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 Administration Urges More Unemployment

November 17, 2013

Phineas Fahrquar:

Setting more welfare traps for people out of work.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

President Obama has presided over a terrible jobs market.

Unemployment is more than two-percentage points higher today than the White House claimed it would be if the so-called stimulus was enacted.

Even more worrisome, the employment-population ratio seems to have permanently fallen, which is bad news for economic performance since our output is a function of how much capital and labor is being productively utilized.

So what’s the response from the Obama Administration? Well, they want to further subsidize people for not working.

I’m not joking. Here’s some of what has been reported by the Huffington Post.

The Obama administration on Friday came out strongly in support of extending long-term unemployment insurance past its current expiration date. …”We have always done so when unemployment is this high and would make little sense to fail to do so now when we are still facing the burdens of the worst…

View original 681 more words


The Obamacare Chronicles: 129 laid off from Missouri hospital due to wonderful new health bill

May 15, 2013

"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

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

At this point, there’s not much we can do about it, folks. Losing a Supreme Court decision and the 2012 election guarantees that Obamacare will go into full effect on January 1st, 2014 — Happy New Year!

All we can do for now is observe and take note of the pain (some of it our own) as businesses make their plans to deal with the forthcoming train wreck, plans that include laying people off to cover the new, federally-imposed expenses:

From Channel 41 Action News (1), Kansas City, Missouri:

I’ve reported on the consequences of Obamacare before, and we’re going to see more and more as we approach 2014 and enter our Brave New World of government-controlled health care. The PPACA imposes immense burdens on businesses, and they will have to act rationally in response, whether by passing on costs to the consumer or cutting costs elsewhere — by layoffs, for instance.

People who voted for the Democrats since 2008 are, in effect, getting exactly what they voted for, even if they refused to see it at the time.  (2) To use the cliche, “elections have consequences.”

But so do bad laws, and the people can always fix their mistakes in the next election. Obamacare is the “Mother of Bad Laws,” and I predict its myriad problems are going to cost the Democrats dearly as voters harmed by Obamacare first get worried, then annoyed, then angry, and then royally ticked off. Democrats are already so worried that some are retiring to avoid facing the voters in 2014.

Elections have consequences for the ruling class, too.

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt

Footnotes:
(1) For any Obamacare apologists in the audience, before your knee jerks too much, note that Channel 41 is an NBC affiliate, not the evil FOX. When you’ve lost NBC…
(2) No, I’m not saying the people laid off in Missouri all voted for Obama and thus got what they deserved. Some almost certainly did, but we don’t know who or how many. Presuming innocence, they all have my sympathy.  But the broad electorate voted for people who used anti-constitutional means to pass a horrendous law in expectation of getting Free Stuff(tm), in violation of all the laws of economics. To them, I can only quote the words of the late, great Mayor Ed Koch: “The People have spoken … and they must be punished.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The April jobs report and the part-time recovery

May 3, 2013
"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

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

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released it’s report for April today, showing numbers that should at least be slightly good news for the administration: unemployment down to 7.5% and 165,000 jobs added. Recovery!!

AEI’s James Pethokoukis says “not so fast:”

US job growth in April beat economist expectations as nonfarm payrolls rose 165,000, and the jobless rate fell to a four-year low of 7.5%. But the report contained worrisome signs that President Obama’s health care reform law is hurting full-time, high-wage employment.

While the American economy added 293,000 jobs last month, according to the separate household survey, the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons — “involuntary part-time workers” as the Labor Department calls them – increased by almost as much, by 278,000 to 7.9 million. These folks were working part time because a) their hours had been cut back or b) they were unable to find a full-time job. At the same time, the U-6 unemployment rate — a broader measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and part-timers who want a full-time gig – rose from 13.8% to 13.9%.

What’s more, there wasa  0.2 hour decline in the length of the average workweek. This led to 0.4 percentage point drop in the index of average weekly hours, “equaling the largest declines since the recovery began,” notes economist Dean Baker of Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Let’s see, more part timers and fewer hours worked. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin says what we’re all thinking: “This is not good news as it reflects the reliance on part-time work. … the decline in hours and rise of part-time work is troubling in light of anecdotal reports of the impact of the Affordable Care Act.”

Jim adds that, if the Labor Force Participation Rate were the same now as it was when Obama took office, then BLS would be reporting unemployment of between nine and ten percent. (And see this for a graphic chart of how the LFPR has gone down under Obama)

It’s not that unemployment is going down, it’s that the number of people who’ve given up looking for a job is growing, and an increasing number of those who have a job are limited to part-time work, thanks to Obamacare.

Such is the nature of the Obama “recovery,” the worst since the Great Depression.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Huzzah!! Another @BarackObama milestone!

February 25, 2013

Admit it, you’re impressed:

Obama unemployment achievement

That’s right, kiddies: we’ve had more high unemployment under Barack Obama than under any president since Harry S. Truman… combined.

Well done, sir. Well done. smiley applause

But, still, his fans are happy:

"But at least we won the election! Obama!!"

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

Sigh.

via Denis through AH Malcolm

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Welcome to Obama’s America, and here’s your layoff as your prize!

November 8, 2012

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

We tried to warn people that the costs laid on business by ObamaCare and other burdensome regulations and taxes meant to make things “fairer” would only lead to lots of people losing their jobs. But, did they listen? No. Not nearly enough did. And now… it’s on!

Don’t believe me? Check this, too.

Really, what were you people thinking?


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 1, 2012

Phineas Fahrquar:

Anyone voting for Obama in the face of a record like this must have been hitting the Hopium pipe, hard.

Originally posted on blogs4mitt:

Please send this to any and all of your Obama supporting acquaintances and feel free to use it on your website.   The graph represents the labor participation rate for the past 10 years.  As you can see, when Obama took office 65.7% of adults were working.  Today, that number has decreased to 63.5%.

(Click for Bigger) Chart by Ycharts

Put another way, about 4 million fewer people are working today than when Obama took office.  And as you can also see, since Obama’s “recovery” began there are even fewer people working then in the worst of the recession he inherited.

The unemployment rate is defined as people looking for work divided by the number of people actually working.  The one and only reason unemployment has “dropped” from the recession high is that far fewer people are looking for work today.

Obama inherited a bad economy.  No one is arguing…

View original 65 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)


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)


Previous Post

June 1, 2012

Phineas Fahrquar:

The difference in results between Reagan’s limited-government principles and Obama’s statism couldn’t be more stark.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

The Labor Department just released its monthly employment report and the White House is probably not happy.

There are several key bits of data in the report, such as the unemployment rate, net job creation, and employment-population ratio.

At best, the results are mediocre. The unemployment rate generally gets the most attention, and that was bad news since the joblessness rate jumped to 8.2 percent.

What makes that number particularly painful is that the Obama Administration claimed that the unemployment rate today would be less than 6 percent if the so-called stimulus was adopted. But as you can see from the chart, squandering $800 billion on a Keynesian package hasn’t worked.

While that chart is probably embarrassing to the White House, I think the most revealing numbers come from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website, which allows users to compare employment data and GDP data for different…

View original 128 more words


(Videos) 23 million out of work

May 18, 2012

The Romney campaign has a new series of videos focusing on the 23,000,000 Americans out of work. I think they’re both pretty good:

While the video is way too long for TV, it can easily be edited into 30-second spots. Bonus points to anyone who noticed the tombstone in the graveyard shot with the name “CARTER” on it. Well played, Romney-ites. Well-played.

Next…

This one reminds the viewers of the non-union workers at auto-parts maker Delphi who were screwed out of much of their pensions by Barack Obama in the GM and Chrysler bailouts, so he could pay off his UAW benefactors. This one still galls me. Expect it to get a lot of play in Ohio.

Overall, these videos represent good strategy: while people on the outside of the campaign, from super-PACs to bloggers, engage in direct fights against the Obama campaign’s latest attempts at distraction via class and cultural warfare, Team Romney stays focused like a laser on the economy, the one thing Obama does not want to talk about.

And with 23 million Americans out of work (and so many giving up on finding any), you can bet Romney will have plenty more stories to tell between now and election day.

PS: Romney 2012.

PPS: Did you know Obama made “old Mexican ladies” cry in college? (Just a little push-back on the “Romney was a bully” attempted distraction.)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The President forgets

May 11, 2012

Wow. The same day I post a chart showing that one-third of the unemployed in this country have been out of work for over a year and that the rate skyrocketed under Obama, he admits to sometimes forgetting how bad things are:

Now, I can see a man or a woman dealing with day-to-day existence (work, kids, &c.) sometimes forgetting just how bad things got in 2008-09 and just how bad they still are; they have a lot on their plates.

But, Mr. President? Sir? Dude? Umm….

THIS IS YOUR JOB! THIS IS ALL YOU HAVE ON YOUR PLATE, YOU SCHMUCK!!

(Sorry for shouting there.)

Honest to Pete. When economic hard times hit, it is the job of the government to figure a way out of the mess. (Hint for Barack: spend less, tax less, regulate less. Listen to Warren Harding. ) That is what you are paid to do, sir.

We have a 15-trillion dollar (and growing) debt, we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, our out of control entitlements are going to eat us alive, our real unemployment rate is 14.5%, fewer people are in the work force than at any time in the last 30 years, companies are not hiring (hence those long-term unemployed) because they have no faith in your unicorns and rainbows plan for the future, and… and……

And you forget?

Let me help you remember. Here’s a list of the ten worst states for unemployment (1):

42 SOUTH CAROLINA 8.9
43 FLORIDA 9.0
43 GEORGIA 9.0
43 MISSISSIPPI 9.0
43 NEW JERSEY 9.0
47 NORTH CAROLINA 9.7
48 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 9.8
49 CALIFORNIA 11.0
50 RHODE ISLAND 11.1
51 NEVADA 12.0

Does that jog your memory?

Oh, wait. Never mind. I’m being unfair. (2) You have much more important things on your mind, such as your next tee-time and palling around with the Hollywood glitterati. Silly me. No wonder you have trouble remembering people who have lost their their jobs, their savings, their homes, their hope. (“Hope.” Does that sound familiar to you? I forget…)

November can’t come fast enough.

via The PJ Tatler

PS: Yeah, I’m being a partisan hack and bagging on him for making a passing comment and using a common rhetorical device (“We’re all guilty…”). So what? President Amateur richly deserves it.

PPS: Romney 2012.

Footnotes:
(1) Well, nine and D.C. And these figures don’t count “labor force participation,” meaning the real rates would be higher if those who’ve stopped looking for work were counted.
(2) And probably racist, too. Naturally.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Obama campaign destroyed with one graphic

May 10, 2012

The Democrats are desperate to have this election focus on anything other than the rotten economy and Barack Obama’s miserable stewardship of it. Hence the flurry of “squirrels” we’re supposed to be distracted by: the fake “war on women;” Romney’s dog; same-sex marriage; and, oh, by the way, did you know Obama killed Osama? The troops are doing it “on my behalf.”

Anyway, the next time some Obamaton tries to convince you the election is about “social issues,” show them this, courtesy of The Pew Trusts (PDF):

Obama’s record: people unemployed for more than a year.

(Click for a larger version.)

That’s the equivalent of a two-by-four to the head of a stubborn mule.

Or an Obama supporter.

via James Pethokoukis

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


White House: “It’s a good thing people are leaving the workforce!”

February 6, 2012

That’s what they said.

No, really:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained that the number of people dropping out of the work force, which artificially depresses the unemployment rate, can be regarded as an “economic positive.”

“A lot of that is due to younger people getting more of an education, which is an economic positive,” Carney responded when asked what would happen when people “inevitably” raise the unemployment rating with their return to the work force. He also noted that “an aging population” going into retirement has contributed to the number of people dropping out of the work force.

Head, meet wall.

If people are staying in school longer, it’s because there are fewer and fewer jobs available on graduation, so they stay in school hoping for an eventual turnaround. Oh, and many of them accumulating debt in the process. Is that an “economic positive,” Jay?

But beyond that, people are dropping out of the work force not because they’ve decided to enjoy their “golden years, but because of discouragement, because they’ve been out of work so long, they don’t think they have a good chance of finding a decent job.

Honestly, this administration shovels the you-know-what so fast, you need hip-waders reading one of their press releases.

SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE WHITE HOUSE DARKNESS:

  1. Is the unemployment rate 8.3%, 8.9%, 9.9% or 11.9%?
  2. Why the official 8.3 percent unemployment rate is a phony number—and what it means for Obama’s reelection
  3. Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low
  4. GOP: Jobless rate above 8% for three years, worst since the Great Depression
  5. Was Today’s Jobs News Good?

via David Freddoso

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Celebrate the Season: bug a lefty for Christmas

December 23, 2011

Jim Pethokoukis gives conservatives and other residents of Reality-ville a great Christmas present: seven charts to flash in the face of liberals (and other unicorn-chasers) when they try to spoil Christmas dinner by talking up Obama. Here’s the one that jumped out at me, the real unemployment rate:

Heckuva recovery, Barry!

I’ll let Jim explains what this represents:

The official (U-3) unemployment rate is 8.6 percent. But the labor force has been shrinking as discouraged workers have been disappeared by government statisticians rather than counted as unemployed. But what if they weren’t? What if the Labor Department added those folks back into the numbers? Well, you would get this.

Remember, Obama and the Smartest Economic Team Ever(tm) promised us that unemployment would go below eight percent if we agreed to his stimulus program. Instead, it’s higher than the White House projected if we didn’t approve the stimulus package. (See Jim’s diagram 1) In fact, the only way it comes even close to White house projections is by not counting people who’ve given up.

Real clever, that.

And once you’re done educating your liberal family members, ask them what possible reason is there is for reelecting Barack Obama?

The reaction should be entertaining.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Mean House Republicans make Obama and Reid cry

December 13, 2011

And they did it while pursuing intelligent, job-creating energy policy:

Defiant Republicans pushed legislation through the House Tuesday night that would keep alive Social Security payroll tax cuts for some 160 million Americans at President Barack Obama’s request — but also would require construction of a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline that has sparked a White House veto threat.

Passage, on a largely party-line vote of 234-193, sent the measure toward its certain demise in the Democratic-controlled Senate, triggering the final partisan showdown of a remarkably quarrelsome year of divided government.

The legislation “extends the payroll tax relief, extends and reforms unemployment insurance and protects Social Security — without job-killing tax hikes,” Republican House Speaker John Boehner declared after the measure had cleared.

Referring to the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline, he added, “Our bill includes sensible, bipartisan measures to help the private sector create jobs.”

On a long day of finger pointing, however, House Democrats accused Republicans of protecting “millionaires and billionaires, ” and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., derided the GOP-backed pipeline provision as “ideological candy” for the tea party-set.

Harry’s just mad that the ball is in his court, now, and the situation is lose-lose for him and his Munificent Sun King. Here’s the background:

The Keystone XL pipeline would cross roughly 1,700 miles from Canada’s tar-sands deposits to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas. In addition to giving us access to a reliable supply of oil from a nearby friendly nation, estimates are that the pipeline will create anywhere from 5,000 to 20,000 jobs in the US, not to mention the consumer boost from disposable income. While there are environmental concerns, the State Department has declared them to be minimal. Sounds like a great deal, right?

Not if you’re Barack Obama and the Democrats, who need to pander to the environmentalist Left to shore up  their base, it isn’t. Playing to the Green Luddites, Obama delayed a decision on Keystone until, oddly enough, after the election. I guess people who need jobs matter less than donations from the Sierra Club.

Back to the bill just passed.

Obama and the (Social) Democratic leadership had wanted a continuation of the payroll tax cut and an extension of unemployment insurance (which, btw, only worsens unemployment), all paid for by increasing taxes on those evil rich folks. The Republicans, on the other hand, understanding basic economics, wanted instead to pay for the cuts by imposing a federal wage freeze. They also wanted to pass legislation mandating approval for Keystone, since, well, Republicans actually care about people who are out of work and obtaining a reliable source of energy for the US, which would otherwise go to China. (There’s that Smart Power diplomacy, again.)

Obama had threatened to veto any legislation extending the payroll tax cuts if it included authorization for Keystone XL. He gambled that Republicans wouldn’t dare let themselves be seen as allowing a tax increase and a cutoff of unemployment benefits, something he and his allies figured would redound to the Democrats’ benefit.

Well, the Smartest President Ever bet wrong.

Here’s why the Democrats now find themselves in a pickle: the Republicans have passed a bill that

  1. Brings reliable energy to the US
  2. Creates thousands of real jobs (far more than the Stimulus ever did)
  3. Extends unemployment benefits (1) and payroll tax cuts
  4. and pays for them with a fiscally responsible wage freeze.

Now Reid has to either kill all that in the Senate (2), which will hand the Republicans a large club to beat Democratic incumbents with in 2012, or he has to pass it and send it to Obama, who will then have had his bluff called and face an ugly choice: tell thousands of unemployed American workers you don’t get a good job and, oh, by the way, the unemployment checks are going to stop, or sign the bill and look weak while ticking off the same environmental groups he had just bent the knee to.

Like I said, “lose -lose” for them. Darn.

Well played, House Republicans. Well played.

via Doug Powers

Footnotes:
(1) Yeah, I just linked to an article showing how unemployment benefits retard job growth, but this is political reality. No party will vote to cut off those benefits in a rotten economy. And that’s why Obama will not veto this bill.
(2) Assuming he can hold his caucus together. Several of those vulnerable Democratic senators might well be tempted to defy their party leader and vote in favor of jobs “back home.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Seriously, Debbie?

December 12, 2011

According to Congresswoman and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (1), unemployment has not gone up under President Obama.

Huh?

Remember, she was handpicked by President Obama to be the public face of the Democratic Party. Must’ve been for her chutzpah when it comes to telling the Big Lie.

She can’t be that dumb. It must be because she thinks we’re that dumb.

Footnote:
(1) Also a nauseating race-baiter.


Good God. Is Harry Reid really this stupid? UPDATE: Yes. He. Is.

October 19, 2011

I’m afraid the answer is “yes.” According to the Leader of the Majority Party in the US Senate (1), private-sector jobs are “doing fine.” It’s the public sector that is truly suffering in this economy. He’s either stupid, or a shameless and cynical hack pol who doesn’t give a damn about the truth.

I vote for (C), all of the above:

And in case you don’t believe your ears:

“The massive layoffs we’ve had in America today—of course they’re rooted in the last administration—and it’s very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. It’s the public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation’s all about. And it’s unfortunate my friend the Republican Leader is complaining about that.”

How’s that again, Harry?

"Private sector jobs are doing just fine." --Harry Reid

“Orwellian” comes to mind. If anything, the Stimulus Porkulus plan was intended to save the jobs of some of the Democrats’ biggest boosters, public sector employees and their union bosses.

More from Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: Here’s another chart to upset Dingy Harry’s version of reality, via PJM:

See? The private sector is okay! Hey, who are you going to believe? Harry Reid or your lying eyes?

Footnote:
(1) That hasn’t offered a budget in over 900 days, in violation of federal law. Now that’s leadership.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,157 other followers