Not So Stimulating

Niall Ferguson in Newsweak. Not sure what they are doing publishing Niall's commentary since it is definitely NOT supportive of Obamanism, but hey, maybe they had a troubled conscience. Or not.

This bit pretty much validates what I am continually arguing is the fact.

Meanwhile, let's consider the cost of this muted stimulus. The deficit for the fiscal year 2009 came in at more than $1.4 trillion—about 11.2 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That's a bigger deficit than any seen in the past 60 years—only slightly larger in relative terms than the deficit in 1942. We are, it seems, having the fiscal policy of a world war, without the war. Yes, I know, the United States is at war in Afghanistan and still has a significant contingent of troops in Iraq. But these are trivial conflicts compared with the world wars, and their contribution to the gathering fiscal storm has in fact been quite modest (little more than 1.8 percent of GDP, even if you accept the estimated cumulative cost of $3.2 trillion published by Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz in February 2008).

I think a lot of people are still in denial over this stimulus and its affects. Most people I work with seem to think the stimulus is going swimmingly and deny that this is an unprecedented spending spree.

Well, read it all. It's long, but he makes some outstanding points on the whole economic mess we're living in.

Six Bills to be Worried About

I heard of S. 1619 from a Trifecta show at PJTV. I hadn't heard of it anywhere else and for good reason. I tried googling it under news and came up with the title link only. No other analysis or reporting. None.

I'm only going to briefly discuss S. 1619. It does read like a bill only a government could love. Too much of it relates to how the government can incentivize people to live in more urban settings. No doubt the intent by the sponsors who all are Democrats and all who come from states whose majorities are in large urban settings.

Look at this section on Mortgage definitions.

(A) the term ‘energy-efficient mortgage’ means a mortgage loan under which the income of the borrower, for purposes of qualification for such loan, is considered to be increased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower as a result of cost-effective energy-saving design, construction, or improvements (including use of renewable energy sources, such as solar, geothermal, biomass, and wind, super-insulation, energy-saving windows, insulating glass and film, and radiant barrier) for the home for which the loan is made; and

(B) the term ‘location-efficient mortgage’ means a mortgage loan under which--

(i) the income of the borrower, for purposes of qualification for such loan, is considered to be increased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower because the location of the home for which the loan is made will result in decreased transportation costs for the household of the borrower; or

(ii) the sum of the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance due under the mortgage loan is decreased by not less than $1 for each $1 of savings projected to be realized by the borrower because the location of the home for which the loan is made will result in decreased transportation costs for the household of the borrower.

Wonderful that. Giving out mortgages based on peoples decisions to meet the definitions not on their ability to pay. Sound like part of the problem that caused the housing bubble?

What about the "interagency councils?" I'm not quite certain about the executive director. Is this a position requiring confirmation? Or is this just an appointee without oversight? And is this a position that you really want your opposition filling at a later date? Because there is little doubt that the Republicans will be back in power at some point, so how wise is it to create such a position? Sounds in total like another agency run to tamper with existing agencies. Just another layer of bureaucracy that makes things less efficient and more cumbersome.

They also start with $100M of appropriations for the grants. Nice way to start something with really vague definitions. Makes you wonder what the oversight will be like for all that money. Nothing in the bill describes the oversight though. No corruption will be involved though, no doubt. Not that we don't have any worries like we have with ACORN.

Read the bills, and be concerned.

Give Me My Goddamn Nuclear Hot Shower...

First go watch the Trifecta show at PJTV. The title of this post is Bill Whittle quote from the end of the show. I don't usually expect his statements like that one, but it cracked me up.

Now, to the climatologist Liars. I guess this is documented evidence of my contention that scientists have no moral or ethical standing above the normal citizen. Go read these emails and other documents and you'll be amazed that they conciously and intentionally h

id evidence rather than open it to scientific debate.

This justifies the debate and the doubts of anyone questioning the "data" that is used for the supposed scientific "consensus" on human caused global warming.

And for those that think this indicates that I discount all of the science, you are wrong. I'm not of the opinion that all the science is wrong, I have found justification for questioning the results and the scientists who have found religious level belief in their own results.

Unemployment Crest

Not a pleasant overview of the economy. James Pethokoukis quotes Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg. There are 12 points, but the last is the most disturbing, at least to me.

12. After all, the recession ended in November 2001 with an unemployment rate at 5.5% and yet the unemployment rate did not peak until June 2003, at 6.3%. The recession ended in March 1991 when the jobless rate was 6.8% and it did not peak until June 1992, at 7.8%. In both cases, the unemployment rate peaked well more than a year after the recession technically ended. The 2001 cycle was a tech capital stock deflation; the 1991 cycle was the Savings & Loan debacle; this past cycle was an asset deflation and credit collapse of epic proportions. And economists think that the unemployment rate is in the process of cresting now? Just remember it is the same consensus community that predicted at the beginning of 2008 that the jobless rate would peak out below 6% this cycle.

Great. Hope & Change is doing so very well. Another stupid belief that the government could actually affect this recession by throwing money at it. Let's not forget that they throw the money at the wrong people as well.