Category Archives: Obama

Unemployment Numbers Don’t Matter? Wanna Bet?

12 Tuesday Jul 2011

Posted by in economy, Obama, Politics, Unemployment

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

What was that again, Mr. Plouffe? People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate?

“A slipping economy has Floridians moving away from President Barack Obama and warming up to Republican Mitt Romney, a Sunshine State News Poll shows.

The survey of 1,000 likely voters shows that 54 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while just 38 percent approve. That result tracks with Florida voters’ sour view of the economy, with 56 percent saying it has worsened in the past year.

“Clearly, the bleak economic landscape is not good news for Obama. This is quite sobering when you consider that the recession technically ended in summer of 2009, which really shows that people don’t believe we are out of the woods by any stretch,” said Jim Lee, president of Harrisburg, Pa.-based Voter Survey Service, which conducted the poll for Sunshine State News.

Today’s numbers may be even worse for Obama, considering that the July 5-7 survey concluded a day before the latest jobless figures were released last Friday. The national unemployment rate rose again to 9.2 percent as the economy added just 18,000 jobs in June.

“Obama’s negative job approval shows there is a major opening for the GOP to win the state in 2012, particularly when you consider that Obama only won by a close 51-48 margin last time,” Lee said. “No president since FDR has won re-election when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.”

Economists calculate that the economy would have to add a whopping 250,000 jobs every month for the next year to drive the unemployment rate below 7.5 percent.”

You might want to re-think that re-election strategery, Fluffy.

Why Is This So Damn Difficult?

09 Saturday Jul 2011

Posted by in Afghanistan, budget, economy, Iraq, Medicare, Obama, Politics, Social Security, Taxes, Unemployment, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is so simple it’s ridiculous. The three major causes of the dramatic increases in debt and deficit are:

1) The Bush, now Obama, tax cuts.

2) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

3) The financial collapse caused by Wall Street greed.

Ending the tax cuts just for those making over $250,000 will bring in $700 billion over 10 years. The wars cost about $140 billion a year. End both and we save $1.4 trillion over the same 10-year period. A financial transaction tax of just one quarter of one percent will result in $150 billion a year, $1.5 trillion over 10. There’s $3.6 trillion over 10 years, which is just about the same amount the debt ceiling dealers are talking about cutting spending. And we haven’t touched Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc. Yet none of these three are even on the debt ceiling/spending cut/revenue increases negotiating table. Why?

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the cost of repairing our crumbling infrastructure to be $2.2 trillion over 5 years. Do you see where I’m going here? Take the money we’ve saved, not from cutting the safety net out from under our most vulnerable who had nothing to do with the debt explosion and who did not benefit from it, but from the root causes and from those who did.

The result is millions of Americans have jobs. They’re paying income taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes. They no longer need unemployment, food stamps, or other forms of government assistance. They’re buying stuff, which creates demand for stuff, which creates more jobs, which creates more demand for stuff. And so on, and so on, and so on. Why is this so damn difficult?

But what do we get from our “leaders?” Gobbledegook and gibberish. Like President Obama’s remarks yesterday after the release of the horrible job numbers. Things like streamlining the patent process, advancing more so-called free trade agreements (which costs jobs rather that create them) and this:

“[T]o put our economy on a stronger and sounder footing for the future, we’ve got to rein in our deficits and get the government to live within its means, while still making the investments that help put people to work right now and make us more competitive in the future.

The sooner we get this done, the sooner that the markets know that the debt limit ceiling will have been raised and that we have a serious plan to deal with our debt and deficit, the sooner that we give our businesses the certainty that they will need in order to make additional investments to grow and hire and will provide more confidence to the rest of the world as well..”

Beside the fact that this is straight of the Republican playbook for economic growth, it’s nonsense (but I’m being redundant). Live within our means while making investments? What the hell is that? Give businesses the certainty they need? Businesses don’t need certainty, they need customers. Customers create jobs, not the ever-elusive confidence unicorn. Why is this so damn difficult?

The president’s mouthpiece at the Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbe offered more of the same:

“Today’s report underscores the need for bipartisan action to help the private sector and the economy grow – such as measures to extend the payroll tax cut, pass the pending free trade agreements, and create an infrastructure bank to help put Americans back to work.  It also underscores the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that instills confidence and allows us to live within our means without shortchanging future growth.”

*Sigh* Can’t anybody here play this game?

Obama Has Been Consistent on Social Security—He Wants to Cut It

08 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in Deficit, Obama, Politics, Social Security

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After the news broke yesterday about President Obama putting Social Security cuts on the table in the debt ceiling talks, the White House immediately went into CYA mode:

“White House spokesman Jay Carney commented on the reports concerning Social Security cuts Thursday morning.

“There is no news here,” Carney said. “The President has always said that while social security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.”

Carney is right about one thing, there is no news here. The president has been consistent in his plans to “strengthen” and “preserve” Social Security. Like appointing Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles co-chairs of the so-called Debt Commission, which turned much of its focus to cutting strengthening Social Security by raising the retirement age (a benefit cut) and re-figuring the COLA (another cut). Never mind that SS has nothing to do with either the debt or the deficit. Simpson has made no secret of his contempt for Social Security and its recipients:

“I’ve made some plenty smart cracks about people on Social Security who milk it to the last degree. You know ’em too…We’ve reached a point now where it’s like a milk cow with 310 million tits!”

And it was Erskine Bowles who, while serving as Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff in 1997, was in the process of negotiating a deal with then-Speaker Newt Gingrich which included the partial privatization of Social Security before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and blew (so to speak) that out of the water.

Nothing new to see here. Move along.

Shared Sacrifice, 2011 Style

06 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Medicaid, Medicare, Obama

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

In light of this:

“Before Medicare was implemented—as a social-welfare program designed not just to deliver care but to poverty—one in five Americans lived below the poverty line. After the program was implemented, and after related “War on Poverty” initiatives were developed, that number was cut almost in half. Poverty among seniors dropped by two thirds.

Why? Before Medicare, millions of elderly Americans could not afford to buy healthcare. They did not have access even to basic care. When they needed treatment for the inevitable ailments that are associated with aging, they and their families spent down what meager savings that retained and a stumble into poverty soon followed.

Medicare broke the vicious cycle for the elderly, as Medicaid did for disabled Americans and their families. “For more than four decades, Medicare has kept millions of our senior citizens from living out their days in poverty,” explains one of the program’s steadiest champions, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin.

Medicare continues to serve the purpose for which it was created. Indeed, so much good continues to come of this program—and of Medicaid—that it is difficult to imagine why anyone would seek to dismantle the program.”

What the hell is up with this?

“Obama administration officials are offering to cut tens of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid in negotiations to reduce the federal budget deficit, but the depth of the cuts depends on whether Republicans are willing to accept any increases in tax revenues.

Administration officials and Republican negotiators say the money can be taken from health care providers like hospitals and nursing homes without directly imposing new costs on needy beneficiaries or radically restructuring either program.”

Yeah, right. Now tell me the one about Goldilocks and the bears.

“Before the talks led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. broke off 12 days ago, negotiators said, they had reached substantial agreement on many cuts in the growth of Medicare, which provides care to people 65 and older, and Medicaid, which covers lower-income people. Those proposals are still on the table when Congress reconvenes this week, aides said, and are serious options that Democrats could accept in exchange for Republican concessions that raise revenues.”

So in exchange for tens of billions of cuts to Medicare and Medicaid Republicans might “concede” on the much over-hyped tax break for corporate jet owners, which amounts to a whopping $300 million a year.

Shared sacrifice, 2011 style.

The Deficit Reduction Dog and Pony Show, Cont’d

05 Tuesday Jul 2011

Posted by in Deficit, economy, Obama, Politics, Taxes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Further proof that the deficit reduction talk in DC is just a dog and pony show:

“In a Wednesday news conference, the president especially pounded a depreciation provision for corporate jets, mentioning it six times.

“I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys,” Obama said. “I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.”

But as it turns out, ending the jet tax break would only save around $3 billion over a decade, while rolling back tax expenditures for oil-and-gas would bring in roughly $21 billion and a proposal aimed at hedge fund managers would collect some $15 billion over that same time span.

According to estimates from last year, ending the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000 for couples would have brought an extra $700 billion into the Treasury.”

If they were serous about reducing the deficit they would, as Willie Sutton once said, go where the money is. But where the money is is also where the large campaign contributions is, so that ends that.

R.I.P. Social Security

05 Tuesday Jul 2011

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Obama, Social Security

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

FDR didn’t foresee what would become of his party:

“We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.'”

Which is what’s happening now. Social Security is being de-funded:

“Despite warnings it will undermine Social Security, House Democratic leaders are lining up behind a White House proposal to extend a payroll-tax cut beyond this year.

Reps. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and John Larson (D-Conn.) both announced Friday that they’ll throw their weight behind the extended payroll-tax holiday, which President Obama and some leading Senate Democrats are prescribing as an economic stimulant.

[…]

A number of liberal Democrats had fought the initial tax cut, noting that the payroll tax is the sole funding stream for Social Security, which is already paying out more than it’s taking in. Behind Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the lawmakers are now continuing that campaign in the face of a proposed extension.

Earlier this month, Doggett, Ted Deutch (Fla.) and Mark Critz (Pa.) urged their Democratic colleagues to oppose any additional payroll-tax breaks. The lawmakers warned that such measures threaten Social Security’s ability to pay future benefits and defy the initial design of the program.”

But there’s no sense in just eliminating part of the funding mechanism for Social Security. If you’re gonna do it, might as well do it right:

“The existing tax holiday applies only to workers, but Obama has also floated the idea of extending it to employers as well.”

The President’s Press Conference

30 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in budget, economy, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A review of President Obama’s press conference yesterday from one W. Shakespeare: “Sound and fury signifying nothing.” Meaningless rhetoric and duplicity, with a dose of class warfare red meat to stir up the base for the 2012 election thrown in for good measure. And by my reading of the reactions from the Obama faithful in the blogosphere this morning, it worked.

The president mentions “taxing the rich” and his supporters voice their approval with a hearty, “Yeah, it’s about time, go get ‘em.” But he’s not talking about what they’re thinking about. He’s already refused to been forced to not let the Obama Bush income tax cuts expire—twice. If he was serious about deficit reduction, as Willie Sutton once said, that’s where the money is.

The “revenue increases” Obama is referring to are trivial amounts like his oft-repeated slam at the tax break for corporate jet owners. By my count he mentioned this one in particular 4 times yesterday. Eliminating this break will bring in about $300 million in additional revenue–that’s million—a year. I’m not defending the owners of corporate jets by any stretch, but $300 million out of a $1.5 trillion deficit? Talk about a drop in the proverbial bucket.

A couple of the other “revenue raisers” that the White House is floating are an adjustment in the taxation of inventory and an increase in the tax rate on carried interest. The first would bring in about $7 billion a year, the second about two. Add those to the corporate jet tax break and the total comes to around $9.3 billion a year. By comparison, the tab for the war in Afghanistan is somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion—-a month.

How many college scholarships would that pay for, Mr. President?

Obama Takes Tax Rate Increases Off the Table

28 Tuesday Jun 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics, special interests, Taxes, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

From The Hill yesterday:

“The White House, seeking an agreement to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2, on Monday said it would not insist that any deal include an end to former President George W. Bush’s controversial tax rates on the wealthy…The White House said the president is pushing the GOP to agree to eliminate some tax breaks for businesses and loopholes for wealthier taxpayers, but is not seeking to eliminate the across-the-board rates introduced by President Bush. That means taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 annually have gotten a reprieve.

Obama still wants to scrap the Bush-era rates, but with time running out on the debt-ceiling talks, he made clear Monday that he has a new range of targets.“

Translation: He’s being “forced” into it—again. Do you get it yet, Democrats? Is it starting to sink in? President Obama doesn’t want to end the Bush Obama tax rates. This makes two–count ‘em two–opportunities he’s had to make good on the smoke he blew during the 2008 campaign about ending the tax cuts. Both times he’s passed. In short, he’s just not that into you. On the other hand, he’s very much into these guys. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Oh sure, there will be some “revenue increases” included in what Dylan Ratigan appropriately calls the “pro wrestling” debt limit negotiations. Appropriate because the outcome is pre-determined, what we see now is just the preliminary theatrics. But like with so many other things the president says—like his creative interpretation of what constitutes “hostilities” for example— you have to carefully parse his words.

There will be “revenue increases” in the form of a few tax breaks ended, a few loopholes closed, and a few fees raised, but nothing that amounts to much in the big picture. Piddling amounts like this:

“Obama’s budget wants $85 billion in new user fees over 10 years, including raising the airline passenger security fee from a maximum of $5 per one-way trip to $11. Other proposals range from Food and Drug Administration food inspection fees to duck hunting fees. The $85 billion also includes federal auction of parts of the broadcast spectrum and the sale of surplus federal property.”

This is also being floated:

“The administration also would tax private equity or hedge fund managers at higher income tax rates instead of lower capital gains rates..”

Yeah, right. President Obama is going to raise taxes on the same guys he sucks up to at $35,000 a plate fundraisers. The same guys he plays kissy-face with to get contributions for his re-election campaign. That’ll be the day.

If you need further evidence of how seriously this whole song and dance is being taken by the powers that be, despite the screams about the alleged financial catastrophe that will happen if an agreement isn’t reached by August 2:

“Complicating matters is the congressional schedule. While the Senate is in session, the House is off this week ahead of the July 4 holiday. The House is scheduled to return next week when the Senate will be away.”

Pro wrestling indeed. The Hulkster would be proud.

The War in Libya Drags On….Illegally

26 Sunday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, Libya, Obama, Obama administration

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

As, “days, not weeks” in Libya enters its fourth month, and now that the top U.S. admiral in Libya has admitted that the goal is regime change, despite this…

“Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

…and this:

“Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, issued a statement acknowledging that President Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explained that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change.”

Glen Greenwald asks this question:

“Would this be an example of a President misleading the nation into an (illegal) war?  Or did the goal of the war radically change oh-so-unexpectedly a mere few weeks after it began?  Everyone can make up their own mind about which is more likely.”

Greenwald also has an explanation for the failure of Friday’s de-funding bill in the House. One that I hadn’t considered, but which makes sense:

“The so-called “de-funding” bill the House rejected yesterday was not really a de-funding bill.  It would have barred the spending of money for some war purposes, but explicitly authorized it for others.  That’s why… dozens of anti-Libya-war members in both parties voted NO on the de-funding bill: not because…they were cowards who did not have the courage of their anti-war convictions; and not because the bill would have approved some spending for a war they oppose (though that is true), but rather because they were worried (appropriately so) that had that “de-funding” bill passed, Obama lawyers would have exploited it to argue that Congress, by appropriating some money for the war, had implicitly authorized Obama to wage it.

As Ron Paul — echoing the spokesperson for House progressives — said in explaining his NO vote on “de-funding”, the bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war…instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.

That was the reason so many anti-war members of Congress — including dozens of progressives — rejected the “de-funding” bill despite opposition to the war in Libya: because it was a disguised authorization for a war they oppose, not because they cowardly failed to check executive power abuses.”

And as Greenwald also points out, regardless of the outcome of the de-funding vote, the war in Libya is still illegal:

“Congress does not need to de-fund a war to render it illegal.  Under the law (and the Constitution), military actions are illegal if Congress does not affirmatively authorize them (either within 60 days or at the start, depending on one’s view).  The fact that the President has failed to obtain that authorization renders his ongoing war-waging illegal — period.  

[…]

Of course it’s true that Congress should act to stop a President who is waging a war in violation of the law and/or the Constitution, but Presidents shouldn’t wage illegal wars in the first place.  It is frequently asserted that Article II of the Constitution vests the President with the power and obligation to defend the nation, even though nothing in Article II (or any other provision of the Constitution) actually does that.  But there is an obligation which Article II does explicitly impose on the President: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  That includes, by definition, the War Powers Resolution (and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).”