No President Left Behind
"At-risk" kids aren't the only ones who seem to be struggling with basic math. Our president is making us an at-risk nation thanks to his apparent inability with it. From the Telegraph/UK, Simon Heffer writes:
...Mr Obama and his team simply don't understand governance. Last month Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, warned America that without more care being taken it could have a Greece-style debt problem. The president seemed to regard this warning as so self-evidently absurd that he quickly asked Congress for another $50 billion for various social projects. Last week, benefits for the long-term unemployed were extended for another six months at a cost of $34 billion. The health care programme is forecast to cost at least $863 billion. The total deficit this year is to be $1.47 trillion. America's debt is likely to be $18.5 trillion by 2020, though it will be so low as that only if growth is maintained at 4 per cent: it is currently 3 per cent, and rocky.Unemployment is 9.5 per cent and forecast to stay there for the time being. There are three million more jobless than when Mr Obama came to power, and unemployment among teenagers is around 25 per cent. The very constituencies to which he made his greatest appeal - the young and the disadvantaged - still suffer. This is despite the $787 billion stimulus programme last year, much of which was sucked into America's corrupt and inefficient local government system, or did favours for congressmen and senators, or provided wonderful pay days for trade unionists, or in some cases all three at once. The President sought the stimulus on the grounds that it would stop unemployment rising above 8 per cent; so that has been an expensive failure. All Mr Obama appears to have done is wave the money goodbye. Last week, trying not to sound provoked, Mr Bernanke announced that there was "unusual uncertainty" about economic recovery. The dollar fell against sterling and even the euro.
Mr Bernanke wants a renewal of Bush-era tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 a year, which are due to expire on December 31. So do many Democrats, who fear that removing incentives and purchasing power from the better-off will harm recovery by reducing consumption and employment. These are arguments familiar from Britain, about the equally damaging and pointless 50 per cent rate. The response, by Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, is familiar too - the "rich" must take their share of the burden. It is equally specious here; the political importance of bashing the (presumably Republican) wealthy plainly exceeds what is good for the US economy.
Mr. Obama has never been in private business and doesn't have a clue on how private enterprise works.
David M. at July 28, 2010 4:02 AM
Why does it always take the foreign media to point out the obvious?
cpabroker at July 28, 2010 4:16 AM
Someone on the radio had a good point theither day regarding hiring teenagers, high unemployment and government interference. The guy making the point said the government forces the business to pay a high mininmum wage for unskilled workers and the if they average 10 hours a week for a couple of months the business is required to pay for the teenagers health care for the rest of the year. The cost is too great and they don't want to hire these kids. They would rather pay their workers overtime. It's cheaper.
These kids should be thanking the government for keeping them unemployed.
David M. at July 28, 2010 4:18 AM
DavidM, you make some good points. A few months ago, I did some quick-n-dirty figuring to try to come up with what would be the worldwide free-market price of unskilled labor, after adjusting for currency exchanges and cost of living in different parts of the world. I came up with about $3 per hour, and that's with no benefits. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr; benefit laws apply, and some states have minimums higher than that (California's is $8/hr). Unskilled workers in American have been artificially priced out of the market. I claim that any future minimum-wage increase bills should be titled "The Illegal Aliens Full Employment Act".
Cousin Dave at July 28, 2010 7:33 AM
I claim that any future minimum-wage increase bills should be titled "The Illegal Aliens Full Employment Act".
At what point will American citizens be paid off the books, like the illegals?
I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2010 7:42 AM
IRA Darth Aggie: "At what point will American citizens be paid off the books, like the illegals ?"
I hear tales this is already happening. I particularly hear of some who get unemployment benefits working for cash at some jobs like sitting for the elderly or doing yard work.
Nick at July 28, 2010 8:15 AM
Cousin Dave - It's not reasonable to determine a "worldwide" free-market price for unskilled labor - cost of living varies drastically even in this country, and becomes astronomically divergent when third-world countries are taken into account. You would need to determine it for a region where the commute distance is not too great, and consider the cost of living in the lower economic sections of that region.
WayneB at July 28, 2010 11:07 AM
It is frightening that Obama's economic advisors confuse myth and reality, and strongly support the myth. They think all of their spending just has to improve the economy, just has to prime the pump (as if the population is like an ancient water pump) or stimulate wealth production (as if the population were a hungry prize fighter who just needs a good steak to get up again and fight).
What if Obama's economic team said this: "Burning $100 bills in the Rose Garden will attract Money Fairies, ending the recession and making us all prosperous. Give it time, it will work." Of course, Obama would be laughed out of the presidency. But, he and his team routinely say something that is completely equivalent to attracting Money Fairies.
Obama's team believes (with Paul Krugman) that all the money he is borrowing and spending is going to make us all rich, that he is sending $Trillions out into the world, and will see a 50% return on this spending stimulus investment. That is a larger return than almost all successful businesses! It is called the Keynesian Multiplier. Obama's team thinks the multiplier is 1.5 ($100 of government spending produces $150 of wealth).
Fiscal Multipliers
If the 1.5 multiplier were true, then the government could license counterfeiting and we would all become rich. Actually, the government attitude toward printing money is very close to counterfeiting.
-> easyopinions.blogspot.com/2009/02/lets-counterfeit-our-way-to-wealth.html
Let's Counterfeit Our Way to Wealth
Our future is entrusted to a man, a team, and a majority in Congress who reason in random analogies, and are willing to dedicate our freedom and future to applying those analogies as if they were detailed, verified, analysis.
-> easyopinion.blogspot.com/2009/07/few-words-about-policy.html
Where is the policy paper, Obama's and Congress's research on economic stimulus and healthcare reform?
Andrew_M_Garland at July 28, 2010 11:14 AM
I'd like to know who are the "many Democrats" who believe that the Bush-era tax cuts for the very, very wealthy somehow improve the economy. Flash, they don't. They add to the deficit.
Steve H at July 28, 2010 2:53 PM
Flash, if the Bush-era tax cuts are not renewed:
The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%.
The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%.
At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.
And the marriage penalty returns.
(From http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541131/201007211841/The-Tax-Tsunami-On-The-Horizon.aspx )
And guess what: spending adds to the deficit. During the Bush tax cuts, revenues increased until unemployment went up!
Alicia at July 28, 2010 5:52 PM
Here's your handy-dandy calculator for figuring out how much your taxes will go up next year. My wife's an my combined income is in the low six figures, well under $250K. Our taxes will go up by just short of $6000 -- that's basically a month's worth of take-home pay for both of us, which will now go to the government. For what, may I ask? What new or improved services are being provided? Oh right, the answer is none. Silly me.
Cousin Dave at July 28, 2010 8:14 PM
Leave a comment