Friday, 07 May 2010

THE NEW EMPLOYMENT DATA

Ken Berwitz

Unemployment figures were just announced this morning. 

-The bad news?   unemployment has risen from 9.7% to 9.9%.

-The good news?  the total number of jobs increased by about 290,000.

Now which do you think will be featured more by our media?  And which President, who sold us a "stimulus package" specifically on the basis that it would cap unemployment at 8%, do you think will get a virtual free pass on that absolutely false claim?

MSNBC has already given us their answer.  The lead story on its web site is titled "US ECONOMY ADDS 290,000 JOBS, MOST IN FOUR YEARS".  All peaches and cream.

Don't doubt for a minute that this, rather than the unemployment number and how fraudulent Barak Obama's premise for the "stimulus package" was, will be the primary story in most of our wonderful "neutral" media.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


GOVERNOR BREWER'S ANSWER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Ken Berwitz

There is a video, posted on www.youtube.com, is supposed to have been produced on behalf of Governor Jan Brewer.

I don't know if that is true.  But, regardless, it is an extremely important video that is well worth seeing.  And only about one minute long.

So please view it by either clicking below or, if that doesn't work, clicking here

Believe me, after you do, you'll understand why I'm recommending it. 

Illegals are no joke.  Even if the commander in chief finds them amusing.


 

NOTE:  It turns out that this is, in fact, from Governor Brewer.

Good for her!


SPECTER'S NED LAMONT

Ken Berwitz

Now Arlen Specter knows how Joe Lieberman felt.

Lieberman, you may recall, lost his Democratic senatorial primary to Ned Lamont, who was to Lieberman's left and therefore more appealing to the Democratic hardline base.

Is Arlen Specter traveling that path as well?  Will he also lose his senatorial primary to a challenger more appealing to the left?

The latest polling, by Muhlenburg College, says there is a definite possibility of this happening.  Read the following excerpt from Josh Kraushaar's article at politico.com and see:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) waited for months to hit Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) for his Republican past on television. And now that hes finally played the GOP card, airing a spot tying the party-switching senator to former President Bush and Sarah Palin, his message seems to be getting traction.

The daily Muhlenberg College tracking poll of the Pennsylvania Senate race showed Sestak tied with Specter at 43 percent Friday after trailing the senator by nine points just four days ago. Eleven percent of Pennsylvania Democrats say theyre undecided.

Yesterday Sestak went up with a fresh advertising blitz, featuring Specters comments that he switched parties so he could get re-elected. It also displayed plenty of footage of Specter alongside GOP luminaries and former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum.

After assuring everyone he would not change parties, Specter blew away decades of good will in the Republican Party and switched to the Democrat side (I wonder if he was a role model for Charlie Crist in Florida last month). 

But while I'm reasonably certain most Republicans view Specter as a turncoat and want nothing to do with him, it seems that a lot of Democrats view him as too Republican and want the more reliably leftward Sestak instead.

Will Specter run independent if he loses this primary?  Given that he changed to the Democratic party just to increase his chances of winning re-election (that's not my opinion, that's what he actually said), it seems to me he'd go indie to win also.

The Republican candidate, Pat Toomey, must be loving this. If Sestak wins the primary and Specter takes a hike, Toomey will be running against a far more marginalized opponent.  If Specter goes indie, Toomey will be running against two candidates splitting the other side's votes.  

Specter might take some Republican votes as well, but he would take far more from the Democratic side.  Is it possible that Specter could cobble together enough of both to win?

This is going to be a very, very interesting race.


MOONVES? BUSH? NAAAHHH, CAN'T BE....

Ken Berwitz

Are you into really improbable lookalikes?  Then how about these two:

 

 

President George W. Bush-JTM-034129.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Has anyone ever seen them together in the same place?  Just asking.....

And what's George Bush doing with Les Moonves' wife anyway?

================================================================

NOTE:

It has been suggested to me that some people don't know who Les Moonves is.  FYI he is the President and Chief Executive Officer of CBS. 

No one has suggested that some people don't know who George Bush is.


PAT BUCHANAN IS RIGHT (ON THIS ONE SUBJECT ANYWAY)

Ken Berwitz

This definitely comes under the heading "give the devil his due". 

I do not like pat buchanan nor do I like a great deal of what he stands for.  But on this subject I have to admit he has nailed reality very well, so I'm posting his commentary:

Friday, May 07, 2010

 

The End of La Dolce Vita

by Pat Buchanan

 

Are Europe and America headed to where Athens is today?

To answer the question, consider what brought Greece to where she is -- running a deficit of 14 percent of gross domestic product with a debt approaching 100 percent, with Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Great Britain not that far behind.

How did this happen?

Protected by the United States through a half-century of Cold War, Europe cut back on defense and ratcheted up spending for La Dolce Vita.

All of Europe adopted universal health care. All voted in a shorter workweek, a higher minimum wage, greater job security, earlier retirements and munificent pensions.

 

As the cradle-to-grave welfare states rose, an ever-increasing share of the labor force left the private sector for the security of the public sector.

Tax-consumers, the beneficiaries of the welfare states and the bureaucrats that ran them, grew in number, as taxpayers declined as a share of the labor force. Though Greece was far from the most productive nation in Europe, Athens led the parade.

After the baby boom ended, the pill arrival in the 1960s. Then came abortion on demand in the 1970s.

The fertility rate of Greece and every European nation fell below the 2.1 births per woman needed to replace an existing population. Greece's birth rate has been below zero population growth for three decades.

Result: In Year 2000, Greece had just under 11 million people and a median age of 38. In 2050, Greece is projected to have just under 11 million people, but the median age will be 50.

Were Greece a company, the solution would be bankruptcy.

But Greece is a country. And a bailout of $141 billion is being put together by the European Union and International Monetary Fund.

Why? Because, should Greece decide not to take a chain saw to her welfare state, but walk away from her debts and default, she would blow a hole in the balance sheets of the biggest banks in Europe.

Then the banks would have to be bailed out.

Seeing Greece's bondholders being burned, terrified holders of Portuguese and Spanish debt would start dumping their bonds, forcing Madrid and Lisbon to pay a higher interest rate both to sell new bonds and roll over the old ones coming due. Rather than savage their welfare state programs, and risk riots in the streets and a massacre at the polls, Madrid and Lisbon, too, might look agreeably at default.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, though exasperated with the Greeks, is urging Germans to back the $141 billion bailout: "Nothing less than the future of Europe ... is at stake."

Merkel believes there is no alternative. But there is an alternative -- a restructuring of Greece's debt or a default where the holders of Greek bonds suffer the fate of the holders of bonds from Lehman Brothers and General Motors.

Inevitably, this is what is going to happen.

For how long will Greeks work longer, retire later and live on smaller pensions, so holders of Greek bonds can get their interest payments right on time?

The EU and IMF may, with the bailout of Greece, kick this can up the road. But the crisis will return. For the nations of Europe have made commitments beyond their capacity to keep, given their growing debts and aging populations.

And America is not all that far behind.

While the federal deficit is not 14 percent of GDP, it was 10 percent in 2009 and may reach 11 percent in 2010. Trillion-dollar deficits are projected through the decade, bringing the public debt -- held by citizens, companies, foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds -- close to 100 percent of GDP.

And the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and federal pensions rival those of Western Europe.

States like California and New York, larger than Greece, look a lot like Greece. Were it not for the scores of billions dished out to them by Obama's stimulus, some of these states would have come close to the brink New York City went over in 1975.

Many of these states are today laying off teachers, letting felons out of prison, and looking hard at the salaries and pensions of civil servants. While the temptation is great for Washington to bail them out again, the United States government itself has now begun to attract the concerned notice of holders of U.S. debt.

That we are witnessing Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West" seems undeniable.

La Dolce Vita is coming to an end. The ever-expanding European and American welfare states of the 20th century will contract in the 21st. Some have already begun to shrink. A time of austerity is at hand.

Indeed, what is about to be tested is democracy itself.

Can democracies that attracted universal applause in the golden years of rising expectations impose upon their citizens the enduring and painful sacrifices necessary in a time of retrenchment?

We are about to find out.

How I wish I could present a cogent argument against what buchanan has written.  But I can't, because he's right on target.

That being the case, how I wish I could make Barack Obama and his Democratic majority understand what they are doing to us with multi-trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see;  deficits which, plainly and simply, cannot be sustained. 

At this point I'd just settle for more of them giving a damn about it.

Zeke .... ... A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it. .... ..... Alexis de Tocqueville (05/07/10)


FOR THE POLL LOVERS IN THE HOUSE....

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest poll, commissioned by National Journal.  The following excerpts are from the writeup by Reid Wilson:

May 6, 2010 6:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (696) |

Share This

By Reid Wilson

 

American voters are more confident that the economy will improve in the next year, but trust in major institutions continues to fall -- a slump that mirrors Pres. Obama's tumbling approval rating.

 

Seven in 10 voters say the economy will improve over the next 12 months, according to the new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll, while just 27% believe the economy will worsen. But 56% of voters say they have less confidence that elected officials in DC will make good financial and economic decisions.

 

Voters also say they have less confidence than they did a year ago in major corporations (50% say they are less confident), investment banks (55%) and national banks (51%) to make wise fiscal decisions.

 

As trust in national institutions falls, so has Obama's approval rating. Just 48% approve of the job Obama is doing, while 46% disapprove, the poll shows. That's down from a 61% approval rating Obama sported in an Allstate/National Journal poll conducted in April '09.

 

Voters have lost faith in Obama to craft solutions to the country's economic challenges. Just 39% say they trust Obama more than GOPers in Congress, while 32% say they believe the GOP has the right ideas. That 7-point gap is down from a 29-point Obama advantage in the April '09 poll.

 

Only 39% of voters said they would vote to re-elect Pres. Obama if the election were held today, while 50% say they would vote for someone else. A quarter of voters would definitely vote to re-elect Obama, while 37% would definitely vote for someone else.

 

Dems have a small 39%-35% advantage on the generic Congressional ballot, but historically the party has needed a much bigger advantage in order to pick up seats in the fall.

There it is.  What it means is up to you.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!