Ouch: Larry Kudlow Thinks Economy May Actually Be on Mend, With 2-3% Annualized Growth In Last Two Quarters of This Year
— Ace

Kudlow is a famously an economic optimist (under all presidents of all parties), so bear that bias in mind.

But he is a bona fide economist and professional smart-guy, so he has me worried a bit about the coming of my long-feared nightmare scenario -- Obama sabotages the economy, but not quite enough that the public realizes it, and rewards him for his sabotage.

Truth be told, respected economists like Donald Marron, Keith Hennessey, Bruce Bartlett, and Kevin Hassett have all carefully chronicled the fact that the Obama stimulus package does not feature any real fiscal multipliers. They say the bulk of the package consists of transfer payments to individuals and states, along with tax credits that will produce no real incentive effects to spur economic growth.

But the fact remains that numerous signs are now pointing to economic recovery. And the GOP needs to craft a smart political response to this. Obama and Biden will surely take credit for the better economic news, just as any White House would. It's the way the political game is played. But Republicans have to play the game, too.

...

Sen. DeMint told me during our interview that the economy is getting better mainly because of the corrective forces of free-market capitalism in the private free-enterprise sector, and not from all this government spending and borrowing. Abstracting from the Fed's big stimulus effort, he's right.

But the White House is going to take credit for economic recovery anyway, and that's the newest political challenge for the GOP.

Good point, I think. The GOP cannot afford to leave things purely to chance and put all their eggs in the economic-decline basket. True, messages mean very little, and it's facts on the ground that matter, but it can't hurt to fashion messages that emphasize the stuff that the vagaries of the economy can't and won't change (such as the exploding deficits).

It's Not Just the Unemployment, It's That Obama Misrepresented Himself to a Public Now Feeling Burned and Conned: Jennifer Rubin writes it's not merely the unemployment numbers dragging Obama down, but his dishonest pose as a moderate when he is, was, and always will be a hard liberal. ("Leftist" at heart, I suppose, but constrained by the facts of life in America to merely be a hard liberal.)

Posted by: Ace at 12:28 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

Someone Notices: Stocks Just Happen to Go Up as Democratic Agenda Crashes and Burns
— Ace

Former troll Poon always liked to point out we were having a bear-market rally.

Isn't that wonderful?

Well, bear-market rallies are no big thing, first of all. A market which debates itself whether the future outlook is "very poor" or merely "poor," oscillating between 8000 and 9000, doesn't fill me with confidence.

Secondly, though, the rally just happened to occur as it became clear that Obama's biggest wealth-destroying initiatives -- cap and tax and Department of Motor Vehicles HMOs-- were in serious trouble.

In response, the market revised its opinion from "the future looks black" to "the future looks like a shade of gray." What shade of gray? Charcoal, Fletch answered.

Brian Gardner, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, explains that when markets cratered in March, investors worried the Obama administration would nationalize the countryÂ’s banks, impose punitive rules on credit card issuers and allow judges to lower the principal and interest payments on mortgages. They saw ever-widening deficits and buckets of debt set to increase with massive healthcare legislation.

Since then, the bankruptcy bill has fizzled and nationalization talk has died out. President Barack Obama did sign a credit card bill into law, but its provisions were much weaker than the industry feared.

Separately, healthcare reform has slowed while a climate change bill imposing taxes on businesses that emit pollutants has stalled in the Senate.

...

“It’s very much a factor in what’s driving the market over the last couple weeks,” Gardner said of the slowed agenda in Washington.

Did I Say Two Biggest Wealth-Destroying Measures? I meant to mention "And Card Check is looking in bad shape too."

So bad it won't be undertaken this year.

Obama's big success consists of being a poor enough executive such that his ability to further damage the economy has been sharply limited.

Yay, Obama...? I guess.

Posted by: Ace at 11:09 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

Open Blog for Tomorrow
— Ace

Just wanted to give a head's up in case anyone wanted to write something in advance.

I'm going to be out on the road all day tomorrow.

Posted by: Ace at 10:55 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Ad: Hittin' 'Em With Both Barrels
— Ace

Posted by: Ace at 10:49 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Blue Dogs Sell Out? Agree to Move ObamaCare Forward in Exchange for $100 Billion in Imaginary Cuts?
— Ace

I'm a bit confused because there are two stories breaking, which may actually be the same story, one which suggests a victory for the anti-ObamaCare forces, the other that suggests defeat.

At Hot Air, the latest story is that the Blue Dogs have been granted a delay:

The Blue Dogs and House leaders have struck a deal to guarantee that the House will not vote on a healthcare bill before August, a leading Blue Dog said on Wednesday.

In exchange for putting off a floor vote until after Labor Day, the Energy and Commerce Committee may be allowed to continue its markup of the healthcare bill this week even if an agreement has not been reached between Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and seven Energy and Commerce Committee Blue Dogs over the content of the bill.

Asked if House leaders had told Democrats that there will be no House vote on healthcare before Friday, Blue Dog Co-Chairwoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) said, “I don’t think [leaders have] made public statements to that regard, but my understanding is that that would be part of an agreement, if they actually do move forward with an Energy and Commerce markup that there will be no vote on the House floor until after Labor Day.” …

“There has been no official announcement on floor timing, but at this point, the odds are that we will not likely vote before we adjourn for August,” a Democratic leadership aide said.

But AHFF Geoff sends me a WSJ story reporting that a deal has been struck:

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said that his committee will resume meetings on health-care legislation on Wednesday after reaching an agreement with conservative Democrats on the committee.

According to Waxman, the Energy and Commerce panel will hold a legislative session late Wednesday afternoon with the hope of approving the legislation by Friday. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who has led health-care negotiations on behalf of the fiscally-conservative Blue Dog Coalition, confirmed that Waxman and Blue Dogs on the committee had arrived at a compromise.

"We have reached an agreement that will allow health-care reform to move forward," Ross said.

Ross said that the overall cost of the bill had been reduced by $100 billion, and that a requirement in the bill that employers offer insurance coverage would exempt small businesses with payrolls of $500,000 or less.

Ross also said that a public health insurance option contained in the bill wouldn't use payment rates based on Medicare, which the Blue Dogs had strongly opposed.

It's my guess that is that in exchange for the fake-pretend "cuts," the vote is stalled, but mark-up proceeds, and, if the deal holds, ObamaCare will pass the House after the recess. Assuming we don't agitate enough to stop that.

It seems as though the Blue Dogs have accepted a deal in principle, and even if they've delayed the vote, they'll come around on it after the recess. Bear in mind that Madame Palomino only needs to pick off 13 or 14 of the 52 Blue Dogs to pass a bill on a razor-thin liberal-Democrats-only majority.

Drew's Guess: Drew seems a bit more sanguine that me. He thinks all that's happened here is that the Blue Dogs have agreed to something that the liberals can herald as a "breakthrough" and "serious progress," thus giving Pelosi and Obama some face-saving cover;

Here's my thought on what the Blue Dogs did...they gave Pelosi and Obama a way to save face.

Combine a marked up bill in the House with the possibility of a Senate Finance Committee report on how they might pay for something and Obama and the Democrats are likely to declare "Mission Accomplished-Kinda Sorta" on his August deadline.

Sure there's no bill for the President to sign but he'll say something like, "This is more than anyone has ever accomplished and it met my deadline. I won, I'm awesome". The press will dutifully agree.

No bill at all would have hurt the Dems and been a big Republican win but having a bill gives opponents something concrete to hit Congressmen and Senators over the head with. It's not as big a win as outright defeat would have been but it does provide an upside for opponents.

In this telling, there is no serious agreement or deal at all, just a fig leaf of contrived "progress" for the liberals to go home to their constituents with.

Hmmm. I think Drew's right, and I don't think I think that just because it's the more optimistic "We're still winning" scenario.

Out of Committee By End of Week: That's the plan. No full House vote, but the plan is to vote it out of committee in a "finalized" (supposedly) form.

I'm back to thinking Drew is wrong. Again, it only takes a baker's dozen of these supposedly moderate Democrats to pass this thing with the thinnest margin.

Tactical Blunder? So thinks Ed in an update to the already-linked post:

If theyÂ’re right, this is a tremendously stupid move by Democrats. It gives the Republicans a fixed target for the next few weeks, with an ability to cite the actual legislation and pick it apart, while painting moderate Democrats as fools who havenÂ’t bothered to read it. Having no final version of the bill would have allowed Democrats to dodge questions about it. This makes them stand on the bill for weeks without getting moved out of way. Call it political target practice, practically akin to shooting ducks in a barrel, for the GOP.

Yes, but that's inevitable, isn't it? At some point they do have to produce a bill before voting on a bill. (Although they seem to be rather relaxed about this rule of late.)

While Ed's right about the problem of putting out a bill that can be attacked, that problem has to be compared to the previously-existing problem -- not having a bill to discuss at all, despite Obama's insistence that the time to debate was over and we had to immediately pass a bill which not only hadn't been written yet, but in fact whose basic contours were not even agreed to by anyone.

On the great "cuts" demanded by the Blue Dogs, bear in mind the $100 billion in cuts only take the total expense to somewhat less than one trillion dollars.

Furthermore, the cuts won't happen. So much of this debate is patently dishonest, as Obama and the Democrats deny rationing that will happen, and plump cuts that won't.

Phone Numbers: Under the fold. Pay special attention to guys who represent you. Or are at least in your state.

Be Nice, as tmi3rd sagely advises. If you give the signals that you'll vote for their opponents no matter what they do, well, they're not going to take you very seriously, are they? If you're a determined vote against them, they can't lose or win your vote.

On that point: Be wary of rhetoric and cant, which gives away a partisan. Words like "socialized," "tyranny," etc., mark you as ideologically opposed to them and ergo not even a possible vote for them. Put your objections in terms of the tangible, not the abstract.

Stuff that independents talk about: Higher taxes, rationed care, being forced into the equivalent of a government-run HMO, "co-ops" specifically intended to drive private insurers out of business, etc. Update: And, yeah, deficits forever. Why the hell are we taking on huge new spending obligations when we're already hemorrhaging money and in the midst of a great recession? Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but at least LBJ's Great Society spending was passed when the nation was prosperous and flush.

Remind them that 85% of the country is content with their health insurance and that it's unfair to ask you to do with less so that others might (maybe) have more.

It might be more fun to talk about abstractions and in rhetorical flourishes and slippery slopes, but swing voters are defined chiefly by a lack of adherence to an ideological superstructure of beliefs and assumptions, and focus, therefore, on the particulars and the concrete, not general principles and the abstract.

Not saying to lie about your ideological preference. No need to mention it either way. But cast your objections in tangible terms if you want to give the impression you're a swing voter.

To be honest, my own eyes glaze over when I hear or read a lot of rightist cant, and I'm in basic agreement with that cant.

A Nifty Widget for Sending Messages... Although of course you shouldn't send anything like the "editable text" provided. It's obviously composed by an opposition strategist.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff again for the widget and phone numbers.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:12 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 1876 words, total size 12 kb.

And So Begins The Coming Robot Apocalypse
— DrewM

Even robots don't like those snowback Scandis.

A Swedish company has been fined 25,000 kronor ($3,000) after a malfunctioning robot attacked and almost killed one of its workers at a factory north of Stockholm.

...The incident took place in June 2007 at a factory in BÃ¥lsta, north of Stockholm, when the industrial worker was trying to carry out maintenance on a defective machine generally used to lift heavy rocks. Thinking he had cut off the power supply, the man approached the robot with no sense of trepidation.

But the robot suddenly came to life and grabbed a tight hold of the victim's head. The man succeeded in defending himself but not before suffering serious injuries.

"The man was very lucky. He broke four ribs and came close to losing his life," said Leif Johansson.

Lessons learned...never approach a "robot with no sense of trepidation" and Scandis are going to be the death of us all.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:52 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrats: You're Stupid, So We're Going to Blame Bush
— Slublog

With President Barack Obama's poll numbers falling to earth, he's decided to embark on a bold new initiative - blaming former President Bush for the country's woes.

Didn't see that coming. Democratic strategists are supporting the president in the only way they know how - engaging in mind-numbing spin:

"I'm not convinced that Obama and his supporters are bashing Bush as much as they are quite rightfully reminding people that our current economic mess and the wars were inherited from the Bush administration," said Democratic strategist Bud Jackson. "It's important to remind people of this because Republicans are now criticizing the Obama administration as if they had no role in how we got here."

Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon said the strategy of blaming the previous team has been effective.

"I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it?" she said. "Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months."

Read that bold section again. You've got to wonder how much cranial fecal impaction it takes for someone to believe that statement. First off, she implies that all of you are idiots who can't remember what life was like three or four years ago. Second, her implication that the current economic conditions are worse than what we 'suffered' under George W. Hooverbush.

Let's look at the facts, shall we?

The unemployment rate went from 5.2% in January 2005 to 7.2% in December 2008. Overall, the average in that time was 5.03% President Obama signed the stimulus package in February of 2009 when the unemployment rate was still at 7.6% He promised the spending would keep the rate from going above 8%. It is now 9.5%, with no signs that it will improve in the near future. The state numbers are even worse.

2.6 million people lost their jobs in 2008. 2 million more have lost jobs since Jan 09.

Obama has repeatedly blamed the high deficits on the Bush administration, but his policies will only increase the nation's debt.

Average GDP from Jan 05 to Dec 08 was 1.68% In the first quarter of Jan 09, it's -5.5. There has been some moderate growth from the last quarter of Dec 08, but still far below the level warranting the level of hyperbole used by Ms. Chadderdon.

The Obama administration says we have to 'spend money to keep from going bankrupt.' They're basing their faith in spending on the Keynsian multiplier effect, but even Keynes himself warned against combining recovery with economic reform:

...even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action, before you have had time to put other motives in their place...

Full text of Keynes letter here. Obama's two signature proposals are cap-and-trade and healthcare reform. Neither will help the economy, and in fact, they may actually hurt it.

Had Ms. Chadderdon been less enamored with Bush-bashing and capable of more restraint in her speech, she could have said the first six months of the Obama administration have been better than the last six months of the Bush. Even that would have been something of a stretch, but it would have made her spin a bit more believable.

I say a bit because none of the spinners take into account what Obama's policies will necessitate: higher taxes on the middle class. Candidate Obama may have promised that your taxes wouldn't go up, but remember that every Obama promise comes with an expiration date.

Posted by: Slublog at 06:07 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 627 words, total size 5 kb.

Headlines...
— DrewM

No Gabe today, so it's a, um, a little late.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:52 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Overnight Open Thread – (genghis)
— Open Blog

Here at the ONT we donÂ’t generally indulge ourselves in sentimental or Oprah-like moments (being the crass, drunken, unwashed freaks that we are) but tonight IÂ’d like to pay a brief tribute to a hero. ThatÂ’s a term that gets thrown around way too often these days and applied to people who donÂ’t merit the distinction (pro athletes, me, entertainers, me etc. Did I mention me?). All screwing around aside though, I think hereÂ’s a guy who truly deserves that title. HereÂ’s the first couple of paragraphs but you should read the whole thing. It not long and wonÂ’t strain your attention span too much.

”KELSO, Wash. (AP) - Allen Heck has been hailed a hero since running into the Cowlitz River last week to save a 9-year-old girl, losing his own life in the process. Unknown by most is that Heck was an extremely ill young homeless man with the simple goal of living to his 21st birthday. The 20-year-old Longview man had drifted for about three years after diabetes barred him from the only job he ever wanted - serving in the Army. Directionless, he made some bad decisions, family and friends admit, and was living at the Community House shelter at the time of the drowning.”

I canÂ’t quite put my finger on it (and I donÂ’t want to get into a lengthy discussion concerning theological questionsÂ…you can if you want), but there seems to be an underlying story here about redemption along with the fact that even what could be considered a failure of a life ended up making all the difference in the world on one hot summer day at a swimming hole.

But if you need some lighter fare, hereÂ’s a couple of stories that might keep you entertained (below the fold)
more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 05:40 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

Ezra Klein, Who Has the Beautiful Luxury of Not Working for An Organization, Except Now He's Going to Be Diplomatic, Explains Health Insurance Exchanges
— Dave in Texas

Building the beginnings of a new, better healthcare system off to the side.

They're not at all intended to hoodwink the public into accepting single-payer by pretending it's something else.

Ah the lure of lower costs and improved quality.

Compared with the crazy-quilt system we have now, the idea behind the health insurance exchange is almost weirdly simple: It's a single market, structured for consumer convenience, in which you choose between the products of competing health insurers (both public and private). This is not a new idea. It is how we buy everything from books to socks to soup.

Which, incidentally, is not how we buy books and socks and soup, not from the federal government. Hell, we've only been buying cars from them for a few weeks now.

He explains the two flavors, called "strong plan" and "weak plan". Both in his view are just a means to an end, when he doesn't have to be diplomatic. But despite his obvious bias he writes they are both just competitive options to the private industry (which he wishes we could wipe away with the stroke of a pen).

Nonsense. It's absurd to assert that private insurors can hope to compete with a federally-backed public "option" that can dictate terms and conditions to providers (as it does now) instead of having to negotiate them. Private insurors cannot compete with a public option while unencumbered with the requirement to hold cash reserves to fund its plan (a public plan needs none of this, it will merely suck more obligations from the treasury).

It's almost "weirdly simple" because it's "weirdly made-up bullshit intended to sound like a smorgasboard of health care" while moving us down the road to the only fair system that could possibly work, that 86% of Americans don't want, only one choice that is no choice at all.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:21 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.