1.9 Million Fewer Americans Have Jobs Today Than When Obama Signed Stimulus By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) – Twenty-eight months after Congress passed President Obama’s signature economic stimulus law, and nearly one year after he declared the summer of 2010 to be “Recovery Summer,” 1.9 million fewer people are employed.
In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 – the last month for which data are available – that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.
While the number of people with jobs has increased slightly from its low point during the recession – 137.9 million in December 2009 – those 1.9 million jobs have been lost despite $800 billion in stimulus spending.
This does not mean that the economy is not creating jobs, but rather that it is not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with a combination of layoffs and people entering the job market for the first time.
In a Washington Post op-ed, former White House chief economist Larry Summers noted that the percentage of the population that has a job has not improved, even though the economy is technically in recovery.
“From the first quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2011, the U.S. economy’s growth rate averaged less than 1 percent a year,” Summers wrote. “The fraction of the population working remains almost exactly at its recession trough, and recent reports suggest that growth is slowing.”
The fraction of the population with a job has in fact fallen in the 28 months since Congress passed the stimulus – down from 60.3 percent in February 2009 to 58.4 percent in May 2011.
The economy cannot create jobs fast enough to keep pace with layoffs and recent high school and college graduates seeking employment. If the trend continues, as Summers notes may happen, the economy will suffer further in the future as college graduates delay entry into the labor force, reducing their lifetime productivity.
“Beyond the lack of jobs and incomes, an economy producing below its potential for a prolonged interval sacrifices its future,” argued Summers. “Huge numbers of new college graduates are moving back in with their parents this month because they have no job or means of support.”
As both Summers and the BLS data make clear, the economy is not creating new jobs fast enough to make up for layoffs and new graduates, calling into question Obama’s oft-repeated claim that the economy is recovering and creating jobs.
In fact, by citing figures from the first quarter of 2006, Summers is understating the economy’s poor performance. According to BLS data, the number of people with jobs peaked at 146.6 million in November 2007, meaning that over the entire recession – which officially began in December 2007 – the number of people employed has fallen by 6.8 million.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/after-28-months-stimulus-spending-19-mil
Monday, June 20, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Union bosses come first for Obama
Union bosses come first for Obama Examiner Editorial Opinion Washington Examiner
Union bosses come first for Obama Examiner Editorial
For decades, unions have perpetuated the myth that the interests of Big Labor's bosses and of American workers are identical. A tenuous case for that proposition could be made decades ago when unions represented a third of all private sector workers. But doing so today requires a studied refusal to acknowledge reality when fewer than 7 percent are union members. Nevertheless, President Obama often seems concerned only with serving the interests of the union bosses who are among his most frequent White House guests. It is hardly coincidental that recent economic news has gone from bad to worse. Unemployment is back up to 9.1 percent (more like 20 percent when the count includes the millions who have quit looking for work), manufacturing activity is weakening, housing prices are still falling, job creation is all but stopped except in Texas, and banks are slashing growth forecasts. The American economy, in short, is in desperate need of a jolt.
Yet Obama is playing political games by refusing to send already-negotiated free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia to Congress for ratification, even though they would expand overseas sales opportunities for American businesses and create thousands of new jobs here at home. The holdup is that Obama wants to ensure that his labor union buddies get sufficiently bribed for swallowing a trade deal. Obama demands renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides help often funneled through unions, to Americans who claim to be adversely affected by such deals, and he TAA funding made permanent at the artificially high levels established under his failed stimulus legislation. Under this formula, in 2010, the program spent $975 million to aid 228,000 people at a cost of nearly $4,300 per beneficiary.
In another development, the National Labor Relations Board, which Obama has packed with union activists, has continued its assault on workers. It was bad enough last month when the board's general counsel, Lafe Solomon, sued Boeing for building a nonunion facility with 1,000 workers in South Carolina -- a move that even a former Democratic chairman of the National Labor Relations Board called "unprecedented." But this past week, when three South Carolina Boeing workers sought to intervene in the suit, Solomon opposed them, arguing that they had "no cognizable interest" in whether Boeing will actually be able to employ them. That's the same position taken by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The union wants NLRB to force Boeing to shut down its new production line in South Carolina and instead build a new facility in Washington state. So what if 1,000 or more South Carolinians who were offered jobs in the new plant Boeing just finished.
As outrageous as these actions are, none of them should be surprising, because Obama vowed during the campaign to do the bidding of unions. "I know how much more we can accomplish as partners in an Obama administration," he told the Service Employees International Union as a candidate. "Just imagine what we could do together. Imagine having a president whose life work was your work." Sadly, the work of the Obama-Big Labor alliance is harmful to actual American workers.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/06/union-bosses-come-first-obama#ixzz1PDGi6yLV
Union bosses come first for Obama Examiner Editorial
For decades, unions have perpetuated the myth that the interests of Big Labor's bosses and of American workers are identical. A tenuous case for that proposition could be made decades ago when unions represented a third of all private sector workers. But doing so today requires a studied refusal to acknowledge reality when fewer than 7 percent are union members. Nevertheless, President Obama often seems concerned only with serving the interests of the union bosses who are among his most frequent White House guests. It is hardly coincidental that recent economic news has gone from bad to worse. Unemployment is back up to 9.1 percent (more like 20 percent when the count includes the millions who have quit looking for work), manufacturing activity is weakening, housing prices are still falling, job creation is all but stopped except in Texas, and banks are slashing growth forecasts. The American economy, in short, is in desperate need of a jolt.
Yet Obama is playing political games by refusing to send already-negotiated free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia to Congress for ratification, even though they would expand overseas sales opportunities for American businesses and create thousands of new jobs here at home. The holdup is that Obama wants to ensure that his labor union buddies get sufficiently bribed for swallowing a trade deal. Obama demands renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides help often funneled through unions, to Americans who claim to be adversely affected by such deals, and he TAA funding made permanent at the artificially high levels established under his failed stimulus legislation. Under this formula, in 2010, the program spent $975 million to aid 228,000 people at a cost of nearly $4,300 per beneficiary.
In another development, the National Labor Relations Board, which Obama has packed with union activists, has continued its assault on workers. It was bad enough last month when the board's general counsel, Lafe Solomon, sued Boeing for building a nonunion facility with 1,000 workers in South Carolina -- a move that even a former Democratic chairman of the National Labor Relations Board called "unprecedented." But this past week, when three South Carolina Boeing workers sought to intervene in the suit, Solomon opposed them, arguing that they had "no cognizable interest" in whether Boeing will actually be able to employ them. That's the same position taken by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The union wants NLRB to force Boeing to shut down its new production line in South Carolina and instead build a new facility in Washington state. So what if 1,000 or more South Carolinians who were offered jobs in the new plant Boeing just finished.
As outrageous as these actions are, none of them should be surprising, because Obama vowed during the campaign to do the bidding of unions. "I know how much more we can accomplish as partners in an Obama administration," he told the Service Employees International Union as a candidate. "Just imagine what we could do together. Imagine having a president whose life work was your work." Sadly, the work of the Obama-Big Labor alliance is harmful to actual American workers.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/06/union-bosses-come-first-obama#ixzz1PDGi6yLV
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Where’s the warming?
Where’s the warming? by Ed Morrissey/Hot Air
Carbon emissions over the past decade actually exceeded predictions by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), no thanks to the global economic recession. According to their anthropogenic global-warming theories, global temperatures should have risen significantly as a result. James Taylor at Forbes wonders what happened:
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.
The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
Be sure to check out the links, which show charts over varying time sets, but which all show basically the same thing: no real change over longer periods of time. Not in the Arctic, which Taylor notes was supposed to be the canary in the coal mine, nor in the northern hemisphere, or the globe overall. That’s even true for just the last decade, but it’s especially true over the period of several decades. Periods of high amplitudes in warming are matched with low amplitudes.
Earlier this week, I linked to a couple of articles from physicists who have expressed considerable skepticism of the AGW hysteria, including one who worked in Australia’s climate-change ministry. It’s worth revisiting his observation about the science, its models, and what’s missing:
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
It’s becoming even more clear now. If carbon increases and the predicted warming didn’t follow, then the obvious conclusion is that the hypothesis regarding cause and effect is incorrect — and the missing hot spots are even further evidence of this.
(for links): http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/12/wheres-the-warming/
Carbon emissions over the past decade actually exceeded predictions by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), no thanks to the global economic recession. According to their anthropogenic global-warming theories, global temperatures should have risen significantly as a result. James Taylor at Forbes wonders what happened:
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.
The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.
Be sure to check out the links, which show charts over varying time sets, but which all show basically the same thing: no real change over longer periods of time. Not in the Arctic, which Taylor notes was supposed to be the canary in the coal mine, nor in the northern hemisphere, or the globe overall. That’s even true for just the last decade, but it’s especially true over the period of several decades. Periods of high amplitudes in warming are matched with low amplitudes.
Earlier this week, I linked to a couple of articles from physicists who have expressed considerable skepticism of the AGW hysteria, including one who worked in Australia’s climate-change ministry. It’s worth revisiting his observation about the science, its models, and what’s missing:
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
It’s becoming even more clear now. If carbon increases and the predicted warming didn’t follow, then the obvious conclusion is that the hypothesis regarding cause and effect is incorrect — and the missing hot spots are even further evidence of this.
(for links): http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/12/wheres-the-warming/
The 'declarant presidency' era must end
The 'declarant presidency' era must end Hugh Hewitt Columnists Washington Examiner
By: Hugh Hewitt
President Obama ordered his Department of Justice to cease defending the Defense of Marriage Act, even though it was passed by a bipartisan coalition and signed into federal law by President Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996.
No appellate court has decreed the law constitutionally flawed. The president has simply willed it so in an unprecedented attempt to repeal a duly passed and executed law by simple fiat.
Obama has ordered his Environmental Protection Agency to develop an administrative cap-and-trade system regulating carbon emissions despite the fact that Congress refused to authorize just such a system last year. The president is willing the oceans to stop rising and the towers of paper regulations to keep rising.
Obama is on the verge of dictating a unilateral set of changes in federal contracting law obliging bidding participants to disclose the level and identity of the recipients of their corporate political contribution.
This slam-down substitutes for the failure of last year's Democratic majority to pass the campaign finance law they desperately wanted. These rules effectively amend federal law without passing an amendment to federal law.
The Obama Imperial Presidency 2.0 is driving its National Labor Relations Board to wage war on Boeing's new assembly plant in Charleston, S.C., even as it unleashes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to launch recall after recall, creating an epic insecurity among potential recipients of such notices.
Did we mention the Obamacare and Dodd-Frank mandates, rolling inexorably out of the rabbit warrens of the regulation writers, each inch of rules another suffocating blow to real jobs with real career paths leading to real productivity increases and real prospects for promotion?
Offered a palm branch by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, the president used it as a switch and smacked it back and forth across the Wisconsin Republican's face.
Offered a fresh start in the Middle East, the president excoriated Israel and put the long-shelved 1967 borders into play, which is like asking the late George Blanda to return to run the Washington Redskins when the NFL reconvenes. The '67 lines, like Blanda, had a role once but are worse than useless now as they are both dead.
We have not even mentioned that he is poised to impose "card check," new rules for defining wetlands, no procedures for declaring species endangered.
The sky is the limit for directed innovation in border control policy. The "virtual fence" has been scrapped and DOJ's "fast and furious" have shipped deadly weapons to the cartels with the hope of tracing them, only to lose them.
It is far worse than an era of an Imperial Presidency. It is the era of the President Declarant. We have never before had such a moment, and it will require rapid response from House Speaker John Boehner making much use of former Solicitor General Paul Clement's estimable skills.
Boehner ought to consider establishing a special legal defense fund for the purpose of cabining the president's unilateralist Hyde within. It is very clear we will need one before the president's term is over.
What we will need if he somehow wins a second term will be a state of emergency among judges called upon to set aside partisan allegiance and act with an eye on preserving not a momentary advantage, but an overarching system, a glorious, wonderfully effective system of checks and balances.
Once begun, unilateral rule is as addictive as it is destructive of balance of powers. It has to be stopped in November 2012, for another four years of accelerating concentration of power so that power can be deployed unilaterally would leaves the United States fundamentally off the rails on which is has run for 220 years.
Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/06/declarant-presidency-era-must-end#ixzz1PBfa4tHc
By: Hugh Hewitt
President Obama ordered his Department of Justice to cease defending the Defense of Marriage Act, even though it was passed by a bipartisan coalition and signed into federal law by President Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996.
No appellate court has decreed the law constitutionally flawed. The president has simply willed it so in an unprecedented attempt to repeal a duly passed and executed law by simple fiat.
Obama has ordered his Environmental Protection Agency to develop an administrative cap-and-trade system regulating carbon emissions despite the fact that Congress refused to authorize just such a system last year. The president is willing the oceans to stop rising and the towers of paper regulations to keep rising.
Obama is on the verge of dictating a unilateral set of changes in federal contracting law obliging bidding participants to disclose the level and identity of the recipients of their corporate political contribution.
This slam-down substitutes for the failure of last year's Democratic majority to pass the campaign finance law they desperately wanted. These rules effectively amend federal law without passing an amendment to federal law.
The Obama Imperial Presidency 2.0 is driving its National Labor Relations Board to wage war on Boeing's new assembly plant in Charleston, S.C., even as it unleashes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to launch recall after recall, creating an epic insecurity among potential recipients of such notices.
Did we mention the Obamacare and Dodd-Frank mandates, rolling inexorably out of the rabbit warrens of the regulation writers, each inch of rules another suffocating blow to real jobs with real career paths leading to real productivity increases and real prospects for promotion?
Offered a palm branch by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, the president used it as a switch and smacked it back and forth across the Wisconsin Republican's face.
Offered a fresh start in the Middle East, the president excoriated Israel and put the long-shelved 1967 borders into play, which is like asking the late George Blanda to return to run the Washington Redskins when the NFL reconvenes. The '67 lines, like Blanda, had a role once but are worse than useless now as they are both dead.
We have not even mentioned that he is poised to impose "card check," new rules for defining wetlands, no procedures for declaring species endangered.
The sky is the limit for directed innovation in border control policy. The "virtual fence" has been scrapped and DOJ's "fast and furious" have shipped deadly weapons to the cartels with the hope of tracing them, only to lose them.
It is far worse than an era of an Imperial Presidency. It is the era of the President Declarant. We have never before had such a moment, and it will require rapid response from House Speaker John Boehner making much use of former Solicitor General Paul Clement's estimable skills.
Boehner ought to consider establishing a special legal defense fund for the purpose of cabining the president's unilateralist Hyde within. It is very clear we will need one before the president's term is over.
What we will need if he somehow wins a second term will be a state of emergency among judges called upon to set aside partisan allegiance and act with an eye on preserving not a momentary advantage, but an overarching system, a glorious, wonderfully effective system of checks and balances.
Once begun, unilateral rule is as addictive as it is destructive of balance of powers. It has to be stopped in November 2012, for another four years of accelerating concentration of power so that power can be deployed unilaterally would leaves the United States fundamentally off the rails on which is has run for 220 years.
Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/06/declarant-presidency-era-must-end#ixzz1PBfa4tHc
Friday, June 17, 2011
Senate Democrats United In Opposition to Fixing Medicaid
Senate Democrats United In Opposition to Fixing Medicaid by Peter Suderman
On a per-beneficiary basis, Medicaid is cheaper than Medicare. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the spending problem: Since its inception in 1966, total spending on the program has continued to eat up a larger share of GDP.
One obvious reform would be to turn the program into a system of federal block grants. Currently, Medicaid is a joint federal-state operation that matches every dollar that states spend with additional federal money. The exact amount of the match varies by state, but on average the federal government pays a little more than half of total. At the same time, that money allows the federal government to exert a lot of heavy-handed influence over the management of the state programs: Take Utah, for example, which had to wait eight months to get a response from the federal government about whether it was allowed to contact Medicaid recipients over email. The answer state officials finally got? No. The federal government's response was delivered via email.
The incentive, then, is for states to spend ever-larger amounts in order to extract as much money as possible from the federal government, but not to innovate or experiment.
It's not obvious to Senate Democrats, however. As Politico reports, they've made it clear they aren't willing to sign on to the block-grant approach. In a letter to President Obama, Sen. Jay Rockefeller and 36 other Democrats warn that block grants would "undermine" the "federal commitment" to the program. (As far as I'm concerned, the federal government's essentially unlimited commitment is a big part part of the problem.) "We are unwilling to allow the federal government to walk away from Medicaid’s 68 million beneficiaries, the providers that serve them and the urban and rural communities in which they live,” the letter says.
Under a block grant system, the federal government wouldn't be "walking away" or anything like it. Indeed, it would still pay out hundreds of billions of dollars each years. Instead, federal officials in Washington would be putting state Medicaid programs on defined budgets and allowing them to manage the programs as they see fit.
ObamaCare, naturally, makes the Medicaid problem worse for states. (DP: I lost track of the source link)
On a per-beneficiary basis, Medicaid is cheaper than Medicare. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the spending problem: Since its inception in 1966, total spending on the program has continued to eat up a larger share of GDP.
One obvious reform would be to turn the program into a system of federal block grants. Currently, Medicaid is a joint federal-state operation that matches every dollar that states spend with additional federal money. The exact amount of the match varies by state, but on average the federal government pays a little more than half of total. At the same time, that money allows the federal government to exert a lot of heavy-handed influence over the management of the state programs: Take Utah, for example, which had to wait eight months to get a response from the federal government about whether it was allowed to contact Medicaid recipients over email. The answer state officials finally got? No. The federal government's response was delivered via email.
The incentive, then, is for states to spend ever-larger amounts in order to extract as much money as possible from the federal government, but not to innovate or experiment.
It's not obvious to Senate Democrats, however. As Politico reports, they've made it clear they aren't willing to sign on to the block-grant approach. In a letter to President Obama, Sen. Jay Rockefeller and 36 other Democrats warn that block grants would "undermine" the "federal commitment" to the program. (As far as I'm concerned, the federal government's essentially unlimited commitment is a big part part of the problem.) "We are unwilling to allow the federal government to walk away from Medicaid’s 68 million beneficiaries, the providers that serve them and the urban and rural communities in which they live,” the letter says.
Under a block grant system, the federal government wouldn't be "walking away" or anything like it. Indeed, it would still pay out hundreds of billions of dollars each years. Instead, federal officials in Washington would be putting state Medicaid programs on defined budgets and allowing them to manage the programs as they see fit.
ObamaCare, naturally, makes the Medicaid problem worse for states. (DP: I lost track of the source link)
After 29 months of the most left-wing presidency in US history, the American superpower is heading towards the economic abyss
After 29 months of the most left-wing presidency in US history, the American superpower is heading towards the economic abyss By Nile Gardiner
I imagine there are some very worried figures in the White House today, including the president himself. Today’s job figures are extremely bad news for the Obama administration, and as I noted in my last post, an electoral disaster for Barack Obama in November 2012 is now looking like a distinct possibility. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment has risen again to 9.1 percent, with private employers adding a mere 54,000 jobs in May. That’s up from 9 percent in April, and 8.8 percent in March.
The White House’s chief economist Austan Goolsbee has described the figures as a mere “bump in the road.” In reality they should be a massive wake-up call for an administration that refuses to acknowledge the huge damage its big government policies have done to the American economy, with 13.9 million Americans now out of work.
Under President Obama unemployment has remained above 8 percent for every single month, with the exception of January 2009 when he entered the Oval Office, rising as high as 10.1 percent in October 2009. By any measure, this is a terrible track record, and as even The New York Times acknowledged earlier this week, “no American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.”
The dire jobs figures are just part of an extraordinarily grim picture for the US economy, nearly two and a half years into the Obama presidency. As ABC News reported yesterday, “a cascade of negative economic reports this week is leaving Americans wondering if this is really a recovery from the recession that officially started December 2007 and ended June 2009.” And the housing market, in which 67 percent of Americans have a stake, is in serious trouble, with home prices sinking to their lowest levels since 2002, falling by 4.2 percent in the first quarter of 2011 and for eight straight months in a row.
In addition, the White House is paralysed in the face of the nation’s towering debts, which reached 62 percent of GDP by the end of 2010, the highest percentage since the end of World War Two. The Congressional Budget Office warned last year in its “alternative fiscal scenario” that “with significantly lower revenues and higher outlays”, the federal debt could grow to a staggering 87 percent of GDP by 2020, rising to 109 percent by 2025 and 185 percent in 2035.
It is little wonder that 66 percent of Americans now worry the federal government will finally run out of their money, and Moody’s Investors Service is threatening to downgrade America’s sterling credit rating unless it gets to grips with the debt crisis. Undoubtedly, the very future of the United States’ position as the word’s only superpower is at stake in the next few years. And as Congressman Paul Ryan, the Reaganite chairman of the House Budget Committee warned in a superb speech last night to the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington:
The unsustainable trajectory of government spending is accelerating the nation toward the most predictable economic crisis in American history. Years of ignoring the real drivers of our debt have left us with a profound structural problem. In the coming years, our debt is projected to grow to more than three times the size of our entire economy.
This trajectory is catastrophic. By the end of the decade, we will be spending 20 percent of our tax revenue simply paying interest on the debt – and that’s according to optimistic projections… This course is simply unsustainable. If we continue down our current path, then a debt-fueled economic crisis is not a probability. It is a mathematical certainty.
Years of profligate spending, massive bailouts and useless stimulus measures have made America poorer, not richer, and threaten the long-term economic foundations of this great country. President Obama’s big government experiment has been a dangerous failure, only further proof that the deadening hand of federal intervention is the last thing America needs at this time. The United States needs more economic freedom, less government regulation and spending, and lower taxes if it is to create jobs, wealth and prosperity, a message that seems to have been lost on the Obama presidency as it drives the United States towards the financial abyss.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100090677/after-29-months-of-the-most-left-wing-government-in-us-history-the-american-superpower-is-heading-towards-the-financial-abyss/
I imagine there are some very worried figures in the White House today, including the president himself. Today’s job figures are extremely bad news for the Obama administration, and as I noted in my last post, an electoral disaster for Barack Obama in November 2012 is now looking like a distinct possibility. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment has risen again to 9.1 percent, with private employers adding a mere 54,000 jobs in May. That’s up from 9 percent in April, and 8.8 percent in March.
The White House’s chief economist Austan Goolsbee has described the figures as a mere “bump in the road.” In reality they should be a massive wake-up call for an administration that refuses to acknowledge the huge damage its big government policies have done to the American economy, with 13.9 million Americans now out of work.
Under President Obama unemployment has remained above 8 percent for every single month, with the exception of January 2009 when he entered the Oval Office, rising as high as 10.1 percent in October 2009. By any measure, this is a terrible track record, and as even The New York Times acknowledged earlier this week, “no American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.”
The dire jobs figures are just part of an extraordinarily grim picture for the US economy, nearly two and a half years into the Obama presidency. As ABC News reported yesterday, “a cascade of negative economic reports this week is leaving Americans wondering if this is really a recovery from the recession that officially started December 2007 and ended June 2009.” And the housing market, in which 67 percent of Americans have a stake, is in serious trouble, with home prices sinking to their lowest levels since 2002, falling by 4.2 percent in the first quarter of 2011 and for eight straight months in a row.
In addition, the White House is paralysed in the face of the nation’s towering debts, which reached 62 percent of GDP by the end of 2010, the highest percentage since the end of World War Two. The Congressional Budget Office warned last year in its “alternative fiscal scenario” that “with significantly lower revenues and higher outlays”, the federal debt could grow to a staggering 87 percent of GDP by 2020, rising to 109 percent by 2025 and 185 percent in 2035.
It is little wonder that 66 percent of Americans now worry the federal government will finally run out of their money, and Moody’s Investors Service is threatening to downgrade America’s sterling credit rating unless it gets to grips with the debt crisis. Undoubtedly, the very future of the United States’ position as the word’s only superpower is at stake in the next few years. And as Congressman Paul Ryan, the Reaganite chairman of the House Budget Committee warned in a superb speech last night to the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington:
The unsustainable trajectory of government spending is accelerating the nation toward the most predictable economic crisis in American history. Years of ignoring the real drivers of our debt have left us with a profound structural problem. In the coming years, our debt is projected to grow to more than three times the size of our entire economy.
This trajectory is catastrophic. By the end of the decade, we will be spending 20 percent of our tax revenue simply paying interest on the debt – and that’s according to optimistic projections… This course is simply unsustainable. If we continue down our current path, then a debt-fueled economic crisis is not a probability. It is a mathematical certainty.
Years of profligate spending, massive bailouts and useless stimulus measures have made America poorer, not richer, and threaten the long-term economic foundations of this great country. President Obama’s big government experiment has been a dangerous failure, only further proof that the deadening hand of federal intervention is the last thing America needs at this time. The United States needs more economic freedom, less government regulation and spending, and lower taxes if it is to create jobs, wealth and prosperity, a message that seems to have been lost on the Obama presidency as it drives the United States towards the financial abyss.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100090677/after-29-months-of-the-most-left-wing-government-in-us-history-the-american-superpower-is-heading-towards-the-financial-abyss/
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Democrats' Tax-And-Spend Insanity--more money, kill jobs
Democrats' Tax-And-Spend Insanity - Investors.com
Democrats' Tax-And-Spend Insanity
Leadership: You have to wonder who's advising Democrats these days. With the economy stuck in a two-year, Obama-dug rut, their only new economic growth idea is to raise taxes and hike federal spending.
According to The Hill, Democrats are so frustrated with President Obama's "passivity on the economy" that they're actively working on a fresh stimulus package that would include significant new spending on roads and other infrastructure, paid for by closing various tax loopholes.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told the publication that "the last election was about jobs and the economy, and now we're in a position where we really do need some economic pump-priming by the federal government."
Has Harkin been asleep for the past two years? Doesn't he remember that Democrats already pushed through $830 billion worth of "pump priming"? And that this was supposed to stimulate growth and hold unemployment under 8%?
Instead, quarterly GDP growth has averaged an anemic 2.8% since the recession officially ended two years ago, and unemployment has been at or above 9% for all but two of the past 24 months.
Indeed, few ideas have been so thoroughly discredited as the one that says more government spending will increase jobs. As the chart above shows, government outlays climbed more than 40% between 2006 and 2011. At the same time, the employment figure has dropped by almost 5 million.
The Cato Institute's Mark Calabria, who pulled the data together for the chart, is quick to point out that just because there's a correlation between rising government spending and falling jobs doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.
However, he says, it does "suggest to me that continued massive government spending is not going to turn around the job market."
Calabria is being overly cautious.
In our view, the chart doesn't just suggest anything. It practically screams that government spending won't create jobs. If it did, there's no way we'd see so many unemployed today after wildly increasing federal outlays.
Nor would we have a record number of long-term unemployed — 6.2 million unemployed, or 46.1% of all those without jobs, have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.
Plus, there's a growing body of economic research showing the stimulus failed to stimulate anything.
The Hoover Institution's John Cogan and John Taylor found zero effect one way or another from the stimulus. And a more recent study by Timothy Conley of the University of Western Ontario and Bill Dupor of Ohio State actually found a negative correlation between federal stimulus spending and private-sector job growth. That suggests more spending actually kills jobs.
The only reason other studies show that the stimulus "saved or created" jobs is because they use economic models preprogrammed to show job growth from extra government spending.
But Democrats, from Obama on down, are so wedded to the idea that a bigger government equals a better economy that they simply refuse to see any of this.
While Obama pays lip service to the need to get federal spending and debt under control, he continues to plead for more money for clean energy and education, paid for with tax hikes on rich.
"We could decide," he said last week, "that we can't afford to make any of these investments, and those of us who've done very well don't have to pay any more taxes in order to fund these investments. But I want to make clear, that's not our history."
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., best summed up his party's current mindset.
He told the Hill that the new spending proposal was gaining traction among Senate Democrats worried about ongoing job losses because "there's no other way to get at this problem."
No other way?
The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. At the moment, that seems a fitting description for the Democratic Party's economic agenda.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=575089
Democrats' Tax-And-Spend Insanity
Leadership: You have to wonder who's advising Democrats these days. With the economy stuck in a two-year, Obama-dug rut, their only new economic growth idea is to raise taxes and hike federal spending.
According to The Hill, Democrats are so frustrated with President Obama's "passivity on the economy" that they're actively working on a fresh stimulus package that would include significant new spending on roads and other infrastructure, paid for by closing various tax loopholes.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told the publication that "the last election was about jobs and the economy, and now we're in a position where we really do need some economic pump-priming by the federal government."
Has Harkin been asleep for the past two years? Doesn't he remember that Democrats already pushed through $830 billion worth of "pump priming"? And that this was supposed to stimulate growth and hold unemployment under 8%?
Instead, quarterly GDP growth has averaged an anemic 2.8% since the recession officially ended two years ago, and unemployment has been at or above 9% for all but two of the past 24 months.
Indeed, few ideas have been so thoroughly discredited as the one that says more government spending will increase jobs. As the chart above shows, government outlays climbed more than 40% between 2006 and 2011. At the same time, the employment figure has dropped by almost 5 million.
The Cato Institute's Mark Calabria, who pulled the data together for the chart, is quick to point out that just because there's a correlation between rising government spending and falling jobs doesn't mean there's a causal relationship.
However, he says, it does "suggest to me that continued massive government spending is not going to turn around the job market."
Calabria is being overly cautious.
In our view, the chart doesn't just suggest anything. It practically screams that government spending won't create jobs. If it did, there's no way we'd see so many unemployed today after wildly increasing federal outlays.
Nor would we have a record number of long-term unemployed — 6.2 million unemployed, or 46.1% of all those without jobs, have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.
Plus, there's a growing body of economic research showing the stimulus failed to stimulate anything.
The Hoover Institution's John Cogan and John Taylor found zero effect one way or another from the stimulus. And a more recent study by Timothy Conley of the University of Western Ontario and Bill Dupor of Ohio State actually found a negative correlation between federal stimulus spending and private-sector job growth. That suggests more spending actually kills jobs.
The only reason other studies show that the stimulus "saved or created" jobs is because they use economic models preprogrammed to show job growth from extra government spending.
But Democrats, from Obama on down, are so wedded to the idea that a bigger government equals a better economy that they simply refuse to see any of this.
While Obama pays lip service to the need to get federal spending and debt under control, he continues to plead for more money for clean energy and education, paid for with tax hikes on rich.
"We could decide," he said last week, "that we can't afford to make any of these investments, and those of us who've done very well don't have to pay any more taxes in order to fund these investments. But I want to make clear, that's not our history."
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., best summed up his party's current mindset.
He told the Hill that the new spending proposal was gaining traction among Senate Democrats worried about ongoing job losses because "there's no other way to get at this problem."
No other way?
The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. At the moment, that seems a fitting description for the Democratic Party's economic agenda.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=575089
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Obama Has No Idea How Vulnerable He Is
Obama Has No Idea How Vulnerable He Is Peter Wehner
I have argued before if the economy doesn’t improve significantly before the 2012 election, Barack Obama will be the easiest incumbent to defeat since Jimmy Carter. But even if that happens, it probably won’t look like it until the last days of the campaign. I say that in part based on the Carter-Reagan experience.
The 1980 election was held on November 2. But as late as October 23, Carter held a small lead over Reagan (39 percent v. 38 percent, with 9 percent voicing support for John Anderson, who ran as an independent.). And that gap was essentially static since Labor Day. But on election day, Carter pollster Patrick Caddell informed the president his latest polls revealed a massive shift toward Reagan in the previous 48 hours. It was all coming apart for Carter, Caddell concluded. And by the time the election was over, Reagan had carried 44 of the 50 states and won 489 electoral votes v. 49 for Carter.
“It was truly a landslide and virtually none of us in the media, the political industry or the polling fraternity had foreseen its dimensions,” according to “The Pursuit of the Presidency 1980,” written by several Washington Post reporters. “But the elements for the upheaval had long been present.”
I’m not prepared to predict a Carter-like defeat for President Obama, since it depends on several unknown factors, from who the GOP nominee will be to the state of the economy and the country. But I am prepared to say right now the elements for a 2012 upheaval are in place, much as they were prior to the Reagan landslide and as they were prior to the 2010 epic repudiation of Obama and Democrats. And unless the economy swings around soon and in a fairly substantial way, Mr. Obama will be terrifically vulnerable.
Unemployment is now 25 percent higher than when the president took office, the deficit is 35 percent higher, and gas prices have more than doubled (h/t: NBC’s David Gregory). According to Pollster.com, the president’s rating on the economy is underwater by more than 19 percentage points (56.9 percent versus 37.7 percent), the widest since he took the oath of office. Only one-in-three independent voters approve of the president’s handling of the economy. According to the most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, by a margin of more than 30 points, voters disapprove of his handling of health care; and by a margin of more than 40 points, they disapprove of his handling of the federal deficit. And roughly half of the nation believes we’re either in a recession or a depression.
I recently spoke to someone who is fairly well connected to the Obama White House, and he indicated the president and his team hadn’t even contemplated the possibility of a re-election loss. They comfort themselves with the beliefs the GOP field is fatally flawed, demographics are working to their advantage, and Obama is a spectacularly good politician. Even states such as North Carolina and Georgia will be up for grabs, they are telling reporters.
Based on the objective conditions in the country right now, this self-confidence borders on being delusional. Of course, that wouldn’t be the first such incident for Obama and his team, and it won’t be the last.
No election is fated in advance, especially one 17 months away. But there are certain rules that tend to govern American political elections, and right now, Barack Obama is on the wrong end of almost all of them.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/13/obama-has-no-idea-how-vulnerable-he-is/#more-757471
I have argued before if the economy doesn’t improve significantly before the 2012 election, Barack Obama will be the easiest incumbent to defeat since Jimmy Carter. But even if that happens, it probably won’t look like it until the last days of the campaign. I say that in part based on the Carter-Reagan experience.
The 1980 election was held on November 2. But as late as October 23, Carter held a small lead over Reagan (39 percent v. 38 percent, with 9 percent voicing support for John Anderson, who ran as an independent.). And that gap was essentially static since Labor Day. But on election day, Carter pollster Patrick Caddell informed the president his latest polls revealed a massive shift toward Reagan in the previous 48 hours. It was all coming apart for Carter, Caddell concluded. And by the time the election was over, Reagan had carried 44 of the 50 states and won 489 electoral votes v. 49 for Carter.
“It was truly a landslide and virtually none of us in the media, the political industry or the polling fraternity had foreseen its dimensions,” according to “The Pursuit of the Presidency 1980,” written by several Washington Post reporters. “But the elements for the upheaval had long been present.”
I’m not prepared to predict a Carter-like defeat for President Obama, since it depends on several unknown factors, from who the GOP nominee will be to the state of the economy and the country. But I am prepared to say right now the elements for a 2012 upheaval are in place, much as they were prior to the Reagan landslide and as they were prior to the 2010 epic repudiation of Obama and Democrats. And unless the economy swings around soon and in a fairly substantial way, Mr. Obama will be terrifically vulnerable.
Unemployment is now 25 percent higher than when the president took office, the deficit is 35 percent higher, and gas prices have more than doubled (h/t: NBC’s David Gregory). According to Pollster.com, the president’s rating on the economy is underwater by more than 19 percentage points (56.9 percent versus 37.7 percent), the widest since he took the oath of office. Only one-in-three independent voters approve of the president’s handling of the economy. According to the most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, by a margin of more than 30 points, voters disapprove of his handling of health care; and by a margin of more than 40 points, they disapprove of his handling of the federal deficit. And roughly half of the nation believes we’re either in a recession or a depression.
I recently spoke to someone who is fairly well connected to the Obama White House, and he indicated the president and his team hadn’t even contemplated the possibility of a re-election loss. They comfort themselves with the beliefs the GOP field is fatally flawed, demographics are working to their advantage, and Obama is a spectacularly good politician. Even states such as North Carolina and Georgia will be up for grabs, they are telling reporters.
Based on the objective conditions in the country right now, this self-confidence borders on being delusional. Of course, that wouldn’t be the first such incident for Obama and his team, and it won’t be the last.
No election is fated in advance, especially one 17 months away. But there are certain rules that tend to govern American political elections, and right now, Barack Obama is on the wrong end of almost all of them.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/13/obama-has-no-idea-how-vulnerable-he-is/#more-757471
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
How a Teachers’ Rally Made Me Anti-Education
How a Teachers’ Rally Made Me Anti-Education
I write this essay with a heavy heart.
I’ve always considered myself an ardent advocate for education. But a recent rally staged by teachers and students in favor of school funding forced me to reluctantly acknowledge an awful truth:
We have to destroy education in order to save it.
Let me explain how I came to this miserable conclusion.
The May 13 “State of Emergency” School Funding Protest
A few weeks ago (on Friday, May 13, to be precise) teachers up and down the state of California protested for more school funding. This mass multi-city “State of Emergency” protest was meant to be a Big Deal, a headline-grabbing statewide walkout, but you probably didn’t even hear about it at the time, since I suppose the media and the public have grown weary of endless political demonstrations.
But not to worry — blogs to the rescue! Fellow photojournalist Ringo of Ringo’s Pictures fully documented the Los Angeles protest, and I myself had camera duty at the San Francisco rally, the results of which you’ll see here (along with a selection of L.A. pictures).
You may be wondering: if these protests happened back in May, why are we only seeing the pictures now? Very, very good question.
These photos have been languishing on my hard drive for three weeks because every time I got the notion to blog about them, something stopped me. I’ve been making fun of protesters for over eight years now, but this time, I felt conflicted. I mean, c’mon, what have you got against poor teachers and young kids pleading for a few more pennies to keep their schools open? What are you, some kind of cruel anti-education knowledge-hating sadist?
I had some serious cogitatin’ to do. And each time I pushed this report to the back burner, unbidden thoughts kept percolating, simmering in the back of my mind. And it was not until today that I figured out why these otherwise unremarkable protests were so disturbing, and why I could only grumble under my breath at what ought to have been a legitimate social complaint.
(Photos and videos from both the S.F. and L.A. rallies are scattered generously throughout the following short essay. When you come to a photo, soak it in but then keep scrolling down — the essay continues all the way to the end! In each caption, “[SF]” indicates a photo by zombie of the San Francisco rally; “[LA]” indicates a photo by Ringo of the Los Angeles rally.)
.....
(For the rest and photos, video): http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/08/how-a-teachers-rally-made-me-anti-education/
I write this essay with a heavy heart.
I’ve always considered myself an ardent advocate for education. But a recent rally staged by teachers and students in favor of school funding forced me to reluctantly acknowledge an awful truth:
We have to destroy education in order to save it.
Let me explain how I came to this miserable conclusion.
The May 13 “State of Emergency” School Funding Protest
A few weeks ago (on Friday, May 13, to be precise) teachers up and down the state of California protested for more school funding. This mass multi-city “State of Emergency” protest was meant to be a Big Deal, a headline-grabbing statewide walkout, but you probably didn’t even hear about it at the time, since I suppose the media and the public have grown weary of endless political demonstrations.
But not to worry — blogs to the rescue! Fellow photojournalist Ringo of Ringo’s Pictures fully documented the Los Angeles protest, and I myself had camera duty at the San Francisco rally, the results of which you’ll see here (along with a selection of L.A. pictures).
You may be wondering: if these protests happened back in May, why are we only seeing the pictures now? Very, very good question.
These photos have been languishing on my hard drive for three weeks because every time I got the notion to blog about them, something stopped me. I’ve been making fun of protesters for over eight years now, but this time, I felt conflicted. I mean, c’mon, what have you got against poor teachers and young kids pleading for a few more pennies to keep their schools open? What are you, some kind of cruel anti-education knowledge-hating sadist?
I had some serious cogitatin’ to do. And each time I pushed this report to the back burner, unbidden thoughts kept percolating, simmering in the back of my mind. And it was not until today that I figured out why these otherwise unremarkable protests were so disturbing, and why I could only grumble under my breath at what ought to have been a legitimate social complaint.
(Photos and videos from both the S.F. and L.A. rallies are scattered generously throughout the following short essay. When you come to a photo, soak it in but then keep scrolling down — the essay continues all the way to the end! In each caption, “[SF]” indicates a photo by zombie of the San Francisco rally; “[LA]” indicates a photo by Ringo of the Los Angeles rally.)
.....
(For the rest and photos, video): http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/08/how-a-teachers-rally-made-me-anti-education/
The Lone Star Jobs Surge--beats CA, all other states
The Lone Star Jobs Surge
The Texas model added 37% of all net U.S. jobs since the recovery began.
Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, dropped by our offices this week and relayed a remarkable fact: Some 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas. Mr. Fisher's study is a lesson in what works in economic policy—and it is worth pondering in the current 1.8% growth moment.
Using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, Dallas Fed economists looked at state-by-state employment changes since June 2009, when the recession ended. Texas added 265,300 net jobs, out of the 722,200 nationwide, and by far outpaced every other state. New York was second with 98,200, Pennsylvania added 93,000, and it falls off from there. Nine states created fewer than 10,000 jobs, while Maine, Hawaii, Delaware and Wyoming created fewer than 1,000. Eighteen states have lost jobs since the recovery began.
The data are even more notable because they're calculated on a "sum of states" basis, which the BLS does not use because they can have sampling errors. Using straight nonfarm payroll employment, Texas accounts for 45% of net U.S. job creation. Modesty is not typically considered a Texas virtue, but the results speak for themselves.
Texas is also among the few states that are home to more jobs than when the recession began in December 2007. The others are North Dakota, Alaska and the District of Columbia. If that last one sounds like an outlier at first, remember the government boom of the Obama era, which has helped loft D.C. payrolls 18,000 jobs above the pre-crisis status quo. Even so, Texas is up 30,800.
...What explains this Lone Star success? Texas is a big state, but its population of 24.7 million isn't that much bigger than the Empire State, about 19.5 million. California is a large state too—36.9 million—and yet it's down 11,400 jobs. Mr. Fisher argues that Texas is doing so well relative to other states precisely because it has rejected the economic model that now prevails in Washington, and we'll second that notion.
Mr. Fisher notes that all states labor under the same Fed monetary policy and interest rates and federal regulation, but all states have not performed equally well. Texas stands out for its free market and business-friendly climate.
Capital—both human and investment—is highly mobile, and it migrates all the time to the places where the opportunities are larger and the burdens are lower. Texas has no state income tax. Its regulatory conditions are contained and flexible. It is fiscally responsible and government is small. Its right-to-work law doesn't impose unions on businesses or employees. It is open to global trade and competition: Houston, San Antonio and El Paso are entrepôts for commerce, especially in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Based on his conversations with CEOs and other business leaders, Mr. Fisher says one of Texas's huge competitive advantages is its ongoing reform of the tort system, which has driven litigation costs to record lows. He also cited a rule in place since 1998 in the backwash of the S&L debacle that limits mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. Like a minimum down payment, this reduces overleveraging and means Texas wasn't hurt as badly by the housing crash as other states.
Texan construction employment has contracted by 2.3% since the end of the recession, along with manufacturing (a 1.8% decline) and information (-8.4%). But growth in other areas has surpassed these losses. Professional and business services accounted for 22.9% of the total jobs added, health care for 30.5% and trade and energy for 10.6%.
The Texas economy has grown on average by 3.3% a year over the last two decades, compared with 2.6% for the U.S. overall. Yet the core impulse of Obamanomics is to make America less like Texas and more like California, with more government, more unions, more central planning, higher taxes. That the former added 37% of new U.S. jobs suggests what an historic mistake this has been.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375480710070472.html?KEYWORDS=texas+jobs
The Texas model added 37% of all net U.S. jobs since the recovery began.
Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, dropped by our offices this week and relayed a remarkable fact: Some 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas. Mr. Fisher's study is a lesson in what works in economic policy—and it is worth pondering in the current 1.8% growth moment.
Using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, Dallas Fed economists looked at state-by-state employment changes since June 2009, when the recession ended. Texas added 265,300 net jobs, out of the 722,200 nationwide, and by far outpaced every other state. New York was second with 98,200, Pennsylvania added 93,000, and it falls off from there. Nine states created fewer than 10,000 jobs, while Maine, Hawaii, Delaware and Wyoming created fewer than 1,000. Eighteen states have lost jobs since the recovery began.
The data are even more notable because they're calculated on a "sum of states" basis, which the BLS does not use because they can have sampling errors. Using straight nonfarm payroll employment, Texas accounts for 45% of net U.S. job creation. Modesty is not typically considered a Texas virtue, but the results speak for themselves.
Texas is also among the few states that are home to more jobs than when the recession began in December 2007. The others are North Dakota, Alaska and the District of Columbia. If that last one sounds like an outlier at first, remember the government boom of the Obama era, which has helped loft D.C. payrolls 18,000 jobs above the pre-crisis status quo. Even so, Texas is up 30,800.
...What explains this Lone Star success? Texas is a big state, but its population of 24.7 million isn't that much bigger than the Empire State, about 19.5 million. California is a large state too—36.9 million—and yet it's down 11,400 jobs. Mr. Fisher argues that Texas is doing so well relative to other states precisely because it has rejected the economic model that now prevails in Washington, and we'll second that notion.
Mr. Fisher notes that all states labor under the same Fed monetary policy and interest rates and federal regulation, but all states have not performed equally well. Texas stands out for its free market and business-friendly climate.
Capital—both human and investment—is highly mobile, and it migrates all the time to the places where the opportunities are larger and the burdens are lower. Texas has no state income tax. Its regulatory conditions are contained and flexible. It is fiscally responsible and government is small. Its right-to-work law doesn't impose unions on businesses or employees. It is open to global trade and competition: Houston, San Antonio and El Paso are entrepôts for commerce, especially in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Based on his conversations with CEOs and other business leaders, Mr. Fisher says one of Texas's huge competitive advantages is its ongoing reform of the tort system, which has driven litigation costs to record lows. He also cited a rule in place since 1998 in the backwash of the S&L debacle that limits mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. Like a minimum down payment, this reduces overleveraging and means Texas wasn't hurt as badly by the housing crash as other states.
Texan construction employment has contracted by 2.3% since the end of the recession, along with manufacturing (a 1.8% decline) and information (-8.4%). But growth in other areas has surpassed these losses. Professional and business services accounted for 22.9% of the total jobs added, health care for 30.5% and trade and energy for 10.6%.
The Texas economy has grown on average by 3.3% a year over the last two decades, compared with 2.6% for the U.S. overall. Yet the core impulse of Obamanomics is to make America less like Texas and more like California, with more government, more unions, more central planning, higher taxes. That the former added 37% of new U.S. jobs suggests what an historic mistake this has been.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375480710070472.html?KEYWORDS=texas+jobs
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Energy Disaster Continues--Obama crippling America w/intent
The Energy Disaster Continues by John Hinderacker/Powerine
The cornerstone belief of American liberals is that the United States is too rich and too powerful. And, if you want to make America poorer and weaker, the easiest way to do so is by preventing the development of our energy resources. Such a policy hobbles our economy and causes massive transfers of wealth from the U.S. to other countries, many of which are hostile. Liberals think this is all to the good, but pretty much every other American disagrees.
The Obama administration's energy policies have been a disaster, assuming that American decline is not your objective. We have written many times about the administration's efforts to suppress development of our oil resources, but coal is equally important. The United States is blessed with extraordinary deposits of coal, but Obama is determined to prevent us from using it to generate cheap and plentiful electricity. Obama wasn't kidding when he said, as a candidate, that his policies would cause electricity prices to "skyrocket."
U.S. News reports that Obama's EPA is promulgating regulations that will cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs:
Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.
Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group. ...
Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.
That was yesterday. Today, American Electric Power announced that it will close down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions to comply with the EPA's proposed regulations:
Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations. ...
The company, one of the country's largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.
The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.
In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.
Of course, the administration is trying to block development of natural gas, too. Of all of the Obama administration's perverse economic policies, its anti-energy agenda is most likely to make Obama a one-term president.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029211.php
The cornerstone belief of American liberals is that the United States is too rich and too powerful. And, if you want to make America poorer and weaker, the easiest way to do so is by preventing the development of our energy resources. Such a policy hobbles our economy and causes massive transfers of wealth from the U.S. to other countries, many of which are hostile. Liberals think this is all to the good, but pretty much every other American disagrees.
The Obama administration's energy policies have been a disaster, assuming that American decline is not your objective. We have written many times about the administration's efforts to suppress development of our oil resources, but coal is equally important. The United States is blessed with extraordinary deposits of coal, but Obama is determined to prevent us from using it to generate cheap and plentiful electricity. Obama wasn't kidding when he said, as a candidate, that his policies would cause electricity prices to "skyrocket."
U.S. News reports that Obama's EPA is promulgating regulations that will cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs:
Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.
Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group. ...
Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.
That was yesterday. Today, American Electric Power announced that it will close down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions to comply with the EPA's proposed regulations:
Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations. ...
The company, one of the country's largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.
The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.
In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.
Of course, the administration is trying to block development of natural gas, too. Of all of the Obama administration's perverse economic policies, its anti-energy agenda is most likely to make Obama a one-term president.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029211.php
Deregulation Now!--If Obama won't, the next (Republican) Prez will
Deregulation Now! - By Iain Murray - The Corner - National Review Online By Iain Murray
Today’s much weaker than expected employment numbers show that the president’s agenda of more regulation and increased spending has undoubtedly failed. However much money he throws at the problem, entrepreneurs are not going to start adding jobs to the economy while the burden of regulation is so high. Regulations cost the economy $1.75 trillion each year. It is regulation that is dragging us back to recession.
The president should instantly upbraid his cabinet members and agency heads for the derisory responses to his call for deregulatory efforts, which will barely scratch the surface of the problem. He should demand total regulatory relief to the tune of at least $500 billion a year, and make it clear that it’s just a start. His agency heads have so far found a sum two orders of magnitude smaller than that, a clear sign that they don’t understand what’s wrong with the economy.
The president should also be reining in his out-of-control union-relations boards. The National Labor Relations Board is trying to stop firms opening new factories, and the Railways Mediation Board is using Depression-era rules to intimidate airlines. This is the wrong action at the wrong time. If the president is serious about getting Americans back to work, he will stop putting barriers in the way of employers right now.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268752/deregulation-now-iain-murray?sms_ss=blogger&at_xt=4ded8f7e471c5258%2C0
Today’s much weaker than expected employment numbers show that the president’s agenda of more regulation and increased spending has undoubtedly failed. However much money he throws at the problem, entrepreneurs are not going to start adding jobs to the economy while the burden of regulation is so high. Regulations cost the economy $1.75 trillion each year. It is regulation that is dragging us back to recession.
The president should instantly upbraid his cabinet members and agency heads for the derisory responses to his call for deregulatory efforts, which will barely scratch the surface of the problem. He should demand total regulatory relief to the tune of at least $500 billion a year, and make it clear that it’s just a start. His agency heads have so far found a sum two orders of magnitude smaller than that, a clear sign that they don’t understand what’s wrong with the economy.
The president should also be reining in his out-of-control union-relations boards. The National Labor Relations Board is trying to stop firms opening new factories, and the Railways Mediation Board is using Depression-era rules to intimidate airlines. This is the wrong action at the wrong time. If the president is serious about getting Americans back to work, he will stop putting barriers in the way of employers right now.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268752/deregulation-now-iain-murray?sms_ss=blogger&at_xt=4ded8f7e471c5258%2C0
Sunday, June 12, 2011
The Economy Is Worse Than You Think
The Economy Is Worse Than You Think
Expect more bad news until someone enacts a plan to bring deficits under control without raising taxes.
The policies of the Obama administration have led to the weak condition of the American economy. Growth during the coming year will be subpar at best, leaving high or rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.
The drop in GDP growth to just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, from 3.1% in the final quarter of last year, understates the extent of the decline. Two-thirds of that 1.8% went into business inventories rather than sales to consumers or other final buyers. This means that final sales growth was at an annual rate of just 0.6% and the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15%—dangerously close to no rise at all. A sustained expansion cannot be built on inventory investment. It takes final sales to induce businesses to hire and to invest.
The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.
The data for May are beginning to arrive and are even worse than April's. They are marked by a collapse in payroll-employment gains; a higher unemployment rate; manufacturers' reports of slower orders and production; weak chain-store sales; and a sharp drop in consumer confidence.
How has the Obama administration contributed to this failure to achieve a robust and sustainable recovery?
The administration's most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion "stimulus" package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.
As for the "stimulus" package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn't have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.
In fact, each dollar of extra deficit added much less than a dollar to GDP. Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department. Instead, President Obama allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to design a hodgepodge package of transfers to state and local governments, increased transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts for lower-income taxpayers, etc. So we got a bigger deficit without economic growth.
A second cause of the continued economic weakness is the president's emphasis on increasing tax rates. Although Mr. Obama grudgingly agreed to continue the Bush tax cuts for 2011 and 2012, his budget this year repeated his call for higher tax rates on upper-income individuals and multinational corporations. With that higher-tax cloud hanging over them, it is not surprising that individuals and businesses do not make the entrepreneurial investments and business expansions that would cause a solid recovery.
A third problem stems from the administration's lack of an explicit plan to deal with future budget deficits and with the exploding national debt. This creates uncertainty about future tax increases and interest rates that impedes spending by households and investment by businesses. The national debt has jumped to 69% of GDP this year, from 40% in 2008. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach more than 85% by the end of the decade, and to keep rising after that. The reality is even worse since ObamaCare alone will cost more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years. The president's boast that his health legislation would not "add a dime" to the national debt was possible only by combining that increased spending with proposed new taxes and with projected cuts in Medicare spending that will never occur.
Finally, there is the administration's incoherent position on the international value of the dollar. The Treasury repeats the slogan that "a strong dollar is good for America" while watching the real value of the dollar fall by 7% over the past year, and while urging the Chinese to allow the dollar to fall more quickly relative to the yuan. The lack of a consistent dollar policy adds to the uncertainty that limits business investment and hiring.
The economy will continue to suffer until there is a coherent and favorable economic policy. That means bringing long-term deficits under control without raising marginal tax rates—by cutting government outlays and by limiting the tax expenditures that substitute for direct government spending. It means lower tax rates on businesses and individuals to spur entrepreneurship and investment. And it means reforming Social Security and Medicare to protect the living standards of future retirees while limiting the cost to future taxpayers.
All of these things are doable. But the Obama administration has not done them and shows no inclination to do them in the future.
Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal's board of contributors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576363984173620692.html
Expect more bad news until someone enacts a plan to bring deficits under control without raising taxes.
The policies of the Obama administration have led to the weak condition of the American economy. Growth during the coming year will be subpar at best, leaving high or rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.
The drop in GDP growth to just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, from 3.1% in the final quarter of last year, understates the extent of the decline. Two-thirds of that 1.8% went into business inventories rather than sales to consumers or other final buyers. This means that final sales growth was at an annual rate of just 0.6% and the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15%—dangerously close to no rise at all. A sustained expansion cannot be built on inventory investment. It takes final sales to induce businesses to hire and to invest.
The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.
The data for May are beginning to arrive and are even worse than April's. They are marked by a collapse in payroll-employment gains; a higher unemployment rate; manufacturers' reports of slower orders and production; weak chain-store sales; and a sharp drop in consumer confidence.
How has the Obama administration contributed to this failure to achieve a robust and sustainable recovery?
The administration's most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion "stimulus" package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.
As for the "stimulus" package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn't have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.
In fact, each dollar of extra deficit added much less than a dollar to GDP. Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department. Instead, President Obama allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to design a hodgepodge package of transfers to state and local governments, increased transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts for lower-income taxpayers, etc. So we got a bigger deficit without economic growth.
A second cause of the continued economic weakness is the president's emphasis on increasing tax rates. Although Mr. Obama grudgingly agreed to continue the Bush tax cuts for 2011 and 2012, his budget this year repeated his call for higher tax rates on upper-income individuals and multinational corporations. With that higher-tax cloud hanging over them, it is not surprising that individuals and businesses do not make the entrepreneurial investments and business expansions that would cause a solid recovery.
A third problem stems from the administration's lack of an explicit plan to deal with future budget deficits and with the exploding national debt. This creates uncertainty about future tax increases and interest rates that impedes spending by households and investment by businesses. The national debt has jumped to 69% of GDP this year, from 40% in 2008. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach more than 85% by the end of the decade, and to keep rising after that. The reality is even worse since ObamaCare alone will cost more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years. The president's boast that his health legislation would not "add a dime" to the national debt was possible only by combining that increased spending with proposed new taxes and with projected cuts in Medicare spending that will never occur.
Finally, there is the administration's incoherent position on the international value of the dollar. The Treasury repeats the slogan that "a strong dollar is good for America" while watching the real value of the dollar fall by 7% over the past year, and while urging the Chinese to allow the dollar to fall more quickly relative to the yuan. The lack of a consistent dollar policy adds to the uncertainty that limits business investment and hiring.
The economy will continue to suffer until there is a coherent and favorable economic policy. That means bringing long-term deficits under control without raising marginal tax rates—by cutting government outlays and by limiting the tax expenditures that substitute for direct government spending. It means lower tax rates on businesses and individuals to spur entrepreneurship and investment. And it means reforming Social Security and Medicare to protect the living standards of future retirees while limiting the cost to future taxpayers.
All of these things are doable. But the Obama administration has not done them and shows no inclination to do them in the future.
Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal's board of contributors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576363984173620692.html
Even World Bank Research Shows Economic Liberty Is Better than Government Dependency
Even World Bank Research Shows Economic Liberty Is Better than Government Dependency by Dan Mitchell
Regular readers know that I’m not a big fan of the international bureaucracies. I don’t like the International Monetary Fund because it encourages bad policy by bailing out nations such as Greece. I don’t like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development because it promotes bigger government with its anti-tax competition campaign. And I don’t like the United Nations because it is a wasteful and corrupt bureaucracy, though at least it is ineffective so we don’t have to worry too much about the bad ideas it generates (such as global taxes – see here, here, and here).
If I had to pick my “least despised” international bureaucracy, it would be the World Bank. Yes, it engages in lots of counterproductive income transfers, and yes, it has a long track record of wasting money with foreign aid boondoggles. But unlike other international bureaucracies, at least the World Bank doesn’t try to act like some sort of global economic policymaker.
Moreover, it occasionally is a force for good. The World Bank for years has been actively involved in helping nations develop and implement private Social Security systems. And the bureaucracy’s “Doing Business Index” and “Governance Indicators” help promote market-friendly reforms by publicizing which nations have bloated and inefficient public sectors.
And since I’m feeling temporarily warm and fuzzy about the World Bank, I should acknowledge that their researchers sometimes produce good research. I’m particularly impressed by a new study showing that economic freedom is the key to prosperity. The abstract of the paper summarizes the results.
Reviewing the economic performance—good and bad—of more than 100 countries over the past 30 years, this paper finds new empirical evidence supporting the idea that economic freedom and civil and political liberties are the root causes of why some countries achieve and sustain better economic outcomes. For instance, a one unit change in the initial level of economic freedom between two countries (on a scale of 1 to 10) is associated with an almost 1 percentage point differential in their average long-run economic growth rates. In the case of civil and political liberties, the long-term effect is also positive and significant with a differential of 0.3 percentage point. In addition to the initial conditions, the expansion of freedom conditions over time (economic, civil, and political) also positively influences long-run economic growth. In contrast, no evidence was found that the initial level of entitlement rights or their change over time had any significant effects on long-term per capita income, except for a negative effect in some specifications of the model. These results tend to support earlier findings that beyond core functions of government responsibility—including the protection of liberty itself—the expansion of the state to provide for various entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long run and may even make them poorer.
Let’s apply these finding to the United States. Under Bush and Obama, the United States has suffered an expansion in the burden of government and a loss of economic freedom. This means our economy will grow at a slower rate, our incomes will not climb as fast, and our future will be less prosperous. There are real consequences to bad policy.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/even-world-bank-research-shows-economic-liberty-is-better-than-government-dependency/
Regular readers know that I’m not a big fan of the international bureaucracies. I don’t like the International Monetary Fund because it encourages bad policy by bailing out nations such as Greece. I don’t like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development because it promotes bigger government with its anti-tax competition campaign. And I don’t like the United Nations because it is a wasteful and corrupt bureaucracy, though at least it is ineffective so we don’t have to worry too much about the bad ideas it generates (such as global taxes – see here, here, and here).
If I had to pick my “least despised” international bureaucracy, it would be the World Bank. Yes, it engages in lots of counterproductive income transfers, and yes, it has a long track record of wasting money with foreign aid boondoggles. But unlike other international bureaucracies, at least the World Bank doesn’t try to act like some sort of global economic policymaker.
Moreover, it occasionally is a force for good. The World Bank for years has been actively involved in helping nations develop and implement private Social Security systems. And the bureaucracy’s “Doing Business Index” and “Governance Indicators” help promote market-friendly reforms by publicizing which nations have bloated and inefficient public sectors.
And since I’m feeling temporarily warm and fuzzy about the World Bank, I should acknowledge that their researchers sometimes produce good research. I’m particularly impressed by a new study showing that economic freedom is the key to prosperity. The abstract of the paper summarizes the results.
Reviewing the economic performance—good and bad—of more than 100 countries over the past 30 years, this paper finds new empirical evidence supporting the idea that economic freedom and civil and political liberties are the root causes of why some countries achieve and sustain better economic outcomes. For instance, a one unit change in the initial level of economic freedom between two countries (on a scale of 1 to 10) is associated with an almost 1 percentage point differential in their average long-run economic growth rates. In the case of civil and political liberties, the long-term effect is also positive and significant with a differential of 0.3 percentage point. In addition to the initial conditions, the expansion of freedom conditions over time (economic, civil, and political) also positively influences long-run economic growth. In contrast, no evidence was found that the initial level of entitlement rights or their change over time had any significant effects on long-term per capita income, except for a negative effect in some specifications of the model. These results tend to support earlier findings that beyond core functions of government responsibility—including the protection of liberty itself—the expansion of the state to provide for various entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long run and may even make them poorer.
Let’s apply these finding to the United States. Under Bush and Obama, the United States has suffered an expansion in the burden of government and a loss of economic freedom. This means our economy will grow at a slower rate, our incomes will not climb as fast, and our future will be less prosperous. There are real consequences to bad policy.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/even-world-bank-research-shows-economic-liberty-is-better-than-government-dependency/
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Democrats are in a corner on their ownership of the economy and what they can do to help turn it around.
Democrats are in a corner on their ownership of the economy and what they can do to help turn it around. by Charlie Cook
While I generally loathe press releases, I have to admit that one caught my eye on Monday morning. The e-mail release from the Republican National Committee simply said, “They Own It.”
As I expected, “They” referred to President Obama and Democrats, and “It” referred to the economy. Within the first six months or even a year of a new administration, it’s fair game to blame predecessors for any problems. Indeed, it’s a legitimate and time-honored tradition by presidents of both parties. But such arguments get much less convincing as the second year comes to an end. Once into the third year, such claims sound downright silly. Gradually, any president and any administration take ownership of the problems facing the country.
While Obama and Democrats can say that they inherited a terrible economy and downturn that has since only marginally improved, it’s far more complicated than that.
First, the administration’s initial response, the much-maligned economic-stimulus package, was far too modest and unfocused.
And second, as soon as the stimulus package was completed, they pivoted too quickly to addressing climate change and health care. These were the signature issues in voters’ minds that defined the legislative objectives of Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Republicans felt that the spending package was expansive and unnecessary and would run up deficits, with the consensus among economists being that unemployment wasn’t going to get worse than 8.2 percent.
Democrats seemed to see it as an opportunity to load up the Christmas tree with funding for programs that they felt were worthwhile and had been shortchanged under Republican rule. Forecasters underestimated the severity of the downturn and both parties responded by not taking it as seriously as they should have.
The highly regarded Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of top economists in January 2009, when Obama was sworn in, showed an expectation that unemployment would average 8.2 percent for 2010. The reality, of course, was that the lowest monthly unemployment rate in 2010 was 9.4 percent, and it shot up to 9.8 percent for two months that year.
Presumably, had everyone known how bad the jobless situation would be, both parties would have sought to spend on things where they would get the maximum bang for their buck in terms of job creation.
Unfortunately for Democrats, accountability only applies to those in power, so it’s they and Obama who will continue to pay the price for not having been more aggressive with programs that would have generated more jobs.
This can also explain why Obama and Democrats felt comfortable moving on to climate change legislation in the summer of 2009 and then health care, an issue which would dominate the agenda.
Indeed, one can argue that there was a reticence to spend too much political capital on fighting for a bigger stimulus package because they wanted to hold it back for these issues. Had Democrats vowed to fight tooth and nail to create more jobs and pull the economy out of the recession, voters’ memories and how they see the parties might be quite different.
Now we find ourselves sitting at 9.1 percent unemployment, and the very concept of economic stimulus spending has become discredited, at least among Republicans.
To be sure, an increased focus on the deficit issue has made it almost impossible.
The Fed, through monetary policy, has stimulated the economy in an unprecedented manner. But there seems to be a limit to how much that can help and the spending stimulus is largely worn out. With another stimulus politically untenable now and monetary policy having done about as much as can be done, policymakers are in a pretty helpless situation.
With last month’s dismal unemployment report and economic-growth forecasts rapidly being revised downward, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is unlikely that economic growth will be sufficient to create meaningful job growth on a sustained basis through the 2012 election.
The odds of unemployment dropping much below 8.0 percent by Election Day are quite small. Many have been pointing to the fact that no modern president has been reelected with an unemployment rate above 7.2 percent, which is technically true.
It is important to note, though, that Ronald Reagan was the president who was reelected when unemployment was at 7.2 percent, and he won in a 49-state landslide.
Just two years earlier, during the 1982 midterms, unemployment was at 10.8 percent. Presumably, Reagan still would have won if unemployment was at 7.3 percent; there was nothing magical about 7.2 percent.
The point is that unemployment had topped out and the economy had clearly turned around with the arrow pointing in the right direction. The best Obama can hope for is that the economy will improve from its worst point and that the arrow will be pointing in the right direction.
In Reagan’s case, he basically rode out the storm of the recession and the economy improved in time for his reelection campaign, where he was able to run on the theme of “Morning in America.”
For Obama, it’s pretty clear the recovery won’t be nearly as robust. In addition, he has to deal with a more complicated narrative where he must reconcile an early focus on subjects that would best be forgotten with making the case that he should have his contract renewed for another four years. That won’t be easy.
NationalJournal.com - Charlie Cook: Owning It - Tuesday, June 7, 2011
While I generally loathe press releases, I have to admit that one caught my eye on Monday morning. The e-mail release from the Republican National Committee simply said, “They Own It.”
As I expected, “They” referred to President Obama and Democrats, and “It” referred to the economy. Within the first six months or even a year of a new administration, it’s fair game to blame predecessors for any problems. Indeed, it’s a legitimate and time-honored tradition by presidents of both parties. But such arguments get much less convincing as the second year comes to an end. Once into the third year, such claims sound downright silly. Gradually, any president and any administration take ownership of the problems facing the country.
While Obama and Democrats can say that they inherited a terrible economy and downturn that has since only marginally improved, it’s far more complicated than that.
First, the administration’s initial response, the much-maligned economic-stimulus package, was far too modest and unfocused.
And second, as soon as the stimulus package was completed, they pivoted too quickly to addressing climate change and health care. These were the signature issues in voters’ minds that defined the legislative objectives of Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Republicans felt that the spending package was expansive and unnecessary and would run up deficits, with the consensus among economists being that unemployment wasn’t going to get worse than 8.2 percent.
Democrats seemed to see it as an opportunity to load up the Christmas tree with funding for programs that they felt were worthwhile and had been shortchanged under Republican rule. Forecasters underestimated the severity of the downturn and both parties responded by not taking it as seriously as they should have.
The highly regarded Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of top economists in January 2009, when Obama was sworn in, showed an expectation that unemployment would average 8.2 percent for 2010. The reality, of course, was that the lowest monthly unemployment rate in 2010 was 9.4 percent, and it shot up to 9.8 percent for two months that year.
Presumably, had everyone known how bad the jobless situation would be, both parties would have sought to spend on things where they would get the maximum bang for their buck in terms of job creation.
Unfortunately for Democrats, accountability only applies to those in power, so it’s they and Obama who will continue to pay the price for not having been more aggressive with programs that would have generated more jobs.
This can also explain why Obama and Democrats felt comfortable moving on to climate change legislation in the summer of 2009 and then health care, an issue which would dominate the agenda.
Indeed, one can argue that there was a reticence to spend too much political capital on fighting for a bigger stimulus package because they wanted to hold it back for these issues. Had Democrats vowed to fight tooth and nail to create more jobs and pull the economy out of the recession, voters’ memories and how they see the parties might be quite different.
Now we find ourselves sitting at 9.1 percent unemployment, and the very concept of economic stimulus spending has become discredited, at least among Republicans.
To be sure, an increased focus on the deficit issue has made it almost impossible.
The Fed, through monetary policy, has stimulated the economy in an unprecedented manner. But there seems to be a limit to how much that can help and the spending stimulus is largely worn out. With another stimulus politically untenable now and monetary policy having done about as much as can be done, policymakers are in a pretty helpless situation.
With last month’s dismal unemployment report and economic-growth forecasts rapidly being revised downward, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is unlikely that economic growth will be sufficient to create meaningful job growth on a sustained basis through the 2012 election.
The odds of unemployment dropping much below 8.0 percent by Election Day are quite small. Many have been pointing to the fact that no modern president has been reelected with an unemployment rate above 7.2 percent, which is technically true.
It is important to note, though, that Ronald Reagan was the president who was reelected when unemployment was at 7.2 percent, and he won in a 49-state landslide.
Just two years earlier, during the 1982 midterms, unemployment was at 10.8 percent. Presumably, Reagan still would have won if unemployment was at 7.3 percent; there was nothing magical about 7.2 percent.
The point is that unemployment had topped out and the economy had clearly turned around with the arrow pointing in the right direction. The best Obama can hope for is that the economy will improve from its worst point and that the arrow will be pointing in the right direction.
In Reagan’s case, he basically rode out the storm of the recession and the economy improved in time for his reelection campaign, where he was able to run on the theme of “Morning in America.”
For Obama, it’s pretty clear the recovery won’t be nearly as robust. In addition, he has to deal with a more complicated narrative where he must reconcile an early focus on subjects that would best be forgotten with making the case that he should have his contract renewed for another four years. That won’t be easy.
NationalJournal.com - Charlie Cook: Owning It - Tuesday, June 7, 2011
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
More from contributor Larry Bell
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
...
(Read the rest): http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
More from contributor Larry Bell
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
...
(Read the rest): http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
Economic Stagnation Explained, at 30,000 Feet
Carter: Economic Stagnation Explained, at 30,000 Feet By Stephen L. Carter
The man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why he refuses to hire anybody. His business is successful, he says, as the 737 cruises smoothly eastward. Demand for his product is up. But he still won’t hire.
“Why not?”
“Because I don’t know how much it will cost,” he explains. “How can I hire new workers today, when I don’t know how much they will cost me tomorrow?”
He’s referring not to wages, but to regulation: He has no way of telling what new rules will go into effect when. His business, although it covers several states, operates on low margins. He can’t afford to take the chance of losing what little profit there is to the next round of regulatory changes. And so he’s hiring nobody until he has some certainty about cost.
It’s a little odd to be having this conversation as the news media keep insisting that private employment is picking up. But as economists have pointed out to all who will listen, the only real change is that the rate of layoffs has slowed. Fewer than one of six small businesses added jobs last year, and not many more expect to do so this year. The private sector is creating no more new jobs than it was a year ago; the man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why.
He is trim and white-haired and bursting with energy. He’s proud of the business he has built: not large by the way things are measured these days, but certainly successful. He shows me sales figures, award citations, stories from trade magazines. I congratulate him, then turn to the window and enjoy the view for a bit. We are flying over the Midwest, away from the setting sun and toward the darkness. America stretches beneath us in every direction, flat and broad and beautiful. My seat-mate has just discovered that I am a law professor: That is the reason for his discourse.
Party Doesn’t Matter
“I don’t understand why Washington does this to us," he resumes. By "us," he means people who run businesses of less- than-Fortune-500 size. He tells me that it doesn’t much matter which party is in office. Every change of power means a whole new set of rules to which he and those like him must respond. ‘‘I don’t understand,” he continues, “why Washington won’t just get out of our way and let us hire.”
There are a lot of responses I could offer at this point. But I am interested now; I prefer to let him talk.
It isn’t just hiring that is too unpredictable, he says. He feels the same way about investing. He has never liked stock markets; he prefers to put cash directly into businesses he likes in return for a small stake, acting, in short, as a small- time venture capitalist.
“Can’t do that now,” he says. For people like him -- people who aren’t filthy rich -- it has become too hard to pick winners. But he doesn’t blame the great information advantages enjoyed by insiders. He blames Washington, once more, for creating a climate of uncertainty.
Thinking of Selling
Growing bold -- or maybe rude -- I ask why, if the climate is so terrible, he doesn’t just sell his company. This brings a smile.
“I think about retirement a lot,” he says. “But I can’t.” I wait to hear about how much he loves the business he founded, or about his responsibilities to his employees, or perhaps to the town, somewhere in the Dakotas, where his factory is located. Instead, he tells me that it’s impossible to make a sensible decision about winding down his firm when he doesn’t even know from one year to the next what the capital gains rate is going to be.
I argue a bit. Surely government isn’t all bad. It protects property, the environment, civil rights . . .
No `Installed Base'
My seat-mate seems to think that I’m missing the point. He’s not anti-government. He’s not anti-regulation. He just needs to know as he makes his plans that the rules aren’t going to change radically. Big businesses don’t face the same problem, he says. They have lots of customers to spread costs over. They have “installed base.”
For medium-sized firms like his, however, there is little wiggle room to absorb the costs of regulatory change. Because he possesses neither lobbyists nor clout, he says, Washington doesn’t care whether he hires more workers or closes up shop.
We will be landing shortly in Minneapolis. I ask him what, precisely, he thinks is the proper role of government as it relates to business.
`Invisible'
“Invisible,” he says. “I know there are things the government has to do. But they need to find a way to do them without people like me having to bump into a new regulation every time we turn a corner.” He reflects for a moment, then finds the analogy he seeks. “Government should act like my assistant, not my boss.”
We are at the gate. We exchange business cards.
On the way to my connection, I ponder. As an academic with an interest in policy, I tend to see businesses as abstractions, fitting into a theory or a data set. Most policy makers do the same. We rarely encounter the simple human face of the less- than-giant businesses we constantly extol. And when they refuse to hire, we would often rather go on television and call them greedy than sit and talk to them about their challenges.
Recessions have complex causes, but, as the man on the aisle reminded me, we do nothing to make things better when the companies on which we rely see Washington as adversary rather than partner.
(Stephen L. Carter, a Bloomberg View columnist, is a professor of law at Yale University. The opinions expressed are his own.)
For related news and information:
To contact the writer of this column: stephen.carter@yale.edu
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/carter-economic-stagnation-explained-at-30-000-feet.html
The man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why he refuses to hire anybody. His business is successful, he says, as the 737 cruises smoothly eastward. Demand for his product is up. But he still won’t hire.
“Why not?”
“Because I don’t know how much it will cost,” he explains. “How can I hire new workers today, when I don’t know how much they will cost me tomorrow?”
He’s referring not to wages, but to regulation: He has no way of telling what new rules will go into effect when. His business, although it covers several states, operates on low margins. He can’t afford to take the chance of losing what little profit there is to the next round of regulatory changes. And so he’s hiring nobody until he has some certainty about cost.
It’s a little odd to be having this conversation as the news media keep insisting that private employment is picking up. But as economists have pointed out to all who will listen, the only real change is that the rate of layoffs has slowed. Fewer than one of six small businesses added jobs last year, and not many more expect to do so this year. The private sector is creating no more new jobs than it was a year ago; the man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why.
He is trim and white-haired and bursting with energy. He’s proud of the business he has built: not large by the way things are measured these days, but certainly successful. He shows me sales figures, award citations, stories from trade magazines. I congratulate him, then turn to the window and enjoy the view for a bit. We are flying over the Midwest, away from the setting sun and toward the darkness. America stretches beneath us in every direction, flat and broad and beautiful. My seat-mate has just discovered that I am a law professor: That is the reason for his discourse.
Party Doesn’t Matter
“I don’t understand why Washington does this to us," he resumes. By "us," he means people who run businesses of less- than-Fortune-500 size. He tells me that it doesn’t much matter which party is in office. Every change of power means a whole new set of rules to which he and those like him must respond. ‘‘I don’t understand,” he continues, “why Washington won’t just get out of our way and let us hire.”
There are a lot of responses I could offer at this point. But I am interested now; I prefer to let him talk.
It isn’t just hiring that is too unpredictable, he says. He feels the same way about investing. He has never liked stock markets; he prefers to put cash directly into businesses he likes in return for a small stake, acting, in short, as a small- time venture capitalist.
“Can’t do that now,” he says. For people like him -- people who aren’t filthy rich -- it has become too hard to pick winners. But he doesn’t blame the great information advantages enjoyed by insiders. He blames Washington, once more, for creating a climate of uncertainty.
Thinking of Selling
Growing bold -- or maybe rude -- I ask why, if the climate is so terrible, he doesn’t just sell his company. This brings a smile.
“I think about retirement a lot,” he says. “But I can’t.” I wait to hear about how much he loves the business he founded, or about his responsibilities to his employees, or perhaps to the town, somewhere in the Dakotas, where his factory is located. Instead, he tells me that it’s impossible to make a sensible decision about winding down his firm when he doesn’t even know from one year to the next what the capital gains rate is going to be.
I argue a bit. Surely government isn’t all bad. It protects property, the environment, civil rights . . .
No `Installed Base'
My seat-mate seems to think that I’m missing the point. He’s not anti-government. He’s not anti-regulation. He just needs to know as he makes his plans that the rules aren’t going to change radically. Big businesses don’t face the same problem, he says. They have lots of customers to spread costs over. They have “installed base.”
For medium-sized firms like his, however, there is little wiggle room to absorb the costs of regulatory change. Because he possesses neither lobbyists nor clout, he says, Washington doesn’t care whether he hires more workers or closes up shop.
We will be landing shortly in Minneapolis. I ask him what, precisely, he thinks is the proper role of government as it relates to business.
`Invisible'
“Invisible,” he says. “I know there are things the government has to do. But they need to find a way to do them without people like me having to bump into a new regulation every time we turn a corner.” He reflects for a moment, then finds the analogy he seeks. “Government should act like my assistant, not my boss.”
We are at the gate. We exchange business cards.
On the way to my connection, I ponder. As an academic with an interest in policy, I tend to see businesses as abstractions, fitting into a theory or a data set. Most policy makers do the same. We rarely encounter the simple human face of the less- than-giant businesses we constantly extol. And when they refuse to hire, we would often rather go on television and call them greedy than sit and talk to them about their challenges.
Recessions have complex causes, but, as the man on the aisle reminded me, we do nothing to make things better when the companies on which we rely see Washington as adversary rather than partner.
(Stephen L. Carter, a Bloomberg View columnist, is a professor of law at Yale University. The opinions expressed are his own.)
For related news and information:
To contact the writer of this column: stephen.carter@yale.edu
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/carter-economic-stagnation-explained-at-30-000-feet.html
Friday, June 10, 2011
More than three-fourths of House members believe Libya operation is questionable, illegal or unwise
More than three-fourths of House members believe Libya operation is questionable, illegal or unwise David Freddoso Beltway Confidential Washington Examiner By: David Freddoso
The U.S. House considered two measures yesterday relating to the war in Libya. The first, which carried on a bipartisan vote, demanded that President Obama justify and explain his actions in Libya, and stated as a finding of fact that
The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya.
This successful resolution also demands that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General "transmit to the House of Representatives" copies of any documents, records, or correspondence referencing the administration's need to communicate with Congress or the War Powers Resolution.
Obama has maintained all along that he consulted with Congress sufficiently to justify going to war. The Congress, including a significant number of House liberals, is calling him a liar with this first resolution, and demanding documentary evidence that will prove it.
The second measure, which failed on a bipartisan vote, demanded that Obama cease military action in Libya. The minority who supported it presumably consider the operation unwise, in addition to its potential illegality.
Only 86 members of Congress voted for both measures. This means that 330 members of Congress voted for at least one -- more than three-quarters of the U.S. House.
The White House reacted with a statement that "these resolutions are unnecessary and unhelpful." They are only unhelpful in that they might prevent Obama from governing in a way that ignores the clear letter and spirit of the law and the Constitution.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/more-three-fourths-house-members-believe-libya-operation-question#ixzz1OWPLeRlH
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/more-three-fourths-house-members-believe-libya-operation-question
The U.S. House considered two measures yesterday relating to the war in Libya. The first, which carried on a bipartisan vote, demanded that President Obama justify and explain his actions in Libya, and stated as a finding of fact that
The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon United States national security interests for current United States military activities regarding Libya.
This successful resolution also demands that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General "transmit to the House of Representatives" copies of any documents, records, or correspondence referencing the administration's need to communicate with Congress or the War Powers Resolution.
Obama has maintained all along that he consulted with Congress sufficiently to justify going to war. The Congress, including a significant number of House liberals, is calling him a liar with this first resolution, and demanding documentary evidence that will prove it.
The second measure, which failed on a bipartisan vote, demanded that Obama cease military action in Libya. The minority who supported it presumably consider the operation unwise, in addition to its potential illegality.
Only 86 members of Congress voted for both measures. This means that 330 members of Congress voted for at least one -- more than three-quarters of the U.S. House.
The White House reacted with a statement that "these resolutions are unnecessary and unhelpful." They are only unhelpful in that they might prevent Obama from governing in a way that ignores the clear letter and spirit of the law and the Constitution.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/more-three-fourths-house-members-believe-libya-operation-question#ixzz1OWPLeRlH
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/more-three-fourths-house-members-believe-libya-operation-question
Americans Divided on Taxing the Rich to Redistribute Wealth
Americans Divided on Taxing the Rich to Redistribute Wealth
Americans Divided on Taxing the Rich to Redistribute WealthPublic is split over enacting heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealthby Lydia SaadPRINCETON, NJ -- Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.
The question also provokes different reactions from men compared with women, whites vs. nonwhites, and upper-income vs. lower-income Americans. Consistent with their more Democratic political orientation, women, nonwhites, and lower-income adults are all more supportive than their counterparts of government redistribution of wealth via taxes.
These findings are from Gallup's 2011 Economics and Finance poll, conducted April 7-11.
According to the same poll, the majority of Americans -- 57% -- believe money and wealth in the country should be more evenly distributed among a larger population. About a third -- 35% -- think the current distribution is fair. Americans were slightly less likely to believe the distribution of wealth was fair from 2003 to early 2008; however, the current level is about the average for the full trend since 1984.
A different question probes Americans' perceptions about the number of rich people in the country, and finds the plurality -- 42% -- believing the current level is about right. However, consistent with every other time Gallup has asked this question since 1990, more believe there are too many rich people than too few, 31% vs. 21%.
Again, perceptions about wealth are highly partisan, as the majority of Republicans say the number of rich people is about right (52%) and more say there are too few rather than too many (27% vs. 16%). Conversely, one-third (35%) of Democrats say the number of rich people is about right and, by 43% to 15%, more Democrats say there are too many rich people than too few.
Bottom Line
While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it.
However, these are philosophical views. In practical terms, as government programs and budgets sink in red ink, unions and Democratic leaders at the federal level and in the states are calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans specifically to help restore fiscal balance and stabilize entitlement programs. Gallup polling last year found two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes as a way to help keep that system solvent. Clearly, these attitudes are complex, and support for "taxing the rich" can run higher if framed in the context of specific benefits. Underneath it all, Americans are not "anti-rich," because most believe the country has either the right amount of or too few rich people.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 7-11, 2011, with a random sample of 1,077 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
(For charts, etc, see linked article): http://www.gallup.com/poll/147881/Americans-Divided-Taxing-Rich-Redistribute-Wealth.aspx
Americans Divided on Taxing the Rich to Redistribute WealthPublic is split over enacting heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealthby Lydia SaadPRINCETON, NJ -- Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.
The question also provokes different reactions from men compared with women, whites vs. nonwhites, and upper-income vs. lower-income Americans. Consistent with their more Democratic political orientation, women, nonwhites, and lower-income adults are all more supportive than their counterparts of government redistribution of wealth via taxes.
These findings are from Gallup's 2011 Economics and Finance poll, conducted April 7-11.
According to the same poll, the majority of Americans -- 57% -- believe money and wealth in the country should be more evenly distributed among a larger population. About a third -- 35% -- think the current distribution is fair. Americans were slightly less likely to believe the distribution of wealth was fair from 2003 to early 2008; however, the current level is about the average for the full trend since 1984.
A different question probes Americans' perceptions about the number of rich people in the country, and finds the plurality -- 42% -- believing the current level is about right. However, consistent with every other time Gallup has asked this question since 1990, more believe there are too many rich people than too few, 31% vs. 21%.
Again, perceptions about wealth are highly partisan, as the majority of Republicans say the number of rich people is about right (52%) and more say there are too few rather than too many (27% vs. 16%). Conversely, one-third (35%) of Democrats say the number of rich people is about right and, by 43% to 15%, more Democrats say there are too many rich people than too few.
Bottom Line
While a solid majority of Americans, 57%, believe money and wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, fewer than half favor using the federal tax code to do so. The fault line in these views is distinctly partisan, with most Democrats championing redistribution and most Republicans opposing it.
However, these are philosophical views. In practical terms, as government programs and budgets sink in red ink, unions and Democratic leaders at the federal level and in the states are calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans specifically to help restore fiscal balance and stabilize entitlement programs. Gallup polling last year found two-thirds of Americans in favor of the wealthy paying higher Social Security taxes as a way to help keep that system solvent. Clearly, these attitudes are complex, and support for "taxing the rich" can run higher if framed in the context of specific benefits. Underneath it all, Americans are not "anti-rich," because most believe the country has either the right amount of or too few rich people.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted April 7-11, 2011, with a random sample of 1,077 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
(For charts, etc, see linked article): http://www.gallup.com/poll/147881/Americans-Divided-Taxing-Rich-Redistribute-Wealth.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)