Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

JANUARY 21,  2011

THUMBS DOWN ON THE ECONOMY – AT 7:49 P.M. ET:  A new Fox News poll shows that the American people have a decidedly negative view of the economy, and the president's handling of it:

Almost all American voters think the country's economy is in bad shape, and few see benefits from the Obama administration’s economic policies. In fact, slightly more voters think the policies have hurt rather than helped the economy -- and many others think they have made no difference either way.

A Fox News poll released Friday found that more than 9 in 10 voters give the economy negative ratings: 40 percent rate economic conditions as “only fair” and another 51 percent say it is in “poor” shape.

Current views are almost identical to those held a year ago, when 39 percent said “only fair” and 52 percent said “poor” (January 2010).

The bright spot for the Obama administration is the large drop in the number rating the economy as “poor.” The week before he took office in January 2009, some 74 percent said it was in “poor” shape and now that’s down to 51 percent.

Still, only 8 percent of voters rate the current economy positively: 1 percent says it is in “excellent” condition and 7 percent says “good.” These ratings match those from a year ago exactly.

More voters think the economic policies of the Obama administration have hurt the economy (32 percent) than think they have helped (28 percent). The largest number -- 37 percent -- thinks they have made no difference.

COMMENT:  The 2012 election season is coming up rapidly.  The president has about a year to make his case economically, and so far the effort if failing. 

That doesn't mean he will be defeated in 2012.  Republicans still have to come up with a winning candidate, and voters may or may not be convinced that a Republican president can do any better.  But 2011, for this president, is not off to a good economic start.

January 21, 2011      Permalink

WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL – AT 6:18 P.M. ET:  Good satire is hard to find.  (George S. Kaufman once wrote that satire is what closes Saturday night.)  But nobody does it better than Iowahawk.  Louisiana reader Mike Melcher alerts us to Iowahawk's parody of off-the-wall Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee, who compared Republicans to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.  Here's the first example.  Read the others for a good laugh:

Mr. Hector Gutierrez
Gutierrez Bros. Landscaping
Arlington, VA

Dear Mr. Gutierrez:

Nothing could have prepared me for the shock that awaited as I exited the front door of my home early Wednesday morning, where I discovered that your lawn crew had cut a swath of environmental destruction across my yard so horrifying that it only can be compared to the Rape of Nanking. I can scarcely bring myself to describe the killing fields that are my North azalea beds and the brutal degradation and torture suffered by the bluegrass around the locust tree by the rear patio.

No longer will I sit idly while you and your doorknob hangers continue to repeat the Big Lie of "satisfaction guaranteed." I am writing to inform you that I have contacted the US Department of Interior to conduct a full independent investigation into Gutierrez Brothers' actions in this matter. Please be advised that you may be subpoenaed for records pertaining to mower height, pruning shear maintenance, and leaf blower emissions.

I would also advise your crewmen to heed the lessons of the Judgement At Nurenburg: although they may be spared the justice due their superiors, "I was only following orders" is not an excuse.

Sincerely,

Representative Steven Cohen
Washington, DC

COMMENT:  Well done.

January 21, 2011      Permalink

SHOCK.  WHITE HOUSE CAUGHT IN FIB – AT 10:30 A.M. ET:  It is so upsetting when we learn that our political leaders shade the truth.  Who knew?  Especially in the age of Obama we expect purity, goodness, and full transparency.  This must've been a misunderstanding.  From the Seattle Times: 

The claim: A White House fact sheet released Wednesday to coincide with the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao said: "In preparation for this visit, several large purchases have been approved including for 200 Boeing airplanes. ... The approval, the final step in a $19 billion package of aircraft, will help Boeing maintain and expand its market share in the world's fastest growing commercial aircraft market."

What we found:

The deal President Hu signed does not include any new jet orders.

Delivering the formal approval during Hu's visit is designed to make the Chinese government appear responsive to U.S. concerns about the balance of trade.

However, all of the airplanes in the sale were announced and booked by Boeing as firm orders over the past four years. Chinese airlines had already paid nonrefundable deposits and signed contracts for the jets, most of them as far back as 2007.

"The only thing new is (Chinese) government approval," said Boeing spokesman Miles Kotay.

Technically, the White House statement is generally correct, but it is one of those cases where the facts are true, and the story is false.  Clearly, the intent was to give the impression that this was a new order, the result of the Obama-Hu summit.  Besides...

The White House announcement said the total value of the orders was $19 billion.

But that's the list price, which airline customers never pay.

Based on market data from aircraft-valuation consultancy Avitas, the actual price for those 200 planes is about $11 billion.

Oh, come on.  What's a measly $8-billion? 

COMMENT:  The Obama propaganda ministry in action again.

January 21, 2011      Permalink

NOT GOOD FOR TOURISM – AT 8:52 A.M. ET:  We reported yesterday how a delegation of mayors visited Washington, hat in hand, asking for financial help.  Now we find that the states, possibly even more desperate, are considering a drastic step to remove all the red ink from their ledgers.  From The New York Times:

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.

COMMENT:  This is going to be messy, and the mess will be concentrated in the largest liberal states, like California, New York, and Illinois.  We may well see powerful unions up against each other, and ugly racial and ethnic conflicts.  Everyone will be fighting over the same pie.

Here in New York, the prospect of defaults on pension payments exists in sharp contrast to huge payouts on Wall Street, something that will not encourage support for the free enterprise system. 

Illinois has just decided to raise taxes dramatically.  Surrounding states are now moving in to lure Illinois companies.  The potential for state financial crises to lead to shifts in population is very real. 

So is the potential for real social disruption.  A good chunk of California's deficit is caused by payments to those here illegally.  If California raises taxes, how long will it take for the immigration issue to bubble to the surface?

January 21, 2011      Permalink

DIDN'T ANYONE NOTICE? – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  The president needs someone in the White House who will read the papers before personnel announcements are made.  Earlier this week it was revealed that General Electric will voluntarily give China much of the technology of GE commercial jet engines, making it much easier for China to compete with American aircraft manufacturers.  Then we read this, from The Politico:

HOW'S IT WORK, JEFF? -- President Obama will fly to upstate New York on Friday to take a tour of a General Electric branch in Schenectady, the birthplace of the company. Joining him will be the company's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt. Afterward, Obama will speak about "the importance of growing the economy and making America more competitive by investing in jobs, innovation and clean energy," the White House said in guidance to reporters.

The White House announced early Friday that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt will be the chairman of Obama's new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The announcement came shortly after Obama thanked Paul Volcker for leading the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which will wind down on Feb. 6.

COMMENT:  Say look, isn't this the wrong guy for the job?  GE, under Immelt, hasn't exactly been much of an American symbol.  And the broadcast network GE ran before selling it, NBC, became a big Obama booster, giving rise to the suspicion that this job is a political reward. 

A more imaginative appointment was needed.

January 21, 2011       Permalink

LET THE SWEEPSTAKES BEGIN – AT 8:11 A.M. ET:  Larry Sabato, one of our leading election analysts, has an excellent piece on his website handicapping the GOP's assumed 2012 presidential candidates:

Frankly, it's not an exciting picture.  One is not electrified by the list.  As Sabato says, "Mitt Romney, widely considered to be leading the early pack, starts out as a weak frontrunner."  That pretty much tells the story.  The most interesting name on the list is Marco Rubio, but Sabato notes that Rubio will have had less time in the Senate than Obama did when he ran, and may be too conservative for the general election.  Still, if I had to pick one from the list who had the potential to go all the way, it would be Rubio.  He has about him a sense of inevitability.  The public has shown it is drawn to him.  Remember that Reagan was elected, even though analysts often cautioned that he was too conservative to win.

There are some potentials who aren't on the list.  Paul Ryan is one.  Any chance he has will be determined by what he does in the House to influence his party during the next year.  Of course, no sitting member of the House has ever been elected president. 

This list is fluid, but Sabato's article is the most thorough I've seen about where the GOP race stands right now.

January 21, 2011     Permalink

JANUARY 20,  2011

THE HANDOUT SOCIETY – AT 9:08 P.M. ET:  First the cities, and then it will be the states.  The script is certain.  From Fox:

Grappling with a brutal economic climate, more than 200 of the nation's mayors have descended upon Washington to urge President Obama to help cities out of the fiscal morass they find themselves in as state and federal aid dries up.

Several mayors, attending the annual National Conference of Mayors, met behind closed doors with the president and Vice President Biden on Thursday afternoon. Job creation is high on the agenda as the local executives push the administration to help find work in America's cities and townships, where 85 percent of the nation's population resides.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the group had a "great meeting" in which the president said he would focus on economic development and "the need for the federal government to partner with cities."

"What was clear to me, this is a president who is focused on our cities," Villaraigosa said after the meeting.

More than one-third of the nation's 363 metro areas are expected to have unemployment rates higher than 10 percent at the end of 2011, according to a report released by the conference and Global Insight.

COMMENT:  I don't think there's any chance the House will vote for handouts for cities, especially those known to be profligate.  The question is whether the president has the power to use funds artfully by directing them to cities, in the absence of a specific law preventing it. 

Don't be shocked if state governments follow the mayors to D.C.  California is against the wall, New York is pinned to the wall, and Illinois is through the wall. 

The answer, of course, is twofold:  1) make the economy grow; 2) cut government spending.  There are some signs that both New York State and New York City are starting to confront the demands of public-service unions.  That's nice, but I want to read the fine print in any contracts that are signed.

January 20, 2011      Permalink

NOT A GREAT SIGN – AT 5:05 P.M. ET:  What is the state of the economy?  Who knows?  Numbers are contradictory, but one thing that's clear is that the housing sector is anemic.  The bubble really has burst, and some economists feel the end of the pain is not near.  Inevitably, this has political implications.  The election year is 11 months away.  From Bloomberg:

Builders began work on fewer homes than projected in December, a sign the industry that triggered the recession continued to struggle more than a year into the U.S. economic recovery.

Housing starts fell 4.3 percent to a 529,000 annual rate, the lowest level since October 2009, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey called for a 550,000 rate. A jump in building permits, a proxy for future construction, may reflect attempts to get approval before changes in building codes took effect at the beginning of this year.

ompanies like KB Homes and Lennar Corp. project demand will be slow to rebound as elevated unemployment and mounting foreclosures discourage buyers. While low borrowing costs and falling prices are helping revive sales from last year’s post tax-credit slump, Federal Reserve policy makers are concerned housing may undermine the economic expansion.

COMMENT:  Unless some foreign catastrophe intervenes, the economy will remain the dominant political issue.  We are still facing high unemployment and a sagging housing market.  Unless these indicators improve, Mr. Obama could be in serious political trouble next year...assuming the public blames his administration for the continued distress. 

But don't underestimate the Obama political machine.  They will attempt to blame the Republican House for extending the recession, just as Harry S. Truman blamed the "Republican do-nothing Congress" in 1948, and won the presidency against huge odds. 

Further, don't ignore the power of the price of gas at the pump.  It continues to rise, just as the Obamans are making additional drilling in the U.S. extraordinarily difficult.  Nothing like a kamikaze economic policy.

January 20, 2011       Permalink

WHERE OBAMA STANDS WITH VOTERS – AT 9:35 A.M. ET:  A new poll shows a fascinating divide by age in public perception of the president.  From The Politico: 

While a new poll shows Americans are sharply divided over whether President Barack Obama’s first two years in office have been a success or failure, a substantially larger percentage of voters over 50 see him as a failure compared with those under that age.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday to mark the second anniversary of Obama’s inauguration, 45 percent of voters under 50 say he’s been a failure and 47 percent believe he’s succeeded, compared with a majority - 51 percent - of adults over 50 who think he’s failed and 45 percent saying he’s done well...

...Overall, Americans are closely split on their view of Obama’s first two years, with 45 percent saying they consider his presidency a success, while 48 percent said it’s been a failure.

Americans aged 50 to 64 are the most negative on Obama, with 56 percent saying they consider his presidency a failure, while 41 percent consider it a success, CNN found. However, people over 65 see the first two years in a more positive light, with 46 percent of those over 65 saying they see the first two years as a success, while 44 percent say they’ve been a failure.

Americans ages 35 to 49 also aren’t happy with Obama’s first term. Only 38 percent of them say Obama’s been a success, while 51 percent said he’s been a failure.

COMMENT:  That is not exactly a ringing endorsement, but neither should it mean that Republicans can be complacent.  You can't beat somebody with nobody, and right now the GOP has nobody in the presidential sweepstakes who is a favorite to beat Obama in 2012.  The party has historically been rigid about presidential nominees, tending to choose "the next in line," rather than trying for something daring.

Daring may do it.  Next in line will not.

January 20, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 9:23 A.M. ET:

From WorldNetDaily:  Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  I can almost hear the can of worms being reopened.  Say Neil, I hear it's in a cookie jar buried just outside Pearl Harbor.

January 20, 2011      Permalink

TIME OUT FOR GOOD NEWS – AT 9:05 A.M. ET:  Amidst the gloom, there is sometimes a ray of light.  We don't see much good news about education, but here is some...from Britain.  Some in the mother country are waking up to the enormous damage the left has done to the educational system, and steps are being taken.  Americans, please copy.  From London's Telegraph:

Children will be expected to learn the kings and queens of England, read great works of literature and master mental arithmetic under the biggest shake-up of the national curriculum for more than 20 years.

Yay.  They can even include George III.  We won't mind.

A major review of school subjects – launched today – is expected to lead to a focus on the essential knowledge pupils should grasp at each key stage of their education.

The move is intended to reverse more than a decade of dumbing down of primary and secondary school subjects in favour of trendy skills-based lessons and “cross-curricular themes”.

Yeah, we know.  It happened here, too.

Launching the review, the Coalition said the last Government stripped vital content from the national curriculum, leaving pupils with a poor understanding of English literature, maths, science, foreign languages, history and geography.

Reforms introduced in 2007 saw key historical figures such as Winston Churchill cut from the secondary school history curriculum, the Coalition said.

Mustn't talk of victory.  Much too upsetting.

The secondary geography curriculum fails to cover a single country other than the UK, it was claimed, while the names of all continents, rivers, oceans, mountains and cities have also been deleted.

And pupils taking music in secondary schools are not obliged to study a specified composer, musician or piece of music.

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said “profound mistakes” made with the curriculum by Labour led to England plummeting in international league tables.

Already, teachers' groups are expressing anguish and pain.  This is a typical comment:

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT union, said: “Teachers want another curriculum review like a hole in the head. This is a pointless review when ministers have already determined that children should have a 1950s-style curriculum."

Yup.  Give us a good 1950's curriculum, updated with developments since.  Kids in the 50's learned well, and standards were higher and more disciplined.  What's wrong with that?

January 20, 2011      Permalink

REALISM ON IRAN – AT 8:40 A.M. ET:  There's been much optimistic talk recently that Iran's nuclear program may have been set back by American/Israeli sabotage and the effect of tougher sanctions.  There is a real danger we'll be lulled to sleep.  Now, an important American scientific organization is trying to jolt us back to reality.  From Fox:

ISTANBUL -- The U.S. is joining five other world powers for talks with Iran this week publicly confident that international efforts have slowed Tehran's capacity to make nuclear arms and created more time to press Tehran to accept curbs on its atomic activities.

But while diplomats and officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency -- the U.N. nuclear monitor -- agree that Iran's enrichment program has struggled over past years, the Federation of American Scientists warns against complacency.

It notes impressive improvements in the performance of the Iranian machines that enrich uranium -- an activity that has provoked U.N. sanctions because it could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Washington's message is essentially this: Iran is struggling with uranium enrichment, a process that can create both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material. Significantly, that view is backed by Israel, Iran's implacable foe and considered to have the Mideast's best intelligence on Iran's nuclear strivings.

If true, that leaves more time to negotiate in hopes Iran will come around and give up enrichment -- thereby removing the threat of an Israeli or U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

But in a study shared ahead of publication with The Associated Press the Washington-based FAS argues that Iran last year appears to have increased efficiency of the machines that produce enriched uranium by 60 percent, giving it the technical capacity to produce enough material for a simple nuclear warhead in 5 months.

COMMENT:  Back to reality.  If true, this is a very alarming development, which makes the current diplomatic timetable instantly obsolete.  Combined with the crisis in Tunisia, instability in Egypt, and government collapse in Lebanon, it looks like an interesting year in the Mideast.  Guess all that outreach and warmth haven't produced much.

January 20, 2011      Permalink

ON THIS DATE – AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  This is the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of President Kennedy.  No matter how you feel about JFK, it is a moment to reflect on the event.

Kennedy was many things, some good and some not.  His family was more than problematical, his father a fascist sympathizer and minor-league bigot whose fortune made Jack Kennedy's career possible.  Kennedy himself had been a junior senator with an intellectual bent but one who'd made little impression in the Senate. 

I worked in the 1960 campaign as an aide to Senator Paul H. Douglas of Illinois, when I was on the other side politically.  Douglas's preference for president that year was Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri, the former secretary of the Air Force.  But he was close to Kennedy, whom he described to me as "brilliant, but cold."  It turned out to be an apt description.  We traveled with Kennedy often when he came to Illinois.  He was a dazzling performer up close, but had to work hard to overcome the feeling, far more widespread than history has acknowledged, that he was underprepared for the job of president.  The incumbent, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been a five-star general in the same war in which Kennedy was a Navy lieutenant.  Americans noted the contrast.   

Kennedy's inauguration was the most dazzling Washington had seen, with movie stars dropping from the rafters.  For Jack Kennedy was glamour and poise.  Frank Sinatra, later to become estranged from the president, organized the entertainment.  It was Kennedy who brought Hollywood to Washington, big time.

And yet, although his name is constantly evoked by the Democratic Party, the fact remains that Jack Kennedy could not be nominated for president by his party today.  He was a national-defense liberal/centrist.  His stirring (although cliché-ridden) inaugural address would anger the controlling faction of today's Democratic Party, which would regard Kennedy as militaristic and nationalistic.  Kennedy's was the party of Harry Truman.  Today's party is the party of George McGovern and Barack Obama.

Say what you wish about Jack Kennedy and the privileges that allowed him to become president, but he did inspire a new generation of Americans to contribute, and he inspired them correctly – putting military service at the top. 

It might be wise today to go back and look at the Kennedy administration, with all its faults, and compare it, especially at the moment of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, with the Obama administration.  Kennedy, in his words, was willing to pay any price in defense of freedom.  Obama wants a discount. 

January 20, 2011     Permalink