Appearing on Coast to Coast AM tonight for two hours

George Noory is nice enough to have me on for two hours from 1 to 3 AM EDT/ 10 PM to midnight PDT to talk about everything from gun control to the economy. It should be fun.

Some of the material related to what I will talk on from recent pieces that I have written for the Washington Times.

Obama's backdoor gun ban: Government is blocking sale of historic weapons

Gun owners dodge the bullet ban: Leftist attempt to undermine Second Amendment misses the mark

Here is something that I hope that we get to talk about on the economy.

More Bad Economic News, Yet Here Comes ANOTHER Wall Street Bailout

Believe It or Not, the U.S. Is In Worse Financial Shape Than Greece

Review of third edition of More Guns, Less Crime in the American Hunter

Clicking on the article will make it larger so that it can be read.

Man defends home against twenty five gang members, but the story seems to be about the gun that he used

The man used an AK-47 to defend his home. I assume that it was a civilian version of the gun (i.e., a semi-automatic), and he was legally allowed to own it. The news article doesn't mention that this was a legal gun until the very end of the piece.

UNIONDALE, N.Y. (CBS 2) — He was arrested for protecting his property and family.
But it’s how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line.
He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2’s Pablo Guzman.
George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.
“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.
Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.
“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.
Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney.
“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.
Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes. Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative. . . .
You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.
Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon. . . .

Krugman on the 1938 crash

Krugman writes as if economists really believe that it was the lack of government spending that caused the "depression in the depression" in 1938.

Now, we weren’t supposed to find ourselves replaying the late 1930s. President Obama’s economists promised not to repeat the mistakes of 1937, when F.D.R. pulled back fiscal stimulus too soon. But by making his program too small and too short-lived, Mr. Obama did just that: the stimulus raised growth while it lasted, but it made only a small dent in unemployment — and now it’s fading out. . . .

I realize that someone such as Krugman might be unaware of Milton Friedman's work, but it might be useful if Krugman tries to look at these this work before he continues giving readers of his column the wrong impression. A simple discussion of what Friedman found is available here.

Washington Post Poll Shows Democrats in Trouble, But Say Republicans Aren't Offering Clear Alternative

An increasing number of people say that the economy is getting worse.

Among all voters, 47 percent say they would back the Republican in their congressional district if the election were held now, while 45 percent would vote for the Democrat. Any GOP advantage on this question has been rare in past years - and among those most likely to vote this fall, the Republican advantage swells to 53 percent to the Democrats' 40 percent.

Voters were also asked whether they think it is more important to have Democrats in charge of Congress to help support the president's policies or to have Republicans in control to serve as a check on Obama's agenda. Here, 55 percent say they prefer Republicans, while 39 percent choose Democrats. The GOP's 16-point edge is double what it was in July.

Obama's overall job rating is at a new low in Post-ABC polling, with just 46 percent of all Americans giving him positive marks and 52 percent negative ones. On two big issues, disapproval of the president's performance has reached new highs: Fifty-seven percent now disapprove of his handling of the economy and 58 percent give him low marks on dealing with the deficit. . . .

Forty-five percent now consider the president's views on most issues "too liberal," another new high. In previous polls dating to early 2008, consistent majorities said they found Obama's positions "just about right" ideologically.

For the first time, a majority - 53 percent - of respondents say the president has not brought needed change to Washington, one of his major campaign promises.

The poll findings highlight one of the most significant problems for Obama and Democrats heading into fall: a steep erosion in support among independent voters. In 2008, Obama won independents by eight percentage points. In 2006, independents broke for Democratic House candidates by an unprecedented 18-point margin.

Independents' disapproval of the president has reached an all-time high, with 57 percent giving him negative marks. About 61 percent of independents say Obama has not brought change to Washington. Nearly half now consider him "too liberal" ideologically. . . .

Negative views of the federal government have jumped higher this year, with 78 percent of voters saying they are dissatisfied or angry about the way Washington works. . . .

Fifty-three percent say the economy is in "poor" shape, the first time a majority has said so since early April. . . .

The wacky fringes of politics

I often wonder whether many of the responses are simply by people expressing their political frustrations as opposed to things that they actually believe. For example, if people say that they believe Obama is a Muslim, is it because they just dislike him so much that they will latch on to anything that comes up to show it? However, that doesn't explain why a third of Democrats blame "the Jews" for the financial crisis.

There’s the 32 percent of Democrats who blame “the Jews” for the financial crisis. There’s the 25 percent of African-Americans who believe the AIDS virus was created in a government lab. There’s support for state secession, which may have been higher among liberals in the Bush era than among Republicans in the age of Obama. And there’s the theory that the Bush White House knew about 9/11 in advance, which a third of Democrats endorsed as recently as 2007. . . .

I think that it is too easy to be overly optimistic about the November elections at this stage

From Charlie Cook writing for the National Journal:

Privately, some Democratic pollsters say that they are routinely seeing districts where Democratic incumbents are running only even with relatively unknown GOP challengers. In other districts where the Republican challengers are reasonably well known, the incumbents are often running 5-10 points behind, a rather extraordinary development at this point.

In the Senate, while the odds still favor Democrats holding on to a narrow majority, it is not only mathematically possible for the GOP to capture a majority this year, but it has become plausible. The odds of Democrats capturing even one currently Republican-held seat appear to be getting longer. Meanwhile, Republicans are running ahead or roughly even in 11 Democratic-held seats, one more than necessary for control of the Senate to flip. It's still a tall order but not crazy to say that Republicans will win the Senate. . . .

Obama "vowing to find new ways to stimulate" economy

This is a new way to stimulate the economy? If the expenditures makes sense, fine. But presumably any project that could have had any possible justification has already been funded.

Vowing to find new ways to stimulate the sputtering economy, President Barack Obama will call for long-term investments in the nation's roads, railways and runways that would cost at least $50 billion.
The infrastructure investments are one part of a package of targeted proposals the White House is expected to announce in hopes of jump-starting the economy ahead of the November election. Obama will outline the infrastructure proposal Monday at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.
While the proposal calls for investments over six years, the White House said spending would be front-loaded with an initial $50 billion to help create jobs in the near future.
The goals of the infrastructure plan include: rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; constructing and maintaining 4,000 miles of railways, enough to go coast-to-coast; and rehabilitating or reconstructing 150 miles of airport runways, while also installing a new air navigation system designed to reduce travel times and delays. . . .

Veterans having their guns taken away

If this story about the VA and Homeland Security denying veterans concealed handgun permits is true, it is very disturbing.

Last month, at my VA med visit ,they asked me exactly the same questions [posed to a friend] and I asked them why they never asked them before and their answer was that it is a new policy that they must ask all vets!

From a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer:
I had a Doctor’s appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions:
1. Did I feel stressed?
2. Did I feel threatened?
3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered ‘yes’ to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

The first two questions seem like absurd reasons for losing a permit. Even the third seems problematic. There is a big difference between feeling like harming someone and actually thinking about doing it.

Now it appears as if local media around the country are reporting on examples of other reasons that veterans are having their guns taken away.

Sgt. Wayne Irelan re-enlisted in the Army National Guard after September 11th.

He was severely injured in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart. But now his second amendment rights have been taken away.

"I really feel betrayed," Sgt. Irelan told 5NEWS.

A year ago the Irelan's began receiving a small stipend from Veterans Affairs because Lana had to take over the family's finances.

"How many husbands do you know in America that pay the bills? There's not very many," Lana Irelan told 5NEWS.

The V.A. declared Wayne Irelan incompetent and now his right to own a gun is gone.

"It's wrong. Laws need to be changed. They need to look at individuals and not stereotype them as some sort of mad man," Sgt. Irelan said.

Irelan has post traumatic stress disorder from the Iraq war, but his wife says he has never been violent. Lana Irelan told 5NEWS his diagnosis is not a legitimate reason for his gun rights to be taken away.

"I was there when they gave him his purple heart for fighting for that right to bear arms, and they are stripping it away," Lana said, her eyes tearing up.

The couple didn't know Wayne's gun rights had been terminated until they went to get a gun out of pawn. Days later Wayne got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his concealed carry permit had been revoked. The ATF has told the Irelans that they could go to jail if a firearm is found in their home. . . .

 

Obama let the R&D tax credit expire in 12/31/09, now says that it is important for recovery

The R&D Tax Credit was originally enacted in 1981. Obama let the credit expire the end of last year, and now says that this is part of his "new ideas" to get things going. To Obama, he wants to increase the marginal tax rates for high income individuals and he is offering re-instating the R&D Tax Credit to mitigate the opposition to that increase. All this is going to be tied up with Obama's "Small Business Jobs" bill, which is a complete mess of micromanaging companies.

So how is this supposed to be paid for? With other tax revenue.

The "pay-for" as reported by the Times, taxing multi-national corporations overseas' income to afford the 10-year credit, has already been used -- at least $9.8 billion worth for the $26b state aid bill that the president recently signed.

As taken from Politifact, here's what the recent "pay-for" did: from "rules to prevent splitting foreign tax credits from the income to which they relate" (worth almost $4.3 billion in newly captured revenue) to "denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income not subject to United States taxation by reason of covered asset acquisitions" (worth more than $3.6 billion), to the "limitation on the amount of foreign taxes deemed paid with respect to section 956 inclusions" (worth $704 million).

Several senior Senate GOP leadership aides also told Fox News that Republicans are not likely to accept any proposal that raises revenue in other sectors to pay for a tax cut. . . .

Not one Democrat in House running ads saying they supported Obamacare

Dems are unwilling to run on their votes for Obamacare.

At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.
One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an ad now.
Democrats have taken that advice to heart; it appears that no Democratic incumbent — in the House or in the Senate — has run a pro-reform TV ad since April, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran one.
Most of the Democrats running ads highlighting their opposition to the law are in conservative-leaning districts and considered the most endangered. They’re using their vote against the overhaul as proof of their willingness to buck party leadership and their commitment to watching the nation’s debt. . . . .

Who is most likely to destroy Social Security and Medicare?

Democrats cut $500 billion from Medicare and it is Republicans who are going to destroy it? With the huge deficits created by Democrats, that will be what threatens Social Security the most. If the deficits were still around $160 billion per year as they were the last year that the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the presidency, there would be much less of a threat to Social Security. I am hardly a fan of keeping Social Security or Medicare as they currently are, but it seems that the huge deficits that Democrats have created are what really endangers Social Security.

Americans are upset that Obama is giving money to Wall Street and bailing out unions, how will they react to Obama bailing out an Afghan bank?

Bailing out Afghan banks? Why can't the Afghan government do this?

The planned injection of cash into the beleaguered Kabul Bank is meant to slow the run on the bank by its customers, who have withdrawn more than $200 million in the past few days amid fears of a wider economic collapse.

But on Saturday, thousands of nervous Afghan depositors, unaware of the bailout and unconvinced of the bank’s solvency, stormed the bank’s central branch in Kabul to withdraw their savings.

Hundreds of men pushed and shoved their way to the front, while others waited behind them for hours in the saunalike atmosphere of the lobby, making it impossible to discern where the lines ended and began. Furious customers shouted angry complaints. An elderly woman in a black dress cried out in distress.

But the teller drawers were largely empty and most customers left empty-handed. “What should I give you when I have nothing to give?” a teller told one agitated customer. . . .

Replacing lower marginal tax rates with a tax system that micromanages what companies do

Apparently, Obama will reveal his new proposal on Monday. These guys don't understand why firms have a better idea where to invest their money than governments do.

With the job market stuck in neutral, the Obama administration is moving toward using the revenue from expiring tax cuts for the wealthy to finance about $35 billion of tax cuts for small businesses and workers, administration and congressional officials said Friday. . . .

If goal is to improve economic efficiency, tax cuts should not distort business decisions across time or between different activities. To accomplish this cuts should be permanent rather than temporary, and if the deadweight losses are to be minimized, the highest marginal rates should be cut (since these are the most distorting). Should also cut capital income taxes since capital is more responsive to tax rates than labor.
When considering these points, the temporary payroll-tax holiday is not especially appealing. It might shift new hires to the present, but at a cost of reduced hiring when the holiday expires. This future offset can also occur with a temporary investment tax credit, but the new capital is durable.
Instead of a temporary extension of the research and development tax credit, a permanent cut would be more efficient. Better yet would be a lower tax rates on investment across the board, so government is not encouraging some kinds of investments over others.

More Democrat dirty tricks?

As previously noted, Democrats have been posing as Tea Party members to get people on the ballot to take votes away from Republicans (see also this). Their effort to do something similar in Michigan has failed.

A shadowy group calling itself "The Tea Party" won't be allowed on the state's November ballot after a Friday order from the Michigan Supreme Court.
The high court's 5-2 vote lets stand a ruling earlier this week from the Michigan Court of Appeals that keeps "The Tea Party" off the ballot because it didn't comply with some technical requirements in state law.
Republicans and tea party activists consider "The Tea Party" a Democrat-supported fake aimed at siphoning away votes from conservative candidates. The effort has connections to a former Oakland County Democratic Party official.
The appeals court ruled earlier this week "The Tea Party" could not be on the ballot because of an irregularity on its petitions circulated to make the ballot. The word "the" in "The Tea Party" title was not in 24-point bold face type on its petitions as required by law. . . .
A message was left seeking comment after Friday's ruling with Michael Hodge, an attorney representing "The Tea Party." . . .
Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly and Justice Diane Hathaway, both nominated by Democrats, would have granted "The Tea Party" request to appeal and further contest the case.
The majority was formed by three Republican-nominated justices and two Democratic-nominated justices, including Alton Thomas Davis, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm last week.

How to remove combat forces from Iraq: Change the name to non-combat brigades

"Combat brigades in Iraq under different name"

As the final convoy of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., entered Kuwait early Thursday, a different Stryker brigade remained in Iraq.

Soldiers from the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division are deployed in Iraq as members of an Advise and Assist Brigade, the Army’s designation for brigades selected to conduct security force assistance.

So while the “last full U.S. combat brigade” have left Iraq, just under 50,000 soldiers from specially trained heavy, infantry and Stryker brigades will stay, as well as two combat aviation brigades.

Compared with the 49,000 soldiers in Iraq, there are close to 67,000 in Afghanistan and another 9,700 in Kuwait, according to the latest Army chart on global commitments dated Aug. 17. Under an agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. . . . .

Vanity Fair Reporter writes false claim about Palin even though he had been told that the claim was false

From the Associated Press:

Reporter Michael Joseph Gross describes Palin's youngest son, Trig, being pushed in a stroller by his older sister, Piper, before a rally in May in the Kansas City suburb of Independence.
"When the girl, Piper Palin, turns around, she sees her parents thronged by admirers, and the crowd rolling toward her and the baby, her brother Trig, born with Down syndrome in 2008," according to the article. "Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, bend down and give a moment to the children; a woman, perhaps a nanny, whisks the boy away; and Todd hands Sarah her speech and walks her to the stage."
Later, Gross describes Piper joining her mother on the stage to "allow Palin to make a public display of maternal affection."
The problem, which was first reported by the website Politico, was that the boy the reporter described was another child with Down syndrome.
The mother of that child, conservative activist Gina Loudon, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she told Gross during the rally that the child in the stroller was her son, not Palin's. She said she tried to make it clear because the two children look a lot alike.
"I told him that. And he ignored it," Loudon said. "It's not even like he didn't fact check — he just ignored facts."
Gross said in a written statement sent to The Associated Press that he was mistaken.
"Trig was with his mother the next day in Wichita (Kan.), but the child in Independence was someone else, and I regret the error," he said. . . .

Sharpton explains that why a state senate district should be represented by a Black

Washington Times on the Obama administration blocking the sale of semi-automatic guns

Obama's backdoor gun ban: Government is blocking sale of historic weapons

Media this coming week

Tuesday at 9:30 AM EDT I will be on Fox News' Strategy Room. We will discuss my pieces "Obama Is Repeating the Mistakes of the 1937 Economic Collapse" and "More Bad Economic News, Yet Here Comes ANOTHER Wall Street Bailout."

Tuesday at 3:35 PM EDT I will be on Lou Dobb's radio show to talk about my piece on Obama and illegal immigration.

On Wednesday morning at 1:10 to 2 AM EDT/ 10:10 to 11 PM PDT, I will again be on Coast to Coast AM with George. Always a fun show to be on.

Talking to Brian Sussman on KSFO on FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, at 11:15AM Eastern time.

Get ready for the battle over the third stimulus

It looks like Obama in moving towards a third stimulus package. Of course, the Obama administration doesn't want to count the $26 billion jobs bill as a stimulus.

Obama dismissed a reporter who asked if he regrets calling the past months the “summer of recovery.” “I don’t regret the notion that we are moving forward because of the steps that we’ve taken,” he said. “We are moving in the right direction. We just have to speed it up.”

It is getting tiring hearing that the economy would have been worse if it weren't for the stimulus. If we only had spent more money, things would have been fine they claim. Few discuss the theory for why the stimulus would increase unemployment. So what is in store this next week?

The few things that might pass Congress — such as a payroll tax holiday or extended research-and-development tax credits — won’t work, or at least not before November’s midterm elections, when Democrats face potentially devastating losses.

And the few things that might work — such as an aggressive new infrastructure spending bill — can’t pass, uniformly viewed as politically impossible at a time of trillion-dollar-plus deficits.

What to do? If you’re President Barack Obama, you go out and talk about the economy — in Milwaukee on Monday, Cleveland on Wednesday and at a White House news conference Friday. He’s expected to propose some new business tax breaks next week, including possibly a payroll tax break and R&D credits, but the White House said no final decisions have been made. . . . .

Of course, the Obama people don't even want to call this new bill a second stimulus.

The White House press office on Thursday refused to say how much a financial package might be, other than to say it won’t be a “second stimulus.” But the administration will have a tough time selling nearly any package to terrified, Obama-phobic Hill Democrats who increasingly blame the president – and his ambitious, expensive legislative agenda – for their dismal prospects this November. . . . .

The R-and-D tax cut, which Congressional Democrats have already considered would, for example, be paid for by closing overseas corporate loopholes. . . . .

Even NPR sorta gets it:

This was supposed to be the season the economy heated up, thanks to a wave of public works projects, funded by the government's stimulus program. But summer is coming to an end, and the recovery has not taken root. (The Labor Department on Friday reported a slight rise in the unemployment rate to 9.6 percent in August as more people were looking for work.)

And before long, stimulus dollars will be fading like autumn leaves.

None of that is encouraging for President Obama, who launched the summer with a crew in hard hats in Columbus, Ohio, on June 18.

"Today, I return to Columbus to mark a milestone on the road to recovery: the 10,000th project launched under the Recovery Act," Obama said, announcing a $15 million effort to widen a roadway and add bike lanes.

Recovery summer was partly designed to recover the reputation of the government's $787 billion stimulus program. While many economists believe that program has worked to boost employment, the public is unimpressed. Advisers say by front-loading the stimulus with tax cuts and aid to states, they were able to get the money out quickly, but at the expense of visibility. . . .

A new Fox News poll indicates that Americans have little confidence that Obama's new plan will work any better. I wish that these polls would give several options on the impact of the stimulus. Right now they just as if the stimulus helped or not, but not whether it did harm.

The latest Fox News poll shows that out of eleven concerns, the greatest one is the nation’s economy, with nearly all voters either extremely (46 percent) or very (47 percent) concerned.

Unemployment is a nearly equal concern (43 percent extremely and 49 percent very).

In addition, more than 9 in 10 voters are concerned about “the future of the country” (43 percent extremely and 48 percent very concerned).

Fewer voters -- though still sizable numbers -- are as worried about their own personal economic situation. The poll finds that 37 percent of voters are extremely (19 percent) or very worried (18 percent) about losing their job. However, two-thirds are concerned about being able to pay their bills (32 extremely and 34 percent very). . . .

When asked whether the Obama administration has made the economy better or worse, 47 percent feel the economy is worse because of the administration’s efforts while 36 percent say the economy is better.

Not surprisingly, Democrats (63 percent) are more likely than Republicans (8 percent) to say the Obama administration has made the economy better. Slightly more independents feel Obama has made the economy worse than better (43 percent compared to 37 percent).

A majority -- 57 percent -- think the $800 billion dollar economic stimulus plan hasn’t worked. Just over one in three -- 37 percent -- think it has helped the economy.

There has been some discussion whether the stimulus was large enough to give the economy the boost it needed. Still, just 24 percent would favor another stimulus plan. Most -- 70 percent -- oppose a second stimulus. That includes 52 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents and 87 percent of Republicans.

With the economic recovery seemingly stalled, only 32 percent of voters are confident the Obama administration can handle the economy. Nearly twice as many -- 61 percent -- are concerned about the administration’s ability to deal with the situation. Political independents, the key swing group in most elections, are much more likely to be concerned (64 percent) than confident (24 percent). . . .

Homeowner "turned the tables on his intruder"

From Atlanta, Georgia on September 3:

Detectives in Atlanta said the victim of a home invasion turned the tables on his intruder.
Police said the homeowner shot and killed a man who was inside his home on Abner Place in northwest Atlanta just before midnight Thursday.
A neighbor told Channel 2 Action News reporter Darryn Moore at the scene that the person who was killed may have been the same person who had been seen casing the neighborhood earlier in the week.
Police said they got a call about a shooting at the home and arrived to find one man shot in the chest.
“Most likely the individual that was that was shot and killed was the person committing the home invasion,” said Lt. Paul Guerrecci of the Atlanta Police Department.
Detectives searched around the home looking for evidence and making sure the homeowner’s version of what happened is legitimate. Officials also searched a white pickup truck that was parked in front of the victim’s home.
“The homeowner indicated that he doesn’t know what the truck is doing here. We’ll attempt to find out if that truck is involved,” said Guerrecci. . . . .

Taxpayers likely to lose money on the GM IPO

The government will apparently own part of GM for three more years. These guys don't seem to understand how prices work. The current price is the future expected price of the stock. The government might hope that future stock prices will rise, but they are losing money on the current sale and that means that future prices will have to rise by enough to make up those losses. As to the claim that the Obama administration is selling off the stock as quickly as possible, that is false. If they wanted to, they would sell it off all at once. Doing that would also help the stock price as political meddling with business decisions is surely helping to depress the stock.

The U.S. government is likely to take a loss on General Motors Co [GM.UL] in the first offering of the automaker's stock, six people familiar with preparations for the landmark IPO said.

Subsequent offerings of the government's holdings may be profitable depending on how investors trade the newly listed stock, the sources said.

But the question of whether taxpayers are ultimately made whole on GM's $50 billion bailout could be left open for years, the people said.

It could take more than three years for the Treasury to sell down its remaining stake in GM after the IPO, one person said. That would push a final accounting into the next presidential term. . . .

The Obama administration has pledged to exit its investment in GM as quickly as possible while holding out the prospect that taxpayers could ultimately be paid back in full. . . .

How is violence against women defined?

The story in this article of a man almost driven to ruin by his ex-wife abusing these violence against women statutes is pretty disturbing. What is almost hard to believe is that violence against women is defined in terms such as "getting annoyed," “withholding information from the victim,” and even “disregarding what the victim wants.”

The Violence Against Women Act, passed during the first term of the Clinton administration, includes a definition of domestic violence that is so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it.

States picked up on the loophole, and now most states include within their definitions of abuse, actions like making your partner “annoyed” or “distressed.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) likewise followed suit. The CDC’s Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements declares that partner violence includes “getting annoyed if the victim disagrees,” “withholding information from the victim,” and even “disregarding what the victim wants.” . . . No proof of violence is necessary. . . .

An amazing discussion of the Beck rally in DC

This article here is definitely worth reading.

Oregon Democrat Senator Wyden backing away from Obamacare?

Newest piece at Fox News: What Milton Friedman Knew about the 1937-38 Collapse

I might have picked a title like: "What Milton Friedman Knew about the 1937-38 Collapse." But, in any case, my newest piece starts of this way.

Does the 1937-38 economic collapse, the so-called "depression within the Depression" offer any lessons on what we should do now? In 1937, it seemed that things were improving, some light was seen in the Great Depression, but unemployment suddenly jumped from 14.3 percent in June 1937 to 19 percent in June 1938. With the unemployment rate stuck at 9.6 percent, the Obama administration is planning to unveil what would be its third stimulus package. Supporters are pointing to the late 1930s to justify yet another increase government spending.

Today Keynesians are out in full force defending the massive $1.3 plus trillion deficit that we have run since Obama became president, warning that cutting it would lead to a scenario similar to what we saw in the late 30s.

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, has this to say in The Times earlier this summer, declaring that those opposing more government spending were pointing us towards disaster: "It raises memories of 1937, when F.D.R.’s premature attempt to balance the budget helped plunge a recovering economy back into severe recession."

Last Saturday, Yale’s self-described "New Deal economist" Robert Shiller made the same point in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, attacking the "concern about the national debt" and advocating more government spending.

Both men point out that the federal deficit declined from $2 billion in 1937 (in inflation adjusted dollars, about $30.3 billion today) to a near balanced budget in 1938. . . .

New Fox News piece: Obama Is Repeating the Mistakes of the 1937 Economic Collapse

My newest piece at Fox News starts this way:

Does the 1937-38 economic collapse, the so-called "depression within the Depression" offer any lessons on what we should do now? In 1937, it seemed that things were improving, some light was seen in the Great Depression, but unemployment suddenly jumped from 14.3 percent in June 1937 to 19 percent in June 1938. With the unemployment rate stuck at 9.6 percent, the Obama administration is planning to unveil what would be its third stimulus package. Supporters are pointing to the late 1930s to justify yet another increase government spending.

Today Keynesians are out in full force defending the massive $1.3 plus trillion deficit that we have run since Obama became president, warning that cutting it would lead to a scenario similar to what we saw in the late 30s.

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, has this to say in The Times earlier this summer, declaring that those opposing more government spending were pointing us towards disaster: "It raises memories of 1937, when F.D.R.’s premature attempt to balance the budget helped plunge a recovering economy back into severe recession." . . .

"Former Car Czar Rattner Rats on Obama"

For those who believed politics was involved in the decisions in the car industry, it appears that Mr. Rattner's new book will provide a lot of information. So much for Obama's promise not to let politics interfere with how the companies were run. Bold added by me to the discussion below.

-When Obama was told of the plan to pay GM CEO Rick Wagoner a $7.1 million severance package after Obama ordered that he be sacked, Rattner writes: "Suddenly I felt that I was indeed in the presence of a community organizer..."

-Rattner describes presidential political adviser David Axelrod coming to car meetings armed with poll data to support the takeover and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel identify Congressmen in whose districts large Chrysler facilities were located.

-"[Obama's economic team] veered dangerously close to having the government take control of the two most troubled banks, Bank of America and Citigroup."

-"If his team had linked arms with the outgoing administration, as President Bush's advisers had proposed, billions of dollars could well have been saved."

-Rattner says Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual dictated Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's schedule, public appearances and staff selections.

-He says Obama economic advisers Larry Summers and Austan Goolsbee and FDIC Chair Sheila Bair as enemies who slowed down decision making with infighting

-Rattner said Obama was frustrated with the auto companies from the start: "Why can't they make a Corolla?" he has Obama asking.

Obama moves for third stimulus

I know that they only think of this as the second stimulus bill. After all the recently signed $26 billion spending bill was just a "jobs" bill and this stimulus really is about something different than jobs, right? OK, I am just confused. This is also a jobs bill, but the previous jobs bill was not a stimulus bill.

The Obama administration is mulling a raft of emergency fixes to stimulate the economy before the midterms, including an extension of the research and development tax credit and new infrastructure spending, according to several people familiar with the situation.

Administration officials have been huddling almost continuously during the past week, brainstorming for ideas that would boost employment without hiking the massive federal deficit – with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner rushing to the West Wing for further consultations late Thursday.

The White House press office on Thursday refused to say how much a financial package might be, other than to say it won’t be a “second stimulus.” But the administration will have a tough time selling nearly any package to terrified, Obama-phobic Hill Democrats who increasingly blame the president – and his ambitious, expensive legislative agenda – for their dismal prospects this November.

The meetings, which had Obama huddling with his economic advisers twice in the last seven days, have yielded no specific proposals. But he’s given the team a priority: find ways to pay for as many of the ideas, mostly tax breaks, as possible without a deficit increase, an administration official told POLITICO.

The R-and-D tax cut, which Congressional Democrats have already considered would, for example, be paid for by closing overseas corporate loopholes.

But party leaders were dubious that even a modest, targeted spending bill could pass muster at the height of an anti-tax, anti-deficit, Tea Party-fueled Republican resurgence. . . . .

Newest piece at Fox News: President Obama, You're Not Fooling All of Us On Immigration

My newest piece starts this way:

President Obama thinks that by recently signing a new bill spending $600 million to beef up border enforcement he will look tough on illegal aliens. But decisions such as today’s lawsuit by the Justice Department against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to stop his policies regarding illegal aliens shows where the administration’s policies are really headed.

The bill Obama signed, which authorizes the hiring 1,500 new border personnel, the deployment of a pair of unmanned reconnaissance drones, and replacing some bases along the border is valuable, but it hardly undoes what the president has done up to this point. With a recent Rasmussen poll showing that 68 percent of U.S. voters support a plan to continue building a fence on the Mexican border, Obama's change strikes one as a temporary smoke screen.

Up until now the president has worked to cut the number of border agents. 384 border agents were cut last October 1st and in the 2011 fiscal year budget Obama proposed cutting another 180 agents through attrition.

But it isn't just his record of previously reducing the number of border agents. . . .

Proof on gender discrimination on the job

A large and significant salary difference exists between unmarried men and women in their 20s. I hope that the government will do what is necessary to quickly eliminate this horrid discrimination. This wage differential can obviously only exist due to discrimination.

Single, childless women in their twenties are finding success in the city: They're out-earning their male counterparts in the USA's biggest metropolitan areas.
Women ages 22 to 30 with no husband and no kids earn a median $27,000 a year, 8% more than comparable men in the top 366 metropolitan areas, according to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau data crunched by the New York research firm Reach Advisors and released Wednesday. The women out-earn men in 39 of the 50 biggest cities and match them in another eight. The disparity is greatest in Atlanta, where young, childless single women earn 21% more than male counterparts.
The shift in earnings power started showing up in a few big cities a few years ago and has become widespread. It isn't true for all women in their 20s working full time — overall, they earn 90% of what all men in their 20s make — just for those who don't marry or have kids.
Education is the key: "Young women are going to college in droves," Reach Advisors reports. "Nearly three-quarters of girls who graduate from high school head to college, vs. two-thirds of the boys. But they don't stop there. Women are now 1.5 times more likely than men to graduate from college or earn advanced degrees." Armed with degrees, young women command higher salaries. . . .

The twenty most popular conservative websites for August

Death by 1000 paper cuts has put this together.

Auto sales fall from July, worst August since 1983

More evidence that the economy is getting worse.

The nation's top automakers reported disappointing sales Wednesday, resulting in the worst August for industrywide auto sales in 27 years.

According to sales tracker Autodata, U.S. new vehicle sales fell just short of 1 million vehicles, a drop of 21% from a year ago, which included Cash for Clunkers. That federal program created a sugar rush of sales by dangling an incentive of up to $4,500 in cash for buyers who traded in older gas guzzlers for more efficient models.

Industry sales also fell 5% from July levels. August sales typically outpace July, as deals become available on older models ahead of the fall introduction of new model year cars. August sales would equate to an annual sales pace of about 11.5 million vehicles.

"Car buying is far from repaired, and consumers hesitate before they make a big ticket purchase," said Jesse Toprak, an analyst with the auto pricing Web site Truecar.com. "It shows that the recovery is going to be much slower and more painful than expected."

This year was the weakest August sales total since the 993,100 sold in 1983. Analysts had been forecasting a weak month, with expected sales of about 1.03 million. Most of the major automakers fell short of estimates. The soft demand for autos is seen by economists as another sign of growing weakness among nervous consumers. . . . .

So will the general media cover that the person who attacked the Discovery Channel with bombs and gun was inspired by Al Gore?

This connection with Al Gore is getting some news coverage, but not a lot.

James Jay Lee wasn't a stranger to the Discovery Channel employees he terrorized Wednesday with a gun and with what appeared to be makeshift bombs strapped to his chest and back.

Lee, a 43-year-old California man with a seemingly religious fervor for his environmental causes, had a history of targeting the channel for its programming, most notably in a 2008 protest in front of the channel's Silver Spring, Md., headquarters, where 1,900 employees work. On that day, the protest included tossing wads of cash in the air, and it ended in his arrest. . . .

Lee said he started his crusade after being laid off from a job in San Diego. He also appears to have been inspired by books by the environmental novelist Daniel Quinn, notably Quinn's "Ishmael." He singled out pages of that novel in his manifesto, saying that Discovery should create programming based on its message. He said he also was inspired by Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." . . .

Here is a Google news search that I did at 10:45 PM today.


The incident as a whole has gotten a lot more coverage.


It will be interesting to see if this imbalance is corrected over time.

Philadelphia harasses and jails concealed carry permit holders

Philadelphia makes it difficult for people to get permits and then those who have gotten concealed permits legally have been arrested and harassed by Philadelphia police. They took guns from security guards and locked them up in custody for up to 18 hours. This raises questions about whether Philadelphia should be classified as a right to carry city.

In the last two years, Philadelphia police have confiscated guns from at least nine men - including four security guards - who were carrying them legally, and only one of the guns has been returned, according to interviews with the men.

Eight of the men said that they were detained by police - two for 18 hours each. Two were hospitalized for diabetic issues while in custody, one of whom was handcuffed to a bed. Charges were filed against three of the men, only to be withdrawn by the District Attorney's Office.

The civil-rights unit of the City Solicitor's Office confirmed that it is handling eight such cases. Two of the men interviewed by the Daily News said that they rejected settlement offers from the city ranging from $3,500 to $7,500. One accepted a $5,000 offer.

Most of the cases hinge on what local authorities call the "Florida loophole," under which a Pennsylvania resident can obtain a nonresident permit to carry a concealed weapon through the mail from another state, even without a permit in Pennsylvania.

The "loophole" is unpopular with Philadelphia cops, who say that it allows those denied a permit here or whose permits were revoked to circumvent Philadelphia authorities and obtain it elsewhere.

But proponents say that it's necessary because Philadelphia has unusually strict criteria for obtaining a concealed-carry permit. Philadelphia, according to police and gun owners, relies heavily on a clause that allows denial of a permit based on "character and reputation" alone.

The men interviewed by the Daily News had varying reasons for seeking nonresident permits from Florida or other states, including having been denied a Philadelphia permit because of unpaid parking tickets. Some said that they carry a Florida permit because it is recognized by more states than a Pennsylvania one. . . .

Canada's gun registry didn't make Canadians safer

Lorne Gunter has this piece in the National Post:

The key factor to consider when determining the fate of the federal long-gun registry is whether or not it prevents crime. That was its initial objective. That is how Jean Chretien's Liberal government justified the nearly $2-billion that has been spent on the project and a bureaucracy that continues to consume between $87-million (RCMP estimate) and $106-million (Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimate) annually.

If the registry prevents murders and cuts down on other gun crimes such as robberies and armed drug deals, then there might be a case for keeping it -- might. Otherwise, there is no justification for the way it makes criminals of law-abiding gun owners.

In fact, on the crime-prevention front, the registry has been an abject failure. . . . .

In a study on the effectiveness of the registry, released Tuesday, the RCMP argued that the registry has had a positive effect on suicides committed with guns. To which I say: So what? The key number we should be looking at is suicides, not suicides performed through this or that method.

The overall number of suicides in Canada has not subsided since the advent of the registry. Each year, between 3,500 and 3,800 Canadians end their own lives. There are fewer now killing themselves with guns, true, but more doing so with rope, pills, gas and cars. . . .

Interesting, too, is a chart on page 23 of the new RCMP report that compares total U.S. homicides (all weapons and methods) with total Canadian homicides. Since 1991, the U.S. murder rate has fallen by over 40%, the Canadian rate by less than a third.

Since both rates involve far more than just firearms-related homicides, it's impossible to say definitively whether gun control has had any impact. However, it is interesting that while we have been wasting years on the registry, the Americans, with no registry, have seen a much larger drop in murders. . . . .

Listing Research by Criminologists and Economists on Right to Carry Laws

Clicking on the picture will make it bigger. This is from Chapter 10 of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, third edition, 2010).

Dems micro-managing small businesses

Krauthammer has this to say about the Small Business Jobs Bill:

Charles Krauthammer: "First of all, it's about targeting tax cuts. This is how liberals operate. You raise the rates across the board and then the government will deign to return some of the money on a targeted tax cut, meaning if you do exactly as they say. Which means, for example, if they favor, say, high-tech investment and they'll give you a cut in capital gains, and you have a business in which you don't need that, but you need to spend on marketing, the government thinks it knows how to redirect your capital in a superior way. It's a classic liberal way to operate whereas Republicans want lower rates across the board and eliminate the targeting of tax cuts as you had in the '86 tax bill, the Reagan-Bradley bill."

Some examples of the impact of gun bans on murder rates

So what happened to murder rates in island nations? These figures are from the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime from the University of Chicago Press (2010). Click to make the figures larger. The numbers for the UK are available here in Table 1.01.

Obama's Kids are Off-limits to press except for the personal information that the Obamas give the media

A little bit of a double standard here.

Barack and Michelle Obama put their girls off-limits to the news media after they moved to the White House, saying they wanted to keep their daughters' lives as normal as possible. But tidbits about the private doings of the youngest children to live in the White House since the Kennedy family do dribble out. Often they come from a surprising source: Mom and Dad. . . .

Harry Reid denies ever saying that "This War is Lost"

Small businesses are getting significantly worse

A video on this survey is available here. For those interested in reading the mess that is the "Small Business Jobs Bill" see this.

Both the loans and the tax cuts micro-manage how companies should be run. Take the "bonus depreciation," which provides a 50 percent first year depreciation. Among the lucky assets that are eligible: "Single purpose agricultural (livestock) or horticultural structures," "Storage facilities (except buildings and their structural components) used in connection with distributing petroleum or any primary product of petroleum." "sewage disposal services," and "off-the-self computer software."

What brilliant Obama administration officials and Democratic congressional leaders decided that if you build an agricultural building that does just one purpose, you get a deduction. If it does two or more things, you are out of luck. So a farmer who would have built one building will now build two buildings so that they can get the huge depreciation. What sense does that make? Or that you can quickly write-off certain types of computer software and not others. Why does "sewage disposal services" deserve such special treatment?

The loans are no different. The Obama administration and Democrats are picking what type of firms will get loans and what they can get loans for. "Brick and mortar" operations get a loan "to acquire major fixed assets for expansion or modernization." Why are those particular operations singled out in the CDC/504 loan program? Why can't those loans be used to for marketing? Similarly, if you export certain products, you can get a special loan.