Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Psst: Obama's "New Grand Bargain" is None of the Above

Same old crap "roads bridges". Of the millions of people out of work, how many of them have union cards? Roads and bridges will more than likely be union jobs(card carrying). Obama's jobs plan is not thinking about the millions of non card carrying unemployed people that need work! I want to see something from this douchbag that is going to help all unemployed, not just union jobs(nothing against the unions). The tax code.....I hear its in the works that some in congress might be working on a total tax reform. I want to see that rather than Obama picking certain groups to help! (election issue?)

The news media has been breathlessly reporting on the president's forthcoming "grand bargain" proposal, which he says will create jobs. Reuters sketches out an outline of Obama's supposed compromise:

Obama wants to cut the corporate tax rate of 35 percent down to 28 percent and give manufacturers a preferred rate of 25 percent. He also wants a minimum tax on foreign earnings as a tool against corporate tax evasion and increased use of tax havens. The new twist is that in exchange for his support for a corporate tax reduction, he wants money generated by the tax overhaul to be used on a mix of proposals such as funding infrastructure projects like repairing roads and bridges, improving education atcommunity colleges, and promoting manufacturing, senior administration officials said.  Obama's proposal would generate a one-time source of revenue, for example, by reforming depreciation or putting a fee on accumulated foreign earnings.

In what conceivable way is Obama requesting more federal spending on infrastructure projects a "new twist"?   That's been his expensive instinct atevery single step of his presidency.  One "shovel ready" stimulus package and $825 billion later, the U-3 unemployment rate is still mired at 7.6 percent; the broader U-6 number is stuck in the 14-15 percent range.  Obama inherited an unemployment rate (U-3) of 7.8 percent.  In return for agreeing to Obama policies like rapacious spending and new taxes on foreign earnings, Republicans will receive a corporate tax rate cut -- which is already a stated Obama policy preference.  Flashback to last February:

The proposal calls for lowering the overall corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%, and the effective rate for manufacturing to 25%. The official, who laid out the plan's broad framework for CNN, said the proposal is essential to fixing a system that is "uncompetitive, unfair, and inefficient." The official told CNN the lower rate would be largely funded by eliminating dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, and broadening the business tax base...

[The plan] explicitly ignores a recommendation of Obama's jobs council, which suggested exempting foreign income from taxation if repatriated to the US.  Obama not only dismissed this idea, he did the opposite,introducing a new minimum US tax on international corporations' foreign earnings. 

See?  White House officials really weren't kidding when they told reporters that Obama's latest jobs tour would feature zero new ideas.   The president's big "bargain" asks Republicans to accept one controversial Obama idea in exchange for another, less controversial Obama idea.  What a deal.  Last time around, the price Republicans were importuned to pay in order to secure corporate tax rate cuts was to drop opposition to tax hikes on "the rich."  Obama eventually secured the latter as part of the fiscal cliff deal, so why tie corporate tax reform to another big government demand now?  Shouldn't Obama be eager to embrace one of his own policies, which was recommended by both his (ignored) fiscal commission and (disbanded) job council?  Republicans won't go along with the "new minimum tax" nonsense, but there's bipartisan agreement that America's corporate tax rate -- the highest in the developed world -- should be lowered.  Holding that good idea hostage to yet more wasteful spending within another doomed "jobs" program is destructive.  Not that any of this matters anyway.  Here's how seriously both sides are taking the president's new public relations gambit (Brendan Buck is Boehner's spokesman):


Another thing to think about is this would be like stimulous. No lower unemployment numbers to speak of, like last time. Also one contractor told me that when a worker not woking is pulled from a pool, that is a job creation. When the job is done, he is laid off. When he is called to another jub, that is another job creation. That will really lower the unemployment number won't it!

Surprise: Chicago's Debt Triples, City Slapped With Credit Downgrades

So it turns out the president's home city of Chicago (D-IL) is suffering through a bit of fiscal trouble:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel closed the books on 2012 with $33.4 million in unallocated cash on hand — down from $167 million the year before — while adding to the mountain of debt piled on Chicago taxpayers, year-end audits show. Last week, Moody’s Investors orderedan unprecedented triple-drop in the city’s bond rating, citing Chicago’s “very large and growing” pension liabilities, “significant” debt service payments, “unrelenting public safety demands” and historic reluctance to raise local taxes that has continued under Emanuel.

Those unprecedented downgrades were delivered despite what the Sun-Timesdescribes as Mayor Rahm Emanuel's "aggressive cost-cutting measures."  Long-term unfunded promises and the costs of servicing the city's debt are swamping shorter-term attempts at fiscal restraint.  Absent significant reforms, this isAmerica's future, too.  More on that eye-opening triple downgrade, directly fromthe credit ratings agency:

Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the City of Chicago's (IL) general obligation (GO) and sales tax ratings to A3 from Aa3; water and sewer senior lien revenue ratings to A1 from Aa2; and water and sewer second lien revenue ratings to A2 from Aa3. Chicago has $7.7 billion of GO debt, $566 million of sales tax debt, $2.0 billion of water revenue debt, and $1.3 billion of sewer revenue debt outstanding. The outlook on all ratings is negative ...The downgrade of the GO rating reflects Chicago's very large and growing pension liabilities and accelerating budget pressures associated with those liabilities. The city's budgetary flexibility is already burdened by high fixed costs, including unrelenting public safety demands and significant debt service payments.

Moody's reference to "unrelenting public safety demands" is in part a euphemism for Chicago's appalling murder and violent crime crisis, which manages to remain alarmingly acute despite the city's strict anti-gun laws.  Strange, that.  Oh, did I say triple downgrade?  I meant quadruple, and this one genuinely hurts The Children:

 Chicago's public schools on Wednesday forecast a record $1 billion fiscal 2014 budget deficit despite layoffs of 1,000 teachers and the expected closing of 50 schools, prompting one credit agency to downgrade its debt rating. The nation's third-largest public school district blamed the mounting red ink on an expected sharp rise in annual pension payments for teachers, because the state of Illinois has failed to curb ballooning pension costs. 

For years, Illinois teachers unions negotiated unsustainable contracts with their Democratic buddies, who run the city and state -- a vicious cycle that is has begun its inevitable meltdown.  The obligations owed to these government employees are consuming the city's budget, prompting desperate bouts of austerity cuts -- which are now unavoidable.  To paraphrase one of the city's prominent citizens, Chicago's fiscal recklessness is comin' home to roost.  Sadly, today's kids -- especially the city's underprivileged ones -- are bearing much of the brunt of these cuts, which became necessary after chronic irresponsibility from generations of adults.  Chicago's woes mirror many of the challenges facing the state of Illinois, which has been battered by recent downgrades from various ratings agencies.  Illinois was already in dead last in terms of state credit ratings prior to the additional recent blows.  Purely coincidentally, Illinois -- like Chicago -- is run by one political party.  Democrats hold the governorship and super-majorities in both chambers of the legislature in Springfield.  Major tax increases haven't made a dent in Illinois' mess; the state has struggled to pay its bills for years.  By the way, the state in 49th place on this roster of ignominy is California, which also happens to be in the thrall of a particular ideology embodied by the one political party.  Thankfully, Chicago is a far cry from Detroit (hey, there's that same party again) at this stage, but continued mismanagement could eventually yield similar decay and collapse.  I'm just thinking out loud here, but shouldn't prominent jurisdictions dominated for decades by the party of compassion, fairness and progress be beacons of success by now?  Before you click away, be sure to read this piece by CBS News' Major Garrett.  He recalls an upbeat 2011 speech the president delivered in Detroit, just two years before its bankruptcy.  One choice snippet from Garrett's brutal assessment:

Obama's 2011 speech described a Detroit that can only be described as a myth wrapped in a wish inside a dream.  "This is a city that's been to heck and back," Obama said. "And while there are still a lot of challenges here, I see a city that's coming back." Obama referenced "tough choices" made to bail out GM and Fiat-Chrysler and also hailed the birth of a new wave of high-tech employment. "We said American workers could manufacture the best products in the world. So we invested in high-tech manufacturing and we invested in clean energy," he said. "And right now, there's an advanced-battery industry taking root here in Michigan that barely existed before."  The biggest factory in this supposed new trend, Massachusetts-based A123 Systems, had plans to employ 5,900 workers nationwide to build lithium-ion batteries. In Detroit, A123 Systems never employed more than 1,000. The Energy Department awarded A123 Systems a $249 million grant to boost production. It filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and was still receiving DOE largesse. A judge approved the bankruptcy in 2013.  In other words, the Detroit-area advanced-battery industry Obama said "barely existed before" his 2011 speech now … barely exists.

Obama is on the speech-giving trail again, peddling the same talking points andthe same "solutions" he did two years ago.  This time will be different, though; just don't ask him why.


Jay Carney Confirms Which Scandals Obama Thinks Are "Phony"

I watched this Obama Mouth stutter and hesitate to try to talk about this. What an Idiot. I would be embarrassed to go out and say this crap for Obama to the reporters. I would like to see the families of the dead Peaople and the targeted IRS  groups in the same room, they are libel to get up and slap the crap out of this Douchbag when he says phony
During the White House briefing Wednesday, Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked which scandals in particular the Obama administration thought were "phony." His answer? The IRS targeting conservative groups and Benghazi. 

Asked which "phony scandals" Pres Obama frequently decries, Jay Carney cited Benghazi and the IRS.

Classy as usual. I'd like to remind Carney and his boss that there's nothing phony about dead Americans or the IRS intimidating law abiding citizens for political reasons. The more Obama administration officials claim these scandals are "phony," the more incriminating they are becoming to themselves. 

You know how you can tell Obama was directly involved with IRS targeting? He went from saying it was "inexcusable" to saying it is "phony"

How Long Did National Democrats Know About Bob Filner's Serial Misogyny?

This just shows how the Liberals have very low morals or standards! In an official public Position, these people should have the full respect of the people. I don't see that. I think these people are scumbags that do this crap and fight to stay in office.

Think about it.  The guy was in Congress for two decades, and prominent Democratic women publicly hedgedabout his alleged conduct as San Diego Mayor for as long as they could.  Eight (!) separate women have now come forward as accusers against Mayor Filner, whose appalling behavior we discussed last week.  Does anyone seriously believe his grabby proclivities only manifested themselves after he left DC?  Enter Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen, who served up an interesting anecdote on CNN.  Have women within the party been aware of Bob Filner's pattern of harassment for years?

"I had dinner over the weekend with some female members and former members who said that this guy has kinda been this way all along. Everybody thought that he was a little creepy."

Anchor Jake Tapper and panelists sound incredulous -- in Washington? -- over this revelation, but it makes perfect sense.  Harassers don't just crop up overnight. Of course Filner treated women like personal playthings while he was in Congress.  Maybe he's gotten more brazen and abusive after years of getting away with this garbage, but there's no way he grabbed his very first ass as Mayor of San Diego.  In 2006, Democrats beat the drum on Rep. Mark Foley's egregious sexual advances on an underage Congressional page, harping on the question of what Republican leadership knew, and when they knew it.  Nancy Pelosi evendemanded that GOP leaders testify under oath about the issue; Democrats rode their narrative all the way to victory that fall.  Similar questions now apply to the actions of Democrat Bob Filner.  Did Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and company turn a blind eye toward terrible conduct from a male colleague because he was on Team Blue?  Lest there were any remaining doubts about Filner's surpassing arrogance and lack of contrition, look no further than these facts: (1) He's still refusing to resign, and (2) he's asking San Diego taxpayers to foot his legal bills.  Such a charmer, this one.


Where Even a Kid Born in a Log Cabin in Kenya Can Get High and Be President

It’s official: Nothing matters but getting the next great fix.
Hook us up Doc, feed it to us; inject it. It doesn’t matter how we get it, as long as we get it.
The future doesn’t matter, as long as we get high immediately.
The drug of choice is government money of course.
The examples are legion.
The Congressional Budget Office, responding to a request from congressman Chris Van Hollen, Democrat rep. from the People’s Republic of Maryland, said this week that while cutting government spending now will marginally hurt growth the next few years, in future years it will help the economy grow.
“Although output would be greater and employment higher in the next few years if the spending reductions under current law were reversed,” says a portion of the CBO letter to Van Hollen quoted in the Washington Post, “that policy would lead to greater federal debt, which would eventually reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur under current law.”
But of course, that’s not the takeaway we’re seeing in the papers, so to speak. Or amongst politicians, who get their talking points from the papers…or vice versa.
CBO Says Reversing Sequester Would Boost Employment, Output, echoes the Wall Street Journal!!
Sequestration Will Prevent Creation Of Up To 1.6 Million Jobs In Next Year ..., is the predictable reaction of the Huffington Post!!!
“Oh, %@#$^#!!!!,”says I.
If there is a persistent war on anyone going on these days, it’s a war on our kids and grandkids.
Every time we borrow a dollar, it costs us ten future dollars –sometimes more- indebt service.
"It's the school district equivalent of a payday loan or a balloon payment that you might obligate yourself for," says Democrat Bill Lockyer, California’s state treasurer about one such arrangement common for school districts in the Golden-Plated State. "So you don't pay for, maybe, 20 years — and suddenly you have a spike in interest rates that's extraordinary."
Last year the Poway, CA school district borrowed $100 million with a repayment cost of $1 billion. 
And with Detroit’s recent bankruptcy- a BK that Obama said would never, ever, ever, ever happen, especially if he held his breath and stomped his feet- it’s just getting more expensive for taxpayers these days.
The rush to shift Chicago’s and Detroit’s union-negotiated retirement healthcare obligations from the cities to Obamacare, thus from urban taxpayers to YOU? Add that to the tally that our kids will pay.
And then wait for every city controlled by Democrats to do the same thing.
“Holy %@#$^#!!!!,”says I. 
What is to be done? (Bonus point to the reader who can tell me why the “What is to be done?” reference is funny)
Well, here’s a couple of reports that John’s Budget Office (JBO™) came up with that perhaps can help get us back on track.
And since Democrats are so concerned about jobs, let’s concentrate on those, shall we?
From the salient portion of the JBO™ report on Obamacare: “Although output would be greater and employment higher in the next few years if Obamacare’s hastily passed, poorly constructed laws were reversed,” says the JBO™, “that policy reversal would also lead to lower federal debt, which would immediately increase the nation’s output and income above what would occur under current law. JBO™ estimates that 2 million FULL TIME jobs and 1.5 percent of GDP would be added with the repeal of Obamacare through 2014.”
And here’s a snippet from the JBO™ report on energy:  “Although output would be greater and employment higher in the next few years if the nation actively pursued exploiting oil and gas reserves here in the US,” says the JBO™, “that policy reversal would also lead to lower federal debt, which would immediately increase the nation’s output and income above what would occur under current policy. JBO™, estimates that current policy reversal would create 10 million jobs and $15 trillion in GDP over ten years. And major accounting firms and international economic bodies agree with the JBO™ assessment. PWC estimates that if shale oil is fully developed, US Gross Domestic Product could grow an additional 2-5 percent per year, greatly reduce the influence of OPEC, lower global energy prices, and with NatGas thrown in, add at least a million jobs to manufacturing that are now just going to energy costs.”
That means that we could significantly reduce the deficit without drastically cutting benefits for a generation of Americans who have planned to count on it. It means we don’t have to raise taxes. Actually it means we could go to some sort of a simplified tax code, like the fair or flat tax.
It means a prosperous, free, and cool America; an America where even a kid from a log cabin in Kenya can grow up to be president of the United States as long as he has Photoshop.  Or even a guy like me born in Peru... Illinois. 
Or we could keep doing what we’re doing: Getting high off the government money fix. It doesn’t create jobs, true, but like other drugs it allows us to live in the fantasy world; a world where Obama, even before he took office, was the GREATEST PRESIDENT ever, Democrats pass bills unread to find out what’s in them, and jobs are optional, even discouraged. 
So hey, why not just get high and stay in the log cabin instead?

Obama: Meh, the Keystone Pipeline Might Only Create 50 Jobs

This Guy has his head way up his "   " . He is delaying it and throwing out numbers to his base! Union jobs without government funding......What a douchbag!

Fifty permanent jobs, that is -- but he really lowballs the overall estimate, too.  Over to you, President Chuckles (scroll ahead to the 1:10 mark):

Laughing off the wildly popular Keystone project is a deliberate White House messaging strategy, it seems.  Here he is laughing through another discussion of it with the New York Times: 
MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, Michael, Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that’s true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline -- which might take a year or two -- and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chucklesjobs in a economy of 150 million working people.

NYT: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this. MR.

OBAMA: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need.

Quite the cavalier attitude from a president who's in the middle of a potemkin "jobs" tour, with the national U-6 unemployment rate hovering above 14 percent.  Discounting 2,000 American jobs as a "blip" might strike many unemployed Americans as an odd formulation.  Beyond that, he's wrong on the numbers, ignoring the dramatically more optimistic findings of his own State Department.  The Washington Post's fact-checker lays out the stats, awarding Obama "two Pinocchios" for his misleading characterization:

Here’s the president, tossing out a rather low figure (“maybe 2,000” during the construction phase) and then chuckling that it would only be “50 to 100 jobs” after that. When we had looked at this before, we concluded that all such estimates are subject to guesswork, but the most mainstream estimate appeared to come from the State Department — 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs per year.Interestingly TransCanada, which would build the pipeline, had a very similar estimate for the two-year project — 13,000 jobs, or 6,500 per year...The State Department also says the project could “potentially support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a one-to-two-year period.” State said the employment would translate into about $2 billion in workers’ earnings, $3.3 billion in construction and materials costs and $67 million in state and local taxes. That sounds like real money and quite a few jobs, at least in the short term. 

"But the permanent jobs estimates are much lower," extremist Keystone opponents complain.  Okay.  Are we willing to turn up our noses at a major infrastructure project, and the thousands -- if not tens of thousands -- of jobs it would create and sustain over several years just because the completed project would eventually require far fewer permanent positions?  And since when did this administration oppose part-time or non-permanent work?  Obama's policies are making those options a way of life for too many Americans.  "But think of the environmental destruction!" they wail.  Wrong again.  These issues have been studied for years, and the State Department's environmental impact survey concluded that Keystone construction would have "minimal"  repercussions on the environment -- this after previous concerns were dealt with.  Critics' biggest problem with the pipeline is that the project will generate significant carbon emissions.  Two things: (1) Canada is going to build a pipelinesomewhere, and that oil is headed abroad, so the resulting carbon emissions are going to enter the atmosphere one way or the other.  Do we want a big piece of the employment and energy action or not?  (2) Global carbon emissions have soared to all-time highs over the last 15 years, even as warming has flat-lined.  The Economist, whose editorial bent on climate change has been rather alarmist over the years, recently noted that major climate models' warming projections have not matched reality: 

Is the Left willing to sacrifice thousands of jobs and economic development at the altar of unsettled science?  Perhaps the president could answer these questions if he's willing to take a break from sneering and chortling.

Some comments from original

46 minutes ago (7:04 PM)
Too bad he didn't low ball the estimates for Solyndra and other so called green jobs like weatherizing home that wasted taxpayers' money. He over estimates the number of jobs when he gives our money to "green" corporations that are run by his campaign donors.
bonesecos Wrote:48 minutes ago (7:02 PM)
Well... at least it will be 50 more than the ones that Solyndra created.
jackandjack Wrote:1 hour ago (6:44 PM)
the only people stupid enough to believe this are the only ones stupid enough to vote for him.
Charles41 Wrote:1 hour ago (6:24 PM)
With his past record in mind, who cares how many jobs he thinks will be created?
FAIRTV Wrote:1 hour ago (6:18 PM)
When the Main Street Media won't even challenge Obama when he makes such an absurd statement as the Keystone Pipeline will only create 50 jobs, this country is in real trouble.
Rammbo Wrote:1 hour ago (6:14 PM)
The real unemployment rate is 15%.
Across the country, thousands show up to apply for a handful of $12/hour jobs with no benefits, let alone pensions.

And, yet, our President stands in front of his country and actually has the colossal gall to tell us that some jobs are good and some jobs are bad. Huh???
Is he really trying to tell us that America has the luxury of choosing "good" jobs over "bad" jobs, or "real" jobs vs. "phony" jobs.

WTF are you talking about !!!! What "world" do you live in, Mr. President?
There is something VERY wrong with this man.