12.07.2010

Don't Call It A Recovery...

The new chart from Business Insider, an update of Calculated Risk's scariest jobs chart ever, doesn't really need additional commentary:

And while it's true that the picture is worth far more than a thousand words, Ed Morrissey at HotAir does add some thoughtful commentary that is worth noting:

...But calling it the Chart of the Day seems too limiting. I’d call this the Chart of the Year, for a couple of reasons. It demonstrates the folly of the Obama administration’s insistence that we have been experiencing a recovery and any sort of significant growth in job creation. After hitting the nadir of job losses relative to our peak inter-recession employment, we have essentially flatlined for far longer than any other post-recession period. Nothing in the data shows a hint that we will soon break out of that pattern either, and Ben Bernanke says we’ll probably go four to five more years on this same trajectory.

12.04.2010

California's Special Session: Where's the Incentive?

When lawmakers and the governor enacted the current state budget on Oct. 8, it was balanced as required under law. Thirty-three days later the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office projected the deficit will climb to $25.4 billion by June 30, 2012. Adding insult to injury, the LAO estimate included a $6.1 billion projected shortfall in the current fiscal year.

In an attempt to address the most recent iteration of the budget crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called the Legislature into
special session immediately after the new crop of legislators is sworn in on Dec. 6 at noon, less than one month before Schwarzenegger leaves office.

The Governor plans to introduce his own proposal to close the current-year deficit, which will be based on the Department of Finance's estimate of the shortfall, spokesman Aaron McLear said. The plan, which will not include tax increases, will likely rely on steeper spending cuts proposed by Schwarzenegger earlier this year.


Of course the budget isn't the only item on Schwarzenegger's special session agenda. The Governor has also asked lawmakers to reconsider a measure which would ban plastic bags in California.

Former Orange County Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who was termed out this year, said Schwarzenegger was right to call a special session given these shortfalls in the budget, but he's doesn't think legislative Democrats will have any incentive to negotiate with Schwarzenegger when Jerry Brown is about to take office.

Republican State Sen. Bob Huff of Diamond Bar, whose district also includes a piece of Orange County, echoed DeVore's comments, saying the special session only will be fruitful if Brown is involved. If not, nothing will happen.

Gov.-elect Jerry Brown is already starting his own work on the budget having called for a meeting of state lawmakers and finance officials in Sacramento to discuss the deficit just two days after the commencement of Schwarzenegger's special session.

So at the same time Schwarzenegger will be trying to convince lawmakers to work with him on the budget, Brown will be laying out his ideas for the future. Legislators are likely to pay more attention to Brown who will be around for the next four years rather than the departing Schwarzenegger.

So while the average Californian continues to confront the daily realities of a failing economy, the Brown 'budget summit' provides legislative democrats even less incentive to work with Schwarzenegger to remedy California's immediate fiscal disaster.

12.03.2010

Obama's Debt Commission: Too Much Taxes, Not Enough Cuts

President Obama’s 18 member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (commission) voted 11-7 in support of the commission’s official report. That's three votes short of the 14-vote mark needed to spur quick congressional action on its austere spending blueprint.


The plan would slash $4 trillion from the budget over the coming decade through a combination of tax increases and painful spending cuts — including a hike in the Social Security retirement age and lower cost-of-living increases for the program.

The plan would have also eliminated or scaled back tax breaks — including the child tax credit, mortgage interest deduction and deduction claimed by employers who provide health insurance — in exchange for rate cuts on corporate and income taxes. It would have also raised the federal gasoline tax 15 cents a gallon to fund transportation programs.

While the commission deserves credit for addressing this problem, the report contains far too many tax hikes, and far too little spending cuts to be a workable solution. The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl critique of the report mirrors the one made by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) in the video at right. Riedl
writes:

Expanding spending—not declining revenues—drives America’s long-term deficits. Even if all tax cuts are extended, revenues will soon slightly exceed their historical average of 18 percent of the economy. Federal spending—rising from its historical average of 20 percent of the economy to a projected 26 percent by the end of the decade—is the moving variable.…

Overall, the fiscal commission would raise taxes by $3.3 trillion over the decade. Yet it recommends only minor tweaks to a broken health care system, fails to repeal Obamacare, and focuses Social Security reform too far on the tax side. Discretionary spending is the only source of significant first-decade spending restraint.

Surely larger entitlement savings are expected in future decades, yet much more can be done sooner. Lawmakers examining the commission report should demand stronger entitlement reform—particularly in health care, with a plan by Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI) and economist Alice Rivlin as the model[6]—and not settle for a plan that leaves the highest sustained tax burden in American history.

12.02.2010

Report: DREAM Act Would Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion Per Year

The controversial DREAM Act, a fixture in the immigration debate since 2001, would give undocumented students the chance to become citizens.

Missing from the debate over the latest amnesty effort is the costs with which the so-called DREAM Act would burden U.S. taxpayers. New research by the Center for Immigration Studies, has found that that the bill’s college-attendance requirements will cost U.S. taxpayers $6.2 billion in subsidies a year and will "crowd out" U.S. students in the classroom.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies
reports:
Assuming no fraud, we conservatively estimate that 1.03 million illegal immigrants will eventually enroll in public institutions (state universities or community colleges) as a result of the DREAM Act. That is, they meet the residency and age requirements of the act, have graduated high school, or will do so, and will apply. On average, each illegal immigrant who attends a public institution will receive a tuition subsidy from taxpayers of nearly $6,000 for each year he or she attends, for total cost of $6.2 billion a year, not including other forms of financial assistance they may also receive.

The problem is that the DREAM Act does not provide funding to states and counties to cover the costs it imposes. Since enrollment and funding are limited at public institutions, the act’s passage will require some combination of tuition increases, tax increases, or a reduction in spaces available for American citizens at these schools. This may have the effect of reducing the educational opportunities that would otherwise have been available to American citizens and legal immigrants.

The report, "Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act," comes on the heels of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), seeking an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office of the legislation's cost before there's a vote.

King, who issued a letter Wednesday afternoon to CBO, claims Senate Democrats are hiding an analysis that shows the legislation will cost
upwards of $20 billion.

The Cost Cutting Begins: Republicans Pull Plug on Climate Change Panel

Arguing that the committee is unnecessary and that its eradication would slash government waste, Republican leadership will pull the plug on Pelosi's Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

"The global warming committee doesn't need to be a separate committee," Boehner told reporters. "We believe the Science Committee is more than capable of handling this issue, and in the process we'll save several million dollars."

The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which was created by soon-to-be-former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007, was designed to provide members of Congress with a prominent forum for discussion on developing climate-change science and supply information about the global race for clean-energy technology.

Climate change matters are overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the Natural Resources Committee.

Bloomberg reported:
Republicans will eliminate the House committee created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to highlight the threat of climate change, Representative James Sensenbrenner, the top Republican on the panel, said today.

In one of her first acts as speaker in 2007, Pelosi, a California Democrat, created the
House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to draw attention to climate-change science and showcase how a cap on carbon dioxide needn’t be a threat to economic growth.

Republicans, who won control of the House in the Nov. 2 election, have opposed legislative efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a tax on energy. When the panel convened today, Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said that the hearing “will be the last of the select committee.”

Sensenbrenner had advocated extending the panel as a forum to scrutinize Obama administration actions. In an opinion column on Nov. 8 in the Washington newspaper Roll Call, he wrote that the committee was “more qualified than any other” to challenge Obama environmental initiatives that he said may threaten the economy. He acknowledged that other Republicans thought the panel should be eliminated to save money.

“We are going to get rid of waste and duplication in terms of how we run the Congress,” House Republican Leader John Boehner, who is slated to become speaker in January, told reporters today. “We believe the Science Committee is more than capable of handling this issue and in the process save several million dollars.”

Your Taxpayer Dollars at Work: $350 Billion Bailing out Foreign Banks

Your taxpayer dollars at work… bailing out foreign banks.
Gone is the "highest and best use" analysis for taxpayer funds. The Fed spent $350 billion bailing out foreign banks during the financial meltdown.
Zero Hedge reported, via Free Republic:

One may be forgiven to believe that via its FX liquidity swap lines the Fed only bailed out foreign Central Banks, which in turn took the money and funded their own banks. It turns out that is only half the story: we now know the Fed also acted in a secondary bail out capacity, providing over $350 billion in short term funding exclusively to 35 foreign banks, of which the biggest beneficiaries were UBS, Dexia and BNP. Since the funding provided was in the form of ultra-short maturity commercial paper it was essentially equivalent to cash funding. In other words, between October 27, 2008 and August 6, 2009, the Fed spent $350 billion in taxpayer funds to save 35 foreign banks.

12.01.2010

California Faces $25 Billion Budget Deficit - Governor Wants to Ban Plastic Bags

It was only a few short months ago that Californians narrowly escaped a plastic bag tax & ban proposal.

In the waning hours of California's 2009-2010 legislative session lawmakers debated AB 1998, a legislative proposal attempting to ban all single-use plastic bags from grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience and liquor stores by 2013.

The bill, authored by
Assemblywoman Brownley (D-Los Angeles), would have additionally authorized stores to charge 5 cents per bag - or higher - for paper bags if consumers do not bring in their own reusable bags.

Despite a firm democratic majority in the State Senate, the bag ban failed passage.

Now, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is urging lawmakers to reconsider the measure asking Legislators to bring it back during the special session which starts Dec 6. The Sacramento Bee reports:

Schwarzenegger said at a news conference at the Capitol that the measure might fare better in the current, post-election political climate.

"Of course we fell short a few votes, but we said, 'We'll be back,' and we are back again," Schwarzenegger said. "And if we don't get it done in December, we'll get it done next year."

It's worth noting that the special session called by the Governor is intended to focus on an estimated $25.4 billion budget deficit ($6 billion current year) that emerged just weeks after he signed the state budget.

So what does the plastic bag bill have to do with California's economy? Well, according to the American Chemistry Council, nothing good. In their opposition, the American Chemistry Council notes that the bill threatens 1,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs for hard-working Californians. The measure also places a hidden tax on grocery bills and would create a $4 million new state bureaucracy.


Just what the state needs in an economic downturn - MORE GOVERNMENT.
As noted previously, if legislators were half as serious about dealing with the California's fiscal problems as they are interested in aggressively interfering in the personal lives of its citizens, California's continual fiscal crisis would have been remedied long ago. Then there would be legitimate opportunity to discuss the merits of proposals like the plastic bag ban.

Newer Posts Older Posts