Calling John Galt

Does the current financial crisis compare (at all) to the Great Depression?

It may be coincidence that U.S. stocks dropped 5% on the day after the election and 10% in the two days after Obama won and Democrats strengthened their grip on congress. Or that stocks fell an additional 17% through November 20th.

But trading has been suspiciously up or down depending on the latest Obama appointment or change in congressional chairmanship. It doesn’t come as a surprise to those of us who haven’t spent the past thirty years in a congressional bubble that higher taxes and a bigger government have a negative economic effect. In fact, the left essentially acknowledged this during the election. Obama stated that several things on his wish list, including health care and tax increases for “the rich”, might have to wait given the state of the economy. If it’s a bad idea during tough times, is it a good idea during good times?

Markets were pummeled brutally Nov 17-20th as liberals took over congressional chair seats.  The Beverly Hills liberal and anti-global warming crusader Henry Waxman won the Energy and Commerce chair on November 20th. Energy stocks responded by falling 12% that day, double the 6% decline of the market.

But today, November 21, pretty much cleared the issue up. Markets were trading in a seesaw pattern all day and were at their daily lows late in the day. Typically short-term minded traders don’t like to go into the weekend owning stocks during a tumultuous week, and stocks often sell off in the last hour or so of Friday trading. But then the news of Timothy Geithner’s appointment as Treasury Secretary hit the wires an hour before the close.  Geithner, the NY Fed president, has deep financial market experience and is well regarded by markets.  Stocks surged 5% in the last hour of trading.

Posted by Brian H.

My guess is no (as in their shouldn’t be):

Zogby polls shows that Obama voters have no idea of the facts.  I find this hard to believe personally.  I had many conversations with well educated individuals who knew the facts.  Though, to a Tee, they all thought Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, which she never did.  Some of the questions:

1. Before this past election, which political party controlled both houses of congress?
   57.4% weren’t sure or guessed that the Republicans were (WRONG)
2. Which candidate could not say how many houses they own?
   81% for McCain
3. Which candidate said they could see Russia from their house?
   87% said Palin, even though she never said this
4. Which candidate had to quit a previous political campaign because they were found to have plagiarized a speech?
   71.8% weren’t sure or guessed everyone but Biden (who it was)
5. Which candidate won their first election by getting all of their opponents kicked off the ballot?
   82.6% didn’t know or said anyone but Obama (who it was)
6. Which candidate wore clothes that their political party reportedly spent $150,000 on?
   Hmmm, Palin again.
7. Which candidate currently has a pregnant teenage daughter?
   All knew it was Palin
8. Which candidate said that Obama would be tested in his first six months as president by a generated international crisis?
   Only a little more than half knew the answer. Biden again
9. Which candidate claimed to have campaigned in 57 states?
   Only 23.4% knew it was Obama
10. Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?
    11.6% knew it was Obama.  A little over 1 in 10.
11. Which candidate said that the government should redistribute the wealth?
    4 our 5 knew it was Obama
12. Which candidate started their political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?
    Only 44% knew it was Obama

What does this poll mean?  Is it a failure of Obama voters to become truly informed or a failure of the MSM to present the information about all the candidates to the public?  My guess is both are at fault. I would have added the following questions.

1. Which candidate proposed a more fiscally conservative approach?
2. Who was for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Posted by Nathan K.

Unless, of course you want to send me all the money.  Otherwise, please don’t spend my money so carelessly.  I know that you think it is your money, but lets be serious for one moment.  It isn’t.  You are supposedly the steward of the public good, in this case all the money we paid in taxes.

Needless to say, I would trust the young girl down the street with the lemonade stand before I do you.  You haven’t earned our trust, you haven’t proven yourselves capable, and yet you want to give away even more money.

Why don’t we do the following.  You continue to manage our money, and we have the chance to manage YOUR money.  Want to give that a go?

Posted by Nathan K.

Just heard Mike Huckabee say that Fiscal Conservatives can’t live without Social Conservatives.  Sorry, but wrong!  The two aren’t inherintately related.  I can definitely be a Fiscal Conservative and be a supporter of Gay marriage.

Sorry, Huck.

Instandit has an interesting post about who receives the most contributions from recipients of their earmarks:

THE FAVOR FACTORY: “Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) larded the 2008 defense bill with $40.6 million in earmarks. Over the last five years, the recipients of those earmarks have given Moran more than $890,000 in campaign contributions. Moran was second only to Rep John Murtha (D-Pa.) in raking in contributions from recipients of his sponsored earmarks—Murtha reaped $1.6 million in contributions from the whopping $126 million he put in the bill.”

Now, percentage wise it Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) is killing Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) 2.16% returned vs 1.27% for Murtha.  Seems like a personal ATM for both Representatives.

Posted by Nathan K.

Now is the time to press ahead with policies that will help the country be competitive for the long term  When we have lost control of the White House, expanded losses in the House and Senate it is the time to strongly, rationally put forth fiscal policies and agendas that show our positions to the American Public.

I would like to put forth Grover Norquist’s proposed approach to the $700 Billion bailout:

Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 15%.

Eliminate the capital gains and dividends tax.

Cut the top personal income tax rate from 35% to a flat 15%.

Kill the death tax.

Allow companies to fully-expense capital assets purchased the first year.

I would also add the following:

Passage of a balanced budget amendment

Adoption of free trade with the world

Removal of farm subsidies (heck, all industry subsidies)

Repeal of onerous, non-productive and non-fiscally prudent regulation

What do you suggest?  I think we will be surprised by how many people agree with this approach.

So, who exactly were the most educated voters out there?

Hat tip to RedState for the video. The result:

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Posted by Nathan K.

Grover Norquist asks for the full $700 Billion for the following:

Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 15%, giving us one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in the developed world. We currently have the second-highest rate in the world (behind only Japan). This new 15% rate would give us the third-lowest rate in the world (ahead of only Ireland and Iceland). It would put us well below the Euro-zone average rate of 25%. Companies would be dying to set up shop in the United States. Estimated JCT cost: $170 billion.

Eliminate the capital gains and dividends tax. These rates are currently 15%, but actually represent a double-tax on corporate profits. When combined with the new, lower 15% rate on corporate income, capital costs would be at their lowest levels in nearly a century. Tax something less, and get more of it. This would also be an improvement over a suggested change we have made to the Treasury for years—allow taxpayers to index the cost basis of their capital assets to inflation (something which Treasury has the unilateral authority to do and which would be the equivalent of a 50% cut in the capital gains tax rate). Estimated JCT cost: $35 billion.

Cut the top personal income tax rate from 35% to a flat 15%. This would give the U.S. the lowest personal income tax rate in the developed world. Estimated JCT score: $235 billion.

Kill the death tax. Almost nothing is more capital-killing for small businesses and family farms than the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer taxes. Estimated JCT score: $24 billion.

Allow companies to fully-expense capital assets purchased the first year. Under current law, businesses and other taxpayers must usually “depreciate,” or slowly-deduct, capital asset purchases the first year. This capital-boosting proposal would allow taxpayers to deduct 100% of the purchase price from their taxes in year one. Estimated JCT score: $240 billion.