I hate to say I told you so, but...

The "Beige Book," the report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on current economic conditions, confirms a lot of what Republicans and other opponents predicted about Obamacare. The Governors report economic trends from their various Districts around the country, usually centered around a large city such as Kansas City, San Francisco, Minneapolis, etc.

From the section "Consumer Spending and Tourism" -- "Many District contacts commented on the expired payroll tax holiday and the Affordable Care Act as having restrained sales growth." 

From the section "Labor" -- "Employers across the District continued to cite the Affordable Care Act and its unknown impacts as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff."

From the section "Nonfinancial Services" -- "Some contacts noted concern that client companies are hiring the absolute minimum to get by due to uncertainty about the Affordable Care Act."

Remember how before the Obamacare legislation was passed, Democrats mocked opponents' predictions as "doom and gloom?" When you add the slowdown in consumer spending and business hiring to the already-more-expensive-than-Democrats-promised cost of Obamacare, it's not much of a leap to believe 1) Obamacare is going to cripple the American economy; and 2) The quality of our health care is just as likely to decline as it is to improve. So far Democrats have proven clueless in their predictions about its effects.

Not-so-painful cuts

Daniel J. Mitchel wrote a column ("Earth to New York Times: Please Show Us These "Deep Spending Cuts" You Keep Writing About") that points out the absurdity of calling the budget adjustments resulting from sequestration "cuts."

I have to read the same nonsense day after day about “deep spending cuts” even though I keep explaining to journalists that a sequester merely means that spending climbs by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.

For those more visually oriented, here's Mitchell's chart illustrating the budget "cuts."

Who owns sequestration?

Sequestration is the group of automatic budget cuts that go into effect if Congress and the White House are not able to reach a budget deal. It's part of the 2010 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act.  

What's really funny is Obama railing against the sequester even though it's a Democrat rule signed into law by Obama. The bill passed the Senate 60-40 on strict party lines. It passed the House 233-187, with 233 Democrats and no Republicans voting Aye and 172 Republicans (and 15 Democrats) voting No. Republicans opposed the sequestration, saying it was just an excuse for Democrats to raise taxes. Lo and behold, look at what Obama insists on.

When you think of politicians who want to raise taxes, which party is it that automatically comes to mind?

Who's the bully?

Associated Press writer Connie Cass, in her story "Why can't Washington compromise? They're too human," chides House Republicans for "bullying" Obama and Democrats over the cuts scheduled if and when sequestration takes effect. She even quotes Barbara Coloroso, an expert on bullying. 

"Bullying is about contempt for the other person," Coloroso said. "Do you see how that fits with some of the people in Congress? Utter contempt, bullying, wanting to bring somebody down. You cannot resolve a major issue like a budget with name-calling, with disdain for the person you're supposed to be working with."

Some thoughts: 

• Barack Obama to Republicans questioning his stimulus plan, 2009: "I won." 
• Barack Obama to Republicans, 2009: "Shut up and get out of the way." 
• Republican input into the Obama stimulus plan and Obamacare, orchestrated behind closed doors and rammed through by Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress: Zero.

Obama's and other Democrats' contempt and disdain -- bullying -- of Republicans was on fine display the last four years. Like "bipartisanship," such terms only get tossed around in the media when Democrats don't automatically get everything they want.

Gripey Blog Readers

Both the readers of this blog have griped at me about not posting. I'm gonna start posting the webpages I write for the drug treatment center I'm working with. 
That'll show 'em.

A Political Solution

Here's a thought: 

Why don't we take all the proposed solutions such as thorough background checks, mental health screening, severe penalties for providing false information, etc., and apply them equally to both gun ownership and voting? 

1. More harm has been done with votes than with guns. 
2. Law-abiding, honest citizens would have nothing to fear.
3. What's good enough for one constitutional right ought to be good enough for another.

Paying for tax cuts

Just a thought: In recent years, politicians have argued about tax cuts having to "pay for themselves." In this view, people keeping more of their own money is considered an "expense" to the government.  Every nickel of their own money that  taxpayers get to keep constitutes a debit on the government's account sheet.  What we get to keep ("take-home pay") adds to the federal deficit, so anyone who wants to keep more of what they earn must want to increase the national debt. This philosophy comforts politicians who insist on raising taxes to pay for government spending. It's much easier than dealing with the paradox of telling Americans they have to get by on less money because the politicians refuse to.   

I hate always being right

FoxNews headline, January 11, 2012: "Millions noticing paychecks lighter today, due to payroll tax hike"

Whattaya know, two months after the election, and almost two years before the next one, our taxes go up. Remember that "nobody making under $200,000 will pay more in taxes" promise? Remember how many of us were saying that was just a flat-out lie? 

For anyone who voted Democrat in the last four years, congratulations, you're reaping what you sowed. 

I'm not dead...just reading a lot

With the presidential election over with, behind us, & done...I've tried to lay off of politics for a while. (Not that Obama-caused disasters aren't still happening, I'm just tired of reading and discussing them.)  So I've taken advantage of my Kindle Fire and have been reading a lot. Books by Bob Newhart (ghostwritten, ahem,) Asmiov, Lawrence Block, Doyle, and several more have provided me with a lot of mental fodder.

The latest book I read was by Trent Zelazny, son of Roger Zelazny.  Zelazny the Younger is from Santa Fe, and writes fiction in the genre(s) which I happen to delve into with my own fiction writing.  The book, Too Late to Call Texas, really hits home as it's set in southern New Mexico, and the city of Seminole, Texas plays prominently in the plot.  (He also mentions, in passing, Andrews, Lubbock, Abilene and San Antonio.)



Not to give too much away, but the protagonist, a white trash* cowboy type, happens upon a pile of drugs and drug money, goes back to his trailer house and his white trash wife, then runs when the owners of said drugs and money chase after him.

If that sounds familiar, it's because the main plot is very similar to No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy, which I read (and very briefly reviewed) back in 2006. If you watched the movie (or even - gasp!- read the book,) you already know how that story plays out.

The main difference in the two stories is that Zelazny gives it the more genre fiction treatment.  Lots more cussing and sex, and even, if you can believe it, more action.  Without trying to ruin the book for any of his potential readers -- stop reading now if you are afraid of inadvertent spoilers -- I finished Zelazny's book to see how far he was going to follow NCfOM's storyline.

I'll be danged if he didn't follow it all the way to the bitter end.  A bit of a disappointment, but it makes me feel better about those times when my own stories seem too derivative.


* I can call people "white trash" because I are one.  Substitute redneck if that soothes your hurt sensibilities.

Apologies not accepted

Today's the day

I don't like political polls. Pollsters ask uninformed people that don't vote who they think will be elected, and the results dominate the national discussion.  Ask them about soap or soda, and the results will be remarkably accurate. The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.

Nonetheless, polls are everywhere, both in their findings and in the media.  Nobody ever seems to remember which polls were accurate last time, so for posterity's sake I created a table with the most up-to-date poll results I could find.  For kicks I also created one showing various pundits' predictions of the final electoral vote.

Oh, and go vote Republican, early and often.

More about polls

Most of the mainstream polls have had Obama in the lead for the last several weeks. However, one significant poll is one in which Romney leads -- the enthusiasm measurement.

The Battleground Tracking poll shows that Romney has a 13-point lead among voters who are "extremely likely" to vote.  What's more, Romney's leads are significant among elderly and white voters, who have traditionally been high turnout groups.  Meanwhile, Obama leads among young voters, blacks and latinos, who -- except for 2008 -- are not traditionally energized to vote, and their enthusiasm is down significantly from their 2008 highs. 

So, although polls which ask random Americans or even registered voters may show Obama with a big lead, those likely to vote favor Romney.  However, as I've said before, the only poll that really matters is the one on November 6.

About those unemployment numbers

The government's official unemployment numbers came out Friday, and they showed an unemployment rate of 7.8%, falling below 8% for the first time in 44 months. This obviously gave Obama a boost and a chance to discuss something other than his no-show at the debate.

The unemployment numbers caught everyone by surprise. Thursday's reports had predicted a rise to 8.2%, due to several economic factors. Obama's Labor Secretary was forced to come out and defend the numbers, falling back on the "we're all professionals" defense. Convincing, except for a few anomalies.

A summary which accompanies the announcement of unemployment figures is the "Summary of Recent Trends." It's not as boring as it sounds, because of charts like this one:

A bit of explanation is in order.  The official unemployment numbers are based on the "Household Survey," based on census figures. Using that figure, the economy apparently added 873,000 jobs in September. Another metric surveyed is the "Payroll Survey" of businesses, which literally speaks to businesses to see how many jobs they've added. 

Over the entire last year, the difference between the number of jobs reported between the two is 850,000 jobs. (Nothing sinister there, they use different measurements.) However, 759,000 jobs of that difference occurred in the single month of September. 

September was quite a month. October's "revisions" should be interesting.

Why Obama seemed distracted at the debate

It's worse than Democrats think

Mitt Romney has been hounded by Democrats for most of 2012 because he had not released enough of his previous years' tax returns. Romney fulfilled the promise he'd made to release his 2011 return. Predictably, Democrats jumped on the fact that although Romney contributed over $4 million to charity in 2011, he only claimed about $2 million of it as deductions. Democrats howled that Romney did this so that his tax rate would match what he's said it was in the past. (Yes, that claim is as ridiculous as it seems. A politician's actions matched his words, and Democrats criticized it.)

However, this serious violation of all things good goes deeper.  There are stories that Romney has tried to keep from the public. Lurid tales of Romney helping charities and individuals out financially -- then asking them to keep it to themselves. Not only that, but he has also physically helped people with his time and his efforts.  John Hawkins has discovered the truth about Romney, and exposes Romney in his column "7 Incredible Personal Stories About Mitt Romney That You May Not Know."

Other people say smart stuff, too - Part XXXVI

Derek Hunter wrote a powerful new column titled "The Media's Rape of Reality." In it he articulates the points (and more) that I've made about how much the in-the-bag media covers for Obama. After one of the worst weeks in his term of office -- and there have been many -- this week we saw:

• the storming of American embassies,
• the killing of an American ambassador and some of his staff,
• more killings of American soldiers by supposed Afghan allies,
• another downgrade of America's credit rating,
• the snub of the Israeli Prime Minister while Iran threatens to nuke his country,
• gas prices nearing the $4 mark again,

and what does the media cover? Mitt Romney’s statement about the embassy attacks and Obama’s foreign policy.  Read Hunter's column.

Spinning, Spinning

In what must be the bravest attempt ever by the media  to spin a story that I've ever read, the AP and Yahoo News headlined a story "Foreign policy at forefront is a Romney hurdle."

The disasters in foreign policy of the last week, and it's Romney's hurdle?? Not only the actual events themselves, which highlight the failure of Obama's softness toward Islamic extremism, but then the administration's response(s), which included a veiled condemnation of free speech. Add in the purposeful snub of Israel's Prime Minister at a time when Iran is on the verge of developing and deploying nukes toward that country. (These two aspects go together; if America were still perceived as a strong Israel ally, Iran's bravado might not be as blatant.)   

If anything, this past week should destroy anything that could possibly be perceived as Obama's foreign policy "expertise."  Consequences of his policies and actions ought to matter. Yet AP and Yahoo News spin it 180° so that -- once again -- Obama's blunders are invisible. 

Which is a more apt description, a comparison to "The Emperor's New Clothes" or "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining"?

Obama's unemployment

The U.S. Labor Department announced today that the unemployment for August was 8.1%, down from 8.3% in July. However, that number is lower only because more people have given up looking for work, and only those looking for work are considered "unemployed." 

"The truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over the decades," Obama said in his speech at the Democrat National Convention last night. However, the increasing number of people not looking for work (and not counted as "unemployed,") is not a decades-old problem. 

Labor Force Participation Rate

As you can see, under Obama the "labor force participation rate" -- the percentage of the working-age population who are either working or looking for work -- started its sharp decline when Obama took office. The latest number is 63.5%, down from 63.7% in July and 65.7% in January 2009.  It is not a longtime problem that every President has had to deal with, nor a common occurrence. 

However, this horrible participation rate has occurred before, in our lifetimes.  The last time the participation rate was this low was in September 1981, as Reagan brought America out of the Carter recession.  At that time the participation rate was on its way up. Today, it's on its way down.  Four years of Barack Obama's policies have moved more and more people out of the workforce. 

We've heard it all before

Wow.

The media, esp. NPR, are the Liars

The media have piled on Paul Ryan for his speech at last week's Republican National Convention.  While analyses of such a speech are to be expected, a large number of journalists have done everything but use the word liar to describe Ryan.  This fact was rammed home as I was driving last Saturday.  I happened to tune in to an NPR talk show/roundtable featuring Washington journalists. The host made the statement (paraphrased): "Never has a vice presidential candidate made a speech with so many things that are factually untrue."

I already addressed the Janesville GM plant. The rest of their points centered around nothing that was "factually untrue." Not a single thing. Not one. This is how their arguments went:

RYAN:  "You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover, even with new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn't have enough money. They needed more. They needed hundreds of billions more. So, they just took it all away from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama."
NPR:  "So does Ryan's plan."  (Note: They never disputed the fact that Ryan stated. They merely equated it with Ryan's Medicare proposal.)

RYAN: "He created a new bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way and then did exactly nothing."
NPR: "Paul Ryan was a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission and he voted no on that report." (Note: They once again don't dispute the fact that Ryan states, but instead mention how he, one member, voted. And his vote would have made no difference.)

RYAN: "The first troubling sign came with the stimulus. It was President Obama's first and best shot at fixing the economy, at a time when he got everything he wanted under one-party rule. It cost $831 billion – the largest one-time expenditure ever by our federal government...What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn't just spent and wasted – it was borrowed, spent, and wasted."
NPR: "Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan." Ryan did write letters requesting stimulus funds for Wisconsin entities. Here's his explanation: "After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled.”  One of his aides said it better: “If Congressman Ryan is asked to help a Wisconsin entity applying for existing Federal grant funds, he does not believe flawed policy should get in the way of doing his job and providing a legitimate constituent service to his employers.” (Final note: Once again, NPR indicates no point of Ryan's statement which can be called "factually incorrect.")

The stance of NPR and the rest of the media -- "Well, we can't actually show anywhere that Ryan actually lied, but nonetheless he lied."