Showing posts with label regulations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulations. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Chicago schools, GM, The Economy, Obama's bounce, and Obamacare




http://legalinsurrection.com/tag/a-f-branco/
What are the results from the highest Paying School District in the Country?

Just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading and only 56 percent of students who enter their freshman year of high school wind up graduating.  The turned down a 16% pay raise over the next four years and teachers only pay 3 percent of their health-care costs.  And of every dollar set aside for education in Illinois over the past five years, 71 cents has gone to teacher retirement costs.  And the teachers are on strike. This is Chicago, Obama’s kind of town.  



Were Chicago Teachers simply not letting a crisis go to waste?

In a strike that reeks with irony, Rahm Emmanuel loses control.



So is the Chicago Teachers strike only Rahm’s problem?

In fiscal 2009, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the U.S.Department of Education spent $53.389 billion. In 2010, that climbed to $92.858 billion, then in 2011, it dropped to $65.484 billion. This year, according to OMB, Department of Education spending will hit an historical high of $98.467 billion.

So what is the Department of Education spending all that money on?  

Over the past four years, the Chicago public schools have churned through total revenues of approximately $20.27 billion and about $4.26 billion of that revenue—or almost 21 percent of it—has come from the federal government.




Government Motors uses government economics

It seems that on the new Volt from GM, the company the taxpayers bailed out is losing $49,000 per vehicle.   I remember an old joke to the effect, “we lose money on every sale, but our volume keeps us in business.”  Of course that only works in government and only for so long.



Bin Laden is dead and GM is the walking dead

Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.




The Do Nothing Government Economic Plan

Having spent over $5 trillion stimulating the economy one wonders why it isn’t working?  Would we be better off if Obama had done nothing?  One of the last of the "do nothing" presidents was Warren G. Harding. In 1921, under President Harding, unemployment hit 11.7 percent -- higher than it has been under President Obama. Harding did nothing to get the economy stimulated. 

Far from spending more money to try to "jump start" the economy, President Harding actually reduced government spending, as the tax revenues declined during the economic downturn. 

This was not a matter of absent-mindedly neglecting the economy. President Harding deliberately rejected the urging of his own Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, to intervene

The 11.7 percent unemployment rate in 1921 fell to 6.7 percent in 1922, and then to 2.4 percent in 1923. It is hard to think of any government intervention in the economy that produced such a sharp and swift reduction in unemployment as was produced by just staying out of the way and letting the economy rebound on its own. 

Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed to the delegates to the Democratic National Convention that no president could have gotten us out of the recession in just one term. 

But history shows that the economy rebounded out of a worse unemployment situation in just two years under Harding, who simply let the market revive on its own, as it had done before, time and time again for more than a century. 



Deficit to top $1 trillion for the fourth time—what does that headline and Obama have in common?





Obama’s Plans for a second term

I thought Obama’s making fun of Romney and the Republicans was actually quite clever.  “Budget surplus we need a tax cut.”  “Budget deficit, calls for a tax cut.” 
  
So let look at Obama’s prescriptions.  “Budget Surplus?  Raise taxes and spend more money.”  “Budget deficit?  Raise taxes and spend more money.”  “Unemployment too high?  Raise taxes and spend more money.”  “The Fed can’t lower rates any more to stimulate the economy so Raise taxes and spend more money.”

Hey this works pretty good.  It certainly beats thinking. 



What caused the economic crisis of 2008?

It wasn’t Wall Street, but rather government.  Government decided that racial quotas should replace credit qualifications in qualifying for a home loan.  And the rest as they say was history.




Obama’s Convention bounce is mainly among registered voters

It turns out the bounce President Obama got after the DNC is among registered voters, not likely voters.  Among likely voters the race is tied.  




Gallup Poll Oversamples Democrats again

The Gallup Poll oversamples Democrats again but this time it is even worse than normal.  The sample for the CNN/ORC poll includes 50.4 percent Democrats and 45.4 percent Republicans and appears to have only 4.2 percent independents. This means independents are under-sampled 25 percent while Democrats are over-sampled 12.1 percent.

With the weightings of independents, Democrats and Republicans conducted by the Rasmussen numbers, this poll's data would indicate a Romney lead over Obama of 53 percent to 45 percent.


Another sign of Obama’s coming Defeat

This year there are over 30 books out that are hostile to President Obama.  Compare that to 2008 and you have another sign of Obama’s weakness in the coming election



Even Obama calls it Obamacare

President Obama autographed a Lab coat of a University of Iowa Medical Student “Go Obamacare.”  I think everyone can agree with that.  We’re looking for Romney to make Obamacare go away.



Obamacare shows everyone what bureaucracy means

One of the most-anticipated new federal regulations governing which companies will be required to provide health insurance under Obamacare has finally landed--with a thud.

In the latest indication of how complicated putting the Affordable Care Act into action will be, the Department of Health and Human Services and Internal Revenue Service issued 18 pages of regulations just to describe what a "full-time employee" is. Of note, to the Feds a full-time employee works an average of just 30 hours a week, not the normally accepted 40 hours.



Liberalism and stupidity

Some notes from an academician who attended a conference on “Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness,”  

To begin with, I was struck by the conference call for papers on the Internet. It listed people commonly regarded as evil, including Torquemada, Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, Genghis Khan, and...Ronald Reagan. Of course, who can forget Ronald Reagan and his Republican hordes sweeping down from the steppes, leaving nothing but devastation in their wake? Few figures from recent history evoke such terror and loathing—at least, among leftist academics. What do you think these people think of the Tea Party? You guessed it. One French participant informed me that Hamas winning an election among the Palestinians is like “the Tea Party winning the American presidency.” It is hard to fathom how anyone could compare the Tea Party with the genocidal terrorists of Hamas—except, of course, that this is academia, an alternate reality if there ever was one. 

I’m convinced that “being liberal means never having to say you are sorry.”



Friday, May 11, 2012

Romney Leaps ahead of Obama


What’s new Today 

Story #1 has Romney’s advantage as Obama moves further to the left.  #2 shows the latest Rasmussen Poll with Romney up by 7%.  #3 has a heartwarming story for the book The Real Romney.  #4 is an interesting article on government regulations.  #5 looks at left wing nationalization of industries in Argentina.  #6 looks at the improvements in Wisconsin before the recall.  #7 looks at unionism and reality. 

Today’s thoughts

Wisconsin to the general election may be analogous to the Spanish Civil War to World War II that is a preview of what is to come. 

Bill Clinton thought so little of President Obamamocking him as an “amateur” — that he pressed his wife last summer to quit her job as secretary of state and challenge him in the primaries, a new book claims.  It’s worth reading about here.


The polls are starting to turn significantly against the Democrats.  Rasmussen has Obama down by 7% and Scott Walker up by 5% in Wisconsin.  This shouldn’t be a surprise.  Unemployment is above 8% even the way the government figures it and more and more Americans are dropping out of the labor force. 




1.  Romney’s advantage and Obama’s dilemma
Romney in this process has one advantage: Obama had to move left on policies and turn up the left-friendly rhetoric to get back his base, thereby potentially turning off critical moderate voters in swing states. Romney essentially (and ironically) has been able to keep his tone and positions consistent. He remains the “can fix it” businessman who is conservative in temperament but not ideologically driven. In other words, Romney hasn’t sacrificed his appeal to moderates while getting back his base, in large part because between Hilary Rosen and Obama’s “evolution” on gay marriage, his base came to him.

When you see a Web ad or hear an interview with one of the candidates, you should imagine how, for example, an under-employed worker in Ohio, a mother in Florida, a financial adviser in the Philly suburbs or a Hispanic small businessman in New Mexico would react. Those may be the voters in the sorts of places who haven’t already lined up with a candidate. They are influenced not only by the economy, but also by intangibles (Is this guy responsible? Could I stand hearing that one for four years?)
Given that those are the people in play, Romney has the advantage for now in focusing on the issues those particular voters care about. He also has an effective argument that on the issue they care most about, the economy, the president isn’t up to the job. Obama’s problem with these voters — who are indifferent to or slightly hostile to the idea of gay marriage, don’t much like a lot of name-calling and have been hobbled by the anemic recovery — remains: What is he going to say to them?
At some point, if Romney clears the bar that Republican challengers usually face (He’s not a nut, right?) Obama may find it difficult to devise an effective appeal to the most critical voters of all. If you think about it, just about everything Obama has done over the last year has been designed to corral the left. Now, what’s he going to do to win the voters who matter most?


The personal endorsement of gay marriage is not a winning move by Obama and the way he couched it, it appears he knows it.  It’s his personal opinion and it’s really a state’s issue so what it turns out to be is an attempt to satisfy the left that expected much more from him when he was elected in 2008.  He’s trying to goose up their voting numbers, but as this article points out, in doing so he is alienating the critical part of the voting public.



2.   Romney reaches 50% in Rasmussen Poll

Rasmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll has Mitt Romney holding a seven-point lead over President Obama, with a 3 percent margin of error.

From the report:

This is the first time Romney has reached the 50% level of support and is his largest lead ever over the president. It comes a week after a disappointing jobs report that raised new questions about the state of the economy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299692/rasmussen-romney-50-percent-obama-43-percent-noah-glyn

We are still six months away, but this doesn’t surprise me.  IF we were electing most popular, Obama might win.  But President requires more than being a nice guy. 

   
     3.  The Real Mitt Romney

It was shaping up to be a hard Christmas for Mark and Sheryl Nixon. They had recently moved their family to the Boston area. . .and didn’t know many people. And then. . .they got the kind of phone call every parent dreads. [Their sons] Rob and Reed had been driving back from a youth gathering at the Mormon meeting house. . .Shortly after leaving the parking lot, Reed lost control of the red Oldsmobile minivan. The car sideswiped a utility pole, struck two trees, and. . .flipped over. . . .In a flash, the two Nixon boys, standouts on the high school cross-country team, became quadriplegics. . . .

The family suddenly needed a major addition to their house. They needed a special van to transport their sons. Their financial and emotional burdens were vast. Shortly before the holidays. . .Mark Nixon, a professor of accounting at Bentley University outside Boston, got a call at his office. It was Mitt Romney. He said he wanted to help. Would they be home on Christmas eve? 

That morning. . .the Nixons opened their door to find not just Mitt but Ann Romney and their sons. They held large boxes. Inside were a massive stereo system for Rob. . .and a VCR for Reed. They’d also brought Reed a check, not knowing what else to get him. The Romneys stayed for a while. Their sons helped set up Rob’s new stereo. “What a Christmas surprise for the boys,” Sheryl wrote in her journal at the time.
The Nixons were floored. They shared a faith with Romney but didn’t really know him – they weren’t strangers, but neither were they friends. At that point, Romney held no formal leadership position in the Mormon church. He bore no direct ecclesiastical obligation to help. . . .What impressed the Nixons more than anything was that Mitt and Ann, despite their own packed holiday calendars, made a point of delivering the gifts themselves, spending time with family, and, by bringing their children with them, leading by example. . . .

That wasn’t all. Romney had also told Mark not to worry about Rob’s or Reed’s college education; he would pay for it. The Nixons, in the end, didn’t need to help. But Romney continued to quietly lend his hand. He participated in a 5K road race and fund-raiser for Rob and Reed at Bentley the next spring. He contributed substantial financial gifts toward golf tournament fund-raisers in subsequent years. 


With the crumbling bullying story of a teenage Mitt Romney, here’s a real story related in the book The Real Romney. 

         4.   Government regulations:  Do Barbers really need a license?

DO BARBERS REALLY NEED A LICENSE?   Dick Carpenter and Lisa Knepper of the Institute for Justice discuss their jaw-dropping licensing report in the Wall Street Journal today.  Among their findings:  Cosmetologists need, on average, 10 times as many days to fulfill their educational and training requirements (372) than emergency medical technicians (33). In fact, 66 ...


Whenever you discuss regulations with liberals they immediately accuse you have wanting to poison the air and water and kill children.  Perhaps we simply want a chance to get a cheap haircut. 

          5.   Nationalization—so how’s Argentina doing?

…Among the first moves Néstor Kirchner, Ms Fernández’s late husband, made on becoming president in 2003 was the renationalisation of Correo Argentino, the country’s postal service. At the time this was seen as a swipe at Grupo Macri, the concession holder, because the son of its boss had become an opposition politician. It turned out to be the start of a trend: Kirchner later took over the railways, a radio-spectrum operator, a shipyard and a water company. Since succeeding him in 2007, Ms Fernández has netted bigger fish: before grabbing YPF last month, she had expropriated Argentina’s private pension funds and its flagship airline.
 Under public control, the financial results of these firms range from mediocre to dismal. In the past year the government has spent nearly $3 billion to prop them up, and the official budget suggests that figure will double in 2012. AySA, the water company, and Aerolíneas Argentinas, the airline, have been particularly needy: they cost the state $972m and $840m last year. Though the firms lost money in private hands as well, their former owners say they struggled only because regulators subjected them to strict price controls.

The government has tried to downplay the importance of the losses by arguing that nationalisations were intended to provide public services, not to make money. But the companies have served their customers no better than they have the treasury. Buenos Aires and its suburbs have only three waste-water treatment plants for 10m residents, and often suffer flash floods that drench entire avenues. Just 47% of households in the region have sewerage, half the share in greater Santiago, Chile’s capital.

Meanwhile, only 56% of Aerolíneas Argentinas’ flights run on time, and the company sits near the bottom of most industry rankings. On its website Mariano Recalde, its boss—a former labour lawyer whose father is a pro-government congressman—vaunts its change of livery, which now features the national flag’s sky blue. “The Argentine colours rise with every take-off of an Aerolíneas flight,” he writes….


I especially liked the quote “The government has tried to downplay the importance of the losses by arguing that nationalisations were intended to provide public services, not to make money.”  They’ve certainly succeeded in not making money.  Single payer healthcare would provide similar results. 

          6.   Wisconsin’s back from the brink

Wisconsin has pulled back from the brink of fiscal insolvency after Governor Scott Walker’s collective bargaining and budget reforms, despite doomsday warnings of fiscal disaster.

Neighboring Illinois, whose Democratic governor opted for tax hikes, has not fared as well.

Wisconsin voters appear happy with Republican Gov. Scott Walker and Wisconsin’s economic resurgence. Gov. Walker got 626,538 votes in his May 8 uncontested recall primary, more than the two main Democratic candidates combined.

That total is also more than all the GOP candidates combined in the contested 2010 GOP primary, as well as the highest voter turnout for a gubernatorial primary in 60 years.

Unemployment has dropped from 7.7 percent to 6.8 percent since Walker took office. Unemployment in neighboring Illinois, however, only dropped below 9 percent in March—the first time it has done so in two years.

Wisconsin property taxes have fallen for the first time in 12 years. The state’s adult debt per capita is roughly $687. Illinois’ is about $853.

The two states took divergent paths in 2010 in dealing with looming fiscal insolvency. While Walker pushed spending cuts and public sector reforms, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn and the state legislature floated $7 billion in new taxes, including a 67 percent individual income tax increase and a 46 percent corporate tax increase….


Things are looking good for Scott Walker in the upcoming recall election.  The latest poll had him up 50-45 percent over his Democratic challenger. 

         7.  Union Members Better Wake Up - Fast!

Americans need to be reschooled or in the case of young public school students schooled for the first time on what a business is. It is not a charity but is generally established primarily to make a profit. If it is successful it will be able to hire and pay good wages to hard workers. If it isn't it will either have to cut expenses or shut down.

One would think that in this horrible economy, those employed with a halfway decent job would hold on to it and yet union members are foolishly electing to strike thinking that union leadership have their best interest at heart. 

Last week, Caterpillar workers went out on strike for better wages and health care after negotiations fell apart. I would suggest that they do their homework and look up the case of the Stella D'Oro factory workers in the Bronx and wake up to reality. 

I watched an HBO documentary, "No Contract, No Cookies," which chronicled the 11-month old strike of workers protesting their unfair wages. The company owners maintained that the hourly wages of $18 to $22 an hour and nine weeks of paid leave made the factory unprofitable and demanded significant reductions in wages and benefits.
 
That's when the union bosses stepped in and organized a hard fought strike with picket lines throughout the fall, winter and spring as the recession deepened. 

The union sued the company and won their case in court, winning the right to return to work. Not one worker broke ranks and the documentary showed the glee on their faces as they learned the result of their suit. Happy ending? Not quite. 

Soon after they returned, the owners closed the factory…. 


To the more left wing reader, the answer seems clear, the government should force the owners to keep the factory going even if it is losing money.  To anyone with any education that idea only works for government jobs.