Paul Krugman has often touted the wonders of the information coming out of the Congressional Budge Office (CBO).  This was especially true during the health care bill and stimulus debates.  James Taranto hits some of the highlights.

"The Congressional Budget Office has looked at the future of American health insurance, and it works. . . . Last week the budget office scored the full proposed legislation from the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). And the news–which got far less play in the media than the downbeat earlier analysis–was very, very good. Yes, we can reform health care."–former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, New York Times, July 6, 2009

"Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded, the proposed legislation would reduce, not increase, the budget deficit. And by giving us a chance, finally, to rein in the ever-growing spending of Medicare, it would greatly improve our long-run fiscal prospects."–Krugman, New York Times, Dec. 4, 2009

"The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2050 the emissions limits in recent proposed legislation would reduce real G.D.P. by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent from what it would otherwise have been. If we split the difference, that says that emissions limits would slow the economy’s annual growth over the next 40 years by around one-twentieth of a percentage point–from 2.37 percent to 2.32 percent. That’s not much."–Krugman, New York Times, Dec. 7, 2009

"Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap [for cutting Medicare costs, offered by Rep. Paul Ryan], offers a translation: ‘Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.’ In short, there would be Medicare cuts."–Krugman, New York Times, Feb. 12, 2010

"And it gets better as we go further into the future: the Congressional Budget Office has just concluded, in a new report, that the arithmetic of reform [ObamaCare] will look better in its second decade than it did in its first."–Krugman, New York Times, March 12, 2010

"As Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, recently put it, ‘There is no intrinsic contradiction between providing additional fiscal stimulus today, while the unemployment rate is high and many factories and offices are underused, and imposing fiscal restraint several years from now, when output and employment will probably be close to their potential.’ "–Krugman, New York Times, July 2, 2010

"That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus."–Krugman, New York Times, July 5, 2010

But as soon as a Republican starts to use CBO numbers to show how his plan for overhauling federal spending and taxes, well suddenly it is simplicity itself to game the system.

"What you need to realize is that the CBO is the servant of members of Congress, which means that if a Congressman asks it to analyze a plan under certain assumptions, it will do just that–no matter how unrealistic the assumptions may be."–Krugman, NYTimes.com, Aug. 6, 2010

This bit of information would have been good to give to his readers back in the day.  You know, those readers who take everything he says at face value.

Glenn Reynolds notes, there’s that word again.

Jobless Claims in U.S. Unexpectedly Climb to Three-Month High

More Americans than projected filed applications for unemployment insurance last week, indicating firings remain elevated as the recovery moderated.

Initial jobless claims climbed by 19,000 to 479,000 in the week ended July 31, the most since April and exceeding the highest estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people receiving unemployment benefits dropped, while those getting extended payments rose.

And there’s talk of more and more bailouts, because hey, they’ve worked so well so far, eh?  Eighteen months and billions upon billions of dollars later, this is the Obama economy.  Inheriting a mess is one thing; making it worse is your own doing.

I’ve been on vacation for about 10 days, so I have some catch-up to do here.  Here are some stories I noticed over the break.  Others will get their own post.

"Young Men’s Christian Association" to be renamed "Young".  This is ostensibly to remain more inclusive, but it’s not like folks have been staying away in droves or anything.  Just some more political correctness, removing even the hint of anything Christian in our culture, even if only ever referred to by its initial.

Handing out the Gospel of John is now "disturbing the peace" in Dearborn, Michigan.  Four kids from a group called Acts 17 Apologetics face jail time for handing out the text and talking to people at a Muslim festival.  The link on their name goes to their YouTube channel.  I’ve watched some of the videos, and I just don’t see "harassment" or "disturbing" going on.

Christian beliefs are now "unethical" when it comes to counseling, according to Augusta (GA) State University.  They want Jennifer Keeton to agree to a plan that includes "diversity sensitivity training" and changing her beliefs before they will allow her to graduate.  Read the article and, even if you disagree with her, tell me that this doesn’t sound like Soviet Russia.

The "JournoList" situation really blew up while I was out.  Oh, that liberal media.  Kenneth Anderson said it best, "To all you non-JournoLister reporters out there, please be aware that your credibility has just taken a big hit, because we, your faithful readers, don’t actually know who is or who isn’t.  You can thank JournoList for that, you can thank Ezra Klein, and you can thank the Washington Post, which has done its outstanding professionals absolutely no favors in any of this."

When even Democrats are poised to revolt over taxes (however temporary that might be), you know there’s a problem

And an appropriate cartoon from Chuck Asay:

Not that we really needed a commission to tell us this, but Obama apparently did.

The co-chairmen of President Obama’s debt and deficit commission offered an ominous assessment of the nation’s fiscal future here Sunday, calling current budgetary trends a cancer "that will destroy the country from within" unless checked by tough action in Washington.

The two leaders — former Republican senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Erskine Bowles, White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton — sought to build support for the work of the commission, whose recommendations due later this year are likely to spark a fierce debate in Congress.

They’re talking mostly about a future economic crisis, not even the current one.

Bowles said that unlike the current economic crisis, which was largely unforeseen before it hit in fall 2008, the coming fiscal calamity is staring the country in the face. "This one is as clear as a bell," he said. "This debt is like a cancer."

So where’s all the money going?

The commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans — the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Entitlement spending has become the federal government’s primary purpose these days, despite there not being anything in the Constitution specifying this role.  And because people feel, indeed, entitled to it, cutting always has been and always will be, extremely difficult if not politically impossible.

And remember, this is before ObamaCare. 

What’s their recommendation?

"We can’t grow our way out of this," Bowles said. "We could have decades of double-digit growth and not grow our way out of this enormous debt problem. We can’t tax our way out. . . . The reality is we’ve got to do exactly what you all do every day as governors. We’ve got to cut spending or increase revenues or do some combination of that."

Bowles pointed to steps taken recently by the new coalition government in Britain, which also faces an acute budgetary problem, as a guide to what the commission might use in its recommendations. That would mean about three-quarters of the deficit reduction would be accomplished through spending cuts, and the remainder with additional revenue.

I remember what got George Bush (the first one) essentially fired from the Presidency.  He promised, "Read my lips; no new taxes."  He then proceeded to go along with Congressional Democrats who bargained with him to raise taxes with promises of spending cuts to come later.  The taxes went up, but the spending cuts never happened.  The public blamed Bush, but they were only half right.

Democrats now control Congress (for now).  Do you really think they’ll go for such spending cuts?  Their history over the decades suggests they’ll have nothing to do with them, and they’ll run us into the ground with debt.

If Republicans win big enough in November to change the balance of power, they had better start living up to their talk of fiscal conservatism.  But if they do, will the entitled public go along with it?

Two weeks of links to catch up!

Closing Guantanamo; big priority during the campaign, not so much now.  (Well, especially since even Democrats don’t even want to do it.)

The Obama administration turned down using Dutch oil skimmers because they couldn’t meet our stringent government environmental regulations on how pure the decontaminated water was that they dumped back into the Gulf of Mexico, right on-sight of the spill.  Instead, we transport the oily water to facilities and decontaminate it there.  Huge efficiency drop during a major catastrophe because, ironically, of environmental regulations.  Read the whole article for more things we turned down that could have averted a lot of this problem.

Our own Treasury Secretary is ignorant of economic history.  Timothy Geithner said this at the latest G-20 summit:  “One of the mistakes made in the 1930s was that countries pulled back their recovery efforts too soon, prolonging the Great Depression.”  However, precisely the opposite happened.  Recovery efforts failed, lasted too long, and that’s what prolonged the Great Depression.  NewsBusters has the charts.

School vouchers improve graduation rates.  Now we have a government study to prove what common sense already told us.

Sharia Law in the UK:  Dogs barred from buses so as not to offend Muslims.

Democrats have decided that there will be no budget this year.  Hey, at least (this time) they’re being honest about it.  I guess they’ll just spend until it doesn’t feel good anymore.  Or until they’re voted out.  Whichever comes first.

In Venezuela’s socialist paradise, the government’s Food Ministry rounds up 120 tons of rice because it might be sold above regulated prices.  At the same time, 80,000 tons of food was found rotting in government warehouses.  Government efficiency at its finest.

Another example of bait-and-switch in the passage of ObamaCare.  Obama rejected the idea that the individual mandate was a tax increase, but in defending it from state lawsuits, the administration does classify it as a tax increase.  This way, the mandate falls under a law that forbids the states from interfering in tax collections.  In addition, “an early draft of an administration regulation estimates … a majority of workers—51 percent—will be in plans subject to new federal requirements….”

If your 11-year-old asks a particular Massachusetts school for a condom, they’ll get it, no questions asked.  Also, parents objections will not be taken into consideration.  Actually, there’s no real age limit on the policy; any kid can get one.  Only in Massachusetts.  For now.

And finally, all that hard work pays off, but not the way you thought it would.  (From Chuck Asay.  Click for a larger version.)

Just had to point this out.  Since at least January, Glenn Reynolds has been noticing how often the term "unexpectedly" keeps showing up in news reports about the economy, either by the administration or by the reporters themselves.  Examples:

Jan. 8:  Employers unexpectedly cut jobs in December, even after the stimulus.

Feb. 4:  The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week.

Mar. 31:  Private payrolls dropped unexpectedly fell in March.  (Though at some point, the word "unexpectedly" was excised later.  Perhaps they realized Glenn was on to them.)

Jun. 5:  The withdrawal of federal tax credits for home buyers led to a steeper-than-expected [aka unexpected] plunge in May home sales in much of the U.S., as the housing market struggles to wean itself from government support.

Jun. 11:  Sales at retailers unexpectedly fell in May.

The first few pages of this search will give you an idea of how often this comes up.

Y’know, after all this "unexpected" bad news after the stimulus, you’d think that they’d try something different.  Instead they want to do the exact same thing.  That’s government for you.

Thomas Sowell reviews the book "Out of Work" by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallawa, which, among other things, counters the idea that it was the depression that cause the subsequent unemployment problem.  But as Sowell notes, the historical stats say something completely different.

Those who think that the stock market crash in October 1929 is what caused the huge unemployment rates of the 1930s will have a hard time reconciling that belief with the data in that table.

Although the big stock market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the next 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed– and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.

This was what happened in the market, before the federal government decided to "do something."

That "something" was government intervention.

What the government decided to do in June 1930– against the advice of literally a thousand economists, who took out newspaper ads warning against it– was impose higher tariffs, in order to save American jobs by reducing imported goods.

This was the first massive federal intervention to rescue the economy, under President Herbert Hoover, who took pride in being the first President of the United States to intervene to try to get the economy out of an economic downturn.

Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits– and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.

Oh, and there was another stock market crash, more recently, that did not result in huge unemployment.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

The very fact that we still remember the stock market crash of 1929 is remarkable, since there was a similar stock market crash in 1987 that most people have long since forgotten.

What was the difference between these two stock market crashes? The 1929 stock market crash was followed by the most catastrophic depression in American history, with as many as one-fourth of all American workers being unemployed. The 1987 stock market crash was followed by two decades of economic growth with low unemployment.

But that was only one difference. The other big difference was that the Reagan administration did not intervene in the economy after the 1987 stock market crash– despite many outcries in the media that the government should "do something."

Hat tip to Don Sensing, who has some charts and graphs to help point this out.

A typical reason couples live together before getting married is that, supposedly, this will allow them to find out if they are compatible and thus ensure their marriage lasts longer.  But a new study says, nope, they are less likely to stay married.

Read my lips; no new taxes on those making $250,000 or less.  Well, we may soon add to the many exceptions since that promise was made, "unless you own a home".

The revolving door between the MSM and the Democratic Party.  Oh, that liberal media.

If the Gulf oil spill had happened on Bush’s watch, do you really think the environmental groups would be as virtually silent as they are now?  (Me neither.)

Remember how the UN climate change panel was supposed to be the result of boatloads of scientists in agreement?  Turns out the boat was a dingy.

And from the "Beware of Governments Bearing Gifts" department:

Churches and other faith-based organizations that receive government funds, beware. In an agreement that will be enforced by a federal court, government agencies in New York have agreed to monitor the Salvation Army to ensure that it doesn’t impose religion on the people its serves through its tax-funded social services.

The agreement just effects the Salvation Army’s social work in New York, but it’s more than a cautionary tale for religious groups in this era of government-backed faith-based initiatives. "With this settlement, government is watching out," co-counsel Deborah Karpatkin of the N.Y. Civil Liberties Union said in a statement. "It will not fund religious organizations to proselytize to recipients of government-funded social services."

The Salvation Army’s social services are intended to be an expression of faith in God and love for fellow man, but if they are prevented from doing the former while performing the latter, they’re being hobbled.  My suggestion has always been to avoid government money at all costs.

Which country’s citizens see it as more socially just; the capitalistic United States, or the bit-more-socialist Germany?

70 % of Germans polled consider their economic system hardly or not at all socially just. "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds that 24% believe American society is generally unfair and discriminatory".

The very of embodiment of capitalism, the U.S., fares better in the category "social justice" than welfare state Germany, based on the subjective judgement of each population?

Makes you wonder whether Germany shouldn’t turn to American style capitalism in order to improve social justice in the country…

Hey, Michael Moore, do you hear me? Michael?

As German blogger David notes, this is a subjective measure, but it’s very interesting to see the huge disparity.  Part of this is likely due to what each country’s people consider "socially just", so that standard may be different.  But I think that’s an important issue.  I find it very likely that Germans, who have come to expect more hand-holding by their government, don’t see what their government does as enough, mostly because government can never do "enough".  At some point the individual has to own their situation, but growing up and living in a culture where this is expected, any time the government falls short (and it will fall short, a lot) is perceived as "unjust", and contributes to an overall disappointment with a government that is quite possibly redistributing much more wealth than the United States.

In the US, the pendulum can swing the other way, too.  In a country built on individualism, it’s possible that most might see the economic system as being just fine, might see those not making it as moochers, and thus consider it more "just".  But as has been noted before, the same folks who defend capitalism the most (i.e. the center-right in this country) also give more in charity personally, in both time and money, and don’t expect the government (i.e. everybody else) to do it for them.  They own their own social justice issue, and thus, I believe, see it as just.  Not perfect, because neither situation is, and people will fall through the cracks under both systems.  But they do own it themselves.

This is the title of a post by Phil Cooke on his blog "The Change Revolution".  Phil is a Christian media consultant (that is, a consultant to Christian media) and has had some big name clients.  His bio is impressive.

But I think he’s not giving churches and other Christian organizations enough credit.  As to why the changes in movies are happening, why the reduction in sex and nudity, this is his answer:

Wal-Mart.

That’s right. In 2007, the major Hollywood studios made $17.9 billion in DVD sales. The catch? $4 billion (nearly 25%) was made from selling to Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the world. But Wal-Mart actually has a policy that forces any movie with high sexuality and nudity away from the areas of highest visibility in their stores. They take those DVD’s and put them in an "adult" section that’s much harder for customers to see.

Why do they do it? They don’t want to offend moms. They know mothers are there to get family oriented DVD’s for their kids, and they represent a huge market for Wal-Mart.

OK, fair enough.  And here’s what he says isn’t working.

Although it might be hard to believe, sexuality and nudity is actually going down in movies today. And a number of Christian organizations are taking the credit. Some raise money based on telling the public they work in Hollywood "consulting" the studios, and others say they boycott or apply pressure from the outside. I don’t need to mention them, but they jump to the forefront when statistics indicate that sexuality in movies have dropped over the last number of years, and are the first in line to take credit. But the truth is, that’s bunk.

His conclusion:

Is it religious ministry organizations making the difference? Nope. Studios are discovering that it’s simply good business.

I’m not sure that the conclusion necessarily follows. He zeroes in on Moms making good choices, but if we zoom out just a tad, isn’t it very likely that many of those moms are actively participating in a boycott of some sort?  Isn’t it at least possible that knowledge of certain religious organizations’ views influence their choices? 

And what of Wal-Mart itself?  The Walton family has a background in the Presbyterian Church USA and have given millions to that church.  I find it highly likely that their decisions for the stores is influenced by their church and other religious ministries.

Are bees responsible for the production of fruit on trees?  Nope.  Each individual bee is just hungry.  OK, not the best analogy, but hopefully it serves to show that if you look too closely, you can miss a much larger picture.  I’m surprised that a guy like Cooke can miss something like this.  Perhaps the influence of religious organizations isn’t as big as those organizations themselves think.  But Cooke’s analysis by no means proves they have no influence.

Salt and light work.