By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

The Stimulus Kicks In: Higher Unemployment

In our book 2010: Take Back America – A Battle Plan, we write:

“The prospect we now face is not the intermittent up-and-down fluctuations of unemployment we have had since the Great Depression. Thanks to Obama’s policies, we’re confronting the possibility of an unemployment rate that never comes down, just as they have in Europe. If we stay on Obama’s course, lower joblessness in the United States will be a thing of the past.”

The recent rise in unemployment back up to 9.6% and the loss of 54,000 jobs in August, suggests that our prediction is – dismally – coming true.
The Obama stimulus plan has finally kicked in: The higher spending he brought to our nation and the debt levels that are accompanying it are the result.

Why is unemployment remaining so high? Because the totality of Obama’s policies are dragging us into a depression.

• The prospect of dramatically higher taxes next year is freezing consumer spending, particularly in the upper income ranges which spend a third of America’s consumption.

• The huge changes that are looming in medical care brought about by Obama’s health care legislation are freezing new employment and expansion in the medical sector which accounts for 16% of GDP.

• The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend, freezing new job creation.

• The looming possibility of cap-and-tax legislation in the name of halting climate change is freezing any expansion in the manufacturing and energy sectors since these policies will force jobs to move overseas to locations that do not impose such a tax (e.g. India and China).

• The massive expansion in the deficit and in the resulting debt has so eroded confidence in our nation’s future that Americans are now saving 6% of their income, up from 1% in the past, sapping consumer spending.

• The threat of new rules for union elections that will spread private sector unionization is freezing business expansion plans.

Obama’s rush to spend, regulate, re-engineer, redistribute, and tax have stopped any recovery and are sending us back into recession. In her wonderful book The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes notes how FDR’s policies in the late 1930s did the same thing. She notes how the imposition of the Social Security tax in 1937 (benefits did not start until 1941) and the rapid wage hikes that accompanied the passage of the Wagner Act (steel worker wages rose 40% in 1937) sent a recovering nation back into a new depression that lasted until the war started in 1939.

In his haste to re-make America and to bring us the “fundamental change” he promised as he campaigned for president in 2008, Obama has torpedoed the recovery and sent us back into a double dip recession.

The answer is to cut spending back to pre-Obama levels, reduce taxes and eliminate the threat of tax increases, zero fund the changes Obama has legislated in health care (and repeal them in 2013), eliminate the threat of cap-and-tax, and lay the basis for solid economic growth.

We have left the recession that started in 2007 and entered a new recession caused by Obama’s policies.

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET

A JOB,
A DRIVERS LICENSE,
SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
WELFARE,
FOOD STAMPS,
CREDIT CARDS,
SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
FREE EDUCATION,
FREE HEALTH CARE,
A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION

�
IT’S TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!

Morning Bell: The Audacity of Failure

Posted By Conn Carroll On September 3, 2010

In April, while campaigning in Pennsylvania, Vice President Joe Biden promised the American people  “I’m here to tell you, some time in the next couple of months, we’re going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month. … We caught a lot of bad breaks on the way down. We’re going to catch a few good breaks because of good planning on the way up.” And for a while it looked like Biden was a genius. In May, the Labor Department reported that nonfarm payroll employment rose by 290,000 the previous month and in June they reported that the U.S. economy added another 431,000 jobs. President Barack Obama’s “good planning” was working! But then the next report  showed the U.S. economy lost 125,000 jobs in June and then the August report  found another 131,000 jobs were lost in July. Today the Labor Department released the September jobs report , showing nonfarm payrolls decreased again by 54,000 and that the nation’s unemployment rate rose to 9.6%.

By every objective measure, President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package has been a complete failure. When President Obama was selling his stimulus plan to the American people, he promised it would save or create 3.5 million jobs  by the end of 2010. At the time, employment stood at about 134.3 million, according to the Labor Department’s most commonly used measure. That established an Obama jobs target for December 2010 at 137.8 million. According to the latest jobs report, total U.S. employment stood at 130.3 million in August, which means the cumulative Obama jobs deficit stands at 7.5 million.

Despite the mounting evidence of failure, the Obama administration is still completely unapologetic. Defending her tenure as chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer told journalists  at the National Press Club Wednesday: “The current recession has been fundamentally different from other postwar recessions. … Precisely because such severe financial shocks have been rare, there were no reliable estimates of the likely impact. To this day, economists don’t fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did, and why they cut labor so much more than they normally would, given the decline in output.” But after first admitting that the experts don’t understand the current crisis, she then confidently asserts :

It is clear that the Recovery Act has played a large role in the turnaround in GDP and employment. In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3½ percent and employment by about 3½ million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred…. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CEA’s own estimates, and estimates from a range of respected private sector analysts suggest that the Act has already raised employment by approximately two to three million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

Got that? Romer first admits that her magic Keynesian formulas were completely useless in predicting how bad the recession would be, and then she turns right around and uses those exact same formulas to justify the success of the stimulus. If that bootstrapping weren’t audacious enough, Romer then went on to claim that “the United States still faces a substantial shortfall of aggregate demand” and that “structural changes in the composition of our output or a mismatch between worker skills and jobs” having nothing to do with continued high unemployment. So instead of changing course, Romer wants us to double down with a second round of economic stimulus.

How much more stimulus does the Obama administration want to spend? Romer wouldn’t say, and the White House is desperate to avoid calling any new action “stimulus,” but The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle has crunched the numbers  and come up with a ballpark size of how big the original economic stimulus package would have to have been if we take the left’s Keynesian economics as gospel: “Full employment is perhaps 4.5-5%. If we assume that stimulus benefits increase linearly, that means we would have needed a stimulus of, on the low end, $2.5 trillion. On the high end, it would have been in the $4-5 trillion range.”

Even the Obama administration doesn’t want to add another $5 trillion to our $13.5 trillion national debt . That is why the Obama administration is pushing a $921 billion tax hike set to take effect on January 1, 2011. There is only one word for proposing $981 billion in taxes to pay for trillions in failed stimulus spending in the midst of 9.6% unemployment: audacity.

Meredith Turney
Barbara Boxer’s Last Debate

 It was a match for the ages: a three-term United States Senator against the former CEO of a Fortune 50 international corporation. California politicos had been looking forward to the highly anticipated debate between Barbara Boxer and Carly Fiorina. Last night, the two finally met for an hour-long debate that could be the only time voters get to compare the candidates side-by-side before casting their vote.

If there were one way to summarize the overall tenor of the debate, it would be this: Get Carly. As the two candidates were questioned by the journalists on the panel, the moderator, and questions submitted from voters, there was an unmistakable slant towards attacking Fiorina, while Boxer slid by almost unchallenged. Among the gems softballed to Boxer: You’ve been in office three terms, why not give someone else a chance? Is there any issue where you would challenge President Obama? And shouldn’t federal agriculture subsidies also go to smaller farms?

Contrast that to the pounding Fiorina took regarding her tenure at Hewlett Packard, whether she supports Proposition 8, whether she’s pro-life, and why she supports “tax cuts for the wealthiest.” Granted, each of these issues needs to be discussed during a serious debate. But the manner in which the questions were framed was decidedly biased against Fiorina and conservative principles in general.

During the clash, both candidates sought to draw a stark contrast between their positions. On first appearance, the contrast was clear when both entered the stage; Boxer in a subdued, simple gray pantsuit and Fiorina in an elegant blue skirt suit. Although it may be discounted as mere aesthetics, the outfit a politician wears at such a critical public appearance is always the topic of much discussion amongst consultants and campaign staff. Fiorina appeared feminine, stylish and classy, while Boxer appeared to have just stepped out of a mundane business meeting. Fiorina looked fresh and vibrant; Boxer’s appearance reflected the tired complacency of an incumbent.

As expected, jobs and the economy were the main focus of each candidate in their statements and responses to questions. While Boxer repeatedly assailed Fiorina for “shipping jobs overseas to China,” Fiorina reminded viewers that it was under Boxer’s watch that California’s unemployment numbers have risen to well over 12 percent—despite the massive $826 billion stimulus bill Boxer supported. Fiorina also addressed the matter of cutting jobs at HP by explaining that sometimes difficult decisions have to be made so that a company can be better off in the long run and create even more jobs. She’s had to make those tough decisions in the real world.

A typical Democrat ploy of evoking jealousy amongst voters, Boxer also engaged in blatant class warfare by attacking Fiorina for the salary she received as one of the top CEOs in the world: $100 million. Fiorina deftly diffused the attack when questioned about why she supports teacher pay being tied to performance, when she received such a significant salary while laying off workers (again, another biased, illogical question from moderators). Fiorina explained that she “tore up” her contract with HP and made her salary something the board voted on annually. In other words, every year Fiorina was forced to justify her salary to her employers.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the debate was Boxer’s inability to effectively respond to Fiorina’s presentation of the fact Boxer has failed to offer any significant legislation during three terms in the Senate. For a senator from one of the most powerful states in the union, such an abysmal track record is noteworthy. Fiorina chalked it up to Boxer’s being “one of the most bitter, partisan members of U.S. Senate,” even citing then-Senator Joe Biden’s disgust at Boxer playing political football with a war-funding bill.

Boxer was asked a questions about her now infamous dressing-down of Brigadier General Michael Walsh, whom she instructed to call her “senator” instead of “ma’am” because she “worked so hard to get that title.” Boxer tried to explain away the incident as simply a way to make things more professional during a heated committee hearing. She later called the General and asked him whether she needed to apologize (an admission that reflects she still believed she had done nothing wrong and didn’t think an apology was necessary).

But in her opening remarks and throughout the rest of the debate, Boxer repeatedly touted her support of the military and veterans; even returning to the topic when answering completely unrelated questions. The “call me senator” incident has obviously resonated with voters and Boxer’s overemphasis on the military indicates her campaign is concerned enough about mending fences that she spent a significant chunk of her time appealing to veterans and supporters of the military.

When it came to social issues, Boxer acted as though she were in a debate two or three decades ago, trotting out an astonishing array of antiquated talking points. Abortion? Fiorina wants to make it illegal and send doctors to jail and women to their death!

For her part, Fiorina explained that she is pro-life, but supports funding for adult stem cell research, and believes abortion should be a states rights issue. She supports Proposition 8’s protection of marriage, but favors civil unions for same-sex couples.

However, after succinctly stating her positions, Fiorina redirected the debate to the real issues on voters’ minds: jobs and the economy. In doing so, Fiorina showed that she understands voters much better than her counterpart. While Boxer appealed to her base with scary prognostications about Fiorina sending abortion doctors to jail, Fiorina recognized finding a job to feed one’s children is of much more concern to voters these days.

Boxer’s attacks on Fiorina for sending jobs overseas rung hollow when the topic of environmental regulations was discussed. As the proponent of one of the most expensive pieces of legislation in the nation’s history, Boxer has advocated Cap-and-trade and other severe environmental regulations that have contributed to the climbing unemployment rate. As Fiorina pointed out, no state can act alone in the face of a global issue, yet that is exactly what California and the United States have done. As the poster child of extreme environmentalism in Congress, Boxer has prevented water from flowing to the agricultural centers in the Central Valley, where unemployment is extremely high. Boxer even threatened that if Fiorina is elected, California will lose its place as the nation’s green leader. How about instead of being the nation’s “green leader”, California becomes the job-creating leader once again?

It was rather stunning to see a three-term United States Senator make such sophomoric arguments and engage in petty demagoguery. In Carly Fiorina, Barbara Boxer didn’t just meet her match, she met her superior—a woman vastly more articulate, knowledgeable, and accomplished. If it were anyone other than Barbara Boxer one could have almost felt pity at her obvious inability to keep up with Fiorina. It was akin to watching the Harvard Debate Team take on a lowly junior high team with no concept of how to string together a cogent argument. Thanks to Carly Fiorina, this could very well have been Barbara Boxer’s last debate.

David Limbaugh
Obama’s Burden of Being So Bright

 Sorry, but I can’t allow Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ statement that “we have a lot of re-education to do” slip by without comment. It’s amusing when avowed leftists don’t even recognize the Marxist buzzwords they’re sputtering.

Sebelius is attributing the public’s vehement opposition to Obamacare to “misinformation given on a 24/7 basis. … Unfortunately,” she said, “there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in (the Obamacare law) and what isn’t.” She is especially peeved about the vulnerability of seniors, who “have been a target of a lot of the misinformation.” (The target of Obama’s misinformation, perhaps.)

The most remarkable thing is that Sebelius didn’t actually use the term “re-education” accidentally or out of school. Perhaps unwittingly, she’s quite comfortable using a term long associated with tyrannical regimes. As one of Obama’s chief lieutenants, she obviously believes this administration knows better than the public what is good for them.

Indeed, one of the ongoing ironies of liberalism is that it holds itself out as open-minded, democratic and representative of the common man, when it is more comfortable dictating to and indoctrinating the masses. Just look at our universities alone if you need quick, verifiable proof. But let’s consider a few other examples of this administration’s employing that mindset.

When an audience member at a forum at the Kennedy School of Government told Obama adviser and close confidant Valerie Jarrett that Obama’s ideas are too complex to be digested by the unwashed, she didn’t protest. The participant affectionately proposed that the White House express its ideas in an easier-to-comprehend form, such as printing simple booklets — I assume replete with large print and colorful pictures.

Unflinching, Jarrett agreed it was a jolly idea. “Everyone understood hope and change,” she said (NO, THEY DIDN’T), because “they were simple. … Part of our challenge is to find a very simple way of communicating. … When I first got here, people kept talking about ‘cloture’ and ‘reconciliation’ and ‘people don’t know what that’s talking about.’” Then, the kicker, “There’s nobody more self-critical than President Obama. Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately.” How lonely it must be for these people at their perch high above the masses.

Then there’s Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who, in gloating that he is part of a “transformational administration,” intends to “coerce people out of their cars.” Does it bother him that he’s basically using government to dictate to people how they should behave? Are you kidding? When asked about such unseemly government intrusion, he cavalierly replied, “About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives.” He continued, “I think we can change people’s behavior.”

Then there is the president himself. After his policy agenda was soundly repudiated with the victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, instead of showing contrition or promising to modify Obamacare to more closely align with the people’s will, he became further entrenched. He said, “I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed.” He also said he just hadn’t talked enough about his plan, which left me wondering where “Saturday Night Live’s” writers were.

With this administration, what we’re seeing is not just an arrogant contempt for the cognitive ability and will of the American people but also a cynical determination to manipulate its will through indoctrination, selective suppression of speech, and trickery.

Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a Harvard Law Review article advocating “cognitive infiltration,” which amounts to the government’s use of phony websites and 501(c)(3) groups to masquerade as independent supporters of government policies and trolling opposing websites to pepper them with pro-administration posts. In this way, the government can manipulate public opinion surreptitiously, all for the greater societal good, as defined by Obama/Sunstein liberals. Even certain fellow liberal journalists have described this suggestion as “truly pernicious.”

And let’s not forget recent Obama Supreme Court appointee Elena Kagan’s advocating the government’s “unskewing” of speech that she and her fellow liberals believe harmful, i.e., conservative speech.

I truly hope people understand that Kathleen Sebelius’ comment was neither offhanded nor out of line with the administration’s MO; it was right in line with the administration’s Orwellian approach to top-down, autocratic governance.