by DJ Durant | Aug 6, 2010
The Labor Department reported this morning that nonfarm payrolls fell by 131,000 in the month of July. Even more discouraging was that June’s revised payroll number was revised downward to a negative 221,000. This is huge. Initial jobless claims estimates released Thursday was 479,000, and was an increase from the previous week’s 460,000. The two statistics, nonfarm payrolls and initial jobless claims, are suggesting the same thing–employers are not hiring, and are, in fact, laying off workers, and we may very well be headed into a “double dip” recession.
That’s the report. Here’s the analysis. As suggested some months ago, the past predicts the future. As Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. There will be no new net growth in employment until new jobless claims fall below 400,000. Hiring cannot and will not happen until employers are confident that they have sustainable business prospects, that their expenses will be stable (like health insurance premiums) and that their taxes will be stable. Again, we’ve seen this scenario before. It was called the Carter Administration.
Right now, President Obama and his staff are crafting a spin that would suggest this is all the Bush Administration’s fault. That somehow, the last 18 months didn’t happen and they are not responsible for any of the anemic economic growth evident currently. The reality is, they could blame the Bush Administration for anything that happened in the first six months of the current administration. All economic activity since August 2009 is due to Obama Administration policies.
It’s time for the President to put his big boy pants on. No one wants to hear his whining anymore. Nor do we want to see solutions that will expand the national debt and budget deficit. And while I feel for all of the 6.6 million people that have been out of work for six months or more, it’s laughable to watch the arrogance of liberal Democrats defend their failed policies. The Democrats are imploding, again, something I predicted in November 2008. They violated economic principles. They thought they were smarter than that, and that, somehow, because the sun rose and set on Barack Obama, it would be different for them. This is a hard lesson to learn. The longer this lasts, the more seats the Republicans will gain in the November elections. By all means, they should continue their rhetoric. It’s fun to watch.
by DJ Durant | Aug 2, 2010
Yesterday on CBS Sunday Morning, President Barack Obama was being interviewed by Harry Smith. This seems to be this President’s primary function. I can just see his job description now–Item 1, must interview with the media incessantly. Never mind running the country. We’ll leave that to Pelosi and Reid. And, who can blame him? It’s more attractive to meet with adherents to your policies, glowing supporters and people who will fawn over you than with the other 80%, the rabble, the people who just don’t get it. Bring on The View! They love me! Everyone must love me too!
Anyway, Mr. Smith asked the President if he thought the criticism leveled at him and his administration was “undeserved”. “Yes”, the President replied, “it is undeserved”. He went on to suggest that the future will be kinder to him and his administration once people begin to understand all that he has had to endure and reform in the first 18 months of his administration–that is, the recession, bailouts, health care reform, financial reform, etc.
What? Is the President delusional? Politics, particularly modern politics, has always been about the mastery of spin, and this administration is clearly good at it. But the American people are tired of it, and for the last six to nine months, have begun to see it for what it is–nonsense.
First, President Obama needs to understand–deeply understand–that the stimulus, bailouts, deficit spending, health care reform, and now financial reform, have run counter to the will of the majority of Americans. Not the people in the la-la land of Obama and cronies, but the folks who do the tax-paying, hiring, spending and bill-paying. The President’s agenda of wealth redistribution is not what they signed up for.
Second, President Obama needs to understand that there are deep concerns about the economy that transcend stimulus and the expiration of the “Bush tax cuts”. Last week’s release of economic statistics are a perfect example. The housing industry is in severe recession still, and no amount of home-buyer incentives will work any longer. Consumer confidence is low and durable goods orders are soft. New claims for unemployment benefits were 457,000 in the previous week, suggesting that companies continue to lay off workers. Finally, preliminary GDP estimates say the economy grew at a 2.4% rate in the second quarter, a mediocre reading at best.
The President is clearly out of touch with his constituents. Nervous companies are not hiring. Nervous consumers aren’t spending money (at least, the ones who are working). And until they are confident that the government is going to stop spending money and that their taxes are going to remain stable, they will not spend or invest, or do anything but sit on their cash. At least, until the government takes it…
Is the criticism deserved? You bet! But we’ve seen this movie before. We know how it ends. It was called the Carter Administration and it ended with the resurgence of conservatism and Ronald Reagan. As long as the current Administration continues to ignore the people and continue down the road they’ve set before them, they can continue to expect criticism. They are self-destructing. How I love a happy ending!
![It Pays To Be A Pelican]()
by | Aug 2, 2010
As the BP oil spill unfolds in the Gulf and in our living rooms through our television screens, the coverage has focused on two major problems that it has created. One is the flat-out brutal images of oil soaked pelicans; the other is the crisis of the Gulf fishermen who have been forced out of work. One thing is clear, if you had to choose between being a pelican or a fish your choice is an easy one. At the same time everyone is rightfully heartbroken about the pelicans, we can’t wait for the fishermen to get back in the water and cast their nets to catch and kill as many fish as possible. While I am not by any stretch a PETA guy and I grant the fact that this is largely because we don’t eat pelicans, the point it makes is that we constantly draw large subliminal differences between things. In this case, though both are “wildlife,†we subconsciously dismiss the plight of the fish while granting a level of sympathy to the pelicans that compels some of us to set about capturing them and hand rubbing them with Dawn dish detergent. The same point could be made by asking the questions: Why do we eat turkeys and chickens but not pelicans; why cows and not horses? Why are mice disgusting but gerbils and hamsters cute? In large part the answer is: that’s just the way it is.
I suppose you might be asking yourself a question right about now—how does this relate to politics? While I’m quite certain that indeed everything relates to politics, the specific answer is the power of the mentally presumed. The United States is now and has always been a relatively conservative country. Our Constitution, laws, and values, as well as every poll ever taken on the subject, prove this. The problem for Liberals is that well . . . they are not. This presents a huge political task for them. In order to get the Country they envision, Liberals have to change a large number of long entrenched status quos, and over time they have developed a strategy and the tools to potentially get the job done.
In politics success in the long-view can be defined as a fight for the subconscious. Winning this fight takes time and, what I consider to be Liberal’s most effective tool, patience. Sacrificing in the short term for future benefit is counter to human nature, but seems to be an ability they have developed in spades. Having entered into every professional sphere for over 50 years, they have been undertaking the unscrupulous duty of chipping away at religion, the courts, the military, our school system, and our moral standards. They have a big task, big ideas, and an even bigger amount of gall in the way that they have gone about this business.
Your message entering the mainstream is not just the Holy Grail for marketers, but for obvious reasons, is also priceless if you happen to be a political movement attempting to transform a society. It is for this reason that the vast majority of lawyers, teachers, and reporters lean hard to the left. They have correctly determined that this is the surest way to achieve the political equivalent of a tissue being referred to as a Kleenex, a bandage being called a Band-Aid, or gelatin being Jell-O. In advertising lingo, achieving this is called an eponym; in politics I guess you would just call it “shrewdâ€â€”disingenuous but shrewd.
There is no need to win the legislative argument if you can turn a carefully crafted and well directed lawsuit into law. There is no need to win the moral argument on social issues such as gay marriage if you can impart it as the norm to a generation in Sex-Ed classes starting at the age of seven. There is no need to win the philosophical argument of the role on government if you can marginalize the Constitution in a college lecture hall and then have the issues pitched to the people by the media as questions of “empathy.â€Â This level of subversion and the distance it creates from the substantive political debates that we should be having, debates that make this Country better, is infuriating and flat out scary.
Interestingly, this battle for the subconscious is one that Liberals have been fighting with no active resistance, and the reason for this is simple. The status quo has been held and assumed by conservative leanings for years. Past generations of Democrats, while certainly having political differences with Republicans, were at least in part buoyed by similar values and constraints as their political opposition. Not since 1933 has the Right been opposed by such a widespread and transformative-minded group as today’s Liberal Democratic leadership. Republicans have in essence been playing with the lead, and the scoreboard is starting to reflect it. Though alarming the question that this begs for some is, might it be time for the Conservative movement to counter by beginning to engage in these types of fronts?
For my part the answer is no. While I think it is important to be aware that this effort is afoot, publicly expose it and defend traditional realities and values, there is far too much relativism being employed by both political parties as it is. Any actions based on this are indefensible, as what is at stake is the moral high ground. Joining Progressive Liberals by wading into the oily waters of politically-motivated education, biased journalism, and judicial activism is not only unnatural but is dirty, dirty business. Come to think of it—it’s about as dirty as an oil-soaked pelican.
![It Pays To Be A Pelican]()
by | Jul 21, 2010
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The two major forms of Republicanism each have a doctrine that is tied to actual documents. Religious social conservatives have The Bible, while fiscal and Constitutional conservatives have the Constitution. It is safe to say that the vast majority of Republicans have their political tenants supplied by one, if not both, of these documents. This type of textual anchor is a positive philosophically and morally but in a strictly political sense can be a liability. The resulting positives are what tend to be deep, time-tested convictions, stability, certainty and, when used, an effective measuring stick for candidates in primaries. However, in our current event driven and largely politically uninformed society the negative is that this rigidness makes it nearly impossible to adapt positions to individual situations and use current events for maximum political gain.
This is a problem that the modern day liberal Democrat will not have anytime soon. They indeed stand in the starkest of contrast. Having left the Constitution behind decades ago, they move forward with no defined doctrine. No set of black and white documents that create, inform, or guide their ideology (and don’t even try to give me the party platform). This creates a situation in which changing party leadership sets an evolving standard as to what defines a Democrat. This not only allows them to easily tailor their political message to what they perceive to be popular at the moment, but grants them the option of playing the role of “lifeguard†and coming to the citizenry’s rescue with politically crafted legislation.
This, in tandem with the current perception that this is indeed the role of government, is extremely effective but thankfully also comes with disadvantages. First, the party can more easily be driven to the fringes as their lack of rigid philosophical boundaries allows a handful in the leadership of a given generation to rather rapidly change their party’s principles. A quick look at their current leadership and the top three finishers in the last two Presidential primaries reveal not a single, even remotely, moderate candidate and safely proves this point. Second, though both unfortunate and ironic, their biggest roadblock is that given our current level of debt the Government simply can not sustain an ever increasing financial role. As long as our citizens are concerned with the debt, and according to the most recent polling all but 24% are, their “lifeguard†advantage will be minimized. Though these points make it likely that due to their intensely progressive ideology they will drive themselves off a cliff, in the short term this chameleon like flexibility to adapt to changing realities is a net advantage and one that must be tactically dealt with. What has been created here is the political equivalent of a moving target and the challenge facing Republicans is developing a sound defensive strategy. Sounds strange to say, but the question is: how does one turn the political disadvantage of having and following defined ideological principles and a narrow view of the Federal government’s role into an advantage?
What should be done from a focus standpoint, and what is currently working, is a continued, exhaustive fixation on deficit spending and our National debt. What should be added is further concentration on the ineffectiveness of the Stimulus Package, especially considering the Democrats just quietly tried to procure another $50 billion in borrowed money to funnel to the States. The Recovery Act is not only recent, relatively uncomplicated, and directly tied to the current Liberal leadership, but proves rather blatantly that even with a trillion dollars the Federal Government is not capable, nor was it designed to, “fix†these types of problems. Simply put Republicans can not afford such an expensive and unnecessary tragedy to occur without it being politically fatal to the Democrats.
Legislatively two things come to mind. First, the already passed PayGo legislation needs to be hammered on and strictly followed by Republicans no matter the circumstance. In many ways this was a gift given by the Democrats, as it fits the Republican message, while almost certainly being a check written for political reasons to the American people that Liberalism will not allow them to cash. Along with this is what should be a unified, party-wide push for an Enumerated Powers Amendment. In my view this is the Republicans single best chance to not only start reigning Government back in, but also to maintain the energy of the Tea Party movement by proving that motion in their direction is both possible and something besides lip service. While the actual passage of such an amendment is an impossibility given the Republican’s current minority status, and I concede likely a long shot even with complete control of the Legislative branch, forcing the Democrats to vote down or ignore this concept would pay huge dividends now and in the future.
While any marksmen will tell you the only way to hit a moving target is to aim in front, in this case the surest place to aim is behind, and more specifically about 234 years behind. While it is certainly frustrating to watch the opposition bend and mold their positions to gain short term political support, and though it may be true in this day and age that strictly adhering to principles of limited government may at times seem like a burden, we must as Republicans resist the convenience of straying. We must be strengthened by the knowledge that in the long run, being principled and following the Constitution’s principles is always the correct answer. In those times that the temptation to deviate presents itself we can remember the Italians’ have an old saying for just such a quandary, “A burden that is chosen is not felt.â€
by DJ Durant | Jun 28, 2010
The news events of the last few months have certainly put the Obama Administration in a peculiar position. The Gulf crisis notwithstanding, most of these events have been created by this president and his staff.
Team Obama went the the G20 Summit in Toronto this weekend to chide the other 19 nations to continue to stimulate their economy through Keynsian economic principles. “Not so fast”, said the other countries. “We have to make choices, and right now, we choose fiscal solvency and prudence”. What a concept!
Passage of the Financial Institutions Reform package was always tenuous, at best, but the death of Senator Robert Byrd over the weekend makes passage more difficult. One less Democratic vote means that it’s more likely that Republicans can filibuster this package, and this is a good thing. Here’s why: Any bill that increases regulation, drives up costs to the consumer, and squeezes financial services companies’ margins will negatively affect the economy. The costs of increased regulation always get passed along to the consumer in some way, shape or form. Limiting profits also limit tax revenues to the US Treasury in the form of corporate taxes, as well as limiting the taxes paid on dividends. Finally, no company will hire if they have to choose between new employees and profitability. Profits first, then job growth.
Of course, this Administration believes that more government, and more regulation is better than the alternative. Which brings us back to the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico. Government could not solve this problem. President Obama’s unwillingnes to recognize this fact, rather, to pin it on the previous Administration, has convinced me that less Washington is the answer, not more. Incidentally, government could not solve the Katrina problem either. It was private philanthropy, including church-based organizations, that had the greatest impact during the Katrina aftermath.
It would seem that if anything, this Administration, and especially the President, is deliberately trying to keep people from focusing their attention on the economy, jobs and the fact that companies continue to shed them. This is preferable to actually implementing policies that will create jobs, stimulate the economy, and generate revenues back to federal, state and local treasuries.
On Friday, the Labor Department will release the non-farm employment numbers for June. Consensus estimates suggest that the economy shed 145,000 jobs this month, and if so, that the unemployment rate will rise to 9.8% from 9.7%. Look for President Obama to do some if not all of the following:
- Create a diversion
- Blame it on the financial crisis and the previous administration
- Express a need for additional stimulus
Do not expect him to take responsibility, or offer any potential solutions other than those expressed above. This will prove to solidify Republican gains in both houses of Congress in November. The country wants solutions and for a responsible President. It will have to wait another two and a half years.
Page 16 of 17« First«...10...1314151617»
