The folks at Power Line addressed this in Presidential term aggregates; I thought I’d graph the GDP rates in each year of the last five Presidents’ terms. The data for the graph were collected from here.
Aside from the fact that economic growth is poorer in Obama’s administration than it was in any of the preceding four Presidents’ terms, stretching back over 32 years, President Barack Obama’s performance year by year (first year compared to each of the others’ first year, second year compared to second year, and so on) generally has been poorer, also. It’s certainly true that Obama’s first year was a continuation of President George Bush the Younger’s last, but so has each of those Presidents’ first years been continuations of their predecessors’ last years. And President Ronald Reagan’s first year was a continuation of President Jimmie Carter’s last year—which was 3.8 points lower at 8.8% and declining from Carter’s prior years.
…is shaping up. Never mind that a budget deal might actually otherwise be beginning to come together; many in the Democratic Party leadership are perfectly willing to shut down the government if they don’t get their way. Again.
And in so many words. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) opposes even a continuing resolution to keep government funded if it doesn’t address the existing sequestration cut schedule. But he won’t offer spending cuts elsewhere to offset them—just increase the damned spending. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) has said she’ll oppose any sort of budget deal that doesn’t include an extension to unemployment benefits to pay folks for not working (which also is her tacit admission that President Barack Obama’s economic policies have been a dismal failure these past five years).
This is a preview of
The Next Democratic Party Government Shutdown
. Read the full post (167 words, estimated 40 secs reading time)
Illinois has a deeply bankrupt pension system—it’s in the hole by $100 billion: a state is in the hole by $100 billion, not a nation—a pension system that’s the worst off in the country.
Their solution? A bill just passed that in total is claimed to save $160 billion over 30 years and fully fund the systems by 2044. That’s a bit over $5 billion a year on that $100 billion arrearage. And it naively, if not cynically, assumes that future state legislatures won’t change the thing for all of those 30 years.
Some specifics, with my comments: the bill
Romain Hatchuel, Square Advisors LLC Managing Partner, has an excellent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, but I want to comment on one small part of it:
In his November investment commentary for bond giant Pimco, [billionaire investor Bill] Gross asks the “Scrooge McDucks of the world” to accept higher personal income taxes and to stop expecting capital to be taxed at lower rates than labor.
Are they anti-bank? They’re certainly in the way of getting new organizations into the banking business. The total number of banks in the US has fallen from a peak over 18,000 to under 6,900 this year. The first new bank to be Federally chartered since December 2010 [sic], the Bank of Bird-in-Hand in Bird-in-Hand, PA, opened last week after spending 7 months in charter Hell working on getting permission to open. Here’s a sample of what BiH had to go through to be allowed to operate as a private business.
- [T]he backers behind the Bird-in-Hand group raised about $17 million from investors.
Details of a plan reached last week appear to show [Illinois] state legislative leaders are attempting to solve Illinois’ $100 billion pension crisis in part by changing workers’ retirement age, reducing automatic pension increases, and limiting their collective-bargaining privileges.
Public union leadership disagrees with this, though, and they’re turning on that Democratic Party leadership. These union leaders consider carefully selected and targeted Democrats to be “persuadable,” and these unionists are going to do some “persuading.”
Never mind that the plan will save roughly $160 billion over 30 years, according to Governor Pat Quinn (D) and the leaders of the Democrat-controlled State Assembly.
Anecdotal, certainly, but anecdotes are data, and they can accumulate into trends. This one comes from Fox News‘ “Kelly File.”
One late-middle-aged family with two college-age children were paying $500/mo for a health insurance plan that suited their needs. President Barack Obama’s Obamacare, though, termed that plan inadequate and so illegal: the family got one of those ubiquitous cancelation letters. The new health “insurance” plan they got runs them $1,250/mo.
With that explosion in their pocketbook, this family did what any American family does and what the Obama administration refuses to do seriously: they budgeted.
The CMS has a Request for Proposal out [emphasis added]:
Solicitation Number: RFP-CMS-RMADA-2014
Notice Type: Modification/Amendment
Synopsis: Added: Nov 20, 2013 1:17 pm
The purpose is to develop a Research, Measurement, Assessment, Design, and Analysis (RMADA) IDIQ [Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contracting/procurement type] to respond to expanded needs of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ACT (ACA) and Health Care reform ACT (HCERA). The work awarded under the RMADA will involve the design, implementation and evaluation of a broad range of research and/or payment and service delivery models to test their potential for reducing expenditures for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and uninsured beneficiaries while maintaining or improving quality of care.
The US government is being forced to support sugar companies even though taxpayers are already footing a $280 million bill stemming from loans the companies can’t repay.
The loans are all part of the Feds’ farm policy of propping up sugar prices. So 300 million American sugar consumers can pay artificially high prices to benefit a few sugar farmers.
All told, Alexandra Wexler wrote in her Wall Street Journal article at the above link,
processors defaulted on $171.5 million in 2013, even after the USDA spent $106.7 million buying sugar to boost prices.