Saturday, August 27, 2011

"Elites" Try to Crush Tea Party, Raise Taxes

Friday, August 26, 2011
The Politico headline read: “Conservative elites pine for 2012 hero.” They could have shortened that sentence to “Elites pine” or more likely to “Elites freak the heck out.” Because it’s not just the conservative cognoscenti, it’s all of them. The folks in charge miss the good old days when they ran everything and ordinary American voters and taxpayers did as they were told.
Those days are gone and the in-crowd is afraid it is on the way out, too. Congress’s favorability is down to 13 percent and even the lefties at Mother Jones are whining that both parties are cancelling town hall meetings to hide from angry voters.
The era when elite Washington – of all three major parties: Republicans, Democrats and the Media – could just raise our taxes or cut deals behind closed doors has gone bye-bye. And the Powers That Be are determined to turn back the clock.
They blame the Tea Party and rightly so. A combination of a grassroots movement and the technology to actually inform Americans has taken away some power from politicians and the media. The logical solution would be for both groups to reflect more what the public actually wants from them – a saner, more affordable government and a media that is fair to someone other than liberals.
Instead, the elites have declared war on the Tea Party.
That in itself is nothing new. Since the first spot of tea a couple years ago, anti-tax, anti-Big Government protesters have been called bigots, violent and a dangerous fringe element. The recent debt battle took it to a far worse level as those in power sought to blame Tea Partiers on our nation’s unwillingness to spend itself into the grave.
The result of that battle was, seemingly, a toss-up. The debt ceiling was raised and a super committee established to discuss ways to solve the budget crunch. But the design of the committee makes tax hikes likely. The deck is stacked as everyone from President Obama and Vice President Biden to Speaker Boehner and almost every generic pundit is now pushing to do just that. And the clock is ticking as a Dec. 23 deadline looms.
At least a few admit they want to use the chance to raise taxes. Obama, most Dems and even loud-mouthed billionaire Warren Buffett are begging for a tax hike. On Sunday, Aug. 21, the major media chimed in. The Washington Post ran two huge pieces skewering the Tea Party on the economy and more. Columnist Allan Sloan led off the business section claiming “the Tea Party types bear primary responsibility.” Over in the opinion section (as if the first piece wasn’t opinion), they ran a pro-spending, pro-Keynsian economics piece complaining that critics of such policies “almost surely have it wrong.” The critics are, of course, the Tea Party and friendly politicians like Rep. Michele Bachmann and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
The very same day, The New York Times produced an editorial urging “business leaders to change the minds of the Tea Party lawmakers” and back a “grand bargain that cut spending and raised tax revenue.”
The push to raise taxes is near universal across the media for two reasons. First, it boosts the size of the burgeoning Nanny State. The journalistic elite always support more government. Even when politicians trim the size of growth in government, reporters bemoan such “draconian” cuts. Journalists have never met a draconian increase in the size of government, but taxpayers sure have.
Secondly, a tax hike would require squashing the Tea Party. And the elites join in the hunt. Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. has claimed GOP politicians are “subservient” to the Tea Party. Post columnist Richard Cohen concurs and said Perry “occupies the cultural and intellectually empty heartland of the Republican Party” because he “vows to diminish Washington’s influence.” Cohen calls that a “moronic policy,” instead claiming “what America desperately needs is more, not less, Washington.”
The network news shows use the same strategy with just a dash more subtlety. When local Tea Party leaders confronted Obama in Iowa, they were put down on air. On NBC, Chuck Todd noted the “bitter taste of the energy and confrontational style of the Tea Party” and their “in-your-face tactics.” ABC’s Jake Tapper referred to it the “unruly Tea Party style.”
Politicians took the same view.  “Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chaired the deficit commission, said the American people are rightly disgusted, and he’s personally bothered by Republicans undermining any chance of Speaker Boehner compromising,” explained Tapper July 12. That’s a Republican argument supporting Obama’s “shared sacrifice” plan where the elites control more of your money.
They were mirroring the elitist anti-Tea Party talking points, such as the one from Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod who called the downgrade of U.S. debt “a Tea Party downgrade.” That, despite the fact that Tea Partiers were the only ones willing to cut enough government to prevent the downgrade in the first place.
Wherever you look, elites are moving to crush resistance. The West does it the democratic way of course. In Syria and Libya, they use tanks and guns and SCUD missiles. Here in America, elites use the more dangerous weapon of the media to keep power over everything we do. Our bosses envy the power of their counterparts elsewhere. France just “announced $16 billion in new taxes to ensure it reaches its deficit-reduction targets,” rather than cut its massive welfare state.
In the U.S., Democrats and Republicans alike embrace the tax-and-spend approach, so the Tea Party threatens them all. Naturally, it must be stopped. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., made it all clear in a recent speech. “Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party – the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage.”
Like most politicians, she’s wrong. If the Tea Party really had that much sway in Congress, our economy and our nation would be in much better shape.

Obama made his own bad luck on jobs

Obama made his own bad luck on jobs

By Phil Kerpen, vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity - 08/18/11 11:34 AM ET
The President recently took to the campaign trail – at taxpayer expense – trying to rehabilitate his image on job creation. Obama claimed that his policies “reversed the recession” until he ran into a “run of bad luck,” but in truth the biggest challenge the economy has faced under this administration is an astonishing onslaught of federal regulations that make it nearly impossible to estimate the cost of adding new employees. In fact, the only Obama “success” on job creation is the hiring of new federal regulators, with employment at regulatory agencies up 13 percent since Obama took office to more than 281,000 federal bureaucrats. Meanwhile private sector employment shrank by 5.6 percent.

Investors and employers are sitting on their hands, accumulating cash, and waiting for the regulatory environment to improve. Unfortunately, it seems to be getting even more hostile to job creation.

In the last Congress we saw the passage of two of the biggest expansions in federal regulatory power in decades (and possibly ever). Obama’s health care law and the Dodd-Frank financial legislation were each about 2,000 pages of broad grants of authority and discretion to regulators, the implications of which are just now beginning to be felt.

On top of that we’ve seen an astonishing train wreck of new energy regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including an aggressive effort to discover elements of the failed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation inside the forty-year-old Clean Air Act. The EPA is now contemplating its most aggressively anti-jobs regulation: an out-of-cycle re-proposal of smog rules that would ratchet down levels so far beyond what is necessary for public health that nearly the whole country would be judged “out of attainment” and over seven millions jobs would be lost. The EPA is also attempting to impose an absurd 54.5 mile-per-gallon fuel economy standard that will take any car worth driving off the market.

Not to be outdone, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is intent on rewarding the union bosses with elements of the failed card check legislation, including an effort to allow unions to impose ambush elections – before workers have an opportunity to understand the costs associated with forming a union. Most chilling from the NLRB is the effort of their acting, not confirmed, general counsel Lafe Solomon to dictate to Boeing (and, by precedent, all potential employers) where they can locate facilities that employ thousands of people.

The expensive regulations hamstringing manufacturing, banking, and other traditional sectors would be somewhat bearable if the innovative sectors of the future were able to drive overall economic growth relatively unfettered. Indeed that is what we’ve seen over the past decade: the technology sector, especially the wide-scale deployment of broadband Internet and wireless technologies, has been the principal driver of innovation and economic growth. In June, the tech sector had just a 3.3 percent unemployment rate, compared to 9.2 percent in the overall economy.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, in a politically-motivated move almost certainly being dictated by the White House, is set to go final with its so-called network neutrality rules sometime this fall. These rules are offered as solution to a nonexistent problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites or otherwise interfering with their customers’ use of the Internet. But the effect will be to give government regulators control over the economics of the Internet, with an expected result of slashing private investment by about 10 percent and destroying as many as 200,000 jobs a year. The second order effects of slowing down the Internet innovation engine will be felt across almost every other industry.

The House has already voted to overturn the network neutrality order, and the Senate will have an opportunity under the Congressional Review Act later this year. If just four Democratic senators vote with all 47 Republicans to overturn the rule, Obama will be forced to decide whether he wants to use his veto pen to keep hundreds of thousands of people unemployed.

Clearly, more fundamental reform is needed. The most significant reform is the REINS ACT, H.R. 10, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky. The REINS Act would require approval of the House, Senate, and President for any economically significant rule before it could take effect. It would eliminate the most extreme outcomes and dampen the impact of regulatory uncertainty on businesses that would be eager to hire if they had more reasonable expectations of regulatory compliance costs. If the President is serious about creating jobs, he should stop blaming bad luck and take responsibility. He should call off the regulatory attacks at his agencies and urge passage of the REINS Act.

The Texas Record under Gov. Rick Perry

The Texas Record under Gov. Rick Perry

I am being asked by a number of nation media about Gov. Rick Perry. As AFP director, I am not in a position to talk politics, but do talk policies.
Before being Texas director of Americans for Prosperity, I worked for Ronald Reagan (first White House liaison for US Dept of Ed)and Bush 41 (White House liaison at US Dept of Interior), and have worked public policy issues in Texas during Gov. Ann Richards, Gov. George W. Bush and Gov. Perry's tenures.
What is the Perry record?
Texas is the top state for business relocation into the state, #1 in job creation, top exporting state, and the list goes on and on. Texas has gainned those distinctions under Gov. Perry's tenure.
We Texans value lower taxes, common-sense regulations, stoping frivilous lawsuits, no state income tax and being a right-to-work state.
In April 2009, AFP-Texas held one of the first tea party rallies in the state, working with a number of other groups, where Gov. Perry spoke and we first introduced our issue campaign "Lone Star Strong". We created that effort to point out how public policies matter.
To get a snapshot of the Texas record and how conservative fiscal policies create an atmosphere for prosperity, go to: www.LoneStarStrong.com

-- Peggy Venable

Read more: http://americansforprosperity.org/081311-texas-record-under-gov-rick-perry#ixzz1WI1vXChb

American Soldiers; The best of the best.

If only the self serving clowns in Washington had half the honor, respect and dignity our military does.
 

Obama's "Department of Justice" attacks American companies.


Human Events Facebook Fanpage
Follow Us on Twitter
Tell a Friend
Human Events Video
Subscribe to Human Events!
Today's Sponsor
Fridays with Erick Erickson 08.26.11 Sign Up for Daily Events
Yet again the President intends to take a stab at jobs creation. Two things being touted by the White House are scholarships for engineers, which will not create jobs and will increase the costs of education through the subsidy. The other is paying people to retrofit buildings to make buildings greener. Even the New York Times is finally conceding that green jobs don't actually create many jobs.

All of this ignores that, should the President's plan work, it'll increase federal spending and not actually create sustainable jobs. It is also a distraction from bigger news.

The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets are reporting the Department of Justice has raided Gibson Guitars. Why? Because Gibson uses wood from India in its guitars. That wood is from a sustainable crop of wood that is industry certified. But Gibson takes the wood and finishes it here in the United States, providing Americans with jobs.

The Department of Justice believes it is illegal for Gibson to finish its guitars in the United States. According to the Department of Justice's interpretation of an Indian law that India itself does not interpret in the same way, wood taken from India must be finished in India. Never mind that the Indian government does not see it that way and has not requested American intervention against Gibson.

While the President is trying to create jobs, we should not fall for the distraction and should instead pay very real attention to how Barack Obama's appointees are killing American jobs.

— Erick Erickson

Thursday, August 25, 2011

"Green jobs" aren't.

$500,000 of Green for Green Jobs, Red for the Rest of Us


It certainly pays to go green.  Well, at least until the greenbacks stop flowing – and bankruptcy kicks in.
Last year, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner estimated that the $30 billion green handout in the stimulus bill cost taxpayers roughly $475,000 per job created.  According to the Wall Street Journal, that’s quadruple the cost of creating a job in a nonsubsidized private firm.  It turns out that Horner was right on the money, even for non-energy related “green” jobs.
Yesterday, Fox News reported on the results of a tree planting stimulus program in Nevada – and it’s not pretty:
In 2009, the U.S. Forest Service awarded $490,000 of stimulus money to Nevada’s Clark County Urban Forestry Revitalization Project, aimed at revitalizing urban neighborhoods in the county with trees, plants, and green-industry training.
According to Recovery.gov, the U.S. government’s official website related to Recovery Act spending, the project created 1.72 permanent jobs.  In addition, the Nevada state Division of Forestry reported the federal grant generated one full-time temporary job and 11 short-term project-oriented jobs.

Supporters of the program claim that there was an unspecified amount of jobs created from “Spanish-language training for Hispanics in the landscaping and tree care industry.”  After all, these are probably jobs that Americans won’t do anyway.
To be fair, at least tree planting won’t go out of business, thereby providing these 1.75 individuals with permanent jobs.  The same cannot be said for stimulus-subsidized Big Solar jobs.
Last week, the Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar filed for bankruptcy, after laying off 800 workers in March.   Now, they are slated to dump another 65 workers by closing a plant in Michigan.  This, after receiving an undisclosed amount of stimulus cash, in addition to $58 million in state aid.
So much for Obama’s 2008 promise to create 5 million well-paying green jobs!
While Obama’s corporate cronies are seeing green, we are all incurring red.  Obama’s stimulus helped contribute to his $4.247 trillion addition to the national debt.  Following the latest $2.5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, the debt has already increased by $345 billion, from $14.294 trillion to $14.639 trillion.
Let’s put that figure in perspective for a moment.  As part of the deal to increase the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion, Congress agreed to cut spending by $6.67 billion next year.  Well, at a clip of $3 million per minute, we blew through that amount of savings in the first 37 hours of the new borrowing regime!
I’ve always viewed environmentalists as watermelons; green on the outside, but ruby red on the inside.  I guess you can view the red as the embodiment of socialism or perennial debt.

Politics? Maybe not, but too funny to pass up.

http://www.badideatshirts.com/SOMEWHERE-IN-KENYA-A-VILLAGE-IS-MISSING-THEIR-IDIOT-T-SHIRT--P990.aspx

Barackside


http://www.tobytoons.com/td/cartoon/20110420/bringing-back-a-classic-from-2009-barackside.html

CBO’s Latest Budget and Economic Outlook is Unrealistic


If Obama's policies are the baseline, this outlook is way off line.
The latest CBO budget and economic outlook is using baseline assumptions that are as realistic as flying unicorns.  Although they project a decade of mediocre growth and moderate deficits, even such a dismal projection is a pretentious view of reality.
On the budget side, CBO’s baseline outlook portends a $1.284 trillion deficit this year, and $3.487 worth of deficits over the ten-year budget frame, from 2012-2021.  The ten-year deficit predictions assume that the annual deficit will dramatically drop to $265 billion in just two years, and remain below $300 billion for the rest of the decade!  The previous baseline outlook in March foresaw a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2011 and $6.7 trillion in deficits for the subsequent ten years.  Even the March outlook was a lowball figure because the report presumed an unrealistic improvement in economic output, dramatic spikes in revenue, long-term record low interest rates, while obfuscating the costs of Obamacare all along.  The updated baseline outlook makes those assumptions on steroids.
The CBO gets their unrealistic budget estimates from predictions of economic growth that run counter to all of the current economic reports.  In turn, the robust unicorn economy will rapidly increase revenue, while decreasing spending on anti-poverty and unemployment programs.  CBO is predicting GDP growth of 2.3% this year, even though it has only grown by 0.8% for the first half of the year.  We would need to enjoy a 3.8% rate of growth for the rest of the year, in order to achieve the 2.3% target.
Additionally, CBO is predicting 8.5% unemployment by 2012.  Then, from 2013-2016, CBO is predicting an average of 3.6% GDP growth and 5.3% unemployment!  No wonder they predict revenues to rise to 20.2% of GDP – near historic records – by 2014.
For some perspective, compare those numbers to the estimates by other economists.  JP Morgan is predicting 1.3% GDP growth and 9.5% unemployment by the end of next year, while Goldman Sachs is predicting 2.1% GDP growth and 9.25% unemployment.

While most of the unicorn predictions by the CBO are derived from an impracticable economic outlook and unrealistic revenues, the rest of the savings come from spending reductions and tax increases.  They are already budgeting in the impending $1.2 trillion in cuts that will supposedly pass the super duper committee.  They are also assuming that the Bush tax cuts expire, an AMT fix is discontinued, and most Medicare provider payments under ‘doc fix’ are discontinued.  Remember that CBO only uses static scoring, and as such, fails to envision the economic devastation of such tax hikes.
The only real cuts that should be factored in are the $756 billion in savings from discretionary caps.  Imagine what the CBO baseline would show, even with rosy economic outlooks, had Republicans not taken back the House?
Oh, and for good measure, CBO assumes that inflation will remain low, interest rates will be next to nothing, and housing prices will soar – to almost pre-crash levels.  This, despite the fact that home prices continue to tank.
In order to uncover the truth, you must read the conclusion at the end of the budget-outlook section of the report.  They make it clear that the “alternative scenarios” are more accurate than the baseline outlook:
Moreover, the projections of federal debt that CBO highlighted in June for the alternative fiscal scenario do not include the harmful effects of rising debt on economic growth and interest rates. If those effects were taken into account, projected debt would increase even more rapidly. Large budget deficits and growing debt would reduce national saving, thus leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment—which in turn would lower real GDP and income in the United States relative to what would otherwise occur. Furthermore, paying for the rising costs of interest through higher marginal tax rates could discourage work and saving and reduce output even more, while making room in the budget for those interest costs by reducing spending on government programs would have other economic and social consequences.
An increasing federal debt relative to the size of the economy also would boost the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. At the same time, burgeoning debt would increasingly restrict policymakers’ ability to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges, such as economic downturns or financial crises.
The explosive path of federal debt under the alternative fiscal scenario shows that the combination of policies that underlie that scenario cannot be continued for the next several decades.
It’s also important to highlight the disclaimer from the CBO at the beginning of their report:
CBO initially completed its economic forecast in early July, but it updated the forecast in early August to reflect the policy changes enacted in the Budget Control Act of 2011. However, the forecast described in this report does not reflect any other developments since early July, including the recent swings in financial markets and the annual revision to the national income and product accounts (compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis). Incorporating that recent news and economic data would have led CBO to temper its near-term forecast for economic growth.
In other words, the only way we will achieve those economic and budget estimations is by electing a conservative president and Senate – and ending over-taxation, regulation, litigation and subsidization.  And, most importantly, Obamacare.

East coast earthquake humor.

Washington D.C.
August 20, 2011

President Obama has just confirmed that the DC earthquake occurred on an
obscure fault-line, identified as "Bush's Fault".  In an emergency press
conference, the President announced that the Secret Service and Maxine
Waters will investigate the quake's suspicious ties to the Tea Party and
other right wing extremist organizations. In a follow on question, the
President stated that the quake did not interrupt his golf vacation.

In a related press release, Al Gore has called for national news
coverage of his speech to be given at 7 PM EST.  It is rumored that Mr.
Gore will offer proof that the quake is a result of global warming
caused by conservatives.

Conservatives challenged the White House investigation and disputed Mr.
Gore's claims, issuing a joint press release contending the quake was
caused by the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

In a surprise announcement, the Tea Party claimed credit for the quake
and threatened that the residence of DC should expect more quakes as
they continue shifting the Country to the RIGHT.

Business bests government yet again, or I'll see your high speed rail and raise you a bus.


Michael Barone

Traveling Back to the Future on Intercity Buses

by  Michael Barone
08/25/2011
Not long ago, I wrote about how the private sector outraces and laps government. While governments dither and dispute, the private sector discovers.
   
The example I mentioned then was energy. For years, governments, national and local, have been promoting wind and solar power, to little practical effect. Curiously, the biggest wind power producer is Rick Perry's Texas. But wind power isn't reliable, and both wind and solar cause serious damage to the environment.
   
In the meantime, the oil and gas industries -- the favorite target of Barack Obama and congressional Democrats -- have developed new techniques of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) that have vastly expanded recoverable American energy supplies.
Now across my laptop comes news of another area in which private sector actors have overtaken government. Again an older technology has been improved and adapted to fill a need, while government dithers.
   
The old technology in this case is buses.
   
While the Obama administration has been desperately seeking to spend $53 billion on so-called high-speed rail lines, private businessmen have developed Chinatown and Megabus lines that provide inter-city service that has attracted legions of price-conscious travelers.
   
Chinatown bus service started in 1998 to provide a cheap way for Asian immigrants to get from New York to Boston. You lined up at the curb, paid your $20 fare to the driver and settled into a comfortable bus for four hours or so.
   
Now there's service to multiple destinations (including gambling casinos) from New York and on the West Coast, too. And competitors have arisen. Megabus routes exist between Maine and Memphis and Minneapolis, notably including many college towns.
The buses have bathrooms, AC power outlets and free wi-fi. They're not as fast as the much more expensive Acela train, but they tend to run on schedule.
Bus travel used to be decidedly downscale, with a clientele that scared off middle-class travelers. That's because, back in the days of heavily regulated transportation, bus lines followed the passenger railroad model, with stations in central cities, routes with multiple stops, fares propped up by monopolies and operators with no economic incentive to provide comfortable or pleasant service.
   
Chinatown and Megabus operators ditched this model for one that works for travelers for whom money is scarce and time plentiful. Who needs a station? Intercity buses can occupy curb space briefly just as city buses do. Who needs multiple stops? You can make money on people who want to go from one specific location to another.
   
Needless to say, the cost to the taxpaying public is minimal. City streets and interstate highways already exist, and maintenance gets financing from gas taxes. And the system has enormous flexibility. If fewer passengers want to line up in Chinatown and more on the Upper West Side, the bus can change stops.
   
Private bus operators have effectively taken a 100-year-old technology, the bus, and adapted it seamlessly to the 21st century.
Compare high-speed rail. It is tethered to enormous stations that must be built or refurbished and limited to particular routes that, once the rails are laid down, cannot be changed except at prohibitive expense.
   
And it is enormously costly. In just two years, the estimated cost of the Obama administration's pet project, California high-speed rail, in the "flatter than Kansas" Central Valley has risen from $7.1 billion to $13.9 billion. Oxford economist Bent Flyvbjerg has found that high-speed rail projects always end up costing more, usually far more, than estimates.
   
In addition, operating costs almost always end up higher than fares. And fares always turn out to be expensive, comparable to airfare if you book a popular flight the day before your trip.
   
So high-speed rail is a form of transportation on which government subsidizes business travelers. You don't see backpackers anymore on the Acela or Amtrak trains from Washington to New York. They're taking the Chinatown bus or one of its competitors.
   
Finally, most of the high-speed rail lines the Obama administration is touting are a whole lot slower than France's TGV or Japan's bullet train. You can beat the proposed Minneapolis-Duluth line by going just slightly over the speed limit on I-35. The proposed line from the college town of Iowa City to Chicago would take longer than the currently operating bus service.
   
So the private sector provides cheap intercity transportation while government struggles to waste $53 billion. Please remind me which is the wave of the future.

Obama declares deficit spending unpatriotic, enless he is the one spending.

Human Events Facebook Fanpage
Follow Us on Twitter
Author Archive
Tell a Friend
Human Events Video
Subscribe to Human Events!
Today's Sponsor
Thursdays with John Hayward 08.25.11 Sign Up for Daily Events
On the day before Independence Day 2008, Senator Barack Obama pronounced deficit spending "unpatriotic" at a campaign event.  He would go on to rack up more debt in three years than his predecessor did in eight. Does he still think deficits are "unpatriotic," or is that the wrong word?

Sustained deficit spending is certainly irresponsible.  Trillion-dollar deficits are an accepted fact of life in Washington, even after a big "deficit reduction deal."  This means the government is willing to spend more money than it collects, in perpetuity. 

Deficit spending is tyrannical.  It's the ultimate form of taxation without representation, presenting children not yet born with bills they never had a chance to vote against.  It establishes programs that become permanent financial obligations for future Congresses.  It's a lie, because it offers the people subsidies and benefits, paid for with money that doesn't exist.  When politicians speak of trillion-dollar "stimulus" programs, they're distorting the free market with false information, and wielding economic influence they don't really have.

Our massive national debt, built through decades of deficit spending, makes America weak.  Increasing individual and corporate dependency on a rapidly growing government drains the vitality of the free market. Unfriendly creditor nations like China gain unhealthy amounts of economic leverage over us.  Credit agencies like Standard & Poor's become major players in public policy debates.  In the end, social chaos caused by the collapse of unsustainable entitlements will destroy civic order.

Does all of that add up to make deficit spending "unpatriotic?" Barack Obama claimed to think so, four trillion dollars ago. — John Hayward

Gaza's economy and West Bank buses

Sami Abdel-Shafi (Comment, 23 August) justifiably mourns the lack of economic opportunities in Gaza, but yet again comes to the only Palestinian conclusion – it must be Israel's fault. Israel provided business development courses for thousands of Palestinian professionals during the 1990s, which had to cease due to the horrific terror wave of the second intifada. Tens of thousands of Palestinians used to work in Israel, until Palestinian terror also put an end to this.
Then Israel set up industrial zones around Gaza, in which Israelis and Palestinians worked together. Terror attacks, including Palestinians attacking their fellow Israeli workers, forced the zone to be deserted. Next, Israel withdrew from Gaza, leaving behind extensive agricultural infrastructure. Thousands of rockets were fired on to the homes of Israeli citizens from the exact same greenhouses that could have offered the Gazans amazing economic opportunities. Mr Abdel-Shafi should be asking his fellow Palestinians, Hamas and others, to comply with the international community's demand to renounce terror. After which, there should be plenty of new economic opportunities for Gaza.
Amir Ofek

The deparment of energy, isnt!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/energy-dep-t-spends-60-million-economic
'(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced last week that it has used $60 million of the $1.2 billion given to the agency in economic stimulus funds for purchasing  “advanced-technology research instruments” to study climate change.'
Why isn't the "department of energy" researching ways to make more and cheaper energy? Wouldn't climate research come under the EPA's domain? Apparently the DOE is a redundant department and as such should be disbanded.

Prepare for all sorts of fake number from Washington.

Prepare to see all sorts of fake numbers coming from the white house as the election nears. They’ll be revised down later.

The answer, as always, is free market economics.

The answer, as always, is free market economics.

How Do We Really Create Jobs?

So How Do We Really Create Jobs?
Published August 24, 2011
·         Print
·         Email
·         Share                     
How to create tens of millions of jobs, good jobs? Much hinges on the answer to this question.
Long gone are the golden Reagan-Clinton years that saw almost 40 million new positions created. In the decade since Clinton left office America created a paltry 3 million under George W. Bush, and Barack Obama recently was scored as having the worst job creation for a first period in office of any president since 1890, excepting Hoover.
The Permanent Government seems confused about what to say, much less do, to turn this around. The Insipid Recovery’s threat to turn into a Double Dip is starting to concentrate the mind of the political class wonderfully. D.C., where our tax dollars go to die, finally is beginning to focus on the right question: How to create jobs?
There are two theories. Progressives believe that the answer lies in government job creation (stimulus, bailouts, “shovel-ready” public works). Supply-siders believe that the answer lies exclusively in human action, entrepreneurs and businesspeople, and that the government needs to get its boot off our necks. Watch Fight of the Century for a wonderful rap version of the debate — between Keynes and Hayek — produced by John Papola and Russ Roberts.
President Obama, cheered on by the elites, relied on the power of government to create jobs … and failed. Reagan and Clinton relied on the free market. They were attacked as tools of the plutocrats for doing so yet delivered the goods: massive job growth.

Obama, statistically proven second worst president ever.

OUCH! Check Out Obama's Record on Job Creation...

AP Graphics
Following the bipartisan debt agreement, President Obama and his fellow Democrats tried to pivot by promising to turn their attention to job-­‐creation. In a Rose Garden press conference, the President vowed to “…continue…to fight for…new jobs, higher wages and faster economic growth.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi joined in, saying “Enough talks about the debt, we have to talk about jobs.” And Sen.Charles Schumer (NY) went a step further to claim that job-­‐ creation is in fact Democrats’ “strong suit.”
But as American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Hassert points out, it certainly is not Mr. Obama’s “strong suit.” The graph belowcompares the first two and a half years in office of the five worst presidents on job--creation since 1890. President Obama is the second worst, coming in behind President Herbert Hoover whose first two and a half years in office were during the Great Depression. Not very impressive for somone who has been saying since 2009 that  his administration’s “overriding focus” is to “make sure that people are getting back to work.”