Category Archives: U.S. Economics

post by Sam Youngman on The Hill, Oct. 19, 2010

Some Democrats are beginning to question the party’s shifting strategies in the closing weeks of the campaign, particularly its recent focus on groups who are spending millions on behalf of Republicans. These veteran party strategists are raising doubts as to whether the attacks on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the group American Crossroads and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will translate into crucial votes for Democrats come Nov. 2.

“I think attacking the outside money, and specifically attacking the Chamber, is of very limited value to the White House,” said former Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas), who once headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). “I don’t think it makes much difference in the election.” Democratic officials have increased their fire power on these groups, claiming they use foreign contributions for campaign ads—an allegation the groups strongly deny—and asking them to release the names of their donors. The effort is mainly pioneered by the White House and its political organization within the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

[I thought candidates couldn't accept foreign money for American political campaigns. Question—since when does foreign citizens have any input in American elections? A lot of Americans should be raising questions about this and demanding an explanation.]

One Democratic strategist, speaking on background so as not to anger the White House, said of attacking the Chamber, “That dog won’t hunt…In a different election year, this narrative and this messaging could work,” the strategist said. “This is not that election year. If the economy is the focus of the electorate, that’s where your message focus should be. I cannot convince the electorate that it’s sunny outside when it’s raining. So you’ve got to speak to their reality.” But “the foreign money lines of attack are all intended to be part of an overarching message about jobs and the economy,” said Brad Woodhouse, communications director for the DNC. “This discussion is not divorced at all from the economy; in fact, it’s absolutely relevant to it,” he said.

The focus on the spending by outside groups follows a sustained effort to tar Boehner, the would-be Speaker, if the GOP wins control of the House, as an ally of corporations who favor a return to some of the unpopular economic policies of the Bush administration. The Democrats argue these Bush-era policies led to the country’s economic troubles. Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist who has advocated an overarching economic message from the White House, said the new message is exactly what the party needs to turn out an unenthused base. “It’s campaign time, baby,” Simmons said. “The die is cast. There’s nothing that you can do between now and Election Day. What you can do is motivate your base to turn out. And talking about this big moneyed interest coming into buy the election really animates Democratic constituencies.”

Simmons noted a larger economic message would have allowed the puppet and the Democrats to be targeting independent voters at this stage of the game. But he argues the attacks on the Chamber can appeal to liberal Democrats and the surge voters from 2008 the White House is desperately trying to turn out this November. “The playing field would be wider,” Simmons said. “But, being where we are, you appeal to the people that you think will be responsive.” Frost, who led House Democrats’ congressional campaign efforts in 1996 and 1998, questioned whether those attacks were really effective on a race-by-race basis. “I know a little bit about congressional races,” he said. “I wouldn’t say it’s frustration, but I just don’t think they’re focusing on things that will move voters.”

The national party’s increased attacks on the Chamber could also put the few conservative Democrats who have won the business group’s backing in a tough spot. Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Va.) is “incredibly proud of the Chamber endorsement,” according to spokeswoman Leah Nelson. But Nye is “trying to stay out of the partisan fight” that has pitted his party against the Chamber and other groups, she said. Instead of focusing on Boehner or the Chamber, Frost advised, the White House and DNC might be better served by focusing on bread-and-butter issues like jobs and Social Security that play to the older, more established voters who tend to participate in midterm elections. “If I were still in charge of the DCCC, I’d be telling my candidates to eat that issue [Social Security] for breakfast, lunch and dinner,” he said. “Spending a lot of time on college campuses is not particularly helpful at this point.”

But Democrats are convinced their line of attack is working, pointing to a recent Bloomberg poll that showed “47 percent of respondents said that knowing a campaign was aided by advertising paid for by anonymous business groups would make them less likely to vote for that candidate, compared to 9 percent who said it would make them more likely to vote for that candidate….That’s because the American people want—and deserve—to know who is bankrolling the people they are being asked to vote for so they know if those candidates will be fighting for corporate special interests or middle class families when they get to Congress,” said an official at the DNC.

post by Newsmax

[A curious thing. Correct me if I'm wrong—we were coming out of a war in the 1920's and guess what war does, create jobs to rebuild what the war destroyed! So, to me, this is a bit of a war-time strategy. Wouldn't you say? Now, Dwight D. Eisenhower—or should I say General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Need I say more. If you take these two examples, you would understand why the last couple of presidents have been forcing the United States to continue fighting in the desert. Destroy as much stuff as you can, hence, more jobs created to repair it all. The one big mistake made—the desert is not Europe! Is this war really a war? That's the question that should be asked. After studying the history of Islam verse Christianity, you could really make the assumption that what's going on today is not a war, but a crusade! After all, history does tend to repeat itself, now, doesn't it?]

The federal government reached an unhappy milestone with the announcement of the national debt figure for fiscal 2010—it marked the 53rd straight year the debt had increased over the previous year. As of Sept. 30, the last day of fiscal 2010, the national debt stood at $13,561,623,030,891—over $13.5 trillion—an increase of $1.65 trillion over fiscal 2009, according to data from the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department.

The Bureau’s “total public debt outstanding” includes the portion of the debt held by the public in the form of securities such as Treasury bonds, plus the portion in the form of special government securities held by elements of the federal government itself, such as the Social Security trust fund, according to CNSNews. The Treasury Department has borrowed money from the trust fund to pay government expenses not related to Social Security.

Between 1920 and 1930, the federal debt declined every year for 11 years. The last time the federal debt did not increase was in 1957, when Dwight Eisenhower was President. This year the debt stands at around $13.2 trillion more than the debt in 1957. During the federal government’s 53-year run of rising debt, the total has increased by an average of around $250 billion a year. This year’s increase of $1.65 trillion is the second largest rise in the nation’s history. The largest ever? Fiscal 2009’s $1.88 trillion.

post by Newsmax

[I haven't posted in a while because it's the "same o' stuff" over and over with no real action going on. Here is proof...Unions are no longer needed in the United States. They were needed when there were no labor laws, but, hey, there ARE labor laws now protecting American workers—have been for a very long time. Unions trap workers into believing they are there to help. They are not. They make our American workers pay them fees even when our American workers are out of work and broke—all the while getting rich themselves! Union leaders are bullies and out for controlled order. Don't believe me. Read! Then you'll know exactly what they are doing.]

The U.S. Postal Service is close to maxing out its $15 billion line of credit with the Treasury and could run out of operating cash by the end of the year. But its contract with the postal unions is preventing the USPS from implementing the cost reductions it needs to get its finances under control. Labor accounts for 80 percent of the USPS’s costs—the Service has the second largest civilian workforce in the nation, behind only Wal-Mart—and 85 percent of workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement.

“The unions have become a giant anchor on an already sinking ship,” Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at the Cato Institute, wrote in an article appearing on The Daily Caller. Last year the average postal worker received about $79,000 in total compensation, compared to $61,000 for the average private sector employee. But the union contracts “inhibit the flexibility required to efficiently manage the USPS workforce,” according to DeHaven. He cited the “no-layoff” provisions that protect most workers, which forces the USPS to lay off lower-cost part-time and temporary workers before it can fire a full-time employee.

Union contracts also make it difficult for the USPS to hire part-time workers, which could result in savings and give managers flexibility in dealing with fluctuations in workload. Only 13 percent of USPS employees are part-time, compared to 53 percent for UPS and 40 percent for FedEx. Despite the USPS’s difficulties, the American Postal Workers Union—which represents more than 200,000 workers—is in contract negotiations with the Service and union chief William Burrus insists a pay increase for his members is an “entitlement.” He said the union wants “more money, better benefits…The postal unions are likely betting that in a worst case financial scenario for the USPS, policymakers will tap taxpayers for a bailout. Unfortunately, if recent history is a guide, they’re probably correct.”

post by Thomas Sowell’s Political Fables on Perspectives

[Yes, many people are stating this, but Sowell has to have put it in the best order. Thanks Mr. Sowell...you rock!]

The puppet boldly proclaims, “The buck stops here!” But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush. The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that the puppet inherited the big federal budget deficits and that he has to “clean up the mess” left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before the puppet became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including the puppet, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called “the Clinton surplus.” But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century. The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but the puppet and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Today, with the puppet in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012. Having created this scary situation, the puppet now says, “Don’t give in to fear. Let’s reach for hope.” The voters reached for hope when they elected the puppet. The fear comes from what he has done since taking office. “The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place,” he said recently. “In November, you’re going to have that choice.”

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans. These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats—notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along. At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel. If we are going to talk about “the policies that created this mess in the first place,” let’s at least get the facts straight and the names right. The current policies of the puppet administration are a continuation of the same reckless policies that brought on the current economic problems—all in the name of “change.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sacred cows in Washington, even though they have already required the biggest bailouts of all. Why? Because they allow politicians to direct vast sums of money where it will do politicians the most good, either personally or in terms of buying votes in the next election.

post by Newsmax Sept 5, 2010

Legislation outlawing ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the European Union has produced an unexpected wave of panicked buying as the ban takes effect. And that could be a harbinger of things to come in the United States, which has also passed a law that will ban Thomas Edison’s trusty old invention. Last year 100-watt incandescent bulbs were banned in the E.U., and on Sept. 1 it also became illegal to import or manufacture 75-watt bulbs. The move is intended to force Europeans to switch mostly to compact fluorescent lights (CPLs), which use less electricity.

In the United States, President George W. Bush in 2007 signed into law a bill ordering the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs beginning with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and ending with the 40-watt light in 2014.

[The light bulb does not make any difference in climate. I'm not a scientist but come on. This is just another step toward people control. Why don't the D.C. area start downsizing its people and light use. I bet you go into any government building and you almost or have to wear a sweater in the summer time! The White House alone has how many cooks, how many maids, how many staff members it doesn't need?!]

While CFLs do use about 75 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and last far longer, they cost significantly more and some users claim they give off a sickly light, according to The Telegraph in Britain. They also take longer to turn on, can flicker, and have even been blamed for giving people headaches and skin rashes. And CFLs contain small amounts of highly toxic mercury, which creates problems for users when they break or need to be disposed of after they burn out. So, sales of CFLs have been disappointing—while demand for the incandescent bulbs has been soaring. Packages of 75-watt bulbs have been flying off the shelves in Finland as “customers filled their closets, garages and attics with lighting supplies for the long term,” The Washington Times reported in an article headlined “Europe’s light-bulb socialism.”

“London’s Daily Mail gave away 25,000 100-watt bulbs as a prize in a January 2009 contest. Der Spiegel reported that German customers left hardware stores with carts jammed with enough incandescent bulbs to last 20 years.” The Telegraph reported “The panic buying of light bulbs is expected to get worse when 60-watt bulbs are banned next year and all incandescent bulbs are phased out by 2012.” But there is hope yet for those who oppose the ban, The Times disclosed. Two years ago, the minority party in New Zealand made canceling a planned ban a campaign issue. The party won national office, and overturned the ban.