President Obama and his cadre of ideological clones have been doing somersaults, celebrating the government numbers on unemployment and economic growth. The cheerleaders in the media have linked hands with the administration, performing journalistic handstands to mark the turnaround.
The coordinated attempt to brainwash voters in the final days of the presidential election is without precedent because it involves collusion with supposedly non-partisan government agencies. Skepticism about the federal data has been met with stinging administration rebukes.
Yet heading into October, most financial experts agreed the economy was comatose. Leading indicators showed only a weak economic pulse. Then two government agencies released data on unemployment and expansion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that raised eyebrows.
The opening propaganda volley was fired by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reported the nation's unemployment rate inexplicably nosedived to 7.8 percent in September. The turnabout occurred after 43 consecutive months of unemployment rates above eight percent.
According to the statisticians, the economy added a staggering 873,000 jobs in a single month, following three months of stagnation. The jump was the nation's largest gain in workers in 29 years, despite little change in economic activity.
Retired General Electric CEO Jack Welch was the first to challenge the data. The president's Propaganda Minister Jay Carney and the media sheep tried to silence the former executive by ridiculing him for daring to suggest the numbers were cooked.
Welch had good reason to be skeptical. The data appears at odds with reality. The nation's plodding economic expansion does not explain the extraordinary job gains.
The bureau's glowing job numbers were based on in-person and telephone interviews of 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Households are selected in each state by the census organization to represent the entire country. Each sample includes 75 percent of the same households that participated in the previous month's survey.
Surveys are notoriously flawed. They depend entirely on the honesty of respondents and the accuracy of the interviewer in recording answers. In the aftermath of the unemployment drop, critics expressed concerns about the methodology.
They had grounds to question the veracity.
As part of each monthly report, government statisticians at the bureau also examine the actual payrolls of 141,000 businesses. In September, the inspection found 114,000 jobs were added. That is a discrepancy of more than 600,000 jobs between the payroll data and the household interviews.
No plausible explanation has been forthcoming from the media or the government statisticians. It is further evidence that the media has abdicated its role as government watchdog to avoid spoiling the president's reelection chances. The media and the administration had one more trick up their sleeves.
Last week the Commerce Department issued an "estimate" showing growth of 2.0 percent in the third quarter for the GDP, a measurement of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy. The Obama Administration backflipped and the media cartwheeled.
The improvement surprised the nation's top economists. In a survey of 48 financial experts, their consensus was the economy would grow by 1.8 percent, according to the USA Today. For the second quarter, the GDP growth had been an unimpressive 1.3 percent.
There was a a little noticed nugget buried in the commerce report. Most of the growth could be attributed to federal government spending, which rose 9.6 percent in the third quarter after tumbling 0.2 percent in the second quarter. Surely that wasn't a coincidence.
In addition, not a single media outlet called attention to the cautionary language contained in the department's report, which emphasized the third quarter figures were an "advance estimate based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision."
Isn't it convenient, too, that revised figures with more complete data will not be released until November 29, some 23 days after the election?
Yet Americans are supposed to trust the media when it claims the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Commerce Department are beyond rapprochement. Really? Government data is constantly being updated to correct figures already in the public domain.
As a recent example, the press breathlessly proclaimed that jobless claims fell to 342,000 for the week ended October 13, marking the lowest number since February of 2008. Long after the news grabbed headlines, the Labor Department quietly corrected the figure by raising it to 388,000.
A democracy demands a vigilant and impartial media. The United States has neither.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Earth to Obama: US Has a Spending Problem
Listening to the president the past four years, it's clear he views hiking taxes as the only way to grow government revenue and slice the yawning federal deficit. Imagine his shock when he realized this month that tax receipts actually rose last fiscal year without an increase in federal income taxes.
Even with those evil Bush-era cuts in force, tax revenues increased six per cent in fiscal 2012, which ended September 30. Washington collected three percent more in personal taxes. Corporations coughed up an increase of 34 percent over fiscal 2011.
Despite the healthy growth in tax revenue, the nation recorded a $1.089 trillion deficit in 2012. This marks four straight years of trillion dollar deficits. To pay for the deficits, the United States is expected to bump up against the $16.39 trillion debt ceiling before the end of 2012.
The cumulative federal debt will likely reach 70 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of the year, according to this month's estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That would be the highest level since World War II. It was 40 percent when George W. Bush waved goodbye to Washington.
Without significant changes, the CBO warned that federal debt could hit 90 percent of GDP by 2022. If that sounds ominous, consider this: the financially distressed country of Spain is on pace to reach the 85.3 percent mark by the end of this year.
How did the United States arrive at this financial precipice?
In his first two years in office, President Obama boosted federal spending by 28 per cent. His latest budget proposal for 2013 would tack on another $1 trillion in debt. The administration's long-term forecast calls for a stunning 57 percent increase in government outlays by 2021.
Over the previous 50 years, spending has averaged 20.2 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Last fiscal year, federal government expenditures topped 24 percent of GDP.
As a result of the spending binge, America is drowning in a ocean of red ink.
Without a major policy shift, the U.S. is barreling toward a financial meltdown of epic scale. If that sounds alarmist, just read the CBO report of August 22, chronicling the Mount Everest of debt that has accumulated since Barrack Obama vowed to "cut the deficit in half" during his first term.
"If current policies are continued, it would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective," the non-partisan CBO stated in its chilling review of federal deficits and spending.
President Obama's answer to spiraling deficits is escalating taxes. Obama has promised to raise the top tax rates for nearly every major federal tax. That includes levies on capital gains, corporate dividends, death taxes as well as soaking high-earners with a 20 percent increase in personal tax rates.
Forcing Americans to give up more of their hard-earned income to Uncle Sam is not the answer. That will only kill the puny economic growth that Obama has presided over during his four years. Spending must be addressed if the nation is serious about curbing runaway deficits.
It is delusional and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Economic growth, not taxes, is the best way to increase federal revenues. A booming economy, accompanied by spending cuts, would enable the government to address the cataclysmic deficits.
Like so many things during the last four years, the same media that harped on the Bush era deficits has elected to treat the current financial crisis as mere political theatre. It can't be Obama's fault. Yet the numbers do not lie. America is in worse financial shape than at any time since World War II.
The nation is spending itself into ruin. The country cannot afford four more years of Barrack Obama.
Even with those evil Bush-era cuts in force, tax revenues increased six per cent in fiscal 2012, which ended September 30. Washington collected three percent more in personal taxes. Corporations coughed up an increase of 34 percent over fiscal 2011.
Despite the healthy growth in tax revenue, the nation recorded a $1.089 trillion deficit in 2012. This marks four straight years of trillion dollar deficits. To pay for the deficits, the United States is expected to bump up against the $16.39 trillion debt ceiling before the end of 2012.
The cumulative federal debt will likely reach 70 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of the year, according to this month's estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That would be the highest level since World War II. It was 40 percent when George W. Bush waved goodbye to Washington.
Without significant changes, the CBO warned that federal debt could hit 90 percent of GDP by 2022. If that sounds ominous, consider this: the financially distressed country of Spain is on pace to reach the 85.3 percent mark by the end of this year.
How did the United States arrive at this financial precipice?
Over the previous 50 years, spending has averaged 20.2 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Last fiscal year, federal government expenditures topped 24 percent of GDP.
As a result of the spending binge, America is drowning in a ocean of red ink.
Without a major policy shift, the U.S. is barreling toward a financial meltdown of epic scale. If that sounds alarmist, just read the CBO report of August 22, chronicling the Mount Everest of debt that has accumulated since Barrack Obama vowed to "cut the deficit in half" during his first term.
"If current policies are continued, it would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective," the non-partisan CBO stated in its chilling review of federal deficits and spending.
President Obama's answer to spiraling deficits is escalating taxes. Obama has promised to raise the top tax rates for nearly every major federal tax. That includes levies on capital gains, corporate dividends, death taxes as well as soaking high-earners with a 20 percent increase in personal tax rates.
Forcing Americans to give up more of their hard-earned income to Uncle Sam is not the answer. That will only kill the puny economic growth that Obama has presided over during his four years. Spending must be addressed if the nation is serious about curbing runaway deficits.
It is delusional and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Economic growth, not taxes, is the best way to increase federal revenues. A booming economy, accompanied by spending cuts, would enable the government to address the cataclysmic deficits.
Like so many things during the last four years, the same media that harped on the Bush era deficits has elected to treat the current financial crisis as mere political theatre. It can't be Obama's fault. Yet the numbers do not lie. America is in worse financial shape than at any time since World War II.
The nation is spending itself into ruin. The country cannot afford four more years of Barrack Obama.
Monday, October 15, 2012
What the U.S. Can Learn From France
Since President Obama considers raising taxes on the wealthy a patriotic duty, he should ponder the recent fallout in France after that country's new socialist leader zapped millionaires. The maneuver has fueled a selling frenzy of pricey real estate and triggered an exodus to tax friendly nations.
The great escape began when candidate Francois Hollande pandered to his Socialist Party faithful by vowing to levy a 75 percent tax on all personal income that exceeds one million euros a year. Many figured it was an election stunt. But President Hollande has rammed through the new tax and signaled he wants to increase taxes on businesses, too.
The confiscatory tax, scheduled to take affect later this year, has sent shivers through France's top earners. About 500 residences worth more than one million euros have gone onto the Paris market since May. Lawyers report an unprecedented number of calls from prosperous executives wanting to flee France.
The country's wealthiest man made no secret of the fact he is seeking citizenship in neighboring Belgium. Bernard Arnault, chief executive of luxury brand Moet-Hennessy Louis Vuitton (MHLV), wants no part of Hollande's soak-the-rich scheme.
The French media acted with outrage. Hollande scolded Arnault for being unpatriotic. Socialists and trade unions squealed with delight. However, Hollande's public approval ratings have nosedived. The French president has no one to blame but himself and his lousy political acumen.
In defending the tax, France's top man claimed the revenues would help reduce the nation's hefty budget deficit. However, the tax revenue from an estimated 30,000 wealthy earners would make-up a tiny fraction of the 33 billion euros needed to help balance France's budget.
The tax does nothing to address France's economic woes. The country recorded zero growth in the second quarter. Unemployment ticked up to 10.3 percent, the highest in more than a decade. Raising taxes will blunt any chance of economic recovery.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Hollande and his socialist pals have ripped a page right out of the playbook of Barrack Obama. If the U.S. president gets his way, America will be treated to the same sort of spectacle.
It is political naiveté to think sharp increases in taxes will be met with passive resignation. As France is discovering, the new levy is stifling business growth, drying up capital for new ventures and motivating foreign companies to consider alternative locations for their investment.
The draconian tax, aimed at the wealthy, has harmed every French citizen and splintered the nation by pitting one class against another.
Don't expect America's socialist president to learn from his French connection. President Obama is determined to hoist the top tax rate to 39.6 percent on every couple earning $250,000 or more. Why stop there? In 1963, the United States' highest individual income tax rate stood at 91 percent.
Democratic Party President John Kennedy lobbied for a lower rate. After his death, Congress sliced the rate on the largest earners to 70 percent. President Reagan trimmed the top rate to 50 percent in 1982. He went a step further in 1988, dropping it to 28 percent, igniting the longest sustained economic boom in the nation's history.
The French lesson should be painfully obvious. Higher taxes often hinder economic growth by reducing consumer spending and investment. In the midst of the current U.S. economic malaise, the idea of a tax hike on any wage earner deserves public scorn.
It is rotten political and economic policy.
The great escape began when candidate Francois Hollande pandered to his Socialist Party faithful by vowing to levy a 75 percent tax on all personal income that exceeds one million euros a year. Many figured it was an election stunt. But President Hollande has rammed through the new tax and signaled he wants to increase taxes on businesses, too.
The confiscatory tax, scheduled to take affect later this year, has sent shivers through France's top earners. About 500 residences worth more than one million euros have gone onto the Paris market since May. Lawyers report an unprecedented number of calls from prosperous executives wanting to flee France.
The country's wealthiest man made no secret of the fact he is seeking citizenship in neighboring Belgium. Bernard Arnault, chief executive of luxury brand Moet-Hennessy Louis Vuitton (MHLV), wants no part of Hollande's soak-the-rich scheme.
The French media acted with outrage. Hollande scolded Arnault for being unpatriotic. Socialists and trade unions squealed with delight. However, Hollande's public approval ratings have nosedived. The French president has no one to blame but himself and his lousy political acumen.
In defending the tax, France's top man claimed the revenues would help reduce the nation's hefty budget deficit. However, the tax revenue from an estimated 30,000 wealthy earners would make-up a tiny fraction of the 33 billion euros needed to help balance France's budget.
The tax does nothing to address France's economic woes. The country recorded zero growth in the second quarter. Unemployment ticked up to 10.3 percent, the highest in more than a decade. Raising taxes will blunt any chance of economic recovery.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Hollande and his socialist pals have ripped a page right out of the playbook of Barrack Obama. If the U.S. president gets his way, America will be treated to the same sort of spectacle.
It is political naiveté to think sharp increases in taxes will be met with passive resignation. As France is discovering, the new levy is stifling business growth, drying up capital for new ventures and motivating foreign companies to consider alternative locations for their investment.
The draconian tax, aimed at the wealthy, has harmed every French citizen and splintered the nation by pitting one class against another.
Don't expect America's socialist president to learn from his French connection. President Obama is determined to hoist the top tax rate to 39.6 percent on every couple earning $250,000 or more. Why stop there? In 1963, the United States' highest individual income tax rate stood at 91 percent.
Democratic Party President John Kennedy lobbied for a lower rate. After his death, Congress sliced the rate on the largest earners to 70 percent. President Reagan trimmed the top rate to 50 percent in 1982. He went a step further in 1988, dropping it to 28 percent, igniting the longest sustained economic boom in the nation's history.
The French lesson should be painfully obvious. Higher taxes often hinder economic growth by reducing consumer spending and investment. In the midst of the current U.S. economic malaise, the idea of a tax hike on any wage earner deserves public scorn.
It is rotten political and economic policy.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Obama Czars Deserve Fate of Russian Tzars
They are shadowy figures. Most enjoy six-figure salaries. Few appear in public. Their activities are cloaked in secrecy. They are seldom held accountable. Yet they wield enormous power. Even the media can't determine exactly how many there are. But their numbers are growing.
They are the czars of the Obama Administration.
Since taking office, President Obama has installed personal advisors in so-called czar positions in the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch. At last count, there were about 45. In addition, there may be as many as 18 other unfilled czar jobs. But those numbers remain circumspect.
Those crowned czars by Obama include: Car Czar, Climate Czar, Drug Czar, TARP Czar, Technology Czar, Terrorism Czar, Oil Spill Czar, Safe Schools Czar, Science Czar, Regulatory Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Pay Czar, Green Energy Czar and Great Lakes Czar.
And that's just a partial list. Virtually every one of these czars has shared responsibilities for issues that are under the purview of either Cabinet level executives or heads of the endless list of federal government departments. The amount of redundancy is staggering.
These czars are largely unaccountable to Congress. Their activities often are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the individuals to operate with almost no public scrutiny. That provides cover for the czars to conduct their activities in secrecy.
In 2011, the House tacked on an amendment to a spending package to defund a select list of czars. After it was approved, it went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate. President Obama breathed a sigh of relief and quietly began plans to expand the czar regime.
In fact, as part of the bogus American Jobs Act the president proposed a whole new group of czars. These faceless autocrats will be charged with managing more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer funds to construct bridges, highways, waterways and other infrastructure projects.
Doesn't the Department of Transportation have responsibility for those matters? Why does the nation need another layer of bureaucracy?
The media should demand answers to those questions from the president. No way that will happen.
Instead, the mainstream media looks the other way while President Obama continues to build a shadow government that operates out of view from the prying eyes of taxpayers who are funding the excesses of his administration.
In fairness, President George W. Bush dabbled in czars, too. But Obama has raised the number as a way to avoid having to seek Senate confirmation for often controversial appointees. Some of the more disreputable Obama czars have disappeared never to be heard from again.
Independent Judicial Watch has sued in federal court to gain information about the specific activities of some czars. An impartial media would have exposed long ago the idea of giving unaccountable officials the power to regulate and control wide swaths of the economy and government.
In a democracy, there is no room for czars. Americans should demand an end to the practice. Even Russia's swooning infatuation with tzars came to a close in 1917, some 96 years ago. It's time for the U.S. to follow suit.
They are the czars of the Obama Administration.
Since taking office, President Obama has installed personal advisors in so-called czar positions in the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch. At last count, there were about 45. In addition, there may be as many as 18 other unfilled czar jobs. But those numbers remain circumspect.
Those crowned czars by Obama include: Car Czar, Climate Czar, Drug Czar, TARP Czar, Technology Czar, Terrorism Czar, Oil Spill Czar, Safe Schools Czar, Science Czar, Regulatory Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Pay Czar, Green Energy Czar and Great Lakes Czar.
And that's just a partial list. Virtually every one of these czars has shared responsibilities for issues that are under the purview of either Cabinet level executives or heads of the endless list of federal government departments. The amount of redundancy is staggering.
These czars are largely unaccountable to Congress. Their activities often are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the individuals to operate with almost no public scrutiny. That provides cover for the czars to conduct their activities in secrecy.
In 2011, the House tacked on an amendment to a spending package to defund a select list of czars. After it was approved, it went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate. President Obama breathed a sigh of relief and quietly began plans to expand the czar regime.
In fact, as part of the bogus American Jobs Act the president proposed a whole new group of czars. These faceless autocrats will be charged with managing more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer funds to construct bridges, highways, waterways and other infrastructure projects.
Doesn't the Department of Transportation have responsibility for those matters? Why does the nation need another layer of bureaucracy?
The media should demand answers to those questions from the president. No way that will happen.
Instead, the mainstream media looks the other way while President Obama continues to build a shadow government that operates out of view from the prying eyes of taxpayers who are funding the excesses of his administration.
In fairness, President George W. Bush dabbled in czars, too. But Obama has raised the number as a way to avoid having to seek Senate confirmation for often controversial appointees. Some of the more disreputable Obama czars have disappeared never to be heard from again.
Independent Judicial Watch has sued in federal court to gain information about the specific activities of some czars. An impartial media would have exposed long ago the idea of giving unaccountable officials the power to regulate and control wide swaths of the economy and government.
In a democracy, there is no room for czars. Americans should demand an end to the practice. Even Russia's swooning infatuation with tzars came to a close in 1917, some 96 years ago. It's time for the U.S. to follow suit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)