Our # 1 describes the denial of top democrats as to the dangerous position of the Democrats on the effect of regulations on the country. # 2 and #3 talks about the failure of the Supercommittee. #4 relates to the revision of the growth in the economy. In #5 Erskine Bowles describes the failure of Barack H. Obama. #6 looks at the Education bubble and puts the blame squarely where it belongs.
1. Denial is not just a River in Egypt
Brandishing misleading employer survey data, SENATE LEADER HARRY REID CLAIMS THERE ISN'T "A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE" REGULATIONS CAUSE BIG ECONOMIC HARM. Even President Obama disagrees.
It is self-evident that regulations on business kill jobs. Rules add costs. And the simplest way for a firm to recoup big expenses is by cutting salaries or by not adding new salaries.
With unemployment at 9%, it makes sense that Republicans are pointing to the Obama administration's over-regulation as one of the culprits. As the Heritage Foundation noted in July:
"In the first six months of the 2011 fiscal year, 15 major regulations were issued, with annual costs exceeding $5.8 billion and one-time implementation costs approaching $6.5 billion. ... OVERALL, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IMPOSED 75 NEW MAJOR REGULATIONS FROM JANUARY 2009 TO MID-FY 2011, WITH ANNUAL COSTS OF $38 BILLION."
It takes a major media outlet like the Washington Post, however, to remind those of us outside the government that we're not smart enough to realize the falsity of what is obvious….
….Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants the public to think so, which is why he said on the Senate floor last Wednesday: "MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS HAVE YET TO PRODUCE A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THE REGULATIONS THEY HATE SO MUCH DO THE BROAD ECONOMIC HARMS THEY CLAIM. THAT'S BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY."….
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=592433&p=1
This statement reminds me of the statement by the EU bureaucrats where they banned the claim that water can prevent dehydration. In fact, EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PREVIOUSLY UNDISPUTED FACT. Sounds an awful lot like Reid’s statement.
2. Why the SuperCommitteee failed
…EVEN IF REPUBLICANS AGREED TO EVERY TAX INCREASE DESIRED BY THE PRESIDENT, OUR NATIONAL DEBT WOULD CONTINUE TO GROW UNCONTROLLABLY. Controlling spending is therefore a crucial challenge. The other is economic growth and job creation, which would produce the necessary revenue to fund our priorities.
In the midst of persistent 9% unemployment, the committee could have enacted fundamental tax reform to simplify the tax code, help create jobs, and bring in over time the higher revenues that come with economic growth. REPUBLICANS PUT SUCH A PLAN ON THE TABLE—AND EVEN AGREED TO $250 BILLION IN NEW REVENUE BY ELIMINATING OR LIMITING MOST OF THE DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS, LOOPHOLES AND TAX EXPENDITURES MAINLY ENJOYED BY HIGHER-INCOME AMERICANS. We offered this to avoid the even larger tax increases already written into current law that will intensify the pain Americans are feeling during these difficult economic times.
Republicans were willing to agree to additional tax revenue, but only in the context of fundamental pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the base, lower rates, and maintain current levels of progressivity. This is the approach to tax reform used by recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts such as the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and the Rivlin-Domenici plan.
The Democrats said no. THEY WERE UNWILLING TO AGREE TO ANYTHING LESS THAN $1 TRILLION IN TAX HIKES—AND UNWILLING TO OFFER ANY STRUCTURAL REFORMS TO PUT OUR HEALTH-CARE ENTITLEMENTS…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204531404577052240098105190.html
I’m amazed by the Democrats. It seems that they have no solution to any of our problems but to throw money at it and their solution to the lack of money problem is to raise taxes. When they offered a plan they include as their spending cuts, cuts already in progress (winding down the war in Iraq) and magical money like a decrease in interest payments. They simply seem incapable of reducing spending.
3. Another Look at What Happened with the Supercommittee
THE TRUTH IS THE COMMITTEE WAS DOOMED FROM THE START, IF A DIVIDED CONGRESS COULDN’T COME UP WITH THE CUTS WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE THAT A MINI-VERSION OF A DIVIDED CONGRESS WOULD SUCCEED?
Also expected was IT TOOK ABOUT TWO MINUTES FOR PRESIDENT TO MAKE DIVISIVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE COMMITTEE’S FAILURE. At a press conference he said that Republicans would not budge in their defense of the tax cuts for wealthy Americans. He said Republicans are main stumbling block to reaching agreement on deficit.
"There are still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington," Obama said.
The truth is that THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFERED AS MUCH AS $640B IN TAX HIKES IN THE NEGOTIATIONS (IN THE FORM OF CLOSING LOOPHOLES) the President’s comments were the continuance of his reelection strategy, carpet bomb the GOP rather than run on his record (who can really blame him). But the President is conveniently ignoring the fact that even the two most conservative members of the panel Senator Pat Toomey and Representative Jeb Hensarling offered $300 billion in net tax hikes. All of these compromises were being offered despite the fact that tax hikes always slow down the economy. And this economy cannot absorb any more slowdowns.
Why were these compromises rejected? Because THE DEMOCRATS CHANGED THE RULES, THEY INSISTED THAT THE GOP COME UP WITH $1.2 TRILLION IN INCREASED TAXES AND COMBINE IT WITH $500 BILLION IN CUTS. You see the Democrats insisted that the Super Committee not only come up with the required funds, but enough extra cash to pay for the President’s most recent stimulus plan which was already rejected by both houses of congress. IN OTHER WORD’S THE GOP WAS “PUNKED” AND THE PRESIDENT WAS LESS THAN TRUTHFUL...
Also expected was IT TOOK ABOUT TWO MINUTES FOR PRESIDENT TO MAKE DIVISIVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE COMMITTEE’S FAILURE. At a press conference he said that Republicans would not budge in their defense of the tax cuts for wealthy Americans. He said Republicans are main stumbling block to reaching agreement on deficit.
"There are still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington," Obama said.
The truth is that THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFERED AS MUCH AS $640B IN TAX HIKES IN THE NEGOTIATIONS (IN THE FORM OF CLOSING LOOPHOLES) the President’s comments were the continuance of his reelection strategy, carpet bomb the GOP rather than run on his record (who can really blame him). But the President is conveniently ignoring the fact that even the two most conservative members of the panel Senator Pat Toomey and Representative Jeb Hensarling offered $300 billion in net tax hikes. All of these compromises were being offered despite the fact that tax hikes always slow down the economy. And this economy cannot absorb any more slowdowns.
Why were these compromises rejected? Because THE DEMOCRATS CHANGED THE RULES, THEY INSISTED THAT THE GOP COME UP WITH $1.2 TRILLION IN INCREASED TAXES AND COMBINE IT WITH $500 BILLION IN CUTS. You see the Democrats insisted that the Super Committee not only come up with the required funds, but enough extra cash to pay for the President’s most recent stimulus plan which was already rejected by both houses of congress. IN OTHER WORD’S THE GOP WAS “PUNKED” AND THE PRESIDENT WAS LESS THAN TRUTHFUL...
It appears you can’t believe anything the Democrats say.
4. Growth Revised downward for the last Quarter
The U.S. economy grew more slowly than previously estimated in the third quarter, but weak inventory accumulation amid sturdy consumer spending supported views output would pick up in the current quarter.
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT GREW AT A 2.0 PERCENT ANNUAL RATE IN THE JULY-SEPTEMBER QUARTER, THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SAID IN ITS SECOND ESTIMATE ON TUESDAY, DOWN FROM THE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED 2.5 PERCENT.
While the revision was below economists' expectations for a 2.5 percent growth pace, the composition of the GDP report, especially still-firm consumer spending and the first drop in businesses inventories since the fourth quarter of 2009 set the platform for a stronger economic performance this quarter.
There is both good and bad news in this. The bad news is the drop in growth. The good news is the drop in inventories (which should lead to more growth).
5. Obama’s Failure as a Leader
…As with the Supercommittee, Obama took no part in discussions or decisions BOWLES FINDS THIS INCOMPREHENSIBLE:.
I did not know President Obama, and neither did Alan. So we spent a tremendous amount of time with him and his economic team up-front defining success. And we negotiated a deal that got a majority of Republicans to vote for it, so he had plenty of cover on the other side. It also exceeded every single one of the goals that he had given us.
I FULLY EXPECTED THEM TO GRAB HOLD OF THIS. If it had been President Clinton, he would have said, "God, I created this, this is wonderful. It was all my idea."
So we were really surprised. My belief is that most of the members of the economic team strongly supported it. Like every White House, there's a small cabal of people that surround the president that he trusts and works with, and I BELIEVE IT WAS THOSE CHICAGO GUYS, THE POLITICAL TEAM THAT CONVINCED HIM THAT IT WOULD BE SMARTER FOR HIM TO WAIT AND LET PAUL RYAN GO FIRST, AND THEN HE WOULD LOOK LIKE THE SENSIBLE GUY IN THE GAME.
We then expected, before the State of the Union, that when he did the stimulus, that that would be a great time to say not only, look, we're going to do this to get the economy moving forward, but we have to do it within the context of long-term fiscal reform and responsibility. And he didn't….
Obama will lose in 2012. If you believe otherwise you are kidding yourself. Those in the know want Obama to drop out now and let Hillary run.
6. The Higher Education Bubble
….I noticed ABOUT 1990 THAT SOME STUDENTS IN MY CLASSES AT CSU WERE BOTH CLEARLY ILLITERATE AND YET BENEFICIARIES OF LOTS OF FEDERAL CASH, LOANS, AND UNIVERSITY SUPPORT to ensure their graduation. And when one had to flunk them, an entire apparatus was in place at the university to see that they in fact did not flunk. JUST AS COACHES STEERED JOCKS TO THE RIGHT COURSES, SO TOO COUNSELORS DID THE SAME WITH THOSE POORLY PREPARED BUT ON FAT FEDERAL GRANTS AND LOANS. By the millennium, faculty were conscious that the university was a sort of farm and the students the paying crop that had to be cultivated if it were to make it all the way to harvest and sale — and thus pay for the farmers’ livelihood.
HOW COULD A PONZI SCHEME OF SUCH MAGNITUDE GO ON THIS LONG? . . .
But what cannot go on will not go on — at least for most universities without the billion-dollar plus endowments. The present reckoning is brought on not by introspection, self-critique, or concern for our increasingly poorly educated students, but by money, or rather the lack of it. HIGHER EDUCATION IS DESPERATELY SEARCHING FOR STUDENTS WITH CASH, LOANED OR NOT. AND IT IS, BY NEEDS, PANICKING AND WILL EVER SO SLOWLY START CHANGING….
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent mind and can explain things in easy to understand ways. The education bubble is what really brought on the OWS protests and they show how shallow the education they are getting for their borrowed money.
No comments:
Post a Comment