Not a Recovery at All

Unemployment is now at 10.2%.  15.7M Americans are out of work.  Some of those have accepted part time positions or given up.  Including them, unemployment is at 17.5% and climbing.

From the link:

Economists say the unemployment rate could reach 10.5 percent next year because employers remain reluctant to hire.

Why do they remain reluctant to hire?  Because they don't know how much their taxes are going up next year.  All told, small businesses and corporations know that rises in taxes are around the corner and are inevitable.  They just don't know how much it will be.

They also don't know how the new health care legislation will affect their bottom line.  There will be no hiring until Congress stops it's spending spree and businesses can realign their balance sheets long term.  Right now, businesses, like families, are living pay check to pay check, not planning too far ahead, saving where they can, and cutting back because of an uncertain future.

The stimulus money you say?  What a joke.  In a down year with tax revenues through the floor, cities and states used that money to make up the difference.  There was no additional hiring, and there was no additional spending.  They used that money to stay afloat, not to add employment.  Texas used the money so they didn't have to dip into their rainy day fund.  But they didn't add jobs.

The previous quarters GDP jump was due to the cash for clunkers program, and last minute home buyers trying to cash in on the $8k revenue.  Those programs were a good start, and a good example of what the American consumer will do with more money in their pockets and cash incentives.

I'm grateful to be employed.  President Obama is quoted in the link that he is going to increase unemployment benefits.  Maybe that will please some.

But 16 million Americans don't want welfare.  They want a job.

Update -- see the chart below that I saw on Powerline.

I'm not sure it's a swindle, but it's definitely a mistake that they made in predicting the economy and it's complexities.  And someone should ask them about it.

HR 3962

This from FoxNews, Democrats Plan to help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6 Month Wait.

So part of this whole drive for change has been pre-existing conditions or really expensive conditions that get patients dropped from low tier coverage.  Like cancer.  Under the proposed plan, in 2013 it would be illegal for insurance companies to turn down folks for either reason.  But until then, President Obama has set aside $3B for a high risk pool for those that get dropped or can't get coverage after it's discovered they have a very serious illness (like cancer).

The catch, you have to be without insurance for 6 months to qualify.  For those that played roulette with their health and never got insurance, that probably won't be a problem, but for those that lose their jobs or their insurance for other reasons and can't get new insurance, this plan doesn't really help them.

Also, this new plan, HR 3962 (tell them to vote NO!) The Affordable Health Care for America Act, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, is not budget neutral and will cost an initial $1T in the first decade, while not adding to the deficeit, because all of that money is coming from Medicare CUTS.  And even with that loss to senior citizens (including less money for perscription drugs) the AARP is set to endorse the bill today.  However, in the years after those initial ten, costs will skyrocket, and the deficeit will soar.

To boot, it would raise premiums on healthy individuals and attract unhealthy individuals who would pay less.  All according to the CBO.

How many new federal agencies will be created due to this bill?  111.  That's one hundred and eleven new beaurocracies between you and your coverage.

There is a provision in this bill that proposes a fine on vending machine operators must (I assume or face fines) list out nutritional information "in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article."  Because that's the sort of crap our legislatures should be working on.

Dallas Examiner calls it a Turkey, stuffed with tax payer money.  And also points out that this bill changes the tax codes on HSA's (health insurance savings accounts) and makes that money taxable after $2500.

Abortion is still covered, and the word abortion is mentioned 23 times while the word doctor only twice.  I'm sure the word fine is in there a 1000 times.  It introduces 13 new taxes.  It's 1900 pages long and costs about $2.4M a word.

Read all of Michael Barrett's analysis of each section.  Including providing abortion information to school kids, while of course prohibiting "in school" abortion.  WHAT?!?  Raising the penalties employers pay on employees who make over $80,000 a year, and cuts what you can spend your FSA on.

It also expressly states in this bill, that if the high risk pool gets too expensive in any given year, our high and all powerful medical / health insurance government Health Secretary "shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists."  Section 101 - National High Risk Pool Program, Page 19.  This is the same section that FoxNews is talking about at the top of this post.

And not to harp on this, Section 222 is titled Standards Guarenteeing Access to Essential Benefits.  This is the section that expressly says federal dollars will go to provide abortions.  Abortions are now essential benefits?  How about essential benefits for a woman's annual screening, blood work, and birth control, rather than abortions?

Maybe that's in there.   But I've wasted enough time wondering the internet in search of a breakdown of what this crappy bill means.

And yes, I have a PDF of the bill.  All 1990 pages of it.  You should too.

Elections Have Consequences

I don't want to spend too much time on what it means that Virginia seems to be sidling back Right, or that NJ leans that way too.  I don't think an off year election where in probably 5% of the total voting population participate is a good indicator of anything.

Though, it is worth noting that President Obama did stump for the Governors, and it yeilded little results.

Maine had a gay-marriage ammendment on the ballot, and it failed to pass.  The story linked is rather sad, as those that had hoped it would pass and allow them a legal ceremony were obviously disappointed.

Elections have consequences.  In Texas we had 11 propositions on the ballot (all of them fairly benign) and Prop 4 - giving immerging schools more funding for research passed.  They all passed, but that was the one we cared about.  That's good news for Texas Tech, who had the most to gain from it's passage.  A handful of other small counties voted against or for the sale of alcohol, and that was really the news here.

The big election, primary really, is going to be March 2010.  When we decide if it's Kay Bailey or Perry for Governor.  The more I listen to her, the more I go Kay ... but she has vote weak on illegal immigration in the past, and I think this is just a stepping stone to get her out of the Senate before she tries for President.

We shall see.

But the Jobs?

Breitbart has a story regarding President Obama's approval rating, and this paragraph caught my eye (emphasis mine):

On Sunday, even as data released by the Commerce Department last week showed the United States had emerged from the worst recession in decades, a monthly approval index by Rasmussen Reports showed 29 percent of those polled strongly approve of Obama's performance, compared to 39 percent who strongly disapprove.

I think it's lovely that the Dow is back above 10k (or hovering therein) and that consumer confidence was up for September (though it's down again for October).  Also that GDP was up.  But that's a false number.  It was inflated by the Cash for Clunkers program, which cost the tax payers $24,000 per car, if Edmunds.com is to be beleived.  By the heated reaction the White House had, I'd say they should be taken seriously. But where are the jobs?

Unemployment, all in, is probably somewhere near 17%.  And the unemployment they do track, is going to hit 10% probably before 2010 does.  The American Consumer won't return to the market in that type of enviornment.

Now I know that jobs are the lagging indicator, and with a new administration it's going to take businesses even longer to think about hiring as they aren't sure what their situation is going to be like in the coming years (insurance costs, taxes, etc).  But just as I bemoaned those that called it a recession before there was evidence, I think we should be cautiously optimistic about recovery.

And I'm irritated that we had the stilumus for $800B and it's a big joke.  I'm irritated we bailed out Chrysler when it looks like they are going to fold anyway.  I'm irritated that we make big expenditures like those without blinking an eye, and then Congress wants to start a brand new entitlement program with money we. do. not. have.

There are limited resources folks.  I know you understand this.  Like oil?  There's only so much.  You can't just drill for more.

Likewise, you can't just print more money.  You can't just tax the richest among us.  They will stop producing.  Atlas will shrug.

Congress will send us into financial ruin and they will cry when it happens.  I blame the 2006 Congress as well, and the fiscal policies of George W. Bush that have been continued into this administration.  Broken?  Bail them out.  Not enough money?  Print more.  Borrow some from China.  Who cares?  There are no consequences.

Our country is run by niave, ridiculous, priviledged children who've never had to work a day in their lives.  And they will seriously cry when their toy breaks.