Not even trying to hide it.

Wilkommen to your new feudal America, where everything is palace intrigue and political plotting.

I wonder if this has anything to do with anything.

Background: More on the ACCCE regime here.

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (143)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

"Cutting expenditures in the tax code" is Obama's code for "increase taxes by ending credits and deductions," of course.

Meanwhile, Hollywood gets a big fat subsidy for productions in America.

Here's the thing: As Russ tried to say with regard to ethanol tax subsidies, it's hard for conservatives to get too upset that someone is getting a tax break.

But the problem is that this system is feudal, with the well-connected and politically favored getting a special lower tax rate while the unconnected and politically disfavored pay full freight.

We pay more so that some can pay less.

The other interesting thing I note is that liberals always seem to understand that lower taxes spur economic activity -- but if and only if it is themselves getting the favorable tax treatment.

Hollywood of course lobbied for this special break, most likely to keep productions from moving to other countries (first England, and lately, Canada).

So when it comes to their industry, they get that higher taxes --and higher production costs due to unionized labor!-- create a barrier to economic production, and lower taxes and lower production costs due to cheaper labor create an environment for economic creativity.

But when it comes to every other industry? Every other American?

Suddenly they get dumb and pretend like they forgot about this.

Alec Baldwin, I'm sure, is currently the beneficiary of a special break for productions filmed in New York City.

But will he ever extend his thinking to realize that maybe lower taxes are good for all other sectors, too?

No, of course not. They want their own Special Rules for Special People, and they want everyone else to pay through the nose to cover the Special People's compassion-spending.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

A Concerned Chad Harper weighs in. Punked: Average Joe says this was him, like 4th letter of every seventh word or something. But the IP did read Chicago. Hmm.

Plouffe's book, "The Audacity to Win" convinced me that he's pretty astute. It's NOT the economy in states where employers are hiring. And Obama can always just talk tough on other issues like immigration and reproductive choice while avoiding fiscal topics.

Plouffe realizes that evading the hard subjects is something both sides do, so Obama won't look particulary bad compared to the challenger. Anyway, the expertise of the GOP's three frontrunners (Romney, Bachmann, Palin) on economic matters is at best equal to Obama's so they're not going to have an edge on that issue in the general election.

Just for fun, I looked up his IP, wondering if it would turn out to be DC or Chicago.

UNITED STATES ILLINOIS CHICAGO

Chicago it is.

Posted by: Ace at 11:09 AM | Comments (171)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

This isn't a double-post, swearsies. But for background, as mentioned by Laura, the liberals controlling Connecticut just passed the largest tax increase in state history, to the tune of $3.4 billion.

Now, that was, according to Malloy, supposed to be a compromise. See, in exchange for the $3.4 billion in fresh taxes, Malloy was also proposing $2 billion in spending cuts. The biggest part of this was $1.6 billion in concessions from the public employee unions.

Well, apparently, these were introduced to the legislature as two separate measures.

And you just will not believe what happened.

Oh wait, yes you will, since you already guessed it: The legislature passed the $3.4 billion tax increases but rejected the $1.6 billion in public union spending cuts.

Wonderful.

Correction: Laura tells me I have this wrong-- Malloy negotiated the "compromise" with the unions, and the unions were supposed to vote in favor of the concessions. The unions voted them down. Laura adds that this now makes the whole budget unconstitutional, as Connecticut must have a balanced budget.

A couple of weeks ago Malloy baited Christie by supercilliously lecturing him on how conciliation and compromise were oh-so-much-better than his bluster and budget cuts.

So now Christie asks: How's that workin' out for you, Champ?

The upshot is that Connecticut closed part of its deficit with huge tax increases, but did not get spending cuts to cut the rest, so Connecticut will now also have to lay people off -- just like in New Jersey -- but Connecticut taxpayers will now have to pay even more in taxes to support a smaller public union workforce.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Okay, okay, now I know I double-posted Dave. And now I'm kind of doing it again.

But not really. (I hope.)

When David "The Pluff" Ploufle made his Let Them Eat Hope remark, there was always the possibility that was just some dumb shit he made up on his own.

But spokesincompetent Jay Carney is repeating it.

This is actually their approved, vetted message, then.

Message discipline? President Obama emerged from the Oval Office under cloudy skies Friday morning to declare that "what matters most" to himself and Americans is getting the economy back on track -- including job creation.

Politico claims that this is a "contrast" to Pfoufle's statement -- I don't see it that way. I see this as another way to advance the message that "results don't matter, just whether people feel Obama is trying his little heart out."

Obama continues casting this as an item on his To Do list, when in fact it should be on his To Did list -- it should have happened in Winter/Spring 2009.

By the way: Does it make sense to say "The economy sucks, but that's okay, because people vote based on how they personally 'feel' about the economy?"

Right, I know: Dave covered that, too. But here is some data:

If Plouffe is right, it's still not good news for Obama. A June poll by the Pew Center for the People & the Press found 61 percent of Americans rate their own financial condition as only fair or poor, concurrent to a drop in the president's job approval rating. And 66 percent said they expect the economy will be the same or worse a year from now.

It's absurd to postulate that while we have a 16.4% real unemployment rate people "feel" good about it.

Carney defends The Pluff's remarks:

"Most people do not sit around the kitchen table and analyze GDP and unemployment numbers," Carney said. "They talk about how they feel, their own economic situation ... whether they're making their house payments."

The spokesincompetent says that people should give Obama a pass because they're making their house payments.

Hm.

Guess he didn't hear the news.

And you'll be happy to know Obama's no longer blaming Bush.

No. This is too big.

He's blaming God.

WeÂ’ve always known that weÂ’d have ups and downs on our way back from this recession. And over the past few months, the economy has experienced some tough headwinds -- from natural disasters, to spikes in gas prices, to state and local budget cuts that have cost tens of thousands of cops and firefighters and teachers their jobs. The problems in Greece and in Europe, along with uncertainty over whether the debt limit here in the United States will be raised, have also made businesses hesitant to invest more aggressively.

Wow, a lot of villains to blame there.

I notice that he only seems concerned about public union layoffs.

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (114)
Post contains 509 words, total size 3 kb.

There is spin.

And then there is Obama.

O Hai...!: David "The Pluff" Plouffle

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Plouffe said, according to Bloomberg. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ”

Remarkable. 220 years of American politically history is hereby repealed.

Because Obama is just so unprecedented.

The remarks will likely irritate Democrats who think Obama and his political team have taken their eye off jobs.

True as far as it goes -- but notice how the media prefers to cover dire economic news as if it's merely a political problem, to be solved with focus groups and speeches.

Suddenly the media isn't interested in feeling our pain, eh?

ThereÂ’s some reason to think Obama could get a boost from the economy in the second half of the year, particularly given signs that the White House and congressional Republicans are moving closer to a deal that would lift the nationÂ’s debt ceiling and cut trillions from annual deficits.

ThereÂ’s no doubt such a deal would boost confidence in the economy and the political system. It could also boost hiring.

Also true. This could very well happen -- if Obama made a move towards correcting our unsustainable debt and thereby gave confidence to wealth creators.

But I don't think he will.

In a perverse way (and I hope no one is thinking like this), Republicans would profit by letting Obama be Obama.

...

The only real improvement in the labor market since the recession ended is with workers who have decided to sit out the slow economy and not look for a new job. ThatÂ’s helped keep the unemployment rate low, Shierholz said.

Yup. Only the sheer awfulness of the jobs market, discouraging millions from even seeking work, keeps the number at the understated 9.2% level.

Worse and Worse: "No way to sugarcoat it."

This number was outside the standard deviation of expectations. I really canÂ’t stress how ugly it is. There is no way to sugarcoat it. The economic policies used since October of 2008 are an abject and total failure. Not only that, but they have put the finances of the country in a precarious position that was not unforeseen.

Table A-15 in the BLS report is really all you need to look at. There are no silver linings in this report. U-6 jumped by .4%. 16.2% of all Americans that want to find a job canÂ’t. Those are Americans that are actually seeking work. Thousands have gotten frustrated and simply stopped looking and arenÂ’t included in those numbers.

That's the often-called "real unemployment rate," a measure of discouraged workers or workers working part-time for survival when they seek a full-time job.

Remember during Bush? You used to hear about U-6 a lot to cast some doubt on his primary unemployment figures of 5-6%. They liked to talk up how U-6 was a the horrific level of 9%. Maybe even 9.5%!!!

Table A-12 shows how bad it is. The mean time looking for work is 39.9 weeks, with a median duration of 22.5. Both numbers up from 39.7 and 22.0. There are only 52 weeks in a year, the average job hunt takes the better part of it. The labor force participation rate is at a 25 year low, 64.1%.

It is too early to say this but it we are coming soon to the point where it won't be too early:

Obama is done.

Pic via this WSJ article, noting Romney suggests that The Pluff should be added to the unemployment lines for this comment. Suggested by sooth3PO.

Ooops: Seems like Dave did this at 8:00.

Well, as I say, it's not a double-post, it's a recontextualization.

Posted by: Ace at 09:56 AM | Comments (221)
Post contains 680 words, total size 5 kb.

Demplosion.

Unsubstantiated leak from the Los Angeles County Registrar of voters:
"Vote by Mail returns have Hahn leading by 733 votes." This in a district where Democrats have an 18-point registration advantage. Hahn's gang efforts are biting her, despite the controversy whipped up over the anti-Hahn ad that has been mentioned here before.

If you want to help and pull an upset win (perhaps revenge for NY-26), click here and volunteer.

Posted by: CAC at 09:35 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Nightmare In Connecticut

If you watch the national media, very little is being said about the fringe-lib experiment growing like a little tumor just above America's armpit. I don't think they want to hype it, for some reason.

They won so little in 2010, you'd think they'd be proud! Go figure.

Repub-Lite governors have kept the worst instincts of lefty-lib policy in check for over twenty years here (keep that in mind when you say you'd rather have a commie than a RINO), but Democrat Dannel Malloy won the last election to become governor of the pretty little State of Connecticut, with an ironclad Dem legislative majority.

...speaking of pretty, do you feel pretty? Huh, punk?
more...

Posted by: LauraW at 09:00 AM | Comments (165)
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

Liftoff is 11:26 EDT. Two streaming videos below the fold.

Obama threw stimulus money away on garbage, so he can't keep the shuttles flying. Another unprecedented achievement for the White House. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 07:35 AM | Comments (387)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

9.2% headline unemployment rate. A mere 18,000 jobs created in June. April and May job creation revised downwards.

Is this the "hope" part or the "change" part? Maybe Dear Reader will tell us at the presser he hastily scheduled for 10:35am right before the jobs numbers came out.

Somewhat related: James Pethokoukis (or as Kudlow says, "Jimmy P.") has taken to updating Geoff's unemployment chart, and I found this when I went over to his blog to see if the new one was out: Why the GOP Should Reject Taxes In One Chart

More details provided by Americans for Tax Reform.

The Who provides musical accompaniment below the fold. more...

Posted by: andy at 06:15 AM | Comments (280)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.