Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Peter Ferrara

In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies.  As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics.  That prediction seems to be on track.

When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009.  Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%.  At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years).  The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980.  The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%.  A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982.  In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

1.  Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone.  The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

2.  Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today.  In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983.  Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms!  Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989.  That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

3.  Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

4.  Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices.  Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas.  Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.

These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history.  The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.  This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy.  In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.  Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%.  Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed.  Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%.  It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently.  The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years.  The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.  The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.

In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001.  They wrote:
We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet.  In 1980, the net worth–assets minus liabilities–of all U.S. households and business … was $25 trillion in today’s dollars.  By 2007, … net worth was just shy of $57 trillion.  Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics.  Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax.  As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year.  The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times.  The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors.  The death tax rate would go back up to 55%.  In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill.  In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

His monetary policy is just the opposite as well.  Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.

And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere.  While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%.  After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more.  After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months.  Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression.  Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery.  Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years.  Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.

Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years.  By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.

These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression.  But this is not correct.  This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”

However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.  Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective.  While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?

Peter Ferrara is director of policy for the Carleson Center for Public Policy and senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at the Heartland Institute.  He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States under President George H. W. Bush.  He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, forthcoming from HarperCollins.

Friday, November 09, 2012

Give a Man a Fish…


By: Bryan Baumgart  

11/2/2012


In total since January of 2009, a net of 194,000 new jobs have been created while 14.7 million people have joined the food stamp rolls. As The Weekly Standard points out today, “During that time, our nation’s debt has risen $5.63 trillion. Total spending on food stamps is now more than $80 billion annually. Total welfare spending is now approximately $1 trillion, or enough to send every household beneath the federal poverty line an annual check for $60,000.”

Some may not be surprised by this trend; we are after all in the grips of a pretty stagnant economy. The problem however, isn’t the ever increasing number of Americans added to the rolls of food stamps. The problem is that the current administration has put in a much greater effort to increase food stamp rolls than to increase job creation. They have promoted dependence rather than empowerment.

President Obama claims, “We do not pressure any eligible person to accept benefits, nor is our goal to simply increase the number of program participants.” You can imagine how surprised I was then, when I was approached by a friend recently who mentioned that they were currently receiving SNAP themselves. They stated that while applying for college at Education Quest, counselors approached them and suggested they apply for SNAP.  The process was easy enough. They applied, had an interview, and began receiving food stamps immediately. Counselors even coached them on how to be accepted into the program stating, “It helps if you are a full time student working at least 20 hours a week.”

Despite the president’s claims, the focus of the Obama administration remains on increasing enrollment in SNAP. The administration has partnered with Mexico, meeting with Mexican officials over 30 times in an effort to boost participation among immigrants.

The USDA boasts a range of strategies and programs designed to bring more people to SNAP, including taking on “pride.” Awards are provided to local assistance offices for “counteracting” pride and pushing more people to sign up for benefits. A “Common SNAP Myths” sheet details the importance of reaching people who do not think they qualify or have beliefs that conflict with accepting food stamps. A pamphlet currently posted at the USDA website encourages local SNAP offices to throw parties as one way to get potentially eligible seniors to enroll in the program. Despite the high rate of food stamp participation, the USDA has numerous blueprints posted on their website aimed at getting more people to enroll. The USDA even goes so far as to argue that the program is “the most direct stimulus you can get.”

Only 194,000 net jobs have been created under the Obama administration. This pace doesn’t even keep up with the population increase. So few jobs have been created that the employment rate actually decreased due to an increasing number of working age adults have given up even looking for jobs. The real unemployment number (U-6) currently hovers around 14.6 percent.

While on the campaign trail, the president’s slogan has been to, “ask a little more from the wealthy”.  He doesn’t plan to ask though, he plans to take. Allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire equates to a tax increase on job creators. In the words of Senator Marco Rubio, “I have never met a business owner waiting for the next big tax increase before he will create some jobs.”  Under the president’s current proposals, job creation in the private sector isn’t likely to pick up anytime soon. If these trends continue, we won’t have enough employed Americans to fund SNAP for the needy. If the trends aren’t reversed, America will soon go the way of our European neighbors.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

A Review of MY Predictions from Day After Election 2008







October 31, 2012 -

-Bryan Baumgart

On the night of Election Day 2008, after it became painfully evident that the democrats had not only gained control of the White House but also super majorities in both houses of congress, I made some predictions for obama's first term in a post titled "And The Wait Is On".

I want to look back on that post and those predictions now:

1.) Iran WILL achieve nuclear capability within the next 4 years. Because of our overextended millitary and Obama's anti-war stance he has sold to the public, the United States will be relegated to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.

With Iran's promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, Obama will demand Israel hold off on pre-emptive strikes until the Iranian nukes begin falling in Israel and Obama is FORCED to finally get in the game.
 * Though I will admit that Iran hasn't fully achieved nuclear capability at this time, it has actually EXPANDED uranium enrichment and it is now estimated (for the exact reasons I predicted), Iran could achieve weapons grade uranium within weeks and a nuclear device within months.

2.) Fundamentalist Islamic insurgents will overthrow the current democratically elected governement in Iraq and make it the center for the world's terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, focusing on training, recruiting and re-organizing their jihad. Not to mention the certain genocide that will follow the overthrow of the current Iraqi government. Once again, Obama's anti-Iraqi war stance along with his pride will relegate the United States to the sidelines while the rest of the world waits on our decision.
* It is only fair to admit that I am only partially correct on this prediction as far as specific details; however, I am accurate if you remove the specific country (Iraq) from the statement. Iraq certainly has become a hotbed for Islamic insurgents evidenced by my post on Monday. And we are all aware of the consequences of the Arab Spring movement, which left majorities of the middle east controlled by or sympathetic to anti-American terrorist organizations.  The consequences have been devastating thus far.  One has only to look to the recent terrorist attacks against the American consulate in Benghazi Libya as proof.

3.) America will experience another terrorist attack on the same level or greater than the Septer 11th attacks sometime within the next 6 years. While the Bush administration can be credited with keeping the United States safe and free from future terrorist attacks for all 7 years following the September 11th attacks by keeping Al Qaida on the run and taking out much of its upper-level leaders making it impossible for Al Qaida to re-organize, the Obama administration WILL be credited with doing just the opposite. I could go on to guarantee that after America experiences this future terrorist attack because of Obama policies, the Republicans will go on to dominate another decade of American politics.
* While many terrorist attacks on American soil have been thwarted, the attack in Benghazi Libya on the American Consulate certainly constitutes a terrorist attack on American soil! It would be hard to argue that this attack was on the same level as the attacks carried out on September 11, 2001...but certainly these attacks were devastating for our country.  And unlike the actions of President Bush in 2001, it is revealed that President obama actually played a key role in the outcome and cover-up of the attacks in Libya which left four Americans dead. Note that I said within SIX years.  Because of the deteriorating condition of the middle-east and the increased influence of anti-American terrorist organizations abroad thanks to obama's policies, I stick by my prediction for the next two years!


4.) Russia will not only invade Georgia but also move on to the Ukraine and other former territories of the Soviet Union.
5.) Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will begin his goal of realizing the dream of Simon Bolivar by invading Columbia and daring Obama to act.
* I was mostly wrong on both accounts. You have to admit though, that both countries have become increasingly emboldened over the past four years, and have dramatically stepped up their move toward communism. Their cooperation with Iran and other American foes have left us in a precarious situation.  It's no wonder that the dictators of both countries support obama.

6.) Obama's tax policies will make it impossible for our economy to recover, thus...our millitary will weaken and our national security will follow!!
* I get to claim 100% accuracy on this one!!!  Not only has obama increased the deficit over $5,005,000,000,000.00 so far, it is projected to get much worse. The job loss under obama has been so staggering that unemployment actually went down because so many people quit looking for work after all hope of ever finding a job had been destroyed. Tuition is up, food prices are up, gas prices are WAY up, and so is spending under obama. He has spent $16,096,000,000,000.00 so far and plans another $3.72 trillion dollars for 2013.  And this is only the amount congress approved for him.  He actually requested much more. His proposed budget was so crazy that it received ZERO votes; not even a single democrat would back it!  As obama has pointed out recently, he plans to allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire which means EVERYONE'S taxes increase (including the middle class).  It means less money for job creators to create jobs which means unemployment will continue to be stagnant. When obamacare kicks in (the largest tax increase in American history), the middle class will be hit hardest.

What does this mean for the military?  Well as obama also pointed out, he plans to let sequestration go into effect which will effectively gut the military of 10% of it's budget. The Office of Management and Budget wrote, "The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments and core government functions.”

Of course this economic crisis brought on by the democrats may end up being a blessing in disguise for America. Hopefully their won't be money in the treasury for Obama to seek his proposal for national healthcare. Otherwise I would be predicting the mass exodus of doctors out of America and the looming failure of the United States healthcare system.
* Well, I stand corrected!!!  No lack of funding was going to stop this crazy spender from pushing obamacare through!!!  It hasn't even kicked in yet and the doctor shortages are being reported, and with them...the ridiculously long waits for simple procedures as the quality of care has already begins to plummet. A current shortage of over 13,000 doctors is expected to increase ten fold under obamacare.  It has already hit us close to home here in Omaha, where the World Herald reported yesterday that "Thirty-eight employees at the Nebraska Medical Center will lose their jobs by the end of the year, and 100 open positions will remain unfilled as officials prepare for the looming healthcare reforms (aka: obamacare).

I certainly can't say this was fun reminiscing on my predictions from four years ago and realizing the true consequences of obama's presidency.  It is my hope that by doing so, we can avoid the same mistakes we made on that fateful day on November 4, 2008, and provide our country with some long overdue HOPE!!!

Friday, October 26, 2012

BREAKING!!! CIA’s Requests for Help in 9/11 Benhazi Attack Denied as White House Watched LIVE


US military including Special Ops nearby were ordered to stand down & not help as White House watched four Americans brutally murdered and three Libyan prisoners freed. obama makes up youtube video lie to cover-up his actions then lies to American public and UN.  


The truth is coming out now.  Just heard from high ranking officers that said “Ambassador in Peril” coded alert went out immediately as the initial assault begin.  The alert is instantaneous and goes out to the White House Watch Room and EXTREMIS (Special Ops) closest to Benghazi (Sigonella, Italy). After receiving the instant alert the EXTREMIS team would be ordered ready to act within five minutes, and would have been ready and waiting for orders from POTUS.  The watch member at the White House would immediately get the alert to his senior commander who immediately gets POTUS on the line for orders.  The administration is blaming the catastrophe on mixed intel and obama is saying he didn’t know right away, but it doesn’t add up. According to protocol he would have been alerted immediately and HE would have made the decision not to act to save the ambassador and other three Americans. EXTREMIS would have been awaiting HIS decision and standing orders are to “Preserve American Life” so if obama wouldn’t have made a decision (which he certainly did)…then they would have gone in to save the Americans.  The ONLY reason they wouldn’t go in is if ordered NOT to by POTUS.

Just listened to an interview of the father of one of the two fallen former NAVY SEALs. (Woods and Dorherty). They were at a secure CIA annex a mile away from the embassy and heard the attacks.  They asked for permission to go help the Americans at the embassy, but were ordered to stand down. As the attack continued the asked again and were again told to stand down. Three requests to help were denied so Woods and Doherty ignored the orders and rushed to the embassy to help the Americans.  All four Americans were killed because of the White House orders not to allow the Special Ops or help of any kind.  The targets were even pinpointed with lasers by a security officer on the roof and help would have been as easy as allowing bombs to be dropped on the targets by a robotic plane (Specter gunship) in the area (common practice). Four Americans brutally murdered in the seven hour attack because obama repeatedly refused extra security when requested, then repeatedly refused to allow help during the attack. WHY? And why make up the youtube video lie to cover-up? Something is REALLY fishy here!!!  

 

CIA Director Petraeus Throws Blame to Obama



Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ” 
Barack Obama
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?