So is Boehner suggesting the US government regulate all drug prices?

GOP House Speaker John Boehner planned to bring CEOs to President Obama's "jobs" speech tonight in order to argue that American regulations are crushing jobs.

Safi Bahcall is the CEO of Synta, a biopharmaceutical company focused on creating new drugs for treating cancer. Hampered by an increasingly uncompetitive American business environment, Bahcall is advocating for the research and development tax credit to be made permanent. More favorable tax incentives in France and Canada have encouraged Synta to out-source work to Canada and the company is currently weighing the potential of moving American jobs to France.

First off, it's interesting that Boehner is elevating a man thinking of exporting US jobs to France. That hardly makes the guy a hero in GOP circles.

Second, I'm sure Synta's consideration of moving their US jobs to France has nothing to do with the fact that the French, reportedly, make far less on average than US workers.

And finally, since Boehner is busy lauding the French regulatory environment for pharmaceuticals, is Boehner suggesting that he's okay with the federal regulation of drug prices? Because in France the government negotiates drug prices down to 1/3 to 1/6 of what Americans pay for the same drugs manufactured by the same company. For example, just two weeks ago I bought 30 200mg pills of Celebrex in France for 18 euros ($25). The same drug, made by the same firm, in the US cost me around $155 at Harris Teeter (and $136 at Costco). That's thanks to the French regulatory environment.

So is John Boehner suggesting that the US government negotiate US drug prices down to 1/6th of their current value? Read the rest of this post...

Credible terror threat related to 9/11 anniversary

CNN's Security Clearance blog:

U.S. officials said Thursday evening they have "specific, credible but unconfirmed" information about a threat against the United States coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"We have received credible information very recently about a possible plot directed at the homeland that seems to be focused on New York and Washington, D.C.," a senior administration official told CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr.

The plot is believed to involve three individuals who have possibly entered the United States, at least one believed to be a U.S. citizen, the official said.

U.S. officials believe the threat is a vehicle laden with explosives but "the intelligence picture is not completely formed," the official said. "Not enough is known about the potential operatives and their plotting."

Read the rest of this post...

CBO confirms (again) that the stimulus worked

From First Read:

Last month, the CBO released its analysis of the economic impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or what’s better known as the stimulus for the second quarter of the year. That report said that although the effects of the stimulus are waning, the economic situation of the country would’ve been worse without it.

Specifically it said the stimulus raised real gross domestic product by between 0.8 and 2.5 percent, lowered unemployment by 0.5 to 1.6 percent and increased jobs by 1 to 2.9 million.

Even as it loses steam, the CBO still estimates the stimulus will raise real GDP in 2012 by 0.3 to 0.8 percent and create 0.4 to 1.1 million jobs.

The reason unemployment went up overall is because the stimulus wasn't big enough. Unemployment could have been as high as 11% to 12%, but the stimulus kept it down to 10% (at its highest). So yes, it is possible for unemployment to rise a the same time the stimulus is working (think of it as your fever rising, but to a lesser degree, because you took half an aspirin instead of the whole thing - had you taken no aspirin at all, your fever would have been much worse). It's not that difficult a concept to grasp, but the Republicans are hoping the public is gullible enough to buy their lies, and sadly, they often are.

I'm still waiting for the mainstream media to do some stories on why the GOP keeps lying about the stimulus.  It's all well and good for first read to publish the CBO data, but how about a story looking at why the GOP talking points about the President's speech tonight YET AGAIN include lies about the stimulus? Read the rest of this post...

White Hosue background details on American Jobs Act

FACT SHEET.american Jobs Act Read the rest of this post...

Telecast of Obama’s address to joint session of Congress on "Jobs", 7pm Eastern

Read the rest of this post...

Excerpts of President’s Jobs speech

What time is the speech? 7pm Eastern (I didn't even realize it was that early). Here are some excerpts.

The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The question tonight is whether we’ll meet ours. The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy; whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning.

Those of us here tonight cannot solve all of our nation’s woes. Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers. But we can help. We can make a difference. There are steps we can take right now to improve people’s lives.

I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans – including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.

The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for the long-term unemployed. It will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business. It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan right away.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP talking points caught lying about Obama jobs speech and payroll tax holiday

Here's a snippet of the GOP talking points on the the President's jobs speech tonight, specifically as it concerns the payroll tax holiday:

"Now the White House is calling for an [payroll tax holiday] extension when there have been no signs that the temporary measure worked in the first place," the GOP talking points state. (emphasis added)

Not surprisingly, the Republican talking points are a lie.  I don't know why it still bothers me that the Republicans are willing to lie about the future of our economy, but it does.  It is a lie to say that there are "no signs" that the payroll tax cut helped grow GDP and decrease unemployment.

First, Goldman Sachs:

1. The challenge is getting fiscal policy to neutral. We expect the drag from federal fiscal policy to become more significant in Q4 2011 and into 2012 as spending cuts begin to take hold and emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) expires on schedule in early January 2012. As we have highlighted elsewhere (see most recently “What Turns a Stall into a Slump?” US Economics Analyst, August 12, 2011) another important risk to the outlook is the potential expiration of the payroll tax cut, which would raise the tax burden on households by roughly $110bn annually and could potentially reduce growth by as much as two-thirds of a percentage point in early 2012 if it expired. While our forecast assumes that EUC expires on schedule and that spending cuts take effect as planned, it also assumes that the payroll tax cut will be extended. Still, even with an extension of the payroll tax cut for one year, the contraction in the federal fiscal stance from 2011 to 2012 will be more than 1% of GDP, or around $160bn. Thus, just offsetting the expiration of existing measures looks like a challenge, let alone enacting policies that exert a net positive influence on growth in 2012.

And Macroeconomic Advisers agrees:

Extending the current holiday on the employee share of Social Security taxes through 2012 would, roughly speaking, cost $120 billion, boost real GDP growth 1/2 percentage point over the year, and raise employment 400,000 by the fourth quarter, assuming (as we do) that employers don't use the holiday as an opportunity to limit raises and or bonuses. Expanding the holiday to include the employer share of Social Security taxes would double the cost but not the stimulus, unless employers passed their tax savings on to workers. In our modeling, a cut in the employer share of payroll taxes goes almost entirely into profits with little effect on either GDP or employment. Hence, we rate expanding the payroll tax holiday to include the employer share of Social Security taxes as an ineffective way to stimulate aggregate demand and hence to boost employment.

That last bit, about including employers in the holiday, is the GOP's idea. And not surprisingly, it would have limited stimulative effect, but they want it anyway because, as always, the Republicans aren't interested in helping the country, they simply want giveaways for the wealthy and for corporate America. Read the rest of this post...

VA appeals court throws out health care reform challenge

From the Hill:

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) does not have a legal right to sue over the law's requirement that most people buy insurance. The court vacated a lower court's ruling in the case and instructed the lower court to dismiss the suit.

The Supreme Court is almost certain to have the final say on whether the coverage mandate is constitutional. Most legal observers expect the court to hear arguments during the term that begins in October, and rule in the summer of 2012.

The 4th circuit is considered rather conservative, so that makes this all the more interesting.  Time to impeach the 4th circuit, I guess. Read the rest of this post...

Press reaction: Rick Perry, shallow thinker

Reading some of the reviews of last night's Republican presidential primary debate, I can't help but praise the Washington press corps for the various, creative ways they say Rick Perry makes George W. Bush look like a strong candidate for the Fields Medal. Here's a sampling:

Jonathan Chait, The New Republic:

Perry treats questions as interruptions. ... His total liberation from the constraints of reason give Perry a chance to represent the Republican id in a way Romney simply cannot match.

Roger Simon, Politico:

What his answers sometimes lacked in logic was made up for in enthusiasm, and after some initial nervousness -he gripped the sides of his podium as if he were hanging onto a life raft - Perry settled down to his talking points."

David Frum, Frum Forum:

I was shocked and surprised at how unprofessional Perry’s debate performance was. Nervous, irritable, stuttering, floundering, he missed opportunity after opportunity.
...
What confidence can anybody have that Perry will come to work as president any better prepared than how he come to this debate or that he’ll show more insight and intelligence than he did in this first national outing ? Not much.

Aaron Blake & Chris Cillizza, Washington Post:

One of those questions is whether he can survive the detailed policy discussions. Challenged Wednesday to talk about which climate scientists he most agreed with in his doubts about global warming, Perry stumbled through a pained response that included a comparison between global warming doubters and Galileo.

While doubting global warming won’t necessarily hurt him in a Republican primary, the exchange showed that Perry can get tripped up. While he may have clear the bar set for his first debate, he also showed he can stumble in a way that Romney has not.

Gail Collins, New York Times:

Rick Perry, possibly the first major presidential candidate opposed to the direct election of U.S. senators since the advent of the Bull Moose Party. He did not do anything superweird at his maiden presidential debate, unless you count bouncing up and down and cocking his head a lot. Or claiming that the reason a quarter of the Texas population has no health insurance is because of government interference.

Cross-posted from AMERICAblog Elections: The Right's Field Read the rest of this post...

The new GOP talking point: Stimulus caused more unemployment

It's the economic equivalent of the "Obama is a socialist" charge (that Newt Gingrich made again last night during the GOP presidential debate. A charge so absurd that the President refuses to even deign its existence, while the GOP restates it incessantly, and the public slowly starts to believe simply through attrition.

The latest Republican attack on President Obama's economic policies was debuted last night on the O'Reilly Factor, and then just "coincidentally" came out of Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell's mouth this morning. Namely, that because unemployment increased after the stimulus was passed, it means the stimulus actually increased unemployment.

It's a bizarre theory. Akin to "my dog barked and then I heard the news that GDP was flat last quarter. My dog killed GDP growth." But the Republicans' political calculus, and Fox's viewer projections, are based on the assumption that their followers are a bit thick. But they're also based on the assumption that the President won't lift a finger to defend himself or his policies.

Here's what O'Reilly said:

Massive government spending has only increased unemployment - from 7.8% when Mr. Obama took office to 9.1% now.

Just O'Reilly being O'Reilly? Hardly. Mitch McConnell said basically the same thing this morning:

“Now, in a two-party system like ours, it shouldn’t be surprising that there would be two very different points of view about how to solve this particular crisis. What is surprising is the President’s apparent determination to apply the same government-driven policies that have already been tried and failed. The definition of insanity, as Albert Einstein once famously put it, is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Frankly, I can’t think of a better description of anyone who thinks the solution to this problem is another Stimulus. The first Stimulus didn’t do it. Why would another one?

“This is one question that the White House and a number of Democrats clearly don’t want to answer. That’s why some of them are out there coaching people not to use the word Stimulus when describing the President’s plan. Others are accusing anybody who criticizes it of being unpatriotic or playing politics. Well, as I’ve said, there’s a much simpler reason to oppose the President’s economic policies that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics: they don’t work. Yet, by all accounts, the President’s so-called jobs plan is to try those very same policies again, and then accuse anyone who doesn’t support them this time around of being political or overly partisan, of not doing what’s needed in this moment of crisis.

“And we also know this: the economic policies this President has tried have not alleviated the problem.

“In many ways, in fact, they’ve made things worse. Gas prices are up. The national debt is up. Health insurance premiums are up. Homes values in most places continue to fall. And two and a half years after the President’s signature jobs bill was signed into law, 1.7 million fewer Americans have jobs.

“So, I’d say that Americans have 1.7 million reasons to oppose another Stimulus. And that’s why many of us have been calling on the President to propose something different tonight. Not because of politics. But because the kind of policies he’s proposed have failed. The problem here isn’t politics. The problem is policy.

The President refused to defend the stimulus the first time around (and by "defend" I don't mean issuing the occasional press release; I mean a full-throated, ongoing PR campaign, the likes of which this White House oddly avoids like the plague). And thus the public ended up believing the lie that the stimulus didn't create a single job. And now, flush with victory, the Republicans are upping the ante and saying that the stimulus actually CAUSED more unemployment.

And why not? The Republicans know the President won't defend himself. So why not up the lie?

Joe and I have written a lot about why we get so upset with every "little" mistake the President makes. It's because the President's mistakes don't occur in a vacuum. They have serious repercussions on other, and future, policy disputes. The President's unwillingness to defend himself not only got us too small a stimulus, but it also poisoned the public's opinion of the stimulus (first, by being too small and thus not effective enough, and second, by refusing to refute the GOP's lies about the stimulus not creating a single job), which effectively killed any future possibility of additional stimulus. Thus guaranteeing the US economy will remain anemic heading into the 2012 elections, which will certainly help the GOP unseat the President. (And, putting all politics aside, a lot of people are suffering in their pocketbooks because of the President's actions.)

It's all quite predictable. And as I noted above, it's getting worse. Read the rest of this post...

Is it time for a little Democratic teabagging?

Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer are the latest Democrats to endorse the President's ill-timed deficit cutting mania. Then Reid and Hoyer will be responsible for the American economic malaise continuing for years to come. As will President Obama and any other Democrat, or Republican, who endorses this nonsense. From the Washington Post:

“Yes, I want them to go bigger than that,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday when asked whether he thought the group should shoot for more than $1.5 trillion in savings. “I’m not going to set a number, but I’d like it to be more than the minimum.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at his weekly pen-and-pad briefing that he, too, would like the committee to act with the “courage and conviction to adopt essentially the plan, the premise and the proposals” of the previous deficit-reduction commissions. He also noted that he had spoken with all of the supercommittee members except for Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

Sure, the really big budget cuts won't kick in until January of 2013. That's ostensibly to ensure that the cuts don't hurt the economy by killing already anemic demand. But who exactly thinks the economy is going to be back on its feet in January of 2013? Nobody.

The biggest concern right now is that our economy is going to remain just as it is - flaccid - for years to come. Yes, all your fears about losing your job, finding a job, being able to afford your mortgage and your car payments, being able to pay for your kids' doctor visits - it's never going to get better, at least not for a very long time, and not with the current crop of Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and the White House.

So what that means is that when the super cuts kick in, in January of 2013, the economy is going to be further thrown into chaos. Government spending will plummet, GDP growth will likely drop, unemployment will likely increase, and whatever hardship you're facing right now will almost certainly be worse. And it will be courtesy of Barack Obama, who was the first Democrat to endorse the Republican voodoo economics, and Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer and the rest of the Democrats who didn't have the backbone to stand up to a President who didn't have the backbone to stand up to the Republicans.

We're basically screwed. And if President Obama, Harry Reid, and Steny Hoyer get their way, your family is going to be much worse off financially immediately following the presidential election next year. Of course, the dilemma for Democrats is that the Republican presidential candidates, like the GOP congress, are proposing the same voodoo (after all, that's where the President cribbed his ideas in the first place). So no matter how you vote next year, you and your family are screwed.

It's time for a little Democratic teabagging. The only way to get any of these politicians to listen is to show up at their townhall meetings, show up at their fundraisers and their re-election speeches, and yell at them (it also wouldn't hurt if you stopped giving them donations - money is what they care most about, right after votes). It is beyond irresponsible that the President got us into this mess by refusing to support a bigger stimulus that we all knew was needed, and by refusing to defend the stimulus and instead endorse the lunacy of spending cuts before the economy was back on its feet. And it is beyond irresponsible that Democrats in the House and Senate refused to hold a presidential intervention a long time ago.

Your alternative is to vote for more of the same, ensuring that your family and friends will continue to face a bleak, and worsening, economic future for years to come. Oh yeah, and you can kiss Social Security and Medicare goodbye as well, because that's the Democrats' big plan to put America back to work: Push granny out of the wheelchair. In the best of times it would be a questionable policy option, but in the current never-ending economic malaise, it's suicidal.

The only way to force change is to stand up to politicians, just like the Teabaggers did during health care reform, and just like the gay community did to President Obama on a myriad of our issues.

It's amazing how well interrupting a few presidential and congressional fundraisers cleanses the political palate. Read the rest of this post...

Republicans are worried about Rick Perry’s electability

From HuffPo:

Perry has shot to the head of the Republican primary field in national polls. But conversations with Republican lawmakers and voters this week have shown that many are not convinced the Texas governor has what it takes to be the party's nominee, or beat President Obama in the general election.

"I have my doubts that Perry can beat Obama in a head-to-head," said one influential Republican donor and activist in the Northeast, who said Perry has yet to come in for his "media proctology exam."

In South Carolina earlier this week, influential Republicans were also unimpressed by Perry's lead in the national polls.

"It's not going to stay," said Glenn McCall, a national committee member from South Carolina. "It's too early."

"The folks I talk to, they're concerned" about Perry's electability...

Is this all code for, they're concerned that the rumors about Perry just might be true? Read the rest of this post...

Dick Cheney thinks Hillary should challenge Obama in 2012

This is odd on so many levels. From ABC News:

Hillary Clinton for president?

“So far she hasn’t said she would, but I think it’s not a bad idea,” former Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC’s Jonathan Karl in an interview on Wednesday to promote his new book “In My Time.”

I shudder to even suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, Cheney is simply being honest. But it's hard to imagine Cheney suggesting anything not intended to hurt Democrats, but at the same time he knows that we'll suspect anything he suggests. All around weird.

Then again, maybe even a broken Cheney... Read the rest of this post...