And you thought the Democrats were the big spenders?

In the last week, a lot of bandwidth has been wasted over which president caused the biggest spending increases. 
Rex Nutting of Market Watch published a graph that looks like so....

Parts of this silliness (the Obama part) were promtly blown out of the water by Yossi Gestetner at The American Thinker. 

1) While in regular times a budget gets approved months earlier, the FY2009 budget was pieced tighter in many separate votes and bills, one of them signed on... March 12 2009 by... President Obama! AP wrote back then the "bill includes significant increases" on a host of things. But of course it's Bush Fault. Right?

2) Obama was a member of the Senate Majority who... approved the FY2008 and FY2009 budgets. It's of his making either way. He didn't arrive to Washington in January 2009 as a Governor. Senator Obama in the majority party since 2007 created the mess together with Pelosi and Reid.

3) Much of the 2009 spending (from TARP, to Stimulus, to Auto Bailout, to Loan Modifications), were officially one time things. However, four years later and we are still spending well above the 2008 levels. A Spending Binge indeed!

4) Much of the 2009 spending were officially "loans" and "investments" that Obama claims were "paid back" by the Auto Industry and others. As such, it's inaccurate to claim that all the money that left Treasury in 2009 was "spending."

5) Even if you want to ignore all of the above notes; a headline reading "Obama Didn't Increase Spending Much Since 2009" would have been more accurate. But to suggest that we are not on a Spending Binge just because Government outlays didn't increase much since the year that we spent officially on one-time things and loans is spin of the highest order.

This guy has a slightly different take: 



But here's what nobody is arguing. Look at the percentage increases under Reagan, Daddy Bush, and Little Bush's first term.  (Yeah, yeah, yeah, Congress does the spending. But the president sets the tone.) 

As Veronique De Rugy has pointed out multiple times, if you want to increase government spending, elect a bunch of Republicans.

It really is that simple. Any time you hear someone describe himself as a "Reagan Republican", imagine a meth addict with stolen credit cards. Your credit cards. And you can't call Visa or Amex and report them stolen. You are the one who gave them away. We really shouldn't have co-signed on that loan with the Republican Party.

And one day the mailman WILL arrive with the bill.  

How To Improve The Unemployment Rate - (encourage more people to give up)

I've heard a lot of Lamestream Media members almost pissing their pants for the last few weeks, gushing over the improvements in the U.S. unemployment rate. 

Yes, some people have gone back to work.  But here's why appearances are deceiving. 

The Washington drones who monitor the nation's employment stats don't count people who give up looking for work.  If you haven't applied for a job in several months, you don't count as "unemployed".  You enter the ranks of Obama's Disappeared. 

Nearly ONE MILLION WORKERS have disappeared from the work force under the regime of Barack Obama.  That's ONE MILLION WORKERS who have said "screw it", and moved back in with Mama, decided to work off the books, become a kept man, or go into the drug trade.  ONE MILLION. 

Here's a chart showing the increased number of workers in each post-recession recovery, going back to 1954:

Hey, if you operate from Chicago, where a massive number of dead people still vote, it's just as easy to assume that ONE MILLION WORKERS don't exist.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Every time Debbie Wasserman Schultz comes on CNN, Meet The DePressed, or MSDNC, I start flinging a barrage of dachshunds at the TV. 
Why? 
The woman can only add.  She can't subtract. 
By her Wasserman Schultz Accounting Standards, I've won hundreds of thousands of dollars playing blackjack. 
How is this possible?  I only count the winning hands. 

How can Debbie Wasserman Schultz claim that Obama has created more jobs than were created during the past 8 years combined?  Well, every time the census hires someone, lets them go, and then re-hires them, those all go into the "created" file. 

The "lost" file doesn't exist. 

Reason magazine has figured it out, and called her on it. 



David Gregory, Rachel Maddow and Company no longer have an excuse.  They've got to start calling her bluff on this crap. 

John Stossel on Myths About Capitalism

If you didn't catch John Stossel last night, there's still time.  Fox Business channel reruns each feature about 4 times.
Last night was about American myths.  Here's Michael Medved on myth #4:

Myth No. 4: The current downturn means the death of capitalism.

"Capitalism is alive and well," Medved said.
"I'm also bugged when people argue that today's problems prove that capitalism "failed." What failed? We had a correction. A bubble popped. But from 1982 to now, the Dow rose from 800 to 11,000. Had it happened without the bubble, we'd say this is one of the great boom periods.
Medved added: "This is one of the biggest lies — the idea that because of capitalism, we're all suffering. ... Poor people in America today, people who are officially in poverty, have a higher standard of living in terms of medical standards, in terms of the chances of going to college, in terms of the way people live, than middle-class people did 30 years ago. It's an extraordinary achievement of technology and of the profit sector."

On a related note, here are some stats from The Austrian Economists site:

% Households with:	Poor 1984	Poor  1994	Poor 2003	Poor 2005	All 1971	All 2005
Washing machine	58.2	71.7	67.0	68.7	71.3	84.0
Clothes dryer	35.6	50.2	58.5	61.2	44.5	81.2
Dishwasher	13.6	19.6	33.9	36.7	18.8	64.0
Refrigerator	95.8	97.9	98.2	98.5	83.3	99.3
Freezer	29.2	28.6	25.4	25.1	32.2	36.6
Stove	95.2	97.7	97.1	97.0	87.0	98.8
Microwave	12.5	60.0	88.7	91.2	1.0	96.4
Color TV	70.3	92.5	96.8	97.4	43.3	98.9
VCR	3.4	59.7	75.4	83.6	0.0	92.2
Personal computer	2.9	7.4	36.0	42.4	0.0	67.1
Telephone	71.0	76.7	87.3	79.8	93.0	90.6
Air conditioner	42.5	49.6	77.7	78.8	31.8	85.7
Cellular Telephone			34.7	48.3	0.0	71.3
One or more cars	64.1	71.8	72.8 (2001)		79.5

Ah, the failures of free market capitalism....
Remember to watch John Stossel.

What "Turning The Corner" Looks Like

To paraphrase Vice-President Biden, this is one Big F***ing Graph:

I found it over at the Ace Of Spades HQ. 

From the comments: 
So this is what Barry's laser like focus on the economy gets you.

And then:
Yeah, if he applied such focus to foreign policy we'd be at war with everybody but the Cubans.

I think somebody has messed with Joe

Here's Brett J. Blackledge, writing for the Associated Press. The title of his article should've been "While Biden Slept".

WASHINGTON – The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.

No serious economist takes the "jobs created or saved" chant seriously. It's an impossible number to know. Money is taken from the public, or their unborn grandchildren in this case, and thrown out there with other money. Taking the money away from you costs jobs in the areas where you would've preferred to spend it. But once it's stolen from you, the money doesn't stay segregated in the stash of the recipient. There is no way to tell how many jobs were created or saved because of the wealth transfer.

I think this is the Obama administrations way of saying "we're not gonna just let people make this shit up any more. We're going to invent a consistent bullshit formula. If you got money from us, and you're paying employees, then money given = jobs saved."

Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.

Ok, take the dollars given to your hypothetical company in kickbacks stimulus. Deduct the amount you gave in bribes campaign contributions. Divide the remainder by the average hourly rate at your company. That's how many hours of work you can pay for with that money. Multiply that by 2080, the number of hours in a year, assuming a 40 hour work week. There's your jobs "saved" in Obamathematics.

So if your company got a million dollar kickback stimulus check in exchange for a $5,000.00 bribe campaign donation, the math would look like this: A $1,000,000.00 government check minus a $5,000.00 donation divided by $20.000 per hour average rate, divided by 2080 hours in a year equals 23.91 jobs created or saved for the year.

Brilliant economic thinking. Brilliant. You just throw a million bucks into the pile, and you can claim that it "created or saved" a million dollars worth of jobs. And if you think THAT doesn't make a lick of sense, read the next paragraph:

That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt jumping up and down on a Keynesian pogo stick in Jimmy Carter's stagflation peanut patch, what a bunch of Geithner guano. Let's say that you have 32 neighbors on your block, and each family, including yours, pays $33,333.00 in taxes each year. That's 33 families each paying $33,333.00 to equal that $1,000.000.00 in question.

What were you and the other 32 families going to do with that million dollars if the government hadn't taken it? Were you going to leave it under your mattress? Were you going to burn it? Were you going to give it to Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's ex-pollster, who got six million porkulus dollars to help publicize the switch from analog to digital?

Hell no. You were going to spend it on clothes, food, a guitar amp, a dachshund sterilization program, Jim Beam, washing the truck, a vacation trip to watch them film "Stossel", a new laptop, or (God help us all) college tuition. That million dollars, divided by the average hourly rate at Wal-Mart (clothing), Big Rodrigo's House O' Grease (food), Guitar Center, the veterinarian, the Jim Beam distillery, the car wash, Stossel's film crew, Dell, or (God help us all) Texas A&M University - this would've paid all the people that you chose to pay. Not the people that Barry, Nancy and Harry want to pay.

That's what this is about. The choice is taken from you, and given to them. (But why do so many stimulus supporters call themselves "Pro Choice" on other issues?)

The money in this utterly ludicrous system is taken from your job-funding programs and given to theirs. And when you do look at the growth of companies Nuzzling On The Nurturing Obamabreast, but deduct the job LOSSES at the places where you would've preferred to spend the money, then deduct the amount government keeps for itself, you're looking at a net job loss. It really is that simple.

You could be doing things with the ridiculous amount of money being taken from you. You are the best judge of the best companies and the best jobs to support with your money.

Are you unemployed?????

Like so many other good things in life, this came from Instapundit.

No one should have a drivers license without a high school diploma ??

I've been in Mississippi for my Aunt and Uncle's 50th wedding anniversary. I found this in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger.

Living with Children
John Rosemond
Copyright 2009, John K. Rosemond

My oldest grandson, not yet 15, is already taking drivers education. In fact, he’s already been behind the wheel with his instructor, on an interstate highway no less. I’m resigned to his obtaining his license in a little more than a year. I’m not happy about it. I’m resigned. Mind you, he’s more trustworthy and responsible (in my objective opinion) than nine-point-nine out of ten of his peers. He’s a good if not great kid, and as my readers know, my standards are high. Still, I’m shaking my head in incredulous resignation.

Sir,
With a few truly disfunctional exceptions, everyone's grandchildren are more trustworthy and responsible than nine-point-nine out of ten peers. They are also better looking. Ask any grandparent.

Disclaimer: When my kids turned 16, each received a car from their hugely naïve parents. Would that I had some things to do over again.
Two weeks ago, a San Diego journalist called asking for some quotes for a story he’s doing on teenage drivers. The story was prompted by the recent automobile deaths of two San Diego teens in separate accidents. My beloved grandson’s life flashed in front of me.

I told said journalist that giving a drivers license to a teenage child (and if anyone has failed to notice, they are still children) under age 18 was like giving the kid a revolver with ten thousand chambers, only one of which is loaded with a bullet, and telling him to point it at his head and pull the trigger. Would any responsible parent do such a thing? Then, pray tell, why do otherwise responsible parents allow teenage children to obtain drivers licenses and provide them with cars?

Well, why do we let anyone drive? Why let anyone fly in an airplane? Why let anyone get out of bed in the morning, considering all the risks? Granted, teenagers are 10% of the population, but account for 12% of the automobile craches. The chart in that last link shows ages 16-20 accounting for 5,658 automobile deaths in 2006. That's a five year age span. But ages 21-24 accounted for 4,701 automobile deaths in just a four year age span. Do a little math to equalize the age brackets, either on the high end of the older age group, and the 21-24 (now the 21-25) age group has a higher fatality toll than the teenagers !
In other words, it's not quite honest to compare 5 years worth of teenage fatalities with only 4 years' of their elders. The elders are more dangerous.

When would I allow driving privileges? he asked. When two conditions were satisfied­—the 18th birthday and a high school diploma. Would that reduce the drop-out rate or what?

One thing you learn if you study statistics and economics for very long, even at the high school level: Half the high school kids are below average. I repeat, half the high school kids are below average. Just like half the florists, plumbers, morticians, doctors, fast food restaurants, Beatles albums and philosophy professors are below the "average" for florists, plumbers, morticians, etc.
A lot of those kids can't do high school work, just like a lot of their older brethren can't do college work. But many of them are great drivers. Many of them will become professional drivers. How in the heck do you justify tying high school proficiency to a drivers license?

The 16-year-old driving privilege was established when cars were less powerful, roads were less crowded, and 16-year-olds were considerably more mature than they are today. Furthermore, these laws were passed to allow teens to participate more fully in the operation of family farms. They were not passed with the intention that teens would drive for discretionary, largely recreational purposes.

That paragraph deserves a rant of its own. The government granting "privileges" to the serfs, based on lofty, noble "intentions", and whether or not the driving is discretionary, recreational, necessary, vital, or used to further the glorious ambitions of the state..... Naw. Let's don't get sidetracked.

Do teens need driving privileges, much less cars? Obviously not. In Europe, where teens seem to live satisfactory lives (by all measures, they are much happier on average than US teens), the driving age is 18. Even then, few young adults drive cars. They walk, ride bicycles, use public transportation, or putt around on scooters.
Someone clamors for my attention: “But John! Lots of small towns and rural areas don’t have public transportation!” But the same is true in Europe. And, to repeat, European teens are lots happier than they are on this side of the pond.

This reminds me of the first road trip we made to Oklahoma with our friend and employee Igor, who came from the former Yugoslavia. We were driving north on the I-35 wilderness between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City, seeing nothing but pasture for miles around. Igor finally broke the silence by saying "In my country, we put our towns closer together."

I suggest that the primary reason the driving age is not going to be raised any time soon is because the current law is a huge convenience to parents. They are not only relieved of having to transport the young licensee, but they can also assign him to driving younger siblings to after-school activities and the like. So even though these young drivers cannot vote, state legislators are going to protect their driving privileges. Given that interstate commerce is involved, we can only hope that Congress will take up the issue.

The kid drivers don't just transport younger siblings. They transport.... our parents. Their parents' parents. Think of the implications and reasons for that assignment. I trust my teenage daughter on I-20, and will take a nap in the car when she's driving. If my mother is driving, I'm on full alert. I usually go ahead and take the wheel.

Given the facts, which lead to the inescapable conclusion that giving driving privileges to a teen, any teen, puts the youngster at far, far more risk than letting a 5-year-old play outside unsupervised (which most of the same parents would not allow), I must conclude that this is not, to be polite, the most prudent of moves.

I'd like to see the data on that statement. I don't think anyone keeps records on the danger of letting 5-year-olds play outside unsupervised (although I played outside, unsupervised, both at home and in town quite a bit.) The idea of the current generation of Precious Snowflakes doing anything unsupervised is supposed to terrify us into agreement, though.

I invite anyone out there to justify this to me in rational terms. You can send your comments to me through my website at http://www.rosemond.com/.

Let's look at the data..... From the previous link:

Of Male drivers killed between 15 and 20 years of age 38% were speeding and 24% had been drinking and driving.
About 30% of teens reported that within the previous 30 days, they had been a passenger in a car with a driver who had been drinking alcohol. One in 10 teens said that they personally had driven after drinking alcohol.
Teen drivers killed in auto crashes after drinking and driving, 74% did not wear a seat belt.

And then from the chart. In 2006, 578 drivers who were killed were under 5 years old. 516 were age 5-9. 1079 were age 9-15.

It's illegal to speed, and it's already illegal to drink and drive. We have laws that say you have to wear a seat belt in an automobile. We have laws that prevent 5 year-olds from driving.

But all of those things still happen. Giving the Nanny State another sacrifice on the altar will merely result in more kids giving rides in larger groups. If there are five kids in a car, I want my kid to be the driver, and I don't care if my child is 15 and the others are 19. It's kinda like that grandparent thing, noted above.

We don't need more laws on the books to prevent bad things from happening to kids. Especially when there are more bad things happening to a slightly older group that is already allowed to vote.

Family psychologist John Rosemond’s latest book, The Well-Behaved Child, is now in bookstores.

Save The Earth - Buy A New Hummer

This is the official list of the top 10 new vehicles purchased under the Cash For Clunkers program.

1. Ford Focus
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Corolla
4. Toyota Prius
5. Ford Escape
6. Toyota Camry
7. Dodge Caliber
8. Hyundai Elantra
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevy Cobalt

Now that is a wholesome looking list, wouldn't you say? Except for the Ford Escape (and maybe the Civic) it reeks of earth-saving virtue.
The downside is that it's the government's list you're looking at, and therefore it's total horse crap.

On a list like this, do you think it's honest to distinguish between the Ford F-150 with seats of rich Corinthian leather, and the F-150 with seats carved from the tanned, preserved buttocks of gullible Democrats? And dilute the sales of the F-150 by acting like those are two different vehicles?
Should Hummers with radio stations preset to National Socialist Radio, Air America, and 1360 AM Rational Radio count as different makes and models from the Hummers with stations preset to right wing AM rants?
Please stay with me. This is good stuff.

Here's the real list, according to Edmunds, a respected auto industry sales guide:
1. Ford Escape
2. Ford Focus
3. Jeep Patriot
4. Dodge Caliber
5. Ford F-150
6. Honda Civic
7. Chevrolet Silverado
8. Chevrolet Cobalt
9. Toyota Corolla
10.Cobalt Ford Fusion

Wonder why the lists look so different? Here's CNN:

For example, the Ford Escape is available in six different versions including two- and four-wheel drive and hybrid versions. The government counts each version as a different vehicle using guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency. Only the front wheel drive, non-hybrid version made the government's top ten list.

The Ford Escape crossover SUV, instead of being the seventh-most popular vehicle under the program, as the government ranked it, was actually the best seller, according to Edmunds.com. The government pegged the Ford Focus as the top seller.

But wait, there's more ! ! ! Want to get $3,500 off the price of a Hummer, virtually synonymous with gas-guzzling American excess ????

But will buying a new Hummer H-3, Chevy Suburban or Ford F-250 Super Duty pickup really reduce America's craving for crude? Somebody thinks so, because they're all eligible new cars under the Cash for Clunkers program, which gives a $3,500 to $4,500 credit to car buyers trading in older gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars.

But a close look at what qualifies as "more fuel efficient" in the program reveals loopholes big enough to drive a GMC Yukon through (yes, that's eligible, too.) The guidelines in the House-passed bill state that large SUVs and trucks, typically considered gas guzzlers in everyday conversation, qualify for the $3,500 credit, and in some cases the $4,500 credit, depending on the trade-ins that come through the door for them. New Category 2 trucks -- like the Hummer H-3, Ford Explorer, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tundra -- qualify if they get at least 15 MPG combined, and get at least one mile per gallon more than the car or truck being traded in.

This farce has nothing to do with saving the earth. This farce is about saving Detroit for one more election cycle.

The next time you see someone in a brand new Hummer, the neo-fascist military limo, stop and make conversation with him. Ask him how he likes it.



Tell him you hope he's happy with it. After all, you probably helped him buy it.
Fresh coats of Whitening all around to The Agitator and The Take for the links.

Ever have one of these days?

Have you ever been in charge of implementing a totally ridiculous program in your workplace? Have you ever known ahead of time which employees would give you a hard time over it?
Have you ever had to put on your game face, and charge ahead with the rollout, even though you knew that every word you were saying was totally insane?

I've had to do that before.
So has Rep. Russ Carnahan, (Mommy Party - Missouri)



Our thoughts and prayers go out to Rep. Carnahan, and we all wish him a speedy recovery.

The New York Times Is Decadent And Depraved

A friend of mine sent me this chart from the February 27 New York Times. It shows the gap between federal spending and federal receipts.
At first glance, the projected deficit doesn't look that bad, does it? We've been through worse, haven't we?



But after I looked at it for a few seconds longer, I saw what was wrong. Where is the Reagan revenue boom (and the Clinton/NAFTA) echo?
The chart shows the federal receipts, spending, and deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product. Hit the link above if you can't read the fine print.

We mustn't scare the New Yorkers, but....there are more honest ways to present that information, especially if you are going to display it beside a document entitled "A New Era Of Responsibility".

Here's what those numbers really look like in millions of dollars, instead of as a percentage of another number. Can you imagine the NYT printing this chart alongside the "New Era Of Responsibility" payoff pamphlet ?

The first question you should ask is "What the hell is happening to the value of the dollar?" (Answer: They're printing them as they go.)

The second question is "Why did the NYT go out of their way to make the latest giveaway/bailout numbers look less threatening?" (Answer: The hope and change thing.)

The third question is "What is the total of all this deficit spending?"
(Answer: Here's the national debt as of last year. I don't have an update for all the latest ladles of slop and neither does anyone else, but you get the idea.)


And people wonder why newspaper readership is declining.

From Marktaw.com

Thomas Sowell and That Top One Percent

Now that Milton Friedman has passed away, Thomas Sowell might be the smartest man in The United States.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - That 'Top One Percent'

Dr. Sowell rarely names names, but Anna Quindlen irked him....

A recent column by Anna Quindlen in Newsweek (or is that Newsweak?) laments that "the share of the nation's income going to the top 1 percent is at its highest level since 1928."
Who are those top one percent?
For those who would like to join them, the question is: How can you do that?
The second question is easy to answer. Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person's income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house.
But that's only good for one year, you may say. What if they don't have another house to sell next year?
Well, they won't be in the top one percent again next year, will they? But that's not unusual.

He goes on to write that most of the categories our politicians like to throw around, "The Rich", "The Poor", "The Middle Class", are not permanent stations in life. Most of us have been considered poor at some point in our lives.
Most of us hope to be rich. We might get there.
So the next time you hear Talking Heads decrying the widening gap between the top 5% and the middle 20% of the bottom 10%, please remember all those people who sold a house, cashed in their stocks, won the lottery, or sold a business. They don't necessarily need to be punished. One day the top 5% might be you.

And I never tire of sending people to this site....enter your yearly income here to see how you stack up against the rest of the world (not the nation). Then come back.

Do you still feel like the top 5% should pay far more of the tax burden?