The bi-partisan senate report on the Benghazi debacle was released this week. And while it stated that the Al Qaeda murder of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three others could have been avoided, it stopped short of assigning any accountability. The report used the political device of blaming agencies like the State Department, as if it were capable of making decisions without any human agency. This is convenient for those humans whose agency is responsible for the operation of such governmental departments.
Hillary Clinton's name is not present in the report once, which is shocking considering that she was a major player in denying the security needed for embassy personnel, and figured prominently in the cover-up which involved the story about a YouTube video being responsible for the attack. Hillary Clinton's name being conspicuously missing from the report is analogous to leaving out the name of Pontius Pilate in a report about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
The report further appears to blame the dead ambassador, Chris Stevens, for not making security requests for Benghazi, even after he had done so for Tripoli, the capitol city of Libya. Is it not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to weigh all data available to her, and after concluding that further security is needed, authorize it in spite of what her underlings may say. Hillary Clinton belongs to an ethos which informs its members that they have some divine charter to impose their decisions upon citizens of this country when it comes to everything from health care insurance to light bulbs. But when it comes to executing their jobs as it relates to foreign policy and the safety of those abroad executing it for them, all of the sudden they do not want to take responsibility for making decisions.
Shame on Senate Republicants on the Intelligence committee who signed off on this report without proper responsibility being assigned to those who, first created the security risk for the attack to occur, and then blatantly lied about the source of the attack being a spontaneous demonstration initiated by an anti-Muslim YouTube video. Why did the report not include President Obama's promise that "justice would be served," and yet a year and a half after the attack Mohsen Al-Azazi, the man known to have masterminded the attack, is free to eat and drink openly in the cafes of Libya, thumbing his nose at the United States of America?
So often, as is the case with these congressional reports, they serve no other purpose than to make our elected representatives look as though they are doing something other than wasting tax payer dollars. Four Americans, including an ambassador, died because of the deliberate incompetence of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Their deaths require not only justice be served against those who orchestrated the actual attack, but also those who created its circumstance, heard the cries for help and turned a callous deaf ear to the men who eventually were horribly murdered, and then lied for weeks afterwards to cover their ideologically-driven incompetence.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
A Primer On Executive Orders
Many on the Right, as well as elsewhere along the political spectrum, have deplored President Obama's use of executive orders to impose his agenda. But Mr. Obama is not the first President of the United States to use executive orders, in fact the practice began with George Washington and has continued through every president since. Barack Obama does not even hold the record for the most executive orders, a distinction that is owned by Franklin Roosevelt with his 3522 executive orders. FDR makes BHO look like a piker, the latter having only 161 executive orders through July 2013. The first president to break 100 executive orders was Ulysses S. Grant at 217, the first to break 1000 was Theodore Roosevelt at 1081.
The very first executive order was issued by George Washington in 1793. It was an order instructing federal officers to prosecute any citizen who interfered in the war between England and France. Congress and the courts have usually given presidents a wide berth on executive orders, but in 1952 during the Korean war one written by President Truman was challenged before the Supreme Court. A steel strike threatened that very precious commodity during wartime and President Truman issued an executive order to seize control of the nation's steel plants. The Supreme court determined that since the strike fell under the 60 day cooling off period required by Taft/Hartley, the Truman executive order was unconstitutional.
In the Youngstown decision, which was the first time in our history an executive order was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the 6 justices in the majority stated that the power to issue executive orders must come from an act of congress or the Constitution itself. Justice Robert H. Jackson, who wrote the majority opinion, delineated the three levels of executive orders as follows:
A president has the most authority when he has the expressed or implied consent of congress.
A president has uncertain authority when congress has not imposed its authority by action or
inaction.
A president has the least authority when the executive order is incompatible with the expressed
or implied will of congress.
Since the Truman order fell into the third category due to its violation of the Taft/Hartley Act, it was ruled unconstitutional.
Article II of the constitution gives the president the authority to issue executive orders, even though it does not use that term. In fact, the term Executive Order did not make its way into the vernacular until the 1860s. Article II, section 3 of the constitution states, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." It is this seemingly innocuous statement that has spawned such political debate throughout our history, and continues to do so to this day.
If President Obama issues an executive order that, as Justice Jackson outlined in the Youngstown case, is incompatible with the will of congress, then he will be in violation of the constitution. For instance, if Mr. Obama were to issue blanket amnesty to illegal aliens it would violate the immigration laws passed by previous legislation, therefore fulfilling Justice Jackson's requirement for being an unconstitutional executive order.
So far, President Obama has very cleverly walked a thin line on his executive orders, being careful to not let any of them fall into Jackson's third category. Of course the constitutionality of any executive order is predicated upon the issuing president being challenged by congress, or brought before the Supreme Court by a civilian source and the Court agreeing to hear the case. This may be a tall order to fill against the first black president, and Mr. Obama may take advantage of this fact to venture into uncharted waters with his executive order privileges. Only time will tell.
The very first executive order was issued by George Washington in 1793. It was an order instructing federal officers to prosecute any citizen who interfered in the war between England and France. Congress and the courts have usually given presidents a wide berth on executive orders, but in 1952 during the Korean war one written by President Truman was challenged before the Supreme Court. A steel strike threatened that very precious commodity during wartime and President Truman issued an executive order to seize control of the nation's steel plants. The Supreme court determined that since the strike fell under the 60 day cooling off period required by Taft/Hartley, the Truman executive order was unconstitutional.
In the Youngstown decision, which was the first time in our history an executive order was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the 6 justices in the majority stated that the power to issue executive orders must come from an act of congress or the Constitution itself. Justice Robert H. Jackson, who wrote the majority opinion, delineated the three levels of executive orders as follows:
A president has the most authority when he has the expressed or implied consent of congress.
A president has uncertain authority when congress has not imposed its authority by action or
inaction.
A president has the least authority when the executive order is incompatible with the expressed
or implied will of congress.
Since the Truman order fell into the third category due to its violation of the Taft/Hartley Act, it was ruled unconstitutional.
Article II of the constitution gives the president the authority to issue executive orders, even though it does not use that term. In fact, the term Executive Order did not make its way into the vernacular until the 1860s. Article II, section 3 of the constitution states, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." It is this seemingly innocuous statement that has spawned such political debate throughout our history, and continues to do so to this day.
If President Obama issues an executive order that, as Justice Jackson outlined in the Youngstown case, is incompatible with the will of congress, then he will be in violation of the constitution. For instance, if Mr. Obama were to issue blanket amnesty to illegal aliens it would violate the immigration laws passed by previous legislation, therefore fulfilling Justice Jackson's requirement for being an unconstitutional executive order.
So far, President Obama has very cleverly walked a thin line on his executive orders, being careful to not let any of them fall into Jackson's third category. Of course the constitutionality of any executive order is predicated upon the issuing president being challenged by congress, or brought before the Supreme Court by a civilian source and the Court agreeing to hear the case. This may be a tall order to fill against the first black president, and Mr. Obama may take advantage of this fact to venture into uncharted waters with his executive order privileges. Only time will tell.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
The Saran Wrap President
To a great extent the Left has been successful over the past few decades in retraining many Americans to see the source of their rights as government and not God. In doing this the Left has also removed the individual citizen's responsibility to liberty, and their obligation to oppose that which infringes upon that liberty. The Left knows that a population that see its government as the well into which they dip their ladles of freedom and extract rights for themselves, has no need of a constitution. And without adherence to a limiting principle like the constitution, government will grow powerful enough to revoke even the God-given rights bestowed on all people who yearn to be free.
There has never been an American president who is as willing as Barack Obama to redefine the very founding of this country, and place himself above the constitutional principles of representative government and the sanctity of God-given rights. Recently, in a publicized portion of a cabinet meeting, the President said he would use his pen to issue executive orders to impose equality, i.e., income redistribution, amnesty, and "fairness." The last principle being defined as anything which destroys the American spirit and places more emphasis on government.
There are those that have claimed Barack Obama is a complex and deep individual. But over the past decade that he has bullied his way into the national spot light, he has been as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap. I recall when he was running for president in 2008, a radio interview surfaced from the early 2000s where he expressed a desire to replace the constitution, because of its limiting principle on government, with what he called a "redistributive model." This is the same interview in which he called the United States Constitution, the greatest document of individual liberty ever conceived by the mind of man, a "charter of negative rights."
It has been clear all along that the Saran Wrap President was not hiding his desire to reshape the very founding of this great country from liberty-centric to government-centric. The Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of a nation driven by a centralized government, thus limiting it to the enumerated powers given it by the people through the constitution. The Saran Wrap president and his minions of mindless mavens have twisted the founding principle that the peoples rights come from God and the government's rights come from the people, to the completely opposite proposition. In the world of Barack Obama, rights come from a divinity, only that divinity is government and its demigods are the fallen angels of liberty like himself that now do the bidding of tyranny and oppression.
There has never been an American president who is as willing as Barack Obama to redefine the very founding of this country, and place himself above the constitutional principles of representative government and the sanctity of God-given rights. Recently, in a publicized portion of a cabinet meeting, the President said he would use his pen to issue executive orders to impose equality, i.e., income redistribution, amnesty, and "fairness." The last principle being defined as anything which destroys the American spirit and places more emphasis on government.
There are those that have claimed Barack Obama is a complex and deep individual. But over the past decade that he has bullied his way into the national spot light, he has been as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap. I recall when he was running for president in 2008, a radio interview surfaced from the early 2000s where he expressed a desire to replace the constitution, because of its limiting principle on government, with what he called a "redistributive model." This is the same interview in which he called the United States Constitution, the greatest document of individual liberty ever conceived by the mind of man, a "charter of negative rights."
It has been clear all along that the Saran Wrap President was not hiding his desire to reshape the very founding of this great country from liberty-centric to government-centric. The Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of a nation driven by a centralized government, thus limiting it to the enumerated powers given it by the people through the constitution. The Saran Wrap president and his minions of mindless mavens have twisted the founding principle that the peoples rights come from God and the government's rights come from the people, to the completely opposite proposition. In the world of Barack Obama, rights come from a divinity, only that divinity is government and its demigods are the fallen angels of liberty like himself that now do the bidding of tyranny and oppression.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
The NSA Defenders Forget American Revolution
There use to be very few absolute defining issues comprising the public policy discourse of this nation. That is to say that most debates of the past between Republicants and Democrats were how to implement policy that was in the best interest of the people of this great country, while still maintaining constitutional integrity. Modern times have found this nation in the grips of one party (Democrats) that wishes to replace the constitution and the free choice and privacy it enshrines, with the tyranny of big government. And another party (Republicants) who seem ineffectual at stopping them, and at times even supporting their destruction of personal liberty.
The National Security Administration spying scandal is an issue on which there can be no compromise, if one believes in the citizen's constitutional right to be secure in their papers and personal effects. This includes phone calls and emails. For me it has been a sickening sight to watch many on the Right agree with the egregious violation of basic rights inherent in the NSA's electronic dragnet in which they have snagged every American. These so-called conservatives have decided for everyone that security is more important than liberty and that information has become a government commodity to be traded for the country's constitutional soul.
The defenders of such privacy invasions as the NSA collecting the phone records and Internet traffic of every American, say it is necessary in a post-911 world to keep us safe from terrorism. But safety without the freedom of personal privacy is just another word for tyranny. These who have the sacred duty to protect the God-given rights of free people enshrined in this nation's founding documents, have traded the holy grail of liberty for the profanity of big government progressivism.
The defenders of the NSA spying on innocent Americans justify the program by stating that the data collected is "meta data," and will never be used unless there is reason to believe there is a connection to terrorism. But this "meta data" is the key which unlocks the vault of personal data on every American. In the hands of an out-of-control executive branch, this data can be used to target political opponents or anyone else the administration deems worthy of privacy invasion. This has already happened in a spectacular and frightening way with the Internal Revenue Service. There is no reason to believe that this administration would not use other agencies under its control to advance their political agenda and destroy any opposition to it.
I do not oppose the NSA spying on Americans because Barack Obama is president, although he is the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to use the power of government to crush his opposition in such a blatant and public way. I oppose the NSA spying on Americans because it is antithetical to the very foundation of the American Revolution, which for those who still remember, was about severely limiting the power and authority of centralized government. Liberty can hardly survive under the rule of a government authority with virtually unlimited access to personal information ripped from the dwindling privacy of every American citizen.
The National Security Administration spying scandal is an issue on which there can be no compromise, if one believes in the citizen's constitutional right to be secure in their papers and personal effects. This includes phone calls and emails. For me it has been a sickening sight to watch many on the Right agree with the egregious violation of basic rights inherent in the NSA's electronic dragnet in which they have snagged every American. These so-called conservatives have decided for everyone that security is more important than liberty and that information has become a government commodity to be traded for the country's constitutional soul.
The defenders of such privacy invasions as the NSA collecting the phone records and Internet traffic of every American, say it is necessary in a post-911 world to keep us safe from terrorism. But safety without the freedom of personal privacy is just another word for tyranny. These who have the sacred duty to protect the God-given rights of free people enshrined in this nation's founding documents, have traded the holy grail of liberty for the profanity of big government progressivism.
The defenders of the NSA spying on innocent Americans justify the program by stating that the data collected is "meta data," and will never be used unless there is reason to believe there is a connection to terrorism. But this "meta data" is the key which unlocks the vault of personal data on every American. In the hands of an out-of-control executive branch, this data can be used to target political opponents or anyone else the administration deems worthy of privacy invasion. This has already happened in a spectacular and frightening way with the Internal Revenue Service. There is no reason to believe that this administration would not use other agencies under its control to advance their political agenda and destroy any opposition to it.
I do not oppose the NSA spying on Americans because Barack Obama is president, although he is the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to use the power of government to crush his opposition in such a blatant and public way. I oppose the NSA spying on Americans because it is antithetical to the very foundation of the American Revolution, which for those who still remember, was about severely limiting the power and authority of centralized government. Liberty can hardly survive under the rule of a government authority with virtually unlimited access to personal information ripped from the dwindling privacy of every American citizen.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Barack Obama's War Against The Commercial Bus Industry
The latest executive edict from "Dear Leader" is a mandate that all commercial buses must have lap and shoulder restraints for every passenger. This over-reaching attempt to punish yet another industry with higher costs has been implemented, according to the Obama administration, to ostensibly save about 20 lives a year. A figure that represents forty percent of the approximately 50 persons who die in commercial bus accidents every year in the United States. The cost to the commercial bus industry could reach into the tens of millions of dollars in additional procurement and installation costs, not to mention maintenance costs on the new equipment.
Apparently the President is not concerned with the lives of school children or anyone riding public transportation, these two classes of buses having been exempt from the decree. According to the National Health & Transportation Safety Administration, there are 400 deaths a year due to bus accidents. One hundred and thirty seven are children riding school buses, about 213 are a result of public transportation bus accidents, and only 50 deaths a year are attributable to the commercial buses that are subject to the new edict.
When one delves further into the data, it shows that riding a commercial bus is actually safer than riding in a car. There are approximately 45 deaths per every 100,000 bus accidents, but a whopping 251 deaths for every 100,000 car accidents. This chasm in the statistics exists even with the ubiquitous nature of seat belts and shoulder restraints present in cars, further mitigating the President's argument to force their installation in commercial buses.
Contained within the latest proclamation from King Barack is language that ensures easier access to litigation against commercial bus companies, yet another pay back to the trial lawyers for their unyielding support of the current regime. Just to remind the reader once again, this latest dictate does not apply to public transportation or school buses, violating the sanctity of Equal Protection Under the Law. Which seems to be the modus operandi of the man who preaches the false gospel of equality and "social justice."
This latest edict is illustrative of President Obama's disconnect from reality as it applies to matters of business and economics. Apparently when Barack Obama was matriculated in the Leftist seminaries known as the university system in this country, he did not learn that additional frivolous costs placed on businesses results in a reduction in the quality of services, higher prices, or both. But then it would not matter to an authoritarian narcissist like Mr. Obama, who revels in his constitutionally illegitimate power to impose ridiculous regulations on better men than himself, and micromanage an economy that he has never worked in or contributed to in any significant way.
Apparently the President is not concerned with the lives of school children or anyone riding public transportation, these two classes of buses having been exempt from the decree. According to the National Health & Transportation Safety Administration, there are 400 deaths a year due to bus accidents. One hundred and thirty seven are children riding school buses, about 213 are a result of public transportation bus accidents, and only 50 deaths a year are attributable to the commercial buses that are subject to the new edict.
When one delves further into the data, it shows that riding a commercial bus is actually safer than riding in a car. There are approximately 45 deaths per every 100,000 bus accidents, but a whopping 251 deaths for every 100,000 car accidents. This chasm in the statistics exists even with the ubiquitous nature of seat belts and shoulder restraints present in cars, further mitigating the President's argument to force their installation in commercial buses.
Contained within the latest proclamation from King Barack is language that ensures easier access to litigation against commercial bus companies, yet another pay back to the trial lawyers for their unyielding support of the current regime. Just to remind the reader once again, this latest dictate does not apply to public transportation or school buses, violating the sanctity of Equal Protection Under the Law. Which seems to be the modus operandi of the man who preaches the false gospel of equality and "social justice."
This latest edict is illustrative of President Obama's disconnect from reality as it applies to matters of business and economics. Apparently when Barack Obama was matriculated in the Leftist seminaries known as the university system in this country, he did not learn that additional frivolous costs placed on businesses results in a reduction in the quality of services, higher prices, or both. But then it would not matter to an authoritarian narcissist like Mr. Obama, who revels in his constitutionally illegitimate power to impose ridiculous regulations on better men than himself, and micromanage an economy that he has never worked in or contributed to in any significant way.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
The Lack Of Principled Conservatism Present In Christie Defenders
I have deliberately kept my opinions to myself the last couple of days about the Chris Christie circus in New Jersey over the lane closures on a busy bridge in Fort Lee. The lane closures, which caused quite a traffic jam, was apparently political payback aimed at the Democrat mayor of that city. Mr. Christie took 107 minutes on Thursday to explain that he knew nothing about the lane closures and was very peeved at members of his administration who did, firing Bridget Ann Kelly, a close aid to the rotund Governor since 2010. My opinion about this dog and pony show is more about reaction from those on the Right than it is about what Governor Christie knew and when he knew it.
Beyond the scandal created either by Mr. Christie's political vengefulness or his lack of judgment with regards to those with which he has populated his administration, is the reaction by some on the Right that borders on defense, or suggests that he should be defended by his fellow Republicants. Even the elder statesman of conservatism, Rush Limbaugh, suggested that more of a defense of Christie should take place within his own party. Others in talk radio have verbally tripped over themselves to extol what they say are the characteristics of great leadership exhibited by Governor Christie in Thursday's press conference.
The repeating theme on much of talk radio yesterday and Thursday was to exculpate Chris Christie of any blame or wrongdoing by immediately enumerating every one of the many Obama scandals from his tenure in the White House. This is analogous to excusing a man for stealing a car simply because another man embezzled a million dollars from the corporation for which he worked. One of the core conservative principles is advocating for righteousness and truth, regardless of the party affiliation of the wrongdoer.
I am not saying that closing a couple lanes of a major bridge in a city run by a political opponent, causing a snarling traffic jam, is on par with allowing four Americans to die at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. Nor is it as serious as using the Internal Revenue Service to suppress votes of your political opponent in an election year. Nor any other Obama scandal one wishes to use in comparison. But everyone can agree that the lane closures were wrong. Mr. Christie did nothing to repair the damage to his reputation and character, showing little honor by sacrificing Bridget Ann Kelly to the gods of the Leftist media, while he sheltered himself behind empty platitudes and righteous indignation.
Governor Christie has never impressed me as anything but a bullying opportunist, lacking in core convictions other than keeping himself supplied with political power and cheeseburgers. And those who call themselves conservatives, and also wish to defend Mr. Christie, should examine their own convictions and values. For the two positions, in my opinion, are mutually exclusive and cannot peacefully coexist in anyone who counts themselves among principled conservatives.
Beyond the scandal created either by Mr. Christie's political vengefulness or his lack of judgment with regards to those with which he has populated his administration, is the reaction by some on the Right that borders on defense, or suggests that he should be defended by his fellow Republicants. Even the elder statesman of conservatism, Rush Limbaugh, suggested that more of a defense of Christie should take place within his own party. Others in talk radio have verbally tripped over themselves to extol what they say are the characteristics of great leadership exhibited by Governor Christie in Thursday's press conference.
The repeating theme on much of talk radio yesterday and Thursday was to exculpate Chris Christie of any blame or wrongdoing by immediately enumerating every one of the many Obama scandals from his tenure in the White House. This is analogous to excusing a man for stealing a car simply because another man embezzled a million dollars from the corporation for which he worked. One of the core conservative principles is advocating for righteousness and truth, regardless of the party affiliation of the wrongdoer.
I am not saying that closing a couple lanes of a major bridge in a city run by a political opponent, causing a snarling traffic jam, is on par with allowing four Americans to die at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. Nor is it as serious as using the Internal Revenue Service to suppress votes of your political opponent in an election year. Nor any other Obama scandal one wishes to use in comparison. But everyone can agree that the lane closures were wrong. Mr. Christie did nothing to repair the damage to his reputation and character, showing little honor by sacrificing Bridget Ann Kelly to the gods of the Leftist media, while he sheltered himself behind empty platitudes and righteous indignation.
Governor Christie has never impressed me as anything but a bullying opportunist, lacking in core convictions other than keeping himself supplied with political power and cheeseburgers. And those who call themselves conservatives, and also wish to defend Mr. Christie, should examine their own convictions and values. For the two positions, in my opinion, are mutually exclusive and cannot peacefully coexist in anyone who counts themselves among principled conservatives.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Waking Up From A Fed-Induced Dream
Persons whose delusions have made it impossible for them to draw a distinction between reality and fantasy are given psychotropic drugs, therapy, and sometimes committed to institutions and made to wear funny jackets with arms that tie around the back, or they are given positions on Wall Street. The stock market over recent years has made a transformation from analysis which leads to the markets being a leading indicator of the nation's economic health, to a body of reactionaries who buy or sell equities based on current data manufactured by the propaganda machine housed in what use to be the most venerated symbol of this country's principles. Gone are the days when those who drove the market did so based on future prospects for the nation's economy and the companies that operated within it.
Two recent examples that prove my thesis are the lower than expected first time claims for unemployment and the fewest number of corporate layoffs in almost 15 years in the month of December. Both of these data bits are seen by the folks on Wall Street as good economic indicators, but they are not. Both statistics are masquerading as a positive, costuming over the core problem in the economy, i.e., the lowest Work Force Participation Rate in 35 years.
The fewest corporate layoffs in almost 15 years is due to the fact that over the last five years corporate America has cut their labor force to the bone, and their skeleton work force has very little left to be cut. The lower than expected first time claims for unemployment are a result of the same driver of the lowest corporate layoffs in almost 15 years; more persons are already unemployed long term and the lowest percentage of working age adults are actually working in the economy in almost half a century. In other words, the entire economy is operating with a skeleton crew, which means there are fewer working persons who can lose their jobs. It is analogous to a parent of an F student being happy because their child can not do any worse.
The equities and bond markets have been so skewed and bastardized by government interference through the Federal Reserve's meddling with their bond buying program, and holding interest rates at an all time low for the last 6 years, that it is hardly a viable gauge of where the economy has been or where it is going. This disconnection of the market from the real economy is going to come to a crashing end as they become reconnected vis-à-vis the Federal Reserve pulling away the artificial supports propping up the market.
As the dolts of Wall Street begin to remove the blinders of quantitative easing and see the Obama economic disaster of more unemployed Americans than ever, sub-standard economic growth, and mounting poverty, they will pull their money out of stocks, causing a collapse. If there is one thing the market movers do well, it is protecting their own financial interests. And the stock market will seem like a much less friendly place for them and their money sans the 85 billion dollars a month that Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have been printing in order to keep it buoyant in the waters of the worse economy since the Great Depression.
Two recent examples that prove my thesis are the lower than expected first time claims for unemployment and the fewest number of corporate layoffs in almost 15 years in the month of December. Both of these data bits are seen by the folks on Wall Street as good economic indicators, but they are not. Both statistics are masquerading as a positive, costuming over the core problem in the economy, i.e., the lowest Work Force Participation Rate in 35 years.
The fewest corporate layoffs in almost 15 years is due to the fact that over the last five years corporate America has cut their labor force to the bone, and their skeleton work force has very little left to be cut. The lower than expected first time claims for unemployment are a result of the same driver of the lowest corporate layoffs in almost 15 years; more persons are already unemployed long term and the lowest percentage of working age adults are actually working in the economy in almost half a century. In other words, the entire economy is operating with a skeleton crew, which means there are fewer working persons who can lose their jobs. It is analogous to a parent of an F student being happy because their child can not do any worse.
The equities and bond markets have been so skewed and bastardized by government interference through the Federal Reserve's meddling with their bond buying program, and holding interest rates at an all time low for the last 6 years, that it is hardly a viable gauge of where the economy has been or where it is going. This disconnection of the market from the real economy is going to come to a crashing end as they become reconnected vis-à-vis the Federal Reserve pulling away the artificial supports propping up the market.
As the dolts of Wall Street begin to remove the blinders of quantitative easing and see the Obama economic disaster of more unemployed Americans than ever, sub-standard economic growth, and mounting poverty, they will pull their money out of stocks, causing a collapse. If there is one thing the market movers do well, it is protecting their own financial interests. And the stock market will seem like a much less friendly place for them and their money sans the 85 billion dollars a month that Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have been printing in order to keep it buoyant in the waters of the worse economy since the Great Depression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)