No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Economy' Category

September 24, 2009

Some Of These Things Are Not Like The Others

Take a look at this image that shows how business friendly the tax status is of each state.

tax climate

Hey, Minnesota and Wisconsin, do you see which end of the spectrum you’re on?

Hey, Minnesota, how are those two neighbors to the west, the one’s who have no unemployment problem doing?

Hey, Minnesota, how do the state budget problems of those two neighbors to the west compare to yours? (hint, they do have any problems)

Hey, Minnesota and Wisconsin, want to be more depressed?  Read more at the Taxprof!

Revisions/extensions (3:20 pm 9/24/2009, steveegg) – Allow me to ask a few questions for the Wisconsin half of the readership:

Hey Wisconsin, you see that state to the east and the state to the south? That’s right; Michigan and Illinois are more open to business than Wisconsin.

Hey Wisconsin, how do the budget woes of that state to your west compare to yours (note to Shoebox, that’s one thing in Minnesota that isn’t as bad as it is in Wisconsin)?

Hey Wisconsin, how does it feel to be highlighted as one of the states that got it wrong in Tax Foundation’s report (see page 26)?

Hey Wisconsin and Minnesota, how is the individual-income AMT working out? Related to that, hey Minnesota, how is the corporate-income AMT working out?

Hey Wisconsin and Minnesota, what are you going to do about the politicians who admit that their confiscatory tax policies are driving jobs away (see page 7 of the report), yet make them more confiscatory?

Revisions/extensions (3:39 pm 9/24/2009, shoebox) One more….Hey, Minnesota, Wisconsin and any other state or Federal Government that thinks you can tax the “rich” with impunity without repercussion, read this!

September 22, 2009

Well, Duh!

by @ 5:50. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

It was probably, in the end, a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Oh, just read the article and think of how many different activities that phrase could fully summarize.

h/t Instapundit

September 9, 2009

Cap-and-tax would hurt Wisconsin says…Russ Feingold?

WisBusiness.com reports that Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) admits at a WisPolitics.com (sister web publication) luncheon that the cap-and-tax (H/T for the term – the muzzled Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI) scheme before the Senate would hurt Wisconsin:

I’m not signing onto any bill that rips off Wisconsin,” Feingold declared, arguing the bill’s mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions could put the coal-dependent Badger State at an economic disadvantage compared to other regions and nations….

At the same time, Feingold said he’s “troubled” by some of his constituents’ refusal to accept the principles of global warming, but agreed with some critics who have said the bill could stifle job growth in the industrial sector and increase energy prices.

“Western Wisconsin is particularly strong in being concerned about this because of their reliance on coal,” Feingold said of the bill, which has already passed the House. “There is a real possibility … that it will be unfair to Wisconsin and Wisconsin ratepayers.”

As the selected excerpt shows, it is not all rainbows and roses. Feingold merely wants to spread the pain of “dealing” with a non-problem around, not remove the pain. There is no such thing as man-caused global “warming”, or even man-caused climate “change”.

September 7, 2009

DC, Beijing has a problem and it’s about to be your problem

by @ 10:52. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

(H/T – Robert Stacy McCain)

If memory serves, both Shoebox and I have pointed out the reluctance of the Chinese to continue to soak up American debt. The Daily Telegraph has the latest in the coming ChiCom shift away from the US Dollar:

Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and now head of China’s green energy drive, said Beijing was dismayed by the Fed’s recourse to “credit easing”.

“We hope there will be a change in monetary policy as soon as they have positive growth again,” he said at the Ambrosetti Workshop, a policy gathering on Lake Como.

“If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies,” he said.

The Chinese are the single biggest foreign holder of US government debt, and they’re saying once again that they may well not continue to buy more. There simply are not enough buyers out there to soak up another $9+ trillion in US government debt over the next 9 years, which begs the question of whether the Fed will really flood the market with more dollars or whether the Treasury (really, Congress and the President) will do something that has never been done and default on US government debt.

In related reading, Charles K. Rowley, General Director of The Locke Institute and Duncan Black Professor of Economics at George Mason University, says that we could follow Argentina under socialist Juan Peron from the First World to the Third World. Why do I get the feeling that is precisely the ObamiNation’s goal?

Revisions/extensions (11:52 am 9/7/2009) – I know I’ve got too many blogs in the reader. As part of his look at George Friedman’s projections for the next 100 years on September 1, CDR Salamander wrote this little gem:

I agree with the last statement, but America can degrade itself though economic malpractice inline with what Argentina did to herself in the 1900s – but on a much larger scale. You cannot be the world’s greatest debtor and continue to run the world. It is unsustainable. Do not discount relative decline.

There is good relative decline; the USA % of global GDP decreases as other nations leave the 3rd to progress towards the 1st World. There is bad relative decline; the USA % of global GDP falls due to real falling national GDP and degrading internal economic factors and external competitiveness….

The only way the USA will lose its position over this century will be if we follow the Argentine model and economically destroy ourselves – something the present administration is doing very well from a debt-load POV.

Revisions/extensions (12:37 pm 9/12/2009) – Welcome to the party, fellow FMJRA devotees. Unlike RSM, this short-order cook doesn’t have a tip jar to hit, but between Shoebox and I, we do have some pretty good reading. And Smitty, I hear you on the 6-hour Mike Foxtrot shotgun sessions. If I had a tip jar, I might restart my version, but other than Rule 2, I don’t quite have the temperment to get enough hits for that to matter.

September 4, 2009

Is it 3.5 million jobs created/saved or 3.11 million jobs in all sectors lost?

by @ 12:59. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

(H/T – The Senate Republicans)

Now that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has come out with the all-sector August jobs report, which shows a preliminary 216,000 job loss for August, it’s time to update the earlier private-sector-only post of 3.487 million private-sector jobs lost since the end of January. With the creation of 377,000 government jobs since the end of January, the economy has lost 3,110,000 jobs since then.

The Senate Republicans helpfully included a summary of what the Human Gaffe Machine Vice President Joe Biden (he of the three-letter J-O-B-S utterance) uttered to the Brookings Institution just yesterday:

“Analysts from Moody’s to IHS Global Insight to the Economic Policy Institute and others all estimate the Recovery Act has created or saved between 500,000 and 750,000 jobs. Matter of fact: Some notable economists suggest the number is as high as a million.”

That’s funny; even if one included only the government sector (which I believe the ObamiNation thinks is the only sector that matters), Porkulus fell short.

September 2, 2009

Is it 3.5 million jobs saved/created or 3.487 million private-sector jobs lost?

by @ 10:55. Filed under Economy.

(H/T – JammieWearingFool)

I’m sure the LeftStreamMedia will find a way to spin this little burb from CNBC saying that the economy shed 298,000 private-sector jobs in August, far greater than the 250,000 predicted. The real bad news from ADP’s historical data – there are 3,487,000 fewer private-sector jobs than there were at the end of January.

Which step in destroying private enterprise is this?

(H/T – Stephen Green)

The Hill reports that the AFL-CIO has extracted their price of making the Democratic Party a partially-owned subsidiary of them and is calling for a 0.1% tax on all stock transactions. That’s right; buy a stock, pay a tax. Sell a stock, even at a loss, pay a tax.

The stated reason, according to AFL-CIO policy director Thea Lee – “It would have two benefits, raise a lot of revenue and discourage speculative financial activity.” News flash #1 for Ms. Lee – it was “speculative financial activity” that got the various AFL-CIO pension funds to where they are. News flash #2 for Ms. Lee – that churn produced by “speculative financial activity” creates a lot of cash that is spent at the production end of the economic circle.

Stephen notes that we pay some of the highest taxes on winning stock plays on the planet. For those that held the sold stock less than a year, that profit is taxed at up to 35% (and soon to be 39.6% somewhere over 40%). Tax the losing plays as well, and almost nobody will want to invest in the stock market. Fewer people in the market equals lower stock prices, which equals lower pensions and less money available for expansion.

August 30, 2009

Did he say 2 million jobs created/saved or 2 million jobs lost?

by @ 22:10. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

King Banian, my favorite economics professor from St. Cloud State University, ran with the latest Office of Management and Budget projections for 2010 employment, which includes a 2010 fourth-quarter unemployment rate of 9.7%, and put together a quick-and-dirty spreadsheet (Excel 2007; those of you with Excel 2003 will either need a conversion tool from Microsoft to open or will want my Excel 2003 copy) to gauge what the projections actually mean. For those of you who can’t open Excel files, here’s a screencap of the spreadsheet:

Not only do the employment rolls drop by 1.96 million between the 4th quarter of 2008 and the 4th quarter of 2010, but the unemployment rolls increase by 4.59 million over the same 2 years. This is If you want percentage terms, employment rolls would drop 1.36%, while unemployment rolls would go up 42.96%.

That does assume that the Labor Force Participation Rate would bounce back to 66.0% from the current 65.8% and the 2009 first quarter 65.6%, which means those retiring, those without work for so long that they no longer count as “unemployed”, and others who are not part of the labor force would not increase as rapidly as the rest of the population. If the LFPR were not to bounce back as much, the employment roll drop would be even larger.

August 24, 2009

We’ve Only Just Begun

After stalling for nearly a month, late Friday afternoon, the Obama administration leaked that their periodic budget/deficit update was going to show…..well, let’s just call it a deviation from expectations.  Rather than “cut the deficit in half as he promised, President Obama will reportedly tell us that he will increase the deficit by $2 trillion dollars to $9 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

While this new forecast is in line with what the CBO estimated back when Obama proposed his budget, it still seriously underestimates what the deficit will be if Obama gets his policies enacted. Obama’s two largest endeavors, cap and trade and health care reform were not considered in the CBO’s June estimate.

While it’s hard to tell what effect cap and trade will have on the deficit, we do have numbers from the CBO on the effect of health care reform. The CBO estimates that the $9 trillion deficit will increase at least another $1 trillion if the House bill is passed. I say “at least” because we now know that the Obama administration doesn’t have an accountant or an economist who either is honest or any good at their job. Doubt me? Just go back and look at the assumptions they made for the stimulus, the budget, cap and trade or health care reform and then look at what the CBO said. Who has appeared to be accurate?

I also say “at least” because there is historical evidence that the first year of all major government health programs have been significantly underestimated. Take a look at this graph from John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog:

health care graph

It turns out that regardless of the administration, government run health care plans always cost more than they are expected to. Why, you might ask? Well, if you’re selling something, are you more likely to tell the “buyers” what the best or worst case scenario might be?

Taking a simple average of the plans on the graph, it suggests that the government health programs cost 538% of what the original estimate was.  OK, let’s not be the Russian judge.  Let’s throw out the high and the low misses.  Doing that still has costs coming in at 414% of the original estimate. 

If history is any indicator, the $1 health care reform plan will cost significantly more.  How do you like the sound of $4 trillion for health care and a 10 year deficit of “at least $12 trillion?

Whether $2 trillion or $5 trillion more, I think this video pretty well sums up the public response:

August 21, 2009

I’m From the Government, I’m Here to Help!

by @ 5:26. Filed under Economy, Miscellaneous.

So you think greater government regulation will help bring down pricing in health care?  If what we are about to experience with the repercussions of their decision to force “change” in the credit card industry is any indication, you may want to think again.

Newsmax has this articledocumenting the changes that credit card companies are now putting into place in anticipation of new government regulation which began yesterday.  While reading through these changes, remember that the new regulations on credit cards were ostensibly implemented to make the various credit card agreements more transparent and easier to understand and to impose restrictions so that credit card companies are less able to uniquely address high risk accounts. 

Amongst the changes being implemented:

Citi, for example, is in the process of informing some cardholders that it will institute an annual fee, about $30, on certain accounts.

That will help those who can’t pay….fewer of them will be able to get/afford a card at all!

And American Express Co. recently sent out notice it will eliminate over-the-limit fees on its consumer credit cards in October. They were dropped in response to a provision in that law that, starting in February, requires card companies to offer a way for customers to agree to pay each time a transaction triggers such a fee.

That’s good news for the over charger, until you see this:

the interest rate on her card will jump to 10.24 percent from 6.99 percent. If she makes any late payments, the rate will shoot up to 27.24 percent.

Citi and American Express aren’t alone:

American Express and Citi are not unique. A survey by the Pew Charitable Trusts of nearly 400 credit cards offered by the 12 largest issuers in the country found that rates have gone up on average 2 percent since December.

Yeah, consumers may find it easier to read their contracts but credit card companies aren’t going to give up the margins they’ve enjoyed.  By removing the ability for credit card companies to selectively deal with higher risk accounts the new government regulations have created market conditions that have the credit card companies increasing costs to all consumers.

August 20, 2009

2009 Wisconsin jobless claims blast past 2008 levels

by @ 11:57. Filed under Economy, Politics - Wisconsin.

With 4 1/2 months left in 2009, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the “over 753,000” jobless claims received by Department of Workforce Development exceeded the 738,352 jobless claims received in all of 2008.

Snap question – what are the two differences between 2008 and 2009? Hint; it is not a recession, as the article points out that it “started” in December 2007.

August 5, 2009

Ah, We Don’t Know That…

by @ 9:02. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is cheerleading for the CARS program. As the Senate gears up to consider whether to pump more money into the bailout program, Lahood is crowing about the success of CARS:

“the government has proved we can get money out the door and sell almost 160,000 cars.”

Really?

Congress and various news agencies have been requesting information about the CARS program.  To date, no information has been provided.  Over the weekend, when LaHood was asked whether and when, the transportation department would release information related to CARS he replied:

“I can’t think of any reason why we wouldn’t do it.”

Apparently LaHood and others also thought of any reason to or how to release information about CARS.

LaHood can continue to crow but at this point, we have nothing, other than the word of an Obama administration official, as to whether this program is successful or not.  I think we’ve all learned this week just how much we can trust the assertion of any Obama administration official!

While we don’t know whether the program is a success or not, under ANY definition, we can conclude that at least part of LaHood’s assessment is faulty:

“the government has proved we can get money out the door and sell almost 160,000 cars.”

Well, no, actually you can’t prove that nor have you been successful at it!  As simple as the CARS program is, the government was completely unprepared to administer the program.  To date, there is still a significant number of applications for CARS that have not been processed and confirmed.  This is probably part of the reason why they can’t  get reports to Congress!

July 25, 2009

Move Over Adam Smith

In his weekly radio address, President Obama shocked the American public with the results of a study that will dramatically change not only the health care discussion but in fact, will likely change the foundation of all economic theory more than anything since Adam Smith identified “The invisible hand”:

Obama released a study today by the White House Council of Economic Advisers that concluded that many of the nation’s 27 million small businesses don’t have the bargaining power of corporations and as a result pay as much as 18 percent more for employee health insurance plans.

Oh my goodness!  Say it ain’t so!

Someone, or a company that buys a few of something is paying more for each of those items than someone who buys many of those same items? 

With this new information I have to wonder whether the local burger joint we frequent might be paying more for their hamburger than McDonalds? 

Is it possible that I pay more for raw chicken wings than the folks at Buffalo Wild Wings?  Is it true even if I buy my wings at Sam’s Club?  If so, I’m clearly being gouged!

Warning, extreme sarcasm alert.

I have to say that I am a bit skeptical of the report that President Obama references.  After all, the White House Council of Economic Advisers is led by Christina Romer who we all know from my previous posts, has research that says that tax cuts are more effective than government spending in stimulating the economy and that stimulus programs always fail for a host of reasons.  Clearly, with President Obama declaring “Mission accomplished” on the economy just this week, Ms. Romer’s research is highly suspect!

We now return you to our normal level of sarcasm.

I’d like to say that I’m somehow shocked or just surprised at the lack of economic understanding that Obama has.  I’d like to say that, but clearly when Obama oversees a  government that thinks paying twice the going rate of the local grocery store for ham purchases is OK, I’m not.

July 22, 2009

Impress the Press

President Obama will once again face the preprogrammed withering onslaught of questions from the compliant skeptical press this evening.  We’re being told that amongst other things, President Obama will be telling us that six months into his term, he has saved the economy.

Originally, tonight’s press conference was to be held at the White House.  However, I’ve been told that due to the importance of tonight’s message, the President has decided to change venues.  The new venue for tonight’s presser is shown here:

Mission Accomplished

July 21, 2009

His Arnold Schwarzenegger Moment

There’s lots of bad news today for President Obama.  Gallup’s recent polls show that by any measure, President Obama’s policies  are now being considered a failure by the American people:

  • By 49%-47%, those surveyed disapprove of how he is handling the economy, a turnaround from his 55%-42% approval in May. The steepest drop came from conservative and moderate Democrats.
  • By 50%-44%, they disapprove of how he is handling healthcare policy.
  • A 59% majority say his proposals call for too much government spending, and 52% say they call for too much expansion of government power.
  • Expectations of the economy’s turnaround are souring a bit. In February, the average prediction for a recovery was 4.1 years; now it’s 5.5 years.

Some are referring to this sudden drop and his chips all in approach to passing health care reform, as being the President’s Waterloo, the moment at which he wins no more.  I’m betting however, that with his enormous ego and narcissism, if asked, President Obama would refer to this as his Arnold Schwarzenegger moment.  If questioned about whether he might need to change his position on some of these issues I have no doubt the President would answer, “I’ll be Barack!”

July 17, 2009

If We Don’t Learn From History…

by @ 16:12. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

We are doomed to repeat it…

From the 1934 Chicago Tribune. The Names have changed, the issues haven’t!
Cartoon

I Agree With Joe Biden!

For those who have read this blog for a while, I’ll give you a moment to put your teeth back in and pick yourself up off of the floor.

Ready?

In a speech to AARP about the proposed national health care plan, Joe Biden said:

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

For once, I absolutely agree with Joe.  The current course is unsustainable.  We need to make changes soon or we’re going to be in a whole heap of trouble!

Think I’m just some two bit blogging hack who’s just throwing another opinion to the ether?  Don’t think my opinions is that valuable?  Well, don’t trust me then, trust the head of the Congressional Budget Office. 

In his testimony to Congress and in his blog, the Director of the CBO said:

the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. (emphasis mine)

That’s right, shocking isn’t it.  The federal budget is on an unsustainable path.  The CBO goes on to explain what the problem with the budget is….take one guess at what is causing the unsustainable problem:

Measured relative to GDP, almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt stems from the three largest entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.

And this is before putting another $1.5 Trillion minimum of additional costs into the budget for the national health care program!

Later in his speech, Joe went on to lie again telling the folks that they would be able to keep their existing health plan if they wanted:

They’ll be a deal in there so there’s competition, so what you’ll have in there is you’ll have the ability to go in there and say, ‘Now look, this is the policy I want. This is the one,” Biden said.

Someone should get Joe a copy of the House bill or a subscription to Investors Business Daily.  If he had either, he would note the following:

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

Joe did have one last comment that I agree with him on:

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

Yes, Joe.  If we continue down this path and are lucky, we may only go bankrupt as a nation.  My bet is that if we follow the advice of you and yours, we’ll commit national suicide!

July 16, 2009

Soon, at a Medical Provider Near You!

Massachusetts is the state whose health care model that is being used for much of the Democrat’s plan.  When Massachusetts plan was proposed, it was supposed to cost the State a few hundred thousand dollars each year.  It is now costing more than twice what it was proposed to cost.

From the NY Times:

BOSTON — A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.

The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents. Three years after the law’s passage, Massachusetts has the country’s lowest percentage of uninsured residents: 2.6 percent, compared with a national average of 15 percent.

Sound Familiar?

One of the state’s reimbursement rates to Boston Medical, dropped from $12, 476 in 2008 to $9,323 by 2009, the suit says.

Folks, this is one way that government rations.  By reducing their payments to providers, for no reason other than they can, providers begin reducing the number of patients they will see or reduce the care the patients get.  Is it lost on the D.C. crowd how many providers no longer accept Medicaid patients?

State officials have suggested that Boston Medical could reduce costs by operating more efficiently. The state has also pointed out that the hospital has reserves of about $190 million, but Tom Traylor, the hospital’s vice president of federal and state programs, said the reserves could only sustain the hospital for about a year.

Translation:  You have money, therefore you can afford to get paid less or pay more to be a part of the program.

If the State is so good at identifying where cost reductions can be attained, why is it that they have a budget shortfall of $5 Billion?  Can’t they state turn their own folks inward to find the waste and inefficiency in the State’s budget?

Deja Vu All Over Again

by @ 5:34. Filed under Economy, Health, Politics - National.

President Obama along with many Democrats, are trying to push a health care overhaul before the August recess. Amidst arguments of the cost ($1.6 Trillion to over $4 trillion), how to pay for it (taxes, taxes, taxes) and who it would provide political payback for (planned parenthood amongst others), most folks, including those in Congress, have no idea how this plan (at 3,000 pages) would actually work.  To help show the complexity of what is being proposed the Republicans have released a chart that shows all of the bureaucratic snarling that would occur if the proposed plan is passed.  Can you make sense of it?

Dem med

It’s hard to believe that this mess can possibly provide better health care than what we have today. The funny thing is that I seem to remember seeing a similar plan to this as a kid. As a kid I remember seeing a plan that had fewer bureaucratic involvement yet had the same exact end result.

While almost 40 years old, I believe this chart would have just as much success as the one the Democrats are proposing:

Mouse_Trap_Board_and_Boxjpg

Either way, we end up trapped at the end!

July 14, 2009

Tuesday Hot Read – Mortimer Zuckerman’s “The Economy Is Even Worse Than You Think”

by @ 14:36. Filed under Economy.

So, you think that 9.5% June unemployment is bad? In today’s Wall Street Journal, US News and World Report editor-in-chief Mortimer Zuckerman makes the case that we are in a second Great Depression:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics preliminary estimate for job losses for June is 467,000, which means 7.2 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. The cumulative job losses over the last six months have been greater than for any other half year period since World War II, including the military demobilization after the war. The job losses are also now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all job growth from the previous expansion

He also includes 10 items that back that up, as well as what happened to the Porkulus.

Let’s Call It “Employment Change”

by @ 13:53. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

It always seems that liberals use words or phrases until the words don’t support their view of the world any longer.  When that happens liberals typically change the definition of the words or come up with description changes that fit their new view of the situation.

Do you remember how “Climate Change” used to be called “Global Warming?”  Yeah, global warming up until it became clear that all the claims being made about increasing global temperatures….made by man….we’re blown up by nearly 10 straight years of global temperature flattening or even cooling.  Voila, “Global Warming” was changed to “Climate Change.”  It really didn’t matter that the world wasn’t warming any more, the fact that something is changing that is not in line with the liberals desire is what the true catastrophic issue is.

When President Obama proposed the Stimulus plan he had his economic experts sell the plan by saying that without it, unemployment would go to nearly 10%.  In contrast, by implementing the stimulus plan, Obama argued that unemployment would cap at 8%.

Over the past weekend President Obama told us that the stimulus plan was working swimmingly and that while unemployment was a “lagging indicator”, all would be well if we were just patient:

“We’re moving in the right direction,” Obama said. “We must let it work the way it’s supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity.”

While in Michigan today, President Obama said that he really doesn’t have a clue what is happening with unemployment:

“How employment numbers are going to respond is not year clear. My expectation is that we will probably continue to see unemployment tick up for several months.”

Clearly, this is what Obama and his team expected to see.  Clearly they had expected that by doing the man made adjustments all would become right with unemployment.  Clearly they are now frustrated that things are not going along the path they prescribed in February.  What should they do now?  I know, let’s not call it “unemployment” anymore, let’s call it “employment change.”  There, they were never wrong.  Problem solved!

July 13, 2009

Just What Is The Story?

by @ 9:23. Filed under Economy, Taxes.

From the Boston Globe:

Governor Deval Patrick yesterday accused Zoo New England officials of creating a false and inflammatory scare with their warning that state budget cuts may force them to close two Greater Boston zoos and euthanize some animals. 

“As a supporter of the zoo and a parent who has visited often, the governor is disappointed to learn that Zoo New England has responded to this difficult but unavoidable budget cut by spreading inaccurate and incendiary information,’’ Kyle Sullivan, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement.

emphasis mine

Deval Patrick is concerned about a taxpayer supported entity portraying catastrophic options as solutions that would blackmail additional funding from those same taxpayers.  Really?  This is news?

How many school district funding increase requests have been bow tied with the threat of larger class room sizes if the request is turned down?

How many municipality funding increase requests have been bowtied with the threat of fewer police or fire staff if the request is turned down?

TARP and the Stimulus package were sold with Presidents and politicians telling us that the US economy would melt down without their passage.

“Inaccurate and incendiary information” is not a news story.  When working to get more taxpayers dollars for some beuraucrat to spend, “inaccurate and incendiary information” is not only normal, it’s action item number one!

All Communication All The Time

by @ 5:05. Filed under Economy, Politics - National.

One of the major difficulties of the Bush administration is that it seemed that they wouldn’t talk to anyone.  Oh, I don’t mean the innocuous daily press briefings or the occasional sound bite as President Bush dashed off to a helicopter or another meeting of some sort.  What I’m referring to is that regardless of the topic, the Bush administration never seemed to expound on or explain themselves.  Time after time we would see the Democrats, the press or even the Republican members of Congress question, challenge or press an administration strategy and invariably, the administration would respond with something akin to “no comment” or “trust us.” 

Enter Obama.

There aren’t many things I can give Obama credit for but one thing is undeniable; the man knows how to communicate.  Unlike President Bush, President Obama is talking all the time about all the things he wants to do for America.  Not only that but President Obama has numerous members of his administration out talking all the time about how they are doing.

As an example of the Obama administration “all communication, all the time,” look at these insights:

First, Joe Biden telling us “the economy was much worse than we expected!”

Second, We have Larry Summers telling us “the worse is not over:

Onward, then, to the toughest economic challenge Summers faces today: the recession. Here, Summers turns sombre: “I don’t think the worst is over … It’s very likely that more jobs will be lost. It would not be surprising if GDP has not yet reached its low.

Things don’t sound so good if we listen to Biden and Summers.  If we listen to these spokespeople for the Obama administration we may want to find a comfortable spot to start practicing our economic fetal position.  But wait, let’s listen to President Obama:

“We’re moving in the right direction,” Obama said. “We must let it work the way it’s supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity.”

Yes, Obama and his folks are talking all the time about all kinds of things.  However, not only do they have a problem of conflicting with one another they even conflict with themselves:

The administration admitted it has been on a “learning curve” with the stimulus package, but that it has figured out how to spend some of the available billions more quickly.

Many tax cuts have already taken effect. But only $60.4 billion of the remaining $499 billion has been spent. Most of the money was always likely to be spent this summer, at the earliest, as departments wrestled with the increased workload and new requirements imposed by the bill.

The White House said it isn’t changing its goal of spending 70% of the funds by September 2010. But amid unemployment worries, the administration has been pressuring agencies to get some money out the door more quickly.

Huh, working as it should versus we need to spend quicker because unemployment is a problem.  Well, which is it Mr. President?

July 8, 2009

Learning At The Feet Of The Master

President Obama has been in Russia the past few days. You may have heard about it. That is you may have heard about it if something other than Michael Jackson’s funeral had been in the news for the past week. Anyway….President Obama ostensibly went to Russia to discuss arms agreements, trade, council the Russians on the importance of honoring contracts and other important President kinds of stuff….at least that’s what Obama wants you to believe he is there for.

The real reason Obama went to Russia is for some one on one counseling from Obama’s Sensei of controlled economies, Vladimir Putin. Please watch this previously secret, anonymously released Russian economic training video:

In the video it is plain to see how the US media marvels at the Sensei’s ability to lower pork prices with a mere question:

“‘They’re very high,’ said Putin,” Maceda explained. “‘It will be lower tomorrow,’ was the quick reply.”

Later the Sensei is able to reemploy an entire cement factory by shaming the owners into the rehiring:

“And this showdown at a cement factory near St. Petersburg,” Maceda said. “When orders dried up, managers shut the plant laying off hundreds until Putin shamed the bosses, even tossing a pen and ordering one of them to sign a promise to rehire every worker. Now other towns are hoping for some of Putin’s special attention.”

Wow!  Obama really is the grasshopper. 

In a commencement speech yesterday, President Obama said:

The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground

Apparently the future also doesn’t belong to those who pass stimulus bills, loan shark money, or take over entire industries.  The future for central economy controllers like Obama, is to merely speak and make it so.

July 2, 2009

Hasta La Vista Baby!

by @ 5:41. Filed under Economy.

As part of an attempt to balance the California budget, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed closing to the public 220 State parks.  The proposal would save approximately $143 million dollars.  Mixed into the 220 parks proposed to be closed, are 6 parks which were transferred to California from the Federal Government. 

According to NewsMax:

National Park Service Regional Director Jonathan Jarvis warned in a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that all six occupy former federal land that could revert to the U.S. government if the state fails to keep the parks open.

“Lands conveyed to the State under the Federal Lands to Parks Program must be open for public park and recreation use in perpetuity as a condition of the deed,” Jarvis warned in a June 8 letter to Schwarzenegger made public Wednesday.

The state could also lose future parks funding, Jarvis warned. California has received $286 million from the federal government since 1965 benefiting 67 parks on Schwarzenegger’s closure list, Jarvis said.

Um, yeah, so what?  Is this really so hard to decide?  Has Jarvis made a point that Schwarzenegger should care about at all?  NO!

California’s budget problem is not a one year issue.  California has created a situation that will take them many years to correct, if at all.  It’s not like California is going to suddenly find a solution that will allow them to back to spending something that is about 1/3 more than they have today.

Oh, and the $286 million that Jarvis is threatening with…My math says that amounts to less than $7 million /year.  Not much when you are looking at what is now, at $26 Billion dollar deficit!

I see California having two outcomes if they close the parks; either the National Park Service who has a significant funding shortfall of their own, quits rattling sabres and the parks stay with California or the National Park Service goes through with their threat and runs the parks themselves.  Is this really a difficult choice?  Is there some choice that causes the oceans to recede and temperatures to cool that I haven’t hit upon?

Governor Schwarzenegger ought to call the National Park Service’s bluff and tell them either “Be my guest” or maybe “Hasta la vista, baby!”

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]