Monday, March 11, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, March 11, 2013


Shirley Crabbe...

 Wow... huh?

 I attended high school with Shirls. On Saturday Mary and I went to see Shirley perform at the Old '76 House in Tappan with Jim West accompanying her on piano.

 What a talent! This girl... this woman... is a star!

Posted by at

5 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2013/03/sec_hits_illinois_with_securities_fraud_charges.html

Illinois broke federal securities laws in misstating the true health of the state's depleted pension funds when going out onto the bond market between 2005 and early 2009, the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission announced Monday.

The finding of securities fraud doesn't subject the state to any fines or penalties...

(*JUST THROWING MY ARMS UP*)

...but amounts to a warning to potential investors about the state's past financial misdeeds.

"The state neither admits nor denies the findings in the order, which carries no fines or penalties," said Abdon Pallasch, assistant budget director.

March 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/03/11/februarys_jobless_report_is_not_cause_for_celebration_100191.html

Forget the cheery 0.2% point "decline" in the "headline" unemployment rate during February. Here is what Friday's "Employment Situation" report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) actually said:

America's working age population went up by 165,000 during February.

Despite this, a net 130,000 people dropped out of the labor force, continuing the most worrisome trend of the Obama years.

The number of people with full-time jobs fell by 212,000, while 382,000 Americans took part-time jobs, thus producing the reported 170,000 "gain" in total employment (which includes everyone who worked at all).

* RE-READ THAT LAST PARAGRAPH, FOLKS. INDEED, RE-READ THIS ENTIRE NEWSBITE UP TO THIS POINT.

(*SIGH*)

"Full-time-equivalent" (FTE) jobs, which we can approximate as the number of full-time jobs plus the number of part-time jobs divided by two, fell by 21,000. Does this sound like cause for celebration to you?

* NO... IT... DOES... NOT...

It will be important to keep an eye on the number of FTE jobs during 2013, because ObamaCare provides a huge incentive for businesses to replace full-time employees with part-time help. Replacing full-time people with part-timers will reduce the reported employment rate, but it will not do anything for incomes or economic growth.

* DO... YOU... UNDERSTAND...???

America reached full employment toward the end of the Clinton presidency (59.6% adults had FTE jobs in April 2000) thanks to a relatively stable dollar engineered by Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Wayne Angell, a corporate income tax rate that was lower than the average of our OECD competitors, and a capital gains tax cut pressed upon Clinton by a Republican Congress.

* ALL TRUE! THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY... THE GINGRICH SPEAKERSHIP.

* OH... AND THE END OF THE COLD WAR HELPED... AS DID THE RAMPING DOWN OF THE SAVINGS & LOAN CRISIS.

Economically, it has been downhill ever since.

* YEP. BUSH SUCKED. THE PROBLEM... EVERYTHING I HATE ABOUT BUSH... EVERYTHING BUSH DID WRONG IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC POLICIES... OBAMA HAS MAINLY DOUBLED DOWN! OBAMA HAS MAINLY "OUT-BUSHED" BUSH!

In April 2000, we had 59.6 FTE jobs for each 100 Americans of working age. In February 2013, we had 53.2. With a working age population of 244.8 million, this means that we are now 15.6 million FTE jobs away from full employment.

Most of the damage occurred under Bush 43, with a loss of 9.2 million jobs relative to FTE full employment.

* TECHNICALLY CORRECT... BUT I'M BETTING THIS IS BECAUSE THE AUTHOR "CREDITS" BUSH WITH 2007 AND 2008... BOTH YEARS WHERE NANCY PELOSI AND THE DEMS RAN THE HOUSE AND HARRY REID AND THE DEMOCRATS (INCLUDING BARACK OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON) RAN THE SENATE.

* FOLKS... I'M NOT TRYING TO "PROTECT" BUSH. I'M NOT TRYING TO "PROTECT" THE REPUBLICANS. NOTE... IT WAS IN 2006 THAT I RE-REGISTERED AS A DEMOCRAT BECAUSE I WAS SO DAMED DISGUSTED BY THE RINOs... IT WAS IN 2006 THAT I VOTED FOR JOHN HALL (D) FOR CONGRESS! STILL... MY POINT... AS BAD AS THINGS WERE UNDER BUSH AND THE RINOs... 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006 WERE RELATIVELY PROSPEROUS TIMES COMPARED TO 2007/2008 AND COMPARED TO 2009-PRESENT.

[O]n a monthly basis, Obama has been even worse than Bush. During the 50 months since Bush 43 left office, America has moved an additional 5.5 million jobs away from FTE full employment.

Of Obama's total, 1.3 million came after his so-called "economic recovery" began in July 2009.

During February 2013, we moved 119,000 jobs farther away from FTE full employment, after losing ground amounting to 53,000 FTE jobs in January.

(*SIGH*)

March 11, 2013 at 4:19 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future.

Ads assure us of "zero emissions."

For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars — whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf — don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does — far more than most people realize.

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery.

(The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions.)

When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

* OOPS...

While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions — the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

(*TWIDDLING MY THUMBS AS I WAIT FOR READERS TO CONNECT THE DOTS*)

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.

(*DRUMMING MY FINGERS ON THE DESK*)

Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven — three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

(*GUFFAW*)

Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not.

The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.

(*DRUM ROLL*)

Yet the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500.

(*ANOTHER DRUM ROLL*)

In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors.

This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.

March 11, 2013 at 4:35 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324178904578340584163944930.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

* WOW... THIS IS SOME TRULY SCARY SHIT FOLKS AND YOU SHOULD READ IT FOR YOURSELVES!

The Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service has resurrected a Clinton-era tactic known as "sue and settle." With this strategy, outside green groups friendly to the Administration sue the government, demanding a particular regulatory action. The agency happily forswears court and sits down with the plaintiffs to reach a settlement.

The Administration then claims it was forced to take an action that it wanted all along.

One more thing: Businesses and property owners most hurt by the settlement are barred from the talks; the public gets no input.

(Is this a great country or what?)

This tactic reached a zenith in Fish and Wildlife's 2011 mega-settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and other green groups over the species act. That agreement allowed Fish and Wildlife to claim it must take action on some 750 species covered by 85 legal actions. The deal's immediate effect was to tee up 250 species for full protection, including sweeping "critical habitat" designations that will restrict commercial or other use of millions of acres of private property.

* ...MILLIONS...

Among the 750 species is the lesser prairie chicken, a bird whose listing could devastate farmers and ranchers across five states. Oh, and the greater sage grouse, which could shut down oil and gas development and cattle grazing, for starters.

The Administration is also moving to hide the costs of these actions. One of the only smart parts of the species act is a requirement that regulators evaluate the economic impact of designating a critical habitat. That at least gives the public a sense of the costs for businesses and landowners. The Administration is pushing a rule to dilute these inconvenient economic reports, by moving to what is known as the "baseline" approach. This allows regulators to assume, for purposes of the economic analysis, that the land in question is already subject to a critical habitat designation — and thus worthless for private economic activity. Fish and Wildlife can then claim the only cost of a listing is the cost to the agency itself.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Louisiana Senator David Vitter, ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has demanded that Fish and Wildlife provide details of its interactions with the suing green groups.

The agency refused.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Sen. Vitter is calling on Congress to cut off money for the enforcement of these settlements.

March 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-11/foodstamp-recipients-hit-record-alongside-record-dow-jones-and-record-debt-20-eligib

Record Dow Jones...

Record U.S. debt...

Record number of Americans on foodstamps.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

According to the USDA, an all time high of 47,791,966 Americans closed 2012 in possession of the highly desired Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card, managed by...

* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...

...who else but JPMorgan.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

And with a civilian non-institutional population of 244.4 million in December, this means that a record 19.56% of eligible Americans are on Foodstamps.

* ROUND IT UP TO 20%... 1 IN 5... 47.8 MILLION.

Record wealth effect for the 1%, foodstamps for the poorest 20%, and a middle class on the verge of extinction.

(*CLAP...*)

(*CLAP...*)

(*CLAP...*)

March 11, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)