Mass SNAFU

A political interview for the ages

This is simply classic and shows the risks of live television.  It also shows the risks associated with not screening your guests.  A Providence, RI station decided to start a "Coffee Hour wit the Candidates" segment where they get to know the candidates running for local office and boy did they get to know this guy:

The response from the segment's host is priceless as she attempts to balance professionalism and her shock of what's occurring to her on live TV, without busting up in hysterics and/or tears.  It was nice work on her end.

But this is just another example of what a disgusted electorate does to initiate its own change in a sour political climate.  So add Providence Mayoral candidate Chris Farley, err, Chris Young to the list of the Alvin Greene's and the Basil Marceaux's of the world, all attempting to make it a better place.

Godspeed boys.

Cash for Clunkers: more of a failure than previously thought

 

The Cash for Clunkers program turned out to be a complete waste of taxpayer money as it failed to create demand and simply moved it forward, creating a void in auto sales down the road when people would have normally purchased their vehicle as planned.  It also destroyed thousands of perfectly good cars, reducing the used car inventory available to the public for purchase.

As anyone who has taken a basic economic course will tell you, when you reduce the supply of something, its price goes up.  And wouldn't you know it, the prices of used cars have skyrocketed since the passing of the C for C program.  Edmunds has the dirt:

Car buyers on average paid $1,800 more for a used vehicle in July than they paid a year ago at this time, according to Edmunds.com data. That's a 10.3 percent increase, bringing the average cost of a 3-year-old vehicle to $19,248. The price of a Cadillac Escalade spiked nearly 36 percent. "A lack of confidence in the economy is driving more people to used cars, putting upward pricing pressure on a limited supply of vehicles," said Joe Spina, a senior analyst for Edmunds.

There's a tricky aspect to this analysis, because last summer was marked by a used-car buying frenzy spawned by the Cash for Clunkers program. Spina said the effects of that program are hard to isolate precisely. "So many economic factors affect automobile sales and prices. It's believed that the program delayed purchases prior to the program and also pulled sales forward while in place," he said. "The program also eliminated inventory of older vehicles that were traded and then scrapped."

So the economic brainiacs at the White House created a program that cost taxpayers $3 billion - or $24,000 per car sold - and in doing so, raised the prices of used vehicles close to $2000 on average for the middle class.  Absolute brilliance.

This is classic liberal policy though: Come up with an idea that looks like it’s helping the people, even though it’s hurting them, and keep them trapped in the lower to middle class so that they continue to vote for the Democrats who are “helping” them. Just look how well it's worked in Detroit.

Wake up people.

The awakening of Barney Frank

After years of defending the Community Reinvestment Act and the GSE's of Fannie and Freddie - all of which have been universally blamed as major contributors to the catastrophic failure of the housing market - Bawny Fwank has apparently had a change of heart. In an interview with Larry Kudlow, and shared in Kudlow's piece at TownHall, the senior representative from Massachusetts had some interesting comments regarding his affinity for the bottomless pits of tax payer bailouts,:

“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”

When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied: “Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing.”

Frank also said that any federal housing guarantees should be transparently priced and put on budget. But he added that the private sector must be encouraged to re-enter housing finance just as the government gradually withdraws from it.

Now isn't that a complete about face?  It certainly is a long way from this:

Then again, it is an election year and Bawney actually has some competition this time around.  After witnessing the beatdown distributed by Republican Scott Brown in his home state and with the anti-incumbent sentiment growing by the day, Fwank might be playing some election year politics at the expense of his pet projects.

New NRSC ad: Who exactly is extreme again?

Uh, it's the party of big government, trillion dollar deficits, forced healthcare, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, you know, the one that knows what's best for all of us no matter what we may think.  The Democrats have done more damage to themselves by exposing their true colors in ignoring the court of public opinion on pretty much every single one of their agenda items and on issues like the AZ immigration law and the Ground Zero Mosque.  

They are no longer the party of the people and this new ad sheds some light on that fact:

I say good riddance and let's just hope the new Republican majority doesn't act as stupidly as the Democratic one did over the past 19 months.

New low for O: 24% think he's a Muslim

In a new poll from Time, 24% of Americans surveyed honestly believe President Obama is Muslim.  That's insane.  What could possibly give anyone that idea?

Oh right.  I guess that would sway some people.  And I guess his whole Muslim appeasement strategy, the mistreatment of Israel, supporting a mosque at Ground Zero, and even his failure to publicly identify a non-Jeremiah-Wright-run church for his own religious needs might fuel some of this speculation, but I digress.

Seriously though, can it get any worse for this guy?  His approval numbers are at all time lows and the economy is in absolute ruin - completely failing to respond to his Keynesian spend-it-if-you-got-it (or don't) approach.  I mean don't get me wrong, the beating he is taking is all well-deserved but to have 25% of the country think you're a Muslim?  That's just harsh.

Fool me once, shame on you ... Fannie and Freddie are back!

According to a new watchdog report, government funded support of the financial system increased by $700 billion this year alone, bringing the total amount spent to bailout the system to $3.7 trillion.  Can you take one wild guess as to whom received the majority of that $700 billion increase?  From Reuters:

The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program said the increase was due largely to the government's pledges to supply capital to Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) and to guarantee more mortgages to the support the housing market.

Increased guarantees for loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration, the Government National Mortgage Association and the Veterans administration increased the government's commitments by $512.4 billion alone in the year to June 30, according to the report.

"Indeed, the current outstanding balance of overall Federal support for the nation's financial system...has actually increased more than 23% over the past year, from approximately $3.0 trillion to $3.7 trillion -- the equivalent of a fully deployed TARP program -- largely without congressional action, even as the banking crisis has, by most measures, abated from its most acute phases," the TARP inspector general, Neil Barofsky, wrote in the report.

So Fannie and Freddie - all but ignored in the recent financial reform package - rear their ugly heads again to the tune of half a trillion of our tax dollars.  The two GSE's are starting to become like the post office - as in always in need of a bailout - yet with the power to force all of us to pay our idiot neighbor's mortgage, and destroy the financial system in the process.  They're one of the main reasons we're in this mess in the first place and are now being encouraged to repeat the same mistakes.  Big government is so ridiculously stupid awesome!

And just for kicks, criticism was also lobbed at the administration’s failed housing programs: 

Barofsky also in the report ramped up his criticism of the Treasury's housing relief efforts, saying that its program to reduce monthly mortgage payments for struggling homeowners was showing "anemic" participation numbers and had failed to "put an appreciable dent in foreclosure filings."

You know why?  Because no one has a freaking job!  No matter how much your mortgage may be reduced, if your making zero, you can’t pay it.  It makes more sense to just walk away from it.  The result being record foreclosures.  Barofsky also noted the program's complete lack of "transparency and accountability," something that is rapidly becoming a staple of this administration in everything it does. 

The reality is that government intervention – through social engineering programs like the Community Reinvestment Act -  caused this mess we’re in today, and government intervention is now preventing the free market from getting us out of the mess these myopic bureaucrats created.  Mortgage bailouts, home buyer tax credits, cash for clunkers – all of it, is just making matters worse, increasing our debt and prolonging the recovery. 

Throw in Obama’s unfriendly, pro-tax business policies that have eliminated risk taking and stunted growth and you have one hell of a vicious cycle occurring right now.

Can you imagine how great government run health care is going to be with these idiots behind the wheel?

With his poll numbers in the tank and an economy in ruins, Obama blames the rich

Things not going quite the way you envisioned, champ?  Well, with the midterm elections less than four months away and public support looking pretty bleak, it might just be time to dig deep into the liberal playbook and enact some class warfare:

President Barack Obama stepped up criticism of Republicans on Saturday for blocking jobless aid, hammering home a Democratic election year attack line that casts the opposition as the party of the rich.

"Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

Or, they might just want to cap the spending spree that has resulted in record deficits and a $13 trillion national debt.  The latest obstruction that Captain Kick Ass references is the Democratic idea of stimulus, er, the extension of unemployment insurance.  Fiscally prudent individuals – in this case, those evil, rich Republicans – realize that taking money from those that work and giving it to those who do not results in an economic wash as far as a stimulus goes.

Furthermore, these same Republicans also realize that the longer you pay someone not to work, the less incentive they have to actually go out and find work, which often times ends up in higher unemployment.  Even far-left economists like Paul Krugman used to agree with that premise. From his textbook, Macroeconomics:

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

Of course, with a Democrat in office, Krugman no longer feels that way and has championed the liberal cause of handing poor people money in exchange for votes, but I digress. 

The point of the matter is that  the government has a duty to provide unemployment benefits as a temporary aid to help people get back on their feet and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner.  It is not the government’s responsibility however, to create a nanny state dependent on a permanent source of income from the government under the guise of unemployment insurance.

But back to the strategy of casting Republicans as the "party of the rich."  Does it make a lot of sense for a guy who flew his dog out to the family vacation on a separate plane to pursue that tact?  Sometimes the limousine liberal is simply incapable of realizing their own hypocrisy and the unintended comedy is priceless.

The real reason LeBron went to Miami: Big government and tax-happy politicians

   

In what turned out to be a circus of an announcement, Lebron James chose Miami over numerous other NBA teams, including his former team in Cleveland.  By league rules, Cleveland had the ability to offer James more money than anyone.  If Lebron James had stayed in Cleveland however, he would have actually made less – even though he was getting paid more - than he would in Miami due to state and city income taxes he'd have to pay in Cleveland.  CNBC has the breakdown:

…if you match up what James’ salary would be for the first five years in Cleveland and the five years in Miami, you find that the Cavaliers are only offering him $4 million more.

That advantage gets erased — and actually gives the Heat the monetary edge over — when you consider the income tax difference. ...

Playing in Cleveland, LeBron would face a state income tax of 5.925 percent, plus a Cleveland city tax of two percent.

Over the first five years of a new contract with Cleveland, James would give back $3,953,060 combined to the state and city for the 41 games each season he’d play at home. But James would have to pay none of that for home games in Miami since Florida doesn’t have an income tax.

Athletes have to pay income taxes to states that they play in on the road, so the games he’ll play away from home — whether he played for Cleveland or Miami — are essentially a wash.

But there are, on average, 11 away games per season where James would have to pay Ohio and Cleveland taxes. Why? Because he has to pay when he plays in the six areas – Florida, Texas, Washington D.C., Illinois, Toronto and Tennessee – that have no jock taxes.

That’s another $1,061,128 he’ll have to pay in taxes that he wouldn’t have to pay in Miami.

Sure, James would be guaranteed one more year if he signed with Cleveland, but unless the business of basketball supremely changes, you have to believe James will be worth as much at the end of the 2014-15 season as he is now.

So if you match up the five years in Cleveland to five years in Miami, and include Florida’s tax advantage, LeBron would actually make $1,014,188 over five years with the Heat than he would with the Cavaliers.

This should come as no surprise though.  We’ve been seeing a mass exodus of wealthy individuals in states that have treated the successful as never ending troughs of tax revenue. New York and New Jersey tax policies for instance, have lead to a big shift in wealth to states with no income tax – like Florida and Texas.  According to one recent study, New Jersey alone lost nearly $70 billion in net wealth from 2004 to 2008 because fewer rich people moved in than out and one of the main reasons identified for that has been the state’s obscene taxes on the wealthy.

Regardless, just add the disappointment of Cleveland and New York Knick fans in not landing LeBron James to the long list of unintended consequences of big government and liberal policy. 

Are you a producer or a parasite?

   

That’s the question a frustrated Missouri farmer recently posed to the national Democrats:

David Jungerman farms 6,800 acres of river bottom land in western Missouri.

He’s not the kind of guy who posts on Twitter or has a Facebook profile.

So when the 72-year-old Raytown man wanted to speak out politically, he used what he had handy: a 45-foot-long, semi-truck box trailer.

Are you a Producer or Parasite

Democrats - Party of the Parasites

He planted the trailer with its professionally painted message in his Bates County cornfield along heavily traveled U.S. 71 about an hour south of Kansas City. He wanted lots of people to see it.

And of course, one of the parasites in question found it offensive and - as any good far-left zealot is wont to do - attempted to burn it down …twice.  It’s still up though and getting the point across and as luck would have it, it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon:

“Well, I would have pulled it out of there by now if they hadn’t burned the tires off.”

Democrats: the party of unintended consequences and parasites. 

Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said “we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labour of the industrious.”  Never has that statement been more true than today and kudos to Mr. Jungerman for pointing that out.

When a Keynesian economist tells you the stimulus failed, you know the stimulus failed

Can we all just put to rest any argument that President Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus package actually worked?  After commenting on the Obama’s administration’s failure to think long term in stimulating the economy, Keynesian economist Jeffrey Sachs flat out says at the end of the clip that the “stimulus failed.”  To anyone with half a brain who realizes you can’t spend your way out of debt, this comes as no surprise.

To those ardent Keynesians on the left however, this is outright blasphemy!  Of course the stimulus worked they say.  It created a new normal of 10% unemployment, a debt level at 90% of GDP, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see and a complete shutdown of private sector growth…oh wait.

Imagine being in debate class and getting stuck with arguing the success of the stimulus with those facts.  It’s an impossible argument to win, but the left still tries.