Quotulatiousness

September 1, 2011

“It is rather amazing how fast Solyndra wasted over half a billion US taxpayer dollars”

Filed under: Environment, Government, Technology, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:34

Mike “Mish” Shedlock looks at the breakneck pace of loss at Solyndra, a solar power company that just went bankrupt:

The federal government should get out of the business of picking technology and “green” winners. Government backing of alternate energy companies has been nothing short of disastrous.

A solar energy firm touted by the administration in 2010 as a as a “gleaming example of green technology” today announced bankruptcy. 1,100+ employees will be fired.

[. . .]

The “seen” math is simple enough. $535 million divided by 1,100 is roughly $486,363 per job saved, now job lost.

That is just the “seen” consequence. The “unseen” consequences are not directly calculable but by giving Solyndra money, other companies that the free market would have preferred have been harmed, perhaps permanently harmed.

Although Obama clearly rushed this pathetic company for a nice photo-op, this is not a simple case of the president failing to do his homework as the GAO implies. The government has no business promoting this kind of crap in the first place.

In this case, it is rather amazing how fast Solyndra wasted over half a billion US taxpayer dollars, so fast I suspect fraud.

August 29, 2011

Kaus: Ten things Obama should have done differently

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:09

Mickey Kaus thinks the President would have been much better off (and the US economy too) if he’d done several things differently:

Excessively well-sourced Obama boosters are now channeling, not just White House spin but White House self-pity. Both Ezra Klein and Jonathan Alter wonder aloud why our intelligent, conscientious, well-meaning, data-driven President is taking a “pummeling.” ”What could Obama have done?” (Klein) “What, specifically, has he done wrong .. .?” (Alter)

They’re kidding, right? There are plenty of things Obama could have done differently. Most of these mistakes were called out at the time. Here, off the top of my head, are ten things Obama could have done:

[. . .]

3. Made the UAW take a pay cut. Whoever else is to blame, the UAW’s demands for pay and work rules clearly contributed to the need for a taxpayer-subsidized auto bailout. To make sure that future unions were deterred from driving their industries into bankruptcy, Obama demanded cuts in basic pay of … exactly zero. UAW workers gave up their Easter holiday but didn’t suffer any reduction in their $28/hour base wage. Wouldn’t a lot of taxpayers like $28 hour jobs? Even $24 an hour jobs?

[. . .]

5. Not pursued a zombie agenda of “card check” and “comprehensive immigration reform”–two misguided pieces of legislation that Obama must have known had no chance of passage but that he had to pretend to care about to keep key Democratic constituencies on board. What was the harm? The harm was that these issues a) sucked up space in the liberal media, b) made Obama look feckless at best, delusional at worst, when they went nowhere; c) made him look even weaker because it was clear he was willing to suffer consequence (b) in order to keep big Democratic constituencies (labor, Latinos) on board.

6. Dispelled legitimate fears of “corporatism” — that is, fears that he was creating a more Putin-style economy in which big businesses depend on the government for favors (and are granted semi-permanent status if they go along with the program). I don’t think Obama is a corporatist, but he hasn’t done a lot to puncture the accusations. What did electric carmaker Tesla have to promise to get its Dept. of Energy subsidies? Why raid GOP-donor Gibson’s guitars and not Martin guitars? We don’t know. At this point, you have to think the president kind of likes the ambiguity–the vague, implicit macho threat that if you want to play ball in this economy, you’re better off on Team Obama. That’s a good way to guarantee Team Obama will be gone in 2013.

Oh, and for a bonus bit of unwelcome news for President Obama, his uncle has just been arrested for drunk driving. His illegal alien uncle, who now faces deportation.

August 26, 2011

Unexpectedly over-used

Filed under: Economics, Government, Media, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:05

Jim Geraghty explains why the word “unexpectedly” has become a punchline:

For about three years now, conservative bloggers have chuckled at how frequently the unveiling of bad economic news comes with the adverb “unexpectedly” in media reports. As Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, Michael Barone, and others have often asked, unexpected to whom?

“I think it’s a combination of cognitive dissonance, the terra nova nature of the post-bubble economy, and a healthy dose of partisanship,” suggests Ed Morrissey, who has blogged about the ubiquitous adverb regularly at HotAir.com.

Perhaps the perpetual surprise reflects a media desire to focus on pockets of growth or prosperity — at least with a Democrat in the White House. In a widely diversified $14 trillion economy, one can almost always find some areas of economic improvement.

Certainly, a media that wanted to paint a more dire portrait of the economy would have no shortage of material to work with. There’s considerable evidence that America’s problems in job creation are much worse than the most widely cited numbers would indicate.

For example, President Obama spent much of the past year touting the number of consecutive months of private-sector job growth that the country had enjoyed. But that boast comes with some asterisks. Traditionally, the population of American workers grows each month, and while economists differ a bit on precisely how many new jobs are needed each month just to keep the unemployment rate stable, it’s often more than the figure Obama cites. The Heritage Foundation puts the figure at 100,000 to 125,000; some argue that any serious reduction of the unemployment rate will require adding 200,000 jobs per month. Only four months out of the past 17 have seen at least 200,000 jobs added; some months of growth have been minimal, such as January 2010, when the economy added 16,000 private-sector jobs,. Nonetheless, like a bloop single keeping a batter’s hitting streak going in baseball, meager months of job growth permit Obama to keep bragging about how many consecutive months he has presided over private-sector job growth.

August 24, 2011

What the US economy really needs

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:22

What it really needs is less interference from the government, which is why Michael Tanner is asking them to stay on vacation:

As the economy continues to teeter on the precipice of a double-dip recession, there is a growing demand for the president and Congress to rush back from their vacations and do something. But why?

What is it that we really think the president can do?

While the president’s latest economic plan remains a deeply held secret until after his vacation, pretty much everyone in Washington expects him to call for . . . drumroll please . . . a stimulus plan.

Now why haven’t we thought of that before? Oh, that’s right. We have.

In fact, we have now had at least five — or is it six? — stimulus plans since this recession started.

August 21, 2011

Obama has to fight reductions in government spending

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:02

Christopher Taylor explains why (in addition to the mere philosophical issues) Obama will have to resist any cuts to government spending:

In other words, to fix the debt, we have to lose jobs. To trim the debt down and reduce government spending to a sane and survivable level lots of federal jobs are going to be lost. That’s an inevitable consequence of the federal government bloat over the last few decades; lots of new jobs added, each costing money. When you cut the spending, jobs will be lost. And because a lot of that debt was created by adding new jobs, the direct and obvious solution is to snip those jobs away.

And it gets worse. Blacks are disproportionately represented in government jobs. In fact, hiring blacks in federal jobs is so out of norm with the general population that NASA has the smallest over representation by only hiring 49% more blacks than are in the general population. Blacks make up about 10% of the United States population, but make up about 20% of the federal government jobs according to a 2010 study by the Office of Personnel Management.

So we’re faced with a brutal dilemma: in order to lighten the pressure of the federal government on the economy and businesses so both can breathe and prosper, we’re going to have to slash the government down in size which will result in many people losing jobs in a time of dire unemployment. And many of those lost jobs will be black jobs.

Now, which politician wants to stand up and actually do that? Which politician will vote and fight to slash jobs and fire lots of black people? And if that actually somehow takes place, what exactly do you think will happen in the press and in black America? How do you think that will be portrayed by a media which already is incredibly hostile to the idea of cutting anything in the federal government?

H/T to Gerard Vanderleun for the link.

August 12, 2011

Why Obama is being attacked from the left

Filed under: Economics, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:12

Victor Davis Hanson outlines the reasons for increasing attacks on President Obama and his administration from his erstwhile allies on the left:

Politics, of course. The combination of sinking polls to the near 40% range, the stock market nosedive, the Standard and Poor’s downgrade, the tragedy in Afghanistan, the confusion over Libya, the embarrassing golf outings and First Family insensitive preferences for the aristocratic Martha’s Vineyard, Vail, and Costa del Sol have contributed to a general unease on the Left about Obama’s judgment, perhaps to the extent that he might well take the Left down in 2012, both in the House and Senate, whether he wins reelection or not.

But the argument remains incoherent: Obama is being blamed for not being liberal enough — after federalizing much of the health care delivery system, expanding government faster than at any time since 1933, borrowing more money in two and a half years than any president in history, absorbing companies, jawboning the wealthy, going after Boeing, reversing the order of the Chrysler creditors, adding vast new financial and environmental regulations, appointing progressives like a Van Jones or Cass Sunstein, and institutionalizing liberal protocols across the cabinet and bureaucracy, from the EPA to the Attorney General’s Office.

In other words, there is now an elite liberal effort to disentangle Obama from liberalism itself, and to suggest that his sagging polls are not a reflection of Obama’s breakneck efforts to take the country leftward — but either his inability or unwillingness to do so!

Partly, the disappointment is understandably emotional. Just three years ago Obama was acclaimed as a once-in-a-lifetime prophet of liberalism, whose own personal history, charisma, teleprompted eloquence and iconic identity might move a clearly center-right country hard leftward where it otherwise rarely wished to go.

Partly, the anger is quite savvy: if one suddenly blames Obama the man, rather than Obama the ideologue, then his unpopularity is his own, not liberalism’s. There is a clever effort to raise the dichotomy of the inept Carter and the politically savvy Clinton, but in the most improbable fashion: Clinton supposedly was a success not because he was personable, sometimes compromising, and often centrist, and Carter was a failure not because he was sanctimoniously and stubbornly ideological, but just the opposite: Clinton is now reinvented as the true liberal who succeeded because of his principled leftwing politics; Carter like Obama was a bumbling compromiser and waffler.

August 7, 2011

Mitchell: Obama bears only 15% of the blame for the downgrade

Filed under: Economics, Government, History, USA — Tags: , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 17:57

In a blog post guaranteed to tick off members of both parties, Daniel Mitchell tries a first approximation of where the blame should be assigned:

Well, it turns out that Social Security is a relatively minor part of the problem, so even though President Roosevelt’s policies exacerbated and extended the Great Depression, the program he created is only responsible for a small share of the fiscal crisis. To give the illusion of scientific exactitude, let’s assign FDR 13.2 percent of the blame.

The health care numbers are much harder to disentangle because it’s not apparent how much of the increase is due to Medicare, Medicaid, Bush’s prescription drug entitlement, and Obamacare. A healthcare policy wonk may know these numbers, but the CBO long-run forecast didn’t provide much detail.

So with a big caveat that these are just wild estimations, I feel reasonably comfortable in saying that both Bush and Obama made matters worse with their reckless entitlement expansions, but that they merely deepened a fiscal hole that was created when President Johnson imposed Medicare and Medicaid.

August 6, 2011

Oh, good: I didn’t miss much while I was away

Filed under: Economics, Humour, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 16:24


Obama: Debt Ceiling Deal A Prime Example Of Democrats And Democrats Sacrificing For The Greater Good

July 19, 2011

US business is “frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President”

Filed under: Economics, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:08

You don’t normally find stem-winders like this in quarterly business updates, especially from self-described Democrats:

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it’s not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, God, don’t be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama’s deal and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, their holding too much money. We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody’s afraid of the government and there’s no need soft peddling it, it’s the truth. It is the truth. And that’s true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I’m telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.

Walsh: This is what the debt-ceiling fight is really all about

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:20

Michael A. Walsh puts the real issue into focus:

Forget all the numbers being tossed around in Washington — the millions and billions and trillions of dollars being taxed, borrowed, printed and spent as the country approaches the Aug. 2 debt-ceiling deadline.

Forget the political jockeying for position between a president desperately seeking re-election in 16 months and a Congress equally desperately seeking not to be blamed for spending even more money that we don’t have.

Forget the fact that such “entitlements” as Social Security and Medicare — social-insurance programs that the public long thought to be actuarially sound — have been exposed as little more than legal Ponzi schemes, paying today’s benefits out of tomorrow’s borrowed receipts.

Instead, just ask yourself this simple question: When did it become the primary function of the federal government to send millions of Americans checks?

For this, in essence, is what the debt-ceiling fight is all about — the inexorable and ultimately fatal growth of the welfare state. If you don’t believe it, just look at President Obama’s veiled threat to withhold Grandma’s Social Security benefits if Congress doesn’t let him borrow another $2 trillion or so to get himself safely past the 2012 election.

July 16, 2011

Reason.tv: The debt ceiling debate is full of malarkey

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:47

July 15, 2011

The US government’s plight, as a poker technique

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:05

Jagadeesh Gokhale points out that President Obama is not only bluffing, but that it’s transparently obvious what this tactic is intended to achieve:

The president’s Wednesday night warning to House Majority Leader Cantor to not “call his bluff” suggests that… well, he’s bluffing. But the president has already been playing some transparently thin cards in this game of poker, including his melodramatic — but highly questionable — hint that Social Security checks would be interrupted on August 2.

The go-to strategy in a literal train wreck is to jump off a nanosecond just before the collision. The debt-limit debate is more complicated, however, because no one really knows what the effect would be if the deadlock on budget negotiations continues through August 2nd.

Debt-rating agencies may soon downgrade U.S. debt. But does the debt of a country on a fiscal path to borrow and spend 45 percent more than its revenues — at a time when its debt already equals its annual output — really warrant a AAA rating? Won’t House Republicans really be doing investors a service by revealing a more honest debt rating?

[. . .]

Regarding a potential “bluff” by the president and high officials of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve: It’s only natural that they would sound the most dire of alarms. There is no guarantee that the government would default on its existing contractual debt and that financial markets would tank even if such a temporary technical default were to occur. But the risk of such events is not zero and no high government officials would wish to risk it on their watch.

A hint about whether and how much President Obama might be “bluffing” is his unwarranted warning that Social Security payments could not be guaranteed if the debt limit is not increased. There is every reason to believe that those payments could and would be made in full in August — and for many more months — no matter whether the budget deadlock is resolved by August 2nd.

Why a budget deal won’t work

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:11

Sheldon Richman provides a few reasons to doubt that any deal worked out between congress and the President will actually solve anything:

Whether President Obama and congressional Republicans can work out a deal to let the government to borrow even more (!) money seems to hang on whether the latter will go for increased in tax revenues.

Following the zigzagging negotiations isn’t easy. First the aim was a short-term deal. Then both sides decided to go for a big package: $4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. That broke down when Obama said a quarter or a third of that amount should come from new revenues.

When I hear about ten-year budget deals, I first divide the aggregate number by ten so I see how little is at stake each year. I also want to know if the spending reduction is real or phony. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute says most cuts are likely to be accounting tricks. For example, Edwards shows how the rulers could easily “reduce” the Afghanistan/Iraq war budget by $1 trillion without really cutting a penny. (Hint: pretend the wars will go on forever.)

I also remind myself that no Congress can bind a future Congress. Would you bet a substantial sum on a congressional promise to reduce the deficit over ten years? I didn’t think so. Even if Obama is reelected, he wouldn’t be in office for the last four years of the period.

Skepticism is justified. In the 1980s another deal was struck that supposedly would deliver $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue. Know what happened? That’s right.

Oh, and the various polls showing that either a majority or a significant minority of voters are willing to see increased taxes in order to get a budget deal? Remember that nearly 50% of Americans do not pay income tax — it’d literally be no skin off their noses if the other half have their taxes raised.

July 12, 2011

Have the markets already “priced in” the risk of a US government default?

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:48

Along with everyone else, I’ve been watching the US government’s fiscal game of “chicken” with some alarm. What is puzzling is that the opposition in congress doesn’t seem to be all that scared by the risk of default:

The facts, in fact, are plain enough. In the unlikely event that the U.S. government would hit the real ceiling on August 2 as advertised, the federal government would still be on track to collect about $2.2 trillion in the fiscal year. That wouldn’t change. And net interest for the year would still be about $205 billion, or less than a tenth of incoming revenues. And in light of the consequences, there is no doubt that President Obama and his Treasury Secretary would ensure that the interest payments are made on time and in full.

Thus it should not be surprising, as Fox Business News senior correspondent Charlie Gasparino wrote in a New York Post piece some days ago that “just about every private-sector economist I speak to says that Treasury could simply use its ample cash on hand to pay off our creditors first—then begin to prioritize payments for the military and various social programs.”

This view appears to be shared in spades by the credit markets, which so far have reacted to the Obama-media scare tactics with a big yawn. When the markets fear real default, they respond by jacking up interest rates, as we’ve seen in Greece, Italy, Portugal, etc. It’s happening right now in those countries.

In sharp contrast, U.S. long-term rates are actually falling. The 10-year Treasury bond rate, which only a few days ago was around 3.15 percent, has dropped 20 basis points to 2.95 percent. Maybe the markets just aren’t paying attention. Or maybe they know Obama and Company are blowing smoke. Whether the debt ceiling is raised on time or not, markets are confident that the interest will be paid.

June 30, 2011

Someone accidentally told the truth on network TV

Filed under: Humour, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 14:45

It’s okay, though, he’s been suspended indefinitely:

Joe Scarborough: Mark Halperin, What was the president’s strategy? We are coming up on a deadline and the president decided to please his base, push back against the Republicans. I guess the question is, we know a deal has to be done. Is this showmanship? A lot of times you go up there and both sides and they act tough so their base will be appeased, then they quietly work the deal behind the scenes.

Mark Halperin: Are we on the seven second delay?

Mika Brzezinski: Lordy.

Halperin: I wanted to characterize how the president behaved.

Scarborough: We have it. We can use it. Go for it. Let’s see what happens.

Brzezinski: We’re behind you, you fall down and we catch you.

Halperin: I thought he was a dick yesterday.

Scarborough: Delay that. Delay that. What are you doing? i can’t believe — I was joking. Don’t do that. Did we delay that?

Halperin: I said it. I hope it worked.

Scarborough: My mom is watching! We’ll know whether it worked or not.

Either his apology will be accepted (eventually) or he’s managed to resign in the most public way imaginable.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress