Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken

[Soul Crusher]

Obama to kill more jobs
Americanthinker.com ^ | 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.

Why?

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.

[Soul Crusher]

Senate defeats plan to strip filing requirement from health law
By Alexander Bolton - 09/14/10 12:47 PM ET
www.thehill.com
________________________ ________________________ ________
 
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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

 Professor: Obama Has Caused ‘Irreparable harm’ to Gulf Coast Economyby Capitol Confidential

www.biggovernment.com
________________________ ____________

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.”

[Soul Crusher]

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 hotair.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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
http://www.benzinga.com/life/politics/10/09/501534/good...

 

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.


(snip)

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.

http://www.benzinga.com/life/politics/10/09/501534/good... 

[Soul Crusher]

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 cnbc.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

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 www.tennesseepolicy.org 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.

[Soul Crusher]

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:

[Soul Crusher]

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 dfreddoso@washingtonexaminer.com.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama_s-line-on-the-stimulus_-Everything-is-absolutely-fine-1121910-104370693.html#ixzz11byPQuCl

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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 huffpostbiz@gmail.com


 

[Soul Crusher]

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 online.wsj.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

72,000 stimulus payments went to dead people
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer
www.yahoo.com
________________________ ________________________ _

 
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.

[Soul Crusher]

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 washingtontimes.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

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 (CNSNews.com) – 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.

[Soul Crusher]

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 telegraph.co.uk ...

[Soul Crusher]

BUMP 

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

wnep.com /news/countybycounty/wnep-scr-mercy-hospital-for-sale,0,5633203.story

WNEP
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

 

[Soul Crusher]

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 hotair.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama's Takedown of Industrial America
By Fred N. Sauer
www.americanthinker.com

________________________ ____________




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 ies.com.

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/obamas_takedown_of_industrial.html at October 09, 2010 - 07:50:43 AM CDT

[Soul Crusher]

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.