Here's some red meat for our budget deficit base.
You need to read three articles about the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction proposal and why OBAMA didn't embrace it. I thought it was because he's a socialist who hates America. Some people think there's more to it than that.
The Simpson-Bowles proposal to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade was DOA, of course. Talking about deficit reduction in the abstract is popular. Talking about the things necessary to actually cut the deficit is decidedly unpopular. Sorry NPR, tax hikes on the 1% won't get you there. Sorry Fox News, dynamic scoring and more defense spending won't do it either. Anyway, Obama never supported the commission's proposal. Neither did Republicans, although the RNC (and more recently Romney) criticized Obama for not endorsing the plan. Huh. In short, all politicians naturally ran from the plan, which raises taxes and cuts spending - turns out that's the kind of crap that actually reduces the deficit. Instead, everybody opted for the old standby: talking points and blaming the other party.
Start here with this NYT article by Jackie Calmes, which is a good primer and review of the Simpson-Bowles committee and the debt/deficit debate of the past year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/us/politics/obamas-unacknowledged-debt-to-bowles-simpson-plan.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all
Now read Ezra Klein's thoughts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-reason-the-white-house-didnt-embrace-simpson-bowles/2011/08/25/gIQAq1j2dR_blog.html
Now read Josh Barro's response to Klein:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/02/27/the-real-reason-obama-wouldnt-embrace-simpson-bowles/
Now read luridtransom's thoughts:
I'm with Barro on this. Obama couldn't (or wouldn't) endorse the Simpson-Bowles plan because it raises taxes on pretty much everybody, including the middle class. Right, ACTUALLY cutting the deficit sucks. I don't entirely dismiss Ezra's idea that Obama didn't endorse the plan because his endorsement would automatically kill it. But before you get to that point, endorsing the plan wasn't an option regardless of the effect of an Obama endorsement. Republicans didn't endorse it for the same reason. Voters don't like tax increases. It's my money, and I want it now.
In giving the Simpson-Bowles plan the cold shoulder, Obama opted for the comfort of politics. Not that he's the first to take that route. If Ezra is right, and Obama actually likes the Simpson-Bowles proposal, but he doesn't want to say he likes it, because then the Republicans won't like it, that's a pretty good tactic for a high school girl with a crush. It's also a pretty good tactic if your goal is to talk about reducing the deficit. If your goal is to actually reduce the deficit, it's stupid.
Besides hating America and hiking our gas prices, running from the Simpson-Bowles proposal is the biggest black mark on Obama's first term. If he does strike a Grand Bargain, this term or next, I'll reconsider. But until then, at least we'll have plenty of opportunity to talk about magical imaginary deficit reduction plans.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Explain Yourself, American Voter.
Remember back to the days when Bush was in office. The Left hated Bush. Couldn't stand him. Thought he was ruining America. Fast forward to today. The Right hates Obama. Can't stand him. Thinks he's destroying America.
One big difference I see is the Right's inability to explain what Obama has done to destroy America. With Bush, the Socialist Elite would quickly point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as their main source of outrage. They could even tell you a bit about those wars, and perhaps explain why they opposed them. With Obama, I don't hear any pointed criticism. He's a socialist. He hates America. At best, you'll get some criticism of the stimulus, Obamacare, and the Wall Street bailout. But ask some follow up questions about why those things are so bad, and you're likely circling back to cries that Obama is a socialist and he hates America.
I bring this up because I was told recently that Obama is ruining the country. How so, I asked. The response: He's a socialist. I mean, next thing you know he'll be telling us all what clothes to wear.
Huh. So he's ruining the country because of an imaginary national uniform plan you just made up?
Look, I'm not saying Obama is the greatest president ever. James Brown was. I invite our Conservative readers to tell us specifically how Obama is ruining this country. Maybe he is ruining the country. I just don't know how.
It's too bad this blog doesn't actually have readers to join the discussion.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tricks with Numbers.
Pirated & Paraphrased from the Internets:
Obama's 2013 budget includes $848 billion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. The Bush administration never properly accounted for war spending, refusing to project costs in the future, which kept its deficit projections artificially low. Now that the wars are winding down, the Obama administration is happy to project costs far into the future, because it artificially inflates the potential deficit reduction.
Obama's 2013 budget includes $848 billion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- even though the administration had long made clear those wars would end. The Bush administration never properly accounted for war spending, refusing to project costs in the future, which kept its deficit projections artificially low. Now that the wars are winding down, the Obama administration is happy to project costs far into the future, because it artificially inflates the potential deficit reduction.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Letters to Lamar Smith. (Check back for his response.)
Dear Congressman Smith:
Why don't we offer Apple free convict labor apple to build iPhones in the U.S.A.? It would bring plenty of good supply chain and other iPhone-related jobs to the U.S.A. I guess we're better served by our prisoners lifting weights in the yard and brewing pruno while all the jobs go to China?
According to my internet research, the the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) says there were 2,266,800 adults incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2010. Surely some of those folks could spend some time making iPhones to repay their debt to society. Besides, they'd be learning valuable manufacturing skills while they're at it.
Please note that my question isn't limited strictly to Apple and iPhones. I use the iPhone as one example of a product manufactured abroad that we could manufacture here with convict labor, and by bringing the manufacturing to the U.S., related private sector (non-convict) jobs would come with it.
Please let me know whether you're FOR or AGAINST utilizing convict labor in an effort to bring jobs back to Americans. You can explain your position all you want, but please state clearly whether you are FOR or AGAINST this proposal. Thank you.
Why don't we offer Apple free convict labor apple to build iPhones in the U.S.A.? It would bring plenty of good supply chain and other iPhone-related jobs to the U.S.A. I guess we're better served by our prisoners lifting weights in the yard and brewing pruno while all the jobs go to China?
According to my internet research, the the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) says there were 2,266,800 adults incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2010. Surely some of those folks could spend some time making iPhones to repay their debt to society. Besides, they'd be learning valuable manufacturing skills while they're at it.
Please note that my question isn't limited strictly to Apple and iPhones. I use the iPhone as one example of a product manufactured abroad that we could manufacture here with convict labor, and by bringing the manufacturing to the U.S., related private sector (non-convict) jobs would come with it.
Please let me know whether you're FOR or AGAINST utilizing convict labor in an effort to bring jobs back to Americans. You can explain your position all you want, but please state clearly whether you are FOR or AGAINST this proposal. Thank you.
NPR: I'm Watching You.
On Point with Tom Ashbrook is the left's answer to Sean Hannity's radio show. The recent episode with Charles Murray, author of Coming Apart, was great. Find the podcast, because it's worth listening to (1) as an illustration of Ashbrook as Liberal Hannity, and (2) because Charles Murray is fascinating.
Here's the pattern. Murray states demographic and socio-economic facts. Ashbrook and his guest expert sidekick deny the facts, proclaiming the facts are unfair. Here's my favorite example.
Murray: The super-rich class perpetuates itself partly because smart parents, statistically, have higher-IQ kids. I'm not saying this is genetic or environmental. Whatever the cause, it doesn't matter. It's just a fact.
Ashbrook: But Charles! How can you say that! That's un-American genetic determinism!
Here's the pattern. Murray states demographic and socio-economic facts. Ashbrook and his guest expert sidekick deny the facts, proclaiming the facts are unfair. Here's my favorite example.
Murray: The super-rich class perpetuates itself partly because smart parents, statistically, have higher-IQ kids. I'm not saying this is genetic or environmental. Whatever the cause, it doesn't matter. It's just a fact.
Ashbrook: But Charles! How can you say that! That's un-American genetic determinism!
Friday, February 03, 2012
More on District 121's True Conservative.
http://www.voicesempower.com/texas-speaker-showdown-matt-beebe-vs-joe-straus-game-on/
Quote from Beebe:
As a small business owner, I understand well the challenges of this tough economy. We are not only taxed too much, but the reality is that the Texas Legislature spends too much. I’m committed to reducing the burden of government on the families of House District 121, and, like I’ve done in the private sector, finding innovative solutions to enable Texas to meet the challenges of the future.
Luridtransom notes that Beebe served in the Air Force, and now owns an IT business that apparently does mainly DoD contract work.
Quote from Beebe:
As a small business owner, I understand well the challenges of this tough economy. We are not only taxed too much, but the reality is that the Texas Legislature spends too much. I’m committed to reducing the burden of government on the families of House District 121, and, like I’ve done in the private sector, finding innovative solutions to enable Texas to meet the challenges of the future.
Luridtransom notes that Beebe served in the Air Force, and now owns an IT business that apparently does mainly DoD contract work.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Ames Jones: "I refuse to answer your questions!"
Elizabeth Ames Jones has not answered luridtransom's inquiry. Was the question too hard? Let's try again.
Who hates frivilous lawsuits more: You or Jeff Wentworth?
Who hates frivilous lawsuits more: You or Jeff Wentworth?
Obama is a great President and the stock market proves it.
http://blog.chron.com/moneysmart/2012/01/the-elections-effect-on-the-stock-market/
The Election’s Effect on the Stock Market
About every four years, media pundits get interested in what effect the Presidential election will have on the stock market. But presidential responsibility for the stock market’s performance is greatly exaggerated. The President nearly always gets more credit in good times and too much blame when the economy is weak. Timing and luck are more important than skill.
Since the inception of the Dow Jones Industrials in 1896, there have been 19 Presidential elections with a sitting President running for reelection. On average, the stock market gained 9%, with the market up 14 times and down 5 times. Those figures are about average for the stock market over almost any extended period of time, meaning that a Presidential election year is not much different for the market than any other year.
The stock market does tend to do well when the economy is good or getting better and generating solid corporate earnings. Low inflation and low interest rates are also a positive for stocks. The President controls little or none of the most important economic factors which influence the stock market. Yet, voters feel secure in a growing economy and this works to the advantage of any incumbent President. Of course, the opposite is true as well.
Republicans are commonly associated with Wall Street and a favorable climate for building wealth. Yet, stock market results vary widely, regardless of who occupies the White House. In 2001, when George W. Bush was sworn in, the S&P stood at 1343. When he left office, the index was 850, a decline of 37%. Obama became President with the S&P at 850 and last week it was 1316, a gain of 55%.
People often associate one event with another event, even though there isn’t a link. It wasn’t so long ago, for example, that stock market forecasts were influenced by the length of women’s hemlines. Today, some observers still claim they can predict the stock market by which team wins the Super Bowl. Any association between such disparate happenings is purely coincidental. People should also give up the foolish notion that the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue determines the direction of the stock market.
Richard Leader, CFA
The Election’s Effect on the Stock Market
About every four years, media pundits get interested in what effect the Presidential election will have on the stock market. But presidential responsibility for the stock market’s performance is greatly exaggerated. The President nearly always gets more credit in good times and too much blame when the economy is weak. Timing and luck are more important than skill.
Since the inception of the Dow Jones Industrials in 1896, there have been 19 Presidential elections with a sitting President running for reelection. On average, the stock market gained 9%, with the market up 14 times and down 5 times. Those figures are about average for the stock market over almost any extended period of time, meaning that a Presidential election year is not much different for the market than any other year.
The stock market does tend to do well when the economy is good or getting better and generating solid corporate earnings. Low inflation and low interest rates are also a positive for stocks. The President controls little or none of the most important economic factors which influence the stock market. Yet, voters feel secure in a growing economy and this works to the advantage of any incumbent President. Of course, the opposite is true as well.
Republicans are commonly associated with Wall Street and a favorable climate for building wealth. Yet, stock market results vary widely, regardless of who occupies the White House. In 2001, when George W. Bush was sworn in, the S&P stood at 1343. When he left office, the index was 850, a decline of 37%. Obama became President with the S&P at 850 and last week it was 1316, a gain of 55%.
People often associate one event with another event, even though there isn’t a link. It wasn’t so long ago, for example, that stock market forecasts were influenced by the length of women’s hemlines. Today, some observers still claim they can predict the stock market by which team wins the Super Bowl. Any association between such disparate happenings is purely coincidental. People should also give up the foolish notion that the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue determines the direction of the stock market.
Richard Leader, CFA
Matt Beebe: District 121's True Conservative.
http://www.votebeebe.com/
Our nation needs True Patriots to stand on the side of Good -- lest Evil prevail. And while we rejoice in our assurance that God has indeed fixed the ends, He has also ordained the means.
We don't know how to contact Mr. Beebe's campaign, but here's the inquiry we've prepared for the true conservative:
Mr. Beebe,
We saw your Tweet today, which is as follows:
"State govt too! - > RT @tedcruz We must dramatically shrink the size, power, and spending of the federal government. #txlege"
We are curious, how exactly would you dramatically shrink the size, power, and spending of the state government?
As you know, the state's budget for the 2012-13 biennium is about $80 billion in general revenue funds and $172 billion for all funds. Looking at the All Funds budget, the largest four expenditures are education (43%), health and human services (31%), business and economic development (14%), and public safety (7%). Explain your plan for dramatic shrinkage.
We look forward to hearing your ideas. Be specific. We don't need micro-details, but give the voters of the 121st District your plan, not just a slogan. Thanks.
Regards,
luridtransom
Our nation needs True Patriots to stand on the side of Good -- lest Evil prevail. And while we rejoice in our assurance that God has indeed fixed the ends, He has also ordained the means.
We don't know how to contact Mr. Beebe's campaign, but here's the inquiry we've prepared for the true conservative:
Mr. Beebe,
We saw your Tweet today, which is as follows:
"State govt too! - > RT @tedcruz We must dramatically shrink the size, power, and spending of the federal government. #txlege"
We are curious, how exactly would you dramatically shrink the size, power, and spending of the state government?
As you know, the state's budget for the 2012-13 biennium is about $80 billion in general revenue funds and $172 billion for all funds. Looking at the All Funds budget, the largest four expenditures are education (43%), health and human services (31%), business and economic development (14%), and public safety (7%). Explain your plan for dramatic shrinkage.
We look forward to hearing your ideas. Be specific. We don't need micro-details, but give the voters of the 121st District your plan, not just a slogan. Thanks.
Regards,
luridtransom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)