CNN is already looking at 2012

Kristi Keck of CNN attempts to compare Obama to past Presidents, but her analysis lacks a critical eye or any depth.

She starts off by trying to deflect the Carter/Obama comparison, but she makes some mistakes. While she correctly notes the suggestions that both lacked experience needed to become the President and the “change” attitude that both used in their campaigns, she tries to say that Obama drew heavily from Washington insiders for his inner circle. Actually, Obama’s inner circle looks like the Chicago machine (Rahm Emmanuael, Valerie Jarrett, et al) and out-of-touch liberals (Van Jones) with a dose of inside idiots (Joe Biden). She also neglects to see the incompetence that both Carter and Obama displayed with respect to the military. Ms Keck claims that Carter alienated the far left while Obama has not. Apparently she has not paid attention to the battle between the far left and center left over the public option in the Obamacare nightmare, nor has she heard about the Obama administration’s firm defense of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (coming only a couple of weeks after President Obama re-iterated his campaign promise to a prominent gay rights group).

Keck further tries to dispel the Carter/Obama comparison by quoting John Geer, a Vanderbilt University political scientist. (Oh well, not all of the faculty at my alma mater are correct. ) He claims that the comparison is faulty based on events that won’t happen for another three years. In fact, Geer compares Obama favorably to Reagan, though the article gives no quotes from Geer to back up his preposterous claim. To her credit, she did quote a Reagan insider who did not agree with Geer. She discusses the divergent approaches to dealing with a recession, but she does not talk about Obama’s feckless approach toward dictators of the world and how that differed from Reagan’s stand tough approach that worked against the Soviet Union.

Of course, since the article is on CNN, it doesn’t touch upon comparisons to Nixon and the enemies list, despite that issue coming up more and more, given Obama’s idiotic battle with Fox News. Nor does Ms Keck touch upon the socialist policies of FDR and Obama, despite recent analysis that indicates that FDR’s policies actually kept America’s economy struggling for a lot longer.

Ms Keck, it is not morning in America. Actually it is closer for nighttime in America with Obama’s focus on all of the wrong issues while ignoring what is important like improving the business climate so small business can help the economy, the war in Afghanistan, and the fact that crackpot regimes in the Middle East and Far East are preparing to launch into nuclear warfare. Perhaps there is a Reagan comparison here. There were rumors about Reagan napping during important meetings. Obama is asleep at the wheel when it comes to the big issues.

 

Juxtaposition

I was looking for story ideas in Yahoo business news headlines, and I saw this:

Priceless. No, I don’t see ANY increase in fraud if the government gets more involved in healthcare, do you?

 

The recovery is coming. The recovery is coming.

By definition you can’t tell the end of a recession until you have enough past data to spot the trend. The economists may come back in six months or so and say that the recession ended this quarter or perhaps even the previous quarter. With unemployment the highest it has been in over 25 years, pinpointing the exact moment of the end of the great recession is little solace for those people out of work.

So, on Good Morning America, they do a story on the “end of the recession”. They present polls from the people and from Congress indicating that a lot of people don’t agree with the “top economists”. (What is a top economist when a hack like Paul Krugman can be awarded a Nobel Prize for economics? Obviously it is a nebulous term.) However, as typical, GMA tries to put as much positive spin on the story as possible, glossing over unemployment figures and how long it will take to get people back to work. Shouldn’t they at least let the “blood-letting” of job losses subside before they start the cheer leading? At least then GMA wouldn’t appear as grossly partisan.

Yeah, I know. What should I expect? Well, frankly, I’m going to keep harping on the cheer leading until the MSM returns to being watchdogs and not partisan hacks. (In case any liberals happen across this, I haven’t made many comments about Fox News because I don’t have access to their televised reports. I actually didn’t watch Fox News much because I felt they were as partisan for the right as CNN is for the left.)

By the way, have any musicians been writing any songs lately about how the President isn’t helping out the common man? After all, I remember Gary U.S. Bonds doing that in the early 80s (Out of Work). Also, does anybody have any current information on the woman who thought that Obama would take care of her house payment, etc.?

See also:

The DJIA hits 10,000 and…
Missing the elephants in the room
When is a jobless recovery not a jobless recovery?
So when does it become a jobless recovery?

 

Lame effort to rally the troops

Well, I received my official RNC census form a couple of days ago. It’s a joke. It doesn’t have any serious issues. It’s just a piss-poor effort to stir emotions and extract donations. With the RNC falling down on the job for the last 3 years, it’s hard to get my sympathy or money. For laughs, here is the “census”.

I suppose they believe emotion will draw more money, but I’m not like the Moveon.org crowd, nor am I that fond of the outrage of the day.

The RNC needs more substance. Maybe they ought to dust off the Contract for America. It made sense back in 1994. It makes even more sense now.

 

Unhealthy distractions

“Bush derangement syndrome” was a term supposedly coined by Charles Krauthammer in 2003 to describe the almost demented hatred of George Bush. Is it better to describe it as Presidential derangement syndrome?

I became a fan on Facebook recently of the “Not so silent majority”. It didn’t take me long to un-join it. I value conservative/libertarian/free market ideals. That puts me at odds with many of the President’s policies. I can live with that. It’s part of America to be the member of the loyal opposition. However, a particularly vocal group of fans seemed to be obsessing with impeaching Obama. Impeachment is a serious process. It has only been used two times in our country’s history for a sitting President, and unfortunately both times it was for a frivolous purpose. The good news is that enough members of the Senate voted for acquittal both times. Nixon was almost impeached, and deserved impeachment, but he resigned before the process could move forward. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not for being in over your head or enacting stupid policies. If it were, I’m sure Ford would have been a candidate for impeachment when he promoted his Whip Inflation Now (WIN) buttons as an economic policy.

Birthers are not much better. They like to circulate web articles from foreign newspapers that claim Kenyan birth for Obama, but they do not provide anything substantial. Heck, let’s face it. Reporters in this country can’t keep facts straight. Do we expect foreign reporters to do any better? Frankly, I think it just fit a meme for those foreign reporters that a foreign-born man who isn’t white could be elected to high office in the United States. Why should they let good fact checking get in the way? Update (10/25): I knew I should have checked SNOPES first.

If people truly don’t want Obamacare or Cap ‘n’ Trade or any other big government (and very expensive) programs, they need to focus on the message. Getting distracted on fringe issues makes it easy for the liberal media to pick apart the group. Do you remember the focus of the MSM on the LaRouche supporters during the Tea Party protests? These people look to undermine the conservatives. Please don’t give them the ammunition they crave.

 

Clear thinking emerges

Jason Whitlock doesn’t like Rush Limbaugh. Okay, that’s fine. I’m not particularly fond of John Kerry. We’re allowed to dislike people, even for arbitrary reasons. He is even free to state a belief that Rush Limbaugh is a race hustler. (Frankly I think Rush is more of a bombastic entertainer.) Unfortunately Mr. Whitlock also used improperly researched bogus quotes to drive his point home.

I will give Jason Whitlock credit, though. He was willing to realize he made a mistake. Frankly, I appreciate the fact that he stepped back to reflect on his earlier comment instead of retrenching himself and standing by his unfounded inflammatory statements.

 

What is price gouging?

Price gouging is a term used by politicians to “prove” they are looking out for the people. It is also a term used to vilify businessmen and businesswomen.

The oil companies and gas stations are frequently a favorite target. As the price of gas goes up, those groups are accused of gouging the public. Congressmen were doing their best to look stern and chide the oil companies for their outrageous record profits. Of course, what those same politicians failed to mention was that the percentage of profit did not change for the oil companies during the spikes in gas prices, nor did those politicians mention that the taxes on a gallon of gas far exceed the profit margin on gas. Actually, the last thing most politicians want you to do is to cut back much on your driving, no matter what they say. Those gasoline taxes pay for a lot of pet projects.

What is a fair profit, anyway? Let’s do a quick comparison.

	2008	2007	2006
	Intel
Revenue	37,586,000	38,334,000	35,382,000
Net Profit	5,292,000	6,976,000	5,044,000
Percent	14.08%	18.20%	14.26%
	Google
Revenue	21,795,550	16,593,986	10,604,917
Net Profit	4,226,858	4,203,720	3,077,446
Percent	19.39%	25.33%	29.02%
	Microsoft
Revenue	58,437,000	60,420,000	51,122,000
Net Profit	14,569,000	17,681,000	14,065,000
Percent	24.93%	29.26%	27.51%
	Exxon-Mobil
Revenue	477,359,000	404,552,000	377,635,000
Net Profit	45,220,000	40,610,000	39,500,000
Percent	9.47%	10.04%	10.46%
	Wal-Mart
Revenue	405,607,000	378,799,000	348,650,000
Net Profit	13,400,000	12,731,000	11,284,000
Percent	3.30%	3.36%	3.24%
	Aetna
Revenue	30,950,700	27,599,600	25,145,700
Net Profit	1,384,100	1,831,000	1,701,700
Percent	4.47%	6.63%	6.77%

As you can see, Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, and Aetna (three corporations that have been vilified by many politicians) make a smaller profit by percentage than some of the IT giants. Competition is a big factor in that.

Desire works with demand to create profit. During times of natural disaster, resources are scarce. Keeping prices artificially low in the aftermath leads to gouging. After hurricane Isabel passed through Virginia in 2003, there was a great demand for generators to deal with the power outages. Home Depot brought in generators from all over the mid-Atlantic to deal with the problem, but prices were not raised. People cued for hours for the limited resource. Some people purchased a generator and went out to the parking lot to re-sell them at a tidy profit because the demand and desire were there.

Not all gouging allegations come from natural disasters, though. Just run a Google (or any search engine) search for cell text gouging. You’ll see story after story about how the cellular service providers are gouging users for texting. That is ridiculous. I have NEVER had a cell phone company say to me, “You MUST use text messaging.” It is a luxury. People CAN do without texting. If providers can make a profit from people insisting upon using a luxury, that is not a bad thing. After all, if the price keeps kids from texting, they may actually learn how to use WHOLE words and grammar. (I know. That’s very over-optimistic of me.)

Do I think it is a free-for-all in pricing? No, any businessperson has to realize that if prices are raised too high, there can and will be customer backlash later. It’s hard to maintain desire if you piss off your customer base.

If you feel there is such a thing as gouging, please be prepared to explain how you have any luxuries (things that aren’t food, clothing, minimal shelter, or basic transportation) or have any money left at the end of the year. Because if you do have anything nice or are saving money, you must be gouging your employer.

 

Wasting Energy

Apparently, Creigh Deeds didn’t kiss the President’s ring, so the Obama administration started giving anonymous quotes to the Washington Post that Deeds was done and had only himself to blame. David “Mudcat” Saunders, who worked for campaign of Mark Warner when he ran for governor of Virginia under the Democrat banner, doesn’t take too kindly to that.

Boy, talk about a waste of energy. As I said in “What does the Virginia race mean?“, Virginia is not really a true indicator of how the country is leaning. The state is pretty evenly divided under normal conditions. The recession of 2008 may have some people voting with their stomachs in 2009, but there is an outside chance that the economy may improve in time for Democrats to maintain their hold in the 2010 mid-terms. Now is not the time for the Obama administration to burn bridges. He needs the support of blue dog Democrats in order to push his agenda. It just doesn’t make sense to make these Democrats worry that the President may throw them under the bus next.

I have to wonder if there will be a blood-letting by the White House if Obamacare doesn’t pass. Obama has used a lot of political capital early in pushing for Cap ‘n’ Trade and Obamacare. The great expense of the Stimulus Bill will come back to bite him, too, if jobs don’t pick up before the midterms. It’s not too wise to start alienating political allies this early in the term.

 

So that’s how it works

Justin Pope, an education writer for the Associated Press, is discovering that the rules of supply and demand can still apply to education.

He reports on the surprise of college students and their families that the price of an education keeps going up, even though inflation has leveled off with the recession. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the federal government had already driven up the cost of education through student loan programs. Colleges know that the students will try to get the money, borrowing today for the hope of a payoff tomorrow in the job market. Also, the demand for education is growing. With poor job prospects for people ages 16-24, college is considered a good way to spend time while waiting for economic recovery. This means more people in undergraduate and graduate programs. If colleges aren’t hurting for students, why should the colleges hold down prices? Besides, most public schools are facing some reduction in funding from states as tax revenues decrease. The income gap has to be closed some how.

Maybe more of those college students should take economics courses so they have a better understanding of why the colleges will keep raising tuition.

 

Internet problems

My internet connection is intermittent this evening, so I may not be posting until it improves.