Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 12:33:16 PM

Title: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 12:33:16 PM
I am starting this thread to list the daily examples of how the Obama Admn is killing the economy and destroying jobs.  

I'll start with the Stim Bill.  See below.


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 12:36:23 PM
Next up - killing commercial fishing jobs. 

________________________ ________________________ _____

Obama intentionally destroying Commercial Fishing?
Boston Herald ^ | August 24, 2010 | Richard Gaines

Fishermen aim Vineyard protest at Obama By Richard Gaines / Gloucester Daily Times | Tuesday, August 24, 2010 | |

Leaders of the recreational and commercial fishing industry are planning a boat protest against federal policies Thursday outside the harbor of Vineyard Haven on Martha’s Vineyard, where President Obama and his family are summer vacationing.

The protest is being organized after a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of federal lawmakers -- including the core of the President’s Congressional base on banking and health care issues -- have given up hope of working productively with Obama’s top appointee for oceans and fisheries, Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Boats from Gloucester and New Bedford, the hub ports of New England, Point Judith, R.I., and New York and New Jersey are expected, according to Tina Jackson, president of the American Alliance of Fishermen.

The heads of the region’s two primary seafood auctions in Gloucester and New Bedford have agreed to co-sponsor the protest, with the Ciulla family that owns and operates the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction agreeing to provide fuel to boats in need of help to make the trip. An anonymous donor has given the protesters a grant of at least $5,000 for fuel vouchers.

With elements arriving from different directions, the armada is timed to meet in Vineyard Sound at noon on Thursday. The Coast Guard was being informed of the action, Jackson said Monday.

A co-organizer is the Recreational Fishermen’s Alliance, the lead organizing group behind the national protest outside the U.S. Capitol in February that drew as many as 5,000 demonstrating against federal policies seen as heavily tilted against the industry and unduly swayed by non-government environmental organizations.

Since her appointment to head the NOAA by President Obama, Lubchenco, who had been an officer of the Environmental Defense Fund and a leader of the Pew Oceans Commission, has pushed to convert the fisheries into commodities markets under a management system known as catch shares.

In a statement to the Times soon after her confirmation by the Senate, Lubchenco’s office said her goal was to see a "significant fraction of the vessels ... removed."  

With the stocks rebuilding strongly, fishermen wonder at the need to reduce the size of the work force.

Mayors Carolyn Kirk of Gloucester and Scott Lang of New Bedford have condemned federal fisheries policies for bringing unnecessary social and economic hardship as a certain price for the uncertain resource management benefits of catch share regulations.

Lubchenco has argued that consolidation, which has consistently followed catch shares, produces fewer but better jobs while giving the government a stronger hand in conservation.

The industry sees catch shares as an invitation for market speculation that will condemn the fishing culture to the same fate that conglomeration brought to the family farm.  

New England’s groundfishery, America’s oldest continuing industry which had harvested commonly owned resources, was converted to catch share principles on May 1 -- with a total allocation divided and distributed to fishermen as catching rights that cane be bought, sold or traded.

But the minute size of the total allocation and the eccentric mixes of quota from the 15 species and 20 stocks in the groundfishery have pushed many businesses into -- or close to -- insolvency, a development that earlier this month brought a proposal from a bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators for a $100 million buyout.

The planned Thursday protest also comes amid growing anger over a fisheries law enforcement system that has been found by the U.S. Commerce Department’s own Inspector General’s office to have subjected the fleet to vindictive treatment and excessive fines used by the agents and lawyers to finance foreign travel and daily operating expenses.

The longtime federal fisheries police chief, Dale Jones was put on paid administrative leave in April following the first report by Inspector General Todd Zinser, but Jones remains on the NOAA payroll to the tune of $150,000 a year.

"We will be lining up to protest law enforcement abuse of funds, the blatant arrogance and abuse of Dr. Lubchenco and her ENGO (environment non-government organization) driven agenda, the continued employment of Dale Jones and every other abuse our regulators have punished our industry with over 33 years of corruption and egregious behavior," the organizers said of the protest in a prepared statement.

"There is a call for a protest of all fishermen, commercial, recreational, lobstermen," the statement said. "... Now is the time to show our backbone, our strength and our unity."


To see more of the Gloucester Daily Times or to subscribe, go to

Article URL:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 12:48:02 PM
Thank God this disgusting policy is put to rest for now. 

He wants to put people in coal business in the street.

And attached is a graph of job losses. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 12:57:17 PM
Next up - Card Check - Another Union scheme that will destroy jobs.   

Even Warren Buffett & George Mcgovern hates this idea.

________________________ ____________________

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 01:04:42 PM
Killing the off theoil industry.   You morons will be paying $7 a gallon and still blaming Bush. 

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___________

U.S. Saw Drill Ban Killing Many Jobs [ie. Obama KNEW he was destroying jobs, kept it secret]

Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil and gas drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs and freeze up to $10.2 billion in oil-industry investment, according to previously undisclosed documents detailing their internal debates.

Marcia McNutt, an Obama administration science adviser, commented on the corporate culture of BP in a memo sent to Michael Bromwich, the administration's new top offshore oil exploration regulator, on June 28.

Critics of the moratorium, including Gulf Coast political figures and oil-industry leaders, have said it is crippling the region's economy, and some have called on the administration to make public its economic analysis. A federal judge who in June threw out an earlier six-month moratorium faulted the administration for playing down the economic effects.

After his action, the documents show, administration officials considered alternatives but chose to impose a new drilling moratorium after concluding the industry lacked viable strategies for containing another major spill. Officials also expressed doubts internally about the reliability of the equipment the industry uses to prevent blowouts.

The administration hadn't previously disclosed its estimates of the economic effect of the controversial halt, ordered after the April explosion at a Gulf of Mexico well. The documents doing so were filed in a New Orleans federal court by the Justice Department earlier this week as part of the latest round of litigation over the moratorium.

Spanning more than 27,000 pages, they provide an unusually detailed look at deliberations about how to respond to the legal and political opposition to the moratorium...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

________________________ ________________________ ________________

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 01:11:45 PM
Even some Dems are Starting to wake up.

________________________ ________________________ _

Obama Is Failing Because He Doesn't Understand That He Can't Create Jobs
Douglas Schoen, The Daily Beast | Aug. 23, 2010, 10:54 AM | 2,489 |  43

Billions in stimulus money have failed to make the economy soar. Douglas Schoen on how Obama has hurt the recovery by flooding America with free cash.

Recent reports from the Federal Reserve, the Labor Department , and the Commerce Department clearly and demonstratively show that the Obama Administration’s policies have not succeeded – indeed they have failed in ways that are clear and unambiguous.

The Obama administration’s policies and programs are not producing real, long lasting results, and there has been no real growth.

Put another way, an unprecedented degree of federal government spending and intervention vis-à-vis the $787 billion dollar economic stimulus package, the $81 billion dollar bailouts of GM and Chrysler, and the enactment of health care and financial regulatory and reform bills have done nothing to stimulate our anemic recovery and have fundamentally failed at creating private sector jobs, or generating economic growth necessary for a sustainable, healthy recovery.

Indeed, they have done little more than generate an unsustainable national debt, which now exceeds $13 trillion. The Federal Reserve reported that the pace of recovery in the United States “has slowed in recent months” – with a growth rate of just 2.4 percent in the second quarter down from 3.7 percent in the first quarter of 2010, and an annual rate of 5 percent at the end of 2009.

Exports are down, lending by banks continues to contract, employers are reluctant to hire, and consumer spending is at a historically weak level for a recovery period.

Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has failed to live up to the lofty expectations and predictions of the administration, and has failed to create the amount of jobs necessary to significantly reduce the unemployment rate.

In February 2009, the administration released a report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." The report, drafted by former Council of Economic Advisers chairwoman Christina Romer, predicted that if Congress passed a stimulus plan, unemployment would plateau below 8 percent last fall and by this month register at 7 percent.

But with total nonfarm payroll employment declining by 131,000 in July, and the unemployment rate remaining at 9.5% for the second consecutive month, it is clear that the stimulus package has created few new private sector jobs, and will probably not create any new economic opportunities for them any time soon. The economy lost 8.4 million jobs in 2008 and 2009. This year, private employers have added only 559,000 jobs.

At best, it produced short-term boosts to the economy through subsidization of the public sector, with government stimulus programs like Cash for Clunkers, Home Buyer Tax Credit and construction projects.

To be sure, these programs provided an incentive to buy cars and houses in the short-term. And indeed, there was a big spike in automobile purchases when the Cash for Clunkers program went into effect last July, allowing consumers to trade in their older-model vehicles for $4,500 rebates toward more fuel-efficient new cars between July 1 and November 1, 2009.

But it is still unclear whether it has had any effect on increasing demand in the long-term. Indeed, by the end of 2009, auto sales plunged 35% right back to where they were before the stimulus was enacted. Today, the automotive industry work force is 30 percent smaller than prerecession, as evidenced in the July jobs report.

And upon thorough examination, it is clear that not only have the Obama administration’s interventions in the auto industry failed to produce the desired long-term results, it is responsible for making the situation worse in the short-term.

Take, for example, the Administration’s auto industry intervention – adding $60 billion to the bailout, and making the government the majority shareholder in GM and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union the majority shareholder in Chrysler. To be sure, the Administration’s actions did help stabilize the auto industry. But the way that they did it added to the overall cost of the bailout, and substantially reduced automotive industry employment.

According to an audit prepared by the inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, President Obama’s auto Task Force pressed General Motors and Chrysler to close scores of  dealerships and accelerated job losses. Indeed, Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program of the Treasury Department, has said that the Administration "made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls…ased on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decision's broader economic impact.”

Meanwhile, "by reaching into virtually every sector of economic life,” argues Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, “government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses," while implementing various programs have discouraged hiring by increasing the cost of labor.

The tax increases and regulations associated with the health care reform and financial regulation bills have exacerbated uncertainty and have effectively discouraged consumer spending.

There is a general uncertainty about the implications of Obamacare and its "bewildering array of new government agencies, regulations and mandates, " as stated in a report by Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, GOP Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas and the minority staff of the Joint Economic Committee.

Indeed, twenty states and the National Federation of Independent Business have filed a lawsuit against the health care overhaul because they face imminent harm from its mandates. Finally, the passage of the financial regulation bill, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama last month, has left our financial system even more vulnerable to abuse than it was before its passage. The big banks are still too big to fail, controlling a larger share of the nation’s deposits than before the crisis, and the bill failed to address reorganizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Meanwhile, none of the 533 new regulations, 60 studies and 93 reports included in the financial regulatory overhaul provide effective restrictions or controls on mortgage-backed securities and similar financial instruments that permitted giant banks to disguise predatory lending decisions from unknowing investors.

The net result of these failed policies is that consumers are reluctant to spend, entrepreneurs are reluctant to invest, and employers are reluctant to hire to the degree necessary to spur economic growth.

We need a bold new focus from the President and his party.

Put simply, they must abandon their failed policies and adopt a bold new commitment to fiscal discipline and targeted fiscal stimulus of the private sector and entrepreneurship.

They must put forth a set of focused initiatives aimed at reducing the debt and cutting spending, with an emphasis on tax cuts, fiscal stimulus, and a series of initiatives to stimulate and encourage job creation. Specifically, the Administration should:

Extend the Small Business Innovation Research program, and expand lending through the Small Business Administration’s loan program to encourage more start-ups and enable small businesses to hire and train more workers

Declare a payroll tax holiday for new businesses so they can invest in new jobs.

Jumpstart the economy by investing in green technology and create new jobs and make the United States a leader in clean energy manufacturing, especially solar, and expand the innovation and development of renewable energy.

Expand the federal research and development tax credit to businesses that invest in research and development, and increase research grants to small businesses that are developing new technologies.

Close tax loopholes for the rich to provide real tax reduction for middle-class and working families without increasing the deficit.

Create a National Infrastructure Bank as proposed by President Obama in his 2008 campaign. This Bank will take infrastructure decisions out of the hands of politicians and out of the world of pork barrel politics, end the infamous “bridges to nowhere,” and make infrastructure decisions that contribute to growth

Above all, the Obama Administration must accept the fact that ONLY private enterprise can create jobs – more stimulus money is not the answer.

Douglas Schoen is a political strategist and author of the upcoming book "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System," to be published by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins on September 14. This post originally appeared at the Daily Beast and is republished here with permission.

Tags:, Obama, Stimulus | Get Alerts for these topics »

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 01:25:29 PM
Sounds nice, but get ready to pay $7 a gallon for gasoline.  Hoax & Change

if anything, we should get rid of the EPA to help the economy.   

________________________ ________________________ _________

DOT, EPA Set Aggressive National Standards for Fuel Economy and First Ever Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels For Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

Release date: 04/01/2010

Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn 202-564-7849 202-564-4355 NHTSA Press Office: 202-366-9550

WASHINGTON - Responding to one of the first major directives of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today jointly established historic new federal rules that set the first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards and will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The rules could potentially save the average buyer of a 2016 model year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle and, nationally, will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered.

This action is one important step in fulfilling the Obama Administration’s commitment to moving towards a clean energy, climate friendly economy.

“These historic new standards set ambitious, but achievable, fuel economy requirements for the automotive industry that will also encourage new and emerging technologies,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air.”

“This is a significant step towards cleaner air and energy efficiency, and an important example of how our economic and environmental priorities go hand-in-hand,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “By working together with industry and capitalizing on our capacity for innovation, we’ve developed a clean cars program that is a win for automakers and drivers, a win for innovators and entrepreneurs, and a win for our planet.”

DOT and EPA received more than 130,000 public comments on the September 2009 proposed rules, with overwhelming support for the strong national policy. Manufacturers will be able to build a single, light-duty national fleet that satisfies all federal requirements as well as the standards of California and other states. The collaboration of federal agencies also allows for clearer rules for all automakers, instead of three standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard).

Today’s final rules, issued by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA, establish increasingly stringent fuel economy standards under NHTSA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy program and greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act for 2012 through 2016 model-year vehicles.

Starting with 2012 model year vehicles, the rules together require automakers to improve fleet-wide fuel economy and reduce fleet-wide greenhouse gas emissions by approximately five percent every year. NHTSA has established fuel economy standards that strengthen each year reaching an estimated 34.1 mpg for the combined industry-wide fleet for model year 2016.

Because credits for air-conditioning improvements can be used to meet the EPA standards, but not the NHTSA standards, the EPA standards require that by the 2016 model-year, manufacturers must achieve a combined average vehicle emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. The EPA standard would be equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if all reductions came from fuel economy improvements.

Specifically, the new National Program:

Reduces carbon dioxide emissions by about 960 million metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles regulated, equivalent to taking 50 million cars and light trucks off the road in 2030.

Conserves about 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles regulated.

Enables the average car buyer of a 2016 model year vehicle to enjoy a net savings of $3,000 over the lifetime of the vehicle, as upfront technology costs are offset by lower fuel costs

“We are delivering on our mission and President Obama’s call for a strong and coordinated national policy for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles, and we will do so in a way that does not compromise safety,” said NHTSA Administrator David Strickland.

“These are the first national standards ever to address climate change,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy. “Over the coming years, America will witness an amazing leap forward in vehicle technologies, delivering fuel efficiency that will save us money and protect the environment.”

The joint final regulation achieves the goal set by President Obama to develop a National Program to establish federal standards that meet the needs of the states and the nation as a whole to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama first announced the effort last May with a broad coalition of automakers, the United Auto Workers, States, and the environmental community.

NHTSA and EPA expect automobile manufacturers will meet these standards by more widespread adoption of conventional technologies that are already in commercial use, such as more efficient engines, transmissions, tires, aerodynamics, and materials, as well as improvements in air conditioning systems. Although the standards can be met with conventional technologies, EPA and NHTSA also expect that some manufacturers may choose to pursue more advanced fuel-saving technologies like hybrid vehicles, clean diesel engines, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and electric vehicles.

In conjunction with the United States, Canada is also announcing Light Duty Vehicle GHG-Emissions regulations today. U.S. EPA and NHTSA have worked closely with Environment Canada to ensure a common North American approach.

Climate change is the single greatest long-term global environmental challenge. Cars, SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.

More information:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 01:30:43 PM
240 - says were are diverting from talks on the economy and jobs.   ::)  ::)

Lets see how many libs comment in this thread. 

________________________ ________________________ _____________

Business leaders: Obama policies 'job-destroying'
By Julianne Pepitone, staff reporterJuly 14, 2010: 6:01 PM ET

NEW YORK ( -- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce slammed President Obama's economic policies Wednesday, saying administration officials "took their eyes off the ball" and "neglected" to focus on job creation.

A letter posted to the business group's site and a summit with 500 business leaders were the latest moves in an ongoing battle between big business and the Obama administration.

Two are at odds over the best way to keep the recovery from slipping into a double-dip recession. The Chamber believes tax cuts are key to job creation. The Obama administration, however, has focused on stimulus and spending to create jobs.

The Chamber said in its letter that the administration "vilified industries while embarking on an ill-advised course of government expansion, major tax increases, massive deficits and job-destroying regulations."

The letter also included "some different approaches to unlock frozen capital and jolt our economy back to life."

The six suggestions are: create a growth and jobs tax policy; restore fiscal health; expand trade and export-driven jobs; rebuild and expand infrastructure; ease regulatory burdens; and eliminate uncertainty for business owners.

Legislation 'causing uncertainty': In a speech at the jobs summit, Chamber president Tom Donohue focused on what he considers a glut of recent legislation, including financial reform and health reform.

"We must address the cumulative job-killing impact of over-regulation," Donohue said, stressing the uncertainty he considers rampant in U.S. businesses.

Donohue also said lawmakers were "spending at astronomical levels -- we're setting ourselves up to be the next Greece," a reference to the debt crisis plaguing the European nation.

Americans for Financial Reform, a group supporting the financial reform bill that the Senate is expected to pass this week, took issue with the Chamber.

"Attempts to kill accountability and transparency for the financial sector should come as no surprise given who pulls the strings for the Chamber: Wall Street," the group said in a statement.

0:00 /4:48Whitney: Reform will hurt banks

Separately, in its latest stimulus report, the White House's Council of Economic Advisers said stimulus has already fueled about 3 million jobs. That's in line with earlier ongoing predictions from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the council.

But in January 2009, Romer predicted the stimulus package - then just a proposal from the new administration - would keep the unemployment rate around 7% at the end of 2010.

A Labor Department report earlier this month said the American economy shed 125,000 jobs in June. More than 8 million jobs have been lost since the start of the recession.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve's latest economic forecast was more pessimistic when on Wednesday it issued the minutes of its June meeting. The Fed now predicts the unemployment rate would be between 9.2% to 9.5% this year, slightly higher than previous estimates.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 01:56:38 PM
Wake up you morons. 

________________________ ________________________ ___________

Small Business CEOs Reveal Why They're Not Hiring: Economic Contraction, Obama, And Healthcare
Mike "Mish" Shedlock | Aug. 24, 2010, 4:41 PM | 871 |  15
A A A   

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______

In response to Small Businesses are Not Hiring - Should They? I received a couple emails worth sharing. The CEO of a healthcare consulting company writes ....

Hello Mish

You ran a series of articles on small businesses, hiring and expansions. I thought I would add to it.

I run a small firm, with about 45 employees and 40 contractors. We have been growing pretty well, close to 80% topline numbers for the past 3 years. Our average salary is over $100,000. We have some innovative software we sell to the industry. We also offer operational improvement strategies and IT consulting.

We provide great healthcare insurance coverage to our employees. It is necessary in order to attract talent and I am in the talent business. Our healthcare costs went up 90% this year – and that is on a 6-figure number to begin with. We found only one insurer willing to provide us coverage, United Healthcare.

Another Atlas Shrugs - Small Business Owners Chime In

Every other provider pulled out of our segment of the small business market. Cigna, our prior carrier, refused to renew at the last minute on a technicality despite being our carrier for the past 3 years.

Our management team’s focus for two weeks was seriously diverted as we dealt with the consequences of this. Had we lost coverage altogether, we would have been out of business as our employees would go elsewhere.

Our staff is young and healthy, by and large. Average age is early 30s, in the healthcare consulting, software and technology industry. Only in a severely government distorted marketplace can a firm with a young and healthy staff that has had coverage for years face insurers pulling out or demanding a 90% hike.

We had plans to add one person to our R&D staff, a low 6-figure salary. That was shelved because of healthcare costs. Our software development cycle is slowed as a result.

How has the healthcare bill helped the economy? In this case, not one bit. And everyone of my employees has been hurt, because we switched mid-year, those who were part way into their deductible have to start all over again. That is a few 1000s for a number of employees. Because of a bill that passed that cost us money, and most of our employees money. No one is happy with this.

I have additional areas I would like to invest in. Areas that involve productivity gains, not just taking share from someone else, and not just for us. Many of the things I would like to do would reduce costs for my customers and build efficiencies in the healthcare industry as well.

One of our software products reduces the cost of clinical trials, and has saved millions of dollars in better planning. Another model we have developed reduces the cost of carrying inventory for bio/agritech firms. I believe it is the best in the world, developed by a Ph.D. out of Carnegie Mellon. It saves millions a year for large companies (Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, etc. type of companies).

Productivity is the wealth of a nation.

However, thanks to Obama administration policies, we are pissing our edge away on dumb stuff which makes us hesitate to invest more. Thanks a lot, Congress.

The state government, California, (surprise, surprise, surprise) has intimated our customers. Several large companies are withholding taxes from our payments in case we need to pay sales tax on our services. We don’t. It is our responsibility to pay sales taxes under our contract anyway.

What can I do? Sue my customer?

How in the heck in this environment can a business owner feel good, create jobs, and expand?

It's no wonder small businesses are in a sour mood. I have so many other stories from other small business owners that I know. The theme is the same. We are all up against overseas competition, against taxes, against the government, against societal acrimony.

Many of my business executive associates are looking to cash out if they could find a buyer at a decent price. As my friend, a former mid-size credit union COO and small business owner, says whenever one of the “good guys” – people who understand how to start businesses that are productive - throws in the towel and cashes in … “Another Atlas shrugs.”

The business climate is freaking insane. I don’t blame the insurers too much. It takes a government to make a market this screwed up.

Thanks to you and others, I pay more attention to Washington, D.C. and state legislatures. I also call to protest and give money to fiscal conservative candidates.

Unfortunately this takes time away from my business. But do I have a choice?

Unions get to pay people full-time to lobby on their behalf. Me? I work long weeks. I feel bad for my family if I don’t spend more time with them, but I cheat my son if I don’t fight for a better world for him.

As always, your coverage of all topics, including public sector unions, is wonderful, a great service, and greatly appreciated. You have an impact on us who don’t have time to do this on our own, but care about our society and want to contribute. I have given to so many individual campaigns and efforts around the country this year, more than the rest of my years combined. You are making a difference, thanks.

"Healthcare CEO"

Nursery Wholesaler Chimes In

David, a nursery wholesaler in Oregon writes ...

Hello Mish

We are not hiring either, why should we?

My wife and I own a small wholesale nursery in Oregon. Nurseries were shining star of agriculture in Oregon and elsewhere for the last @ 20+ years.

The contraction is causing sales to drop industry wide. A few nurseries have gone bankrupt in the last year. One bankruptcy auction netted the owner $.07 on the dollar. The bank may now need to take the land to pay the debt. You want to talk about striking fear into the nursery industry? Well $.07 cents on the dollar will certainly do it!

Others who are still hanging on have watched their sales drop up to 80% from the peak. Yes 80%! No new houses = no new yard and street landscaping, plain and simple.

Competition is fierce as everybody is trying to unload plants before they are too big and must be thrown out or must be planted into a larger container (more expense). Why put more money into something that may not sell anyway?

Our sales are down about 30% from last year. We are selling some plants that would have sold 2 years ago prior to the debt crunch. Overcapacity is everywhere in our industry, prices are dropping to move material instead of dumping it out which is a total loss.

Here is the first rule in small business: Everyone else gets paid first and you get what is left over. I'm not surprised the State of Oregon is having increasing budget problems, I think we will see another downward revision in the state budget in next couple of months.



For more of the problems facing Oregon and other highly unionized states, please see Dysfunctional Oregon

Thanks for sharing David, "Healthcare Consultant CEO".

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 06:53:47 PM
Intel CEO: U.S. faces looming tech decline
by Declan McCullagh

________________________ ____________________

Intel chief executive Paul Otellini offered a depressing set of observations about the economy and the Obama administration Monday evening, coupled with a dark commentary on the future of the technology industry if nothing changes.

Otellini's remarks during dinner at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here amounted to a warning to the administration officials and assorted Capitol Hill aides in the audience: Unless government policies are altered, he predicted, "the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here."  
Intel CEO Paul Otellini, who warned this week that the U.S. faces a huge tech decline.

(Credit: Intel) The U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business, Otellini said, that there is likely to be "an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we're seeing today in Europe--this is the bitter truth."

Not long ago, Otellini said, "our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for start-up capital... We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply is no longer the case."

The phenomenon of technology executives advancing dismal predictions and offering pointed critiques of Washington politicking isn't new, of course.

For instance: In 2005, midway through the Bush administration, Microsoft's Bill Gates told a Washington audience that curbs on immigration and guest workers would provide a boost to research institutions in China and India. A year earlier, then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett warned that the U.S. must dramatically improve its education system.

That never happened. Nor did politicians follow Gates' advice to rethink laws that led to foreign engineers being kicked out of the country as soon as they finish their degrees.

And now, six years later with no significant reforms, it should come as no surprise that the predictions have become more dire.

Deep in a 'Do' loop

Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: "I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they're flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working."  

Since an unusually sharp downturn accelerated in late 2008, the Obama administration and its allies in the U.S. Congress have enacted trillions in deficit spending they say will create an economic stimulus -- but have not extended the Bush tax cuts and have pushed to levy extensive new health care and carbon regulations on businesses.

"They're in a 'Do' loop right now trying to figure out what the answer is," Otellini said.

As a result, he said, "every business in America has a list of more variables than I've ever seen in my career." If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions "the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They'll invest elsewhere."

Take factories. "I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States," Otellini said.

The rub: Ninety percent of that additional cost of a $4 billion factory is not labor but the cost to comply with taxes and regulations that other nations don't impose. (Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers elaborated on this in an interview with CNET, saying the problem is not higher U.S. wages but anti-business laws: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, a thousand blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways.")  

"If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would have an incentive to invest here," Otellini said. But instead, it's the second highest in the industrialized world, making the United States a less attractive place to invest--and create jobs--than places in Europe and Asia that are "clamoring" for Intel's business.

The comments from Intel's chief executive echoed statements made a day earlier by Carly Fiorina, the former HP CEO turned Republican Senate candidate.

America's skilled-worker visa system is so badly broken and anti-immigration that "we have to start from scratch," Fiorina said, adding that too many government policies push jobs overseas instead of making U.S. companies competitive against international rivals.

"Our corporate tax rates are the second highest in the world," and Congress has repeatedly failed to make an R&D tax credit permanent, Fiorina told the Aspen audience. It's time to start "acknowledging the reality that companies go where they're welcome," she said. (The effective U.S. corporate income tax is 35 percent, far over the industrialized-nation average of 18.2 percent.)

Chris Marangi, associate portfolio manager at Gamco Investors in Rye, N.Y., said Tuesday: "Capital is agnostic. It doesn't have a religion. It doesn't have a philosophy. It goes where it finds the highest returns." The problem, Marangi said, is that many other "countries have a more friendly regulatory regime than we do."

. Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. You can e-mail him or follow him on Twitter as declanm. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.

________________________ ________________________ __-


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 07:11:06 PM
That last article is a very good read. Something tells me the CEO of Intel knows more than the typical Dem jerk-off down in Washington when it comes to the economy. If they don't smarten up every American company that made its name here is going to leave.

The leftists are too fucking brain-dead to acknowledge that, though.  ::)

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 07:19:30 PM
240, Straw, et al, say we are diverting attention with all the mosque talk from economic issues, so I started this thread and plan to update it frequently. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 04:25:56 AM
August 25, 2010
Where Are the New Jobs?
By John Stossel m

________________________ __________________

"Corporate profits are soaring. Companies are sitting on billions of dollars of cash. And still, they've yet to amp up hiring or make major investments."

So writes The Washington Post about the recession's stubborn refusal to go away. The statisticians at the National Bureau of Economic Research declared the Great Recession over -- but tell that to people who can't find jobs. Today, businesses replace equipment and inventory, but they are reluctant to hire new workers. Investment that does occur aims at replacing the use of labor by adopting advanced technology. In a growing economy, that's a sign of progress. Freed-up workers are then available for new projects. But lately, those new projects aren't being launched.

The two wings of the establishment offer their usual remedies. Government-oriented types want more tax-financed "stimulus" spending, claiming last year's nearly trillion-dollar dose wasn't enough. That's dubious. As economist Mark Skousen writes, "(P)roduction and investment lead the economy into and out of a recession; retail demand is the most stable component of economic activity."

Business-oriented types want tax cuts. I'm sympathetic, but cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts, or the deficit will grow even uglier. There's no free lunch. Deficit spending must be covered by government borrowing, which takes capital that could be used for investment out of the private sector.

Why isn't the economy recovering? After previous recessions, unemployment didn't get stuck at close to 10 percent. If left alone, the economy can and does heal itself, as the mistakes of the previous inflationary boom are corrected.

The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden.

In at least three big areas -- health insurance, financial regulation and taxes -- no one can know what will happen.

New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers.

Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies." These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity.

The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A "distinguished" deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax?

Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads.

"As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government," Michael Fleischer, president of Bogen Communications Inc., wrote in The Wall Street Journal.

Nothing more effectively freezes business in place than what economist and historian Robert Higgs calls "regime uncertainty."

"(A)ll of these unsettling possibilities and others of substantial significance must give pause to anyone considering a long-term investment, because any one of them has the potential to turn what seems to be a profitable investment into a big loser. In short, investors now face regime uncertainty to an extent that few have experienced in this country -- to find anything comparable, one must go back to the 1930s and 1940s, when the menacing clouds of the New Deal and World War II darkened the economic horizon."

Uncertainty created by Obama's legislative "successes" are comparable to the Depression and World War II? This does not bode well for job growth.

Higgs says: "Unless the government acts soon to resolve the looming uncertainties about the half-dozen greatest threats of policy harm to business, investors will remain for the most part on the sideline ... consuming wealth that might otherwise have been invested."

Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 04:56:21 AM
Skip to comments.

The White House War on Jobs ^ | August 25, 2010 | Michelle Malkin

________________________ ________________________ ______________________

The "Summer of Recovery" is looking more and more like the Beltway Chainsaw Massacre for America's workers.  As President Obama lolls on Martha's Vineyard with his well-heeled Chicago pals, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that 72 percent of people are very worried about joblessness and 67 percent are very concerned about massive government spending.

After a nearly $1 trillion fiscal stimulus and several multibillion-dollar corporate and union bailouts, unemployment remains stuck near 10 percent nationwide; jobless claims rose again last week. One shudders to think how many more jobs will be on the chopping block after the vacationing president finishes "recharging his batteries."

The blame avoidance industry, of course, never takes a break. Capitol Hill Democrats blame George W. Bush. President Obama blames inaction by the, er, Democrat-controlled Congress. On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden derided GOP Leader John Boehner's speech on the Obama job-killing machine as a return to the past. Biden sneered about the "good old days" when Republicans held the majority in Washington. But laid-off, unemployed and endangered Americans in the health care sector, the auto industry, and the oil, mining, gas, and fishing industries are no doubt wondering: What's wrong with returning to the days when we had jobs and steady paychecks?

These are not the wealthy fat cats and Big Business titans Democrats love to demonize.

They're employees of companies like Assurant Health, which announced last week that it would slash 130 jobs at its offices in Milwaukee and Plymouth, Minn., to prepare for costly Obamacare mandates.

They're employees of medical device firms in Massachusetts, where officials say they'll be forced to cut back on operational costs and jobs thanks to a little-noticed Obamacare tax on their products that goes into effect in 2013.

They're employees of restaurants like White Castle and International House of Pancakes, whose executives say they will be forced into layoffs and premium hikes to cope with the federal law's $3,000-per-employee penalty on companies whose workers pay more than 9.5 percent of household income in premiums for company-provided insurance.

They're mom-and-pop enterprises across the country that must now deal with Obamacare's onerous Section 9006 tax-filing mandate. It requires them to file 1099 forms with the IRS for every vendor from whom they purchase $600 or more in goods. Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns calls it one of many "job-crushing provisions" that will bury small business in paperwork and legal costs.

They're the estimated 23,000 workers in the deepwater drilling industry whom the White House deliberately wrote off in pursuit of its junk science-based drilling moratorium.

They're the estimated tens of thousands of workers employed by car dealers that were shut down by Obama's auto czars at a time, as the TARP inspector general pointed out last month, "when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs... -- all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions' broader economic impact."

They're employees of Utah oil and gas companies whose leases have been pulled without cause by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The Interior Department's own Inspector General rejected Salazar's explanation that the Bush administration had rushed the leases through. The Deseret News reports that "rescinding these leases has likely cost the state millions already. Officials in Uintah county estimate the county lost 3,000 jobs in 2009, and Duchesne lost 1,000 jobs."

They're employees of commercial and recreational fishing businesses in New England, who have organized a flotilla on Martha's Vineyard on Thursday to protest the Obama administration's restrictive environmental policies and stealth regulatory ocean grab.

The White House has invested mightily in creating a propaganda infrastructure to tout its "jobs saved or created." Taxpayers need a full, transparent accounting of how many jobs Team Obama has destroyed. Call it

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _____

Great one by Michelle M. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on August 25, 2010, 05:08:44 AM
240, Straw, et al, say we are diverting attention with all the mosque talk from economic issues, so I started this thread and plan to update it frequently. 

You know I always like your posts regarding the economy but the mosque shit was getting fucking lame really fast and dragged on waaaaay too long, I think there ae 20 different threads about it (at least).

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 05:13:55 AM
You know I always like your posts regarding the economy but the mosque shit was getting fucking lame really fast and dragged on waaaaay too long, I think there ae 20 different threads about it (at least).

For me its not since i live here, but I get your point. 

But lets see how many on the left even want to discuss the economy.  I truly believe we are rapidly approaching the abyss on many levels. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 05:31:39 AM

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: MCWAY on August 25, 2010, 05:39:52 AM
240, Straw, et al, say we are diverting attention with all the mosque talk from economic issues, so I started this thread and plan to update it frequently. 

Are you kidding? The left will praise Allah, for diversion from the economic issues. If the Dems run on that (i.e. the stimulus, the "Summer of Recovery", ObamaCare, jobs, etc.), THEY'RE GOING TO GET MURDERED!!!

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 05:41:09 AM
Ha ha ha ha.  Great one! ! ! ! !  ! !! ! ! ! ! !  !

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: MCWAY on August 25, 2010, 05:44:13 AM
Ha ha ha ha.  Great one! ! ! ! !  ! !! ! ! ! ! !  !

Add to that list, moving companies are busier than ever, as people lose their homes, left and right.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 06:03:14 AM
Missed completely and totally. (

Not good. Orders "increased" by .3% which missed "expectations" of +2.8%.
Non-Defense Capital good excluding aircraft came in at an "unexpected" -8.0%.   Ouch.

Good thing that Stimulus was passed! Summer of Recovery!

Really, the Stimulus Bill was the answer to the question the economy didn't ask.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 06:12:48 AM
I wonder why no one will buy anything any more?  hhhhmmmm? ?? ? ? ?   Bushs' fault that everone thinks the economy will continue to get far worse in the future? 

________________________ _____________________

Gregory White | Aug. 25, 2010, 10:00 AM | 262 |  7
A A A   

New home sales numbers came in lower than expected, down to an annualized 276,000.

That's a 12.4% drop over June, and a 32.4% drop over July 2009.

Markets fell immediately on the news, but have rebounded somewhat:

Dow down 0.62%
NASDAQ down 0.61%
S&P 500 down 0.82%
Also of interest, a massive glut in supply:

The median sales price of new houses sold in July 2010 was $204,000; the average sales price was $235,300. The seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of July was 210,000. This represents a supply of 9.1 months at the current sales rate.

The consensus was for a slight improvement over June, at 340,000 annualized.

June home sales were an annualized 330,000, while May was at 267,000.

New home sales increased in June 23.6%, after falling 36.7% in May.

This comes after yesterday's massive 27.2% drop in existing home sales.

Read the full Department of Commerce release here >

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Fury on August 25, 2010, 07:01:21 AM
I saw that yesterday Biden was again blaming the GOP for the economy. These fucking Democrats refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. 2006 = LONG TIME AGO. Will these cowards ever man up?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 07:06:53 AM
I saw that yesterday Biden was again blaming the GOP for the economy. These fucking Democrats refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. 2006 = LONG TIME AGO. Will these cowards ever man up?

Never.   Without blaming Bush they have nothing else.  They wasted 1 1/2 years on Health Care ignoring the economy and now we see the results.   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Lord of the Roidz on August 25, 2010, 07:17:36 AM
I was thinking of an interesting theory...although a bit farfetched. We all know how George Soros made billions betting against the British Pound years ago, and almost destroyed the Bank of England. There's been a lot of speculation that Soros played a huge role in getting Obama elected. What if his plan is to have Obama intentionally destroy the U.S. economy while he bets against the U.S. dollar and the Dow and anything else that he can profit from as a result of the downfall of America. Wouldn't Obama's policies be the perfect playbook for that?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 07:20:57 AM
I was thinking of an interesting theory...although a bit farfetched. We all know how George Soros made billions betting against the British Pound years ago, and almost destroyed the Bank of England. There's been a lot of speculation that Soros played a huge role in getting Obama elected. What if his plan is to have Obama intentionally destroy the U.S. economy while he bets against the U.S. dollar and the Dow and anything else that he can profit from as a result of the downfall of America. Wouldn't Obama's policies be the perfect playbook for that?

Not far fetched at all. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: MCWAY on August 25, 2010, 07:45:50 AM

You and that Satan-worshipping metal. It's a wonder you have any brain cells left.


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 07:51:00 AM
You and that Satan-worshipping metal. It's a wonder you have any brain cells left.


I'm blasting Rust in Peace in the office as we speak.


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: GigantorX on August 25, 2010, 08:17:29 AM
I'm blasting Rust in Peace in the office as we speak.


Great Fucking Album.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 08:26:26 AM
Great Fucking Album.

Yeah, its up there with Reign in Blood, Kill em All, Ride the Lightening, Among the Living   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: MCWAY on August 25, 2010, 10:02:01 AM

Start at 2:52,

This is music for the ones
With the funk in the trunk to blast the bass drum,
Some like the rock and heavy metal
Bang their heads while they worship the devil
They're going out on the crazy tip
I don't see how they can even dance to it
I think they need another taste
Of how good it can get when you drop that BASS!!"

Just for you, 333386!


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 10:20:20 AM

Start at 2:52,

This is music for the ones
With the funk in the trunk to blast the bass drum,
Some like the rock and heavy metal
Bang their heads while they worship the devil
They're going out on the crazy tip
I don't see how they can even dance to it
I think they need another taste
Of how good it can get when you drop that BASS!!"

Just for you, 333386!


I don't worship the devil, I just like the speed, energy, thrash, craziness, agression, of Slayer/Magedeth etc.  

My best lifts always come from this song.  This song gives me mega pounds on any lift.   I get a hard on for this song, especially Angel of Death.

and close to that.

Listen to this before you lift and its like a bomb went off.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 02:03:07 PM
WWWTTTTFFFF? ?  ? ? ?  ? ? ? ? ?  ? ? ? ? ?


________________________ ________________________ _____

Bennet Bombshell: Trillions in Debt, ‘Nothing to Show for It’

August 25, 2010 5:15 A.M. By Michael Sandoval
Tags: Colo.

________________________ ________________________ ____________

Sen. Michael Bennet’s recent appearance in Greeley, Colorado is sure to set political tongues wagging–Bennet is quoted as saying that though trillions of dollars of Federal debt has been incurred through spending since he was appointed to the Senate in January of 2009, “we have nothing to show for it”:

Michael Bennet, D-Colo,at a town hall meeting in Greeley last Saturday, Aug 21 said we had nothing to show for the debt incurred by the stimulus package and other expenditures calling the recession  the worst since the Great Depression. [...]

Regarding spending during his time in office he said, “We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet” and, “in my view we have nothing to show for it.” Speaking of the debt, he said our debt almost equals the economy. Regarding the current job situation, Bennet said the situation has been dire for over a decade saying, “We have created no net new jobs in the United States since 1998” which were the last two years of the Clinton administration. Pointing to a slide showing budget expenditures, he said that currently 65 percent of the budget was for social security, Medicaid and Medicare expenditures and that we could not grow our way out of debt.

Regarding the expiration of the Bush tax cuts Bennet would not commit to a position on whether to extend them simply saying, “I hope we look at it comprehensively.”

When asked about a recent report showing that government employees make more than their private sector counterparts said, “This is a time when we need to restrain wages in the public sector.” He said we need to make sure “our wages are not growing faster than inflation or faster than our growth.” Bennet also received a question about whether he would support card check and declined to give a firm answer saying, “I have not been a sponsor of the employee free choice act and the bill as written will not come to the floor to a vote.” He also said, “I believe strongly in the right of workers to collectively bargain and organize free from intimidation.” [emphasis added]

The Greeley Tribune’s quote is identical, adding a laundry list of things that Bennet feels have not been “invested in” adequately (the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act apparently notwithstanding):

“We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet,” he said. “In my view we have nothing to show for it. We haven’t invested in our roads, our bridges, our waste-water systems, our sewer systems. We haven’t even maintained the assets that our parents and grandparents built for us.”

Bennet’s votes, in support of President Obama’s spending plans–including ARRA, have resulted in billions of dollars spent per day, and trillions of dollars of new debt.

But even $10 billion in the most recent “edujobs” bailout may have no readily discernible impact on Colorado schools, despite the projections made by Bennet.

The Bennet campaign released a snippet of video it recorded from the speech, with Bennet addressing rural education:

A Denver Post fact check of the following ad from Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS concluded that the numbers add up to billions per day (whether or not the spending is a good idea):

Claim: “Since his appointment, Michael Bennet has voted to spend an average of $2.5 billion every day.”

Crossroads GPS television ad

Facts: Michael Bennet has, in fact, voted for legislation that if you add it all up and divide by the days he’s been in office, comes out to nearly $2.5 billion a day. [...]

Add all that up and it comes to $1.36 tillion.[sic] Divide by 568 (the days between Bennet’s Jan. 22, 2009 swearing-in and the Friday before the ad ran), and that’s $2.4 billion.

Vince Carroll of the Denver Post views Bennet’s campaign rhetoric as incompatible with his actual record:

Bennet, you may have noticed, is campaigning as a fiscal hawk. According to a recent report in this newspaper, the Colorado senator touts deficit reduction at town hall meetings as vital to the nation’s health.

To emphasize his seriousness, Bennet has sponsored the Deficit Reduction Act, which would cap the federal deficit at 3 percent of GDP after 2012 (when it would be capped at 4 percent), and supports a commission that will recommend a federal debt-reduction plan. Bennet also voted for “pay-as-you-go” rules that require offsetting revenue for any tax cuts or spending hikes.

If you’re partial to stern warnings about the growing national debt and grand schemes for shrinking it, Bennet is your man. But be sure to avert your eyes from his actual record.

Pay no attention to the contrast between Bennet’s green-eye-shade rhetoric and his drunken-sailor votes. Rest assured that 18 months of supporting one lavish spending and bailout bill after another provide no hint whatsoever of Bennet’s core fiscal philosophy.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 05:16:35 PM
Biden’s Fatal Conceit
Posted by Tad DeHaven

The White House’s misbegotten “Summer of Recovery” continued today with the release of another administration “analysis” that purportedly demonstrates the stimulus’s success in “transforming” the economy.

Vice President Joe Biden unveiled the report alongside Energy secretary Steven Chu and numerous businesses officials willing to serve as political props in return for Uncle Sam’s free candy. Biden bemoaned the nefarious “special interests” that were coddled by the previous administration. What does the vice president think those subsidized business officials attending his speech are called?

The money the White House has lavished on these privileged businesses isn’t free. The money comes from taxpayers—including businesses that do not enjoy the favor of the White House—who consequently have $100 billion (plus interest) less to spend or invest. Therefore, the fundamental question is: Are Joe Biden — an individual who has spent his entire career in government— and the Washington political class better at directing economic activity than the private sector?

Biden repeatedly stated that the “government plants the seed and the private sector makes it grow.” Because the government possesses no “seeds” that it didn’t first confiscate from the private sector, what the vice president is advocating is the redistribution of capital according to the dictates of the Beltway. This mindset exemplifies the arrogance of the political class, which at its core believes that free individuals are incapable of making the “right” decision without the guiding hand of the state.

Unfortunately for Joe Biden, the state’s hand guided the private sector into the economic downturn that the administration and its apologists would have us believe was a consequence of imaginary laissez faire policies. From the housing market planners at HUD to the money planners at the Federal Reserve, government interventions led to the economic turmoil that the perpetrating political class now claims it can fix.

Enough already.

The following are Cato resources that challenge the vice president’s breezy rhetoric on the ability of the federal government to direct economic growth:

•Energy Subsidies: The government has spent billions of dollars over the decades on dead-end schemes and dubious projects that have often had large cost overruns.
•Energy Regulations: Most federal intrusions into energy markets have been serious mistakes. They have destabilized markets, reduced domestic output, and decreased consumer welfare.
•Energy Interventions: The current arguments for energy intervention and energy subsidies fall short.
•High-Speed Rail: Policymakers are dumping billions of dollars into high-speed rail, even though foreign systems are money losers and carry only a small share of intercity passengers.
•Special-Interest Spending: Many federal programs deliver subsidies to particular groups of individuals and businesses while harming taxpayers and damaging the overall economy.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 05:57:43 PM
Predictable: Obama’s Cash For Clunkers…Hurting The Poor
________________________ ________________________

Everyone with a brain knew what would happen. Unfortunately, those controlling Washington, D.C. these days are of questionable intelligence.

What am I talking about? Obama’s ‘brilliant’ Cash-for-Clunkers program.

Now, let us not even debate whether the program was stimulative; I don’t think it was, the White House disagrees, and we both have evidence to prove otherwise. Let us leave that debate alone.

But one thing is for certain: the effect on the used car market today.  According to, used car prices have skyrocketed over the past year, the most since the value of the market was being monitored.  On average, a used car costs 10.3% (or about $1,800) more today than a year ago.


Well, couple points from Edmunds.  “So many economic factors affect automobile sales and prices. It’s believed that the program delayed purchases prior to the program and also pulled sales forward while in place,” said Joe Spina, a senior analyst for Edmunds. “The program also eliminated inventory of older vehicles that were traded and then scrapped.”

Well, duh.  The answer is simple:  supply and demand.  The Federal government, through this program, did increase short term sales of new cars.  Whether anyone bought cars that otherwise would not have is questionable, but at least is debatable.  What isn’t debatable is that all of those cars scrapped…are now off the market.  And thus, the market of used cars has obviously shrunk…thus decreasing supply and increasing demand.

So why should we care?  Well, if you are rich or well off, you probably don’t care, in your shiny new car.  But there is a large swath of the population that never buys a new car; it is estimated that almost half of the U.S. adult population only buys used cars.  And stating the obvious, most of these people are in the lower middle to poor classes.

So, even assuming that Obama’s program helped stimulate some car sales, it as certainly made it harder for the poor and lower middle class in this country to afford decent transportation.

Now, if our leaders knew simple economics, they could have easily predicted this damaging result.  Oh well.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 07:35:26 PM
Financial reform bill calls for diversity
LA Times ^ | 8/25/2010 | Julia Love and Jim Puzzanghera

Each of the 30 federal financial agencies and departments are required to establish an office to boost hiring of and contracting opportunities for minorities and women. Critics say it will be burdensome and unnecessary.

Reporting from Washington —

The recently enacted financial reform legislation tries in numerous ways to change how Wall Street companies and their federal regulators act, but a little-noticed provision aims for something potentially more difficult and controversial — altering how they look.

To promote diversity in the largely white male world, the law requires each of the 30 federal financial agencies and departments, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and all 12 Federal Reserve banks, to establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

Those offices will have vaguely defined powers to boost diversity at their agencies and the companies they regulate and to increase federal contracting opportunities for minority- and women-owned businesses. Banks and other financial firms that fail to make "a good-faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce" could lose their government contracts.

"This is a wake-up call for Wall Street: women, black Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, they all pay for your bailouts," said Michael Yaki, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "Firms must take steps to be more reflective of America."

The provision, championed by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), has been hailed as groundbreaking by minority and women's advocates. But banking industry leaders and some Republicans are concerned about potentially burdensome regulations and costly new oversight that they see as unnecessarily duplicating — and perhaps going well beyond — other federal diversity initiatives.

"This will destroy the financial industry," warned Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who was the Labor Department's chief economist under President George W. Bush.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 26, 2010, 06:29:46 AM
CEOs Speak Up
Posted 08/25/2010 06:45 PM ET

________________________ ________________________

Intel CEO Paul Otellini had harsh words for the Obama administration at a tech conference Monday night, but was anyone listening other than those in... View Enlarged Image

The Economy: Everyone keeps asking: When will America's businesses start expanding and hiring again? Funny thing is, no one listens when they tell us.

It may not have gotten a lot of press, but we found the comments of Intel CEO Paul Otellini this week at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum quite enlightening.

At a time when many CEOs are hunkered down and holding back, Otellini let go with both barrels, warning Americans, who have become used to being the center of the innovation universe, to lower their expectations.

Unless government policies change, and fast, he said, "the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here."

That's pretty tough stuff. But Otellini was just getting warmed up.

As CNET news reports, Otellini said that at one time "no country was more attractive for startup capital ... We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That is simply no longer the case."

The Intel chief was harsh on the massive spending by the White House and Congress — and on the failure to extend the Bush tax cuts, the takeover of the health care industry, and the threat of new taxes on businesses to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

"I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs," he said. "And I think they're flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working."

If America's ruling class keeps going down this road, "people will not invest in the United States. They'll invest elsewhere."

Intel, the world's leader in semiconductor technology with $35 billion in sales and nearly 80,000 employees, is a good example.

"I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the U.S.," he said. And 90% of that added cost, he said, is due to taxes and regulations that other countries don't have.

Otellini isn't alone in his frustration.

Earlier in the week, Illinois Tool Works CEO David Speer, whose company employs 60,000 worldwide, laid out his dilemma — and that of hundreds of other CEOs: "I could borrow $2 billion tomorrow for 3 1/2%," Speer said. "But what am I going to do with it?"

Good question. Money is cheaper and more plentiful than it's ever been, especially for big corporations. But they're all looking in their crystal balls and see little but gloom.

The anger's been building. In June, Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon Communications and head of the Business Roundtable, warned of a growing anti-business slant in both Congress and the White House. Tax hikes, regulations and constant policy shifts, he said, "harm our ability ... to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."

Businesses make investment decisions based on the outlook three, four, five, even 10 years down the road. Even with 3% money, they can't make projects pencil out. They're just too risky now.

Not hard to see why.

Over the next decade, businesses expect soaring government spending, $13 trillion added to our national debt, more regulations, higher taxes on individuals, investors and businesses, and, oh yes, new laws that impose strict new rules on entire industries — as has already happened to Wall Street, the auto industry and health care.

And that catalogue of concern doesn't even include Social Security and Medicare, which will cost the U.S. $106 trillion over the long term and will both be technically bankrupt by 2020.

Yet Washington doesn't appear alarmed. As Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday, "We're moving in the right direction."

That, in a nutshell, is what's scaring CEOs today. We have an ideologically driven party in power in Washington that can't seem to understand just how much of a mess they've made of our economy.

Until that changes, don't expect the economy to.

________________________ ________________________ ________

Summer of Recovery.   ::)  ::)  ::)

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 26, 2010, 07:48:18 AM
I wonder how many jobs this disgusting act will kill. 

Where is 240 now? 

________________________ ________________________ _______

________________________ ________________________ _______

4/95 GOA Fights Proposed EPA Lead Ammo Ban 
    "GOA was instrumental in generating Congressional opposition to the EPA's lead bullet ban."
    -- Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO)

AN OLD ADAGE states, "There is more than one way to skin a cat." Gun banning zealots have adopted a variation: "There is more than one way to gun control."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) understands this well. "Gun's don't kill people," he writes, "bullets kill people." The Senator argues that firearms can last many lifetimes but ammunition, on the other hand, is essentially disposable. If the supply can be curtailed, firearms will be reduced to mere decorations.

While Sen. Moynihan and his devotees may have been quelled somewhat by the November elections, many still remain in Washington that are all too willing to pick up the slack. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for one, appears eager to take up Moynihan's cause.

Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, the EPA is conducting comprehensive studies to determine the effect of lead on the environment. Included in these studies is a close look at the environmental impact of lead ammunition.

The EPA argues that as the lead bullet is dispersed from a firearm, it eventually finds its way into the ground, and therefore falls under its purview. This, along with the fact that the agency is predisposed to rule in favor of banning lead ammo, could spell bad news for gun owners. However, although it may come as a surprise to some at the EPA, a lot of people, including many Members of Congress, believe that the lead ban proposal goes well beyond the authority of the agency.
Congressional opposition

Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO) has been battling the EPA for years on this issue. "The EPA is trying to ban lead ammo, and no matter which way you look at it, that equals gun control. It's very clear that the law-abiding gun owner is being attacked on every side," Rep. Emerson told The Gun Owners.

In an effort to thwart the ban, GOA worked with Rep. Emerson to mobilize Congressional opposition. Emerson wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and GOA worked to get 52 Representatives to sign their names to it in the few days available for comment.

"We believe this is clearly an issue that falls outside the purview of the EPA," writes Emerson. "More importantly ... this proposal seriously infringes upon the right of American citizens afforded them in the Second Amendment. It is obvious to us that if lead ammunition is severely restricted or banned, then the EPA is effectively infringing on our right to keep and bear arms."

Emerson also challenged the agency's scientific data and its interpretation of TSCA. "The agency has done studies that they say prove lead is a major problem. Others have done studies which challenge the EPA's findings. But it's like the agency has a one-track mind: It wants to ban lead ammo," said Rep. Emerson.
GOA members make their voices heard

Congress is not alone in voicing opposition to the proposed ban. The EPA received so much E-mail from GOA members (in response to GOA FAX Alerts) that EPA Director of Chemical Management Division, John Melone, asked for a meeting with GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt (another example of how your calls, faxes and letters can influence Washington politics!)

In this meeting, Melone emphasized that the proposal was a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) and would not affect lead ammo because it is considered an existing use. However, when Pratt questioned the EPA's motives for singling out ammunition for its studies, Melone admitted that a "significant increase" in the volume of lead in the market could be considered a "new use," and could therefore fall under severe restrictions or prohibition.

EPA Administrator Carol Browner also was compelled to respond officially, thanks in large part to GOA members. "[The] EPA has not banned, nor does it plan to ban, the manufacture or use of lead ammunition," says Browner in a written statement.

If that is true, then several questions arise, such as why does the EPA classify lead shot ammo as one of "five priority classes" which are candidates for being regulated if in fact the agency has no intention of regulating the industry? And why is the agency conducting its studies under the heading of "health risks to children"? If nothing else, the EPA will have laid the groundwork for prohibiting lead ammo because of a supposed threat to children.

Lest anyone get the impression that this battle is merely an intellectual or scientific debate, it would be helpful to point out just a few cases where environmental extremism is taking away guns, closing down businesses and disrupting people's lives.
GOA helps reopen Texas shooting range

In Fort Bend, Texas, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC, a state version of the EPA) was a party in a suit filed against Bob Arwady, owner of a local shooting range.

The TNRCC claimed that lead bullets coming from the range were contaminating the environment by degrading the land and water in a drainage ditch behind the shooting barriers. Arwady "voluntarily" closed the range under the threat of a $25,000 fine for each round fired.

At that point GOA was made aware of the situation. GOA members in the area were contacted and encouraged to attend the TNRCC meeting on behalf of Arwady. So many people showed up at the hearing that a loudspeaker had to be placed outside the building because of the overflow.

A GOA alert also found its way into the hands of Dr. Peter Proctor, a board certified medical toxicologist. Subsequently, Dr. Proctor submitted a letter on behalf of Arwady, and volunteered to testify on his behalf.

In his research of over 5,000 scientific papers, Dr. Proctor "could find no reference to outdoor shooting ranges as significant sources of environmental lead." Dr. Proctor went on to say that the lead found in ammunition is entirely different than the lead associated with poisoning. In fact, many people have carried bullet fragments in their bodies for years without suffering any lead poisoning, Proctor noted.

Arwady also received assistance from Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) who wrote the TNRCC to voice his concerns about the state encroaching on individual property rights. Other legislators lending assistance to Arwady included pro-gun State Representatives John Culberson, Charles Howard and Mike Jackson, as well as State Senators Kenneth Armbrister and Drew Nixon.

The TNRCC, apparently a bit embarrassed over the incident, then denied being party to the suit brought against Arwady.

But Portia Poindexter, Fort Bend Assistant County Attorney, told the Houston Post that in fact, "the TNRCC is a necessary and indispensable party" to this case.

More recently, the TNRCC tried to change its tune altogether. It now claims the problem with the range is not an environmental issue, but with stray bullets hitting people. However, people being struck by stray bullets was not mentioned in the suit filed against Arwady.

Currently, the shooting range is preparing to re-open, which according to Arwady is due to GOA's involvement.

"When I asked GOA for help, they were quick to respond. GOA was the only organization that went to bat for me, generating pressure on the TNRCC to drop the case," said Arwady.
Gun manufacturers put on notice

Perhaps even more incredible is a situation that exists currently in California. Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5 requires a "warning before exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity."

Acting in the 'public interest," the Pacific Justice Center, a so-called watchdog civil rights organization, eagerly interpreted the code to mean gun manufacturers were required to put warning labels on their firearms.

When a gun is fired, said William Verrick of the Pacific Justice Center, "the shooter and those around him are exposed to dangerous levels of lead." Consequently, the group has notified several gun manufacturers in other states that they are in violation of the code. But here again, studies have been done that contradict the California statute.

The DO-IT Corp., located in Denver, Iowa, is a manufacturer of lead fishing lure molds. According to company president and GOA member Jerry Bond, DO-IT underwent an industrial hygiene inspection to determine the impact on employees who were exposed to lead virtually the entire workday.

The test, conducted by the Iowa Bureau of Labor, included placing a breathing apparatus near the employees' heads, which was worn the entire workday. The results of the test showed that lead was "not detectable" in the air breathed by the employees.

The DO-IT study tested employees who work full-time in a lead manufacturing plant, an enclosed environment with an obviously high concentration of lead material. If they were not harmed by lead exposure, it can hardly be argued that shooters or people around shooters are in any toxic danger due to exposure.

In spite of these clear abuses of authority at the state level, the EPA adamantly asserts that it will not abuse its authority. That may be so, but history gives us no expectation that federal agencies are less intrusive than state agencies. Here are some steps you can take to help protect our gun rights from environmental agencies:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 26, 2010, 07:50:48 AM
I wonder how many jobs this disgusting act will kill. 

Where is 240 now? 

________________________ ________________________ _______

________________________ ________________________ _______

4/95 GOA Fights Proposed EPA Lead Ammo Ban 
    "GOA was instrumental in generating Congressional opposition to the EPA's lead bullet ban."
    -- Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO)

AN OLD ADAGE states, "There is more than one way to skin a cat." Gun banning zealots have adopted a variation: "There is more than one way to gun control."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) understands this well. "Gun's don't kill people," he writes, "bullets kill people." The Senator argues that firearms can last many lifetimes but ammunition, on the other hand, is essentially disposable. If the supply can be curtailed, firearms will be reduced to mere decorations.

While Sen. Moynihan and his devotees may have been quelled somewhat by the November elections, many still remain in Washington that are all too willing to pick up the slack. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for one, appears eager to take up Moynihan's cause.

Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, the EPA is conducting comprehensive studies to determine the effect of lead on the environment. Included in these studies is a close look at the environmental impact of lead ammunition.

The EPA argues that as the lead bullet is dispersed from a firearm, it eventually finds its way into the ground, and therefore falls under its purview. This, along with the fact that the agency is predisposed to rule in favor of banning lead ammo, could spell bad news for gun owners. However, although it may come as a surprise to some at the EPA, a lot of people, including many Members of Congress, believe that the lead ban proposal goes well beyond the authority of the agency.
Congressional opposition

Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO) has been battling the EPA for years on this issue. "The EPA is trying to ban lead ammo, and no matter which way you look at it, that equals gun control. It's very clear that the law-abiding gun owner is being attacked on every side," Rep. Emerson told The Gun Owners.

In an effort to thwart the ban, GOA worked with Rep. Emerson to mobilize Congressional opposition. Emerson wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and GOA worked to get 52 Representatives to sign their names to it in the few days available for comment.

"We believe this is clearly an issue that falls outside the purview of the EPA," writes Emerson. "More importantly ... this proposal seriously infringes upon the right of American citizens afforded them in the Second Amendment. It is obvious to us that if lead ammunition is severely restricted or banned, then the EPA is effectively infringing on our right to keep and bear arms."

Emerson also challenged the agency's scientific data and its interpretation of TSCA. "The agency has done studies that they say prove lead is a major problem. Others have done studies which challenge the EPA's findings. But it's like the agency has a one-track mind: It wants to ban lead ammo," said Rep. Emerson.
GOA members make their voices heard

Congress is not alone in voicing opposition to the proposed ban. The EPA received so much E-mail from GOA members (in response to GOA FAX Alerts) that EPA Director of Chemical Management Division, John Melone, asked for a meeting with GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt (another example of how your calls, faxes and letters can influence Washington politics!)

In this meeting, Melone emphasized that the proposal was a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) and would not affect lead ammo because it is considered an existing use. However, when Pratt questioned the EPA's motives for singling out ammunition for its studies, Melone admitted that a "significant increase" in the volume of lead in the market could be considered a "new use," and could therefore fall under severe restrictions or prohibition.

EPA Administrator Carol Browner also was compelled to respond officially, thanks in large part to GOA members. "[The] EPA has not banned, nor does it plan to ban, the manufacture or use of lead ammunition," says Browner in a written statement.

If that is true, then several questions arise, such as why does the EPA classify lead shot ammo as one of "five priority classes" which are candidates for being regulated if in fact the agency has no intention of regulating the industry? And why is the agency conducting its studies under the heading of "health risks to children"? If nothing else, the EPA will have laid the groundwork for prohibiting lead ammo because of a supposed threat to children.

Lest anyone get the impression that this battle is merely an intellectual or scientific debate, it would be helpful to point out just a few cases where environmental extremism is taking away guns, closing down businesses and disrupting people's lives.
GOA helps reopen Texas shooting range

In Fort Bend, Texas, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC, a state version of the EPA) was a party in a suit filed against Bob Arwady, owner of a local shooting range.

The TNRCC claimed that lead bullets coming from the range were contaminating the environment by degrading the land and water in a drainage ditch behind the shooting barriers. Arwady "voluntarily" closed the range under the threat of a $25,000 fine for each round fired.

At that point GOA was made aware of the situation. GOA members in the area were contacted and encouraged to attend the TNRCC meeting on behalf of Arwady. So many people showed up at the hearing that a loudspeaker had to be placed outside the building because of the overflow.

A GOA alert also found its way into the hands of Dr. Peter Proctor, a board certified medical toxicologist. Subsequently, Dr. Proctor submitted a letter on behalf of Arwady, and volunteered to testify on his behalf.

In his research of over 5,000 scientific papers, Dr. Proctor "could find no reference to outdoor shooting ranges as significant sources of environmental lead." Dr. Proctor went on to say that the lead found in ammunition is entirely different than the lead associated with poisoning. In fact, many people have carried bullet fragments in their bodies for years without suffering any lead poisoning, Proctor noted.

Arwady also received assistance from Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) who wrote the TNRCC to voice his concerns about the state encroaching on individual property rights. Other legislators lending assistance to Arwady included pro-gun State Representatives John Culberson, Charles Howard and Mike Jackson, as well as State Senators Kenneth Armbrister and Drew Nixon.

The TNRCC, apparently a bit embarrassed over the incident, then denied being party to the suit brought against Arwady.

But Portia Poindexter, Fort Bend Assistant County Attorney, told the Houston Post that in fact, "the TNRCC is a necessary and indispensable party" to this case.

More recently, the TNRCC tried to change its tune altogether. It now claims the problem with the range is not an environmental issue, but with stray bullets hitting people. However, people being struck by stray bullets was not mentioned in the suit filed against Arwady.

Currently, the shooting range is preparing to re-open, which according to Arwady is due to GOA's involvement.

"When I asked GOA for help, they were quick to respond. GOA was the only organization that went to bat for me, generating pressure on the TNRCC to drop the case," said Arwady.
Gun manufacturers put on notice

Perhaps even more incredible is a situation that exists currently in California. Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5 requires a "warning before exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity."

Acting in the 'public interest," the Pacific Justice Center, a so-called watchdog civil rights organization, eagerly interpreted the code to mean gun manufacturers were required to put warning labels on their firearms.

When a gun is fired, said William Verrick of the Pacific Justice Center, "the shooter and those around him are exposed to dangerous levels of lead." Consequently, the group has notified several gun manufacturers in other states that they are in violation of the code. But here again, studies have been done that contradict the California statute.

The DO-IT Corp., located in Denver, Iowa, is a manufacturer of lead fishing lure molds. According to company president and GOA member Jerry Bond, DO-IT underwent an industrial hygiene inspection to determine the impact on employees who were exposed to lead virtually the entire workday.

The test, conducted by the Iowa Bureau of Labor, included placing a breathing apparatus near the employees' heads, which was worn the entire workday. The results of the test showed that lead was "not detectable" in the air breathed by the employees.

The DO-IT study tested employees who work full-time in a lead manufacturing plant, an enclosed environment with an obviously high concentration of lead material. If they were not harmed by lead exposure, it can hardly be argued that shooters or people around shooters are in any toxic danger due to exposure.

In spite of these clear abuses of authority at the state level, the EPA adamantly asserts that it will not abuse its authority. That may be so, but history gives us no expectation that federal agencies are less intrusive than state agencies. Here are some steps you can take to help protect our gun rights from environmental agencies:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 26, 2010, 09:21:05 AM
HealthMarkets has 70 layoffs, expects 180 more
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2010

By Sandra Baker

________________________ ________________________ ___________________

HealthMarkets, the North Richland Hills-based seller of health insurance, laid off 70 employees this month and expects to trim 180 more positions by the end of the first quarter of 2011, according to a recent federal filing.

In the Securities and Exchange Commission filing, HealthMarkets blamed the layoffs on "dropping enrollment levels experienced by the company's insurance subsidiaries," along with national healthcare reform and "related legislative developments."

HealthMarkets provides insurance plans to the self-employed, individuals and small businesses.

The filing did not disclose where the Aug. 10 layoffs occurred, and the company declined to comment further.

The filing "contains all the relevant information regarding the recent change to our work force," spokeswoman Donna Ledbetter said.

The cuts will cost the company $7.5 million to $10 million in severance and other employee-related costs, according to the filing. It is also losing $100,000 by terminating leases on office space.

In February, HealthMarkets laid off 130 employees, or 10 percent of its work force, at its headquarters at 9151 Boulevard 26. At that time, the company said it had 960 employees there. In November 2008, it cut about 220 employees in Texas, Oklahoma and Connecticut.

The cuts planned for this year and next could occur through attrition, the filing said. Assuming the cuts take place, HealthMarkets will have eliminated 600 positions by early next year.

HealthMarkets has been moving from underwriting health insurance policies to also marketing policies underwritten by other insurers, including United HealthCare and Aetna. This year, it created a subsidiary, Insphere Insurance Solutions, to sell insurance products through independent agents.

According to SEC filings, HealthMarkets earned $11.2 million in the year's first six months, about the same as a year earlier.

In June, HealthMarkets said in a separate SEC filing that it would close subsidiary Insphere Securities, a registered investment adviser, by the end of September. It bought the company in April. Insphere Securities has sales offices in Utah, Nevada and Arizona.

HealthMarkets was acquired by private equity investors in 2006. It underwrites insurance issued through its subsidiaries Chesapeake Life Insurance, Mega Life and Health Insurance Co., and Mid-West National Life Insurance Co. of Tennessee.

Sandra Baker, 817-390-7727

Looking for comments?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 26, 2010, 11:59:25 AM
The Corner
How Vindictive Is This Administration?
August 26, 2010 9:54 A.M. By Daniel Foster

________________________ ________________________ _____

I’m not usually the conspiratorial type, but watch Gov. Chris Christie explain how the Obama administration disqualified the state of New Jersey from hundreds of millions in education funds because some clerk in Trenton turned in the wrong excel spreadsheet:
Democrats in Washington have already shown a willingness to withhold federal education dollars from states that don’t follow their preferred tactic for navigating the recession: giving teachers raises like it’s the Gay ’90s. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is more punishment for a state that committed the crime of balancing its budget.

But the Obama administration has made a serious mistake here: they’ve given Chris Christie an opening, a reason to take them on directly. And how does the old saying go? Never go up against a Sicilian, when political credibility is on the line?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: BM OUT on August 26, 2010, 12:01:59 PM
If he got in in 2012 he would DESTROY Imam Obama.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 26, 2010, 12:05:28 PM
If he got in in 2012 he would DESTROY Imam Obama.

Definately.  I like Christie alot.     

But then again, I would vote for the BTK or Zodiac Killer over Imam Obama in 2012, piss be upon him.   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 05:20:39 AM
Obamacare’s Bureaucracy Nightmare
FrontPage ^ | August 30, 2010 | Tait Trussell

________________________ ________________________ ___

We now see how the regulatory bureaucracy [1] works—or probably can’t work– and how it “may well push us into the single-payer health care system,” Grace-Marie Turner astutely pointed out Aug. 26 in the Detroit News. Turner is president of the Galen Institute, a research organization focusing on health policy. Under a single-payer system, the federal government would be the paymaster making the medical decisions.

Three influential House Democrats are now pushing [2] for a public option (single-payer). reported July 22. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif), chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, is leading the movement. The “public option offers lower cost competition to private insurance companies,” added Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif ) co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Il), is the third Member.

Even before a single-payer system could evolve, ObamaCare has the potential to topple from bureaucratic overload. Uncountable unelected and untested bureaucrats will be making life-affecting decisions. At this stage, not even experts who have pored over the 2,000-plus-word law know how many bureaucracies are hidden away in the ObamaCare statute. According to Politico no one can figure [3] out exactly how many new agencies ObamaCare will spawn once it comes into full effect. Congress authorized a “self-perpetuating bureaucracy, one that can expand on its own and make determinations far outside of the boundaries Democrats promised during the ObamaCare debate.”  

A Congressional Research Service Report, “New Entities Created Pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act (PPACA) is a dramatic eye-opener. Curtis W. Copeland earnestly attempted to compile [4] and briefly explain the pieces and parts of the regulatory jungle in a 40-page report in July. In his summary section, author Copeland, described as a specialist in American National Government, writes:

Some of these new entities are offices within existing cabinet departments and agencies, and are assigned certain administrative or representational duties related to the legislation. Other entities are new boards and commissions with particular planning and reporting responsibilities. Still others are advisory bodies that were created to study particular issues, offer recommendations, or both. Although PPACA describes some of these new organizations and advisory bodies in detail, in many cases it is impossible to know how much influence they would ultimately have over the implementation of the legislation.

This report describes dozens of governmental organizations or advisory bodies that are mentioned in PPACA but does not include other types of entities…(e.g. various demonstration projects, grants, trust funds, programs, systems, formulas, guidelines, risk pools, websites, ratings areas, model agreements, or protocols)….The precise number of new entities that will ultimately be created…is unknowable….PPACA significantly increased the appointment responsibilities of the Controller General of the United States, and it is unclear how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will be able to independently audit entities whose members are appointed by the head of GAO.

Seemingly always conscious of racial matters, an example of the minority health provision that the CRS analysis mentions “requires the heads of six separate agencies within Health and Human Services to each establish their own offices of minority health.”

This astonishingly frank description of the law’s provisions reminds one of Shakespeare’s Act 3, Scene 4 when Lady Macbeth says “You have displaced the mirth…with most admired disorder.” A law perhaps admired by some in Congress, but certainly in disorder.

The Center for Health Transformation (CHT), founded by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, estimated 159 new [5] offices, agencies, and programs created by the health law, Politico reported Aug. 3. “Even in the few cases in which the PPACA set explicit creation dates for organizations, the consequences for missing these deadlines remain unknown.” The law’s provisions “vary dramatically in specificity.” It states a lot about some provisions, but a little about many other provisions. “Some have been authorized without any instructions on who is to appoint whom, when that might happen and who will pay.”

Gingrich’s CHT lists the sections of the law and page numbers for the 159 programs it finds in the ObamaCare law as well as the department or agency which would seem to logically oversee the specific provisions and programs. Matters to be regulated range from grants for women with postpartum [6] depression, to grants for long-term care ombudsmen, whose duties are vague. Five separate major programs deal with women’s health. Section 3509 (a), for instance, says PPACA “transfers all functions and authorities of the existing Office of Women’s Health of the Public Health Service. Located within the Office of he Secretary of HHS; no creation date specified…PPACA authorizes such sums as may be necessary for FY 2010 through FY 2014. Composition of the office not specified; headed by a director, who is appointed by and reports to the director of CDCP [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].” No date specified for appointment of director.

For the Office of Minority Health, the CRS analysis says: “PPACA transfers existing office within the Office of Public Health and Science of the Office of Secretary. No transfer day specified. Composition of the office not specified. Office headed by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health, who shall report directly to the Secretary (of HHS). Office is to ‘retain and strengthen authorities…for the purpose of improving minority health and the quality of health care minorities receive and eliminating racial and ethnic disparities.’ Submit a report to ‘appropriate committees of Congress by 03/23/11 (and biennially) summarizing agency activities.’”

Section 3012 (a), as described briefly by the CRS, is called “Entities to be established by the President. The President shall establish…Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality. No location or creation date specified….Composed of senior level representatives from HHS, CMS, NIH, CDCP, FDA, HRSA, AHRQ, SAMHSA, and ACF, 13 other specified departments and agencies, and any other agencies selected by the President…” (This large assemblage of “worker bees” is to report to Congress by 12/31/10 and annually thereafter.)

Copeland notes that in a number of cases, no mention is stated regarding the management, when a provision will cease to exist and the amount and timing of appropriations. These “may have significant implications for…agency discretion in the implementation of PPACA.” Elsewhere, he says, in other cases, PPACA provides a general description of the new organization, but permits substantial discretion regarding where the new entities are to be positioned…..Much more commonly, however, PPCAC does not indicate in either specific or general terms where the newly created entities are to be established…..Where specific duties are not delineated…those responsible for leading these organizations (and those responsible for appointing those leaders) appear to have substantial latitude in determining how the organizations will operate, and for what purposes.” In other words, faceless bureaucratic rule will be the order of the day.

Single-payer health care is financing the delivery of universal health care to an entire population through a single insurance pool, typically government regulated, according to [7]. The disadvantages [8] of a single payer health system are the loss of choice, and inevitably increased expenses that are typical with government programs. We already have a single-payer system with Medicare, which certainly doesn’t cover everything, including routine dental care, dentures, hearing aids and exams for fitting hearing aids, cosmetic surgery, and acupuncture, for example. But we will spend about $375 billion [9] for it this year. In a National Bureau of Economic Research Study, authors comparing the U.S. and Canadian [10] Health Systems said that “while it is commonly supposed that a single-payer, publicly-funded system (as Canada has) would deliver better health outcomes …than a multi-payer system with a private component, their study does not support this view. Pap smears (for women) and PSA screenings (for men) were more frequent in the U. S. And the rate of cancer detection was higher in the U.S., for example. As George Will wrote in his July 11 column, “The new health care legislation is a step toward elimination, by slow strangulation, of private health insurance and establishment of government as the ‘single payer.’” [11]

A key bureaucrat in ObamaCare is Dr. Donald Berwick, who heads the federal Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and says he loves the single-payer [12] system, as reported July 27 by CNS and others. Berwick was quoted as saying, like a single-minded bureaucrat, “I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That’s for leaders (translation: know-it-all bureaucrats) to do.”

Before his election, Obama said. “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. But as we all know, we might not get there immediately.” What makes us think he has changed his mind? And remember what Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a fervent proponent of the public option, said in the health-care debate last December “What we are buying here” is a “starter home.” He said, “At some point in the near future [13] we’re going to have some sort of public option.”

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: GigantorX on August 30, 2010, 07:06:46 AM (

Another economic manufacturing report that doesn't look so hot.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 07:09:34 AM (

Another economic manufacturing report that doesn't look so hot.

That site is one of my favorites. 

Gigantor - did you see the interview I postd with the CEO from Intel on the costs to build a factory in Cali?     

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 07:17:13 AM
With Used-Car Prices Up 10 Percent Over 2009, Buyers Need Shopping Discipline

________________________ ________________________ _____

Car buyers on average paid $1,800 more for a used vehicle in July than they paid a year ago at this time, according to data. That's a 10.3 percent increase, bringing the average cost of a 3-year-old vehicle to $19,248. The price of a Cadillac Escalade spiked nearly 36 percent. "A lack of confidence in the economy is driving more people to used cars, putting upward pricing pressure on a limited supply of vehicles," said Joe Spina, a senior analyst for Edmunds.

There's a tricky aspect to this analysis, because last summer was marked by a used-car buying frenzy spawned by the Cash for Clunkers program. Spina said the effects of that program are hard to isolate precisely. "So many economic factors affect automobile sales and prices. It's believed that the program delayed purchases prior to the program and also pulled sales forward while in place," he said. "The program also eliminated inventory of older vehicles that were traded and then scrapped." After the jump, take a look at the vehicles whose prices moved the most this July. The model years have been averaged. You can also get some advice on how to proceed in a (relatively) pricey used-car market.

Spina said that at this time last year, a troubled economy had consumers buying less- expensive fuel-efficient vehicles and trading in "gas guzzlers" through Cash for Clunkers (more formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System). "Now, those who need trucks and large SUVs are buying them and in many cases are turning to used vehicles as a way to save money," he said. "Prices are high because this demand comes at a time when inventory is low as a result of the current shortage of lease returns and trade-ins for vehicles of this type." And, he said, while prices are indeed very high now, last year's prices were low, making the gains even more dramatic.

The point for used-car consumers is that it's more important than ever to do your homework before shopping, said Philip Reed, Edmunds' senior consumer advice editor. "For example, decide ahead of time how much you are willing to spend and keep yourself to that limit."

More guidance on how to make a smart used-car buy can be found in "10 Steps to Buying a Used Car."

________________________ ________________________ __

Another stupid program that failed and cost billions for no reason at all. 

It helped spike used car costs when said prices should be coming down.  Who did it harm?  Those in the middle and lower class. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 07:31:47 AM
Obama Blows Off 3 Billion Wannabe Billionaires: William Pesek
By William Pesek - Aug 29, 2010 3:00 PM ET
Bloomberg Opinion

________________________ ________________________ _________

For a guy who talked big about re- engaging Asia, Barack Obama has a funny way of showing it.

Nobody doubts the U.S. president’s team is supremely busy juggling oil spills, Muslim cultural centers, convincing ignoramuses he has a birth certificate and averting recession. Yet there’s no excuse for blowing off last week’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations trade meeting in Vietnam.

It was a dreadful decision and its significance didn’t escape members of the fourth-biggest market for U.S. goods. This is no time for the U.S. to be taking the most dynamic economies for granted. Not with China becoming an ever-bigger player both in Asia and globally.

On any list of George W. Bush’s failings, ignoring Asia deserves a prominent mention. When his administration bothered with Asia, it was all terrorism all the time. There was little talk about potential, cooperation or partnership. Bush just wanted to know how many bad guys governments were rounding up.

He tried to make amends in the twilight of his presidency, naming a U.S. ambassador to Asean in 2008. Recently, Obama tapped that official, Scot Marciel, to be U.S. ambassador to Indonesia. Obama hasn’t bothered to name a new Asean envoy.

The U.S. missed a timely opportunity last week to confer with the economic ministers of Asean’s 10 members, along with counterparts from Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Russia.

Blowing Off Asia

At a time of global crisis, one the U.S. caused, does Obama really want to be sending a message of indifference to Asia? Coming a week after the announcement that China’s economy has surpassed Japan’s, the U.S.’s closest Asian ally, you would think the White House would be stepping up a charm offensive. Instead, it risks turning off the region.

“Confidence in the United States and its ability to lead and follow through on commitments is based on its economic well- being, and that status is being questioned by friends and competitors alike in Asia,” Ernest Bower, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, wrote in a recent report.

China’s rapid growth is slowly, but surely, chipping away at the U.S.’s importance. Granted, at almost three times China’s economy, the U.S. will long be a vital customer for Asia’s goods. Officials here also know that depending on growth in a developing economy is risky.

U.S. Brand

Yet neglecting future trade ties with the liveliest economies is just plain dumb. Asia is churning out a fast- growing number of billionaires and is home to 3 billion consumers who aspire to join them. The U.S. wants to be in on that process.

Obama must not forget just how much the 2008 meltdown damaged the U.S. brand. During Asia’s 1990s crisis, U.S. officials preached the free-market gospel. They told leaders to raise interest rates to support currencies, slash spending and debt, scrap subsidies and avoid bailing out industries. When the U.S. faced a crisis, it did exactly the opposite.

There’s also considerable grumbling over the dollar. True or not, the theory that the U.S. is devaluing to help exporters is making the rounds. That perception is a problem if you want China to let its currency strengthen. It doesn’t play well in Japan, where panic is rising over the strong yen.

Nor can the U.S. complain about corruption in Asia. Incestuous ties between Washington and Wall Street helped cause the U.S. crisis. Conflicts of interest between regulators and oil companies led to BP Plc’s devastating Gulf of Mexico leak. The U.S. has little moral high ground on dodgy dealings.

Corruption’s Cost

That’s a shame, considering the magnitude of Asia’s corruption fight. In Indonesia, for example, officials face an uphill battle to weed out graft and allow more of the nation’s people to benefit from 6 percent growth.

In the Philippines, the honeymoon enjoyed by Benigno Aquino, since becoming president in June, ended last week in gunfire. Eight Hong Kong tourists being held hostage in Manila died in a botched rescue attempt. The tragedy was emblematic of what plagues the nation’s economy.

The gunman was a former police inspector who was dismissed on allegations of extortion. The standoff’s surreal finale suggested a breakdown in the nation’s security apparatus, ineptness at many levels and weak diplomacy. Corruption is the common link in all these shortcomings.

Lost Opportunity

Obama got off to a good start, becoming the first U.S. leader to meet with Asean in November. Vietnam was the perfect opportunity to go further -- to discuss views on credit markets, North Korea’s provocations, China’s currency, Australia’s election, Russia’s growth prospects, and Japanese deflation.

This last topic is a growing concern. Not only have consumer prices fallen for 17 consecutive months, but Japan now has a leadership battle on its hands. Prime Minister Naoto Kan faces a challenge to remain head of the ruling party by veteran kingmaker Ichiro Ozawa. It’s the last thing Japan needs: its sixth prime minister in three years.

Obama’s team could have learned about all of this, and much more, if it had only shown up in Asia. It should do so as soon as possible.

(William Pesek is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: William Pesek in Tokyo at

________________________ ________________

He is too busying partying, golfing, drinking, and figring out how to get an umbrella threw a gate. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 07:39:27 AM
August 11, 2010
The Conspiracy Against Economic Growth
By Louis Woodhill

________________________ _____________________

On July 11, Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of President Obama's Debt and Deficit Commission, made the following statement in a speech to the National Governors' Association annual meeting in Boston:

"We can't grow our way out of this. We could have decades of double-digit growth and not grow our way out of this enormous debt problem."

Mr. Bowles' assertion was widely reported. If you Google it, you get 2430 hits. The mainstream media treated it as a statement of the obvious, something that no reasonable person could disagree with. No one in the elite media said, "This is utter nonsense. Mr. Bowles should resign from the Debt Commission and devote his time to the study of arithmetic"-although this is, in fact, the logical response to Bowles' preposterous assertion.

Mr. Bowles' statement was almost certainly a reaction to the "Long Term Budget Outlook" (LTBO) released by the CBO on June 30. In the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" (AFS) case (which they represented as being more realistic than their "Extended Baseline Scenario"), Federal debt as a percent of GDP rises from 62% in 2010 to 100% by 2023, and then to 146% in 2030. At the end of the projection period, in 2084, the national debt reaches 947% of GDP, with a budget deficit equal to 61.5% of GDP in that year alone. As the CBO rightly points out, such a budgetary path would be completely untenable.

Now, the minimum growth trajectory that would fit "...decades of double digit growth..." would be 10.0% economic growth for 20 years. If you plug these assumptions into the CBO's AFS case (keeping everything else the same), the faster growth would eliminate the budget deficit by the end of 2014 and pay off the entire national debt by the end of 2020. In fiscal year 2030, the Federal government would run a budget surplus of $16.6 trillion (in 2010 dollars), or 16.9% of that year's GDP. In fact, the interest on the government's accumulated surplus ($69.4 trillion in 2010 dollars, or 475% of 2010 GDP) would pay for more than 60% of government spending that year.

Now, why would a co-chairman of Obama's Debt Commission make such an absurd assertion, and why would no one in the elite media challenge it? I believe that it is because our political and media elites want a bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive government, and they want a Value Added Tax (VAT) to pay for it. Their strategy is to de-legitimize other alternatives-particularly faster economic growth-to the point where they cannot even be discussed.  

An example of this "conspiracy against growth" is the CBO's LTBO itself. The CBO assumes that economic growth over the next 74 years will average 2.16%. While the CBO considers the impact of various assumptions on the trajectory of the national debt, it does not consider (or even mention) the possibility of higher growth. This is particularly striking because over the 74-year period from 1935 to 2009, America's real annual economic growth averaged 3.73%.

The difference between 2.16% growth and 3.73% growth is enormous. If you increase the growth rate in the CBO's AFS case to 3.73% (again, holding everything else constant), instead of Federal debt rising steadily from 62% of GDP in 2010 to 87% in 2020, 146% in 2030, and 947% in 2084, the debt would peak at 67% of GDP in 2012 and then begin declining. Without any spending cuts and tax increases, it would fall to 60% in 2020 and 52% in 2030. By 2052, the entire national debt would be paid off.

In addition to the CBO and the mainstream media, the conspiracy against growth includes the Social Security Trustees. In their just-released "2010 Annual Report", the Social Security Trustees assume an economic growth rate of 2.25% over the next 74 years. While they do present a "Low Cost Case" that features (among other things), a real growth rate of 2.93%, they make no mention of this case in their "Conclusions". The solutions discussed are confined to tax increases and benefit cuts. Later in their report, the Trustees present "sensitivity analyses" of their projections (of doom) against eight different variables, but none of these is the one variable that would have the most impact-the rate of economic growth.

The Medicare Trustees' 2010 Annual Report uses the same economic assumptions as the Social Security report. The 38-page "Overview" of the Medicare report makes no mention of the tremendous impact that higher economic growth would have on our nation's ability to afford our Medicare program.

The Republicans running for Congress this year must expose and denounce the conspiracy against economic success. Prosperity is possible, but not if our economy grows at 2.25% per year or less. A "Prosperity Plan" comprising stabilizing the dollar, revoking the Federal Reserve's authority to pay interest on bank reserves, and tax reductions on work, savings, and investment would yield much higher rates of growth than those assumed in the gloomy CBO LTBO.

The Bush tax cuts must be made permanent for everyone. Beyond that, the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and the death tax should be repealed. These tax changes would reduce the Federal government's "tax take" from the LTBO AFS case level of 19.3% of GDP to perhaps 17.0% of GDP. The reduction in tax take would be less than predicted by static analysis, because the tax take rises significantly during economic booms. It is reasonable to expect that the Prosperity Plan would yield an economic growth rate averaging at least the 3.73% sustained by the U.S. from 1935 to 2009.

Plugging the revised tax and growth assumptions into the CBO's LTBO model (with no spending cuts), we see that, at first, the tax cuts cause the Federal debt to be higher in the Prosperity Plan (PP) case than in the AFS case. In 2012, the debt is 72% of GDP in the PP case against 69% in the AFS case. However, after that, the much higher rate of PP economic growth asserts itself.

By 2016, the debt levels in the two cases are the same, at 75% of GDP. In 2020, the PP case yields a debt-to-GDP ratio of 81%, vs. the AFS case's 87%. The PP case's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at 98% in 2034, while the AFS case debt ratio (which is 177% of GDP at that point) just keeps growing. The PP case brings the budget into balance in 2061, at which point the AFS case is running a budget deficit equal to an absurd 35.3% of GDP. The PP case pays off the entire national debt by 2075.

America does not need higher taxes, it needs more economic growth. Prosperity is possible, but the Republicans must make a decisive, public break from the conspiracy against economic growth.

Louis Woodhill (, an engineer and software entrepreneur, is on the Leadership Council of the Club for Growth.

________________________ _______________________

Like we have said Obama and the far left hate this nation and are trying to collapse the system. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Fury on August 30, 2010, 07:49:09 AM
Destroy then rebuild. That's what the far-left and their cronies in the MSM are aiming for.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 08:01:41 AM
Landrieu to White House: Lift drilling moratorium ASAP
By Bridget Johnson - 08/29/10 11:25 AM ET

________________________ ________________________ __
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) implored the Obama administration Sunday to lift the offshore drilling moratorium, saying it was excessive and hurting Gulf Coast residents.

Landrieu said that a pause in operations, imposed in the wake of the BP oil spill, was necessary but that the moratorium needed to be lifted.

"A 6-month moratorium has put a blanket of fear and anxiety and it must be lifted as soon as possible," Landrieu said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The senator said she was not fighting for "big oil," but for small businesses affected by the ban.

"We need to get back to work to build this region and we intend to do so," she said.

________________________ ______________________

Obama - destroying the nation any and all ways he can fathom. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 08:10:22 AM
Jindal calls for greater 'urgency' from Obama on ending drilling moratorium
By Sean J. Miller - 08/29/10 08:31 PM ET
NEW ORLEANS – Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) on Sunday blasted President Obama’s failure to revisit his ban on offshore oil drilling. 

“We don’t think the fact that they’re not doing their jobs in D.C. should cost thousands of Louisianans our jobs,” Jindal told reporters shortly after the president spoke at Xavier University in New Orleans.   

Obama’s speech on the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina addressed the rebuilding of New Orleans and his commitment to clean up the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but did not mention his administration’s decision to halt deepwater offshore exploration until Nov. 30.

The White House is reportedly considering an early end to the ban but Jindal wants to see a “greater sense of urgency” from the president. “The experts all agree, we can end this moratorium before six months," he said. "Let’s put our people back to work.”

Jindal said he was going to meet on Monday with former Florida Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who co-chairs the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Commission, to make that point. The first-term governor said he’s fine with increased inspections of the rigs off Louisiana's coast; “what we’re saying is, a one-size-fits-all moratorium doesn’t make sense.”

The Republican said the decision to ban further exploration in the wake of the explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig resulted from “confusion.”

“I don’t think they understood how the energy industry worked – I think they really thought that the rigs could simply flip a switch,” he said. “In the beginning, the administration suggested people file BP claims with unemployment claims. We made it clear that people want to go back to work.”

Jindal said he’s been in “constant contact” with the White House about the moratorium, as well as the ongoing hurricane recovery effort and the spill cleanup operation.

“I hope [they] now have a better understanding of what’s at stake, the jobs that are at stake,” he said. “Until they came down here, they didn’t understand the human impact in terms of the small businesses and jobs.”

The administration spent the week leading up to his trip to New Orleans touting the number of people displaced by the storm who have returned to the city since 2008, and the strides the schools have made.

But in his speech, Obama admitted more work needed to be done, and made a renewed commitment to helping the area recover from the disasters.

 “I wanted to come here and tell the people of this city directly: my administration is going to stand with you – and fight alongside you – until the job is done,” he said.

________________________ ________________________ _________

240 cant spin this crap anymore.  Both parties realize Obama is INTENTIONALLY destroying the nation. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 08:14:53 AM
Energy Department watchdog notes woes with managing stimulus dollars
By Darren Goode - 08/15/10 10:30 PM ET

________________________ ________________________ _____________________

The Energy Department’s internal watchdog has mixed reviews of the department’s distribution and use of economic stimulus dollars, even as the White House touts the massive spending bill in the run-up to midterms.

President Obama’s planned tour Monday of ZBB Energy Corp.’s facilities in Menomonee Falls, Wis., is the latest in a series of stops this election season to highlight what the administration calls the effectiveness of federal clean energy stimulus investments.

But recent reports by DOE’s Inspector General (IG) have cited problems with the department’s distribution of the stimulus dollars and recipients’ use of them.

The IG reported Wednesday that DOE has given out about $2.7 billion of $3.2 billion in energy and conservation block grants provided in last year’s stimulus. But grant recipients had used only 8.4 percent of the total after more than a year.

Spending delays were “prevalent and widespread throughout the Program,” particularly by those receiving the largest grants of more than $2 million each, the report found.

DOE officials have pointed out that “spending rates have significantly increased since March 2010,” according to the IG report, which also noted that recipient spending “was not a leading indicator” of the program’s overall performance.

But the IG still concluded that rapid spending of the funds “was hampered by numerous administrative and regulatory challenges associated with implementing a new program” at the federal, state and local levels.

An Aug. 4 IG report indicated “a number of issues” needing to be addressed before the remaining $3.4 billion of $32.7 billion in contracts and grants for science, energy and environmental programs can be doled out.

As of July 9, the department had obligated 90 percent of that $32.7 billion. But less than half intended for a couple of major projects had been spent, and none of the programs covered under the stimulus plan had all funding obligated.

“We are particularly concerned that delays in the award process for two major Fossil Energy projects could result in the expiration of funds before all awards are made,” the report stated.

The day after the IG delivered its report to senior DOE officials, the department announced $1 billion in stimulus money was being awarded to the revised version of the long-planned and troubled “FutureGen” project, a prototype coal-fired power plant that would trap and store almost all of its carbon dioxide emissions.

But Mattoon, Ill., the town that was to house the FutureGen project, subsequently rejected the project revisions after seeing its role change and shrink.

DOE spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said the department has “now made selections for all of our program areas and are highly confident we will meet the September 30 deadline of obligating Recovery Act funds.” She adds that the energy efficiency and conservation block grant program “has seen significant growth this summer,” with more than 4,000 projects now under way.

“And as project deployment continues to accelerate, the rate of payments to local communities has also increased, including a doubling of total payments between the first and second quarter of 2010,” Mueller said.

Early challenges with the block grant program — such as environmental reviews and technical staff support — “have now largely been addressed and grantees are moving forward with their projects,” she said.

Separately, while the administration overall has doled out the majority of its stimulus funds — including a $14.7 million tax credit to ZBB Energy Corp. — it still faces backlash from the renewable energy industry over the diversion of more than half of loan guarantees set aside for the industry in the stimulus.

Lawmakers — with the backing of the White House — have diverted for other priorities $3.5 billion of the $6 billion in DOE loan guarantees authorized in the stimulus.

Democratic congressional leaders and the Energy Department are promising to replenish the loan guarantees so projects in the pipeline aren’t affected.

“The Department recognizes the urgent need to avoid devastating teacher layoffs and to avert cuts in medical and social services for our most vulnerable citizens,” an Energy Department spokeswoman said in a statement. “At the same time, we recognize the need for continued investments in clean energy. In the short term, we have the resources to support a broad portfolio of clean energy technologies — even as we work with Congress and the White House to secure additional funding to invest in a clean energy economy."

Renewable energy groups are still somewhat skeptical given that it has been a year already since an initial $2 billion was diverted.

“They said, ‘OK, guys, don’t worry we will replenish it. We have plenty of time to get the funding back in there,’” said Monique Hanis, spokeswoman for the Solar Energy Industries Association. “I think that’s why we have been very vocal this time. Now there is definite concern.”

The $6 billion in lending authority would actually affect the development of 10 times that — roughly $60 billion — worth of projects, renewable energy industry groups argue.


________________________ ________________

Stim Bill = FAIL. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 09:07:01 AM
Obama’s Old Deal
Why the 44th president is no FDR—and the economy is still in the doldrums.

by Michael HirshAugust 29, 2010

________________________ ________________________ ___________________

Barack Obama was “incredulous” at what he was hearing, said one of his top economic advisers. The president had spent his first year in office overseeing the biggest government bailout of the financial industry in American history. Together with Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, he had kept Wall Street afloat on a trillion-dollar tide of taxpayer money. But the banks were barely lending, and the economy was still mired in high unemployment. And now, in December 2009, the holiday news had started to filter out of the canyons of lower Manhattan: Wall Street’s year-end bonuses would actually be larger in 2009 than they had been in 2007, the year prior to the catastrophe. “Wait, let me get this straight,” Obama said at a White House meeting that December. “These guys are reserving record bonuses because they’re profitable, and they’re profitable only because we rescued them.” It was as if nothing had changed. Even after a Depression-size crash, the banks were not altering their behavior. The president was being perceived, more and more, as a man on the wrong side of an incendiary issue.

And so, prodded forward by Vice President Joe Biden—the product of a working-class upbringing in Scranton, Pa.—the president began to consider getting tougher on Wall Street. “We kept revisiting it,” said the economic adviser (who recounted details of the meetings only on condition of anonymity). One big proposal the White House hadn’t adopted was Paul Volcker’s idea of barring commercial banks from indulging in heavy risk taking and “proprietary” trading. In Volcker’s view, America’s major banks, which enjoy federal guarantees on their deposits, had to stop putting taxpayer money at risk by acting like hedge funds. This had become a grand passion for Volcker, a living legend renowned for crushing inflation 30 years before as Fed chairman. He had long been skeptical of financial deregulation. Beyond the ATM, Volcker asked, what new banking products had really added to economic growth? Exhibit one for this argument was derivatives, trillions of dollars in “side bets” placed by Wall Street traders. “I wish somebody would give me some shred of neutral evidence about the relationship between financial innovation recently and the growth of the economy,” he barked at one conference.

Yet for most of that first year, Obama and his economic team had largely ignored Volcker, a sometime adviser. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Larry Summers still questioned whether Volcker’s proposals were feasible. Now Obama was pressing them—very gingerly—to reconsider. “I’m not convinced Volcker’s not right about this,” Obama said at one meeting in the Roosevelt Room. Biden, a longtime fan of Volcker’s, bluntly piped up: “I’m quite convinced Volcker is right about this!”

Obama’s cautious, late embrace of Volcker was all too typical. He had arrived in office perceived by some as the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Yet Obama hadn’t acted much like FDR in the ensuing months. Instead he had faithfully channeled Summers and Geithner and their conservative approach to stimulus and reform. Early on, Obama’s two key economic officials had argued down Christina Romer, the new chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, when she suggested a massive $1.2 trillion stimulus to make up for the collapse of private demand. They opted for slightly less than $800 billion. “We believe that this is a properly sized approach to move the economy forward,” said Summers, who didn’t want to expand the federal deficit or worry the bond market. With the recession still darkening their outlook, Summers and Geithner also didn’t want to tamper too much with what they still saw as the economy’s engine room: Wall Street. Partly on their advice, the president “explicitly decided not to break up all big financial institutions,” said another top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee.

After his first year, Obama felt he had done well overall on the economy.  Helped by Fed chairman Bernanke, his administration had brought the financial system back from the abyss—from another Great Depression, in effect—by shoring up the banks with hundreds of billions in new bailouts. The administration also pushed for a broad array of reforms. The giant bill Obama signed early in the summer of 2010 brought trillions of dollars in “dark” trading in over-the-counter derivatives into the open. It created new, tough watchdogs for credit-card and mortgage companies, as well as banks. It gave the government new powers to liquidate failing financial firms rather than bail them out.

The president proudly called the new law “the toughest financial reform since the one we created in the aftermath of the Great Depression.” What Obama left unsaid was that his administration had argued against many of the toughest amendments in the bill. And Wall Street, in the end, didn’t complain about it all that much. The biggest firms knew that much of what their powerful lobbyists had failed to block or water down in the bill could be taken care of later on. They’d still be able to influence the vast set of rules on capital, leverage, and other financial issues that would be written by regulators. Led by Summers and Geithner, Obama’s economic team resisted almost every structural change to Wall Street—in particular, Volcker’s plan (initially) and Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s idea to bar banks from swaps trading. The administration’s program for getting underwater mortgage holders out of trouble was also criticized as too modest. Obama’s team accepted “too many givens,” says a former senior career Fed official who asked to remain anonymous so as not to offend his former colleagues. Obama’s effort “certainly wasn’t like FDR’s because reform wasn’t driven by the White House,” says Michael Greenberger, a former senior regulator who did much to shape derivatives legislation behind the scenes. “If anything, during most of the journey the White House was a problem and Treasury was a problem.”

Obama’s aides claimed they were only making necessary compromises, placating the Republicans and centrist Democrats they needed to pass the law. And they did stand firm on creating a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But by midsummer of 2010 the Volcker rule that Obama finally backed was so full of exemptions—allowing banks to invest substantially in hedge and equity funds—that even Volcker expressed dismay. The fundamental structure of Wall Street had hardly changed. On the contrary, the new law effectively anointed the existing banking elite, possibly making them even more powerful. The major firms got to keep the biggest part of their derivatives business in interest-rate and foreign-exchange swaps. (JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley control more than 95 percent, or about $200 trillion worth, of that market.)

The same banks may end up controlling or at least dominating the clearinghouses they are being pressed to trade on as well. New capital charges, meanwhile, have created barriers to entry for new firms. This consolidation of the elites has in turn kept alive the “too big to fail” problem. “It makes it way tougher now to kiss somebody off when they get in trouble,” says the former Fed official. Eugene Ludwig, a former comptroller of the currency, believes the new law’s impact will be “profound” in changing the way banks do business. But he worries about a “skewing of the playing field” in favor of the big banks, putting community banks at a disadvantage.

The Obama administration also did little to use its bully pulpit to reorient pay packages at the big financial houses, where bonuses still often run in the tens of millions of dollars. Critics make the case that changing this pay structure would do more than punish those who helped spur the meltdown. It might also encourage some of America’s greatest minds to stay away from financial engineering, which contributes little of substance to the economy, and instead consider real engineering. Nor has the Justice Department launched prosecutions as it did after the S&L crisis, or during the insider-trading scandals of the ’80s, when Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky were led off in handcuffs. (One problem this time around, lawyers say, is that virtually everyone was complicit in the subprime-mortgage scam.)

Most significantly, Barack Obama, in contrast to FDR in the depths of the Depression, has failed as yet to restore confidence in the economy. A recent Associated Press poll showed him at his lowest point ever on that issue, with just 41 percent of Americans approving of his performance. It was little surprise last week when Republican House leader John Boehner, sensing blood in the water—and a possible speakership in his future—attacked the president’s economic team and called for the resignations of Geithner and Summers. (Both budget chief Peter Orszag and Romer had already announced over the summer they were leaving.)

Obama can hardly take all the blame for the surprising persistence of high unemployment and slow growth. Among the new headwinds beating the economy down in recent months was Europe’s currency crisis, for example. But the leadership question can’t be ignored. Financial and economic reform just never seemed to be a subject that kindled Obama’s passions, his critics say. (The White House strenuously disagrees: “Financial reform has been a top priority to the president since day one,” administration spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki told me.) For much of his first 18 months in office, Obama always seemed to be finding some new thing to focus on. He spoke about financial reform, but he often seemed to address it on the fly, as he was tackling other priorities, like health care. To be fair, Obama was also juggling two wars. Yet all in all, he seemed perfectly willing to leave things to his trusted lieutenants, Geithner and Summers, puzzling some Democratic allies on the Hill. “Doesn’t the president realize he’s got a big flank exposed here?” said one Democratic staffer pushing for tougher restrictions on Wall Street early in the summer of 2010.

There was so much passion and ambition in Obama’s words about fixing the economy, and so much dispassion and caution in his policy choices. Early in the Democratic primaries, in January 2008, Obama had stunned many of his supporters by praising Reagan as a transformational president—a contrast to the eight years of Bill Clinton, Obama added cuttingly. Reagan, Obama said, “put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.” Yet at what would seem to be a similar historical inflection point—what should have been the end of Reaganism, or deregulatory fervor—President Obama seemed unprepared to address the deeper ills of the financial system and the economy. Several officials who have worked with the Obama team said the president’s heart was in health care above all else. “He didn’t run for president to fix derivatives,” says Greenberger. “And when he brought in Summers and Geithner, he just thought he was getting the best of the best”—good financial mechanics, in other words, who would “get the car out of the ditch,” to use one of Obama’s favorite metaphors.

But the administration had a much bigger job than that. The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression hadn’t occurred just because of a simple crash. An entire era had overreached—the markets-are-always-good, government-is-always-bad zeitgeist that defined the post–Cold War period. The very idea of government regulation and oversight had become heresy during this epoch. Washington policymakers came to ignore the key differences between financial and other markets, differences that economists had known about for hundreds of years. Financial markets were always more imperfect than markets for goods and other services, more prone to manias and panics and susceptible to the pitfalls of imperfect information unequally shared by investors. Yet that critical distinction was lost in the whirlwind of deregulatory passion that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and other command economies. Finance, completely unleashed, had come to dominate the real economy rather than serve its traditional role as a supplier of capital to goods and services. Venture capital transmogrified into speculative fever. Innovative ways of financing new business ideas evolved into vastly complex derivatives deals, like subprime-mortgage-backed securities, that were often little more than scams.

All of these challenges required a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. and global economy. Yet those who were most aligned with the “progressive” side of the Wall Street reform issue remained, for the most part, on the outside of the administration looking in. Among them were Brooksley Born, the former chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Summers and Geithner, by contrast, had been acolytes of Bob Rubin, the former Clinton Treasury secretary who, along with then–Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, had presided over many of the key deregulatory changes in the ’90s. And they convinced Obama that the financial system they themselves had done so much to nurture was, on the whole, fine. As long as there were greater capital reserves, leverage limits, and more regulatory oversight, Wall Street could remain intact. (Summers would continue to maintain, well after the crisis, that he had never been a full-blown advocate of deregulation; Geithner did not respond to a request to comment for this article, but previously told me that he was no creature of Wall Street and was simply doing as much as he could to constrain it.)

Obama was clearly not pushing very hard to be FDR or even his trust-busting relative Teddy Roosevelt. Now it looks like grim growth and unemployment numbers could extend all the way into 2012. Distracting himself with health care and other issues, Obama may have politically maneuvered himself out of the only major remedy that could bring unemployment down and growth up enough to assure his re-election: another giant fiscal stimulus. Today, after engendering Tea Party and centrist Democratic resistance to more government spending by pushing his health-care plan, the question is whether he has the political capital he may well need, in the end, to save his presidency. And after a two-year fight over financial reform, one other question still lingers: has Wall Street come out the big winner yet again?

Adapted from Capital Offense, by Michael Hirsh, a new book on the 30-year history behind the financial crash and ongoing economic crisis.

________________________ ________________________ _____________________

Keep knee-padding you idiots.  The jig is up. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 30, 2010, 08:05:56 PM
Barack Obama is considering new stimulus
World Buzz News / Reuters ^ | August 31, 2010

Barack Obama, under pressure to restart the economic machine and Employment, announced Monday it had discussed with his advisers to new stimulus measures including tax breaks.

The U.S. president had just returned after ten days of vacation, appeared at the White House to show its concern about the economy that some experts fear a relapse into recession.

“My economic team is working hard on new economic measures could make a difference in terms of growth and employment in the short term and to improve our economic competitiveness in the long term,” the president said.

He listed a number of possible measures such as the extension of certain tax benefits for the middle class should be cut this year, an increase in public support to clean energy development and renovation of infrastructure.

He also cited “new measures of tax relief to encourage businesses to employ their capital to create jobs here in the United States.”


The spokesman Robert Gibbs White House said the president would present in the coming days or weeks ahead of “Targeted Initiatives” to support the economy and he wanted them to be approved before Congress does to end the parliamentary session to focus on the midterm elections.

The pressure is on for the head of state ahead of elections of November 2, so that his recovery plan of 814 billion dollars he has voted in February 2009 did not significantly reduce unemployment.  

The jobless rate is close below 10% of the workforce. Some analysts expect an unemployment rate of 9.6% in August – the figures will be released on Friday – against 9.5% in July.

“In fact, there are too many companies still struggling, too many Americans who continue to seek work (…)”, said Barack Obama.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 04:52:55 AM

Public sours on health care reform as midterms loom
Backing for the landmark law dropped by 7 percentage points in August, a new poll finds. | AP Photo

By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 8/31/10 6:37 AM EDT Updated: 8/31/10 7:33 AM EDT

________________________ ________________________ ______

A new poll shows that public support for health care reform dropped sharply in August – a dagger in Democrats’ hopes that their landmark legislation will help them in November’s midterm.  

The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll has support for the bill dropping seven percentage points in August – down to 43 percent – while opposition rose 10 points to 45 percent. That’s the weakest showing since May – and a far cry from the bump proponents had hoped to see as some of the law’s more consumer-friendly provisions kick in.

Democrats said throughout the year-long debate on Capitol Hill that support for the overhaul would increase once the bill passed and Americans were able to take advantage of some of its benefits. But it appears voters’ opinions of the legislation were set more firmly than anyone thought during the bruising political fight.

“Public opinion on health reform has been stuck in a fairly narrow band and is not changing dramatically,” said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “And with concerns about the economy and jobs dominating the public’s agenda and local issues always so important in midterm elections, it is not clear that health reform will play a significant role at the polls in November.”

Respondents listed health care as the third most important factor in deciding how they’ll vote this fall — behind the economy and “dissatisfaction with government.”

Forty-two percent of respondents said health care reform will play an “extremely important” role in their ballot-box decisions, on par with the 41 percent who said the same thing in June.

About a third of voters say support for the health reform law would make it more likely that they’d vote for a candidate. But a third say it would make it less likely and a third say it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Those figures haven’t changed much since the law passed.

A series of insurance industry reforms, which Democrats pointed to as some of the most consumer friendly provisions of the law, are due to go into effect next month. They include a ban on lifetime or annual caps on insurance coverage and free preventive care on new insurance plans.

While many of these provisions have proven popular in polls, the popularity of the overhaul on the whole hasn’t improved. Plus, opposition to other provisions – namely, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance coverage – has increased. The so-called “individual mandate” is opposed by 70 percent of the Kaiser poll’s respondents.

Read more:

________________________ ________________________ _____________

Good job dems - spend a year and a half on a crap health care mess while the economy gets even worse. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 06:00:32 AM
Advertise on Funds
Sorkin: Why Wall St. Is Deserting Obama

________________________ ______________

August 31, 2010, 2:22 am

A letter from a hedge fund manager to his investors about Washington’s policies is stirring up controversy on a sensitive topic among the moneyed elite, The New York Times’s Andrew Ross Sorkin writes in his latest DealBook column.

The poison pen of Daniel S. Loeb took a jab recently at one of his former allies, the Obama administration, deploring the redistribution of resources and power that Wall Street has come to fear with the passage of the financial regulation overhaul.

Some say that they knew Obama would seek higher taxes and tighter regulation; that was O.K. What they say they did not realize was that they were going to be painted as villains. And as they grow to distrust government, they threaten to cut off investment in the United States.


Daniel S. Loeb, the hedge fund manager, was one of Barack Obama’s biggest backers in the 2008 presidential campaign.

A registered Democrat, Mr. Loeb has given and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Democrats. Less than a year ago, he was considered to be among the Wall Street elite still close enough to the White House to be invited to a speech in Lower Manhattan, where President Obama outlined the need for a financial regulatory overhaul.

So it came as quite a surprise on Friday, when Mr. Loeb sent a letter to his investors that sounded as if he were preparing to join Glenn Beck in Washington over the weekend.

“As every student of American history knows, this country’s core founding principles included nonpunitive taxation, constitutionally guaranteed protections against persecution of the minority and an inexorable right of self-determination,” he wrote. “Washington has taken actions over the past months, like the Goldman suit that seem designed to fracture the populace by pulling capital and power from the hands of some and putting it in the hands of others.”

Over the weekend, the letter, with quotations from Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan and President Obama, was forwarded around the circles of the moneyed elite, from the Hamptons to Silicon Valley. Mr. Loeb’s jeremiad illustrates how some of the president’s former friends on Wall Street and in business now feel about Washington.

Mr. Loeb isn’t the first Wall Streeter to turn on the president. Steven A. Cohen, founder of the hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors and a supporter of the Obama campaign, recently held a meeting with Republican candidates in his home in Greenwich, Conn., to strategize about the midterm elections, according to Absolute Return magazine.

Other onetime supporters, like Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, also feel burned by the Obama administration, people close to him say.

That the honeymoon between Washington and Wall Street has turned to bitter recriminations is not news, given that the administration had long pledged to revamp Wall Street regulation in the wake of a crisis that rattled the global financial system.

Less than two years ago, Democrats received 70 percent of the donations from Wall Street; since June, when the financial regulation bill was nearing passage, Republicans were receiving 68 percent of the donations, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.

But what is surprising is that some of the president’s biggest supporters have so publicly derided his policies, even at the risk of hurting their ability to influence the party in the future. Issues like the carry-interest tax on private equity or the Volcker Rule have become personal.

Why so personal? The prevailing view is that bankers, hedge fund mangers and traders supported the Obama candidacy because he appealed to their egos.

Mr. Obama was viewed as a member of the elite, an Ivy League graduate (Columbia, class of ’83, the same as Mr. Loeb), president of The Harvard Law Review — he was supposed to be just like them. President Obama was the “intelligent” choice, the same way they felt about themselves. They say that they knew he would seek higher taxes and tighter regulation; that was O.K. What they say they did not realize was that they were going to be painted as villains.

That Wall Street view of itself as a victim has prompted much of the private murmurings and the unfortunate — or worse — outburst from Stephen A. Schwarzman, who likened the administration’s plan for taxes on private equity to “when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” Mr. Schwarzman later apologized for the “inappropriate analogy.”

Now Mr. Loeb, who manages about $3.4 billion at his firm, Third Point Partners, has articulated in a more thoughtful way what a lot of others in finance and business are saying.

“We have given a great deal of thought about the impact that public policy has on individual companies, industries and the economy generally,” he said. Third Point has sold its investments in big banks as a result of “regulatory headwinds”; got rid of its stake in Wellpoint, which Mr. Loeb described as “a statistically cheap stock owned by several hedge funds, but which we saw as being overly exposed to unpredictable government regulation”; and taken a short position against for-profit education companies as a result of “the government’s increased willingness to use its regulatory muscle.”

Mr. Loeb’s views, irrespective of their validity, point to a bigger problem for the economy: If business leaders have a such a distrust of government, they won’t invest in the country. And perception is becoming reality.

Just last week, Paul S. Otellini, chief executive of Intel, said at a dinner at the Aspen Forum of the Technology Policy Institute that “the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here.”

Mr. Otellini has overseen two big acquisitions in the last two weeks — the $7.7 billion takeover of the security software maker McAfee and the $1.4 billion deal for the wireless chip unit of Infineon Technologies. If he is true to his word, those deals will most likely lead to job cuts in the United States, not job creation.

Mr. Loeb declined to comment.

But it seems clear that he wrote the letter because so much of his fund’s investments were being driven by the impact of politics. It appears he is no longer betting that a chief executive will make his numbers; he’s betting on what legislation Congress will pass next.

Mr. Loeb, whose poison pen is legendary, usually targets obstinate corporate managers or rivals. In one such note to the chief executive of Star Gas Partners, Mr. Loeb wrote: “It is time for you to step down from your role as C.E.O. and director so that you can do what you do best: retreat to your waterfront mansion in the Hamptons where you can play tennis and hobnob with your fellow socialites.”

In his letter to investors, he took issue with a number of Washington initiatives, including the Credit Card Act of 2009 and a proposed “enterprise tax” that would be levied on hedge fund managers who sell their firms.

“So long as our leaders tell us that we must trust them to regulate and redistribute our way back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economic quagmire,” Mr. Loeb wrote.

“Perhaps our leaders will awaken to the fact that free market capitalism is the best system to allocate resources and create innovation, growth and jobs,” he continued. “Perhaps too, a cloven-hoofed, bristly haired mammal will become airborne and the rosette-like marking of a certain breed of ferocious feline will become altered. In other words, we are not holding our breath.”

Critics of Wall Street will rightfully complain that it was the actions of free market capitalists that prompted a push for regulation. On that point, Mr. Loeb does not entirely disagree.

“Many people see the collapse of the subprime markets, along with the failure and subsequent rescue of many banks, as failures of capitalism rather than a result of a vile stew of inept management, unaccountable boards of directors and overmatched regulators not just asleep, but comatose, at the proverbial switch,” he wrote. “It is easy to see why so many people have concluded that the entire system is rigged.”

________________________ ________________________ _____

Great article. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Fury on August 31, 2010, 07:18:07 AM
Good article. Obama is going to drive any jobs and companies right out of this country.

You should start posting these in their own threads again. They definitely got more views that way. This thread only has 227 or so views and I reckon most of those are from the same three people.  :-\

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 07:26:11 AM
Good article. Obama is going to drive any jobs and companies right out of this country.

You should start posting these in their own threads again. They definitely got more views that way. This thread only has 227 or so views and I reckon most of those are from the same three people.  :-\

I don't want to spam the board with tons of articles and want to keep all these great articles in one place for later reference.   

either way, i plan on keeping this one going since by the time 2012 rolls around, it will have everything in it from beginng to end. 

But I get your point. 

________________________ ________________________ ______

Companies Say New US Pay Law A 'Logistical Nightmare'

Published: Tuesday, 31 Aug 2010 | 12:47 AM ET Text Size By: Jean Eaglesham and Francesco Guerrera in New York

________________________ ________________________

US companies face a “logistical nightmare” from a new rule forcing them to disclose the ratio between their chief executive’s pay package and that of the typical employee, lawyers have warned.

 The mandatory disclosure will provide ammunition for activists seeking to target perceived examples of excessive pay and perks. The law taps into public anger at the increasing disparity between the faltering incomes of middle America and the largely recession-proof multimillion-dollar remuneration of the typical corporate chief.

S&P 500 chief executives last year received median pay packages of $7.5m, according to executive compensation research firm Equilar. By comparison, official statistics show the average private sector employee was paid just over $40,000.

Business sees the disclosure provision – buried in section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act – as a bureaucratic headache that may encourage false comparisons.

“We’re not debating the concept of disclosure – we think it’s a good thing,” said Larry Burton, executive director of the Business Roundtable, which represents chief executives of the biggest US companies. “But you can do more harm than good if you take a well-intended piece of policy and implement it badly. That’s the risk here.”

The rules’ complexity means multinationals face a “logistical nightmare” in calculating the ratio, which has to be based on the median annual total compensation for all employees, warned Richard Susko, partner at law firm Cleary Gottlieb. “It’s just not do-able for a large company with tens of thousands of employees worldwide.”

Pay experts said business had been caught off-guard by the measure, which was not one of the high-profile battlegrounds of the Dodd-Frank legislation. Companies are now gearing up to lobby the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has to write detailed provisions for the new rule.

The rule could also reward with a relatively low ratio those companies that outsourced low-paid work rather than keeping jobs in-house, lawyers said.

Robert Menendez, the senator who sponsored the provision, dismissed business fears. “Theidea behind the new rule is that sunlight is the best disinfectant,” said an aide. “Disclosure will help encourage fair pay for workers at a time when middle class pay has stagnated while CEO pay has skyrocketed.”

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 08:28:43 AM
Record number in government anti-poverty programs
Enlarge By Paul Sakuma, AP

________________________ _______________

Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program.
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand.

More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.

POLITICS: Welfare agencies boost voter rolls

"Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record," says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.

The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. "Private physicians are already indicating that they're at their limit," says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.

More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.

Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits.

"This program has proven to be incredibly responsive and effective," says Ellin Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center.

Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — "the highest numbers on record," says Christine Riordan of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers.

More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession. The program has grown slower than others, causing Brookings Institution expert Ron Haskins to question its effectiveness in the recession.

As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.

INFOMOTION GRAPHIC: A historical look at the national debt
INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC: Getting a grip on government debt

The steady climb in safety-net program caseloads and costs has come as a result of two factors: The recession has boosted the number who qualify under existing rules. And the White House, Congress and states have expanded eligibility and benefits.

Conservatives fear expanded safety-net programs won't contract after the economy recovers. "They're much harder to unwind in the long term," says Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Other anti-poverty experts say the record caseloads are a necessary response to economic hardship. "We should be there to support people when the economy can't," says LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 09:18:41 AM
Cost: Obamacare has killed the Dems, but they’re in denial
Washington Examiner ^ | 8/31/2010 | DAVID FREDDOSO

Jay Cost, over at RealClearPolitics:

"It would be difficult for any strong partisan to admit that such an accomplishment [as Obamacare] was so deeply unpopular. Yet the polling is pretty unequivocal on the relationship between the Democrats’ fortunes and the health care bill. It was during the health care debate that the essential building block of the Democratic majority – Independent voters – began to crumble. It was evident in the generic ballot. It was evident in the President’s job approval numbers. It was evident in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Reconstructing the Democrats’ meme, we can fairly say that the economy is a huge problem for the party. Of this, there can be no doubt. We can also say that the stalled recovery denied the Democrats a chance to win back the voters they lost over health care. But the process and passage of health care reform were crucial elements in the story. That’s when the party started losing the voters it needs to retain control of the government."

I agree. Democrats — and especially President Obama — lost the public’s trust during and because of the health care debate. The polls show a huge shift in July 2009, when the first committee votes were taken on Obamacare.

This was the first crack in the windshield, and it has now spread everywhere. Independent voters have stopped giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt on a variety of other major issues — the stimulus, the war in Afghanistan, education (!), taxes, you name it. Obamacare has precipitated a dramatic loss of faith in Obama.

________________________ ______________

Everyones' costs are skyrocketing due to this disaster and everyone can rightfully place it on Obama, piss be upon him. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 09:53:31 AM
More Loose-Lips At The White House, As Another Staffer Basically Admits Stimulus Doesn't Work
Joe Weisenthal | Aug. 31, 2010, 12:09 PM | 1,703 |  18

Obama Blasts GOP On Economy: "Drop The Blockade"And Now Even The Administration Is Talking About A Double DipHow Bad Is It For Obama? Look How He's Completely Lost The New York Times

Obama has been getting aggressive lately about calling out the Republicans and trying to blame the weak economy on them.

But there's a risk to this strategy: If the President keeps talking about how the economy is weak, then maybe people who thought the economy was okay (and apparently a fair number still do, as evidenced by August's Consumer Confidence Index) might get the idea that things aren't so hot. Maybe they'll think: Sure I have a job now, but just in case, I better retrench and cut up my credit card.

So it's for this reason that White House critics (mainly from the left) are frustrated by the "loose lips" on the part of some administration staffers.

Yesterday we mentioned Austan Goolsbee's comment about how the economy was at some risk of sliding into a double dip.

Now it's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Everyone's picking on him for comments he made about the stimulus yesterday:

Asked if the stimulus bill was too small, [White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs says: "I think it makes sense to step back just for a second. ... Nobody had, in January of 2009, a sufficient grasp of ... what we were facing." He adds that any stimulus was "unlikely to fill" the hole the financial meltdown created.

"What the Recovery Act did was prevent us from sliding even into a deeper recession with greater economic contraction, with greater job loss than we have experienced because of it," he says.

This line makes Krugman angry. Why? Because, says the Nobel Laurreate, he was SCREAMING at the top of his longs in early 2009 that the stimulus needed to be much bigger (Megan McArdle calculated yesterday that Krugman probably would've needed a $4.5 trillion stimulus to be happy).

But beyond that, The White House just feels off-message, and Gibbs makes it hard to argue for more stimulus when he's saying that any stimulus was "unlikely" to solve the problem.

 Okay, then what does The White House actually want?

Tags: Barack Obama, Economy, White House, Stimulus | Get Alerts for these topics »

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 12:34:31 PM
Obamanomics Failing to Create Jobs
By Peter Morici

________________________ ________________

With thousands of young college graduates moving in with parents and returning Iraq War veterans facing long-term unemployment, President Obama is scrambling for cover.

Irresponsible spending, largesse for big banks and subsidies for a broken health care system have busted the budget and failed to create jobs.

Economists expect the Labor Department to report on Friday the economy lost another 80,000 jobs in August after shedding 131,000 jobs in July.

Completion of the Census accounts for most of the loss, but the report will demonstrate that rewarding Democratic Party academics with new high paying regulatory jobs and general hostility toward business is causing America's largest enterprises to head for China and small businesses to wither and die.

The unemployment rate will likely creep up a bit closer to 10%, as more Americans drain their retirement accounts and endure the frustration of slammed doors in Barack Obama's jobs market.

In July alone, 381,000 adults chose to quit looking for work altogether, and that trend will continue in President Obama's land of dashed dreams and squandered opportunities.

Economists expect the private sector added about 100,000 jobs in August but that is an abysmal performance 14 months into a recovery from a deep recession.

The economy must add 13 million private sector jobs by the end of 2013 to bring unemployment down to 6%. President Obama's policies are not creating conditions for businesses to hire those 320,000 workers each month, net of layoffs.

Net of inventory adjustments, the economy's demand for goods and services is growing at only about 1% a year. The real potential is about 5% but with economic policies so ill conceived and with a president so ambivalent about private enterprises -- other than those run by Wall Street barons, Hollywood producers and union bosses -- that simply is not possible.

In the second quarter, consumer spending; investment in new structures, equipment and software; and government purchases added 4.4% to demand. But as imports grew much more rapidly than exports, the trade deficit tapped off 3.4%. The difference, 1%, is annual growth in demand for U.S.-made goods and services. That has been the pace since the recovery began in July 2009.

Businesses can accommodate up to 2% growth in demand just by improving productivity and not adding workers. Unless the rapid growth in imports can be curbed, the U.S. economy is headed for very slow growth and rising unemployment.
The president's economic policies -- more spending, taxes and regulation for Americans and appeasing foreign mercantilists like China -- is simply not working.

The massive permanent expansion in federal spending and regulatory oversight built into President Obama's budget is discouraging private hiring by raising fears of even higher taxes and yet more intrusive regulation.

Simply, higher taxes discourage purchases of non-essentials and high-line durable goods, like better appliances, more appointed automobiles and higher quality homes, and higher taxes and tougher regulation increase incentives to offshore production to China and other locations where those burdens are less and entrepreneurship is more welcome.

Prior to the 2008 crisis, President Bush spent 19.6% of GDP and the deficit was $161 billion; whereas two years into the economic recovery in 2011, President Obama's budget projects outlays at 25.1% of GDP and a $1.3 trillion deficit in 2011. The latter figures are like to be closer to 27% and close to $2 trillion if the president does not accomplish the 4% growth his budgets assume in stark contrast to the real world the rest of us struggle.

Too much spending will require new taxes, and not just pushing rates marginally above 50% on families earning $250,000. And, higher rates for those families will raise taxes on half the income earned by proprietorships -- those small and medium sized businesses the president is urging to create jobs.

Much of the $787 stimulus money was squandered on political hobby horses that create few jobs. For example, grants to build green buildings displace other, more cost-effective private construction and don't increase the amount of commercial space rented or built over the next several years. By delaying projects, those grants have slowed construction spending and killed jobs.

The biggest banks received more than $2 trillion in TARP and Federal Reserve assistance to clean up their balance sheets and recapitalize securities trading, while the 8,000 regional banks got little assistance and remain burdened by toxic real estate loans. Consequently, nearly 250 regional banks have failed, and small and medium sized businesses cannot get credit to expand.

In addition to credit, businesses need more customers to create jobs, and the trade deficit -- in particular, imports of oil and the imbalance with China -- cut a huge hole in demand for U.S. goods and services. Without addressing oil and China, other efforts to create jobs are futile.
The president's moratorium on deep water drilling, though popular with environmental fundamentalists, kills jobs by laying off workers in the oil, gas and supporting industries and by sending too many consumer dollars abroad that could be spent here.

Detroit has the technology to build much more efficient gasoline-powered vehicles now, and a shift in national policy to rapidly build these would reduce oil imports and create many jobs. Instead, the president proposes to replace stickers on cars that report gas mileage intelligent folks can understand with grade school letters -- A, B, C...

If we could only have those letter grades for the president's economic appointees, we might be better off

China's undervalued currency makes its products artificially cheap and deceivingly competitive on U.S. store shelves, but Beijing's promises of new flexibility on the yuan have not translated into meaningful revaluation. The president, like a provincial premier, stands patiently accepting Chinese largess -- bond financing for profligate spending in Washington.

If President Obama wants to fix the federal deficit and create jobs, perhaps he should spend less, get serious about better using and developing American energy resources and quit appeasing China.

Candidate Obama promised those things but President Obama's memory seems short on everything but the failings of presidents passed.

Peter Morici is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

________________________ ________________________ ____

morici is one of the best out there.  when he talks, I listen. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 12:36:02 PM
Simply, higher taxes discourage purchases of non-essentials and high-line durable goods, like better appliances, more appointed automobiles and higher quality homes, and higher taxes and tougher regulation increase incentives to offshore production to China and other locations where those burdens are less and entrepreneurship is more welcome.

________________________ ________________________ ____

Why can't you leftists grasp this? 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 31, 2010, 06:03:12 PM
EDITORIAL: Ohio battles bullies at Justice
Obama voting officials push ethnic grievances

Voter Terry Penrod prepares to cast his absentee ballot at the Franklin County Veterans Memorial polling place Tuesday, September 30, 2008 in Columbus, Ohio.

Voters in this crucial swing state began casting absentee ballots Tuesday, a day after the Ohio Supreme Court and two separate federal judges cleared the way for a disputed early voting law that allows new voters to register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day from Tuesday through Oct. 6.
The Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Board of Elections today can stare down the increasingly rogue voting rights section of the U.S. Department of Justice, which continues to play ethnic politics nationwide. The state of Georgia recently forced the department to back off from its bullying tactics, and this Buckeye county should do the same.

Justice officials have threatened legal action against the county board unless it prints all its ballots in bilingual fashion. "With additional requirements for translators, community outreach, additional staffing and printing, the demand potentially would double the county's election costs," board member Rob Frost told Jennifer Rubin of the Weekly Standard. "The Justice attorneys said they were authorized to sue the county. ..."

The Justice Department's position is wrongheaded on several levels. First, the department bases its demand on Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act, which is meant to ensure ballot access for Puerto Rican natives who never learned English. Nothing in 4(e) requires that every ballot in a jurisdiction be printed in Spanish - but only that those Puerto Rican voters not be denied the right to vote due to an inability "to read, write, understand or interpret any matter in the English language." There's no reason to find the county noncompliant if most of its ballots are English-only, as long as its Spanish speakers have access to Spanish ballots upon request.

Second, as a purely practical matter, forcing Cuyahoga to print all its ballots in Spanish is overkill. According to Mr. Frost, Justice officials say only 6,334 people of Puerto Rican heritage in the county have limited English proficiency, and it's unclear how many of them are registered to vote. In a county of nearly a million registered voters, why burden all those ballots with Spanish when just one-half of 1 percent of voters need such special help?

The Cuyahoga board meets today at 2:30 p.m., with this dispute heading its agenda. It should take a cue from Georgia and tell the department to take a hike. Justice tried for more than a year to force the state to drop its requirement that people registering to vote verify citizenship. Faced with determined and legally correct insistence by Georgia officials that its law was perfectly allowable, Justice last month suddenly backed off. As columnist John Fund reported on Saturday, "no evidence existed that anyone had been barred from voting because they were incorrectly listed as a noncitizen."

The voting rights section at Justice is out of control. North Carolina voters now are suing because Justice refused to allow a black-majority town to adopt nonpartisan elections on the ground that the black voters would harm their own interests by choosing to do so. Pro-soldier watchdogs are fighting back against apparent Justice attempts to water down guarantees of military voting rights - attempts led by the same official, Rebecca Wertz, who has been pressuring Cuyahoga County. This is the same gang that bungled the now-infamous New Black Panther voter-intimidation case.

The lesson here is that the Obama Justice Department doesn't define the law; it politicizes it. If Cuyahoga fights back, courts should support the county.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 01, 2010, 04:10:44 AM
IBD Editorials
Entrepreneurs Know What Obama Doesn't
Posted 08/31/2010 06:33 PM ET

________________________ ________________________ ___

With the economy still floundering and nearly one in 10 Americans out of work, it's time for the Obama administration to discard the ideological fiction that a wise and benevolent government can fix things. Being in power doesn't necessarily mean you understand problems or have solutions. The White House is striking out on both counts.

Nowhere was this more evident than at the "Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship" last spring.

Summit spokesman Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser and former White House speechwriter, set the proper tone, noting that "entrepreneurship is a fundamental American value, and it's also a force that has the ability to unlock opportunity for people around the world."

Rhodes said the summit was intended not to showcase government officials, but to "bring together entrepreneurs — social entrepreneurs ... around this question of how we can galvanize entrepreneurship on behalf of economic growth."

Then the parade of government officials began, including the secretary of Commerce, administrator of the Small Business Administration, director of the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation, senior director for "global engagement" of the White House national security staff and others, with closing remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It was a classic example of "know-it-all" big government at its worst.

Innovators Needed

This should have come as no surprise. By now, it should be clear to most Americans — especially the "doers" who create jobs for others — that the White House is no fan of free enterprise.

In March, President Obama tipped his hand, excoriating the U.S. business community as "a corporate culture rife with inside dealing; questionable accounting practices and short-term greed." The real problem in America, according to the president, "is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit."

White House policies reflect this belief that business is self-centered and evil and government all-knowing and good.

The trouble is: Such attitudes and policies smother entrepreneurship, innovation and job creation, exactly what the U.S. economy so desperately needs, especially now.

Contrary to President Obama's view, the crucial factor for improving life in every society has been private enterprise, individuals who seek to uplift their lives and those of others. Entrepreneurship is neither created nor nurtured by government, nor reserved to the privileged; it springs from individuals and can be found even in the poorest communities in countries worldwide.

The White House economic team should be required to read "Lessons from the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit." In this book, Alvaro Vargas Llosa shows how countless millions of small-scale entrepreneurs in Africa, Asia and Latin America have created a vast range of products and services, not because of government, but despite the enormous burdens imposed by government bureaucracies and corruption.

Human Progress

Entrepreneurship can only be fully beneficial to society when people are free to channel their efforts into voluntary and cooperative ventures that create wealth. Where governments dominate society, enterprising individuals typically are stifled. Their talents and energies are misdirected into political patronage.

Instead of building competitive businesses they seek government favors — tariffs, subsidies and regulations — to impede others and raise costs for consumers. All of this serves to inhibit, misdirect and destroy wealth and job creation.

While the Obama White House may see greed in free-market entrepreneurial activity, it fails to recognize that all entrepreneurial creations are not motivated by financial considerations.

This is why entrepreneurship guru Peter Drucker ranked the Salvation Army among the most entrepreneurial organizations in America. "No one even comes close to it with respect to clarity of mission, ability to innovate, measurable results, dedication and putting money to maximum use," he says.

In their book, "The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society," David Beito, Peter Gordon and Alexander Tabarrok demonstrate that private business and social entrepreneurs, not government command-and-control, is what makes human progress possible.

This is another book the president and his staff should take on their next vacation, instead of their golf clubs. They might learn something and put an end to their destructive big-government policies.

• Theroux is founder and president of the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and publisher of The Independent Review.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 01, 2010, 04:53:39 AM

Another Ugly Jobs Number: ADP Says The Private Sector SLASHED 10,000 Jobs In August
Joe Weisenthal | Sep. 1, 2010

The numbers: Another ugly jobs number. According to ADP, the private sector slashed a net 10,000 jobs in the month of august. Analysts were looking for the creation of 13,000 jobs, so not good. Small businesses slashed 6,000 jobs. Manufacturing fell by 6,000 in august.

This is the first time in several months that ADP has reported net job losses.

The odds that this Friday we'll see a negative print on the government jobs report on the private industry side (a headline negative number is a done deal, thanks to the Census), seems to be increasing.

US futures are still pointing up, however.

Click here for a guide to 15 key economic events happening in the future >

Background: This is a little morsel of a jobs report before Friday's big show. The ADP report is a semi-reliable predictor of what the government jobs data will show. It only looks at private sector hiring (this not skewed by Census). Analysts are looking for a paltry 13,000 new jobs.

Tags: Employment | Get Alerts for these topics » Short URL  Share:

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 01, 2010, 05:39:24 AM
‘Clunkers,’ a classic government folly
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 1, 2010

________________________ ________________________ _____

IN THE market for a used car? Good luck finding a bargain: The price of “pre-owned’’ vehicles has climbed considerably over the past year. According to, a website for car buyers, a three-year-old automobile today will set you back, on average, close to $20,000 — a spike of more than 10 percent since last summer. For some popular models, the increase has been much steeper. In July, a used Cadillac Escalade was going for around $35,000, or nearly 36 percent over last July’s price.

Why are used-car prices rocketing? Part of the answer is that demand is up: With unemployment high and the economy uncertain, some car buyers who might otherwise be looking for a new truck or SUV are instead shopping for a used vehicle as a way to save money.

But an even bigger part of the answer is that the supply of used cars is artificially low, because your Uncle Sam decided last year to destroy hundreds of thousands of perfectly good automobiles as part of its hare-brained Car Allowance Rebate System — or, as most of us called it, Cash for Clunkers. That was the program under which the government paid consumers up to $4,500 when they traded in an old car and bought a new one with better gas mileage. The traded-in cars — which had to be in drivable condition to qualify for the rebate — were then demolished: Dealers were required to chemically wreck each car’s engine, and send the car to be crushed or shredded.

Congress and the Obama administration trumpeted Cash for Clunkers as a triumph — the president pronounced it “successful beyond anybody’s imagination.’’ Which it was, if you define success as getting people to take “free’’ money to make a purchase most of them are going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come. By any rational standard, however, this program was sheer folly.

No great insight was needed to realize that Cash for Clunkers would work a hardship on people unable to afford a new car. “All this program did for them,’’ I wrote last August, “was guarantee that used cars will become more expensive. Poorer drivers will be penalized to subsidize new cars for wealthier drivers.’’ Alec Gutierrez, a senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book, predicted that used-car prices would surge by up to 10 percent. “It’s going to drive prices up on some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road,’’ he told USA Today. In short, Washington spent nearly $3 billion to raise the price of mobility for drivers on a budget.

To be sure, Cash for Clunkers gave a powerful jolt to car sales in July and August of 2009. But it did so mostly by delaying sales that would otherwise have occurred in April, May, and June, or by accelerating those that would have taken place in September, October, or later. “Influencing the timing of consumers’ durable purchases is easy,’’ Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl wrote a few days ago in a blog post looking back at the program. “Creating new purchases is not.’’ Of the 700,000 cars purchased during the clunkers frenzy, the estimated net increase in sales was only 125,000. Each incremental sale thus ended up costing the taxpayers a profligate $24,000.

Even on environmental grounds, Cash for Clunkers was an exorbitant dud. Researchers at the University of California-Davis calculated that the reduction of carbon dioxide attributable to the program cost no less than $237 per ton. In contrast, carbon emissions credits cost about $20 per ton in international markets.

Using Department of Transportation figures, the Associated Press calculated that replacing inefficient clunkers with new cars getting higher mileage would reduce CO2 emissions by around 700,000 tons a year — less than Americans emit in a single hour. Likewise, the projected reduction in gasoline use amounted to about as much as Americans go through in 4 hours. (And that’s only if you assume — contrary to historical experience — that fuel consumption decreases when fuel efficiency rises.)

When all is said and done, Cash for Clunkers was a deplorable exercise in budgetary wastefulness, asset destruction, environmental irrelevance, and economic idiocy. Other than that, it was a screaming success.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 01, 2010, 01:27:09 PM
Administration Tries and Fails To Pull a Fast One (Drilling Moratorium)
American Thinker ^ | September 1, 2010 | Clarice Feldman

________________________ ________________________ _______________

Having been enjoined by Judge Feldman (no relation) from trying to halt oil drilling based on inadequate scientific basis, the Administration's Secretary Salazar, tried to pull a fast one by simply issuing another moratorium. Judge Feldman has refused to play along:

The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's initial six-month moratorium on deepwater oil-drilling dealt the government another blow on Wednesday.

U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman denied the government's request to throw out a suit challenging the drilling halt that had been filed by offshore-oil-service companies. Justice Department lawyers had argued the lawsuit was moot because the Interior Department imposed a new, temporary drilling ban on July 12, replacing a May 28 order that Judge Feldman had struck down in June.

But Judge Feldman ruled that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's second moratorium order "is substantially the same as the first one" and "applies to the exact same rigs, to the exact same deepwater drilling, for the exact same time period."

Judge Feldman also noted that in crafting the second moratorium, Mr. Salazar appeared to have relied heavily on documents and data that he had at the time of the first moratorium order.

Who's dumber, Salazar or the Department of Justice lawyers making such frivolous claims?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 01, 2010, 05:42:37 PM
Outgoing Obama Aide Admits: Stimulus Failed Because We Didn't Understand The Recession

Joe Weisenthal | Sep. 1, 2010, 8:29 PM | 940 |  19

You have successfully emailed the post. As she prepares to leave The White House, outgoing economic advisor Christina Romer has delivered something of a valedictory speech to the National Press Club. The title: Not My Father's Recession.

For Romer, her Father's recession was the one in the early 80s, when unemployment surged above 10%, and Romer's own father got laid off.

But the title basically tells you what you need to know: It's different this time -- this recession was not anything like the Fed-induced recession of her father -- and the old recovery playbook could not possibly go as anticipated.

Here's the key part of the text, via Brad DeLong's blog:

But compared with the problems we face, the turnaround has been insufficient....

In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3 1⁄2 percent and employment by about 31⁄2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred. As the Council of Economic Advisers has documented in a series of reports to Congress, there is widespread agreement that the Act is broadly on track to meet these milestones....

What the Act hasn’t done is prevent unemployment from going above 8 percent, something else that Jared and I projected it would do. The reason that prediction was so far off is implicit in much of what I have been saying this afternoon. An estimate of what the economy will look like if a policy is adopted contains two components: a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy, and an estimate of the effect of the policy. As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate. But we, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.

Read the whole thing here.

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on September 01, 2010, 05:47:00 PM
Oh gee,Stimulus Failed Because We Didn't Understand The Recession, I feel much better now. Good thing they are in charge ::)

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 01, 2010, 05:49:18 PM
Oh gee,Stimulus Failed Because We Didn't Understand The Recession, I feel much better now. Good thing they are in charge ::)

It was just more lies Obama told to get elected. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Skip8282 on September 01, 2010, 05:56:09 PM
An estimate of what the economy will look like if a policy is adopted contains two components: a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy, and an estimate of the effect of the policy. As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate. But we, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.

This is the same thing we were trying to tell the clowns who supported the healthcare bill.  It's like trying to reason with a fucking wall.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 01, 2010, 06:03:11 PM
But again - if she got the 2nd part wrong, than why should we feel ok with the fact she says the plan is working according to her models? 

We wasted a trillion dollars on basically what amounts to a half measure because they read the economy wrong.  Sorry, I have posted many clips from Schiff, Celente, Chapman, detailing what was occuring and they were proven right.  So there is no excuse for this nonsense from the Admn.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 02, 2010, 05:47:29 AM
Economist Christina Romer serves up dismal news at her farewell luncheon

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 1, 2010; 10:40 PM

________________________ ________________________ _________

Lunch at the National Press Club on Wednesday caused some serious indigestion.

It wasn't the food; it was the entertainment. Christina Romer, chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, was giving what was billed as her "valedictory" before she returns to teach at Berkeley, and she used the swan song to establish four points, each more unnerving than the last:

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things.  

What she did have was a binder full of scary descriptions and warnings, offered with a perma-smile and singsong delivery: "Terrible recession. . . . Incredibly searing. . . . Dramatically below trend. . . . Suffering terribly. . . . Risk of making high unemployment permanent. . . . Economic nightmare."

Anybody want dessert?

At week's end, Romer will leave the council chairmanship after what surely has been the most dismal tenure anybody in that post has had: a loss of nearly 4 million jobs in a year and a half. That's not Romer's fault; the financial collapse occurred before she, and Obama, took office.

Romer had predicted that Obama's stimulus package would keep the unemployment rate at 8 percent or less; it is now 9.5 percent. One of her bosses, Vice President Biden, told Democrats in January that "you're going to see, come the spring, net increase in jobs every month." The economy lost 350,000 jobs in June and July.  

But she was the president's top economist during a time when the administration consistently underestimated the depth of the economy's troubles - miscalculations that have caused Americans to lose faith in the president and the Democrats.  

This is why nearly two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track - and why Obama's efforts to highlight the end of U.S. combat in Iraq and the resumption of Middle East peace talks have little chance of piercing the gloom as voters consider handing control of Congress back to the Republicans.

Romer's farewell luncheon had been scheduled for the club's ballroom, but attendance was light and the event was moved to a smaller room. Romer, wearing a green suit, read brightly from her text - a delivery at odds with the dark material she was presenting. When she and her colleagues began work, she acknowledged, they did not realize "how quickly and strongly the financial crisis would affect the economy." They "failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be."

Even now, Romer said, mystery persists. "To this day, economists don't fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would." Her defense was that "almost all analysts were surprised by the violent reaction."

That miscalculation, in turn, led to her miscalculation that the stimulus package would be enough to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. Without the policy, she had predicted, unemployment would soar to 9.5 percent. The plan passed, and unemployment went to 10 percent.

No wonder most Americans think the effort failed. But Romer argued, a bit too defensively, against the majority perception. "As the Council of Economic Advisers has documented in a series of reports to Congress, there is widespread agreement that the act is broadly on track," she declared. Further, she argued, "I will never regret trying to put analysis and quantitative estimates behind our policy recommendations."

But the problem is not that Romer did a quantitative analysis; the problem is that the quantitative analysis was wrong. Inevitably, this meant that, as she acknowledged, "the turnaround has been insufficient."

And what to do about this? Here, Romer became uncharacteristically hesitant to make predictions. She suggested some "innovative, low-cost policies." But the examples she cited - a "national export initiative," new trade agreements and a "pragmatic approach to regulation" - aren't exactly blockbusters.

"The only sure-fire ways for policymakers to substantially increase aggregate demand in the short run are for the government to spend more and tax less," she said. But asked about the main Republican proposal, extending George W. Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000, Romer replied that doing so would be "fiscally irresponsible."

The truth is that the Obama administration is pretty much out of options. Any major new effort would be blocked by Republicans, who have few alternatives of their own. "What we would all love to find - the inexpensive magic bullet to our economic troubles - the truth is it almost surely doesn't exist," Romer admitted.

The valedictory was becoming more of an elegy. At the end of the depressing forum, the moderator read a question submitted by a member of the audience: "You seem like you'd be a lot of fun at parties. Are you?"

The economist blushed. "You'll have to just take it for granted," she said.

Like 8 percent unemployment.

________________________ ________________________ ___

Ouch - even the libs are realizing the failures. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 02, 2010, 12:12:16 PM
Christina Romer's True Confessions
American Thinker ^ | Sept 2, 2010 | Ed Lasky

Christina Romer, the departing chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, was at a complete loss of words when it came to explaining the state of the economy when she appeared at her valedictory lunch before her returns to her teaching sinecure at Berkley. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post comments:

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things.

What she did have was a binder full of scary descriptions and warnings, offered with a perma-smile and singsong delivery: "Terrible recession. . . . Incredibly searing. . . . Dramatically below trend. . . . Suffering terribly. . . . Risk of making high unemployment permanent. . . . Economic nightmare."

Recall, this is the expert chosen by Obama to help oversee the economy. Ms. Romer predicted that the Obama stimulus package would keep the unemployment rate at 8 percent or less; it is now 9.5 percent. We are more in debt than ever before, no matter how that debt is measured -- in absolute terms, as a percent of GDP, or as a percent of the federal budget (assuming the Democrats would be responsible enough to actually pass one before the midterms).

In the spirit of confession, she admitted Obama's team was unprepared.

When she and her colleagues began work, she acknowledged, they did not realize "how quickly and strongly the financial crisis would affect the economy." They "failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be."

Even now, Romer said, mystery persists. "To this day, economists don't fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would." Her defense was that "almost all analysts were surprised by the violent reaction."

That miscalculation, in turn, led to her miscalculation that the stimulus package would be enough to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. Without the policy, she had predicted, unemployment would soar to 9.5 percent. The plan passed, and unemployment went to 10 percent.

Perhaps I, a humble economics major from Northwestern University and a holder of an MBA from the same, might offer some suggestions to why the economy is failing: anti-business rhetoric from Barack Obama and Democratic leaders; pro-union policies , ObamaCare, and rules and regulations that depress hiring; the prospects for cap and tax and anti-trade policies that put a clamp on the animal spirits that are needed to give a pulse to the economy. And let us not forget about the wide range of steep tax increases that are coming on New Year's Day 2011. Those won't help, Ms. Romer, and those are the responsibility of the administration where she held a powerful position.  

Perhaps, the ideas behind Keynesian economics, so beloved by liberals because it encourages spending and sanctions big debt, have to be reconsidered.

Are we shocked that the team Obama assembled to run the economy (heralded as the best and the brightest by the courtier media) are so clueless when it comes to the real world? After all, so few of them-including Barack Obama-have any experience in the real world of business and industry.

Maybe Professor Romer will have time when she returns to her cosseted academic life to consider some of these factors that might account for the economy's troubles. Hopefully, she can teach her students better than she helped run the economy.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 03, 2010, 06:13:36 AM
120 Days to Go Until the
Largest Tax Hikes in History
From Ryan Ellis on Friday, September 3, 2010 6:00 AM

________________________ ________________________ _________________

In just 120 days, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.  They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.  These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise.  The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise.  Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%

- The 25% bracket rises to 28%

- The 28% bracket rises to 31%

- The 33% bracket rises to 36%

- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.  The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care tax credit will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax.  This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors.  The top capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.  The top dividends tax rate will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.  These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare.  Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011.  They include:

The Tanning Tax.  This went into effect on July 1st of this year.  It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon.  There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year.

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Brand Name Drug Tax.  Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers.  This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone.

Economic Substance Doctrine.  The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.”  This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents.

Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2.  This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year.  While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later.


Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.  The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.  According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million.  These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level.  The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.  Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000.  This will be cut all the way down to $25,000.  Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment.  In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.  There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place.  The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others.  Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.  The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.  Tax credits for education will be limited.  Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.  Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.  Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.  The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Until this year, a retired person with an IRA could contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.  This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.”  This ability will no longer be there.

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 03, 2010, 11:00:07 AM
Study: Cash For Clunkers Was A Wash
 Source: NPR

The government's "cash for clunkers" program boosted auto sales by 360,000 during the two months it was in place, according to a new study.

But in the seven months that followed, sales were down by 360,000 compared with what they would have been without the program, the study found.

The implication: The program didn't bring new buyers into the market. But it encouraged people who would have bought a car anyway to make their purchase a few months sooner.

Under the program, the government paid people about $4,000 to trade in old cars for newer, more fuel efficient ones.

Read more: 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 04, 2010, 04:19:36 AM
UPDATE 2-Taxpayers likely to face initial loss on GM IPO-sources

* Treasury to sell first shares below break-even-sources

* 61 pct Treasury sale could take several years-sources

* Taxpayer break-even is around $70 bln GM market value (Adds details on government stake, GM Q2 results, pension shortfall)

By Clare Baldwin, Soyoung Kim and Kevin Krolicki

NEW YORK/DETROIT, Sept 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. government is likely to take a loss on General Motors Co [GM.UL] in the first offering of the automaker's stock, six people familiar with preparations for the landmark IPO said.

Subsequent offerings of the government's holdings may be profitable depending on how investors trade the newly listed stock, the sources said.

But the question of whether taxpayers are ultimately made whole on GM's $50 billion bailout could be left open for years, the people said.

It could take more than three years for the Treasury to sell down its remaining stake in GM after the IPO, one person said. That would push a final accounting into the next presidential term.

A decision to price the initial GM shares below the cost to taxpayers would follow the usual Wall Street practice of giving the first investors in a new stock a discount, but it could also help allay investor concern in the face of the slow recovery of the U.S. economy and flat auto sales.

Preparations for GM's IP0 remain confidential. Both GM and the U.S. Treasury have declined to comment, citing restrictions by U.S. securities regulators.

The Obama administration has pledged to exit its investment in GM as quickly as possible while holding out the prospect that taxpayers could ultimately be paid back in full.

Treasury spokesman Mark Paustenbach declined to comment. GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson also declined to comment.

GM plans to begin a roadshow for its IPO immediately after the Nov. 2 U.S. midterm congressional elections, paving the way for a stock debut on Nov. 18, sources have said. [ID:nN01172283]

GM in August filed paperwork for an IPO that could potentially be worth as much as $20 billion, making it one of the biggest IPOs of all time.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is now reviewing the automaker's S-1 filing.

Analysts and potential investors have projected a market value for GM of between $50 billion to around $90 billion, based on projections for the automaker's cash flow, comparisons with rival Ford Motor Co (F.N) and trading in bonds in the old GM which are convertible into shares in the new company.

A market value at the high end of that range would be above the roughly $70 billion in market capitalization that GM needs to achieve for the U.S. government to break even on its $43 billion remaining investment in the automaker.

But IPOs typically price at a discount of 10 percent to 15 percent to theoretical fair value to reward investors for taking a risk on a new issue and pave the way for future stock floats. In tough market conditions, that discount can be even larger.

"You have to sell people on the notion that there is an upside to what they are buying," one of the sources said.

Another of the sources said the discount could be as much as 20 percent on the GM IPO compared with the U.S. Treasury's break-even point.

Preparations for the GM stock offering remain in the early stages. A number of the sources cautioned that the size and value of the deal and the size of the stake to be sold by the U.S. government have not been determined and will not be set for weeks.


The U.S. government pumped $49.5 billion worth of taxpayer money into the automaker and took nearly 61 percent of its common stock.

GM has paid back $6.7 billion in debt to the Treasury and returned another $700 million in interest and dividends. The U.S. government also holds $2.1 billion in perpetual preferred shares in the automaker.

That leaves the government with a roughly $40 billion investment in the GM common stock that will debut in an IPO along with a new class of preferred shares that will convert into common shares under a mandatory provision.

In the days leading up to GM's August S-1 filing, Republican Senator Charles Grassley asked a special Treasury Department watchdog for an analysis of the GM IPO and how much money would be returned to taxpayers.

In its pitch to potential investors, GM will tout its global reach, recent gains in quality and pricing in its home market, and its sharply lower cost of operations after its 2009 bankruptcy, sources have said.

GM's $1.3 billion second-quarter profit was its biggest since 2004, when industry-wide U.S. sales were near 17 million vehicles compared with the 11.5 million sales rate of August.

But GM will have to address investor concern that growth in industry car sales in the U.S. in the second half of 2010 and into 2011 will likely be slower than analysts had expected just a few months ago.

At the same time, GM will have to confront a pension shortfall that remains a liability from its pre-bankruptcy operations.

GM eliminated about $40 billion in unsecured debt and other obligations in bankruptcy, but the automaker still needs to address a pension shortfall estimated at about $26 billion.

A successful IPO would be a political victory for the Obama administration and would help GM distance itself from critics who dubbed it "Government Motors" after its bailout. (Reporting by Clare Baldwin and Soyoung Kim in New York and Kevin Krolicki in Detroit; editing by Carol Bishopric)

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 06, 2010, 05:23:17 PM

Obama calling for more infrastructure spending
 Email this Story

Sep 6, 8:33 AM (ET)


________________________ ___________-

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vowing to find new ways to stimulate the sputtering economy, President Barack Obama will call for long-term investments in the nation's roads, railways and runways that would cost at least $50 billion.

The infrastructure investments are one part of a package of targeted proposals the White House is expected to announce in hopes of jump-starting the economy ahead of the November election. Obama will outline the infrastructure proposal Monday at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.

While the proposal calls for investments over six years, the White House said spending would be front-loaded with an initial $50 billion to help create jobs in the near future.

The goals of the infrastructure plan include: rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; constructing and maintaining 4,000 miles of railways, enough to go coast-to-coast; and rehabilitating or reconstructing 150 miles of airport runways, while also installing a new air navigation system designed to reduce travel times and delays.

Obama will also call for the creation of a permanent infrastructure bank that would focus on funding national and regional infrastructure projects.

Administration officials wouldn't say what the total cost of the infrastructure investments would be, but did say the initial $50 billion represents a significant percentage. Officials said the White House would consider closing a number of special tax breaks for oil and gas companies to pay for the proposal.

Obama made infrastructure investments a central part of the $814 billion stimulus Congress passed last year, but with that spending winding down, the economy's growth has slowed. Officials said this infrastructure package differs from the stimulus because it's aimed at long-term growth, while still focusing on creating jobs in the short-term.

In a Labor Day interview on CBS'"Early Show," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said the plan Obama was to unveil Monday would "put construction workers, welders, electricians back to work ... folks that have been unemployed for a long time."

With the unemployment rate ticking up to 9.6 percent, and polls showing the midterm elections could be dismal for Democrats, the president has promised to unveil a series of new measures on the economy.

In addition to Monday's announcement in Milwaukee, Obama will travel to Cleveland Wednesday to pitch a $100 billion proposal to increase and make permanent research and development tax credits for businesses, a White House official said.

While the idea is popular in Congress, coming up with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts has been a stumbling block. Similar to his proposal to pay for the infrastructure investments, Obama will ask lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations to pay for the plan.

Other stimulus measures the administration is considering include extending a law passed in March that exempts companies that hire unemployed workers from paying Social Security taxes on those workers through December. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has proposed extending the exemption an additional six months.

Obama is also continuing to prod the Senate to pass the small business bill that calls for about $12 billion in tax breaks and a $30 billion fund to help unfreeze lending. Republicans have likened the bill to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry. And the president wants to make permanent the portion of George W. Bush's tax cuts affecting the middle class.

Wary of the public's concern over rising deficits, the administration insists a second stimulus plan, similar to last year's $814 billion bill, is not in the works.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 07, 2010, 04:30:30 AM
The Looming Obama Depression ^ | September 5, 2010 | Kevin McCullough

________________________ ________________________ __________________

The longer President Obama refuses to acknowledge the direction of our nation's economy the greater the impact will be when the looming depression that awaits is named in his honor. For a leader who has had the advantages of an Ivy League education, he seems to be an excessively poor student of history. But in 120 days no one will be able to dispute that the economic mess the United States finds herself in belongs to anyone except President Barack Hussein Obama.

The basis of this reality is rooted in two truths that became quite pronounced this week. The first is that President Obama is ignoring the very real direction the nation is headed. The second is that he is purposefully ignoring the impact his looming historic tax increases will have. Both are contributing to the pessimism that overarches the morale and tone of the entrepreneurial framework of the future.

This week President Obama took to the White House press corps and by extension to the nation to claim that the nation saw job growth of 67,000 jobs in August. Even if this number was real it would be a pitifully tiny percent of the 14,885,000 who are both on unemployment (1 in 10 Americans) as well as those 23,768,000 who are underemployed (working but not earning enough for basic needs - 1 in 5 families).

The bigger problem for the president however is that the number isn't real. The fact is the nation saw 114,000 people added to the unemployment lines in August and the net jobs lost for the month sat at 54,000. In all the "summer of recovery"--as both President Obama and Vice President Biden pronounced it--saw 238,000 more jobs disappear. Telling the nation that his plans have taken the economy in the right direction, and implying that the nation is seeing a recovery in the area of employment is either willfully dishonest, or painfully, even treacherously naive. At the rate of this "recovery" another 317,333 workers could be sitting on the sidelines before the end of the year.

Additionally we are now on track to see the single largest collection of tax increases ever proposed take the Obama economy even further into the tank. In less than 120 days President Obama's plan to add a collective 18.6% to the federal tax burden will continue the economic downward spiral into record breaking depression-era territory. And remember he repeatedly said--on the campaign trail--that he should be elected expressly to prevent the nation's economy from complete deterioration.

Instead unemployment that was growing in the transition from Bush to Obama has exploded to double what it was under Bush. Even worse this means that while 14,885,000 Americans are claiming unemployment assistance, some 23,768,000 families are presently struggling through work that they have but are unable to meet their basic needs.

And about the time we are belting out Auld Lang Syne this holiday season, President Obama will raise all five income levels of tax categories between 3-5%.

Ironically the President will be raising the rate on the category that is home to seventy-five percent of all small businesses in America by the largest increase.

I call it ironic because it is the small business community in America that hires 2 out of every 3 new workers in America.

Eventually it all adds up.

The president is not pushed on this issue by the press. The president's team pretends that these realities do not exist. The president himself is willing to perpetuate the false notion that the stimulus package set up a "recovery summer" that in truth ended up in greater pain than it began with.

None of this takes into effect the additional costs that will be incurred by taxpayers when the full implementation of President Obama's control of one-sixth of the economy through the manipulation of how we receive health care benefits kicks in. And not that it has great likelihood of passing this year, but if by some miracle it did, the Obama tax penalties that would be incurred by every citizen in the nation under the proposed "Cap & Trade" legislation would add even greater misery to the growing pile.

All of these pending tax increases will be put into effect against well more than 95% of American tax-payers. Speaking of which that certainly contradicts his most famous campaign line.

In 1929 Irving Fisher observed that a number of trends led to the worst depression of our nation's history.

How many of these fit in today's scenario:

Debt liquidation and distress selling

Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off

A fall in the level of asset prices

A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies

A fall in profits

A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.

Pessimism and loss of confidence

Hoarding of money

A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.

President Obama is ignoring and misrepresenting the rate of growth (or lack thereof) in the job numbers, and his economic team has laid the groundwork for the harshest attack on small businesses and every family in America that pays taxes effective January 1, 2011.

By every indicator this pundit can see, we are poised for tragedy... and I didn't get an Ivy League education!


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 07, 2010, 05:06:19 AM
Small businesses feel squeezed by Obama policies

By V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 6, 2010; 12

________________________ ________________________ _____

Last year, even as he struggled through the worst of the recession, Chris Upham said revenue at his District-based real estate and construction businesses doubled -- allowing him to hire two agents.

But Upham said he hasn't increased his staff thus far in 2010 and he doesn't expect to for the remainder of the year.

That's because his taxes rose sevenfold. And he said he anticipates they'll increase again if the Bush tax cuts for people earning $250,000 and above expire at the end of the year.

As small businesses try to plot their recovery, attention is turning to what many owners consider burdensome policies -- higher taxes, new accounting procedures and health-care mandates. Even as the government tries to help with an array of small-business initiatives, many owners say the intervention is as much a hindrance to hiring as the faltering economy.

Their perceptions are important because the Obama administration is counting on small-business owners like Upham, whose ranks represent more than half the U.S. workforce, to jump-start the economy, much like they did after downturns in the early 1990s and 2001.

"We did well last year, hired two people, but the taxes ate through the income we had," Upham said.

Upham said business picked up substantially with the Obama tax credit for first-time home buyers before dropping off when it ended. With the administration efforts, he said, he feels like he's taking one step forward and two backward.

"It seemed like we were moving up, [and now] consumer confidence is down," he added. "What I want government to do is not raise taxes -- decrease them to allow us extra money for hiring."

The White House appears poised to respond to a growing backlash from businesspeople about the crush of higher taxes. Among the ideas being explored were a temporary payroll-tax holiday and permanent extension of the expired research-and-development tax credit, ways to offset the impending elapse of tax cuts for the top 2 percent of households.

"I will be addressing a broader package of new ideas next week," President Obama said Friday at a news conference held to comment on the Labor Department's August unemployment data. The report showed weak economic growth -- 67,000 private sector jobs added in August, down from 107,000 in July -- and that the jobless rate ticked up to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent.

The conventional wisdom is that small businesses would be willing to expand their payroll if capital were more readily available to them. Small businesses suffered more in the credit crunch than their larger counterparts because they rely almost solely on banks for their financing.

Last year, the Obama administration allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to increase loan guarantees and to reduce borrower fees for small businesses, classified by the government as firms with 500 employees or fewer. The program proved to be wildly popular: Before the money ran out last spring, the number of loans approved soared 90 percent.

"There's a direct correlation between access to capital and job growth," said Molly Brogan, spokeswoman for the National Small Business Association. "If people are able to get loans and financing, they're able to grow their business and that includes creating new jobs."

Obama, who wants to revive the program, last week urged Senate Republicans to support a Democratic proposal to cut taxes for small businesses and establish a $30 billion loan fund providing them easier access to credit.

"There's one thing we know we should do -- something that should be Congress's first order of business when it gets back -- and that is making it easier for our small businesses to grow and hire," Obama said in a Rose Garden speech. "We know that in the final few months of last year, small businesses accounted for more than 60 percent of the job losses in America."

Yet to date, existing loan programs haven't yet spurred much hiring. Surveys conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Small Business Association show owners much less optimistic in recent months about their prospects of hiring and growing than they were late last year and earlier this year.

Even supporters of loans say the government investment likely won't pay off until consumers start spending and business owners start feeling more confident. "If everyone is saving and not spending and their clients are hurting economically, small businesses have to be a bit more cautious" about hiring, Brogan said.

In the Washington region, hiring is picking up at small businesses experiencing an increase in demand for their goods and services. For Luc Brami, principal of Gelberg Signs in Northwest Washington, and Craig Savarick, director of executive recruiting firm Capital Search Group in Vienna, an incentive came in the form of an Obama initiative: a temporary exemption from payroll taxes on every unemployed person they hired.

"For four people we hired, it will be a $9,000 savings," Brami said.

"We got a [tax] break and put it back into the company," he added. "We can buy equipment and get a credit, too."

In all, the administration has implemented about a dozen small-business programs, including a health-care tax credit; more opportunities for women business owners to receive government contracts; and cuts in capital gains taxes.

"Our view is that the financial crisis put multiple barriers in the way of small businesses and the appropriate policy response has to be aggressive and multifaceted instead of looking for one silver bullet," said Gene Sperling, counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on small-business issues.

But Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight, asserts that the initiatives coupled with numerous other new regulations are making owners feel overburdened, overregulated and less secure about the economy.

"They may see it as more interference," Bethune said, "they see it as bureaucratic intrusion."

Some business owners and advocates complain that some of the programs contradict one another. Stephanie Cathcart, spokeswoman for the National Federation of Independent Business, said benefits from the payroll tax exemption business owners use when they hire unemployed people are mitigated by provisions in the health-care overhaul law that reduce a tax credit when businesses hire.

"It's counterintuitive," she said. "Frankly, a lot of these initiatives fall short."

Brogan of the National Small Business Administration said a new accounting regulation dramatically increases the requirements associated with providing documentation to the government on businesses' vendors, a rule that on average will multiply the average number of 1099 tax forms an owner files every year to 86 from 10.

"This will take the money they'd spend to hire a part- or full-time employee and give it to accountants," she said.

Dinesh Sharma, president of government contracting firm Washington Business Group in Chantilly, said he ruled out using the payroll tax exemption, believing the savings couldn't justify the tens of thousands of dollars he'd spend in salary and health insurance for a new employee.

"We're not large enough to hire someone just to take the benefit of a small tax break," he added. "The burden is more than the benefit."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: GigantorX on September 07, 2010, 08:41:17 AM
This is reminding of the style of warfare during World War I. We just keep sending wave upon wave of "soliders" into the teeth of the enemy and they are slaughtered for literally a few hundred yards, maybe less. Each successive battle is then fought the same exact way with the ending of each engagement the exact same as the last. This worked in past recessions as taxes were cut, debt (both public and private) was loaded up on, money was kept cheap, interest rates of all kinds were dropped, wars were started and the U.S. consumer was kept afloat by bubble after bubble covering up the economic deterioration underneath. Victory is declared no matter what for propaganda purposes to keep the conscripts in line and the peasants in good spirits and distracted. But eventually, the reality surfaces and one side has to simply quit out of sheer exhaustion and lack of men and material.

They keep coming the same old way and they keep getting beat the same old way.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 07, 2010, 08:43:34 AM
Yup.  God forbid we do anything to attract foreign investment, build factories and production, build more of what we consume, and stop fleeicng taxpayers.  no, we can't try that for once.   ::)  ::)

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: GigantorX on September 07, 2010, 09:41:19 AM
Yup.  God forbid we do anything to attract foreign investment, build factories and production, build more of what we consume, and stop fleeicng taxpayers.  no, we can't try that for once.   ::)  ::)

Victory is always one more thrust away!

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 07, 2010, 09:42:27 AM
Victory is always one more thrust away!

Hhhhmmm, sound like what I tell me GF. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 07, 2010, 09:51:21 AM
11 Signs That "Recovery Summer" Will Be Obama's "Mission Accomplished"
Gus Lubin and Joe Weisenthal | Sep. 7, 2010, 11:51 AM | 15,676 |  28

________________________ ________________________ ____________

This was supposed to be a summer of recovery.

In fact, The White House even branded it "Recovery Summer."

But with the summer officially over, we now know that there wasn't much of a recovery at all, and the whole branding of it may go down as Obama's "Mission Accomplished" moment.

Domestic vehicle sales -- STALLED
June: 11.1 million sold
August: 11.4 million sold

Details: Total sales are stalled. Domestic sales are dropping, posting the worst August in 27 years. Cash For Clunkers is looking more and more like a miss.

Factory orders -- STALLED
May: $412 billion total orders
July: $410 billion total orders

Details: Not counting aircrafts, July data would mark a 1.5% drop, the worst in 16 months. After leading the recovery for months, anufacturing is stalling and starting to contract.
Retail Sales -- STALLED
May: $362 billion

July: $363 billion

Details: A 0.4% rebound in July makes up ground from a 0.3% loss in June, but no one's forgetting the big 0.5% drop in May.
Housing starts -- STALLEDMay: 588,000

July: 546,000

Details: 1.7% gains in July marked a modest recovery. But single family housing starts fell 4.3% -- a negative indicator for home prices.
New home sales -- GETTING WORSEMay: 281,000

July: 276,000

Details: Demand hit an all-time low in July. Average months of supply also climbed for the month. These numbers suggest residential investment will be a drag on GDP for Q3.
Consumer sentiment -- STALLEDConsumer Sentiment Index June: 76

Consumer Sentiment Index August: 70

Consumer Board Index June: 54

Consumer Board Index August: 53

Details: Consumer sentiment dropped in June and July on bad economic news. Negative sentiment slowed or reversed in August.

Job creation -- STALLED
June: -125,000 non-farm payroll

August: -54,000 non-farm payroll

Details: The August jobs report actually helped the market, as the private sector created 67,000 jobs. Job loss was less than expected following the census surge. Overall it's a mixed picture.

Unemployment -- STALLEDJune: 9.5%

August: 9.6%

Details: With the census surge come and gone, unemployment is stuck at 9.6%. It's hard to say what how encouraged and discouraged workers are affecting the number.

Manufacturing index -- IMPROVINGMay PMI: 59.7

August PMI: 56.3

Details: August showed a stellar improvement in the ISM manufacturing index, up to 56.3 from 55.5, when analysts expected a fall to 53.0.
ISM Non-manufacturing index -- ROLLING OVERJune: 53.8%

August: 51.5%

Details: This measure of the service industry hit its lowest level since January.
Stock market -- IMPROVINGJune 1: 10,024

Sept. 7 (open): 10,320

Details: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up nearly 3% since Memorial Day. Big gains in July melted away in August, before closing the summer with a surge.

Now as for how we're doing right now...Check out 10 details from the August jobs report >
Tags: Economy, Features | Get Alerts for these topics »

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 07, 2010, 12:27:55 PM
Obama's Apology Tour
by Gordon G. Chang Info

________________________ ________________

Gordon G. Chang is a columnist and the author of The Coming Collapse of China and Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World, focusing on nuclear proliferation and the North Korean crisis. He has lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades.
The president sent economic adviser Larry Summers to China, repeating a similar trip last March that made the U.S. look weak. Gordon G. Chang on how Obama's making the same mistake twice.

National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers and Deputy National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon arrived in Beijing yesterday to put relations with China back on track. Their visit is scheduled to end Wednesday.
At the top of Washington’s agenda are two items.  First, there is Beijing’s predatory fixing of the value of the renminbi. China had raised hopes on June 19 when it announced it would increase exchange rate “flexibility.” Up until then, the Chinese central bank had pegged the value of the renminbi to the dollar.  Since the widely welcomed change, the currency has appreciated less than 0.3% against the greenback, however. Many analysts believe the yuan, as the renminbi is informally known, is undervalued by as much as 40%. Beijing has, throughout the years, manipulated the value of its currency to boost exports.

Second, the American delegation is expected to raise the issue of China’s increasingly close economic relations with Iran. The concern is that Chinese enterprises and financial institutions will be “backfilling,” rushing in to take up commercial opportunities abandoned by companies and banks complying with international sanctions. Beijing voted for Security Council measures in June but has criticized Washington’s additional sanctions, which have been followed by the European Union, Canada, Australia, and Japan.

There are, of course, a host of other agenda items, from troubled military ties to Beijing’s claims to the South China Sea to China’s relations with North Korea. Chinese diplomats will undoubtedly raise the “T” issues, Taiwan, Tibet, and trade.

On Wednesday, we are sure to hear expressions of progress as the two sides wrap up discussions, but real forward movement seems unlikely. First, Beijing and Washington have irreconcilable goals. Chinese leaders recognize this and talk about the nature of their differences with us. American officials, on the other hand, still cannot bring themselves to have honest conversations, even in private.

The Chinese will see this as the Apology Tour, the Sequel.

Second, Washington seems intent on pursuing counterproductive tactics. In early November, for instance, Jeffrey Bader, the top Asia official on the National Security Council, publicly said no important issue in the world could be solved without China’s cooperation. In effect, Bader, now in Beijing as part of the Summers-Donilon delegation, gave the Chinese a veto over American foreign policy. So it should come as no surprise that they were especially uncooperative during President Obama’s November summit in Beijing.

Just weeks after that, the Chinese went on a bender, adopting obstructionist tactics at the Copenhagen climate change conference in December. China’s officials then made hostile comments—and specific threats—on matters ranging from minor arms sales to Taiwan to a literally back-door visit by the Dalai Lama to the White House.

So what did President Obama do? He sent two senior officials, Bader and Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, to Beijing in March. The Chinese saw the visit as a sign of weakness and said the pair had come to apologize to China, a theme echoed in official media. Of course, neither of the Americans made apologies to China, but Beijing was in no mood to talk to them in earnest.

In fact, Beijing during the Bader-Steinberg visit staked out even more aggressive positions. For instance, the Chinese for the first time labeled their ludicrous claims to the entire South China Sea as a “core interest” of their nation.

Obama’s good-hearted initiative had backfired, apparently encouraging the very behavior he sought to prevent. Yet what is the president doing now? He is sending even more officials to Beijing. The Chinese will see this as the Apology Tour, the Sequel. The White House is just not learning from its mistakes.

Now would be a good time for the Obama administration to change course. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin will begin hearings on China’s exchange rate on September 15. The early betting is that he will report out the Tim Ryan bill, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear she wants legislation soon. In the Senate, Chuck Schumer’s legislative proposals have attracted bipartisan support with as perhaps as many as 70 of his colleagues on his side.

Beijing needs to be concerned that a weakened Obama will be in no position to veto legislation targeting the renminbi. China is increasing its dependence on the American market—last year 115.7% of its overall trade surplus related to sales to us, up from 90.1% in 2008. Currency legislation, in short, could add to the woes of the weakening Chinese economy.

And on Iran, it seems much of the international community is lining up behind U.S. sanctions.  Reports that the “atomic ayatollahs” are close to weaponizing their uranium is, naturally, drawing the world against the Islamic Republic. Iran and its allies—Beijing is now Tehran’s primary backer—look like they might get run over by the global momentum.

So, at this moment the Chinese have many more reasons to come talk to us than we have to go see them.

Gordon G. Chang is a columnist and the author of The Coming Collapse of China and Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World, focusing on nuclear proliferation and the North Korean crisis. He has lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades.

Get a head start with the Morning  Scoop email. It's your Cheat Sheet with must reads from across the  Web. Get it.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily  Beast at

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 08, 2010, 07:10:17 AM

Obama's Argument For Ending Bush Tax Cuts Is Completely Disingenuous
Joe Weisenthal | Sep. 8, 2010, 10:28 AM | 525 |  16

________________________ ________________________ _

Sorry: Obama Flatly Rejects Bush Tax Cut Extension For The RichObama's New Business Tax Break Is A Gigantic Version Of Cash-For-ClunkersDeparted Obama Aide Now Says Ending Bush Tax Cuts Will Make Unemployment WORSE
Why won't Obama support an extension of the Bush tax cuts?

Smartly, he takes a conservative line. He says we can't afford the $700 billion deficit hit that would come about if we kept the tax cuts in play.

Granted, this line won't convince anyone, even deficit hawks, but still it sounds plausible.

But seriously, what evidence is there of this? On what basis does he conclude that $700 billion is unaffordable?

The truth is that there is no evidence that this would be a budgetary dealbreaker. We owe trillions upon trillions already, and everyone knows this, and we have problem borrowing money.

So that can't really be the reason. There's got to be another reason for this stance. Class politics? Maybe, but we're not sure the eat the rich strategy even flies right now, so honestly we're stumped.

Anyway, Obama is speaking today on his latest burst of mini-stimulus ideas. We'll learn more.

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 10, 2010, 06:30:16 AM
Homebuyer tax credit: 950,000 must repay
By Les Christie, staff writerSeptember 9, 2010: 2:40 PM ET

________________________ ________________________ ______________

NEW YORK ( -- Nearly half of all Americans who claimed the first-time homebuyer tax credit on their 2009 tax returns will have to repay the government.

According to a report from the Inspector General for Tax Administration, released to the public Thursday, about 950,000 of the nearly 1.8 million Americans who claimed the tax credit on their 2009 tax returns will have to return the money.

The confusion comes because homebuyers were eligible for two different credits, depending on when their homes were purchased.

Those who bought properties during 2008 were to deduct, dollar for dollar, up to 10% of the home's purchase price or $7,500, whichever was less. The catch: The money was a no-interest loan that had to be repaid within 15 years.

Had they waited to buy until 2009, they could have gotten a much sweeter deal. Congress extended the credit and made it a refund rather than a loan.

Now, the IRS is developing a strategy for separating the 2009 taxpayers who are required to repay the credit from those who are not.

A review by the Inspector General earlier this year found that the IRS could not easily distinguish between home purchases made in 2008 and 2009. That heightened concerns that some claims could be erroneous or even fraudulent, that buyers could, for example, claim their purchase came later than it actually occurred.

Thursday's release reported that 73,000 claims, more than 4% of the 1.8 million homebuyers who received the credit, had incorrect purchase dates recorded by the IRS.

Some of the inaccuracies counted against the taxpayers, Nearly 60,000 were listed as purchasing in 2008 (meaning they had to repay the credit) or had no purchase dates at all, rather than their correct 2009 purchase dates, which would free them of the obligation to pay it back.

It is also taking a look at all those deceased taxpayers who received credits.

The inspector general reported that 1,326 single people listed as dead by the Social Security Administration claimed more than $10 million in credits. The IRS threw out 528 of those 1,326 claims, saving $4 million.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 10, 2010, 12:30:51 PM
The Corner
No Place for Entrepreneurship in Obama’s Economy
September 9, 2010 3:20 P.M. By Samuel R. Staley

________________________ ________________________ _________

President Obama did a great service to the public on Wednesday when he outlined his vision for economic policy before a friendly audience in Parma, Ohio (near Cleveland). He mixed populist rhetoric stoking the middle class with empty overtures to entrepreneurs and, in the process, demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about how market economies operate.

He started out with the inclusive rhetoric that sucked many moderates and Blue Dogs into his presidential campaign in 2008:

You know, in the fall of 2008, one of the last rallies of my presidential campaign was right here in the Cleveland area.  (Applause.)  It was a hopeful time, just two days before the election.  And we knew that if we pulled it off, we’d finally have the chance to tackle some big and difficult challenges that had been facing this country for a very long time.

We also hoped for a chance to get beyond some of the old political divides — between Democrats and Republicans, red states and blue states — that had prevented us from making progress.  Because although we are proud to be Democrats, we are prouder to be Americans — (applause) — and we believed then and we believe now that no single party has a monopoly on wisdom.

We have now learned, two years into his presidency, that the inclusiveness was really about evangelical conversion to progressive views on politics and the economy. Private businesses and entrepreneurs are fine as long as their investments, time, commitment and resources are directed toward social ends (as defined by progressive politicos). This becomes clear when Obama says:

But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.  (Applause.)  And that means making the long-term investments in this country’s future that individuals and corporations can’t make on their own:  investments in education and clean energy, in basic research and technology and infrastructure.  (Applause.)

So, government is responsible for directing the economy. John Kenneth Galbraith would be pleased, as a key implication of this view is that government must be elevated to a senior position in a rough partnership between the private sector and organized labor. It’s not much of a step, then, for the president to take this to the next level, making quite clear that private business should not be focused on creating value (through the pursuit of profits) but on pursuing non-economic objectives and redistributing wealth. He continues:

That means making sure corporations live up to their responsibilities to treat consumers fairly and play by the same rules as everyone else.  (Applause.)  Their responsibility is to look out for their workers, as well as their shareholders, and create jobs here at home.

And that means providing a hand-up for middle-class families — so that if they work hard and meet their responsibilities, they can afford to raise their children, and send them to college, see a doctor when they get sick, retire with dignity and respect.  (Applause.)

Indeed, Obama believes fundamentally that the middle class owes its existence to the government, not to wealth-creating entrepreneurs or businesses. Without skipping a beat, the president fails to recognize (let alone acknowledge) the difference between a truly free market, where individuals decide how to invest their resources, and a government-directed one that sets collective priorities which require individuals to tow the line for specific policy objectives implicitly defined by the political class:   

That’s what we Democrats believe in — a vibrant free market, but one that works for everybody.  (Applause.)  That’s our vision.  That’s our vision for a stronger economy and a growing middle class.  And that’s the difference between what we and Republicans in Congress are offering the American people right now.

Missing in most of the popular analysis of Obama’s economic policy perspective is the way his personal experience has fundamentally framed the way he looks at the world. He provided a convenient glimpse into this in Parma:

You see, Michelle and I are where we are today because even though our families didn’t have much, they worked tirelessly — without complaint — so that we might have a better life.  My grandfather marched off to Europe in World War II, while my grandmother worked in factories on the home front.  I had a single mom who put herself through school, and would wake before dawn to make sure I got a decent education.  Michelle can still remember her father heading out to his job as a city worker long after multiple sclerosis had made it impossible for him to walk without crutches.  He always got to work; he just had to get up a little earlier.

Yes, our families believed in the American values of self-reliance and individual responsibility, and they instilled those values in their children.  But they also believed in a country that rewards responsibility; a country that rewards hard work; a country built on the promise of opportunity and upward mobility. 

 They believed in an America that gave my grandfather the chance to go to college because of the GI Bill; an America that gave my grandparents the chance to buy a home because of the Federal Housing Authority; an America that gave their children and grandchildren the chance to fulfill our dreams thanks to college loans and college scholarships.

It’s hard to ignore that all the “rewards” explicitly identified by Obama are directly tied to government programs, not entrepreneurial investment that creates new wealth. For Obama, economic policy — and the economy more generally — is about redistribution . . . and spending.

What’s also startling is the degree to which this president’s economic literacy reaches little further than the superficial (and incorrect) numbers the mandarins in the White House spit out uncritically from their econometric models. (For a more thorough critique of this process, see my article “Naive Statistics” in National Review, November 2, 2009.)

Entrepreneurship really doesn’t exist in the economic lingo (or policy) of this presidency. In Obama’s world, businesses and entrepreneurs are merely variables to be manipulated by the political class.

— Samuel R. Staley is Robert W. Galvin Fellow and director of Urban & Land Use Policy at the Reason Foundation.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 12, 2010, 06:01:29 AM
Americans have good reason not to believe in Obamanomics

By George F. Will
Sunday, September 12, 2010; A25

Looking back with pride, the British are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, when Churchill said of the pilots fighting the Luftwaffe: Never "was so much owed by so many to so few." Looking ahead with trepidation, Americans are thinking: Never have so many of us owed so much.

Actually, they owed slightly more when the recession began, when household consumer debt was $2.6 trillion. The painful but necessary process of deleveraging is proceeding slowly: Such debt has been reduced only to $2.4 trillion. Add to that the facts that the recession has reduced household wealth by $10 trillion and that only 25 percent of Americans expect their incomes to improve next year. So they are not spending, and companies, having given the economy a temporary boost last year by rebuilding inventories, are worried. Hence, rather than hiring, companies are sitting on cash reserves much larger than the size of last year's $862 billion stimulus.

Democrats who say that another stimulus is necessary for job creation but who dare not utter the word "stimulus" are sending three depressing messages: The $862 billion stimulus did not work; the public so loathes the word that another stimulus will not happen; therefore prosperity is not "just around the corner," as Herbert Hoover supposedly said (but did not). Consumers and businesses are responding to those messages by heeding Polonius's advice in "Hamlet": "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." Hoover -- against whom Democrats, those fountains of fresh ideas, have been campaigning for 78 years -- is again being invoked as a terrible warning about the wages of sin. Sin is understood by liberals as government austerity, which is understood as existing levels of government spending, whatever they are, whenever. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently said that Germans favoring reduced rather than increased state spending sounded "a little bit like Hoover." Well.

Real per capita federal expenditures almost doubled between 1929, Hoover's first year as president, and 1932, his last. David Kennedy, in "Freedom from Fear," the volume in the Oxford history of the American people that deals with the Depression, writes of Hoover:

"He nearly doubled federal public works expenditures in three years. Thanks to his prodding, the net stimulating effect of federal, state and local fiscal policy was larger in 1931 than in any subsequent year of the decade." Barack Obama has self-nullifying plans for stimulating the small-business sector that creates most new jobs. He has just endorsed tax relief for such businesses but opposes extension of the Bush tax cuts for high-income filers, who include small businesses with 48 percent of that sector's earnings. The stance of other Democrats seems to be that the Bush cuts were wicked in conception, reckless in execution -- and should be largely, and perhaps entirely, extended.

Does this increase anyone's confidence? About as much as noting the one-year anniversary of the end of another of the administration's brainstorms.

The used-car market is an important mechanism for redistributing wealth to low-income persons: The price of a car drops when it is driven out of the dealership, but much of its transportation value remains when it enters the used-car market. Unfortunately for low-income people, the average price of a three-year-old automobile has increased more than 10 percent since last summer. This is largely because the Car Allowance Rebate System, aka "Cash for Clunkers," which ended in August 2009, cut the supply of used cars.

Cash for Clunkers provided up to $4,500 to persons who traded in a car in order to purchase a new car with better gas mileage, but it stipulated that the used car had to be scrapped. The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby reports that a study by shows that all but 125,000 of the 700,000 cars sold during the clunkers program would have been bought even if no subsidy had been available. If this is so, each incremental sale cost taxpayers $24,000.

Even on environmental grounds the program was, Jacoby argues, "an exorbitant dud": The reduction in carbon dioxide from removing older cars from the road cost, according to research at the University of California at Davis, $237 a ton (the international market prices carbon emissions credits at about $20 a ton) and the new higher-mileage cars mean a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions of less than what Americans emit every hour.

Obama is desperately urging consumers and investors to have confidence in his understanding of economics. They may, however, remember his characteristic certitude that "cash for clunkers" was "successful beyond anybody's imagination."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Fury on September 12, 2010, 06:30:59 AM
That article you posted where it explained how Volcker went ignored while scumbags like Geithner were listened to says it all.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: GigantorX on September 12, 2010, 11:59:38 AM
That article you posted where it explained how Volcker went ignored while scumbags like Geithner were listened to says it all.

Volcker was added to Obama's "Economics Council" because of his connection to Reagan, plain and simple. He was never listened to nor was he brought in to be listened to.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 12, 2010, 12:21:44 PM
Volcker was added to Obama's "Economics Council" because of his connection to Reagan, plain and simple. He was never listened to nor was he brought in to be listened to.

Same with Buffet. 

I posted a video with Buffet disagreeing with Cap & Trade, ObamaCare, Card Check, etc, and the kneepadders went silent. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 12, 2010, 12:24:46 PM
Linda Chavez: Obama hasn't yet learned his economic lesson
By: Linda Chavez
Examiner Columnist

________________________ ________________--

September 10, 2010 President Obama was in full campaign mode this week as he delivered a stump speech on the economy in Cleveland. But the magic is gone.

He's no longer the silver-tongued orator who could make us feel good about ourselves and the prospects for our country -- which was key to his victory in 2008. Now he's just another partisan hack blaming the other party for his own failure of leadership.

Instead of changing his tone and rhetoric, the president should be focused on changing his policies. But he seems incapable of any new thinking on what to do about the ailing economy.

His only solution is to spend more. He's now touting a new economic stimulus: $50 billion in supposed infrastructure spending, which he's coupled to some targeted tax breaks for businesses. But few people -- including those vulnerable members of Congress in his own party -- are buying his plan, for good reason.

If nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus spending couldn't create enough jobs to drop the unemployment rate to under 9 percent, how could adding $50 billion more for infrastructure improvements make a difference? The problem with the president's new plan is the same as it was with the old one.

Government doesn't "create" jobs. Government only grows at the expense of taxpayers, siphoning off money that could be put to better use in the private sector.

Nor is the president's plan to give a few targeted tax breaks to business any more likely to create permanent jobs. The president's plan is just another attempt to micromanage the economy. Instead of enacting an across-the-board tax cut -- or simply keeping in place the Bush tax cuts that are due to expire -- he is proposing specific tax breaks that he hopes will motivate certain kinds of business behavior.

The top corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39 percent, one of the highest in the industrialized world. Instead of lowering the top rate to that of, say, Germany's or the United Kingdom's, both of which are below 30 percent, the president is proposing to allow businesses to write off certain expenses.

He'd like to make permanent a tax credit for research and development, and he'd allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their capital investments in 2011 instead of writing them down over several years.

But businesses don't make decisions about expanding their workforce on the basis of one-year write-offs. If the president had even an iota of business experience, maybe he'd understand that.

One-year tax breaks may improve the short-term bottom line for corporations, but successful businesses operate on a longer time horizon. Do the president and his advisers really believe that a company that receives a one-year $5 million write-off will go out and hire 100 new employees as a result? Not likely, especially since the cost of employing those workers will continue to rise long after the tax benefits have disappeared.

A tax rate cut, however, can motivate hiring.

If a company knows that its tax bill is going down permanently, it may well be motivated to spend that money in hiring more people or in making capital improvements (which creates jobs for workers employed by other companies). But no responsible CEO would make such a decision on the basis of a one-time credit or write-off.

But cutting taxes is only half the solution. Tax cuts that produce real economic growth lead to higher revenues. But cutting government spending is by far the most important thing we can do to improve the economy. And those cuts need to come at the state and local as well as the federal level.

Cadillac pensions and benefits for public employees are bankrupting states like California. And entitlement spending at the federal level must be brought under control -- as painful as it will be to do so. But few politicians in either party want to tackle Social Security or Medicare reform -- Reps. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Mike Pence, R-Ind., and a handful of others in the GOP are the exceptions.

We cannot tax and spend our way out of the current economic mess. American voters understand that. Now it's time for the politicians, especially the president, to get the message.

Examiner Columnist Linda Chavez is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 12, 2010, 12:47:31 PM
New economic chairman: Unemployment rate 'going to stay high' in near term
The Hill ^ | 9-12-10 | Sam Youngman and Bridget Johnson

________________________ ___________-

President Obama's new chairman of the Council of Economic Affairs (CEA) said Sunday that the national unemployment rate will not decrease significantly anytime soon.

Austan Goolsbee, who Obama announced on Friday will replace Christina Romer as head of the CEA, told "Fox News Sunday" that the president is doing all he can to help the economy, but the recession was so deep, it will take some time for employment numbers to recover.

"I don't think the unemployment rate will be coming down significantly at any time in the near future," Goolsbee said.

Unemployment for the nation reached 9.6 percent in August, and Goolsbee and other White House officials regularly concede they expect it to get worse before it gets better.

Goolsbee echoed that forecast on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "It's going to stay high," he said of the unemployment rate. "This recession is the deepest in our lifetimes, the deepest since 1929. If you take the people thrown out of work in the 1982 recession, the 1991 recession, the 2001 recession, not only is this bigger, this is bigger than all of those combined. So more than 8 million people lost their jobs.

"It's going to take a significant push on our part and time before that comes down," he said. "I don't anticipate it coming down rapidly."

Goolsbee, in his first interview since Obama named his as chairman of the CEA, defended Obama's handling of the economy, specifically the president's call for ending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 13, 2010, 04:20:29 AM
Who's being 'reckless'?
By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, September 13, 2010 m

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. He can be reached via via e-mail.

________________________ _______________________

With 15 million workers unemployed and another 11 million underemployed, President Obama decided last week that the answer was to increase the amount of anti-rich red meat that he's throwing around.

At a Labor Day rally in Milwaukee, Mr. Obama declared that the United States "didn't become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness."

He didn't say whether we became the most prosperous country via income redistribution and mandatory wealth spreading.

He also didn't say whether the "greed" accusation applied to guys like Jay-Z and Big Ben or just to the regular capitalists and entrepreneurs who run America's car-repair shops and jewelry stores on Main Street.

He also didn't say whether his definition of "recklessness" includes the nonstop and decentralized risk-taking that's inherent in a free-enterprise economy, a system rooted in what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction."

Schumpeter was being positive. The endless string of winners and losers, the bankruptcies and newly formed companies, are essential components of an efficient and growing economy based on private property, limited government and individual freedom.

For various types of central planners, this process of decentralization and freedom looks way too messy and uncontrolled -- much too prone to "recklessness."

Mr. Obama also declared that "anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it'll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up -- they just haven't studied our history."

In fact, the history of the 1960s and 1980s shows that the benefits of cuts in top marginal income tax rates clearly trickled down to help "working folks" in the form of more jobs, less unemployment, less poverty, less inflation and higher wage growth.

The John F. Kennedy income tax cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964, cutting the top marginal federal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent, were followed by several years of 5 percent real gross domestic product growth per year, dropping the unemployment rate from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.5 percent in 1969, a lower jobless rate than the 4.0 percent unemployment rate that's generally defined as "full employment."

Similarly, the Reagan income tax cuts produced real average annual GDP growth of 3.2 percent from 1981 to 1989, a higher growth rate than what existed before and after the Reagan years, i.e., 2.8 percent average real annual growth in the pre-Reagan years from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent growth in the post-Reagan years from 1989 to 1995.

Following the Reagan cut in the top marginal federal income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, unemployment was cut in half, from 9.7 percent in 1982 to 5.3 percent in 1989.

And the poor? The real income, adjusted for inflation, of the poorest fifth of U.S. households increased by 12 percent in the Reagan era, reversing a 17 percent decline in their average real income from 1979 to 1983 before Reagan's pro-growth tax cuts kicked in.

The poverty population in the U.S., after growing by 7 million in the late 1970s, dropped by 4 million in the 1980s. The real median income, adjusted for inflation, of black households increased by 17 percent from 1982 to 1989, reversing a 10 percent decline from 1978 to 1982.

Obama's strategy? Raise taxes on "the rich" during a recession for "fairness." That's a clear policy of economic and political "recklessness."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: MM2K on September 13, 2010, 05:44:19 PM
Mr. Obama also declared that "anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it'll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up -- they just haven't studied our history."

What????!!! That's the way the world works deufus!!!!

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 13, 2010, 05:48:21 PM
What????!!! That's the way the world works deufus!!!!

In Obama's mind, you give the whinos, deadbeats, drug addicts, and dope dealers all the money and prosperity follows.   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 14, 2010, 04:47:13 AM
Obama to kill more jobs ^ | September 13, 2010 | Joseph Mason

________________________ _____________

The latest job killing initiative by Barack Obama: focus new taxes on the oil and gas industry.

Just last week, President Obama explicitly targeted the industry for two massive tax hikes. First, he'd ban oil and gas companies from using the "Section 199" tax credit, a measure for domestic manufacturers enacted in 2004 to boost US employment. (The Senate is set to vote this week on its version of the ban.) Second, he wants to end "dual capacity" protection for US energy firms.

Without this shield against double taxation on foreign revenues, American companies would be competing on an uneven global playing field. Again, Obama aims directly and specifically at the US oil and gas industry.

Yet, by the federal government's own economic model, these tax hikes would lead to huge, immediate job losses. I ran the numbers through the Commerce Department's RIMS II model; it shows, under the proposed changes to Section 199 and dual capacity, Americans would almost immediately lose more than 150,000 stable, private-sector jobs.

By repealing the tax credit US-based companies claim on the taxes they pay abroad, Obama's "stimulus" plan would effectively double-tax American businesses -- driving investment to foreign competitors that don't face the same tax burden.

Again, Obama is enriching foreign oil companies at the expense of domestic ones. He has done this previously when he extended billions in loans to the Brazilian oil company Petrobras with extensive offshore oil programs through the U.S. Export-Import Bank, while trying to kills off offshore oil exploration in the Gulf by our companies.

Obama did it again this past week when the Ex-Im bank extended another billion in loans to support Mexican oil development in the Gulf. Obama seems to relish the opportunity to redistribute power and wealth to foreign countries and companies at our expense.


As Dinesh D'Souza writes, not only is Barack Obama the most anti-business President in American history but he seems to relish the opportunity to enrich and empower foreign companies at the expense of American ones. D'Souza speculates this is a legacy of Obama's immersion in foreign cultures as a child and the anti-colonial views of his father. American companies were seen as greedy and rapacious. His father railed against neo-colonialism where foreign companies replaced foreign government officials as the ruling power in the third world. His Indonesian stepfather worked for an American oil company in Indonesia and earned far less and lived a lesser lifestyle than American executives posted there. Also, Obama feels Americans use too much energy and that the lesser-developed nations should be entitled to use more, at our expense. What better way than to extend our tax dollars to foreign oil companies?

This strategy also is a way to further to enrich promoters of green schemes that benefit Democratic donors. The stories are accumulating of politically connected Democrats plugged into green schemes that depend on government powers that be, since the economics don't exist-being showered with government money-that they recycle into Democratic campaigns.

America, Obama is just not into us.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 14, 2010, 09:00:55 AM
Senate defeats plan to strip filing requirement from health law
By Alexander Bolton - 09/14/10 12:47 PM ET

________________________ ________________________ ________
The Senate on Tuesday defeated an effort to strip a controversial tax-reporting provision from the sweeping healthcare law Congress passed earlier this year.

Lawmakers voted 46 to 52 to block an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) that would have saved businesses and nonprofit groups from having to report an array of small and medium-sized purchases to the Internal Revenue Service.

A handful of Democrats voted for the Johanns proposal, including Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mark Warner (Va.), and Jim Webb (Va.).

The vote puts the Senate on track to pass small-business assistance legislation this week or early next week.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups had lobbied furiously in favor of the Johanns amendment. Business groups argue the new requirements impose a heavy cost on small businesses and will harm the economy.

The provision, which is estimated to raise $17 billion over 10 years to pay for a new prevention and public healthcare fund, requires businesses and other groups to file 1099 tax forms to report purchases from a single supplier that total more than $600 in a year.

Senators also blocked an alternative to Johann’s amendment sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). Nelson’s proposal would have increased the reporting threshold to $5,000 and eliminated the requirement for businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

Nelson’s amendment failed by a vote of 56 to 42, four votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate.

Republicans expressed concerns over the Nelson alternative because it would have been paid for by repealing a tax break for large oil-and-gas producers.

Senate Republicans said they were not surprised the Johanns amendment did not attract more votes, citing staunch opposition from President Obama.

"The White House does not want to set the precedent of rewriting the healthcare bill," said a GOP aide. "They don't want to admit they made any mistakes in the bill before the election."

Democratic leaders scheduled the vote on the Johanns amendment to secure the support of Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) to advance the small-business bill. Voinovich had demanded consideration of the small-business reporting provision before agreeing to a final vote on the broader bill.

The legislation would provide $12 billion in tax cuts to small businesses and set up a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund. It would allow businesses to write off up to $500,000 in capital investments and 50 percent of the cost of new equipment. It would also increase to $10,000 the tax deduction for small business start-ups.

Julian Pecquet contributed to this story.

This story was posted at 11:59 a.m. and updated at 12:47 p.m.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 15, 2010, 07:28:49 AM
Study: Tax moves could 'cripple' US industry (oil)
Oil and Gas Journal ^ | Sep 14, 2010 | OGJ editors

________________________ ________________________ _______

This article was updated on Sept. 15 to reflect legislative developments.

By OGJ editors HOUSTON, Sept. 14 -- Proposals by the Obama administration to kill two tax provisions important to oil and gas companies would do economic harm worth more than the revenue they would raise for the government, according to a study commissioned by the American Energy Alliance.

Louisiana State University Prof. Joseph R. Mason, who conducted the study, concludes that ending “dual-capacity” tax provisions and denying oil and gas companies use of a tax deduction available to other industries since 2004 “could cripple the oil and gas sector.”

Under current dual-capacity tax law, companies with income outside the US can lower US income taxes by the amounts they pay in income taxes to other governments. The administration proposes to adjust dual-capacity rules so as to slash the value of the credit.

The move would impose double-taxation on much foreign income and hurt the abilities of international oil companies based in the US to compete abroad.

The other proposal would prevent US oil and gas companies from using a deduction enacted in Sect. 199 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 to bring overall tax rates of US manufacturers in line with those of non-US competitors.

Together, Mason says, the moves would cut US economic output by $341 billion and wages by almost $68 billion over the next decade. They would eliminate 154,000 jobs in 2011 and a further 115,000 jobs over the rest of the decade.

Mason points out that the losses he projects exceed the $210 billion that some analysts have estimated would flow to the US Treasury as a result of the tax changes.

And Mason says those analyses don’t account for “the inexorable reality that US corporations will respond to higher taxes by restricting domestic production and moving operations elsewhere in the world.”

The Senate on Sept. 14 rejected an attempt by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) to deny use by the five largest oil companies of the Sect. 199 deduction. Nelson made his proposal as an amendment to legislation to provide incentives to small businesses.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 26, 2010, 06:11:07 PM
 Professor: Obama Has Caused ‘Irreparable harm’ to Gulf Coast Economyby Capitol Confidential

________________________ ____________

Obama administration policies have caused “irreperable harm” to the Gulf Coast economy, stifling the energy sector and culling employment within it to a degree previously underestimated by the administration itself.

That is the conclusion drawn by Louisiana State University economics professor, Dr. Joseph Mason, author of a new critique of the Obama administration’s Inter-Agency Economic Report released last week estimating losses due to the deepwater drilling moratorium currently in effect.  According to Dr. Mason, that report understated the ban’s impact on job losses by as much as 60 percent.

During a conference call Tuesday, Mason criticized the administration’s methodology for calculating the economic effects of the ban, and said the administration used inflated, flawed logic to calculate its valuation of economic offsets—such as unemployment wages—and their counter effects on the economic downturn. He said the report was inaccurately rosy in describing the Gulf States’ economic recoveries following the BP spill.

“Those states have been irreparably harmed,” Mason said. “Essentially all of these economies have taken the summer off and are trying to get back to the baseline.”

Mason said the Obama administration’s approach, harming business activity in the name of environmental defense, was part of a broader trend of stifling economic growth. He said administration officials did not approach him for advice on their analysis and that no serious forecasting was conducted prior to the ban.

“I find it quite honestly shocking that an economic analysis was not undertaken prior to the policy being put into effect,” Mason sad. “[T]here’s been a growing influence in the Environmental Protection Agency over roughly the last decade to undertake environmental policy without economic consideration whatsoever.”

The critique comes at a time when the Obama administration has also been taking fire for pursuing tax hikes that would target the energy sector.  On Wednesday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce held a conference call during which these proposed tax hikes were discussed.  Speaking on the call were Dr. Daniel Yergin and David Hobbs of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, co-authors of a new report detailing how U.S. tax policy impacts the competitiveness of American companies, globally.

According to Hobbs, legislative proposals such as the possible tax changes could exacerbate disadvantages already experienced by U.S. companies, making them less competitive than companies from other countries analyzed in that report. Yergin and Hobbs say that is because companies from countries such as Canada, China, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, and the United Kingdom pay less tax on repatriated income than do American companies.  This in turn gives them a competitive advantage, which would presumably be expanded were the proposals being pursued in fact implemented.

Were such changes pursued, said one industry expert, it would be more bad news for energy workers, many of whom live along the Gulf Coast.  ”And apparently,” that expert added, “they’ve had more bad news than the government itself either thought or wanted people to believe.”

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 26, 2010, 07:19:25 PM
Six months of ObamaCare: Two Minnesota insurers stop selling individual policies
hot air ^ | September 24, 2010 | Ed Morrissey

If you like your policy, you can keep your policy meets We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it right here in Minnesota as ObamaCare hits its six-month mark.

Two major insurers have decided to suspend sales of individual policies rather than run the compliance gauntlet in the health-care overhaul bill...

Instead of relieving the uncertainty by passing ObamaCare, the administration and Congress has made the environment so uncertain that insurers can’t even sell their plans — regardless of whether they comply with the mandates...

The largest plan being discontinued came from an organization that publicly campaigned for ObamaCare passage — the AARP. Their MedicareRX Saver plan, which offered a lower-cost premium in return for reduced coverage, will shut down in a week. Consumers will get routed to their more-expensive Preferred plan, which costs almost 15% more.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 28, 2010, 06:31:16 AM
Obama Kneecaps Airlines (but after November Congress could overturn this--- and a lot more)
Human Events ^ | 09/27/2010 | Connie Hair

________________________ ________________________ ______

The Obama administration set Big Labor on the easy road to cannibalize the airline and rail industries and last week Senate Democrats stamped their imprimatur on the deal -- at a time when taxpayers are getting full view of the cost of out of control unions bankrupting state and local governments and destroying public education.

The Senate used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in an attempt to overrule Obama appointees at the National Mediation (NMB) board which changed a 75-year rule that required a majority of employees in a rail or airline company to vote to unionize.

The motion to proceed to the resolution of disapproval regarding labor union regulations was shot down by a vote of 43-56 with all 41 Republicans standing firm against the latest Obama Big Labor giveaway.

"It's an incredible outrage the way this whole scenario has played out. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that confirmed the new people on the National Mediation board were utterly sandbagged, completely and dishonestly in my opinion," Brett McMahon, spokesman for the Association of Builders and Contractors told HUMAN EVENTS. "They were told nothing's going to change, nothing has changed in 75 years since this board has been in place and any actual rulemaking has taken place."

"Immediately upon assuming office, literally it was within days of assuming office, they went in and changed the rule," McMahon said. "What's very, very important I think for people to understand is the difference between the rules that govern railways and the airlines and then everybody else that's governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA)."

The NRLA provides a mechanism whereby disgruntled current union members and other employees have a written and voting process where they can decertify the union as their collective bargaining representative and then de-authorize it if they so choose and actually eliminate the unions.

The Railway Labor Act (RLA) makes it practically impossible to decertify a union once the certification has taken place.

"Once a union is designated there is a two-year period of time where the NMB will not entertain any other requests for representation. It's a two year bar of other unions or individuals trying to become the representative. Beyond that even after the two years is up, the procedures for what we call decertifying union are available but very complicated and convoluted under the NMB process," Roger Briton told HUMAN EVENTS. Briton is a law partner with Jackson Lewis, LLP, with decades of experience in RLA matters.

"There is a fairly straightforward process at the NLRB in other industries and as part of this rulemaking change the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked the NMB to adopt the basically straightforward NLRB decertification rules and the NMB refused to do so," Briton said. "While it is technically possible and has happened only a couple of times in the last 25 years, it is for all intents and purposes almost impossible to accomplish."

The tradeoff for the difficulty in disbanding the unions once certified was the requirement that a majority of eligible voters must vote in favor of unionization. Employees not voting were counted as a "no" vote. And the RLA has a slower, more deliberative process.

"It was in the public interest for maintaining public transportation services," Briton said. "If a union and an airline are negotiating, under the RLA there are long, drawn-out procedures for those negotiations which are designed as a practical matter to prevent strikes in most situations. Doesn't always work but in a large number of disputes, they get resolved because the procedures of the Railway Labor Act are long and drawn out. In the other statute the procedures are somewhat substantially more abbreviated so the possibility of a strike is more common."

"The Railway Labor Act is considered to be a positive development for the airlines and railroads that are covered by it," Briton added.

Now that check and balance has been removed by the Obama administration.

"It used to be that people who did not vote were counted as no votes. Under the new system if you don't vote your vote doesn't count one way or the other. It makes it easier for the union to win an election if they count the votes of the people participating," Briton said. "It opens the door that if only a small number of people participate and the union wins the majority of people who choose to participate the union can be certified."

The rule was challenged in court by a the Air Transport Association and Delta Airlines. It again comes down to the courts.

"This rule change actually only went into effect in the last couple of weeks. There has been litigation by the Air Transport Association to enjoin the rule change. That lawsuit was dismissed," Briton said. "There is no legal challenge pending to the rule change."

Now Delta is facing unionization under the more lax rules of over 20,000 flight attendants with no clear way to undo the damage if employees decide unionization was a disaster. Voting commences September 29, 2010, just after midnight. Polls will close November 3, 2010 at 2:00 p.m., with the votes being counted shortly thereafter.

McMahon said he sees court challenges forthcoming from individual employees who are being forced to join unions with no clear exit strategy.

"I'm sure there'll probably be employees who'll bring suit afterwards. It's a 2-1 ruling from NMB that affects so many people and so many industries, and an impact that is just patently unfair and par for the course union stuff," McMahon said.

The silver lining is that Congress knows there is a Congressional Review Act and they've shown they can use it.

The CRA empowers Congress to review and overrule regulations issued by government agencies. Like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the NMB. Or Obamacare. Both the House and Senate are required to pass a resolution of disapproval (not subject to filibuster) and the President must sign off on the measure.

President Obama could spend the next two years leading up to 2012 vetoing popular legislation that would dismantle his unpopular agenda.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 28, 2010, 09:03:22 AM
EPW report : New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs (And destroy cement/boiler industries)
Hotair ^ | 09/28/2010 | Ed Morrissey

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______________________

Actually, it’s not just the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s minority contingent that fears the loss of nearly a million jobs from new EPA rules on greenhouse gases and other emissions issues. It’s also groups like the United Steel Workers, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, and experts like King’s College Professor Ragnar Lofstedt. Hot Air got an exclusive look at a report that the EPW minority staff will release later this morning detailing the economic damage that an activist EPA will do to the American economy, and which will come at perhaps the worst possible time, both economically and politically.

The executive summary spells out the stakes involved in the effort to rein in the EPA:

•New standards for commercial and industrial boilers: up to 798,250 jobs at risk;
•The revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone: severe restrictions on job creation and business expansion in hundreds of counties nationwide.
•New standards for Portland Cement plants: up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs;
•The Endangerment Finding/Tailoring Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: higher energy costs; jobs moving overseas; severe economic impacts on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and those on fixed incomes; 6.1 million sources subject to EPA control and regulation; and

In fact, the new regulations threaten to put entire industries out of business. The new standard for boilers, titled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters” and called the Boiler MACT, creates a standard that literally no producer in the US meets at the moment. The industry group Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) represents end-user firms that employ 750,000 in various industries, and they concur:

IECA members have 6 units that were part of the best performing units and none can comply with the standards based on the best performing units. Based on the analysis of the data EPA used to develop these standards, it appears that none of the coal-fired boilers in the source category can meet the proposed standards.

What happens when the installed boilers don’t meet the new standard? Factories and other facilities will have to close, putting jobs in danger and firms already hammered by the recession will lose production days — which will destroy jobs. That’s why the United Steel Workers have sounded the alarm, insisting that the EPA’s proposal will mean disaster:

“Tens of thousands of these jobs will be imperiled. In addition, many more tens of thousands of jobs in the supply chains and in the communities where these plants are located also will be at risk.”

Nor are steelworkers the only group at risk. New industrial standards for Portland cement threaten to stop all American production in the name of environmental protection — and send the work overseas to China, where ironically the standards are more lax and more pollution will result:

“So rather than importing 20 million tons of cement per year, the proposed [rule] will lead to cement imports of more than 48 million tons per year. In other words, by tightening the regulations on U.S. cement kilns, there will be a risk transfer of some 28 million tons of cement offshore, mostly to China.” – Professor Ragnar Lofstedt, Kings College (London)

Again, no facility in the US meets the standards proposed by the EPA. Imposition of these standards would at least temporarily close almost 20 percent of all American cement producers and reduce long-term cement production from 8-15%. The cement that will be needed for construction demand will have to be imported, primarily from China, which is expanding their cement production using environmental standards significantly below current American standards. In other words, we can expect more pollution, not less — just outsourced along with the jobs in the industry.

Watch for the full report later today at the EPW Minority Caucus website.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 30, 2010, 04:07:21 PM
Obama's Economic Council may be on the way out, but the damage is done.
 Team Summers presided over the greatest wealth redistribution from the poor and middle class to the rich in U.S. history...

Good Bye Larry
By L. Randall Wray


Isn't it remarkable that President Obama's economic team is suddenly itching to return to academia? The latest economic advisor to give in to the clarion call of the classroom is Larry Summers, following closely on the heels of Christina Romer, who surprised her department chair by announcing that she'd be teaching this year. To be sure, in Summers's case, it is not so clear that his Harvard colleagues are looking forward to his return—as President of the university he offended most of the faculty by arguing that women are inherently inferior when it comes to science. That was by no means the first time he behaved like a bull in a china shop. As chief economist at the World Bank he had argued that developing nations ought to serve as toxic waste dumping grounds for rich countries. He also wrongly claimed that California's energy crisis in 2000 was caused by excessive government regulation—rather than by fraudulent dealings of Enron.

Still in terms of the real damage he has done, nothing comes close to his actions when he was serving Wall Street's beck and call in the administration of President Clinton. He lobbied for repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, letting banks get more involved in the securities business that blew them up in 2007. He also opposed regulation of the derivatives market, attacking the head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission , Brooksley Born—perhaps the only member of the Clinton administration who had any sense about financial markets. Summers helped to ban the federal government from regulating credit default swaps, and helped to deregulate the commodities markets. Most importantly, he helped to make it possible for pension funds to speculate in commodities like food and oil. Thus, he contributed directly to the speculative frenzy that drove up gas prices at the pump, and inflated food prices that brought on starvation around the globe.

Wall Street immediately rewarded Summers with $8 million in consulting and speaking fees. Most amazing of all, President Obama thanked him for helping to create the global crisis by appointing him as top economic advisor in his administration. Summers was the gift that just kept on giving—to Wall Street. He helped to devise the bail-out that spent, lent, or guaranteed more than $20 trillion to rescue the financial sector. Whilst providing barely a few peanuts for main street.


Two years on, there is still no hint that Obama wants change. Voters are tired of audacity. They were promised the audacity of hope, not the audacity to continue to shift income to the wealthy. And yes, the data are out. President Obama is presiding over the biggest wealth redistribution in favor of the rich the US has ever seen. Forty million Americans are on foodstamps; forty four million are living below the poverty line. And the rich are richer than ever before. This is not a coincidence—it was the Clinton strategy of shifting an ever larger share of GDP and corporate profits to the financial sector. The economy has collapsed under the weight of all that finance. And yet we still see no evidence that the President plans to change course. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 05, 2010, 06:12:09 AM
Middle Class to Suffer Most From Bank Rules: Whitney
CNBC ^ | 10/05/2010 | Jeff Cox

________________________ ________________________ ______

As new regulations push banks toward safer investments and lending practices, the middle class will suffer the most, banking analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

The 26 percent of mostly low-income Americans who don't have bank accounts—as well as the wealthy—are only marginally affected by tighter credit from more stringent banking regulations, Whitney said.

But those in the middle class who have relied on access to credit will suffer as banks that "can't price risk now" become increasingly afraid to make loans.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 05, 2010, 08:57:38 PM
Skip to comments.

Cap and trade will cost Tennessee 52,000 jobs, each Tennessee family $1,000
Tennessee Center for Policy Research ^ | 10/04/2010 | TCPR

Think Tank Warns Against Impact of Looming Cap & Trade Legislation Report shows how proposed energy regulations could harm Tennessee's economy

NASHVILLE - The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the state’s premier free market think tank, released a policy report today demonstrating the impact that cap and trade legislation could have on Tennessee’s economy.

It is widely expected that Congress will attempt to pass some form of cap and trade in its lame-duck session after the November elections. The House of Representatives already passed one version of cap and trade in June 2009, and the Senate could pass the same legislation or take up a similar proposal when it reconvenes.

Using estimates released by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers, the policy report, titled Cap & Trade: A Lame (Duck) Proposal, details how the proposed legislation would impact Tennessee. Among the additional costs Tennesseans could face include: By 2030, gas prices could rise as much as 27 percent, electricity as much as 64 percent, and natural gas as much as 73 percent; The average Tennessee household’s disposable income could decline by more than $1,100 per year; The legislation could cause Tennessee to lose as many as 52,000 jobs and lose $9.8 billion annually; Schools, universities, and hospitals could face a 20 to 30 percent increase in energy costs, causing tuition and healthcare costs to skyrocket. “Not only would cap and trade fail to fix those environmental problems that actually do exist, it would wreak havoc on the Tennessee economy,” said TCPR president Justin Owen.

The policy report offers a more effective and efficient approach to address environmental concerns without devastating the national and state economies.

“The real solution is free market environmentalism,” said Allyn Milojevich, TCPR research fellow and author of the report. “A system of well-defined property rights and tort law can correct our environmental woes and actually improve, not hamper, the economy.”

The report can be viewed online at or downloaded in PDF format by clicking here.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee by advancing free markets, individual liberty, and limited government.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 06, 2010, 10:39:03 AM
New high gas mileage standard could make vehicles cost more, less safe
The Daily Caller ^ | 2:40 AM 10/06/2010 | Caroline May

Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:41:39 AM by facedodge

Want pigs to fly, Brussels sprouts to taste like Twinkies, and Justin Bieber to get a haircut? By the government’s logic, just make a rule mandating that it must be so and…voila! All of a sudden beachfront property can now to be purchased in Kansas!

The Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency suggested Friday that by 2025 new vehicle fleets would need to meet a high gas mileage standard of between 47 mpg and 62 mpg. The administration’s plans for the country’s future fuel efficiency standards are extremely aggressive — so aggressive that some experts wonder whether the mandates are even attainable.

Despite panic by some, Charlie Territo, senior director of communications for the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, says that it is important to keep in mind that the mileage standards are not definite, as Friday’s announcement was merely a preliminary notice of intent.

According to Territo, the rule making process will be a long one, but there will be consequences for the average consumer. “Anytime you add technology to a vehicle you add cost,” he told The Daily Caller. “And the types of technologies that would need to be added to a vehicle to meet those standards could have the potential to price consumers out of the market all together.”

Even without the government’s insistence, auto manufacturers already work exceptionally hard at innovating and improving their products’ capabilities. Spokesman Matthew Russell, for example, told TheDC that since the late 1970s BMW has been working to do just that. “We have a comprehensive program in place already, which is designed to extract the maximum balance of performance and efficiency from several different energy sources, so not just gasoline but diesel, hybrid technology, and even hydrogen where applicable,” Russell said.

An industry observer told TheDC that in order to meet the mileage range the government could demand, people will have little choice but to buy electric cars. “It’s great, it’s a great thought, and we hope we get there, but you have issues of range, you have issues of infrastructure, and you have issues of cost. Now if, if gas stays around the three dollar a gallon range, people are not going to go rush to pay thousands of dollars more per vehicle. It’s going to be very, very difficult,” the industry observer said.

Sam Kasman, the general council for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told TheDC that the goal is far too high to be realistic. “Frankly I think they are in fantasy land,” he said. “To one extent I expect they are placing a very heavy bet on electric vehicles, but it is easy for them to bet because they are betting with our money, not their own.”

Beyond whether a 62 mpg car is fathomable, the fact remains, cars that are able to attain such high gas mileage tend to be lightweight and dangerous. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety spokesman Russ Rader told TheDC that safety is always harmed with ratcheting up a vehicle’s fuel efficiency. “If the rules lead to incentives for people to buy smaller, lighter vehicles, then, we’re trading more crash deaths for better fuel economy. That’s the bottom line,” he said.

Automakers hope to maintain safety and the same wide range of consumer choice Americans currently enjoy, while at the same time meeting the government’s expectations. Territo says that auto manufactures in the past have been able to have their voices heard in the rule making process.

“The goal is to ensure that consumers continue to have a wide variety of vehicles,” said Territo. “And the way that can be done is to give manufacturers the right amount of lead time to do it. The more realistic the standards are the better the chance they have of meeting it with the least possible impact on the consumer.”

The administration hopes to have a proposal by September 2011 and a final rule by July 2012.

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 06, 2010, 12:12:46 PM

David Freddoso: Obama's line on the stimulus: Everything is absolutely fine
By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor

________________________ ________________________ ___

October 5, 2010 There was hardly any waste or fraud in the stimulus package. Not only that, it's hitting all of its job creation targets.

That's the message the White House released on Friday with its new report on the $814 billion measure, whose cost exceeds that of seven years of war in Iraq.

And for all of you wingnut doubters out there -- Paul Krugman, for example -- the stimulus isn't a failure. It's working just fine. "We continue to show consistent progress on your commitment to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of calendar year 2010," Vice President Biden wrote.

That's one way of thinking about the stimulus. Then there's the way the nation thinks about it. This week's Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that 68 percent believe that stimulus funds have been "mostly wasted." With two-thirds of the money already out the door, the same number believes the economy is either "getting worse" or "staying the same," and 90 percent view its current state as "not so good" or "poor."

Whatever its economic merits, the White House has been utterly routed on the stimulus as a political issue. The stimulus now appears in nearly every Republican campaign ad. Democrats prefer not to discuss it -- if they have to, they usually avoid the dreaded "S-word" and stick to "Recovery Act."

Who knew that giving away free money could become such a political loser? President Obama has attributed the setback to the difficulty inherent in proving any negative. The implication is that if we hadn't passed his stimulus, unemployment would be at 11 or even 15 percent, instead of the current 9.6 percent.

This form of argument has a poor track record: "If we hadn't started a war in Iraq, the terrorists would be attacking us here." But what if this isn't a messaging problem at all? What if borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars, filtering them through the federal and state bureaucracies, and then redistributing them is just a lousy way of creating jobs?

This isn't just a question of all the dubious projects you've read about, such as the bridge in Hillsborough, N.H., that literally does not cross the river, or the wheelchair ramps in Wayne, N.J., that are not attached to sidewalks, or those for studying what happens when monkeys get high on cocaine. This is about a possibly faulty concept to which both parties return in economic hard times, despite its repeated failure. (Don't forget that President George W. Bush signed two stimulus packages, neither of which is credited with boosting the economy.)

Even if the stimulus does "create or save" 3.5 million jobs -- and based on the job numbers this year, it would have to be mostly "save" -- it will have done so at the cost of $233,000 per job.

If you have been in your current job for years, and your salary is significantly below $233,000, do you think it would cost your employer that much just to avoid laying you off? Or think of it this way: Is that $233,000, in the government's hands, somehow more capable of creating a job than it would be in the hands of an investor, a small business or a large corporation?

Supply-side economists were mostly ignored last year when they argued that any economic benefit from a stimulus package is offset when the government taxes, borrows or prints the money for it. That unless the money comes from a vault or from someone's mattress, and is literally being put to no use at all, its reintroduction into the economy is a wash, the equivalent of scooping water from the deep end of the pool and redistributing it to the shallow end.

Maybe we should have listened then, when we were $814 billion richer.

David Freddoso is The Examiner's online opinion editor. He can be reached at

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 06, 2010, 12:22:24 PM
Even if the stimulus does "create or save" 3.5 million jobs -- and based on the job numbers this year, it would have to be mostly "save" -- it will have done so at the cost of $233,000 per job.  

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2010, 06:10:23 AM
Little-Noticed Bill Could Make It Harder To Challenge Foreclosures
The Huffington Post   |  William Alden First Posted: 10- 7-10 08:52 AM   |   Updated: 10- 7-10 08:52 AM

Read More: Banks, Foreclosure Challenges, Foreclosure Fraud, Foreclosure Lawsuits, Foreclosure Moratorium, Foreclosures, Gmac, Mers, Notary, Out-Of-State Notarization, Business News

Challenging foreclosures could become more difficult for homeowners if the president signs a bill that passed through the Senate last week. The little-noticed bill comes at a time when the validity of foreclosure proceedings across the nation have been called into question.

The House passed the bill in April, and its brisk journey through the Senate has drawn scant attention, Reuters reports. If signed into law, it would require courts to accept certain documents that have been notarized out of state, streamlining foreclosure proceedings and stripping homeowners of one legal method of challenging a foreclosure. The legislation would come just as a foreclosure validity crisis is mounting: GMAC, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have admitted to not properly reviewing some of their foreclosure documents.

The foreclosure controversies that have emerged in recent weeks throw doubts on the larger foreclosure system. A non-bank entity, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, has been initiating foreclosures, the Washington Post reports, exercising an authority that judges have ruled it does not have. In response to the mounting scandal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called on Tuesday for an investigation into foreclosure fraud. "This is a very big deal," she told HuffPost.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters the timing of the bill's passage was "suspicious," implying that mortgage companies might have engaged in behind-the-scenes lobbying.

Get HuffPost Business On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Know something we don't? E-mail us at


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2010, 10:05:05 AM
Delays to Tax Tables May Dent Paychecks (higher witholding for everyone in 2011)
Wall Street Journal ^ | October 7, 2010 | LAURA SAUNDERS

________________________ ________________________ _______________________

Lack of congressional action on 2011 income taxes may force the Treasury Department to make unprecedented moves to prevent U.S. workers from seeing large tax increases in their January paychecks.

The issue: 2011 tax-withholding tables. Treasury officials usually release the tables, which determine the take-home pay of millions of wage-earners, by mid-November because it takes payroll processors weeks to adjust their systems before Jan. 1.

But congressional leaders recently postponed voting on taxes until after the election and lawmakers don't reconvene until Nov. 15. The Senate is scheduled to take up several nontax issues when it returns and is expected to leave for Thanksgiving soon after, possibly pushing a vote on taxes into December.

"Things get very dicey after the first of December" because of employers' need to know the 2011 rates, said Michael Graetz of Columbia University Law School, a former Treasury official.

Lawmakers' recent track record on dealing with tax matters doesn't inspire confidence that they will act with dispatch. Congress has yet to resolve the estate tax, which expired at the end of last year and is set to snap back to high rates come January. Nor has it tackled the alternative minimum tax for 2010, a levy that is set to hit 32 million taxpayers this year, compared with five million last year.

Some Capitol Hill tax staffers have suggested that the Treasury could set 2011 withholding at current levels for joint filers earning less than $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers), on the assumption that Congress seems likely to enact this change. Others have suggested that if Congress doesn't act in time, Treasury officials might consider a one- or two-month grace period in which it maintains current tables until Congress passes tax legislation.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2010, 12:42:06 PM
72,000 stimulus payments went to dead people
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer

________________________ ________________________ _

WASHINGTON – A government investigator says 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each went to people who were either dead or in prison.

The Social Security Administration's inspector general said in a report Thursday that $18 million went to 72,000 people who were dead. The report estimates that a little more than half the payments were returned.

The report said $4.3 million went to a little more than 17,000 prison inmates.

The payments were part of the government's massive economic recovery package enacted in February 2009. Under the law, the $250 payments were sent to about 52 million Social Security recipients and federal retirees.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2010, 05:09:48 PM
EPA to drain $1 trillion from economy--Obama's new ozone policy is full of holes (Another outrage)
The Washington Times ^ | October 7, 2010 | Editorial

________________________ ________________________ _________

The zealots at the Environmental Protection Agency are poised to suck a trillion dollars and 7 million jobs out of the economy with an unnecessary and destructive change to pollution rules. Less than two years ago, the EPA set a ground-level ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb), but Obama administration officials are looking to impose an even lower standard of 60 ppb by fiat. That seemingly small change will have sweeping effects throughout the economy.

Ozone is created when harmful emissions from cars and factories react with sunlight to create one of the building blocks of smog. Reasonable limitations on such pollutants are appropriate, but what the EPA proposes is far from reasonable. The likely standard is so low it approaches the natural background level of ozone found in many areas of the country. There is no new science compelling President Obama's team to change the rules, but they will have a significant impact on businesses still struggling to meet 2008 targets. Manufacturing plants already meet strict standards, but many will be forced to install expensive new equipment to reach the EPA's proposed levels. As all of the easy fixes for cleaning up emissions have been implemented already, incremental reductions come with a steep price tag. In the current rocky economy, imposing new costs is only going to thwart recovery.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2010, 05:11:57 PM

Beef Industry: U.S. May Need ‘Strategic Hamburger Reserve’ after Obama EPA Implements...
CNSNews ^ | October 7, 2010 | Chris Neefus

________________________ ________________________ __-

Complete title: Beef Industry: U.S. May Need ‘Strategic Hamburger Reserve’ after Obama EPA Implements New Regulations

Washington ( – According to a representative of the cattle and beef industry, America may need a “strategic hamburger reserve” if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements proposed new reguilations for cattle producers.

“From where I sit, (the Obama administration) appears to be aimed at destroying the cattle industry in America as we know it,” Tamara Thies, the chief environmental counsel at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said on Capitol Hill last week.  

“It is ironic that as we work to become less dependent on foreign oil, Obama policies are likely to make us more dependent on foreign beef. Maybe we’ll need to start a strategic hamburger reserve after the Obama administration is finished with us.”

Thies' comments came at a hearing conducted by the House Republicans’ Rural America Solutions Group about the EPA’s proposed regulations on the industry, which include the toughest dust regulations in history – one which would significantly impact the rural economy by imposing steep fines on cattle producers who, Thies said, most likely cannot afford them.

“It is unlikely these realities are lost on the EPA, making one wonder if the real goal of the agency is to do away altogether with economic activity throughout the bread basket of this country and turn it into a vast national park,” she added.

The forum was held by Reps. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee; Sam Graves (R-Mo.), ranking member of the House Small Business subcommittee; and Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, to consider several of the new proposed EPA regulations.

In a periodic review of its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which allow the EPA to regulate certain forms of particulate matter in the air, the EPA determined that it might raise the standard so that only 65-85 µg/m3 of dust would be permitted in the air (as opposed to 150 µg/m3). Violating the proposed new NAAQS standards can result in civil penalties under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA published that draft policy assessment in the July 8, 2010 issue of the Federal Register.

“(EPA) is preparing to issue a proposed regulation that is twice as stringent as the current dust standard, and is more stringent than background levels of dust in many parts of the U.S,” Thies told the congressmen.

“Incredibly, we are talking about dust kicked up by tilling fields and harvesting crops, cattle movements, and pickups driving down dirt roads,”she said. “For agriculture, the current standard is already very difficult and costly to meet—doubling it would be virtually impossible.”

That new proposal also alarmed 75 members of Congress who represent rural districts, including Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), John Spratt (D-S.C.), and Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), who sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on Sept. 27 urging the agency to “refrain from going down this path” on dust regulation.

“Considering the administration’s claim that it is focusing on revitalizing rural America and rural economic development, a proposal such as this would have a significant negative impact on those very goals,” they wrote. “We are hopeful that common sense will prevail and the EPA will refrain from causing extreme hardship to farmers, livestock producers, and other resource-based industries throughout rural America.

“Whether it is livestock kicking up dust, corn being combined, or a pickup driving down a gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event in rural areas. Common sense requires the EPA to acknowledge that the wind blows dust around in these areas, and that is a fact of life.”

Jackson did not attend the forum on Capitol Hill last week despite receiving an invitation. A spokesperson for the EPA indicated they would have a reaction about why they were proposing these rules in a difficult economy, but did not do so by press time.

The dust regulation is one of several new proposals the EPA is considering, including regulating ammonia emissions from cattle operations; nationalizing standards for soil phosphorus levels, which determine where farmers can use manure; regulating greenhouse gas emissions; and greater regulation of farming on the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

“The fact is, the EPA is waging an unprecedented war to end modern production of animal agriculture,” Thies said in her testimony.

“EPA exhibits reckless indifference to scientific fact and, instead, imposes stringent regulations based on nothing more than its biased anti-animal agriculture agenda that will leave many cattle operations with no recourse but to shut down and eliminate jobs,” she added.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 07, 2010, 05:22:14 PM
Dollar set for sharp decline, Goldman forecasts
The Telegraph ^ | 10/7/2010 | Richard Blackden

Dollar will embark on a sharp decline over the next 12 months, Goldman Sachs forecast on Wednesday, as policy makers in Washington look poised to press the trigger on another round of printing money.

The investment bank expects the dollar to drop to $1.79 against the pound in six months and $1.85 in 12 months. Sterling closed at $1.5891 in London yesterday. The euro won’t be spared either, with the dollar’s slump forcing it to $1.50 six months from now and $1.55 in a year’s time.

Powered by President Obama’s stimulus package and a rebound in inventories, the US recovery peaked in the final three months of last year and has been slowing ever since.

As the summer delivered a diet of weak economic data, the conviction has strengthened among a growing number of officials at the Federal Reserve that it should risk another bout of quantitative easing - printing money to inject into the economy.

“More QE is seen as a co-ordinated effort to get the dollar lower,” said Thomas Stolper of Goldman Sachs. “It makes sense for the US.”

Separately, Goldman’s chief economist, Jan Hatzius, warned that the world’s biggest economy faces a “fairly bad” or a “very bad" scenario

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2010, 08:22:57 AM

Assuming we are all still here in 2 years, I plan to keep this thread going so that when you guys decide who to vote for in 2012 - you can review the record of this admn in intentionally destroying the nation. 

when the question is asked "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago", all of you will be asked to review this thread again. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2010, 08:35:54 AM /news/countybycounty/wnep-scr-mercy-hospital-for-sale,0,5633203.story

Mercy Health Partners for Sale
By Jon Meyer

3:40 PM EST, October 6, 2010

________________________ ________________________ ________

Mercy Hospital in Scranton is up for sale.

Those who run the place and all other Mercy facilities in our area said Wednesday they are already in talks with organizations interested in buying.

Mercy Health Partners hopes to have a buyer by the end of the year.

Officials said there are numerous reasons for the sale. One big one is the heath care reform bill signed into law this year.

The potential sale includes Mercy Hospital in Scranton, Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock and Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke.

For almost a century there has been a Catholic hospital in Scranton. Now it looks like that will be coming to an end.

The Sisters of Mercy first opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton in 1917. Now the facility and all other Mercy locations in the area are up for sale.

"There is always sadness and mourning when you think of letting go of anything but the Sisters of Mercy are strongly supportive of this decision because we do understand the realities of health care and we do think it's best for the community," said Sister Marie Parker of Mercy Health Partners.

She and Mercy Health Partners CEO Kevin Cook said they are already in talks with potential buyers.

They said Mercy isn't struggling but, they added, now is the time to make a sale.

"We are in position of strength and it's always better to make a move for the future from that position," Sister Marie Parke added.

"Actually we're doing well. We're ahead of budget for the year. It's more that when we look out over the landscape of health care over the next five years and the needs of these facilities, the needs of this community, we understand a different level of investment will be needed than what we can do on our own," Cook said.

They said much of that required investment is the result of the health care reform bill passed in Washington.

The CEO said it means the need for more spending and less federal reimbursements.

"Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely," Cook added.

"It's one of the few hospitals we always came to. My wife just came from there right now," said one long-time patient.

Those who have used Mercy for years said they have gotten used to the Mercy way.

Mercy officials won't say what potential buyers are in current negotiations.

They said they are committed to finding a new owner that honors the values of the Sisters of Mercy.

The potential sale should be done by the end of the year and will apply to all Mercy facilities in northeastern Pennsylvania.

Copyright © 2010, WNEP-TV


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2010, 12:32:22 PM
Obama transition adviser undermined Fannie Mae oversight as lobbyist (Anyone surprised?)
Hot Air ^ | November 17, 2008 | by Ed Morrissey

________________________ ________________________ _________

Thomas Donilon, named by Barack Obama as an adviser to his transition team, oversaw lobbyist efforts to undermine OFHEO’s regulatory efforts over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ABC News reports on Donilon’s history and his participation in painting a much rosier picture than reality provided for Fannie Mae’s board. The Obama rebuttal will sound familiar to those who recall Jim Johnson’s involvement with Obama’s campaign: One of Obama’s top transition team members, Thomas Donilon, oversaw an aggressive, backdoor lobbying campaign by mortgage giant Fannie Mae to undermine the credibility of a probe into the firm’s accounting irregularities, according to a 2006 government report on the company. The effort — which reportedly included attacks on the funding for the oversight agency, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, and an attempt to launch a separate investigation into OFHEO itself — was ultimately unsuccessful, and regulators eventually discovered top Fannie Mae executives had been manipulating the company’s financial reporting to maximize their bonuses

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 08, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
Health care: Microsoft ending 100% coverage for employees (Anticipating rising health-care costs)
Tech Flash ^ | 10/08/2010 | Todd Bishop

________________________ ________________________ ______________________

Microsoft's gold-plated employee health-care benefits are losing a bit of their gleam. The company told its employees today that they will be required to start contributing to their health care coverage beginning in two years. Microsoft is currently among a relatively small number of large U.S. corporations -- and one of very few tech giants -- that pay all of their employees' health-care premiums.

"We can confirm that Microsoft has begun to evolve its employee health care benefit," the company said in statement. "There will be no changes for the next two years, but in 2013, employees will contribute to their health care."

Although Microsoft is unusual in paying for 100 percent of health-care benefits, the risk in requiring contributions is that full coverage might have been a factor keeping some employees at the company, or persuading talented recruits to join. However, the company said "a guiding principle in this evolution is that Microsoft will continue to offer market-leading health and wellness benefits that rank among the best in the country."

The move appears to anticipate rising costs under U.S. health-care reform initiatives, said insurance agent Jonathan Hanson of Hanson Benefits in Kirkland, who specializes in employee benefits.

Microsoft's health-care benefits have traditionally been "very rich" compared with those offered by most corporations, Hanson said. He likened the forthcoming contribution requirement to telling people who get free Jaguars that they're going to need to start paying for part of the car's air conditioning.

Microsoft didn't quantify the changes as part of its public statement, but Mary Jo Foley of ZDNet reports that there will be out-of-pocket maximums starting between $1,000 and $2,500 for catastrophic illnesses. She reports that the company is encouraging employees to set up health savings accounts.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 09, 2010, 04:52:32 AM
Obama's Takedown of Industrial America
By Fred N. Sauer

________________________ ____________

Obama's industrial policy is designed to make America non-competitive in the world economy, destroy millions of jobs, and devastate our manufacturing and industrial capacities. No one will want to invest here, and fewer and fewer U.S. companies will be exporting goods "Made in America." And we have a fierce competitor called China.

How far down this road we already are can be seen in the following data:

During this ten-year period, total exports from the United States to China totaled $424 billion, while exports from China to the United States totaled $2.163 trillion, resulting in a U.S. net trade deficit with China of $1.793 trillion. A symbol of China's takeover of manufacturing is Wal-Mart, one of the largest U.S. importers of Chinese-made goods. 

... US based Wal-Mart was responsible for $27 billion dollars in U.S. imports from China in 2006 and 11% of the growth of the total U.S. trade deficit with China alone eliminated nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs in this period. 

But how has China accumulated such a large trade surplus with the U.S.? To answer this vital question, it's critical to understand the currency exchange market's impact on trade. Suppose you want to buy something from China. You need to first buy some of their currency, called the yuan. Now, suppose thousands of people want to buy goods from China. So a whole lot of people start to exchange dollars for yuan in order buy Chinese goods. The same thing happens here: if you and all your neighbors try to buy the same currency, its price increases.  If you are on the other side of this, such as a Chinese citizen holding his or her currency in the yuan, and you want to exchange the yuan for dollars, then you will be able to get more dollars for your yuan as it increases in value. This increase in the value of the yuan makes American goods priced in dollars cheaper for the Chinese to purchase.

As we are increasingly surrounded and overwhelmed by the "Made in China" label, we have come to understand that China's principal economic advantage is "cheap labor."

And it is also clear that they are using this cheap labor to acquire world-class manufacturing and industrial production facilities to help export more and more of this "cheap labor." Thus, they create a virtuous cycle that continues as long as their labor remains cheap.

Here is some data on the long-term growth or decline of manufacturing as a percentage of gross domestic product of the two nations:

This data shows that Chinese manufacturing increased as a percentage of GDP from 37% to 41%, while the United States manufacturing sector decreased as a percentage of GDP from 24% to 13%.

Normally, economic forces of trade surpluses and deficits tend to cause a self-correction of either condition. With respect to America, the more we buy from China, the more their currency increases in value, and therefore, the higher and higher go the prices in dollars of what you want to buy in China. Eventually it goes so high that you no longer want to buy it there. Maybe it becomes so high that it is cheaper just to buy goods that are "Made in America."

If you are in China and the yuan keeps increasing in value compared to the U.S. dollar, then the price of American goods becomes cheaper, and it's more likely that someone from China will buy goods imported from America.

All the long-term data we have presented suggests that the self-correcting mechanism is not working as it should, or maybe not at all. What is the reason behind the failure of the system to correct itself?

Here is how China attacks our manufacturing economy and destroys jobs, if they are not already destroyed by the Democratic Party's industrial policies. The Chinese government never allows the increasing value of the yuan to reach the hands of its labor forces and/or the consumers of their economy. Thus, wages don't go up, purchasing power doesn't go up, and the Chinese consumer doesn't get an increase in spendable income.

To prevent all this from happening, the Chinese government strips off the appreciated value of the yuan and retains control over it. The most important technique they use is currency sterilization. 

But surging capital inflows can also be something of a double-edged sword, inflicting rather less welcome and destabilizing side-effects, including a tendency for the local currency to gain in value, undermining the competitiveness of export industries and potentially giving rise to inflation.

To ease the threat of currency appreciation of inflation, central banks often attempt what is known as the "sterilization" of capital flows. In a successful sterilization operation, the domestic component of the monetary base (bank reserves plus currency) is reduced to offset the reserve inflow, at least temporarily. The classical form of sterilization, however, has been through the use of open market operations -- that is, selling Treasury bills and other instruments to reduce the domestic component of monetary base.   

With comparatively little expansion of the Chinese domestic economy because of the appreciation of the yuan not being passed through very far as increased wages, prices tend not to rise as much as they otherwise would have if the appreciation had reached the Chinese consumers. And likewise, because prices tend not to go up, Americans continue to see cheap "Made in China" goods and continue to purchase them to the detriment of "Made in America" goods.

The Chinese permanently suppress the cost of labor in the export sectors of their economy to achieve a permanent cost advantage in pricing their export goods.

This scheme produces another very considerable side-effect. The Chinese use the appreciated value of the yuan that is stripped off from consumers to buy United States Government Treasury Securities. By doing this, China has become America's largest foreign creditor. They are buying our rapidly increasing government debt with the surplus value of yuan which results from all our purchases of Chinese exports.

Yes, China's policy of artificially suppressing the cost of Chinese labor helps China destroy the manufacturing sector and manufacturing jobs in America and subsidizes China's acquisition of U.S. Treasury Securities -- approximately $800 billion's worth. 

This is like having a double-barreled gun at your head. If the Chinese ever get unhappy about holding all these Treasury Securities and start to dump them on the open market, they could make interest rates soar in America. This would impose a terrible burden on our economy and result in even more job losses.

So the suffering American economy and its workers are facing four grave threats simultaneously. 

First, U.S. industrial policies by the radical Democrats have imposed terrible burdens on the U.S. economy that are making it more and more inefficient through high non-competitive labor costs, carbon regulation, artificially high energy costs, and numerous government mandates.

Here is a summary of recent aspects of our industrial policy as proffered by the ruling Democratic Party:

�-�Huge and ineffective stimulus expenditures

�-�A 3.0-trillion-dollar increase in our national debt in two years

�-�Unemployment at 9.6%

�-�A job-killing moratorium on drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska

�-�Adoption of a tax on energy use called Cap and Trade

�-�The EPA aggressively regulating emissions resulting from the combustion of carbon fuels

�-�The EPA working to regulate fluids used in the production of abundant shale-sourced natural gas

�-�Elimination of the secret ballot (card check) in proposed unionization to increase union power and high-cost labor in our economy

�-�Imposition of costly health mandates on small businesses

�-�Increasing domestic taxes on business earnings made and taxed in foreign countries

This list is sufficiently comprehensive for anyone to get the picture, especially if he or she is in business. 

Second, industrial policies by the Chinese government to permanently suppress their labor costs to subsidize the growth of their manufacturing sector have resulted in an ongoing disadvantage for the American manufacturing sector. 

Third, the fiscal policies of the radical Democrats have resulted in massive deficit spending which has increased the U.S. national debt to over $13 trillion from over $10 trillion in just two years. And there is the certainty of more deficit spending to come as long as they control government. They haven't even passed a budget for the current fiscal year. All of this spending will eventually put tremendous upward pressure on interest rates. You only have to review the economic history of the period of the late 1970s and early 1980s, when rates on U.S. Treasury Securities peaked at over 15%. Rates anywhere near this zone will crush the economy because of the much greater proportion of government debt to GDP that exists today as opposed to the earlier period.

Finally, policies of the Chinese government that transfer the appreciation of the yuan into purchases of more U.S. government debt gives them the capability to hold America hostage to any and all of their policies.

We were the world's greatest economy when the only thing we bought from the Chinese was "firecrackers." Why are we doing this?

There is no free trade in manufactured goods unless there is free trade in the corresponding currencies of the trading partners. Without free trade in the yuan, the Chinese are effectively imposing a huge tariff on the American economy and its workers by artificially suppressing the prices of Chinese exports to America. And the radical Democratic government doubles this burden by crushing the economy with mandated costs and inefficiencies. 

Are we going to let both of them get by with it? If the Chinese don't freely float their currency, we need to impose a currency equalization tax to offset their subsidized low export prices. 

Fred N. Sauer is an American patriot, St. Louis resident, and businessman whose blog can be found at www.americasculturalstud

Page Printed from: at October 09, 2010 - 07:50:43 AM CDT

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 09, 2010, 02:46:46 PM
U.S. Won’t Recover Lost Jobs Until March 2020 At Current Pace 
By Ed Carson     
Fri., Oct. 08, 2010 12:18 PM ET 
Tags: Jobs - Economy - Employment - Hiring - Private Sector - Stimulus

________________________ _______-

The U.S. economy lost 95,000 jobs in September, far worse than expectations for no change in employment. More Census-related temp jobs ended, as expected, but state and local governments slashed staff far more than predicted.

So far in 2010, the U.S. has added just 613,000 jobs — for a monthly average of 68,111.

Employment bottomed in December 2009 at 129.588 million — two years after peaking at 137.951 million. At this year’s pace, the U.S. won’t recoup all those 8.36 million lost jobs* until March 2020 — 147 months after the December 2007 high.

That would obliterate the old post-World War II record of 47 months set in the wake of the 2001 recession.

The current jobs slump also is the deepest of any in the post-war era, with payrolls down as much as 6.1%. They are still 5.6% below their December 2007 level.

With state and local governments likely to shed workers for at least the next year or two as budget woes continue, the hiring burden will fall entirely on the private sector.

Private employers did add 64,000 workers last month, but that was a little less than consensus forecasts and far below what’s needed.

The U.S. needs to create 125,000-150,000 jobs each month just to absorb new workers and prevent unemployment from rising. So returning to the old peak employment a decade later would hardly suggest a healthy labor market.

(Unemployment held at 9.6% last month as the separate household employment survey reported an increase in jobs. But the underemployment rate rose 0.4 point to 17.1%, matching the 2010 high.)

The bottom line: It’s quite possible that the next recession will hit before the U.S. returns to old employment highs.

*The Labor Department said employers may have cut 366,000 jobs more than previously reported in the year through March 2010. A final estimate will be issued in February. That suggests job losses were deeper than expected in 2009 and/or early 2010 hiring was weaker than previously expected. Both would suggest an even-longer return to full employment.


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 05:03:16 AM
OCTOBER 10, 2010.
Shutting Up Business - Democrats unleash the IRS and Justice on donors to their political opponents.

________________________ _____________

If at first you don't succeed, get some friends in high places to shut your opponents up. That's the latest Washington power play, as Democrats and liberals attack the Chamber of Commerce and independent spending groups in an attempt to stop businesses from participating in politics.

Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.

Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads.

Associated Press
Max Baucus
Mr. Baucus was seconded last week by the ostensibly nonpartisan campaign reform groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, which asked the IRS to investigate whether Crossroads is spending too much money on campaigns. Those two outfits swallowed their referee whistle in the last two campaign cycles, but they're all worked up now that Republicans might win more seats. Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) affiliate of American Crossroads supported by Karl Rove, is a target because it has spent millions already in this election cycle.

Last Tuesday, the liberal blog ThinkProgress, run by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had collected some $300,000 in annual dues from foreign companies. Since the money went into the Chamber's general fund, the allegation is that it could have been used to pay for political ads, which would violate a ban on foreign companies participating in American elections. The Chamber says it uses no foreign money for its political activities and goes to great lengths to raise separate funds for political purposes.

That didn't stop President Obama from raising the issue in a Maryland speech last week, saying that "groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections." Within hours of the ThinkProgress report, the bully boys at asked the Department of Justice to launch a criminal investigation of the Chamber. In a letter to the Federal Election Commission, Minnesota Senator Al Franken expressed his profound concern that "foreign corporations are indirectly spending significant sums to influence American elections through third-party groups." From the man who stole his Senate election in a dubious recount, this is rich.

Even Mr. Franken admits in his letter that the Chamber's commingling of funds in its general accounts is not "per se illegal," but apparently he thinks it's fine to unleash federal investigators because the Chamber cash might contribute to the defeat of fellow Democrats.

The outrage over the Chamber is especially amusing considering the role of foreigners in U.S. labor unions. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, close to half of the unions that are members of the AFL-CIO are international. One man's corporate commingling is another's union dues.

Unions and liberal groups are hardly cash poor this year in any case. The Campaign Media Analysis Group looked at the combined spending of candidates, their parties and outside groups and found that Democrats outspent Republicans $47.3 million to $40.8 million in a recent 60-day period.

Democrats claim only to favor "disclosure" of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.

The strategy got a test drive in Minnesota earlier this year after Target Corporation donated $100,000 cash and $50,000 of in-kind contributions to an independent group that ran ads supporting the primary candidacy of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. accused the company of being anti-gay, organized a petition, and crafted a TV ad urging shoppers to boycott Target stores. Target made no further donations, and other companies that once showed an interest have since declined to contribute.

Then there's the curious reference to the tax status of Koch Industries by White House chief economist Austan Goolsbee. In a late August conference call with reporters, Mr. Goolsbee cited the closely-held Koch as an example of "really giant firms" that pay no corporate income tax because they file under other tax rules. But how in the world would Mr. Goolsbee know Koch's tax status? Could his knowledge be related to the White House-liberal campaign against Koch for contributing to Americans for Prosperity, a group that is supporting free-market candidates for Congress this year?

In an August 9 speech, Mr. Obama personally trashed Americans for Prosperity, hinting that it was funded by "a big oil company." He had to mean Koch, which makes no secret of its support for Americans for Prosperity.

The White House didn't respond to queries about Mr. Goolsbee's remark for weeks until GOP Senators requested an investigation. The Treasury's inspector general for tax matters has since announced such a probe, and last week White House spokesman Robert Gibbs finally got around to explaining that Mr. Goolsbee's statement "was not in any way based on any review of tax filings" and that he won't use the example again.

We're glad to hear it, but pardon our skepticism given the ferocity of this White House-led campaign against businesses that donate to political campaigns. Faced with electoral repudiation as the public turns against their agenda, Democrats are unleashing government power to silence their political opponents. Instead of piling on, the press corps ought to blow the whistle on this attempt to stifle political speech. This is one more liberal abuse of power that voters should consider as they head to the polls.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 05:40:00 AM
Shootout at the EPA Corral: Texas takes aim at the White House's illegal carbon rules
Wall Street Journal ^ | OCTOBER 10, 2010

________________________ ________________________ _

If Democrats take a drubbing in November, the Obama Administration is likely to turn to regulation to achieve its "transformational" agenda. Which is all the more reason to cheer on Texas as it pushes back against the EPA's illegal attempt to rewrite the nation's clean air laws.

To wit, the Lone Star State is resisting the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to regulate carbon under the clean air laws of the 1970s. These regulations will be damaging enough on their own. But the EPA and chief Lisa Jackson are also threatening to punish Texas and other green dissenters with a de facto moratorium on any major energy or construction projects. Just what the economy needs.

Under the Clear Air Act, the EPA's national office chooses priorities, but state regulators run the relevant programs and issue the necessary permits. When orders from HQ change, as with carbon over the last year, states get three years to revise their "implementation plans." But in August, Ms. Jackson decided that the law posed too long a climate wait and decreed that if these plans aren't updated by an arbitrary January 2011 deadline, her office will override the states and run the carbon permitting process itself.

Put bluntly, this coercion is illegal. As badly as Ms. Jackson has abused clean air laws to go after CO2, she can't by regulatory fiat usurp the law's statutory language about the federalist balance of power between Washington and the states. Texas filed an unusual lawsuit last week with the D.C. appeals circuit calling it an "ultra vires" act—literally, "beyond the powers"—and requesting an emergency stay of the EPA's regulations because of the imminence of irreparable harm.

No major construction project in America can go forward without EPA air quality and pollution permits

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 08:44:09 AM

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 09:03:03 AM
Obama's Huge New Tax
 By Lurita Doan

________________________ ________________________ __________________

Pity the poor entrepreneur and small business owner in America now getting socked, with the mother of all taxes, by a government that has become either hostile, or indifferent, to understanding what it takes to build a business, grow a company and hire more workers. I'm not talking about new fees, but about a much greater confiscatory tax, imposed without any real debate or consideration--the confiscation of time.

Nearly every Obama administration initiative demands new, more complicated reporting and compliance filings on small businesses and entrepreneurs that are already overburdened with a mish-mash of reporting requirements that suck away an entrepreneur's time and energy. 2008 compliance costs for a small business, according to a recent SBA Report, was approximately $10,000 per employee. But, the Obama Administration has added new, and far more onerous, reporting demands that are likely to treble those costs to $30,000 per employee. Facing such huge, and hidden, costs of compliance, is there any wonder small businesses are not hiring as they have in the past?

Consider, for example, one of the new reporting requirements contained in Section 9006 of the disastrous Obama healthcare bill which requires all small companies to file 1099s for any purchase over $600, to include anything from office supplies to electricity to independent contractors. As a result, small businesses may need to hire a full-time compliance officer that does nothing but file these new forms and reports.

But that is just the start. For example, Section 1512 of the Recovery Act (ARRA) requires that a report with a minimum of 12 data points be submitted quarterly for each Recovery Act project over $25,000. A separate report has to be submitted if the business worked as a subcontractor on any ARRA project. This report is separate from and in addition to the mandatory, contractual reports submitted monthly to the government contracting officer on each project and, separate from and in addition to, the quarterly program reviews provided for agency leaders. Of course, if the business performs ARRA work at the State level, many of those states have additional reporting requirements for businesses who are working on federally funded stimulus projects within the state.

Small business already struggles because the federal government’s reporting requirements are a moving target. Businesses must track the unusually frequent changes in government-issued guidance regarding reporting requirements. For example, since issuing the first reporting requirements for ARRA in February 2009, these requirements have changed nine times in the past 19 months, in March 2009, April 2009, June 2009, September 2009, November 2009, December 2009, April 2010, May 2010 and most recently in September 2010.

Each “update” to the reporting requirements issued by OMB is followed by an ancillary memo issued within each federal agency by each agency’s Chief Acquisition Officer.

Businesses, especially small businesses, may spend large segments of the workday tracking reporting requirement changes. Businesses must do this because a clerical error, which could be interpreted by the oversight community as fraud, carries severe penalties, and the burden of proof of innocence falls on the business.

Taxes take many forms. More damaging, than canceling the Bush tax cuts, more damaging than the changing definition of who is considered “rich”, more disturbing than Obama Administration's complete lack of understand of what it takes to grow a business and an economy, is the fact that time is money, so the new, burdensome and intrusive reporting requirements demanded by Obama's flawed policies puts a tax burden of time on all businesses.

Under the guise of “accountability” and the lure of “transparency”, the Obama Administration continues to bombard businesses with additional, ill-thought reporting requirements. Few legislators and few members of the Obama Administration have ever experienced first-hand, the struggles of entrepreneurship--what Jerry McGuire calls "an up-at-dawn, pride-swallowing siege," of trying to win a customer's business, be competitive and succeed. The Administration, clearly, does not understand or does not care about the true cost to business of their self-serving actions.

Peter Drucker, the management guru once said: “if you’re meeting, you’re not working”. Perhaps the corollary is that when a business is “reporting”, then they aren’t really working either.

Make no mistake: well-reasoned reports aid in accountability and transparency and are essential to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely by the government. But this is not happening in the Obama Administration. The President Obama once promised he would not raise taxes on the middle class. Yet, fees, fines and mandatory purchases are “onerous, rigorous demands” which, according to Webster, qualify as taxes.

Obama has demanded the one commodity which is in limited supply, and which can never be reproduced once spent—time. Obama wastes our time--and that tax is the greatest of all.
Lurita Doan
Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: 225for70 on October 11, 2010, 09:21:33 AM
The CFTC has finally come through with its new rules on retail foreign exchange, which come into effect on October 18th, 2010 (Q&A about the new rules can be found here). Despite fears to the contrary, the CFTC will not be cutting permissible leverage in retail forex trading down to 10:1. The people have been heard! There was so much contrary opinion against that move from traders and brokers that the regulators were forced to rethink the plan.
That said, the CFTC will, however, be restricting leverage to no more than 50:1 (2% margin requirement) on the major currencies (5% on regional currencies). This is basically taking the NFA restriction put in place last year for 100:1 max leverage and tightening it up. I’m sure that’s going to have some folks up in arms, but the reality is that most of your better traders never go much beyond 10:1 actual leverage.

The proposed Ruling will hurt the US retail foreign exchange industry big time, as the new Rules hurt traders significantly and make Other global Foreign Exchange dealers move completive. Many traders are already trading with firms in the united kingdom and Australia as a result.  

The new changes will likely hurt the growth of the industry and Jobs will be lost, as a result...and headed overseas like most jobs..

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: 225for70 on October 11, 2010, 10:44:31 AM
Dear Getbigger,

As you may know, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA), which determine leverage (and the resulting margin) requirements for futures and forex trading, have established new forex leverage and maintenance requirements. We want to be sure you are aware of these changes.

What you need to know:
These new requirements, which will take effect Sunday October 17, 2010, at 5 p.m. EDT (4 p.m. CDT), will impact all of your current open forex positions, as well as any new forex positions you open on or after October 17.
The maximum leverage requirements on all major currency pairs will decrease due to the rule revisions. Major currency pairs will change from 100:1 to 50:1 maximum leverage (from 1% to 2%). Exotic or minor pairs will change from 25:1 to 20:1 maximum leverage (from 4% to 5%).
Major pairs consist of any pair with two of the following currencies: Australian dollar (AUD), British pound (GBP), Canadian dollar (CAD), Danish krone (DKK), Euro (EUR), Japanese yen (JPY), New Zealand dollar (NZD), Norwegian krone (NOK), Swedish krona (SEK), Swiss franc (CHF), or US dollar (USD). All other pairs are considered by the NFA to be exotic and are subject to the higher margin requirement.
For a listing of all currency pairs that thinkorswim by TD Ameritrade offers, please go to and choose "Rates, Commissions & Fees" (under the "Why thinkorswim" tab).
You will also need to maintain a 100% equity-to-margin ratio (risk level) at all times.
Liquidation of positions will occur once daily, at 5 a.m. EDT (4 a.m. CDT), if the risk level in your account falls to less than 100%, and intraday if the equity-to-margin ratio in your account falls to 25% or below, whichever comes first.
What you need to do:
To avoid the liquidation of any forex position due to insufficient funds, please be sure that your forex account has the necessary funds at the close of trading on Thursday, October 14, 2010.
This is necessary to ensure funds will be credited to your account by October 17, 2010, at 5 p.m. EDT (4 p.m. CDT).
For more information, visit and choose "Rates, Commissions & Fees" (under the "Why thinkorswim" tab).

If you have any questions, or if we can be of any assistance, please feel free to give us a call at 866-839-1100, option 7 or email us at

Thank you for choosing thinkorswim by TD Ameritrade. Please rest assured that we value your business and will continue to do everything we can to make your trading experience a positive one.



Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 10:47:36 AM
This is not even my area of expertise, but it sounds to me like the govt is sending trading desks and offices overseas, and essentially capital, to other more friendly places. 

Considering capital is the basis for future lending and investment, this seems like another job destroyer since banks will not have the capital of the these accounts to use as the reserves for lendning. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: 225for70 on October 11, 2010, 11:04:52 AM
This is not even my area of expertise, but it sounds to me like the govt is sending trading desks and offices overseas, and essentially capital, to other more friendly places.  

Considering capital is the basis for future lending and investment, this seems like another job destroyer since banks will not have the capital of the these accounts to use as the reserves for lending.  


Why make an entire industry less competitive? It's not only this recent capital requirement changes that are hurting this growing industry. Also US traders aren't allowed to hedge there positions, if they want to take some risk off the table. Foreign exchange dealers outside the US definitely have an unfair advantage over there us counterparts.

These changes are going to make many traders open up accounts overseas..Typically Forex is less volatile than other Financial instruments, so a large amount of capital is essentially a requirement.

This change in Capital requirements, can essentially cut earnings of some traders by 50%..

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 11:09:11 AM

Why make an entire industry less competitive? It's not only this capital requirement changes, it's also hedging rules which aren't favorable as well.

This change is going to make many traders open up accounts overseas..Typically Forex is less volatile than other Financial instruments, so a large amount of capital is essentially a requirement.

This change in Capital requirements, can essentially cut earnings of some traders by 50%..

Just another idiotic move by the govt.  Unreal - what are they trying to send everything overseas at this point? 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: 225for70 on October 11, 2010, 11:15:11 AM
Just another idiotic move by the govt.  Unreal - what are they trying to send everything overseas at this point?  

There are roughly 3 trillion forex transactions daily..It's the largest market in the world..It was also growing leaps and bounds in the US. I would advice Forex traders to trade with an Australian, or UK based dealers at this point.  Or perhaps start trading Currency futures.

However, trading currency futures usually involves higher commissions that spot Foreign exchange..

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 11:21:20 AM
There are roughly 3 trillion forex transactions daily..It's the largest market in the world..It was also growing leaps and bounds in the US. I would advice Forex traders to trade with an Australian, or UK based dealers at this point.  Or perhaps start trading Currency futures.

However, trading currency futures usually involves higher commissions that spot Foreign exchange..

And guess what - all those capitals gains tax receipts are now going bye bye. 

what a farce. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: 225for70 on October 11, 2010, 11:31:07 AM
And guess what - all those capitals gains tax receipts are now going bye bye. 

what a farce. 

Yes, if you hold over a year you will have to pay capital gains, Which looks like may be headed north. If your using Margin you may want to focus on shorter time frame..As you'll may have a Negative Roll...In example if you sell the Aud/USD currency pair, you have a negative roll..

In example the aussie dollar is yielding 3.75%.

While the USD/ the us dollar is yielding .25%...

So you'll have to pay the difference since you are selling the pair of 3.75%-.25%, so you'll have to pay a carried interest charge of 3.50%...

However, if you bought the AUd/ would have a positive roll..And incur interst of 3.50%

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: 225for70 on October 11, 2010, 11:35:39 AM
Yes, if you hold over a year you will have to pay capital gains, Which looks like may be headed north. If your using Margin you may want to focus on shorter time frame..As you'll may have a Negative Roll...In example if you sell the Aud/USD currency pair, you have a negative roll..

In example the aussie dollar is yielding 3.75%.

While the USD/ the us dollar is yielding .25%...

So you'll have to pay the difference since you are selling the pair of 3.75%-.25%, so you'll have to pay a carried interest charge of 3.50%...

However, if you bought the AUd/ would have a positive roll..And incur interst of 3.50%

Everyone last year was using the USD dollar as a vehicle to finance the purchase of higher yielding currencies as the Aussie, New Zealand dollar..

They were pocketing the difference in interest rates..They call this a carry trade, and many Japanese people did this with the yen for years and years..

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 11:39:06 AM

Everyone last year was using the USD dollar as a vehicle to finance the purchase of higher yielding currencies as the Aussie, New Zealand dollar..

They were pocketing the difference in interest rates..They call this a carry trade, and many Japanese people did this with the yen for years and years..

What is funny is that the guy who just got the Nobel in economics obama picked for the Fed Reserve is a dove as far as money printing goes and is probably all in favor of the continued fall of the dollar to keep up this ponzi scheme economy we have gotten ourselves into.   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: 225for70 on October 11, 2010, 11:52:27 AM
What is funny is that the guy who just got the Nobel in economics obama picked for the Fed Reserve is a dove as far as money printing goes and is probably all in favor of the continued fall of the dollar to keep up this ponzi scheme economy we have gotten ourselves into.

He won the noble prize for that.... :D

Diamond wrote a paper in the early 1980s that found that unemployment compensation can lead to better job matches. Workers “become more selective in the jobs they accept” because of the employment aid. And, that makes for better matches and increases efficiency, he found.

Thank you captain Obvious. A nobal prize for that.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on October 11, 2010, 01:20:16 PM
Obama should be know as the anti-Midas, because everything he touches turns to shit

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 11, 2010, 01:52:35 PM
Obama should be know as the anti-Midas, because everything he touches turns to shit

Notice how not one obama fan can challenge this thread. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2010, 06:02:51 AM
What is CSA 2010 And How it Affects Truck Drivers.
What is CSA 2010 and how does it apply to truck drivers.

Tens of thousands of drivers will lose their Jobs when CSA rating system is implemented.



Beginning July 2010, the FMCSA will implement Comprehensive Safety Analysis or CSA - an initiative aimed at improving large truck and bus safety, and ultimately reducing commercial motor vehicle related crashes, injuries and fatalities.


WASHINGTON-The federal government's new proposed Comprehensive Safety Analysis of how it rates trucking companies and drivers is being delayed, much to the relief of the trucking industry.

Dubbed CSA 2010, the new program is now going to be rolled out in phases, starting Nov. 1 and into next year. So the program effectively now becomes CSA 2011.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) originally planned to begin implementation of their new safety overhaul, CSA 2010, in July 2010 and to have all states fully functional by December. It now appears full implementation could be delayed until spring, or even summer, of 2011.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has announced that full implementation of CSA 2010 will be delayed to 2011. The agency’s original plan was to begin implementing the program in July 2010 and to have all states fully functional by December of this year. It now appears that although certain phases of CSA 2010 will begin this fall, full implementation will not be completed until spring or perhaps summer of 2011.


As proposed in CSA 2010, the roadside performance of individual drivers will have a much greater impact on their own record, while at the same time critically affecting their carrier's safety rating as a whole.

CSA2010 will effect pay packages, hiring and firing, areas of employment screening and background checks, CDL certifications, in house training and more.

What do you think of CSA 2010. How do you think it will effect you and your trucking job? Please leave your comments here. Please feel free to leave any comments you have.

The United States Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA) plans to implement a new safety initiative, known as Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA2010). The initiative is slated to launch its first phase next summer. Its goal is to achieve a greater reduction in large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities, while maximizing the resources of FMCSA and its State partners.

<<<<< Please subscribe to my free newsletter just fill in the block to the left.

The new CSA 2010 approach will:

*Directly monitor the safety and performance of individual drivers

*Address problem drivers based on their records across multiple employers

*Hold both motor carriers and drivers responsible for safety and performance

How Does CSA 2010 Driver Enforcement Process Work?

The driver enforcement process provides FMCSA with the tools to identify problem drivers and to verify and address the issues. the new Driver Safety Measurement System enables Safety Investigators (SI) to evaluate roadside performance of drivers across employers over a 3-year period. Using this system, SIs can identify "high profile" drivers with overall poor safety histories, who work for carriers that have been identified as requiring a CSA2010 investigation. If the investigation results verify the driver violation(s), FMCSA takes an enforcement action against that driver,such as a Notice of Violation or a Notice of Claim.

CSA 2010 Driver Safety Enforcement Approach

*Focuses on driver enforcement for serious rule violations,such as driving while disqualified,driving without a valid commerical driver's license,making a false entry on a medical certificate, committing numerous hours of service violations.

*Enforcement action will be taken directly against the driver for these violations. If the carrier is also determined to be a responsible party, it may also receive enforcement action.

* Looking ahead, FMCSA plans to identify and intervene with unsafe drivers beyond the pool of drivers that are addressed in conjunction with motor carrier interventions.

Don't be one of the thousands of drivers that lose their job. Your DAC Report(read more on dac) is your life make sure your driving record is correct and if not begin now to correct the errors.

Most motor carriers and drivers haven't heard of CSA 2010, yet it is quite massive in its scope, and represents a major change in the way the FMCSA audits companies.

Perhaps the most profound change, and how this affects individual drivers are going to be audited and each will be given a personal safety rating. This personal safety rating will determine weather or not the driver is considered eligible to continue driving or requires some sort of intervention.

CSA 2010 intends to use new data--such as information from police accident reports about driver-related factors contributing to a crash--and improve existing data sources--by, for example using its database of licensed commercial drivers to identify all drivers with convictions for unsafe driving practices, as well as the carriers they work for--to enable a more precise assessments of safety problems.

CSA 2010 will support evolving and new enforcement and compliance efforts. For example:

1. Carriers from Canada and Mexico that operate in the United States under open border agreements will be rated under CSA 2010 in the same way as U.S. carriers.

2. Violations found through audits of new entrants will be used in the CSA 2010 safety measurement system

3. Data sources related to 7 Core Behavioral Areas of CSA 2010 will be developed to focus attention on drivers qualifications, a key FMCSA policy area.

It is anticipated that full implementation of CSA 2010 by FMCSA will begin on or around July 1, 2010.

16 violations that FMCSA has determined will result in an automatic audit failure.

The list includes:

1) Failure to implement an alcohol and/or controlled substances testing program.

2) Using a driver known to have an alcohol content of 0.04 or greater to perform a safety-sensitive function.

3) Using a driver who refuses to submit to an alcohol orr controlled substance test required under part 382.

4) Using a driver known to have tested positive for a controlled substances.

5) Failing to implement a random controlled substances and/or alcohol testing program.

6) Knowingly using a driver who does not possess a valid commercial drivers license.

7) Knowingly allowing, requiring, permitting, or authorizing an employee with a commercial driver's license which is suspended revoked, or canceled by a state or who is disqualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle.

8) Knowingly allowing, requiring permitting, or authorizing a driver to drive who is disqualified to operate a motor vehicle.

9) Operating a motor vehicle without having in effect the required minimum levels of financial responsibility coverage.

10) Operating a passenger-carrying vehicle without having in effect the required minimum levels of financial responsibility coverage.

11) Knowingly using a disqualified driver.

12) Knowingly using a physically unqualified driver.

13) Failing to require a driver to make a record of duty status.

14) Requiring or permitting the operation of a commercial motor vehicle declared "out of service" before repairs are made.

15) Failing to correct out-of-service defects listed by truck drivers in a driver vehicle inspection report before the vehicle is operated again.


16) Using a commercial motor vehicle not periodically inspected.

A carrier who fails an audit is notified within 45 days and given 60 days to correct the problem or lose its operational authority. Passenger carriers and HazMat haulers are given only 45 days to correct violations.

FMCSA will check compliance with requirements related to insurance, accidents reports, equipment and maintenance records, driver qualifications, CDL, license standards,truck drivers records of duty status,drug an alcohol testing, and hazardous materials, if applicable.

Under these new rules a carrier automatically fails if an auditor finds a single occurrence of these violations. The FMCSA looked back at audits conducted in a recent five year period and estimated that 47.9% would have been failures under the new rules.

So you can see that the CSA initiative represents a major change for carrier and drivers. It is important to note that the FMCSA is collecting data right now for the purpose of scoring its initial audits next year. That's right. Even though the initiative is one year away, what companies and drivers are doing right now will be factored into the CSA 2010 audit.

CSA 2010 will be looking at the last 36 months of your driving record including roadside inspections to determine your safety score. So what you do now will affect your safety rating when CSA 2010 is implemented.

Violations that occur in the last 12 months will have the point value tripled in the calculation of your safety score.

CSA 2010: The Point System

FMCSA officials have assigned point values for various violations that truckers may have noted on inspections or on crash reports. Here’s a list of some of the point values.


* Following too close – 392.2 ----------- 5 Points

* Violating OOS order – 392.5(c)(2)--------10 Points

* 60/70-hour rule – 395.1(o)---------------7 Points

* Failure to include driver signature or certification in duty status records – 395.8(d)(5)--------------------------2 Points

* Failure to list main office address in duty status records – 395.8(d)(7------2 Points

* Driver failing to retain previous * 7 days’ logs – 395.8(k)(2)---------------5 Points

* No medical certificate – 391.41(b)(3)----1 Points

* Inoperative tail lamp – 393.9(a)---------6 Points

* Failure to display current CVSA Decal: Permanent Authority – 365.511------------4 Points

* Periodic inspection – 396.21-------------4 Points

The full list of violations can be found Here starting on Page 36.

States now testing, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey and Kansas.

Here are a few things you can do now to help start preparing you for what is coming this summer.

1) Operate your truck legally, pay special attention to your hours of service.

2) Don't speed, tailgate, weave in and out of traffic or do anything else that would cause you to be singled out for a roadside inspection.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2010, 06:47:49 AM
Obama Administration Gave General Electric—Parent Company of NBC--$24.9 Million in ‘Stimulus’ Grants
Monday, October 11, 2010
By Fred Lucas

________________________ ________________________ _________

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden react to cheers as they arrive in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

( - The Obama administration gave corporate giant General Electric—the parent company of NBC--$24.9 million in grants from the $787-billion economic “stimulus” law President Barack Obama signed in February 2009, according to records posted by the administration at

Despite getting $24.9 million from U.S. taxpayers, GE decreased its U.S.-based employees by 18,000 in 2009, according to the company’s 2009 annual report.

According to Standard & Poor's, GE took in $156 billion in revenue in 2009.

GE was the primary recipient of 14 stimulus grants, a spokeswoman for confirmed to These 14 grants provided GE with $24.9 million in tax dollars. On four additional stimulus grants, the primary recipient of the federal money hired GE as a contractor. is the administration’s website that tracks stimulus expenditures.

At the end of 2008, GE employed 152,000 U.S. workers, according to its 2009 annual report. But at the end of 2009, according to the report, it employed only 134,000 U.S. workers, a decline of 18,000 workers.

The Energy Department provided GE with 9 stimulus grants, the Department of Health and Human Services provided the company with 3, and the Justice Department and the Commerce Department each gave the company 1 stimulus grant.

All of these federal stimulus grants went to GE’s Global Research Center.

The earliest of the stimulus grants went to GE in July 2009 and the latest in April 2010. asked a GE spokesperson if the company contested’s representation that GE had received 14 stimulus grants worth $24.9 million, and also whether the company now employed more or fewer workers as a result of receiving the grants.

In an e-mail response, GE spokeswoman Anne Eisele said, “I’m afraid I must politely decline to comment.”

What did all the money to GE go for? posts brief explanations of each grant. For example, the Department of Justice gave GE $999,955 in stimulus money. “The goal of this program,” said, “is to develop a comprehensive reasoning system for event and scenario recognition for an intelligent video system.”

In addition to the $24.9 million it received in stimulus grants, GE was also awarded $5 million in federal contracts under the economic stimulus law. These contracts were payment for services provided by the company.

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2010, 07:07:45 AM
10 Reasons Why Ordinary Hard-Working Americans Are About To Really Start Feeling The Squeeze
Economic Collapse ^ | 10/12/10

American families better get ready to tighten their belts again. There is every indication that we are all going to really start feeling the squeeze in the months ahead. The price of gas is starting to spike again. The price of food is moving north. Health insurance premium increases are being announced coast to coast and a whole slate of tax increases is scheduled to go into effect in 2011. Meanwhile, household incomes are down substantially all over the nation and the U.S. government is indicating that there will not be an increase in Social Security benefits for the upcoming year once again. So if the cost of most of the basic things in our monthly budgets is going up and our incomes are going down what does that mean? It means that average American families are about to be squeezed like nothing we have seen in decades.

The reality is that it is getting really hard to make it out there. Not only do most households have both parents working, but in many cases both parents are getting second or even third jobs. Things have gotten so bad that millions of Americans have felt forced to turn to the government for assistance just to survive.

It can be really disheartening to come to the end of the month and realize that despite your best efforts you have less money than you did at the beginning of the month. But that is where millions upon millions of American families now find themselves.

The economic despair in the air is almost palpable. Already hordes of Americans are truly and honestly hurting and things are only going to get worse.

The following are ten reasons why ordinary hard-working Americans are about to really start feeling the squeeze....

#1 Gas prices are going up again. AAA says that the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline in the United States was $2.80 on Sunday. That is 32.6 cents higher than it was during the same time period in 2009. As oil and gas prices continue to go up, that is also going to have a significant impact on utility bills for American families this winter.

#2 The price of food is poised to rise substantially. Bloomberg is reporting that the the cost of meat in the United States is going nowhere but up. But meat is not the only thing that you will soon be paying much more for at the supermarket. Wheat, corn, soybeans and almost every other major agricultural commodity is absolutely soaring this fall. As this continues, it is inevitable that ordinary Americans will see much higher food prices at their local grocery stores.

On a previous article, a reader named Erica left a comment in which see detailed the stunning food inflation that she is seeing where she lives....

Food inflation is real, and it is here. Just yesterday I compared my receipt from a grocery run to prices I have from the same exact store from September 15, 2009. Bacon? Up 52% to $13.69 from $8.99 for 4 lbs. Butter? Up 73% to $9.99 from $5.79 for 4 lbs. Pure vanilla extract up 14% to $6.79 from $5.95. Chopped dried onions up a mere 2% but minced garlic (wet) was up 32%.

#3 It looks like those receiving Social Security are not going to be seeing cost-of-living increases again. The Associated Press is reporting that the U.S. government is expected to announce some time this week that the tens of millions of Americans that receive Social Security will go through yet another year without an increase in their monthly benefit payments. You see, Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are tied to the official government inflation numbers, and according to the U.S. government there is basically very little inflation right now. Of course we all know that is a lie, but it is what it is.

#4 The cost of health care continues to soar into the stratosphere. Americans already pay more for health care than anyone else in the world, and yet costs continue to spiral out of control. The cost of health care increased a staggering 9.6% for all U.S. households from 2007 to 2009. Now, health insurance companies from coast to coast are announcing that they must raise health insurance premiums substantially due to the new health care law that Barack Obama and the Democrats have pushed through. So in 2011 it looks like the average American family is going to have to carve out an even bigger chunk of the budget for health care.

#5 American families could desperately use a recovery in the housing industry, but that is simply not going to happen. Foreclosure-Gate is getting worse by the day, and it threatens to bring the U.S. real estate industry to a complete and total standstill. If it is ultimately proven that the paperwork for millions of mortgages in the United States is seriously deficient, it could push hordes of mortgage lenders into bankruptcy and render mountains of mortgage-backed securities nearly worthless. Regardless, it is now going to be much more difficult to get a mortgage, much more difficult to buy a home and much more difficult to sell a home. We could very well be looking at the next stage of the housing crash. Ordinary Americans could end up losing trillions more in home equity.

#6 More Americans than ever find themselves unable to pay their bills, and an increasing number of frustrated creditors are actually resorting to wage garnishment. Yes, you read the correctly. Creditors are starting to ruthlessly go after the weekly paychecks of debtors.

The following is an excerpt from a recent New York Times article that discussed the rise of wage garnishment as a weapon against debtors....

After winning, creditors can secure a court order to seize part of the debtor’s paycheck or the funds in a bank account, a procedure called garnishment. No national statistics are kept, but the pay seizures are rising fast in some areas — up 121 percent in the Phoenix area since 2005, and 55 percent in the Atlanta area since 2004. In Cleveland, garnishments jumped 30 percent between 2008 and 2009 alone.

So if you are getting behind on your debt, you better watch out - your creditors may soon decide to garnish your wages.

#7 Americans now owe more on student loans than they do on credit cards. As hard as that is to believe, that is actually true. Americans now owe more than $849 billion on student loans, which is a new all-time record.

Student loan payments can be absolutely crippling to a household budget. This is especially true for young Americans that have just gotten out of school. Sadly, student loan debt is nearly impossible to get rid of. Once you are committed, it will follow you around for the rest of your life.

#8 Even as expenses rise, incomes are down from coast to coast. Median household income in the U.S. declined from $51,726 in 2008 to $50,221 in 2009. There are very few areas that have not been affected. In fact, of the 52 largest metro areas in the United States, only the city of San Antonio did not see a decline in median household income during 2009.

#9 If all of this was not bad enough, now there are rumblings that the U.S. Federal Reserve is actually thinking that we need more inflation. A number of top Federal Reserve officials have come out recently and have publicly supported the notion that the Fed needs to purposely create more inflation in order to stimulate the economy. Of course what they don't tell the American people is that inflation is a hidden tax on every single dollar in our wallets and in our bank accounts. More inflation would be really bad news for ordinary Americans, because they are already having a tough time getting their dollars to stretch far enough.

#10 Apparently the U.S. government (and many state and local governments) think that this is a great time to stick it to the American people by hitting them with a slew of new taxes. There are so many tax increases scheduled to go into effect in 2011 that it is hard to keep track of them all. In fact, there are many (myself included) that are calling 2011 "the year of the tax increase". But the Americans that are going to get it the worst of all are those that are going to get hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax. One out of every six American households is going to be hit with a tax increase averaging $3,900 (thanks to the AMT) and most of them don't even know that it is coming.

So did you think that 2010 was bad?

Well, you haven't seen anything yet.

2010 was a Sunday picnic compared to what is coming.

Get ready to get squeezed.

Get ready for higher food prices, higher gas prices, higher health insurance premiums and higher taxes.

Get ready to try to do a lot more with a lot less.

Inflation is already here, but it is going to get a whole lot worse. Meanwhile, the U.S. government (along with state and local governments) is going to continue to have a voracious appetite for more revenue.

Average Americans are going to be squeezed until they have nothing left to give. Then they are going to be squeezed just a little bit more.

Are you ready?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on October 12, 2010, 07:44:34 AM

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2010, 07:47:43 AM
KAZAN - did you see the article about GE? 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on October 12, 2010, 07:50:48 AM
GE is up to its eye's in CAP and TRADE, Obama rewarding his crony's

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 12, 2010, 07:53:58 AM
GE is up to its eye's in CAP and TRADE, Obama rewarding his crony's

And yet the average dolt is still clueless.  That GE article is something no one on this board can spin. 

But hey - lets trash every GOP female nominee! 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Fury on October 12, 2010, 08:23:55 AM
Barack Obama: "I don't understand why they think I'm anti-business."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2010, 05:21:14 AM

Congressional report: “The War on Western Jobs”
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
09/30/10 1:10 PM EDT

________________________ ________________________ ___

The Congressional Western Caucus, headed by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, have just released a report titled “The War on Western Jobs.” From the report’s introduction:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the West reported the highest regional jobless rate in August,  at 10.8 percent.  The western region has maintained the highest regional unemployment for the past year. At the same time, six of the top twelve states with the largest declines in the employment to population ratio since the recession began in 2007 are western states.  According to The Associated Press Economic Stress Index, 3 of the top 5 states showing the most stress in June were western states: Nevada, California, and Arizona.

There’s a lot of reasons that job numbers are flagging in the West, but the purpose of the report is to identify the ways which Washington, D.C.  is exacerbating the situation. “Instead of making it easier for western businesses and communities to create new jobs, this Administration enforced an anti-business, anti-multiple use agenda that only makes the situation worse,” said Barraso.To that end, the report focuses at 10 areas where the Obama administration is making things worse:

1. Taxing energy use

2. Federalizing all surface water within the 50 states and territories

3. Restricting access to America’s vast reserves of affordable, American oil and natural gas

4. Imposing “one size fits all” mandates on western communities

5. Putting a priority on protecting species over American jobs

6. Blocking a multiple-use policy in our National Forests

7. Over-regulating coal

8. Seizing additional private western lands and placing them under control of the federal government

9. Requiring new federal permitting requirements into new areas of the western economy

10.Stopping domestic mining in favor of the importation of foreign minerals

You download the report here.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 13, 2010, 07:42:40 AM
Is there a doctor in the house? Obamacare will worsen the physician shortage Congress helped create
NY Daily News ^ | 10/13/2010 | Dr. Marc Siegel

There is a new disease spreading like a cancer in doctors' offices and hospitals throughout the U.S. I have named it Doctor Unavailability Syndrome (DUS). It is characterized by a rising shortage of doctors, both specialists and primary care, as well as the growing inability of the doctors we do have to take care of patient needs.

What good is a shiny new insurance card if there is not a physician available to see you?

This disease can be traced back to 1997, when Congress, anticipating a doctor surplus, included a section in its budget-balancing law that froze the number of Medicare-sponsored residency positions.

But instead of a surplus, a shortage soon developed, and has worsened over the years, now reaching epidemic proportions. The Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Workforce Studies just reported an anticipated shortage of 90,000 doctors of all kinds over the next decade, with half of them being primary care physicians and the other half surgeons and specialists.

The report suggests that Medicare should support at least a "15% increase in GME (Graduate Medical Education) positions, allowing teaching hospitals to prepare another 4,000 physicians a year to meet the needs of 2020 and beyond."

Don't count on this proposed subsidy happening any time soon. Instead, the new health care law, known ironically as the Affordable Care Act, is promoting and extending the kind of low co-pay and low deductible insurance that is easy to overuse, overwhelming doctors further and leading to an upward spiral of health care costs.

The doctors we do have are beleaguered and many are dropping out, increasing overall unavailability. As Obamacare adds 32 million uninsured - including 16 million on Medicaid - to the rolls over the next decade...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 05:27:21 AM
Skip to comments.

Value-Added Tax Could Cost 850,000 Jobs: Retail Group
CNBC ^ | 14 Oct 2010 | Christina Cheddar Berk

________________________ ________________________ ____

The National Retail Federation is trying to put some numbers behind its argument against a value-added tax, which is one option being considered by a presidential commission looking into ways of reducing the ballooning federal deficit.

The retail industry's trade group said a study it commissioned estimates a European-style VAT would result in the loss of 850,000 jobs in its first year, reduce the US gross domestic product for three years, and cut retail spending by $2.5 billion over its first decade.

The study, which was conducted by Ernst and Young and economic research firm Tax Policy Advisers, concluded that although lower deficits would have positive long-run effects for the economy, most Americans would be worse off due to the VAT.

Talk of a VAT has surfaced in recent months as a way of dealing with the rising federal deficit, which is currently at its highest share of GDP since World War II.

Although policymakers who are considering such a measure have not offered specifics about what a VAT would look like, the calculations in the study were based on a "narrow-based" VAT similar to VATs in other countries. In order to achieve the goal of reducing the annual federal deficit by 2 percent of GDP, the VAT would need to be 10.3 percent.

The study also assumed the VAT would be applied to most consumer goods and services but would exempt sales of homes, rent, groceries medicine, health care, financial services and education to ease the tax's regressive impact on low-income families.

"In the face of an economy that continues to struggle, immediate enactment of an add-on VAT would pose serious risk. The drop in retail spending, jobs, and GDP under an add-on VAT has the potential to further weaken the economy in the near term, rather than strengthen it," the study's authors wrote.

The study also notes that other countries have reduced, not increased, their VATs in the face of the recent economic downturn.

The authors expect retail spending would fall by 5.0 percent, or almost $260 billion, as consumers adjust to the tax.

It's also assumed that the VAT would be in additional to other taxes, which means middle-income families would get hit the hardest. It is estimated a family of four making roughly $70,000 a year would pay $2,400 a year in value-added taxes. That would increase their tax burden by 100 percent.

A family making $100,000 would pay $2,800 in VAT, or an increase of more than 40 percent to of their current federal income tax liability.

Meanwhile, families earning $40,000 would pay $1,800 in VAT. Currently families at that income level don't have a federal income tax liability.

"This report has found that a VAT would have negative economic consequences for most working Americans alive today," said NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay. "If Congress wants to reduce the deficit, the solution is to cut spending, not create a new tax."

In August, the NRF commissioned a survey by BIGresearch that found nearly two-thirds of Americans expect a VAT would impact their spending.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 05:32:53 AM
How Obama is Invading Your Home
By Ben Lieberman October 11, 2010
Originally published in The New York Post

________________________ ________________________ ____

The Obama administration isn't satis fied giving the American public vast things we don't want — from stimu lus packages to bailouts to ObamaCare: It's a small-scale nuisance, too — witness its attempt to redesign home appliances.

In the pipeline are dumb regulations for almost everything that plugs in or fires up in your home.

Just weeks after taking office, the president ordered the Energy Department to speed up the process of issuing harsh new energy-efficiency standards for appliances. Since then, the agency boasts, it "has issued or codified new efficiency standards for more than 20 different products," and still more are on the way.

These regulations are sure to raise the price of appliances — often by more than consumers are ever likely to earn back in the form of energy savings. And some will make the product perform well.

The administration is meddling with every room in the house:

The basement:New standards are in the works for water heaters and furnaces. For water heaters, the Energy Department estimates price hikes from $67 to $974, depending on size and type.

The bathroom:The same 1992 law that gave us those awful low-flush toilets also restricted the amount of water showerheads could use to 2.5 gallons per minute. Some consumers who disliked the resulting weak trickle opted for models with two or more showerheads, each using the maximum 2.5 gallons. But Team Obama has now eliminated this "loophole" by requiring that the total flow must comply with the limit.

The kitchen: Think remodeling a kitchen is expensive now? Pending regulations target refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves, ovens and ranges.

For refrigerators (at least), this is a clear case of overkill. The American fridge has already been hit by several rounds of tighter standards, with each new rule saving less energy than the last — but boosting the price and compromising performance and reliability. Even the Energy Department admits that most consumers will lose money on its latest refrigerator regulation.

The laundry room:New standards are on the way for washers and dryers. When the last clothes-washer regulation hit in 2007, Consumer Reportslamented that several ultra-efficient models "left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing" and that "for best results, you'll have to spend $900 or more." The Obama rules will probably mean even worse news.

Any air-conditioned room:Both central air conditioners and window units are scheduled for new regulations. When the Energy Department rolled out its last round of central-AC rules back in January 2001 (one of those last-minute Clinton administration "midnight" regulations), it admitted that many homeowners would never recoup the added up-front costs. The new standards will follow the same "logic" — and thus should make for another lousy deal.

The Obama regulations come on top of all the past ones, including the worst one of all — the Bush-era requirement that will effectively ban incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012.

In nearly every case, consumers who want more efficient appliances — or those compact fluorescent light bulbs — are free to buy them. Energy-use labels tell you everything you need to know to make comparisons. All the federal rules do is is to force the government's preferred choice on everyone.

Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is busy enacting a bunch of things the people don't want, including these appliance regulations. Add them to the growing list of Obama (and Bush) measures ripe for repeal.

» See All Media Appearances ..Competitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L ST NW Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-331-1010 | Fax: 202-331-0640
©2001-2010 Competitive Enterprise Institute

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 06:07:14 AM
Obamacare Sticker Shock: Taxing Over 15,000 Medicines
by  Connie Hair


Nancy Pelosi warned us we’d have to pass Obamacare to find out what’s in it.  And what we’re finding we don’t like at all.

Higher insurance premiums are hitting families hard.  Medicare Advantage has been decimated.  Millions will be forced into government-run Medicaid where long lines and rationing await.

If we like our insurance -- too bad.

Beginning January 1, 2011, more than 15,000 over-the-counter (OTC) health care items will require a prescription (and that means a doctor’s visit) for tax-free reimbursement.

Under Obamacare, OTC drugs cannot be reimbursed tax-free from Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) or Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) without a government bureaucrat-required permission slip.
In response to new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance (the IRS is the Obamacare enforcement agency), the Special Interest Group for IIAS Standards (SIGIS) released a new list of OTC medications that will require a prescription for a tax-free withdrawal from an HSA or an FSA under Obamacare.   SIGIS is an industry group for health care debit card transactions and merchants.  According to SIGIS, 15,000 OTC health care items are barred from purchase by these accounts without prescription.

Below is a partial list of the OTC item categories:
Acid Controllers
Allergy and Sinus medicine
Anti-Gas Products
Anti-Itch and Insect Bite
Anti-Parasitic Treatments
Baby Rash Ointments/Creams
Cold Sore Remedies
Cough, Cold, and Flu
Digestive Aids
Motion Sickness
Pain Relievers
Respiratory Treatments
Stomach Remedies

The detailed SIGIS Eligible Products List will be published on December 15, 2010.
As of May 2010, approximately 10 million people were covered under HSA plans for their family’s health care needs.   The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this provision of Obamacare will cost families $5 billion.

Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.

You can also follow Connie Hair and Human Events on FACEBOOK.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 06:48:59 AM
Updated: Thu., Oct. 14, 2010, 4:52 AM 
O's new Gulf gambit
Last Updated: 4:52 AM, October 14, 2010

________________________ ________________________ ________________

Look -- it's an October Mini-Surprise!

It's midterm-election time, the Democrats are cratering -- and Inte rior Secretary Ken Salazar this week announced that he's lifting the moratorium that the White House imposed on deepwater offshore-oil and gas drilling after the Gulf of Mexico spill.

The move came six weeks earlier than expected, and followed the promulgation of some new safety rules said to ensure against future well blowouts.

"I have decided that it is now appropriate to lift the suspension," said Salazar, adding: "We are open for business."

And of course it's just a coincidence that there are US Senate races in Louisiana and Florida as Democrats fight to maintain control of that body.

As for being open for business -- well, what Salazar did not say is that it will be some time before any actual drilling begins. Like weeks -- and maybe even months.

And it will likely be years before drilling resumes to pre-spill levels.

Which is why Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat who's so furious about the moratorium that she's single-handedly been blocking the White House nomination of Jack Lew as budget director, isn't ready to sign on.

Indeed, she said, she's not going to let Lew's nomination proceed until Congress reconvenes next month -- by which time "I will have had several weeks to evaluate if [this] lifting of the moratorium is actually putting people back to work."

From the outset, the White House came under heavy criticism from area legislators for the moratorium, which idled 33 rigs and is estimated to have killed as many as 12,000 local jobs.  

And a panel of experts whose views were used to justify the suspension publicly complained that their position had been misrepresented by the White House -- they'd actually opposed the ban.

Back then, though, emotion ruled -- and Team Obama was trying to mollify the environmental lobby.

Now it's October; votes matter more.

But will the voters be fooled?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 09:35:55 AM
New pay bill could spell big trouble for businesses
October 13, 2010 | Jared Bilski

________________________ ________________________ ____

This post is in: Employment Law, FLSA, Top Story

Heads up: The Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) is back on the table. Should it pass, the PFA will likely make employers’ lives much harder.
Where it could hurt you

The Society for Human Resource Management recently highlighted four major areas of concern for companies. The bill would:

• make employers liable for unlimited punitive damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act – even for unintentional pay disparities

• eliminate current limits on the amount of back pay and punitive and compensatory damages employees can receive

• wipe out the requirement that employees must give written consent to become a party in an Equal Pay Act class action – setting the stage for more class action lawsuits against employers, and

• limit an employer’s flexibility to pay workers based on current law criteria (cost-of-living differences among geographic locations, different work responsibilities, etc.)

The bill has been criticized by business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and opponents feel the unlimited damages provision has the potential to destroy smaller businesses.

Tags: Chamber of Commerce, Equal Pay Act, Fair labor standards act, law, The Paycheck Fairness Act

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 10:24:34 AM
Medicare: Reform may cost seniors
By: Jennifer Haberkorn
October 13, 2010 12:00 PM EDT

________________________ ___________________

A Medicare official concedes that seniors may have to dig deeper into their wallets next year thanks to the health care law.

The new analysis obtained by POLITICO finds the health care overhaul will result in increased out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare Advantage plans.

Richard Foster, the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, also tells Senate Republicans that the overhaul will result in “less generous benefit packages” for Medicare Advantage plans next year. Foster is independent from the administration and non-partisan.

Democrats have long contended that Medicare Advantage plans – private insurance alternatives to Medicare – overpay private insurers, increasing premiums for everyone, and needs to be reformulated.

But Republicans say dramatic changes to the program mean some seniors won’t be able to keep their plans – a promise President Barack Obama made during the reform debate – and the GOP has made the issue part of its attempt to roll back the health law.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, says the administration is trying to downplay the effects of the overhaul on the Medicare Advantage plans.

“Painting a rosy picture of Medicare Advantage options denies the facts from the government’s own chief actuary,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “And it’s a disservice to the 11 million current beneficiaries who count on this popular program.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says, in a separate letter sent recently to Grassley, the changes in the health care overhaul will end up strengthening the program.

“Next year, seniors will have new benefits, new protections against fraud, and better Medicare Advantage choices with meaningful differences at affordable premiums, and more beneficiaries will participate in the program,” she wrote.

Sebelius says that the remaining Medicare Advantage plans have higher standards to meet, stemming from a 2008 Medicare law. In addition, 99.7 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who have access to an Advantage plan this year will have it next year and that premiums are expected to decline by 1 percent next year.

Foster says the additional costs seniors face will be partially offset by other pieces of the law, including reduced cost sharing for Medicare Parts A and B, lower Part B premiums and the filling of the prescription drug donut hole.

Last week, Grassley’s office highlighted an error Sebelius made in a speech to a gathering of AARP members. She incorrectly said the number of Medicare Advantage plans would increase next year. HHS later changed the written copy of the speech online without highlighting the change, which angered Grassley.

“Despite making a limited correction last week to an earlier speech delivered in Florida, the administration refuses to set the record straight appropriately,” Grassley said.

“But a new letter from Medicare’s chief actuary is nonpartisan and indisputable. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will pay more out of their own pockets as a result of the new health care law. Their costs will go up by hundreds of dollars on average in the coming years, by $346 in 2011 to a high of $923 in 2017.”

CLARIFICATION: The cost estimate came from the office of the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, an independent, non-partisan office.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

________________________ ________________________ ______________


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 10:26:02 AM
“But a new letter from Medicare’s chief actuary is nonpartisan and indisputable. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will pay more out of their own pockets as a result of the new health care law. Their costs will go up by hundreds of dollars on average in the coming years, by $346 in 2011 to a high of $923 in 2017.”

________________________ ___

More liberal lies coming to fruition. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 03:20:12 PM

Published on The Weekly Standard (


Barack Obama’s War on Jobs
The Democrats are the party of no jobs.
October 14, 2010 12:00 AM

________________________ ___________________

Last week’s anemic jobs report came as a sobering reminder that America’s economic malaise shows little sign of slowing. Overall non-farm payrolls shrunk by 95,000 in September, while private sector hiring decelerated for the third consecutive month. High unemployment is now an acute national headache that won’t go away.

As the economy suffers this employment migraine, its causes come into sharper focus. Instead of providing relief, President Obama and his party have aggravated an already grim employment picture.

Job creators apparently pushed the pause button. Why?

Obviously a host of factors contribute to the equation.  But two reasons – both produced in Washington – deserve mention: uncertainty and divisive rhetoric. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress peddle large dollops of both.  Together they produced the real party of no: The Party of No Jobs.

First, consider uncertainty. Businesses cannot plan effectively in the current environment. 

Doubt about future tax policy is a case in point.  The Democratic majority adjourned to campaign without providing any clarity.  No one knows what a post-election lame duck session might concoct. As a result, income taxes, capital gains, dividends and a host of other expiring business incentives are all hostage to congressional fiat.

It’s possible nothing happens this year – meaning, major tax increases on income, savings and investments on January 1.  Uncertainty on the tax front is higher than it’s been in at least the last decade. Job creation suffers in this environment.

Health care and environmental regulation also contribute to the uncertainty. The Obama administration continues to implement portions of the health care law.  We hear new stories every day about premium increases and employers changing coverage.  Major upheaval in this sector of the economy also clouds the jobs picture.

Questions about the Democrats’ plans on the environmental regulatory and legislative front produce even more doubt. The administration’s alacrity when it comes to using the power of Washington to step into the affairs of private business is well known.  The White House might even redouble its efforts to impose new requirements in the air, water, and energy producing sectors, particularly if Democrats lose the majority in Congress.

But uncertainty is only one front in this war. The president’s own rhetoric also creates unnecessary and harmful divisions – an “us” vs. “them” mentality that polarizes the country.  Taking on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over allegedly using foreign money for campaign contributions is just the most recent example.

Speaking at the World Business Forum in New York last week, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch summed up the view of many in corporate America, saying the Obama administration is “just plain anti-business.”

Americans want a president that brings the country together, a leader who tries to unify, not divide. But, instead, Obama serves up fiery, campaign-like speeches fingering business leaders as boardroom bogeymen, not job creators. 

Public policy is often a zero sum game; it produces winners and losers. But it’s not necessary for the president and Democrats in Congress to blame everything that ails us on “big oil,” “Wall Street,” “greedy insurance companies” or “the rich.”

That kind of rhetoric might have a place in an election, but this president and his allies in Congress brought the permanent campaign to daily governing. This is very jarring to many Americans.

The tone and language may be appropriate for a liberal community organizer, but not the leader of the free world – someone that wants to spur economic confidence and increase business investment that produces jobs.

The Democrats’ war on jobs is also producing a political backlash of historic proportions. Last week Gallup noted that 54 percent of likely voters now identify as conservative – up from 42 percent in the last midterm election.  And 57 percent of likely voters identify as Republicans (including those who say they lean toward the GOP), compared to 45 percent in 2006.

But beyond politics, uncertainty and divisive rhetoric produce other, more pernicious, job-killing results.  News reports over the last month also show that American companies are sitting on record amounts of cash.  Instead of investing in creating new employment, many keep their money idle, waiting to see if the fog of political war will ever lift.

The November election should clear up some of this uncertainty.  Voters may collectively clip the wings of the Democrats, thus avoiding the most extreme excesses of the current one party rule in Washington. But the current occupant of the White House also needs to understand that an economy will not produce jobs when the president wages war against those that create them.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: 225for70 on October 14, 2010, 03:26:51 PM
The only thing left for Obama to do to kill the economy is Pass some Cap N trade scam.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 03:28:49 PM
The only thing left for Obama to do to kill the economy is Pass some Cap N trade scam.

That will really screw us over and cause energy price inflation like we have never seen, which in essence will lead to massive food and goods inflation and cost increases.   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 14, 2010, 03:33:27 PM

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Matt Cover

________________________ _________________

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) (AP Photo)( – The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.
This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.
The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.
“The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences,” the bill reads.
It continues: “The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States.”
The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.
“States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program,” the bill says.
States may contract with private agencies to oversee the retrofitting and measuring of improved efficiency and environmental friendliness of houses and other buildings, making sure that private citizens have a variety of choices for retrofitting their homes.
“States and local government entities may administer a REEP program in a manner that authorizes public or regulated investor-owned utilities, building auditors and inspectors, contractors, nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, and other entities to perform audits and retrofit services,” reads the bill.
It further says, “A State or local administrator of a REEP program shall seek to ensure that sufficient qualified entities are available to support retrofit activities so that building owners have a competitive choice among qualified auditors, raters, contractors, and providers of services related to retrofits.”
In fact, individual homeowners are even allowed to retrofit buildings themselves. The bill gives specific protection to individual owners’ rights to choose who inspects and retrofits their property.
“Nothing in this section is intended to deny the right of a building owner to choose the specific providers of retrofit services to engage for a retrofit project in that owner’s building.”
Even though Congress says the states are responsible for carrying out the retrofits, the EPA and the Department of Energy will establish the guidelines and rules for doing so.
“The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish goals, guidelines, practices, and standards for accomplishing the purpose stated in subsection (c) [the retrofits],” the bill says.
The program would involve a system of certified auditors, inspectors, and raters who inspect homes and businesses using devices such as infrared cameras (which measure how much heat a building is giving off) to measure their energy efficiency.
The results of these energy audits would then be used to determine what retrofits need to be performed. The audits would examine things like water usage, infrared photography, and pressurized testing to determine the efficiency of door and window seals, and indoor air quality.   

Those retrofits would be performed by licensed retrofit contractors using government-approved methods and resources including roofing materials that reflect solar energy.
“uilding retrofits conducted pursuant to a REEP program utilize, especially in all air-conditioned buildings, roofing materials with high solar energy reflectance,” the legislation states.
After the retrofitting is complete, the government – state, local, or federal – will come back and re-inspect the house to determine how much energy has been saved and whether the retrofit is up to federal government standards.
“Determination of energy savings in a performance-based building retrofit program through — (A) for residential buildings, comparison of before and after retrofit scores,” the proposal states.
To help pay for the cost of these retrofits, states and localities may provide loans, utility rate rebates, tax rebates, or implement retrofit programs on their own. In fact, the government will even pay up to 50 percent of the cost of a retrofit through financial awards to individual home and building owners.

“PERCENTAGE.—Awards under clause (i) shall not exceed 50 percent of retrofit costs for each building,” reads the bill.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2010, 03:43:00 AM
Obama’s Healthcare Rules Will Shut Down Catholic Hospitals Nationwide ^ | 10/14/2010 | Warner Todd Huston

________________________ ________________________ ___________________

Obama’s Healthcare Rules Will Shut Down Catholic Hospitals Nationwide

Some of Obamacare’s most destructive forces are quickly becoming common knowledge. We have, for instance, become painfully aware that Obama’s claim that we all could keep our plans and doctors “if you like them” is an outright falsehood as some people are already losing their coverage.

It is also becoming clear that companies will be dropping plans all over the place making a lie of the idea that plans will be cheaper and easier to get once Obamacre comes into force. Another aspect of the destructive nature of this top down-style of “healthcare” is that once government takes over the system Democrats will assume they have the power to force religious-based healthcare providers to perform abortions and this will cause thousands of facilities to close down.

This will, of course, make care even harder to get in many cities across the nation as hospital beds are lost in great numbers.

In fact, we are already seeing this disastrous situation of closing hospitals playing out in Scranton, Pennsylvania where three Catholic-operated hospitals are likely going to be shut down and/or sold off because of the negative affects Obamacare will have on these facilities.

Kevin Cook, the CEO of Mercy Health Partners, the company that operates these three hospitals, told WNEP TV News that Obamacare “absolutely” playing a role in the decision to sell off the facilities.

“Health care reform is absolutely playing a role.” Cook said. “Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely.”

Almost immediately Obama associate Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association came out to slam Mr. Cook. Keehan’s press release says in part: “Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation.”

The CHA is a for profit company that works for some Catholic hospitals as a sort of trade association and Keehan is a close associate of the president and a prominent supporter of Obamacare. Keehan was even a recipient of one of the 21 pens that Obama used to sign the Orwellian named Affordable Care Act — much to the chagrin of Catholic Bishops.

This Keehan apostate is constantly put forth by the Old Media as some representative of Catholic hospitals. Worse few Old Media outlets note that she is an Obamacare activist and Obama associate.

As Jeffery Lord of the Spectator says, “In other words, Sister Carol is not just some kindly nun who reminds you of the nun whacking your knuckles in grade school for this or that offense. No, in the world of Washington Sister Carol is a powerhouse lobbyist — make that a liberal social justice lobbyist — with a clear set of political skills and a very, very high-powered set of very elite friends.”

For instance, back in March the AP passed off a false news story attempting to mislead the public into thinking that Catholic hospitals supported Obama’s healthcare bill. AP then reported the support of Obamacare announced by the CHA, an independent group that does not represent the Catholic Church nor Catholic hospitals per se, and conflated that announcement to a claim as if all Catholic hospitals and therefore the Church itself were standing behind Obama’s take over of the nation’s healthcare system.

AP reported the announcement by the CHA and made as if it somehow represented “Catholics,” but this group has no official relationship with the Catholic Church, nor does it represent any groups of religious Catholics, nor serve as a source for Catholic teaching or doctrine. Needless to say the CHA also does not represent all Catholic hospitals but only the few that have paid to join her association.

The costs that Obamacare will force upon hospitals isn’t the only problem for Catholic-based healthcare. Obama, his party, and their pro-infanticide supporting associates also intend to force Catholic and other religious based healthcare facilities to perform abortions whether it violates their consciences or not.

Recently former Senator Rick Santorum (R, Penn) raised this point in an editorial for Santorum cites a new effort by the ACLU to get Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama’s controversial abortion supporting recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, to force all healthcare providers to perform abortion procedures.

Santorum rails against this effort saying: “This abuse of conscience betrays American principles that go back at least to the country’s founding, when George Washington respected the pacifist consciences of Quakers. Similarly, since Roe v. Wade and under both political parties, Congress has passed laws that respect the consciences of health-care workers.”

This effort to force all healthcare providers to provide abortion is a serious threat to the nation’s healthcare system.

By 2005 there were over 615 Catholic hospitals, some 400 healthcare centers, and over 1,500 specialized healthcare homes. These facilities employ almost 600,000 employees and accounted for more than 20% of all hospital admissions. And this is just the Catholic oriented healthcare facilities.

As the realities of the strict, anti-religious qualities of Obamacare dawns on people and as the government begins to crack down on religious organizations forcing them to obviate their consciences the eventual result will be the end of religious-based healthcare institutions. This will leave millions of Americans underserved and will also leave their health in danger.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2010, 04:02:58 AM
Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President
If we tried to start The Home Depot today, it's a stone cold certainty that it would never have gotten off the ground.

________________________ _____________________

Although I was glad that you answered a question of mine at the Sept. 20 town-hall meeting you hosted in Washington, D.C., Mr. President, I must say that the event seemed more like a lecture than a dialogue. For more than two years the country has listened to your sharp rhetoric about how American businesses are short-changing workers, fleecing customers, cheating borrowers, and generally "driving the economy into a ditch," to borrow your oft-repeated phrase.

My question to you was why, during a time when investment and dynamism are so critical to our country, was it necessary to vilify the very people who deliver that growth? Instead of offering a straight answer, you informed me that I was part of a "reckless" group that had made "bad decisions" and now required your guidance, if only I'd stop "resisting" it.

I'm sure that kind of argument draws cheers from the partisan faithful. But to my ears it sounded patronizing. Of course, one of the chief conceits of centralized economic planning is that the planners know better than everybody else.

But there's a much deeper problem than whether I am personally irked or not. Your insistence that your policies are necessary and beneficial to business is utterly at odds with what you and your administration are saying elsewhere. You pick a fight with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accusing it of using foreign money to influence congressional elections, something the chamber adamantly denies. Your U.S. attorney in New York, Preet Bahrara, compares investment firms to Mexican drug cartels and says he wants the power to wiretap Wall Street when he sees fit. And you drew guffaws of approving laughter with your car-wreck metaphor, recently telling a crowd that those who differ with your approach are "standing up on the road, sipping a Slurpee" while you are "shoving" and "sweating" to fix the broken-down jalopy of state.

View Full Image

Associated Press
President Barack Obama during a September 20th town hall.

That short-sighted wavering—between condescending encouragement one day and hostile disparagement the next—creates uncertainty that, as any investor could tell you, causes economic paralysis. That's because no one can tell what to expect next.

A little more than 30 years ago, Bernie Marcus, Arthur Blank, Pat Farrah and I got together and founded The Home Depot. Our dream was to create (memo to DNC activists: that's build, not take or coerce) a new kind of home-improvement center catering to do-it-yourselfers. The concept was to have a wide assortment, a high level of service, and the lowest pricing possible.
We opened the front door in 1979, also a time of severe economic slowdown. Yet today, Home Depot is staffed by more than 325,000 dedicated, well-trained, and highly motivated people offering outstanding service and knowledge to millions of consumers.

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it's a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase—never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers.

Meantime, you seem obsessed with repealing tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires." Contrary to what you might assume, I didn't start with any advantages and neither did most of the successful people I know. I am the grandson of immigrants who came to this country seeking basic economic and personal liberty. My parents worked tirelessly to build on that opportunity. My first job was as a day laborer on the construction of the Long Island Expressway more than 50 years ago. The wealth that was created by my investments wasn't put into a giant swimming pool as so many elected demagogues seem to imagine. Instead it benefitted our employees, their families and our community at large.

I stand behind no one in my enthusiasm and dedication to improving our society and especially our health care. It's worth adding that it makes little sense to send Treasury checks to high net-worth people in the form of Social Security. That includes you, me and scores of members of Congress. Why not cut through that red tape, Mr. President, and apply a basic means test to that program? Just make sure that money actually reduces federal spending and isn't simply shifted elsewhere. I guarantee you that many millionaires and billionaires will gladly forego it—as my wife and I already do when we forward those checks each month to charity.

It's not too late to include the voices of experienced business people in your efforts, small businesses owners in particular. Americans would be right to wonder why you haven't already.

Mr. Langone, a former director of the New York Stock Exchange and co-founder of Home Depot, is chairman of Invemed Associates.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 15, 2010, 08:06:37 AM
Democrats hurting business, economy

October 15, 2010


________________________ _____________________

Gesturing toward the magnificent steel, glass and concrete towers of Chicago's Loop during a conversation with the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board, Mayor Daley noted that "almost 95 percent" of the skyscrapers were private-sector constructions. Then he declared this self-evident truth: "I don't think Democrats realize how important business is to our economy and to our cities."

While Democrats have long struggled under the mantle of being anti-business, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have acted as if they're not particularly bothered by it. They pushed tax and fee increases, imposed new regulations through thousand-plus page bills and bureaucratic fiat and bashed Wall Street, bankers, insurers and other businesses that dared question their agenda.

» Click to enlarge image Steve Huntley

Democrats talk a good game about small business, but actions speak louder than words. Obama and the Democrats are pushing a tax increase that would hit 50 percent of small enterprise income and their massive health-care law saddles business with a flood of tax-filing paperwork for expenditures as low as $601.

Such government meddling in the economy and the threat of more have injected so much uncertainty into economic planning that businesses small and large are hesitant to invest until they get a clearer picture of the tax and regulatory environment. Democratic policies haven't reduced unemployment. Their stimulus did more to protect government jobs than lay the foundation for robust private-sector job creation.

It's no wonder that an alarmed business community is pushing back this election cycle, funneling campaign contributions to candidates and independent groups rallying around a pro-growth and jobs-creation agenda.

The White House response has been again to demonize its opponents. Obama accused the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to fund campaign activities -- a criminal act. The basis for this accusation? An unsubstantiated allegation on a left-wing blog. Recall how Democrats lambasted Republicans for taking their lead from Rush Limbaugh? Well, here's the president of the United States passing along an outrageous, unfounded bit of Internet character assassination.

An independent watchdog group,, said there was "no evidence" backing this charge, as did several major media outlets not known for Republican leanings, such as the New York Times.

When challenged about the weakness of the accusation on the CBS program "Face the Nation," presidential adviser David Axelrod said, "Well, do you have any evidence it's not true?" In other words, the chamber is guilty of a crime until proved innocent. Thank you for your lesson on American civics, Mr. Axelrod. As the FactCheck organization notes, others such as the extreme left-wing group have followed Axelrod's unscrupulous tactic.

The fact is that liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican groups take money under rules that don't require them to reveal donors. Some, like the chamber and the big unions, do collect contributions from foreign sources but don't use them for U.S. electioneering.

The Democrats are raising this red herring in a desperate attempt to distract the voters from their failed economic policies, the 9.6 percent unemployment rate, slowing GDP growth and the vastly unpopular ObamaCare.

Obama, with a background in community organizing, the university classroom and politics, staffed his administration mostly with like-minded folks with little business background. It's too bad -- for the economy as well as his current political predicament -- that Obama, during his time in Chicago, didn't learn from Daley a fuller appreciation of the vital role of business in a vibrant economy.

Comment at

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 16, 2010, 05:53:00 AM
A Shovel-Unready President
By Jonah Goldberg

________________________ _________________

Back in early 2009, President-elect Barack Obama was asked on Meet the Press how quickly he could create jobs. Oh, very fast, he said. He'd already consulted with a gaggle of governors, and "all of them have projects that are shovel-ready." When Obama revealed the members of his energy team, he explained that they were part of his effort to get started on "shovel-ready projects all across the country." When he unveiled his education secretary, he assured everyone that he was going to get started "helping states and local governments with shovel-ready projects."

In interviews, job summits, and press conferences, it was shovel-ready this, shovel-ready that. Search the White House website for the term "shovel-ready" and you'll drown in press releases about all the shovels ready to shove shovel-ready projects into the 21st century, where no shovel is left behind.

Only now it turns out that the president was shoveling something all right when he was talking about shovel-ready jobs - a whole pile of steaming something.

In the current issue of The New York Times Magazine, Obama admits that there's "no such thing as shovel-ready" when it comes to public works.

It's not that Obama was lying when he said all that stuff. It's just that he didn't know what he was talking about. All it took was nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus money and 20-plus months of on-the-job training for him to discover that he was talking nonsense.

It seems to me that, if I were president, and I not only staked vast swaths of my credibility but gambled the prosperity of the country generally on this concept of "shovel-ready jobs," I might be a bit miffed with the staffers who swore that shovel-ready jobs were, like, you know, a real thing.

And yet, if you read Peter Baker's Obama profile, it's clear that Obama isn't mad about that. In fact, he still thinks he got all the policies right. Baker writes that Obama is "supremely sure that he is right," it's just that the president feels he didn't market himself well.

"Given how much stuff was coming at us," Obama explains, "we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There is probably a perverse pride in my administration - and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top - that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion."

This is an old progressive lament: Our product is perfect, we just didn't sell it convincingly to the rubes.

But wait a second. If they spent "much more time trying to get the policy right," how come nobody said, "Uh, Mr. President, these ‘shovel-ready jobs' you keep talking about? They're sort of like good flan - they don't exist."

Let's not dwell on such things. Besides, Obama has already said that his problems come from "neglecting marketing and PR and public opinion." Indeed, that, and only that, explains why people think he looks like "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat."

The only problem with that: facts. Obama's health-care plan raises taxes on Americans (though Obama says this is not so, they're merely mandatory fees and premiums) and will cost trillions. He wants to raise taxes on "the rich" - defined so that a cop married to a nurse might well count as rich - and on small businesses.

Meanwhile, Washington is now spending 23 percent more than it did two years ago. As the Washington Post recently editorialized, Congress's "emergency" bailout to avoid "a teachers crisis" was a fraud to simply transfer billions to the teachers' unions in advance of the midterms.

And then, of course, there's the stimulus that paid for all of those "shovel-ready jobs" that Obama now admits never existed. Los Angeles County deployed $111 million in stimulus money to "save" 55 jobs at the cost of $2 million apiece. The White House has spent $192 million on road signs that brag about how the construction delays ahead were paid for by the stimulus. Meanwhile, unemployment is a full three percentage points higher during Obama's "recovery" than it was during the "worst recession since the Great Depression."

Maybe it's unfair for people to think Obama is just another tax-and-spend Democrat. After all, some tax-and-spend Democrats are actually competent at it. m

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2010, 04:47:36 AM
All dressed up, nowhere to go
As the government and energy firms butt heads over spill risks, rigs stand idle and hundreds have lost jobs
Oct. 18, 2010, 12:15AM

Sources: ODS-Petrodata, the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulation

________________________ _____________________

WASHINGTON — Offshore drilling regulators and energy companies are at loggerheads over a requirement that the firms plan for nightmare scenarios about possible oil spills, with the standoff slowing permits for new shallow-water wells.

Now that the Obama administration has lifted its moratorium on deep-water drilling, the dispute threatens to hold up some of those projects, too.

At issue is the government's mandate that companies seeking to drill offshore must describe the "worst case discharge" of oil and gas from their proposed wells. That single calculation dictates a cascade of other requirements - including how much insurance companies must carry and the amount of response equipment they must reserve to clean up such a spill.

But offshore operators and government regulators have been at odds over how to arrive at the numbers - which are, at best, subjective predictions based on a broad assortment of factors, from how much of a geological formation might be exposed to the number of oil and gas zones at a proposed well.

"It's not an exact science, and there's a lot of engineering judgment that goes into it," said Randy Stilley, CEO of Seahawk Drilling, a shallow-water contractor based in Houston. "If I pick 10 different reservoir engineers, they'll probably give you 10 different numbers. So trying to get agreement on the right number is not an easy thing to do."

Even though oil companies and regulators generally use the same mathematical formula to estimate the worst-possible flow of oil from a proposed well, they are plugging in different data for those calculations. It can take weeks of meetings, exchanged notes and new calculations before a consensus is reached.

Approval pace lags

The disputes are at the heart of a major slowdown in the government's permitting of new shallow-water drilling, which was allowed to continue even though a moratorium blocked exploration in deeper depths from late May until it was lifted last week.

Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded April 20, federal regulators have given the green light to 12 new shallow-water wells, with another 10 applications pending.

Despite a flurry of recent approvals - with six new permits issued since Sept. 28 - the pace still lags behind historic levels. Before the oil spill - and the new worst-case discharge requirements - the government was permitting an average of 16.8 wells per month in 2008 and 8.5 each month in 2009, when the recession drove demand down. During the first quarter of 2010, before the oil spill in the Gulf , the government was approving an average of 10.3 wells each month.

Industry officials say the result has been idled rigs and workers - with an estimated 500 direct jobs lost since the oil spill. Roughly one-quarter of the shallow-water drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are not working.

At Seahawk, Stilley said the slow flow of new well permits has forced the idling of 14 rigs out of a 20-vessel fleet and the furlough of at least 150 employees - roughly 25 percent of the company's workforce. The company is selling one of its rigs to an India-based oil service firm, and Stilley warns that Seahawk will get rid of others if work doesn't pick up soon.

"We just don't think we're going to be able to put all of our rigs back to work in the U.S.," he said, adding that it could take years "to get back to a more normal level of permitting activity."

With daily carrying costs of about $3,000 to $4,000 to maintain even idle stacked rigs, Stilley said any sale is an instant cash boost to the company's balance sheet - and the plugging of an economic drain on the company.

The pace of permitting became a major issue this summer, when oil companies and regulators at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement were still adapting to new mandates imposed since the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Confusion over rules

Michael Bromwich, the bureau director, acknowledged that the new rules - especially the requirement for the worst-case discharge estimate - were not clear enough.

"Companies had not dealt with it in the way that they needed to, nor had we put out clear guidance on the way that they needed to," he said.

But Bromwich said regulators have made big strides in clearing up the confusion. And he credits the shifting of 20 bureau workers from other divisions to a permit-vetting team of about 40 with helping to ease the backlog recently.

"This is going to continue to be an evolving process," Bromwich said. "We're not going to have 100 percent clarity immediately, but we've made an enormous amount of progress over the last several weeks."

In a bid to further streamline the process, the industry's Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition has proposed a tiered review plan that would step up regulatory requirements along with increases in risk factors at proposed wells. For instance, the regulatory hurdles could grow for projects tapping a thicker pay zone or expected to encounter higher pressures. Less risky projects would have to meet fewer demands.

"Our whole goal is to find a consistent, more expeditious way to process these permits and still meet the regulatory requirements," said Kalil Ackal, a drilling manager for Arena Offshore, based in The Woodlands . "We know better than to say, 'Just trust our numbers.' "

Instead, Ackal said, the shallow-water advocates are trying to peg regulatory decisions to "simple, objective, verifiable factors" for proposed wells.

Bromwich said he is considering the tiered review ideas, "and if they have merit, technically, we hope to be able to embrace at least some of them."

'Significant' numbers

American Petroleum Institute leaders say they want to ensure that the bureau has enough resources to swiftly review applications for new wells, now that the deep-water moratorium has ended. "Our big concern is that BOEM is going to be flooded with permits," said Robin Rorick, an API analyst.

Another factor, Rorick said, is making sure that regulators are making "appropriate" predictions about the potential worst-case discharge from wells, since higher estimates drive up requirements for how much oil spill response equipment needs to be reserved and how much money or insurance coverage companies must prove they have before being allowed to drill.

So far, higher estimates have pushed at least one shallow-water operator into a higher financial responsibility category, as required under federal law, according to officials with knowledge of the matter. At the smallest possible hike, from a minimum $35 million threshold to the next level - $50 million - that translates to an extra $1.5 million a year in payments to the insurer that issues a financial responsibility certificate guaranteeing the money.

"Those numbers are significant, in terms of planning," especially for small operators, Rorick said. "They've budgeted for $35 million coverage, and now, to go to $50 million is not insignificant."

Rorick said the energy companies are factoring in those higher certificate costs when deciding whether to drill. "The (certificate of financial responsibility) amounts get into a company's business decisions - and whether or not it's worthwhile to drill that well," he said.

Bromwich said his agency won't be rushed and insisted that meeting historic approval levels shouldn't be an artificial goal for regulators.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2010, 05:13:28 AM
Obama’s Job-Killing Regulations ^ | October 18, 2010 | Lurita Doan

________________________ ________________________ __________

Barack Obama has a credibility problem. Obama has overpromised and under-delivered on countless issues such as the economy, job creation, healthcare reform and transparency. And, after 19 months of teleprompted platitudes, Obama has surrendered all credibility regarding the economy and Americans are skeptical of his latest promises.

For many Americans this has been the summer of discovery, not recovery. The rosy glow from electing the first African American president has faded and the failures and the flaws of Obama’s economic policies and Obama’s economic team have been exposed.

Americans are painfully aware that the 3.5 million jobs that Obama promised have not been created. Americans are painfully aware that the 3.5 million jobs weren’t saved either. Americans have seen that the shovel ready projects weren’t very ready and that transparency is a lot easier to talk about than to achieve. But what is most likely apparent to all Americans is that Obama has made mistakes.

Any experienced CEO knows that mistakes happen, that oftentimes plans don’t materialize as anticipated, and a course correction is required to save the enterprise. But Obama does not seem to have learned this lesson. As recently as last week, the President is still stumping, still trying to convince Americans that his economic recovery policies are working.

What’s hard to figure out is why Obama persists in using la-la land language to describe the outcomes of his economic policies.

I find myself wondering: is it possible that Obama actually believes the tripe that’s printed on his teleprompter? Is it possible that Obama hasn’t read any of the Bureau of Labor Statistic reports for the past 19 months, or the consumer price indices, or the CBO estimates, or the GDP indices, or the GAO reports or the Treasury department reports of the weekly sales of tens of billions of treasuries?

Or could his economic advisors have been assuring him that matters will improve? And he believed them?

Since July, most of the architects of the Obama Administration economic strategy for recovery have resigned. Consider: Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Christina Romer, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council and Herb Allison, the TARP Bailout Czar.

While some may try to sugar coat the reasons for their departures, preferring perhaps to believe that these departures are just the inevitable transition attrition at the two year point, or that the pressure, tensions, and the clash of strong personalities caused an unending jockeying for power among various members of the President’s economic team, these seem to be secondary reasons. The painful reality is that despite their top-tier academic credentials, the economic policy team didn’t live up to expectations and their economic policies didn’t work.

We’ve come a long way since December 2008 when Obama named his “dream team” of economic advisors, claiming to have selected “leaders who could offer both sound judgment and fresh thinking, both a depth of experience and a wealth of bold, new ideas”.

Instead, what Americans have seen is failed leadership at all levels of the Obama Administration’s economic policy team and a lack of innovation. The team may have had its internal squabbles, but they were united in their flawed beliefs that more government intervention, subsidies and control would be the cure to all economic ills. They were wrong and the country has suffered as a result.

So, what message are they now sending to our nation, facing the most severe, turbulent economic crisis in its history, when the team the president entrusted with charting the ship of state to calmer waters, jumps ship? No matter how the White House may try to sugar coat it, one can’t help thinking the president’s economic advisors are cutting their losses and hope to escape before being exposed.

There is a delusional quality to the ideology and the language used by the Administration. When Larry Summers coined the phrase “Summer of Recovery”, was he trying to ‘spin” the failed policies? Was he simply crafting a sound byte to give Dems cover while campaigning at home? Or was he delusional since he had access to all the data indicating the contrary?

There comes a point—and we seem to have reached that point—where the Obama Administration’s statements simply aren’t credible and our president, who reads them off the teleprompter each day, isn’t credible either. The president can continue to capture prime time TV to address Americans, but until he admits that his policies aren’t working, and some changes are going to have to be made, Obama will not be credible and will not be trusted by many Americans.

The departure of almost all of the leadership of Obama’s economic team provides the perfect opportunity for the president to do a course correction. As the Chinese say: it’s never too late to turn back on the wrong road.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2010, 10:56:40 AM
Gallup: Next unemployment report will be worseS
by Ed Morrissey

________________________ ____

Gallup’s mid-month report on national unemployment gives a mixed outlook on joblessness, which winds up being mainly negative.  The surge in unemployment they found in September continued into October, but the number of long-term unemployed dropped slightly, as did part-time workers looking for full-time employment.  They expect a bigger number for the jobless rate on November 5th from the Department of Labor, perhaps into double digits:

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is at 10.0% in mid-October — essentially the same as the 10.1% at the end of September but up sharply from 9.4% in mid-September and 9.3% at the end of August. This mid-month measurement confirms the late September surge in joblessness that should be reflected by the government’s Nov. 5 unemployment report. …
The decline in part-time workers wanting full-time work has led to a situation in which underemployment is declining even as unemployment is increasing. The 18.6% mid-October underemployment figure (the sum of the 10.0% unemployed and the 8.6% employed part time but wanting full-time work) is down slightly from 18.8% at the end of September and is the same as the reading in the middle of last month. …

In this regard, Gallup modeling suggests the government’s unemployment rate report for October will be in the 9.7% to 9.9% range when it is released Nov. 5. The government’s last report showed the U.S. unemployment rate at 9.6% in September on a seasonally adjusted basis, as Gallup anticipated. In addition to seasonal adjustments, the official unemployment rate is likely to be held down by a continued exodus of people from the workforce. It is easy for potential workers to become discouraged when the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 9% through the end of 2011.

Even the good news about the decline of underemployment is suspect, Gallup notes.  Because the topline unemployment figures keep rising, it appears that the decrease isn’t coming from part-timers finding full-time jobs.  Instead, they could be losing their jobs and dropping out of the workforce figures.

This will have little impact on the upcoming elections, of course, and for a couple of reasons.  First, the Gallup poll won’t get a whole lot of attention, even though it has shown to be a fairly reasonable indicator of overall results.  Second, the kind of unemployment the poll projects is close enough to already-known results to give it only a limited impact on midterm races and perceptions of the Obama administration’s economic policies.  Moving back to double digits might have more impact on electorate psychology, but that expectation may already be baked into the midterm cake.  And, of course, the actual DoL report won’t come out until three day after the election anyway.

Still, it’s worth keeping a close eye on the Gallup indicators as we move closer to the holiday season.  Gallup does not adjust figures for seasonal demand, which means that we should see an increase in employment soon if retailers expect to see a decent Christmas shopping season.  Some are predicting a mildly better season this year in both spending and employment:

Retailers are expected to add between 550,000 and 650,000 jobs nationally this holiday season, according to a forecast from the national outplacement firmChallenger, Gray and Christmas.

That’s more than the 501,400 added last year, but it’s still well below the 720,800 added in 2007, just as the recession was beginning.
Most of that will come at large retailers, though.  Small businesses won’t be hiring, but may expand hours for existing staff instead:
Much of the holiday hiring is taking place at national chains including Macy’s, Kohl’s and Toys R Us. Some smaller local retailers say they won’t be adding any more workers but could give current employees more hours.

That follows from better-than-expected retail numbers from September, announced last week.  It’s not recovery levels, but it’s better than the direction those indicators had been heading over most of the year.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2010, 11:38:59 AM
U.S. To Train 3,000 Offshore IT Workers

$22 million, federally-backed program aims to help outsourcers in South Asia become more fluent in areas like Java programming—and the English language.

By Paul McDougall
August 3, 2010 01:59 PM

________________________ ________________________ ___

Despite President Obama's pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $22 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.

Following their training, the tech workers will be placed with outsourcing vendors in the region that provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent's low labor costs.

David Fox, CEO of Agistix, talks about the company's logistics and supply chain management software as a service. The service gives customers visibility over their global supply chains, with built-in analytics and reporting features.Under director Rajiv Shah, the United States Agency for International Development will partner with private outsourcers in Sri Lanka to teach workers there advanced IT skills like Enterprise Java (Java EE) programming, as well as skills in business process outsourcing and call center support. USAID will also help the trainees brush up on their English language proficiency.

"To help fill workforce gaps in BPO and IT, USAID is teaming up with leading BPO and IT/English language training companies to establish professional IT and English skills development training centers," the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka, said in a statement posted Friday on its Web site.

Learn about issues that may arise and discover an effective tool to smooth the transition

Simplify Your Migration to Exchange 2010 

"Courses in Business Process Outsourcing, Enterprise Java, and English Language Skills will be offered at no charge to over 3,000 under- and unemployed students who will then participate in on-the-job training schemes with private firms," the embassy said.

USAID is also partnering with Sri Lankan companies in other industries, including construction and garment manufacturing, to help create 10,000 new jobs in the country, which is still recovering from a 30-year civil war that ended in 2009.

But it's the outsourcing program that's sure to draw the most fire from critics. While Obama acknowledged that occupations such as garment making don't add much value to the U.S. economy, he argued relentlessly during his presidential run that lawmakers needed to do more to keep hi-tech jobs in IT, biological sciences, and green energy in the country.

He also accused the Bush administration of creating tax loopholes that made it easier for U.S. companies to place work offshore in low-cost countries.

As recently as Monday, Obama, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in Atlanta, boasted about his efforts to reduce offshoring. The President said he's implemented "a plan that’s focused on making our middle class more secure and our country more competitive in the long run -- so that the jobs and industries of the future aren’t all going to China and India, but are being created right here in the United States of America."

Obama in January tapped Shah to head USAID. At the time of his appointment, Shah—whose experience in the development community included senior positions at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—said the organization needed to focus more on helping developing nations build technology-based economies. "We need to develop new capabilities to pursue innovation, science, and technology," said Shaw, during his swearing in ceremony.

Sri Lanka's outsourcing industry is nascent, but growing as it begins to scoop up work from neighboring India.

In addition to homegrown firms, it's attracting investment from Indian outsourcers looking to expand beyond increasingly expensive tech hubs like Bangalore, Hyderabad, and Mumbai. In 2007, consultants at A.T. Kearney listed the country as 29th on their list of the top 50 global outsourcing destinations.

Emerging technology always comes with a learning curve. Here are some real-world lessons about cloud computing from early adopters. Download the latest all-digital issue of InformationWeek for that story and more. (Free registration required.)

________________________ ________________________ _________

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2010, 11:56:56 AM
Updated: Mon., Oct. 18, 2010, 5:19 AM 
Killing Marcus Welby

Last Updated: 5:19 AM, October 18, 2010

________________________ ________________________ ____

If ObamaCare really called for the creation of "death panels," the first victim of these in vented tribunals would have been Marcus Welby MD, the character in the hit 1960s television show that followed the daily dramas of a small-town family doctor.

The health legislation doesn't call on government tribunals to euthanize seniors, as some fanciful critics claim, but the bill does kill off private-practice medicine.

ObamaCare envisions that doctors will fold their private offices to become salaried hospital employees, making it easier for the federal government to regulate them and centrally manage the costly medical services they prescribe. To get this control, ObamaCare creates "Accountable Care Organizations," which are basically hospitals coupled with local doctor networks that the hospital owns.

Under ObamaCare, an ACO is supposed to take "accountability" for local Medicare patients, who in turn get most care from providers working inside the ACO's network. To encourage efficiency and cost-cutting, an ACO can share in the savings it achieves from more closely managing its assigned pool of patients. The idea is to give doctors a financial incentive to better coordinate care and reduce their use of costly medical services.

The ACO concept was coined in 2006 by the same Dartmouth health researchers who famously found that higher Medicare spending doesn't correlate with better medical outcomes. Their data was controversial. Some experts refuted the findings. Even so, it became the intellectual foundation for ObamaCare's vision of "bending the cost curve" -- that you can improve medical outcomes by cutting Medicare spending. The ACOs have become Washington's most fashionable vehicle for pursuing that prophecy.

In many ways, the ACO concept builds on the 1990s approach to "capitation," in which health-maintenance organizations gave doctors a lump sum to care for a group of patients. This arrangement put a financial onus on doctors to cut costs. The concept lowered spending but was unpopular with patients, leading to a backlash against managed care.

Even if the Obama team dresses up the same concepts in a new acronym, their regulatory impulse to tightly manage how these organizations operate tilts the ACOs into the hands of hospitals. It forces doctors to sell their medical practices to these networks if the physicians want to maintain what they're paid by Medicare.

Obama's health-care czar, Nancy Ann DeParle, laid bare this financial coercion. Writing recently in the "Annals of Internal Medicine," she said that "the economic forces put in motion by [the Obama health-care plan] are likely to lead to vertical organization of providers and accelerate physician employment by hospitals and aggregation into larger physician groups." Physicians, she said, "that accept the challenge will be rewarded in the future payment system" as ObamaCare "reforms" how doctors are paid under Medicare.

The Obama plan contains other economic forces that will drive such "vertical integration" in which doctors become employees of hospitals and health plans. For one, under ObamaCare, health plans will see their revenue (premiums) and costs (medical benefits) largely fixed by government regulation. So the only way health plans can improve their profits is by cheapening the product that they provide, in other words, holding down the cost of the health coverage that they offer.

In turn, the only way to cheapen health coverage is to control the medical services consumers can access. The only way to tightly control the use of medical services is to exert more leverage over the doctors who order the tests and treatments. That means health plans will need to maintain tight networks of providers to exert more control over doctors -- or else own the physicians outright. So expect to see health plans doing their own "vertical integration" -- buying out medical practices, just like hospitals are doing.

According to a recent survey of health executives, 74 percent said their hospitals or health systems plan to employ more physicians over the next 3 years, and 61 percent plan to acquire medical groups. The doctor-recruitment firm Merritt Hawkins said that 45 percent of physician job searches last year were for direct employment of a doctor by a hospital, up from 23 percent in 2005.

In 2005, more than two-thirds of medical practices were doctor-owned, a share that was largely constant for many years. By next year, the share of practices owned by physicians will probably drop below 40 percent, according to data from the Medical Group Management Association. Hospitals or health plans will own the balance of doctor practices.

So the next time you see your doctor, it may be far from home, in an office park built by your nearest hospital. Thanks to ObamaCare, Marcus Welby is taking down his shingle. He's becoming an employee of General Hospital.

Scott Gottlieb, a physician and American Enterprise Institute resi dent fellow, is a partner in a firm that invests in health-care compa nies.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2010, 12:28:44 PM
The Obama Debt Tracker - more than $3 trillion of new national debt in 21 months
The United States Department of the Treasury ^ | Monday October 18, 2010 | The United States Department of the Treasury

________________________ ________________________ _

Since President Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated into office a bit less than 21 months ago, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have increased the total combined national debt by more than three trillion dollars:

Date                   Debt Held by the Public         Intragovernmental Holdings   Total Public Debt Outstanding

01/20/2009         6,307,310,739,681.66         4,319,566,309,231.42         10,626,877,048,913.08
10/18/2010         9,059,271,396,291.56         4,606,655,246,964.40         13,665,926,643,255.96

In this time period, the debt has increased precisely $3,039,049,594,342.88, and worst of all, the overwhelming bulk of this is debt held by the public which has been borrowed from foreign governments like the communist Chinese.

This is an absolutely mind-blowing increase of roughly one trillion dollars every seven months, or approximately $4.8 billion each and every single day. Three trillion dollars is a bit less than $10,000 for every single man, woman, and child in the United States.

And given that true economic recovery appears to be nowhere in sight and the federal reserve continues to endlessly monetize the debt and pump countless billions into the markets via quantitative easing, it is pretty much a certainly that the next trillion dollars of debt will be accumulated by the middle of next year.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2010, 01:51:52 PM
Boeing To Raise Employee Costs Thanks To Obamacare
By Carole on Oct 18, 2010 | Comment »

________________________ ________________________ ___

 Aircraft manufacturer Boeing Comany is the latest mega employer claiming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) is part of why its employees will have to pay more for their medical benefits next year. In a letter mailed to employees late last week, Boeing said deductibles and copayments are going up significantly for some 90,000 non-union workers due in part to the effects of the new law. (source)


President Obama and his fellow Democrats who pushed the unpopular legislation through Congress have stated repeatedly that the law would bring down individuals' costs for health insurance. Meanwhile the debate over the obscenely expensive bill raged on with Republican lawmakers and the majority of the American people speaking out against the far-reaching government power grab disguised as reform. Announcements like Boeing's are proving the opposition right.

Boeing joins other companies like 3M which earlier this month announced it will stop offering its health insurance plan to their 23,000 retirees in response to Obamacare's passage. (source)

While Boeing cited two additional reasons for the cost shift including untamed health care inflation and lifestyle issues such as being overweight, company spokeswoman Karen Forte said the company is concerned that its relatively generous plan will get hit with a new tax under the law in 2018.

Tags: 3m, boeing, employer, health care, karen forte, obabacare, obama, patient protection and affordable care act, unemplyment

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 18, 2010, 02:10:19 PM
Citing health care law, Boeing pares employee plan
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 6 mins ago

________________________ _____

WASHINGTON – Aerospace giant Boeing is joining the list of companies that say the new health care law could have a potential downside for their workers.

In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

"The newly enacted health care reform legislation, while intended to expand access to care for millions of uninsured Americans, is also adding cost pressure as requirements of the new law are phased in over the next several years," wrote Rick Stephens, Boeing's senior vice president for human resources.

Boeing is the latest major employer to signal a shift for its workers as a result of the legislation, which expands coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people and ranks as President Barack Obama's top domestic achievement. Earlier, McDonald's had raised questions about whether a limited benefit plan that serves some 30,000 of its employees would remain viable under the law. That prompted the administration to issue the plan of a waiver from certain requirements under the law.

Spokeswoman Karen Forte said the Boeing plan is more generous than what its closest competitors offer, and the company was concerned it would get hit with a new tax under the law.

The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans doesn't take effect until 2018, but employers are already beginning to assess their exposure because it is hefty: at 40 percent of the value above $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for a family plan.

"We want to manage our costs so this tax doesn't apply to our plan, but that's down the road," said Forte. "If this health care law hadn't passed, would we be making changes to the health care benefit? Absolutely. For competitive reasons."

In the letter to Boeing employees, Stephens said out-of-control health care inflation is hampering Boeing's ability to compete with other manufacturers. Its major civilian aviation competitor, Airbus, is based in Europe, where governments shoulder the burden of health care costs.

Stephens also cited lifestyle issues, such as people who are overweight and do not adequately exercise, as a the third major reason for the cost shift. The health care law ranked second among the three, ahead of lifestyle factors.

Boeing said annual deductibles and copayments will increase for all its plans next year.

Deductibles, the share of medical costs that employees pay annually before their plan kicks in, will go up to $300 for individuals, an increase of $100. For families, the new deductible will be $900, an increase of $300.

In addition, Boeing is instituting a copayment of 10 percent after the deductible has been met. The copayment will rise to 20 percent in 2012.

Those changes will reduce the value of the Boeing plan, but it's unclear whether that will allow the company to escape the tax looming in 2018.

"It's certainly going to help," said Forte. But "we are still slightly above market in what we offer to our employees."

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2010, 04:19:58 AM
October 19, 2010
The EPA'S Odd View of 'Consumer Choice'
By Patrick Michaels m

________________________ _____________

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed in a "Notice of Intent" that passenger vehicle fuel economy average as much as 62 miles per gallon 14 years from now. The agency was able to arrive at this lofty mark by conveniently ignoring everything we know about the state of automotive art and the marketplace today.

For one thing, the average passenger car is going to have to get a lot more than 62 mpg to meet EPA's standard. People are still going to need trucks, vans, and high-volume vehicles that will fall far short of the 62-mpg standard. As a result, what is today's Honda Civic or Ford Fusion is somehow going to have to crank out about 80 miles per gallon.

Today, the vaunted hybrid versions of those cars generally deliver 35-40 mpg if driven with a very light touch. ("Your mileage will vary.")

The current mileage champion, at 50 mpg, is the third-generation Toyota Prius. But don't look for that design to meet EPA's prospective standard; it's just too heavy to squeeze much more juice out of the gas.

To bolster its 62-mpg proposal, EPA produced a numbing 245-page analysis of prospective automotive technologies -- many of which don't exist, the rest of which have been rejected by consumers. The report doesn't mandate any one technology, but instead offers a myriad of pipe-dream possibilities.

Why aren't these technologies widely available now? Excellent question -- especially because this isn't the government's first attempt to command the 80-mpg passenger car.

In 1993, the Clinton administration grandiosely announced the "Program for a New Generation of Vehicles" (PNGV), which showered the then-Big Three with about a billion bucks to produce a fuel-sipper. It never appeared.

The technological solutions proposed then really aren't very different from what we see now. Cost and acceptability were the two factors that condemned the PNGV to failure, and things haven't changed enough to expect a different result today.

A non-participant in PNGV, Honda, decided to throw every fuel-saving technology it could muster into one platform. It hit 66 mpg with the 2000 Insight, a frameless 1,850-pound aluminum vehicle that seats two.

Consumer demand? An average of 2,250 sold annually in the six years it was offered.

Despite the relative success of Toyota's Prius, the fact is that people just aren't flocking to hybrid vehicles. Their lack of appeal mainly has to do with price; people just don't want to pony up an additional cost that may take more than 10 years to recoup at the gas pump.

Despite this history, EPA thinks there will be a massive shift to subcompact cars in the next six years. Instead of the Accord, you get the Fit. Camrys turn into Yarises. Consumer preferences magically change.


EPA forecasts that despite their current unpopularity, hybrid sales will grow by orders of magnitude. Especially large numbers of Honda-style hybrids are predicted to be purchased (despite the fact that hybrid customers clearly prefer the heavier Toyota and Ford versions).

Sales of "plug-in" hybrids also supposedly will take off. These are vehicles that can run on battery power alone for 20-40 miles, and then (as in the new Chevrolet Volt) a gas engine kicks in as a generator. EPA is also counting on pure electric vehicles, with a range of up to 100 miles before they must be charged -- a process that takes hours at special charging stations on the street or overnight at home.

Drive the Chevy Volt more than 30 or so miles and it will be powered by a generator -- not a motor -- inefficiently powering a 3,500-pound car. No one knows the true fuel economy, but it's not even likely to beat the Prius in real-world driving. That leaves us a long way from 80 mpg.

(The above information about the Volt was what I was told by a GM engineer at the Detroit auto show last January, while sitting in the very car. GM revealed on Oct. 10 that the internal combustion engine indeed will drive the wheels at high speed. This is no breakthrough automobile; on the freeway it is a conventional hybrid.)

Then there's the heavily subsidized, all-electric Nissan Leaf. The company's president, Carlos Ghosn, says he will be happy to produce them as long as Uncle Sam guarantees him a profit on a vehicle that simply can't stand on its own four wheels. The electricity that charges it probably comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gases. Calculating the actual mpg of this car is therefore complicated at best.

So far as one can tell from EPA's 62-mpg proposal, the agency thinks that in a mere 14 years Americans will buy hybrids that they can't stand, subcompacts that families hate, an electric car that can only run 30 miles before it likely becomes more inefficient than its conventional counterpart, and a 100-mile electric car that requires hours of charging once it runs out of juice.

This piece appeared here and is reprinted with permission.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2010, 04:29:58 AM
ObamaCare will
clog system
Updated 8h 40m ago
By Marc Siegel

________________________ ____________________

 A month ago, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to the
president of America's Health Insurance Plans stating that the impact on insurance premiums from
"the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions" of the new health reform law "will
be minimal ... no more than 1% to 2%." Sebelius warned Karen Ignagni that there would be "zero
tolerance" for insurers blaming unjustified premium increases on the new law. Talk about subtle.

 Sebelius' threat, though, obscures a larger problem:
The new health care law mandates and extends the kind of insurance that breeds overuse, thereby
driving up costs and premiums. And here I thought the reform intended to reduce costs.

As the details of this massive government-led health care overhaul begin to trickle out, let me be clear (to
borrow the president's go-to phrase): The medical system is about to be overwhelmed because there
are no disincentives for overuse.

A free-for-all

ObamaCare was lauded by many for covering all Americans with pre-existing conditions. That's not
the issue. We're going to get into trouble because of the kinds of coverage that the new law mandates.
There are no brakes on the system. Co-pays and deductibles will be kept low, and preventive services
will have no co-pays at all. That sounds like a good deal for patients, yes? But without at least a pause to
consider necessity and/or cost, expect waiting times to increase, ERs to be clogged and longer lead
times needed to make an appointment.

Patients with new Medicaid cards who can't find a doctor will go where? To emergency rooms. The
escalating costs of these visits (necessary and unnecessary) will be transferred directly to the
American public, both in the form of taxes as well as escalating insurance premiums.

Beginning in 2014, insurance exchanges will be set up in every state so that individuals can choose a health insurance plan. This will help control costs, right? Wrong. Don't expect to find individually tailored plans or those with higher deductibles or
co-pays. They won't be there because they can't receive the government stamp of approval.

In the new system, my patients will be able to see me as often as they'd like. But will they get the same
level of care? I don't think so. I anticipate that more expensive chemotherapies and cardiac stents or
transplants, for instance, will have a tougher time being approved, as is already the case in Canada.

Over on the public side, the new Independent Payment Advisory Board — established by the health
reform law to "recommend proposals to limit Medicare spending growth" — will advise Medicare
that some treatments are more essential and more cost-effective than others. I believe that value
judgments inevitably will have to be made, reducing my options as a practicing physician. Private
insurers will follow suit, as they often do.

During the battle over this reform, you often heard, even from President Obama, that you'd be able to
keep the plan you have. What he didn't say — but what we now know — is that because of this new
law, the private markets will have to remake their plans, that the costs will rise and that the plan you
were told you could "keep" is in all likelihood no longer available. But when your plan changes,
backers of reform will simply blame it on those evil private insurance companies.

The truth is, private health insurance is a low-profit industry, with profit margins of 4% compared with
over 20% for major drug manufacturers. With the additional costs of no lifetime caps and no
exclusion for pre-existing conditions, these companies will be compelled to raise their
premiums in order to stay in business. The individual mandate is supposed to be the tradeoff
by providing millions of new customers, but there is no guarantee that this additional volume will
preserve profits with all the new regulations. This is what occurred in New York state in 1992, when a
new law denied exclusion on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

Every scratch or dent

None of this is terribly surprising. I mean, imagine if your car insurance covered every scratch or dent.
Wouldn't you expect your premiums to rise to meet the expanded coverage? And wouldn't you expect
your auto repair shops to become clogged with cars that didn't really need to be repaired, competing for
time and space with other cars with broken transmissions or burnt-out motors?

If we want lower insurance premiums, we will need to return to a system that favors high deductible,
high co-pay catastrophic-type insurance with a built-in disincentive for overuse, such as the kind
that some employers have provided as an option up until now. Patients could pay for office visits from
health savings accounts or other flexible spending tax shelters. More than 10 million Americans
already have such accounts.

Unfortunately, the new law is taking us away from the kind of insurance that compels patients to have
more skin in the game. As a result, we'll all pay in the long run — both financially and with less
efficient, perhaps even lower quality, care.

The kind of insurance the new law mandates will, over the years, wear out the health care system in
the same way that overuse in orthopedics wears out an elbow or knee joint. This won't be fun for
doctors or, most important, for patients.

Marc Siegel is an associate professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2010, 06:07:07 AM
New York Fed Chief Says The Economy Is Garbage, And That There Won't Be A Jobs Recovery For Years
The Business Insider ^ | 10-19-2010 | Joe Weisenthal

New York Fed Chief Says The Economy Is Garbage, And That There Won't Be A Jobs Recovery For Years

Joe Weisenthal
Oct. 19, 2010, 9:40 AM

Here's your first of many Fed speeches for the day, courtesy of NYFRB CEO Dudley:


Remarks at the Quarterly Regional Economic Press Briefing, New York City

Good morning and welcome once again to the New York Fed's Quarterly Regional Economic Press Briefing. As always, I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk with the journalists covering our region—and through you, to the people in our District. This morning I will focus on regional economic conditions, with particular attention to the housing sector in the nation and especially the Second Federal Reserve District, which covers New York, northern New Jersey, Fairfield County, Connecticut; Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. My colleagues will follow my remarks and provide more detail. As always, what I have to say reflects my own views and not necessarily those of the Federal Open Market Committee or the Federal Reserve System.

National Economic Conditions To provide context, let me start with a few comments about national economic conditions. As I discussed in a recent speech, the long and deep recession that ended in June 2009 has been followed by a very tepid recovery. Since June 2009, economic activity has grown—but only slowly from levels far below the productive capacity of the economy.

In recent months, the momentum of the recovery has slowed. For example, after rising at a 3.25 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009, there has been a progressive slowing—to a 2.75 percent annual rate during the first half of 2010 and, most likely, to an even slower rate when the third-quarter real gross domestic product (GDP)


(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2010, 08:19:05 AM
Obama administration to press bans on all cell-phone use while driving?; Update: Poll added
Hot Air ^ | 11:36 am on October 18, 2010 | Ed Morrissey

________________________ ________________________ ______________________

We must have solved all our other problems if the Obama administration is aiming at cell-phone use while driving. In his interview with Bloomberg, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he may push for an all-out ban on the practice, even when conducted by “hands-free” technology, depending on the results of research LaHood is authorizing. Perhaps he should also research jurisdiction and enforcement as well (via The Week):

LaHood, whose campaign against texting and making calls while driving has led to restrictions in 30 states, says his concerns extend to vehicle information and entertainment systems such as Ford Motor Co.’s Sync and General Motors Co.’s OnStar.

“I don’t want people talking on phones, having them up to their ear or texting while they’re driving,” LaHood said in an interview this week. “We need a lot better research on other distractions,” including Bluetooth-enabled hands-free calls and the in-car systems, he said.

Even without a ban, which would have to be implemented by individual states, LaHood’s escalating campaign may limit the growth of vehicle features such as Sync, being added by automakers to attract younger buyers. His push also may reduce calls made from vehicles and the revenue of mobile-phone companies such as Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc.

LaHood, 64, said even hands-free phone conversations are a “cognitive distraction.” Calling for a ban on hands-free communications is a possible outcome of research under way at the Transportation Department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration into all driver distractions, Olivia Alair, a department spokeswoman, said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on October 19, 2010, 08:22:29 AM
While I agree that talking/texting while driving is stupid, this is a state issue and federal government needs to back the fuck off. I'm getting tired of these unelected officials and government created department making policy

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2010, 08:24:15 AM
“I don’t want people talking on phones, having them up to their ear or texting while they’re driving,” LaHood said in an interview this week. “We need a lot better research on other distractions,” including Bluetooth-enabled hands-free calls and the in-car systems, he said.  

________________________ _____________

>:(   >:(

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on October 19, 2010, 08:28:49 AM
“I don’t want people talking on phones, having them up to their ear or texting while they’re driving,” LaHood said in an interview this week. “We need a lot better research on other distractions,” including Bluetooth-enabled hands-free calls and the in-car systems, he said.  

________________________ _____________

>:(   >:(

Oh he doesn't want, where exactly did this guy get that kind of power?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2010, 08:30:49 AM
Oh he doesn't want, where exactly did this guy get that kind of power?


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on October 19, 2010, 10:14:41 AM

That in it self is the point, as long as we the people allow them to do this shit they will.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 19, 2010, 01:30:42 PM
18 October 2010

________________________ _____________________

It’s probably too late to save the party from electoral disaster next month. But Obama and the Democrats can turn health care from an albatross into a positive for 2012 by flipping their script on the issue, says Douglas E. Schoen.

By Douglas Schoen
The Daily Beast

Earlier this year, top Democrats forecast boldly that once the president’s health-care bill passed, seemingly reluctant Americans would support the legislation.

They were wrong.

Back then, I wrote with Pat Caddell that ignoring the growing public opinion against the bill meant that the Democrats risked “unmitigated disaster” this fall.

Just a month before the midterm elections, the polls have demonstrated that my prediction was closer to the mark than that of the White House, and the administration and the Democrats are suffering as a result.

At least half, if not more, of the American people favor repealing the bill, according to a recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters, and other polling has echoed that finding.

Right now, almost all the Democrats who voted against the bill are campaigning against it. And most Democrats who voted for the legislation are distancing themselves as much as they can.

Both groups are avoiding talking about what the electorate wants and requires: a smart, reasonable, and rational discussion about health care in the next two years.

But by changing their dialogue fundamentally on health care, the Democrats can turn what almost certainly will prove to be an electoral disaster this year into a positive going forward—both for congressional Democrats and President Obama, as he approaches 2012.

The health-care reform bill actually contains a number of components that are popular on a bipartisan basis, and can be emphasized—both in the waning days of the campaign, and in the future—as long as the Democrats fundamentally change their approach to the issue. 
Only with a different type of dialogue, message, and policies can they regain the high ground on health care and do what the American people want: contain costs, provide high-quality care, and take steps to rein in excesses in the system.

The American people do want insurance reform that prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become very ill. And they don’t want insurance companies to deny coverage to patients with preexisting conditions, which will be prohibited as of 2014.

The majority of Americans support a number of long-overdue reforms included in the bill that allow families to get free preventive check-ups with their doctor and young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans, and eliminating the “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug coverage.

There’s no need for the Democrats to run away from these popular elements of the bill, if they are put in the appropriate issue frame.

But if they are to have a meaningful dialogue on health care, the Democrats must talk not only about these popular initiatives, but also about what they have done and will do to curtail costs, as well as to develop new drugs.

Put simply, the Democrats must talk about health care within the context of fiscal discipline and budgetary restraint, specifically referencing the work of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, a bipartisan commission chaired by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles that has been charged with addressing the nation’s overall budget problems.

The party must exhibit a willingness to take on all aspects of spending and make clear that the administration is committed to entitlement reform while addressing the large-scale fiscal problems facing the nation.

But beyond that the Democrats must put forth a national strategy that facilitates and encourages private sector innovation as one of the critical ways to resolve our economic crisis and create a path that ensures long-term economic opportunities are facilitated, as well as developing the cutting-edge technologies and new drugs we need to help cure chronic, debilitating, and frequently fatal diseases.

If the Democrats can succeed in doing this in a way that makes it clear that they have a positive and optimistic agenda, they will be able to achieve two goals the American people regard as fundamental:

Address costs in a serious and sustained manner.

They can talk about cost containment in several ways.

The Democrats should talk about reducing insurance costs—not simply by bashing insurance companies but by working with them constructively, as part of a public-private sector initiative.

To that end, IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano recently met with Obama and offered to work, free of charge, to reduce health-care waste, fraud, and costs by $900 billion. The Obama administration turned down this offer flat, for reasons best known to itself.

To be fair, the new health-care law did attempt to contain Medicare costs through a new body called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which has gotten little attention to date.

Medicare cost containment is critical, and the IPAB has the opportunity to become a model of bipartisanship, efficacy, and accountability to average voters by functioning as the body to rein in Medicare’s cost growth.

Finally, there needs to be a commitment to and a mechanism that takes the recommendations of the bipartisan budget commission and the IPAB and make them operational.

The bottom line remains that unless the Democrats are able to become credible advocates for cost containment, they will not succeed politically, and they certainly will not begin to have any success in doing what the American people regard as fundamental: reining in costs.

Health-care reform has been an unmitigated disaster to date, that’s for sure. But it does not have to be that way going forward.

With an emphasis on those aspects of the bill that work, an acknowledgement that the health-care reform needs to be fundamentally recast to encourage innovation and the development of new drugs, and by putting cost containment at the center of all efforts going forward, the Democrats have the chance to recast an initiative that could well play a major role in costing them control of the House and the Senate next month.

Douglas Schoen is a political strategist and author of the upcoming book Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System to be published by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins on September 14. Schoen has worked on numerous campaigns, including those of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Evan Bayh, Tony Blair, and Ed Koch.


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 20, 2010, 04:43:32 AM

Arthur Brooks: Top 10 ways government kills jobs in America
By: Arthur Brooks
OpEd Contributor

________________________ ________________________ ___________

October 19, 2010

Our politicians all seem to agree on at least one thing: There will be no recovery unless America gets back to work.

But that’s often where the agreement ends.  Once you move on to discuss how to get America back to work, opinions begin to diverge.

In general, the worst thing for job creation is a poor entrepreneurial climate.  Such a climate is brought on by the large fiscal debt, unpredictable health care costs, and a generally anti-business and pro-regulation approach by government.

In the run-up to the midterm elections, all of us should be thinking about “climate change”—about the best ways to create jobs in our nation.  We’ll hear lots of talk about recovery and stimulus, about fairness and equity, the future and change.

As we listen to the rhetoric, remember the reality.  These are the Top job killers in America.

1.      Uncertainty and business: What you don’t know can (and does) hurt you.  Businesses plan around rules.  And they are unlikely to invest if they can’t be reasonably sure about what the rules will be.  When things are uncertain, businesses hold back cash to protect themselves—and this kills jobs. My colleague Allan Meltzer has made this point in two recent WSJ op-eds: “High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth,” he declares in one.  “The most important restriction on investment today is not tight monetary policy, but uncertainty about administration policy,” he argues in the other.

2.      Uncertainty and the consumer: Uncertainty isn’t just bad for companies—it’s bad for consumers, too. If I think government policy may provoke a double dip in the economy and my job is on the line, there’s no way I’m going out to buy a new car.  For that matter, even the possibility of a huge gas tax would make me less likely to make a car purchase decision. All this kills jobs.

3.      High corporate taxes: Americans are shocked to learn that we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world.  In fact, Japan is the only developed country with a higher corporate tax rate than the United States. Whether we like it or not, the corporate tax is a tax on jobs. It makes it more expensive for firms to function, which costs jobs. But even worse, it drives companies to find more tax-friendly environments in other countries.

4.      Unhealthy health insurance costs: The high health insurance costs associated with hiring new workers hits small businesses particularly hard, according to AEI economist Aparna Mathur. Government health mandates specify exactly what kinds of coverage have to be included in insurance policies.  This makes increasing headcount a costly exercise, and so kills jobs. One major CEO told me recently that his hiring was stunted by the new mandate to cover workers’ kids up to age 26.

5.      The threat of unionization: In a global economy, it’s fairly simple for a lot of firms to avoid unionization: They can move overseas and take their jobs with them. Policies that favor unions make this decision more attractive.

6.      Inability to hire and fire: In Europe, government regulations and employment protection laws reduce the flexibility of firms to downsize their operations when they need to.  They also discourage those same firms from upsizing their operations when they would otherwise do so, and are thus a job killer. This is why Spain has a 20% unemployment rate (and about 40% among workers under 25). Restrictions on firing are a job killer.

7.      Trade restrictions: Free trade favors consumers everywhere, and benefits workers in industries where America has a comparative advantage. Tariffs and other barriers benefit industries that are already in decline. This is why economists always tell us that over the long run, trade barriers slow modernization are a net job killer.

8.      Credit: Poor credit access especially hurts new and young firms that are eager to expand their operations.  The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency could make matters worse by expanding burdensome regulation of these financial markets, killing jobs in the process.

9.      Increasing unemployment insurance: Everyone wants to ease the burden on the unemployed, so it is tempting to extend unemployment insurance, as our government has recently—today, to as much as 73 additional weeks. Unfortunately, this kills jobs and economic recovery. Harvard economist Robert Barro estimates that if unemployment insurance had not been expanded, the unemployment rate would now be 6.8% rather than 9.5%.

10. Encouraging frivolous lawsuits: This increases the costs of doing business in America, with one study estimating that we waste as much as $900 billion a year on excessive tort litigation—that’s 6.5 percent of GNP or $12,000 annually for a family of four. As a result, company capital that could be used for expansion and job creation goes to the trial lawyers instead. And like so many anti-business measures, such litigation drives up costs for consumers, which reduces demand and kills jobs even more.

Arthur Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of The Battle: How the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape America’s future.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 20, 2010, 05:09:04 AM

________________________ ________________________ _______________

$26.2 Trillion:   Projected Federal Debt In 2020 Due To Obama’s Binge Spending. (OMB, 7/23/10)

$13.6 Trillion:   Current National Debt. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 10/19/10)

$8.5 Trillion:     Cumulative Deficits Caused By President Obama’s Proposed Budget, FY2011-2020. (OMB, 7/23/10)

$3.9 Trillion:     Total Cost Of The Democrats’ Tax Hike To Taxpayers. (Joint Committee On Taxation, 8/6/10)

$3.0 Trillion:     Amount Added To The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 10/19/10)

$2.5 Trillion:     True Cost Of ObamaCare Once Fully Implemented. (Sen. Max Baucus, Floor Remarks, 12/2/09)

$1.42 Trillion:   Federal Budget Deficit For FY2009 – Highest In U.S. History. (Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/10)

$1.29 Trillion:   Federal Budget Deficit For FY2010 – Second Highest In U.S. History. (Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/10)

$868.4 Billion:  American Debt Held By China. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 10/19/10)

$831 Billion:     Net Interest Payment On Our National Debt In 2020 Due To Obama’s Budget. (OMB, 7/23/10)

$814 Billion:     Price Tag Of Obama’s Failed Stimulus. (Bloomberg, 8/20/10)

$575 Billion:     Amount Of Medicare Cuts In ObamaCare. (CMS Chief Actuary Richard S. Foster, Memo, 4/22/10)

$569.2 Billion:  Amount Of Taxes In ObamaCare. (Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10)

$10 Billion:      The Cost Of The Teacher Union Bailout. (The Washington Post, 10/8/10)

$54 Million:      Amount Of Stimulus Funds Spent On A Napa Valley Wine Train. (ABC News’ “Good Morning America,” 2/2/10)

41.8 Million:     Number Of Americans Receiving Food Stamps. (Bloomberg, 10/5/10)

40 Million:        Number Of Businesses That Will Be Burdened By The Onerous IRS 1099 Requirement. (The Washington Post, 8/29/10)

$18 Million:      Cost Of The Stimulus Website (ABC News’ “The Note“ Blog, 7/8/09)

14.8 Million:     Unemployed Americans. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

9.5 Million:       Americans Working Part-Time For Economic Reasons. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

6.1 Million:       Americans Unemployed For Longer Than 27 Weeks. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

5.4 Million:       Number Of Properties Receiving Foreclosure Filings Since Obama Took Office. (RealtyTrac, Accessed 10/19/10)

3.8 Million:       Increase In the Number Of People Who Were In Poverty In 2009 Over 2008. (NPR, 9/16/10)

2.6 Million:       Jobs Lost Since Stimulus Was Passed. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

2.3 Million:       Private Sector Jobs Lost Since Stimulus Was Passed. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

1.2 Million:       Americans That Have Given Up Looking For Work. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

964,900:            Number Of Jobs That Could Be Lost Per Year Under Cap And Trade. (Tax Foundation, 3/09)

89,000:             The Number Of Stimulus Checks Sent to Dead Or Incarcerated People. (The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire" Blog, 10/7/10)

$43,000:            Your Share Of The National Debt. (“The Daily History Of The Debt Results,” TreasuryDirect, Accessed 10/19/10; U.S. Census Bureau,, Accessed 10/1910)

23,000:             The Number Of Jobs Obama Knew His Drilling Moratorium Could Kill. (The Wall Street Journal, 8/21/10)

22,000:             Number Of Seniors In MA, NH And ME That Will Lose Their Medicare Advantage Plans As A Result Of ObamaCare. (The Boston Globe, 9/28/10)

$1,761:             Cost To American Families Per Year As A Result Of Cap And Trade. (CBS News' "Taking Liberties" Blog, 9/16/09)

$1,540:             The Amount Of The Tax Hike The Average Middle Class Family Will See As A Result Of The Dems’ Tax Hike. (Tax Foundation, 8/1/10)

1099:                The IRS Form Every Business Will Have To File After Doing $600 Worth Of Business With A Vendor. (, 5/5/10)

100:                  Percent Of GDP That Our National Debt Will Rise To In 2012. (Office Of Management And Budget, 7/23/10)

83:                    Number Of Fundraisers Obama Has Attended As Of 10/12/10. (CBS News' Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10; CBS News, 8/16/10)

80:                    Percent Of Small Businesses That Could Be Forced To Change Health Care Plans As A Result Of ObamaCare. (The Washington Post, 6/15/10)

79:                    Percent Of Stimulus Funds For Wind, Solar And Geothermal Energy Projects That Went To Foreign Firms. (Investigating Reporting Workshop/ABC’s World News Tonight/Watchdog Institute, 2/8/10)

68:                    Percent Of Americans Who Think The Stimulus Was A Waste. (The Hill's “Briefing Room” Blog, 10/5/10)

60:                    The Percent Of Young Voters Who Are “More Cynical About Politics” Now Than When Obama Was Elected. (The Huffington Post, 9/15/10)

58:                    Percent Of Ohioans Who Say Obama’s Frequent Visits To The State Make No Difference In How They’ll Vote. (The Hill, 10/19/10)

53:                    Rounds Of Golf Played By President Obama Since Taking Office. (CBS News' Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10; CBS News' Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10 )

49:                    Visits To The White House By Andy Stern, Former President Of SEIU. (, Accessed 10/19/10)

37:                    Number Of Town Halls Obama Has Done Since Taking Office. (CBS News’ Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10)

33.3:                 Average Number Of Weeks It Takes An Unemployed Worker To Find A Job. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

30:                    Number Of Waivers Granted To Businesses So That The White House Could Avoid Admitting ObamaCare Was Making People Lose Their Health Care Plans. (USA Today, 10/7/10)

27:                    Percent Increase In Premiums By Some Insurers In Colorado As A Result Of ObamaCare. (The Denver Post, 9/20/10)

25:                    DVDs Given To The UK’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown On His First Visit. (The Daily Mail (UK), 3/9/10)

20:                    Straight Months That Food Stamp Participation Has Hit A Record. (Bloomberg, 10/5/10)

17.1:                 Percent Of Americans Either Unemployed Or Working Part-Time For Economic Reasons. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

14:                    Straight Months With Unemployment Above 9.5%. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

9:                     Number Of Vacations Taken By President Obama. (CBS News, 8/19/10)

4:                     Out Of 10 Likely Voters Who Once Backed Obama But Are Less Supportive Or No Longer Support Obama.  (Bloomberg, 10/12/10)

2:                     Place In The Line Of Succession That Joe Biden Believes He Is In (Hint: He’s #1). (CBS News’ Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10)

2:                     Visits To The White House By Actor George Clooney. (E! Online, 10/12/10)

1:                     Number Of White House Investigations. (CBS News, 10/6/10)

1:                     Teacher Union Bailout To Motivate Teacher Unions For Midterm Elections. (The Washington Post, 10/8/10)

0:                     Other People Obama Will Have Left To Blame For His Failures In 2012. (The American People, 11/6/12)

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 21, 2010, 12:47:43 PM
Fannie, Freddie bailout could nearly double in size

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 21, 2010; 1:53 PM

________________________ ________________________ _____________________

The federal bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could nearly double in size during the next three years, according to projections from the companies' federal regulator.

Fannie and Freddie, the federally controlled mortgage finance giants, will need as much as $215 billion more from taxpayers in the next three years to meet their financial obligations, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said Thursday, but much of that money would automatically be returned to the government.

The growing taxpayer infusions will cover losses Fannie and Freddie suffer on home loans, as well as payments the companies must make to the U.S. Treasury in exchange for a federal guarantee to provide cash to keep the companies solvent.

Over time, the majority of funds flowing to Fannie and Freddie from taxpayers will go to pay that dividend. As a result, most of the additional funds that go to the companies from taxpayers will ultimately be paid back. An Obama administration official said this arrangement is not being reconsidered at this time.

To date, the Treasury has injected $148 billion into Fannie and Freddie, $13 billion of which has been returned to the government. Under the worst case, in which the country enters a second recession, the total infusion would be $363 billion in three years. In this situation, after dividends are paid back to the Treasury, the total cost of the bailout would be $259 billion.

Under a more moderate possibility, in which housing prices decline a little, stay flat for a while and then slowly rise, the total taxpayer bailout would be $238 billion. After dividends are paid back, the total cost would be $154 billion.

The projections of additional bailouts for Fannie and Freddie are in sharp contrast to recent discussions by the Obama administration about how the bank rescue known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, originally valued at $700 billion, is expected to cost taxpayers less than a tenth of that.

Fannie and Freddie were seized by their federal regulator in September 2008 as the crisis in the housing market threatened to topple them. The Bush administration pledged $200 billion to keep them solvent. Early on, the Obama administration doubled that number to $400 billion, then late last year made a pledge of unlimited support.

The companies play a central role in the housing market, buying or guaranteeing most home loans. With the collapse of the private market for home loans, they have been essential to keeping interest rates low and the housing market from declining more.

But they also are deeply controversial and were one of the causes of the financial crisis. The Obama administration is set to release a proposal to overhaul or replace them in January. That decision ultimately will be made by the administration in concert with Congress.

"In the most likely economic scenario, nearly 90 percent of the losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are already behind us, and that almost all of those losses are attributable to mortgages that were already on those businesses' books prior to" the government seizing them, said Jeffrey Goldstein, Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance, in a statement. "But that news should not distract us from the pressing need for reform so that taxpayers aren't put on the hook in the future. From the beginning, the Obama Administration has made clear that the current structure of the government's role in housing finance, while necessary in the short-term to provide critical support to a still-fragile housing market, is simply not acceptable for the long-term."

An administration official said the dividend - 10 percent - is a fair price for the companies to pay in exchange for taxpayer support and would be reexamined only in the context of an overall revamp of housing finance policy next year.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency made the projections based on stress tests similar to those that were applied to the largest banks last year. In the best case, housing prices would start to recover immediately and there would be minimal additional costs to taxpayers.

"These projections are intended to give policymakers and the public useful snapshots of potential outcomes for the taxpayer support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," said FHFA acting Director Edward J. DeMarco. "These are not predictions; the results reflect the potential effects of a limited set of hypothetical changes in house prices, a key variable driving credit losses for the enterprises."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 22, 2010, 05:43:02 AM
WOLF: Obamacare's Unkeepable Promises
Utopian vision was a fraud from the beginning
By Dr. Milton R. Wolf
The Washington Times
5:57 p.m., Thursday, October 21, 2010

________________________ ________________________ _____________________

We are witnessing the unmistakable collapse of an American presidency. While this may not yet be irreversible, it certainly was predictable and preventable. Chief among its causes has been the unbridled hubris that prompted this president to force Obamacare, the government takeover of the finest health care system in the world, against the clear will of "we the people" while turning his back on the free-market principles that once made us the most prosperous nation on earth.

A diminished president, even - or perhaps especially - if his fate is self-inflicted, is not good for America and should not be pleasing to any patriot regardless of his or her political leanings. It certainly is not pleasing to me, as this president is my cousin. But as a physician who took an inviolate oath to my patients, I am duty-bound to take this stand, particularly after watching Barack Obama make so many unkeepable Obamacare promises:

c Obamacare would reduce our deficit. We were to believe that millions of Americans would be added to the insurance rolls, that medical care would not suffer, and somehow, almost magically, costs would go down. We might as well promise it will never rain on weekends. Gravity caught up to this wishful thinking, and even the president's own actuary now admits the overhaul will increase, not decrease, the deficit.

c Obamacare would allow you to keep your doctor and your current insurance. How can you keep your doctor if your doctor can't keep his practice? The New England Journal of Medicine reported a survey that showed nearly half of America's doctors are being forced to consider leaving their practice if Obamacare is implemented. And businesses already are finding they can no longer provide the same insurance policies to their employees that they had before Obamacare. Oklahoma's Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, also a physician, estimates 90 million Americans will lose their current insurance policies because of the takeover. Millions of them will be forced into Medicaid and government exchanges.

c Obamacare would not jeopardize senior citizens' care. The continued viability of Medicare Advantage is in serious jeopardy because of Mr. Obama's Medicare cuts to pay for other parts of his health care overhaul. Companies already are announcing that they can no longer offer this very popular free-market Medicare reform. What's more, fewer doctors are able to accept Medicare patients with the downward pressure on reimbursement levels, currently stuck at 1980s levels. Too often, physicians' practices cannot survive being in business with the federal government. Already, 42 percent of doctors do not accept Medicare, and that number is increasing. Your shiny government-issued Medicare card is meaningless without doctors who will accept it.

c Obamacare would not ration health care. The president promised time and time again that he would not ration health care, and then promptly, under the cloak of a recess appointment, installed as the head of Medicare a man who would do it for him. Dr. Donald Berwick has announced unambiguously and with glee many times over that he will indeed ration America's medical care (in addition to his own bizarre promises to redistribute your wealth) but he assures us that he's our intellectual better, so it will be fine. He also declares he's "romantic" about the British-government-run system and specifically admires how the British purposefully undersupply medical needs to alleviate "bottlenecks." They've been alleviated all right. Britain's colon cancer mortality rate, for example, is 40 percent higher than America's; breast cancer 88 percent higher; prostate cancer a staggering 604 percent higher. All those unnecessary deaths unburden the system of patients seeking care. Some might call this rationing. Mr. Berwick, by the way, created his own health care golden parachute to assure that he and his wife would never be forced to submit themselves to the Medicare rules he creates. How convenient.

c Obamacare would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year.

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." New excise taxes on pharmaceuticals and medical products will, of course, by necessity be passed on to the patients who depend on these lifesaving medicines, pacemakers, MRI machines or even tongue depressors. Even more flagrant, there are new Obamacare taxes on everything from tampons to tanning salons, from gold to the sale of your home.

c Obamacare would create 4 million new jobs, 400,000 almost immediately. Not to be outdone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added this grand promise of her own. However, since the health care takeover was signed into law, no such jobs boom has occurred.

c Obamacare hearings would be held in public. Unlike the other promises, this one could have been kept and in fact may have prevented all these other catastrophic failures, but sadly, it was wantonly ignored by this president. Candidate Obama pledged eight times to hold health care hearings in public. Invite the C-SPAN cameras, he said, because open hearings would allow Americans to know who was on their side. Indeed it would have.

Mr. President - Barack - I offer to you the next best thing. Let's you and I hold a public discussion on America's health care for those C-SPAN cameras once and for all. I know your administration is desperately attempting the full-court press to promote your health care reform as it continues to suffer badly in all the polls, and you with it. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius even said Americans need "re-education." Let's finally give Americans the honest and cordial discussion they deserve. You know that I have dedicated my life to serving patients, and nowhere will you find a person who will be more respectful to you. You also know I hold nothing against you personally. I understand you may feel, as a lawyer, that you're a little out of your element discussing health care with a physician, so I urge you to bring Dr. Berwick along. America deserves to hear, at least one time, from the man who holds more health care power over them than even a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Until then, what should we do? We must defund, repeal and replace Obamacare before it defunds America, destroys the finest health care system in the world and replaces it with a European social-welfare government-run version.

Can we really repeal Obamacare? Let me be clear. Yes, we can.

First, in 2010, elect candidates who understand that health care freedom - like our other freedoms - saves lives. Elect candidates who pledge to first defund Obamacare immediately and then will vote for its repeal. Second, let's convince this president that it's in the nation's best interest - and his own - to undo this unholy government takeover that bears his name. If we cannot, then in 2012, let's find a president who will.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified, practicing diagnostic radiologist and cousin of President Obama's. He is also a member of Docs4PatientCare.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 24, 2010, 05:07:35 PM
CBO Confirms: ObamaCare Discourages Work 
By Jed Graham     
Fri., Oct. 22, 2010 4:56 PM ET

________________________ ___________________-

Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf said Friday that ObamaCare includes work disincentives likely to shrink the amount of labor used in the economy.

In a speech on ObamaCare’s economic impact outside the health care sector, Elmendorf said that those effects will primarily be related to the labor market and “will probably be small.”

Factoring in additional demand for workers in health care and insurance, CBO estimates that “the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent,” he said.

The reason: The expansion of Medicaid and new health insurance subsidies will reduce “the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”

(For perspective, half a percent of current payrolls is 651,000 jobs, though the impact would show up in both fewer jobs and fewer hours worked.)

The conclusion isn’t a surprising one; any extra support from the government takes some pressure off of workers to provide for themselves. However, ObamaCare’s progressive subsidies, i.e. more generous for those who earn less, carry more of a disincentive than the flat, universal benefit favored by some Republicans.

As Capital Hill has noted previously, work disincentives will be particularly strong for older workers because both health care premiums and the law’s subsidies grow much bigger with age.

Further, the new health law will give some older households without access to employer care a big incentive not to earn too much. That’s because earning more than 400% of the poverty level would make them ineligible for subsidies that may be well in excess of $10,000 for couples.

Consider this example of a single individual age 62 in a high-cost area and no access to employer care. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health Reform Subsidy Calculator:

* At 200% of the poverty level, or $23,000 in income in 2014, an individual would get $10,750 in premium subsidies.

* At 400% of the poverty level, or $46,000, an individual would get $7,830 in premium subsidies.

* And at 401% of the poverty level, an individual would get no government support.

For workers turning 62 and becoming eligible for Social Security, ObamaCare will make early retirement somewhat more likely because the total package of benefits at that age will be much more valuable starting in 2014 than it is currently. What’s more, health care benefits will be a bit richer for those who give up a higher paying salary for a more modest Social Security check.

Just how much of a difference this extra dollop of government transfers will make to retirement decisions is hard to know. But the reason it should be a concern is that even before ObamaCare and the recent recession, half of all workers claimed retirement benefits at age 62 and the average age of collection was roughly 63.

While Democrats argue that the new health care subsidies are a moral imperative, the risk is that they will work against one of the most constructive approaches to reining in unsustainable entitlement spending on seniors: getting them to work longer and rely on the safety net later.

Once the labor market recovers and the retirement of the baby boomers begins to exert long-expected strains on the work force, tailoring the safety net to incentivize longer careers would reap economic dividends and additional tax revenue. Most importantly, delayed retirement could provide a needed boost to personal finances.

Paradoxically, as life expectancy increases, government safety nets that encourage retirement at 62 will put seniors at growing risk of outliving their savings and being left to scrape by on an insufficient Social Security check in very old age.

Consider that after a 30% penalty — the impending reduction for retiring at 62 — a single person retiring now after a full career earning $30,000 a year would receive only a poverty-level benefit.

Early retirement penalties are the crack in Social Security’s foundation that makes additional benefit cuts untenable in very old age.

That is why there is only one approach for reforming Social Security that can produce both an affordable and an effective safety net: Scaling back income support in the initial years of retirement to avoid benefit cuts in very old age.

That was true before ObamaCare, and tilting Social Security’s incentives in favor of delayed retirement has become even more critical now that early retirement benefits, in totality, are about to become even richer.

While it makes sense to reduce the incentive for retiring too early and to encourage longer careers, up until now the only cost-saving ideas for doing so would cut away critical parts of the safety net.

For example, if the retirement age were raised to 70, retirees who opt for benefits at 62 would face a 43% benefit cut for life.

Some suggest raising the earliest age for benefits to 65 in tandem with a hike in the retirement age to 70, keeping the maximum penalty at 30%. Yet this approach could still leave those who retire at 65 and outlive their savings to scrape by on an insufficient Social Security check. It also would pull away the floor of income support for those who may depend on Social Security early in their 60s.

What is more, a retirement age of 70 is probably a nonstarter politically, because the burden would fall so much more heavily on lower earners who aren’t enjoying the same gains in life expectancy.

In a new book, “A Well-Tailored Safety Net: The Only Fair and Sensible Way to Save Social Security,” I offer an alternative.

(The book does not reflect the editorial view of IBD.)

Under a new provision called Old-Age Risk-Sharing, the maximum benefit cut would come in the first year of retirement and fully unwind over 20 years to ensure a robust safety net in very old age, when almost everyone will depend on it.

To learn more, please read about what I told President Obama’s fiscal commission.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 25, 2010, 07:27:03 AM
Obama aims to toughen big-vehicle mileage rules
The White House is pushing for tougher fuel-economy rules to cut dependence on oil and greenhouse gas emissions.

(Gerry Broome/Associated Press/File 2008)
Associated Press / October 25, 2010

________________________ ________________________ ___________________

WASHINGTON — Future tractor-trailers, school buses, delivery vans, garbage trucks, and heavy-duty pickup trucks would have to use less energy under fuel-efficiency rules proposed by the Obama administration — the first ever for such vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are moving ahead with a proposal for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, beginning with those sold in the 2014 model year and into the 2018 model year.

The plan is expected to call for about a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption for long-haul trucks, said people familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to speak publicly before the official announcement, expected today.

Overall, the proposal is expected to seek reductions of 10 to 20 percent in fuel consumption and emissions, depending on vehicle size. Large tractor-trailers tend to be driven up to 150,000 miles a year, making them candidates for improved mileage.

The rules would cover big-rig tractor-trailers, “vocational trucks’’ such as garbage trucks and transit and school buses, and work trucks such as heavy-duty versions of the Ford F-Series, Dodge Ram, and Chevrolet Silverado.

The White House has pushed for tougher fuel standards as a way of reducing dependence on oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which are linked to global warming.

New cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs would need to reach 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, and the government is developing plans that could push the standards to 47 to 62 miles per gallon by 2025.

Medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks are much less fuel-efficient than conventional automobiles; tractor-trailers typically get about 6 to 7 miles per gallon, while work trucks can achieve 10 to 11 miles per gallon. But they still consume about 20 percent of the transportation fuel used in the United States.

Margo Oge, director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, last week told reporters that the proposed rules would be a “win-win situation for the country, the economy, climate change, and energy security.’’

She declined to release details.

Improvements in fuel efficiency are expected to be achieved through a combination of more efficient engines, improved aerodynamics, and better tires.

© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __

More crap - this is going to drive the costs of these vechicles through the damn roof unless the tech is there. 

More incompetence. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 25, 2010, 01:50:35 PM
The roots of Obama's demise
By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, October 25, 2010;

________________________ ________________________ ___

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won." Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

He may rue that decision next Tuesday. Whether the midterm elections are a tidal wave that sweeps Democrats out of power on Capitol Hill or simply result in major losses for the president's party, one thing is clear: The stimulus will play a major role in determining the outcome.

The legislation has not kept the unemployment rate below 8 percent, as the White House promised -- but it has been an electoral boon to Republicans, and an albatross around the necks of many Democrats who voted for it. It might have been a different story had Obama handled the stimulus differently. In January 2009, Republicans were running scared -- still reeling from the thumping they received in the past two elections, and afraid to so much as criticize the new Democratic president with stratospheric approval ratings.

In these circumstances, the president could have easily co-opted the GOP by making it a partner in crafting the stimulus. He could have told Republicans: Take half of the money and use it for tax relief, spending, or both. Indeed, Republicans introduced several alternative stimulus bills that cost half as much as Obama's ("twice the jobs at half the cost" was the GOP mantra). Had Obama really wanted to be the first "post-partisan" president, he could have incorporated one of these alternatives into his final stimulus legislation.

If Republicans had gone along, they would have had to defend the stimulus for the next two years. If they had refused, they would have been in no position to criticize a bill that they had turned down the opportunity to help shape. If the stimulus worked, both sides could have taken credit. And if it failed, reaching out to Republicans would have inoculated the president from the resulting criticism. Had he given them half the booty, they would have shared half the blame.

Would Republicans have accepted hundreds of billions in new government spending in exchange for including pro-growth tax relief and other GOP proposals? The offer would likely have split the party, with a significant number supporting the bill. The grass-roots movement for fiscal discipline had not yet been born, and many of the same Republicans who voted in favor of the "Bridge to Nowhere" would have gladly compromised with the popular new Democratic president. The stimulus would probably have passed with significant bipartisan support, instead of near-unanimous Republican opposition.

But Obama was not interested in compromise. He decided to go it alone. He picked off a few easy GOP votes and rode roughshod over the rest of the Republicans to pass a maximalist bill over their objections. That may have seemed like a good idea at the time. But looking back now, a week from the midterm elections, the wisdom of his approach is hard to discern.

The stimulus united Republicans for the first time in opposition to the president. It gave rise to the Tea Party movement that has fundamentally transformed the nation's political landscape in the GOP's favor. It changed Obama in the eyes of millions of Americans from the first "post-partisan" president into what many now perceive as (to quote Obama himself) "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." And his subsequent decision to ram Obamacare through Congress over unanimous Republican opposition sealed this impression, which voters will carry into the voting booth next Tuesday.

Almost two years later, the president still doesn't get it. In a recent New York Times profile, Obama says the lesson of his political setbacks is that "you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion." Obama's problem was not marketing and PR -- it was his insistence on imposing big government liberalism on Americans against their will, and his failure to anticipate the blowback this approach would produce.  

Will Obama figure this out after next Tuesday? Even if he does, it will be too late. Should next week's elections turn out the way most pollsters predict, Republicans will have no incentive to compromise with Obama on expanding the size of government. To the contrary, newly elected Republicans will arrive with a clear mandate to cut spending and restore fiscal discipline. If they fail to follow this mandate, they will likely have very short tours in Washington.

In January 2009, Republicans were on their heels, ready to compromise with the president. In January 2011, Republicans will likely be energized and emboldened to roll back Obama's most egregious initiatives. The president was right. Elections do have consequences.

Marc A. Thiessen is a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute and writes a weekly column for The Post.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 25, 2010, 05:17:22 PM
Great damn clip.   WWWAAAKKKEEE   UUUPPPPP

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 27, 2010, 05:40:56 AM
Employers in U.S. Start Bracing for Higher Tax Withholding
By Timothy R. Homan - Oct 27, 2010

________________________ ________________________ _______________

U.S. President Barack Obama and most Democrats want tax cuts extended for middle-income earners and to end for the wealthiest Americans, the top 2 or 3 percent of earners. Photographer: Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg

Employers in the U.S. are starting to warn their workers to prepare for slimmer paychecks if Congress fails to vote on an extension of Bush-era tax cuts.

“I’ve been doing payroll for probably close to 30 years now, and never have we seen something like this where it gets that down to the wire,” said Dennis Danilewicz, who manages payroll services for about 14,000 employees at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “That’s what’s got a lot of people nervous. All we can do is start preparing communications with a couple of different scenarios.”

Lawmakers won’t start debating whether to extend the cuts, which expire Dec. 31, until after the Nov. 2 elections. Because it takes weeks to prepare withholding schedules, the Internal Revenue Service will probably have to assume the cuts will expire and direct employers to increase payroll deductions starting Jan. 1, experts say.

“We’re kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place,” said Ron Moser, head of human resources for the school district of Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda, New York, which pays about 1,900 teachers, custodians and aides each month. In upstate New York, where winter heating costs are among the highest in the country, many school employees earn between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, he said, and losing $50 in a paycheck is “a significant dollar amount.”

Employees Calls

“We’re starting to get the calls” from employees asking what they need to do for the next tax year, Moser said.

President Barack Obama and most Democrats want tax cuts extended for middle-income earners and to end for the wealthiest Americans, the top 2 or 3 percent of earners. Republicans want tax cuts extended for everyone, arguing that an increase makes little sense as the economy recovers from the worst recession since the 1930s. Tax cuts went into effect in 2001 and 2003.

For Moser, the challenge of the moment is keeping people in the Buffalo suburb, home to about 78,000 residents, calm about what will happen in January. The area has several manufacturing employers -- including 3M Co., General Motors Co. and Praxair Inc. -- and unemployment is 7.6 percent, lower than the national rate of 9.6 percent. Still, many people are worried, he said.

“The bulk of our employees don’t understand” the coming tax debate in Congress, Moser said. “When they see this type of thing happening they go into panic mode. They don’t follow what’s going on.”

June 2001 Rates

If Congress fails to act, income tax rates will revert to higher levels dating from June 2001.

For a married couple with an income of $80,000, that would drain an extra $221.48 in withholding from a semi-monthly paycheck, according to calculations by the Tax Institute at H&R Block. Married individuals earning $240,000 a year would lose an additional $557.78 to withholding in a single semi-monthly paycheck. The Tax Institute at H&R Block calculated federal tax rates for single-income earners and married taxpayers without children.

Paychecks could shrink in January and into February, depending on how long it takes Congress to act.

January could well be a time of “sticker shock” for salaried employees and their employers, said Kathy Pickering, executive director of the Tax Institute, an independent research division at Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block Inc.

“If the laws get passed late in December, it’s just necessarily going to take one to three weeks to get those payroll tables updated and implemented into the system,” Pickering said.

Blow to Spending

Allowing the tax cuts to expire, even temporarily, would deal a blow to disposable income and could curtail the consumer spending that accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, said Alec Phillips, a Washington-based economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

“The longer the expiration lasts, the more significant the impact will be,” he said.

Economists raised estimates for consumer spending in the third quarter to 2 percent from 1.9 percent, according to the median forecast on a Bloomberg News survey this month. Spending rose at a 2.2 percent pace in the second quarter. The Commerce Department will release third-quarter data on Oct. 29.

Making a withholding-rate change could take longer for small businesses that don’t outsource payroll services, experts said. If a business can’t react fast enough, employees could recoup any over-withholding by filing a new W-4 tax form to temporarily lower their federal withholding rate.

Another option is to wait until 2012 when workers file their tax returns for the previous year.

Taxpayer Strategy

Taxpayers could use the same strategies if Congress reinstates the tax cuts next year and they need to recoup the extra withholding.

Jodi Parsons, manager of payroll and accounts payable at IFMC, a health care management company based in West Des Moines, Iowa, said if the IRS issues two sets of withholding tables, her two-person office could be overwhelmed with processing changes to W-4 forms.

“We’d have to basically go back and hand calculate checks for all 800-900 employees to determine whether or not we need to deduct additional taxes from them or refund taxes,” Parsons said. “We’d like to see changes in mid-November just to make sure we have time.”

There are now six federal tax brackets, ranging from 10 percent to 35 percent. If Congress doesn’t act, there will be five rates with the top bracket reaching 39.6 percent.

Nov. 20 notice

Last year, the IRS alerted payroll departments on Nov. 20 about the 2010 tax tables, said Scott Mezistrano, senior manager of government relations at the American Payroll Association in Washington. He said a delay in guidance from the IRS could increase costs for some small businesses.

The Treasury Department last week issued a statement that it was “maintaining flexibility” with regards to the release of the withholding tables for 2011.

If the IRS issues tables in mid-November and then again later, businesses will double their programming costs, Mezistrano said. A related concern, he said, is if Congress makes a last-minute decision to extend the cuts and companies aren’t able to implement the change before January.

Business owners may face “tons of angry employees pounding at my office door saying, ‘What have you done to my paycheck?’” Mezistrano said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz at

________________________ ________________________ ________________


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 27, 2010, 07:53:00 AM

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __

NERC Releases Assessment on Resource Adequacy Impacts of EPA Regulations
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation ^ | 10.27.10 | NERC

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _

In the United States, several regulations are being proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that directly affects the electric industry. Depending on the outcome of any or all of these regulations, the results could accelerate the retirement of a significant number of fossil fuel-fired power plants. EPA is currently developing rules that would mandate existing power suppliers to invest in retrofitted environmental controls at existing generating plants or retire them. The most significant proposed EPA rules have been in development for over ten years and are currently undergoing court-ordered revisions that must be implemented within mandatory timeframes.

The results of this assessment show a significant potential impact to reliability should the four EPA rules be implemented as proposed. The reliability impact will be dependent on whether sufficient replacement capacity can be added in a timely manner to replace the generation capacity that is retired or lost because of the implementation of these rules. Implementation of the rules must allow sufficient time to construct new capacity or retrofit existing capacity. Planning Reserve Margins appear to be significantly impacted, deteriorating resource adequacy in a majority of the NERC Regions/subregions. In this scenario, reduced Planning Reserve Margins are a result of a loss of up to 19 percent of fossil fuel-fired steam capacity in the United States by 2018.1 Additionally, considerable operational challenges will exist in managing, coordinating, and scheduling an industry-wide environmental control retrofit effort.

This assessment examines four proposed EPA rulemaking proceedings that could result in unit retirements or forced retrofits between 2015 and 2018. Specifically, the proposed rules under development include:

1. Clean Water Act – Section 316(b), Cooling Water Intake Structures

2. Title I of the Clean Air Act – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) for the electric power industry (referred to herein as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard)

3. Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR)

4. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal Regulations...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 27, 2010, 02:02:55 PM

W.H.: No regrets on health, climate
By: Darren Samuelsohn
October 27, 2010 10:55 AM EDT

________________________ ________________________ __________

The White House doesn't regret simultaneously pushing health care and climate change legislation, despite the ultimate failure to pass cap and trade, President Barack Obama's domestic policy adviser said Wednesday.

"We really felt like it was a walk and talk, walk and chew gum" situation, said Melody Barnes, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.

Barnes said the White House believes the country can still tackle climate change without Congress passing legislation that caps greenhouse gas emissions, noting the push for executive agencies to curb emissions, coupled with efforts at the state and local government levels.

"The president feels that it's critical that we move forward, and whether or not it's through legislation, which would set a big comprehensive framework for companies, for the private sector, for investors and for the rest of the world to see, and obviously that's a priority and that's why we tried to move it in the first two years, that there's still other ways that we can advance this energy agenda," Barnes said during an event hosted by The Atlantic Magazine.  

The House passed a sweeping climate bill in June 2009, but it stalled in the Senate over objections from Republicans and moderate Democrats. A likely GOP takeover in the House or Senate is sure to kill any cap-and-trade bill over the next two years, prompting the administration to start looking for emission cuts in other venues.

“We’ve been absolutely thinking about this at every level,” Barnes said, citing the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department programs, as well as federal grants to help local governments build more sidewalks, light rail lines and street trolleys.

Barnes laughed when asked to predict when Congress would eventually pass a mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. "One of the things I've learned is that if you start to put your money down on when you think Congress will act, you will inevitably lose your money."
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

________________________ ________________________ __________

Time to impeach this asshole. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on October 27, 2010, 02:52:09 PM
Ways to advance the energy agenda, like having the FDA ( an unelected body) making "law". If that isn't a bunch of unconstitutional bullshit I don't know what is.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 27, 2010, 05:33:21 PM
Barnes said the White House believes the country can still tackle climate change without Congress passing legislation that caps greenhouse gas emissions, noting the push for executive agencies to curb emissions, coupled with efforts at the state and local government levels.

________________________ ________________________ ___---

WTF is that? 

Obama's job is supposed to be to UPHOLD & ENFORCE the laws of the United States, not try to do end runs to jack up energy costs.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 27, 2010, 05:58:46 PM
Bailout Oversight Panel Slams Obama Administration Over Foreclosure Crisis
First Posted: 10-27-10 06:40 PM   |   Updated: 10-27-10 08:25 PM

________________________ ________________________ _--

 WASHINGTON -- A key government panel keeping tabs on the bailout strongly criticized the Obama administration Wednesday for its apparent failure on a variety of housing-related fronts, from its ineffective foreclosure-prevention initiatives to its refusal to acknowledge the growing crisis sparked by widespread evidence that mortgage companies frequently take their customers' homes via fraud.

Faced with increasingly heated criticism from the Congressional Oversight Panel, the administration's representative -- the Treasury Department's housing rescue chief, Phyllis Caldwell -- hunkered down, refusing to answer basic questions.

It was a familiar scene.

As the housing market continues to flirt with the risk of falling into a double dip -- prices are already heading downward, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency forecasts prices to return to their June 30, 2010 level in the fourth quarter of 2013 -- the Obama administration continues to face assaults on its attempts to fix the crisis threatening Americans' most valuable asset.

Some independent experts, while critical overall, praise the administration for its role in spacing out the negative shocks from the record home repossessions taking place, lessening the chances of the economy suffering a fatal blow. Others say the administration's efforts have simply prolonged the crisis and delayed the recovery. Either way, the consensus is that the administration hasn't pursued the right policies to jumpstart the recovery.

During Wednesday's hearing, members of the Congressional Oversight Panel said Treasury's foreclosure-prevention programs "failed to provide meaningful relief," generated "false expectations," and have been a "major disappointment." COP is an independent, nonpartisan commission created by Congress.

More than 20 months after President Barack Obama announced a plan to "enable as many as three to four million homeowners to modify the terms of their mortgages to avoid foreclosure," just 640,300 homeowners remain in the program. Nearly 729,000 struggling homeowners have been kicked out.

Story continues below
Advertisement"We are faced with a choice here," said Damon Silvers, a member of the panel who also works as director of policy and special counsel at the AFL-CIO. "We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure crisis or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can't do both."

The commissioners were just as critical when it came to assessing Treasury's response to the growing crisis emanating from mortgage companies' use of fraudulent paperwork to foreclose on homeowners.

That consequences of that, though, may pale in comparison to the risk faced by the nation's biggest banks when it comes to demands for them to buy back the faulty home mortgages that they bundled and sold to investors as securities. Estimates from Wall Street analysts range well into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is part of a group of investors that sent a letter demanding Bank of America buy back some $47 billion in dodgy mortgages. The New York Fed owns the mortgage debt as a result of its 2008 bailout of Bear Stearns, the fallen global investment bank.

The administration and financial regulators are conducting a review, though it's unclear how comprehensive it is or how many people have been devoted to it. Administration officials say that thus far "there is no evidence of systemic risk."

Not taking that for an answer, Silvers bore into Caldwell.

"I'm concerned about Treasury making representations categorically that you don't see a systemic risk," Silvers told Treasury's chief homeownership officer. "And let me walk you through exactly why."

"That letter asks for $47 billion of mortgages -- of mortgage- backed securities to be repurchased at par," Silvers went on. "Do you know what those mortgages are currently carried at ... the market value of those bonds today?"

Caldwell declined to comment.

Silvers continued:

"OK, fine. Let me tell you what the Fed says they're worth. The Fed tells us they're worth 50 cents on the dollar. So if the Fed's request to Bank of America is honored, right, Bank of America, assuming they are carrying these bonds, assuming when they buy them back they mark them to market, Bank of America will take a $23 billion loss.

"The Federal Reserve further informs us that there is nothing particularly unique about that particular set of mortgage-backed securities -- meaning they have not been chosen...because they're particularly bad. They believe they are of a common quality with the rest of Bank of America's underwritten mortgage-backed securities. There are $2 trillion [worth] of Bank of America's underwritten mortgage-backed securities.

"Five such deals -- five such requests, if honored to Bank of America...will amount to more than the current market capitalization of Bank of America, which is $115 billion.

"Now do you wish to retract your statement that there is no systemic risk in this situation? And the word is 'risk' -- not 'certainty' -- but 'risk'? And I would urge you to do so, because these things can be embarrassing later."

Caldwell repeated her earlier claim that it was still early in the review. She added that Treasury is working "very closely" with "11 regulatory and federal agencies," and that the administration is "watching this every day.

"And that at this stage there appears to be no evidence of a systemic risk -- but again it is early and it is something we are monitoring daily," Caldwell said.

Silvers questioned her again.

"Let me suggest to you that the 'it is still early' is a perfectly acceptable position. ... Is it your position that Bank of America honoring five of these things would not present a systemic risk? ... Is Bank of America not systemically significant?"

Caldwell responded that she and Treasury "didn't say there was no risk. We said there didn't appear to be evidence of a major systemic risk."

"I hope that ... if the Treasury comes back to us and is discussing whether or not we need to deploy further public funds to rescue Bank of America, or such other institutions as might be affected by these events, that we get a similar kind of indifference to their fate after it's too late," Silvers shot back. "Because it strikes me that in light of the mathematics I've gone through with you, it is not a plausible position that there is no systemic risk here."

Silvers is a Democrat, but the panel's concerns were bipartisan. Republican panelist J. Mark McWatters, a high-powered corporate tax lawyer and CPA, similarly peppered Caldwell with questions.

After asking whether "Treasury [was] concerned that any of the large, too-big-to-fail financial institutions may experience a solvency or liquidity or capital crisis over the next few years" due to investor demands that it buy back faulty mortgages, and being told that Treasury had yet to find evidence of "systemic risk," McWatters continued to press Caldwell.

Citing the roughly $2.3 trillion of non-government-backed mortgage securities held by investors at the height of the housing bubble, McWatters said that "even if a relatively small percentage of those are put back and the banks have to buy them back at face [value], this could be a substantial problem.

"Also, considering that this is not just a one-shot deal. I mean, when a mortgage is originated and put in a [mortgage-backed security], it may be multiplied through synthetic CDOs. So you may have the synthetic CDO problems also going back to the banks," he added.

CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations, are securities based on the value of other securities, like home mortgage bonds. Synthetic CDOs are essentially side bets on those securities.

"So, I mean, it sounds like Treasury as of today has not done even a back-of-the-envelope sketch as to what the potential put-back rights could be to the TARP financial institutions," McWatters said, referring to the risk big banks face from investors forcing them to buy back dicey mortgages.

Caldwell repeated that Treasury is "monitoring this situation daily." She declined to offer specifics, though at one point she did say that the administration was "monitoring litigation risk."

Despite the many questions, and various hypothetical scenarios, Caldwell declined to give any more details on the foreclosure paperwork crisis than had already been disclosed by other members of the administration. The panel was forced to make do with open questions and a lack of details on what, exactly, the administration was looking at, how hard it was looking, and whether they are considering or planning for worst-case scenarios.

McWatters likely summed up the feelings of the entire panel when he said, "It's a little bit frightening."


Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 29, 2010, 10:50:07 AM
Surge Of M.D.s Into Politics Shows Doctors Aren't Fans Of ObamaCare
IBD Editorials ^ | October 28, 2010 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON AND ANDY WICKERSHAM

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __________

Do doctors like ObamaCare? Judging by the number of doctors who are running for Congress in opposition to it, the answer would appear to be a resounding no.

By our count, 42 doctors (counting 35 M.D.s, five dentists, an optometrist and a psychologist) are running for one of the 435 House seats or 37 Senate seats at stake in the upcoming midterm elections. Far fewer than one in 100 Americans are doctors, yet one in 12 races for Congress now involves a doctor. And that's even without counting third-party candidates in the tally.

Most striking, however, is the party composition of these doctors: 34 are Republicans, while only eight are Democrats. Correspondingly, 34 oppose ObamaCare, while only eight support it. And 33 support ObamaCare's repeal. (One wants to try to repair it.)

So, at least among the folks running for federal office, four out of five doctors recommend repeal.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 29, 2010, 02:01:53 PM
Obama's No. 1 problem? He tried to redistribute the economic pie, not grow it. m


President Obama and congressional Democrats could have pursued sensible policies that promote growth and fairness. They didn't. And now voters stand ready to support the Republicans' pro-growth agenda in midterm elections next week.



By Patrick Fleenor / October 28, 2010
Alexandria, Va.

As congressional Democrats brace for an electoral shellacking next week, one question still seems to puzzle pundits: “Why didn’t President Obama do more to help the economy?” The short answer is that his goal has always been to redistribute the economic pie – not necessarily grow it. That’s a shame, because he could have pursued policies that achieve both.

.“[W]hat people really want is fairness” Mr. Obama stated during the campaign. “They want people paying their fair share of taxes. They want that money allocated fairly.” After his victory, despite the economic crisis, he eschewed the Clinton mantra of “it’s the economy, stupid” and set out to make America more equitable.

Voters want economic growth

Voters, it turns out, are much more concerned about ensuring the economy grows than who gets what – especially during a deep recession. Unfortunately, the president seems locked into the mindset that greater equality of income must come at the expense of economic growth.

One Minute Debate: What's the best way to create more jobs?

Take the administration’s signature achievement: enactment of healthcare reform, aka Obamacare. This legislation subsidizes health insurance for low- and middle-income groups with taxes on high-earners, leveling material wealth but dampening economic growth by encouraging everyone to pare back on their work effort.

High-income workers have an incentive to work less since they get to keep less of what they earn. Low- and moderate-income workers face the same incentive because they can now maintain the same standard of living with even less effort.

Do high tax rates really harm the economy? Consider the countries of the European Union. Since the end of the Second World War, these nations have offered their citizens generous social benefits such as government provided health care and mandated lengthy vacations. Today per capita purchasing power in the EU is just two-thirds that of the US. More-equal slices maybe, but from a much smaller pie.

To deflect criticism that his policies are harming the economy, the president has tried to rely on his formidable rhetorical skills: expanding health care coverage was going to somehow drive down costs, handouts to state and local governments became a stimulus package, climate change legislation became a “green jobs” bill, and so on. Voters, it seems, aren’t buying any of it.

Policies that achieve growth and fairness

This didn’t have to happen. Obama could have embraced many policies that would have enhanced both equity and economic performance. And some of them could have bridged the ideological divide.

An obvious candidate would have been to tackle one of the biggest factors that contributed to the financial crisis in the first place: massive federal subsidies to the real estate industry via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The implicit loan guarantees provided by Fannie and Freddie prior to the bust shifted risk from participants in real estate transactions to taxpayers and allowed capital to flow into the industry under very favorable terms.

This allowed Realtors, homebuilders, developers, mortgage lenders, securities traders, and others to reap enormous gains during the boom, only to dump their losses on taxpayers during the bust. It was a classic case of private gains, socialized losses. Eliminating these loan guaranteees – indeed, cutting all federal support for Fannie and Freddie – would not only have greatly enhanced equity, it would also have helped steer investment away from ever more conspicuous McMansions and into productive endeavors like building newer, more-efficient factories, stimulating economic growth.

Another area ripe for reform would have been the loophole-ridden tax code. Today the proliferation of carve-outs means that only 40 percent of personal income is taxed, pushing rates to more than twice what they could be and creating the situation where similarly situated families often face vastly different tax burdens depending on their ability to game the system. It also means that investment is steered away from companies adept at building better products and into those with the knack for lobbying.

By closing loopholes and broadening the tax base, the president could have slashed rates, enhanced equity, and provided a huge stimulus to the economy. Instead, he’s done the opposite, adding even more loopholes and promising to raise rates.

Obama and Democrats will probably pay a high price next week for failing to see a pro-growth path to fairness. Will the presence of a Republican-led, pro-growth Congress persuade the president to pursue his goal of greater fairness in a way that helps economic growth? Our mutual prosperity depends on it.

Patrick Fleenor is chief economist of the Fiscal Economics, Inc.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on October 29, 2010, 03:46:09 PM
Redistribute, sick of hearing that bullshit from the Dems. I work hard for my pay check, if someone else chooses not to well tuff shit.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 30, 2010, 03:59:43 AM
Redistribute, sick of hearing that bullshit from the Dems. I work hard for my pay check, if someone else chooses not to well tuff shit.

According to the far left, and even obamas dad, people should pay 100 percent to the govt and let them dole it back to you as they see fit. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 01, 2010, 12:36:31 PM
Oh My : 70 Percent of Independents Support Repeal
Weekly Standard ^ | NOVEMBER 1, 2010 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

________________________ ________________________ ___________________

Rasmussen's final pre-election poll on the repeal of Obamacare shows that independents favor repeal by the colossal margin of 45 points (70 to 25 percent).

Likely voters on the whole favor repeal by a margin of 22 points (58 to 36 percent), men favor repeal (55 to 39 percent), women favor repeal (61 to 34 percent), every age-group favors repeal (with those in their 30s favoring it by the largest margin), and even 26 percent of Democrats favor repeal.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on November 01, 2010, 05:03:44 PM
According to the far left, and even obamas dad, people should pay 100 percent to the govt and let them dole it back to you as they see fit. 

Well they can go pound sand, I stimulated the economy today by purchasing a new Remington 870 Marine Magnum ;D

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 01, 2010, 05:08:15 PM
Well they can go pound sand, I stimulated the economy today by purchasing a new Remington 870 Marine Magnum ;D

Sweet gun bro -   I shot a 17/25 at trap with that gun out of the box not even knowing what I was doing.  That gun rocks. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on November 01, 2010, 05:10:43 PM
Going to look at SA 1911a1 Loaded on the weekend to round out the collection

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 01, 2010, 05:12:05 PM
Going to look at SA 1911a1 Loaded on the weekend to round out the collection

Nice I like the  "Operator" model in olive drap color.  Can't go wrong with the SA 1911. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 02, 2010, 11:37:07 AM
It's Official: The Government Won't Be Getting Its Money Back From The GM Bailout
The Business Insider ^ | 11/2/10 | Megan McArdle

Well, they've priced the GM IPO, and it looks like they've valued the firm at just about what we lent it: $50 billion. Since the government only took a 60% stake, that's well below what would be needed for the government to recover its investment. Even with the billions they've already "paid back"--by not using all the money--Uncle Sam needed the company to be worth more like $70 billion to break even on the bailout. IPOs are usually priced at a discount, in order to ensure that a lot of buyers are interested; this creates a robust, liquid aftermarket in the stock, so that if the company needs to go raise more capital, there will be lots of buyers and sellers. But even if you think that the price will go up in the aftermarket, the government is going to take a hefty 30% loss on the $10 billion worth of shares that will be sold in the initial public offering. Moreover, the big block of stock that the government still owns will put some downward pressure on the price in the aftermarket. Everyone knows that the government is going to want to get rid of the remainder of its shares sooner rather than later, which means that secondary offerings will follow in fairly short order. Unless GM turns in some pretty spectacular profits, it looks to me like the government is going to lose at least $10 billion on this deal.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Kazan on November 02, 2010, 11:38:08 AM
Hmmm I wasn't aware that it was the governments money

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 05, 2010, 05:52:26 AM
Stimulus follies: $535 million down the drain in California in “green jobs”
Share21posted at 9:25 am on
November 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _____

The Obama administration made Solyndra, a solar-power manufacturing company, a symbol of its “green jobs” push in the Porkulus program. Barack Obama himself toured the factory, as did Barbara Boxer. Taxpayers ended up sinking $535 million into building Solyndra a new facility that promised to add jobs in the clean-energy sector. Instead, now that Solyndra has its new facility, it’s closing another older facility and will lay off dozens of employees and cancel the contracts for 150 more contract workers:
Solyndra Inc., the high-flying solar panel maker once touted by President Barack Obama as a model for a green energy future, said Wednesday it has scuttled its factory expansion in Fremont, a move that will stop the company’s plans to hire 1,000 workers.
Solyndra said it will also close an existing factory in the East Bay. That will leave the company with one Fremont factory, a new plant visible from Interstate 880.

The moves mean that instead of having 2,000 workers in Fremont, Solyndra will cap its work force at 1,000, which is about the current level. Solyndra also will, over the next several weeks, eliminate 155 to 175 jobs in Fremont. That includes 135 contract employees and 20 to 40 full-time workers, said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman.

In other words, we invested $535 million into a company that apparently couldn’t compete on a price basis with its foreign competition. Perhaps Obama and Boxer would choose to do this with the royalties each make from their literary enterprises. That would have been their money to lose.

Instead, though, they borrowed $535 million — a significant portion from China, as one might recall — in order to gamble on Solyndra while putting us on the hook for the investment. Solyndra did all right from it; they got a nice new facility and now can dump their old plant. The television report focuses on the risk if Solyndra has to abandon the new plant, but the same can probably said about its old plant, at least when it comes to getting a new tenant. The old building will sit vacant for a long time in all likelihood while Solyndra downsizes and attempts to stay in business at their taxpayer-funded digs.

It’s an object lesson in the incompetence of politicians and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in private markets.

________________________ ______________________

And you idiot libs wonder why most people now despise this fool? 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 08, 2010, 06:25:34 AM
Mileage Rules Prompt Backlash(This is laughable:Auto companies are owned lock,stock & bbl by Obama)
wsj ^ | 11/8/10 | josh mitchell

________________________ ________________________ _______________

Auto makers and car dealers, emboldened by rising profits and a more business-friendly Congress, say they will fight the Obama administration's proposal to boost average new-car fuel economy to as much as 62 miles a gallon by 2025.

The auto makers' main trade group accused regulators in documents filed last week of understating the costs by billions of dollars and suggested the industry might go to court over the issue.

It's a fresh sign that the "go along to get along" approach some industries took during the first two years of the Obama administration is over.

Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry's main trade group, said he expects the new Republican-controlled House to review "regulations and policies that they would deem harmful to the overall business environment." He noted that the auto industry is the only sector currently regulated for carbon-dioxide emissions.  

Less than two years ago, the heads of the Detroit Three auto makers— General Motors, Chrysler Group and Ford Motor— pleaded before Congress for immediate government aid to prevent an industry collapse. Months later, in the middle of the government's bailout efforts for GM and Chrysler, industry executives signed a deal with the White House and California agreeing to boost fuel-economy standards nearly 35% by 2016 in return for California's agreement not to develop its own, separate fuel-economy rules.

But in recent months the industry has steered back toward a more confrontational posture. Auto makers lobbied heavily against a bill to mandate new safety technologies and increased government oversight, which was proposed in response to the uproar over Toyota Motor Corp.'s sudden acceleration recalls. That legislation now appears all but dead.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 09, 2010, 05:27:53 AM
FDA Says it Will Take Vending Machine Owners an Extra 14 Million Hours a Year ... (truncated) ^ | 11-8-10 | Dan Joseph

________________________ ________________________ ___________________

Original title: FDA Says it Will Take Vending Machine Owners an Extra 14 Million Hours a Year to Comply with Obamacare Calorie Mandate

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration estimates that it will take the food service industry 14 million additional hours each year to comply with a new regulation that mandates chain restaurants and vending machine operators label the products they sell with a calorie count in a place visible to the consumer.

Most of the burden of the regulation, which is buried in President Obama’s 2,000 page health-care reform bill, will fall on the vending industry.

In the Nov. 5 edition of the Federal Register, the FDA estimates “a total of 14,068,808 recurring hours, with nearly all of these for vending machine operators, including 31,408 recurring hours for recordkeeping and 14,037,400 recurring hours for third party disclosure” in conjunction with the regulation.

The recordkeeping element includes recording and keeping track of the calorie content of each item offered in a vending machine, while the vast majority of the time will be spent on third party disclosure -- actually communicating that content to the consumer.

The FDA says that time will have to be invested again each year, as the labels will likely “have a relatively short life and the mix of product in a machine will change over time.”

Ned Monroe, the senior vice president of government affairs for the National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA), called the required time investment “absurd” and “unfair.”

“Our industry has always understood that consumers need access to product nutritional information, but requiring an industry to invest 14 million hours annually is absurd and sure to kill jobs,” he said. “We are opposed to the colossal burden these regulations impose on our industry and this report just confirms what an enormous and unfair burden it truly is.”

As previously reported, Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) says companies with 20 or more restaurants or vending machines must disclose nutrition content for standard menu items, and that for vending machines in particular, the company “shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.”

Eight months after the bill was signed, however, the FDA is “still trying to get their arms around” what guidance to give operators on how to implement that rule, Monroe said.

While full guidelines still have not been issued, the latest entry in the Federal Register does provide two basic suggestions for disclosing calories.

“Because there is wide variation in the kinds of vending machines used--in materials, display, mechanism--there will likely be a variety of solutions,” the FDA writes. “On the high end, a calorie display that is integrated with the graphics on the machine may cost several hundred dollars or more. On the low end, a set of calorie stickers affixed to the front of the machine would cost at most a few dollars per machine.

“Given the low margins in the vending machine industry, and given that nearly all of the regulated operators will be small businesses, FDA believes that almost all operators will, at least initially, choose the sticker option. In the long run, the manufacturers of vending machines, and the larger vending machine operators, such as the soft drink companies, may use the more integrated, and thus expensive, solution.”

The industry, which is dominated by small businesses, continues to question the need for the new regulation.

Monroe told in August that he believes most customers “recognize the snacks and the drinks have the nutritional facts panel already on the packaging,” and that most people understand the relative nutritional values associated with the often familiar products.

“People that purchase items out of vending machines -- it’s not the first time they’ve tried the product, so they understand that there are certain calories in a chocolate treat versus a honey bun versus a baked chip.”

In doing its own calculations, NAMA has determined that that the FDA’s estimate may still be underestimating the time investment necessary, Monroe said.

“It’s even more troubling that after reviewing the calculations in the report the 14 million hour estimate might not even be enough,” he said. “The implementation for this policy is completely wrong. It’s obvious that the FDA needs to rethink this approach completely. In this economy where our small business members are struggling to survive, they can’t afford to spend 14 million hours each year to comply with this new regulation.”

While the calorie-disclosure regulation technically went into effect when President Obama signed the health-care law on March 23, the FDA said it would “refrain” from enforcing the provision until it publishes the final guidelines. Those will be ready in December.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 09, 2010, 09:08:47 AM
Obama & Fed impose 20% tax on all Americans ^

President Obama defended the Fed’s decision to implement a second Quantitative Easing (QE2) amidst disagreement by fellow G20 countries China and Russia. Both countries stated that they believe the G20 should have been consulted before the United States followed through with plans to print more money and begin purchasing its own debt.

A little over a year ago Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke swore under oath that he would not monetize America’s debt. For those that don’t quite grasp the concept, we are essentially borrowing the money from ourselves by issuing bonds (IOU’s) and then printing money to purchase the bonds from ourselves. By printing billions of additional dollars the Fed is purposefully causing inflation, which, by Chairman Bernanke’s own admission, is a tax increase. That’s a neat trick, maybe I’ll pay my mortgage with Monopoly money next month. I could use a Quantitative Easing just in time for Christmas.

Many top economists believe this second massive printing of dollars by the Federal Reserve will cause a dramatic decrease in the value of the dollar on the world market. Bill Gross who manages the world’s largest mutual fund asserted that the Fed’s move will ‘devalue the dollar by as much as 20%.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 10, 2010, 09:30:21 AM
Report: White House altered drilling safety report
The Associated Press
Wednesday, November 10, 2010; 11:11 AM

________________________ ________________________ ____________

WASHINGTON -- The Interior Department's inspector general says the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the idea of the administration's six-month ban on new drilling.

The inspector general says the editing changes resulted "in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed." But it hadn't been. The scientists were only asked to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.

"There was no intent to mislead the public," said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who also recommended in the May 27 safety report that a moratorium be placed on deepwater oil and gas exploration. "The decision to impose a temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling was made by the secretary, following consultation with colleagues including the White House."

The Interior Department, after one of the reviewers complained about the inference, promptly issued an apology to the reviewers during a conference call, with a letter and personal meeting in June.

The inspector general's report, which was originally requested by Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and Rep. Steve Scalise in June, said the administration did not violate federal rules because the executive summary did not say the experts approved the recommendations and the department offered a formal apology and had publicly clarified the nature of the expert review.

But Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy, a Republican, said in a statement that the investigation proved "that the blanket drilling moratorium was driven by a politics and not by science."

"Candidate Obama promised that he would guided by science, not ideology," Cassidy said. Cassidy said if that were true thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity would have been preserved on the Gulf coast.

The Web site Politico was first to report the inspector general's findings. The Associated Press on Wednesday obtained a copy of the report, which has not been publicly released.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 10, 2010, 10:52:37 AM
More federal workers' salaries skyrocket past $150,000
USA Today | 11-10-2010 | By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY



Federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has increased 10x  in the past five years and doubled since President Obama was inaugurated
Already, some Republicans are going to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to provides alternatives to Obama's plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2 million plus federal workers.


read the rest at USA Today --->>


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 11, 2010, 05:22:42 AM
Job-Killing Environmentalists
How the EPA cripples the American economy
Jon Basil Utley | November 10, 2010

________________________ ________________________ _________

President Barack Obama seems more concerned with appeasing environmental extremists in his administration than he is with the lost jobs of poor Americans. He’s letting the environmentalists run wild with long pent-up schemes to force a change in the American way of life that includes small cars, small apartments and, for many, a return to an idealized 19th century lifestyle. It’s not China that’s responsible for American job losses; it’s Washington’s fault for shutting down whole industries and preventing new jobs from being created.

What’s happened is that Obama has given the environmental extremists the power to make some of their wish list come true. Modern measurement techniques allow scientists to measure tiny parts per million; much of the technology did not exist when the Clean Air Act was first legislated in 1990. Using these new techniques environmentalists are able to impose their fantasies upon American business and labor. For industry, removing the last parts per million is prohibitively costly. For instance, technology which could have removed the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was prohibited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because the discharged ocean water would still contain more than 15 parts per million of oil.

When the American economy was growing fast these EPA job killers were not so damaging. Now, in slower times, they are proving deadly.

Below are eight areas where the environmental extremists hope to wreak havoc on the American economy.

Carbon Dioxide. Human activity accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions and CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor accounts for most of the other 80 percent. The actual quantity of C02 in the Earth's atmosphere is about 0.0387 percent, or 387 parts per million. The Christian Science Monitor recently published an excellent analysis of how the EPA’s plans for reducing carbon dioxide could cause the loss of over a million jobs and raise every family’s energy costs by over $1,200.

Factory boilers. The EPA wants new, more stringent limits on soot emissions from industrial and factory boilers. This would cost $9.5 billion according to the EPA, or over $20 billion according to the American Chemistry Council. A study released by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners says the new rules would put 300,000 to 800,000 jobs at risk as industries opted to close plants rather than pay the expensive new costs. The ruling includes boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, and refining, as well as shopping malls, laundromats, apartments, restaurants, and hotels.

Home Remodeling. Some contractors are refusing to work on houses built before 1979 (when lead paint use was discontinued) because of stringent new EPA permitting required for lead paint removal. Lead paint in powdered or edible form can hurt growing children. It was once used in the hard gloss paint for wood surfaces, but has been painted over with non-lead-based paint during the past 30 years. The new fines of $37,000 per day are ruinous for smaller contractors and individual workers. Many jobs will therefore not be created as smaller contractors stop replacing window frames or turn down other work where lead paint may be present.

Ground Level Ozone. AutoBlog reports that the EPA has asked the U.S. government to enact draconian new smog regulations for ground-level ozone. The request to cut levels to .006 to .007 parts per million comes less than two years after standards were set at .0075 particles of pollutants per one million. As AutoBlog notes, “That doesn't sound like a very big change, but the New York Times reports that the agency quotes the price tag of such a change at between $19 billion and $100 billion per year by 2020. Oil manufacturers, manufacturing and utility companies are the main source of air pollution and they will have to spend heavily to meet the proposed regulation.”

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Fish and Wildlife Service is drawing up plans that define more parts of ANWR as “wilderness” thereby permanently removing any possibility for oil drilling in the vast field. The full Alaskan nature reserve is the size of South Carolina while the proposed drilling area would be the size of Dulles Airport.

Alaska Oil. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has prohibited all off-shore drilling until further notice, although Shell Oil and others’ proposed sites are in less than 150 feet of water and use fixed drilling platforms, not the floating kind used for deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. Potentially vast oil fields and the accompanying jobs are therefore on hold.

Cement Kiln Regulations. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who led the fight to expose so called man-made global warming, warns of a new EPA job-killing plan. “EPA’s new cement kiln regulation could shut down 18 plants, threatening 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs,” he writes. “According to an analysis of EPA’s rule by King’s College (London) Professor Ragnar Lofstedt, EPA could send 28 million tons of U.S. cement production offshore, mainly to China.”

The above are all large-scale restrictions. There are also many smaller, mostly unreported new regulations. A Heritage Foundation study describes 43 such restrictions imposed during 2010 and totaled up their cost as well over $26 billion. As Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) complained before her defeat, farmers, ranchers, and foresters “are increasingly frustrated and bewildered by vague, overreaching, and unnecessarily burdensome EPA regulations, each of which will add to their costs, making it harder for them to compete.”

Gulf of Mexico Oil. While Salazar ostensibly lifted his illegal and unnecessary suspension of all oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, we don’t yet know if he has put up interminable, cost-wrecking regulations in the ban’s place. Just one of his changes, allowing government bureaucrats 90 days instead of the prior 30 days to issue every decision, may be enough to ruin future oil drilling. The big floating rigs rent for over half a million dollars a day to operate. Just the threat of non-decisions along the chain of government command may be fatal and do to oil drilling what the environmentalists did to nuclear energy—namely, shutting down all new plants by making the costs and risks prohibitive. Michael Bromwich, Salazar’s director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said that there were only 10 new well permits pending, but according to The Washington Post there were 69 unapproved exploration and development plans sitting in his office. Even simple, continued drilling in already producing oil sands, where the geological conditions are measured and known, has been suspended.

Salazar also suspended shallow well drilling in less than 500 feet depth from fixed platforms. Washington only issued 13 such shallow well permits in the seven months since the Macondo blowout in April. Before that it was issuing about 13 shallow well permits per month. As is often the case with Washington’s heavy-handed regulators, it is the smaller companies, doing less costly drilling closer to shore, that are bankrupted or driven out of business by these costly and burdensome rules. All this comes after 40 years of successful drilling without a major blowout or spill.

Government restrictions and environmentalist lawsuits also affect other mining activity. For example, there is currently a shortage in Chinese rare earth elements, which are essential to a number of technologies, including hard drives and environmentalist-friendly hybrid-car batteries. Yet despite an abundance of rare earth reserves in the U.S., domestic production has been essentially shut down by the president’s allies.

It’s time for Congress to investigate what the EPA and its reckless agenda is costing American workers, businesses, and taxpayers.

Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative. He was a foreign correspondent for Knight Ridder newspapers and former associate editor of The Times of the Americas. For 17 years, he was a commentator for the Voice of America. In the 1980s, he owned and operated a small oil drilling partnership in Pennsylvania.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 12, 2010, 05:56:41 AM
Examiner Editorial: New EPA regs would kill jobs, stall economy
Washington Examiner ^ | November 11, 2010 | Editorial

________________________ ________________________ _____________________

It sounds innocuous enough. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new guidelines Thursday requiring state and local authorities that issue pollution permits based on federal standards to use the "Best Available Control Technology," or BACT. The stated goal is to achieve a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. Most of the facilities affected by the new guidelines will likely be power plants, refineries and cement production operations. What the BACT guidelines simply mean, according to the agency, is this: "After taking into account technical feasibility, cost and other economic, environmental and energy considerations, permitting authorities should narrow the options and select the best one. EPA anticipates that, in most cases, this process will show that the most cost effective way for industry to reduce GHG emissions will be through energy efficiency."

Others don't share EPA's sunny outlook about the consequences of imposing this new standard, which lowers permissible greenhouse gases from the current level of 75 million parts per billion to 60 million parts per billion. Achieving that level of reduction in greenhouse gases won't be easy or cheap. This immense new burden on the private sector comes at precisely the wrong time for an economy still struggling to create new jobs and reduce near double-digit unemployment. One of the skeptics is University of Mississippi professor William Shughart II, whose op-ed elsewhere in Friday's Examiner notes that many jurisdictions across the country can't meet the present greenhouse gas standard, much less reach the lower threshold anytime soon. "If a county or city is not in compliance, its economy won't be able to grow, so the EPA's proposal would spell economic stagnation for many communities," Shughart contends.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 12, 2010, 06:20:06 AM
Jindal hammers Obama in new book
By: Jonathan Martin
November 12, 2010 12:15 AM EST

________________________ ______________

NEW ORLEANS — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal uses a new book to portray President Barack Obama as disconnected from the Gulf oil spill, charging that he was more focused on the political aftermath than the actual impact of the crisis.

Jindal recounts a pair of private conversations with the president that paint him as consumed with how his actions were being perceived.

On Obama’s first trip to Louisiana after the disaster, the governor describes how the president took him aside on the tarmac after arriving to complain about a letter that Jindal had sent to the administration requesting authorization for food stamps for those who had lost their jobs because of the spill.

As Jindal describes it, the letter was entirely routine, yet Obama was angry and concerned about looking bad.

"Careful," he quotes the president as warning him, "this is going to get bad for everyone."

Nearby on the tarmac, Jindal recalls, then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was chewing out his own chief of staff, Timmy Teepell.

“If you have a problem pick up the f——n’ phone,” Jindal quotes Emanuel telling Teepell.

The governor asserts that the White House had tipped off reporters to watch the exchange on the New Orleans tarmac that Sunday in May and deemed it a “press stunt” that symbolized what’s wrong with Washington.

“Political posturing becomes more important than reality,” he writes.

And after Obama instituted a moratorium on offshore drilling, Jindal recounts that the president dismissed his concerns about the economic impact of the ban.

“I understand you need to say all of this, I know you need to say this, that you are facing political pressure,” Jindal quotes Obama telling him. When the governor said he was concerned about people losing their jobs, he said the president cited national polls showing that people supported the ban.

“The human element seemed invisible to the White House,” he writes.

Asked to respond to Jindal's assertions, Obama aides didn’t directly address either conversation but pointed to the president’s overall response to the spill.

“From Day One, President Obama has directed his administration to work with state and local governments to respond to and help Gulf communities recover from the BP oil spill,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams. “The administration’s response was the largest response to an environmental disaster in our nation’s history and included not just nutrition assistance but also over 40,000 workers, ongoing efforts in science and seafood safety, the Mabus report for long-term Gulf recovery and the creation of the BP $20 billion fund for Gulf families and businesses.”

Jindal has criticized the administration in the past over the spill, but that he would do so at the outset of his book suggests he wants to raise his national profile — and perhaps seek national office.

In an interview with POLITICO prior to the book’s release, the governor argued that Obama’s response to the disaster was a metaphor for what he described as the administration’s more fundamental problem.

“They’re not connected to reality on the ground,” he said.

The book, titled “Leadership and Crisis,” amounts to a national introduction for the 39-year-old first-term governor. While a familiar figure to political insiders — largely for his Indian-American heritage, sterling résumé and a regrettable State of the Union response last year — Jindal is largely undefined with the broader voting public.

After losing his first bid for the governorship in 2003 and then serving two terms in Congress, Jindal has enjoyed wide popularity since winning the governor's mansion in his native Baton Rouge in 2007.

He’s passed tax cuts and historic ethics reforms in the notoriously corrupt state and won accolades for his administration's responses to hurricanes and the oil spill.

But he faces a looming $1.5 billion budget deficit, and his proposed cuts to higher education this week brought hundreds of protesters to the state Capitol.

Louisiana’s fiscal straits and his refusal to raise taxes to avoid the education cuts have increased local speculation that Jindal, who has already held an array of political jobs in his short career, is eyeing an exit.

But in the interview, he indicated he was staying put.

Asked if he’d ever want to be president, Jindal recited his stock answer — “I’ve got the best job I will ever have.”

Pressed on whether he had any desire to return to Washington, Jindal offered a flat “no.”

Plainly, though, he’s interested in joining the political conversation beyond his home state.

Jindal uses the 283-page tome to tell his only-in-America story as the son of immigrants growing up in a Southern university town, to tout his record in office and to lay out a roster of policy prescriptions and political reforms.

What’s striking about the book — and what illustrates the degree to which it’s aimed at raising his profile among grass-roots conservatives — is the harshness of his attacks on Democrats, the media, elites and the political establishment in Washington.

Such broadsides are, of course, standard fare for aspiring Republicans. But they don’t necessarily square with the image Jindal has carved out in Louisiana as a get-it-done, wonky reformer more interested in ideas and solutions than in lobbing bombs across the aisle.

In addition to the shots he takes at Obama, Jindal also recounts anecdotes that depict reporters as out-of-touch liberals, turns around the famous William F. Buckley line to claim he’d rather be governed “by the first one hundred names in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, phone book than the faculty of Harvard University” and approvingly cites the old saw that “dumb people need representation too ... and they surely have it in Washington.”

Jindal dismissed any notion that the pugnacious tone of his book was in conflict with his pragmatic brand.

“I have always been a principled conservative who doesn’t believe government is the answer to everything, but I am also somebody who is deeply interested in practical policy solutions,” he said. “I don’t care if they are Democratic or Republican ideas.”

But for some of the toughest language in his book, Jindal made no apologies — and was even feistier in person.

He writes that “the sad truth is that serving in Congress is now often an apprenticeship program for lobbyists-in-waiting” and likens the image of the former members reminiscing about their days in Congress with current members to “aging high school football players recalling their glory days on the field."

“These politicians-turned-lobbyists exploit their political access to cash in on what was supposed to be public service,” Jindal concludes.

Reminded that he served with former members of Congress from Louisiana whom he now suggests are exploiting their time in government, the governor allowed that former Republican congressmen like Jim McCrery and Richard Baker “served the state honorably.”

But Jindal also used the opportunity to broaden his indictment.

“There is almost this attitude among elected officials that [lobbying] is their deferred compensation,” he said. “I think their attitude is: Look, my buddies in law school are all making a lot more money than I did in private law firms, and I didn’t get to make that much money, and so this is my way of making up for all those lost earning years. To me that’s ridiculous. ... People should come back to their states, and people should go back to the private sector after they’re done in public service.”

The governor did, though, say in the interview that his party ought to be careful about not attacking political opponents personally. Having once been attacked for his own given Indian name, Jindal winced when reminded about those conservatives who mock Obama by referring to him as “Hussein,” his middle name.

“I think we can disagree with the president without being disagreeable,” he said. “Name-calling is not going to win elections or convince the American people."

Recalling some of the shots at President George W. Bush, Jindal added: “We didn’t like it when there was a Republican president, so we shouldn’t engage in that kind of activity when there is a Democratic president.”

The GOP, he said, should take the fight to the opposition based on ideas.

And there is no lack of them in his book.

Jindal joked that his advisers urged him to cut out some of the denser discourse on health care policy.

But he devotes an entire chapter to the topic, offering a list of what he calls “market-based health care reforms,” and another one on how to pay for Medicare. He also offers extended treatment on energy, tweaking those in his own party for their single-minded focus on oil exploration.

Conservatives, he writes, “need to do more than simply shout ‘Drill, baby, drill’ — we need to aggressively pursue the next generation of renewable and clean energy production technologies.”

Jindal also writes at length about cultural issues and national security. But, as made clear with his denunciation of Washington’s lobbyist culture, he’s as interested in reforming the political process as he is in addressing policy matters.

He proposes a “seven-step recovery program” for Congress that includes such perennials as a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a line-item veto but also argues for some newer ideas, such as requiring a supermajority to raise taxes and having the body become a part-time legislature.

Such notions, of course, would be most easily implemented if Jindal were president.

But as he gears up for his reelection next year, the governor dismissed the notion.

“This is not a campaign manifesto; this is not a platform,” he said of the book. “This is my contribution to help get our country to get back on track.”
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 12, 2010, 08:07:35 AM
New deepwater drilling permits: Zilch

Relief wells were drilled this summer to stop the BP spill, which led to a shut down in Gulf of Mexico deepwater drilling.
 By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.comNovember 12, 2010: 9:14 AM ET

NEW YORK ( -- President Obama lifted his moratorium on deepwater oil drilling nearly a month ago, but the government still hasn't issued any new permits in the Gulf of Mexico.

And most analysts say permits will be slow in coming through 2011.

11Email Print CommentThe Interior Department halted deep water permits shortly after BP's Macondo well blew out last April. The accident resulted in the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The moratorium was lifted in mid-October after government officials were confident new, stricter rules and regulations were in place.

But no new permits for wells covered under the ban have been issued, according to a spokeswoman for the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement.

"[BOEMRE director Michael] Bromwich has indicated that he hopes to see some approved by the end of the year but cannot speculate," the spokeswoman said in a statement.

Even if a few permits come through, analysts say it will be a far cry from the amount issued pre-spill.

"We're not holding our breath for a return to business as usual," Whitney Stanco, and energy analyst at the Washington Research Group, wrote in a recent research note. "Despite pressure from Gulf state lawmakers and the oil and gas industry, we believe permitting in 2011 will likely be slower than it has been in recent years."

The moratorium did not affect current oil production in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, which comes from wells that have already been drilled. Currently, about a quarter of the nation's five-million-barrel-a-day crude output comes from the deepwater Gulf, according to the Government's Energy Information Administration.

But future output could fall if new wells aren't drilled. EIA predicts U.S. output will drop by about 170,000 barrels a day in 2011 thanks to the ban.

With Republicans taking over the House, it's possible that the generally more pro-drilling lawmakers will push the administration to issue more permits.

"You could see hearings in the first quarter of the year," said Kevin Shaw, an energy lawyer at the law firm Mayer Brown. "But it will just be a stick to beat the administration with. I'm not expecting a much different outcome."

0:00 /:59BP's rebound
Indeed, analysts say most lawmakers will be reluctant to push the Interior Department to issue permits faster than it thinks it can safely do so.

"What happened this summer was pretty dramatic," said Joseph Stanislaw, an independent energy adviser at Deloitte & Touche. "I think everyone agrees that people really need to work out the rules."

That's tough news to the people who do the actual drilling.

"What's going on over here is a whole lot of nothing," said Jim Noe, and executive at Hercules offshore, who said they are still having a hard time getting permits even for shallow water wells.

Noe said they haven't had to lay off too many people yet, and have kept workers busy doing maintenance work and other jobs. But the longer the permit drought continues, the harder it gets.

"We're not optimistic we'll be back in business in a meaningful way anytime soon," he said. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2010, 09:23:34 AM

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 14, 2010, 11:14:43 AM
The EPA’s new ozone regulation will damage the US economy for no reason ^ | 11/14/10 | Sam

 There was much talk about the EPA's recent declaration of CO2 as a pollutant, and rightfully so. However, there is something else the EPA is regulating which is also very harmful to the US economy: ozone levels. Not only do they currently regulate ozone levels, but they are about to tighten their regulations on them. Many areas in the US are projected to already be in violation as soon as the new regulations are in place.

The current limit on ozone level is 75 ppb (yes that's parts per BILLION), which was set in 2008 by the Bush administration. The Obama administration has been wanting to change it ever since they got into office, and they were about to in August, but they didn't. Why? Politics. They intentionally waited until after the election to change the regulation. It is expected to change at the end of this year.

It isn't know exactly what level they will change the regulation to. It is expected between 60-70 ppb, but I expect it will be on the low end of that scale because changing the level from 75 to 70 hardly seems worth the amount of time they have invested in it. If the level is set at 60ppb, will that really be a problem? Absolutely. Here are a few articles from different areas in the US warning what is about to come:

Manatee likely to violate new ozone rule

MANATEE — Manatee and Sarasota counties soon could face a big-city problem: excessive smog. The two-county area is likely to violate new federal ozone standards, triggering an extensive — and expensive — effort to improve the region’s air quality, officials say. “I think they’re going to lower the standard to a point where we are going to be in violation,” said Mike Maholtz, a planner with the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization....The DEP estimates 14 Florida counties would not meet a 70 parts per billion standard. At 60 parts per billion, that figure jumps to 38 counties.

EPA ozone targets will hurt job creation in Lehigh Valley, New Jersey

Our region’s government health departments and businesses are working hard to reach the current 2008 ozone standard. The oil and gas industries alone spent $175 billion from 1990 to 2010 to meet all of the Clean Air Act emission standards. This is a difficult task because, as in football, the final few yards are the most difficult to achieve.

For the Lehigh Valley and New Jersey, very real economic hardships will result if the EPA implements these new regulations. Twenty-eight Pennsylvania counties and 21 New Jersey counties are expected to have ozone levels above 60 ppb in 2020. EPA’s new 60 ppb standard will force these counties into a “nonattainment” violation of the standard. This will force power plants, energy-intensive industries, trucking firms, commuters and small businesses under Draconian restrictions on their ozone emissions which will cause the destruction of profitability and growth. The EPA literally will be choking the economic life out of these 28 Pennsylvania counties and 21 New Jersey counties and their businesses.

This NYT article has two interesting quotes in it. The first is talking about the potential costs:

According to an analysis by the Manufacturers Alliance, setting the standard at 60 ppb would cost the economy about $1 trillion per year from 2020 to 2030 and would result in the loss of 7.3 million jobs.

$1 trillion a year?!?! That sounds high, but this regulation will put hundreds of counties across the nation into 'nonattainment', which is expensive. But how much does the EPA say it will cost? That brings me to my second quote:

In its proposal last January, EPA said it would set the standard somewhere between 60 and 70 ppb, eliciting the applause of environmental and public health groups. Depending on the standards chosen, the proposed changes would yield between $13 billion and $100 billion in health benefits at a cost of $19 billion to $90 billion, according to EPA estimates.

First of all, when governmental agencies estimate costs they usually are off by at least three-fold, usually five or more. However, what if we did take the numbers simply at face value? Look at the range of uncertainty! The ranges are essentially the same! In other words, the EPA is going to force every county in the US to obey an arbitrary ozone limit in order to obtain health benefits which are essentially the same as the cost imposed.

Why are they lowering the limit at all? Here is a fact sheet about the proposal. They say this:

• On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, the main component of smog. The proposed revisions are based on scientific evidence about ozone and its effects on people and the environment.
Alright, so they are basing these results on scientific evidence. What evidence is that? Let's see:

• In this reconsideration, EPA is not relying on studies about the health and ecological effects of ozone that have been published since the science assessment to support the 2008 review was completed. However, EPA conducted a provisional assessment of these newer studies and found they do not materially change the conclusions of the Agency's earlier science assessment.

So they aren't even looking at new evidence since the 2008 limits were put in place. They are basing it on the same evidence they had earlier, but they believe that 75ppb wasn't tight enough. However, they believe that 70ppb is tight enough. Obviously FIVE parts in a BILLION is enough of a difference to merit a new draconian rule. Are we really supposed to believe that a decrease of a few parts in a billion will significantly affect the health of our nation? If ozone is that bad (there is no safe background level) why is 60ppm the right number? There will still be asthmatic children harmed at 60ppb, so why not 20ppb or 0ppb? Can someone please inform the EPA about the concept of statistical significance? What I want to know it the margin of error on the ozone monitoring equipment. I bet it is at least 5ppb.

Counties and states across the country should stand up to the EPA and tell them the truth: you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Leave us alone.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 19, 2010, 07:27:20 AM
Few Businesses Sprout, With Even Fewer Jobs .Article Comments (30) more in Financing & Investing ».

________________________ ________________________ __

Fewer new businesses are getting off the ground in the U.S., available data suggest, a development that could cloud the prospects for job growth and innovation.

Dan Krauss for The Wall Street Journal
A circuit board by Tesla Controls, one of many new companies with no workers beyond its founder.

In the early months of the economic recovery, start-ups of job-creating companies have failed to keep pace with closings, and even those concerns that do get launched are hiring less than in the past. The number of companies with at least one employee fell by 100,000, or 2%, in the year that ended March 31, the Labor Department reported Thursday.

That was the second worst performance in 18 years, the worst being the 3.4% drop in the previous year.

Newly opened companies created a seasonally adjusted total of 2.6 million jobs in the three quarters ended in March, 15% less than in the first three quarters of the last recovery, when investors and entrepreneurs were still digging their way out of the Internet bust.

Starting a Global Business, With No U.S. Workers

Shortage of Capital Costs Firm

Research shows that new businesses are the most important source of jobs and a key driver of the innovation and productivity gains that raise long-term living standards. Without them there would be no net job growth at all, say economists John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland and Ron Jarmin and Javier Miranda of the Census Bureau.

"Historically, it's the young, small businesses that take off that add lots of jobs," says Mr. Haltiwanger. "That process isn't working very well now."

Ensconced in a strip mall behind a Carpeteria outlet, Derek Smith has been tinkering for two years with a wireless electrical system that he says can help schools and office buildings slash lighting bills. With his financing limited to what he earns as a wireless-technology consultant, he has yet to hire his first employee.

Experience WSJ professional Editors' Deep Dive: Banks Remain Ambivalent on SMB LendingDOW JONES BUSINESS NEWS

JP Morgan Doubles SBA Loans

 Credit Union Times

This is a far cry from his last start-up, which he cofounded in 2002. At the two-year mark, that company, which makes radio-tracking gear for hospital equipment, had five employees, about $1 million in funding from angel investors and offices with views of downtown San Diego.

"When I started this the plan was to go out and raise a bunch of money," says Mr. Smith, who is 36 years old. That was in late 2008, just as financial markets around the world collapsed. "I quickly discovered I can't do what I did before."

Tough economic times have pushed more Americans into business for themselves, working as consultants or selling wares online. But many are not taking the additional step of forming a company and hiring employees.

For people like Mr. Smith, lack of funding seems to be the biggest problem. Two traditional sources of start-up cash—home-equity loans and credit cards—have largely dried up as banks wrangle with massive defaults and a moribund housing market. Venture-capital firms that typically invest in young companies, as well as angel investors that focus on early-stage start-ups, are pulling back as they struggle to sell the companies they already own.

Venture-capital firms invested $25.1 billion in the year that ended in September, up 10% from the same period a year earlier but still down 27% from two years earlier, according to Dow Jones VentureSource. Angel investment amounted to $8.5 billion in the 2010 first half—30% below the average level in the five years leading up to the financial crisis, estimates Jeffrey Sohl, director of the Center for Venture Research at the University of New Hampshire.

"I've never seen seed capital so low," says Mr. Sohl. "This is alarming."

.Some entrepreneurs say it's not all about financing, though. They express concern about taxes, health-care costs and the impact that wrangling in Washington over the federal budget deficit will have on them. "I can't determine what the cost of providing health care for employees would be," says Kevin Berman, 47, who is starting a local-produce company in Orion Township, Mich., called Harvest Michigan. Starting a company "is harder than it was at any time I can remember."

San Diego has long been one of the nation's entrepreneurial hotbeds, a culture that dates back to the 1960s with the founding of Linkabit Corp., a communications company whose alumni have launched scores of technology companies. A 1970s biotechnology start-up, Hybritech Inc., gave rise to a thriving biotechnology industry.

Lately, though, the pace of start-ups securing funding in San Diego has been slowed at the University of California at San Diego center that helps researchers move their work into the commercial sphere. "Investors are moving away from early-stage companies," says Rosibel Ochoa, director of the William J. von Liebig Center. "Nobody wants to touch them."

Scarce funding is putting researchers like Deli Wang in a bind. The 42-year-old engineering professor is an expert on nanowires, thread-like structures with widths less than a thousandth the diameter of an average human hair. He has a plan to make light-emitting diodes using nanowires that, he says, would be far more efficient than existing alternatives. Investors, he says, are interested—if they can see a prototype. Building one would cost Mr. Wang $200,000 that he doesn't have. "We're kind of stuck," he says.

To be sure, some companies are still getting started, particularly in biotechnology, where cash-rich pharmaceutical concerns are eager buyers and investors. In the first half of 2010, health care and biotech accounted for 44% of all angel investments, Mr. Sohl says.

View Full Image

Dan Krauss for The Wall Street Journal
Derek Smith, owner of Tesla Controls, handles his own bookkeeping, emails and circuit-board fabrication.
.And in many cases, entrepreneurs today don't need as much money, or as many people, to start new businesses. Software, communications technology and high-tech equipment are far cheaper and far more powerful than they were a decade ago.

At Mr. Smith's one-man San Diego start-up, Tesla Controls Corp., circuit boards, semiconductor chips and other components litter a plastic folding table he uses as a workbench. "The hardware stuff is all cheaper," he says. "Any of these chips are $5 or less."

Much of Mr. Smith's economizing is the result of necessity. With a family to support, he doesn't want to borrow against his house. Angel investors, if interested, would demand a larger stake at a lower price than he can stomach. And the small stake he still has in his earlier start-up, Awarepoint Corp., is only paper wealth.

The lack of funding is slowing him down. And the day a week he spends on consulting takes away from the time that he can devote to his new company. "I would love to be able to hire other people," he says. "But right now I can't."

Write to Justin Lahart at and Mark Whitehouse at

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 22, 2010, 02:34:10 PM
700,000 Medicare Beneficiaries to be Displaced
Weekly Standard ^ | November 20, 2010 | Jeffrey H. Anderson

________________________ ________________________ _______________

Today's Wall Street Journal reports:

Seniors enrolling in private Medicare policies starting this week are finding fewer options, as health insurers close down certain types of plans due to legislative changes and looming cuts to federal funding.

Cigna Corp., Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, several Blue Cross Blue Shield plans and others aren't renewing hundreds of Medicare Advantage plans, which are Medicare policies administered by private insurers. The moves will displace some 700,000 beneficiaries who must find new policies, according to Humana Inc., a large seller of Advantage plans.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare Advantage funding would be cut by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars ($254 billion) in Obamacare's real first decade (2014 to 2023), which amounts to cuts of about $25,000 for each of the roughly 10 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Those cuts wouldn't be made if Obamacare is repealed in January of 2013, but $8 billion will be cut by the end of 2012. These Medicare cuts -- both the $8 billion and the $254 billion -- wouldn't be used to make Medicare more solvent over the long haul, but would instead be spent on Obamacare.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 23, 2010, 06:08:12 AM
Retrained for green jobs, but still waiting on work

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 22, 2010; 10:07 PM

OCALA, FLA. - After losing his way in the old economy, Laurance Anton tried to assure his place in the new one by signing up for green jobs training earlier this year at his local community college.

Anton has been out of work since 2008, when his job as a surveyor vanished with Florida's once-sizzling housing market. After a futile search, at age 56 he reluctantly returned to school to learn the kind of job skills the Obama administration is wagering will soon fuel an employment boom: solar installation, sustainable landscape design, recycling and green demolition.

Anton said the classes, funded with a $2.9 million federal grant to Ocala's workforce development organization, have taught him a lot. He's learned how to apply Ohm's law, how to solder tiny components on circuit boards and how to disassemble rather than demolish a building.

The only problem is that his new skills have not resulted in a single job offer. Officials who run Ocala's green jobs training program say the same is true for three-quarters of their first 100 graduates.

"I think I have put in 200 applications," said Anton, who exhausted his unemployment benefits months ago and now relies on food stamps and his dwindling savings to survive. "I'm long past the point where I need some regular income."

With nearly 15 million Americans out of work and the unemployment rate hovering above 9 percent for 18 consecutive months, policymakers desperate to stoke job creation have bet heavily on green energy. The Obama administration channeled more than $90 billion from the $814 billion economic stimulus bill into clean energy technology, confident that the investment would grow into the economy's next big thing.

The infusion of money is going to projects such as weatherizing public buildings and constructing advanced battery plants in the industrial Midwest, financing solar electric plants in the Mojave desert and training green energy workers.

But the huge federal investment has run headlong into the stubborn reality that the market for renewable energy products - and workers - remains in its infancy. The administration says that its stimulus investment has saved or created 225,000 jobs in the green energy industry, a pittance in an economy that has shed 7.5 million jobs since the recession took hold in December 2007.

The industry's growth has been undercut by the simple economic fact that fossil fuels remain cheaper than renewables. Both Obama administration officials and green energy executives say that the business needs not just government incentives, but also rules and regulations that force people and business to turn to renewable energy.

Without government mandates dictating how much renewable energy utilities must use to generate electricity, or placing a price on the polluting carbon emitted by fossil fuels, they say, green energy cannot begin to reach its job creation potential.

"We keep getting these stops and starts in the industry. There is no way it can work like this," said Bill Gallagher, president of Solar-Fit, a Florida energy company whose fortunes have fluctuated with government incentives in its 35 years in business.

Like many people who run renewable energy companies, Gallagher said he sees no need to expand his 25-employee firm because the business is simply not there.

Although 29 states have enacted laws setting benchmarks for the amount of energy utilities must generate from renewable sources such as wind and solar, the standards vary greatly. And with a new congressional majority poised to take office - including many members elected pledging to reduce Washington's role in the economy - it remains an open question whether new federal regulations that would support expansion of the industry would be enacted anytime soon.

"Green energy investment has been a central talking point of the Obama administration's job growth strategy," said Samuel Sherraden, a policy analyst at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization. "It was a little bit too ambitious given the size and depth of the recession and the small size of the renewable energy industry."

Sherraden said it was unwise for the administration to invest so heavily in green energy, at least if short-term job creation was the goal. He said green energy comes with "political and market uncertainty" that has overwhelmed its job creation potential.

Despite that, Obama has described the surge of clean energy spending as crucial both to the nation's economic and environmental future.

"Our future as a nation depends on making sure that the jobs and industries of the 21st century take root here in America," Obama said in October. "And there is perhaps no industry with more potential to create jobs now - and growth in the coming years - than clean energy."

But other administration officials acknowledge that it is likely to be years before the spending on green energy produces large numbers of jobs. And they add that only part of the money earmarked for green energy has been spent. They also agree that the government will have to help create demand to support green energy.

Still, they are optimistic for the long term, even if the spending will not significantly ease the nation's unemployment crisis in the short run.

The money going into building car battery plants, for example, could allow the nation to capture as much as 40 percent of the global demand in that growing business in five to seven years, said Carol M. Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

"This stuff is coming on line," Browner said. "We all want it to come on line much more quickly."

Here in Ocala, the federal emphasis on green energy was eagerly embraced by local officials grasping for ways to blunt the area's skyrocketing jobless rate, which now stands at 14 percent.

The housing crisis had decimated the local economy, wiping out thousands of jobs that will probably never return. There were huge losses in construction jobs. Several plants that made building supplies and home furnishings have gone out of business. And last year, Taylor Bean and Whitaker, a mortgage company that employed more than 1,000 people, suddenly closed.

Now with real estate development not predicted to resume its former breakneck pace anytime in the foreseeable future, the local economy is left without an obvious source of new jobs.

That means many of the real estate agents, construction workers, mortgage brokers, kitchen cabinet makers, retail clerks and building supply people thrown out of work are going to have to find new careers. The overhang of workers who will need new skills to find work in new industries made the promise of green energy jobs all the more appealing.

When Workforce Connection, Ocala's regional work force development board, applied for a federal green jobs training grant last year, its top goal was to retrain 665 workers in green jobs skills with "immediate employment potential."

Ocala seemed like a good place to bet on green energy, particularly solar. The region's various window companies and other light manufacturing firms, coupled with its strategic location as a southeastern distribution hub make it a natural, local officials said.

"We felt like the expertise of a lot of the companies here translated easily to making solar panels and such," said Rusty Skinner, chief executive officer of Workforce Connection. "When you think of it, a solar panel is nothing more than a window with some added mechanisms."

Meanwhile, central Florida's abundant sunshine made the idea of marketing solar hot water heaters and solar electrical systems to nearby homeowners seem like a winning proposition.

But those assumptions have yet to pan out.

Federal incentives, which cover 30 percent of the installation costs, were offset by a state energy policy in disarray. Funding for a Florida program that offered rebates to residents and businesses who invested in solar energy was suspended earlier this year, leaving more than $50 million in claims up in the air and paralyzing the solar energy business.

Although Florida officials recently decided to use federal stimulus money to pay down part of the backlog of claims, the damage had been done. The turmoil over the incentive programs meant installation firms and manufacturers no longer had a reason to expand, green energy advocates said.

"There is no growth in this industry right now," said Colleen Kettles, executive director of the Florida Solar Research and Education Foundation. "In fact, some are going out of business."

Meanwhile, many of the unemployed workers who have retrained for jobs in the green energy business are out of luck.

Carols Arandia, 59, has earned seven green jobs certificates since beginning classes this year, while renting a room from a friend to weather the hard times.

Often studying well into the night, Arandia is familiar with hard work. He ran a small manufacturing business in his native Venezuela before arriving in the United States in 1996. For years, he lugged around a dictionary and a notebook in which he religiously wrote down words and phrases until his English became passable. He worked seven years at Boston Chicken. Later, he sold cars.

But now, after nearly two years of being out of work and a series of classes that have not led to a job, his optimism is dimming.

"What is the point of giving somebody the tools to do something but to have nowhere to use them?" he asked. "I think it's a great program, but I don't see the connection with all the training and jobs. And I need a job."

Christine Bageant, 45, also jumped at the opportunity to train in green jobs, after losing her position at the county library. She viewed the new classes as an opportunity to "get in on the ground floor of something big."

Since then she has earned similar training certificates as Arandia. A few months ago she started looking for work as a painter. She thought her newly acquired expertise in abating lead paint would make her a hot commodity.

But many of the painting contractors she has interviewed with are tiny companies, with no more than two or three employees. They are struggling to survive, and Bageant's expertise in lead abatement has left them unimpressed.

"Right now they are blowing it off," she shrugged. "They don't think it's important."

Officials who helped develop the training program nod knowingly when asked about the difficulty graduates are having landing jobs.

"I think this is a great program," said Peter J. Tesch, president and chief executive of the Ocala/Marion County Economic Development Corp. "Applying it to real life, that is the challenge. In a place like Florida everybody's talking the talk, but they're not walking the walk. The market place has not caught up to the technical training and skill sets that have been provided these people."

That much was obvious at a recent ceremony for 15 graduates of a solar electric training class. The students beamed proudly as family members took pictures and program officials offered words of wisdom.

Then, one-by-one, they walked up front to receive their certificates. But rather than serving as a passport to a job, the certificates were more like IOUs to be redeemed sometime in the distant future.

"There is significant job creation potential in clean energy. But it is not revealing itself quickly or clearly," said Jerone Gamble, executive manager of continuing education at the College of Central Florida, and a chief architect of the green jobs training program. "In the time being, we're really selling hope."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 24, 2010, 07:10:09 AM
Follow MeRichard Epstein
The LibertarianMy ProfileMy Headline GrabsMy RSS Feed

Government By Waiver: The Breakdown Of Public Administration
Nov. 23 2010 - 1

________________________ ________________________ _________

The past year has marked the passage of the two most massive legislative reforms in the history of American politics: ObamaCare for health care and Dodd-Frank for the financial sector.  Their size and complexity dwarf those of any New Deal legislation.

These new laws require a stunning acceleration of the longstanding practice of relying on delegated authority to implement statutory commands.  According to its New Deal champions, this welcome division of authority could cure the manifold defects of a market economy by combining the best of democratic politics with the best of administrative expertise.  Under the new division of labor, the political branches of government set the broad direction of legislative reform, and then trust skilled administrative agencies to turn general directives into specific commands.

The sheer magnitude of the new legislative ventures has thrown this model–which, in truth, has never worked well–into disarray. Rulemaking is no small operation.  Typically, an agency has to gather enough information to take an intelligent stab at issuing reasonable rules.  It must therefore try to bring itself up to speed by a cumbersome, multistage process for gathering and synthesizing the needed information from hundreds, if not thousands, of separate sources.

Stripped to its essentials, the relevant agency decides what it needs to know to formulate a set of intelligent rules.  It must then conduct extensive surveys of the relevant stakeholders–industry and consumer groups, for starters–to obtain needed data.  Next it formulates and publishes preliminary rules and regulations.  These in turn are bombarded by comments from literally hundreds of separate groups, each with its own agenda.  Once the agency issues its final rules, they may well be challenged in court on a variety of statutory and constitutional grounds.

This complex administrative process only has a fighting chance of generating sensible rules with a statute that embodies some workable principles in the first place.  Here is one typical instance of how the process has gotten gummed up under ObamaCare. As a matter of grand legislative policy, ObamaCare decreed that firms would be required to knock out wasteful administrative costs by attaining favorable “medical loss ratios,” which in turn require them to slash their administrative expenses for individual and group health care plans to between, say, 15% and 20% of total costs.  The numbers are often little more than half of the current expense ratios for various kinds of plans.

The statutory commands all rest on the grand assumption that these administrative costs are a form of disguised waste that mere competitive market forces could not eliminate.  But the claim is a delusion.  No one has any clear idea what counts an “administrative cost” for statutory purposes, which itself leads to all sorts of jockeying and lobbying for strategic advantage inside the administrative process–which just raises those administrative costs even more.

Since the politicos miscalculated the regulatory burdens, they have to brace for the real possibility that some health care plans will collapse under the strain.  Starting in late September, reality hit home when McDonald’s announced that it would have cut out its “mini-med” program for about 30,000 of its low-paid workers. It insisted that it could not meet the statutory requirements for the simple reason that high employee turnover raises administrative costs.

Rather than face this public relations disaster, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, granted a one-year waiver from the requirements of the program.  That particular result does not stand alone.  Since that time fresh waivers have been routinely dispensed by the Department of Health and Human Services to many other organizations, including many powerful unions. At least one million workers are now out from under ObamaCare, with more to come.

The process vividly shows how unrealistic expectations can undermine the rule of law.  Waivers are by definition an exercise of administrative discretion that benefits the party who receives its special dispensation.  Yet nothing in ObamaCare explains who should receive these waivers or why.

The dangers from this uncertainty are enormous. Make no mistake about it, a waiver gives the favored organization a competitive advantage over its rivals. But it is not only one applicant that pulls out all the stops.  Its competitors often follow suit while simultaneously trying to block the waiver for the original applicant.  Administrative expertise quickly takes a back seat to old-fashioned political muscle and intrigue.

What’s more, waivers are typically only for short periods–say one year.  They are often given on condition that the firm take steps to bring itself into compliance during waiver period.  But what happens if the firm requests a renewal?  Is it issued on the ground that no amount of ingenuity could have brought the firm into compliance? Or is it denied in order to make sure that the overarching statutory command is not nullified by endless short-term compromises?

What matters systematically is not the outcome of any particular case but rather the long-term toll that extensive rulemaking exacts from the administrative process.  The safeguards of the rule of law are always undermined by fierce short-term pressures on administrative agencies.

Economically, the high fixed costs of administrative compliance drive small firms to seek takeover by powerful larger firms whose deeper purses and better political contacts help them weather the storm.  The palpable irony is that the same health care experts who once touted ObamaCare now fear that the new combinations will make health care more monopolistic, raising prices while cutting costs.  But no one can expect private firms to stand still in the face of those mortal threats.  Better a concentrated industry than a decimated one.

Squads of health care experts and political pundits envisioned a Pax Obama for heath care once the political hubbub quieted down. It won’t happen.  Without major steps to overhaul or repeal ObamaCare, government by waiver will become standard operating procedure to the detriment of us all.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 24, 2010, 06:46:00 PM
I would get rid of the epa,nea,  dea, batf, DHS, Commerce Dept, etc. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 25, 2010, 09:10:45 AM
November 25, 2010
President Barack Obama: Job Killer
By Larry Elder

President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office in January 2009 during a severe economic downturn led by a meltdown in housing prices -- and promptly made things worse.

By bailing out banks, insurance companies and auto firms -- done to a lesser extent by the previous administration -- Obama rewarded poor performers and punished their better-managed competitors. Prevented from pouncing on wounded rivals and thus increasing market share or buying the assets of the wounded at fire sale prices, Ford, for example, watched GM and Chrysler get a cash infusion from taxpayers. Despite GM's recent "successful" public offering, taxpayers lost billions of dollars.

Obama and the Democratic congressional supermajorities passed a nearly trillion-dollar economic "stimulus" package and then proceeded to award fiscally irresponsible states with "stimulus" funds, helping postpone the day of reckoning when states must meet their budgets by reducing spending and cutting the size of government. Stimulus supposedly "saved or created" 3.5 million jobs, but it merely succeeded in transferring money from the pockets of producer taxpayers into the pockets of others.

Obama spends billions to "invest" in mythical "green jobs of the future." Investing is the job of the private sector, which uses private funds to produce a product that addresses a need or desire. Success is determined by the willingness of the consumer to pay good money for said product. A bad bet means somebody loses his own money -- a possibility that the private investor weighed before he chose to risk his capital.

But government "investments" are driven by politics, with decisions made by bureaucrats operating under rosy scenarios with romantic wish lists. When taxpayer money goes down a rathole -- as is far more likely than with privately invested money -- nobody gets fired, but the country is impoverished a little bit more.

ObamaCare puts 30 million Americans on the rolls of the medically insured. Since its passage, insurance companies -- citing the cost of ObamaCare mandates, rules and regulations -- jacked up their premiums and cut coverage. Over 100 waivers have been granted to companies and organizations that, but for these waivers, would have had to drop coverage, increase copays or reduce medical benefits. Nice to have friends in high places.

The AARP, a staunch proponent of ObamaCare, announced a reduction in benefits for its own employees, lest the tax kick in for so-called "Cadillac plans." To "bend the cost curve," ObamaCare promised cuts in Medicare reimbursement. So doctors are dropping their Medicare patients.

The administration signed into law new banking and financial regulations that keep intact the very government agencies that helped precipitate the housing meltdown -- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Under policies aimed at allowing everyone with a pulse and a dream to buy a home, these "government-sponsored entities" allowed the players in the housing market -- banks, borrowers, investment banks and buyers of "exotic securities" -- to play with taxpayer money.

The Obama administration's various government efforts to "keep homeowners in their homes" are floundering, serving only to postpone the necessary market re-pricing of homes that are now worth less than they once were. Cash for Clunkers induced people who were going to buy cars anyway into making their purchases earlier. When the program ended, car buying slumped. The result was more taxpayer dollars removed from the hands of producers and put into the hands of recipients.

The administration, with some Republican support, increased the minimum wage and several times extended unemployment compensation -- both well-intended policies, but job killers nonetheless.

Obama promised to raise taxes on the rich, who, under Bush, got tax cuts they "didn't need" and "didn't ask for." So the rich sit on their money, not knowing whether they will be allowed to spend or save or invest it -- or whether Washington has other ideas. Most Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of the year, and if not extended, rates will go up on income, capital gains, dividends and estates.

The recent Republican takeover of the House and loss of the Senate's Democratic supermajority likely mean that the rates will be extended for all -- including the dastardly, job-creating rich. But businesspeople cannot plan -- and are thus reluctant to hire -- until they know whether their taxes are going to increase.

Candidate Obama demagogued against trade agreements that "shipped jobs overseas," and promised to tweak the Bush administration-negotiated treaty with South Korea. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the pact would create 250,000 jobs in America and it would open up exports to a NAFTA-sized market. But during his recent trip to Asia, Obama failed to get the South Koreans to go along with his changes aimed at benefiting the American auto and beef industries. The South Koreans said no, insisting that they had a deal and that if the U.S. won't do business with them, other countries will.

For two years, Obama has practiced Obamalism: Spread the wealth; redistribute income; punish success; reward ineptitude; and encourage the victicrat-entitlement mentality by making the lack of health insurance the responsibility of others.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 25, 2010, 09:14:49 AM
US to establish 187,000-square-mile ‘critical habitat’ for polar bears in Alaska ^ | November 25, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is setting aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a “critical habitat’’ for polar bears, an action that could add restrictions to future offshore drilling for oil and gas.

The total, which includes large areas of sea ice off the Alaska coast, is about 13,000 square miles less than in a preliminary plan released last year.

Tom Strickland, Interior assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, said the designation would help polar bears stave off extinction, recognizing that the greatest threat is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 01, 2010, 07:35:31 AM
As EPA Goes Green, Businesses See Red From Lack Of Guidance
Posted 11/30/2010 07:18 PM ET


EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has urged congressional action on cap-and-trade - or her agency will act instead.

Big business is bracing for a series of Environmental Protection Agency regulations set to begin in January. The problem is, it doesn't really know what those regulations are going to be. Neither does the EPA, which has essentially punted that responsibility down to the states.

Starting Jan. 2, owners of factories, utilities and the like must meet higher standards when they apply for EPA emissions permits. In green jargon, they will have to install the "best available control technology" to limit greenhouse gases before they can operate.

Tough And Vague

But the EPA has no standard for determining what is the best technology — or how much the emissions must be reduced. Businesses are simply being told to do better and to figure out what that is with local government officials.

"There is no set answer and no set amount of emissions reductions or standard," said EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones. The new process is a "case-by-case determination that is made by the permitting authority — usually a state or local environmental agency."

Jones said the process would give "a lot of flexibility" to agencies to determine the best process.

Federal officials say they are working closely with states to smooth the process.

Big business sees a major problem for members, who don't know how to proceed to renew their licenses. Ross Eisenberg, Chamber of Commerce counsel on environmental issues, said dealing with the coming changes "dominated" a recent meeting of the group.

"The first word out of CEOs' mouths is 'regulatory overload,'" Eisenberg said. "And regulatory stuff is usually not a high priority for Washington types, but it really has moved to the forefront because it has become overwhelming."

Applying for an EPA permit for a factory or utility can take years of planning. Those plans now require last-minute revisions as companies have to determine what is the best technology for cutting emissions — and get others to agree with them.

"At the end of the day, you have to figure how to get that done,you have to convince the local permitting authorities of this and then, more than likely, defend that in a court of law, because someone is going to challenge you," Eisenberg said.

Keith McCoy, vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, says the process is eased somewhat because existing permits will be honored until their original expiration. Only those whose permits are up for renewal will need to upgrade their facilities.

"EPA's thinking is that they'll have some time on this," McCoy said. "What they are not factoring in is a company's capital planning. Some of these things are multiyear decisions." Uncertainty in the permitting process will scramble that.

Grill On The Hill

Permitting is expected to become a headache for the EPA as well. Once local companies begin to deal with the new permit process, they will complain to lawmakers, who'll seek answers from federal officials.

GOP lawmakers vying for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have already promised to regularly grill top Obama officials, especially EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, on green policies. Other lawmakers have vowed inquiries as well.

State and local governments may not be ready for the added responsibility. The nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislators says little prep work has been done.

"There is minimal state legislation addressing how states will handle these new regulations," NCSL policy analyst Jacquelyn Pless said.

Green groups are bracing for a backlash, especially efforts to limit or roll back EPA authority.

"The lobbying that we are seeing in Washington is only growing," said John Coequyt, energy policy analyst for the Sierra Club. "Companies and industry associations are using this as an opportunity to argue against regulations writ large."

The new permit rules reflect the White House's frustration with the lack of progress on cap-and-trade. It pushed lawmakers to pass a cap-and-trade bill, but after a bill was rammed through the House, it stalled in the Senate.

Late last year, EPA's Jackson announced that the agency was asserting the right under a 2007 Supreme Court decision to regulate carbon emissions as a pollutant. It was a message to get Congress to pass cap-and-trade: Do it first, or we'll step in.

The legislation remained stalled, so the EPA went ahead. It essentially ordered caps but no trading. Some lawmakers, like Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., tried to pass legislation barring EPA action, at least temporarily. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., held off on a vote and has now indicated there won't be one in the current Congress.

"We have a long list of items to consider and not much time to do so," said Reid spokeswoman Regan LaChapelle.

Lobbyists on both sides expect green efforts to pick up again, and with renewed urgency, when the 122nd Congress convenes in January. Republicans will control the House and will have a bolstered minority in the Senate.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 01, 2010, 08:50:15 AM
Source: No new drilling in Gulf for seven years
CNN ^ | 12/1/2010 | Dan Lothian

A senior administration official confirms that President Obama will not be allowing new drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years. This is a result of the BP oil spill.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 03, 2010, 01:06:02 PM
Obama makes US even more dependent on foreign oil
Flopping Aces ^ | 12-03-10 | DrJohn

A search for "Obama reneges" yields 15,800 hits in Google.

And once again Barack Obama reneges, this time on offshore oil drilling and in so doing makes the United States even more dependent on foreign oil. This is the first step in Obama's bypassing Congress to rule by Executive Order.

The Obama administration instituted what was supposed to be a six month moratorium on "deepwater"drilling following the Deep Horizon spill. A Federal judge struck it down, but Obama just instituted another one. On October12, the Obama administration announced that it would lift the deepwater drilling moratorium but has issued no new permits. The issuance of new permits was promised to be a slow process

President Obama lifted his moratorium on deepwater oil drilling nearly a month ago, but the government still hasn't issued any new permits in the Gulf of Mexico.
And most analysts say permits will be slow in coming through 2011.

Really, really slow, as it turns out.

On Wednesday, the Interior Department said it would not propose oil exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines or the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years.
As is Obama's usual policy, he called for bipartisan support while acting in a strictly partisan manner.

(Excerpt)

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 04, 2010, 06:37:13 AM
US Chamber of Commerce says EPA 'over-stepping' on coal ash rule
McGraw Hill ^ | 11/19/2010

Washington (Platts)--19Nov2010/537 pm EST/2237 GMT

The US Chamber of Commerce Friday said the Environmental Protection Agency is "overstepping its bounds" as it considers whether to regulate coal combustion waste as a hazardous material.

The chamber was among hundreds of corporations, associations and individuals that submitted comments on the proposal by Friday's deadline. The agency has held public hearings around the country that pitted environmentalists and concerned citizens against companies worried about the economic effects of coal ash regulation.

"This rule has potentially devastating consequences for America's construction industry," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs, told the agency. "The EPA blatantly side-stepped a critical requirement by not performing a study of the potential impact on employment of this regulation. At a time when our country continues to struggle to dig out of the recession, we simply cannot afford this guaranteed job-killer."  

Coal ash is recycled and used in cement, concrete, wallboard, roofing materials, paints and plastics and highway projects -- so-called beneficial uses that would be restricted or eliminated if ash is categorized as "hazardous," the chamber said.

The chamber also criticized a "dramatic increase in burdensome regulation by Congress and the administration in several ... areas, including healthcare, financial markets, energy, and labor," saying the actions are creating tremendous uncertainty for business owners.

"Once again, EPA is overstepping its bounds to attack the coal industry, and it is ignoring the adverse employment impacts on the nation's construction industries," Kovacs said. The group charged that the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires EPA to study the effects on employment of new environmental regulations.

Environmentalists have launched a massive campaign calling for EPA to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste following a massive spill at Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston plant in December 2008 that unleashed five million cubic yards of coal ash into surrounding rivers and land areas.

EPA is considering whether to regulate coal ash as hazardous or under non-hazardous RCRA rules that would be less stringent.

--Jason Fordney,

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 05, 2010, 06:54:19 AM

Dismal Jobs Numbers Exposes a Leaderless White House on Economic Policy
Pajamas Media ^ | December 3, 2010 | Richard Pollock
Posted on Friday,

As today’s calamitous jobless numbers report came out and the official unemployment rate spiked to 9.8%, Obama’s economic dream ended.
The economy is now his mess.  It’s his car that’s in the ditch.   There will be no economic recovery any time soon for millions of American workers under this president. And that may end up being  Barack Obama’s political legacy.

The depressing new numbers — only 39,000 jobs created after 150,000 were generated last month — also shine a bright spotlight on the fact that there is no economic leadership within the Obama administration.  The president’s economic “dream team” dissolved after Labor Day and there is no discernible Obama plan or vision to get America back to work and to generate millions of new jobs.  It simply doesn’t exist.

This fall, two of  Obama’s key economic chieftains — Christina Romer and Peter Orszag — called it quits and returned to their universities and academic centers. A third – Lawrence Summers — will leave at the end of the year. He’s going back to Harvard.

In August, Christina Romer, who promised unemployment would not top 8% if the federal stimulus was passed, announced she was going back to her position as an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Orszag left earlier in the summer for family reasons.  Upon their departures many commentators said Obama’s economic brain trust dissolved.

The word on the street is that no economic stars with real business experience are interested in joining the Obama White House.  Two Clintonites, investment banker Roger Altman and numbers cruncher Gene Sperling, have been publicly courted but have not decided to share Obama’s bed.  That appears to be the best the president can do.

No one is being sought who has any experience running a 21st Century corporation and who actually knows how to produce jobs.  This is what happens when you declare war on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and your closest business ally, the Business Roundtable, excoriates you as they did this summer, you have created an “increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.”

And Jack Lew, the new Office of Management and Budget director, who is in charge of spending priorities for the federal government,  has been operating without a deputy since he was confirmed.

Michael S. Barr, the assistant Treasury secretary who shepherded the new federal regulations for the financial industry through congress, has departed.  Diana Farrell, the deputy director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council and another architect of the regulatory legislation, will leave at the end of the year. The team is breaking up.

In August White Robert Gibbs explained to reporters that Obama’s economic team was “exhausted.” The only ones left from the original team is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner and the sclerotic Paul Volker, Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Federal Reserve Chairman under former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Last Tuesday, President Obama, in a “news availability” (meaning he refused to take any questions) told reporters after meeting with Republican congressional leaders for the first time since the election, that the American people “want us to come together around strategies that will accelerate the recovery and get Americans back to work.”  So where are the Democratic strategies to generate millions of new jobs?

The Democratic-led Lame Duck session and the President are our only insight.  And thus far, they have ducked all legislative questions on economic strategies that can promote prosperity.  Their single Hallelujah jobs legislation — a $12 billion unemployment benefit extension that isn’t paid for — does not create a single new job.  What about the only other economic piece of legislation, preserving the Bush tax cuts?  Democrats passed an extension that does not include that highest earners — what incoming Speaker John Boehner calls “chicken crap.” But the extension of the tax cuts will not generate any new jobs either; it will simply assure there aren’t more job losses. The tax cut bill is a jobs preservationist policy, not a job growth policy.

The mainstream media’s spin of the Democratic drubbing last month was that it was only due to unemployment and not a reflection on the President’s policies.  A larger issue the media has all but ignored is that there is no one at the White House directing economic growth policies.  And today’s horrible jobs numbers shows it.

Richard Pollock is the Washington, D.C., editor for Pajamas Media and the Washington bureau chief of PJTV.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 05, 2010, 06:59:37 AM
No Jobs For Americans at Heinz
By: Ruth Calvo Saturday December 4, 2010 3:38 am
Tweet5 Share


No Jobs for U.S. workers declares Bill Johnson, CEO at Heinz, on Wall Street Journal Report last Saturday

Last Saturday, the CEO of Heinz, best known for ketchup production, told Maria Bartiromo that Heinz will not be hiring Americans this year (at 3:55).  The reason he gave was the ‘uncertainty’ produced by the ‘inability’ of the government to decide on really important things such as the tax rate his business will pay.  He announced at the same time on the same program that Heinz will be opening facilities and hiring in other countries, and concentrated on China where they make soy sauce.

When you go to any fast food restaurant, you are likely to see his product in little packets.  When you visit the grocery store you will find that Heinz enjoys vast amount of that vital shelf space.   You are quite likely to have some of Heinz products in your home as well.

Fortunately, I have no taste for ketchup, so I am not a supporter of the services that are not giving any jobs to U.S. workers until the government gets with their program.  I just checked, and my sweet relish (wonderful with ham sandwiches) is store brand.   There will be no Heinz products in my home again, ever.  . . .
The price of doing business in this country is so great that almost every existing business competes for the U.S. consumer with the well known profligacy in buying stuff.   This country, instead of competing for the lowest standards of worker pay and benefits, should be taking advantage of the terrific market that our store shelves present.

Government is falling into a distortion of reality by abandoning public protections to attract business.   The natural attraction of our consumer economy should be promoted, instead.   I would suggest charging for business licenses, and banning products that do not promote our own economic health.

Heinz has pointed up a huge fallacy in our government’s role in regulating business.  We need to start refusing business complicity with competitors to blackmail this country into unfriendly policies for our public.   Businesses have warped into abusive lobbies with the profits they make from our markets.   It’s past time to turn that on them, and demand that access to the profitable U.S. market be gained by promoting the public good instead of trampling on it for their ‘bottom line’ practices.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 06, 2010, 05:56:34 AM
Updated: Mon., Dec. 6, 2010, 5:00 AM 
The jobs O hates

For all his talk of job creation, Presi dent Obama has targeted many occu pations for extinction. Using un elected bureaucrats to implement a host of job-killing measures, his administration is generating piles of pink slips:

Oil: Even before the BP spill, Obama's Interior Department had cracked down on domestic drilling. In 2009, regulators allowed less than $1 billion in new oil and natural gas leases on federally controlled areas -- both onshore and offshore -- compared to $10 billion under President George W. Bush the year before.

Then, in response to the Gulf spill in April, Obama slowed down things even further, with a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. That proved so unpopular that the administration officially ended it -- but it remains in force unofficially, as regulators bottle up drilling permits with red tape and delays, keeping workers idle. Most recently, Obama regulators placed the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts off limits to drilling.

Factories: Rising regulatory burdens, energy prices and health-care costs -- Obama has left no stone unturned in making American manufacturing globally less competitive and in forcing jobs overseas.

For example, several new Environmental Protection Agency permit requirements have shut down the construction of coal-fired power plants needed to provide manufacturers with affordable electricity. Jeffrey Holmstead, a former top air-quality EPA official, noted that in 2009 the incoming Obama bureaucrats "withdrew permits that had already been issued," and that "dozens are being held up today because they have no way to meet a new standard that EPA has put out."

It will soon get worse. A barrage of new regulations, including measures intended to address global warming, will hit in January 2011 -- directly targeted manufacturers, and far more costly and complex than anything imposed by America's global competitors, like China, on their own industries.

Mines: The decades-long regulatory squeeze on minerals mining continues unabated, and the Obama administration has now added coal mining to the hit list. The attack includes global-warming regulations that seek to restrict demand for coal and also direct attempts to stop new coal mines from opening.

States that rely on coal-mining jobs are feeling the pinch. Joe Manchin, formerly West Virginia's governor and now its newest US senator, boasts that, "over the past year and a half, we have been fighting Obama administration attempts to destroy the coal mining industry." As governor, Manchin sued the EPA in an attempt to prevent the agency from blocking coal mines in his state. But Obama shows no sign of budging -- even though Manchin is a fellow Democrat.

Fishing: Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is imposing strict fishing limits, even where there is little or no evidence of an overfishing problem. Its controversial catch-shares program is destroying jobs in such fishing communities as Gloucester and New Bedford in Massachusetts, both of which are challenging the program's legality in federal court.

And the White House's new Ocean Policy Initiative would place more burdens on a US fishing industry that is already heavily regulated. Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, fears that this scheme "circumvents existing state and local decision-making bodies and replaces them with made-in-Washington zoning with the power to declare areas off limits to fishing."

There's a common thread among these and other beleaguered occupations: Environmentalists hate them. Green absolutists would be happy to see no oil or coal taken out of the ground or fish out of the sea and as many factories dismantled as possible, without any regard for the impact on jobs. Instead, they hype "green jobs" doing things like building wind turbines and solar panels, but these jobs are proving to be a mere trickle compared to those being lost.

Radical environmentalists have all but declared war on high-wage blue-collar jobs in this country, and the Obama administration has sided with them. The nation's stubbornly high unemployment rate is evidence they're winning.

Ben Lieberman is a senior fellow in envi ronmental policy with the Competitive En terprise Institute in Washington, DC.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 07, 2010, 05:20:13 AM
Obamanomics: Only fat cats prosper

Last Updated: 3:48 AM, December 7, 2010

________________________ ________________________ ___________

For all of President Obama's rhetoric about "fat cat" investment bankers who gambled the country into economic decay, he sure seems to have a larger soft spot for big Wall Street than for average Americans.

After all, his latest push to "remedy" 9.8 percent unemployment for the masses is an extension of unemployment benefits. Meanwhile, his policies aren't just making Wall Streeters rich, as bonuses are expected to hit record highs this year. They're also likely (according to some insiders) to spark a hiring spree among bankers in the new year.

This divergence ought to be a big story -- but don't bet on it: The establishment media have been largely silent amid the multiple failings of Obamanomics. For two years now, most reporters have gone out of their way to blame the country's staggeringly high unemployment on the Bush policies that they claim led to the financial collapse and the broader collapse of the economy.

OK, Obama did inherit a mess -- but his policies to turn around the economy have utterly failed to deliver on promised outcomes. Remember the 8 percent unemployment rate we were supposed to get if we spent $800 billion on fiscal stimulus?

Actually, the CEOs I speak to say Obama made a bad economic situation even worse. The massive retrenchment in hiring over the past two years, which led to last week's announcement that unemployment is rising close to 10 percent, is the direct result of business worries about the future costs of the president's social agenda, which only begins with universal health care.

Perhaps worse, Obamanomics looks to have failed utterly on its signature promise to level the economic playing field between the rich and poor.

While the government was releasing those dismal unemployment statistics, senior executives at the big banks were telling me that they'll likely be hiring more bankers and traders in the new year.

Depending on who you speak to, that hiring could be quite substantial. A senior official at Goldman Sachs will only say he's "cautiously optimistic" about employment prospects in 2011. But Nick Leopard, the chief executive of a Wall Street outsourcing firm, Accordion Partners, says he expects the huge backlog of deals and business to trigger a serious hiring spree among the mid-sized and large investment firms -- something in the neighborhood of a 5 percent rise in Wall Street employment next year.

Why? Obama's policies, insiders tell me, may be bad for the middle class -- but they've been pretty good for the banking class.

The bankers may not like parts of the new financial reform law (i.e., no more "proprietary trading"), but they love the fact that the White House has gone out of its way to support (some people think prod) Ben Bernanke's policies of 1) keeping interest rates at rock-bottom levels and 2) pumping the banking system with $600 billion in cash, known in economic circles as "quantitative easing" and in less formal circles as "printing money."

Both measures are supposed to spur lending to small business as banks, flush with cash, start to lend again and businesses can expand. But the direct beneficiaries of the "easy money" are the banks -- which continue to hoard the cash, and (according to Leopard) are ready to rake in billions of dollars in fees as that backlog of deals starts to emerge next year.

Big bankers also don't mind the inflation that Bernanke's policies risk: Inflation usually pushes (nominal) stock prices up -- and when the stock market rises, financiers and traders make a killing, even if the rest of us need a wheelbarrow filled with cash to buy a loaf of bread.

For years, Democrats have raged against the Bush tax rates -- arguing for higher taxes for the "richest Americans" as simply the fair thing to do, since the rich made so much money under Republican rule in Washington.

The president now is reluctantly ready to go along with a deal to extend the Bush-era tax rates in exchange for that extension of unemployment benefits. But he still seems unable to grasp the reality that hiking taxes on even "the richest Americans" is among the dumbest things you could do right now. Those folks spend a lot of money (and thus help keep working-class people working) -- and this tax hike would fall heavily on the small businesses that do much of the "non-rich" hiring these days.

But don't expect the president to make these points: He still doesn't realize that those fat-cat bankers he grouses about have him to thank for their weight gain.

Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Net work senior correspondent; his latest book is "Bought and Paid For."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: dario73 on December 17, 2010, 06:54:52 AM

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 20, 2010, 08:57:10 AM
BUMP for TU, Straw, Lurker, and anyone else who thinks this is all not intentional. 

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 25, 2010, 08:51:02 AM
The EPA Says "Bah, Humbug!"
Townhall,com ^ | December 25, 2010 | Timothy Lee

Not even Ebenezer Scrooge had the stomach to fire people during the holidays.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, plans to move full speed ahead with new regulations on January 2 that will likely cost many Americans their jobs before the New Year’s Eve party hats have even been put away.

In a nutshell, the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule will treat emissions from renewable biomass energy the same as emissions from the use of fossil fuels, despite the fact that both policymakers and scientists have long considered biomass emissions to be carbon-neutral due to the life cycle of the forests from which biomass is produced.

This new rule and regulatory uncertainty could spell the end of the biomass energy industry by removing the carbon-neutral status of biomass and, consequently, the biggest incentive to continue investing in it. Recent estimates have shown that biomass generated from forest byproducts could supply as much as 15 percent of the nation’s renewable energy by 2021, yet this will likely never be realized if biomass producers are forced to comply with arbitrary, unfair and unnecessary regulations like those in the Tailoring Rule.

Unfortunately, the Tailoring Rule won’t just disincentivize the use of renewable biomass energy. It will also have widespread effects on our energy options, as well as jobs and the economy.

Forisk Consulting recently released a new study on the economic impact of the Tailoring Rule, which found that the regulations on biomass will result in the loss of over 134 renewable energy projects, up to 26,000 jobs, and $18 billion in capital investment. According to the study’s authors, 23 biomass energy projects have already been placed in limbo due to regulatory uncertainty. In Wisconsin, for example, Xcel Energy Inc. halted plans for a biomass energy plant that would have brought over 100 jobs to Ashland, Wisc., as well as a needed source of domestic power for the entire area. Xcel Energy cited the expected cost increases and regulatory uncertainty as reasons for canceling plans for the plant—and they are likely to be one of many energy companies doing the same.

The negative economic impact will be especially felt in Appalachia and rural parts of the South, the Pacific Northwest, and the Northeast, where biomass energy shows great promise as a source for domestic clean energy and innovative new jobs.

In addition to harming domestic renewable energy development and the economy, the EPA commits a crime that Mr. Scrooge would never commit: wasting money. In President Obama's “stimulus” program alone, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy have collectively spent more than $100 million of taxpayer money to promote biomass power production.

The new study by Forisk Consulting only further confirms what bipartisan governors, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives, state and local lawmakers, scientists, and forestry industry insiders have been saying all along—that the Tailoring Rule will hurt energy development, jobs, and the economy at a time when we need all three to be thriving.

Even Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN), the outgoing Chair of the House Agriculture, said before the election, “[The EPA is] screwing things up. They’re raising costs for people, they’re raising the price of food, and I don’t think they’re accomplishing anything.”

The intransigent EPA isn’t yet listening to the bipartisan, nationwide outcry against the Tailoring Rule. Perhaps they will finally begin to pay attention to this latest round of hard facts about the impact of their regulations before it’s too late.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 29, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
White House Plans to Push Global Warming Policy, GOP Vows Fight ^ | December 28, 2010 | Kimberly Schwandt

________________________ ________________________ ________________________

HONOLULU, Hawaii -- After failing to get climate-change legislation through Congress, the Obama administration plans on pushing through its environmental policies through other means, and Republicans are ready to put up a fight.

On Jan. 2, new carbon emissions limits will be put forward as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares regulations that would force companies to get permits to release greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Critics say the new rules are a backdoor effort to enact the president's agenda on global warming without the support of Congress, and would hurt the economy and put jobs in jeopardy by forcing companies to pay for expensive new equipment.

"They are job killers. Regulations, period -- any kind of regulation is a weight on economy. It requires people to comply with the law, which takes work hours and time, which reduces the profitability of firms. Therefore, they grow more slowly and you create less jobs," said environmental scientist Ken Green of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 30, 2010, 07:27:47 AM
Why Jobs Leave
Posted 12/29/2010 07:05 PM ET

________________________ ________________________ _________--


Economy: Heading into the new year, there's plenty of optimism about the stock market rising, corporate profits recovering and companies hiring. There's just one problem on that last jobs item: Many will be overseas.

On those rare occasions when it's not demonizing businesses as bastions of corporate greed, the White House and all its supporting players spend their time pondering why U.S. businesses, with mountains of cash, won't use at least some of it to hire workers. A mere 900,000 jobs were created in 2010, while U.S. companies sat on $1.1 trillion in cash.

Last week, President Obama went so far as to meet with 20 CEOs for several hours over this, "asking the attendees to dialogue with him on a shared agenda focused on moving our economy forward," according to a White House statement.

We don't have any inside lines as to what was said, but news is trickling out the Obama administration is starting to think about doing something big to end the jobs drought in the U.S.

The something big would be to lower the U.S. corporate tax, which at 35%, stands as the second-highest in the developed world. President Obama only told NPR that he discussed "simplifying the system, hopefully lowering rates, broadening the base."

If so, and if there are no accompanying sleights of hand to extract cash from businesses some other way, as some reports have it, it's good news. Nothing inhibits the creation of U.S. jobs quite like high corporate taxes and their accompanying regulatory regime.

The fact is, companies sitting on cash aren't doing nothing. They're hiring overseas, creating 1.4 million jobs in 2010 alone, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

That's not because they prefer foreigners to Americans, but because the bad business climate here pushes them to do so.

The rest of the world is a vastly different place from Obama's U.S., which is characterized by high taxes and protectionist set-asides for politically connected unions that shut out free trade.

In places like Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, India and Thailand, nobody demonizes business or blasts trade. Instead great efforts are made by the state and the private sector to draw in foreign investment by becoming more competitive than their rivals.

U.S. multinationals go to these places not because labor is cheap but because these policies also create boomtowns with lots of customers. Incredibly enough, sometimes overseas profits and jobs provide a lifeline for troubled U.S. companies back home. Take GM — today, its Brazil and Korea operations help keep it afloat.

Growth in the 8% to 9% range is typical in Asia. But even in other pro-business areas — like the city of Lyon, France, or the manufacturing mecca of Tijuana, Mexico — governments are going out of their way to attract U.S. investment.

In Tijuana's case, they've succeeding despite an ugly drug war.

While high-tax, high-bureaucrat suburbs around Los Angeles draw investment from hot sauce factories and hire unskilled workers, Mexico is drawing aerospace manufacturers and hiring engineers. Colombia, Chile, Brazil, Qatar and even the Republic of Congo are pulling them in, too.

Why? So long as profits are encouraged instead of taxed, the natural outcome is jobs. It's that simple. They get it. Why don't we?

Salon magazine noted that as companies shift their hiring overseas, the 1.4 million jobs created there could have, if they were created here, lowered the unemployment rate to 8.9% from 9.8%.

It's not for nothing that the rescuers of Chile's trapped miners this year knew the names of all the specialized American manufacturers to call for help. These companies had already been working in Chile because the government made it worth it to do so.

If small, remote countries like Chile can create opportunities for U.S. companies to invest and and hire workers, why can't we?

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 04, 2011, 05:49:29 AM
Is Obama Intentionally Damaging Our Economy?
Powerline ^ | 1-3-11 | powerline

________________________ ________________________ _____

That is the provocative question asked by Peter Schweizer at Big Peace. I think the answer is No, but let's let Peter explain why the question arises at all:

That may seem like an absurd question, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion when you consider what is happening to our energy industry on the Gulf Coast. As the Wall Street Journal reports today, the Obama Administration may have lifted its ban on drilling in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, but there are still long delays in getting other permits approved to drill for oil. Why? No one seems to know. We assume that politicians do what is in their own self-interest, but in this case Obama seems to be damaging himself because he is dragging down the economy. As the Journal puts it, "The Gulf coast economy has been hit hard by the slowdown in drilling activity." And Obama doesn't seem particularly eager to change that fact.

Schweizer recalls Bobby Jindal's bizarre encounter with President Obama at the height of the Gulf oil spill crisis:

In his recently released book Leadership and Crisis, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal recounts an exchange with President Obama during the Gulf oil drilling moratorium. (Full disclosure: I co-wrote the book with Jindal.) After telling Obama that the moratorium would potentially cost tens of thousands of jobs, "The president went on to assure me that anyone who lost their job would get a check from BP. When I explained that BP might not write them checks because it was the federal government that imposed the moratorium the president said, 'Well, if BP won't pay the claim, they can file for unemployment.' I was amazed by the level of disconnect. The people of Louisiana want to work, not collect unemployment or BP checks."

For Obama, getting an unemployment check is about the same as getting paycheck.

What I think emerges here is President Obama's astonishing ignorance of economics, which is to say, how the world works. I don't think he is intentionally trying to damage our economy, simply because he knows that he has no chance of being re-elected unless the economy rebounds. At the same time, I think he is so appallingly ignorant of how wealth is created that he believes killing off jobs, as his administration has done along the Gulf Coast, is no big deal. The lost wealth will magically recreate itself, perhaps in the form of unemployment benefits. I think that Obama really does not understand the difference between receiving a paycheck in exchange for creating wealth, and getting a government handout in exchange for nothing. But then, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 13, 2011, 01:15:06 PM
Going Broke by Going Green ^ | January 12, 2011 | Harry R. Jackson, Jr

Editor's note: This article was co-authored by Harry Jackson, Jr. and guy Innis.

President Obama’s healthcare program came under intense scrutiny in 2010. As we enter 2011, we need to open our eyes to what is really going on behind his green energy propaganda, as well. To some, it may not seem as desperate an issue as healthcare, but it will grow to become just as devastating to those citizens among us who are poor, because access to affordable energy affects everything we do.

The administration’s green policies are being thrust into a precarious American economy. Every “green scenario” shows raised energy costs across the board. Not only will the average person pay more for energy; many will lose their jobs as the forced transition to alternative power sources rocks the stability of current energy-producing and energy-using companies.

Skyrocketing energy prices and lost jobs also mean millions of otherwise healthy Americans are subjected to new health threats: higher air conditioning, heating, transportation and other energy bills. For those who cannot afford the increased costs, this can mean death from heat stroke and hypothermia; reduced budgets for healthy food, proper healthcare, home and car repairs, college, retirement, and charitable giving; and psychological depression that accompanies economic depression.

Land withdrawals and leasing and permitting delays don’t just lock up vast energy storehouses. They kill jobs, eliminate billions in government bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenues – and force us to spend other billions to import more oil that we could produce right here at home.

The White House agenda represents a double power grab. It usurps state, local and private sector control over energy prices and generation, and gives it to unelected Washington bureaucrats. It also seizes our reliable, affordable energy, and replaces it with expensive, intermittent power.

While many Americans are duped into thinking renewable energy sources are the ticket to a clean world, they have not looked at the downside to these energy sources. Replacing fossil fuel power with coerced renewable energy means millions of acres will be covered with turbines and solar panels, and built with billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth metals. It means millions of acres of forest and crop land will be converted to farming for inefficient biofuels that also require vast inputs of water, pesticides, fertilizers and hydrocarbon fuels.

Moreover, wind and solar facilities work only 10-30 percent of the time, compared to 90-95 percent for coal, gas and nuclear power plants. Even worse, prolonged cold is almost invariably associated with high atmospheric pressure, and thus very little wind. On December 21, 2010 – one of the coldest days on record for Yorkshire, England (undoubtedly due to global warming) – the region’s coal, gas and nuclear power plants generated 53,000 megawatts of electricity; its wind turbines provided a measly 20 MW, or 0.04% of the total. The same high pressure, no wind scenario happens on the hottest summer days.

“Renewable” and “clean” energy projects received $30 billion in subsidies under the gargantuan stimulus bill. They got another $3 billion in the “lame duck” tax deal. Federal wind power subsidies are $6.44 per million BTUs – dozens of times what coal and natural gas receive, to generate 1/50 of the electricity that coal does. At current and foreseeable coal and gas prices, wind (and solar) simply cannot compete.

As to “green” jobs, Competitive Enterprise Institute energy analyst Chris Horner calculates that the stimulus bill’s subsidies for wind and solar mean taxpayers are billed $475,000 for each job created. Texas Comptroller Susan Combs reports that property tax breaks for wind projects in her state cost nearly $1.6 million per job. “Green energy” is simply unsustainable, environmentally and economically.

President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson may be convinced that we face a manmade climate change crisis, and unacceptable health risks from power plant and refinery emissions. However, their “climate science” is little more than a self-proving theory: no matter what happens – hotter or colder, wetter or drier, more storms or fewer – it’s “proof” of global warming.

Thousands of scientists say there is yet no real evidence that we face such a crisis, and most coal-fired power plants and refineries have already reduced their harmful emissions to the point that only the most sensitive or health-impaired would be harmed.

The problem is not runaway global warming. It is a runaway and unaccountable federal bureaucracy.

Putting the green power grab into even sharper focus are these eye-opening comments from two “socially responsible” CEOs, who have lobbied the Congress, EPA and White House intensely for cap-tax-and-trade, far tougher emission policies and still more subsidies. We thank the Wall Street Journal for bringing them to our attention. EPA’s regulations “increase operating costs for coal-fired generators and ultimately increase the price of energy” for families and companies that need electricity," observed Exelon CEO John Rowe. “The upside for Exelon is unmistakable. Exelon’s clean [mostly nuclear] generation will continue to grow in value in a relatively short time. We are of course positioning our portfolio to capture that value.”

“Even without legislation in Congress, EPA is marching forward in terms of regulating carbon dioxide,” noted Lewis Hay, CEO of NextEra Energy, America’s largest producer of wind and solar power. “That puts us in a very good position.”

The Journal summarized the situation succinctly in a recent editorial: “The EPA is abusing environmental law to achieve policy goals that the democratic process rejected, while also engineering a transfer of wealth from the 25 states in the Midwest and South that get more than 50 percent of their electricity from coal. The industry beneficiaries [of these destructive regulations] then pretend that this agenda is nothing more than a stroll around Walden Pond, when it’s really about lining their own pockets.”

It is time to face reality. Misnamed “green energy” policies severely undermine any opportunity America may have to rebuild her economy. Perpetuating current jobless rates would be just the tip of the iceberg, if we follow the path that EPA and the White House have laid in front of us.

Let your legislators know that you do not support the White House’s current green programs. We cannot afford to go broke trying to go green.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Fury on January 13, 2011, 03:07:09 PM
Spain's a good example of how economically successful "going green" turns out.  ::)

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 14, 2011, 05:21:02 AM
US axes permit for Arch's giant mountain coalmine [West Virginia: Obama's EPA]
Reuters ^ | January 13, 2011 | Timothy Gardner

________________________ ________________________ ____

The Obama administration revoked a permit on Thursday for Arch Coal Inc's (ACI.N) proposed Spruce 1 mountaintop coal mine in West Virginia, effectively shutting one of the biggest in the United States. "The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend," said Peter Silvan, an assistant administrator for water, at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's final ruling under the Clean Water Act came after a scientific study, a public hearing, and a review of more than 50,000 public comments, the agency said. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had approved a permit for the mine in 2007, but it had not been fully constructed.

Lawmakers from West Virginia said the EPA's move would hurt the state's economy. "Today's EPA decision is not just fundamentally wrong, it is an unprecedented act by the federal government that will cost our state and our nation even more jobs during the worst recession in this country's history," Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, said in a release. Senator Jay Rockefeller, also a Democrat, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama, that said: "as a nation we must not fall into the trap of forcing unnecessary choices between protecting the environment and having good paying jobs that support energy independence." St. Louis-based Arch said it would vigorously defend the permit in court. EPA's revocation of the permit blocks an additional $250 million in investment and 250 jobs, the company said. It was the latest move by the Obama administration to crack down on mountaintop mining, in which companies blast high peaks to uncover coal seams and often toss the resulting rubble into valleys....

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 14, 2011, 02:39:52 PM
Feds threaten to sue states over union laws
            Buzz up! ..By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Sam Hananel, Associated Press – 38 mins ago

________________________ ________________________ __________

WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.

The amendments, approved Nov. 2, have taken effect in South Dakota and Utah, and will do so soon in Arizona and South Carolina.

Business and anti-union groups sought the amendments, arguing that such secrecy is necessary to protect workers against union intimidation. They are concerned that Congress might enact legislation requiring employers to allow the "card check" process for forming unions instead of secret ballot elections.

In letters to the attorney general of each state, Solomon says the amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution because they conflict with employee rights laid out in the National Labor Relations Act. That clause says that when state and federal laws are at odds, federal law prevails.

Solomon is asking the attorneys general in South Dakota and Utah for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional "to conserve state and federal resources."

In his letter to South Carolina's attorney general, Solomon asks the state to take measures that would prevent the Legislature from ratifying the amendment. Solomon requested that Arizona's governor decline to make the amendment official.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said he believes the state is on solid ground. He plans to coordinate a response with the other three states.

"If they want to bring a lawsuit, then bring it," Shurtleff said. "We believe that a secret ballot is as fundamental a right as any American has had since the beginning of this country. We want to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens."

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley also promised to "vigorously defend our South Dakota Constitution" against any federal lawsuit.

Unions long have pushed for the card-check legislation, but the effort hasn't won enough support in Congress. Union officials say companies often use aggressive tactics — borderline illegal, they contend — to discourage workers from organizing unions.

Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that spent millions to back congressional Republicans in last year's elections, was among the groups that pushed for passage of the state amendments. Phil Kerpen, the group's vice president for policy, said the NLRB's action "shows how determined the board is to accomplish card check by backdoor means against the wishes of the American people and Congress."

Kimberly Freeman Brown, executive director of the pro-union group American Rights at Work, said the board was confirming that "these initiatives were intended to restrict workers' rights to determine how they choose a union, disingenuously cloaked in the language of worker protection."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 17, 2011, 12:25:56 PM
Obama acknowledges decline of US dominance
times of india ^ | 1/17/11 | staff

MUMBAI: Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, Barack Obama on Sunday said the US was no longer in a position to "meet the rest of the world economically on our terms".

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Mumbai, he said, "I do think that one of the challenges that we are going face in the US, at a time when we are still recovering from the financial crisis is, how do we respond to some of the challenges of globalisation? The fact of the matter is that for most of my lifetime and I'll turn 50 next year - the US was such an enormously dominant economic power, we were such a large market, our industry, our technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms. And now because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil and other countries, the US remains the largest economy and the largest market, but there is real competition."

(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes. com ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 19, 2011, 07:24:24 PM
Obama Consumer Agency May Not Be Able To Oversee Payday Lenders, Mortgage Firms
First Posted: 01/19/11 06:26 PM Updated: 01/19/11 08:23 PM

The nascent consumer agency dedicated to protecting borrowers from abusive lenders, a cornerstone of the Obama administration's efforts to reform the financial industry, will not be able to regulate the kinds of lenders that helped cause the crisis if the White House doesn't meet a key deadline, federal auditors say.

Firms like New Century Financial, Ameriquest, Fremont General and Countrywide Financial -- lenders that aren't banks and fall outside the bounds of regular federal supervision -- made the kinds of shoddy mortgage loans that ultimately led to the housing crisis. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, currently led by Elizabeth Warren on an interim basis, is supposed to change that by putting them under the umbrella of a robust federal regulator.

But if the White House can't get a nominee through the Senate by July, the bureau will lack the authority to supervise nonbank lenders, according to a Jan. 10 report by the inspectors general of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve obtained by The Huffington Post. In six months, the agency officially assumes the power formally held by bank regulators. Bloomberg News first reported on the existence of the report Wednesday afternoon.

The dilemma poses a challenge to the Obama administration, which sold the agency to Congress and the industry in part based on the promise that it will help level the playing field between banks and nonbanks when it comes to government oversight. Banks have long been regulated by federal agencies and subject to regular audits. Nonbanks, like home mortgage and payday lenders, have been subject to sporadic oversight, at best. Such companies have been hit with billions in fines and legal settlements in response to accusations they engaged in abusive and predatory lending.

Adding to bankers' frustrations is the fact that the agency, even without a director, will be able to oversee consumer lending by banks with more than $10 billion in assets. Because this authority already exists with bank regulators, the consumer agency will be able to assume this responsibility in July, federal auditors said in their report. Nonbanks, though, will be off-limits.

The report puts added pressure on the White House to meet the July deadline. It has struggled to name an agency chief.

Industry officials and their allies in Congress prefer someone who will take a more relaxed approach to oversight. Consumer advocates are pushing for an aggressive regulator who will prevent the kinds of abuses that were common during the housing boom.

Story continues below
AdvertisementThe White House is stuck in the middle of this fight, wanting to please its allies who helped get the agency enacted into law in the first place, and helped the administration counter critics who say it's too close to Wall Street.

But the administration also wants to name an agency head who will face limited opposition in the Senate. Created as part of Dodd-Frank, the 2010 law overhauling financial regulation, President Barack Obama hailed it as one of the top achievements of his presidency.

Under pressure, President Barack Obama tapped Warren in September to lead the agency on a temporary basis. Warren, a passionate consumer advocate, is supposed to stand up the unit before it assumes its full power in July.

The White House has two choices: either go around the Senate and tap the agency's director through a recess appointment, or pick someone the Senate will confirm.

Shortly before tapping Warren, Obama noted the difficulty he's had in getting the Senate to confirm his nominees.

"I'm concerned about all Senate confirmations these days," Obama said Sept. 10. "I mean, if I nominate somebody for dog catcher..."

"I've got people who have been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can't get a vote on them," he continued.

Because of that difficulty, the White House "has always looked at a recess appointment as a possibility," said Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. "And they can't let the agency go without a director come July."

White House spokesmen didn't respond to e-mailed requests for comment.

Opponents have vowed a nomination fight. Observers believe that whomever the White House chooses will likely face extensive grilling and opposition by Senators who oppose the very idea of a dedicated consumer agency.

Not having a director in place by July -- and thus preventing the agency from supervising nonbank lenders -- would be a "positive" for the industry, said Bill Cosgrove, president and chief executive of Union National Mortgage Company, a nonbank lender based in Ohio. "What we're concerned about is overkill in terms of regulation," he said.

Cosgrove added that state regulators, which currently oversee lenders like his firm, have stepped up their oversight of his industry. His firm has been audited by six different state regulators in the past year alone, he said.

Though the auditors' report places additional pressure on the administration to get a director in place so the agency can police firms like Cosgrove's, and not face the wrath of bankers who will note the administration's broken promise of a "level playing field," Calhoun said he was confident that the White House will meet its deadline.

"They have to," he said.

Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 26, 2011, 12:43:48 PM
Abbott to cut 1,900 jobs — 1,000 of them here (Illinois)
Chicago Sun Times ^ | 1/26/2011 | AP with Francine Knowles


Abbott Laboratories said it is axing 1,900 workers, including about 1,000 of its more than 13,000 people in Northern Illinois as part of a restructuring.

Most of the cuts will take place in the North Chicago-based company’s Lake County pharmaceutical manufacturing operations...

Abbott blamed the cuts on new fees and pricing pressures associated with the healthcare reform law and a “challenging regulatory environment” at the Food and Drug Administration, which approves new drugs.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 26, 2011, 01:35:38 PM
Lowe's laying off about 1,700 managers
Yahoo ^ | 1/26/11 | Martinne Geller, Dhanya Skariachan - Reuters

(Reuters) – Lowe's Cos Inc is laying off about 1,700 middle managers across the United States, the country's second-largest home-improvement chain said.

The news comes as home improvement chains focus on cutting costs to tackle tepid demand for expensive renovations in a slowly recovering. U.S. economy.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 26, 2011, 06:28:25 PM
Govt: New rules would cut thousands of coal jobs
AP/Yahoo ^ | 1/26/11 | Tim Huber

The Obama administration's own experts estimate their proposal for protecting streams from coal mining would eliminate thousands of jobs and slash production across much of the country, according to a government document obtained by The Associated Press.  

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement document says the agency's preferred rules would impose standards for water quality and restrictions on mining methods that would affect the quality or quantity of streams near coal mines. The rules are supposed to replace Bush-era regulations that set up buffer zones around streams and were aimed chiefly at mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.

The proposal — part of a draft environmental impact statement — would affect coal mines from Louisiana to Alaska.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 26, 2011, 06:34:02 PM
Govt: New rules would cut thousands of coal jobs

By TIM HUBER, AP Business Writer Tim Huber, Ap Business Writer – 1 hr 18 mins ago

The Obama administration's own experts estimate their proposal for protecting streams from coal mining would eliminate thousands of jobs and slash production across much of the country, according to a government document obtained by The Associated Press.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement document says the agency's preferred rules would impose standards for water quality and restrictions on mining methods that would affect the quality or quantity of streams near coal mines. The rules are supposed to replace Bush-era regulations that set up buffer zones around streams and were aimed chiefly at mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.

The proposal — part of a draft environmental impact statement — would affect coal mines from Louisiana to Alaska.

The office, a branch of the Interior Department, estimated that the protections would trim coal production to the point that an estimated 7,000 of the nation's 80,600 coal mining jobs would be lost. Production would decrease or stay flat in 22 states, but climb 15 percent in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.

Peter Mail, a spokesman for the surface mining reclamation office, said the proposal's aim is "to better strike the balance between protecting the public and the environment while providing for viable coal mining."

Mali said the document is the first working draft that was shared with state agencies, which are giving their comments on it. Comments also were received from environmentalists, industry, labor and others at meetings held across the country.

"Input received from the public will help shape the final regulatory refinements that will better protect streams and the public while helping meet America's energy needs," Mali said.

The National Mining Association blasted the proposal, saying the federal agency is vastly underestimating the economic impact.

"OSM's preferred alternative will destroy tens of thousands of coal-related jobs across the country from Appalachia to Alaska and Illinois to Texas with no demonstrated benefit to the environment," the trade group said in a statement. "OSM's own analysis provides a very conservative estimate of jobs that will be eliminated, incomes that will be lost and state revenues that will be foregone at both surface and underground coal mining operations."

The agency has submitted the proposal to several coal producing states for feedback before it releases proposed regulations by the end of February.

The states aren't happy with what they've seen.

They blasted the proposal as "nonsensical and difficult to follow" in a Nov. 23 letter to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement director Joe Pizarchik. The letter was signed by officials from Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

"Neither the environmental impact statement nor the administrative record that OSM has developed over 30-plus year of regulation ... justify the sweeping changes that they're proposing to make," West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection official Thomas Clarke told the Associated Press on Wednesday. "I've had OSM technical people who are concerned with stream impacts and outside contractors for OSM who are subcontractors on the EIS give me their opinion that the whole thing's a bunch of junk."

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said that if thousands of mining jobs could be lost, "then I will do everything in my power to block this wrong-headed proposal.

"Let me be crystal clear: I will fight any proposal from our federal government that poses a threat to our country's energy supply, West Virginia's coal industry, our jobs and our way of life," he said.

Manchin already plans to introduce legislation to curb the powers of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which recently vetoed a permit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had long ago issued for Arch Coal's Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 26, 2011, 06:46:24 PM
Obama's Plan to Admit Mexican Trucks
by Phyllis Schlafly January 21, 2011

Phyllis Schlafly

It is amazing that, with unemployment unacceptably high, the Obama Administration has endorsed a plan that will cost U.S. jobs and make highway driving for Americans more dangerous and less pleasant. Obama wants to admit Mexican trucks to drive on all U.S. highways and roads.

Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, explained what this means: "U.S. truckers would be forced to forfeit their own economic opportunities while companies and drivers from Mexico, free from equivalent regulatory burdens, take over their traffic lanes." We wonder if Mexico has any regulatory standards at all.

Mexican trucks are known to be overweight and lacking in safety regulations we consider essential, such as anti-lock brakes. Mexico doesn't have national databases that track drivers' records, background checks, drug usage, and arrests, and it's known to be easy to get a commercial driver's license with a bribe.

Nevertheless, Obama's Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, has announced he wants to admit Mexican trucks, and he thinks he can appease Congress by presenting on January 6 what he calls a "concept document." It is two pages of bureaucratic pablum that does nothing to assure the safety of Americans on our highways and roads.

Ads are provided by Google and are not
selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
The concept document calls for a "review" of the Mexican carriers' safety program, the driving records of Mexican drivers admitted to the program, and inspection of Mexican trucks for safety and emissions. But the document says nothing about what the standard of review and inspection will be, and whether trucks and drivers who don't pass inspection will be rejected.

Under the concept document, Mexican trucks would be subject to border inspections at the "normal border inspection rate," and subject to inspections within the U.S. "at the same rate as U.S. companies." That doesn't reassure us; the "normal" border inspection rate means that only a few violators will get caught, which the Mexicans will consider just a cost of doing business, and the notion that Mexican drivers need inspection only at the 50 percent U.S. rate is ridiculous.

U.S. law requires truck drivers to speak and understand the English language. The concept document says it will "conduct an English Language Proficiency" test of each Mexican driver, but it doesn't say the Mexican drivers must speak English or pass the test.

We know from the House testimony of the previous Transportation Secretary, Mary Peters, that the Department's policy is to approve Mexican drivers as "English proficient" even when they respond to an examiner's questions in Spanish. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who was conducting the hearing, was so astounded at this answer that he asked Secretary Peters to repeat it.

The concept document contains other provisions about monitoring, inspections, review, and drug and alcohol inspection. But the document contains nothing about requiring Mexican trucks to meet U.S. standards and rejection if they do not.

Mexican trucks have been barred from operating inside the United States since March 2009. They are limited to a border zone where they must then transfer their cargo onto U.S. trucks.

Mexico claims the current ban violates our treaty obligations under NAFTA. That's not true because NAFTA is not a treaty; it was never ratified by two-thirds of Senators as our Constitution requires for a treaty, and is merely a law passed in 1993 by a simple majority vote.

Perhaps the Obama Administration plan to admit Mexican trucks is just a political maneuver. It may be a tactic to reach out to the business community, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and at the same time be a sneaky way to defeat Republican Members of Congress in 2012 by forcing them to vote on the admission of Mexican trucks.

This issue defeated one of our best conservatives in the House, the great track star Jim Ryun (R-KS), who unexpectedly lost his seat in 2006 after voting to admit Mexican trucks. The feminist Democrat who defeated Ryun, Nancy Boyda, then sponsored a bill to ban Mexican trucks, which passed the House by the overwhelming vote of 411 to 3, with the Senate passing a similar bill 75 to 23, votes that are a good indication of popular opinion.

With the drug war in full battle array along our southern border, this is no time to start admitting Mexican trucks. It's a safe bet that many of the trucks will be carrying illegal aliens and illegal drugs.

Another safety problem exists for U.S. trucks that would get access to Mexican roads under this misguided proposal. Trade is supposed to be two-way street, but U.S. drivers don't want to drive into northern Mexico, the most dangerous area in the world because of the ongoing war between drug cartels.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 27, 2011, 10:19:41 AM
Ha ha ha ha - blaming the snow.   

________________________ ____________________--

Initial Jobless Claims in U.S. Rose Last Week to 454,000
By Alex Kowalski - Jan 27, 2011 8:52 AM ET

Applications for jobless benefits increased by 51,000 to 454,000 in the week ended Jan. 22, Labor Department figures showed today. Photographer: Jim R. Bounds/Bloomberg

More Americans than forecast filed first-time claims for unemployment insurance payments last week, indicating it will take time for the labor market to mend.

Applications for jobless benefits increased by 51,000 to 454,000 in the week ended Jan. 22, Labor Department figures showed today. Economists forecast 405,000 claims, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. The number of people on unemployment benefit rolls rose, while those collecting extended payments fell.

A Labor Department official said snow in four southern states in previous weeks created a backlog of claims that were processed last week. While the economy has improved, it hasn’t been enough to reduce an unemployment rate that Federal Reserve policy makers said yesterday is too high and requires pressing ahead with a $600 billion stimulus plan.

“If claims drift higher, we’re just going to have to wait and see, tread water,” Julia Coronado, chief economist for North America at BNP Paribas in New York, said. “We’re creating enough jobs to keep the unemployment rate roughly steady and at a pace to keep the economy on track, but it’s not necessarily a picture of rapid improvement.”

Estimates in the Bloomberg News survey of 52 economists ranged from 375,000 to 428,000, after the Labor Department initially reported claims fell to 404,000 the prior week.

Futures on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index expiring in March fell 0.2 percent to 1,291.70 at 8:47 a.m. in New York. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which moves inversely to price, rose to 3.44 percent from 3.42 percent late yesterday.

Winter Effects

The Labor Department official said winter weather in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina in previous weeks kept people from filing claims. Those unemployed Americans ended up filing last week, boosting the claims number.

“In addition to seasonal volatility, we have this extra effect in the numbers,” the Labor Department official said as the figures were released.

The four-week moving average, a less-volatile measure, rose to 428,750 from 413,000.

The number of people continuing to collect jobless benefits increased by 94,000 in the week ended Jan. 15 to 3.99 million. Economists forecast the number would increase to 3.87 million.

The continuing claims figure does not include the number of workers receiving extended benefits under federal programs.

Those who’ve used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting emergency and extended payments decreased by about 98,000 to 4.62 million in the week ended Jan. 8.

President Barack Obama in December signed into law an $858 billion bill extending for two years tax cuts for all income levels. The measure also continues expanded jobless insurance benefits to the long-term unemployed for 13 months and reduces payroll taxes for workers by two percentage points this year.

Democrats, Republicans

“These steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private- sector jobs created last year,” Obama said this week during the State of the Union address.

The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, rose to 3.2 percent in the week ended Jan. 15, today’s report showed. Fifty states and territories reported a decrease in claims, while three had an increase. These data are reported with a one-week lag.

Initial jobless claims reflect weekly firings and tend to fall as job growth -- measured by the monthly non-farm payrolls report -- accelerates.

Economic expansion in the U.S. is “continuing, though at a rate that has been insufficient to bring about a significant improvement in labor market conditions,” the Federal Open Market Committee said yesterday in its statement after a two-day meeting in Washington.

Unemployment is too high to be consistent in the long run with policy makers’ congressional mandate of full employment, the Fed said, repeating that progress toward its objectives has been “disappointingly slow.”

The labor market gradually improved at the end of last year, with unemployment falling to 9.4 percent in December from 9.8 percent a month earlier, according to Labor Department figures released Jan. 7. The country added 103,000 jobs in December, fewer than economists forecast in a Bloomberg survey.

Company Workforce

Some companies have been shifting the composition of their workforce to meet consumer demand, which probably grew 4 percent in the final three months of last year, according to the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg before the Commerce Department’s first estimate of fourth-quarter growth tomorrow.

Lowe’s Cos., the second-biggest U.S. home-improvement retailer, said this week it plans to eliminate 1,700 middle- management jobs in stores as profit growth trails that of larger Home Depot Inc. At the same time, Mooresville, North Carolina- based Lowe’s plans to add 8,000 to 10,000 weekend sales positions to improve staffing at the chain’s busiest time of the week.

General Motors Co., the largest U.S. automaker, will add a third shift and about 750 jobs to its assembly plant in Flint, Michigan, to meet rising demand for pickups, according to a Jan. 24 statement. The hiring will start in the second quarter, and the additional shift will begin in the third quarter, Detroit- based GM said.

“Adding a third shift is a response to customer demand for heavy-duty pickups, which most people use to tow, haul and plow,” Mark Reuss, president of GM North America, said in the statement. “Equally importantly, it brings jobs and a needed economic boost to the Flint area.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Alexander Kowalski in Washington at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz at

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 01, 2011, 09:51:43 AM

High-Speed Rail, Budget Buster (Almost everywhere it has been constructed, taxpayers lost out)
National Review ^ | 02/01/2011 | Wendell Cox

If the nation is going to reduce its out-of-control spending, the first step is to stop spending money on things we do not need. Despite President Obama’s call in his State of the Union speech for linking 80 percent of the nation by high-speed rail, it is hard to imagine a more unnecessary program.

For example, people who travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco — along the route planned for one of the nation’s first high-speed-rail projects — already have choices. They can fly, drive, take the bus, or travel by train. True, some would prefer to tax their fellow citizens so that they can have another choice, high-speed rail. But indulging this desire would be as legitimate as funding government grocery stores for people who prefer not to shop at their local grocery chains.

Among intercity transport modes, only Amtrak is materially subsidized. User fees pay virtually all the costs of airlines and airports, which (together with connecting ground transportation) link any two points in the nation within a day. The intercity highway system goes everywhere, and nearly all of it was built with user fees paid by drivers, truckers, and bus companies.

High-speed rail is a budget buster. Japan, with the world’s leading system, illustrates the financial devastation that high-speed rail can produce. For 25 years, Japan borrowed to build a system serving the ideal rail corridor, nestled along a single coast with a population of more than 75 million people. Ridership was artificially increased by high gasoline prices and one of the highest highway tolls in the world. Yet this modest system, only twice as long as proposed California system, played a major role in driving up a gargantuan rail debt that was transferred to Japanese taxpayers. The rail debt added more than 10 percent to the national debt. This is akin to adding $1.4 trillion to the U.S. national debt.

Virtually everywhere high-speed rail has been constructed, financial liability has fallen to the taxpayers. In Taiwan and the United Kingdom, taxpayers assumed billions of dollars in private debts for much more modest high-speed-rail systems than Japan’s.

All of this could have been avoided. Through the years, high-speed-rail cost overruns have been well documented. Most recently, research by Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford University, Nils Bruzelius of Stockholm University, and Werner Rothengatter of the University of Karlsruhe (a former president of the influential World Conference on Transportation Research) found that passenger-rail cost overruns above 40 percent were common and that overruns above 80 percent were not uncommon. Overruns can go even higher: On Korea’s high-speed-rail project, they were between 200 and 300 percent, the president of the country’s rail system said.

High-speed-rail cost escalation has reached these shores. Even before the first shovel has been turned, California’s high-speed-rail costs have risen at least 50 percent, inflation adjusted. The cost estimates for the first approved section of the Los Angeles–to–San Francisco line, a “train to nowhere” from Corcoran to Borden, indicate escalation beyond $45 billion.

In Florida, boosters tell taxpayers that their liability for the Tampa to Orlando high-speed-rail line would be only $280 million, and that, somehow, a private bidder will shower additional billions upon them to pay any cost overruns.

Boosters also claim that high-speed rail will provide substantial environmental benefits, reduce highway-traffic congestion, and ease air-traffic congestion. Yet, as Joseph Vranich and I showed in the Reason Foundation’s “Due Diligence” report on California’s high-speed-rail proposal, the cost per ton of greenhouse gas removed would be from $1,900 to $10,000. This is 40 to 250 times what the International Panel on Climate Change research indicates greenhouse-gas removal should cost ($50 per ton). Our estimate does not account for the revised (much lower) ridership projection. Even the rosy reports produced by boosters show that high-speed rail would remove only a small percentage of cars from the roads. The hope of reducing air congestion is just as elusive because travel origins and destinations are so dispersed in the United States and because the number of people forsaking air travel for high-speed rail will be small.

Voters gave the new Republican House of Representatives a mandate to cut spending. Zeroing high-speed rail out of the federal budget may be the litmus test. If Congress fails to stop this costly and unnecessary program, it would call into question the commitment to spending reduction.

— Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public-policy consultancy in St. Louis.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 02, 2011, 01:11:19 PM
Obama: I’ll veto anything that limits EPA greenhouse-gas authority
Hot Air ^ | 2:55 pm on February 2, 2011 | Ed Morrissey

________________________ ________________________ --

How disappointed will Republicans be to hear Barack Obama’s veto threat on bills moving through Congress to rein in the EPA?  Not very.  It isn’t the first time the White House has issued the threat, but with one of the bills coming from his own side of the aisle, it’s starting to sound more like a plea to keep from being put in that position:

The Obama administration Wednesday repeated its threat to veto legislation that would curb its ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said that the White House continues to oppose any efforts from Capitol Hill to hamstring her agency on climate change.

“What has been said from the White House is that the president’s advisors would advise him to veto any legislation that passed that would take away EPA’s greenhouse gas authority,” Jackson told reporters on Capitol Hill. “Nothing has changed.”

EPA’s climate policies came under attack this week when Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) – backed by a host of co-sponsors – rolled out bills Monday to hamstring EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

A separate bill will come Wednesday afternoon from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and the Senate’s top climate skeptic, Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Republicans know that Obama will veto the bill.  His strategy in the next two years will be to consolidate his legislative gains from 2009-10 and to expand his agenda through executive-branch regulatory adventurism.  Despite his supposed rhetorical move to the center — which mainly failed to appear in his State of the Union speech — the EPA remains his one tool to crack down on domestic energy production.

In fact, Republicans are counting on a veto.  They want that strategy to get out into the light, rather than occur through the normally dull process of regulatory expansion.  The veto would only be the third of Obama’s term in office and would shine a bright spotlight on his regulatory expansion.  Having a Democrat write one of these bills gives the effort an even higher profile, as well as make Obama look even more radical.  Democrats that stick with Obama on this issue in the House and especially the Senate will do so at their own electoral peril.

Obama wants to stop Congress from sending him the bill in the first place, which is why he’s issuing the threat.  It’s not likely to work, especially not with red-state Senate Democrats looking at 2012 re-election bids.

Update: Barbara Boxer plans to double down on defiance.  According to The Hill, she wants Congressional hearings on climate-change skepticism:

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is issuing a challenge to skeptics of climate change science: Bring it on.

Boxer said Wednesday that she’s expecting hearings on the issue.

She said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is expected to head the panel’s oversight subcommittee, “is working on getting us going with some hearings.”

“We are going to absolutely look at the science of carbon pollution and its impact on our people, on our planet,” Boxer said at a committee hearing on drinking water safety. “We are absolutely going to keep up with the science.”

Which science?  The science that said snow in Washington DC was a thing of the past?  That the Himalayan glaciers were retreating?  The White House may want to have a chat with Boxer and Whitehouse on the subject of timing.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 04, 2011, 12:17:40 PM
Shell: No Beaufort Sea drilling in Arctic for 2011
Shell cancels 2011 exploration plans in Beaufort Sea, looks to drill exploratory wells in 2012

Shell Alaska Vice President Pete Slaiby speaks at a news conference on Thursday, Feb. 3, 2011, at Shell offices in in Anchorage, Alaska.
Shell Alaska has dropped plans to drill exploratory wells in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year and will concentrate on obtaining permits for the 2012 season, Slaiby said Thursday, Feb. 3, 2011. (AP Photo/Dan Joling)
Dan Joling, Associated Press, On Thursday February 3, 2011, 8:10 pm EST

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Shell Alaska has dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year and will concentrate on obtaining permits for the 2012 season, company Vice President Pete Slaiby said Thursday.

The recent remand of air permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency was the final driver behind the decision, Slaiby said at a news conference.

Alaska receives upward of 90 percent of its general fund revenue from the petroleum industry, and top state officials reacted strongly to the decision. U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, blamed the Obama administration and the EPA.

"Their foot dragging means the loss of another exploration season in Alaska, the loss of nearly 800 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs," Begich said. "That doesn't count the millions of dollars in contracting that won't happen either at a time when our economy needs the investment."

The EPA issued Shell an air permit, but the agency's review board granted an appeal because of limited agency analysis regarding the effect of emissions from drilling ships and support vessels.

Slaiby said the issue is not with the environment but with the process not being satisfied. He said Shell has no air issues with Alaska villages.

"That's coupled with $15 million in improvements we made on these assets to put together what's really a world-class program," he said.

The subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC has invested more than $3 billion in exploration off Alaska's coast since 2005, Slaiby said. The company paid $2.2 billion for leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast that have been challenged.

The company had hoped last year to drill exploration wells during the 2010 open water season in both the Chukchi and the Beaufort but its plans were put on hold by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Salazar suspended applications for permits and has announced no timetable for lifting the suspension, saying the department will take a cautious guided by science and the voices of North Slope communities.

Slaiby in October said Shell would focus on one or two exploratory wells in the Beaufort off Alaska's north coast during the roughly 105-day open water season.

Drilling in Arctic waters is opposed by environmental groups and some Alaska Native groups, who say petroleum companies have not demonstrated an ability to clean up a spill in ice-choked waters. They also say the remote location of drilling sites, the area's notorious inclement weather and the lack of infrastructure, including a deep-water port, would make a cleanup of a major spill nearly impossible.

They also claim drilling will stress marine mammals already being harmed by climate warming and diminishing sea ice, including polar bears, ice-dependent seals and walrus.

Shell has stressed that Arctic drilling would be in water far more shallow than the Macondo well, the site of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, and that the risk of a spill is minimal. The company also said it would position a second drilling ship in Alaska as a safety measure, so if the first drilling ship were crippled by a blowout, the second ship could drill a relief well.

Shell's primary drilling ship has been moved to prospects off New Zealand and the company will look for other ways to use support vessels. The backup drilling ship will remain in Dutch Harbor, a port in the Aleutian Islands, Slaiby said.

Alaska officials have been unwavering in their support for drilling. The trans-Alaska pipeline operates at about one-third capacity, and state officials have looked to offshore sources to keep it viable. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said it was unfathomable that a company could buy federal leases but not get onto them within five years.

"It's also unfathomable that they cannot get an air permit after five years when they can get one in the Gulf of Mexico within months," he said.

Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said actions taken by the Obama administration will result in higher gasoline prices and a loss of jobs and revenue.

"We talk a lot about the economy, but rarely do our actions match our rhetoric," she said. "That's unfortunate."

Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 05, 2011, 01:32:47 PM
Oh lord is this moron clueless

________________________ ______________-

Obama: Businesses have responsibility to help economy grow
The Hill ^ | 2/5/2011 | Jordy Yager

President Obama called on U.S. businesses to do more to help grow the economy, saying that while the unemployment rate is getting better and jobs are being added, the U.S. needs “to get there faster.”

“Businesses have a responsibility, too,” said Obama in his weekly address on Saturday. “If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America. They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages, and invest in the future of this nation. That’s their obligation.”

Obama said he planned to deliver that message to the Chamber of Commerce on Monday, along with his administration’s commitment to work with the powerful business lobby. The White House has negotiated for more than two months about when to hold the meeting with the Chamber, which has come out in opposition to several of Obama’s major policies, such as the healthcare measure and Wall Street reform.

The message is that “government and businesses have mutual responsibilities; and that if we fulfill these obligations together, it benefits us all,” said Obama. “Our workers will succeed. Our nation will prosper. And America will win the future in this century just like we did in the last.”

Obama resounded his push to “win the future” in his Saturday speech, saying that the country needs to “out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build the rest of the world.” The president lauded students and scientists at Penn State University for their research in the field of clean energy, as well as a Maryland window company and a North Carolina lighting company for making profits off of environmentally friendly products.

“All we did for these companies was provide some tax credits and financing opportunities,” said Obama. “And that’s what we want to do going forward, so that it’s profitable for American businesses to sell the discoveries made by the scientists at Penn State and other hubs of innovation.   

“If businesses sell these discoveries – if they start making windows and insulation and buildings that save more energy – they will hire more workers. And that’s how Americans will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future.”

The White House’s continued focus on growing jobs comes as the nation’s latest unemployment numbers were released on Friday. In January, the unemployment rate dropped to 9 percent. It was 9.4 percent in December, and 9.8 percent in November.

Job growth, however, remained more placid, with the economy adding only 36,000 jobs, which is short of expectations and is likely to spur more questions about why the labor market is not improving more rapidly as other economic indicators suggest an improving economy.

After his talk with the Chamber next week, Obama is planning to travel to Marquette, Mich., where he is expected to use the small port city as an example of how access to high-speed broadband Internet has caused local businesses to boom as they increase their international exports.

Obama has called for an increase in access to the “next generation of high-speed wireless coverage” over the next five years.

“This isn't about faster Internet or fewer dropped calls,” Obama said in his State of the Union address earlier this year. “It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age. It's about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world.”

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 07, 2011, 11:20:44 AM
February 07, 2011

 8 Shocking, Funny and Revealing Things Obama Told the Chamber of Commerce

"I'm here in the interest of being more neighborly. Maybe we would have gotten off on a better foot if I had brought over a fruitcake when we first moved in."

"I understand the significance of your obligations to your shareholders. I get it. But as we work with you to make America a better place to do business, ask yourselves what you can do for America."

"I want to put more people to work rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges."

"To make room for these investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure, government also has a responsibility to cut the spending that we just can't afford. That's why I've promised to veto any bill larded up with earmarks"

"We're trying to run the government more like you run your businesses - with better technology and faster services. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America."

"The perils of too much regulation are matched by the dangers of too little"

"If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits can't just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They should be shared by American workers."

"We can create a virtuous cycle."

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2011, 05:16:35 AM
EDITORIAL: Obama to America: Get lost
Sweetheart deal for billionaire could cut off GPS service
The Washington Times
7:10 p.m., Monday, February 7, 2011

FILE - In this file photo made March 12, 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is interviewed at his office in Washington. New rules aimed at prohibiting broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers of Internet traffic now have just enough votes to pass the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2010. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, file)PrintEmailView 6Comment(s)Enlarge

In the past decade, millions have come to depend on the seeming magic of the global positioning system (GPS) to guide them to their destination. The navigational gadgets in cars, cell phones and other hand-held devices can even be a lifesaver. Now the system may be undermined by a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision last month to allow a well-connected company to exploit a slice of the airwaves in a way that potentially blocks GPS signals.

The FCC bent the rules so the Reston-based firm LightSquared could offer a new wireless Internet service that fulfills President Obama‘s high-profile push for public investment in broadband. Yet the FCC appears to have done its best to keep this particular deal far from the public eye. LightSquared made its formal request for a waiver on Nov. 18, and the agency opened a public-comment period the next day. Those with an interest in the matter had just two weeks to comment - a short period that included Thanksgiving.

The haste may be related to surprising laboratory test results from the world’s top manufacturer of navigational gizmos, Garmin Ltd. The company’s engineers found that popular consumer GPS units started experiencing dropouts when approaching within 3.6 miles of a LightSquared transmitter. A commonly used aircraft navigation unit completely lost its fix within 5.6 miles. “It’s mind-boggling to us,” Garmin spokesman Ted Gartner told The Washington Times. “If it’s implemented as is, we’ve presented a pretty good case with that test that there will be some disruptions.”

The concern is shared by the Department of Defense, which launched the first Navstar GPS satellite in 1978 as a tool to improve the effectiveness of the military’s aircraft, ships and missiles in reaching their targets. On Dec. 28, the military asked the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to ask the FCC to slow down. “DoD is concerned with the [order and authorization] being conducted without the proper analysis required to make a well informed decision,” the department’s spectrum policy director wrote in a Dec. 28 letter. The Pentagon wanted the FCC to “defer action” until interference issues were fully addressed.

The FCC ignored the request. According to insiders, the deal was brokered through the office of Chairman Julius Genachowski, who cut the other commissioners out of the process. The fast-paced decision-making was just what venture capitalist Philip Falcone needed to give his reported $3 billion investment in LightSquared a boost in its competition with established players including AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. LightSquared wisely harnessed a former FCC bureau chief to navigate the bureaucratic back channels, and Mr. Falcone’s $38,900 in campaign checks to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee since 2008 - and $2,300 to the House campaign of then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Illinois Democrat - certainly didn’t hurt in bringing the firm’s needs to the Obama administration’s attention.

As it stands, the FCC gave LightSquared until June 15 to issue a report on the GPS problem, which, if approved, would allow the company to begin operations. Given the widespread effects that interruption of GPS service would have on the nation’s commerce, this process needs to slow down and be made more transparent. Otherwise, it might be time to stock up on paper maps.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2011, 08:47:17 AM
Obama Budget Proposes Broader Unemployment Taxes

________________________ ________________________ ________________

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama's budget proposal is expected to give states a way to collect more payroll taxes from businesses, in an effort to replenish the unemployment-insurance program. The plan could cause controversy at a time when the administration is seeking to mend fences with corporate America.

The proposal would aim to restock strained state unemployment-insurance trust funds by raising the amount of wages on which companies must pay unemployment taxes to $15,000, more than double the $7,000 in place since 1983.

The plan, which would take effect in 2014, could increase payroll taxes by as much as $100 billion over a decade, according to a person involved in its construction.

By proposing to enlarge the pool of wages subject to unemployment taxes, the White House appears to be offering states a more politically palatable way to raise revenues than to boost tax rates. States could keep the tax rates they have, or even lower them somewhat, and still raise considerably more revenue than they are raising now.

Real Time Economics
Q&A: How Do Unemployment Taxes Work?
.The unemployment insurance program is a joint federal-state program. The federal unemployment insurance tax rate of 6.2% on the new, larger base would be reduced, so that the U.S. would be taking in no more revenue than it does under the current system, a person familiar with the plan said.

To avoid hitting businesses with a tax increase during the economic recovery, the proposal would delay the new rules until 2014. The plan is expected to be included in Mr. Obama's budget proposal for fiscal 2012, to be released Monday.

Any proposal would need congressional approval.

State governments have had to borrow heavily from the federal government to cover the jobless benefits they provide. States are responsible for the first 26 weeks of benefits, and many have seen their reserve funds wiped out.

More than 40 states raised their unemployment-insurance payroll taxes last year to boost revenues.

The proposal comes as the White House is trying to improve relations with business groups while also pushing them for financial help to shore up the unemployment insurance system, drained by prolonged high joblessness.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill reacted warily. Increasing levies on businesses in the next few years could hit a wall of opposition among Republicans, said one senior G.O.P. tax aide in the Senate. Mr. Obama delivered a speech on Monday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to repair frayed relations with business and offering areas of possible cooperation.

Mr. Obama has promised business an effort to simplify the corporate tax code while lowering the corporate tax rate. Pushing for higher unemployment taxes could reignite tensions.

—Sara Murray contributed to this article.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2011, 09:30:28 AM
Environmentalists Are Killing Jobs And The Economy (WA coal terminal)
Business Insider ^ | February 7, 2011 | Liz Peek

________________________ ___

If President Obama is serious about smoothing the path for U.S. businesses, he should take up reading the newspaper. Not a day goes by that he wouldn’t find opportunities aplenty to unclog our regulatory arteries.

This past Friday was no exception. The issue? A proposed coal terminal on the Columbia River in Washington. A terminal that would facilitate coal shipments to China, thus aiding one of Mr. Obama’s professed goals—ramping up U.S. exports.

Unfortunately, as the Wall Street Journal reported, local environmentalists want the project scuttled. Not because the terminal’s operations would damage Washington State’s air or water quality, but because burning the coal in far-off China might foul the air – there.

Meanwhile, as the green group wrings their hands over emissions in China, U.S. citizens go without a $100 million project, billed as likely to produce 125 construction jobs and 75 permanent jobs, in a region where unemployment exceeds 12%.

This situation is symptomatic of the kind of hurdles that U.S. companies routinely face. It is time to put the needs of our workers ahead of all other considerations – including the gigantic environmental lobby.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 08, 2011, 12:41:38 PM
Why Small Business Isn't Hiring And Won't Be Hiring
oftwominds ^ | 02/08/2011 | Charles Hugh Smith

________________________ ________________________

Pundits and politicos promote a magical myth: a coming small business hiring boom. That fantasy is completely disconnected from the harsh realities of private enterprise.

Regardless of their ideological persuasion, pundits and politicos reliably repeat the mantra that "small business is the engine of jobs growth." The mantra is followed by the pundit-politico's belief that a "small business jobs boom is right around the corner."

I have news for the pundits and politicos: ain't gonna happen. Why? The answer cannot be found in the manipulated and massaged Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers (have any real jobs been created, net of jobs lost, in the past year? Who knows?) or in the punditry's Cargo-Cult-like belief in a mythical "small business jobs machine" that they have never experienced and know nothing about.

While a handful of the new crop of politicos are entrepreneurs, most Washington denizens are attorneys, the offspring of wealthy or politically connected families or people who have lived off the government at some level their entire lives. Most have never had a customer or client or had to borrow off a credit card to make payroll. (I have; any pundits who can honestly raise their hands for that one?)

Pundits come in two flavors: the academics, happily making mud pies in the moat surrounding their secure Ivory Tower, and the loud-mouths who have screeched louder and longer than the other media-monkeys. All know less than zero about actual small business.

To understand why small business isn't hiring and won't be hiring, you need to understand the psychology of this era and the systemic pressures on all small businesses which don't live off Federal government contracts. In a very powerful sense, those businesses which live from one government contract to the next are not private businesses at all: they are merely proxies or extensions of the government. Their non-governmental work is either trivial or non-existent.

So when some government set-aside program sanctions $40 million or whatever for "small business," it's no different than opening another government office: the only difference is the employees are not Civil Service. The competition is not between private-sector and government, it's only between rival government contractors.

What pundits and politicos don't get is small business knows the "recovery" is totally bogus. Why hire somebody who you'll have to lay off a few months from now? Laying people off is emotionally painful--you dread it, tire of it, are wearied by it. This is a real human being who is losing their job, not some ginned-up statistic hyped by some think-tank-pundit pulling down $15K a month for dishing whatever flavor of propaganda he/she is paid to churn out.

The Washington establishment--the Fed, the Treasury, Congress, the Obama Administration-- seem to believe they've successfully pulled the propaganda wool over Americans' eyes, and that the yokels actually believe "things are getting better and better every day and in every way."

Only the yokels without clients, customers and payrolls can believe the propaganda.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, small business income is down 5%. Small Business: Still Waiting for Recovery.

According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Proprietors' income-- the profits of unincorporated businesses such as partnerships or individuals who work for themselves--is down nearly 5 percent from two years ago, while corporate profits have jumped 21 percent in that period.

About 19.9 million partnerships and sole proprietorships with no employees existed in 2008, the latest year for which U.S. Census Bureau data are available. That number fell almost 2 percent from the previous year.

In a private-sector workforce of about 106 million, that's about 19% of all people with a job. Recall that the BLS counts you as employed if you work one hour a week or if you're "self-employed," even if you aren't making a dime.

Only in the Fantasyland of propaganda does nobody notice that self-employed people who are seeing revenues and profits fall do not need to hire someone: they're sinking all on their own.

Only in the Fantasyland of propaganda does nobody seem to notice that for every celebrity-chef restaurant opening to gushing hype in Manahattan, West L.A. or San Francisco, two other restaurants quietly closed.

Small business understands uncertainty is now permanent. That's why 26% of all new private-sector hires are temporary--and if we subtract the bogus phantom jobs created by the BLS "birth-death model," then the number is probably more like a third or even half.

Small business understands that the "recovery" is merely a Federal towel stuffed in the gaping hole in the rowboat's leaky planks, and that it's literally insane to hire workers when your revenues could evaporate next month.

Small business re-discovered it could do more with less. Once businesses trimmed payrolls to survive, they discovered they could make more money for themselves and do so with fewer people. Why add to staff when all that means is transferring your own paycheck to someone else?

Small businesses are closing, not opening. Rents have barely dipped, local government taxes and junk fees have skyrocketed, and the complexities and costs of the new healthcare bill have all added systemic pressures on every small business: it's either adapt quickly and successfully or perish, and many are choosing to close down and quit working so hard for so little payoff.

When leases expire, the doors close, and no one leaps in to pay boomtime-level rents, and heavy business licence and permit fees. The only people insane enough to hire anyone are three guys working in a living room somewhere, trying to hire a few Javascript programmers to finish their app so they can cash out by selling the "company" to some larger enterprise.

The programmers are independent contractors who have to take care of their own healthcare and taxes, or they're young and single so the healthcare insurance costs are modest--if they even bother with buying insurance.

Nobody's hiring for the long-term for the simple reason that there is no long-term: we're either selling the company as soon as we can, or we're waiting for the next dip in revenues to close down before we lose everything.

Local government has grown accustomed to small business being uncomplaining tax-donkeys, silently paying every junk fee and every additional tax the government levies. Only a funny thing happened on the way to local government's plan to fill the shortfalls in its own revenues by taxing small businesses even more: they're closing down.

The reason is simple: why work for free? This is incomprehensible to both local governments, who expect all those "filthy-rich small-business Capitalists" to pay higher taxes and fees, and the safely remote-from-the-real-world pundits and politicos.

These members of the academia-think-tank-media-politico Cargo Cult have a magical belief in a mythical "small business" which is anxious to get out there and create new jobs because "to get rich is glorious," as if "getting rich" is even an option for 90% of real small businesses.

In the real world, small businesses aren't getting rich, they're going broke and closing down to save whatever remains of their sanity and assets. You want high-tech and "clean energy" jobs? Well, how about MySpace laying off half its 1,000-person staff? How about Evergreen Solar closing its Devens, MA plant, laying off 800 workers and moving production to China? Did the pundits honestly think that globalization was over?

Memo to pundits and politicos: you worship at the altar of Capitalist profits driving small business--get real. People will do whatever they have to in order not to go broke.

That's why the three guys or gals aren't renting an office--who needs the overhead? They also don't have health insurance: who can afford $1,000 a month for crappy, confusing "care" young people rarely even need? Better to pay cash.

And they aren't hiring "employees": they're paying their friends with equity shares, or cash, and paying their own taxes is up to each free-lancer.

That is the new model of American entrepreneurship: no office, no overhead, no employees, no health insurance, no business travel. That's the only way any new enterprise can survive.

Everyone who buys into the myth and pays absurdly high rents, junk fees and healthcare insurance will be ground down and bled dry. The only exception are those well-connected enough to run a pipe into the limitless lake of Federal money. Yes, 40% of the lake is borrowed from our kids, but no matter--the "recovery" is real, and this stone with a crudely painted radio dial is in fact a working radio. It's magic. You just have to believe.

Small business can't afford to believe in myths and fantasies. They are dealing with the harsh reality of adapt or die.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 10, 2011, 04:02:58 PM
CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers
Jeffrey H. Anderson
February 10, 2011 2:37 PM

Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000. Here are excerpts from the exchange:

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...


Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we'll -- and Dr. Elmendorf -- and we'll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to -- before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe -- or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there's 160 million full-time people working in '20-'21.  That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21. Is that correct?

Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that...employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade.  Half a percent of that is 800,000.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 12, 2011, 07:14:14 AM
Ex-Shell Head Says Energy Policies Choke Economy
by  Heather Caygle
Houston Chronicle 2/11/2011


Former Shell Oil Co. president John Hofmeister said that the Obama administration's energy policies and regulations are strangling the U.S. economy and preventing the country from decreasing its dependence on foreign oil.

Testifying before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, the Houston businessman blamed the administration for restricting offshore drilling after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

"I believe that the decline" in drilling in the Gulf of Mexico "will be sharper and deeper than what anyone is currently projecting," he told lawmakers. "We have made a horrible error as a country."

Hofmeister was one of six energy experts testifying about the effect of Middle East political unrest, including the ongoing protests in Egypt, on the U.S. oil market. The panelists presented a gloomy view of the America's energy future if restrictions on domestic production remain. The Obama administration lifted a moratorium on deep-water drilling in October, but the government has not approved any projects that would have been blocked by that ban.

"We have a real strangulation by regulation taking place for domestic production at the current time in this country," Hofmeister said.

"It is "absolutely critical to reduce dependence on the Middle East," he said. â??He â??said, for example, that if oil tanker traffic were shut down in the Strait of Hormuz, the price of crude would double or even triple rapidly. Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, said last year's deep-water moratorium and "endless permitting delays" already have affected production.

Some Democratic committee members said the U.S. should focus more on alternative energy and efficiency.

"The bottom line here is we can't afford to not improve the fuel economy standards for the vehicles which we drive," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. "That is our No. 1 weapon against the Middle East."

Copyright (c) 2011, Houston Chronicle

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 12, 2011, 07:46:48 AM

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2011, 05:13:18 AM
White House Expects Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion (Obama continues spending at record pace)
wall street journal ^ | 2/14/2011 | DAMIAN PALETTA and COREY BOLES

The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.

The projected deficit for 2011 is fueled in part by a tax-cut extension that President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers brokered in December, two senior administration officials said. It would equal 10.9% of gross domestic product, the largest deficit as a share of the economy since World War II.

The new estimate is part of Mr. Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012, which becomes public Monday morning.

Mr. Obama is proposing $3.73 trillion in government spending in the next fiscal year, part of a plan that includes budget cuts and tax increases that administration officials believe will sharply bring down the federal deficit over 10 years.

The deficit would decline in fiscal year 2012 to $1.1 trillion, or 7% of gross domestic product, under Mr. Obama's plan, as a year-long payroll tax holiday and an extension of federal jobless benefits expired, administration officials said. By 2017, the budget plan says, the deficit would be shaved to $627 billion, or 3% of gross domestic product.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2011, 05:51:58 AM
Geithner Tells Obama Debt Expense to Increase to Record
By Daniel Kruger and Liz Capo McCormick - Feb 14, 2011

Barack Obama may lose the advantage of low borrowing costs as the U.S. Treasury Department says what it pays to service the national debt is poised to triple amid record budget deficits.

Interest expense will rise to 3.1 percent of gross domestic product by 2016, from 1.3 percent in 2010 with the government forecast to run cumulative deficits of more than $4 trillion through the end of 2015, according to page 23 of a 24-page presentation made to a 13-member committee of bond dealers and investors that meet quarterly with Treasury officials.

While some of the lowest borrowing costs on record have helped the economy recover from its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, bond yields are now rising as growth resumes. Net interest expense will triple to an all-time high of $554 billion in 2015 from $185 billion in 2010, according to the Obama administration’s adjusted 2011 budget.

“It’s a slow train wreck coming and we all know it’s going to happen,” said Bret Barker, an interest-rate analyst at Los Angeles-based TCW Group Inc., which manages about $115 billion in assets. “It’s just a question of whether we want to deal with it. There are huge structural changes that have to go on with this economy.”

The amount of marketable U.S. government debt outstanding has risen to $8.96 trillion from $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008, according to the Treasury Department. Debt-service costs will climb to 82 percent of the $757 billion shortfall projected for 2016 from about 12 percent in last year’s deficit, according to the budget projections.

Budget Proposal

That compares with 69 percent for Portugal, whose bonds have plummeted on speculation it may need to be bailed out by the European Union and International Monetary Fund.

Forecasts of higher interest expenses raises the pressure on Obama to plan for trimming the deficit. The President, who has called for a five-year freeze on discretionary spending other than national security, is scheduled to release his proposed fiscal 2012 budget today as his administration and Congress negotiate boosting the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

“If government debt and deficits were actually to grow at the pace envisioned, the economic and financial effects would be severe,” Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told the House Budget Committee Feb. 9. “Sustained high rates of government borrowing would both drain funds away from private investment and increase our debt to foreigners, with adverse long-run effects on U.S. output, incomes, and standards of living.”

Yield Forecasts
Treasuries lost 2.67 percent last quarter, even after reinvested interest, and are down 1.54 percent this year, Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show. Yields rose last week to an average of 2.19 percent for all maturities from 2010’s low of 1.30 percent on Nov. 4.

The yield on benchmark 10-year Treasury note will climb to 4.25 by the end of the second quarter of 2012, from 3.63 percent last week, according to the median estimate of 51 economists and strategists surveyed by Bloomberg News. The rate was 3.64 percent at 7:50 a.m. today in New York. The economy will grow 3.2 percent in 2011, the fastest pace since 2004, according to another poll.

“People are starting to come to the conclusion that you’ve got a self-sustaining recovery going on here,” said Thomas Girard who helps manage $133 billion in fixed income at New York Life Investment Management in New York. “When interest rates start to go back up because of the normal business cycle, debt service costs have the potential to just skyrocket. Every day that we don’t address this in a meaningful way it gets more and more dangerous.”

‘Kind of Disruption’
While yields on the benchmark 10-year note are up, they remain below the average of 4.14 percent over the past decade as Europe’s debt crisis bolsters investor demand for safer assets, Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show.

“The market is still giving the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt,” said Eric Pellicciaro, New York-based head of global rates investments at BlackRock Inc., which manages about $3.56 trillion in assets. “What we’re concerned with is whether the budget will only be corrected after the market has tested them. Will we need some kind of disruption within the bond market before they’ll actually do anything.”

Still, U.S. spending on debt service accounts for 1.7 percent of its GDP compared with 2.5 percent for Germany, 2.6 percent for the United Kingdom and a median of 1.2 percent for AAA rated sovereign issuers, according to a study by Standard & Poor’s published Dec. 24. Among AA rated nations, China’s ratio is 0.4 percent, while Japan’s is 2.9 percent, and for BBB rated countries, Mexico devotes 1.7 percent of its output to debt service and Brazil 5.2 percent, the report shows.

Auction Demand
Demand for Treasuries remains close to record levels at government debt auctions. Investors bid $3.04 for each dollar of bonds sold in the government’s $178 billion of auctions last month, the most since September, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Indirect bidders, a group that includes foreign central banks, bought a record 71 percent, or $17 billion of the $24 billion in 10-year notes offered on Feb. 9.

Foreign holdings of Treasuries have increased 18 percent to $4.35 trillion through November. China, the largest overseas holder, has increased its stake by 0.1 percent to $895.6 billion, and Japan, the second largest, boosted its by 14.6 percent to $877.2 billion.

‘Killing Itself’
“China cannot dump Treasuries without killing itself,” said Michael Cheah, who oversees $2 billion in bonds at SunAmerica Asset Management in Jersey City, New Jersey. “They’re holding Treasuries as a means to an end,” said Cheah, who worked at the Singapore Monetary Authority from 1982 through 1999, and now teaches finance classes at New York University and at Chinese universities. “It’s part of what’s needed to promote exports.”

At least some of the increase in interest expense is related to an effort by the Treasury to extend the average maturity of its debt when rates are relatively low by selling more long-term bonds, which have higher yields than short-term notes. The average life of the U.S. debt is 59 months, up from 49.4 months in March 2009. That was the lowest since 1984.

The U.S. produced four budget surpluses from 1998 through 2001, the first since 1969, as the expanding economy, declining rates and a boom in stock prices combined to swell tax receipts.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the strain of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the cost of funding wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the collapse in home prices and the subsequent recession and financial crisis has led to the three largest deficits in dollar terms on record, totaling $3.17 trillion the past three years.

‘Demonstrates Confidence’
The U.S. needs to manage its spending decisions “in a way that demonstrates confidence to investors so we can bring down our long-term fiscal deficits, because if we don’t do that, it’s going to hurt future growth,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in Washington on Feb. 9.

The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from firms ranging from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Soros Fund Management LLC, expressed concern in the Feb. 1 report that the U.S. is exposing itself to the risk that demand erodes unless it cultivates more domestic demand.

“A more diversified debt holder base would prepare the Treasury for a potential decline in foreign participation,” the report said.

Foreign investors held 49.7 percent of the $8.75 trillion of public Treasury debt outstanding as of November, down from as high as 55.7 percent in April 2008 after the collapse of Bear Stearns Cos., according to Treasury data.

Potential Demand
The committee projects there may be $2.4 trillion in latent demand for Treasuries from banks, insurance companies and pension funds as well as individual investors. New securities with maturities as long as 100 years, as well as callable Treasuries or bonds whose principal is linked to the growth of the economy might entice potential lenders, the report said.

“They are opening up a can of worms with the idea of all these other instruments,” said Tom di Galoma, head of U.S. rates trading at Guggenheim Partners LLC, a New York-based brokerage for institutional investors. “They should try to keep the Treasury issuance as simple as possible. The more issuance you have in particular issue, the more people will trade them -- whether it be domestic or foreign investors.”

White House Budget Director Jacob Lew said the Obama administration’s 2012 budget would save $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years by cutting programs to rein in a deficit that may reach a record $1.5 trillion this year.

‘Roll-Over Risk’
“We have to start living within our means,” Lew said yesterday on CNN’s “State of the Union” program.

Still, about $4.5 trillion, or 63 percent of the $7.2 trillion in public Treasury coupon debt, needs to be refinanced by 2016. That gives the government a narrowing window as growing interest expense will curtail its ability to spend.

“There is roll-over risk,” said James Caron, head of U.S. interest-rate strategy at Morgan Stanley in New York, one of 20 primary dealers that trade with the Fed. “It’s a vicious cycle.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Daniel Kruger in New York at; Liz Capo McCormick in New York at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dave Liedtka at

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2011, 07:50:20 AM
Seahawk Drilling seeks bankruptcy, to sell assets
Posted 1d 17h ago |
 8 |  2ShareHOUSTON (AP) — Seahawk Drilling Inc. said it has filed for bankruptcy protection and plans to sell its fleet of offshore drilling rigs to a competitor for $105 million.

Seahawk Drilling Inc. plans to sell its fleet of offshore oil rigs, boats and other equipment to a competitor for $105 million as part of a bankruptcy filing.

Seahawk, which announced the deal with Hercules Offshore Inc. Friday, has been hurt by a slowdown in Gulf of Mexico drilling after the BP oil spill last April. The government halted drilling in deep waters and imposed tough new rules that have curtained all energy exploration in U.S. waters.

Seahawk owns a fleet of 20 jackup rigs for shallow water exploration, while Hercules owns 30 rigs, vessels and other equipment. It also provides drilling services. The deal creates a larger company with a more diverse fleet and greater operational flexibility, Seahawk said.

Both companies are based in Houston.

Hercules Offshore plans to buy Seahawk's assets using 22.3 million shares of its stock, $25 million in cash to retire Seahawk debt and additional cash for working capital. The Feb. 10 closing price of $3.62 per share for Hercules' stock brings the deal's value to $105 million.

The sale will be carried out under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Seahawk will seek expedited hearings for court approval of the deal, which is expected to close in the second quarter.

If the bankruptcy plan is approved by the court and regulators, Seahawk will cease operations as an independent company. It's unclear what will happen to the company's 494 employees, spokesman Thomas Becker said. Of Seahawk's 20 drilling rigs, seven are now deployed on projects, he said.

Seahawk said it has obtained a $35 million credit facility to help fund operations until the deal closes.

In November, Seahawk said it was considering a merger or asset sales to bolster shareholder return following the drilling slowdown. It reported a third-quarter loss and sharply lower revenues.

Shares of the company rose 43 cents, or 5.4%, to close Friday at $7.90. They lost $3.90 in after-market trading, however. Shares have traded in a range of $6.79 and $23.07 in the past year.

Hercules shares were unchanged Friday at $3.62. They gained 14 cents in after-market trading.

Seahawk was spun off from Pride International Inc. in August 2009.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

________________________ ________________________ _______

Great Job Obama - you communist C$%T

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2011, 09:03:18 AM
QE2 Bitches! 

________________________ __________

Clothing prices to rise 10 pct starting in spring
AP via Yahoo News ^ | 2/14/2011 | ANNE D'INNOCENZIO

NEW YORK – The era of falling clothing prices is ending.


Clothing prices are expected to rise about 10 percent in coming months, with the biggest increases coming in the second half of the year, said Burt Flickinger III president of Strategic Resource Group.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2011, 11:58:44 AM
Obama budget could boost fees on airline tickets
Associated Press ^ | DAVID KOENIG

________________________ ________________________ --

Airline travelers would pay more to help finance airport projects under President Barack Obama's budget plan.

The president's budget released Monday would raise the "passenger facility charge" to $7 from $4.50 per flight to offset cuts in airport grants.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2011, 01:06:16 PM
Obama Budget Doubles National Debt to $26.3 Trillion in 10 Years ^ | February 14, 2011 | Matt Cover

( – If the federal budget released by President Barack Obama today is implemented, it will double the national debt over the next 10 years. The current national debt is $13.56 trillion (end of FY 2010). By the end of 2021, that debt would rise to $26.3 trillion under the White House budget.

The figures reflect the effects of Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget priorities, particularly a federal deficit that never falls below $500 billion in any year between 2010 and 2021.

The national debt – both debt held by the public and debt held by “government accounts” (the Social Security trust fund chief among them) – was $13.56 trillion on Sept. 30. 2010, the end of fiscal year 2010. (The national debt today, Deb. 14, 2011, is $14.08 trillion.)

In 2021, the national debt will have risen to $26.3 trillion, increasing by $1 trillion every year until 2021. Obama’s budget does not contain any plans for balancing the federal budget or reducing the national debt.

(The national debt figures used by the Obama administration are on p. 203 of the budget, Table S-14, released today. )

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2011, 01:23:13 PM

Obama's FY2012 Budget:
Taxes, Taxes, and More Taxes
From Ryan Ellis on Monday, February 14, 2011 12:00 PM

President Obama released his budget this morning.  Rather than focusing on Washington’s over-spending problem, the budget calls for higher taxes on families and small businesses to pay for even more government spending.  Under the Obama budget, tax revenues will grow from 14.4% of GDP in 2011 to 20% of GDP in 2021.  By comparison, the historical average is only 18% of GDP.

Tax hike lowlights include:

•Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%.  This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike

•Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%

•Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million.  This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike

•Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate.  This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses.  A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more.  This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike

•New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years

•New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years

•New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years

•Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years

•Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years

•Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income.  This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years

•A giveaway to the trial lawyers—not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement.  This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years

•Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing.  This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.

Add it all together, and this budget is a ten-year, $1.5 trillion tax hike over present law.  That’s $1.5 trillion taken out of the economy and spent on government instead of being used to create jobs.

The “tax relief” in the budget is mostly just an extension of present law, and also some refundable credit outlay spending in the tax code.  There is virtually no new tax relief relative to present law in the President’s budget.

PDF Version

Permalink | Email | Print | Tags: TAXES, OBAMA, BUDGET

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 14, 2011, 02:23:33 PM
White House proposes new oil and gas taxes
Fuel Fix ^ | February 14, 2011 at 2:08 pm | Jennifer Dlouhy

________________________ ______________________-

The White House is hoping the third time is the charm as it again asks Congress to raise tens of billions of dollars for federal coffers by slashing a raft of tax incentives long enjoyed by oil and gas companies.

But just as in the past two years, President Barack Obama’s appeal is almost certainly dead on arrival on Capitol Hill.

Obama is taking aim at the oil and gas tax incentives in his budget proposal for the 2012 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. According to the administration, doing away with eight “oil and gas preferences” would generate $3.5 billion in fiscal 2012 and $43.6 billion over the next decade.

Other proposed changes to the way companies can get credit for foreign taxes, the planned reinstatement of Superfund taxes to pay for cleaning up contaminated industrial sites and possible new fees for oil and gas drilling could cost another $2 billion in fiscal 2012.

Oil and gas industry leaders today said the administration’s plan is shortsighted, because any immediate gains in tax revenue would be offset by longer-term losses, as the changes make more wells uneconomic to produce and discourage exploration.

“The increases, over the long term, would actually lower revenue to the government by many billions of dollars as a result of foregone revenues from projects the tax hikes would prevent going forward,” said American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard.

Barry Russell, president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said that “lost capital investment due to increased taxes will reduce these tax payments over time, not increase them.”

Although Obama has cast his proposal as a way to cut tax breaks for “Big Oil,” Russell said “small, independent energy producers” would bear a big burden. He said the administration’s budget plan “goes after the thousands of small businesses (that are) America’s independent oil and natural gas producers.”

Obama telegraphed his tax plan in the State of the Union speech, when he told lawmakers and a national audience that tax incentives for oil, natural gas and coal should be replaced by spending to promote the development and deployment of “clean energy” technology.

“Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s,” Obama said. After all, he added, oil companies are “doing just fine on their own.”

The White House is seeking to roll back a deduction that mineral right owners can take for the value of oil and gas removed from their property. Industry leaders say the percentage depletion deduction is essential to sustaining small, barely economic wells. But the administration says eliminating the tax policy would raise $607 million in fiscal 2012.

Another target for elimination is a 97-year-old deduction for intangible drilling costs such as expenses for fuel, hauling supplies and preparing sites. Companies now have the option of deducting the expenses the year they occur or over a five-year period, but if the provision were repealed, the costs would have to be capitalized and depreciated over a longer time frame.

By getting rid of the IDC deduction, Congress would send an estimated $1.9 billion to the U.S. treasury in fiscal 2012 — and an estimated $12.5 billion over the next decade.

Industry advocates argue that eliminating the IDC deduction would dry up capital needed to finance new wells.

The administration also wants Congress to change the way companies can get credit for foreign levies — such as petroleum income taxes — that they pay in exchange for some “economic benefit,” including access to a country’s reserves. The White House plan would block companies from taking a credit on their U.S. returns for what they pay in foreign levies above the general tax rate in those countries — a change that would raise an estimated $532 million in fiscal 2012.

Although the change would apply to all dual-capacity taxpayers, it would mostly affect oil and gas companies that pay a higher tax than general businesses in Norway, Nigeria, the United Kingdom and other countries.

Obama is also asking Congress to boost by one cent the per barrel fee that gets paid into an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund established after the Exxon Valdez disaster. According to the administration, the change would raise an estimated $451 million over from fiscal 2012 through 2021.

Separately, the White House is asking Congress to nearly halve the federal Low Income Home Energy Program and cut it to roughly $2.6 billon in fiscal 2012. The administration’s request is already turning off lawmakers in the Northeast, where households rely on the prices to offset high home heating oil and gas bills. The American Gas Association also opposes cuts to LIHEAP.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said he would be fighting cuts in LIHEAP funding that he said could leave more than 3 million families without help paying heating bills.

“The president recognizes that we don’t need to provide 100 year-old tax breaks to oil companies so they can sell $100 per barrel oil and make more than $100 billion per year,” Markey said. “We should be helping our nation’s poorest citizens by fully funding low-income heating assistance programs — not shareholder assistance programs for oil company executives.”

Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, said the administration’s proposed taxes would “drive up the cost of gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, jet fuel and petrochemicals – hurting every American consumer and every American business.”

The proposal “would weaken America’s oil production, refining and petrochemical industries, would increase our reliance on foreign nations, would send more American jobs and more American dollars to our competitors abroad and would increase unemployment here at home,” Drevna added.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2011, 05:47:02 AM
Obama Delivers Catastrophic New Budget, Then Declares That Government Must “Live Within It’s Means”
The Patriot Statesman ^ | 2-14-2011 | Aaron Mattews

________________________ ________________________ _____________

On the most critical issue of his presidency – the long-term fiscal sustainability of the United States, Barack Obama just voted “present”.

Today Obama delivered a mind numbing budget that includes $26.3 trillion in NEW debt over the next decade. 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP – the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached. On top of this, Obama plans on strapping our families with a ten-year, $1.5 trillion tax hike.

Jake Tapper of ABC stated today that “At no point in the president’s 10-year projection would the U.S. government spend less than it’s taking in….The plan shows that Obama will not take the lead on any aggressive measure to eliminate the nation’s $14 trillion debt.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

________________________ ________________________ __________-

What a frigging asshole this maddoff POTUS is.   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2011, 06:48:23 AM
Shahien Nasiripour
HuffPost Reporting
Obama's Small Business Plan To Come Up Short, White House Concedes
Centerpiece Of Obama's Small Business Plan Likely To Fall Short, Administration Concedes
First Posted: 02/14/11 09:46 PM Updated: 02/15/11 09:06 AM

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _________

 NEW YORK -- After spending much of last year relentlessly touting the benefits of a proposed $30 billion fund that would jumpstart bank lending to small businesses, the Obama administration forecasts the initiative will fall far short, spending just a little over half of the intended allotment, according to the White House's spending plan for 2012.

The proposal, known as the Small Business Lending Fund, originally would have taken $30 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and diverted it to smaller banks. The move was supposed to stimulate lending by lowering the cost of funds as loan totals rise. The more a bank lends, the cheaper the funds become.

The program has faced an uphill climb. Banks are wary of taking government funds for fear of after-the-fact program changes; demand for loans remains tepid; and there's no guarantee banks would lend the money once they receive it.

The White House spending plan for next year reflects those challenges.

The administration projects it will allocate just $17.4 billion of the funds, or just 58 percent of its original goal. All of the money will be disbursed by Sept. 30, according to Treasury Department projections released Monday.

The proposal was a centerpiece of the administration's pre-election plans to boost small businesses, which have been among the hardest-hit sectors since the onset of the financial crisis.

Unlike large corporations, small businesses don't have access to the capital markets. They don't issue debt to investors nor do they raise capital on stock exchanges. Instead, they rely on banks for their funding. Small community lenders and regional banks are their primary source of credit.

Story continues below
AdvertisementBut bank lending froze as consumer spending fell, business investment slowed and banks faced growing losses on bad loans.

Inside the Treasury Department, a small team worked to counter the slowdown. By January of last year, Obama was able to pitch the plan that would help smaller firms get credit and help stabilize small lenders.

The plan was to inject taxpayer funds into community banks in hopes they'd lend it to small businesses. It worked like TARP: Banks borrow cash from Treasury, and pay a small fee for the privilege. The program, though, was limited to banks with less than $10 billion in assets.

Republican critics derided it as "TARP 2.0," or a reincarnation of the deeply unpopular bank bailout. In fact, banks in TARP can refinance out of the program and into this new one, escaping the restrictions that accompanied TARP like limits on executive compensation.

Administration officials and Democrats in Congress, though, pitched it as much-needed help for small businesses.

The administration spent nine months pounding Republicans for their objections to the proposal. Last September, a little over a month to the election, Obama signed it into law.

During a speech last March to economists in Washington, Christina D. Romer, the then-chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said the $30 billion fund "will translate into several times that amount of additional lending and could help create hundreds of thousands of new jobs."

Based on administration projections released Monday, it's unclear whether the fund will achieve its original objectives.

The White House declined to comment.

Officials insist they have $30 billion to lend. The Treasury Department is in the midst of trying to sign up banks for the fund, but bankers have said they're reluctant to accept any more taxpayer money.

Meanwhile, the government watchdog overseeing the bailout, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said earlier this month it would immediately audit the program.

Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2011, 08:32:23 AM
January Retail Sales: The "Real" Consumer Economy Remains In Depression
DShort ^ | 2-15-2011 | Doug Short

January Retail Sales: The "Real" Consumer Economy Remains In Depression

February 15, 2011
Doug Short - monthly update

The February 2011 Advance Monthly Sales for Retail Trade and Food Services Report for January was released this morning. Here is the opening paragraph of the report

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that advance estimates of U.S. retail and food services sales for January, adjusted for seasonal variation and holiday and trading-day differences, but not for price changes, were $381.6 billion, an increase of 0.3 percent (±0.5%)* from the previous month, and 7.8 percent (±0.7%) above January 2010. Total sales for the November 2010 through January 2011 period were up 7.6 percent (±0.5%) from the same period a year ago. The November to December 2010 percent change was revised from +0.6 percent (±0.5%) to +0.5 percent (±0.3%). * The 90 percent confidence interval includes zero. The Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different than zero.

The 0.3% number is disappointing. The consensus estimate was 0.5% and its own estimate was 0.7%.

The chart below shows the complete data series from 1992, when the U.S. Census Bureau began tracking the data. I've highlighted recessions and the approximate range of two major economic episodes that have impacted consumer attitudes. The Tech Crash that began in the spring of 2000 had little impact on consumption. The Financial Crisis of 2008 has had a major impact. The January retail sales take us in nominal terms a mere 0.4% above the previous high of November 2007.


(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Where is Obama Leading Us? (How to define Obama in the upcoming budget showdown)
NRO ^ | 2/15/2011 | Stanley Kurtz

________________________ ________________________ ___________

Obama’s clever budget proposal has won him the advantage in the coming political showdown. Democratic grousing over limited cuts to discretionary spending will be used to paint the president as a fiscally responsible moderate. The Republican plan will be demonized as a heartless assault on the poor and elderly. Obama will do everything short of sending out an engraved invitation to provoke a GOP-led government shutdown. Whether or not the confrontation goes nuclear, Obama will enjoy the sort of upper hand Clinton had over Gingrich fifteen years ago.

Granted, the coming entitlement meltdown is a far greater threat than anything America faced in 1995. And despite Gingrich’s 1994 victory, there was nothing comparable to the Tea Party in those days. Even so, as the battle is shaping up, Obama is slated to win. The country as a whole fails to grasp the magnitude of the coming fiscal crisis. Advantage, Obama. What to do?

The answer, I think, is to tell a (true) story about Obama’s long-term aims and intentions. If the word socialism makes you uncomfortable, try “unaffordable Euro-style welfare state.” Obama is not Bill Clinton, and highlighting that fact is the best way to prevent Obama from assuming the mantle of triangulation. Obama wants to win a shut-down battle, but without “ending welfare as we know it.” In fact, Obama has already gone a far piece down the road of resuscitating and expanding the pre-Clinton welfare state. His budget largely preserves (“freezes”) that achievement. Without filling in the ideological commitments and long-term plans Obama so prudently declines to avow, the GOP will lose this battle.

Tea Party moxie and the shellacking notwithstanding, the GOP establishment remains reluctant to highlight Obama’s radicalism. I understand the reasons for this, and they are by no means trivial. While Obama’s policies are opposed by many, he remains personally popular. It seems disrespectful to attribute an ideology to the president that he himself won’t own up to. Words like “radical,” much less “socialist,” sound impolite. Yet, without defining the president in a way that happens to be not only politically advantageous, but true, I doubt Obama can be stopped. Telling the truth about this president is how we shellacked him to begin with.

Silly theories like birtherism and the notion that Obama is a committed Muslim have been amplified by a mainstream media eager to discredit legitimate assessments of the president’s transformative ambitions. Nonsensical arguments offered up by the left in the aftermath of Tucson have been used to shut down perfectly fair criticisms of the president.

Obama gains immensely by fudging or simply keeping silent about his ideological commitments and long-term plans. (The imaginary ten-year out projections in the current budget, of course, are a cover for next year’s expansion of government and do not represent the president’s actual long-term plans.) Obama’s every tactical feint to the center frightens a left which will not desert him, but whose criticism makes him seem moderate. Meanwhile, conservatives look disrespectful for filling in the blanks. Even so, that is the way to win. The real disrespect, of course, is Obama’s failure to own up to his own ideology. Yet Republicans have retreated of late from attempts to (accurately) define the president. That is a recipe for failure.

It will not do to chastise Obama’s budget proposal as a simple “refusal to lead,” a “punt,” or a “cynical political maneuver.” Obama isn’t failing to lead. He is very cleverly leading us toward an irreversible expansion of the welfare state. If Obama is reelected and in control when the entitlement crisis finally does hit, he will manage the country toward Euro-style taxes and Euro-style socialism. After all, in the midst of its current fiscal crisis, Obama is pushing Europe to expand spending, not contract it.

I like this post by Lexington Green (h/t Glenn Reynolds), although his vision of permanent Republican meltdown is overdrawn. Lexington rightly rejects the “failure to lead” framing, highlighting Obama’s strategic moves and long-term intentions instead. The notion that Obama plans to use Republican proposals for cuts to kick off a movement of “angry and mobilized” beneficiaries is exactly right. Obama’s 2010 attacks on the Chamber of Commerce and his infamous “punish your enemies” exhortation were efforts to do the same thing. I lay out the rationale behind this intentionally polarizing strategy in the final chapter of Radical-in-Chief. It’s a program deeply rooted in Obama’s past. And in the absence of an honest avowal of his plans and motives in the present, only the past reveals the truth about this president’s vision of the future.

Perhaps I’m wrong and “the president’s abdication of leadership” sound bite will be enough to defeat “the GOP’s heartless cuts.” Even so, as an alternative, I suggest: “Obama’s radical plans are leading us off a cliff.”

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2011, 10:15:04 AM

Obama's Revenue Estimates Are Either Fantasy Or Comedy
Chris Martenson, | Feb. 15, 2011, 12:44 PM | 445 |  11

Daily Digest 2/15 - NYSE/Deutsche Börse Merger Finalized, Crony Capitalism And Modern Banking, Russia To Begin Arctic Drilling
Obama's Budget is a Fantastic Comedy

________________________ ________________________ _________--

Fantasy or comedy?  I couldn't decide which way to label the Obama budget, so I went with both.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration has brought forth the most unbelievable revenue increase that I have ever seen proposed in a budget, a whopping 65% increase in revenues in just four years, which will - miracle of miracles - drop the deficit as a percent of GDP from nearly 11% to just 3.2% over those same four years.

The only problem with this scenario is that it stands virtually no chance of actually happening. Revenue will be far lower than projected and the deficit correspondingly higher.

One of my abilities is spotting bogus numbers quickly, and another is to make reasonably accurate projections without a staff of hundreds. For example, in 2009 I called for the Social Security fund to soon begin dipping into negative territory when the CBO was clinging to the illusion that 2017 was the 'below zero' date. Turns out I was right, and it wasn't a terribly difficult call to make. A little trend projection here, some assumptions about early retirement there, a higher and more realistic assessment of peak unemployment, and - voila! - a reasonably accurate projection was made.

Let's look at the recently released Obama budget, which is so far off the mark that no special abilities are required beyond the ability to suppress the urge to chuckle:

The green circles show the rosy deficit-reduction estimates, while the red arrows indicate the incredible 65% increase in federal revenues over a single four year period.  65%! How likely is that? Is it realistic?

Perhaps a little history is in order here. Let's start by asking a question: In any other four-year period, have federal revenues increased by 65% or more?

The answer is yes, but it’s a very qualified yes.

In the first chart below, the red bars show the proposed revenue increases on a rolling four-year basis. That is, each year is compared to the revenue period four years prior. The blue bars are the same, only they represent actual history, not projections while the red bars are the Obama team projections.

The second chart is a comparison to CPI to make a point.

Over the past 60 years, there have only been three other years with a similar or higher rate of revenue growth to the one estimated to occur in 2015: 1979, 1980, and 1981.

There are two things we might note about those prior three years ('79-'81) of rapid federal revenue growth. The first is that those same years represent the second, first, and fourth highest rates of yearly inflation in 50+ years of data, coming in at 11.3%, 13.5%, and 10.4%, respectively.

Does the Obama budget assume similar enormous rates of inflation? Nope. It assumes 2% or less inflation in every year of its projections out through 2015.  So it's not inflation that will be driving the enormous revenue growth.

Another reason we might anticipate extremely strong revenue growth is because of a rapid expansion of GDP.

Here again in 1979, 1980, and 1981, we saw something very unusual in the data: Those years clocked exceptionally robust GDP growth at 11.7%, 8.8%, and 12.1%, respectively.  Out of 65 years of data, those were the 4th, 5th and 17th fastest years of economic expansion.

Could that be the driver behind Obama's optimism? Is his team calling for double-digit GDP growth over the next few years?  Do they envision 'top ten' like performance for a couple of those years?

Not according to their published data.

So we can't really defend the projected increase in revenues on the assumption of massive economic expansion either. The Obama team does predict a pretty decent expansion - but on a relative basis, it's nothing spectacular and is less than half that which drove the revenue expansion in the 1979-81 period.

So the 65% revenue increase will not be driven by either inflation or GDP expansion.

What if we compare the projected increases historically on an inflation-adjusted basis - would that put them in a better and more believable light?

In this next chart, we simply chart each year's federal revenues after correcting for CPI (we used the Obama budget CPI assumptions for the years 2011 - 2015 to discount the future so everything is in 2010 dollars).

Are these numbers any less fuzzy? Nope. Even on this basis the proposed revenue increases are the largest on record, bar none.


There is almost no chance of the Obama revenue projections coming to pass, unless massive tax increases are part of the deal, and as far as we know, they aren't.

The only other alternative is that the United States might enjoy some pleasurable combination of quite rapid growth, a fall off in unemployment to match, tidy increases in wages, and a low CPI.  But the probability of all of these coming to pass is very, very low (although I will admit that they must be very appealing to an incumbent. Appealing? Yes. Likely? No.)

Here's my prediction; we'll have sub-par growth in 2011 and relatively weak growth in 2012, with a 50% chance of a double-dip appearing in one of those years. As such, revenue growth will be slightly below average between here and 2015.

Using these assumptions, and generously assuming that things more or less carry on as normal and even more generously that the economy magically grows to $19 trillion as the Obama team has assumed, the actual budget deficit will be no less than 8% of GDP each year between here and 2015.

My estimates translate into a roughly $1.5 trillion cash deficit each and every year -- give or take a little -- digging our national debt hole deeper by another $7.5 trillion by 2015. 

This, however, is merely my starting bid. I can easily envision deficits that are far higher in both aggregate and percent-of-GDP terms, due to some combination of rising energy prices and debt overhang dragging the GDP figure downwards, and rising interest rates driving federal costs higher.

The bottom line is that either this budget is a fantasy, or I am completely wrong and we somehow set historical records for revenue growth during a time of low inflation and below average GDP growth.

It is against this backdrop that you should be especially dismissive of any and all partisan rhetoric that proposes to reduce the deficit by trimming this or that program by a few billion here and there. Until and unless you hear about cuts to the big four - Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - you can be certain you are merely listening to partisan talking points aimed at posturing for the next election, not credible plans for attacking the root of the problem.

The US is facing a deficit pattern (deficits higher than nominal GDP growth) that has ruined many a country before. A failure to legitimately address this condition before being forced to do so by global or market circumstances will lead to a far rougher period of adjustment than necessary.  Such a failure even risks it all: a sudden loss of reserve currency status for the US that leads to a sudden repatriation of some $7 trillion in US-dollar-denominated assets currently held off-shore.

Said simply: The risk is a massive inflationary event that forces the Fed to choose between defending the dollar (by raising interest rates) or defending the US economy. It can't do both at the same time.

Those interested in learning more about how events will likely play out from here can read our Guide to Navigating the Coming Crisis (free executive summary; enrollment required for full access).

Tags: Budget, Obama | Get Alerts for these topics »

Read more:

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2011, 11:35:22 AM
High-speed rail is a fast track to government waste
The Washington Post ^ | February 14, 2011 | Robert J. Samuelson

________________________ _______________

Vice President Biden, an avowed friend of good government, is giving it a bad name. With great fanfare, he went to Philadelphia last week to announce that the Obama administration proposes spending $53 billion over six years to construct a "national high-speed rail system." Translation: The administration would pay states $53 billion to build rail networks that would then lose money - lots - thereby aggravating the budget squeezes of the states or federal government, depending on which covered the deficits.

There's something wildly irresponsible about the national government undermining states' already poor long-term budget prospects by plying them with grants that provide short-term jobs. Worse, the rail proposal casts doubt on the administration's commitment to reducing huge budget deficits. The president's 2012 budget is due Monday. How can it subdue deficits if it keeps proposing big spending programs?

~~ snip ~~

It's a triumph of fancy over fact. Even if ridership increased fifteenfold over Amtrak levels, the effects on congestion, national fuel consumption and emissions would still be trivial. Land-use patterns would change modestly, if at all; cutting 20 minutes off travel times between New York and Philadelphia wouldn't much alter real estate development in either. Nor is high-speed rail a technology where the United States would likely lead; European and Asian firms already dominate the market.

Governing ought to be about making wise choices. What's disheartening about the Obama administration's embrace of high-speed rail is that it ignores history, evidence and logic. The case against it is overwhelming. The case in favor rests on fashionable platitudes. High-speed rail is not an "investment in the future"; it's mostly a waste of money. Good government can't solve all our problems, but it can at least not make them worse.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2011, 02:00:38 PM
Obama threatens to veto House GOP spending measure
By Sam Youngman and Michael O'Brien - 02/15/11 04:08 PM ET

The Obama administration on Tuesday threatened to veto the House GOP's measure funding the federal government.

In a statement of administration policy, the Office of Management and Budget said cuts included in the Republican continuing resolution would hamstring the U.S. economy and compromise national security.

"If the president is presented with a bill that undermines critical priorities or national security through funding levels or restrictions, contains earmarks or curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation while continuing to burden future generations with deficits, the president will veto the bill," the statement said.

The White House said the cuts in the GOP plan "will undermine our ability to out-educate, out-build, and out-innovate the rest of the world."

The statement said the GOP proposal goes too far and "proposes cuts that would sharply undermine core government functions and investments key to economic growth and job creation, and would reduce funding for the Department of Defense to a level that would leave the department without the resources and flexibility needed to meet vital military requirements."

The House GOP measure would cut this year's spending by $61 billion, though conservative Republicans want to make further cuts.

Obama, at a press conference Tuesday, said lawmakers should refrain from threatening a government shutdown, and the statement hinted that Obama is still hopeful that can be avoided.

"The administration looks forward to working with the Congress to refine the legislation to allow critical government functions to operate without interruption for the remainder of the fiscal year underway," the statement said.

The administration's veto threat comes as the Republican House begins debate on the continuing resolution this afternoon. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has pledged an "open" debate, meaning that lawmakers could add any range of amendment to the legislation, cutting spending even further.

The statement sets up the possibility for a showdown between the administration and Democrats in the Senate with the GOP-held House over the measure. Funding for the government's day-to-day operations runs out on March 4, and without some sort of short-term fix, the federal government would risk shutting down. The chairman of the House Budget Committee said Tuesday morning the government would pass a short-term CR rather than risking a shutdown.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 15, 2011, 03:33:19 PM

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 03:52:11 AM
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

The mainstream media does not cover the full extent of the damage the Obama Administration has inflicted on this country. Even FoxNews often doesn’t have the time to go into sufficient depth to explain what is happening.

From our friend Ruth S. King comes a chart which all of us should read and absorb, sobering though it may be:

 January 2009 Today % chg Source
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. $1.83 $3.104 69.6% 1
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) $43.48 $99.02 127.7% 2
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) $38.74 $91.38 135.9% 2
Gold: London (per troy oz.) $853.25 $1,369.50 60.5% 2
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL $3.56 $6.33 78.1% 2
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL $9.66 $13.75 42.3% 2
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob $13.37 $35.39 164.7% 2
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall 7.6% 9.4% 23.7% 3
Unemployment rate, blacks 12.6% 15.8% 25.4% 3
Number of unemployed 11,616,000 14,485,000 24.7% 3
Number of fed. employees, ex. military (curr = 12/10 prelim) 2,779,000 2,840,000 2.2% 3
Real median household income (2008 v 2009) $50,112 $49,777 -0.7% 4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10) 31,983,716 43,200,878 35.1% 5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10) 7,526,598 9,193,838 22.2% 6
Number of long-term unemployed 2,600,000 6,400,000 146.2% 3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009) 13.2% 14.3% 8.3% 4
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009) 39,800,000 43,600,000 9.5% 4
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings 5 9 n/a 10
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10) 29.9 23.5 -21.4% 11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date) 140 164 17.1% 12
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate 89.76 82.03 -8.6% 2
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim) 1,575.1 1,865.7 18.4% 13
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim) 8,310.9 8,852.3 6.5% 13
National debt, in trillions $10.627 $14.052 32.2% 14

Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation’s history. Over 27 times as fast! Metaphorically, speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane 27 times faster . . . it would be doing 1,755 MPH!

(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury

In our new book, Revolt! (Due out March 1 – you can pre-order autographed copies now at we explain how Obama has wrecked our economy and chart a path to reverse the damage and defeat him in 2012.

These numbers make it crystal clear how crucial these two tasks really are!

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: whork25 on February 16, 2011, 04:21:12 AM
Dick Morris i hate that fat prick

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 04:33:45 AM
Morris is a sleeze no doubt, but I posted it because of the chart he listed.  Its viewed better on his site.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 04:47:38 AM
HHS Will Become Nation's First Trillion-Dollar-Per-Year Cabinet Department When Obamacare's Fully Implemented in 2014, Says Obama's Budget
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

________________________ ______________

President Barack Obama is applauded by Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner on Capitol Hill while delivering his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Pool)

( - The Department of Health and Human Services will become the nation's first-ever $1-trillion-per-year Cabinet department in 2014, which is also the first year President Barack Obama's health-care law is scheduled to be fully implemented by that department, according to the budget projections President Obama released yesterday.

In fact, HHS already is costing American taxpayers more per year in inflation-adjusted dollars than the entire federal government cost back in 1965, the year President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Medicare into law.

Medicare is the single most costly program in HHS.

This year, according to the Obama budget, HHS will spend $909.7 billion. That makes it the most expensive Cabinet department in the U.S. government, exceeding the Defense Department—which will spend $739.7 billion this year--by $170 billion.

In 1965, according to the historical tables published yesterday with President Obama’s budget, the entire federal government spent $118.228 billion. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, that adjusts to $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars—or about $87 billion less than HHS alone will spend this year.

HHS spending will increase to $1.049 trillion in fiscal 2014, according to the Obama budget. That would be the first time in history that any U.S. Cabinet department spent more than $1 trillion in a single year.

According to HHS’s budget plan, Medicare will account for 54 percent of the department’s budget in fiscal 2012 and Medicaid will account for 30 percent.

Medicare spending will  rise from $488.4 billion in fiscal 2011 (the current year) to $557 billion in fiscal 2014, when President Obama’s health-care law would be in full force, according to budget tables published with the president's budget. Medicaid will rise from $276.2 billion this year to $352.1 billion in 2014.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 04:52:41 AM
President Obama's budget kicks the hard choices further down the road
Tuesday, February 15, 2011; 12:00 AM

THE PRESIDENT PUNTED. Having been given the chance, the cover and the push by the fiscal commission he created to take bold steps to raise revenue and curb entitlement spending, President Obama, in his fiscal 2012 budget proposal, chose instead to duck. To duck, and to mask some of the ducking with the sort of budgetary gimmicks he once derided. "The fiscal realities we face require hard choices," the president said in his budget message. "A decade of deficits, compounded by the effects of the recession and the steps we had to take to break it, as well as the chronic failure to confront difficult decisions, has put us on an unsustainable course." His budget would keep the country on that course.

Granted, the budget outlines cuts in discretionary spending, ranging from military procurement to heating assistance for the poor. A five-year freeze in nonsecurity discretionary spending - two years longer than the three-year freeze proposed in last year's budget - would save $400 billion during that period compared to what would have been spent otherwise to keep up with inflation.

But as Mr. Obama noted in his State of the Union address, discretionary spending represents a small slice of government outlays, so cuts in discretionary spending are simultaneously onerous and insufficient to reach fiscal balance. The administration proclaimed that its budget would save $1.1 trillion, two-thirds of it from spending cuts. It neglected to point out that, even if all those savings were implemented, the debt would increase by another $7.2 trillion over the decade. And that's accepting the administration's optimistic projections. From 2013 to 2016, the administration estimates the economy will grow at an average rate of nearly 3.9 percent per year, while the Congressional Budget Office projects a growth rate of just 3.4 percent. That could make an enormous difference in the amount of revenue generated and, consequently, the size of deficits. By 2021, the national debt will equal 77 percent of the total economy, even given the administration's rosy forecast - and, as the administration's chart reprinted here shows, the debt will then really explode.

Administration officials applauded themselves for having the discipline to offset the cost of two expensive items: avoiding punishing cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians and making sure the alternative minimum tax (AMT) does not hit a growing share of middle-class taxpayers. Not so fast. The patches are temporary - two years in the case of the so-called "doc fix," three years for the AMT. Meantime, the administration uses up a decade's worth of financing to pay for them - with no whisper of how to address the problems in the long term.

And that's not the only gimmickry. The budget assumes that the full cost of the doc fix will be paid for, and therefore not add to the deficit, but fails to explain how. It includes a $328 billion magic asterisk for transportation funding, identified only as "bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund." Higher gasoline taxes? Don't ask. Meanwhile, the administration recommends paying for the AMT fix by reducing the value of charitable tax deductions for those in the two highest tax brackets. A smart idea, and one that the administration also proposed in its two previous budgets, originally as a way to pay for health-care reform. If it was a nonstarter then, what's the basis for thinking its prospects are better now?

The larger problem with the budget is the administration's refusal to confront the hard choices that Mr. Obama is so fond of saying must be faced. The president's debt commission concluded that more tax revenue will be needed in coming years to finance the costs of an aging society. Mr. Obama repeated his call to do away with the Bush tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers in two years - but maintained his tired and irrational insistence that the rest of the tax cuts, enacted in far different fiscal circumstances, be preserved.

If Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn could sign on to a deficit-reduction plan that included raising tax revenue, is it too much to ask for such bravery from Mr. Obama? And if Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin could sign on to a plan that included raising the Social Security retirement age, is it too much to ask for more from Mr. Obama than an airy set of "principles for reform"? Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.

________________________ ________________________ _____________-

Once again - watch what he does, not what he says.   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 05:00:32 AM
Obama To The Next Generation: Screw You, Suckers
14 Feb 2011 02:49 pm

________________________ ___________________-

The logic behind president Obama's budget has one extremely sensible feature: it distinguishes between spending that simply adds to consumption, and spending that really does mean investment. His analogy over the weekend - that a family cutting a budget would rather not cut money for the kids' education - is a sound one. We do need more infrastructure, roads and broadband, non-carbon energy and basic science research, and some of that is something only government can do. In that sense, discretionary spending could be among the most important things government could do to help Americans create wealth themselves. And yet this is the only spending Obama wants to cut.

But the core challenge of this time is not the cost of discretionary spending. Obama knows this; everyone knows this. The crisis is the cost of future entitlements and defense, about which Obama proposes nothing. Yes, there's some blather. But Obama will not risk in any way any vulnerability on taxes to his right or entitlement spending to his left. He convened a deficit commission in order to throw it in the trash. If I were Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles, I'd feel duped. And they were duped. All of us who took Obama's pitch as fiscally responsible were duped.

The cynical political calculation is obvious and it is well put by Yglesias and Sprung. If Obama backs Bowles-Simpson, the GOP will savage him for the tax hikes, while also scaring the wits out of the elderly on Medicare. The Democratic left - just look at HuffPo today - will have a cow. Indeed, if Obama backs anything, the GOP will automatically oppose him. He has to wait for a bipartisan agreement which he can then gently push ahead. But that's exactly why we are in this situation today. Because no president has had the balls to deal with it, and George W. Bush made it all insanely worse. Sprung says the proposal on corporate taxes is a trial balloon. He argues that:

Corporate income taxes account for about 12% of the Federal government's revenue.  Obama's core premise for reforming them is structurally similar to the Bowles-Simpson commission's approach to personal tax reform: reduce targeted tax breaks while lowering the overall rate, currently at 35%.

And that's fine if you think we have plenty of time. But in a mere nine years, entitlements will account for 64 percent of all federal spending. And Obama just punted on his promise to cut Medicare payments to doctors, as pledged under Obamacare as a core part of the case that health insurance reform would cut the deficit. So congrats, Megan. We can chalk that up as a cynical diversion (even though Obama pledges to find savings elsewhere in the Medicare budget to make up for this lie - a promise we now have no reason to trust or believe).

There is some hope, as David Brooks has noted. Those who want to save the useful things that government alone can do, while pulling back from the fiscal brink, have to

get behind an effort now being hatched by a group of courageous senators: Saxby Chambliss, Mark Warner, Tom Coburn, Dick Durbin, Mike Crapo and Kent Conrad. These public heroes have been leading an effort to write up the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission report as legislation to serve as the beginning for a serious effort to get our house in order. They’ve been meeting with 20 to 40 of their colleagues to push this along.

They have to lead, because this president is too weak, too cautious, too beholden to politics over policy to lead. In this budget, in his refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short term political interests. Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullshit it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road.

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

(Photo: US President Barack Obama talks to 8th grade students in the school cafateria after a tour of a science class during a visit to Parkville Middle School and Center of Technology on Feburary 14, 2011 in Baltimore, Maryland. By Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty.)

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 05:13:31 AM

Interior Department to revisit Bush-era oil shale plans

Posted on February 15, 2011 at 3:55 pm by Jennifer Dlouhy in E&P, Interior Department, Politics and Policy, regulation

________________________ ________________________ ________-

Interior plans new wilderness protections, scrapping Bush-era policy.Interior plans new wilderness protections, scrapping Bush-era policy.Interior plans new wilderness protections, scrapping Bush-era policy.Interior Department launches royalty rate review.Fed official says oil shale not ready..In response to a legal challenge by conservation groups, the Obama administration today launched a process to reconsider — and probably rewrite — a Bush-era plan for developing oil shale in the West.

At issue are decisions by former President George W. Bush’s Interior Department to open roughly 2 million acres of land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming to commercial oil shale leasing, while also approving regulations setting royalty rates for eventual production that critics blasted as too low.

Under a court settlement filed today, more than a dozen groups, including the National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resources Defense Council, will abandon their legal challenge to the Bush-era plans while the Obama administration reviews and revises those oil shale leasing policies.

“The Bureau of Land Management is taking a fresh look at commercial oil shale rules and plans that were issued in 2008,” BLM Director Bob Abbey told reporters on a conference call. After input from the public, those November 2008 policies may be revised “to take account for expected water demands . . . and make sure they provide a fair return to taxpayers.”

Under the Bush-era regulations, companies that successfully produced oil-like substances from shale rock initially would be forced to pay royalty rates of 5 percent to the federal government — far lower than the 12.5 percent charged for conventional oil and gas production on federal lands.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the move didn’t mean the administration was turning its back on the potential for energy companies to extract the crude-like substance known as kerogen from sedimentary shale rock found primarily on federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

“We in the West have been trying to unlock oil shale for the past century because it is so abundant,” Salazar said. “Oil shale is an important resource for the United States, and it is my view that we need to move forward and explore the possibility of developing oil shale.”

But, he stressed, it was important to proceed cautiously and ensure that the potentially high water demands of evolving techniques for extracting the petroleum-like liquids don’t hurt agriculture and wildlife in the arid West.

“The question of the impact on the water in the Colorado River basin and the agricultural economy is one that looms large,” Salazar said.

Salazar added that the 2008 policies effectively put the cart before the horse by paving the way for vast oil shale development at low royalty rates before fully studying all of the potential repercussions.

Abbey noted that commercial oil shale development is years down the road, providing a window of time to better study the issue.

“There is much yet to be learned about oil shale development,” Salazar said. “We are interested in learning as quickly as possible.”

The government estimates there are 2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent locked in shale rock, with federal land making up 72 percent of that oil shale acreage.

American Petroleum Institute upstream policy adviser Holly Hopkins said the trade group was encouraged by the administration’s interest in developing oil shale resources.

“Oil shale is an important part of our domestic energy portfolio, and API is committed to environmentally responsible oil shale development,” Hopkins said. “Our companies have made technological advancements in oil shale production and are committed to continued research and development in this area.”

But Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the head of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the decision to review rules for commercial oil shale development was “redundant” and would “delay the development of at least a trillion barrels of U.S. oil resources and prevent the creation of thousands of new U.S. jobs.”

“The current commercial rules for oil shale leasing were adopted under a rigorous and open public rule making process,” Hastings said in a statement. “There is no need to review the rules unless their intention is to halt progress on the development of our oil shale resources and create more uncertainty for companies interested in investing in new technology.”

This isn’t the first time Salazar has zeroed in on oil shale decisions made by the Bush administration.

In February 2009, Salazar suspended a Bush-era lease solicitation for companies to conduct oil shale research, development and demonstration projects on public lands. Seven months later, Salazar invited energy companies to apply for new research, development and demonstration projects on 160-acre tracts — a fraction of the 5,120 acres that would have been allowed for commercial production under the Bush plan.

Three companies have submitted nominations under that second round of oil shale leasing in October 2009, including two in Colorado from Exxon Mobil and Natural Soda Holdings, Inc., and another in Utah from AuraSource Inc.

Five other oil shale leases in Colorado issued in 2007 are held by Chevron Shale Oil Co., EGL Resources, Inc., and Shell Frontier Oil & Gas. A lease of federal land in Utah, also issued in 2007, is held by the Oil Shale Exploration Co.

Abbey said that BLM’s review of its commercial oil shale regulations and programs should have no effect on those existing research and development leases.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 05:49:09 AM
Healthcare Reform Law Requires New IRS Army Of 1,054
By Paul Bedard

Posted: February 15, 2011

________________________ ________________________ _____

The Internal Revenue Service says it will need an battalion of 1,054 new auditors and staffers and new facilities at a cost to taxpayers of more than $359 million in fiscal 2012 just to watch over the initial implementation of President Obama's healthcare reforms. Among the new corps will be 81 workers assigned to make sure tanning salons pay a new 10 percent excise tax. Their cost: $11.5 million.

[See a slide show of 10 ways the GOP can take down Obamacare.]

"The ACA [Affordable Care Act] will require additional resources to build new IT systems; modify existing tax processing systems; provide taxpayer outreach and assistance services; make enhancements to notices, collections, and case management systems to address and resolve taxpayer issues timely and accurately; and conduct focused examinations to encourage compliance," said the newly released IRS budget.

[See a slide show of 10 things that are, and aren't, in the healthcare law.]

In its request, the IRS explained that the tax changes associated with health reform are huge. "Implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 presents a major challenge to the IRS. ACA represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend the tax laws."

Unsaid: The requests are just the beginning, since the new healthcare program is evolving and won't be fully implemented until about 2014.

The detailed IRS budget documents spell out exactly what most of the new workforce will be doing. For example, some 81 will be tasked just to handle the tax reporting of 25,000 tanning salons. They face a new 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services. Another 76 will be assigned to make sure businesses engaged in making and imported drugs pay their new fee which is expected to deliver $2.8 billion to the Treasury in 2012 and 2013. The new healthcare corps will also require new facilities and computers.

[See editorial cartoons about the healthcare law.]

The document gives the GOP a bright target to hit if they plan to make good on promises to defund the president's healthcare plan.

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, who's become a point man in the budget battle, told Whispers, "The president's irresponsible budget empowers the IRS to begin to audit Americans' healthcare. As the IRS says, Obamacare represents the largest set of tax changes in more than 20 years. Adding hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars to the IRS isn't going to make care better or more available for anyone. I will continue to fight to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient centered reforms that help the private sector—not the IRS—create more jobs."

The Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS said: "The Affordable Care Act includes important tax credits that help small businesses provide health insurance for their employees and partially cover the cost of health insurance for Americans who do not have access to affordable coverage, and Treasury's Budget includes funding for the IRS to administer these tax provisions. The vast majority of this funding will be used to develop information technology systems and other support to implement the law and help taxpayers claim these important credits."

The IRS document also noted that other tax law changes related to the stimulus require more workers, estimated at about 215 new employees.

[See photos of healthcare reform protests.]

It's not all tough news for taxpayers. The IRS regularly pays for its enforcement team and more when they collect taxes that companies and individuals try to skip out on. According to the budget documents, the IRS plans to get a big return on investment worth about $279 million by fiscal 2014.

•Check out our editorial cartoons on healthcare.
•See a slide show of 10 ways the GOP can take down Obamacare.
•See the 10 best cities in which to look for a job.
Updated on 2/15/11

________________________ ______________-

Hope & change bitches!   

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 09:54:32 AM
Jeffrey on Socialism's Trajectory: Obama's HHS Is Bigger Than LBJ's Government
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

________________________ ___

Anyone who doubts that the trend toward socialism is pushing America toward ruin should examine the historical tables President Obama published Monday along with his $3.7 trillion budget.

In fiscal 2011, according to these tables, the Department of Health and Human Services will spend $909.7 billion. In fiscal 1965, the entire federal government spent $118.228 billion.

What about inflation? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator, $118.228 billion in 1965 dollars equals $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars. In real terms, the $909.7 billion HHS is spending this year is about $87.1 billion more than the entire federal government spent in 1965.

1965 was a key year in the advancement of socialism in the United States.

From 1776 until 1965, Americans generally did not rely on the federal government for health care unless they served in the military or worked in some other capacity for the federal government.

But in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care.

Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court correctly understood the Constitution to deny the federal government any power to create and operate social-welfare programs. The Constitution held no such enumerated power, and the 10th Amendment left powers not enumerated to the states and the people.

From George Washington's administration to Franklin Roosevelt's, Americans took care of themselves and their own communities without resorting to federal handouts.

FDR sought to change what he believed was an unrealistic reliance on families in American life.

He used the crisis of the Great Depression to pass the Social Security Act of 1935, compelling Americans to pay a payroll tax in return for the promise of a federal old-age pension. This was blatantly unconstitutional. That same year, in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton, the Supreme Court had justly slapped down a law mandating what amounted to a Social Security program for the railroad industry alone.

FDR attempted to defend the railroad pension law as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, justifiable under the Commerce Clause -- the same argument the Obama administration has used to defend the individual mandate in Obamacare.

The Court scoffed, suggesting that if the federal government could mandate a federal pension for railroad workers, the next thing it would do would be to mandate health care.

"The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is, in any just sense, a regulation of interstate transportation," the Court said answering FDR's argument. "If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attention and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry."

When Social Security went to the Court in 1937, FDR used a different strategy. He argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to levy taxes to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," meant the federal government could do virtually anything it deemed in the "general welfare" of Americans even if it was otherwise outside the scope of the Constitution's other enumerated powers.

FDR's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause effectively rendered the rest of the Constitution meaningless.

To persuade the same court that ruled against him in the railroad case to rule for him in the Social Security case, FDR proposed the Judicial Reorganization Act. This would allow him to pack the court by appointing an additional justice for each sitting justice who had reached age 70 and six months and not retired.

Faced with a potential Democratic takeover of the court, and thus a federal government controlled entirely by FDR's allies, Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts flip-flopped from their position in the railroad case. They quietly voted in favor of Social Security and took the steam off FDR's court-packing plan.

That year, federal spending was 8.6 percent of gross domestic product, according to President Obama's historical tables.

When LBJ enacted Medicare and Medicaid -- and began fulfilling the court's prophecy in the 1935 railroad-pension case -- federal spending was 17.2 percent of GDP.

When George W. Bush expanded Medicare with a prescription drug benefit in 2003, federal spending was 19.7 percent of GDP. This year, federal spending will be 25.3 percent of GDP.

In 2014, when Obamacare is scheduled to be fully implemented, HHS will become the first $1-trillion-per year federal agency. That year, Medicare and Medicaid will cost $557 billion and $352.1 billion respectively, or a combined $909.1 billion -- about what all of HHS costs this year.

In other words, when Obamacare is just getting started, Medicare and Medicaid will cost more than the $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars than the entire federal government cost in 1965 when LBJ signed Medicare and Medicaid into law.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 11:00:38 AM
Is the Wealth Gap Widening Under Obama, Bernanke?
Published: Tuesday, 15 Feb 2011 | 3:36 PM ET Text Size By: John Melloy
Executive Producer, Fast Money

________________________ ________________________ _______________________

President Obama said at his inauguration two years ago that, “a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” Ironically, the President’s own actions, along with those of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, are testing that theory.

Consumer sentiment among families with income above $75,000 jumped to 88.2 in early February, the highest since under President Bush in 2007, according to the Reuters/University of Michigan’s latest survey.

But sentiment among lower-income households dropped to 67.7 from 72.1 in January, trapped in a range it’s been stuck in since just after Obama's 2009 inauguration.

The president helped widen this gap by compromising on the Bush tax cuts with the Republicans in Congress, agreeing at the end of last year to extend them on all incomes for two years, investors said.

Meanwhile, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has set upon a large quantitative easing program that has boosted the stock market by increasing liquidity, but also raised the costs of basic goods that hit the poor the very hardest.

“Low-income families are not likely to be benefiting from the rally in stocks,” said Ed Yardeni, president and chief investment strategist of Yardeni Research. “They probably remain more vulnerable to long-term unemployment and wage cuts. To add insult to injury, Mr. Bernanke’s focus on core inflation is irrelevant to most of them. Rising food and fuel costs matter to them.”

The Fed, with interest rates already at zero, is in the middle of a $600 billion Treasury buying program to fight off deflation and encourage investment.

But as prices for corn [CCV1  684.75    -5.75  (-0.83%)], wheat [WCV1  832.25    -8.00  (-0.95%)] and rice have surged, the Fed chairman has drawn the ire of many, including other countries’ central bankers, for sparking out-of-control inflation. This is the second such buying program Bernanke has done since the financial crisis.


“Maybe the most unintended consequence of ‘QE2’ is the great wealth disparity it is creating,” said Steve Cortes of Veracruz Research and a ‘Fast Money’ trader. “We are literally doing it on the backs of the poorest people in this country and the world.”

You can see the effects of this wealth gap unfold in the struggles of Walmart [WMT  54.79    -0.16  (-0.29%)   ], which is trying to upgrade its image to appeal to higher income shoppers as the economy recovers, but also not lose what it identifies as its core customer (those making between $40,000 and $70,000 a year). Now its stuck right in the middle of this wealth gap.

Pro Traders: 4 Stock Inflation Mini-Basket
Jon Najarian: Unusual Options Activity In This Stock
Walmart is “seeing fewer trips from these core customers who seem to prefer the convenience of dollar and drug stores over supercenters, even choosing to continue shopping those channels during Walmart’s Summer of deep discount last year,” said JPMorgan’s Charles Grom, who downgraded the stock Monday. “Also, an overall gradual improvement in the macro backdrop lends itself to trade-up risk.”

To be fair, while President Obama reappointed Bernanke in 2009, the Fed Chairman is supposed to operate independently. Plus, Obama has pledged to keep the Bush tax cut extensions at just 2 years.

It’s been said that presidents generally want interest rates kept low to keep the economy going, at least through the next election. See George H.W. Bush’s reported criticism of former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan for not cutting rates fast enough in the early ‘90s and costing him the election. In this case, we may have a president that pressures the Fed chairman to raise interest rates.


For the best market insight, catch 'Fast Money' each night at 5pm ET, and the ‘Halftime Report’ each afternoon at 12:30 ET on CNBC.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 11:31:35 AM
How Inflation Could Be 66% Higher Than the Fed Reports
Daily Finance ^ | 2/16/2011 | DAN BURROWS

Global food prices are at an all-time high, U.S. gasoline prices are at the costliest level ever for this time of the year and yet inflation, in the words of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, remains "quite low."

By official reckoning, that's certainly the case. On Thursday we'll get the latest monthly inflation figures in the form of the consumer price index, which, to the Fed chief's chagrin, is running too close to disinflationary levels. Economists, on average, expect January prices to increase at just a 0.3% rate. So-called core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, is forecast to rise just 0.1%.

As Bernanke testified before Congress last week, economists exclude food and energy prices because that core inflation rate "can be a better predictor of where overall inflation is headed." By that measure, inflation was only 0.7% in 2010, compared with around 2.5% in 2007, the year before the recession began, the Fed chief explained.

Too bad those numbers don't jibe with with most folks' experience at the gas pump or checkout counter. As economist Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, told clients Tuesday: "I share the growing concern among the Fed's critics that the official measures of consumer price inflation may be understating actual inflation and that excluding food and energy from these measures is OK as long as you don't eat or drive."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 11:36:35 AM
White House Ignores Interest Payments in Claiming to Control Debt
By Judson Berger
Published February 16, 2011 |

The Obama administration's statement that the government will not be adding to the debt by the middle of the decade clashes hard against the facts, Republicans say, leaving officials straining to justify the budget claim they've pushed repeatedly over the past few days.

As it turns out, the administration is not counting interest payments. That means the budget team plans to have enough money to pay for ordinary spending programs by the middle of the decade. But it won't have the money to pay off those pesky -- rather, gargantuan -- interest payments. So it will have to borrow some more, in turn increasing the debt and increasing the size of future interest payments year after year.

So how then, visibly agitated Republicans asked, can the administration claim that its 2012 spending plan sets the country on a course to "pay for what we spend" in just a few years?

"We're still going further into debt, massively," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told White House Budget Director Jack Lew at a budget hearing Tuesday, accusing the administration of "double-talk."

Anyone who gives the budget chart a cursory glance can see the debt will continue to skyrocket under the White House proposal. In fact, the long-term outlook shows the public debt -- which isn't even the entire debt -- soaring from about $11 trillion this year to nearly $19 trillion in 2021. Driving that increase is the fact that annual deficits will never fall below $600 billion.

To justify the administration claim, Lew said the administration was merely referring to "primary balance" -- or federal spending minus interest payments. Lew sought to forgive the public for their confusion.

"The terminology that we use in Washington of primary balance is a little confusing," Lew said.

"It's because I believe it's dishonest," Ensign shot back.

Republicans were understandably befuddled. To put the scenario in everyday terms, it's like a family claiming that they've balanced the family finances, but neglecting to mention that they're taking out a new loan every month to pay off credit-card interest. As a result, the family keeps going deeper into debt.

For an $80 interest payment, that might be manageable. But this is the United States budget. If the government does what the Obama administration is recommending, net interest payments will go from about $200 billion this year to $844 billion in a decade. That's more than the country spends now on Social Security.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at his first official press briefing on the job, used the credit card analogy Wednesday and acknowledged interest rates "have to be contended with."

"But the first important step in dealing with this issue is getting your regular spending and income in balance so that you're no longer adding to the problem," he said. "And interest payments are a major portion of our long term debt problem that we need to address. But it is not an inconsequential deal."

Yet President Obama and Lew neglected to explain this point in their initial statements. Lew, in an interview Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," said: "Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore. We're spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt."

Obama, discussing his budget in Baltimore Monday, said the proposal "puts us on a path to pay for what we spend by the middle of the decade."

In his press conference the next day, Obama went further.

"What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts, so that by the middle of this decade our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt," he said.

Pressed to explain this claim, the president hinted at the rationale.

"We've racked up a whole bunch of debt. And there's a lot of interest on that debt," he said. "So in the same way that if you've got a credit card and you've got a big balance, you may not be adding to principal. You've still got all that interest that you've got to pay. Well, we've got a big problem in terms of accumulated interest that we're paying and that's why we're going to have to whittle down further the debt that's already been accumulated."

Under questioning from Senate Republicans Tuesday, Lew acknowledged the government would be adding to the debt by borrowing to pay interest, but still stood by his statements.

"We're getting further in debt ... because of our interest rate," Ensign said.

"Yeah," Lew responded.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, grilled Lew over this disconnect.

"We are adding to the balance, and we're not cutting up the credit card. That's just the fact," Sessions said, calling the administration's claims "misleading."

Lew stood by his claim. "What I said was we're going to stop adding to the debt. Our spending will not add to the debt," he said. "It's an accurate statement."

Sessions disagreed, calling the assessment "not a legitimate way to analyze it."

The website PolitiFact, which tries to sort out politicians' policy claims, analyzed the administration's argument in an article Tuesday and gave it a rating of "false."

The White House later claimed that the debt would not increase as a share of the economy -- that's technically true, given that the public debt would level out at about 76 percent of GDP by mid-decade. But that assumes a certain level of growth in the economy and also assumes the debt, as a figure, will continue to rise year after year. PolitiFact ruled that its "false" rating would remain unchanged, given that Obama did not make that distinction in his press conference.

 Print     Close URL

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 01:07:39 PM
February 15, 2011, 6:22 PM ET.
White House Economists Won’t Testify on Stimulus.

________________________ ________________-

The Obama White House won’t be sending a witness to defend the economic-stimulus package before a House Oversight Committee panel Wednesday.

The committee is holding a hearing on the impact of the stimulus package, which President Barack Obama signed almost two years ago. Testimony will come from a lineup of conservative economists, plus Josh Bivens of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, who was picked by committee Democrats.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), who is running the hearing, had asked Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer, who played major roles in preparing the package to testify or suggest another witness to represent the White House. Both declined.

Officials volunteered to send witnesses from the Transportation and Commerce departments but the offers were turned down.

Ms. Romer, formerly the head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, returned to her teaching job at the University of California, Berkeley, last year. Mr. Bernstein remains the chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

Republicans say that they plan to use the hearing to examine the effects of the stimulus plan on the economy “and how its results compare to projections made by administration officials.” GOP staff said that they didn’t think that witnesses from individual federal departments would be able to answer these questions.

The plan, which has a current estimated price tag of $814 billion, is considered by Democrats to be one of their signature achievements during Barack Obama’s first two years in office. Mr. Bernstein and Ms. Romer have credited it with preserving up to 3.7 million jobs, compared with what would have happened otherwise.

But Republicans have questioned how the White House reached those figures, and have argued that the stubbornly high unemployment rate shows that the plan was a costly failure.

Public perceptions of the package have been dismal and during the November midterm elections, many GOP candidates ran on a platform of criticizing the stimulus effort, while Democrats barely mentioned it.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 16, 2011, 01:45:25 PM
Empty seats: Obama snubs Issa on witnesses for stimulus hearing
The Daily Caller ^ | 2/16/11 | Jonathan Strong

________________________ ________________________ ____________-

In the latest sign of an increasingly antagonistic stand by Democrats against top GOP oversight official Rep. Darrell Issa, President Obama declined a request for a top economic adviser to testify before an oversight panel about the president’s economic stimulus law. Obama spokesman Reid Cherlin indicated the move will be part of a general policy against top White House aides testifying before Congress, potentially setting the stage for a showdown on later, more important hearings.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 17, 2011, 05:38:00 AM
PRIEBUS: Happy stimulus day
How’s that working out for you?
By Reince Priebus
The Washington Times
6:06 p.m., Wednesday, February 16, 2011

________________________ ________________________ _______________________

Bloomberg News With Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. looking on, President Obama tells an Eisenhower Executive Office Building audience Wednesday that the economic-stimulus legislation he signed a year ago helped avert an economic catastrophe.PrintEmailVi ew

Two years ago today, President Obama signed into law a "stimulus package" that his administration promised would keep unemployment under 8 percent. What has been the result of nearly $1 trillion spent on the so-called "stimulus?" Twenty-one months of unemployment at or above 9 percent, 2.6 million jobs lost, unsustainable budget deficits and an ever-growing national debt.

Americans rejected the Democrats' reckless tax and spend policies last November. Despite this "shellacking," Mr. Obama's proposed budget ignores the will of the American people and reflects a complete lack of seriousness for our fiscal crisis.

In my capacity as the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, it is my job to help hold President Obama accountable for his lack of leadership.

Looking at the president's fiscal 2012 budget, my job may have just gotten a little easier. As the reviews come in, it's clear the president didn't live up to his own standards.

Under the president's spending plan, 2012 will be the fourth consecutive year of running deficits in excess of $1 trillion. As a result of Mr. Obama's spending spree, the federal debt will soon be equal to the entire U.S. economy.

Instead of showing the leadership this country wants and deserves, the president continues to punt on real fiscal responsibility, making none of the tough decisions to cut spending - at no point in his budget would we spend less than we are taking in, raising taxes by $1.6 trillion and adding $13 trillion in new debt.

We've seen this movie before. Spending $814 billion on the stimulus and $2.5 trillion on government-run health care, America tried the Democrats' model of spending hand-over-fist to jump-start the economy - to no avail.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office director confirmed that the president's massive health care spending law will eliminate 800,000 jobs from our economy. In fact, the only jobs that appear to be created by the president's budget are located at the Internal Revenue Service with 5,000 new agents prepared to enforce the president's tax hikes.

It is this lack of leadership that encouraged voters to give Republicans a seat at the table as we work to get our country's fiscal house in order.

The status quo is simply unsustainable. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke put it, limiting the expansion of government is critical to growing our economy. Getting our deficit in check will instill much-needed confidence for job creators our country depends on to jump-start our economy.

The American people are demanding a change in course. To achieve economic prosperity for future generations, they know that the government must start living within its means - just like millions of families across the country do every day.

We've run out of time for warnings; the time to act is now. We have to unite behind leaders who will tax less, spend less and borrow less to get our economy back on track.

As House Speaker John A. Boehner said this weekend, we are broke. It is time for the Democrats to understand that Washington has an addiction to spending. And like all addictions, it will not be cured without dramatic action.

With all due respect, Mr. President, our fiscal situation doesn't need a scalpel - we need a machete.

Already, House Republicans have set a new tone in Washington by committing to $100 billion in spending cuts - the largest cut in congressional history. Returning spending to pre-stimulus levels for the rest of the current fiscal year is the first step of many to restore fiscal sanity.

And while the president punts on entitlement reform, we are ready to stand with Americans who are serious about tackling real fiscal reform.

We are truly in a fight for freedom in this country, and I am proud of our Republican leaders for stepping up to the plate. Now it is my job to help elect more principled Republicans to join the conversation and help make our country as prosperous as we can be.

Barack Obama sought the presidency seemingly to make the difficult choices and put our nation on solid footing. If he continues to avoid making the tough decisions and instead insists on an agenda of more spending, higher taxes and more debt, the choice facing voters in 2012 won't be very difficult.

Title: Re: Obama the Economy Killer & Job Destroyer - Daily examples of harm to the USA
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 17, 2011, 05:42:24 AM
Obama's Budget Increases 2012 Deficit by a Third ^ | February 17, 2011 | Jackie Gingrich Cushman

________________________ ________________________ __________________

Obama's budget increases 2012 deficit by a third. Yes, that's correct. President Obama submitted his proposed 2012 budget this past Monday. This budget produces a $1.1 trillion deficit for 2012. This deficit is 33 percent higher than his 2011 budget projection, which targeted the 2012 deficit at $828 billion. This higher 2012 deficit is equivalent to $3,217 per person in the United States (based on the U.S. Census Bureau's population clock).

This year's forecast of the 2011 deficit is $1.6 trillion, 30 percent higher than Obama's 2011-budgeted deficit of $1.3 trillion.

Let's step back and take another look at what has happened: The government spent $265 billion less in 2010 than had been forecast for 2010 at the time of the 2011 budget.

The receipts (read, taxes on companies and individuals, i.e., their expenses) for 2010 were about on target, actual $2,163 billion versus a forecast of $2,165 billion. This change in spending produced a 2011 deficit $378 billion, or 30 percent higher than originally budgeted.

The one thing we can determine so far is that the administration does not have a stellar record for budgeting. Before beginning my writing career, I worked in corporate finance. In my last few years in corporate planning, I was in charge of budgeting and planning for companies worth $3 billion. My background includes an MBA in finance, and I am a holder of the Chartered Financial Analyst designation. This lets you know that I know how to scrutinize the details of budgets and sub schedules to see if the logic and the math hold up.

During the 2011 budget process, revenues (taxes on individuals and corporations) were originally forecast to rise $402 billion (19 percent) from 2010 to 2011, but are now forecast to rise by just $11 billion. Outlays (government expenses) were projected to rise by $113 billion, or 3 percent. In the 2012 budget submission, the 2011 outlays increased by $363 billion, or 11 percent.

So, while we spent less in 2010 than had been forecast in 2010, we are still planning on spending more in 2011.

Hmm. The first rule in budgeting is to make sure your year-end forecast reflects what is going to happen, bec