Author: Matt Margolis

Welcome To Double-Digit Unemployment

Matt Margolis

It has just been announced that the unemployment rate has hit 10.2 percent.

Can anyone here tell me how many jobs “saved or created” that comes to?

Can anyone here tell me why the White House still thinks the stimulus was a success?

Anyone? Anyone?

More on this later…

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Is unemployment now a leading, rather than lagging, indicator? Perhaps it is, in the new, global economy.

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan: Remember this, liberals?

On the eve of Friday’s jobs report that could see the unemployment rate reach 10%, these are words that the president’s speechwriters probably wish they could rephrase.

“Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don’t act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American Dream slipping further and further out of reach.”

President-elect Barack Obama, Weekly Address, Jan. 3, 2009.

Well, we did exactly what you and your dimwitted, liberal leaders wanted – and it failed. Admit it. Now, lets cut some taxes and spending and MoveOn.

And, of course, if unemployment remains in the double-digit range for the next 12 months (and it is expected to), then this will come in right handy next November.

UPDATE: Obama on the stimulus, back in February:

[…] the biggest measure of success is whether we stop contracting and shedding jobs, and we start growing again.

So, we can all agree that the stimulus was a total failure.

Will Reid Be Daschled?

Matt Margolis

I am sure that privately Democrats are worried about the possibility.

Democrats reject any comparisons between Daschle’s electoral demise and Reid’s tough re-election challenge. But pollsters and political experts say Reid is in a tough fight to avoid being the second Democratic Senate leader in six years to be defeated.

In some ways, Reid faces a more formidable re-election challenge than Daschle did. Nevada’s economy has been hit harder than most, with a 13.3% unemployment rate second only to Michigan. Reid trailed two possible Republican challengers in polls taken earlier this fall. His favorability rating of 38% in one poll, a fatal political level in many circumstances, was more than 20 points below Daschle’s in 2003.

Republicans are pulling out the argument they used to oust Daschle and applying it to Reid: that the demands of leading Senate Democrats have pulled the senator leftward and away from his state’s interests.

Reid has responded with new ads highlighting the jobs, money and clout he says he has brought to Nevada.

Lots of signs point to good news for Republicans, and as the national political landscapes shifts in our favor, Reid and other Democrats with find their jobs at risk. According to Donald Lambro of the Washington Times, “the latest Rothenberg Political Report on the 2010 Senate races is an eye-opener.”

“With the landscape changing noticeably over the summer, Democrats can no longer assume that they will have a net gain of seats in next year’s midterm elections,” veteran elections handicapper Stuart Rothenberg told his newsletter subscribers this week.

“Of the 13 Senate seats now regarded as seriously ‘in play,’ seven of them are currently held by Democrats,” Mr. Rothenberg said.

Just three months ago, Mr. Rothenberg wrote that Democratic Senate gains “in the order of 2-4 seats certainly seem reasonable.” Now he says that “gains of that magnitude are still possible, of course, but the most likely outcome is somewhere between a Republican gain of two seats and a Democratic gain of two seats.”

Clearly, there has been a significant and surprisingly rapid change in the country’s political climate, led by a truly grass-roots rebellion against the Democrats’ big spending, big government, high tax policies that threaten to add trillions of dollars to the nation’s ballooning national debt.

Potential Republican pickups in the U.S. Senate include Delaware (Biden’s open seat), Nevada (Harry Reid’s seat), Colorado, Louisiana (Blanche Linoln’s seat), Connecticut (Chris Dodd’s seat), Pennsylvania (Specter’s seat), and Illinois (Obama’s former seat now occupied by Roland Burris).

Yeah. The Democrats are in trouble. Their pursuit of a dangerous left-wing agenda is killing their chances to remain in power.

Harry Reid’s vulnerability is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's In The Bill: Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

Matt Margolis

If you were to ask a pro-abortion rights Democrat during an election year what their position on the controversial issue was, they’d probably say “I believe in a woman’s right to choose, but I think the number of abortions should be reduced,” or some variation of that. That little caveat at the end is meant to hide their true, radical abortion views.

The problem is, they do everything in their power to increase the numbers of abortions by making abortions easier to get (even for minors) and easier to pay for.

I’m always reminded of the pro-abortion rights slogan “Keep your laws off my body,” “Keep the government out of my bedroom,” or something stupid like that. So, it amuses me to no end that these pseudo-libertarian baby killers have no problem with the government’s involvement with abortion when it comes to paying for them.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that.  On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.  The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.  It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.”  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

So, not only does the House version of Obamacare include taxpayer-funded abortions, the government has the power to determine “when abortion is allowed.” So, you’ve got the government back in the bedroom, and you got the laws “controlling” your body, etc. etc.

I think even the most ardent pro-abortion rights individual ought to be able to see that the government (read: taxpayers) should not be funding abortions. All it does is put the government in control of the very things the pro-abortion crowd claims to be against.

Election Day Open Thread

Matt Margolis

Have at it folks… Feel free to posts your thoughts, predictions, insights, and results here.

UPDATE: You’ll see updates on the 2009 Election via Twitter in the ticker at the bottom of screen. The ticker is following the #ny23 #njgov #vagov and #election09 hashtags.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: NRO’s Final Countdown has early MSM pre-spin about how today’s voting is no reflection on Obama. You Democrats just go on believing that.

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan: Now Larry Sabato seems to be expecting a Democrat meltdown in VA tonight.

UPDATE III: How come I’m hearing talk of the contest in CA-10: that should be a sure thing for the Donks. Its Bay Area and 47% Democrat registration. Someone out there know something?

UPDATE: Republican Bob McDonnell wins VA GOV race.

UPDATE: Live Results of the NJ GOV race.

UPDATE VI, by Mark Noonan: In a small but sweet victory, GOP wins mayor race in Stamford CT first time since 1991.

UPDATE: Republican Chris Christie wins NJ GOV race.

UPDATE: Bottom line … Obama got bitch-slapped tonight.

One Year Later, Obama Would Lose

Matt Margolis

It appears that Americans are waking up to the fact that electing Obama was a big ass mistake. A new Rasmussen poll shows that if the election were held today, a plurality would vote against him.

Americans are a little less enthusiastic about the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama this time around.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% of adults say they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for Obama if he was up for reelection right now. Forty-nine percent (49%) say they would be unlikely to vote for the president’s reelection.

Thirty-four percent (34%) would be very likely to support Obama, while 40% say they would be not at all likely to do so.

This is encouraging, and give me hope. Last year, I was so worried that people would be forever blinded by Obama that they’d never see the light. But now, it appears that Americans are realizing very quickly that Obama was the wrong choice. His approval rating has been dropping like a rock. No matter how you look at the numbers, Obama is clearly positioning himself firmly in the FAIL column.

This, admittedly, makes me feel conflicted. I am happy that the country is now more aware of what Obama really is, but had the media done its job in 2008, we wouldn’t be in this situation right now. Obama is letting Afghanistan turn into a quagmire as he plays golf and postpones his decision on whether to send more troops over there. People are dying, and the economy is getting worse thanks to Obama’s incompetence, inexperience, and pretentiousness. This moron is more concerned with the perks of his job than his actual job.

You know, I’ve always maintained that history will look favorably on George W. Bush’s legacy. I guess with three years left to live with the Obama mistake, Bush’s legacy will be looked upon much more favorably more quickly.

NY-23: Conference Call

Matt Margolis

Moments ago, Mark and I participated in a blogger conference call with activists and campaign officials in NY-23.

My friend Ali Akbar was hosting the call. He is in NY-23 doing some reporting at 73Wire.com, where they have broken quite a number of stories already.

The first person we heard from was Matt Burns, a Republican Consultant and former spokesman for the Scozzafava campaign. He told us he did not agree with Scozzafava’s decision to endorse the Democrat Owens.He originally joined the campaign thinking that Scozzafava would be a vote against Nancy Pelosi’s reckless agenda, but, now it is clear there is only one candidate in the race who will be that voice and vote Pelosi: Doug Hoffman.

He also noted something that Newt Gingrich said, which I agree with, that in advance of the 2010 election cycle, our party needs to me be able to embrace candidates that fit their districts, even if they are moderates.

Robert Stacy McCain, who was on the call and is stationed now in the district (doing some good reporting too), had asked how the NRCC and the RNC got things so wrong with Scozzafava. Burns noted that Scozzafava was chosen locally. I don’t blame the Republican Party or the NRCC for supporting the chosen Republican candidate. I think activists need to move on from that.

One concern expressed by a Hoffman campaign official, was the number of people coming in. Democrats have a good ground game, and are mobilizing, Also, ACORN and the left-wing Working Families Party are heavily involved… now we all know that ACRON and voter fraud are like peas carrots, buth For those of you outside of New York, and aren’t familiar with the Working Families Party, you probably don’t know that this minor party has had some trouble recently with forged absentee ballots that apparently changed the outcome of an election. The Democratic Party has also put in about a million dollars in attack ads against Hoffman. Joe Biden is coming to town tomorrow. The Democrats are fighting hard, make no mistake about it.

So, we need to understand the forces that are working to get the Democrat Bill Owens elected. The Doug Hoffman campaign, however, wants clean, fair, and legal elections, and they are confident they can win if everything is above board.

So, what can you do?

Go to Doug Hoffman’s campaign website.

Donate.

Follow the campaign on Twitter.

Join the campaign on Facebook.

If you live in or near the district, they need your help!

Just What Did Cash For Clunkers Cost Us?

Matt Margolis

So, how much longer will the Obama administration call the Cash For Clunkers program a success?

A new report from last week gives us an interesting analysis in terms of how many new car sales the program actually generated.

A total of 690,000 new vehicles were sold under the Cash for Clunkers program last summer, but only 125,000 of those were vehicles that would not have been sold anyway, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the automotive Web site Edmunds.com.Still, auto sales contributed heavily to the economy’s expansion in the third quarter, adding 1.7 percentage points to the nation’s gross domestic product growth.

Of course, it doesn’t necessarily matter when or if these consumers planned to buy a new vehicle or not, that’s still nearly 700,000 shouldering a huge, new debt in teh middle of a bad economy. But, that 125,000 number is important in another context… Let’s consider what the government spent to create new car sales that othervise would not have happened.

The Cash for Clunkers program gave car buyers rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in less fuel-efficient vehicles for new vehicles that met certain fuel economy requirements. A total of $3 billion was allotted for those rebates.The average rebate was $4,000. But the overwhelming majority of sales would have taken place anyway at some time in the last half of 2009, according to Edmunds.com. That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales.

“It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program that sold nearly 250,000 cars in its first four days alone,” said Bill Adams, spokesman for the Department of Transportation. “There can be no doubt that CARS drummed up more business for car dealers at a time when they needed help the most.”

So, $24,000 for each new car put on the road. That’s more than the MSRP on my new car with no additional features. So, one could look at it as though in order get 125,000 new cars on the road, the government (read: the taxpayers) had to buy 125,000 cars.

Is this something to be proud of? Are we expecting the government to subsidize car purchases just because it gets cars on the road and out of dealer lots? Where does it end if the Obama administration thinks they are seeing evidence that the only way to generate economic growth is to subsidize? They are already patting themselves on their backs over the Q3 GDP number… just what do you think they’ll justify doing next?

And who do you think is going to pay for it?

Weekly Recap (2009-10-31)

Matt Margolis

Facelift

Matt Margolis

As you can see, We’ve got a new theme here at Blogs For Victory. So, don’t freak out, this isn’t a Halloween prank or a hacking.. I hope you like it.. I’ll be tweaking the new theme over the next couple days, so things may change slightly. Enjoy!