Weak Economic Numbers Are Getting Weaker

Earlier this week, GDP for third quarter was announced by the Commerce Department as 1.5 percent, versus 3.9 percent in the second quarter.  Not much doubt about the trend here.

Today's personal income growth for the month of September checked in at barely positive.

For the average America, this data says more sluggish income, no chance of rising living standards, and continued demagoguery from the very folks that have created this nightmare -- the folks in the White House.

Until free markets are permitted to breathe again, there is no likelihood of improvement for the average American.  The only winners of the Obama-Clinton economic gameplan are those on top of the stagecoach, riding around in their limousines and jet planes, piously decrying inequality.  They should know. 

More Rubbish From Academia

One Stanford "scientist" and his two Berkeley colleagues have penned a study recently asserting that average income in Mexico will plunge 73 % due to "global warming."  US per capita income will fall 36 percent by 2100, according to "research" published by this trio.  This insightful nonsense will emerge into daylight in the November 30th issue of Nature magazine.

What is the basis for this "scientific" result?  You're right! Nothing.

What the authors have done is compare periods of high temperature with periods of low temperature and then check out the economic growth rates in the periods.  As an undergraduate essay, this absurd "research" would struggle to get a passing grade.  But, in the highly politicized climate of today's higher education "research" world, this nonsense now rates a way station on the way to fame and fortune for extreme left wing academics.

All you need, according to these folks, is a cold spell for the South Sahara to roar past Europe and the US in per capita GDP.  No need for free markets, education, natural resources.   This makes the study of economic development fairly simple.  We should focus on building efficient air conditioners -- that will quickly, according to these folks, provide all the economic growth that these poverty ridden countries will ever need.

Sadly, this kind of "research" is not unusual in the modern American elite university. It is typical.  Serious thinking is increasingly being replaced with stuff like this.

Accepting A Mediocre Economy

The Obama Administration is touting the US economic recovery as a job well done.  Data made public yesterday shows that 2014 produced 2.4 percent GDP growth.  Such low levels of growth were considered cause for alarm in the years before Barrack Obama became President.  Now, such mediocrity is extolled as acceptable, even worthy of praise.  How far expectations have fallen!

As the Wall Street Journal points out in an editorial today, it is impossible to find an economic recovery this mediocre at any time in American history.  This is a new record for economic sluggishness.

Don't expect this to change as long as the "war on the economy" continues, waged by the Obama Administration and it's army of bureaucrats.  While this won't hamper the "1 percenters" like Obama, Soros, Pelosi, Kerry and Buffett, it will damage the hopes and dreams of the middle class and the poor, who have no chance of prospering with the damaging economic policies of the Obama Administration.

But, if you listen to the President, he thinks these policies have been a success -- I wonder, who for?

The Budget Debate and Shutting Down The Government

According to the US Constitution, Congress makes the laws, including those governing the spending of money, and the President is the executive, enforcing the laws made by Congress.  So, how does a budget get enacted and implemented, according to the Constitution?

The House originates the budget, passes it and then the Senate acts.  Suppose the House and Senate have acted, then the budget goes to the White House for signature.

What happens if the White House says:  "I will veto this unless it includes massive monetary payments and bribes for me and my friends."  Then, suppose the White House proceeds to a veto.

Who is responsible for shutting down the government in this scenario?  Yep.  The White House.

So, the House and Senate should pass the budget resolution and the debt limit ceiling with whatever provisions they want.   Then, if the President chooses to shut down the government by demanding that he alone can enact legislation through veto threats, then let the President shut down the government by using his veto.

Forget the media's interpretation.  The true interpretation is that Congress is responsible for making the laws and if the President is willing to shut down the government to thwart Congressional intent, then let him.

It is way past time for the Congress to play the role that the Constitution intended and challenge the assertions of an over-reaching White House.  The President is shutting down the government whenever he vetoes a spending bill or a debt-limit bill. It is as simple as that.

Congressional leaders should stop saying: "We will not shutdown the government."  Congress is not shutting down the government by passing a budget and passing or refusing to pass a debt limit extension.  Congress is simply performing its function as provided for in the US Constitution.  Only the President can shut down the government if Congress does the job that it is supposed to do.

CNBC Embarasses Itself

In last night's Republican debate, the CNBC questioners appeared to have little or no interest in economics or finance, which is supposedly their specialty.  Instead, the questioners seemed more like tabloid reporters, looking to drum up irrelevant side points mostly to make hay for their personal political point of view.

Not surprisingly, a number of the candidates called Harwood and Quintanilla out for their absurd questions.  Harwood and Quintanilla have long been shills for Obama and have now switched their allegiance to Hillary Clinton.  Both of these Democrats have used their platform at CNBC to promote the political agenda of Obama and Clinton, often by shading the truth or deliberately misleading their viewers.

Wednesday night, Harwood and Quintanilla apparently had no interest in economic or financial matters, but focused almost exclusively on trying to bring out negative campaigning to discredit the candidates personally.  How this serves the public's interest in unclear.  Both Harwood and Quintanilla should be ashamed of themselves. They certainly have zero credibility as financial reporters, as their true interests clearly lie elsewhere.

Becky Quick was not as obvious as Harwood and Quintanilla, but she, nonetheless, did serious damage to her credibility.  We have always known that Harwood and Quintanilla make no pretense at objectivity, but Quick's performance was shocking.  It will be difficult, in the future, to see Quick as a serious financial commentator. She made no effort to ask economic or financial questions on Wednesday, but instead asked questions that seemed to be prepared by Democratic operatives.

CNBC had an opportunity to put real economic issues on the table on Wednesday night and get the candidates to respond.  They chose instead to push their personal political agendas, for all of the country to see.