UPDATE, 9:15 a.m.: I finally had a chance to take a closer look at the unemployment and jobs numbers in last Friday’s report. See the update in the last section of Friday’s post.
Here we go again: Our President knocks his country while out of the country:
Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, Barack Obama on Sunday said the US was no longer in a position to “meet the rest of the world economically on our terms”.
Looks pretty explicit to me. Said decline is due to Barack Obama and his party.
He doesn’t seem to mind, does he? He doesn’t seem particularly interested in reversing the decline, does he?
Here’s another guy doing an Eeyore imitation, who also disses Ben Bernanke’s second round of “quantitative easing” (i.e., creating money out of nothing):
Paul Volcker, a top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, said Tuesday he sees no short-term way to reduce high U.S. unemployment and expects slow growth for the next year or more.
… Speaking last week in Seoul, Volcker said the Fed’s bond plan was unlikely to change the overall economic outlook or boost the recovery.
Then why is the Fed doing it? Answer: Because this administration refuses to exercise fiscal restraint, and has basically told Bernanke: “You can print the money or watch the economy down. If you do the latter, we’ll make sure that the blame all goes to you. Oh, and we don’t care if we’re being irresponsible.”
Other countries are justifiably not pleased:
The Fed’s move has sparked complaints by China, Germany, Brazil and others that the Fed’s move might fuel inflation or hurt developing countries by triggering an influx of money as investors seek better returns. That would push up exchange rates and hurt exports by making their goods more expensive.
On Tuesday, a Chinese official speaking before Volcker at the financial forum repeated Beijing’s criticism of the move.
Y’know, it’s pretty bad when we’re getting lectures from a communist country about our excessive statism.
Directly contradictory items from Ted Strickland, on Election Night:
Mr. Strickland called Mr. Kasich early Wednesday before delivering his concession speech. He told the governor-elect that he would work to make the transition successful.
… (in his concession speech, echoing his unhinged Labor Day rant) “I have been humbled by this opportunity to be your governor,” Mr. Strickland said. “And one thing I will continue to do and that is to fight against the voices that only seem to want to tear our state down…”
For a guy who said he wants to “make the transition successful,” Strickland has a funny way of showing it (HT 3BP). :
(Ohio Governor-elect John) Kasich sent a letter to Strickland asking him to cancel all contracts for the project and also wrote to President Barack Obama asking him to instead reallocate the $400 million that Ohio received for the rail project for freight rail or roads in the state.
… In his letter to Strickland, Kasich noted that Ohio is facing an $8 billion budget deficit next year and “every step should be taken to eliminate waste and prevent unnecessary spending.”
… But Strickland won’t oblige Kasich, saying a $25 million study already is under way and will produce valuable information that could prove useful even if the current proposal doesn’t go forward.
… The initial phase of the contracts is estimated at $15 million. State officials have not said how much work on those contracts has been completed, but under the contracts, the state can end work at any time and pay only for work completed.
Ohio can’t afford to spend money on “could be’s.” If the money would only go back to Washington, as Strickland claims, that’s okay, because Uncle Sam can’t afford to spend money on “could be’s.” Regardless, Strickland’s action is irresponsible, and typifies his political career, which is thankfully over.
While we’re noting the demise of the political plague known as Ted Strickland , let’s never forget that:
If the entire Senate had been up for reelection this year, left-leaning Nate Silver at his New York Times blog believes that the GOP would have achieved its own filibuster-proof majority of 60 and possibly a veto-proof majority of 67. (I’m not HT’ing the place I originally saw this because for some reason they didn’t link to it).
Silver wrote that a week before the elections.
The 2012 Senate lineup is heavily weighted with Dems who in the current electoral landscape would surely be vulnerable. Just a few: VA’s Webb (which explains why he’s doing a too-little, too-late critique of racial preferences), MT’s Tester, MI’s Stabenow (who didn’t win by much in 2006), WI’s Kohl (who is clearly to the left of the departing Russ Feingold), MN’s Klobuchar, ND’s Conrad, and PA’s Casey.
Then there’s Ohio’s Invisible Sherrod Brown, who supplied the final vote in February 2009 enabling the now-proven failureknow as the stimulus bill to pass.
Of course, the defeat of an incumbent senator is no easy task. An opponent who has legitimate Tea Party values would clearly have a better chance of defeating Brown than a go-along, get-along RINO. Sadly, given past form, ORPINO (Ohio Republican Party in Name Only) Chairman Kevin DeWine, whose hand-picked relative underperformed the rest of the ticket and nearly lost, is probably working on finding someone who doesn’t have those values as you read this. Perhaps the several new State Central Committee members who campaigned as legitimate Tea Partiers in May can remind DeWine that Josh Mandel, the candidate with the strongest sensible conservative credentials and values, achieved the largest victory margin of any candidate for state office on the ticket.