Posts Tagged ‘Christina Romer’

Scared Democrats Admit Bush Was Right On Tax Cutting Policy

September 5, 2010

More and more Democrats are admitting that increasing taxes on the rich people who actually create jobs would be a foolhardy thing to do.

That pours a big giant can of water on the fire Democrats started in the whole blame-Bush-for-the-economic-meltdown thing.  Bush’s tax cuts were the biggest straw man for Democrats.  And now some of the most prominent Democrats are saying we need to keep those same tax cuts that Democrats were universally demonizing only months ago.

More Dems buck plan to let taxes increase for rich
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — Congress seems increasingly reluctant to let taxes go up, even on wealthier Americans.

Worried about the fragile economy and their own upcoming elections, a growing number of Democrats are joining the rock-solid Republican opposition to President Barack Obama’s plans to let some of the Bush administration’s tax cuts expire.

Democratic leaders in Congress still back Obama, but the willingness to raise taxes is waning among the rank and file as the stagnant economy threatens the party’s majority in the House and Senate.

“In my view this is no time to do anything that could be jarring to a fragile recovery,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, a first-term Democrat. […]

“It’s going to be hard to resist a one-year extension for everybody, given the state of the economy,” said Clint Stretch, a tax expert at the consulting firm Deloitte Tax LLP. “That’s where I think the ball is moving.”

The tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush. They provided help for both rich and poor, reducing the lowest marginal rates as well as the top ones and several in between. They also provided a wide range of income tax breaks for education, families with children and married couples.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends were reduced, while the federal estate tax was gradually repealed, though only through this year. […]

Another freshman Democrat, Rep. Bobby Bright of Alabama, said he would like to see all the tax cuts extended for two or three years, if lawmakers cannot agree on a more permanent plan.

“Party leaders are not my directors or my boss,” Bright said. “My boss is my constituents, and I’ve heard from a vast majority of my constituents that they don’t believe in tax increases on anybody at this point in time.”

Bright is high on the re-election endangered list, one of roughly four dozen Democrats in districts won by Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008.

In the Senate, where Democrats need unity and at least one Republican vote to overcome filibusters, at least three Democrats and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut have said they want to extend all the tax cuts temporarily.

Several Democratic candidates for Senate have also come out in favor of extending them all, including Robin Carnahan in Missouri and Jack Conway in Kentucky.

“Jack Conway was in favor of the Bush tax cuts when they first passed (in 2001 and 2003), and he’s in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts now,” said spokeswoman Allison Haley.

An article in McClatchey Newspapers points out that if Democrats try to hike taxes on the rich, it will be Democrats who stood in the way:

Democrats unlikely to repeal tax cuts for the rich
By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party’s effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don’t face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.

Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail. […]

Many Democrats and Republicans are eager for a tax cut battle, seeing it as emblematic of each party’s economic principles.

“Now the administration is calling for a massive tax hike on small businesses in the middle of a recession,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who maintains that higher rates on the wealthy would hit small business hard, a point the Obama administration disputes.

“So it’s no surprise,” McConnell added, “that most Americans think the country is on the wrong track and that Democrat policies have failed to do anything to fix their top concern, the economy.”

Democratic leaders are convinced that voters won’t buy that argument. Not only will the public back higher taxes for the rich, but “we have an opportunity to generate $700 billion that could go to deficit reduction and badly needed programs,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a co-chairman of the House Progressive Caucus.

The middle class-only extension is thought to have strong support in the House, where Democrats have a huge majority, but some Democrats are reluctant.

Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va
., represents the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, one of the nation’s wealthiest districts. Median family income there in 2008 was $117,892, well above the national average of $63,211. He said that repealing the top rates would have political consequences.

“Sometimes we forget how we became the majority. We did it by winning some affluent districts,” he said.

The bigger problem for Democrats looms in the Senate, where Majority Leader Reid’s immediate problem is getting the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on the measure. Democrats control 59 seats, and at least three of them — Bayh, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota — have signaled that they won’t back a permanent repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

They suggest a way out of a stalemate — temporarily extending all the expiring tax rates — but so far the leadership isn’t going along.

Sean Neary, a spokesman for Senate Budget Committee Chairman Conrad, said the senator backed such an extension “for now.”

“The general rule of thumb is that you do not raise taxes or cut spending during an economic downturn. That would be counterproductive,” Conrad said.

Nelson also offered what’s become the centrist Democratic mantra. He, too, said he’d back extending the tax breaks for the wealthy “for at least a period of time because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery.”

That stand could be even more popular with Democratic candidates for the Senate who aren’t incumbents
. The hottest races are in conservative states, such as Kentucky, where Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway are battling for the seat now held by Republican Sen. Jim Bunning.

Of the expiring tax cuts for the wealthy, Conway spokeswoman Allison Haley said that he “believes we should extend them now, especially when so many Kentucky families and small businesses are struggling under this recession.”

In Missouri, Republican U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt and Democrat Robin Carnahan are in a tight race. Despite a welcoming embrace with Obama at a Kansas City fundraiser in July, Carnahan said last week that she wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

“Now is not the time to raise taxes,” she said.

In Indiana, U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., who’s seeking to replace Bayh, told the Evansville Courier & Press this summer that all the Bush-era tax cuts should become permanent
.

That position makes sense, said Brian Vargus, a professor of political science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, because Indiana is “an overwhelmingly Republican state … and there is never support for taxes or public goods.”

So from this article we see the term “moderate.”  And the moderates are those Democrats who see a compromise to the looming war over tax cuts: keep them all for now.  Don’t hike taxes on the only economic class of Americans who have the wherewithal to actually create jobs.  Keep the the tax cuts for at least a year, if not 2-3 years.  But the hard-liner Democrats are willing to see the tax cuts end for EVERYONE in order to maintain their Marxist class warfare principle of punishing the rich for being successful.

Democrats offered two reasons in their unrelenting demagoguery of George Bush: 1) they said the tax cuts caused the economic disaster; and 2) they said Bush’s refusal to regulate caused the economic disaster.

But 1) is now blown apart, given DEMOCRATS’ current acknowledgment that the Bush tax cuts – yes, even for the rich – weren’t the bogey man Democrats have been saying.

And 2) suffers from the flaw that Bush DID try to regulate the entity most responsible for the meltdown that befell the economy in 2008, and the ONLY reason that entity was not reformed and regulated was because DEMOCRATS blocked Bush at every turn.

That entity was the Government Sponsored Enterprise, or GSE, commonly known by the brand names of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was Fannie and Freddie that expanded and ultimately exploded using dangerous subprime loans (see also here).  It was also Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who bundled thousands of bad and good mortgages together into instruments called “mortgage backed securities” and sold them to the private sector.  And when no one could separate the good from the bad, uncertainty paralyzed the banking system and led to the crash.

A brief history of the mortgage meltdown reveals how it was the GSEs acting under Democrat policies that created the housing bubble – (and even Obama economic shill Christina Romer admits “the popping of the housing bubble had serious consequences” which “destroyed $13 trillion of wealth in 2008”) – and the corresponding mortgage crisis which imploded our economy:

In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae, the nation’s largest home mortgage underwriter, relaxed credit requirements on the loans it would purchase from other banks and lenders, hoping that easing these restrictions would result in increased loan availability for minority and low-income buyers. Putting pressure on the GSE’s (Government Sponsored Enterprise) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration looked to increase their sub-prime portfolios, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development expressing its interest in the GSE’s maintaining a 50% portion of their portfolios in loans to low and moderate-income borrowers.[10]

As noted, subprime mortgages sky-rocketed during the initial era of loosening of terms throughout the 1990’s. From a low of 5% of mortgages in 1994, to 14% in 1997, to 23% in 2005, subprime mortgages continued to boom in the early 2000’s. Following the 2004 initiative policy change spearheaded by a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital, subprimes became an even greater investment vehicle for investment banks and institutions in the U.S. and around the world. Since 1994, the securitization rate of subprime loans has increased from approximately 32 percent to nearly 78 percent of total subprime originations.[11] This further exposed the financial community to the effects of the coming housing bubble.

Democrat policies created the housing bubble that Christina Romer acknowledges was the cause of the destruction of the US economy.

And the refusal of Democrats to reform and regulate Fannie and Freddie exploded that bubble.

Bush warned SEVENTEEN TIMES that we needed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or have an economic disaster on our hands.  John McCain urged action to avert an economic disaster.  And Democrats refused to budge to deal with the monster they created.

Again, Bush was right.  Democrats were profoundly wrong.

The mainstream media propagandists refused to report the truth.  They kept broadcasting a lie, and naive and frankly stupid Americans rewarded the Democrats who created the economic disaster with total power.

And we’ve been paying for that stupidity for the last two years.

As of today, Obama is at a dismal 42% approval, and in danger of plunging into the 30s.  45% of Americans now strongly disapprove of Obama, versus only 24% who still strongly approve of the job he’s doing “fundamentally transforming” our economy into a pre-industrial barter system.

Obama is in full meltdown mode as all of his campaign rhetoric is being revealed for the lies it always was:

And Democrats are deservedly going to meltdown right along with him.

Obama Keeps Lying About The Economy

August 12, 2010

“Fish story.”  “Such statements hurt his credibility.”  Let’s just call it what it is: a pile of lies from a profoundly dishonest man.

JULY 21, 2010
Obama’s Economic Fish Stories
On unemployment, the president claims that the stimulus bill was several times more potent than his chief economic adviser estimates. Such statements hurt his credibility.
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

A president’s most valuable asset—with voters, Congress, allies and enemies—is credibility. So it is unfortunate when extreme exaggeration emanates from the White House.

All presidents wind up saying some things that make even their own economists cringe (often the brainchild of political advisers unconstrained by economic principles, facts or arithmetic). Usually, economic advisers manage to correct these problematic statements before delivery. Sometimes they get channeled into relatively harmless nonsense, such as President Gerald Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” buttons. Other times they produce damaging policies, such as President Richard Nixon’s wage and price controls. The most illiterate statement was President Jimmy Carter’s late-1970s plea to the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to combat high inflation, the exact opposite of what it should do. Not surprisingly, the value of the dollar collapsed.

boskin

Martin Kozlowski

President Obama says “every economist who’s looked at it says that the Recovery Act has done its job”—i.e., the stimulus bill has turned the economy around. That’s nonsense. Opinions differ widely and many leading economists believe that its impact has been small. Why? The expectation of future spending and future tax hikes to pay for the stimulus and Mr. Obama’s vast expansion of government are offsetting the direct short-run expansionary effect. That is standard in all macroeconomic theories.

So, as I and others warned in 2008, the permanent government expansion and higher tax rate agenda is a classic example of what not to do during bad economic times. Worse yet, all the subsidies, bailouts, regulations and mandates are forcing noncommercial decisions on the economy, which now awaits literally thousands of new diktats as a result of things like ObamaCare and the financial reform bill. The uncertainty is impeding investment and hiring.

The president does not say that economists agree that the high future taxes to finance the stimulus will hurt the economy. (The University of Chicago’s Harald Uhlig estimates $3.40 of lost output for every dollar of government spending.) Either the president is not being told of serious alternative viewpoints, or serious viewpoints are defined as only those that support his position. In either case, he is being ill-served by his staff.

Mr. Obama’s economic statements are increasingly divorced not only from competing viewpoints but from those of his own economic advisers. It is surprising how many numerically challenged pronouncements come from this most scripted and political of White Houses. One slip is eventually forgiven, but when a pattern emerges, no one believes it is an accident.

For example, on the anniversary of the stimulus bill, Mr. Obama declared, “It is largely thanks to the Recovery Act that a second Depression is no longer a possibility.” Yet his Council of Economic Advisers just estimated the stimulus bill’s effect on GDP at its trough was 1%-2%.

The most common definition of a depression is a long period in which GDP or consumption declines at least 10%. The decline in GDP in the recent recession was 3.8%, in consumption 2%. No one disputes the recession was severe, but to reach a 10% GDP decline requires tripling the administration’s estimate (three times their 2% effect) added to the actual 3.8% decline. On the alternative consumption standard, the math is even more absurd. The depression statement isn’t credible. The stimulus bill has assumed certain mystic powers in administration discourse, but revoking the laws of arithmetic shouldn’t be one of them.

The recession would have been worse if not for the Fed’s monetary policy and quantitative easing. Also important were the unmentioned automatic stabilizers—taxes falling more than income, cushioning declines in after-tax incomes and consumption—which were far larger than the spending and tax rebates in the stimulus bill. Arguing that all these policies (including injecting capital into banks, which was necessary but done poorly) may have prevented a depression is perhaps still an exaggeration but at least is within hailing distance of plausibility. On that scale, the effect of the stimulus was puny.

On his recent “Recovery Tour,” Mr. Obama boasted, “The stimulus bill prevented the unemployment rate from “getting up to . . . 15%.” But the president’s own chief economic adviser, Christina Romer, has estimated that the stimulus bill reduced peak unemployment by one percentage point—i.e., since the unemployment rate peaked at 10.1%, it prevented the unemployment rate from rising to just over 11%. So Mr. Obama claims that the stimulus bill was several times more potent than his chief economic adviser estimates.

Perhaps the most serious disconnect concerns the impending expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which will raise the top two income tax rates and the rates on dividends and capital gains. If these growth inhibiting tax increases occur—about $75 billion in tax increases next year, $1.4 trillion over 10 years—there will be serious economic damage.

In the most recent issue of the American Economic Review, Ms. Romer (and her husband David H. Romer) conclude that “tax increases are highly contractionary . . . tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.” Their estimates imply the tax increases would depress GDP by roughly half the growth rate in this so-far-anemic recovery.

If Mr. Obama is really serious about a second stimulus, by far the best thing he can do is have Congress quickly extend the expiring Bush tax cuts, combined with real spending cuts set to take effect as the economy improves.

The president badly needs to make more realistic pronouncements. No one expects him to say his policies have failed (although most have delivered far less than claimed at large cost). A little candor about the results of experimentation in uncharted waters would go a long way. But at the very least, his staff needs to avoid putting these exaggerations on the teleprompter. It undermines confidence and raises concerns about competence. It’s doing nobody any good—not the economy and certainly not Mr. Obama.

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

Day after day after day, Obama touts slivers of good news as magnificent, while ignoring pile on top of pile of bad news.  We keep getting these tortured numbers, cherry-picked out of a a rotten mess.  And we’re constantly told the increasingly laughable narrative that Obama’s incredible leadership is what kept everything from being even worse than it is.

The funniest aspect of all is when Obama and his mouthpiece Robert Gibbs keep assuring us that no economist disagrees with their policies when their very own chief economist is on record disagreeing with Obama’s policies.

Obama mouthpiece Gibbs declares:

I’ll let Congressman Boehner unwind his eloquent argument for preserving the tax cuts for those that are quite wealthy.  I don’t think the President believes — I don’t think there’s an economist that believes there’s a stimulative effect to — or a good reason in terms of economic growth to extend those tax cuts, particularly given the choice that one has to make about the budget deficit.

Forbes Magazine demonstrates how fallacious and even dishonest Obama’s and Gibbs’ statements have been in pointing out that the:

chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, herself a Keynesian, has done research that undercuts the Keynesian view of good fiscal policy.  Some of this research is in a March 2007 paper, “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks,” co-authored with her husband, fellow University of California, Berkeley, economist David Romer.

In their article, they find that “tax increases are highly contractionary” and that tax cuts are highly expansionary.

And Forbes goes on to conclude:

“In other words, if she believes her own research, Christina Romer should be a strong critic of her new boss’s policies.”

So maybe you guys should stop making flagrantly false statements that all the economists agree with you, when in point of fact even your own economist doesn’t agree with you.  Or, at least only agrees with you by denying her own academic research for the sake of appearances.

That may be why she’s leaving the White House.  She can finally tell the truth – something that the Obama White House would never even dream of allowing her to do.

Let’s Contrast Obama’s Work Schedule With His Economic Team’s

August 8, 2010

I found this interesting.  We’ve heard the inside stories that Christina Romer is quitting over conflicts with Lawrence Summers and frustration at being left out of Obama’s incredibly insular “team.” And then there’s also the fact that Romer recently published an academic paper that contradicts Obama’s central theses regarding government spending and high taxes.

But now we’re fed a different story, courtesy of the Official Obama Propaganda Service (OOPS):

Obama’s economic team exhausted
By Sam Youngman – 08/07/10 06:00 AM ET

President Obama’s economic team is exhausted, according to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, and that is one the reasons Christina Romer announced her departure Thursday.

Gibbs dismissed reports that Romer, the outgoing chairwoman of the president’s council for economic affairs, was leaving because of conflicts with Larry Summers, the director of the National Economic Council.

The press secretary told The Hill on Friday that Romer and the rest of the economic team have worked the equivalent of six years during the 18 months they’ve been in office, and Romer wanted to return to her normal life.

“These guys have probably packed a term and a half into a half of a term,” Gibbs said.

Romer is the second member of the economic team to leave this summer. She follows Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The early days of the administration alone were enough to wear the team down, he said, as they realized the depth of the recession.

“If you think about what we went through in the beginning, nobody knew when we woke up if the whole thing was just going to come crashing down,” Gibbs said.

[If one listens carefully, one can hear a shrill, whiny voice screaming, “It’s all Bush’s fault Romer is resigning!”].

Romer was involved in the administration’s planning of the $787 billion economic stimulus package. Ever since the legislation was approved by Congress, she’s been at the forefront of the administration’s effort to sell the product to the public.

That’s been difficult given the fact that the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent after the legislation’s approval. The administration had hoped the jobless rate would top off at 8 percent.

Romer was the administration’s public face every month when the national unemployment numbers were released – usually to bad news. She issued a statement on Friday noting the private sector created 71,000 jobs in July, not enough to lower unemployment.

Reports surrounding her departure suggest she was leaving because of the heavy presence of Summers, an economist with a reputation for less than stellar people skills, and because she was frustrated with life in Washington.

Gibbs dismissed those stories, saying Romer had been in on every critical meeting with Obama on the economy and played a key role in the White House’s economic policies. […]

So here’s the White House narrative to cover up the fact that there are big pissing matches going on inside the White House economic team, and the fact that Obama’s own economist has written a paper suggesting that her boss is leading the nation to “highly contractionary” economic ruin: Romer is quitting because she’s been working 32 hours a day (6 years divided by 1.5 years, times an average 8-hour work day).

Let’s not laugh and take it seriously for a moment.  The White House economic team has worked themselves into a frazzled mess, burdened with their profound care for the average America.

Well, what about their boss, Barry Hussein?

From the GuardianUK:

As Barack Obama settles into the White House, the differences between the way the old and new presidents manage their time will begin to show. Now it is time to break the puritan fiction that the only way to achieve is to get up early and live clean.

Ex-president Bush rose at 5.45am and was at his desk by 6.45am. He worked until 6pm, taking meetings in strict five-minute blocks. He ran three miles in 21 minutes before lunch every day. He does not drink. Women’s skirts – in his White House – had to fall below the knee.

Obama gets up hours later – aides during his campaign said he did much of his strategising after midnight. He smokes, he drinks beer while watching sports, and has mentioned keeping his regular poker night while president.

Bush showed up ready to work at 6:45AM.  For Obama, it’s kind of nice if he shows up by 9:30 – and not particularly bright-eyed or bushy-tailed after the partying from the previous evening.

That economic team is working themselves to the bone.  Obama couldn’t give a flying favorite-Emanuel/Blagojevich-phrase.

But staggering in to the office late in the morning at a time when useful people might be typically taking their first break of the day isn’t really enough to get the picture of contrast between those frazzled, overworked economic team members and their boss Barry Hussein.  Because we haven’t taken into account for all the vacations and all the golf outings, have we?

Obamas Take 4 Vacations in 1 Month

While many Americans are cutting back on their vacation plans or eliminating them altogether, Barack Obama is setting an aspirational example for all of us. Sure, times are tough, but perhaps we can enjoy a life of leisure vicariously through our betters.

On July 16-18, the Obamas enjoyed their first summer vacation in beautiful Bar Harbor, Maine. The idyllic town has long been favorite summer getaway for the rich and powerful going back to the Gilded Age. Truly a resort fit for a king public servant.

Anticipating exhaustion from two long weeks in Washington, D.C., Michelle Obama is hosting her eldest daughter and several family friends on a “private vacation” to Spain, August 4-8. Staying at the luxurious Villa Padierna, Americans can rest easy knowing the accomodations will “pamper guests with elegance, spaciousness and a comforting array of amenities.”  With three golf courses on the property, it’s quite a shame Barack must attend a party thrown in his honor by one of his billionaire friends.  Despite this hardship, I’m sure Michelle will sing “Don’t Cry for Me, America”. Or at least hum a few bars. (After the spa’s Chakra Balancing treatment with Hot Stones.)

The five days back in the White House will be a horrible burden to the family. Thankfully, the Obama clan will take a third vacation, Aug. 14-15, to Florida’s Gulf Coast, following charges of hypocrisy for vacationing in Maine earlier. As any PR pro will tell you, the best response to “out of touch” accusations is to face them head on. Preferably from a balcony, sipping a mojito while watching Helios’ golden rays paint the beach in myriad shades of gold as the fiery orb slips ‘neath the azure horizon.

Obama started out partying in a wildly inappropriate way:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House is the place to be on Wednesdays.Since the presidency changed hands less than six weeks ago, a burst of entertaining has taken hold of the iconic, white-columned home of America’s head of state. Much of it comes on Wednesdays.

The stately East Room, where portraits of George and Martha Washington adorn the walls, was transformed into a concert hall as President Barack Obama presented Stevie Wonder with the nation’s highest award for pop music on Wednesday.

// <![CDATA[//

A week before that, the foot-stomping sounds of Sweet Honey in the Rock, a female a cappella group, filled the East Room for a Black History Month program first lady Michelle Obama held for nearly 200 sixth- and seventh-graders from around the city.

Cocktails were sipped during at least three such receptions to date, all held on Wednesdays.

And he hasn’t let up since:

President party boy
The wrong kind of leadership

By JOHN GIBSON
Last Updated: 4:15 AM, June 10, 2010

Last week’s jobs report tanked the stock market; the president took weeks to assert control of the oil spill that threatens doom on the Gulf Coast — but at the White House the Gatsby-like parties roll on as if happy days were here again.

Just yesterday, President Obama held another fun-filled White House event, a picnic for Congress members, complete with hot dogs, cold beverages and a fire pit.

All told, during the last seven weeks of spewing oil and rampant unemployment, he has frolicked and danced through three major White House music parties:

Of course, the hypocrite propagandist lamestream media constantly criticized George Bush for golfing or vacationing or partying or pretty much anything, claiming that he needed to be constantly working to solve all the problems they said the nation faced.  And that was, you know, at a time when the nation didn’t have anywhere NEAR as many problems as it faces now.

Obama’s golf outings have generated favorable reports from the media, in contrast to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

On Aug. 5, 2002, The Washington Post wrote about President Bush golfing near his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Under the headline “Before Golf, Bush Decries Latest Deaths in Mideast,” staff writer Mike Allen described Bush as he “sprang from his golf cart at 6:15 a.m. and said he was distressed to hear about the latest suicide bombers in Israel.”

“Bush, wearing khakis and a knit shirt, was holding a driver in his gloved left hand,” Allen wrote.

“However incongruous the setting, the president plunged ahead,” Allen wrote.

And the entire country wasn’t falling apart at the time Allen took his leftwing cheap shot at Bush in the name of “journalism,” unlike what’s going on all around us today.

Blatant media hypocrisy and total disregard for anything approaching objectivity aside, the real emphasis needs to fall back on our Vacationer-in-Chief, as contrasted with his near-dead from exhaustion economic team.

There’s an ad for Direct TV that features a Russian Zillionaire.  He says, “Opulence, I has it.”  As he strolls leisurely along, he looks at two golden sculptures of himself, and without bothering to seriously study either he casually points a finger and says, “Zis one.”

That pampered Russian is apparently playing the roll of Obama strolling through the White House at noonish after getting home from another vacation or from attending another lavishly-opulent and taxpayer-funded party.

On this scenario, Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer were both up all night working on an economic report – according to Robert Gibbs – and Obama strolls in while they each hopefully hold up their work and says “Zis one.”

And of course, according to the stories, most of the time it’s Lawrence Summers’ report Obama points at.  Because Summers can piss farther.

Obama is so out-of-touch with reality it’s unreal.  He knows nothing about business.  None of the people who are making all the stupid decisions around him know anything about business.

Our post turtle president:

There’s just one difference between Obama and the post turtle – or apparently Obama’s economic team.  The post turtle can actually be found at his post.

Update: In addition to the massive criticism Michelle Obama has deservedly received for her massively expensive vacation to Spain (complete with government-funded transportation and over seventy Secret Service agents), we now learn that the Obama’s are going on their FIFTH vacation since July.

Let them eat cake.

Romer To Quite As Obama Economic Team Descends Into Pissing Matches

August 7, 2010

What can I say?  Poor Christina.  She found herself in a pissing contest, and found out that she wasn’t packing the right weaponry for Obama’s court.

Personally, I would rather the contest be over who had economic ideas that actually worked.  But nope.  It’s really pretty much just about pissing over in Obamaland.

Romer to quit as Obama adviser

Domenico Montanaro writes: National Journal’s Victor will have the scoop in tomorrow’s edition of the National Journal magazine that Obama economic adviser Christina Romer is quitting the post. It all stems from her feeling — despite her title as chairwoman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers — that Larry Summers has more influence with the president.

Victor quotes “a source with insight into the White House economics team,” who says:

“She has been frustrated. She doesn’t feel that she has a direct line to the president. She would be giving different advice than Larry Summers [director of the National Economic Council], who does have a direct line to the president. She is ostensibly the chief economic adviser, but she doesn’t seem to be playing that role.”

And he quotes banking consultant Bert Ely, who faults Summers for the missed jobless rate projection. (The administration posited that it would be just 8% if the stimulus passed, yet it is nearly 10% now.)

“You have to wonder why Summers isn’t the one that should be taking the fall,” Ely says, per Victor. “But Larry is a pretty good bureaucratic infighter.”

You’ve got to wonder if this departure has anything to do with the fact that Christina Romer concluded in an academic paper that Obama and his economic team basically had their skulls filled with turds when it came to tax policy.

An embarassing question will now never be answered:

Romer, the economics professor, says raising rates now will be “highly contractionary.”  Will Romer, the president’s adviser, speak up and tell the public that letting the Bush tax cuts expire will hamper the recovery?  Or will she toe the party line and not tell Americans the public policy implications of  her own academic research?

To put it in other words, Christina Romer’s academic paper, published in one of the top economic publications, argued that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would be “highly contractionary.”  Which is to say that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would cause the economy to shrink.  A lot.

And now we’re not going to get to know how Christina Romer, brilliant economist, was going to reconcile with Christina Romer, shill for the braindead Obama administration.

And thus the last functioning brain cell is pulling up stakes and leaving Obamaland.

Obama Administration Sacrifices All Credibility Re: Failed Stimulus

January 14, 2010

The Obama administration, after every false promise that didn’t come to pass, every false measurement that included phony congressional districts and bogus zip codes, and repeated humiliations, finally dropped it’s fraudulent and never-before-used-in-history “created or saved” jobs.

From the AP:

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.

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.

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.

The new rules, quietly published last month in a memorandum to federal agencies, mark the White House’s latest response to criticism about the way it counts jobs credited to the stimulus. When The Associated Press first reported flaws in the job counts in October, the White House said errors were being corrected and future counts would provide a full and correct accounting of just how many stimulus jobs were saved or created.

So they’re supposedly not pulling that bogus crap any longer.

Only they still are.  It’s amazing how quickly the most dishonest administration in the last century violates its own statements.

Britt Hume took apart the new version of of the same old bogus crap they’re trying to pull now:

“One day after it came out that the administration had decided to stop trying to count the number of jobs created or saved by that $787 billion spending bill the president signed last year, the White House was back doing it again.

Christina Romer, the president’s top economic adviser, announced Tuesday that the spending had resulted in 2 million jobs created or saved. Romer called that a, “truly stunning and important effect,” adding that the spending, “had done exactly what we have anticipated it would do.”

No it hasn’t.

Romer herself said a year ago that the stimulus spending would hold the unemployment rate below eight percent. It’s now at 10 and counting. More than 4 million jobs were lost last year
. What’s more, an analysis by the Associated Press has found that the outlays on roads, bridges and other infrastructure, had no discernible effect on local employment and had barely helped the construction industry.

The lesson here is a very old one: Government spending is a poor antidote to recession because the money has to be taxed or borrowed from one part of the economy to be spent in another. Not only that, it’s slow medicine. Even Romer said in her glowing report that only about a third of the money had been spent.

On second thought, given the effect the spend-fest has had on the deficit, maybe that’s the good news.”

— Brit Hume is the senior political analyst for Fox News Channel.

Christina Romer has sacrificed all personal and professional credibility to protect and defend the failed policies of Barack Obama.

She was the White House official who assured the nation that unemployment would not go over 8% if Obama’s stimulus passed.

She was the White House official who told us that the stimulus would have its greatest impact in the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2009, which means it has already basically run its course.

Now she’s saying the stimulus which she herself claimed would prevent unemployment from going above 8% – and which ran its course last year after unemployment went up above 10% – fulfilled the Obama White House’s predictions?  Seriously?

Does this mean that Obama PLANNED to lose more jobs during his first year as president than any president has EVER lost – over 4 MILLION – since 1940?

This is Obama doing GOOD?  O.M.G.

I suppose businesses paralyzed by uncertainty due to Obama’s policies and the harm that they will do to the economy, which is frightening away new hiring, must be REALLY good.

All I can say is this: if this is the Obama administration’s idea of doing good (at least a good, solid B+ anyway), may God have mercy on our doomed souls if they ever actually screw up.