Obama fights against US coal exports

March 24, 2014
In Obama's crosshairs

In Obama’s crosshairs

I’m not sure what the people of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado did to Barack Obama –after all, they gave him the electoral votes he needed to win reelection– but he sure has it in for their major exports and the jobs they create:

The leaders also announced that the Netherlands was joining the U.S. and other countries in an effort to stop the international funding of new coal-fired power plants by development banks.

“We’re pleased that the Netherlands has joined our initiative that will virtually end all public financing for coal-fired plants abroad,” Obama said. “It’s concrete action like this that can keep making progress on reducing emissions while we develop new global agreements on climate change.”

Per Bryan Preston, the US is the world’s second largest coal exporter, and each million tons exported creates over 1,300 jobs. Now, why on Earth would an American president work so hard against American economic interests, especially in difficult times with such large numbers of people unemployed and under-employed? It’s almost as if he sees American power as a problem, something to be solved by managed decline… Nah, couldn’t be.

I sorely wish more people in those coal-mining states had seen the danger Obama poses to their own livelihoods and the nation’s well-being; I’ve little doubt we’d be in a better situation right now, if they had. But that’s done, and now we have to work to convince voters that any Democrat nominee in 2016 is going to be beholden to the same radical environmentalist interests that Obama is placating with this initiative. Those factions are not interested in mitigating the problems with coal use until a genuine replacement comes along or with good conservation practices in its mining: they want to ban it outright, now, and the consequences be damned for communities reliant on its extraction and an economy dependent on the energy it produces.

And, right now, they have their guy in office.

Read the rest of Preston’s report for the international implications of this agreement.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Glorious #Obamacare Victory: lost hours and decreased wages!

February 4, 2014
"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

Heckuva job, Democrats:

A historically high number of people will be locked out of the workforce by 2021, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.

President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law will contribute to this phenomenon, the CBO said, citing new estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cause a larger-than-expected reduction in working hours—eliminating the equivalent of about 2.3 million workers in 2021.
In 2011, the CBO estimated the law would cause a reduction of about 800,000 full-time equivalent workers.

“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” said the report.

As Bryan Preston points out, this is the equivalent of losing almost the entire workforce of Nevada.

But, hey, it’s worth it if it brings wonderful new benefits to people, such as creating jobs… Oops!, I mean saving people money, right??

Well, about that promise

A new study finds that Obamacare’s redistribution will be stunningly lopsided. Scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution have discovered that Obamacare will increase the income of Americans in the lowest 20 percent of the income scale, and especially in the lowest ten percent. But all other income groups — even people who make very modest incomes in the $25,000 to $30,000 range, as well as all income brackets above that — will experience a decline in income because of Obamacare.

In other words, Obamacare is going to cost some of the very people it was designed to help.

So, not only will Obamacare inflict people with higher premiums, bigger co-pays, and smaller provider networks, but it will on top of all that reduce most people’s income.

Genius. I hope the voters remember to reward the Democrats in November for all their hard work.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Obama Advocates Higher Unemployment for Lower-Skilled Workers (and Some Great Election News from Colorado)

November 6, 2013

Phineas Fahrquar:

I quote the New York Times from (I believe) 1987: “The ideal minimum wage is zero.” Every time the government raises it, it hurts those newly entering the workforce and those with fewer skills. Why do progressives hate workers?

Originally posted on International Liberty:

Perhaps because he wants to divert attention from the slow-motion train wreck of Obamacare, the President is signalling that he will renew his efforts to throw more people into the unemployment line.

Needless to say, that’s not how the White House would describe the President’s proposal to increase the minimum wage, but that’s one of the main results when the government criminalizes certain employment contracts between consenting adults.

To be blunt, if a worker happens to have poor work skills, a less-than-impressive employment record, or some other indicator of low productivity that makes them worth, say, $7.50 per hour, then a $9-per-hour minimum wage is a ticket to the unemployment line.

Which is the point I made in a rather unfriendly interview with Yahoo Finance.

But a higher minimum wage is popular with voters who don’t understand economics, and unions strongly support a higher minimum wage since it…

View original 566 more words


The Obamacare Chronicles: Labor votes for Obama, labor gets its thank-you

August 19, 2013
"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

In the form of having their hours of employment cut to avoid the (delayed) employer mandate in Obamacare:

The predictions and fears of the Affordable Care Act’s adversaries have begun to materialize, specifically fears that the law will encourage employers to demote their employees to part-time positions in order to evade federal health care requirements. Popular clothing company Forever 21 is the first of what might be many companies to limit its non-management workers’ hours to 29.5 a week, just below the 30-hour minimum that the ACA deems full-time work.

Explaining that the company “recently audited its staffing levels, staffing needs, and payroll in conjunction with reviewing its overall operating budget,” Associate Director of Human Resources Carla Macias informed employees that effective August 31, they will no longer be full-time employees of Forever 21.

It is a move that will likely harm the reputation of the company, will absolutely harm the economic circumstances of its employees, and will function as a tangible example of the Affordable Care Act’s consequences and shortcomings.

Although the ethical nature of Forever 21’s decision is debatable, it is both rational and understandable. A company that boasts regularly low prices and frequent, sensational sales, Forever 21′s competitive success is largely dependent upon its ability to maintain low manufacturing and operational costs. The ACA is an undeniable burden on this principle, and Forever 21’s management has the prerogative to take any legal measures necessary to avoid raising the costs of its products.

Contra Ms. O’Neill at Policymic, who does a good job with the economics of Forever 21′s dilemma, I don’t think the ethics are debatable at all. Forever 21′s management owes a fiduciary responsibility to the company’s owners to return the most profit at the least cost while staying within the law and the laws of good business. This is their primary duty. They owe their employees nothing more than what is required under law and the overall decent treatment again dictated by good business sense. (Happy employees leading to less turnover and higher productivity.)

What they do not owe their employees is anything that actually harms the business. As the article reports, Forever 21′s business niche is as a provider of low-cost clothing, presumably mainly to a budget-conscious student and working-class clientele. To do this, they have to keep costs down. Obamacare makes this impossible with regard to health care benefits (1), so the managers are faced with three choices:

  1. Pay for insurance as required under Obamacare and accept a lesser profit margin in a business that’s already low-margin, thus betraying their primary duty to their owners;
  2. Pay for insurance as required under Obamacare, but increase prices to the consumer, thus hurting Forever 21′s competitiveness and probably lessening profits, again violating the main reason any business exists;
  3. Adapt by controlling expenses, in this case by reducing employee hours to avoid the employer mandate’s tripwire.

In the end, they still probably harm their business, assuming a higher instance of unhappy employees, but it’s the least harmful option that also meets management’s primary responsibility — to create a profitable business for the owners. It is, in fact, the unquestionably ethical choice.

As I’ve said before, I feel sorry for anyone seeing their hours cut, but don’t blame the company, which is simply making a rational choice. Instead, lay the blame directly where it belongs, with the Democrats who voted for it and their Leftist and Big Business enablers who shoved this anti-constitutional monstrosity down our throats, thus creating the perverse incentives that lead to Forever 21′s decision.

And, to the extent that any of you seeing your hours cut voted for Barack Obama and the (Social) Democrats, blame yourselves, too.

Elections, as they say, have consequences.

via Bryan Preston

Footnote:
(1) And maybe their other costs, too, as their suppliers will likely have to meet Obamacare’s mandates and thus pass the costs along in the form of price increases.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Obamacare and job losses: when you’ve lost NBC… Updated: More job cuts

August 14, 2013
"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

Oh, my. This is not going to make Obama or his spokes-droid Jay Carney happy at all. NBC is a reliably pro-Obama (read: “toe-licking”) network, so for them to point out how Obamacare is creating a nation of impoverished part-time workers is… interesting, as Spock might say:

Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”

Goodridge said he’s cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he won’t trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week. The provision takes effect in 16 months.

Luke Perfect, who has worked at Goodridge’s Kennebunk Subway for more than a decade, said it was “horrible” to learn he was among the employees whose hours would be limited, and that it would be a financial hardship. “I’m barely scraping by with overtime,” he said.

Read the whole thing. I’ve covered this phenomenon before, and we’re going to see a lot more of it as this anti-constitutional monstrosity goes into effect. Also have a look at my blog-buddy ST’s post on the topic; it’s a good one. (1)

PS: I have a lot of sympathy for the people losing hours and facing financial hardship because of this (2), but I have to ask, how many of them voted for Obama and his Democratic enablers? How many of them backed their unions’ demands that Obamacare must be passed, all while assuming their union leaders must know what they’r talking about? How many of them trusted the pro-Obamacare propaganda spewed by the so-called news networks, without thinking critically about what they were claiming? Like I said, you have my genuine sympathies if your hours are being cut back… but next time think, damn it!

Footnote:
(1) Of course it’s good; she quotes me, after all.
(2) But I have none for the Democrat congressmen who rammed this thing down our throats. Payback is coming in 2014 and 2016, and you chuckleheads who sold out your constituents are going to get it on Election Day, good and hard.

UPDATE: At Via Meadia, Walter Russell Mead reports on public school districts cutting back staff hours due to Obamacare.


That’s some economic recovery you have there, @BarackObama

August 7, 2013
"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

Of all the jobs created since 2009, almost 90% have been part-time:

Since January 2009 the country has added a net total of 270,000 full-time jobs, but it has added 1.9 million part-time jobs, according to the House Ways and Means Committee.

And much of that is directly attributable Obama’s economic policies, especially businesses avoiding the crushing burden imposed by Obamacare.

No wonder he prefers late-night, softball talk shows.

Heckuva job, Barry.


Glorious Irony: Half of Obamacare employees at call center will get no health care

July 26, 2013

Because –I bet you can guess– they’re being hired part-time:

Earlier this year, Contra Costa County won the right to run a health care call center, where workers will answer questions to help implement the president’s Affordable Care Act. Area politicians called the 200-plus jobs it would bring to the region an economic coup.

Now, with two months to go before the Concord operation opens to serve the public, information has surfaced that about half the jobs are part-time, with no health benefits — a stinging disappointment to workers and local politicians who believed the positions would be full-time.

The Contra Costa County supervisor whose district includes the call center called the whole hiring process — which attracted about 7,000 applicants — a “comedy of errors.”

Read on for a tale of bungling and incompetence — at least on the part of Contra Costa authorities who couldn’t realize this very thing could happen, since Obamacare gives employers every incentive to go part-time.

And for those employees angry that they’ve been misled, what did you expect from an Obama administration project? Competence? Please.

This is yet more proof that the universe has a sense of humor. Bitter, dark, and cruel, but a sense of humor nonetheless.

via Karl Rove

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


To deal with #Obamacare, school district cuts employee hours

May 31, 2013
"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

A little Blue on Blue action for your Friday, as one liberal constituency, school district employees, feels the pain to satisfy the demands of another, the “free healthcare and unicorns for everyone” crowd.

Elections. They have consequences:

1 [sic] of Indiana’s largest school districts is cutting the hours of 610 part-time teaching aides and cafeteria workers to save money and to avoid providing them health insurance under the federal health care overhaul.

Fort Wayne Community Schools Chief Financial Officer Kathy Friend says it’s cutting their hours from 30 to 25 each week beginning June 3 because insurance would have cost $10 million. Beginning in January, large employers must offer health insurance to those who work at least 30 hours per week.

Friend told The Journal Gazette for a story Monday the insurance matter is “something that almost all employers with part-time employees are trying to resolve.”

And I don’t blame the school district one bit. They have a certain amount of dollars to work with each year, but their costs are going to go up tremendously in 2014 if they don’t make changes. Labor is another cost, so there’s a logical place to make cuts. Sadly, it looks like those targeted are also those who already make the least.

Once again, the progressive failure to understand basic economics and human nature winds up hurting those they claim they want to help.

via Conservative Intelligence Briefing

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Raytheon Moving California HQ to Texas

May 3, 2013

And California, one of the most self-destructively governed states in the Union, loses another company, its jobs, and its tax revenues. Really, if I didn’t live here, it would be fascinating to watch an “economic super-power state” drive itself off the cliff chasing Thelma and Louise. Thank you, Jerry Brown and the legislative Democrats.


Why Are Young Americans Supportive of Obama When His Policies Are So Bad for Them?

April 6, 2013

Phineas Fahrquar:

Ya got me. Talk about voting against one’s own interest. Click through to see interesting analysis of how entering the job market in a bad economy sets a young person on an underperforming path for a long time to come.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

Young people voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers, but the question is why?

As I explain in this interview for Blaze TV, they are being hurt by his policies.

It’s not just that youth unemployment is high. Obama’s policies also are hurting those who found jobs. Simply stated, these “lucky” folks are getting below-average pay.

The Stepford Students?

I specifically explain that academics have determined that those entering the labor market in a weak economy will suffer a long-run loss of income.

Some of you may think I’m clutching at straws because I don’t like Obama, but perhaps you’ll believe the man who formerly served as the Chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Here’s some of what Austin Goolsbee wrote several years ago for the New York Times.

…starting at the bottom is a recipe for being underpaid for a long time to come. Graduates’ first jobs…

View original 435 more words


Quote of the Day: Doing business in Texas vs. California edition

April 1, 2013

An observation on why Texas might have more appeal to business owners, from John Harrington, owner of Shield Tactical, who recently relocated his company from Orange County, California, to Austin:

In Texas, he said, “it’s an iota of bureaucracy.” In California, “it’s like before you put up your range you have to be worried about whether the noise level is going to bother the 10-headed duckmouse.”

That made me laugh, but it’s also so very true. One company found the regulatory environment here so burdensome, it wrote California a “Dear John” letter.

Oh, and if you think “duckmouse” was a joke, consider that Sacramento would rather let Central Valley farms die of thirst than fight the EPA over a two-inch bait fish.

BTW, the first linked article is a good one on how Texas is working to encourage firearms manufacturers to move to Texas from states that are imposing more and more restrictions. Smart man, that Governor Perry.

via Moe Lane and Rick Wilson

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


More #Obamacare job losses. This thing needs to be killed.

February 2, 2013
"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

And the good news (1) keep rolling in:

Hospital layoffs and the Affordable Heath Care Act

The Affordable Care Act is designed to make health care easier to get, but now, one local hospital says Affordable Health Care is the reason it is laying people off.

Clifton Springs Hospital let almost 60 non-clinical employees go last Friday. Hospital officials says it’s all because they’re trying to get ready for the impact of the new health care act. The act changes the way health insurance is run and the way hospitals are paid.

The Affordable Care Act means many of you will be making more decisions when it comes to your own health care. Health care workers say co-pays and deductibles will be higher, that means things like x-rays and MRI’s will cost you  more. So people will be forced to decide if they really want them. That might mean fewer people in the hospital.

Clifton Springs Hospital is preparing for that now. Last Friday, Clifton Springs Hospital laid off 58-full time employees. The reason is to get ready for the Affordable Care Act that will unfold over the next four years.

Lewis Zulick, Interim CEO of Clifton Springs Hospital, said, “That was something that we realized, especially over the last 6 months or so, that we had to do something to really match up our revenue to our expenses. That really had to do with the kind of volume we were experiencing at the hospital.”

In other words, from reading the article, it’s due to Obamacare’s refusal to allow insurance companies to pay for certain procedures, pushing that cost off on the consumer. It’s not a decision the doctor and patient make together (“Do I need this?”), but one forced on the consumer by government regulation — and that written by supposed “experts,” bureaucrats who know nothing about individual patients and their needs. The hospital anticipates fewer people opting for such procedures, thus leading them to make the logical business decision to lay people off.

Ergo, Obamacare costs jobs.

One can argue, of course, that some at least of these were unnecessary procedures that drove up insurance costs, and I wouldn’t disagree with you. That’s what’s been called “defensive medicine,” in which doctors will order “just one more test” not so much out of medical need, but to avoid being sued in our litigation-plagued society. Conservative reformers have long complained of needless malpractice suits that drive up costs for everyone.

But the solution is tort reform, dealing with the abuse of the legal systems, not top-down command-and-control rationing and regulation of the insurance and medical industries. (Ironically, uber-progressive California was the first state to introduce major malpractice reform. In 1975, under Jerry Brown!) And certainly government should never come between a doctor and patient in deciding treatment.

Meanwhile…

A global medical technology company has laid off nearly 100 employees at its offices in Tennessee and Massachusetts and is blaming the layoffs on the medical device tax tied to ObamaCare.

London-based Smith & Nephew said Thursday it laid off fewer than 100 employees between the two offices, which operate as the company’s advanced surgical devices unit, according to The Commercial Appeal.

The company specializes in developing orthopedic reconstruction products, has nearly 11,000 employees and operates in over 90 countries, according to its website.

The Affordable Care Act includes a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, which is expected to raise nearly $30 billion over the next decade. The tax is applied to gross sales revenues.

A tax is a cost of doing business. When you raise costs, the company has three choices: it can eat the lost profits, harming the owners — perhaps a small businessman and his family, or shareholders, which may include employees and pension funds; it can pass the higher cost on to the consumer, running the risk of pricing themselves out of the market; or, they can cut other costs to balance things out. Materials are one cost, but using cheaper materials is one sure way for a medical company to be sued out of business.

But, guess what? Labor is a cost, too!

And so, thanks to the medical device tax in Obamacare, nearly 100 (more) people have lost their jobs.

Eventually, the problems are going to accumulate and annoy and outright harm enough people that they will demand something be done. Democrats and weak-kneed Republicans will want to just tinker with it, promising “fixes.”

But there is no way fix the problems with Obamacare, because Obamacare is the problem. From its most basic concepts to its details, it is one huge, honking, accelerating disaster. However long it takes, it must be repealed, destroyed root and branch. Do to it what Rome did to Carthage.

Sigh. We had our chance in 2012 to take the monster out before he did too much damage. But, we blew it then, and people are suffering for it.

And so we fight on.

via Brian Faughnan and ST.

RELATED: Stephen Green on “How to ruin healthcare in just 2000 easy pages!”  Meanwhile, the cheapest plan for a family of five under Obamacare will cost up to $20,000 per year, per the IRS. That’s almost half the median family income in the US. What was that about “affordable, again?”

Footnote:
(1) For Orwellian definitions of “good,” that is.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Obama donor lays off employees because of ObamaCare

November 14, 2012

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

Nancy Pelosi said we’d have to pass the health-care reform bill in order to find out what’s in it.

Surprise!

Stryker Corporation has announced that it will close its facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs next month. It will also counter the medical device tax in Obamacare by eliminating 5% of their global workforce, an estimated 1,170 positions.

Jon Stryker is heir to the Stryker Corporation, one of the largest medical device and equipment manufacturers in the world. Stryker’s grandfather was the surgeon who invented the mobile hospital bed. The company now sells $8.3 billion worth of hospital beds, artificial joints, medical cameras, and medical software every year.

Stryker, a member of the Forbes 400 list, was one of the top five donors to the Obama campaign. Having donated $2 million to the Priorities USA Action super PAC, Stryker also gave $66,000 in contributions to Obama and the Democrat Party.

(…)

Stryker’s corporation is part of an industry that has been a big loser at the hands of Obamacare. Having refused to get on board with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee when the law was being crafted in 2009, the medical device industry was punished with an excise tax of 2.3% of their revenues, regardless of whether they make a profit.

My sympathies to anyone losing their job at Stryker, or elsewhere. Except to those who voted for Obama. All I can say to them is this is what you voted for.

Elections have consequences.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The chart that’s worth a thousand sound bites

October 16, 2012

Kind of says all you need to know, doesn’t it?

You can enlarge it to get the full effect, but the upshot is that the number of people no longer in the labor force has grown by ten times the number of people who have been added, who’ve found jobs.

This is a function Obama’s obsession with redistribution over recovery, with “reform” over growth. It is the near-inevitable result of combining Keynesian economics and the Progressive love for statist, technocratic solutions, the delusion that an economy can be directed from above and that a nation can borrow, tax, and spend its way out of economic difficulties. Think I’m nuts? Then ask yourself why the Great Depression lasted seven years longer than it had to. We saw the same hubris then as now, and once again the American people are suffering for it.

So, tell me again, why anyone with a lick of sense would vote to reelect Obama?

via Blue Crab Boulevard

PS: Romney-Ryan 2012, because it’s past time for the non-delusional to be in charge.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


October 3, 2012

Phineas Fahrquar:

It’s amazing how willing, even desperate, statists are to put money into programs that are shown not to work, because they cannot conceive of any “solution” that does not originate with government.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

There have been lots of studies showing that there’s no benefit to job training programs. People who sign up with these government schemes are not more likely to either get jobs or to earn more money.

Heck, even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge that these programs are a costly failure.

To really understand how these programs operate, John Stossel put together an investigative mission. The results excerpted below would be funny, other than the fact that taxpayers are getting ripped off and people are getting lured into lives of dependency.

“There are no jobs!” That is what people told me outside a government “jobs center” in New York City. …I sent four researchers around the area. They quickly found 40 job openings. Twenty-four were entry-level positions. One restaurant owner told me he would hire 12 people if workers would just apply. It made me wonder what my government…

View original 707 more words


Horrible youth jobs numbers

September 7, 2012

ST and I both earlier referred to the awful August jobs report released today. For a detailed (and dismal) analysis, James Pethokoukis  is a must-read.

But I want to highlight one particular aspect (via Gay Patriot) reported on by Jordan Weissman in The Atlantic: the employment prospects for teens and those just graduating college are just horrific:

After declining for most of the summer, the unemployment rate for workers between the ages of 16 and 19 popped up again, rising from 23.8 percent to 24.6 percent. Among 20-to-24 year olds, it hopped to 13.9 percent from 13.5 percent in July.

After noting that these number don’t reflect layoffs as much as lower-than-expected hiring at the end of summer, he comes up with a  disturbing theory:

There are other subtle and discouraging aspects of this report for the young. One of the only industries to add significant numbers of workers was food services, which accounted for 28,300 of the 95,000 total new jobs. Restaurant and fast food work is usually a bastion for teenage employment. If that sector is growing, and young people still can’t find employment, it may mean that older workers are now out-competing them for low wage jobs.

In other words, skilled workers laid off from higher-paying jobs are now taking the entry-level positions young people use to learn the basic skills of “how to have a job.” And, as time passes and the economy doesn’t pick up (which will be almost assured in an Obama second term), they’ll find themselves competing with teens and college graduates who come after them.

It’s like Paul Ryan said in his RNC nomination acceptance speech:

College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life. 

In 2008, Barack Obama captured two-thirds of the youth vote, a huge amount.

Some reward they got, isn’t it?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Let’s help Joe Biden answer a question, shall we?

September 3, 2012

Vice President Joe Biden is in Charlotte this week for the Democratic National Convention (1). At a rally, he struggled with the question of whether Americans are better off now than they were four years ago, when he and his boss were elected:

Looks like the heat was giving Joe some trouble, since he couldn’t go into any specifics. Let’s help him out, shall we?

According to that notorious conservative rag, The Washington Post:

From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.

Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report, which analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

(…)

Over the past three years, the inflation-adjusted median income of households headed by whites was down 5.2 percent, to $56,255. Households headed by blacks sustained a staggering 11.1 percent drop in median income. Hispanic-led households saw their real income decline by 4.1 percent over the same period, the report said.

Looking at the data by age, the researchers found that income has risen only for workers older than 65 during the recovery, which report co-author and Sentier partner Gordon Green attributes to the cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients.

Households led by the self-employed saw their income drop 9.4 percent, to $66,752, the report said. Households headed by private-sector employees saw wages drop by 4.5 percent, to $63,800, and households led by government workers saw median income decline by 3.5 percent, to $77,998, the report said.

Peter Ferrara, writing in Forbes, see this trend and calls in an accelerating downward spiral:

The problem is that Obama has only greatly accelerated everything Bush did wrong, and reversed everything Bush did right. So Obama’s spending has skyrocketed the federal budget by nearly one-fourth as a percent of GDP in just one term. Moreover, the Obama Fed has abandoned any semblance of control over monetary policy, buying most of the soaring federal debt issued to finance Obama’s record smashing federal deficits with newly printed money (actually created by computer record, a sort of cyberprinting). Of course, the whole point of Obama’s tax policy has been to more than reverse the Bush tax rate cuts, which is now already slated under current law to go into effect on January 1.

That is why it will all only get worse in a second Obama term, as the economy slides back into a double-dip recession in 2013 unless these Obama policies are swiftly reversed. I first began ringing alarm bells about that a year ago with the publication of my Encounter Books Broadside No. 25, Obama and the Crash of 2013. But now even the Washington establishment CBO is pealing the air raid siren as well.

Renewed, double-dip recession would mean unemployment rocketing back into double digits once again, the deficit exploding to over $2 trillion, the highest in world history by far, real wages and incomes declining even more, and poverty soaring further.

Obama has failed the poor as well as the middle class. Last year, the Census Bureau reported more Americans in poverty than ever before in the more than 50 years that Census has been tracking poverty. Now The Huffington Post reports that the poverty rate is on track to rise to the highest level since 1965, before the War on Poverty began. A July 22 story by Hope Yen reports that when the new poverty rates are released in September, “even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965.” But a consensus survey of experts across the political spectrum indicates the poverty rate could soar from the current 15.1% to as high as 15.7%. “Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor,” Hope Yen reports.

Be sure to read all of Peter’s article. His conclusions about where we’re headed if we don’t make the right choices in this election are sobering, to put it nicely.

In other words, the Democratic Dream Team inherited a bad situation, made it worse and, if reelected, promise to take it from “bad” to “God-awful.”

No wonder Joe had to plead the heat: answering the question makes the Republicans’ case for them.

Footnotes:
(1) Complete with Official Recycling Nags.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) on fire on the House floor

July 27, 2012

Congressman Kelly went to the House floor yesterday to denounce the crushing burden federal regulation imposes on American business and, by the time he was done, he had earned a rare standing ovation from his colleagues and chants of “USA! USA!”

Enjoy, my friends, enjoy.

Preach it, Brother Mike! 

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Who’s the big “outsourcer” in this race? — UPDATED Et tu, Nancy?

July 11, 2012

The latest Obama campaign strategy in their relentless efforts to get people to talk about anything but Obama’s miserable record on the  economy is to accuse Mitt Romney of “outsourcing” jobs (1) overseas when he ran Bain Capital. Forget the falsity of the charge, Team Obama and their allies in the media are going to play this class warfare tune over and over, hoping that it sticks with enough voters to make a difference.

The RNC is ready with an answer — “Look who’s talking.”

I’d say there’s a tremendous difference between a company making a rational economic decision (2) about where best to locate offices and hire workers, on the one hand, and a government taking billions of taxpayer dollars on the promise to create American jobs and then shipping that money overseas to create anything but American jobs, on the other. Wouldn’t you?

Obama and his people would do well to remember the old saying about people living in glass houses. If they don’t, we’ll be happy to throw the stones.

RELATED: More at Hot Air.

Footnote:
(1) Of course, what they really mean is “offshoring,” but it’s a bit much to expect Democrats to understand basic economics.
(2) In other words, meeting their fiduciary responsibility to their investors. How evil of them.

UPDATE: I wonder if Team Obama will criticize that noted cruel exploiter of outsourced offshored labor… Nancy Pelosi?

According to Pelosi’s 2011 financial disclosure statement, the Democratic House Minority Leader received between $1 million and $5 million in partnership income from ”Matthews International Capital Management LLC,” a group that emphasizes that it has a “A Singular Focus on Investing in Asia.” A quick trip to the company website reveals a featured post extolling the virtues of outsourcing.

“Designed in California, Made in Manila” sounds like an excellent title for a smear ad to be run the by the Barack Obama campaign. Instead, it appears to be Nancy Pelosi’s investment strategy.

Pelosi is also a small investor in the embattled “Moduslink Global,” one of the “outsourcing pioneers” that Mitt Romney has been criticized for associating with while at Bain Capital.

Egg, meet face.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Jobs created in June? Try jobs *lost*

July 6, 2012

If this is true, then the economic news isn’t just bad for Obama, it’s devastating:

The birth-death model, which approximates the amount of jobs gained through new businesses created too recently to be counted in the formal survey, added 124,000 positions, meaning that without the estimation the total count would have been a loss of 44,000.

So much for that claim of 80,000 jobs created in June and NPR’s pathetic spin.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,169 other followers