Tag Archives: government

Some Thoughts on the Fed’s Latest Guess at Monetary Policy

Posted on by
Reply

The good folks at Sober Look have a good post on this.  Basically, the Fed’s latest scheme is to buy $40 billion of mortgage debt from lenders every month until the labor market improves.  That’s nearly a trillion dollars every two years.  And its purpose is to hold down mortgage interest rates in particular, rather than interest rates in general, which have already been artificially lowered to near zero (to negative values in some cases in real, inflation-adjusted terms) for several years.

Those nearly non-existent interest rates generally, though, are associated with 43 months of unemployment above 8% (notwithstanding last week’s Labor Department claim of 7.8% unemployment).  Here’s what Sober Look thinks of this latest…idea…from the Fed.  Follow the links, too.

  1. It is not clear what impact asset purchases will have on consumer confidence.
  2. We’ve had extraordinarily low interest rates for quite some time now, yet improvements in job growth have been limited.
  3. Lowering mortgage rates from 3.5% to 3% is not going to have a significant impact on home affordability or materially reduce consumers’ interest expense (see this discussion).
  4. Raising bank excess reserves is not going to accelerate credit expansion.
  5. Fed’s unemployment targets are unrealistic – it’s going to be an exercise in “squeezing blood from a stone” (see discussion).
  6. US real median household income has basically been unchanged since 1994. The Fed’ program is unlikely to improve this metric and could actually impair incomes further by elevating inflation levels.
  7. The market “euphoria” effect is fleeting.

What will restore employment is less government interference—by the Fed and the Congress and the Executive—in our economy so that free market forces can start an actual recovery.  Which will lead to increased hiring; leading to more savings (in absolute terms, if not relatively), which are funds that can be loaned to support home purchases or business expansion (each of which is jobs) and to more spending, which supports business expansion (which is jobs); leading to increased hiring; leading to….

Lies of my President, Part 7

Posted on by
Reply

This is Part 7 of my series on the lies told by Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama in the nearly four years in which he’s been in office.  As I said earlier, I’m not concerned with his broken campaign promises so much as I am with his dishonesty while in office.

Recall Obama’s promise of the most open and transparent administration in history.  This is how he’s carried out that “promise.”

Here’s secret collusion between the (publicly) hated health-care industry and the White House underlying the development of Obamacare.  These emails were sent in early/mid-June of 2009:

From: Jeffrey Kindler [Pfizer CEO]

To: Billy Tauzin [PhRMA lobbyist]

Billy—Sounds like you had very valuable conversations with [REDACTED]. They sound as though they both went quite well and that you established our key deal points that are, to some extent, as important as the total dollars. Thanks so much for doing that.

An ideal end game here would be a joint meeting to confirm any deal that we work out in a meeting with us and the principals ([White House Chief of Staff Rahm] Emanuel, [REDACTED]) early next week. Whether a deal fully sticks or not, we can’t be sure, but I for one would like to look the other side in the eye and shake their hand on whatever deal we work out. Jeff

From: Jeffrey Kindler

To: Billy Tauzin

Billy: As you know, yesterday’s discussion was premised on our understanding, as you informed the Board, that, given our willingness to work within the indicated range, the President would not, in fact, put Part D [the Medicare prescription drug plan] in play or otherwise offer new pharma pay-fors in tomorrow’s radio address. We need to confirm this inasmuch as it will completely undermine what we’re trying to do here if he, in fact, does say those kinds of things.

If this is not clear, I would strongly encourage you to engage personally on this with [REDACTED] and possibly others. Based on Bryant’s report yesterday, it does appear that [REDACTED] could, in fact, be helpful. Jeff

There’s lots more here.

These emails took a trade group’s efforts to expose, as the White House refused to cooperate with the House’s Energy and Commerce Committee attempts to review Obamacare’s development history.  The Wall Street Journal went on:

As a White House staffer put it in May 2009, “Rahm’s calling Nancy-Ann and knows Billy is going to talk to Nancy-Ann tonight. Rahm will make it clear that PhRMA needs a direct line of communication, separate and apart from any coalition.”  Nancy-Ann is Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House health reform director, and Rahm is, of course, Rahm.

Final development of the bill was done behind the locked-doors of the back offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D, NV) Senate office suite, and the Senate vote itself occurred after the 2,000 page bill had been on the Congress’ Web site for public perusal for just 72 hours.  The bill itself was so secret that nearly all of the Congressmen voting were utterly ignorant of the bill’s contents.

And the House’s attempts to investigate the Obama DoJ’s Fast and Furious fiasco?  I’ve written about it here, here, and here (which post describes, briefly, other of Obama’s attempts to block transparency), among other posts.  This “openness” has culminated in Obama’s assertion of Executive Privilege to block responses to subpoenas for the information issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The only thing transparent here is Obama’s dishonesty.

Another Chinese Attack

Posted on by
Reply

…this time against the White House’s computers.

White House sources partly confirmed an alarming report that US government computers were breached by Chinese hackers.

“This was a spear phishing attack against an unclassified network,” a White House official told FoxNews.com.

Spear phishing consists of attempts directed at specific individuals.  Sure enough, “This [White House Communications Agency] guy opened an email he wasn’t supposed to open,” according to a law enforcement official investigating the attack.

Most likely, this was a preliminary, probing attack, in preparation for a later, more fully developed assault.  Or a demonstration of things to come if we don’t step back.

Sure enough,

[a] White House official downplayed that report, saying that the system involved was not a sensitive nuclear system, and no evidence indicated that information was actually taken.

That’s OK, then.  The fact of the successful probe is itself no big deal.  Sure.

Is AARP Tax-Exempt?

Posted on by
Reply

The short answer is yes—it’s a 501(c)4 non-profit.  Follow-up question: should it continue in that status?

If the information outlined in Kimberly Strassel’s Wall Street Journal article last Friday is accurate, I suggest the follow-up’s answer should be “No.”

…AARP worked through 2009-10 as an extension of a Democratic White House, toiling daily to pass [Obamacare].  We know that despite AARP’s awareness that its seniors overwhelmingly opposed the bill, the “nonpartisan membership organization” chose to serve the president’s agenda.

71 pages of emails tell the story.  For instance,

As early as July 2009, Mr. Sloane [AARP Senior Vice President David] was sending the administration—”as promised”—his “message points” on Medicare.  Ms. DeParle [an Obama senior aide Nancy-Ann] assured him “I think you will hear some of your lines tomorrow” in President Obama’s speech—which he did.  Mr. Rother [AARP Policy Chief John] advised the White House on its outreach, discouraging Mr. Obama from addressing seniors since “he may not be the most effective messinger [sic]…at least to the McCain constituency.”  Better to manage these folks, he counsels, through the “authoritative voices of doctors and nurses.”

And

Ms. LeaMond [AARP Executive Vice President Nancy] worried that the Medicare spin wasn’t working against public criticism of the bill.  She emailed Mr. Messina [another Obama senior aide Jim] and Ms. DeParle that she was “seized” with “concerns about extended coherent, strong messaging by Republicans on the Medicare savings.”  To pull off the legislation, she mused, “we”—the White House and AARP—will need a “concerted strategy.”

And so on, including AARP internal polling passed on to DeParle and Messina that indicated AARP’s membership opposed the developing Obamacare by 98%.  This last isn’t legally relevant to AARP’s tax exempt status; it just shows how…out of touch…AARP management was with its membership.

Plainly, the aggregate of these emails demonstrates violation of the non-partisan requirement for such non-profits.

RTWT.

Controlling Religion

Posted on by
Reply

Last Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, reports The Weekly Standard, the Democratic Party’s Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, was asked this question by Steve Kroft:

Have the events that took place in the Middle East, the recent events in the Middle East given you any pause about your support for the governments that have come to power following the Arab Spring?

Obama gave this answer, in part [emphasis mine]:

…I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because—you know, in a lot of these places—the one organizing principle—has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn’t been controlled completely by the government.

So, in this man’s eyes, Islam—and by extension, all religion?—must be under government control, and not left to the individual consciences of the men and women involved?

He seems to have implemented this view with his attacks on religion here at home—his HHS ruling on contraceptives and abortifacients, for instance; his VA’s attacks on prayer in our National Cemetery System; his Justice Department’s lack of support for (if not outright obstruction of) defending military memorials because some of the symbology looks like religious icons; his attempted omission of any reference to God from the Democratic Party platform, until public outcry forced him into a square-filler insertion of a passing referent; and so on.

Hmm….