Michele Bachmann: 'Ready For Prime Time'

An excellent essay at Althouse, comparing Michele Bachmann to Sarah Palin, "A Palin-Bachmann feud?":

By the way, Bachmann was great on "Meet the Press" today. She is excellent at not letting the interviewer control her. She interrupts appropriately and stands her ground. She has planned, neat responses to the stuff that they will use to try to mess her up — like her statements about gay people — and she resists pressure to restate or elaborate those responses. She is ready for prime time.

'Stop it B!'

Get yo shit together, B!!

That's what I'm talkin' about, mofo!

Conservative Happy Hour with Bill Whittle

Okay, I'm heading out to the Bill Whittle event, in Newport Beach.



I'm sure he'll have a bang up presentation, given all that's been in the news just this last week. And for questions and answers, I'll be interested to see if he has an emendation to his optimistic take on American exceptionalism, seen here, in part, at his outstanding video presentation: "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism."

And tune back in here later tonight for a report and more regular blogging!

Obama's Path to Reelection Narrows

Well, thank goodness.



From Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal:

Newly released state-by-state approval numbers for President Obama suggest that in 2012 he could face fewer options for assembling an Electoral College majority and increased pressure to capture racially diverse states. As a result, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, among others, appear to be evolving into critical battlegrounds on the campaign map.



The polling results, released earlier this week by Gallup, underscore both the stability of each party’s Electoral College base and the shifting roster of swing states that could decide the 2012 contest.



In all, the compilation shows that Obama’s approval rating exceeds his disapproval rating in states with 301 Electoral College votes--well down from his 365 total in 2008 but still enough to win. That total, however, includes North Carolina, where Obama’s approval and disapproval ratings are virtually even, and Georgia, where Republicans remain skeptical that he can seriously compete, despite signals from his reelection campaign that it intends to. If those two are removed from the list, the states in which Obama’s approval number exceeds his disapproval rating provide exactly 270 Electoral College votes, the bare majority needed to win.

Nice.



Image Credit: The People's Cube.

The U.S. Still Has a Promising Future?

Well, I certainly hope so.



But check Michael O'Hanlon, at Los Angeles Times, "Despite Problems, the U.S. Still Has a Promising Future":

Amid all the talk of gloom and doom in the United States, with the stock market's near-crash and the renewed threat of a double-dip recession, it is worth pausing to remember that the United States remains the greatest country on Earth. It is also the country with the most promising future. I make these assertions not as a matter of national pride, but as an analytical conclusion.

And he makes an excellent argument. The problem --- and I know it's a problem, because I'm just like O'Hanlon on this --- is that his analysis is almost completely structural. That is, O'Hanlon's looking at all this recent turmoil from a comparative power analysis interpretation, which almost systematically excludes internal political determinants. We can extrapolate from past patterns of America's remarkable exceptionalism and global preponderance and expect things to flow along fairly well simply because for all our troubles, no single other nation matches America's bounty or prospects. But the debt downgrade, as Danial Henniger points out today, is the ultimate signal that American hegemony is shrugging. To use Mark Steyn's analogy, we're like a prize fighter who's been hammered, and the opponent's sitting at the opposite stool, counting the seconds until the bell rings to come over for another round of pummeling. That's to say, for example, when Britain fell from preeminent status after WWI, and most definitely at the conclusion of WWII, the mantle of global political and eocnomic leadership passed to a benign power across the Atlantic, the United States. The U.S. had not only resisted the hegemonic role during the 1920s, but after WWII we did just about everything in our power to restore the defeated European nations and Japan to economic vitality and competitiveness. As America declines now --- and I'm using decline now for the first time really in agreement --- there's is no commensurate situation of the leading power passing the baton to a friendly rising power, as we experienced in 1945. China and Russia cooperate where possible but will seek advantage from America's weakening position, as power politics dictates, and that's while at the same time China is paradoxically hemmed in further from America's debt problems (mutual vulnerability forms a trace element of U.S. power internationally). And of course toss into the mix President Obama's hellbent agenda of making the United States the unexceptional nation, and well, let's just hope he's out in one term, November 6th, 2012. And the key factor for the electorate is the massive Democrat debt overhang. We're heading into a double-dip recession, some say. The Fed, for example, promised zero percent interest rates until 2013 because it expects no growth. The only thing good about this is that it almost guarantees that the Democrat ticket will lose next November. Even then, Republicans have been nearly as addicted to spending as the Democrats, with G.W. Bush's Medicare prescription drug expansion being Exhibit A. And the debt overhang will accelerate the collapse of U.S. world leadership unless two things happen: (1) we cut spending, and (2) the economy grows at a sustained pace of growth, say at three percent annual GDP for a decade or two, and then some. I can't see things turning around unless we have a combination of those two things, and without that we'll see a steady erosion of both U.S. global influence and a decline in the U.S. standard of living at home.



So, yes, Michael O'Hanlon makes a good case for continued optimism, but a more thorough analysis must consider the current failures of the American political system, and most importantly, the epic failures of the Democrat Party's expansionist, economic-killing social welfare policies.



More on this later ...

Democrats Doubt Barack Obama's Reelection Chances

At Telegraph UK (via Theo Spark):

President Barack Obama is facing mounting doubts within his own party about his re-election prospects, with fellow Democrats beginning to ask if Hillary Clinton would have made a better president.

I coulda told you that!

U.S. Debt Downgrade Leaves China in a Bind

At Los Angeles Times:

The Chinese government has built what is now the world's second-largest economy in part by keeping its currency cheap in order to subsidize exports. To do that, it has bought gobs of U.S. Treasury bills and other securities. Any big move on China's part to unload its $1.2-trillion-plus trove of American debt would only result in a self-inflicted wound: sinking the value of the dollar further and eroding the value of its own reserves.



For the moment, at least, the economic and political consequences of dumping dollars are likely to keep Beijing from taking any such drastic action.



"There really isn't a better choice than U.S. Treasury bonds," wrote Huang Yiping, professor of economics at Beijing's Peking University, in a commentary published Monday in the influential financial magazine Caixin. "The basic requirements for foreign reserves are safety, stability in value and liquidity. Although U.S. Treasury bonds might not meet the first two criteria right now, the problem is still that we do not have a better choice."

NewsBusted: 'Obama Celebrates His Birthday Like its 1929'

Via Theo Spark:

Markets Plunged Despite President Obama's Reassurance

I meant to post this yesterday. And Stormbringer provides extra incentive, "BARACKALYPSE NOW: IT TANKED AS HE TALKED!"

And the latest at Wall Street Journal, "Markets Sink Then Soar After Fed Speaks":

The Federal Reserve sent investors lurching from worry to hope as it warned that the economy would remain weak for some time but said it was prepared to take further steps to shore it up.



The Fed's statement, which included plans to keep interest rates near zero for at least the next two years, ultimately sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 4%, its biggest daily gain since March 2009. Yields on Treasurys dropped as money poured in.



Trading was chaotic. Investors were initially discouraged by the Fed's announcement just after 2:15 p.m. EDT, disappointed that policy makers didn't announce any new initiatives and disheartened by the Fed's gloomy appraisal of the economy. That sent the Dow down more than 200 points within minutes.



Then, just as quickly, the market rebounded as traders focused on a phrase low in the Fed's statement, which said the central bank had discussed a "range of policy tools" that it was "prepared to employ." That prompted speculation that the central bank might soon step in with additional measures aimed at spurring the economy. In the last hour of trading, the Dow shot up 500 points, closing with a gain of 429.92 points, or 4%, at 11239.77. In Asia Wednesday morning, Tokyo shares opened higher, rising 1.9% at the start of trading.

See also LAT, "Dow gains 429 after remarks from Fed."



When in doubt, parse the Fed's statements (and ignore President Barack "Steve Urkel" Obama).

Stock Market Plunges

At USA Today, "Crisis of confidence leads to fears of bear market," and New York Times, "Stocks Plunge in Worst Day in Two Years." Also, at Wall Street Journal, "Downgrade Ignites a Global Selloff: Dow's Plunge Worst Since '08":

The downgrade of the U.S.'s credit rating sparked a global selloff on Monday, pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to its sharpest one-day decline since the financial crisis in 2008.



In scenes reminiscent of three years ago, selling accelerated as the day went on, and investors were forced to sell to meet margin calls from lenders demanding more collateral. The Dow ended the day down 634.76 points, or 5.5%, at 10809.85, its lowest close since last October. Trading volume of stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange hit the fourth-highest level in history.



It was the Dow's biggest percentage drop since December 2008 and its sixth-largest point decline ever. Other major stock indexes also fell heavily. Traders also dumped corporate bonds and industrial commodities.



Investors fled to the traditional refuges: gold, currencies of safe-seeming countries such as Switzerland, and, ironically, the very securities that Standard & Poor's downgraded on Friday, U.S. Treasury bonds. For most investors, Treasurys seemed a lot safer than stocks.



Tuesday morning in Asia, Tokyo shares opened lower, falling 3.4% in the first minutes of trading.



The Financial Stability Oversight Council, a group of U.S. regulators led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, held an emergency conference call Monday afternoon to discuss the financial-market volatility, a person familiar with the call said.



"There's probably as much uncertainty as we've seen since 2008," said Eric Pellicciaro of asset manager BlackRock's Fundamental Fixed Income division, which has $612.5 billion in assets under management. "There's a general feeling that policy options are few and far between. There's a feeling that fiscal austerity is coming at the worst possible time."

Interesting how Treasury securities remained a safe haven. That can't go on forever.



I'll have more on this tonight.

The Alinksy-Obama Minions

I love this title, from Pat Austin, "The Alinksy-Obama Minions Would Have You Believe In the 'Tea Party Downgrade'.



EXTRA: At The Other McCain, "Liberals Spinning S&P Credit Downgrade: BLAME IT ON THE REPUBLICANS!"

Asian Markets Fall in Monday Trading After U.S. Downgrade

At New York Times, "Asian Markets Fall Despite Efforts by Policy Makers."



But see Los Angeles Times, "No rush from U.S. Treasuries, as yields fall while Asian stocks slump":

U.S. Treasury bonds' status as a haven seemed intact in Asia on Monday, as yields fell despite Standard & Poor's downgrading of Uncle Sam's credit rating on Friday.



It may have helped Treasuries that Asian stocks were broadly lower, as some investors bailed out ahead of European and U.S. equity trading.



The 10-year Treasury note yield slid to 2.50% in late Asian trading, down from 2.56% on Friday.



Shorter-term yields also fell. The two-year T-note dropped to a record low 0.26% from 0.29%.

More at that link above, and see, "What the U.S. debt-rating cut may mean for markets":

If investors dump Treasuries, where would the money go?



They don’t have a lot of options if they want to keep their money in something relatively safe.



The bond markets of other countries still rated AAA -- including Germany, Canada, France, Finland and Australia -- are far smaller than the U.S. debt market. The appeal of Treasuries in part is their great liquidity, meaning it's easy for investors to instantly buy or sell bonds.



What’s more, Europe has its own worries: The continent’s government-debt crisis has worsened in recent weeks, with investors now fearing that Spain and Italy could be forced to seek European Union bailouts, following the paths of Greece, Ireland and Portugal over the last 15 months.



Some investors are likely to run to gold, another classic haven. Gold has been streaking this year, rising 16% year-to-date through Friday, to $1,648.80 an ounce.



Haven’t Treasury interest rates been falling lately, anyway?



Yes. Investors have been pouring cash into Treasury securities since mid-April, driving interest rates down, as global economic growth has faded. The rate on the 10-year Treasury note, a benchmark for mortgage rates and other long-term interest rates, fell as low as 2.40% last week from 3.59% in mid-April.



Because worries about the economy have only worsened in recent weeks, many analysts believe that any jump in Treasury rates related to S&P’s downgrade could quickly bring a torrent of buyers into the market, happy to snag higher yields.



“The fundamentals of U.S. and global growth are weakening, and that’s a fertile time to be in Treasuries” as a haven, said William O’Donnell, head of Treasury-bond strategy at RBS Securities.

RELATED: At CNBC, "No Chance of Default, US Can Print Money: Greenspan" (via Memeorandum).

America Gets Downgraded

At Wall Street Journal, "A spend and tax policy mix always leads to economic decline":

... is there anything that S&P said on Friday that everyone else doesn't already know? S&P essentially declared that on present trend the U.S. debt burden is unsustainable, and that the American political system seems unable to reverse that trend.

This is not news.

In that context, the Obama Administration's attempt to discredit S&P only makes the U.S. look worse—like the Europeans who also want to blame the raters for noticing the obvious. Treasury officials and chief White House economic adviser Gene Sperling denounced S&P for relying on a Congressional Budget Office scenario that overestimated the U.S. discretionary spending baseline by $300 billion through 2015 and $2 trillion through 2021.

But even adjusting for that $2 trillion would only reduce U.S. publicly held debt to 85% or so of GDP—still dangerously high. And that assumes that recently agreed upon spending caps are sustained over a decade, something which rarely happens.

We think the larger problem with S&P, Moody's and Fitch is that they make no distinction over how a nation balances its books—whether through tax increases or spending reductions. Like the International Monetary Fund, the raters care only about balance.

This takes too little account of the need for faster economic growth, which is the only real path out of a debt crisis. Britain's government has earned rater approval for its fiscal consolidation, but its increases in VAT and income tax rates are hurting its tepid recovery. Letting the credit raters dictate tax increases is the road to an austerity trap.

The real reason for White House fury at S&P is that it realizes how symbolically damaging this downgrade is to President Obama's economic record. Democrats can rail all they want about the tea party, but Republicans have controlled the House for a mere seven months. The entire GOP emphasis in those seven months—backed by the tea party—has been on reversing the historic spending damage of Mr. Obama's first two years.

Continue reading.

IMAGE CREDIT: The Astute Bloggers.

A Capitalist Economy Can't Support a Socialist Welfare State

The obvious realities are the ones people most desperately resist, especially progressives, who live in a utopian world where higher taxes and endless spending are held to promise a classless, want-free society, which is impossible.

See Janet Daley, "If we are to survive the looming catastrophe, we need to face the truth" (via Memeorandum):

Contrary to what the Obama Democrats claimed, the face-off in Congress did not mean that the nation’s politics were “dysfunctional”. The politics of the US were functioning precisely as the Founding Fathers intended: the legislature was acting as a check on the power of the executive.

The Tea Party faction within the Republican party was demanding that, before any further steps were taken, there must be a debate about where all this was going. They had seen the future toward which they were being pushed, and it didn’t work. They were convinced that the entitlement culture and benefits programmes which the Democrats were determined to preserve and extend with tax rises could only lead to the diminution of that robust economic freedom that had created the American historical miracle.

And, again contrary to prevailing wisdom, their view is not naive and parochial: it is corroborated by the European experience. By rights, it should be Europe that is immersed in this debate, but its leaders are so steeped in the sacred texts of social democracy that they cannot admit the force of the contradictions which they are now hopelessly trying to evade.

I discussed the political angle previously, "Time for Institutional Reform? Well, Only When Democrats Are Losing." But read Daley all the way through. Progressives argue that "politics is broken" when the people revolt against the socialist political class. If folks want to fix what's broken they need to look at what we're spending. Are we going to cut spending and reduce the size of government? It'll take a helluva lot more than downsizing defense. But America's Obama-Democrat-Socialists are impervious to reality. The reckoning is coming in 2012. Folks always say this election is "the most important election in my lifetime." I usually don't, but with the credit downgrade and America's military abusively stretched thin around the globe, my normal optimism is found wanting.

More on this in upcoming posts.

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube.

Michele Bachmann: 'President Obama is Destroying the Foundations of the United States Economy'

Via The Other McCain, "VIDEO: Bachmann Demands Resignation of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner."

Also at Gateway Pundit, "Michele Bachmann: “I Call on President Obama to Demand Resignation of Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner” (Video)," and "Geithner Flashback: “There’s No Chance US Will Lose Top Credit Rating” (Video)."

Taliban Shoot Down U.S. Copter in Afghanistan

At Los Angeles Times, "31 U.S. troops, 7 Afghans killed in Taliban attack on NATO helicopter."

In a rare event, Taliban insurgents shoot down a Chinook helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade near Kabul. It's the largest single-incident loss of military lives since the war's start.

And at New York Times, "31 Americans Killed as Taliban Shoot Down a Copter." (Via Memeorandum.)

Obama's One Term Presidency

I wrote yesterday morning that things were "not looking good for Obama and the Democrats." The thought came to me in a flash as I looked over the economic news. If Barack Obama's anything, it's a good campaigner, and hence I've been reluctant to bet against his reelection. But with folks talking about a double dip recession, and with unemployment likely to remain high regardless of economic growth rates, I think the GOP's chances are looking better than ever. Barack Obama will be a one-term president, I'm confident. And apparently, so are others, or at least there's some pessimism in the MSM that I don't recall seeing. At Politico, for example, "Obama's big drags":

The politics of the debt fight were a drag for President Barack Obama, yanking his popularity to new lows. Here’s an even bigger drag: Obama emerges from the months-long fracas weaker — and facing much deeper and more durable political obstacles — than his own advisers ever imagined.

The consensus has been that for all his problems, Obama is so skilled a politician — and the eventual GOP nominee so flawed or hapless — that he’d most likely be reelected.

Don’t buy into it.

This breezy certitude fails to reckon with how weak his fundamentals are a year out from the general election. Gallup pegs his approval rating at a discouraging 42 percent, with his standing among independents falling 9 points in four weeks.

His economic stats are even worse. The nation has 2.5 million fewer jobs today than the day Obama took office, a fact you’re sure to hear the Republicans repeat. Consumer confidence is scraping levels not seen since March 2009.

Where’s the bright spot? Hard to see. Obama has few, if any, domestic achievements that enjoy broad public support. No one assumes employment, growth or housing prices to pick up much, if at all — something Obama is essentially powerless to change. And the political environment and electoral map are significantly tougher than in 2008, especially in true up-for-grabs states.

It's long piece. Continue at the link.

RELATED: FWIW, see Andrew Hacker at New York Review, "The Next Election: The Surprising Reality." According to Hacker, "Although it is never openly stated, there are Americans who don’t want to be governed by a black man." (Racism, wouldn't you know?) Beyond that (as part of a book review), Hacker's main argument is about turnout: Obama's toast if he can't generate the kind of voter (and youth) enthusiasm that propelled him to victory in 2008. And if that's the case, I'm even more confident Obama's a one-termer. ("Hope & Change hasn't been all that great for young folks.)

Obama's Taxpayer-Funded Bus Tour

It's all porkulus for this administration.

At LAT, "Pivoting from debt fight, Obama plans jobs-focused bus tour."

But see CNS News, "Taxpayers Will Pay for Obama Bus Tour of Battleground States, Says White House."

Double-Dip Recession May Be Returning

Well, I've been writing about this all day, and I'm not surprised at all.

At New York Times:

Until recently, most observers believed the American economy was in a slow recovery, albeit one with very disappointing job growth. The official figures on gross domestic product showed the United States economy grew to a record size in the final three months of 2010, having erased the loss of 4.1 percent in G.D.P. from top to bottom.

Then last week the government announced its annual revision to the numbers for the last several years. New government surveys indicated Americans had spent less than previously estimated in 2009 and 2010 on a wide range of things, including food, clothing and computers. Tax returns showed Americans even cut back on gambling. The recession now appears to have been deeper — a top-to-bottom fall of 5.1 percent — and the recovery even less impressive. The economy is still smaller than it was in 2007.

In June, more American manufacturers said new orders fell than rose, according to a survey by the Institute for Supply Management. The margin was small, but the survey had shown rising orders for 24 consecutive months. Manufacturers in most European countries, including Germany and Britain, also reported weaker new orders.

PREVIOUSLY: "Commerce Department Downward Revision on GDP Growth, 2007-2010."

RELATED: From Roger Simon, "Dow Down 500: Should Obama Resign?" (via Memeorandum).

Commerce Department Downward Revision on GDP Growth, 2007-2010

David Frum's lost his marbles, IMHO. He's got an essay up at Memeorandum, and Bryan Preston has the response, "No, David Frum, Our ‘Enemies’ Were Not Right." No, Frum's not right, although he's got an interesting link to The Economist, "Flying blind," which discusses the revised GDP numbers on the economy for the third and fourth quarters of 2008:

Output in the third and fourth quarters fell by 3.7% and 8.9%, respectively, not at 0.5% and 3.8% as believed at the time. Employment was also falling much faster than estimated. Some 820,000 jobs were lost in January, rather than the 598,000 then reported. In the three months prior to the passage of stimulus, the economy cut loose 2.2m workers, not 1.8m. In January, total employment was already 1m workers below the level shown in the official data.

Check the link. The gripe is that policymakers had lousy data, and had they known the full collapse of the the economy, they might have done more. The more, of course, would be even more "stimulus." And that's gotta be a joke. The adminstration's 2009 stimulus was nearly $800 billion. And folks think more would help? See Bastiat Institute, "Lots of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the Stimulus, Which Will Cost $43 Billion More Than Expected":

Only a small fraction of the stimulus package went to infrastructure spending, and maintenance-of-effort provisions elsewhere in the stimulus package required states to maintain or increase welfare spending, resulting in cash-strapped states cutting back their own spending on useful things like transportation. As a result, Investor’s Business Daily noted, economists “found that despite the influx of all that federal money, highway construction jobs actually plunged by nearly 70,000 between 2008 and 2010.”

The $800 billion stimulus package was purged of most investments in roads and bridges, and filled instead with welfare and social spending, out of political correctness, after feminist leaders complained that building and repairing roads and bridges would put unemployed blue-collar men to work, rather than women. “A recent Associated Press story reports: ‘Stimulus Funds Go to Social Programs Over ‘Shovel-ready’ Projects.’ A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services.” Or, as another AP report put it, “Stimulus Aid Favors Welfare, Not Work, Programs.” Two economics professors recently estimated that the stimulus had actually wiped out 550,000 jobs.

Obama put people on welfare, not to work.

In any case, check that Commerce Department report, "Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2011 (Advance Estimate): Revised Estimates: 2003 through First Quarter 2011." Scroll down for the 2008 revisions and check the tabular data.

RELATED: From Reuters, "U.S. incomes fell sharply in 2009: IRS data." (At Memeorandum.)

EXTRA: At Michelle's, "The Steve Urkel-ization of the economy, redux."