Showing posts with label Federal Reserve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Reserve. Show all posts

Monday, November 28, 2011

End of an Error?

What’s new today

Our # 1 story tells of how Obama is trying to raise money, increase the number of “contributors” by selling everything from coasters to chopping boards (never used—at least not to cut spending).  #2 looks at the psychological reasons for Obama’s behavior. #3 relates how some parts of the country have a boom which is giving rise to man camps for needed employees.  #4 talks about Politico.  It seems that this is an online “news” organization that is giving private bloggers a bad name.  #5 shows us that Ron Paul may actually be right.  #6 explores whether the Democrats have a chance to take back the House (see the parallel of the Indianapolis Colts winning the Super Bowl).  #7 relates how the HIRE portion of a Democratic bill appears to have all the makings of actually being a FIRE bill.  #8 looks to see if liberal actually think it is Unconstitutional to amend the Constitution.  #9 looks at the Education Bubble. 





1.  For Sale: If you can’t buy the candidate you can buy a bumper sticker

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN TEAM HAS PUT TOGETHER A WEBSITE TO REMIND US WHAT THE YULETIDE SEASON IS TRULY ALL ABOUT — GETTING HIM RE-ELECTED. So they’ve decided to offer Americans a collection of special decorations for the “holiday” season...

...And don’t worry about messing up your furniture with water stains because the Commander-in-Chief also has a line of glass coasters.

But if you’re sipping a Martini, why not just throw a backyard barbecue?

And President Obama has just what you need — a “Fired Up and Ready to Grill” apron, a six-pack presidential cooler, and a nifty Commander-in-Chief cutting board to chop up your White House veggies.

But wait — there’s more….

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama-birth-certificate/2011/11/27/obama-selling-martini-glasses-and-spatulas-campaign-cash#ixzz1exgVYUEs

The sales of this merchandise counts as a contribution to the campaign which boost the numbers of contributors and decreases the size of the contribution giving the appearance of more populous and widespread support.





2.  The Psychological Foundation of Obama’s Political Problems


In June 1985, Flora Lewis wrote in the New York Times that then-President Ronald Reagan said he had pounded the walls in frustration over the hostage crisis in Beirut. Given what we know about Reagan, it's not hard to believe that he would resort to such measures to express his rage.

Now try to imagine Barack Obama similarly venting his frustration at the Republicans taking his agenda hostage for political gain. Hard to visualize, isn't it?

That's no accident. SINCE BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT, OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY DISPLAYED A COOL DEMEANOR, ONE THAT HAS CONFOUNDED MANY OF HIS FORMER SUPPORTERS. His detachment has led many to think that he is oblivious, disinterested, even frightened of direct confrontation. The latest instance has been his passive observation of the failure of the Super Committee, which has spurred pundits and politicians from both sides of the aisle to accuse him of lacking the fire to be president. MSNBC news host Chris Matthews, once one of the president's biggest fans, recently placed direct blame for the country's malaise on the President's lack of emotional leadership. “There's nothing to root for,” he complained.



The fact that the President has failed to address, hands-on, such a critical problem should make us realize that HIS RELUCTANCE TO TAKE CHARGE IS NOT A COGNITIVE ISSUE, BUT A PSYCHOLOGICAL ONE. It's not that Obama doesn't understand what he ought to be doing—it’s that THE STRUCTURE OF HIS PERSONALITY WON'T ALLOW HIM TO CONSTRUCTIVELY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM….

http://www.tnr.com/article/97758/obama-insular-psychology

An interesting article, but the equivalent of the articles you see advertised on the cover of women’s magazines. Fluff, but interesting fluff. 







3.  Man Camps

As much as the drilling rigs that tower over this once placid corner of the prairie, the two communities springing up just outside of town testify to the galloping pace of growth here in oil country.



THEY ARE CALLED MAN CAMPS — TEMPORARY HOUSING COMPOUNDS SUPPORTING THE OVERWHELMINGLY MALE WORK FORCE FLOODING THE REGION IN SEARCH OF REFUGE FROM A STORMY ECONOMY….

…Confronted with the unusual problem of too many unfilled jobs and not enough empty beds to accommodate the new arrivals, North Dakota embraced the camps — typically made of low-slung, modular dormitory-style buildings — as the imperfect solution to keeping workers rested and oil flowing.

But now, even as the housing shortage worsens, towns like this one are denying new applications for the camps. IN MANY PLACES THEY HAVE COME TO EMBODY THE DANGER OF GROWING TOO BIG TOO FAST, CLUTTERING FORMERLY IDYLLIC VISTAS, STRAINING UTILITIES, OVERBURDENING EMERGENCY SERVICES and aggravating relatively novel problems like traffic jams, long lines and higher crime….


Ah, leave it to the NY Times to point out every silver lining has a cloud.   





4.  Politico and the Facts

On Sunday evening, October 30, Politico broke the story that two women had complained about Herman Cain while at the National Restaurant Association. IN THAT FIRST WEEK, POLITICO RAN SEVERAL DOZEN STORIES ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT THE ACCUSATIONS WERE, while characterizing the accusations as sexual harassment.

During the subsequent three weeks, the name of one of the accusers in the Politico story, Karen Krauhaar, was released, but she has refused to release details  of the accusations she made, despite initially indicating she would do so, and it turns out this was not her only mployment complaint. Another accuser with a dubious background, Sharon Bialek came forward, but she was not part of the original Politico story and her supposed corroboration also was suspect. While the media regularly referred to 4 or 5 accusers, we only knew the names of two of them and only knew the accusations of one of them.

But back to Politico.

AFTER HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES AT POLITICO, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HERMAN CAIN WHICH GAVE RISE TO POLITICO’S ORIGINAL REPORTING: NOTHING.

AFTER HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES AT POLITICO, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST HERMAN CAIN WHICH GAVE RISE TO POLITICO’S ORIGINAL REPORTING: NOTHING.

Truly incredible.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/its-been-four-weeks-since-politico-broke-the-story-of-accusations-against-herman-cain/

Politico seems to be saying, “Trust us, it was truly bad.”  Politico is giving the internet bloggers a bad name with charges like this. 





5.  Maybe Ron Paul is Right

Many people have expressed dismay and disgust over the Federal Reserve.

Beyond Ron and Rand Paul, Rick Perry, a growing number of other conservative public figures and commentators are beginning to not only raise question about the practices of the Federal Reserve, but also its very legitimacy.

THE RECENT FOIA REQUESTS BY BLOOMBERG FINALLY UNCOVERED THE STAGGERING AMOUNT OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER MONEY THAT WAS SPENT BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE- IN SECRET MIND YOU- DURING 2008-2009. In fact, the Federal Reserve blatantly lied to the American public, saying initially the amount was approximately $500 billion, when in fact THE GROSS AMOUNT OF MONEY TOTALED OVER ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.

That's right folks. 1.2 trillion taxpayer dollars spent in secret and with no accountability or oversight by elected representatives. That alone is an outrage and should put people in jail.

Moreover, to make matters even worse, we now know THAT MUCH OF THIS TAXPAYER MONEY WENT OVERSEAS. WHILE AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE GETTING HIT WITH FORECLOSURES, HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE SENT TO BAIL OUT FOREIGN BANKS, INCLUDING MANY IN EUROPE THAT ARE CURRENTLY FOUNDERING. If and when those banks fail, that will impact our nation as well. As Bloomberg journalists Keon and Kuntz note in the August 21st 2011 expose:

It wasn't just American finance. ALMOST HALF OF THE FED'S TOP 30 BORROWERS, MEASURED BY PEAK BALANCES, WERE EUROPEAN FIRMS. They included Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, which took $84.5 billion, the most of any non-U.S. lender, and Zurich-based USB AG, which got $77.2 billion. Germany's Hypo Real Estate Holding AG borrowed $28.7 billion, an average of $21 million for each of its 1,366 employees.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/federal_reserve_shennanigans.html#ixzz1ezgevg2M

We’ve been the sugar daddy to Europe since World War II.  Isn’t it time they stood on their own two feet?







6.  Can the Democrats take back the House?

… Let’s start with the basics. One pretty much has to assume Barack Obama wins re-election before we can speculate about Democrats making big gains in the House. This looks to be somewhat shy of a 50-50 proposition right now. EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT DOES WIN, HOWEVER, HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT HE WON’T BRING ALONG MANY NEW DEMOCRATS WITH HIM. SINCE THE HOUSE GREW TO 435 SEATS IN 1912, THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN TWO OCCASIONS WHERE THE PARTY OF A PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A RE-ELECTION EFFORT HAS PICKED UP 25 OR MORE SEATS: 1948 AND 1964.

Moreover, Democrats enter the election season at a real disadvantage, vis-à-vis Republicans at a similar point in 2010. That year, there were almost 70 Democrats representing Republican-leaning districts (those with a Republican Cook Partisan Voting Index, or PVI); it was from the ranks of these Democrats that most of the Republican pickups occurred. This time, however, THERE ARE ONLY 19 REPUBLICANS IN DEMOCRATIC-LEANING DISTRICTS TO BEGIN WITH. This also doesn’t account for redistricting, which has tended to make Democratic seats bluer and Republican seats redder so far this cycle.

TO ACTUALLY PUT 100 REPUBLICAN SEATS INTO PLAY, DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE TO PUT EVERY R+7 (that is, a district that has, on average, voted seven points or more Republican than the country as a whole over the last two presidential elections) or less DISTRICT INTO PLAY. Even in a year like 2010, Republicans didn’t come close to putting all of the D+7 or less seats into play.

That’s really the Democrats’ problem. THE SEATS ARE NOW PRETTY WELL SORTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES: Republicans occupy the Republican-leaning seats, while Democrats occupy the Democratic seats. The playing field has just shrunk. When you consider the natural Republican advantage in the House -- the median seat is presently an R+2 -- you understand the enormity of the Democrats’ task, absent yet another tsunami.

Finally, remember that the generic ballot is the best indicator we have of the mood of the country today, but that doesn’t mean it is a great indicator. After all, you don’t vote for “generic Republican,” you vote for a particular representative. Because the parties don’t field competitive candidates in all -- or even most -- districts, a lot of people who might wish to vote for a Republican or Democratic challenger won’t end up doing so. In other words, it is one thing for an independent in Northern Ohio to decide that he or she would like a Republican in Congress. It’s quite another to go to the polls and pull the lever for an obscure candidate, about whom the voter had heard little except that he had re-enacted World War II battles on the Nazi side, instead of 14-term Rep. Marcy Kaptur. This is probably why THE GENERIC BALLOT HAS TENDED TO OVERSTATE PARTISAN GAINS OVER THE PAST FEW CYCLES (INCIDENTALLY, THE GENERIC BALLOT IS ABOUT A POINT BETTER FOR DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW THAN IT WAS AT THIS POINT IN THE 2009-10 CYCLE)….


There are some in the Democratic camp that seem to be smoking something.  Taking back the House isn’t going to happen and Obama will not win reelection. 







7.  From HIRE to FIRE

Buried in an ostensible jobs bill signed by President Obama last year is A LITTLE-NOTICED JOB-DESTROYING GOVERNMENT REGULATION THAT THREATENS TO TRIGGER A MASSIVE OUTFLOW OF CAPITAL FROM THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

The U.S. economy is in bad shape. Many want the federal government to fix it -- to end the deficits, create jobs, and get America back onto the track of growth and stability. President Obama came to Washington with great promises: to restore international respect for the United States and to bring back the jobs. When signing the HIRE Act of 2010 on March 18, 2010, President Obama said:

A consensus is forming that, partly because of the necessary -- and often unpopular -- measures we took over the past year, our economy is now growing again and we may soon be adding jobs instead of losing them. The jobs bill I'm signing today is intended to help accelerate that process.

NOW THE HIRE ACT OF 2010 CONTAINS A TIME BOMB CALLED FATCA (FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT), WHICH HAS INDEED ACCELERATED A PROCESS. Unfortunately that process is not job-generation, but job-destruction caused by an exodus of capital from the United States. Investment means jobs; a departure of investment capital means job losses. THUS, THE HIRE ACT IS REALLY THE "FIRE ACT."

FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) is the brood of FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report). FBAR requires that U.S. persons divulge foreign accounts to the Treasury Department, but few knew about or ever complied with it.  To stanch the bleeding of U.S. capital into secret bank jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, Congress introduced FATCA into law as part of the HIRE Act. FATCA requires that foreign financial institutions (FFIs) reveal the accounts of U.S. persons to the IRS. THE FFIS WILL THEN HAVE TO COLLECT TAX WITHHOLDINGS FOR THE IRS FROM THESE CLIENTS. If by January 1, 2014 the FFI is unwilling to reveal its U.S. clients' accounts, the IRS will impose a punitive 30% withholding on all payments to the FFIs, on dividends, interest, and gross sales of stocks, bonds, and financial derivatives.

Let's suppose that a foreign investor trades stocks on a U.S. exchange, but his broker is FATCA non-compliant. ONE DAY HE BUYS 10,000 SHARES OF XYZ AT $25 PER SHARE, AND THE NEXT DAY, HE TAKES ADVANTAGE OF A NICE UPTICK OF $1.00 IN XYZ AND SELLS AT $26 PER SHARE. He makes a tidy profit of $10,000. But because his broker is non-compliant, the IRS now withholds 30% -- not of the profit, but of the gross proceeds of the sale! SO THE CLIENT NOW RECEIVES THE SUM OF $260,000 MINUS 30%. THE FOREIGN INVESTOR IS UNHAPPY BECAUSE HIS $250,000 INVESTMENT HAS BECOME $182,000. If he wants his money back, he must file a U.S. tax return.

No investor would accept such conditions. Hence, an FFI must either comply with the invasive regulations of FATCA or simply abandon the U.S. markets….


The left have all these wonderful ideas.  The problem is they never work as intended.  The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

8.  Newsflash for Liberals: It is not Unconstitutional to Amend the Constitution

SOMEONE RUSH A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OVER TO POLITICO'S NEWSROOM, AND MAKE SURE REPORTER REID EPSTEIN READS ARTICLE V, WHICH SPECIFIES HOW TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Pitched with a snarky tweet, "The GOP presidential candidates all love the Constitution, except the parts they want to change," this Politico article tries to make Republican presidential candidates look hypocritical for simultaneously (1) calling on Congress and the President to operate within the confines of the Constitution, and (2) invoke Article V of the Constitution to propose amendments.

Here's the heart of Epstein's case:

THE SAME CANDIDATES PROMISING TO APPOINT STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST JUDGES CLEARLY THINK THE FRAMERS, FOR ALL THEIR WISDOM AND FORESIGHT, FORGOT A FEW THINGS, WHICH THEY NOW WANT TO TACK ON WITH AN ARRAY OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BULK UP THE DOCUMENT.

This article embodies two maladies of the mainstream media that Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on another occasion also afflicts the Left: (1) they don't really understand conservative arguments; and (2) they don't really understand the Constitution.

The article's premise is not only false, it's so laughably a caricature of GOP candidates you would be forgiven if you thought it was coming from the mouth of Paul Begala or Jay Carney:

To hear the Republican presidential candidates tell it, the U.S. Constitution is the guiding light of democracy, a bedrock document so perfect and precise that it shouldn’t be challenged, interpreted or besmirched by modern-day judges.

YOU KNOW WHAT POLITICO REPORTER EPSTEIN FAILED TO INCLUDE IN HIS 1,200-WORD OPUS? A SINGLE QUOTE FROM A SINGLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS "PERFECT" OR THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE "INTERPRETED." I'm not saying no conservatives believe in a divinely ordained and perfect Constitution. I'm saying Epstein never actually establishes these candidates do…


The left loves straw man arguments.  It allows them to write 1200 words that make other liberals feel good and superior, while not really addressing what the right is saying. 



9.  From Instapundit November 28, 2011—Education Bubble

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: The Root Cause of Market Failure in Higher Education (see link at the bottom). “In a world turned upside down, CHINA’S RULERS WANT TO MAKE SURE THE YOUNG CADRES THEY EDUCATE AT THE PEOPLE’S EXPENSE ACTUALLY FIND JOBS IN THE PRIVATE ECONOMY. Here in the U.S., where outstanding government guaranteed student loans have recently passed the $1 trillion mark, education policy is geared not toward maximizing the employability of graduates, but toward garnering votes for politicians. . . . ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CAREER TRAINING, LIKE APPRENTICESHIP IN TRADES THAT REMAIN IN DEMAND – because, after all, you can’t fly in Chinese plumbers – get no social respect. This despite the fact that skilled plumbers, with a little hustle, can out-earn most liberal arts majors. . . . Too many aspiring young museum curators can’t find jobs? THE PRAGMATIC CHINESE SOLUTION IS TO CUT PUBLIC SUBSIDIES USED TO TRAIN MUSEUM CURATORS. The free market solution is that only the rich would be indulgent enough to buy their kids an education that left them economically dependent on mommy and daddy after graduation. THE PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN SOLUTION IS TO SEEK INCREASED PUBLIC FUNDING TO BUILD MORE MUSEUMS.”


I found the Progressive solution to be sadly true.  Price is a signal and right now there are too many museum curators and not enough plumbers.  I recently posted an article about over 600,000 manufacturing jobs that are going begging because we don’t have the workers with skills to fill them. 

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Friday: Palin outsmarts Bernanke and Obama

Politics

Fed holds rates on inflation concerns

THE US FEDERAL RESERVE GAVE A DOWNBEAT ASSESSMENT OF THE WORLD’S LARGEST ECONOMY ON WEDNESDAY AS IT POINTED TO SLOWER THAN EXPECTED GROWTH AND HIGHER INFLATION.

In the most significant change to its policy statement, it stripped out all reference to “subdued” measures of underlying inflation and said that the economy is growing “somewhat more slowly than the Committee had expected”.

The toxic combination of disappointing growth but higher inflation combined to leave no hint that the central bank will consider further asset purchases to stimulate the economy.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f913490-9cea-11e0-8678-00144feabdc0.html

It’s beginning to look a lot like 1979. Welcome back Carter. Is it time to get out our sweaters?

Sarah Palin predicted the effect of QE2

…..Back in November, GOVERNOR PALIN TOOK ON QE2 AND PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DEFENSE OF IT. Her predictions have turned out to be correct. WHEN MAKING HER CASE AGAINST QE2, SHE ARGUED THAT IT COULD CAUSE INFLATION, BUT WOULD NOT MUCH HELP U.S. NET EXPORTS AND BUSINESS INVESTMENT, the two factors needed to grow the U.S. economy.

Indeed, worsening net exports (exports minus imports) have been keeping the United States stuck in its current economic stagnation. When imports go up relative to exports, Americans get more debt and lose jobs, whereas when exports go up, relative to imports, Americans get more income and gain jobs. THE DECLINE IN NET EXPORTS MAY BE SLOWING OR PREVENTING THE U.S. ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

BERNANKE HOPED THAT QE2 WOULD WEAKEN THE DOLLAR WHICH WOULD TURN U.S. NET EXPORTS AROUND. BUT PALIN PREDICTED THAT ANY POSITIVE EFFECTS WOULD BE TEMPORARY. In November she wrote:

Will driving the dollar down in this way do anything to boost U.S. exports? The short answer is not really. A weaker dollar will temporarily boost exports by making our goods cheaper to sell; but inevitably other countries will respond in kind, triggering the kind of currency wars economists are warning us about.

Indeed, SO FAR PALIN HAS BEEN CORRECT. QE2'S EFFECT UPON NET EXPORTS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TEMPORARY. Although U.S. net exports worsened more slowly in November and December, they resumed their economy-sapping slide in February, as shown in the graph below….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/inflation_climbs_to_36_in_may_palin_was_right.html

So let me see if I have this correct. The media’s candidate for the stupidest politician ever was correct and Ben Bernanke and President Obama (the smartest politician ever) were wrong. Makes you wonder.

Obama versus Osama: guess who the Egyptians prefer?

First the good news: U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IS MORE THAN TWICE AS POPULAR IN EGYPT AS IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADENIJAD.

Now, the bad news: the American president's standing has never been worse in Egypt, plummeting since 2008, when he received a 25 percent favorability rating, to 12 percent in 2011.
EVEN OSAMA BIN LADEN, THE LATE AL QAEDA LEADER, WAS MORE POPULAR THIS YEAR, WITH A 21 PERCENT FAVORABILITY RANKING. The Iranian leader fared worse, dropping from 21 percent favorability rating in 2008 to a miserable 5 percent.

The findings are drawn from a public poll of Egyptian views in the aftermath of the public uprising that brought about the resignation of Egypt's fallen leader Hosni Mubarak. The poll was commissioned by the International Peace Institute, a New York-based think tank with close ties to the United Nations and Arab governments.

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/21/obama_versus_osama_guess_who_the_egyptians_prefer

In another poll it was found that Great White Sharks preferred Osama 97% to 3% over Obama.

Obama in Perilous Political State

According to a new Bloomberg National Poll, “AMERICANS ARE GROWING MORE DISSATISFIED WITH PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.”

Among the data points from the poll (which has DEMOCRATS OUTNUMBERING REPUBLICANS BY 32 PERCENT V. 27 PERCENT):

• ONLY 30 PERCENT of respondents said they ARE CERTAIN TO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT and 36 percent said they definitely won’t.
• Among LIKELY INDEPENDENT VOTERS, ONLY 23 PERCENT SAID THEY WILL BACK HIS RE-ELECTION, while 36 percent said they are sure they will seek out another candidate.
• By a 44 PERCENT TO 34 PERCENT MARGIN, AMERICANS SAY THEY ARE WORSE OFF than they were when Obama took office.
• More than half of respondents (55 percent) say their children are destined to a lower standard of living.
• Fewer than a quarter of people (23 percent) see signs of improvement in the economy while two-thirds (66 percent) say they believe the country is on the wrong track
• Sixty-one percent either strongly agree or mostly agree that in 2012, Obama will have had his chance and if the economy isn’t substantially better by election day, it will be very hard to vote for him.
• By a margin of 61 PERCENT TO 32 PERCENT, AMERICANS DISAPPROVE OF THE JOB OBAMA IS DOING TO TACKLE THE BUDGET DEFICIT.
• Fifty-seven percent of respondents disapproved of his efforts to create jobs.
• Fifty-seven percent disapproved of his handling of the economy.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/22/obama-in-perilous-political-state/

This is a devastating poll if you are a democrat.

Obama’s America in Black & White

Platitudes about the civic utopia that would spring forth from the election of Barack Obama have vanished. Thomas Friedman’s claim that “the American Civil War ended, as a black man . . . became president of the United States,” has now been replaced by PBS host TAVIS SMILEY’S PREDICTION THAT THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS “GOING TO BE THE UGLIEST, THE NASTIEST, THE MOST DIVISIVE, AND THE MOST RACIST IN THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC.” E. J. Dionne’s trope that “it is time to hope again. Time to hope that the era of racial backlash and wedge politics is over,” has given way to the statement by CBS’s BOB SCHIEFFER THAT RECENT CRITICISM OF OBAMA REPRESENTS “AN UGLY STRAIN OF RACISM THAT’S RUNNING THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING.” Paul KRUGMAN, who wrote in 2008 that “Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics, but we’re now a different, and better, country,” HAS TAKEN TO EQUATING THE ANTI-OBAMA TEA PARTY WITH THE KU KLUX KLAN.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270291/obama-s-america-black-and-white-seth-forman?page=1

Those who are equating Obama’s coming demise to racism remind me of the old joke about the man with halitosis who spent $50,000 to get rid of it to find people just didn’t like him. It isn’t racism that is causing Obama’s problems it’s his far left liberalism.

Spend Our Way Out of Debt

I am stunned that Democrats would be asking for a new stimulus. First, THIS NEW REQUEST IS AN ADMISSION THAT THE PREVIOUS STIMULUS HASN’T WORKED — if it had they wouldn’t be asking for more stimulus would they? But then, why ask for more of something that failed in the past?....

…..As my colleague ANTHONY DAVIES, ALSO AN ECONOMICS PROFESSOR AT DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY, HAS SAID, EVEN UNDER THE BEST CIRCUMSTANCES, STIMULUS DOESN’T CREATE PERMANENT JOBS; RATHER IT PLANTS THE SEEDS TO CRIPPLE THE ECONOMY. Yesterday, he explained:

As an economist, IF I WERE WORKING FOR A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND WERE TO DESIGN A PACKAGE OF POLICIES TO DESTROY A COUNTRY’S ECONOMY, I WOULD DESIGN A PLAN VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE’VE UNDERTAKEN IN THE U.S. OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS.

If we pursue another economic stimulus of similar size to the previous one, we may as well condemn the economy to another 10-20 years of recession.

Not only will it not work, but it will significantly add to an already grave debt problem. STIMULUS IS WHAT KEEPS ENTREPRENEURS FROM CREATING NEW JOBS AND PRODUCTS. It makes them nervous, because we have to raise taxes in the future to pay for stimulus spending, and this makes for a very uncertain business environment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270295/re-spend-our-way-out-debt-veronique-de-rugy

What is really unfortunate is the TEA Party folks saw this as soon as Obama did it. They went out and demonstrated against the spending, but the Democrats and the media attributed it to racism and are yet to admit the truth.


South Carolina Not Pay for Primary

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) told lawmakers there will be no room in the budget to fund the GOP’s first-in-the-South presidential primary in February.

The Republican Party states the primary will go on, even if the GOP has to pay the $1.5 million needed to fund it.

GOV. NIKKI HALEY, KNOWN FOR HER CONSERVATIVE VIEWS AND ASSOCIATION WITH THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, STATED TAXPAYER FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR MINOR FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING PRIMARIES:

“Political parties have sufficient fundraising ability to offset the costs of partisan presidential preference primaries, and in a budget year like this one, it is my ask that we do not dedicate taxpayer dollars to something I believe does not rise to the level of a core function of government,” she wrote in a letter in March.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliecobb/2011/06/22/south_carolina_will_not_pay_for_primary

Hooray for Nikki Haley. A governor with some common sense. The two parties plan on spending hundreds of millions on this election cycle. Let the party pay for the primaries and perhaps we won’t have bear quite so many commercials.

Interview with Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter’s new book is called Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. I’ve read it, it’s outstanding, and I’d highly recommend that you read it, too. TO GIVE YOU A TASTE OF WHAT IT’S LIKE, HERE’S RWN’S SEVENTH INTERVIEW WITH ANN COULTER. ENJOY!

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/interviewing-ann-coulter-about-her-new-book-demonic/

Coulter is quick witted and funny in this interview. And she does it without a teleprompter.

An Odd Comment about the Constitution

In a Time article on the Constitution, RICHARD STENGEL WRITES: “IF THE CONSTITUTION WAS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IT SURE DOESN’T SAY SO.”

Yes, it does. THE TENTH AMENDMENT SAYS: “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.”
Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, JAMES MADISON EXPLAINED THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE DOCUMENT IN FEDERALIST 45: “THE POWERS DELEGATED BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FEW AND DEFINED. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270325/odd-comment-about-constitution-john-j-pitney-jr

What is truly scary about this is that there are many on the left that would echo Stengel’s comment, that is, the power of the Federal Government is vast and indefinite.



Obamacare and the McKinsey study

Two weeks ago, the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. released a widely reported survey that said ALMOST A THIRD OF PRIVATE-SECTOR EMPLOYERS REPORTED THEY WILL DROP THEIR EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE WHEN OBAMACARE'S GOVERNMENT-MANAGED INSURANCE EXCHANGES COME ONLINE IN 2014.….

….Obama and his allies reacted with fury to the McKinsey results. Obama's deputy chief of staff for policy, Nancy-Ann DeParle, CALLED THE RESULTS AN "OUTLIER" and questioned whether the survey's respondents understood the plan. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., sent McKinsey A THREATENING LETTER DEMANDING THAT THE FIRM REVEAL ITS SURVEY METHODOLOGY. And the New York Times' Paul Krugman -- ever willing to invent scurrilous charges out of whole cloth -- accused McKinsey of having "A SKEWED SAMPLE" OR "NO REAL DATA AT ALL."

Now McKinsey is having its day and answering Obama and Obamacare apologists by POSTING ALL 29 PAGES OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS 206 PAGES OF CROSS-TABULATIONS. It turns out that some of the unreported responses in the survey are EVEN MORE DAMAGING TO OBAMACARE THAN THE ORIGINAL MCKINSEY REPORT INDICATED….

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/06/details-mckinsey-study-expose-obamacare-flimflam#ixzz1Q7qrpfvK

Be careful what you wish for.

Perhaps they should have read the bill before they passed it. The article points out if we do see the numbers from the survey, the cost of Obamacare will skyrocket by over $1 trillion in the first 10 years.