The Bain mutiny has grown to 14 prominent Democrats:

1. Newark Mayor Cory Booker
2. Delaware Senator Chris Coons
3. Former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis
4. Former Clinton Special Counsel Lanny Davis
5. California Senator Dianne Feinstein
6. Former  Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford
7. New York Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
8. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin [Video link]
9. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick [Video link]
10. Obama bundler Don Peebles
11. Former Obama economic adviser, Steven Rattner
12. Former DNC Chair and Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell [Video link]
13. New York Senator Chuck Shumer.
14. Virginia Senator Mark Warner [Video link]

It has been such a rough three weeks for Obama that a Politico headline read “Obama stumbles out of the gate.” The Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei piece notes that Obama’s message is “muddled,” he comes across as “baldly political,” he is facing Democrat “blowback” for attacks against Romney and Bain Capital and is falling behind in fundraising.

It’s been so bad that Romney campaign Communications Director Gail Gitcho made it the focus of his “Week In Review” campaign memo:

By any objective measure, President Obama and his campaign have stumbled into the general election. According to one report, the president’s recent troubles “have shaken the overwhelming confidence of his campaign in Chicago and of Democratic leaders in Washington.”

This week, we saw wave after wave of Democratic officials and Obama surrogates stand up against President Obama’s attack machine. From New York to California, and North Dakota to Alabama, the message was loud and clear. The Obama campaign’s best-laid plans to wage an all-out assault on the free enterprise system have predictably backfired.

These obsessive and misleading attacks – which the president himself confirmed will be the focus of his campaign – have been rebuked by fellow Democrats for being “nauseating” and “unfair” and ridiculed by the media and Democratic operatives as “clumsy” and “ancient.” The media felt compelled to eulogize “the 2004 version of Barack Obama,” who promised unity and a new era of leadership, while introducing the world to “the new, nasty Obama campaign.”

Meanwhile, the current chair of the DNC distanced herself from the Administration’s decision to grant a visa to the daughter of Cuba’s communist dictator, while a former DNC chair declined to endorse the Obama campaign in its current state.

Tuesday’s primaries in Kentucky and Arkansas provided valuable insight into the Obama campaign’s struggles. President Obama has no primary challenger, but is losing significant amounts of support within his own party – to no one in particular. More than four in ten Democrats who voted this week declined to support President Obama.

Despite repeated attempts by the president and his campaign to divert attention from the important issues we face, Governor Romney remains focused on his optimistic, pro-growth vision for America’s future. While the Obama campaign falls deeper and deeper into attack mode, Governor Romney continues to offer bold policies to confront America’s challenges – as he did this week, laying out a plan to give every child in America a chance to succeed by reforming education.

This is the real crux of the Obama campaign’s dilemma. It’s not the messengers that are causing the problem – it’s the message.

It is clear what this election will be about. It will be about the nearly 23 million Americans struggling to find work, and millions more who have been pushed to the brink in the Obama economy. It will be about the failure of our economy to rebound the way it can, and it will be about the outdated, government-centric, liberal policies that President Obama has offered as the solution to our problems. This election will be about our country’s future. Are our schools good enough? Is our economy good enough? Can we do better than the last four years?

Mitt Romney believes we can. And the American people do as well.

As Obama was forced to finally man up and admits he supports gay marriage — thereby ending his successful straddle of the gay marriage issue, his attacks against Romney’s private sector experience at Bain Capital backfired and Obama’s campaign spokesman was caught deviating from the truth, Romney stayed on his it’s still the economy message.

Recent polling finds that the Obama attacks against Romney’s private sector experience with Bain Capital have not hurt Romney. In fact, Romney’s business background is perceived as an asset. In addition polling shows Romney has opened 10-point lead among Independents and has closed his so-called gender gap from 19 to 7 percent.

It’s been a good start for Romney — as for Obama, not so much.

The American political system (and Democracy in general) are ways by which potentially violent conflicts over deeply-held personal beliefs can be waged in non-violent fashion. When Democracy breaks down, or certain people think they can take a short-cut, the inevitable result is a reversion to violence. This has been coming for a long time. It may well get worse. I blog under a pseudonym for a reason.

(HT:RMJ 25May2012)

I understand Brett Kimberlin. I grok where he and his ilk get their motivation and why they ultimately fall off the beam. There is a process by which civility breaks down and Democracy fails. I meant what I said above about Democracy. At its core, our democratic system is a dispute arbitration process that aims to stem violent conflict over our deepest and most fundamental disagreements. It only works until one party to the conflict stops willingly accepting unfavorable results from the arbitration.

Like the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, Anders Breivik and Bill Ayers before him, Kimberlin has reacted to the fundamental fact that society rejects that which he believes in. Steeped in egoistic self-love and immaturity, Kimberlin has responded to this rejection with violence. He knows no god but himself and seeks divine retribution.

One particular aspect of the society that angers Brett Kimberlin, Dominus et Deus, is free speech. Why should this push Herr Kimberlin’s irascibility button? He has a right to free speech and is even bankrolled in the endeavor by The Tides Foundation.

Sadly, Mr. Kimberlin, that speech travels in two directions. People get to read Repair_Man_Jack’s words of wisdom* and weigh that profundity in the balance. As Rush once whimsically sang. “Some of our views are spacious, others merely spaced.” I deal with the occasional smack-downs that come my way while blogging because I’ve been informed that all feedback (even of the negative variety) is a gift.

Mr. Kimberlin is more particular in his acceptance of presents from others. He only accepts uncritical adulation (and perhaps TGI Friday’s gift cards). Strongly-presented views athwart his own are met with the hostility with which the ruling council of Hamas would greet a Nativity Scene. This hostility manifested itself in a particularly noxious form when he decided to harass well-known and effective Conservative Blogger Patterico. Erick and Dan provide sufficient detail in their front page posts. “Swatting” can now be added to the vocabulary of the political dirty trickster.

I see this turn of events as a particular turn of the screw that is in no way shocking. When hardliners don’t get what they want peacefully, they stop being peaceful. The Brett Kimberlins of the world love democracy when they are winning. It involves the other side’s capitulation without a shot being fired. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once remarked, “Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off.” As soon as Kimberlin’s side started losing momentum, he decided it was time to get off.

Thus I write today to respond to Brett Kimberlin in the only fashion with which a civilized man can properly respond. I put my ideas and beliefs up against his. My mind challenges his thuggish reliance on brute force and intimidation. I believe revealing Brett Kimberlin for what he is and exposing that which he believes will destroy him as an effective agent of intimidation. Brett Stevens of Amerika.org in a post entitled “Not yours” describes best how we should handle the Brett Kimberlins of the world.

…we reserve the right to deny others entrance into our homes. We also reserve the right to deny them entrance into our bodily orifices, or to give them control over our minds. Not theirs.

When a liberal is confronted with an unemotional and rational “not yours,” their extreme behavior in response seems so out of place that it makes them look insane. The radical professor is suddenly a masked anarchist smashed the windows of stores he’d love to shop at.

In an instant, liberalism is debunked. All the fancy language about helping others, progress, tolerance, compassion, etc. goes out the window. It is replaced by a more concrete vision: a child having a tantrum because it is denied something that someone else achieved.

So I conclude by telling Brett Kimberlin that control over our safety and our right to speak freely is not his. It never was and it never will be. America is a Democracy. He is free to disagree with everything I think, all that I say and most of what I fundamentally believe. That does not entitle him to harass, threaten or deprive me (or Patterico) of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

*- People like Kimberlin are why I blog under a psuedonym.

Even with #BrettKimberlin trending, lapdog media remains silent | Twitchy
“Where is the media? Silent. Evidently, a shred of decency is too much to ask of the lapdog media, who instead choose to paint TEA parties as violent while ignoring actual nightmarish and potentially deadly terrorism from a Leftist.”

Brett Kimberlin and the Hall of Fame of Leftist Terrorists | FrontPageMag
“In other words, this Kimberlin-founded group believes Breitbart was smote by the Almighty.”

Letter from an Indiana reader about Brett Kimberlin | Michelle Malkin
“I can’t believe that crazy guy is still causing trouble as was described. I believe it, but such should be impossible.”

Meet Soros-Funded Domestic Terrorist Brett Kimberlin Whose ‘Job’ Is Terrorizing Bloggers Into Silence | The Blaze
“Be prepared to enter an alternate universe, bizarre beyond any stretch of what you thought possible. And then keep reading, because this may be one of the most important exposés published on The Blaze to date.”

The facts about the growth of spending under Obama | WaPo
“Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.”

MSNBC Panel Slams White House Over Bin Laden Film Leaks | Big Hollywood
“Normally, I don’t concern myself with MSNBC. They’re openly left and therefore when it comes to policing the media, the least of our problems. But this is a development:”

Memorial Day Weekend – 2012 from cmndr45.

More here.

Shrug indeed. Or, as he once said: “screw them.”

Let me add one thing here. Every belief system – political, religious, philosophical, lifestyle – attracts some nutty people, some stupid people, some evil and dangerous people. You can’t judge those belief systems by their craziest adherents. Liberalism, as understood in the United States over the past half-century or so, involves the belief in a lot of nonsense, but it is basically a peaceable creed.

But increasingly since the late 60s, we have seen the emergence of a particular style of activism – occasionally aped in some corners of the Right, but systematically practiced on the Left – that takes as its creed “the personal is political” and that everything is politics, and follows that to its logical conclusion by such methods as:

-Picketing the homes of political opponents and business executives.

-Boycotts aimed at donors and sponsors of political causes and political commentators.

-Efforts to “out” political opponents, ranging from disclosing the identities and addresses of anonymous or pseudonymous writers to targeting closeted homosexuals among Congressional staffers.

-Googlebombs designed to skew internet searches for information about a targeted person.

-Reporting targeted opponents to ISPs, hosting companies or Twitter as spam.

That’s just a quick list, and of course it ranges from older-style campaigns to things done specifically on the internet. The theoretical and practical justification for this style of political activism as personal war against opponents is, of course, laid out most explicitly in Rules for Radicals and other writings of Saul Alinsky, the father of “community organizing,” the subject of Hillary Clinton’s college thesis, and the specific inspiration for groups like the PIRGs and ACORN that (to simplify a much longer story) trained and worked hand in glove with Barack Obama. We see such campaigns waged regularly online by left-wing activist groups like ThinkProgress and particular in the battles over California’s Proposition 8 (ranging from the targeting of Mormon donors to the reasons why Paul Clement ended up leaving his law firm). The campaign against Patterico merely takes these methods to their logical endpoint. If you think your role in politics is not merely to compete in the world of ideas but to raise the personal cost of opposing your ideas and agenda to the point where people fear speaking out against you, you have gone down this same path, and should think long and hard about what you are encouraging.

PS – If you want to know where this style of activism leads, read Mark Steyn’s bracing introduction to Geert Wilders’ book.

Consider this your must read of the day. It is LA County Prosecutor John Patrick Frey, who blogs as Patterico, describing just what harassment he and his family were subjected to by the online left.

The mainstream media, which has greater sympathies with the left than the right, would prefer not to cover stories like this. But it is getting to the point where they ignore the ongoing, sustained harassment of conservatives because they are conservatives.

A relief fund has been set up you can contribute to right here. As the site notes:

Blogger Aaron Walker and his wife lost their full-time jobs as a result of Brett Kimberlin’s attacks. Robert Stacy McCain lost his home. Others are suffering professionally and personally in unimaginable ways.

The National Bloggers Club has created this special initiative, which enables supporters to make financial donations to a relief fund as a show of support.

From: “Mike Leary” varmjl@verizon.net
Subject: f*ck ted cruz, and f*ck you
Date: May 25, 2012 10:12:06 AM EDT
To: contact@redstate.com

Mike, you stay classy.

Download audio here

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the false austerity in Greece, how Washington should learn from this example and the perils of Keynesian economics.

We’re brought to you as always by Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

David Malpass: Greece’s False Austerity
Deus ex Eurobonds
Europe Girds for Greek Exit

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

New polling out shows that Dewhurst is close to, but not at, 50% — the threshold he needs to reach to avoid a runoff with Ted Cruz. So now Dewhurst is attacking Ted Cruz for being a free market conservative aligned with . . . wait for it . . . no serious, wait for it . . . free market groups like the Club for Growth.

Dewhurst is a multimillionaire who intends to win this thing by going negative on Ted Cruz. Cruz does not have Dewhurst level resources, but we can get him close. He absolutely needs your help right now. Got to www.tedcruz.org and pour the cash in.

When a candidate is attacked for being a free market conservative, we need to have his back and help him fight back.

The most stunning irony in the latest Dewcrist . . . er . . . Dewhurst attacks is that Dewcrist is trying to tie Ted Cruz to amnesty proposals when Dewcrist voted for the Texas DREAM Act and blocked efforts to enact e-Verify.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz not only opposes amnesty, but drew ire from the left for successfully defending Texas’s right to execute an illegal alien for raping and murdering two teenage girls.

We need to do everything we can to get Ted Cruz elected.

1. Attacked for Being a Conservative: Ted Cruz Needs Our Help

I never thought I’d see the day when a Republican attacks another Republican for being a free market conservative, but that’s what David Dewhurst is doing in his attempt to buy the Texas Senate Election.

New polling out shows that Dewhurst is close to, but not at, 50% — the threshold he needs to reach to avoid a runoff with Ted Cruz. So now Dewhurst is attacking Ted Cruz for being a free market conservative aligned with . . . wait for it . . . no serious, wait for it . . . free market groups like the Club for Growth.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. The Growth Deficit and Spending Fairy Tales

The United States faces a number of economic and fiscal challenges in the short and long terms. But the single biggest is the Growth Deficit: the problem of government spending and government debt growing faster than the private sector. That deficit needs to be reversed; we are on an unsustainable path unless we start producing a Growth Surplus. And Republicans and conservatives need to put more effort into emphasizing the importance of the Growth Deficit to the public.

The Obama Administration seems to recognize that this is a political vulnerability, as it has lately been spinning the notion that the last few years have not actually grown federal spending. Below the fold, I’ve collected a number of charts that illustrate why this is nonsense. But first, a word on how we should be measuring our solvency.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. The REAL Problem With the NLRB’s Ambush Elections Rule: Unions LIE.

Recently, a federal court smacked down Barack Obama’s union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board for the manner in which they imposed their ambush election scheme. The scheme is, however, far from dead as the union-controlled labor board is “determined to move forward” with the needless rules. While there is much opposition to the NLRB’s ambush election rules, few have yet to address the underlying issue that makes the scheme unfair to workers and a disaster for America’s union-free workplace and that is: Unions and their organizers LIE to and deceive workers…All. The. Time.

What’s worse is that, not only do unions lie to, trick and deceive workers into unionizing, it’s perfectly legal to do so.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/05/25/morning-briefing-for-may-25-2012/ Recently, a federal court smacked down Barack Obama’s union appointees at the National Labor Relations Board for the manner in which they imposed their ambush election scheme. The scheme is, however, far from dead as the union-controlled labor board is “determined to move forward” with the needless rules. While there is much opposition to the NLRB’s ambush election rules, few have yet to address the underlying issue that makes the scheme unfair to workers and a disaster for America’s union-free workplace and that is: Unions and their organizers LIE to and deceive workers…All. The. Time.

What’s worse is that, not only do unions lie to, trick and deceive workers into unionizing, it’s perfectly legal to do so.

With a median time from petition-filing to election, unions have been winning around 60% or more of the elections conducted by the NLRB for about a decade (unions won 71% in 2011).

However, with ambush elections, the union win rate is expected to increase to around 90% and here’s why: A longer time frame allows for more information to be given to voting employees and, therefore, leaves unions vulnerable to having their lies, trickery and deception exposed.

Under U.S. labor law vis-à-vis the National Labor Relations Act (as well as its sister law for the airline and railroad industries, the Railway Labor Act), unions are not held accountable for the lies and deception they foist on workers to goad them into unionizing. Unfortunately for workers, it’s caveat emptor (buyer beware) and many have paid the price in wasted dues, labor disputes and job losses.

The current rationale for giving unions free reign to lie and to deceive workers is a 1977 a case called Shopping Kart Food Market. In the case, the Carter NLRB ruled to overturn 15 years of somewhat reasonable standards by overruling an employer’s objection to a union’s lie.

In its ruling, the NLRB stated:  ”In sum, we decide today that the Board will no longer probe into the truth or falsity of the parties’ campaign statements.”

• For background, read: Should Representation Elections Be Governed By Principles Or Expediency?

After nearly 30 years of dealing with union issues, including eight years within the union movement (which, coincidentally, ceased after discovering the vastness of union lies) and the last nearly 20 years combating union organizers’ lies, the depths to which unions and their organizers still sink in deceiving workers is amazing.

Over the last two decades, literally thousands of workers have shared their stories of what union organizers have told them to get union authorization cards signed, or promised them in order to convince them to unionize.

Even though it is illegal for an employer to make promises, one of the most common tactics unions use to hoodwink workers into signing union authorization cards is to make actual or implied promises of betterment.

Although no union organizer can guarantee the promises he makes, or course, the NLRB permits this type of deception, which is why we always encourage workers during union campaigns to get the union organizer’s promises guaranteed in writing.

Here are just a few examples from over the years:

• One of the more common lies organizers tell workers is that a signature on a union authorization card is only to be put on a mailing list. Of course, an individual’s signature is the first step to either holding an election or unionizing workers through card check.
• Recently, we encountered a union lying to workers by claiming their employer had a facility in another state that was unionized and the employer was hiding it from the employees. It was a lie. The employer had no union facility in that state.
• Some years ago, a union organizer told a group of Hispanic (and undocumented) workers that, by signing a union authorization card, they would be getting their “work papers.” When the workers were informed that the union had lied to them, they demanded their signed cards back. Not only did the union refuse to give them their cards back, it then threatened to call immigration authorities if they did not continue supporting the union.

Occasionally, union lies make the press as happened recently. According to the Cape Cod Times, it was alleged that SEIU organizers visited night shift workers of an employer at group homes “under false pretenses, urging employees to sign a survey they were told was for Fellowship (the employer)…”

When unions have weeks, months, or longer to wage a stealth campaign of deception on workers (by design, it is often without employer knowledge), to hobble an employer’s ability to counter the union lies is an injustice. That is why ambush elections are wrong–and that’s the truth.

___________________

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

 

]]> http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2012/05/24/the-real-problem-with-the-nlrb%e2%80%99s-ambush-elections-rule-unions-lie/ Tonight on the radio I’m going to talk about the media dismissing Barack Obama’s poor primary showings in a way they’d never dismiss it were it a Republican President.

Also, I’ll explain the B.S. in that CBS Marketwatch report about Obama’s spending.

You can listen live tonight on the WSB live stream and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/05/24/the-media-dismisses-obamas-bad-primaries/ Today is May 24th. On this date in 1543, astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus died in his home at the age of 70. The father of modern astronomy, Copernicus taught us that Earth was not, in fact, the center of the universe. The center of the universe is actually my wife, I’m told. Often. Also on this date, in 1844, Samuel B. Morse sent the first telegraph message. He sent “What hath God wrought?” The recipient merely replied “42″ and left it at that. On this date in 1848, the first American bicycle race was held. Freddy Mercury was particularly pleased. One hundred and twenty-nine years ago today, the Brooklyn Bridge was officially opened. Coincidentally, I recently closed a deal to sell the bridge to Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher. And finally, today is “International Tiara Day,” the one day a year when I don’t feel awkward when I wear a tiara. Consider this an Open Thread.

RNC Invites You To Join Our Victory Thursday Phone Bank | RNC
“Volunteer from home today to help the RNC keep Wisconsin red- election day is rapidly approaching and we need your help! Make just 10 calls tonight to help elected Republicans in the state of Wisconsin through our Social Victory Center Facebook app!”

Refuting MarketWatch on Obama’s spending with an infographic | Political Math
“And I’m d**n tired of picking it apart 140 characters at a time, so I put together this sarcastic infographic showing exactly how sloppy this piece really is.”

Senate Dems Want You To Pay More For TSA Groping | Big Government
“That’s right: Not only do they want the TSA to continue to be paid to interfere with your body; Senate Democrats want to interfere yet more with the contents of your wallet to cover the cost of said privacy-invasion”

Roseanne Barr: Defending S.E. Cupp is more disgusting than Photoshopping a penis in her mouth | Twitchy
“She’s such an advocate for women that she thinks defending S.E. Cupp and the rest of the conservative gender traitors is vile.”

Politico’s Gavin Whitewashes Obama Primary Embarrassments | Newsbusters
“But when a candidate running to the right of Barack Obama garners 40% of the vote in the Arkansas Dem primary, and “uncommitted” amasses an astounding 42% in Kentucky . . . crickets.”

Walker’s Reforms: Good Policy, Good Politics | NRO
“The key reasons for Walker’s superior position include a clumsy campaign against him, revelations about union pension and pay excesses that undercut labor’s argument against Walker’s ending of collective bargaining for most public-sector workers, and a Wisconsin economy that is improving more quickly than that of many states.”

Our Spending Problem in Perspective from Evan Feinberg.

badinage (bad-n-ahzh, bad-n-ij): noun; light, playful banter or raillery.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2012/05/24/daily-links-may-24-2012/ The United States faces a number of economic and fiscal challenges in the short and long terms. But the single biggest is the Growth Deficit: the problem of government spending and government debt growing faster than the private sector. That deficit needs to be reversed; we are on an unsustainable path unless we start producing a Growth Surplus. And Republicans and conservatives need to put more effort into emphasizing the importance of the Growth Deficit to the public.

The Obama Administration seems to recognize that this is a political vulnerability, as it has lately been spinning the notion that the last few years have not actually grown federal spending. Below the fold, I’ve collected a number of charts that illustrate why this is nonsense. But first, a word on how we should be measuring our solvency.

I. Operating Deficits and Credit Card Balances

We’re all familiar with the budget deficit, the measurement of how much more the federal government’s annual operations spend than the government takes in. I refer to this as the “operating deficit.” The operating deficit has really only one important role: it tells us how much of the government’s spending will lead to the issuance of new debt. While large operating deficits can be a symptom, they are not the real problem. Let me illustrate with a simplified example. Let’s say you have a credit card with a fairly low teaser rate, 2 or 3%. You are running a balance on that card instead of paying your bills on time, which means you’re paying a modest interest rate and the balance is accumulating. In terms of your credit card spending, you have an operating deficit – you’ve spent more than you paid back. But in this example, the amount you’re spending on the card isn’t that big compared to your income and savings. That balance may not be a great idea: eventually, you’ll have to pay it off, that could be a pain to do if you let it pile up too much, and if it goes on too long the interest rate will go up. But you don’t have a serious problem because you have the money to pay for what you’re spending, even if you aren’t paying your bills on time.

Now picture the opposite situation: you’re spending way more every month than you earn, but you’re still paying your bills each month by raiding your savings account. You don’t have a credit card balance, and thus don’t have an operating deficit – but you do have a serious problem, because you are spending more than you’re making, you’re using up your savings instead of adding to them, and sooner or later your savings will run out and you won’t be able to keep this up. You’ll be broke.

The credit card balance in these examples is the operating budget deficit – it tells you whether or not you’re paying your bills on time. But it doesn’t tell you whether you’re spending more than you (the American taxpayer) can afford.

To know whether we are spending more than we can afford, we have to compare government spending to the nation’s income (ie, the money being made by the taxpayers), not to how much of that income is being used in a given month or year to pay the bills when they come due. Sure, a big balance is often a sign that you’re spending too much – but you can’t cure that problem, long term, by raiding your life savings to pay this month’s bill. You can only fix it by bringing your spending in line with how much money you make in the first place. In the real world, that means we have to ask, not whether the government is taxing us enough to pay its bills, but whether the government is running up bills we can’t afford to pay with the money we make. The government can’t fix the problem of spending more than we can afford by taxing us to stay current on its bills; if it does, we’re just raiding the private sector’s savings and income to pay for today’s spending, depleting the money that’s left over to pay tomorrow’s bills. Over-reliance on operating deficits to measure fiscal health ignores this dimension by assuming that a government that is eating the private sector’s seed corn to pay today’s bills on time is healthier than one that is living well within a society’s means but doing so partly by issuing debt.

II. The Growth Deficit

What I’ve explained above is the overall parameters. The proper measurement, in my view, is to compare the total spending by the federal government to total private sector income, which can – depending how you look at these things – be measured by private-sector GDP or by Gross Domestic Income. Phil Kerpen, for example, makes the case for using private-sector GDP.

Economist and investment manager Rob Arnott adds another way of looking at the question, arguing that besides private sector GDP we can look at what he calls “structural GDP” – GDP minus the operating deficit. The theory for that is that including operating deficits in GDP growth figures lets the government massage the numbers:

Let’s sup­pose the gov­ern­ment wants to daz­zle us with 5% growth next quar­ter (equiv­a­lent to 20% annu­al­ized growth!). If they bor­row an addi­tional 5% of GDP in new addi­tional debt and spend it imme­di­ately, this mag­nif­i­cent GDP growth is achieved! We would all see it as phony growth, sab­o­tag­ing our national bal­ance sheet – right? Maybe not. We are already bor­row­ing and spend­ing 2% to 3% each quar­ter, equiv­a­lent to 10% to 12% of GDP, and yet few observers have decried this as arti­fi­cial GDP growth because we’re not accus­tomed to look­ing at the under­ly­ing GDP before deficit spending!

From this per­spec­tive, real GDP seems unreal, at best. GDP that stems from new debt – mainly deficit spending – is phony: it is debt-financed con­sump­tion, not pros­per­ity. Isn’t GDP, after exclud­ing net new debt oblig­a­tions, a more rel­e­vant mea­sure? Deficit spend­ing is sup­posed to trig­ger growth in the remain­der of the econ­omy, net of deficit-financed spend­ing, which we can call our “Struc­tural GDP.” If Struc­tural GDP fails to grow as a con­se­quence of our deficits, then deficit spend­ing has failed in its sole and sin­gu­lar purpose.

I’ll return to Arnott’s charts later, but one of the things that’s frustrating in evaluating this issue is that consistently collected private GDP figures over time are not that easy to come by. The BEA has them in one dataset from 1963-97 and a different method of collecting the data from 1997-2010, although the numbers appear to be reported in “current dollars.” (General note: I’m happy to hear from people who have better ways to skin this particular cat in terms of measurements). The fact that we’re not reporting a regular, widely-used and easily available private sector growth measurement is itself a symptom of the failure to popularize thinking in these terms.

Another methodological problem is that federal operating deficits tend not to get reported honestly. USA Today had a big cover story this morning on this, noting the various items (like new liabilities for entitlements) that get exempted from officially reported deficits. USA Today’s chart illustrates the impact:

A proper picture of our fiscal health would look at three variables – private sector GDP compared to spending and debt. (It would also look at state and local government spending and debt. In fact, a good deal of the explosive growth of federal spending the past several decades, in particular in the Medicaid, education and transportation areas, involves the state governments effectively borrowing money on the federal government’s low credit rating to cover their own operating deficits). That’s the balance that really matters: keeping our public spending in line with the source of income that ultimately pays for it. But it would then also track the relationship of those variables over time to see if we are headed in a positive direction (the private sector growing faster than our public obligations) or a negative one, as we are now.

That’s the problem of the Growth Deficit. We’re already spending too much of what we earn, and that in and of itself puts a crimp in the base from which we grow the private sector. But the bigger problem is that the relationship between public spending and private-sector growth has been getting worse, and is projected to get a lot worse. We have to look, over the multi-year view, at whether government spending – including things like entitlement spending and interest on debt that grow on auto-pilot – is growing faster than the private sector economy.

The picture isn’t pretty. Here is Arnott’s chart, in small format and clickable blow-out format, showing the trend since 1944 (in inflation-adjusted per capita terms) in – among other things – structural and private sector GDP (the yellowish and greenish lines, respectively), and federal outlays (the brown dotted line). Even adjusting for the fact that Arnott uses a different visual scale to measure federal receipts and outlays than to measure GDP figures, the trend of convergence between the federal outlays line and the private sector GDP line is alarming:

The larger version:

(Click to view full size)

The debt trend is not encouraging either. I don’t have comparable numbers to do a proper chart of the ratio of debt to private sector GDP, and I continue to apply Crank’s First Law of Government Financial Forecasts (i.e., they are always, always wrong), but basically every measure available shows a sharp increase over the past few years, and as Phil Klein illustrates, even the White House’s own numbers show only a slight projected decrease in the rate of debt growth from 2012:

III. Spending Fairy Tales

Enter the Obama White House and its allies, which are touting an ‘analysis’ by Rex Nutting of Marketwatch supposedly showing that spending has actually grown slower under Obama than under past presidents. James Pethokoukis explains here and here some of the reasons why this is nonsense (make sure to read both), and presents these two graphs to illustrate the real story. First, the properly illustrated rates of spending growth:

Second, the properly illustrated share of GDP – and again, this is comparing to GDP as a whole (including both tax-financed and debt-financed government spending, rather than just compared to the private sector).

(UPDATE: Brian Darling has more on exactly why the Democrats were responsible for the 2009 budget)

And note, these are for years before the new Obamacare spending entitlement and Medicaid expansion go into full effect, plus before the waves of retiring Baby Boomers start exploding the rates of spending by Social Security and Medicare. As this NY Times graphic illustrates, entitlements have been driving the real per capita growth of government for years:

But there’s more! This enormous and excellent graphic by Political Math (again, I’m indebted to the work that went into these graphics, make sure to click the links and follow for a full explanation) shows exactly how many other bits of hacktastic dishonesty had to go into that Rex Nutting analysis:

So much of our public debate over spending and debt involves numbers with, as PJ O’Rourke once put it, vapor trails of zeroes after them, and it is dreary work indeed trying to make sense of them all. But our analytical framework should remain constant: the voters need to understand exactly how large a share of private sector income is being spent by government or borrowed against by government, and whether we are growing the private sector faster or slower than the public sector. Until we start framing the issue in those terms, we are not even asking the right questions.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/05/24/the-growth-deficit-and-spending-fairy-tales/ Apparently, Ron Barber – the Democrat running to replace Gabby Giffords in the AZ-08 special election – has a bit of a problem with the entire ‘Democrat’ thing: “[Republican nominee Jesse] Kelly asked Barber to declare who he’ll vote for in November for president, and Barber – although a Democrat with an incumbent president of his party – refused, saying he’s focused on his own campaign.” This is a somewhat eyebrow-raising evasion – one would think that a Democrat currently running in a Democratic-held seat with a Democrat in the White House would be less coy – and it tells us several things:

• As @chucktodd noted, this is a tacit admission that the AZ-08 race is very, very close. Close enough that Barber doesn’t want people associating his name with the President’s.
• And as The Madison Project noted, this is an incredibly disingenuous evasion anyway. Of course Barber will be voting for Obama. More importantly, if both he and Democrats somehow win in November Barber will also be voting for Pelosi to become Speaker of the House again. And he’ll be voting for every stupid thing on the wish list of the liberal fringe running the Democratic party right now – with one or two exceptions, solely to make it look like Barber is independent. That was what they tried to do in the 111th Congress, after all; and there’s no sign that the have Democrats learned any better.
• Finally, and this is me noting this: anybody who still seriously thinks that the Obama campaign has a shot at winning Arizona should consider that the people who actually have to run in Arizona apparently have a different opinion. If Ron Barber doesn’t dare bring up Barack Obama’s name in a special election in June, what are the odds that people are going to give that name a better reception in November?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Special election is June 12. Jesse Kelly for AZ-08.

[UPDATE/PPS]: Well, that didn’t take long. Kind of futile – Barber’s original statement was made during the only debate that they’re having for the special, which means that this ‘clarification’ of his announcing Barber’s support for Obama in November probably won’t have the same legs – but then, said clarification isn’t really for Barber’s benefit. The Obama administration has a vested interest in acting as if they have a chance in Arizona; they don’t particularly have a vested interest in keeping the AZ-08 seat. They should, but they don’t.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2012/05/24/ron-barber-d-cand-az-08-refused-to-say-whether-hed-vote-for-barack-obama-in-november/ The Romney Campaign is out with another positive video about what a Romney Presidency would be like “Day One, Part Two.”

In the “Part Two” video we are told that on his first day in office, President Romney will:

1. Announce deficit reductions, ending the Obama era of big government and helping to secure our kids’ futures.
2. Stand up to China on trade — demanding they play by the rules.
3. President Romney will begin repealing job-killing regulations that are costing the economy billions.

Last week the Romney campaign released “Day One.” In that video, we learned that  President Romney would start his presidency by approving the Keystone Pipeline creating thousands of jobs, introducing tax reform to encourage job growth, and begin to replace ObamaCare.

In a written statement, the Romney campaign compares the proposed actions to be taken during the first day of a Romney presidency to more of the “same old Liberal policies” under a reelected President Obama.

More Deficits, More Government

According to the Congressional Budget Office, President Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade — even after taking credit for reduced war costs. 

More of Inaction on China

The Associated Press reports that the Obama administration continues to decline to label China a currency manipulator even after seeing recent increases in the value of the renminbi compared with the dollar. According to the Associated Press, the decision angers manufacturing groups, which have accused China of artificially holding down the value of its currency, the renminbi, to gain trade advantages. 

More Job-Killing Regulations that Hurt the Economy

Obama has delayed until after the election decisions on regulating ozone levels and rear view cameras for cars. Rules still need to be written to carry out much of Obama’s signature first-term domestic policy initiatives, the healthcare overhaul and the Dodd-Frank law regulating the financial industry.

Approving the Keystone Pipeline, introducing tax reform to encourage job growth, replacing ObamaCare and demanding China play by trade rules would be a good start for any presidency.

]]> http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2012/05/24/day-one-president-romneys-first-day-part-two/

Another Assault With "Other" In Wilwaukee, WI

Mayor Tom Barrett likes to brag that he has lowered violent crime in Milwaukee, WI. As Caleb Howe pointed out yesterday in Daily Links, Mayor Barrett currently makes this a centerpiece of his campaign against Scott Walker to become the governor of Wisconsin. He has lowered violent crime in Milwaukee. But as Erick points out, only for certain values of violent that are limited and not applicable to things like getting smacked around good and hard with a belt while tied up with duct tape.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, over 500 known cases of aggravated assault have been mischaracterized as less serious crimes. Here is an example of what the Milwaukee PD no longer considers a serious assault.

During the argument, Moss’ boyfriend broke several things in their apartment, which upset her. She took a 5-inch knife and stabbed him twice in the chest and in the back, causing lacerations and a small puncture wound.

This was described by the police as an apparent minor injury. By misclassifying the weapon as “Other” instead of describing it as a knife, the incident was kept out of the database of serious violent crimes. Therefore it statistically did not count.

Another typical incident of “kids having some fun” involved a man named “Milo” walking up to a man and striking him on the head with a crowbar. This caused a serious head wound. By changing the weapon used from crowbar to “Other”, the police could once again successfully characterize the incident as a minor assault.

Among the various weaponry classified as “Other by the Milwaukee PD, we have pool cues, screwdrivers, knives, and my personal choice from the armory known as “Other”: The Good Old, All-American 2X4. I love how the police report narrative informs us that the assailant wailed on the victim with a 2X4 “without the consent of the victim.”

The humorous aspects of this political chicanery aside, there is a severely evil side to this that stifles the laughter at this obvious attempt to hide the truth. In the sickening case of one John Sanford, charged with misdemeanor assault, we read the following.

Known actor intentionally restrained the victim, a six year old child by tying his hands and legs together with duct tape. Known actor also put duct tape over victim’s mouth. Known actor then intentionally struck the victim multiple times with a black belt all over his body while restrained and unclothed causing multiple patterned linear marks, bruising and pain all over his body without consent.

I’m the father of a young boy who turns 6 next month. Pardon me a few minutes while I enter the html rant tags.

Mayor Barrett, I assume you worship a god that loves six year old boys rather than one that accepts them as sacrifices like a Phoenician Ba’al. I assume you would take great personal umbrage (or maybe take a break from the all-important Tom Barrett Career and notice) if one of your family members were beaten 90 times with a belt because the assailant had the desire to “make him **** himself.” So unless these assumptions give you far too much credit for being a normal, loving and sapient human being instead of a self-interested, despicable, careerist reptile, you WILL do the following:

1) The police chief who thought of the brilliant idea of classifying knives, screwdrivers, crowbars and 2X4s as “Other” so that he could Roger his Aggravated Assault stats and look like Mr. Law and Order needs to be fired. Get in a (expletive deleted) time machine and fire his (expletive) yesterday, Mr. Mayor.

2) Tell the people who sell insurance, hire security, open businesses and make decisions as to where to live and send their children to school in Milwaukee that you are a lying, amoral, careerist scumbag who has deliberately misrepresented the safety of their community so that you could pad your (expletive deleted) curriculum vitae.

3) You (EXPLETIVE) WILL personally apologize to that six year old boy. If that child’s relatives would like to beat you with an “Other” until you **** yourself, you will comply. Don’t forget to thank them when you finish relieving yourself.

Oh, and best of luck with that charming career you’ve got going. That is all. End Rant.

Download audio here

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Joy Pullman, to discuss Mitt Romney’s education plan, his school choice proposal, and how he would change higher-ed.

We’re brought to you as always by Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

A Chance for Every Child
Romney Comes Out for School Choice
Romney’s Boldest Education Idea Would Never Become Reality
Joy Pullmann at The Heartland Institute

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

The Journal Sentinel found enough misreported cases in 2011 alone that violent crime would have increased 1.1% instead of falling 2.3% from the reported 2010 figures, which had their own errors.

Dozens of misclassified assaults were sent to FBI crime reporting experts, who confirmed that they should have been marked as aggravated assaults, which are counted in the city’s violent crime rate.

When even violent crime becomes a political topic to be fudged in advance of the left’s agenda, you know the situation has gone Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull bad for them. Oh, and we are at 7 of the 7 most recent polls having Scott Walker ahead of Tom Barrett.

Thanks unions for blowing all your cash and credibility in Wisconsin!