US Economy

[a_majoor]

What a huge range of budget proposals. The Administration budget would lock in trillion dollar deficits for years to come. The Ryan budget takes several decades to unwind spending, while this budget suggests it can be done in as little as five years. (Of course the Democrat controlled "do nothing" Senate has neither proposed nor passed a budget of any sort in over 1000 days, so would be budgeters may have to reset their starting conditions to 20 Jan 2013):

http://pjmedia.com/blog/conservative-caucus-we-can-balance-budget-in-five-years/?print=1

Conservative Caucus: We Can Balance Budget in Five Years

Posted By Bridget Johnson On March 27, 2012 @ 4:00 am In Politics | 20 Comments

House conservatives will unveil a budget proposal today that vows to balance the budget in just five years without raising taxes — as opposed to nearly three decades in Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) “Path to Prosperity” released last week.

“We feel it’s important to have this budget out there for members to see and for the public to see what really needs to be done,” Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters in a preview on Monday.

The proposal, “Cut, Cap, and Balance: A Budget for Fiscal Year 2013,” sets FY 2013 discretionary spending at $931 billion and freezes it until the budget balances in 2017.

Like Ryan’s plan, ObamaCare is repealed. Mandatory cuts in defense sequestration are also battled, but are pushed back “in a more straightforward way,” according to Jordan.

“The budget should embrace reforms that will make it easier for this and future congresses to reduce spending,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), who is vice-chairman of the Budget Committee.

That includes completely eliminating a number of programs from the National Labor Relations Board to the Presidential Campaign Fund. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Economic Development Agency, and the National Endowment for the Arts would also fall under the ax.

Jordan and Garrett said they felt a responsibility to put forth a budget that wholeheartedly addressed the scope of the debt crisis.

“We have now crossed a line in which our debt is larger than our entire economy,” Jordan said.

“It’s only 2013 spending that this Congress controls and that is why we push so hard on the areas we control,” Garrett said, hence the focus on discretionary spending cuts.

“Obviously there are a lot of us who thought we could do better” than Ryan’s budget-balancing timetable of 28 years, he said. “I think it’s doable; that’s why we want to have a vote on the option of a doable budget.”

The budget enacts the conservatives’ State Health Flexibility Act [1] and the Welfare Reform Act [2].

Jordan told PJM that the RSC budget is the ultimate conservative contrast to put forth in an election year.

“We certainly think it will help because we’re being realistic,” he said.

In an election year where President Obama has already been pressing a doctrine of urging that everyone in America pay their “fair share,” Jordan said a simplified tax code will be a “great way” to contrast class warfare stoked by the left.

“People understand that any tax code that allows 47 percent of the population to pay no tax is just broken,” he said.

“What we need to do is make our case. We think the budget is a way to highlight that.”

Like the House Budget Committee’s plan, the RSC proposal makes no changes in Medicare and Social Security for those currently 55 and older. It would, however, gradually realign Social Security eligibility by two months each year, to account for greater longevity, until benefits begin at age 70.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/conservative-caucus-we-can-balance-budget-in-five-years/

URLs in this post:

[1] State Health Flexibility Act: http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/statehealth.htm

[2] Welfare Reform Act: http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/wra.htm

 

[cupper]

Hell, anyone can balance the budget in any given amount of time. Simple concept, Money going out = Money coming in. Can't cover the expenses, cut them or raise taxes.

But don't expect to be able to sell it to anyone.

 

[a_majoor]

I think enough American voters have taken heed that some drastic measures can be taken.

Don't forget the Liberal Government was on a similar merry tax and spend binge back in the early 1990's, which came to an abrupt halt as voter interest was focused on the rising Canadian debt. An external shock helped too; the Economist magazine characterized the dollar as the "Northern Peso", which sent investor confidence screeching to a halt as well.

The end result was the government taking action considered unthinkable even one year previously (and actions that people like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation had been pleading for for years), and bringing the deficit and debt under control.

The downgrade of America's AAA credit rating, constant shenanigans to do with the "debt ceiling" (another round may come as early as Sept this year) and the trillion dollar deficits the Administration has posted each and every year (over 5 trillion dollars accumulated debt since the Administration took office!) have alarmed a large portion of the voteing population; they will be looking for politicians who can offer solutions. My bet is the 5 year plan is too drastic, while the Ryan plan is seen as taking too long and the Administration's budget with another trillion dollar deficit is considered unacceptable. A plan that draws down spending over a decade may be considered an acceptable compromise.

 

[a_majoor]

Obamacare being directly linked to the poor economy and high unemployment is yet another sign that this administration is going to have very tough sledding during the campaign:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/03/28/How-Obamacare-Derailed-the-Economic-Recovery.aspx#page2

How Obamacare Derailed the Economic Recovery
By LIZ PEEK, The Fiscal Times March 28, 2012

Here we go again. All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it wrestles with whether or not President Obama’s healthcare bill is constitutional. The country is divided on the merits of the law, but this we can say with certainty: Obamacare profoundly gummed up our recovery from the financial crisis.

Like every predecessor, President Obama has made mistakes. Perhaps none will cloud his legacy more that his decision to focus on overhauling our healthcare system early in his administration – before our economic recovery had gained enduring momentum.

Assuming that the $800 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the stimulus, would work the magic promised by his economics team, Mr. Obama set off on his quest to guarantee healthcare for every American. The resulting food fight over the legislation – the ugly parceling out of favors in return for votes and lies told to justify passage -- permanently damaged President Obama’s reputation, divided a country desperate to heal, and distracted the White House from further efforts to build employment. It was a terrible decision, and the country continues to pay for it.

It was, ironically, a decision made by a president eager to secure his legacy. Undaunted by the abject failure of Hilary Clinton to win support for universal healthcare, Mr. Obama took up the quest with enthusiasm. Just as he admitted to excessive optimism about bringing peace to the Middle East in an interview in Time Magazine, dubbing that effort “really hard,” Mr. Obama naively staked his presidency on healthcare reform. Here’s a shocker: remaking 17 percent of the economy is also “really hard.”

Whether or not the Supreme Court upholds the government’s mandate that every American must purchase healthcare insurance, Obamacare is a failure. In spite of innumerable speeches, editorials and presentations on the merits of the law, Americans don’t like it. Though most people recognize that ever-rising healthcare outlays threaten our nation’s fiscal integrity, they can’t imagine that granting free health services to 30 million Americans will solve the problem. They see the Affordable Care Act as a massive expansion of government activity that will not make healthcare affordable but that will instead drive costs higher as millions more receive a blank check for medical services.

Moreover, many Americans think Obamacare failed to tackle many of the actual causes of excess healthcare spending – the lawsuits that mandate unnecessary procedures by vulnerable doctors (the CBO estimates capping malpractice awards would save taxpayers $54 billion over ten years), the fact that so many patients have “no skin in the game” and therefore undertake treatments oblivious to any reasonable cost/benefit analysis, and often wasteful reimbursement procedures. The legislation patently failed to “bend the curve” on Medicare and Medicaid outlays, which is why Congress continues to argue over how to fix those programs’ dismal future.

With all these shortcomings, Obamacare’s biggest fault is that it distracted officials from sustained efforts to reboot our economy. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. That should give the law’s backers pause. The NFIB claims to represent hundreds of thousands of members who own small businesses, the people that both Democrats and Republicans say are the country’s main job creators. The NFIB says that in signing Obamacare into law, President Obama “essentially declared was on every small business in American by unilaterally renouncing their rights and dooming them to decades of increasing health insurance costs.”

Though confidence among small business owners polled by the NFIB has modestly increased over the past six months, the gains are from unprecedented lows. Only 4 percent of respondents indicate an interest in adding to employment – during a “normal” recovery, the organization says, “Job creation plans would be in double digits.” Pessimism about the economy is profound; small business owners have rising anxiety about poor sales (their number one problem) and in almost equal measure, about taxes and red tape.

Not only did the wrangling over healthcare deflate our business community, it also left President Obama with a personal capital deficit. Having pulled in every conceivable favor to get his bill through Congress, he was out of chips when the economy began yet again to soften. The Obamacare battle further emasculated the White House by vaulting the unlikely Scott Brown into Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat and later by turning the House over to the GOP.  In late 2009, the president had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and controlled the House. Had he pushed, he would have found support for more stimulus spending.

What might have been? More attention might have been paid to housing, which has only recently begun to bottom. Though the administration has lobbed numerous efforts to accelerate mortgage modification (HAMP, HARP etc.), none has enjoyed a full-court press or been especially meaningful. Creating jobs for construction workers through private/public partnerships dedicated to infrastructure repair would have been popular; most Americans acknowledge the need for spending on our bridges and airports. Mr. Obama might have gotten more traction on subsidizing investment to raise the energy efficiency of our office buildings or college campuses.

The reality is that numerous projects and programs might have passed a less fractious Congress and been supported by a less divided country. Though rising deficits ultimately would have alarmed taxpayers, more growth would have tempered both budget and enthusiasm gaps. Instead, we have suffered the worst of all worlds – a government hobbled by political and economic constraints and a people pessimistic about the future. This is the legacy of Obamacare.

 

[GAP]

Foreclosure Deal Credits Banks for Routine Efforts
Article Link
By SHAILA DEWAN and JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
Published: March 27, 2012

In February, JPMorgan Chase donated a home to an Iraq war veteran in Bucoda, Wash., and Bank of America waived the $140,000 debt that a Florida man still owed after the sale of his foreclosed home. Over the last year, Wells Fargo has demolished about a dozen houses in Cleveland.

Banks do things like this — real estate transactions that do nothing to prevent foreclosure — all the time. But beginning this month, they can count such activities as part of their new commitment to help people stay in their homes.

That commitment comes under the landmark $25 billion foreclosure abuse settlement between the government and five major banks announced last month. The settlement promises that of the $25 billion, the banks will give $17 billion “in assistance to borrowers who have the intent and ability to stay in their homes,” according to a summary of the settlement. But more than half of that money can be used in ways that will not stop foreclosures, including some activities that are already standard bank practices.

For example, the banks can wipe out more than $2 billion of their obligation by donating or demolishing abandoned houses. Almost $1 billion can be used to help families that have already defaulted move out.

“The $17 billion is supposed to be the teeth of this settlement,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the former inspector general for the Treasury’s bank bailout fund known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. “And yet they are getting all this credit for practices that they do every day.”

Only 60 percent of the $17 billion designated for borrowers, or $10.2 billion, must be used to reduce principal for borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth — though banks can do more if they choose.

The architects of the settlement contend that it was meant not just to prevent foreclosure. The provisions allowing demolition and donation of homes are supposed to force banks to reduce a large inventory of empty homes that are in legal limbo, creating hazards and depressing property values, said Patrick Madigan, an assistant attorney general in Iowa who was instrumental in constructing the agreement. Just because the banks are doing some of those things already, he said, does not mean they are doing them enough.
More on link

 

[a_majoor]

Cripes, even Dalton McGuinty can craft and present a budget. Three years without a budget is essentially a recipie for lawlessness; agencies are essentially operating unbound by any sort of rigour or oversight. By now the situation has become so bad even Democrat lawmakers have bailed en mass:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/29/consistency-obama-budget-fails-to-get-a-single-democratic-vote-again/

Consistency: Obama budget fails to get a single Democratic vote … again
posted at 9:15 am on March 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In early 2011, Barack Obama received a report from the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission he himself launched that outlined a series of significant cuts and new taxes that would have at least lowered the rate at which the country added to its debt.  Obama ignored the report completely and instead proposed a budget with nearly $1.5 trillion in deficit spending, with no serious attempts to cut spending.  It was so embarrassing that Republicans had to force the Democrat-controlled Senate in May 2011 to bring it up for a vote, where it failed unanimously, 0-97.

The more things change …

Before taking up their own budget plan for next year, House Republicans pushed a version of President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget to the floor for a vote, and it was it was unanimously defeated, 414-0.
Republicans have opposed Obama’s budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts. …

GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama’s plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats. The Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities, but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night. (@ 30 some votes are unaccounted for, either the member was absent or voted "present")
Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama’s proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama’s budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

That’s an interesting excuse.  Budgets are all about the numbers.  If the President wants to keep proposing massive deficits, increased spending, and higher taxes, those policies are the numbers. Democrats are just embarrassed that the numbers add up to old-school tax-and-spend policies, and that they didn’t have a chance to obfuscate by declaring that Republicans are engaging in a war on left-handed Basque women who use marshmallow Schnapps for medicinal purposes.

This is the second year in a row that Obama’s budget couldn’t win a single Democratic vote in Congress.  In parliamentary systems, that would be a vote of no confidence and the party would be looking for new leadership.  Perhaps it’s time for the country to do what Democrats won’t do for themselves and look for leadership who can produce rational numbers in budgets, or at least budgets that can win a vote from its own party.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Maybe we should change the thread title to:

The Non Existent US Economy

 

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe we should change the thread title to:

The Non Existent US Economy

Or maybe not, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Post:

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/03/29/canada-u-s-leave-europe-behind-in-global-recovery/

Canada, U.S. lead G7 recovery while Europe falters

Eric Lam

Mar 29, 2012

Economic growth in the G7 countries is expected to be stronger through the first half of 2012, with Canada and the United States leading the charge while the eurozone continues to find its way back to stability, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said Thursday.

The OECD’s interim assessment forecasts the collective economies of the seven most powerful countries in the world to come in at 1.9% in each of the first two quarters of the year, an improvement on the 1.1% registered in the fourth quarter of 2011.

“Our forecast for the first half of 2012 points to robust growth in the United States and Canada, but much weaker activity in Europe, where the outlook remains fragile,” Pier Carlo Padoan, chief economist with the OECD, said in a presentation in Paris. “We may have stepped back from the edge of the cliff, but there’s still no room for complacency.”

The United States is forecasted to grow 2.9% and 2.8% respectively in the first two quarters on firming employment, stronger consumer confidence, a rebound in the stock markets and credit growth, while Canada’s economy will grow 2.5% in both quarters.

As well, Japan is expected to rebound strongly to 3.4% GDP growth in the first quarter on firmer industrial production and a weaker yen, although the second quarter is forecasted to pull back to 1.4% growth.

However, in Europe prospects remain weak. Germany, France and Italy are expected to post a collective weighted 0.4% decline in GDP growth in the first quarter, following a 0.8% drop in the previous quarter, before rebounding to modest 0.9% growth in the second quarter of 2012.

Italy in particular looks to be mired in recession, forecasting -1.6% and -0.1% growth in the first two quarters of the year on top of two consecutive quarters of decline through the latter half of 2011.

The German economy will accelerate through the first half, with growth of 0.1% followed by 1.5%, while France’s economy will shrink 0.2% before growing by 0.9%, the OECD said.

Mr. Padoan warned a number of factors will threaten the recovery, including rising oil prices, slowing activity in China and other emerging markets, and weakening global demand leading to a slowdown in trade growth.

Oil prices, up more than US$10 a barrel since February alone, will likely add 25 basis points to inflation in OECD countries and take off between 10 and 20 basis points from GDP growth on average over the next year.

The eurozone credit crisis remains a very real concern with Spain emerging as the next vulnerable country soon after Greece received its long-awaited €130-billion bailout earlier this year.

“Government action will continue to be critical, particularly in the euro area, where unfinished policy business on fiscal frameworks, financial firewalls and fundamental structural reforms must move ahead,” he said.

Meanwhile, low interest rates will likely be the norm among OECD countries for the foreseeable future.

“There is scope for monetary policy easing in emerging market economies, in light of the recent signs of softening in economic activity and declining inflation,” Mr. Padoan said in his report.

The OECD is expected to release its next full economic outlook in May.

The problems that beset the US Economy are global, even China and India have slowed or are slowing down. The US sunk less and is recovering faster than any country except China.

It's not President Obama's fault the global economy crashed but he deserves precious little credit for the (weak, but better than almost anyone else) recovery, either.

 

[cupper]

Has anyone considered the following:

If the US has not passed a budget in more than 3 years, why hasn't the government come to a screeching halt at some point?

Since it is the actual appropriations that keep the government funded and functioning, what relevancy does the US Budget even have?

 

[Kirkhill]

Has anyone considered the following:

If the US has not passed a budget in more than 3 years, why hasn't the government come to a screeching halt at some point?

Since it is the actual appropriations that keep the government funded and functioning, what relevancy does the US Budget even have?

Well Belgium did without a government for just about 2 years.  Since it is the bureaucrats that keep the government functioning, what relevancy does the Belgian, or any, government have?

 

[PuckChaser]

Working without a government is all well and good when we want to maintain the status quo, but you need someone to make decisions on the direction finances need to take when we have something like the global economic crash. You can't just assume status quo will be fine and dandy, and that status quo was created by a government, not by the bureaucrats that just administer it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>what relevancy does the US Budget even have?

Which part?  The president's proposed budget, or the actual appropriations made by Congress?  The former seems to be more important than the latter even though it is just a polite request - particularly when it comes to assigning blame for deficit appropriations.

 

[Kirkhill]

Working without a government is all well and good when we want to maintain the status quo, but you need someone to make decisions on the direction finances need to take when we have something like the global economic crash. You can't just assume status quo will be fine and dandy, and that status quo was created by a government, not by the bureaucrats that just administer it.

So we need a government to craft a plan and change the plan?  I believe that is the point of a budget. No?

 

[cupper]

>what relevancy does the US Budget even have?

Which part?  The president's proposed budget, or the actual appropriations made by Congress?  The former seems to be more important than the latter even though it is just a polite request - particularly when it comes to assigning blame for deficit appropriations.

Which is exactly the point I was making.

 

[GAP]

He has a point...............

The best way for government to reduce oil dependence? Do nothing
David Frum  Feb 25, 2012
Article Link

Gasoline prices are rising in the United States — always bad news for an incumbent president.

Accordingly, President Barack Obama traveled yesterday to Miami to repeat his energy message, which can be summed up as follows: Help is on the way. The U.S. government is investing in new energy technologies — and in time, those investments will pay off in the form of cheaper energy and new jobs: “Our job is to help outstanding work that’s being done in universities, in labs, and to help businesses get new energy ideas off the ground — because it was public dollars, public research dollars, that over the years helped develop the technologies that companies are right now using to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock.”

The implicit promise here is that new forms of energy will preserve the familiar American way of life. Electrical motors or fuel cells may replace internal combustion engines, but Americans will continue to commute long distances to work in individual vehicles — or so this kind of talk suggests.

But what if the most cost-effective energy solution is not to change the energy we use, but rather to change the way we use energy?

After the oil shocks of the 1970s, the United States succeeded in reducing its use of oil. As late as 1995, the United States was using no more oil than it had used in 1978. Not its use per person, or use per vehicle, but its use, period.

This progress was not accomplished by reinventing the internal combustion engine. It was accomplished by (1) shifting homes from oil to gas heat; (2) ending the burning of heavy oil by electrical utilities; and (3) shifting freight traffic from trucks to trains. No government official planned these changes. They just happened, in response to market forces. Result: Even as Americans put more cars on the road — and drove further in them — they successfully decreased their oil reliance.

More impressively, they dramatically decreased the “energy intensity” of their economy: the amount of oil it took to generate an additional dollar of Gross National Product. In the cheap-oil era from 1995 to 2005, that progress slowed. By 2005, the United States was using 10% more oil than at the peaks touched in 1978 and 1995.

Such progress could resume again without any need for dramatic technological change. We don’t need to imagine anything heroic, like Los Angeles shifting from cars to subways — just an accumulation of small incremental changes: a consumer shift to hybrid cars or to smaller homes located closer to work.
More on link

 

[a_majoor]

More fun with figures. The fictional US unemployment data shoud be a huge issue as the election campaign unfolds, and if the Republicans were smart, they would simply post this graphic everywhere and every time they were asked any question whatsoever (to deflect class warfare, race baiting and other diversionary tactics):

The big March jobs miss — and why the real unemployment rate sure ain’t 8.2%
By James Pethokoukis
April 6, 2012, 10:10 am
A A A


Swing and a miss. A big miss. A really big miss. U.S. employers added just 120,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. That’s the smallest increase since October. Economists polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm employment to increase by 203,000. And as economist Robert Brusca points out, “The strong amazing run in household jobs came to a crashing halt as employment in that survey fell by 31,000 after rising by 42,000 last month and 847,000 the month before that.”

Then there’s the unemployment rate, which dipped to 8.2% from 8.3% the month before. That extends the longest streak of 8%-plus unemployment since the Great Depression. The U.S. economy hasn’t been below 8% unemployment since Obama took office in January 2009. And back in May 2007, unemployment was just 4.4%. (And keep in mind that average hourly wages are up just 2.1% over past year. But inflation up 2.9% (2.2% core). American workers are losing ground.) As Barclays Capital puts it: “Overall, the report had an undeniably weak tone and will raise doubts about the strength of the labor market. Given that the report reflects only one month of data and some of the underlying cyclical sectors registered payroll gains, we do not view it as conclusively signaling a shift to a lower trend rate of employment growth.”

And here’s how economic consulting firm IHS Global Insights views the report:

March was expected to bring another good jobs report, and it failed miserably. The streak of 200,000-plus monthly payroll gains ended at three. Job gains were almost 100,000 below expectations, the workweek shrank, and the decline in the unemployment rate reflected not more employment, but fewer people looking for work.

The big disappointments were in private services, where retail had a second successive bad month, and temp jobs fell for the first time since last June. Construction jobs fell for the second month in a row, but that is not too surprising – although the weather was exceptionally warm in March, it probably didn’t help construction as much as in January or February.

One disappointing jobs report is not reason to panic, but it will dampen some of the optimism about the strength of the recovery this year.

Recall that back in 2009, White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer used their old-fashioned Keynesian model to predict how the $800 billion stimulus would affect employment. According to their model—as displayed in the above chart, updated—unemployment should be around 5.8% today.

But the true measure of U.S. unemployment is far worse:

1. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.8% today down from last month—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%.

2. But what if you take into the account the aging of the Baby Boomers, which means the labor force participation (LFP) rate should be trending lower. Indeed, it has been doing just that since 2000. Before the Great Recession, the Congressional Budget Office predicted what the LFP would be in 2012, assuming such demographic changes. Using that number, the real unemployment rate would be 10.5%.

3. Of course, the LFP rate usually falls during recessions. Yet even if you discount for that and the aging issue, the real unemployment rate would be 9.4%.

4. Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.5%.

5. The employment-population ratio dipped to 58.5% vs. 61% in December 2008. An historically low level of the U.S. population is actually working.



6. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or longer) account for 42.5% of the unemployment. That number is basically stuck. It was the same, for instance, in August 2010 and last December.



Bottom line: The economy is adding jobs but not very quickly, which is to be expected given GDP growth of around 2% or so. A Great Recovery after the Great Recession? More like the Great Stagnation …



James Pethokoukis is a columnist and blogger at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously, he was the Washington columnist for Reuters Breakingviews, the opinion and commentary wing of Thomson Reuters.

Pethokoukis was the business editor and economics columnist for U.S. News & World Report from 1997 to 2008. He has written for many publications, including The New York Times, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, National Review, The Washington Examiner, USA Today and Investor’s Business Daily.

Pethokoukis is an official CNBC contributor. In addition, he has appeared numerous times on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, The McLaughlin Group, CNN and Nightly Business Report on PBS. A graduate of Northwestern University and the Medill School of Journalism, Pethokoukis is a 2002 Jeopardy! Champion.

Pethokoukis can be reached james.pethokoukis@aei.org or follow him on Twitter @JimPethokoukis

 

[Kalatzi]

more good news

Why Obama's JOBS Act Couldn't Suck Worse

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-obamas-jobs-act-couldnt-suck-worse-20120409

Here we go again.  I worked several  dot.coms in the late 90's early 2000's, including one as an agent for ENRON.

The laxity of the accounting ....

BOHICA - Bend over, here it comes, again

Here is a snippet reproduced under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act

Sometimes the companies themselves were the victims in the fraud scams, and sometimes the company executives were beneficiaries of fraud. But in virtually all of these schemes, the casual investor was the big dupe in the con. When the dot-com bubble finally collapsed, costing the world about $5 trillion in losses, the major victims were ordinary people. We can expect a replay of the same thing now, only on a much bigger scale.

The finance world is buzzing over this bill. The reactions I've heard so far range from minutes-long guffaws of dark laughter to bloodcurdling, I-can't-freaking-believe-they-went-this-far outrage. "I thought I had lost the ability to be shocked," one friend of mine, a former regulator, told me this weekend, chuckling at the sheer stones it took to push the law. "But this thing is just inspired. They broke the mold with this one."





One hopes not

 

[a_majoor]

:rofl:

Jay Leno: "President Obama released his tax returns. It turns out he made $900,000 less in 2011 than he did in 2010. You know what that means? Even Obama is doing worse under President Obama."

 

[cupper]

more good news

Why Obama's JOBS Act Couldn't Suck Worse

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-obamas-jobs-act-couldnt-suck-worse-20120409

Here we go again.  I worked several  dot.coms in the late 90's early 2000's, including one as an agent for ENRON.

The laxity of the accounting ....

BOHICA - Bend over, here it comes, again

Here is a snippet reproduced under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act

Sometimes the companies themselves were the victims in the fraud scams, and sometimes the company executives were beneficiaries of fraud. But in virtually all of these schemes, the casual investor was the big dupe in the con. When the dot-com bubble finally collapsed, costing the world about $5 trillion in losses, the major victims were ordinary people. We can expect a replay of the same thing now, only on a much bigger scale.

The finance world is buzzing over this bill. The reactions I've heard so far range from minutes-long guffaws of dark laughter to bloodcurdling, I-can't-freaking-believe-they-went-this-far outrage. "I thought I had lost the ability to be shocked," one friend of mine, a former regulator, told me this weekend, chuckling at the sheer stones it took to push the law. "But this thing is just inspired. They broke the mold with this one."





One hopes not

Did the author forget that it wasn't Obama's bill to start with, or did he just conveniently leave that part out? :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 

[a_majoor]

The Democrat majority Senate leaves the room again on their legal responsibility to pass a budget (or adopt the Ryan budget crafted in the House). I think this issue will come around to hurt the Dems even more than "Fast and Furioous", Soylendra, Keystone XL, foreign policy gaffes or the latest "Obama ate a dog" meme which has hit the Internet, since it will be seen (correctly) as an attempt to evade responsibility for the economy, and with unemployment still over 10% and economic growth very anemic at best, the economy is what voters will be focusing on. Watch for this during the downline senate races:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/harry-reid-shuts-down-budget-process-in-senate.php

HARRY REID SHUTS DOWN BUDGET PROCESS IN SENATE

The Democratic Senate has not adopted a budget in three years. This is not only flagrantly irresponsible, it is a violation of federal law. Outgoing Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, who is retiring at the end of the year, apparently felt pangs of conscience, because he decided it was finally time for his committee to mark up a budget. He announced that the committee would do so, starting tomorrow.

A standard markup process begins with the committee chairman laying out a proposal, with the chairman and the ranking minority member giving opening statements. This is followed by an amendment process, in which amendments to the proposed legislation (here, the budget resolution) are offered and voted on. The markup process concludes with a committee vote on the bill or resolution as amended. In this case, Conrad assured ranking Republican Jeff Sessions that amendments would be allowed, and as recently as a few hours ago, Conrad’s and Sessions’s staffs were working out details of the amendment process.

Then, earlier this afternoon, Conrad gave a press conference in which he made the stunning announcement that there will be no budget markup after all. Instead, he will present a budget to the Budget Committee tomorrow. There will be no amendments and there will be no votes; not, at least, until after the election. Apparently Conrad had been proceeding on his own initiative, and at the 11th hour Harry Reid–supported by members of his caucus who do not want to have to go on record in favor of any budget–shut down the process.

This is a startling abdication of responsibility by the majority party in the Senate. A few minutes ago, Senator Sessions discussed this latest development on the telephone with a number of reporters. Sessions said that he was “deeply disappointed” in the Democrats’ actions, which evidently were driven by the Democrats’ unwillingness to commit themselves to any budget proposal. Sessions attributed this to a “lack of will, courage, or the ability of Democrats to unify behind a plan.” He said the Democrats have gone through “procedural gymnastics to avoid saying what they are for” because they “don’t want to be held accountable for anything.” In 2011, for example, the Democrats voted down three different budgets, but didn’t vote in favor of anything. Sessions indicated that when Conrad made his surprise announcement this afternoon, he and other Republicans were working on the amendments they intended to propose, which related, among other things, to health care, the double counting of savings, and increased revenues that could be obtained from more energy production. Now those amendments will not see the light of day in the Budget Committee.

The content of Conrad’s budget is almost an afterthought, but it may be even worse than President Obama’s. It includes zero spending cuts from the existing baseline and increases taxes by $2.6 trillion, $700 billion more than Obama’s budget. Under Conrad’s budget, the federal debt (granting all assumptions underlying the calculations) would increase by $7 trillion.

Is that a plan that the American people want to follow? I don’t think so, but Harry Reid’s latest maneuvering ensures that no Democratic Senator will have to vote on a budget before the election in November, and no Democrat will have to take responsibility for those unpalatable numbers other than Senator Conrad himself. The Democrats’ feckless inability to face fiscal reality, as manifested in the Senate’s failure to adopt a budget for three years and counting, is the clearest evidence of that party’s unfitness to lead the nation.