Rick Perry, that dummy.

AUSTIN – Standard & Poor’s (S&P) has raised Texas’ issuer credit and general obligation credit ratings to AA+ from AA based on the state’s strong and diverse economy and strong leadership from the governor and Legislature that has left a projected $9 billion in the state’s Rainy Day Fund. S&P also raised its rating on the state’s appropriation debt to AA from AA-.

“The ratings continue to reflect our opinion of the state's large and steadily diversifying economy, which despite the recession continues to perform better than the nation in terms of both economic activity and employment,” S&P credit analyst Horacio Aldrete-Sanchez said. “Furthermore, we expect that the Texas economy will recover earlier and at a faster rate than most other states given its continued population growth and relatively low cost of doing business, which we expect will contribute to gradual employment gains in 2010, particularly in the health, education and services sectors.”

S&PÂ’s decision was based on TexasÂ’ 2010-11 biennial budget, the stateÂ’s strong Rainy Day Fund, and TexasÂ’ low tax-supported debt burden. The higher rating means Texas will pay lower interest on money it borrows, saving of millions of taxpayer dollars.

So, the US' rating dropped from AAA to AA+, and Texas' rating rose from AA to AA+.

They're currently equal.

Thanks to Dave in Texas.

Posted by: Ace at 05:10 PM | Comments (120)
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

They pulled the trigger. We're officially no longer prime investment grade.

There has been some argument about the numbers here. The administration claimed there was a $2 trillion error (against the US's favor) in S&P's calculations, and the administration challenged that error.

Honestly, I thought that was probably bullshit and said so on Twitter: I happen to know the Obama Administration is fond of double-counting and faked numbers, so why should I give their claims credence?

Not sure how all of that worked out, but S&P ultimately rejected the argument.

Posted by: Ace at 04:34 PM | Comments (432)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

This isn't anything new; they always do this. It's a wonder they even bother spending money on polls at all.

If the polls support a Democratic position, that goes in the headline, of course.

But if the polls do not support the Democratic position, they "read deeper," past the big-ticket questions any real news organization would focus on, to soft, meaningless stuff like Public Still Not Embracing British Celebrity Chefs; Gordon Ramsey, Jamie Oliver Hardest Hit.

Their new poll finds a good-sized plurality of 44% do not think the government cuts went far enough.

44%. That is as close to a majority on this type of thing as you're likely to get.

But they mention that, briefly, only in paragraph nine, choosing instead to emphasize the duh-no-shit finding that 62% of the public is more interested in jobs (an immediate concern) than debt (a future one).

This isn't really a pro-Obama finding, but at least it's not expressly anti-Obama like that 44%-want-deeper-cuts finding. What they focus on is, at least, pro-Obama in as much as it's not completely contrary to his stated talking points.

It just so happens that Obama's new (well, new for the seventh time) talking point is "The public wants Congress to act on jobs, not debt," and Great Googly Moogly, if the Times isn't Johnny On The Spot to say "Yes, sir!"

Childish.

Oh: Actually, the headline is about 82% of the public disapproving of Congress; again, this is a datum intended to suggest the public hates the Republican House. But if 44% of the public didn't think the cuts went far enough -- what does this say about a large chunk of that 82% disapproval? Answer: That disapproval is from the right, which wants a more Tea Partyish Congress. But the NYT is "intellectually incurious," of course.

They think their soft-headed readership is too juvenile to handle information that might upset them, and, frankly, they know their audience all too well.

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (82)
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

Too much here to quote. Read the whole thing.

The failed federal anti-gunrunning program known as Operation Fast and Furious got so out of control in November 2009, it appeared the U.S. government was single-handedly "arming for war" the Sinaloa Cartel, documents show, even as U.S. officials kept lying to fellow agents in Mexico about the volume of guns it helped send south of the border.

...

Meanwhile, the report claims the agents' superiors in Washington met every Tuesday, to review the latest sales figures and the number of guns recovered in Mexico.

"How long are you going to let this go on?" Steve Martin, an assistant director of intelligence operations asked the ATF top brass at meeting Jan. 5, 2010...

Meanwhile, ATF agents in Mexico were seeing a flood of weapons coming south. When asked, ATF brass told the resident ATF attaché in Mexico things were "under control."

"They were afraid I was going to brief the ambassador on it or brief the government of Mexico," said Darren Gil, former ATF attaché in Mexico.
For months, officials assured Gil that Fast and Furious was going to be "shut down," but it wasn't.

"We're getting hurt down here," Gil told ATF International Affairs Chief Daniel Kumor.

Kumor reportedly raised Gil's concerns and was told the case "was going great," and nothing happened until the death of Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

...

The precise number of casualties in Mexico isn't known, but ATF officials confirm the murder of Mario Gonzales Rodriguez, brother of the Chihuahua attorney general, with a Fast and Furious gun.

According to the report, the U.S. knew for eight months of the link between the ATF operation and his death, but refused to tell any Mexican officials. Finally the acting ATF attaché told the Mexican Attorney General Maricela Morales. Her reply, "Hijole," which translates into "Oh my."

There's more there too, and someone will have to explain this new wrinkle to me:

1, We already knew they weren't following the guns, which is preposterous enough, but instead,

2, Apparently the idea was that they were to follow the money used to buy them... but then weren't allowed to follow the money, either.

What?

Newell said the purpose of the operation was to dismantle the entire Mexican cartel but agents testified they were not allowed to do that when they saw transfers of money and weren't permitted to follow the money.

Newell, who as I noted earlier is courting a perjury prosecution, was kind enough to acknowledge that maybe some mistakes were made.

Let's see if I have this straight:

The smartest administration in the history of the world conceived of this plan.

The plan was to just let thousands of weapons flow to murderous drug cartels.

And then take those cartels down.

But they didn't take the cartels down, because they didn't track the guns.

They instead were to follow the money, but they also didn't do that.

A US border agent was killed due to the illegal arms sent to a neighboring sovereign country in this massive covert operation.

In addition, so was the brother of a Mexican attorney general.

So were a number of other Mexican citizens murdered with these weapons -- we don't know the number yet.

In conducting this massive covert action, we lied to officials in this neighboring sovereign country, even though their people (and cops, and officials) were getting killed with our weapons.

As far as I know, we haven't taken any action beyond arresting a few straw buyers... who could have easily been arrested, with the weapons, when they attempted to smuggled them or sell them.

We have not taken down any cartels at all.

In fact, we've not done anything except murdered people by indirect, but perfectly foreseeable, US covert action.

And the only outlet that is following this is FoxNews, so you can tell Fox is biased.

Posted by: Ace at 02:31 PM | Comments (287)
Post contains 706 words, total size 4 kb.

But that's okay, because Froma Harrop said that it's okay if it's true.

I think this guy has some updates to add to his "New Tone" graphic.

If such hate speech causes murders, as Clifford May notes the NYT alleging again in connection with the Norway massacre (apparently unaware that its major columnists are indulging in hate speech every single column), I'm curious to know how many left-wing assassins the left believes it is owed.

From Truman North's sidebar link; thanks to Instapundit for the Althouse link.

Posted by: Ace at 02:04 PM | Comments (85)
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

In the sidebar, you'll notice an article about a rumor of a downgrade, scheduled for after today's close. However, that was just a rumor, and the original sourcing was weak (it was thought someone from Barclays knew something, but he then said he didn't).

But now Jake Tapper has a government official saying they do in fact expect a downgrade, down from AAA to either AA+ or AA.

The claim is made that it's... Republicans' fault, for not agreeing to tax hikes.

A source says Republicans saying that they refuse to accept any tax increases as part of a larger deal will be part of the reason cited.

BTW, where are Obama's transcripts?

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (257)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

There are protest primary challenges and there are bona fide primary challenges. Ralph Nader is probably right that there is a "almost 100% chance" Obama will be primaried, but most likely by a fringey candidate like Dennis Kucinich or Van Jones, if she's a Democrat again, Cynthia McKinney.

The only question, he said, is the stature of that opponent and whether it will be either “an ex-senator or an ex-governor” or “an intellectual leader or an environmental leader.”

Or a Communist, or a Jew-hating lunatic. Don't forget those options.

Obama has little to fear from the left as far as primary "opponent." Such an opponent will just be there to make some noise for the fightin' fightin' Progressive nutroots, and supposedly "pull him to the left," as if he isn't as far over to the left as he can reasonably manage.

A real primary opponent would be more of a centrist, like Evan Bayh or, Goodness Gracious, Hillary!

During the 2008 presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton ran an ad called "3 a.m. phone call." The ad juxtaposed pictures of sleeping children with the insistent ring of a telephone. A grave voice asked us to consider who we would want in the White House when the phone rang at 3 a.m. with news of trouble. The message was clear: Barack Obama lacked the strength to be president.

I remember how angry that ad made me. I was newly hired as a junior professor, working hard to get tenure. My nonworking hours were, however, devoted almost entirely to getting Obama elected.

...

Like most Americans, I've spent the last several weeks watching in disbelief as Washington edged closer to defaulting on the nation's debt. And now that the crisis is over, I'm even angrier. Obama has handed the GOP a victory that is disproportionate to either their real leverage (the GOP controls only one house of Congress) or the appeal of their ideas (Americans favor deficit reduction plans that include both spending cuts and tax increases over the GOP's single-minded focus on cuts). The only thing the Republicans really had going for them was their determination to debauch the creditworthiness of the United States if they didn't get their way. But against a weak president, that was enough.

...

I'm not a political expert, so I don't know if Obama can be re-elected. I only know he shouldn't be. He has broken with the faith that has sustained Democrats since the 1930s — faith in the power of government to soften inequality, and to provide some measure of security for the old, the poor and the sick.

Hillary, I'm sorry for not listening to you back in 2008. But perhaps you'll give me another chance. Resign as secretary of state, and run against Obama in 2012. I will work my heart out for you. And I bet that millions of other angry Democrats will be with me.

Could this happen? I think no, with "almost 100%" certainty.

Imagine if the GOP had a president beloved by the right -- Say, President Sarah Palin. Suppose she found herself in political trouble, and had compromised with the center-left on something or other.

Now suppose that someone not really beloved on the right -- say, Jeb Bush -- primaried her. And won.

What would be Jeb Bush's chances of winning the upcoming general election? Slightly less than half the party would hate him. Many would not vote.

That's what would happen were Hillary (or Bayh, or any other legitimate potential candidate) were to run against Obama. They couldn't win the primary, but if he or she did somehow win the primary, he or she couldn't win the general, because the party would essentially have been blown up, split in two, furiously angry at each other.

Imagine a white Democrat actually beat the First Historic Unprecedented Black President in a primary challenge.

Can you imagine?

You probably can't. It's almost unthinkable.

52% of the country thinks Obama is a bad president and does not deserve reelection.

But 33% of the country still thinks he's Captain Awesome. We call these people "the Democratic Base."

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 PM | Comments (112)
Post contains 714 words, total size 4 kb.

They already did lower their forecasts recently -- in mid-july.

Following another week of weak economic data, we have cut our estimates for real GDP growth in the second and third quarter of 2011 to 1.5% and 2.5%, respectively, from 2% and 3.25%. Our forecasts for Q4 and 2012 are under review, but even excluding any further changes we now expect the unemployment rate to come down only modestly to 8¾% at the end of 2012.

Contrast that to the White House's own previous projections:

Starting in 2011, with Obamanomics fully in gear and the recession over, growth would take off. GDP would rise 4.3 percent in 2011, followed by Â… 4.3 percent growth in 2012 and 2013, too! And 2014? Another year of 4.0 percent growth. Off to the races, America.

America is BACK!, baby.

Less than three weeks later, it's time for another downward revision.

We have lowered our forecast for US real GDP growth further and now expect real GDP to grow just 2%-2½% through the end of 2012. Our forecast for annual average GDP growth has fallen to 1.7% in 2011 (from 1.8%) and to 2.1% in 2012 (from 3.0%). Since this pace is slightly below the US economy’s potential, we now expect the unemployment rate to be at 9¼% by the end of 2012, slightly above the current level.

2. Even our new forecast is subject to meaningful downside risk. We now see a one-in-three risk of renewed recession, mostly concentrated in the next 6-9 months.

Because 2.5% is the level at which it is believed you actually add jobs above population growth -- and Obama's economy is no longer projected to hit even that just-breaking-even point, except in late 2012 -- their unemployment figure has been bumped from 8.75% (old projection) to 9.25% (new projection) for the 2012 elections. That's a half-percent uptick.

That would also mean there will be no real change in the unemployment figure from now until the elections (apart from 0.1% changes up and down, mostly due not to more jobs, but to more people so discouraged they've given up even seeking work and hence have removed themselves from the official count of the unemployed.

As is usually the case, there is far more than meets the eye to the Labor DepartmentÂ’s report that the economy added 117,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate fell to 9.1 percent.

LetÂ’s start with the reality that fewer people actually were working in July than in June.

According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics breakdown, there were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before, or a drop of 38,000.

But the job creation number was positive and the unemployment rate went down, right? So how does that work?

It’s a product of something the government calls “discouraged workers,” or those who were unemployed but not out looking for work during the reporting period.

This is where the numbers showed a really big spike—up from 982,000 to 1.119 million, a difference of 137,000 or a 14 percent increase. These folks are generally not included in the government’s various job measures.

Actually it may be worse than even that. The article notes the Bureau of Labor Statistics employs a "birth-death" business model, assuming a certain number of new businesses are started, but are not included in the numbers because no one knows to contact those businesses. So they make up some number of employees they assume are at currently-unknown businesses.

The writer calls this "voodoo," and I'm thinking it's just that. Even if that model holds in a normal economy, 1, it's just a guess, and 2, this is not a normal economy.

And if you think Obama's bureaucrats have revised that model's numbers down to reflect the harsh reality of our situation, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in. Nice river views, "charmed by the decades."

And even all this assumes no actual double-dip -- which even the New York Times (!!!) now contemplates may be already occurring.

If this is the beginning of a new double dip, it will have two significant things in common with the dual recessions of 1980 and 1981-82.

That's all I can quote, because the rest of the article argues the second-dip is all the fault of Republicans, because, see, they started arguing about the debt limit and therefore took away that Keynesian magic that had gotten us growth rates as high as zero point four percent in the first quarter 2011 (before Republicans did anything to change anything).*

The New York Times has exited Look What Obama's Done For You mode and entered It's Their Fault mode.

That's a leading economic indicator right there.

* A commenter has pointed out that 0.4 was actually the grade point average of one of the guys from Animal House, maybe Flounder. Telling.

Oh, and where's Obama's transcript?

Posted by: Ace at 11:38 AM | Comments (174)
Post contains 834 words, total size 5 kb.

I've been hearing chatter about the double-taxation of income earned in foreign countries -- it is subject to a second tax in America, after the country in which it originated has already taxed it, so corporations tend to let it lie where it was earned, rather than repatriate it back home.

But what if there were a year-long moratorium on this tax?

Krauthammer discusses whether Obama's got any anti-recessionary weapons left:

. I think if youÂ’ve got $1 trillion sitting overseas that itÂ’s staying overseas because if you bring it home itÂ’s subject to double taxation. What you do is you give a holiday, a moratorium. Â… I think the reason that Obama doesnÂ’t want to do it is that when he sees $1 trillion over there is untaxed, he gets physical pain as a result.

Second suggestion — how about a one-year moratorium on regulations? Obama imagines that acting on the economy is always creating a program, spending money, infrastructure, and all of this stuff. How about undoing the foot he’s had on the neck of this economy? The NLRB, the EPA, shutting down our drilling, shale, and all these other resources — try to cull, cleanse. A year of moratorium, roll back some of that, and you’ll see, at least in energy, a real spurt in economic growth.

Obama is, of course, dumb. (Where's his transcripts?)

While he'd howl at the thought of evil corporations not being taxed on a trillion dollars brought into America, he is too stupid to comprehend that that money, once here, would be put to all sorts of productive -- and quite taxable -- purposes.

Few stuff money into a mattress. That trillion would be put to work, and that work would all wind up being taxed.

Oh, and in case Obama cares, apart from simply being a tax benefit, that trillion would also do some real economic good here.

Posted by: Ace at 11:00 AM | Comments (171)
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

Some crabbing about this on some blogs, but people don't have the full story.

Over ten years ago Marvel started publishing the "Ultimate" comics, which basically documented different conceptions of their heroes, in a different timeline/continuity. The "Ultimate" world is a parallel universe then, outside of the main Marvel continuity.

It lets writers play with different backstories for characters (I think it was in the "Ultimate" universe that Nick Fury was changed to a black man, an idea picked up in the movies) and lets them escape the heavy burden of 40 or 50 years of dense (and often befuddling) Marvel continuity.

It's really a "What If?" type universe, but an elaborate one rather than a one-shot story, as the old Marvel "What If?" comic used to explore.

The imprint was launched in 2000 with the publication of Ultimate Spider-Man, followed by Ultimate X-Men and The Ultimates in 2001, and finally Ultimate Fantastic Four. Prior to the launch, the imprint was under the working title of "Ground Zero". The characters in this line exist outside of the regular Earth-616 Marvel Universe and therefore do not interact with their original version counterparts.

The stories and characters of Ultimate Marvel have been adapted to reflect the differences between the present and past continuities, most of which were created in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, Ultimate Spider-Man gains his superpowers from a genetically-engineered spider rather than a radioactive spider, and his alter ego, Peter Parker, originally a photographer for the Daily Bugle newspaper, now has a part-time job as the paper's webmaster. Another aspect of the Ultimate Marvel universe is that many of the characters are younger than their regular-continuity counterparts.

So, yes, Peter Parker was killed, and replaced by a younger, half-black/half-Hispanic character who will now be Spider-Man, but in this alternate "Earth-1610" universe.

This may be in response to an internet-based campaign. Donald Glover, the black actor in Community, apparently was campaigning to be cast as Peter Parker in the Spiderman reboot, I think on Twitter.

It got some attention, and even Stan Lee weighed in.

"A lot of [my Twitter followers] have been saying that he ought to have a chance to audition for the role," he said. "So I tweeted back by saying, as far as I'm concerned ... anybody should have a chance to audition for the role. I certainly think he should have a chance to audition."

However, Lee made sure to clarify that he wasn't advocating for Glover or any other specific actor to get the role.

...

As for the racial aspect of the debate, Lee brushed it off, saying that casting Peter Parker "shouldn't be a racial issue." However, he added that drastically changing Peter Parker's appearance could risk confusing audiences -- but that shouldn't stop anyone from giving Glover or other non-white actors a shot.

"Here's the point: We've already had the Kingpin in 'Daredevil' portrayed by a black man, where he was white in the comics, [and] we've had Nick Fury portrayed by a black man where he was white in the comics," said Lee. "But not that many people had seen these characters -- not that many moviegoers are familiar with them."

"Everybody seems to be familiar with Spider-Man, so I say that it isn't that it's a racial issue -- it's just that it might be confusing to people," he explained. "But that's a matter for the people at Marvel to take into consideration. I certainly don't want to weigh in on it in any way, except to say I think [Glover] is a fine actor."

Upshot? The new Ultimate Universe Spiderman looks a lot like Donald Glover.

One more thing: It used to be a joke that no one stayed dead in the comics except Bucky (Captain America's former sidekick, Gwen Stacy (Spider-Man's girlfriend), and Jason Todd (the second Robin, killed by the Joker), and Uncle Ben.

Well... two of those have been returned from the grave already and I do believe I've read that Marvel had plans to bring back Gwen Stacy too, but I think Stan Lee objected and nixed the idea.

Pretty much only Uncle Ben and Bruce Wayne's parents are permanently dead. Although clones, ghosts, doubles, and hallucinatory images of them appear so much they might as well be alive.

Lately it's just gotten absurd with the resurrections -- Superman, of course. And Flash (Barry Allen), Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), Batman, Captain America, Green Goblin. I think even the Punisher.

Few used to stay dead in the comics, but few also used to die. Now everyone's dying in this Major Comics Event or that one.

The other Big Event in the comics were the Big Event Marriages, like Superman marrying Lois and Peter Parker marrying Mary Jane.

But ah, they got bored with the marital state, and so they undid the Superman marriage (it just didn't happen or something, it was all a dream), and Mary Jane made a deal with... um, the Devil, to wipe the record of her marriage to Peter from the history of the universe.

I think supposedly she did this to save someone's life, but it was really done because Marvel felt Peter Parker's marriage made him seem too old (and making him a widower or divorcee would have made him older still). So for years they were looking for some Reset Button on this; ultimately they did it with magic.

The Devil's magic.

So the odds of Peter Parker staying dead in this alternate universe are pretty low. Even if this replacement Spiderman catches on, Peter Parker will be back in some form or another, as a mastermind or even a villain.

And if the replacement Spideman doesn't catch on, he'll be back in six months.

Posted by: Ace at 10:16 AM | Comments (195)
Post contains 969 words, total size 6 kb.