Larry Kudlow is worried that Obama is ruining the economy.
August 5, 2011 4:30 P.M.
More Obama Spending Won’t Do It
And stocks know it.
There he goes again.
Because quoting Reagan is cool.
Out on the campaign trail, President Obama is proposing more federal spending as his answer to sluggish growth and jobs. That won’t do it, Mr. President.Yes, when the private sector doesn't provide jobs, don't look to the government to provide jobs. That just won't do it, Obama. That just...won't....do!
He wants more infrastructure spending, undoubtedly in the form of an infrastructure bank. That’s a terrible idea. It’s borrowed from Latin America, where bloated and corrupt bureaucratic construction agencies have helped bankrupt any number of countries in the past.It's also borrowed from Roosevelt, but we all know how he secretly created the Depression by spending money.
He wants to lengthen 99-week unemployment insurance, although numerous studies have shown that continuous unemployment benefits are associated with higher unemployment.I want to bronze that comment and turn it into an ashtray. Numerous studies have show that UI is associated with high unemployment! Obviously, the only solution is to stop handing out UI, and then we'll have no more unemployment.
And he wants to extend the temporary payroll tax credit, which is not a permanent reduction in marginal tax rates, has no incentive effect, has not worked so far, and is really a form of federal spending — not real tax relief.How the rich suffer so from their high taxes.
Earlier this week, when he signed the debt-ceiling bill, the president ranted on about the need to raise tax rates on successful earners, investors, and small businesses. He’s trying to bring back tax hikes as part of the phase-two special committee seeking additional deficit reduction, even though his own party rebuffed him on this in the late stages of the debt talks. All this is a prescription to grow government, not the economy.
Reagan actually raised taxes when it was necessary while Obama is just talking about raising taxes, but as we all know, the Reagan years were a bit of a blur for Kudlow.
What the economy needs, Mr. President, is a strong dose of new incentives, with pro-growth tax reform that flattens marginal rates and broadens the base for individuals and businesses. This includes moving to territorial taxation that ends the double tax on foreign earnings of U.S. companies. Plus, we desperately need a complete moratorium on federal regulations. As Sen. Barrasso recently noted, the government put out 379 new rules on business in July alone, amounting to $9.5 billion in additional costs.Because US companies pay far, far too much in taxes. Just ask the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
The U.S. corporate tax burden is smaller than average for developed countries. Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent.
Nevertheless, some have argued that U.S. corporate tax rates unduly burden U.S. companies by pointing to the country’s top statutory tax rate, which is 35 percent. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial calling for corporate tax cuts noted that this is the second highest top statutory tax rate among developed countries. While true, this gives the false impression that the corporate tax burden is greater here than in other developed countries. Because the U.S. tax code offers so many deductions, credits, and other mechanisms by which corporations can reduce their taxes, the actual percentage of profits that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — or what analysts refer to as their effective tax rate — is not high, compared to other developed countries.
Because the average U.S. corporate tax burden is low, many economists believe a revenue-neutral corporate tax reform that reduces statutory corporate tax rates, while broadening the tax base by eliminating costly tax breaks, could improve economic efficiency and likely benefit the U.S. economy.
None of these pro-growth reforms are in sight. So the stock market is going through a nasty 10 percent correction over fears of another recession (and European debt default).
That’s definitely not a recession reading.
Yes, you read that right. Kudlow says we are not in a recession. From an earlier post:
Strong profits, easy money, and Tea Party gains argue against it.
Stocks and bond yields are sinking as Wall Street disses the debt deal and instead focuses on a likely double-dip recession.
Everyone is gloomy. But is this pessimism getting a little overbaked?
Granted, the economy is sputtering, with less than 1 percent growth in the first half of the year. But if there is a recession in the cards, it will be the first time one occurs when the yield curve is steeply positive (an ultra-easy Fed) and corporate profits are strong.
And since we do have ultra-easy money and strong profits, I don’t believe we’re heading into a recession. Nor do I believe stocks will continue to swoon.
The principal reason for the sub-par first-half economy is the rise of inflation, which severely damaged real incomes and consumer spending. We experienced a mini oil shock, which has dampened the whole economy. Actually, it’s worth remembering that oil shocks and inverted yield curves, along with falling profits, are the most important leading indicators of recessions. We don’t have this right now.
Back to the present:
But at least we got some good news on jobs. The July jobs report came in stronger than expected. It’s not great. But at least nonfarm payrolls increased 117,000 — as the prior two months were revised upward by 56,000 — while private payrolls gained 154,000.The US New and World Report begs to differ.
That’s definitely not a recession reading. But neither is it a strong performance. If the economy were really rebounding, we would be creating 300,000 new jobs a month.
In the report, the unemployment rate slipped to 9.1 percent from 9.2 percent. But that’s mostly because nearly 200,000 workers left the civilian labor force. Another negative is the household employment survey, which fell 38,000 in July after dropping nearly half a million in June. That survey measures job creation among small owner-operated businesses or the lack thereof.
Yet when looking at the new jobs report, along with reasonable gains in chain-store sales and car sales, plus the ISM Purchasing Managers reports (which stayed above the 50 percent line), I repeat my thought that we are not headed for a double-dip recession.
According to the latest figures, the U.S. economy created 117,000 new jobs, causing the unemployment rate to drop slightly, from 9.2 percent in June to 9.1 percent in July. But, as Jeff Cox writes over at CNBC, "there is far more than meets the eye" to this bit of economic good news, which is certainly nothing to cheer about.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics breakdown says there were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before, or a drop of 38,000. That's because, as a number of labor economists point out, the disparity is the result of something the government calls "discouraged workers"—people who don't have jobs but were not looking for work during the reporting period."
This is where the numbers showed a really big spike—up from 982,000 to 1.119 million, a difference of 137,000 or a 14 percent increase. These folks are generally not included in the government's various job measures," Cox wrote, adding that if you count those people as part of the workforce, the job creation and drop in unemployment disappear.
Other signs of continued weakness in the recovery include that the percentage of long-term unemployed remained unchanged in July and that the labor force participation rate has continued its downward trend since the beginning of the recession, dropping 0.2 percentage point to 63.9 percent in July. This is, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee reports, "the lowest labor participation rate in the United States since January 1984." [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]
Addressing the weak numbers, the White House continues to point fingers almost everywhere except at itself—which is where the blame belongs. President Barack Obama, who, along with congressional Democratic leaders, promised that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent as long as the stimulus package was approved, has yet to explain how he could have been so tragically wrong.
The great thing about being a conservative is that no matter what it happening, it proves that their economic theories are correct. Kudlow:
Over two years of so-called economic recovery, growth has averaged about 2.5 percent. It fell to less than 1 percent in the first half of this year, largely from a commodity-price shock that included oil-, gasoline-, and food-price spikes. That price shock resulted mainly from the Fed’s QE2 depreciation of the dollar — a big mistake. It eroded real consumer incomes and spending.Let's ask Economicst Online what it thinks about the dollar.
Put dollar depreciation in historical perspective
It's a brand new year. I thought I’d have some big-picture review of what’s going on in the world economy today. Here is my first piece on US dollar.
The graph below will scare you a lot…in fact, the dollar index fall from 115 in 2002 to mid 70s at the end of 2007, that equals a 33% drop.
Hmmm, a sharp drop, isn’t it? But wait a minute, have we witnessed the similar happened before? Let’s look at the following graph and have some historical perspective. From 1985 to 1989, the trade-weighted dollar index actually had a bigger fall, from 145 to 90, almost down 38%, and it fell even further until 1995.Holy Dollar Depreciation, Batman! It fell even more under Reagan than it did during Obama!
Lately, the dollar has stabilized and energy prices have come down quite a bit. That will reduce inflation and support better consumer spending. Businesses are already highly profitable and cash-rich. They are investing some of that, but not nearly enough to create sufficient new jobs. Who would, with all these Washington policies?It's not lack of demand, it's politics!
Finally, the Fed remains ultra-easy with excess liquidity and a zero interest rate.
So it looks to me like we will return to the sub-par 2.5 percent growth trend rather than dip back into recession. However, at this pace, unemployment may hover around 9 percent right up to election time next year.
More spending won’t do it Mr. President. Tax and regulatory incentives will.
Cut taxes and regulations and watch the economy boom--for the very rich. Who are doing quite well now as it is.
Even Larry Kudlow doesn't take Larry Kudlow seriously. Because Larry not only knows he's a joke on Wall Street--he's dumb enough to think he's actually in on the joke.
I think you speeled Cokehead Larry wrong, Susan.
P.S. This is always a good link when discussing these matters.
Would someone get the man a short skirt and pompoms? The man is just a cheerleader for the stock market (with a crush on the Reagan). He doesn't really watch the 'game'.
I have been meaning to do some research into Kudlow and Stephen Moore's political activities--they don't just cheerlead, they were/are involved with the precurser of FreedomWorks and the Club For Growth and political advocacy/lobbying.
Good to see you pivoting to this guy for a while, Susan.
The fact that "there he goes again" is to this day regarded as an devastating riposte, and not an lame, ineffectual retort is proof of the ignorance and shallowness of the journalists who cover presidential campaigns. The context of Reagan's barb was Carter's entirely accurate citation of Reagan's hysterical, hallucinatory prophecy, from the early 1960s, that Medicare would lead to the end of private medicine in particular and free enterprise in general. "There he goes again" was the "fuzzy math" of 1980.
Reagan's handlers came up with "there you go again" as a sort of standalone all-purpose riposte, and told Reagan to use it when the opportunity arose.
I was watching the debate with my then-girlfriend, a staunch Republican at 20, and I learned a valuable lesson that evening. The fact that Carter was discussing facts and making perfect sense counted for nothing as far as she was concerned. All that mattered was that her candidate had successfully insulted the other guy.
Blivet's story nicely captures one of the defining characteristics of movement conservatism: resentment. The masters of the craft (Limbaugh) whine about persecution while simultaneously being bomb-throwing bullies.
He’s trying to bring back tax hikes as part of the phase-two special committee seeking additional deficit reduction, even though his own party rebuffed him on this in the late stages of the debt talks.
What a lying sack of shit. I assume Kudlow referring to Reid's proposal, which dropped raising taxes on the rich because the GOP would never agree to them, even though it would be good policy.
As for Stephen Moore, he was pimping a flat tax and other plutocrat-pleasing policies the other day on NPR. He's been at it for a long time.
Congrats on the Angry Bear cross-post, Susan, especially for that pompous, cherry-picking, supply-side troll! How dare you, a mere woman mother, doubt the divinity of Supply-Side Jesus Reagan?!?
(Also, boo to no strikethroughs allowed in the preceding paragraph. Curse you, Blogger!)
Thanks, Batocchio. Not many people go for the "you're just a woman, what do you know?" line of attack these days. I guess he's just old-fashioned.
It must be kind of annoying for him to realize that even a person who knows almost nothing about economics can tell he is full of baloney.
Post a Comment