Paul Ryan's attempt for an Adult Conversation on Debt & Entitlement Reform

Ryan tries to explain that his plan for reform focuses on any person younger than age 55. That group would have 3% of their Social Security savings (at the current withdrawal level) put aside into their own private account (not pooled) which is monitored and maintained by the Federal Government and not by Wall Street. The best part about it.....it's optional, thus giving Americans the choice to stick with the current system, or have the additional option of guaranteeing 3% of their Social Security investment.

Watch who's trying to scare the 55 and up retirement group.

We're now 4th in Competitiveness Against Other Nations

"We're no longer "exceptional" Joe..."

Investors Business Daily places the blame on the Obama Administration, but this is the result of years of federal intrusion into the private sector in the lase few Administrations.  The current Administration's only sped up the process.  The World Economic Forum notes:

The United States now ranks fourth among all nations in competitiveness, down from first just two years ago. Not surprisingly, it’s government — not business — that’s to blame. …

Why did we lose our spot at the top? Broadly speaking, the Geneva-based forum report cites “a weakening of the United States’ public and private institutions, as well as lingering concerns about the state of its financial markets.”
The group stressed that the U.S. remains innovative with a flexible labor market and outstanding higher education. But its soaring deficits, burgeoning debts and declining public confidence in the nation’s leaders and businesses are dragging it down. Finding a way to end the massive federal stimulus of the last two years will help boost U.S. competitiveness, the WEF also said.
The report doesn’t come right out and say it, but it might as well: Not only is Obamanomics not working, it’s doing material damage to America’s economic well-being.

It certainly hasn’t helped that under Obama and Democrats, government has grown more confiscatory and intruded farther into private markets. Healthcare Refrom is the best example, but the proposed cap-and-trade system would have been worse, impacting every single home and industry directly with higher costs that eventually transfer massive amounts of capital back to Washington. Congress would have put itself into the task of picking winners and losers in energy markets instead of allowing the markets to work that out for themselves — in other words, using the competitive pressures of markets determine outcomes rather than political cronyism. That goes to the heart of competitiveness, and shows why we’re declining.
 
But that is really a symptom of a deeper ill, as Business Insider noted earlier in the week:
 
Take property rights. They’re at the essence of US capitalism. Last year, according to the WEF’s survey of executives, the US was the 30th best country. This year we’ve fallen to 40th.

And you’ll be stunned at the countries that our better than the US.

If you aren’t stunned by the nations listed, then be stunned by the length of the list, at least. No one will be terribly put out to see Canada (10), Austria (9), or Switzerland (1) ahead of the US. But what about Saudi Arabia (28)? China (38)? Jordan (30)? The US got edged out by Gambia, which relies on foreign aid to deal with high unemployment and underemployment, according to the CIA factbook.
 
If we want to improve our economy, we need to improve our competitiveness. If we want to improve competitiveness, we need to protect property rights and get the federal government out of the redistribution business. Property rights are the first rights mentioned in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) for a reason. It’s the basis of prosperity and opportunity, and also the basis of a free, self-governing people.  China's doing better in property rights than we are.  That should be an emarassment.

Another "Surprise": The cost curve bends UPWARDS due to Healthcare Reform

Recall the time when President Obama and many Democrats promised that Healthcare Reform would "bend the cost curve downward" and cease the rapid increases in costs?  The Wall Street Journal has an advance look at a report from the federal government that shows no slowing in costs to the government as a result of the Healthcare Reform bill. In fact, the analysis will show that the bill’s passage actually results in an increase in future costs over what had been projected for the next decade:

The health-care overhaul enacted last spring won’t significantly change national health spending over the next decade compared with projections before the law was passed, according to government figures set to be released Thursday.

The report by federal number-crunchers casts fresh doubt on Democrats’ argument that the health-care law would curb the sharp increase in costs over the long term, the second setback this week for one of the party’s biggest legislative achievements. …
Regardless of the health law, national health spending has been rising in recent years and economists expect that to continue. In February, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projected that overall national health spending would increase an average of 6.1% a year over the next decade.
The center’s economists recalculated the numbers in light of the health bill and now project that the increase will average 6.3% a year, according to a report in the journal Health Affairs. Total U.S. health spending will reach $4.6 trillion by 2019, accounting for nearly one of every five U.S. dollars spent, the report says.
“The overall net impact is moderate,” said lead author Andrea Sisko, an economist at the Medicare agency. “The underlying impacts on coverage and financing are more pronounced.”

I present to you a chart directly from the Centers for Medicare &Medicaid Services; Health Affairs:
 

 
Earlier in the week, the Journal reported that insurers have already begun raising premiums in response to the front-loading of Healthcare Reform benefit mandates by the White House. That report sent Democrats into fits of anger, threatening to “ratchet up pressure” on insurers. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) blamed “greed” for price increases instead of the higher costs imposed by the mandates — all of which was the predicted consequence of adding more mandates and bureaucracy to insurance coverage.
 
I would like to hear the same Democrats attempt to explain once again how the higher costs in Healthcare Reform meets their promise of bending the cost curve downward. In addtion to this bit of news, it also consistently pushes the curve upwards for private insurance, and especially Medicaid. It only bends downward for Medicare and slightly downward for out-of-pocket costs for consumers. (Figures are on WSJ link above)
 
Medicare does look slightly better under Healthcare Reform due to the lower reimbursement rates for Medicare services, which means it comes out of the pockets of doctors. The predictable result will be fewer participating providers in Medicare, which will mean longer wait times, more difficulty in getting treatments, and most likely higher out-of-pocket payments as those consumers pay retail for their medical care more often.

DOGGIN' OBAMA???!

I've been a little busy lately (if you haven't noticed). I'm leaving a little bit from Zo. He keeps it pretty mild in this video, but hits the good points. Some of the subjects that he brings up will be expanded upon in the near future (tax incentive versus tax cuts, etc.). Going to change the direction of this site a bit to focus strictly on economics.

Black Conservatives Blast Al Sharpton Protesters in DC 8/28

DUDE!!!

The Runaway Slave movie crews were at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor Rally” and at Al Sharpton’s “Reclaiming the Dream March” on Aug 28th. As the two ideologies clashed in DC, our movie crews were on the scene. In this raw footage, shot near the future MLK memorial site, Black Conservatives leaving the “Restoring Honor” rally encounter Sharpton’s protestors who were holding signs claiming “Tea Party Racism.” This is just one of the exchanges that was captured after the rally had ended.

The best line:

"“In 1960 over 80% of black babies were born in two-parent households. After welfare, I work in the inner city, I work with kids that look like me. After LBJ’s welfare policies in the 60′s in the inner city over 90% of kids are born without fathers. Because the liberal establishment wants to break apart the nuclear family. Because they want kids controlled by the state. That’s what Karl Marx said. So let’s talk about that!”

Keynesian Economics haven't worked. Good news though, the White House has found Fiscal Conservatism

The left will forgive him if it helps to preserve the congressional majority in the Senate, and since the majority in the House is a lost cause, he’d probably be pushed by the GOP into doing something like this next year anyway. Might as well do it now and take as much of the credit as he can:

With the recovery faltering less than two months before the November congressional elections, President Obama’s economic team is considering another big dose of stimulus in the form of tax breaks for businesses – potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars, according to two people familiar with the talks.

Among the options are a temporary payroll tax holiday and a permanent extension of the research and development tax credit, say people familiar with the talks who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to describe private deliberations.
Permanently extending the research credit would cost roughly $100 billion over the next decade, tax experts said. And depending on its form and duration, a payroll tax holiday could let businesses keep more than $300 billion they would otherwise owe the Treasury.

Add that since some liberals like to remind us of how well Social Security is doing financially, there should be minimal screeching about a temporary revenue shortfall due to a payroll tax cut, no? But wait — what's this?
 
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…

“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…
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…
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.

If Congress moves to extend the Bush tax cuts even for the rich, will Obama dare veto the bill at this point? Or will he break liberal hearts by going back on another oft-repeated campaign promise? We know that every campaign promise, thus far, has had an expiration date.  For the sake of saving the party this year, I don't see why he would stick to his promises now.
 
Two videos ephasizing that the economic team, up to this point, had NO IDEA what they were doing from day one.  Watch in the next few months as the spin on the Stimulus will be: we shouldn’t have sold the job-creation program known as the stimulus as … a job-creation program.  You can't make this up.
 
From last year; Christina Romer (now resigned from the Economic team) explaining how they had no clue how to handle the economy:


Anita Dunn making her case recently:

Restoring Honor 2010

Live Feed from the "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington D.C.  Figured we might as well see what all the hubub is about.

Economic Info for the Month of July

All is well....

Man...economic news isn't good:

• Yesterday, the news came out that existing home sales dropped 27% for the month of July.  In order to stabilize the residential markets, jobs have to return and prices have to stabilize. The Obama administration has gotten in the way of both processes. Thanks to ill-advised taxpayer-subsidized interventions, prices have remained unrealistically high, and no one wants to buy until they pay the right amount for the value of their investment. And until we quit penalizing capital and introducing massive ambiguities into regulatory regimes and expanding them, jobs won’t get created and new buyers won’t materialize anyway.
• Today, the Commerce Department noted that new home sales dropped 12% for the month of July; down 37% from last year. Expect more deflation in housing markets this year as sales dive to new lows
• Although the Commerce Department predicted a 3% growth, durable goods orders rose, but only slightly thanks to transportation industry by 0.3%.  Meanwhile the rest of the industry dropped 3.8% last month.  In other words, absent artificial stimulation, we had no growth at all in Q2. Depending on the final revision, due on Friday, we could be anywhere from -0.3% to -3.4% excluding Porkulus in Q2. Recovery Summer, my ass.
• Thanks to last year's Cash for Clunkers, used car prices have JUMPED 10% overall due to a lower supply in inventory.  As predicted last year, the people most hurt by the price increases are those who can least afford them. The used-car market usually attracts people who need transportation on a budget, who cannot afford to buy new. By destroying a quarter’s worth of trade-ins in three weeks and permanently taking them off the market, the Obama administration has forced an artificial inflation by supply restriction. Moreover, they did so by subsidizing new-car sales that would have occurred anyway, eating up three billion dollars in taxpayer money. In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families. Nice work.

Keep in mind that our entire economic recovery has been in the hands of a Democratic Administration and Congress with little to no experience in running a business in the private sector.  In the examples above, each have been directly affected by the laws passed since 2009 under their watch.  Businesses are sitting on 2 Trillion just to collect interest instead of spending to hire and expand because of the policies passed by the current party in power. Nobody knows what's to come of the new legislations that have been passed. I mean this with the utmost respect.....Wake the fuck up people.

Bye Bye Student Health Insurance, another victim in the wake of Healthcare Reform

After the University of North Carolina issues with health insurance, you'd think that colleges would be set with health coverage for their students. Well, due to a surprise in the new Healthcare bill: (via QandO)

Colleges and universities say that some rules in the new health law could keep them from offering low-cost, limited-benefit student insurance policies, and they’re seeking federal authority to continue offering them.

Their request drew immediate fire from critics, however, who say that student health plans should be held to the same standards that other insurance is.
Among other things, the colleges want clarification that they won’t have to offer the policies to non-students.
Without a number of changes, it may be impossible to continue to offer student health plans, says a letter that the American Council on Education sent Aug. 12 to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, signed by 12 other trade associations that represent colleges.
Additionally, the colleges say that some provisions of the law don’t apply to their policies, including those that require insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their revenue on medical care and that bar them from setting annual coverage caps.

Universities usually offer some form of health insurance to students, but those policies fit the needs of young adults, who generally don’t access the health care system nearly as much as older adults. They have smaller networks, as students generally stay within a small geographic area. Premiums are lower because of the low risk, but also because some comprehensive services don’t get fully covered, usually those accessed by people in middle age or older. In short, the policies are tailored to the clientele, which is why pricing can be more efficient.
 
With the new Healthcare Bill, policies can no longer be tailored to clientele, nor can consumers make choices that best fit their lives. All policies must look mainly alike, thanks to the top-down command “reforms” in Healthcare, which mandate coverages regardless of risk or need. So, a comprehensive policy designed to cover Americans in their 50s would be useless for just about anyone who attends college in their youth, and would be more expensive than they are likely to afford.
 
Universities can either offer policies that are so expensive that only a few can afford to buy them, which creates all sorts of problems in managing a risk pool, or they can simply get out of the health-insurance business altogether. Businesses have chosen to opt out thus far, so there's no reason to believe that the Universities wouldn't do the same.

Democrats are running against themselves!?

Let me start off by saying:  I'm glad the first day of school comes once a year.

Let's start today with the Democrats.....or should I say, the ones distancing themselves from the Democratic agenda as of late:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called them her “majority makers” – the moderate to conservative Democrats in right-leaning districts whose election in 2006 made her Speaker.

And now many of them – and other Democrats in competitive districts -- are fighting for their political lives in a harsh environment and have found it necessary to distance themselves from their leaders and Democratic policies.
After Democrats won a special election in Pennsylvania earlier this year in which the GOP nominee tried to tie the Democrat, Mark Critz, to Pelosi and Obama, the Speaker said, “What we learn from this election and I think hopefully Republicans saw clearly, is nationalizing the election, talking about Speaker Pelosi and President Obama was not as appealing to the public there than Mark Critz talking to them about their jobs.”
Will that also hold true for Democrats talking about Pelosi and Obama in a negative way?

In case you are in disbelief, here are the campaign ads. First, Bobby Bright, D-Ala:



Next, Jason Altmire, D-Penn:



Mike McIntyre, D-NC:



Glenn Nye, D-Va:



Joe Donnelley, D-Ind with 2 ads.:





This is a just a mess.

Whew....LONG WEEK!!!

Too bad it's going to be much longer.  Summer's almost over and school will begin for the little one, so I'm in parent mode until next wednesday.  I have no special guest posters on my site just yet, but feel free to check out some of the links to the left of blogs I regularly visit.  Hotair.com is the absolute best.  Enjoy until I return!

Andrew Klavan: A Young Person's Guide to the United States Constitution

It's the little things they don't emphasize...this video lays out the basics of the Constitution so anyone can understand it