Author: Tickler

And the Liberal Press Actually Expect Us To Take Them Seriously?

Tickler Leave a comment

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

FROM THE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER’S CYBERALERT.
File this one under “Deluded Expectations.” During MSNBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, on Nov. 27, daytime anchor Alex Witt seemed frustrated that the election of Barack Obama 23 days earlier — and the accompanying “global outpouring of affection, respect, hope” — had not caused an end to terrorist violence.

Talking with correspondent John Yang, who was covering the Obama side of the story, Witt conceded that while “you certainly can’t expect things to change on a dime overnight….There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.”

[This item, by the MRC’s Rich Noyes, was posted Monday morning on the MRC’s blog, Newsbusters.org]

It almost seems like a parody of liberals’ blind worship of Obama to actually expect that The One’s election would mean terrorists hanging up their bomb belts, peace around the world, lions lying down with lambs, and so forth. For his part, Yang delicately pointed out the more valid concern that “the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States” during the transition from Bush to Obama.

Here’s the full exchange, that took place at about 2:55pm EST on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day, after Yang reported on how Obama was being fully briefed by the Bush administration on the terrorist attacks:

ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it’s interesting because there are many who had such an optimstic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.
JOHN YANG: He’s — it’s a rude awakening, a very, sort of, sober reminder of what he’s going to be facing in just a few weeks. And there is some concern also, there had been some concern, that during this period, during this, the transition period, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, that the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States, would try to take advantage of this period, and I think that may be one thing that we’re seeing right now.
WITT: Okay, John Yang there in Chicago, following President-elect Barack Obama’s Thanksgiving Day dinner having been interrupted by all of this news from Mumbai. John, thank you very much.

Find the article on the Wall Street Journal’s website here.

Modified Mortgage Re-Default Rate More Than 50%

Tickler Leave a comment

The Comptroller of the Currency issued the following report regarding mortgages that were modified in 1Q 2008 in order to supposedly help the homeowners stay in their homes. The results are dismal. Yet I’m sure our President-Elect and Democrat Congress will push forward with plans to do this on a large scale, backed by government (our) $’s.

WASHINGTON — Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan said today that new data shows that more than half of loans modified in the first quarter of 2008 fell delinquent within six months.

“After three months, nearly 36 percent of the borrowers had re-defaulted by being more than 30 days past due. After six months, the rate was nearly 53 percent, and after eight months, 58 percent,” the Comptroller said in remarks at the Office of Thrift Supervision’s National Housing Forum today.

Mr. Dugan spoke during a panel discussion with OTS Director John Reich, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Donald Kohn, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart.

A key question, Mr. Dugan said, is why is the number of re-defaults so high? “Is it because the modifications did not reduce monthly payments enough to be truly affordable to the borrowers? Is it because consumers replaced lower mortgage payments with increased credit card debt? Is it because the mortgages were so badly underwritten that the borrowers simply could not afford them, even with reduced monthly payments? Or is it a combination of these and other factors?”

Read the full report here.

New Deal Economics

Tickler Leave a comment

A great op-ed piece by Amity Shlaes in the Wall Street Journal responding to Paul Krugman’s incessant campaigning on why New Deal spending works. Unfortunately our President-Elect seems to subscribe to Mr. Krugman’s brand of misguided economics.

Some highlights from the WSJ piece:

The New Deal is Mr. Obama’s context for the giant infrastructure plan his new team is developing. If he proposes FDR-style recovery programs, then it is useful to establish whether those original programs actually brought recovery. The answer is, they didn’t. New Deal spending provided jobs but did not get the country back to where it was before.

This reality shows most clearly in the data — everyone’s data. During the Depression the federal government did not survey unemployment routinely as it does today. But a young economist named Stanley Lebergott helped the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington compile systematic unemployment data for that key period. He counted up what he called “regular work” such as a job as a school teacher or a job in the private sector. He intentionally did not include temporary jobs in emergency programs — because to count a short-term, make-work project as a real job was to mask the anxiety of one who really didn’t have regular work with long-term prospects.

The result is what we today call the Lebergott/Bureau of Labor Statistics series. They show one man in four was unemployed when Roosevelt took office. They show joblessness overall always above the 14% line from 1931 to 1940. Six years into the New Deal and its programs to create jobs or help organized labor, two in 10 men were unemployed. Mr. Lebergott went on to become one of America’s premier economic historians at Wesleyan University. His data are what I cite. So do others, including our president-elect in the “60 Minutes” interview.

Later, Lee Ohanian of UCLA studied New Deal unemployment by the number of hours worked. His picture was similar to Mr. Lebergott’s. Even late in 1939, total hours worked by the adult population was down by a fifth from the 1929 level. To be sure, Michael Darby of UCLA has argued that make-work jobs should be counted. Even so, his chart shows that from 1931 to 1940, New Deal joblessness ranges as high as 16% (1934) but never gets below 9%. Nine percent or above is hardly a jobless target to which the Obama administration would aspire.

What kept the picture so dark so long? Deflation for one, but also the notion that government could engineer economic recovery by favoring the public sector at the expense of the private sector. New Dealers raised taxes again and again to fund spending. The New Dealers also insisted on higher wages when businesses could ill afford them. Roosevelt, for example, signed into law first his National Recovery Administration, whose codes forced businesses to pay an above-market minimum wage, and then the Wagner Act, which gave union workers more power.

As a result of such policy, pay for workers in the later 1930s was well above trend. Mr. Ohanian’s research documents this. High wages hurt corporate profits and therefore hiring. The unemployed stayed unemployed. “If you had a job you were all right” — the phrase we all heard as children about the Depression — really does capture the period.

Great stuff, and scary in terms of the plans our future President has for this country. Read the full article here.

Dems Wrong Yet Again – Temporary Stimulus Doesn’t Work

Tickler Leave a comment

This all makes such perfect, logical sense. I can’t believe they refuse to see it.

From the Wall Street Journal . . . .

The incoming Obama administration and congressional Democrats are now considering a second fiscal stimulus package, estimated at more than $500 billion, to follow the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. As they do, much can be learned by examining the first.

The major part of the first stimulus package was the $115 billion, temporary rebate payment program targeted to individuals and families that phased out as incomes rose. Most of the rebate checks were mailed or directly deposited during May, June and July.

The argument in favor of these temporary rebate payments was that they would increase consumption, stimulate aggregate demand, and thereby get the economy growing again. What were the results? The chart nearby reveals the answer.

The upper line shows disposable personal income through September. Disposable personal income is what households have left after paying taxes and receiving transfers from the government. The big blip is due to the rebate payments in May through July.

The lower line shows personal consumption expenditures by households. Observe that consumption shows no noticeable increase at the time of the rebate. Hence, by this simple measure, the rebate did little or nothing to stimulate consumption, overall aggregate demand, or the economy.

These results may seem surprising, but they are not. They correspond very closely to what basic economic theory tells us. According to the permanent-income theory of Milton Friedman, or the life-cycle theory of Franco Modigliani, temporary increases in income will not lead to significant increases in consumption. However, if increases are longer-term, as in the case of permanent tax cut, then consumption is increased, and by a significant amount.

After years of study and debate, theories based on the permanent-income model led many economists to conclude that discretionary fiscal policy actions, such as temporary rebates, are not a good policy tool. Rather, fiscal policy should focus on the “automatic stabilizers” (the tendency for tax revenues to decline in a recession and transfer payments such as unemployment compensation to increase in a recession), which are built into the tax-and-transfer system, and on more permanent fiscal changes that will positively affect the long-term growth of the economy.

Why did that consensus seem to break down during the public debates about the fiscal stimulus early this year? One reason may have been the apparent success of the rebate payments in 2001. However, those rebate payments were the first installment of more permanent, multiyear tax cuts passed that same year. Hence, they were not temporary.

Read the full article here.

Ignorant Teacher Confronts McCain Kids

Tickler Leave a comment

This is the quality of teacher they allow in Cumberland, North Carolina. She can’t even put two intelligent words together and yet she beats up a 5th grader.

Cumberland County, North Carolina

Cumberland Schools Superintendent William C. Harrison:

910-678-2300

This genius, Diantha (tehehe) Harris, teaches 5th Grade at:

Mary McArthur A+ Elementary School, 3809 Village Drive, Fayetteville, NC, 28304

http://www.mmes.ccs.k12.nc.us

Principal Lola Williams:

LolaW@ccs.k12.nc.us

910-424-2206

Harris’ contact page:

http://www.mmes.ccs.k12.nc.us/email/diathaharris.htm

Cumberland Schools Website

Board of Elections

301 E. Russell Street, Fayetteville, NC 28301
Phone: 910-678-7733 · Fax: 910-678-7738
Director: Terri Robertson

Board of Election Supervisors:

lll@nc.rr.com
KimberlyPFisher@aol.com
GregWest@nc.rr.com
MacWilliams@nc.rr.com
hfarrior@nc.rr.com
DLaHuffman@nc.rr.com
fkbarragan@nc.rr.com
Royalme@nc.rr.com
MackyH@nc.rr.com

NO ID NEEDED! I Just Voted and Found Inconsistencies

Tickler Leave a comment

I wish I had video of this, but I only have the audio. I’ll do the best I can to describe the missing visuals…

I watched several people walk to the table and point out their name, sign and go into the booth to vote. Not a single person was showing ID, no was asked.

My wife went before me and simply pointed to the paper worksheet with all of the name on them and said “That’s me”. The poll workers both pointed her to the booth and away she went to vote. She could have been anyone Obama bused in from out of state, like he’s known to do.

Me Poll Monitor 1 Poll Monitor 2
“Last name, sir?”
“[My Last Name]”
(flipping through pages to find my name, finds the right page)
“That’s it right there. [First and middle initial].”
(pushes page to me and gives me a pen, pointing to the signature line)
“Do I need to show ID?”
(stands up) “Yes, sir! We have to see ID.”
“No, no, not the ID.”
“Let…”
“Here…”
“Can I see the ID, sir?”
“Are you asking for ID for everyone?”
“No, we don’t need ID”
“No one does?”
“No”
“Sir.”
“So I could be anybody?”
“Sir, can I see the ID, I just said it.”
“So you want it.”
“Yes.”
“After I asked?”
“I’m gonna ask anyway.”
“Were you?”
“Yes, sir.”
“No.” (laughs awkwardly)
“That’s interesting, cause she didn’t want it.” (I pointed to poll monitor 2)
“Sir, I am the chairperson here because … waiting out there so I have to ask.”
“Ah”
“Ok?”
“But my wife just went without showing ID.”
“Who, who, who is the person that just came? Maybe when I went down to the dock.”
“No. You were standing right here. Right in front of me. This woman.” (pointing to the space my wife had just vacated on the floor in front of me) “Who’s in the poll right now.” (pointing to the booth) “Did not show ID.”
“Maybe, I didn’t take notice.”
“She didn’t show ID!”
“I said I did not. I said ‘I’, my mistake.”
“Yes, but shouldn’t you notice?”
“Yeah. Really that’s my mistake. People have to show ID, especially right here…” (points to another persons name on the list) “and then right there” (points to another name on the list)
“But I just watched her not show ID, so how many people have not showed?”
“Yes, but you see, for you…”
“She, she will not show ID here. For you, you have to show ID. Because it is recommended that…”
“For you they’re asking for ID.”
“They ask us. You have to.”
“Uh, that’s not me.” (pointing to the name they are looking at, a few people below mine)
“Ok. We are just saying people like that. People like this…” (pointing back at my name) “we don’t have to ask them.”
“Why is that?”
“Because maybe they a, they, they, they ah, submit your papers they was in… uhhhh”
“I don’t know.”
“The same. (pause) That was why they asked, and they made a special ballot for those people anyway. Another booklet.”
“So for you they didn’t need it, you see?”
“You see, we don’t need it! Anyway…”
“OK”

What else can you say to that? I considered lecturing them about how to run a fair and accurate polling place, but it was clear they were completely in the dark and I’d only be wasting my time on them.

Audio to be included as soon as I can verify that is was legal in my state.