2012 Presidential Election

Awakening. The $10 billion edujobs bill was signed into law on August 10. Its stated purpose was to save the jobs of 160,000 educators. I, and many others, thought the need for the bill was based on some highly questionable numbers, but once that battle was lost, I was prepared to move on. Except with each Read this post

-By Warner Todd Huston The New York Times gave a glowing review of Ana Burger’s career as a most divisive member of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). But how could one be less arrogant and pushy than would seem natural for a union that set out to fashion itself an “international” union? Burger, 59, was supposed to be the heir apparent to former President Andy Stern, himself a petulant and arrogant figure. But it was not to be. When Stern stepped down from heading the SEIU, Burger was passed over for another by the membership. And now she is retiring from her 14-year-long position as secretary-treasurer of the SEIU after 38 years in Big Labor. Apparently, though, Burger retires “frustrated,” as the Times has it. She leaves as the power of Big Labor seems to be on the wane. Fewer unions, fewer members, and fewer political supporters seem to be the immediate future of Big Labor. Right now Big Labor has an entirely outsized influence on Washington because it has a president that has bought and paid for by Big Labor. But this won’t last forever and there are fewer and fewer politicians of lesser status these days willing to be as loudly vocal in support of Big Labor as past pols once were. This is all good for the country, of course. But we aren’t safe from the destructive activities of unions quite yet. A great fight between grasping, anti-democratic, and fiscally disastrous public employees unions still looms ahead. We need to destroy these unions, utterly eliminate them and at the heart of the dark side stands Burger’s still powerful SEIU. If we do our jobs well, Burger will get more “frustrated” still and in the near future, too! So, off you go into retirement, Anna Burger. Let us hope that the sort of power you wielded is also as “frustrated” in the future and you are feeling now.

Originally posted here:
SEIUs Anna Burger to Retire

Earlier today, I wrote about the very different circumstances between Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike on high-income earners and Barack Obama's plan to boost rates on the same group today. The short version? The economy was growing when Clinton slapped a muffler on top earners (and producers) while Obama is trying to grab $70 billion in possible revenue out of a $3.6 trillion budget during a recession. Over at National Review's The Corner , Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy weighs in Obama's proposed tax breaks for businesses. One of the reasons he want to ding folks making upwards of $250,000 is to pay for breaks that would let businessess immediately deduct 100 percent of the cost of new investment in plants and equipment, when calculating their taxable income, rather than having to gradually deduct the cost via depreciation allowances. The direct consequence of the proposal is that companies would be able to keep more cash now. Why is that a mistake? For a couple of reasons. As de Rugy notes It’s a “tax subsidy for debt-financed investment.” Moreover, the government, once again, is playing with the tax code to encourage one form of behavior over another (spending/investing/borrowing over savings). I am not saying that savings is superior to investing or that any move from the current situation is a bad move. My point is just that the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers. Encouraging investments and discouraging savings through artificial and temporary tax breaks is wrong. It is because of the many decisions that were made by businesses and individuals based on targeted government policies that we are in this mess in the first place (think about the decision to buy a bigger house than you would have otherwise because of the interest tax deduction or low interest rates). As important, the plan essentially gives a zero-interest loan to firms that use it. But since interest rates are already super-low, there's very little impetus to act differently than you would anyway. De Rugy concludes: Instead of playing with the tax code, the administration should engage in serious tax reform and move to a consumption-based tax with a large base and a low rate. Whole thing here .

Originally posted here:
Why Obama’s Proposed Business Tax Breaks Won’t Accomplish Anything

GOP Leader John Boehner called for cutting federal spending back to 2008 levels before the Obama-Pelosi democrats added a Trillion dollars to the national deficit. Via HotAir : From GOP Leader John Boehner’s Office: During an appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said both parties should work together this month to promote job creation by cutting spending to 2008 levels and freezing all tax rates for two years. Boehner set out this two-point plan for September action on the economy just hours before President Obama was scheduled to appear in Cleveland — an event the White House has admitted is a direct response to an economic speech Boehner made in the same city two weeks ago. President Obama’s latest economic proposals fall well short of what is needed to address the two main problems hampering job creation: excessive government spending and the uncertainty Washington Democrats’ policies are causing small businesses. House Republicans’ plan tackles both problems, immediately and decisively. Following are excerpts from Boehner’s interview: BOEHNER SETS OUT TWO-POINT PLAN FOR IMMEDIATE, BIPARTISAN ACTION ON THE ECONOMY: “What I’d like to do is work on a bipartisan basis to do two things. First, instead of waiting until after the election to put together some big omnibus spending bill with a bunch of wasteful spending, why wouldn’t we do this? Why don’t we pass a bill this month at 2008 spending levels — before the TARP, before the bailouts, before the ‘stimulus’ — and let’s put some certainty in the economy. … Secondly, why wouldn’t we work together to make it clear that all current tax rates will be extended for the next two years? What that will do is help small businesses, who have no clue what the coming tax rates are going to be, and give them some certainty. If we’re able to do this together, I think we’ll show the American people that we understand what’s going on in the country and we’ll be able to get our economy moving again and get jobs growing in America.” BOEHNER SAYS PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PROPOSALS FALL WELL SHORT OF ADDRESSING THE TWO MAIN PROBLEMS HAMPERING JOB CREATION: “I think the president is missing the bigger point here. … With all of the spending in Washington, and all the uncertainty facing small businesses — including the coming tax hikes on January 1st — until this uncertainty and spending is under control, I don’t think these are going to have much impact.” BOEHNER ON BEING THE TARGET OF WHITE HOUSE ATTACKS: “I think it shows how out of touch the White House is. You know, the American people are asking the question, ‘where are the jobs?’ and yet, here’s the White House, worrying about what I’ve got to say instead of working together to get our economy going again and to get jobs back in America.” BOEHNER ON GOP EFFORTS TO EARN BACK THE MAJORITY: “We’ve got a lot of work to do, but when I travel the country and I travel my district, I’ve never seen the American people more engaged in this election and any election in my lifetime. So we’ve got a lot of work to do, but that’s our goal: to earn back the majority so we can renew our efforts to drive for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government in Washington, DC.”

Follow this link:
John Boehner Proposes Trillion Dollar Spending Cut; Cut Dem Spending Back to 2008 Levels (Video)

The radical left forced the last US light bulb plant to close its doors. From now on we will import all of green bulbs from China. The Washington Post reported, via FOX Nation : The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s. The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs. “Now what’re we going to do?” said Toby Savolainen, 49, who like many others worked for decades at the factory, making bulbs now deemed wasteful. During the recession, political and business leaders have held out the promise that American advances, particularly in green technology, might stem the decades-long decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs. But as the lighting industry shows, even when the government pushes companies toward environmental innovations and Americans come up with them, the manufacture of the next generation technology can still end up overseas. What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs. The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences. Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China. For the record : 212 democrats voted for this bill. 178 Republicans voted against the bill.

See original here:
Democrats Force Last US Light Bulb Plant to Close Shop

In yet another sign that the midterm playing field is rapidly expanding, Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.) is launching an ad hitting his Republican opponent, businessman Bobby Schilling.   Hare was first elected in 2006 and didn’t run a single campaign ad during the 2008 cycle when he ran unopposed for reelection.  Republicans have been touting Schilling’s chances, releasing an internal poll in late August that claimed Schilling was just two points behind the incumbent.  Hare’s ad hits Schilling over a proposed trade deal with South Korea, which Schilling backs. “First, Washington sent our jobs to Mexico,” Hare says in the ad. “Then, they gave most favored nation status to China and good American jobs like these disappeared.”   Schilling’s campaign manager told the Quad-City Times the ad is a sign that Schilling is closing in on Hare in the Democratic-leaning district.  -Updated at 12:45 p.m.

See the rest here:
Rep. Hare launches first campaign ad since ’06

Erin Burnett, one of CNBC’s famed “money honeys,” exaggerated the relative strength of the economy Sunday in order to boost the success of President Obama’s stimulus plan. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Burnett several times characterized this economic recovery as not only far stronger than any of the indicators suggest, but also “faster” than those in the recent past. “Our recovery started more quickly than after any other recession in the past 25 years,” the CNBCer told David Gregory and his panel. Burnett later elaborated on this preposterous claim as fellow panelist Rich Lowry of the National Review shook his head on screen (video follows with transcript and commentary): DAVID GREGORY, HOST: And big picture, the president maintains, in response to the jobs numbers, “Look, we’re going in the right direction here. We are part of the solution, not part of the problem.” But as I suggested to David Plouffe, there is a–an economic record there that is tough to run on. ERIN BURNETT, CNBC: Yes, very tough to run on. He’s right, though. I mean, I call it the “tortoise economy.” The economy’s growing. The numbers are coming out. We’re getting better – in fact, after this recession we have – our recovery started more quickly than after any other recession in the past 25 years. So it’s accurate to say we’re growing and we’re going in the right direction. Politically, though, how do you spin a 9.6 unemployment rate to have it be positive? That’s incredibly difficult. And it’s very hard politically to see how they’re going to make that case. ————————- MR. GREGORY: But, Erin Burnett, the big question on unemployment, if, if–and in 30 seconds, when is there a meaningful dent in the unemployment rate that can help these political fortunes? MS. BURNETT: Well, I think it’s interesting, because by the way, I don’t think the stimulus has been a failure, and I think that you are correct that it is perceived that way. But I don’t think it’s actually true. Without that stimulus, we would be significantly worse off than we are right now. There, there’s really no question about it. You can ask any economist on Wall Street or any CEO. I see you shaking your head, I know you disagree. But, but, but, but my reporting would show otherwise. E. J. DIONNE, WASHINGTON POST: Keep going. MS. BURNETT: I – look, I, I, I think the problem is you have the fastest job creation in this recovery than you have in any recession in 25 years, but it is still not enough. You aren’t going to win this on jobs, and that is the problem. It’s going to take a long time. I don’t know how you get around that problem, but technically speaking, this recovery has not been tepid. Really, Erin? And exactly how did you come to such a conclusion? Let’s begin our analysis of Burnett’s claim by first recognizing that the organization responsible for determing when recessions begin and end – the National Bureau of Economic Research – has yet to announce when the last recession concluded. In fact, as Fortune reported on August 6, NBER may be delaying its announcement to see if the economy double-dips: The National Bureau of Economic Research is known to be slow at declaring the starts and stops of a recession, but it looks as if it might have been right to hold off on any bold declarations this time around, potentially proving many policymakers and Wall Street analysts wrong. Many economists say the recession ended over a year ago — last June or July — even while NBER (the ones tasked to make the formal call) has hesitated from doing so. As early as April, the organization’s committee of academic economists said that it would be “premature” to declare an end to the recession that started in December 2007. Who knows when the NBER will declare the end of this latest recession. Whatever date it falls on, last summer certainly didn’t feel like the end of the recession even while many economists argue that it was. And in the coming year, it might feel even less like it. The NBER has never declared a double-dip recession, but believes it is basically one continuous recession with a period of growth occurring and then a slip back to a downturn. At the rate we’re going, it looks like a double-dip is plausible. As such, it is possible that months from now, the NBER data may indicate we are currently still in a recession making Burnett’s argument Sunday totally absurd. On the other hand, as the Gross Domestic Product did start growing in the 3rd quarter of 2009, let’s operate from the premise that the recession ended in June of last year. As NBER believes the recession started in December 2007, that means its duration was 18 months.  According to NBER, the early ’90s recession went from July 1990 to March 1991. Depending on how you calculate it, that’s a duration of eight to nine months. NBER views the early ’00s recession as going from March 2001 to November 2001, also a duration of eight to nine months. With this in mind, if the most recent recession ended in June 2009, it took at least twice the time to get out of it than the previous two recessions thereby completely refuting Burnett’s claim. As for job growth coming out of a recession, this “recovery” is by no means something to brag about. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the fourteen months since this recession theoretically ended, non-farm payrolls have decreased by 329,000. Even if you look at the “private sector” numbers the administration and their media sycophants have been trying to focus the nation’s attention on, this has shown a decline of 205,000 jobs since the recession “ended.” To be sure, both of these figures are better than what we saw during the early ’00s recession. However, non-farm payrolls increased by 45,000 in the first fourteen months following the end of the early ’90s recession while private sector employment declined by 220,000. If Burnett wants to hang her hat on this 15,000 private sector jobs “improvement” as a sign that this recovery is faster and stronger than the one in the early ’90s, it seems certain given all the data she’d be skating on thin ice. Of course, she’d certainly look good doing it, a fact that even Chris Matthews noticed three years ago: Yes, it appears something other than Barack Obama gives Matthews a tingle up his leg – at least that was the case in August 2007. As for Burnett, given that she represents one of this country’s foremost financial news networks, it would be nice if she did her homework before making such sweeping claims about the economy.

Here is the original post:
CNBC Money Honey Exaggerates Job Growth to Boost Obamanomics on Meet the Press

The Labor Department announced the unemployment rate rose a tenth of a point, to 9.6 percent in August so, as the AP noted , it “has exceeded 9 percent for 16 straight months,” while the economy lost 54,000 jobs. Yet, without avoiding the dire numbers, ABC, CBS and NBC managed to find a “mixed picture,” “mixed bag” or even a “silver lining” for President Obama and Democrats two months before election day. “It’s a mixed picture here, but it’s giving some encouragement to those who are out there looking, some who are hanging onto their jobs and their businesses by a thread,” Brian Williams insisted on Friday’s NBC Nightly News. On the CBS Evening News, fill-on anchor Erica Hill saw “a bit of a mixed bag” before Anthony Mason asserted that “weak as the job numbers were, they were better than Wall Street expected” and he touted: “With American businesses creating 67,000 jobs in August, the private sector has now added jobs for eight straight months.” Over on ABC, fill-in anchor David Muir elevated Obama’s spin, teasing World News: “More jobs lost and the President, just today, taking the Republicans on. Are they standing in the way?” He introduced the subsequent story: “This country lost another 54,000 jobs in August, and the President today took on the Republicans, saying they’re the ones blocking help for small business.” In a lengthy set up leading into a report from Jake Tapper, Muir trumpeted: But some economists say there is still a silver lining in these new numbers, because if you take away the 115,000 temporary government jobs – those Census jobs we knew were going away — a slightly different picture emerges. The crucial private sector actually adding 67,000 workers in August, health care and construction leading the way. And that comes after the private sector added 107,000 in July, 61,000 in June… Nice that Muir realizes the private sector is “crucial”!   Earlier today, from Julia Seymour of the MRC’s Business & Media Institute : “ CNN’s ‘Glass One-Quarter Full’ Spin: Emphasize Private Job Gains ” David Muir, on the Friday, September 3 ABC World News: We do turn now to the political storm brewing in Washington over the new jobs numbers out today. This country lost another 54,000 jobs in August, and the President today took on the Republicans, saying they’re the ones blocking help for small business. That, in a moment, but first, the numbers. Word that the nation’s employers cut another 54,000 jobs in August, marks the third month in a row that this country has seen a net loss of jobs. But some economists say there is still a silver lining in these new numbers, because if you take away the 115,000 temporary government jobs – those Census jobs we knew were going away — a slightly different picture emerges. The crucial private sector actually adding 67,000 workers in August, health care and construction leading the way. And that comes after the private sector added 107,000 in July, 61,000 in June. It’s growth, but still not the number of private sector jobs needed to keep one the nearly 15 million Americans still looking for work. And as I mentioned, the President was quick today to frame the numbers his way and so lets turn right now to Jake Tapper. CBS Evening News: ERICA HILL: Back home, a new sign the economic recovery will be a long, slow journey. Today the Labor Department reported private businesses added 67,000 jobs in August, but overall the economy lost jobs as the Census Bureau laid off more temporary workers. And the unemployment rate inched up to a tenth of a point, a tenth of a point, rather, to 9.6 percent. Wall Street was encouraged by the news that businesses are hiring, though. The Dow jumped 128 points today for its first positive close week in a month. Anthony Mason is our senior business correspondent. So overall, Anthony, it’s a bit of a mixed bag? ANTHONY MASON: Yeah Erica, weak as the job numbers were, they were better than Wall Street expected and seemed to give investors confidence the economy can avoid a double-dip recession. With American businesses creating 67,000 jobs in August, the private sector has now added jobs for eight straight months… Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News: Turning to the U.S. economy and the latest reading on the job market for August. Employers cut 54,000 workers from their payrolls, less than what analysts had predicted. The unemployment rate ticked up a notch: 9.6 percent now as discouraged workers restarted their job search. It’s a mixed picture here, but it’s giving some encouragement to those who are out there looking, some who are hanging onto their jobs and their businesses by a thread…

Continue reading here:
Nets See ‘Mixed Picture,’ ‘Mixed Bag’ and ‘Silver Lining’ in Rising Unemployment Rate

Welcome to The Summer Of Recovery Fear. Democrats are fleeing the sinking ship. Via Politico – Top Democrats are growing markedly more pessimistic about holding the House, privately conceding that the summertime economic and political recovery they were banking on will not likely materialize by Election Day. In conversations with more than two dozen party insiders, most of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly about the state of play, Democrats in and out of Washington say they are increasingly alarmed about the economic and polling data they have seen in recent weeks. They no longer believe the jobs and housing markets will recover – or that anything resembling the White House’s promise of a “recovery summer” is under way. They are even more concerned by indications that House Democrats once considered safe – such as Rep. Betty Sutton, who occupies an Ohio seat that President Barack Obama won with 57 percent of the vote in 2008 – are in real trouble. In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership. As Jake Tapper at ABC News points out: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called them her “majority makers” – the moderate to conservative Democrats in right-leaning districts whose election in 2006 made her Speaker. And now many of them – and other Democrats in competitive districts — are fighting for their political lives in a harsh environment and have found it necessary to distance themselves from their leaders and Democratic policies. A TV ad for Rep. Bobby Bright, D-Ala., heralds how he “voted against the bailouts, against stimulus spending, against the massive government health care,” not to mention the “trillion dollar federal budget.” Here’s Bright’s ad: Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Penn., is up on the air in Western Pennsylvania heralding his opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform bill and the Wall Street bailout. “ I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the president,” a man in the commercial says. “And Nancy Pelosi,” adds a woman. Here’s Altmire’s ad: My oh my how things have changed after a mere 19 months!   Is it any wonder when Rasmussen  polls Obama at a 27%  strongly approve among likely voters and 47% strongly disapprove that so-called moderate democrats are desperate to distance themselves from him and his policies ?  Talk about upside down!…  Which seems appropriate considering what his policies have done to this country. In the latest Rasmussen Congressional Favorability Rating ,  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now nearly tied with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when it comes to unpopularity among voters nationwide.   Twenty-six percent (26%) have a favorable opinion of the Nevada Democrat, but that includes just five percent (5%) with a Very Favorable view. Thirty-four percent (34%) regard the San Francisco congresswoman favorably, with 13% Very Favorable toward her. Congress overall doesn’t fare much better in the latest polls .  Most U.S. voters believe the Democratic congressional agenda is extreme, while a plurality describe the Republican agenda as mainstream. What else can a phony Blue Dog Democrat to do when faced with an electoral  tsunami in November?

See the original post:
Fear and Loathing: “Moderate” House Dems Running Away from Obama, Pelosi and Reid

-By Warner Todd Huston Even the New York Times can’t ignore the fact that Obama’s latest union bailout cash isn’t going to help anyone keep their jobs , and The New York Times is really good at ignoring things that make Democrats look bad. A few weeks ago Nancy Pelosi called the House of Representatives back into a special session because there was a crisis in education, don’t you know. It was a crisis that she didn’t want to go to waste, naturally. As Speaker of the House she had the power — one likely to evaporate with the 2010 elections — to help Barack Obama give his union pals another $26.1 billion of the taxpayer’s money and she couldn’t resist the urge to fill pockets with other’s people’s money at least one more time. Early in August, Pelosi triumphantly announced on her Twitter feed, “I will be calling the House back into session early next week to save teachers’ jobs and help seniors & children.” We’re helping old people, it’s for the children, we are saving teacher’s jobs. It’s a crisis that we can’t ignore, darn it! Yes, Rahm, it’s also a crisis that we can’t let go to waste. So pass it Pelosi did. Now the feds are sending an additional $26.1 billion to “help” the aged, to save the children and to “save” teachers from being fired. Only we aren’t. At least we aren’t saving many teacher’s jobs for according to the NYT in most cases those that have been fired will stay fired and those that have been fired won’t be rehired. One problem with this bailout is that the money won’t be ready for distribution until well into September, up to a month after many schools have already resumed for the new semester. And even for those that won’t have started school yet, administrations are reluctant to just willy-nilly start rehiring teachers that they won’t be able to continue paying after the bailout money runs out next year. Many administrations just don’t see the point of merely putting off the agony for a single season. School administrators are saying that they see big deficits looming for next year’s budget, so they’d rather save the bailout cash for next year instead of rehiring teachers this year. And administrators also know that the money they’ve been used to so liberally spreading around is not going to be there next year. “It’s a real double-edged sword,” Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie ,told the Times. “This money will not be there next year, and we’re not going to get back up to the funding that they had previously been used to.” It is not much different in California. “We’re also looking at a pretty bad budget, so we may decide to hold all or some of the money for the next year,” said Steve Horowitz, assistant superintendent of personnel services at the Pomona Unified School District. He added that the money might be used for bus drivers or custodians, or to roll back five furlough days for teachers. Unassailable logic that. So, as it happens this newest gigantic bailout is not going to save any teachers jobs, it is not going to go to re-hire recently laid off teachers, and further more it will just be used by school administrators to pad their budgets for next year causing them to put off the sort of budget reassessments that are much needed. So why was this done? Because they unions told Pelosi that if she didn’t give them this $26.1 billion bailout they might not work so hard for Democrats in this 2010 election cycle. Just picture the scene: a thick lipped, broken nosed union “organizer” arrives in Pelosi’s Capitol Hill offices and says something like, “I’d sure hate to see youse guys lose dis election, wouldn’t youse? Gee, it might be swell if we got about $26.1 billion in an envelope this month to help us decide if we’s gunna help youse win, eh? I tink you know what I mean?” So, to the tune of the Sopranos theme song, Pelosi dutifully fired up her Twitter feed and began stuffing envelopes with your cash. What a racket, eh?

Here is the original post:
Obama’s Union Bailout: A Good Crisis Going to Waste