Freedom Line Blog

One week ago, we were treated to the pathetic spectacle of Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert “testifying” before Congress in character.  Colbert was invited by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D – California), but even House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D – Maryland) called it “an embarrassment” and “not appropriate.”  Now this week, President Obama labeled Comedy Central host Jon Stewart’s farcical October 30 rally in Washington, D.C. “really important.”  With all of the domestic and international issues pressing the White House and our nation generally, not to mention a pivotal election just days later, Obama considers Stewart’s inanity “really important?”

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, coming from a man who was elected largely on the basis of a cartoon “Hope” poster.

How’s this for drive-by media bias?  Today’s Washington Post runs the deceptive headline “Report Gives Stimulus Package High Marks.” Hmmm.  That sounds like a counterintuitive “Man Bites Dog” story worth reading.  So who issued the report?  The Post’s first paragraph admits that it comes from White House itself.  Worse, it was overseen by that respected rock of good judgment and common sense, Vice President Joe Biden.

Even with that baked-in bias, the White House report doesn’t seem to focus on how the $814 billion “stimulus” supposedly succeeded.  Rather, it emphasizes how the effort has already distributed 70% of the allocated funds, and managed to avoid “the fraud charges that plague more routine government spending programs.”  That’s it?  That’s the best that even Joe Biden can claim?  That should actually come as discouraging news, not encouraging news, to “stimulus” proponents.  After all, if 70% of its funds have already been spent, but we still haven’t experienced its promised results, what remains other than $814 billion added to our nation’s debt?  The White House promised that unemployment would top out twelve months ago at 8% if the bill passed, but we remain stuck at 9.6%.  Instead of igniting our economic furnace, it has merely clouded growth and undermined the business and hiring climate.

The White House and its apologists speculatively claim that the “stimulus” averted another great depression, but today’s Wall Street Journal carries an analysis by former Senator Phil Gramm devastating that assertion.  Gramm compares U.S. growth and employment figures to other developed countries that didn’t engage in the irresponsible “stimulus” profligacy we did, and shows that we lag far behind.  As the Post story notes, Obama’s “stimulus” was “the largest effort in U.S. history to counteract the effects of a recession.”  All it has done is prove once again that government doesn’t create jobs or growth, but economic uncertainty and debt.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

According to a report entitled “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms” just produced by Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration, the annual cost of federal regulations alone has reached $1.75 trillion.  That excludes the annual cost of taxes.  And that was as of 2008.

Combined, taxes and regulatory costs consumed a staggering 35% of America’s income in 2008, or $37,962 per household .  Alarmingly, that was the number before such new fiascoes as ObamaCare, “stimuli” and bailouts increased the burden.  Small businesses create most new jobs in America, but the authors highlight that regulatory costs hit them disproportionately hard relative to larger businesses (due primarily to economies of scale in dealing with regulatory compliance costs).  The authors found that businesses with fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs 42% greater than firms of between 20 and 499 employees, and 36% greater than firms with over 500 employees.  Per employee, small businesses face $10,585 in compliance costs versus $7,454 per employee for medium-sized firms, and $7,755 for larger firms.

As government gets bigger and bigger, the regulatory compliance costs only get more and more oppressive.  We needn’t search far to understand why the economy isn’t recovering and businesses aren’t hiring.

Conservative reaction to the House Republicans’ “Pledge to America” varies.  Whatever one’s views toward the plan, however, it did omit an item high on conservatives’ agenda:  a proposed Constitutional balanced budget amendment.  Enter CFIF’s “One More Vote,” which refers to the fact that Congress fell just one vote short in the 1990s of passing a balanced budget amendment and sending it to the states for ratification.  Our “One More Vote” initiative, which readers are urged to sign, would not only require a balanced budget, but prevent that from becoming a convenient excuse to raise taxes by requiring a 60% supermajority to create or increase taxes, or to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

Party change won’t be enough this time around.  With “One More Vote,” we can collectively create something more lasting for America’s future generations.

Today provided welcome re-confirmation that the American public isn’t buying “Net Neutrality” proponents’ campaign in favor of federal regulation of the Internet.  According to a new poll conducted by Hart Research Associates and reported by Broadband for America, a pleasantly surprising 75% of respondents state that “the Internet is currently working well.”  Moreover, fully 57% responded “no” when asked whether the federal government should regulate the Internet “at all,” and two-thirds of the 31% who would accept the idea of regulation would accept it only insofar as it related to privacy, online safety, or protecting children.  America isn’t being fooled by the big-government “Net Neutrality” agenda.

Happy semi-anniversary, ObamaCare!  Just six months ago, your proud papa proclaimed you the vehicle for lasting American voter compliance, errrr, contentment.  Your Uncle Joe Biden elegantly pronounced that you were “a big f***ing deal.” Don’t let the fact that you’re now sinking their party’s majority get you down, though.  To celebrate, why don’t we go out and deny private health insurers the requested premium increases that they’ll need to accommodate their collective new costs of feeding your voracious appetite?  Making them run their businesses at a loss will be great for celebratory laughs!

Over and over again, President Obama and other defenders of trickle-up stimulus labeled 2009’s “Cash for Clunkers” a positive example of federal spending and market manipulation.  Obama himself eagerly called it an “overwhelming success,” and Nancy Pelosi curiously professed that it “has been successful beyond our wildest dreams.”

Economists’ verdict?  Not so much.

Writing for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists Amir Sufi from the University of Chicago and Atif Mian of the University of California Berkeley report that Cash for Clunkers had no substantive net positive effect:

A key rationale for fiscal stimulus is to boost consumption when aggregate demand is perceived to be inefficiently low. We examine the ability of the government to increase consumption by evaluating the impact of the 2009 “Cash for Clunkers” program on short and medium run auto purchases. Our empirical strategy exploits variation across U.S. cities in ex-ante exposure to the program as measured by the number of “clunkers” in the city as of the summer of 2008. We find that the program induced the purchase of an additional 360,000 cars in July and August of 2009. However, almost all of the additional purchases under the program were pulled forward from the very near future; the effect of the program on auto purchases is almost completely reversed by as early as March 2010 – only seven months after the program ended. The effect of the program on auto purchases was significantly more short-lived than previously suggested. We also find no evidence of an effect on employment, house prices, or household default rates in cities with higher exposure to the program.”

This is Obamanomics and “stimulus” policy in a nutshell:  Billions in spending, but no positive effect.  Future generations forced to pay for it will not be retrospectively amused.

Last month, we highlighted the obscene self-serving nature of big government’s growth.  In “Why We’re Boiling Over:  Federal Salaries Now Twice That of Private Sector,” we detailed how federal workers earn double their private sector counterparts, and how incomes fell throughout America last year except in cities with higher concentrations of federal jobs.

Now, a Wall Street Journal study entitled “Washington Firms Soak Up Stimulus” reports that President Obama’s failed $814 billion “stimulus” package has awarded nearly $2,000 dollars per every Washington, D.C. resident.  That’s three times the national average of $695.95 per person across the rest of the country.  It’s not by coincidence, then, that D.C.’s unemployment rate of 6.3% is over three percentage points lower than the nation’s overall 9.6% rate.

Why is the nation’s fed-up electorate boiling over?  The federal “stimulus” trough provides yet another reason.

In his weekly Wonder Land column entitled “It’s the Spending, Stupid,” The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger describes how “concern” over out-of-control federal spending has reached the boiling point:

They, the voters, are not ‘concerned’ about Uncle Sam’s spending floating toward the moon.  They are enraged, furious, crazed and desperate.”

Heninger rightfully points out that it won’t be enough for voters to simply return Republicans to House and Senate majorities this November.  Rather, something more lasting, tangible, and assuring is needed:

If voters give control of the House to the GOP, the party desperately needs to establish credibility on spending.  Absent that, little else is possible.  Independent voters now know that the national Democratic Party, hopelessly joined to the public-sector unions, will never stabilize public outlays.  In a sense, the GOP’s impending victory is meaningless, a win by default.  If the Republican rookies entering Congress next year don’t do something identifiably real to stop the federal spending balloon, voters two years from now will start throwing the GOP under the bus.”

Enter CFIF’s new “One More Vote” citizen activist campaign.  “One More Vote” refers to the fact that Congress fell just one vote short in the 1990s of passing a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and sending it to the states for ratification.  Echoing Daniel Henninger’s commentary this week, the “One More Vote” homepage states that, “Currently, there are several worthy ideas proposed in Congress.  But we need more than ideas.  We need a solution.”  Accordingly, “One More Vote” proposes a Constitutional amendment requiring (1) a federal balanced budget annually, (2) a 60% majority of both houses of Congress to raise the debt ceiling, and (3) a 60% vote of both houses of Congress to increase or create new taxes.

It’s precisely the type of real, lasting and tangible change that enraged American voters described by Henninger demand.  Click on “One More Vote” now, and join the movement.  This time, let’s make sure the change is real.

So how do liberals pick and choose which French ideals they wish to impose on America, anyway?  Redistributionist economics?  Oui!  Reliance on nuclear power?  Heavens, no!

Now, America’s Sanctifier in Chief Barack Obama has another dilemma on his hands.  Mere days ago, Obama lectured Americans to accept on First Amendment grounds a mosque on real estate literally impacted by the 9/11 attacks.  Soon thereafter, Obama disregarded those supposed First Amendment non-negotiables in admonishing some rogue pastor against what he labeled the “stunt” of burning a Quran.  So what will this “citizen of the world” do now that the French Senate has voted 246-1 to outlaw Islamic veils in public?  Will his teleprompter side with the effete Europeans, or the always-combustible Islamic agitants he constantly seeks to placate?

In Friday’s Liberty Update commentary “The ObamaCare Fit Hits the Shan,” we noted how quickly the negative consequences of ObamaCare are arriving in the form of higher health care spending and insurance rates.

Well, Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary, seems to believe that she can terrify the economic laws of supply and demand into deference.  Attacking private health insurers for doing nothing more than adjusting their bottom lines to meet business realities imposed by ObamaCare mandates, Sebelius ordained:

There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.  We will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.”

Karen Ignagni, who leads America’s Health Insurance Plans, provided an Economics 101 primer that Sebelius should have received in college by saying, “It’s a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs, and the impact on premiums depends on the type and amount coverage policyholders had before.”

Simple economics aside, who does Sebelius think she is?  A Soviet-era commissar who can cow American citizens and businesses by thundering such threats?  Ms. Sebelius, you’re about to receive a true lesson in “zero tolerance” when Americans head to the ballots in November.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

This week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the nation’s budget deficit has already reached $1.3 trillion, with another month to go in the 2010 fiscal year.  At 9.1% of gross domestic product (GDP), that makes it the second-largest deficit outside the World War II years, second only to last year’s deficit that reached 9.9% of GDP (mainly because GDP was lower in 2009 than 2010).  In a generous act of understatement, the CBO attributed this mind-boggling amount to lower revenues and “elevated spending associated with the economic downturn and the policies implemented in response to it.”  Another round of “stimulus,” anyone?

To put that in perspective, take a look at this straightforward bar graph.  President Bush’s final deficit was approximately $450 billion, which Obama tripled in his first year alone.  Now, Obama’s second deficit continues that unbearable amount.  Furthermore, efforts to scapegoat Bush for Obama’s first deficit fail, because such things as the $800 billion “stimulus” was Obama’s initiative, not Bush’s.

Regardless of one’s opinions toward the Ground Zero mosque or the Florida pastor’s on-again/off-again Quran roast, one must be impressed by the speed at which President Obama and mosque supporters suddenly discovered the value of propriety, discretion and accommodating others’ sensibilities.

As we’ve said here all along, having the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do.  Obama, however, could hardly contain himself from endorsing the Ground Zero mosque simply because people have a First Amendment right to build it.  Now, however, Obama flip-flops and emphasizes in an ABC interview that the Florida pastor should stifle his First Amendment right to burn Qurans in the name of respect for others.  You certainly possess a wonderful sense of consistency, Mr. President.

So President Obama brought us a crippling $814 billion “stimulus,” and now his promised “Summer of Recovery” has come and passed.

Undeterred, he nevertheless instructs us that what America needs is another $50 billion, or 1/16th the original stimulus amount, in new highway, airport runway and rail construction.  Obama proclaims that “this will not only create jobs now, but will make our economy run better over the long haul.”  So let us get this straight.  Obama turned the $450 billion deficit that he inherited into consecutive $1.4 trillion and $1.3 trillion deficits for his first two years in office, commenced a regulatory onslaught against the private sector, threatened growth-killing regulations like “Net Neutrality” and union card-check, demonized the business community that creates jobs, signed stifling new burdens like ObamaCare into law and appears ready to oversee the largest tax increase in history this January 1.

But according to him, the basis of our economic malaise is…  lack of pavement?

Miss him yet?  President George W. Bush, that is?

Well, t-shirts with the image of Bush above the words “Miss Me Yet?” are outselling Obama gear even in Massachusetts these days.  Now, an opinion poll reveals that Ohio voters would prefer Bush over Obama in the White House right now by a 50% to 42% margin.

Calling Rahm Emanuel:  you’ve got a crisis here to not let go to waste.

Moments ago, the Department of Labor reported that the nation’s unemployment rate jumped again to 9.6%.

As we reference in today’s Liberty Update commentary, this means that unemployment has now risen from 8.2% to 9.6% since Obama signed his $1 trillion “stimulus” bill in February 2009 (with the promise that unemployment would not exceed 8% under his spending plan).  By contrast, unemployment plummeted from 10.4% to 7.2% during the same timespan following the Reagan tax cuts.

This reconfirms what works:  more individual freedom, lower taxes, lower spending, less government.  It also reconfirms what doesn’t work:  more government control, higher taxes, more spending and more regulation.

During the national debate over ObamaCare earlier this year, President Obama attempted to soothe Congressional Democrats worried about their reelection prospects by proclaiming an enormous difference between November 1994 and November 2010.  In his ever-humble words, Obama assured them, “you’ve got me.”

Replace “you” with “they,” and Obama had it just about right.

Today, even The Washington Post acknowledged that Republicans have achieved their largest lead ever on Gallup’s generic Congressional ballot (which asks respondents which party they support generally).  According to Gallup, 51% of registered voters support Republicans, whereas 41% support Democrats.  That marks the widest GOP margin in the history of Gallup’s generic polling, which began in 1942.  By comparison, 1994 and 2002, years in which Republicans achieved substantial gains, the margin was only 5%.  Even more ominously for Obama and Democrats, Gallup polled registered voters, as opposed to “likely voters.”  This is a year in which Republicans and their supporters are much more motivated to vote, meaning that the electoral margin is probably even wider.

How ironic that Republicans are now the ones assuring themselves, “we’ve got Obama.”

As ObamaCare’s new mandates and costs approach, public hospitals that often constitute healthcare of last resort are closing.

Over 1,000 of the nation’s 5,000 hospitals are publicly owned, established by philanthropic contributions in order to provide free or reduced-cost care to the poor.  Unfortunately, as noted by The Wall Street Journal, these caregivers simply do not possess the scale to withstand ObamaCare:

Local officials also predict an expensive future as new requirements – for technology quality accounting and care coordination – start under the health care law enacted in March.  Moody’s Investors Service said in April that many stand-alone hospitals won’t have the resources to invest in information technology or manage bundled payments well.  Many non-profits have bad credit ratings and in a tight credit market cannot borrow money, either.  Meanwhile, the federal government is expected to cut aid to hospitals…  ‘By the nature of their small size, their independence and their political entanglements, they are poorly equipped to survive,’ said James Burgdorfer.”

So once again, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime collides with the law of unforeseen and unintended consequences, at the expense of Americans already stretched thin.