Obama's Economy: CBO Says Several More Years of Misery and Failure

After three full years of Obama economic policy, the United States is mired in an anemic recovery the likes of which -- and the length of which -- we have not seen since the Great Depression.

Make no mistake about it: this is Obama's economy.

As much as he tries to spin and play the blame game, where everything from George Bush, Japanese disasters, European economic collapse, unrest in the Middle East (fully supported by Obama, by the way), right down to ATM machines and airport kiosks are at fault, it is Obama's policies that are at the root of the economic stagnation we are experiencing.

While those factors have each played a role and most experts will attest that recessions spawned from financial failure are harder to recover from, we have seen no real, lasting signs that this recovery is taking root.

Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips said, “While the Obama Administration brags about 22 months of private sector growth, they fail to provide context; that pace is so sluggish that it doesn’t even keep up with basic demographic growth. It’s a nice statistic to repeat, but there’s no real economic impact.”

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the economy will perform below its potential for another six years and unemployment will remain above 7 percent for another three.

“The pace of the economic recovery has been slow since the recession ended in June 2009, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending, the economy will continue to grow at a sluggish pace over the next two years... the agency expects that the economy’s output will remain below its potential until 2018”

After three full years of Obama economic policy, the United States is mired in an anemic recovery the likes of which -- and the length of which -- we have not seen since the Great Depression.

Under Obama's watch, we have seen years of stagnant growth, high unemployment, higher still underemployment. The slight uptick in December, as predicted by many, was due to holiday retail help and courier services; many of these jobs went away in January.

Employment growth probably slowed in January as messengers hired during the busy holiday shopping season were laid off, but the improving labor market trend should remain intact...

Employment remains about 6.1 million below its pre-recession level. There are no jobs for three out of every four unemployed people and 23.7 million Americans are either out of work or underemployed.

According to this same CBO report, the unemployment rate will be 8.9 percent on Election Day... 9.1 percent in 2013 and remain at 7 percent or above through 2015. This is based on what is being called fairly optimistic assumptions.

Obama has placed on us massive annual budget deficits as far as the eye can see and a national debt that is truly unfathomable. So says the Concord Coalition, a group that can hardly be called politically conservative:

The Concord Plausible Baseline, which applies more realistic assumptions about future policy decisions to the CBO’s data, shows annual deficits remaining in the trillion dollar range throughout the next 10 years and totaling almost $12 trillion.

Despite the CBO's prediction that tax revenues will increase, we have seen trillion dolar deficits each year of Obama's term and will see trillion dollar increases to the national debt for the foreseeable future.

In dollar terms, the anticipated increase in federal tax revenue from fiscal 2011 ($2.302 trillion) to fiscal 2014 ($3.313 trillion) is $1.011 trillion. That is an increase of 43.9 percent.

Last year, 2011, was literally the worst year for housing in the nation's history ever; we saw new home sales less than half of what is expected in a healthy economy (unexpectedly!). And, housing prices continue their free fall in nearly all cities. Foreclosure numbers should continue to rise, after an appearance of improvemet in 2011, likely due to procedural delays and pressure from Washington to delay the inevitable:

Paperwork issues, robo-signing and regulatory matters have slowed the process down. Now, it takes 348 days on average to process a foreclosure - two months longer than it took in 2010... There's still six million foreclosed homes that need to be processed.

The slowed foreclosure rate is a trend not likely to continue.

There were strong signs in the second half of 2011 that lenders are finally beginning to push through some of the delayed foreclosures in select local markets. We expect that trend to continue this year, boosting foreclosure activity for 2012 higher than it was in 2011, though still below the peak of 2010.

Real estate analyst Rick Sharga told CBS News (the) U.S. has two to three "challenging" years before the housing crisis is over.

Obama's economic record is abysmal. He STILL(!) tells us (repeatedly) that he inherited the problem. Perhaps that may be so; but the president has done nothing to improve the situation and likely has made it worse.

The real problem is not that Obama inherited the recession (I say he asked for it, but that is another post). The problem is that his policies has caused the economic woes to linger (far) longer than after any recession since the Great Depression.

When compared to the three other slowest post-war recoveries, the current “jobless recovery” has been thought unique in its lack of employment growth.

One of the major differences between the current recession and previous recessions is the seemingly anti-business rhetoric and policies of Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

In addition to repeated attacks on American business.. an expensive stimulus package... the health care bill... proposed high taxes on carbon emissions, large increases in taxes on higher income individuals, corporate profits, and capital gains as part of vocal attacks on “billionaires”... a financial reform bill that is a complicated and a politically driven mixture of sensible reforms, and senseless changes that have little to do with stabilizing the financial architecture, or correcting what was defective in prior regulations.

It is no surprise that this rhetoric and the proposed and actual policies discouraged business investment and slowed down the recovery.

Compared to all other recessions since the 1930's the current slow recovery is most similar to the Great Depression.

• Spending. Large increases in federal spending under Roosevelt and Obama did nothing to help unemployment, which remained high. Presidents Roosevelt and Obama responded similarly to the crises. They talked about balancing the federal budget, but instead resorted to massive spending... The results were budget deficits and higher unemployment.
• Tax Increases. During the Great Depression Roosevelt raised both income and excise taxes. Most of the tax hikes under Obama are planned for the future. Thus far we have seen proposed tax hikes on products such as cigarettes, liquor, plane tickets, and soft drinks.. capital gains tax, the income tax, and the estate tax.
• The Blame Game. Roosevelt sought scapegoats to explain his failure. Wall Street bankers were his favorites. He also blamed America’s top businessmen. Obama has followed FDR’s playbook of attacking Wall Street bankers and various corporate leaders.

Are you better off than you were four years ago? If so, you are among the very few who are.

Regular gasoline per gallon cost $1.68 in January 2009. Today, it’s $3.39 — that’s a 102 percent increase in just three years.

Electricity bills have also skyrocketed, up some $300 (annually).

Some 48 percent of all Americans — 146.4 million — are considered by the Census Bureau either as “low-income” or living in poverty, up 4 million from when Mr. Obama took office; 57 percent of all children in America now live in such homes.

Since December 2008, a month before Mr. Obama took office, food-stamp use has increased 46 percent.

If it is true that financial recessions are harder to fix, shouldn't we have someone in the Oval Office who knows how to fix such problems? Obama apparently doesn't. Shouldn't we have someone in the Oval Office who know how to create jobs (or, even had one)? Obama apparently doesn't. The Hope and Change thing is over; it was a failure and will continue to fail us.

Obama voters, be honest. Is this the Change you expected Obama to deliver? Are these truly the policies that we have been waiting for? If so, give him four more years, and you will see four more years of failure.

Obama's Union Speech: More of the Same Boring-Ass Crap -- Part II

Who could have predicted this?

President Obama's State of the Union address last night was, in fact, more of the same boring-ass crap.

The Republican National Committee (full disclosure, the RNC is fighting to remove Obama from office) put together a brilliant montage of Obama's last three SOTU addresses, showing the same tried and tired rhetoric used over-and-over throughout all three speeches.

For one of the most accomplished presidents in our nation's history, it appears Obama really hasn't accomplished much, if he needs to urge us year after year to do the same things he hasn't done yet.

I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.

Here are just a few of the rehashed talking points from the past three SOTU speeches:

Obama 2010: "And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system."
Obama 2011: "I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration."
Obama 2012: "I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration."

Obama 2010: "It's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.
Obama 2012: "Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.

Obama 2011: "We'll put more people to work fixing crumbling roads and bridges."
Obama 2012: "So much of America needs to be rebuilt; we've got crumbling roads and bridges."

Well, Barack, you have less than a year left in office. Better get started.

Obama's Union Speech: More of the Same Boring-Ass Crap

A few things he won't mention: Keystone Pipeline; Solyndra; the real unemployment rate; anything worth a damn

When Obama delivers the State of the Union address tonight, I anticipate a long, boring speech filled with the same tired rhetoric, the same pathetic attempts to paint his first term as a success, and a litany of worn-out ideas that have failed the country and not passed Congress.

I see him launching full-on blame mode. Blame the do-nothing Congress; blame the GOP; blame the "right-wing" media; blame natural disasters; and -- of course -- blame George Bush for everything up to Billy Cundiff's missed field goal.

Just don't blame yourself.

The millionaires and billionaires need to pay more so that our most vulnerable citizens won't have to fend for themselves. Because the GOP just wants to give tax breaks to fat cats on Wall Street.

Greedy companies that take money from the people and outsource jobs for fun and profit (yet he will fail to mention that he just outsourced jobs to a foreign country).

"We need equal opportunity for all; not for a connected few," failing to mention his buddy Warren Buffet is making big bucks from the Keystone decision or that Obama backers at green companies are getting
big government cash

It is not fair, he will plead; spreading the lie about Warren Buffett's secretary and taxes (failing to mention that it is not fair that she will get a plum seat for the speech and you don't). We need a government that will ensure equal opportunity for all not for a few connected people (failing to mention his buddy Warren is making big bucks from the Keystone decision or that Obama backers at green companies are getting big government cash).

He will lament those evil rich people paying only 15% of their income in taxes (not any one person in particular, mind you), completely distorting the truth of the matter.

He will either be laser-focused on jobs or think about jobs from the moment he wakes up; or some other meaningless platitude. Yet, he won't mention that his laser-focus is watching himself allow hundreds of thousands of potential jobs to slip away in the name of politics.

Here are just a few of the tired cliches that Obama will tread out:

tax increases
revenue enhancements
millionaires and billionaires
fairness and the lack thereof
fat cats on Wall Street
equal opportunity and outcomes
shared sacrifice
certain rich people paying 15% in taxes (who could that be?)
green jobs
turning the corner
out of the ditch or from the brink
turning the corner
job is not done
dirty water and air

A few things he won't mention:
Keystone Pipeline
Solyndra
high unemployment
the real unemployment rate
the underemployment rate
astronomical debt
skyrocketing misery index
plummeting consumer confidence
right track/wrong track poll
approval ratings
anything worth a damn

All in all, it will be less of a State of the Union speech than a State of the Onion. A Repeat of the Union address. Nothing new; nothing interesting; nothing that will work.

Obama just prays you don't notice.

Iran and Brazil Hand Obama Keystone Cover

Obama has just been handed two gifts that should allow him to approve the project under circumstances that only the hardest-core lefties would hold against him -- and would quiet the GOP in the process.

President Obama's Keystone pipeline indecision puts him square between two opposing voices: One one side, he wants to hand an election-year victory for his far-left supporters in the green movement who oppose the project; but that indecision opens him to criticism from the GOP who see the pipeline as a supply of jobs and non-Mid East oil.

After facing a wave of protest from environmentalists opposed to the project, the State Department announced in November that it would explore a new route for the pipeline and pushed a final decision on the controversial project past the 2012 election.

"The president won't stand up to his political base even in the name of creating American jobs," said House Speaker John Boehner.

Obama is -- surprisingly -- blaming the Republicans for imposing a deadline, rather than allow Obama to put the decision off until after the 2012 election.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said.

The battle seems to be over a relatively short section of the pipeline that would pass through Nebraska, too close to ground water resources for some. Obama claims that the government needs more time to research the project, despite the fact that the government has known about the project since 2008.

In announcing the decision, President Obama said the government did not have enough time to review the oil pipeline...

And, despite the fact that Obama's own state department issued a report that seems to support the current route.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline route through the Sand Hills is as good as any when it comes to safety and environmental impact, according to a federal report released Friday.

The central finding of the examination — that the proposed pipeline would have little adverse impact on the environment —

But the report also provided ammunition for those on the other side, who say a high-pressure, 36-inch crude-oil pipeline presents an unreasonable risk to the groundwater beneath the Sand Hills, which provides 78 percent of the state's drinking water and 83 percent of its water for crop irrigation.

Fortunately, Obama has just been handed two gifts that should allow him to approve the project under circumstances that only the hardest-core lefties would hold against him -- and would quiet the GOP in the process.

1. Iran's threatened closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

2. Brazil's decision to sell its oil to China.

Iran has been threatening for weeks to militarily close the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel in the Red Sea where 15 million barrels of oil pass each day. The European Union's decision to boycott Iranian oil has only raised the stakes.

(Iranian Lawmaker Mohammad Ismail) Kowsari claimed that in case of the strait's closure, the U.S. and its allies would not be able to reopen the route, and warned America not to attempt any "military adventurism."

Given the threat, Obama has a golden pass to green light the pipeline, in the interests national security. Obama should immediately call Iran's bluff; if Iran is going to squeeze the supply of oil through Hormuz, Obama should announce that we have no choice but to find other sources. The US cannot re-open the route? OK; the oil sands of Canada will suit us just fine.

Iran has also been reportedly pressuring the Saudis into limiting the supplies of oil to the West. All the more reason to open the spigots on this side of the globe.

As that drama unfolds, Brazil has apparently decided to sell most of its newly drilled oil to China, much to the dismay of the Obama administration, who has been a huge supporter of Brizil's oil drilling goals.

President Barack Obama has suffered the second embarrassment over oil imports within the space of a week. Brazil, whose offshore deposits of oil were sought by the Obama administration, has signed contracts with China for the product.

Here again, Obama is handed a perfect excuse to reverse course on the pipeline decision. Conditions on the ground have changed. Obama can simply announce that his initial decision to not decide until 2013 was based in part on his expectation of Brazilian oil coming here. Since Brazil has opted to sell to China, Obama could plead that he has no other choice but to allow the pipeline.

Obama has to know that the jobs, whatever the number, will help; even if that help is only a political victory.

"I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

One commenter to the New York Post said it well:

Never has a president governed so transparently in his own best interests at the expense of the good of his country.

Obama has been handed a gift, two gifts, that should allow him to drop his pander to the far-left and (finally!) live up to his promise to create jobs. Simply approve the project with the caveat that an alternative route through Nebraska be found, allowing work to begin on other sections of the pipe.


Why do I think this is a gift he won't accept?

Is Rick Santorum TOO Conservative?

While "social" issues may not have a large role in the 2012 election, Santorum's positions seem extreme, divisive, and down-right cruel in some cases.

Many of the right-leaning pundits are busy seeking out the most Conservative candidate for the Republican nominee to unseat Obama.

For the most part, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain each has been the Conservative darling for a time. Newt tried to convince that he is a rock-solid Conservative.

I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt, pretty conservative. The first Wealth Entitlement Reform of your lifetime... pretty conservative. First tax cut in 16 years, largest capital gains tax cut in American history. Unemployment came down to 4.2 percent, pretty conservative.

(It) is sort laughable to suggest that somebody who campaigned with Ronald Reagan and with Jack Kemp and has had a 30-year record of conservatism is somehow not a conservative?

Did you get the subtle inference that Newt thinks he's a conservative? Too bad others don't seem to agree.

But the candidate who may truly be the most Conservative, may just be too Conservative for his own good, or for the country:

"While no political candidate, or human being for that matter, is perfect, Rick Santorum's baggage contains his clothes," CatholicVote.org President Brian Burch said Thursday after Santorum's virtual tie with Romney in the Iowa caucuses won the support of the 600,000-member online organization.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/05/3638627/conservatives-pushing-for-unity.html#storylink=cpy

Oh really? I think that Santorum's baggage is filled with his own words:

I believe that, that any doctor who performs an abortion--that--I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.

His views on same-sex marriage are certain to raise more than a few eyebrows:

"Because I believe we are made the way God made man and woman and man and woman come together to have a union to produce children which keeps civilization going and provide the best environment for children to be raised," Santorum said. "I think that is something society should value and should give privileged status over a group of people who want to have a relationship together."

His thoughts on homosexuality in general are perplexing:

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts.... I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions...

He is widely reported to have suggested that same-sex marriage and unions is ‘bad behavior.’ He has suggested that calling same-sex marriage a marriage would be like calling a cup of tea a basketball and would seem to have no qualms about nullifying all same-sex marriages on the books.

But, of course, that's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

He seems opposed to contraception on all levels, reportedly calling contraceptives dangerous and not OK.

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

His voting record will certainly come under scrutiny:

• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
• Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
• Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
• Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

While I do not think that the "social" issues will hold a strong influence in the 2012 election, Santorum's positions seem extreme, divisive, and down-right cruel in some cases.

I hope that New Hampshire and the rest of the country decides to vote NO on Santorum.

UPDATED:
Well, in addition to his hoof-in-mouth predilection towards gays, Santorum is now blathering on about women, a key demographic in the upcoming election. In addition to the possibly out-of-context remarks on birth control being harmful to women, he is questioning a woman's ability to serve in the front lines in the military.

Rick Santorum raised some eyebrows by saying women should not be in combat because of the “the types of emotions involved.” Now, Santorum says, he is also concerned about “physical strength and capability” of women in combat situations.

The emotional issues involved, he belated assures, involve the men. Santorum believes that the men would be more concerned with protecting... a woman in a vulnerable position than performing the mission. The old Damsel in Distress canard.

Yeah, this fellow would be an easy, easy target for Obama to take down. Pass.

No, Mr. President, You Do Not Get to do Whatever You Want

Note that the payroll tax bill was passed by the Senate in a pro-forma session.

Emperor Obama is making his disdain for the US Congress, the US Constitution, and centuries of precedent even more clear in remarks today about his "recess" appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people.

No, Mr. President, you do not.

The US Constitution makes it perfectly clear what a president "can" do regarding these appointments (emphasis added):

Section 2, Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The US Senate web site clearly shows that the Senate is in session. While, one could argue that the Senate meeting in pro-forma session is a political trick to thwart Obama's ability for a recess appointment, the Senate is not in recess. Period.

Obama has criticized his predecessor for making recess appointments, but so has at least one member of Obama's Department of Justice:

Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told Chief Justice John Roberts that "the [congressional] recess has to be longer than 3 days" for the president to have the power to make a recess appointment...

For those who challenge that a pro-forma session is not a "true" Senate session, note that the payroll tax bill was passed by the Senate on December 23, 2011, while the Senate was in pro-forma session. Either Congress is in session or not; Obama does not get to decide when the Senate is open for business and when it is not. That is the job of the House, which apparently, did not approve of the Senate going into recess.

Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution states that neither house of Congress may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess of more than three days at the end of last year, and so the Senate, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, must have some sort of session every few days.

While it is almost a certainty that the GOP-led House did not approve a Senate recess for the sole purpose of blocking these appointments, the law is the law. Like it or not; political games or not.

Rush Limbaugh, for what it is worth, actually summarized the issue well:

If Congress "refuses to act," it is his job to sit down and talk to 'em and make 'em act and get them to vote the way he wants. He does not have the authority to run roughshod over them.

Some House Republicans are clearly playing political games; Obama should call them out rather than ignore the law. The American people dislike Congress more than the president. He should lambaste the GOP for their shenanigans rather than causing a potential constitutional crisis.

Obama must rescind these appointments and allow the Senate to "advise and consent" on these individuals. If the president feels he does not need to follow the law, then who does?