Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 225451 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Judge: Drill Baby Drill
the american spectator ^ | 2/17/11 | Chris Horner


________________________ ________________________ _


Federal Court Orders Obama Administration to Act on Stalled Deepwater Drilling Permits

Calls permitting delays "unreasonable, unacceptable and unjustified"

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the Obama Administration's de facto drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico was once again struck down in Federal Court. U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman granted a preliminary injunction requiring that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) act within 30 days on five pending permit applications from Ensco.

"The court has now clearly found that the Obama Administration's refusal to act on permits is causing irreparable harm to companies, families and people of the Gulf," said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings. "The President's de facto moratorium is destroying American jobs, hurting our economy and forcing businesses to move overseas.


(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Gov’t Has Borrowed an Additional $29,660 Per Household Since Obama Signed Stimulus
Thursday, February 17, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey



________________________ _______________

 


President Barack Obama speaks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, Monday, Feb. 7, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

(CNSNews.com) - The federal government has borrowed an additional $29,660 per household in the United States since President Barack Obama signed his economic stimulus law two years ago.

That brings the total national debt to $125,475.18 per household.

At the close of business on Feb. 17, 2009, the day Obama signed the $787-billion law, the national debt stood at $10.79 trillion ($10,789,783,760,341.41), according the Bureau of the Public Debt. At the close of business on Feb. 16, 2011, the national debt stood at $14.13 trillion ($14,129,889,690,377.50)—an increase of $3.34 trillion (3,340,105,930,036.09)

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are a total of 112,611,029 households in the United States, which average about 2.6 people per household. That means that the new debt accumulated in the two years since Feb. 17, 2009, when President Obama signed his economic stimulus law, equals about $29,660.55 per household.

The current total national debt of $14.13 trillion can be divided into equal portions of $125,475.18 for each of the 112,611,029 households in the country.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama budget plan shows interest owed on national debt quadrupling in next decade

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 17, 2011; 1:59 AM



________________________ ______________________

 


Interest payments on the national debt will quadruple in the next decade and every man, woman and child in the United States will be paying more than $2,500 a year to cover for the nation's past profligacy, according to figures in President Obama's new budget plan.

Starting in 2014, net interest payments will surpass the amount spent on education, transportation, energy and all other discretionary programs outside defense. In 2018, they will outstrip Medicare spending. Only the amounts spent on defense and Social Security would remain bigger under the president's plan.

The soaring bill for interest payments is one of the biggest obstacles to balancing the federal budget, pushing the White House and Congress to come up with cuts deeper than previously imagined. Unlike with discretionary spending or even entitlement programs, the line item for interest payments cannot be altered except through other budget cuts.

The phenomenon is a bit like running up the down escalator. Without interest payments, the president's plan would balance the budget by 2017. But net interest payments that year are expected to reach $627 billion, up from $207 billion in the current fiscal year.

"This goes to the heart of why we have to address our fiscal problems," said Mark Zandi, co-founder and chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "If we don't, we're going to get swamped by our interest payments."

Benjamin Friedman, a Harvard economic professor and author of "Day of Reckoning," about U.S. economic policy, said, "I think it's a reminder that we have a very serious problem and that the budget that's on the table does not address that problem."

Even with the cuts in Obama's budget, relief would not come until 2021, when the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product would stop rising and plateau at 3.4 percent.

The explosion of interest payments comes from a double whammy of economic factors. First, the nation's debt is growing faster than the economy. Second, interest rates are rising. Over the next decade, net interest payments will amount to nearly 80 percent of the debt added, an indication of how past borrowing is forcing the country deeper into debt.

"We're running a gigantic deficit, and we're not growing very fast," said Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard University and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. "We're on a dramatically unsustainable path."

The Obama administration's latest forecasts starkly illustrate the phenomenon of generation shifting, moving today's costs to future taxpayers. The borrowing the United States did over the past decade - to pay for the 2001 tax cut, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and propping up the economy during the steep 2009 downturn - is coming due this decade.

As bad as the outlook is in the Obama budget proposal for fiscal year 2012, it could get worse. So far, interest payments have been relatively low because of the willingness of global investors to lend the U.S. government money at abnormally low interest rates. But that could change.

"The scary scenario - which I am not predicting but is a real possibility - is an incident of capital flight, where investors lose confidence in the U.S., causing interest rates to rise precipitously and pushing the budget deficit even further into the red," said N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor and former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

The Obama budget's assumptions include a substantial increase in rates. It predicts that the interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes will climb from 3 percent this year to 3.6 percent next year. It forecasts rates of 5 percent by 2015 and 5.3 percent at the end of the decade.

Short-term rates will rise even more sharply, from nearly zero now to 4 percent by 2015 in the Office of Management and Budget assumptions.

Rogoff calls the administration's forecast "reasonable," but he warns that the actual number is hard to know with any certainty.

"The basic issue is that when you hold a lot of debt you're vulnerable to shifts in sentiment and sharp rises in the interest rates," Rogoff said.

He said that combined federal, state and municipal debt in the United States is at a record high, beyond the famous post-World War II levels. Unlike interest payments made then, however, a huge portion of interest payments are flowing to investors in other countries, draining funds out of the U.S. economy. (There are other interest payments made to the Social Security fund, but because they shift money from one pocket of the government to another, they are not counted in the net interest numbers.)

Some positive developments could ease the interest payment crisis, including faster-than-expected economic recovery, higher-than-expected tax receipts and lower-than-expected government borrowing rates.

Ultimately, Rogoff said, the federal government should aim to reduce the amount of debt as a percentage of GDP. But for now, the U.S. government is still borrowing just to meet the interest payments on earlier borrowing.

"We are in a self-reinforcing, vicious cycle," Zandi said.

He compared the United States to European nations such as Greece or Portugal, or developing nations that in the past have received bailouts from the European Central Bank or the IMF.

"But there's no one we can get help from," Zandi said, noting that no economy is bigger than the U.S. economy. "There's no sugar daddy out there for us."


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Yet another emerging crisis
Politico44 ^ | 02/17/11 | JULIE MASON


________________________ ________________________ ___



What does it say about America's standing in the world when Canada kind of hates us now and openly mocks our ragged economy? President Obama's proposal to start charging Canadians an inspection fee to enter the country has Canada all agog.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the U.S. should not try to balance the budget on the backs of Canadian tourists:

“They're running deficits down there well over a trillion dollars a year,” Harper said in the Toronto Star. “Some 40 per cent plus of the American spending is financed by borrowing. These are enormously challenging figures.”

Overlooking the fact that it apparently took until Thursday for the news to reach Canada, the Canadians are considering banding with Mexico to push back against the fee. Not that! Remember when we used to throw away Canadian pennies?

The $5.50 fee is tucked into Obama's budget for the Department of Homeland Security. The plan would lift existing exemptions for visitors from Canada, Mexico and Caribbean and is expected to raise about $110 million in the first year.


(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
US 2011 Inflation: 10.6%?
ZeroHedge ^ | 2/18/2011




We thank Sean Corrigan of Diapason Securities for bringing our attention to the MIT Billion Price real time inflation Index (first reported here) who points out that based on the ongoing surge in prices, which have increased by 1.25% in the last 25 days (December 31, 2010: 101.085, February 14, 2011: 102.353), a simple annualization indicates a 10.6% increase in prices in 2011! With all undue respect to the Chairsatan (and other "disinflationists") it is time to bring Volcker out of the freezer once again. Look for the 30 Year to pass 5% in a few weeks. Oh yes, M2 surged to all new time highs again.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
White House Gets It Wrong on Stimulus Jobs
Townhall.com ^ | February 20, 2011 | Salena Zito




An American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus sign guards the majestic National Trust Historic Preservation building just beyond DuPont Circle in Washington, D.C.

The sign, like so many others Americans have seen along their highways the past two years, proudly marks the spot where “Your government is at work for you.”

A“Maybe it’s stimulating the grass to grow?” remarked a friend as we hustled down Massachusetts Avenue, seeing no construction in sight.

The sign has stood there for nearly a year. It provided no stimulus funding for the National Trust, or its grass. But new sidewalks are being installed behind the building, said someone answering the phone at the Trust, and the District of Columbia’s Department of Transportation “has been working on it since at least July.”

According to the district DOT’s stimulus website, the sidewalk project has been ongoing since October 2009. It does not state how many jobs were stimulated; in fairness, that probably is difficult to gauge – since the project was slated before the stimulus was enacted.

Even though the nation’s unemployment rate is at 9 percent (not the 7 percent projected by the White House, if the stimulus act worked), White House press secretary Jay Carney said Thursday that the stimulus has added “several million jobs” and “lowered the unemployment rate. … The goals of the stimulus package have been met.”

This administration still doesn’t get it, or doesn’t read its own jobs reports.

Middle America’s voters, especially those Democrats and independents who supported Obama in 2008, still feel a major disconnect with this administration.

In 2010 they told Washington that they wanted a new approach. What they were looking for most was fiscal responsibility from the federal government.

When President Obama appointed his bipartisan debt commission late last winter, a sigh went up from fiscally conservative Democrats that the White House was taking America’s demands – fiscal responsibility and bipartisanship - seriously.

Yet in his budget released last week, it is hard to find evidence that Obama incorporated any of the commission’s recommendations for cutting entitlements.

Nor did the budget provide guidelines to deal with the growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Voters told Washington to tighten its belt and balance its books, just as they have had to do within their own families. What they got was more out-of-control deficit spending with no regard for future implications.

Worse, Americans are not seeing the benefits of deficit spending. It's not giving them better lives. It's not fixing their problems.

Public policy is supposed to be about fixing society’s problems, and federal budgets should be about protecting the country and keeping the trains running.

Policy often is a reactionary effort by politicians to fix a problem, a deliberate plan by the government to address an issue and change people’s behaviors.

The stimulus act and the tax cuts spent a lot of money, running up the deficit and the national debt. A large percentage of stimulus spending simply went to relieving state budgets; it did not change people’s behavior, and that is bad public policy.

When proposed, the stimulus act was deemed so necessary. If true, then its money should have gone to much-needed improvements to this country's infrastructure. At least then, with so much money being spent, we’d have something to show for it. More important, we would have changed people's behaviors.

Businesses, particularly small businesses, would have created jobs leading to more permanent employment; people would have had incentives to retrain in technology, and access to improved mass transit and mass communications.

Last month, Allentown Metal Works – a century-old factory in the Lehigh Valley that Obama used as a backdrop a year ago to promote for a big jobs bill – closed.

Obama’s visit there kicked off a multi-city tour following his “jobs summit” in Washington.

Last week, Obama’s press secretary dismissed questions about the effectiveness of the stimulus act.

"We've said repeatedly that we don't want to re-litigate the battles of the past," he told a reporter.

His remark came the same day that U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10 percent in mid-February – up from 9.8 percent at the end of January



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama's National Debt Impact

Amount of Debt at Obama Inauguration............ ...... $10,626,877,048,913
Amount of Debt as of Feb 17, 2011.................... ...... $14,123,589,307,191
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount of Debt Obama Increased over 2 yrs…….. $3,496,712,258,278

Amount of Debt Bush Increased over 8 yrs................ $4,899,100,310,609

Amount of Debt Obama would increase over 8 yrs.. $13,986,849,033,112




Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obamacare's New Enforcers [The IRS Grows Stronger.]
ATR ^ | 2011-02-21 | Ben Wilterdink




The workforce of the Internal Revenue Service currently consists of over 93,000 employees to collect and process tax returns and enforce tax laws. While this number is daunting in and of itself, the IRS recently released its new budget which calls for an additional 1,056 new IRS employees citing specifically the new demands placed on the agency due to the new healthcare law. Beyond just more employees the burden of the healthcare law would require more facilities and new systems to handle the task; U.S. News and World Report put the cost to taxpayers at over $359 million in fiscal year 2012 alone.

Included in the report are specifics about what the new IRS employees would be tasked with. This ranges from collecting taxes from the new ten percent tax on indoor tanning services to new drug excise taxes. The tax collecting burden placed on the IRS greatly increases with the implementation of Obamacare and costs the taxpayers more and more money just to keep up with the agency’s requirements that will continue to skyrocket...

Read more: http://www.atr.org/obamacares-new-enforcers-a5880#ixzz1Ehup4oKW


(Excerpt) Read more at atr.org ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
President’s Budget Demonstrates Commitment To Forced Unionization, Not Jobs
Townhall.com ^ | February 22, 2011 | Katie Gage




 As the nation seriously examines the role of government and the extent to which we should increase the debt as opposed to cutting spending, the President this past week submitted his financial blueprint for the nation in his budget.

Workers and small businesses have been heartened as of late by President Obama’s rhetoric concerning harmful regulations and the impact they have on job creation and economic development.

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal last month, the President wrote “small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.”

Therefore, many expected his budget to reflect this new commitment to small businesses by curtailing burdensome and onerous rules by cutting or not increasing funding to regulatory agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and National Mediation Board (NMB).

The President’s words were not matched with action. At a time when American families are tightening their belts, the White House's budget actually increased funding to the NLRB and NMB by $4,797,000. In fact, this comes after a $21,276,000 increase last year.

These agencies are not focused on helping small businesses turn around our economy. Instead, they are committed to putting in place policies that hurt job creators and reward Big Labor bosses by eliminating worker rights.

The NLRB has spent its time attempting to enact rules that shorten the election window in union-organizing drives, implement card check, institute electronic voting and create various bargaining units in one workplace, none of which creates a single job and only serve to produce uncertainty for job providers.

And as the NLRB has been leading an assault against employees and employers, the NMB has reversed a rule in place for nearly a century that required a majority of workers to select a collective bargaining unit, and instituted a policy that allows a small minority to determine the fate of an entire workforce.

These highly provocative and damaging actions have been enacted by bureaucrats that are Big Labor’s cronies.

For instance, the NLRB’s Craig Becker is a labor radical and prior to joining the agency, he served as counsel to both the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and Service Employee International Union (SEIU). As has been reported numerous times, both unions' combined contributions in the 2008 presidential election in favor of President Obama totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

The head of the NLRB, Wilma Liebman, is not much better. She previously worked for the Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen as well as the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

At the NMB, is Linda Puchala, the former president of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) and the chair, Harry Hoglander was the executive vice president of the Air Line Pilots Association.

Any notion that these individuals would place laborers before labor leaders is long gone as their actions have been an obvious “payback” to Big Labor bosses.

The national budget debate brings all of this to the forefront as the President increases funding to these agencies, while the U.S. House attempted to de-fund the NLRB. Even though the vote failed, 176 Representatives voted in favor of it. But Congress isn’t done yet, as House Members are attempting to cut $50 million from the NLRB’s budget in order to save the taxpayer not only dollars, but essentially, their livelihoods.

This is not a time for political favors and government waste. It is, as the President said, time to make sure that “nothing stands in [the] way” of small businesses.

It is ludicrous that President Obama proposed a budget with increased funding to the NLRB and NMB when they have done nothing to help businesses, but plenty to hurt them. And now that the House is attempting to reign in this spending and provide a much needed check and balance on these agencies, it is becoming increasingly clear that neither the American worker nor the small business owner has an ally in the White House, which insists on doing the bidding of union bosses.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
ObamaCare Is Already Damaging Health Care
Many of its changes don't kick in until 2014. But the law is forcing dramatic consolidation and reducing choice in the industry.
Text   By LLOYD M. KRIEGER
www.wsj.com


________________________ ________________________ _________-


The Republicans who now control the House of Representatives hope to repeal or defund ObamaCare, but the law has already yielded profound, destructive changes that will not be undone by repeal or defunding alone. Active steps and new laws will be needed to repair the damage.

The most significant change is a wave of frantic consolidation in the health industry. Because the law mandates that insurers accept all patients regardless of pre-existing conditions, insurers will not make money with their current premium and provider-payment structures. As a result, they have already started to raise premiums and cut payments to doctors and hospitals. Smaller and weaker insurers are being forced to sell themselves to larger entities.

Doctors and hospitals, meanwhile, have decided that they cannot survive unless they achieve massive size—and fast. Six years ago, doctors owned more than two-thirds of U.S. medical practices, according to the Medical Group Management Association. By next year, nearly two-thirds will be salaried employees of larger institutions.

Consolidation is not necessarily bad, as larger medical practices and hospital systems can create some efficiencies. But in the context of ObamaCare's spiderweb of rules and regulations, consolidation is more akin to collectivization. It means that government bureaucrats will be able to impose controls with much greater ease.

With far fewer and much larger entities to browbeat, all changes in Medicare and Medicaid policies will go through the entire system like a shock wave. There will be far fewer individual insurers, doctors, hospitals, device makers, drug manufacturers, nursing homes and other health-care players to resist.

View Full Image

Getty Images
 
Many doctors and hospitals have decided that they cannot survive unless they achieve massive size—and fast.

.There is little mystery how the government will exercise its power. Choices will be limited. Pathways to expensive specialist care such as advanced radiology and surgery will decline. Cutting-edge devices and medicines will come into the system much more slowly and be used much less frequently.

This is why simply defunding enforcement of the individual mandate and other upcoming directives will not be enough: Given all this consolidation, limits on treatment choices are already becoming hardwired into the system. Lawmakers must take concrete steps to stop and reverse this.

On the provider end, this means enacting tax and other economic shields for insurers and providers that choose not to succumb to the financial pressure encouraging consolidation. It means unwinding all of the rules—about data compilation, reporting and compliance requirements, and information technology—designed to increase overhead to the point that only massive and easily regulated provider organizations can survive.

Legislators will have to scrub the 2,700-page ObamaCare law line by line to remove all of the disincentives for medical practices, hospitals and others to remain smaller and independent.

On the consumer end, reform means re-establishing choice at all levels of the system. Lawmakers at a minimum should change the individual mandate so that people can choose what type of coverage they buy. To do this, legislation has to ensure that all consumers have access to a menu of options for varying types of coverage, and that they are free to purchase policies across state lines. There should also be tax breaks for people who purchase medical care not covered by their insurance, so there is reasonable chance of escaping government-imposed limits on treatment choices.

System-wide, collectivization will be dismantled only by limiting the power of government agencies to determine what care gets funded. That means new legislation to supersede Section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which requires herding everyone into "qualified plans" and forcing doctors (via fines, penalties and nonpayment) to follow care guidelines determined by the secretary of Health and Human Services.

ObamaCare is already doing great damage, even years before its individual mandate and other controls kick in. Its systematic undoing is an urgent necessity.

Dr. Krieger, a plastic surgeon, invests in health-care companies.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Industry Has Spoken… Will the President Listen?
By Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian
 Wednesday, February 23, 2011



http://www.american.com/archive/2011/february/industry-has-spoken-will-the-president-listen/article_print



Filed under: Government & Politics, Public Square

In a survey of which regulations most impede the ability to do business, environmental regulation was the greatest concern.
 
In December 2010, Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, launched an examination of regulatory barriers to business. Chairman Issa sent 171 letters to businesses, industry groups, and think tanks, asking them to identify the government regulations that most impede their ability to do business.

On February 7, 2011, Chairman Issa released a  of responses from 113 organizations. We dug into the file, and even we were surprised: While complaints about Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the tax code, and provisions of the new healthcare law were expected, the clear focus of most responses was environmental regulation. As the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council warned:

The general regulatory thrust of the Administration with regard to energy and the environment will lead to less energy, higher energy prices, a disincentive to manufacture in the U.S. and massive job loss. Our energy sector is being forced into a regulatory vice—caps and restrictions are being imposed on how much America can use and produce, while excessive regulation on energy use and the industry are driving costs higher. Anti-energy activists in the regulatory bureaucracies seem accountable to no one. Unfortunately, small business owners and their workforce will bear the brunt of higher costs and widespread job loss if initiatives at the Environmental Protection Agency move forward.

Of the total complaints that each organization had agencies, EPA dominates the field. Of the 651 total complaints, 334 of those pertained to EPA—a whopping 51 percent.

Between Greenhouse Gas regulations through the Clean Air Act, Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, and National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and other criteria pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) onerous regulatory agenda was perceived as the greatest threat to business. The American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI) explains:

In recent months, EPA has undertaken an unprecedented regulatory agenda by promulgating or proposing a host of rules in the areas of air, water, solid waste, greenhouse gases, and toxic chemicals … in a nutshell, these new regulations will create permitting obstacles to expand and modernize our facilities and will impose significant additional costs that are difficult recoup in the face of intense international competition.

ACCCI was not alone in their opinion. Counting the total number of complaints that each organization had about each agency, EPA dominates the field. Of the 651 total complaints, 334 of those pertained to EPA—a whopping 51 percent. The next closest agency—at only 8 percent—would be the Department of Labor, which combines complaints about OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and National Labor Relations Board regulations.

 



 

Even taking a more conservative approach, tallying only the number of organizations who have complaints that pertain to each agency, yields similar results. EPA is still the clear winner, with 82 of 113 responses specifically mentioning the agency’s regulations. The distant runner up remains the Department of Labor, which was mentioned in 22 of the 113 responses.

 



 

Our methodology is not perfect, since responses varied in formatting, and not all organizations listed specific regulations or went into as much detail as others. For example, while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce listed 17 EPA regulations, the Association for Manufacturing Technology did not cite specific regulations, but rather explained that

in many cases, regulations are excessive, confusing and so costly that R&D and business development suffer as a result, hindering job growth and stifling innovation. This is particularly true with regulations originating from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), where it is obvious that regulators know little or nothing about manufacturing.

It is clear that EPA regulations are perceived as a serious obstruction to job creation and private-sector efficiency, and that proposed EPA regulations are seen as an even greater threat.
But despite the data’s limitations, EPA regulations are clearly perceived as a serious obstruction to job creation and private-sector efficiency, and proposed EPA regulations are seen as an even greater threat. The results are in, and the best way to fix onerous regulations is to cut the EPA. But will President Obama listen?

In his January 25, 2011, State of the Union address, President Obama expressed his concern about government regulation and promised, “When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them.”

Yet if President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal is any indication, the administration’s emphasis on climate regulation is not over. While the proposed plan cuts $1.3 billion from the EPA budget, the cut is mostly comprised of reduced funding for states’ clean water and drinking water projects, and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The agency’s economically harmful regulatory agenda faces no serious budget cuts.

In its response to Chairman Issa’s letter, the Murray Energy Corporation expressed its concern for hardworking Americans “whose jobs and lives are being destroyed by Mr. Obama and his out-of-control, radical USEPA and his appointees to it.” While it is tempting to believe President Obama’s promises of change, all the evidence indicates that the president and his out-of-control EPA will continue burdening the private sector with excessive regulation.

Kenneth P. Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where Hiwa Alaghebandian is a research assistant.

FURTHER READING: Green and Aleghebandian have also described how “Science Turns Authoritarian,” while Aleghebandian suggests a “Homework Assignment” for Congress on telework. Green uncovers “The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience,” outlines “Empowering the Free Energy Markets,” and says it’s “Not Going Away: America's Energy Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges.”
Image by Rob Green/Bergman Group.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
CBO: Jobs Created and Saved By Stimulus Cost At Minimum An Average of $228,055 Each
cnsnews.com ^ | Thursday, February 24, 2011 | By Matt Cover





(CNSNews.com) - The jobs created and saved by the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed on Feb. 17, 2009 cost at a minimum an average of $228,055 each, according to data released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

In a report released Wednesday—“Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from October Through December 2010”—the CBO said it now estimates the stimulus law cost a total of $821 billion, up from CBO’s original estimate that the stimulus would cost $787 billion.

In the same report, the CBO estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2010 there were somewhere between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people who were then employed who would not have been had the stimulus not been enacted. “CBO estimates,” says the report, “that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010: … Increased the number of people employed by between 1.3 million and 3.5 million.”

This estimate seeks to state the net impact the stimulus had on the number of people employed in the United States as a result of the stimulus, taking into account not only the new jobs believed to be created and the existing jobs believed to be killed by the stimulus, but also the existing jobs that were saved that otherwise would have been lost.

The CBO’s estimate that there were 1.3 million to 3.5 million people employed in the fourth quarter of 2010 who would not have been were it not for the stimulus represents a decline from the 1.4 million to 3.6 million people CBO estimated were employed as a result the stimulus during the third quarter of 2010. (See Table 1 in the report.) In fact, CBO now estimates that the apogee of the stimulus’s net job-creating-and-saving power occurred in the third quarter of 2010 when it believes somewhere between 1.4 million and 3.6 million people had jobs they would not have had except for the stimulus.

Thus, the $821 billion cost of the stimulus divided by the maximum of 3.6 million jobs the CBO believes the stimulus may have saved or created equals an average of $228,055 per job.

At the lower end of the CBO’s top job-creating-and-saving estimate for the stimulus—1.4 million jobs—the jobs would cost an average of $586,428 a piece.

In February 2009, when President Obama signed the stimulus law the national unemployment rate was 8.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In January 2011, the national unemployment rate was 9.0 percent.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Did Goldman Sachs Secretly Write Some Democratic Propaganda And Disguise It As Research?
Joe Weisenthal | Feb. 24, 2011, 8:42 PM | 894 |  6
 



A Goldman Sachs research report warning that austerity measures and a possible budget shut down would be a drag to growth is being seen as a covert piece of Democratic propaganda by some on the right.

The report, by Goldman economist Alec Phillips, was first surfaced yesterday by ABC, which published a few key paragraphs. See if you can spot the propaganda.

Proposals to cut federal spending, the possibility of a government shutdown, and the escalated debate over state employee compensation has increased interest in the effect of fiscal policy on growth, after last year’s fiscal package briefly neutralized the expected drag from federal fiscal policy.

Federal spending cuts deserve the most attention. They are the most likely of these issues to occur, and could have the largest magnitude. The assumption we incorporated into our recently revised budget estimates—discretionary spending cuts of $25bn and $50bn below the CBO baseline for FY2011 and FY2012 respectively—would shave nearly one percentage point off of the annualized rate of real GDP growth in Q2, but would fade quickly with a negligible effect on growth by year-end.
The related risk of a temporary federal government shutdown could also lead to a fiscal drag on growth, but this appears to be a lower probability scenario. We estimate that each week that the federal government is shut down would reduce federal spending by around $8bn, and could reduce real GDP growth by as much as 0.8 pp at an annualized rateher  in the quarter it occurred, but would provide a lift to growth in the following quarter as federal activity returned to the previous level.
Reuters' conservative columnist James Pethokoukis has been all over this. This morning he tweeted that this wasn't even economics, it was just arithmetic (though he later tweeted that after being pro Democratic, Goldman now gives more to the GOP)! Robert Wenzel goes further, saying that the report may have been deliberately timed to help the Democrats in the current budget battle, and that Goldman was "providing pitchforks" for the Democrats.

But sorry, ff you think there's pro-Democratic propaganda in the paragraphs above, you've got better eyes than we do. It specifically says that by the end of the year, the spending cuts would have a negligible effect, though it goes onto say that a government shutdown would have a more serious impact on growth.

Is there anyone that actually would dispute any of this? Not only does this seem blatantly obvious, but it's exactly the same message we see in almost every macro research report we read: One risk to GDP estimates is austerity. Here's another way to think about it: Just about everything we read after the tax cut deal was reached said that it would boost the GDP, and yet that, too, was basically pro-deficit Keynesianism in action.

Where were the howls of outrage over those reports? There weren't any.

Here's where people are getting tripped up. In the long term, more spending isn't a recipe for a robust economy. But in the short term, Goldman's point is incredibly conventional. And though people love to slam economists for their models and not predicting crises, in the short term, there's nothing too difficult about forecasting GDP

So go ahead and slam Wall Street's desire for a sugar-filled stimulus now, and for ignoring the long-term effects of policy. But the only aspect of Goldman's report that was intentionally timed was a desire to communicate to clients various scenarios for what's going on in DC.

Tags: Goldman Sachs, Politics | Get Alerts for these topics »

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-democratic-propaganda-2011-2#ixzz1EwB7suhL

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
IBD Editorials


Does Obama Want $8 Gasoline?


Posted 06:30 PM ET


Gas is going through the roof in prices not seen since 2008. This 76 station reflects Feb. 24 gas costs in Irvine, Calif.


Energy Policy: While we sit on abundant oil and natural gas reserves, prices at both the wellhead and the pump are rising on fears of spreading Mideast turmoil and short domestic supply. But then, maybe that's the plan.

The silver lining for this administration in the gathering storm over the Middle East may be what it's doing and may yet do to energy prices. The average price for gasoline jumped nearly 12 cents a gallon last week to $3.287, according to AAA. But at the White House, that's not necessarily bad news.

Oil has surged to 2 1/2-year highs as the chaos in Libya chokes that nation's exports. Yet among the "full range of options" the Obama administration is considering as the Libyan crisis festers, and the lit match of discontent gets perilously close to Saudi oilfields, ordering the full resumption of domestic oil and gas production is not one of them. Why?

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that "any disruption in the Middle East means a partial disruption in the oil we import. It's a world market, and (a disruption can) have real harm on the price." And so, we would think, would the orchestrated and carefully planned disruption of domestic supply by this administration.

It's not just Mideast turmoil that has brought us to this point. It's also a deliberate program of restricting domestic energy to make so-called green energy more attractive and necessary, keeping an Obama campaign promise that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket" on his energy agenda.

Before he was appointed energy secretary, Chu expressed a fondness for high European gas prices as a means of reducing consumption of fossil fuels. In September 2008, he told the Wall Street Journal: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Gas prices in Europe then averaged about $8 a gallon.

Certainly every administration energy decision has had the effect of raising energy prices. The Deepwater Horizon disaster gave the administration the excuse for a drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, one that a federal judge overturned. When the administration reinstated the ban, it was found in contempt of court.

A virtual regulatory ban continues today. At least 103 drilling permits await approval by a federal government that has not approved a single new permit since the moratorium was allegedly lifted last October.

The administration has announced that the eastern Gulf and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts will be off-limits for the next seven years. The Interior Department has canceled four pending lease sales in Alaska.

Drilling in that state's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited, and oil-rich offshore areas have been designated as critical polar bear habitat despite a booming bear population.

The administration's hostility to fossil fuels is documented. Immediately on taking office, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah. Recently, in a stunning land grab, Salazar issued an order allowing Bureau of Land Management officials to place land with "wilderness characteristics" off-limits to energy development. Some 6 million acres in energy-rich Utah would be affected.

The day before President Obama was inaugurated, the average price of a gallon of gas was $1.83, the Heritage Foundation notes. Today it's well over $3 and on the way to $4. Prices for this February and last December were the highest ever for those months.

John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil, told Platt's Energy Week Television that Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012 based on the uncertainty of world events, the lack of domestic supply and increased worldwide demand fueled by countries like India and China.

Democrats once accused Big Oil of deliberately restricting supply to enrich itself. Now the Obama administration may be doing the same on purpose — a policy sure to impoverish us all.



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=564290&p=1


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Salazar: Won't Bow to Political Pressure to Restart Gulf Deepwater Drilling
Dow Jones Newswires via Rig Zone ^ | February 25, 2011 | Ryan Dezember




Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that U.S. regulators would not bow to political pressure to restart deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before they are certain the oil-and-gas industry is capable of containing an oil spill like the one that followed last BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Salazar and Michael Bromwich--the head of the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which oversees offshore drilling--were in Houston Friday to meet with oil industry executives to assess the spill-containment systems they have developed in the wake of nation's worst-ever marine oil spill.

Bromwich said he was "quite confident that we are getting very close to the point where we can begin issuing deepwater permits." But he and Salazar said the industry still has work to do before exploration of the Gulf's deepest waters can resume.

The U.S. government shut down deepwater drilling shortly after the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20, killing 11 and unleashing a catastrophic oil spill.

The government's official ban was lifted in October, but regulators have yet to allow drilling to resume in water deeper than 500 feet despite mounting political pressure from congressional Republicans and Gulf Coast Democrats to reopen one of the nation's primary energy fields.

"We don't respond to political pressure," Salazar said. "We are frankly doing what's right for America's energy program."

Both Helix Energy Solutions Group, whose system helped stem the flow of BP's runaway well last summer, and the nonprofit Marine Well Containment Co., formed by a consortium of major oil companies, say their systems are ready to respond to spills on par with Deepwater Horizon. But the nation's top energy regulators said that they felt differently.

"These containment systems are work in progress," Salazar told reporters after the meetings. "Both systems currently have limitations on water depth ...


(Excerpt) Read more at rigzone.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Environmentalists Damaging US Economy and Job Growth
oilprice.com ^ | 2-26-11 | Liz Peek


________________________ ________________________ ____--



Environmentalists Damaging US Economy and Job Growth

Written by Liz Peek Thursday, 17 February 2011 13:43

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.

For the record, they also argue that the environmental consequences of mining the coal in Wyoming and Montana have not been sufficiently researched. Let us immediately discard this latter notion. We have been mining in those coal-rich states for more than a century; I’m pretty confident that residents in the region have looked into the attendant pros and cons. In any event, it is the former dispute that should unhinge anyone concerned with our country’s future.

Those opposed to the terminal will argue that if the Chinese have access to our coal, they will not pursue clean energy technologies. The green lobby will thus link U.S. exports to some increased degradation of global air quality. This argument fails because our coal burns cleaner than China’s indigenous resources, which is their most likely alternative. China’s sulfur content, for instance, is 1.1% compared to 0.8% for the Powder River fuel at issue. China’s coal also burns with higher ash. The Chinese, in other words, are not inconsiderate of the environmental impact of energy production.

Not only have they have been building cleaner coal-burning power plants in recent years, moderating the pollution impact, but they have chosen to import more expensive lower sulfur fuel. This policy at the moment is being stonewalled by environmentalists –go figure. At the same time, the Chinese have made vast investments in all kinds of alternative energy production, including nuclear and also “green” approaches. The extraordinary growth of the country –last year at 10.3% and by most estimates better than 9% this year – requires that they pursue all available power sources.

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%.

As it happens, the shipping of coal to China is also currently limited by a shortage of suitable West Coast terminals. As U.S. utilities migrate to using cleaner-burning natural gas, of which we have an abundant supply, coal producers are increasingly looking for new markets. Exporting to countries like China seems a great opportunity – an opportunity that environmentalists are currently prohibiting. Apparently some companies are exporting through Vancouver, where the enticement of jobs and income evidently overwhelmed green protests.

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. When Mr. Obama finishes straightening up this imbroglio, he might next turn his attentions to another item that showed up in Friday’s paper- Shell Oil’s abandonment for the current year of its drilling program offshore Alaska – on acreage it has under lease in the Beaufort Sea. Because the company was unable to secure air permits from the EPA for the project, Shell will not be able to spend the expected $100 to $150 million on a test well. U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska) claimed the stalling by the EPA cost the state 800 direct jobs and millions in related contracting work. Meanwhile, the trans-Alaska pipeline operates at one-third capacity.

I can’t wait to see what’s in today’s paper.

By Liz Peek of The Fiscal Times

Source: Business Insider


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
February 27, 2011
Obfuscating Inflation
By Steve McCann



The government in Washington D.C. seems to be going out of its way to obfuscate and confuse the American citizens as to various economic factors and what the reality is of the situation the people find themselves in.  Instinctively the people know matters are worse than what they are being told and with the most incompetent and unscrupulous resident of the White House in the country's history in charge there is great unease that their government is not being honest with its citizens.  More than ever the American people deserve to be told the truth.


Among the most confusing of statistics is the unemployment rate.  The government adjusts for "seasonal factors", those who have supposedly dropped out of the labor force and some who are collecting or not collecting unemployment benefits.  The result of these adjustments is a number no one accepts as reality.


There is one simple way to look at the job situation that, while not 100% scientifically accurate, does reflect the real employment situation.   


In 2000 the population of the United States was, per the US Census, 281,421,906.  In that same year the US Payroll Employment: Total Non-Agricultural was 130,781,000 or 46.6% of the population.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed an unemployment rate then of 4.0%.  Thus full employment in 2000 would have been 136,000.000 people or 48.3% of the population. 


The most recent national census completed in April 2010 revealed the population of the country had increased to 309,745,538.    In the same month of 2010 the US Payroll Employment: Total Non-Agricultural was 129,750,000 or 41.5% of the population.   Per the full employment factor of 48.3% in 2000 there should be a full employment labor force of 149,607.000 in 2010.


Therefore using the actual payroll employment of 129,750,000 in 2010 versus the theoretical full employment of 150,226,000 the employment rate is 86.4%.  Thus the unemployment rate is 13.6% as compared to the factors extant in 2000, the year of the last national census.


Essentially the unemployment rate is a statistical variable based on input and can be manipulated; however the bottom line is: over the past decade payroll employment has dropped by 1,031,000 while the total population has increased by 28,323,000.  Had the country maintained the same employment level as in 2000 there should have been 13,310,000 more people employed instead 14,331,000 jobs were lost or not created.


The US Census Bureau estimates that by 2020 the population of the United States will be 342,000,000, an increase of 33 million versus 2010.  Therefore to achieve the employment level established in 2000 by 2020 another 15,500,000 jobs will need to be created on top of the 14,331,000 lost in the previous decade.  Therefore nearly 30 million jobs or 3 million per year over the next 10 years must be established to achieve the levels experienced in 2000.   


The bottom line and the only meaningful job statistic the American people should pay attention to: if the monthly job creation number is not at least 250,000 every month then the United States is going backwards regardless of any games played by the various government agencies and their data.


Another area of obfuscation is the true cost of living and the rising cost of commodities and industrial raw materials.


The worldwide commodities markets are in a turmoil brought about by the lower yields for food staples, the upheavals in the Middle-East, the beginning of an economic recovery in the rest of the world and the inflationary impact of the Federal Reserve quantative easing programs.  Some commodities such as cotton are up 140% over a year ago.   


A key factor in the rise of commodity prices has been the decline in the value of the dollar.  As points of comparison over the past two years:  the Dollar has declined 16% versus the Japanese Yen, the Canadian Dollar by over 21%, and the Swiss Franc by 22%.


The best way to see the overall impact of commodity price increases is to track the various indices which contain a large basket of items within each category.  Since February of 2009 all the major indices are up significantly.  Despite the protestations of the Federal Reserve and the abandonment of fiscal responsibility of the Obama administration, these charts and the information they reveal will manifest themselves in the U.S. economy particularly coupled with the very real possibility of an oil cut-off form the Middle East.


This chart tracks the Agricultural Raw Material Index (increase 81% since 2009):




The Food Price Index (increase 49% since 2009):





The most volatile index of all has been the Metals Price Index which has increased 137%:






Lastly the Fuel (Energy) Index has increased 82% since 2009 but is destined to go higher:




There is simply no way these factors will not impact the inflationary trend here in the United States in the immediate future, killing any chance for a recovery.  Rarely have all these indices been on such a sustained rise in such a short period of time, and unless there is another global recession they will continue to do so.  Already other countries around the world have taken steps to fight inflation while the Federal Reserve is still contemplating deflation and continuing with its quantatative easing program (essentially printing money) while the Obama administration throws fuel on the fire by proceeding with its profligate spending agenda.


The American people should pay attention to theses indices.  As long as these trends continue inflation will hit the shores of the United States regardless of any obfuscation or misreporting by the Government.


It is beyond time for truth telling in Washington D.C. as the economy begins to tip into another downturn that maybe further accelerated by the chaos in the Middle East.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/obfuscating_inflation.html at February 27, 2011 - 06:13:57 AM CST

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama: 'Investment' spending essential to 'win the future' (Chicom issued WTF credit cards?)
The Hill ^ | 2/26/11 | Julian Pecquet




Obama: 'Investment' spending essential to 'win the future'
By Julian Pecquet - 02/26/11 06:00 AM ET


President Obama reiterated his call for Congress to invest in the nation's long-term future in his weekly address Saturday, at times repeating almost to the word what he said during his State of the Union address last month.


As lawmakers prepare to take up a stop-gap budget bill to keep the government funded past the end of next week, the president again linked the twin goals of out-educating and out-innovating the rest of the world while getting the nation back on sound fiscal footing.


"Investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure are an essential down payment on our future," he said. "But ... the only way we can afford these investments is by getting our fiscal house in order. Just like any family, we have to live within our means to make room for things we absolutely need."


Fiscal conservatives criticized the president's budget proposal last week for running up the national deficit to a record $1.6 trillion this year while punting on solutions to the problem of growing entitlement spending.


In his weekly address, the president defended his proposal to freeze domestic spending over the next five years, which he said would cut non-security discretionary spending down to a share of the economy "lower than it was under Ronald Reagan."


And he called on Congress to propose cuts to "defense spending, spending in Medicare and Medicaid, and spending through and tax breaks and loopholes."


"I'm willing to consider any serious ideas to help us reduce the deficit - no matter what party is proposing them," Obama said. "But instead of cutting the investments in education and innovation we need to out-compete the rest of the world, we need a balanced approach to deficit reduction. We all need to be willing to sacrifice, but we can't sacrifice our future."


He ended with a hope that bipartisanship will prevail as the Republican-led House and the Democratic Senate negotiate a budget compromise next week. The two bodies have radically different views of what should be in the spending bill for the rest of the year, and are now expected to pass a short-term budget next week to give them some negotiating time past March 4.


"For the sake of our people and our economy, we cannot allow gridlock to prevail," Obama said. "(...)I look forward to working with members of both parties to produce a responsible budget that cuts what we can't afford, sharpens America's competitive edge in the world, and helps us win the future."


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Skip to comments.
Feds to let airport screeners gain union rights
 OneNewsNow ^ | FEBRUARY 4, 2011 | Chris Woodward




A union leader says the government has decided to grant collective bargaining rights to the nation's 40,000 airport screeners... Republican opponents say that could jeopardize national security.

James Sherk, a labor expert at The Heritage Foundation, calls the decision a huge loss for airline security and passengers. He says there is a reason that most national security agencies by law do not have unions -- and that is because the union contracts make it more difficult for them to do their jobs.

"Canada has a system where they allow their security screeners to unionize -- and they've had problems where, over Thanksgiving, they won't go on strike, but what they'll do is insist on hand-inspecting every piece of luggage," explains Sherk. "So you get enormous backlog and enormous delays for [airline passengers] because the unions are trying to exhort pressure on the company to give them what they want at the negotiations."

Sherk has other concerns as well. "With a union contract, it's very difficult to fire poor performers," he states. "It's difficult to move workers where you need them, when you need them. The potential for a labor action would be catastrophic."

TSA badgeKatie Gage, head of the Workforce Fairness Institute, says the Obama administration is paying back big labor for its support by agreeing to grant collective bargaining rights to airport screeners. "At the time that [Barack Obama] was first elected, it was made very clear by folks within the ranks of organized labor that they expected a payback on that front."

Gage does not think it is a great idea if the country started to unionize the Coast Guard, for example -- adding that it certainly does not make sense to put an agency responsible for the nation's security under control of big labor bosses...


(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
3M Chief Warns Obama Over Business Regulation
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd9b4100-429b-11e0-8b34-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1FDHpURBO ^ | February 27 2011 | Hal Weitzman



By Hal Weitzman in Chicago

Published: February 27 2011 19:27 | Last updated: February 27 2011 19:27

The head of one of the US’s biggest industrial groups has launched a scathing attack on Barack Obama’s attempts to repair relations with companies, dubbing him “anti-business”.


(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
NEWS & COMMENTARY 
Is Team Obama lying to us
Or do they just not know their math?
You decide. We and Joe Wilson have made up our minds
 

February 26, 2011



We've notice in recent months as the recession has dragged on and on with little improvement that the Obama Administration is playing a game with both the Gross Domestic Product numbers and the unemployment numbers. The game is: They release reports that show improvement. The next month they "revise the previous month/quarter" and there is a pattern. The revisions are always downward, and in many cases the revised numbers would not have been a statistically significant improvement as they trumpeted.

Here are two such examples this month:

On January 29, 2011 the New York Times reported that: "The gross domestic product, a broad measure of the goods and services produced in the country, grew at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter, up from 2.6 percent in the previous period, according to a Commerce Department report released Friday." The Times then opined that: "Because of this slightly speedier expansion, the nation's overall economic output has finally matched its peak before the recession. Still, given the millions of jobless American workers, the economy has fallen far short of what it could be if it were healthy, economists said."

On February 25 the Associated Press reported: "Deeper spending cuts by state and local governments weighed down U.S. economic growth in the final three months of last year.

The government's new estimate for the October-December quarter illustrates how growing state budget crises could hold back the economic recovery.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that economic growth increased at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the final quarter of last year. That was down from the initial estimate of 3.2 percent.

The weaker figure was disappointing and prompted some economists to lower their forecasts for economic growth in the current January-March quarter."

Are they lying to us, or do they just make a mistake every month? You decide.


http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2011-02-26-251135.112112-Is-Team-Obama-lying-to-usbrOr-do-they-just-not-know-their-mathbrYou-decide-We-and-Joe-Wilson-have-made-up-our-minds.html


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
February 28, 2011
Obama Nixes Safe Drilling
By Jeffrey Folks


________________________ _____________



Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was in Houston this weekend talking with oil executives who are eager to start drilling again in the Gulf of Mexico. That may sound like progress, but after the meeting Salazar said that nothing had changed. He was not ready to approve any new drilling.


Despite everything that energy companies have done to devise advanced containment systems, Salazar is unwilling to issue a single new permit. Systems constructed by the nonprofit Marine Well Containment Company and other entities are now able to handle a flow equal or greater than that experienced during the Deepwater Horizon accident last summer. But that's not enough for Salazar, who stated that even the most advanced systems have "limitations on water depth and barrel-per-day containment capacity."


Well, yes. Any system that could be devised would have limitations on depth and per-barrel capacity. But that's not the point, as Mr. Salazar must know. The question is whether the new systems are able to handle the sorts of accident that might actually take place. Not the worst scenario that someone from the Interior Department could dream up. Combined with safely protocols now in place, the new containment equipment can do just that.


So why no permits for new drilling? It appears that the Obama administration is more interested in kowtowing to environmental donors in advance of the 2012 election than it is in controlling energy prices. Even with a federal court order to decide on new drilling in the Gulf by March 20, the Obama administration remains obdurate.


By refusing to grant a single deep-water permit in the Gulf, Obama has shut down access to one third of America's oil supply. With Libyan oil fields now closed indefinitely and with uncertainty about future production elsewhere in the Middle East, it is a dreadful time to be shutting down America's oil fields as well. Turmoil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, or Iraq would drive the price of oil up above $150 a barrel, at the very least. A prudent policy would be to increase domestic production in light of uncertainty abroad.


Some Americans are already paying $4 a gallon for gas, but this is not just because of what's happening in the Middle East. Government action on Gulf drilling permits would immediately calm the oil markets and bring down prices, even though new production would not come on line for several years. But instead of reducing prices, Obama seems is intent on driving them up.


It's not just the Gulf of Mexico that is off limits. Obama opposes drilling anywhere offshore, including in the rich arctic region which is known to hold billions of barrels of oil reserves.


Just as bad, in his FY2012 budget Obama proposes cutting $4.4 billion of annual tax deductions for oil and gas drilling -- deductions for depreciation and amortization that date back to 1913. Those tax deductions help energy companies pay for exploratory projects that then result in lower energy costs for all Americans. At a time when Obama is throwing away $100 billion on risky alternative energy boondoggles, a number of which have already gone bankrupt, he wants to end those modest tax advantages that actually result in the production of large quantities of new energy. That sort of accounting only makes sense to a politician.


Obama, in fact, is doing everything possible to curtail domestic energy production, and yet he says that "our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security." If reliance on foreign oil puts America at risk, why not produce more oil at home? New drilling techniques including fracking, horizontal drilling, and deep-water drilling now make it possible to do just that, but Obama opposes all of these.


If the President knows that dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security and that new drilling techniques can increase domestic supplies, why is he intent on destroying our domestic oil and gas industry?   


America is going to need new oil and gas production in a big way. In a new report, Charles T. Maxwell, the dean of U.S. energy analysts, has gone on record saying that regardless of what happens in the Middle East, oil prices are going up, way up. In a Barron's interview Maxwell stated that oil prices will hit $300 by 2020. Maxwell arrives at this number by way of a straightforward calculation. By about 2015 global oil production will peak, but demand will continue to increase on a global basis.


That leaves Americans paying $12 a gallon for gas, which is just about what Obama has said he wants. That certainly will help to end our dependence on foreign oil. The problem is there won't be anything to take its place.


At $12 a gallon, we won't be driving around much in large SUVs or in small SUVs, either. Nor will we be enjoying cheap air fares or discounted cruises. The cost of transporting goods will triple, as will the cost of heating homes, schools, and offices. And those who think that solar and wind will take the place of fossil fuels are sadly mistaken.


As Maxwell points out, solar energy now supplies one tenth of one percent of America's energy needs. Even with massive subsidies -- the kind of subsidies that have already bankrupted the Spanish economy -- solar and wind will never supply more than a small percentage of America's energy needs. Since Obama, through EPA restrictions, is busy sabotaging coal and natural gas as well, and since America has no serious nuclear program underway, we are left with nothing.


Only a president who is extraordinarily stupid would fail to see this. Conclusion: Obama is either extraordinarily stupid, or he is willing to trade America's national security for the support of environmentalist donors who are key to his re-election. Whichever it is, we're in trouble.


Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and article on American culture.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/obama_nixes_safe_drilling.html


 at February 28, 2011 - 07:14:47 AM CST

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Good News! New Smog Regulations Could Cost 7.3 Million Jobs!
Hotair ^ | 02/28/2011 | Jazz Shaw




With a hat tip to Jammie Wearing Fool, we find the AP reporting on a rather inflammatory potential job loss number coming out of a new study on the effects of proposed Obama administration smog regulations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Industry officials say with confidence that 7.3 million jobs will disappear if the Obama administration goes through with tighter rules to reduce smog. The industry-sponsored researcher who came up with that number isn’t so sure.

“There’s uncertainty around that,” economist Don Norman said of the “shockingly high” job loss number he extrapolated using a study sponsored by the oil and natural gas industry’s American Petroleum Institute and covering just 11 states.

This story actually serves as a cautionary tale from two different directions, and for once I’m inclined to at least partially agree with the AP’s conclusions. Studies concerning things that have happened can be quite conclusive, assuming you’re given enough time to collect and analyze all of the appropriate data. But studies on what may happen in the future should always find the savvy news shopper exercising some restraint.

The models in question are, by the admission of the researcher, all using worst case analysis numbers, so the true figures may be considerably lower. Factor that in with the fact that you’re never going to bat 100% in the prognostication business and you’ll probably find that 7.3 million figure rather hard to hang your hat on. But that doesn’t mean that the general direction of trends is in question.

One would imagine by now that the effects of too much regulation would be well known. And when you start applying environmental standards which carry a direct impact on business without taking that into account, the rule of unintended consequences is in play.

But let’s say that the 7.3 million figure is complete pie in the sky. (Though not a pie any of you would care to eat, I’m sure.) I think I can still agree with Don Norman.

“Even if the numbers are half of that, the number is huge,” he said.

We’re still at the point where any number of jobs going out the door rather than being created is too large of a figure. And that doesn’t look to be changing any time soon.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39839
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Federal workers surge, private sector down
One News Now ^ | 3/1/2011 | Chris Woodward





While the private sector workforce in America has dwindled in recent years, a new report shows that the federal workforce has gone the opposite direction.

Since December 2007, the private sector has shed more than 7.5 million jobs and decreased by 6.6 percent. But Rea Hederman, research fellow and assistant director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, compares that to the federal workforce's numbers.

"The federal government has increased by almost 12 percent of total workers," he reports. "Over 230,000 new federal workers have been hired in the last three years," excluding census and postal workers.

And while the trend may have begun in December 2007, it has continued to be the norm throughout the Obama administration. Since President Obama was sworn into office, the private sector workforce has shrunk by 2.6 percent, compared to the public sector's seven-percent increase. But Hederman warns that the divide may grow even larger as the president's 2012 budget proposes more federal jobs.

"ObamaCare means we'll need a lot more federal workers to carry out a lot of the intrusive elements of the bill, such as analyzing people's tax returns on a monthly basis," the research fellow notes. "That's why the IRS says we need about 4,100 new workers."

Overall, he says President Obama wants to create roughly 15,000 new jobs on the federal level.


(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...