Here's an interesting graphic that shows an interesting correlation between which party was the majority in Congress and job growth, courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Skip at Granite Grok.
I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.
He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.
On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)
As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.
I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.
And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.
After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)
I. GOT. BORED.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........
UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.
I was in a Ford dealership last week, and saw a car on display with a big "NO BAILOUT NEEDED" sign in the windshield. Sounds like they realize it resonates well with customers.(H/T Instapundit)
We're trying in every way legally and officially possible to make clear that we don't want the radical meal we're being forced to eat. We fervently do not want to "fundamentally transform" America. But there is such a huge disconnect from our world to our representatives'. It's as if we are ghosts whom they can't see or hear! When someone refuses to listen, going so far as to ignore you, don't you shout louder? Doesn't it anger you? When you're attacked and belittled because you have to shout to be heard and you're still ignored, doesn't that infuriate you? These people miss that we passionately don't want what they want. The more they refuse to hear us, the more we try to make them. We are not going away.I certainly feel angry, particularly with my Congressional Representative, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1), who has shown a penchant for dismissing any of her 'constituents' who do not ascribe to her particular political beliefs. On more than one occasion she is alleged to have referred to those of us non-Democrats living in her Congressional District as not being her constituents. That's funny as I thought everyone living in her district was her constituent, whether we agreed with her politics or not. So much for being our representative. Instead she represents only her own points of view and the hell with the rest of us. (I have a feeling Ms. Shea-Porter will have a very rude awakening come next November when she's booted, bag and baggage, from her seat.)
We're justly and increasingly angry because our reps not only refuse to hear us, but they also chastise us for wanting to be heard. How else would they expect us to react when we feel so helpless and hopeless? No matter what we want, say, or do, our government is going to force us to eat a meal we never ordered. In addition, we keep saying, "no, we don't want this," but they keep putting affirmations in our mouths and proceeding with their radical agenda anyway. We are not enjoying the governmental rape of our country. We said "no," and "no" means "no" in every language. Why doesn't this matter? Every poll reflects the president's rapidly declining approval rating -- for good reason. And still, Robert Gibbs flippantly dismisses it. How are "we the people" supposed to feel? Certainly we do not feel happy, or even just mildly upset, about being disregarded. Far-left ideologues who supposedly espouse "compassionate" causes have no compassion for how we feel, nor do they have a clue that we are an angry mob of their own creation.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. "We have to defer to the bigger picture," explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children's health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate's version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been "cut off at the knees" but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way -- without appointing an actual conference.Is there any wonder why things like the TEA party movement have been growing? Is there any wonder why confrontations between members of Congress and the public have been becoming more heated and less polite? Why are the Democrats so surprised when far too many of them have been ignoring their constituents back home, ignoring their wishes, ignoring their phone calls, letters, and e-mails, and following the lead of Pelosi and Reid, neither of whom has the best interests of the American people at heart. Instead they have their own Leftist Utopia-driven agenda that has nothing to do with what the American people want or need.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were "ping-ponged" -- i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. "We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue," said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a "ping-pong" game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.
"I think the point of the comparison is this: Bush endured 8 years of wall-to-wall, 24/7 liberal bashing from multiple networks. Meanwhile, Obama was coronated and has enjoyed wall-to-wall adoration from the same multiple networks. If Obama's numbers, 11 months in, already approach Bush's after EIGHT years, then, baby, you've got serious problems."Obama's tumbling poll numbers certainly aren't helping his administration, particularly when Democrats are saying they miss Bush.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was brought in 2006 by Brad Beckstead, whose small Nevada accounting firm endured a costly examination under Sarbox rules. At issue is whether the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, which supervises compliance with the law, violates the Constitution's separation of powers. Under the Appointments Clause, all "officers" of the United States must be appointed by the President and accountable to him--a condition PCAOB members do not meet.A hastily put together bill created an unsupervised and unchecked regulatory organ with little or no Congressional or Executive oversight with questionable efficacy as well as problematic constitutionality pulling almost $1 trillion out of the economy and we're just supposed to take it?
(emphasis added - ed.)
--snip--
The PCAOB has indeed grown as a politically unaccountable entity with vast power to regulate business. Texas Senator Phil Gramm warned at its creation that Congress was setting up a board with "massive unchecked power" to "make decisions that affect all accountants and everybody they work for, which directly or indirectly is every breathing person in the country."
Massive is the right word. The accounting board's wide-open mandate--to make whatever rules "may be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors"--has cost the economy nearly $1 trillion, according to a study by AEI and the Brookings Institution. The benefit is supposed to be investor protection. But despite these costs, the law did nothing to warn about the meltdown of mortgage-backed securities, much less expose Bernie Madoff or other fraudsters.
"The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they're not getting anything for it. ... If somebody has the idea that the percentage of GDP of what our national debt is will go up a bit, but they will now -- and their neighbors and their children -- will have jobs, I think they could absorb that, and then we ride it out and bring money in," she said.She's kidding, right? (Unfortunately, she's not.)
The only changes made to the comment were for formatting and spelling errors.An Open Letter to "Aye" Voting Senators & Specifically, Kay Hagan - NC
============
With Saturday's vote, you have threatened the ability of every small business in America to maintain their current employment level.
============
The vote was a dishonest cram-down against our need for lower cost & more competitive health insurance, and a lower tax burden to help keep our doors open. A tax credit is of no use, when we are counting our sales each day and each week during the month to meet expenses.
============
Politicians need to understand that we can't print money, we can't ignore expenses and financial obligations, and we don't have access to credit - ANY credit. So while Washington - and Democrats specifically, are BURNING cash with excessive spending, driving down the value of the US dollar, quadrupling the national debt in the first 4 months of this year... Small Business USA, is dying.
============
We are trying to take care of our employees and their families. Your vote,in the name of party unity, for some 1930's goal, was a betrayal of us all.
============
If you wanted ANY public or republican input, it would have been in conference and in deliberations, and there would be PLENTY OF TIME to analyze and refine any bill - in advance, and without any gimmicks.
============
But no, it had to be done in secret. It had to be released at the last minute, with a rushed vote - just like the destructive 'stimulus' bill - on a Saturday night with a minimum of publicity.
============
Don't think you can vote "NO" later and have political coverage. Come January, my employee's health insurance premiums are going to go up, my business and personal taxes are going to go up, and my business, as an ongoing concern, remains uncertain.
============
The healthcare bill should have been fully discussed and deliberated by BOTH democrats and republicans BEFORE it came to a cloture vote. You made my decision tonight.
============
I am either going to have to try to get my employees to voluntarily reduce their hours to 32 per week so they can retain their full time benefits, or I am going to have to let some of them go. I am sick to my stomach.
============
My business is carrying over $ 2.5M in debt and we are struggling to survive. I can't handle any more expense - regardless of your good intentions.
============
For the first time in 8 years, we will not be having an office Christmas lunch. We moved it to Thanksgiving in appreciation of each other and in consolation for the difficulties ahead. It feels like a 'Last Supper', in that we may not be around by next November.
============
Do NOT be surprised when our unemployment rate in North Carolina exceeds 20%. It's nearly there in some counties. Forget about SPENDING and TAXING. The political class is robbing us of our hopes and dreams, and the future looks bleak.
============
All of us EXISTING small business owners IN EVERY COMMUNITY, need a means to refinance our debt with extended terms and/or a lower interest rate AND lower tax burdens. We need to lower our operating costs so we could stretch our sales dollars a little further and maintain the security of our employees.
============
Instead ... we got 2,100 pages of MANDATES, ADDITIONAL TAXES, worthless PROMISES of less spending in the future, MORE bureaucracy and regulations, and a (wink, wink) "debate" to make it better. I can hardly wait. Maybe an additional 1,000 pages will make it better ...
============
Your vote betrayed us all. Want to try for 30% unemployment with Cap n' Trade ???
Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."Nancy's reaction to the question illustrates either her ignorance of what the Constitution actually says or her willful choice to ignore it in favor of her own agenda and the American people's rights be damned.
This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the (Commerce) Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the Commerce Clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g, drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.
When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.
[John] Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.""Making the United States a more equitable country?" Who decides what is 'equitable'? And is equality as Obama and his minions define it really a good thing?
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
We are the EXCEPTION. Who cares if the rest of the world has universal health care? The United States of America has been the exception since it was first created. What is sad is that we have idiots in our government who do not believe in American exceptionalism and think that we need to be just like the rest of the world. Did the founding fathers believe that we needed to be like Europe when we declared independence? NOOOOOOO!!! Why should we become like them now?We already know how well such a system will run. Examples abound, both here and in other countries, showing us that they work well...if you aren't sick or hurt. Otherwise all bets are off. Do we really want a system like that?
Look, we don't want a government run system that will give us mediocre care and only give the best care to the rich, famous, and the Washington elites. We want to be able to have choice. The healthcare legislation that the Democrats are trying to pass will not give us choice. It is designed to make private insurance obsolete and eventually put everyone on a government run system.
This 2,000-page bill goes in exactly the wrong direction: it means higher premiums, higher taxes, Medicare cuts, more debt & huge new health-care costs for state taxpayers. Instead we should start over and go step by step. Specifically, we could start with small business health care plans that would lower premiums, cover up to 1 million new small business employees, and reduce spending on Medicaid.
As the official unemployment rate tops 10% in more than one quarter of all states, the hot topic of the day increasingly moves toward how to stimulate more hiring. This is particularly true in states hit the hardest in the economic downturn.Of course it was the politicians in Congress that pushed through the raise in the minimum wage, using the excuse that no one could support a family making the minimum wage as it was before they took action. However, it is rare that anyone making minimum wage is also supporting a family. Such jobs are usually entry level positions for people taking their first jobs. But with the increase of the minimum wage over the past couple of years many of those jobs have disappeared. As illustrated above, when the costs go up employers find ways of cutting costs. Whether that means trimming jobs or replacing personnel with machinery, the end result is the number of jobs at minimum wage shrink.
With this in mind, consider the annual trade show put on by the Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute last month. Despite the punk economy, show attendance was healthy. Many exhibitors reported a lot of interest in the packaging and food-processing equipment they had on the show floor.
One might wonder why, with manufacturing companies in such terrible shape, makers of food-processing and food-packaging equipment seemed to be doing relatively well. Part of the answer, according to a longtime PMMI board member, is that makers of automation equipment for the food industry are being helped along by recent legislation, but not in the way you might think.
This board member, who has held management positions in the foodprocessing- equipment industry for many years, wasn't referring to stimulus spending. He was alluding to the rise in the minimum wage which took effect this past summer. The food industry is characterized by a significant number of low-wage workers, he points out. In the past, he'd noticed that every increase in the minimum wage resulted in an up-tick of orders for automation equipment designed to eliminate a few more jobs. He figures this past summer's wage hike is shaping up to be no different. Of course, you'll likely never read this explanation for economic activity in newspaper headlines. One suspects that machinery manufacturers asked to publicly explain their improving business conditions tend to avoid giving politically incorrect answers. It is generally unwise to point out that your own good fortunes are partly due to missteps by politicians that have brought misery to others.
(emphasis added - ed.)
Americans are angry about executive compensation.For far too long we have taken a path that privatized profits but socialized risks, meaning the risks businesses were willing to take became greater because they knew they really wouldn't have to pay the price if things didn't work out. All we need to do is look at the housing crash, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the string of failed banks holding non-performing loans, mortgages, and mortgage backed securities. And we have Congress to thank for that, Barney Frank's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Rightfully so.
The executives at General Motors and Chrysler don't deserve to make a lot of money. They made bad products that people didn't want to buy.
The executives on Wall Street don't deserve to make a lot of money. They were reckless with other people's money. They made bad bets that didn't pay off. And they wasted trillions of dollars of precious capital, funneling it into housing instead of... a thousand investments more valuable than bigger houses.
Everyday folks who are out of work through no fault of their own want to know why people who made bad decisions not only have a job but a big salary to go with it.
No wonder they're angry at Wall Street.
But if we keep getting angry at Wall Street, we'll miss the real source of the problem. It's right here. In Washington.
We are what we do. Not what we wish to be. Not what we say we are. But what we do. And what we do here in Washington is rescue big companies and rich people from the consequences of their mistakes. When mistakes don't cost you anything, you do more of them.
(Emphasis added - ed.)
Capitalism is a profit and loss system. The profits encourage risk-taking. The losses encourage prudence. Is it a surprise that when the government takes the losses, instead of the investors, that investing gets less prudent? If you always bail out lenders, is it surprising that firms can borrow enormous amounts of money living on the edge of insolvency?And therein lies the problem. If we were truly a capitalistic economy, the meltdown we experienced never would have happened because the banks, investment firms, and mortgage lenders would never have floated the amount of tainted paper that caused it all. They would have been prudent because they knew no one would bail them out, would get canned (without the golden parachute), and possibly go to prison. But the government intervened with "incentives"and gave them a license to be foolish, to push the edge of the envelope, and to waste money that wasn't theirs to begin with. They knew that if they lost it the government would bail them out, which means that we - the taxpayers - would ultimately foot the bill.
I'm mad at Wall Street. But I'm a lot madder at the people who gave them the keys to drive our economy off the cliff. I'm mad at the people who have taken hundreds of billions of taxpayer money and given it to some of the richest people in human history. I'm mad at Bush and Obama and Paulson and Geithner and Bernanke. And I'm mad at Congress. You made sure that risk-takers continue to expect that the rules that apply to the rest of us don't apply to people with the right connections.
You have saved the system, but it's not a system worth saving. It's not capitalism but crony capitalism.
The next time you see one of these oh, so morally concerned politicians, academics or book-hustling authors preaching on TV that we really ought to catch up with the rest of the advanced world on health care, talk back to the to the set, shout out that it's mostly lies, and make the opposite case.But let us not confuse the issue with anything as mundane as facts. Instead, let us cast all caution into the wind and base the destruction of the American health care system on feelings, something which the Left is very good at doing. They feel it's unfair that not everyone can get the same level of health care, therefore something must be done to ensure egalitarian treatment, even if it means tearing down an effective, though flawed system, and replacing it with something that will come to resemble those like the UK's National Health System, which provides poor care at best. Let us make sure that the incentives to treat ill health will be destroyed and replaced with an "I don't give a s**t, where's my paycheck?" attitude. Let's make sure that all the truly dedicated and effective physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals are driven out of their careers by an ineffective, heartless, compassionless bureaucracy, and let them be replaced with people we wouldn't care to have take care of our pets, let alone our loved ones. (You think it won't happen? Then take a look in countries where many of the truly gifted health care professions went after their governments 'saved' health care. Or better yet, look at how many medical practices no longer take Medicare or Medicaid because of the exorbitant costs of providing care versus what they are paid for said care. It's a losing proposition.)
The rest of the world ought to catch up with us.
Despite what almost seems a conscious effort to keep the facts properly subdued and tucked out of sight, the truth has been worming its way to the sunshine. Now it's clear, as one example, that longevity is only partially connected to health care in the first place and that when you subtract homicides and accidents, we in America live longer than anyone, despite President Obama's constant reiteration of the reform-encouraging and utterly deceptive thesis that we do not.
We know that our treatments of serious disease produce better outcomes than elsewhere in the world, that everyone can get treatment at least in emergency rooms, that most Americans are satisfied with their care, that insurance net profits are a relatively low 3.3 percent and that the actual number of citizens without access to insurance is closer to 10 million than the 46 million number so often heard. We also know that Medicare and Medicaid have accumulated trillions of dollars in obligations to future recipients that we have no way of paying.
Two officers of the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Police Department removed Carol Shea-Porter and Susan Mayer from a February 2005 town hall event hosted by then-President George W. Bush at the request of the owner of the property, a spokesman for the Police Department tells NowHampshire.com.You mean she lied about what happened? Say it ain't so!
The revelation contradicts statements made by Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter as recently as this week that she was not removed from the event.
"[T]here were no disruptions and no rudeness and I wasn't removed. If it happened, don't you think there would have been photos or video or news stories from that day? There aren't because it didn't happen," Shea-Porter told the Portsmouth Herald this weekend.
According to Capt. Tim Brownell, who responded to a Freedom of Information request from NowHampshire.com, Detective Sergeant Michael Ronchi and Detective Tom Grella removed the two women from the Pan Am hanger of the Portsmouth International Airport in Portsmouth, NH after being asked to do so by a representative of Pan Am.
"My friend (Mayer) and I sat respectfully and quietly though the whole event. After it was over and we were leaving, I was grabbed by someone, a thug," Shea-Porter the Portsmouth Herald this weekend. "My friend told the person to stop grabbing me and he let go. It may have been a security person, but to this day we don't who it was. I was there, so I know what I'm talking about."So police officers doing their jobs are "thugs"?
Capt. Brownell declined to comment on Shea-Porter's characterization of the officers involved in the incident as "thugs". But not all members of the law enforcement community were silent. Retired Manchester Police Sergeant Lloyd Doughty reacted with astonishment.
"For someone of her stature, as an elected official, to say that about members of law enforcement is so distasteful and so disrespectful I can't even think of a word that describes how I feel. It's ridiculous," Doughty told NowHampshire.com.
I do not think it's so much because people want freedom and choice (although they do) as it is because people have no confidence in government entitlement programs (which the Dem plans are all about, ultimately). Why?The Barrister also suggests we contact our Senators and House Representatives and let them know our views on the Democrat health care reform plans. I have already done so and my congresscritter, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1), has made it quite clear she doesn't give a damn what I think. The same is true of one of our two senators, Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). But that doesn't mean I won't stop contacting their offices (I use snail-mail rather than e-mail because it's too easy to hit the Delete key), and let them know my thoughts on various issues and legislation.
Social Security - bankruptThe future tax consequences of the above are daunting to people, and the idea of adding another trillion or so frightens the heck out of people who are thinking about their own well-being, their kids' futures - and also about the nation's.
Postal Service - bankrupt
Welfare - had devastating unintended consequences for which the nation still pays and from which the nation continues to suffer (eg huge rates - up to 70% - of single motherhood among beneficiaries)
Medicare - bankrupt
Medicaid - bankrupting the states
Government-run (ie union-controlled) schools: are people thrilled with them?
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac - bankrupt
The "stimulus" - a failure, but it did create 25,000 new government jobs!
The sad thing is that most of what people complain about in health care can be easily solved without giant government controls and bureaucracies:
1. Permit interstate competition among insurance companies so people can have a wide range of choices of types of policies including cheap major medical which is what makes sense for most people, and explain the basic fact that medical care has to be paid for, and even saved for, same as car repairs and house repairs and vacations (and legal costs). That is what grown-ups do. You can get major medical for a family for the price of a big-screen TV.How easy and non-controversial would those changes be? Abundant, high quality, and fairly expensive medical care is one of the great blessings and privileges of a prosperous society, and thus an important economic engine. Why kill it? People want these things.
2. Portability of insurance - so you own it (that is complicated tho for companies that self-insure)
3. A law that says you cannot be canceled if you get sick
4. State "pools" for the uninsurable, same as for uninsurable drivers. We already have (bankrupt) Medicaid for the poor.
Do Americans want to be grown-ups, or children? It's our call.
...[F]ew people noticed a hearing with an exceedingly boring title -- "Proposals to Enhance the Community Reinvestment Act" -- held last week in the House Financial Services Committee. But the session marked a key moment in the ongoing battle between Republicans and Democrats over what caused our current financial woes -- and how we might best avoid getting into the same trouble again.The same legislation that forced banks to lend to borrowers incapable of repaying the loans is now being 'enhanced' to force banks to do even more of this kind of lending? If that isn't an example of fiscal insanity, I don't know what is.
At the hearing, and in others across Capitol Hill, Democratic majorities are pressing hard to expand some of the very policies that led to the reckless home lending that in turn helped lead to the great financial meltdown. If Chairman Barney Frank and his fellow Democrats have their way, we'll do it all again -- and more.
At issue last week was H.R. 1479, the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson. It would expand and strengthen the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to make loans in low-income areas that many lenders had traditionally shunned.
Recent Comments