Saturday, October 31, 2009

expensive head hunters...





So let me see if I get this....the U.S. spends $160 Billion in stimulus money to fund jobs growth. Jared Bernstein, chief economist and senior economic advisor to the VP Biden, called that the numbers "calculator abuse." He said the cost per job was actually $92,000 -- but finally admitted that estimate is for the whole stimulus package as of the end of 2010.
The White House (aka the House that Obama built) argued that the actual job number is actually larger than 640,000 -- more like one million jobs when you factor in stimulus jobs added in October and, more importantly, jobs created indirectly, such (as the brilliant VP babbler adds "the waitress who's still on the job." Big jobs.

Biden was also quoted as saying "We know this is not 100 percent accurate.Further updates and corrections are going to be needed." You don't say? Fuzzy math?

Hilliary pretty much sums it up...


Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan: Hillary Clinton




LAHORE: The leadership of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday.

“I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to,” she added.

“Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know... As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,” Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors in Lahore, AFP reported. “The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” she said.

Monday, October 26, 2009

poor CNN....

The news ain't pretty at CNN. Reports are out today that they have fallen to last place in the prime time! Incredible. The numbers are below: (so of the differences are startling)


Total Day (Monday through Sunday), Total Viewers
Fox News: 1,255,000
CNN: 486,000
MSNBC: 359,000
HLN: 307,000

Total Day Viewers (Monday through Sunday), Ages 25-54
Fox News: 344,000
CNN: 142,000
HLN: 146,000
MSNBC: 131,000

Primetime Viewers (Monday through Sunday), Total Viewers
Fox News: 2,234,000
MSNBC 730,000
CNN 679,000
HLN 530,000

Primetime Viewers (Monday through Sunday), Ages 25-54
Fox News: 583,000
MSNBC: 239,000
HLN: 191,000
CNN: 190,000

7PM, Total Viewers
Fox Report with Shepard Smith: 1,989,000
Hardball: 649,000
Lou Dobbs Tonight: 631,000
Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell: 461,000

7PM, Ages 25-54
Fox Report with Shepard Smith: 463,000
Hardball: 182,000
Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell: 167,000
Lou Dobbs Tonight: 163,000

8PM, Total Viewers
O'Reilly Factor: 3,389,000
Countdown: 1,020,000
Nancy Grace: 830,000
Campbell Brown: 648,000

8PM, Ages 25-54
O'Reilly Factor 875,000
Countdown: 294,000
Nancy Grace: 269,000
Campbell Brown: 161,000

9PM, Total Viewers
Hannity: 2,374,000
Rachel Maddow: 880,000
Larry King Live: 842,000
Joy Behar: 535,000

9PM, Ages 25-54
Hannity: 659,000
Rachel Maddow: 246,000
Larry King Live: 224,000
Joy Behar: 183,000

10PM, Total Viewers
On the Record with Greta van Susteren: 1,958,000
Anderson Cooper 360: 689,000
Countdown (repeat): 600,000
Nancy Grace (repeat): 495,000

10PM, Ages 25-54
On the Record with Greta van Susteren: 533,000
Nancy Grace (repeat): 222,000
Countdown (repeat): 218,000
Anderson Cooper 360: 210,000

This says it all.....

Thursday, October 22, 2009

hula Thursday...round the Globe...



The Big O's wife with the ever growing booty, hula hooped today. She managed to get in (according to U.S. Today, "142 swivels before her hula hoop hit the ground" after the torque of the hoop just could not take it anymore. It almost compares to the hula hooping in Cardiff, England. That is due to binge drinking. Michele Obama's is due to binge b.s.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Our New Secretary of State?


Where is Hilliary? Kerry makes a "deal" with Karzai. Meet who I think will be our new beloved Secretary of State in 2010 after Hilliary "retires." As you can see, Kerry handles the political football well. He tried windsurfing...and flipflopping...maybe football will make him a real winner...since he was a loser in Massachusetts.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

the indecisive President




Seems like all the b.s that the Big O has been spewing over the past 10 months or so if finally catching up to him.

There is so much talk about the Big O inheriting the worst economy since the 30's. This came right after the Big O responded to the news story about the deficit hitting $1.4 trillion. Rewind two or three months beforehand. The Big O and his spin team sprinted across the finish line with a $787 Billion stimulus bill. They cried that it was needed now claiming that it would keep unemployment under 8%. When unemployment hit 9.5% in June, The Big O's co-spinner, Bad Mouth Biden said that "we misread how bad the economy was." I guess it how you consider was was.

Now the Big O is deflecting the economy issue with the health insurance issue. This also helps block making a decision on troop increases in Afghanistan. So what does The Big O do to help ease the pain of making a decision? He parties! Last night a huge tent was set up on the South Lawn to hear Sheila E. What will the next distraction be? I can't decide....

ratings bowling

Based on the current Cable News ratings, with Fox News increasing their viewership by over 20%, I guess Fox News is not a news channel. Must be my imagination.

Fox News had another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in third quarter 2009 and growing even more against their third quarter 2008 ratings, while CNN and MSNBC lost huge portions of their audience.

Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter...that's up 20% over the previous year...more than CNN (946,000, down an incredible 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined. CNN losing to MSNBC.

Bill O'Reilly has led all cable news programs with an average of 3.295 million total viewers for the quarter. That is up 12% over the previous year. Sean Hannity (2.603 million, up 9%), Glenn Beck (2.403 million, up 89%), Greta van Susteren (2.150 million, up 16%), and "Special Report with Bret Baier" (1.997 million, up 20%). The top five.

At MSNBC, Keith Olbermann averaged 1.087 million total viewers, down 12% from the previous year and Rachel Maddow Show averaged 996,000 total viewers. CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 averaged 1.005 million viewers, down 17% from the previous year and Lou Dobbs averaged 658,000 total viewers, down 24%. Larry King and Campbell Brown were were both down in total viewers.

CNN is bleeding in viewer loss. In the primetime adults 25-54 demo, they dropped 39% compared to third quarter 2008, averaging just 287,000 viewers.

I guess since Fox News does not exist, the viewers are going to the Cartoon Network.


Sunday, October 18, 2009

another homerun by Bolton



Great piece in today's L.A. Times by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton




latimes.com

Opinion

The danger of Obama's dithering

His foreign policy brings to mind Jimmy Carter, or perhaps Ethelred the Unready.

By John R. Bolton

October 18, 2009

Weakness in American foreign policy in one region often invites challenges elsewhere, because our adversaries carefully follow diminished American resolve. Similarly, presidential indecisiveness, whether because of uncertainty or internal political struggles, signals that the United States may not respond to international challenges in clear and coherent ways.

Taken together, weakness and indecisiveness have proved historically to be a toxic combination for America's global interests. That is exactly the combination we now see under President Obama. If anything, his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize only underlines the problem. All of Obama's campaign and inaugural talk about "extending an open hand" and "engagement," especially the multilateral variety, isn't exactly unfolding according to plan. Entirely predictably, we see more clearly every day that diplomacy is not a policy but only a technique. Absent presidential leadership, which at a minimum means clear policy direction and persistence in the face of criticism and adversity, engagement simply embodies weakness and indecision.

Obama is no Harry Truman. At best, he is reprising Jimmy Carter. At worst, the real precedent may be Ethelred the Unready, the turn-of the-first-millennium Anglo-Saxon king whose reputation for indecisiveness and his unsuccessful paying of Danegeld -- literally, "Danish tax" -- to buy off Viking raiders made him history's paradigmatic weak leader.

Beyond the disquiet (or outrage for some) prompted by the president's propensity to apologize for his country's pre-Obama history, Americans increasingly sense that his administration is drifting from one foreign policy mistake to another. Worse, the current is growing swifter, and the threats more pronounced, even as the administration tries to turn its face away from the world and toward its domestic priorities. Foreign observers, friend and foe alike, sense the same aimlessness and drift. French President Nicolas Sarkozy had to remind Obama at a Sept. 24 U.N. Security Council meeting that "we live in the real world, not a virtual one."

Examples of weakness abound, and the consequences are readily foreseeable.

Canceling the Polish and Czech missile defense bases is understood in Moscow and Eastern European capitals as backing down in the face of Russian bluster and belligerence. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened the day after our 2008 election to deploy missiles targeting these assets unless they were canceled, a threat duly noted by the Russian media when Obama canceled the sites. Given candidate Obama's reaction to the 2008 Russia-Georgia war -- calling on both sides to exercise restraint -- there is little doubt that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's project to re-extend Russian hegemony over as much of the former Soviet Union as he can will continue apace. Why should he worry about Washington?

Obama's Middle East peace process has stalled, most recently because he set a target for an end to Israeli settlement expansion, couldn't meet it and then proceeded as though he hadn't meant what he said originally. By insisting that Israel freeze settlements as a precondition to renewing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Obama drew a clear line. But when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu withstood Obama's pressure, Obama caved, hosting a photo-op with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that strengthened Netanyahu and weakened Abbas just when Obama wanted to achieve exactly the opposite. However one views the substantive outcome of this vignette, Obama himself looked the weakest of all. It could well be years before his Middle East policy gets back up off the ground.

On nuclear nonproliferation, North Korea responded to the "open hand" of engagement by testing its second nuclear device, continuing an aggressive ballistic missile testing program, cooperating with other rogue states and kidnapping and holding hostage two American reporters. Obama's reaction is to press for more negotiations, which simply encourages Pyongyang to up the ante.

Iran is revealed to have been long constructing an undeclared, uninspected nuclear facility that makes a mockery of almost seven years of European Union negotiation efforts. Forced to deal publicly with this deeply worrying threat, Obama proposes the equivalent of money-laundering for nuclear threats: Iranian uranium enriched in open, unambiguous defiance of four Security Council resolutions will be enriched to higher levels in Russia, and then returned to be burned in a Tehran reactor -- ostensibly for peaceful purposes. Sarkozy again captured the growing international incredulity in his noteworthy Security Council speech: "I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges."

Finally, Obama's agonizing, very public reappraisal of his own 7-month-old Afghanistan policy epitomizes indecisiveness. While there is no virtue in sustaining policy merely for continuity's sake, neither is credit due for too-quickly adopting policies without appreciating the risks entailed and then fleeing precipitously when the risks become manifest. The administration's stated reason for its policy re-evaluation was widespread fraud in Afghanistan's Aug. 20 presidential election. But this explanation is simply not credible. Did not the administration's generals and diplomats on the ground, not to mention United Nations observers, see the election mess coming? Was the Hamid Karzai administration's cupidity and corruption overlooked or ignored during Obama's original review and revision of his predecessor's policy?

The unmistakable inference is that Obama did not carefully think through his March Afghan policy, or did not have full confidence then or now in Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal or Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, or that it is now politically inconvenient among increasingly antiwar Democrats to follow through on that policy.

None of these explanations reflect credit on the president. He is dithering. Whatever decision Obama reaches on Afghanistan, his credibility and leadership have been badly wounded by his continuing public display of indecisiveness.

Our international adversaries undoubtedly welcome all of these "resets" in U.S. foreign policy, but Americans should be appalled at how much of our posture in the world has already been given away. If Obama's first nine months indicate the direction of the next 39, we still have a long way to fall.

John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option."

Fox News beats Obama at his own game


Poor Barry. He just has not had a good week in the p.r. department. His Communications Director tried to take on Fox News...only to have it blown up in their face and give Fox a nice ratings boost.








Even the left leaning rag, New York Times agreed. The story is here:

October 18, 2009
The Media Equation

The Battle Between the White House and Fox News

The Obama administration, which would seem to have its hands full with a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, opened up a third front last week, this time with Fox News.

Until this point, the conflict had been mostly a one-sided affair, with Fox News hosts promoting tax day “tea parties” that focused protest on the new president, and more recently bringing down the presidential adviser Van Jones through rugged coverage that caught the administration, and other news organizations, off guard. During the health care debate, Fox News has put a megaphone to opponents, some of whom have advanced far-fetched theories about the impact of reform. And even farther out on the edge, the network’s most visible star of the moment, Glenn Beck, has said the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Administration officials seemed to have decided that they had had enough.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, said in an interview with The New York Times. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Ah, but pretending has traditionally been a valuable part of the presidential playbook. Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics. While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence.

Not that they haven’t tried. In his second Inaugural Address, Ulysses S. Grant said he had “been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history.” President William McKinley labeled a gathering of the press a “congress of inventors,” and President Franklin D. Roosevelt assigned less favored press members to his “Dunce Club.” Sometimes the strategy worked — or caused no lasting damage. McKinley, like Grant, was elected to a second term. Roosevelt also won a third and fourth.

As Americans turned to TV for news, enmity from presidents soon followed. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew said “self-appointed analysts” at the Big Three networks exhibited undisguised “hostility” toward President Richard M. Nixon, subjecting his speeches to “instant analysis and querulous criticism.” Later, in the dispute with The Times over the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, accused the newspaper of treason.

Neither of the Bush presidents had a particularly cozy relationship with the press. George H.W. Bush finished the campaign in 1992 with a bumper sticker that suggested, “Annoy the Media. Vote Bush.” And George W. Bush, in the words of ABC’s Mark Halperin, viewed “the media as a special interest rather than as guardians of the public interest.” Bill Clinton, too, distrusted the press, as did others in his administration. When Vincent Foster, Mr. Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, committed suicide in 1993, he left behind a note accusing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page of lying.

Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president

It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

Or not. Under the direction of Ms. Dunn, the administration has begun to punch back. On Sept. 20, the president visited all the Sunday talk shows save Fox News’, with Ms. Dunn explaining that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, but a “wing of the Republican Party.”

The one weapon all administrations can wield is access, and the White House, making it clear that it will use that leverage going forward, informed Fox News not to expect to bump knees with the president until 2010. But Fox News, as many have pointed out, is not in the access business. They are in the agitation business. And the administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight.

Tactics aside, something more fundamental is at risk. Even the president’s most avid critics admit he exudes a certain cool confidence. The public impression of him is that if anyone were to, say, talk trash on the basketball court with Mr. Obama, he would not find much space for rent in Mr. Obama’s head.

Mr. Obama has also shown a consistent ability to disarm or at least engage his critics. When he eventually sat for an interview with the Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly two months before the election, it made for great television. But for the time being, détente seems very far away and the gap seems to be widening.

On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.”

People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones. A blog on the White House Web site that uses a “truth-o-meter” against a particular cable news network would not seem to qualify. As it is, Reality Check sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue.

The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.

Obama Bucks...


Take a look at the new greenback. Yes, the Dollar is almost value-less. Charmin. The U.S. Treasury department proudly announced that our total national debt is $1.42 Trillion Dollars. This is more national debt than we have for the first 200 years of the U.S. of A(mnesty) In my prior post, I mentioned how this debt may, like, rebound. Some economists are now warning that unless the government cuts spending or (gulp) raises taxes, another economic crisis could occur. No shit. So let me see here. The Treasury released numbers on Friday showing that the government paid $46.6 billion more than it took in. This put the checkbook negative $1.42 trillion. (Bad enough it was $459 billion this same time last year under Bush...bad enough...and I know even though Bush was President, the Democrats had control of the House and Senate since 2006..) it's the biggest deficit since World War II. So what if this is the worst deficit since World War II. The government's credit card has no credit limit. No re-payment plan (yet). So what if Kenneth Rogoff, a Hahhvard professor and former chief for the International Monetary Fund said "The rudderless U.S. fiscal policy is the biggest long-term risk to the U.S. economy. As we accumulate more and more debt, we leave ourselves very vulnerable."
The government paid $190 billion just in interest over the last year on Treasury securities to finance the debt. This could go up to $17.1 trillion in 2019.
One of the worst parts of this tale is that we owe China $800 Billion. Hey we can top that. The U.S. government owes the Social Security trust $4.4 Trillion. It's all about the Benjamin's baby! Not to worry, with Obama bucks..we'll be fine. ( or fined?)





that's not what I voted for....



Seems to be what many of the Lord Obama's followers are saying to themselves these days. In a rather interesting move, the Obama mean team has threatened Fox News, calling them a wing of the Republican party. Not denying it...Fox does lean right..as it should. CNN is left, MSNBC is so far left the plane is ready to crash. Obama has done a rating good for Fox. Fox News is enjoying a 20 percent ratings boost. Not bad for a recession. (For those of you who think this thing is over and believe the p.r. spin in the media...don't be too panicked when unemployment continues to rise and all of those wonderful cash for clunker and home buyer programs start to fall apart. It seems a decent percentage of those folks are due to lose their jobs...resulting in loan defaults..and the financial mess/rebound continues.) We must also not forget....all these stimulus programs (which by the way...each stimulus job as been shown to cost $66,000) has to be paid back somehow. Heck even the Pillsbury Dough Boy is pissed. But don't worry...when it comes to Bling....we are all set. Plenty of Obama Bucks to go around. I hope you Republican spenders of the mid 2000's are taking notes from your past indiscretions.

behind closed doors...


So the Big O is continuing to sway like the windsurfer Kerry was back in 2004. Here is an interesting "gotcha Big O" story in the Washington Post...So much for having a transparent White House....

By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 18, 2009

Three months before he was elected president, Barack Obama vowed not only to reform health care but also to pass the legislation in an unprecedented way.

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table," he said at an appearance in Chester, Va., repeating an assertion he made many times. He said the discussions would be "televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies."

But now, as a Senate vote on health-care legislation nears, those negotiations are occurring in a setting that is anything but revolutionary in Washington: Three senators are working on the bill behind closed doors.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) sits at the head of a wooden table at his office as he and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) work to merge two competing versions of health-care legislation into one bill. The three men will be joined by top aides as well as by members of President Obama's health-care team, led by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The sessions started on Wednesday and could be completed this week.

The group will make such key decisions as whether to include a government-run insurance plan designed to compete with private insurance companies. The bill passed in July by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Dodd led while Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) was ailing, included such a provision, but the legislation passed last week by Baucus's Finance Committee did not.

The bills also differ on how much Americans who do not buy insurance should be fined as the government seeks to get everyone covered.

In the sessions, Dodd in effect represents advocates of the government-insurance option and Baucus represents those less committed to that proposal. The tie-breaking votes are likely to be Reid and, on Obama's behalf, Emanuel. Obama and Reid have said they personally back the government-insurance option but have not ruled out supporting a bill that lacks such a provision.

Although much of the writing of legislation happens in closed-door meetings, congressional Republicans have sharply criticized the ongoing process.

"This bill is being written in the dark of night," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), adding that "the president ought to keep his promise to the American people and open this process up."

"It's ironic that Congressman Boehner would be complaining since he has refused every step of the way to participate in the effort to reform health insurance," Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman, said in a statement. "The House and Senate have held scores of hearings on health insurance reform -- as Congressman Boehner well knows -- and at the White House we've held an unprecedented series of webcast meetings with key health care stakeholders to gather their input in a public forum."

Baucus played down the private nature of the group's meetings. "In a real sense, all senators who want health-care reform are in the room because we'll be talking to all of them, they'll be talking to us," he said.

The three senators and Emanuel won't be the only ones playing a role in shaping the legislation. Every member of the Senate will have a chance to offer amendments to the bill the three senators write. And even though the final legislation is expected to resemble more closely the version in the Senate, where final passage would require support from more-conservative Democrats, House Democrats have been meeting for weeks on their version of the bill.

The House Democratic leadership and several key chairmen meet daily, and are regularly briefing smaller groups of lawmakers. As in the Senate, House moderates and liberals remain divided over the government-insurance option, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) strongly favors.

The House meetings are also not televised on C-SPAN or open to the public. But unlike the Senate negotiations, the House discussions tend to be open to more lawmakers.

"We have meetings and more meetings and gripe sessions," said Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). "This process has been almost open to death."

But after weeks of Senate Finance Committee public hearings, the Senate negotiations are now an invitation-only affair in Reid's office. The majority leader is unlikely to expand his group, even as some senators unhappy with parts of the legislation, such as John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), have asked to be in the room.

Instead, lawmakers try to influence the three senators however they can. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a close Reid ally, annoyed him recently by publicly pressing the majority leader to include a government-run public insurance option. Moderate Democrats are privately prodding Baucus to defend the approach in the bill passed by his committee.

In addition to being well-versed in health-care policy, some of the negotiators gathering in Reid's office are quite health-conscious. Baucus has run 50-mile "ultramarathons" and wants to complete a 100-mile race. Reid and Emanuel do yoga, and Dodd turned the recent announcement of his prostate cancer diagnosis into a virtual public health campaign.

While fellow lawmakers seek to influence them, Dodd and Reid are dogged by low approval ratings in their home states and are facing reelection next year. As they emerged from a health-care session last week, Dodd and Reid touted the number of uninsured in their home states who would benefit from the legislation.

"All of my polling numbers are good," Reid said, even as polls show him trailing several potential challengers. On Friday, he took the highly unusual step of starting to run campaign ads more than a year before the election.

Reid, in particular, faces a balancing act. As majority leader, he is tasked with shepherding the bill and ensuring that it has the support of conservative Democrats necessary for passage. But liberal activists who could raise money and help him win next year, including the group MoveOn.org, are demanding he aggressively back the public option.

Reid, like the other members of the group, seems prepared to disappoint some people to get the broader bill finished.

"Neither I nor any other senator has the luxury of passing a perfect bill -- I wish we could -- that conforms exactly to his or her beliefs," he said. "But we must act."




watch your wallet....


Wednesday, October 14, 2009

this is not a joke...


My only concern is that will the Obama Health Care plan cover the major depression of all those who still believe in him once reality hits and the realization of his being an utter failure comes to light?

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

the O-bel Prize



the many faces of Obama....








How is that stimulus working?




Since April 2009, the administration spent roughly $90 billion, or 18 percent of the total stimulus spending, on top of $62 billion in tax relief. During that time, the unemployment rate grew from 8.9 percent to 9.8 percent. And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job losses accelerated in September. As we see here, the current unemployment rate is already far above the 8.8 percent the administration said the rate would top out at next year without a stimulus.

How can we explain this? For starters it seems the administration misjudged the severity of potential job losses.

When the government grows by $1, the private sector shrinks by 20 cents, according to one estimate.

With respect to the stimulus, there are two theories on why unemployment keeps rising despite stimulus dollars. Some economists, including Paul Krugman, have argued that the problem with President Obama’s plan is that it doesn't spend enough. Hence, they think that a second stimulus is needed. Yet it is hard to argue that we already need another stimulus when less than a quarter of the money has been spent.

Other economists are arguing that the money is not being spent fast enough. Indeed, at this rate, the economy is likely to have recovered before most of the stimulus money has been spent.

One potential problem with the slow rate of spending is highlighted by some new Keynesians who typically teach that government spending can only grow the economy in the short run. After that, government spending actually hurts the private sector. Under the current plan, only 25 percent of the total spending will take place in 2009 (within four years all the money will be spent). That is too slow, they claim, since by the time the economy starts recovering, most of the stimulus money will remain unspent and, by then, government spending will actually hurt the economy.

It is hard to argue that we already need another stimulus when less than a quarter of the money has been spent.

So, what do the data say? There are few studies on the issue, but two have found that government spending shrinks the private sector, at least a little. Looking at war spending, Harvard University’s economist Robert Barro estimates that the multiplier of government spending is 0.8: when the government grows by $1, the private sector shrinks by 20 cents. Also, using a variable that takes into account the fact that military spending is anticipated several quarters before it actually occurs, the University of San Diego’s Valerie Ramey has shown how U.S. military spending influences GDP and estimates that the multiplier of government spending is between 0.6 (when World War II data is excluded) and 1 (when it is included). Thus both papers support the “crowding out” hypothesis.

More interestingly, in a recent Wall Street Journal piece, Barro and Charles Redlick add that while government spending during a period of average unemployment crowds out private investment, an increase in unemployment makes government intervention slightly more efficient. They write, “Our research also shows that greater weakness in the economy raises the estimated multiplier: It increases by around 0.1 for each two percentage points by which the unemployment rate exceeds its long-run median of 5.6%. Thus the estimated multiplier reaches 1.0 when the unemployment rate gets to about 12%.” In other words, it takes a lot of job losses for government spending to stop shrinking the private sector.

Putting aside the question of whether the stimulus is too small or being spent too slowly, what too many stimulus advocates overlook is that to spend money, the government needs to either borrow, tax, or print it (or combine these). Money taxed or borrowed from the private sector is money that firms cannot spend on goods or employees. The government’s slice of the pie gets bigger by making the rest of the pie smaller. This may explain in part why the stimulus has not translated into declining unemployment. from Veronique de Rugy is senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center