Economic Malpractice

The graph below shows the unemployment rate over the last 10 years. Note: the rate began accelerating in 2008, and has stayed stubbornly high at around 10%; and the recession is now going on two years. Eventually the economy will start growing again, but the question is, why has the economy not bounced back quicker out of this recession, similar to other recession?





When an economy hits a recession, the path out is tried and true: cut taxes, cut government spending. President Bush pulled the right levers and avoided a major recession. The Democrats decided to go back to a strategy that had been tried many times over the years and always failed: raise taxes, raise government spending – ‘stimulate’ our economy back to life with massive government spending. There’s a name for that: “Keynesian economics”. Never works, not working this time. Higher tax burdens on employees, they spend less, and the economy slows. Higher tax burdens on companies, and they hold off hiring.

Below is a story from the Associated Press on May 20th, talking about the unexpected rise in people filing for unemployment benefits:

WASHINGTON – The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The big surge was a setback to hopes that layoffs were declining. The Labor Department says that applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.
The forecast had been for claims to fall by around 4,000 from the previous week. The unexpectedly large rise in new claims underscored that even though the economy is growing, improvements in the labor market are coming in fits and starts.
- AP, May 20th, 2010.

So what seems to be the problem here? Policy distraction, with a year spent on healthcare instead of the economy? Or perhaps too many lawyers handling the issue, and not enough economists? Surely there must be some economic advisors with a ‘D’ next to their registration that understand how an economy works and can call in some suggestions. Robert Reich, Paul Krugman – these two dimwits certainly have no clue, but there must be SOMEONE on the left that has taken Economics 101. The unemployment rate is sky-high, even counting the temporary census workers – is it not time to try something besides massive deficit spending? The calamity that is Greece should be providing a ‘teaching moment’ to our friends across the isle, but it clearly is not.

The big question is, why did voters in 2008 conclude that that the party of lawyers, unions, community activists, college professors, and Hollywood would have the first clue to running an economy? When history looks back at the Obama administration, and the Democrat enablers in Congress, the verdict will be clear: Economic Malpractice on a massive scale that set our country back years.

Author: Mark

Congratulations Richard Ross!

I just wanted to make note of the win last week by Richard Ross, in the special election to replace Scott Brown as MA State Senator. Congratulations Richard, the Republican brushfire in Massachusetts is going strong! In the areas of the district that know Richard best, the southern area of the district where he was a State Rep, Richard won by an overwhelming majority: 1,897 to 308 in Wrentham, 1,480 to 419 in Plainville, 2,249 to 612 in North Attleboro, 1,067 to 516 in Attleboro. HUGE majorities. He even won in Needham, 2,717 to 2,495 and Sherborn 712 to 615.

And yet, and yet… he lost in Wellesley, Wayland, and Natick. All three towns are towns Scott Brown lost in his race for US Senate. In all three towns the Democrats vastly outnumber the Republicans. In Wayland, the very top of the district, Ross scored 40% of the vote. In Wellesley, 44%. In Natick, 45% (982 to 806). There are roughly 1,200 republican voters in the four Natick precincts in the Ross district (Precincts 6,7, 9 and 10). If just the Republicans had turned out, Ross could have won in Natick without picking up a single Unenrolled or Democrat. Voter turn-out is everything, and we need to remember that as we head into November. Wake the kids, alert the neighbors, there’s a critical election coming up this fall, and we need to drive Republican turn out higher.

Water water everywhere, not a (bottled) drop to drink

In Concord, the good liberal voters have outlawed bottled water.

Instead of campaigning for recycling, or campaigning to convince people to stop buying bottled water, Concord has voted to extend the hand of big-brother government to restrict what should be an individual decision. Is bottled water safer than tap water? I’ll make that call myself, thank you very much.

I would guess that the restriction will be challenged in court and Concord taxpayers are fine with footing the legal costs of making such a statement. It certainly should be a consideration of anybody deciding whether to purchase a house in Concord: “should I live in Concord and be forced to drink tap water and pay higher taxes for the legal fight, or should I move to Carlisle and get to chose what I drink?”. Seems to me the housing values in Concord should adjust downward to reflect the added expenses and restrictions to personal freedoms. But perhaps Concord is simply trying to attract people from Cambridge.

The move by Concord liberals to dictate drinking choices reminds me of the following comparison of liberals and conservatives:

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.

If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll have a good laugh.

A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".