In her latest Facebook post titled: Conquering the Storm.  The subject, of course, is economics. Specifically our overwhelming debt, the S&P downgrade, and the abject failure of Obamanomics.  It's definitely a must-read.  Here's a taste:

In the coming days we’ll sort through the repercussions of S&P’s downgrade of our credit rating, including concerns about the impact a potential interest rate increase would have on our ability to service our suffocating $14.5 trillion debt.

Back in December 2010, I wrote: “If the European debt crisis teaches us anything, it’s that tomorrow always comes. Sooner or later, the markets will expect us to settle the bill for the enormous Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending binge. We’ve already been warned by the credit ratings agency Moody’s that unless we get serious about reducing our deficit, we may face a downgrade of our credit rating.” And again in January, in response to President Obama’s State of the Union address I wrote: “With credit ratings agency Moody’s warning us that the federal government must reverse the rapid growth of national debt or face losing our triple-A rating, keep in mind that a nation doesn’t look so ‘great’ when its credit rating is in tatters.”

One doesn’t need a Harvard Law degree to figure this out! Just look across the pond at Europe. European nations with less debt and smaller deficits than ours and with real “austerity” plans in place to deal with them have had their ratings downgraded. By what magical thinking did we figure we could run up perpetual trillion dollar deficits and still somehow avoid the unforgiving mathematics of a downgrade? Nothing is ever “too big to fail.” And there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Didn’t we all learn that in our micro and macro econ classes? I did at the University of Idaho. How could Obama skip through Columbia and Harvard without learning that?
[emphasis-ed]

She goes on to talk about strong policy prescriptions for turning the US economy around, getting us back on track, and restoring prosperity through cutting spending, shrinking government, and drastically changing Obama's stifling energy policy.  Serious proposals for serious times...

Then she wraps it all up with a strong finish, tellin' it like it is; Sarahcuda style:

Be wary of the efforts President Obama makes to “fix” the debt problem. The more he tries to “fix” things, the worse they get because his “solutions” always involve spending more, taxing more, growing government, and increasing debt. This debt problem is the greatest challenge facing our country today. Obviously, President Obama doesn’t have a plan or even a notion of how to deal with it. His press conference today was just a rehash of his old talking points and finger-pointing. That’s why he can’t be re-elected in 2012.

Our economic news is disheartening and the task before us can seem daunting, but we must not lose our sense of optimism. People look around today and may see only the negative. They see a culture and a nation in decline, but that’s not who we are! America must regain its optimistic pioneering spirit again. Our founders declared that “we were born the heirs of freedom.” We are the heirs of those who froze with Washington at Valley Forge, who held the line at Gettysburg, who freed the slaves, carved a nation out of the wilderness, and allowed reward for work ethic. We are the sons and daughters of that Greatest Generation who stormed the beaches of Normandy, raised the flag at Iwo Jima, and made America the strongest and most prosperous nation in the history of mankind. By God, we will not squander what has been given us!

I've said it before, but I'll reprise now; she sounds positively Reagan-esque, in tone and content...

And while many here may not exactly count themselves among Palin's supporters, if she throws down a, "There they go again...", in an affable reply to an oft-repeated, tiresome, progressive talking point; y'all might as well toss me a life preserver, because I'll be completely in the tank.

What do you think, kind reader? Both of her post and of her, broadly speaking of course.

[Cross Posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

Sure you do, champ; sure you do...

More of the hopey-changey-goodness that is RecoverySummer™ Part Deux :

Consumer confidence has fallen to a new two-year low while investor confidence continues to hover just above the lowest levels of 2011.

The Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures the economic confidence of consumers on a daily basis, fell four points on Wednesday to 63.7. That’s down eight points from a week ago, down nine from a month ago and down ten from three months ago. Confidence is now just nine points above the post-9/11 low reached in March 2009.

Just 15% of the nation’s adults believe the U.S. economy is getting better these days, while 66% believe it's getting worse. Those numbers reflect a far more pessimistic outlook than was found at the beginning of the year. The first update in 2011 showed that 30% believed the economy was better and 45% thought the opposite.

Lets see, how about we check out the 2012 Generic election ballot:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows the generic Republican with 48% of the vote, tying the highest level of support earned by either candidate to date. The president picks up 42% support. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

And for good measure, how about the Presidential Tracking Poll:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17 (see trends).

That last one isn't as bad as it's been in the past...But overall, do you think there's any correlation between these numbers? Well, anyone who relies on data, and realizes that figures never lie, but liars figure, would probably be inclined to. Show these links to the malcontents on the professional left, though, and all you'll here is something like; "Sure, but that's only because it's OberGruppenFuhrer McPollster Scott Rasmussen!11!1! (eleventy)"

Which, you know, is factual, but not such a convincing rebuttal in and of itself.

What's your opinion?

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

But, you know, at least they weren't Green Jobs...Yet...From Boston.com :

General Electric Co.’s health care unit, the world’s biggest maker of medical imaging machines, is moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old X-ray business to Beijing.

The headquarters will move from Wisconsin amid a broader plan to invest about $2 billion across China, including opening six “customer innovation’’ and development centers.

The X-ray business, whose financial results aren’t reported separately by GE, will hire 65 new engineers and support staff at a new Chengdu facility, the company said. GE has hired “a large number’’ of engineers who are in training, LeGrand said. GE, based in Fairfield, Conn., also has a global research center in Shanghai.

If you recall, GE's CEO, Jeff Immelt, is the Chairman of President Obama's Job Council; a group committed to creating new jobs.  But who knew they were talking about creating jobs overseas?  Especially considering all of the Sturm-und-Drang one hears about "outsourcing jobs" coming from "Big Labor", one of Obama's vital constituencies, and indeed from the entire progressive left in general whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Look. I've been a free-trading free-market guy all my life; in my opinion any business can do business wherever they'd like.  But really, above and beyond the irony of this story and its concomitant sweet, sweet, schadenfreude there are more important points to be made here.

First and foremost, Americans will not be getting these jobs.  Good Jobs.  High-tech, high paying jobs.  The ones the transnational globalists always said we'd retain here, so it was OK to shop all of those nasty ol' smokestack industry jobs to the developing nations.  And what should be important to the DC politicians is that now they'll be missing out on the tax revenue from these jobs and the associated supply chain activity.  But wait, there's more.

See, what most people don't realize are the details of the Faustian bargain that must be made by any US businesses that wants to set up shop in China.  In most cases they have to cede 51% of the ownership to a Chinese partner, so Hello, GE shareholders-any objections to this?  But far worse is that they have to agree to transfer both the device's operating technology and the expertise associated with manufacturing it to China as well; in other words they're not allowed to just ship the parts there to be assembled, and import tech's to service the units sold.

And really it's the technology transfer, both electronic as well as industrial process related, the Chinese crave.  That way they can be saved the taxing step of actually buying enough units to successfully reverse engineer the device, and associated process, themselves; just ask the Russians about the SU-27 and SU-33 military aircraft.  For a while the Chinese built them under Ukrainian license, (which the Russians protested-they knew better), for a while, and then they simply stopped paying the license fee, renamed the airplanes, and that was all there is to that.

People may think this imaging technology to be a benign transfer at best; which, Bill Clinton thought the same about missile guidance technology transfer to China in the 90s.  We can see today how that's worked out for us...

The same technology that allows for the 3-d imaging of babies in the womb, on a different scale, has applications underwater, which is all I'm going to say about that...

The Chinese are our "frienemies" at best.  Their aggressive, mercantilistic, monetary policies have cost Americans untold numbers of jobs.  We are indirectly paying for their defense expansion and modernization via our monthly trade deficit with them, which most months is equal in magnitude to the amount of money we send overseas to pay people who hate us for oil (we could be producing here).  It's bad enough we're paying for their military build-up. Let's not give them technology that may be useful in doing so to boot!

What do you think, kind reader?

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

Which, Mr. Obama asked the American people to weigh in on the debt ceiling increase debate, and it looks like they're taking his suggestion under serious consideration:

Congressional offices were deluged with feedback Tuesday after President Obama urged Americans to make their voices heard on the gridlocked debt ceiling debate.

Moments after dueling prime-time speeches by the president and Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner on Monday night, several congressional websites were overloaded with traffic. A day later, some were still slow to load, if they did at all.

On Tuesday morning, the Capitol call center said in a memo that House telephone circuits were "near capacity" due to the high volume of incoming calls.

A spokesman for the office of the chief administrative officer said that at the peak, House offices received a combined 40,000 calls in an hour — twice the typical volume. Some callers got a busy signal, but the number was not significant, spokesman Dan Weiser said.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) said the phones in his Capitol Hill office were "ringing off the hook" at midmorning. Calls included a lot of "scared seniors," the spokeswoman said, adding that Rohrabacher believes the administration has misled seniors into believing their Social Security checks are at risk.

The calls, mostly from outside the congressman's district, favored the president's position, "but not by much," she said.

It's good to see folks actually paying attention to, as well as participating in, this debate, and I would urge all our readers to do so as well.  I realize that with plans changing on a daily basis, and ideas being alternately talked up and shot down on a variety of outlets, that the idea of calling the members of their Congressional delegation without a specific proposal to support may seem like so much unproductive complaining.

Which, your humble scribe has some advice and a few suggestions to offer regarding that.  Don't ever be hesitant to contact your Senator, Congressman, or even the White House and simply voice your opinion on the issues of the day.  Always remember the fundamental American principle of our founders; the right to govern comes from the consent of the governed.  And although there are many, in my opinion, arrogant individuals who mistakenly contended during the Obamacare debate that this consent began and ended at the ballot-box alone, it is much closer to the truth to say that political speech is the most protected of first amendment "free-speech" rights; so never shrink from engaging in the time-honored American tradition of telling elected officials just exactly what is on your mind.

Although right now there may seem to be no conservative plan to get behind and demand your delegation vote for, you can certainly let them know what you don't want them to vote for.  For instance, it is my considered opinion, as well as Paul Ryan and others smarter'n me,  that Senator Reid's plan is rife with the usual Washington smoke and mirrors, and that it also proffers additional, real, defense cuts I believe would harm the effectiveness and readiness of our military.  So one course of action could be to express your dissatisfaction with Reid's plan as a whole, or to make clear any of the specific parts you disagree with.

And even though members of your Congressional delegation can't necessarily do anything about it, you might also considering expressing your unhappiness with the Democrat's "Mediscare" tactic of frightening senior citizens via the class-warrior assertion that the GOP is wantonly holding their Social Security checks hostage in the interest of benefiting "Big Oil!", and, "Corporate Jet Owners!".  There's also the matter of the administration's constant media drumbeat about the coming US default, at odds completely with what they are telling banking and finance executives via the back channel; a direct and boldfaced lie that you may wish to call out the most ETHICAL! and TRANSPARENT! administration, EVAR! on.   In fact, these just might be good topics to voice your displeasure with directly to the White House .  I mean, Mr. Obama's the one who asked everyone to contact DC, right?

You may be asking, "why should I bother to contact DC"?  The reason is pretty straightforward, and as usual with the Obama administration is all about the optics.

Mr. Obama is attempting to use a technique that Mr. Reagan used effectively several times in the 1980s; having the American people directly pressure their Senators and Congressman.  Since part of the narrative construct that is Barack Obama is that, somehow, he is more beloved and an even better communicator then Reagan ever was, there is going to be an urgent need for his solicitation of the public to succeed; to be the biggest and bestest ever(!11!1!eleventy!!).  To that end one can expect that all the Fightin' Nutroots, Obamabots, and assorted electronic brownshirts will be out trying to "freep" the results; just as they did with every high-visibility poll and media event during the 2008 campaign.  They're going to try to sway the opinion of both Congress and the public at large by making it appear as if all America is behind beloved President Obama...

That's why it's vital that each of us make our preferences, and feelings, known.  Do like they do in Illinois; vote early, and often :)

Seriously, America needs her patriots to make their voices heard above the shrill professional left.  I urge you to add yours to the chorus of others.  Don't let the nutroots reward Obama's "Days of Whine and Poses".

Here's a list of Senate Contact information, of House of Representatives Contact information, and White House Contact information.  Please, kind reader, make the call or send and e-mail.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

Or alternatively, he doesn't want to put it out there because it will become "politically charged"; so says the man who's boss has threatened to veto the Boehner plan, draped himself in the mantle of Reagan by misappropriating one of the Gipper's quotes out of context, and demanded that Congressional leaders "compromise"-by accepting the Democrats debt ceiling increase plan-all within the last 24 hours.

From Greg Hengler at Townhall:

Chip Reid is the first to ask Carney about Obama's plan: "Why not put it out there?" Reid also asks: "What was the point of giving a prime time address to the nation without an Obama plan?"

Next, Chuck Todd doubles down on Reid's challenge and causes Carney to stutter a bit. After Todd's feisty challenges, a reporter named Carol triples down on the press's "show us the plan" challenge to Carney and Obama. The scene is ugly and unpleasant--if you're on Team Obama.

After all the hemming and hawing from Carney over Obama's so-called plan, we learn that he really doesn't have one "because we want a result." Go figure.

He has a plan but not really. Truly Orwellian...

And ACE calls a spade, a spade :

It's pretty interesting-- the press room jeers in protest when Carney suggests they skipped out of town early on Friday, when he claims the President clearly outlined his "principles."

His "principles." Still not his "plan."

As the CBO said, "We can't score speeches."

Really worth viewing. It's interesting that media is finally starting to chafe under Obama's arrogant reign. Really, really worth watching. The press (particularly Todd and Jake Tapper) will not ease up on Carney over the administration's utter failure to produce a plan.

Hmmm... Obama insists that the debt deal must carry him to January 2013, and here Carney repeats that the President also insists that no tax hikes will go into effect before January 2013.

Is there some economic importance of this January 2013 date?

And AllahP recounts the musing of Steve Hayes:

Steve Hayes notes that it wasn’t so long ago that Obama’s press secretary was mocking the GOP at the podium as “the party of no ideas” for producing a brief budget framework instead of a detailed plan. Fast forward two years and, with the alleged economic apocalypse nearly upon us, we’ve got a different press secretary insisting that O doesn’t need to float a plan because he once gave a speech or something. Good times, good times.

What's black, is white; Up is down; etc.  Check out video at any of the links, at savor the squirming of O!'s minion in service to The Won.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

Because through back channels the administration is going out of their way to assure banks that a default just isn't happening. From Charles Gasparino at Fox Business:

While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn't raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade "is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody's have to cover (themselves) since they've been speaking out on the debt cap so much."

This guidance is a big reason why Wall Street has largely dismissed the possibility of default, and though the markets have been jittery amid the talk of default, they haven't imploded as would be the case, many economists fear, if the nation missed a payment on its debt.

The banking official said the administration understands that if there were to be a default, it would likely spark another financial crisis.

"They also know they can pay the debt with cash on hand," this official told FOX Business. The Treasury collects around $2 trillion in tax revenues, and is scheduled to pay out $200 billion in interest to bond holders. In order to meet its obligations to contractors, social security recipients and others, the administration would have to raise another $1 trillion either through cuts, higher tax revenues, the issuance of debt or a combination of all three.

So if this is the case, how much credibility can be put into the Treasury Secretary's words?  And what of the President himself?  Are we to assume it's merely a white lie, to help move the debt ceiling negotiations along at the pace he prefers? Or as some have suggested it is part of a much larger, more cynical plan to pin the blame for the bad economy on the GOP; that next year he'll counter assertions that he has been a poor steward of the economy by counter-asserting that everything was fine until the Wingnut Tea-Baggerz wrecked it with their irresponsible demands during the debt ceiling increase debate.

What this does seem to indicate is that there is more breathing room for negotiations that Mr. Obama or the Democrats want to admit, and that they're more than willing to frighten the public in order to advance their political agenda.  Which, if you recall, was one of Obama's major, damning, criticisms of the GOP during the campaign of 2008; their willingness to engage in fear-mongering to divide the American people.   Not to mention their most recent mediscare demagoguery...

But is any of this really shocking, coming from the crew that subscribes to the maxim, "BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!"

What do you think, kind reader?

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

Which, as I noted earlier, was the inclusion among Reid's supposed "savings" of funds for not fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq; funds that no one has included in any of their budget baselines.  But Representative Ryan points that out clearly on the House Budget Committee website:

Rocketman

Which must be a difficult admission for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make, although he goes on to opine that he believes that Gaddafi will eventually be driven from power:

Top US officer Admiral Michael Mullen on Monday acknowledged NATO was in a "stalemate" in its Libya campaign but still voiced optimism the strategy would lead to the departure of Moamer Kadhafi.

Insurgents have been fighting to oust Kadhafi since mid-February, and NATO has been pounding away with air raids, as the Libyan leader continues to hang on. His complex was slammed by NATO warplanes Saturday, when the alliance confirmed seven strikes and said they hit a military command node.

"We are, generally, in a stalemate," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen told a press briefing in Washington billed as his last before retirement.

Referring to NATO raids, Mullen said NATO has "dramatically attrited (reduced) his forces" and "additional pressure has been brought," even if Kadhafi has not been ousted.

"In the long run, I think it's a strategy that will work... (toward) removal of Kadhafi from power," Mullen said.

Perhaps the Chairman of the Joint Chief's candor was a result of his impending departure.  His remarks suggest that Mr. Obama's critics were correct when they recommended the US lead the coalition in a more energetic campaign; one designed to bring the fighting to an end much sooner.

Image courtesy of AFP

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

Uncle O! wants YOU! to believe whatever he says

To which I respond all of the usual and customary replies to any uber obvious question; is the Pope Catholic?  Does a bear, well, you know...

The Washington Times' James Curl:

In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances “rhetoric.”

But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ‘em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.

And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.

His late-evening news conference Friday was a tour de force of flat-out, unadulterated mendacity — and we’ve gotten a first-hand insider’s view of the president’s long list of lies.

Curl goes on to provide a first-class "fisking" of Mr. Obama's Friday afternoon press conference foot-stamping temper tantrum. As we often say, read the whole thing...

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

If WaPo's ersatz "conservative" Jen Rubin's reportage is correct then it would appear he indeed has:

A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”

If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.
[emphasis-ed]

I personally am not as surprised as Ms. Rubin by the President's behavior, because for all his palavering on about a willingness to be satisfied with being a good one-termer who accomplished some of what he wanted than with playing politics in the interest of being re-elected, in my humble opinion every act he's made, decision he's taken, and word he's spoken has always been about holding on to power as long as possible.

Now as this is the only place I've seen this so far, it's hard to tell if it has legs, will be buried by other developments later today, or will simply be embargoed by Obama's campaign arm in the fourth estate.  We'll have to see.

But if it does get more widespread circulation, then it will pose a serious problem, politically, for the self-professed MOST POST-PARTISAN PRESIDENT, EVAR!, since it will at once put the lie to that grand meme as well as some other longstanding facets of the narrative construct that is Barack Obama, such as his Brilliance!, Judgment, and Superior Temperament!

Additionally it may drive a wedge between Congressional Democrats and The Won on this particular issue.  Many of them have run for years on platforms promising fiscal responsibility and balancing our national budget, and they can read the polls showing that the American people prefer to do something about the budget at this juncture; and by "doing something" don't mean raise taxes.

Congressional Democrats have a decision to make.  Do they essentially tie their 2012 electoral fortunes to Mr. Obama by backing his play on this issue, and allow GOP challengers to continually point out their disingenuousness on this matter as being indicative of their candor as a whole and specifically seriousness to rein in DC spending, or do they live up to their promises, pass the bill, and send it to the President for signature or veto.  I say call his bluff, because he doesn't dare throw all of Congress under the bus on this, and overtly take ownership of the issue.

Of course, those of us who pay attention have been aware of his ownership of the debt for sometime; it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see the slope on this graph and understand who's exploded the US national debt faster that any other President in history.

What do you think, kind reader?

[UPDATE]: Byron York at The Washington Examiner corroborates Rubin's source's story.

And Juice-Box Mafiosi Ezra Klein laments that, "The Republicans have won!", and searches for a silver lining for the Democrats while presenting a time line that will convince the "Fightin' Nutroots" that their pols didn't go down without a fight.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman