these burst, so what could have been done?

Here I go again, tax it! Not to the point it is no longer attractive, but enough to slow it down a bit. And pay down the debt and cut government spending.

Please understand this is not meant to advocate general tax increases. Nor is it intended to do any more than absorb some excess money and pay down the debt, debt which we should never have done in the first place – Balanced Budget anyone? Targeted taxes until growth in the sector is no longer overheated, then drop them to normal.

If we didn’t have such a massive debt, these targeted tax increases should be accompanied by tax decreases in areas that are slower. Or cut income taxes. The point is not to bring in more money to the Federal Government, but to retire the debt and keep taxes down to a minimum.

But bubbles must be controlled.

Part 5 will examine what we can do get the economy back on track.

We begin Part III in the Great Recession Series.

To read the rest in the series:

The Great Recession Part 1: Caused By Y2K – The Storm of the Century
The Great Recession Part 2: Y2K Fallout

Pop goes the Dot Com bubble, long live the Housing Bubble.

So, you were one of the lucky ones that managed to rake in some major cash and pull it out of the Dot Com’s before the crash. Many did. But where are the investments now? There are still some major Tech companies doing the impossible, but all that fast and easy money has left you with an appetite for more fast cash and the possibility of retiring at 30 on some sunny beach. Life could be so good!

Smart money’s in Real Estate. Say again? Smart money’s in Real Estate. Sure. It always goes up. It can never go down in value. It’s a sure thing.

And at the time, all that was true. It was a grand investment.

So you bought a house. A bigger one, a newer one, a second one, but you bought one. And in a year or two, that $200,000 house was worth $250,000. You already had equity. Use it. Buy a rental.

Or better yet, sell it and get a bigger house. Heck, get your Real Estate license and cash in on the new moneymaker. And they did. And some warned that the big bubble would burst. They always do.

But not this time. Housing never goes down. The best possible investment and as close to a sure thing as there is. Right?

Once again, all bubbles burst. Housing is no exception.

If you slowly blow up a bubble, it will still be a bubble. Put in too much and it explodes. As we saw with the Dot Com bubble, it blew up really fast and when Y2K passed, and the investment dollars went with it, it was as if a pin was pressed into a balloon. Pop!

So what was the “pin” that popped the Housing bubble?

Simple. The high rate of defaulted loans. The catalyst for this happening were the sub-prime loans.

In an effort to sell more and more houses, some of the most incredibly stupid loans were structured to allow people with nowhere near enough income to buy a house. And as these unqualified people began the inevitable default on loans that was totally avoidable, the housing inventory grew, and values fell. The bubble burst.

Many point to the large number of qualified borrowers that also defaulted, but as the values of their homes dropped below what they owed, many thought default was the better option. Others that were forced to move for jobs or other reasone were unable to sell their house at anything approaching what they owed, so they abandoned them.

Either way, banks were screwed. They were left holding houses they were unable to sell and they were simply out the money.

Can houses depreciate? You bet.

In Part IV we will take a look at things we might have done to prevent this from happening, or lessen the devastation in which we now find ourselves.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average managed to bounce back above 10,000 shortly before the closing bell to close at 10,002. However, in after hours trading the drop continued. At present, the Dow is at 9,909 in after hours trading, down nearly 100 from yesterday’s closing.

Today we will see the January unemployment figures. The drum roll and fanfare for these monthly numbers has been an important bellwether as stocks react to the news. One thing to be cautious on, though, is the government manipulation of these numbers. The figures that are released today will be revised downward in short order. Sometimes 2 or 3 times during the month. While it is hard to say if the numbers are intentionally manipulated to blunt the bad news, the pattern has been repeated over and over again. And the released figures are always Seasonally Adjusted. What that means is that they interpret the raw data for you and tell you what it really means. Makes you wonder if they have hired some global warmers.

The gain or loss over last month’s numbers will be compared to the final “adjusted” figures. So a gain of 100,000 is not a net gain in employment. It is simply a smaller loss of jobs. While that is a good thing all in all, it is confusing and not well understood by most hearing the news. So, while Wall Street is expecting a number between +100,000 and -92,000 jobs it is important to remember that these seasonally manipulated numbers that will be adjusted downward during February are all losses.

The importance of these numbers is to measure how well or how poorly the Administration and Democrat controlled congress are doing in bringing us out of the recession. To crow about how wonderful manipulated numbers are (if they show fewer losses) and take your eye off of the big picture is nothing more than propaganda. Monthly unemployment numbers will fluctuate up and down by small amounts for years to come. Nothing this Administration is doing, or has done, has caused any more than a minute blip on employment and the economy, temporary at best. And all with borrowed money that must be removed from the economy when the loans come due.

For the last two quarters, Obama has borrowed money that the taxpayers will ultimately be required to repay in the form of higher taxes, and used that money to subsidize houses and vehicles. We have borrowed trillions of dollars, pumped it into one time discounts for big ticket items, and Obama and his minions pretend that a small boost in the economy is a recovery. These programs have mostly ended. So has any recovery. And the bills are coming due.

As long as taxpayers pick up a good bit of the tab for other people’s homes and automobiles, these items will sell. But this is artificial manipulation and is not sustainable. We have traded a temporary illusion for a crushing future debt.

It is all smoke and mirrors that will soon crash and burn.

Obama Redefines Success

If you are like most Americans, you define success as a good economy, plenty of work, unfettered opportunity and freedom second to none on the planet. This is the view of America Obama wants to fail.

He replaces the definition of success with his own. A country where the government knows better than the people what we each need. Where the government makes the “hard” choices like taking over corporations, forcing health care and “green” technology on Americans no matter the cost in economic losses. Government calls all of the shots and anyone that does not agree will be attacked. Dissent and opposing views are not welcomed.

So, American success as defined by Obama is American failure in the eyes of all but the hard core Socialists and elitists. To them, freedom’s failure is America’s success.

Yes, there is a new definition of success that “Progressives” use to define their progress.

Unemployment and a faltering economy are a necessary component of his plan to achieve his view of American success. People are willing to accept a loss of freedom in exchange for security, be it personal or financial, in dire times.

The Bush Administration pushed through new laws like the Patriot Act, which Liberals later decried as a loss of liberty and an unprecedented and unconstitutional loss of freedom and too much governmental control. And they were not wrong. Now, they support laws and actions by this president that are an even larger encroachment on our freedoms by a factor of several magnitudes.

Obama is using a crisis to get around the Constitution. The Patriot Act has an expiration date. It did it’s job and we have been safe. But Obama’s plans have no expiration date. They are a permanent loss of our Liberty.

With an economic recovery, the window of opportunity slams shut on Obama’s “Progressive” vision. He also knows that he can’t continue blaming Bush his entire term. So he will now set up focus groups to fix the unemployment problem. While most would define success in such an endeavor as recommendations that will put America back to work, Obama wants them to come up with recommendations that will slowly appear to work. A willing press will make any upwards progress out to be a complete recovery. Even if it takes 10 years. They already act as if a smaller loss of jobs than the previous month is somehow a gain.

And they can always point back to the beginning of the recession and say more jobs were lost then, so this is good news.

Obama does not want any recovery to take hold until after his plans to control all aspects of the country are in place. Plans that will bring about the total devastation of America.

At that point we will be fully dependent on the government for our survival.

And Obama’s vision of American success will be complete.

As the monthly unemployment numbers are released each month, it is astounding how the Democrats spin this downward economic spiral. The job losses began 6 months after the Democrats raised the minimum wage. Despite warnings from Republicans that this will lead to job losses, as Companies are unable to afford to pay higher wages, Democrats passed the bill. And the job losses followed.

For the month of December, the Democrats were eagerly awaiting job numbers. After all, merchants hire Christmas help, right? Temporary jobs are fine when the Democrats count their own successes. Just imagine – finally creating jobs after a year of Obama in the White House – just in time for the State of the Union address.

In a stunning upset to their plans, December unemployment numbers were abysmal. Worse than expected. Worse than the previous month. Yet, somehow this is good news. Nancy Pelosi casts a teary eye to the losses under Bush, proclaiming these 84,000 jobs lost are less than that! (And we are all aware that that number will continue to decline as it is adjusted in the next 3 weeks. We could see a loss of 100,000 when Obama finishes playing with the numbers. )

Just wondering what she will say next month when the rash of business closings hit. Many merchants were hoping against hope that the Christmas buying spree would put some much needed cash in their tills. A quick spin around several shopping centers shows that the only good news is for the sign makers. You know. The ones that make the “Going Out Of Business” banners.

It is easy to see that the numbers for the next few quarters will continue to decline. Banks are reluctant to lend money, with no end in sight for the recession. The odds of another Depression are looming larger than the odds of any recovery. And one gets the feeling that the new definition of Recovery will be when the job losses finally bottom out, which might end up in triple digits if you take away government growth.

This graph can be found at Free Republic and tells a sorry tale of unemployment under a Democrat controlled HOuse and Senate. Bush’s fault? Yea, right.

Unemployment With Democrat Controlled House and Senate

The Obama policies are making sure the economy will never recover the jobs lost, but at some point we will hit bottom. ANd that bottom will be the new reality as Socialist policies kill all growth and production.

The Republicans released the following press release to remind us all of how bad Pelosi and Reid, et. al. saw the Bush jobs reports when millions of jobs were being created each year. Strange how they have changed their tune, right?

After Attacking Bush During Periods Of Job Growth, And Pledging Their Stimulus Would Create Millions Of Jobs, Where’s The Dems’ Outrage?

LEADING DEMS ATTACKED BUSH WHEN MILLIONS OF JOBS WERE BEING CREATED …

In 2003, Over 87,000 Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

• But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Criticized 2003 Job Creation As “Far From Enough.” “The slight increase in jobs last month is wonderful news for 57,000 Americans. But the 2.1 million Americans who have been actively looking for work for more than two years … know that it is far from enough …” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Slight Jobs Increase Far From Enough — We Must Do More to Create Jobs and Growth,’” Press Release, 10/3/03)

In 2004, Over 2 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

• But In 2004, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Claimed Bush “Created A Climate … Where The Number of Jobs Is Not Growing.” “This President has created a climate in this country where the number of jobs is not growing. It did not have to be that way.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 10/08/04, p. S10764)

In 2005, Over 2.5 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

• But Pelosi Called 2005 Job Creation Numbers “Anemic.” “Today’s anemic jobs numbers confirm that President Bush has still failed to create a single new private-sector job since he became President.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Today’s Anemic Jobs Numbers Confirm the Administration Has Failed to Create a Single New Private-Sector Job,’” Press Release, 6/3/05)

In 2006, Over 2.1 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

• But Pelosi Claimed Bush Policies “Favored The Privileged Few At The Expense Of America’s Working Families.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Democrats Will Restore the Economic Security of America’s Working Families,” Press Release, 9/22/06)

By 2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

• But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Claimed Bush Had “Shameful History Of Losing American Jobs.” (Sen. Harry Reid, “Reid: As Unemployment Reaches Two-year High, American Jobs Are The Latest Casualty Of Bush’s Failed Economic Policies,” Press Release, 1/4/08)

THEN PROMISED THEIR $787 BILLION STIMULUS WOULD CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS

In February, Obama Signed $787 Billion Stimulus Bill, Claiming It Would “Fix The Economy.” “President Obama on Tuesday signed the $787 billion stimulus package … ‘We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time,’ Obama said, calling the legislation ‘the beginning of the end’ of what needed to be done to fix the economy.”  (Michael A. Fletcher, “Obama Leaves D.C. To Sign Stimulus Bill,” The Washington Post, 2/18/09)

And Obama Pledged That Stimulus Would Create 3.5 Million Jobs By End Of 2010. “[W]hat makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years …” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)

SO DEMS NEED TO CREATE 6.3 MILLION JOBS IN 2010 TO MEET THEIR OWN STANDARD, A LEVEL OF JOB GROWTH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED

2.8 MILLION Jobs Lost Since Obama’s Signed His $787 Billion Stimulus In February 2009. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 12/10/09)

• Including 85,000 More Jobs Lost Last Month. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/8/09)

In Addition To 3.5 MILLION Jobs Obama Promised Would Be Created By His $787 Billion Stimulus By December 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)

That Equals 6.3 MILLION Jobs Dems Need To Create This Year Alone To Declare Economic Success, A Level Of Job Growth That Has Never Been Achieved in American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

• Because In 1946, 4.3 MILLION Jobs Were Created, Largest Job In A Single Calendar Year In American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

KNOWING AMERICANS WILL JUDGE THEM ON JOB CREATION, AT LEAST ONE DEM IS OUTRAGED OVER SQUANDERED 2009

Obama Says “The Yardstick Should Be … Am I Creating These Jobs?” (Sam Stein, “Obama: Judge Me On The Jobs I Create,” The Huffington Post, 12/15/08)

• Pelosi: “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs … We Will Measure Our Success In That Way; And Hopefully The American People Will, Too, In The Next Election.” (Greg Sargent, “Pelosi: Judge Dems’ Success On Whether We Create ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,’” “The Plum Line” Blog, 12/3/09)

Narcissist

Democrats were quick to blame the Bush war spending on the economic downturn in spite of the fact that they took over the House and Senate prior to the beginning of the recession, in 2006. Almost as soon as Pelosi and Reid began pushing their liberal agenda, the economy took a nose dive. Barney Frank’s use of Freddie and Fannie as his personal welfare housing slush fund tore the foundation from beneath the economy.

While Bush was in charge, it was easy to blame him for the economic retreat. Now that Obama has had a year of calling the shots and the Democrats have controlled the House and Senate for 3 years now, the economy and jobs continue to decline, despite promised relief from the Obama stimulus package, bailouts and totally unfettered spending.

With Bush gone and Democrats totally in control, the common denominator in the downturn turns out to be the Democrats.

This party is incapable of recognizing the enemy in the war on terror, the war on the recession, the war on the free market and the war on the environment.

Just this week, Obama took the first steps in recognizing that the war on terror was a real war, and not something concocted by Republicans.

Obama should be humbled to learn that his plan to make the world “like” us, by bowing and kissing terrorist’s ass has had the opposite effect. He (and America) are seen as weak.

Obama should be humbled to learn that his plan to stimulate jobs has failed. And by many accounts has actually had the opposite effect.

Obama should be humbled to learn that his plan to control the environment with Cap and Trade taxation is based on a hoax.

Obama should be humbled to learn that his plan to Socialize Medicine has failed and that the bill that will end up regurgitated by Pelosi and Reid is not reform at all. It will force Insurance Companies to raise prices and even more to be uninsured as a result. The phrase First, do no harm is utterly meaningless to him.

Obama should be humbled to learn that his plans caused Virginia and New Jersey to reject Democrats by wide margins.

Obama should be humbled to learn that his plan to force an unwilling America into Socialism has ensured the destruction of the Democratic party, and unless he is stopped, the financial ruin of a once great country.

But, as we all know, narcissists are not humble.

It seems that a number of Republicans are welcoming the news that Representative Parker Griffith has become a Republican. This could just be the beginning of a trend. One that should bring pause to the Republican Party.

While Griffith is likely more towards the Conservative side than Dede Scozzafava, the fact is, he is was a Democrat. This is the party that has attacked anyone Conservative – Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. and demonized them for their views.

Where was Griffith then?

This is the party that has locked Republicans out of discussions in the House on almost every bit of legislation to pass through.

Where was Griffith then?

And if you look at Griffith’s voting record, it looks like he found his Conservative voice sometime last fall. Around the time that, he started voting often with the Republicans. Overall, he has voted with the Democrats 84% of the time, but as the Virginia and New Jersey elections, as well as the mood of the country drifted to the right, Griffith began doing the same.

This looks like Rep. Griffith is realizing his slim margin of victory in the 2008 election, a year that saw big gains for the Democrats, is going to be woefully inadequate in 2010 with the shift back to the right.

In a brief examination of Griffith’s voting record, it appears that he has been perfectly happy to increase Federal power over State’s rights on many of his votes. While the Republicans voted “No” on a number of bills that increased Federal Conservation powers, Griffith voted with the Democrats.

Griffith voted for the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 – a pork filled bill that would have been irresponsible in good economic times, but is criminal in a recession.

IT appears that Griffith’s voting record reveals more about him than his current words. He is more interested in keeping his than in stopping Pelosi and company. It is like the mistress that convinces her lover to leave his wife for her. Can she ever really trust him not to betray her as well? It is doubtful.

It is hoped that the Alabama Republicans will continue to mount a challenger in 2010. Only instead of the 2010 General Election, in a Republican primary.

Griffith is to much of a RISC. (Republican in Socialist Clothing.)

A Lower Minimum Wage Will Help

But is it?

In these times of high unemployment, we need to do anything we can to get people back to work.

Most small businesses are not hiring at this point. Many businesses (in general) shed the excess earlier this year and cut to a point where they can survive the rest of the year. Very few hired for Christmas, and despite Obama’s assertions that the recession is over, it looks like we are in for a new round of job cuts and closings after Christmas, leading to a slowing, if not complete reversal, of any recovery.

The outlook for 2010 looks bleak. With the current overzealous controls and regulations the Democrats have placed on businesses, and the higher taxes sure to come, it would appear the Government is doing more harm than good.

If the surviving businesses see an uptick in the economy next year, most will resist hiring help at $7.25 per hour, instead working existing employees a bit harder.

At a lesser rate, more businesses will take a chance much earlier and hire more workers. Especially part timers, which is most likely the first type of jobs growth we will see.