Where Are My Keys?

Tuesday Recap..

• The UK economy is shrinking more than expected.  Is the US next?
• They used to laugh with you, now they laugh at you.  What a difference a few days makes.
• Unemployment waaaaay over what The One promised us before The Obama Stimulus passed.
• Hard on our friends, kid gloves with our enemies.  The Obama way!
• -2 is a great golf score, not so good for Presidential Approval ratings.
• Another great Ramirez cartoon.
• This guy sure can make the bat dance!
• No more excuses, Harry Reid now has 60 votes.
• A shortage of tax revenues.  This post comes complete with an Instalanche!
• Democrats are already bitching about Harry Reid's lack of leadership, and he hasn't even had the chance to use his new Supermajority.
• Neal Boortz looks at Obama's quick response to the honduras situation.
• Friend of WAMK Woody has some instructive graphs to check out.

Woody's House-O-Graphs has a new addition..

He takes a look at Global Warming..

Boortz weighs in on the Honduras happenings, and Obama's response..

Great piece:

North Korea launches a missile and it takes Barack Obama and the UN five days to respond. Iran holds fraudulent elections, kills protesters and it takes weeks before Barack Obama can stand up and say that he is "concerned" about the situation.

Then the people of Honduras try to uphold their constitution and laws of the land from being trampled by a Chavez-wanna be ... and it takes Barack Obama one day to proclaim that this was not a legal coup.

Why the sudden decisiveness? Where were these strong opinions on foreign matters when Iranian authorities were trampling protestors and cutting off media access to the outside world? Where was this decisiveness when Kim Jong Ill decided that he was going to launch missiles toward Hawaii on the Fourth of July? Why ... NOW ... is Obama suddenly speaking out loudly

How about a little background. Are you really sure you know what has been going on in Honduras? Do you think that this was simply a coup? Let me give you a rough outline here, and then you can sit back and wonder just why PrezBO is in the weeds with Chavez and Castro on this one.

Mel Zelaya is, or was, the President of Honduras. He and Hugo Chaves were tight. So tight, it seems, that Zelaya wanted to emulate Hugo by changing the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for office until he durned well gets tired of it.

To change the constitution in Honduras you have to convene a constituent assembly. The president cannot do that. The Honduran congress must approve a national referendum calling for the constituent assembly to consider changes to the constitution. Zelaya didn't like the part about the constitution requiring approval of the congress before a national referendum could be called. So ... he decided to call one on his own.

OK .. so here we have President Zelaya calling for a national referendum when he doesn't have the power to do so. The next problem is obtaining ballots! Since the Honduran congress had not called for the referendum, as required by the constitution, the government certainly wasn't going to print the ballots! After all, how smart would it be to print ballots for an illegal referendum? So ... Zelaya had to get the ballots printed elsewhere. Here's an idea! Get his pall Hugo Chavez to print them! Yes! That will work!

So Chaves prints Zelaya's ballots and they're shipped to Honduras. Enter the Honduran Supreme Court. The court considers Zelaya's election in light of the requirements of the Honduran constitution, and rules the referendum illegal and unconstitutional. The court then issues an order to the Honduran military telling them not to do the logistical work associated with Zelaya's phony referendum. Remember, now ... all of this has one primary goal. To get rid of the term limits limiting Zelaya's rule in Honduras.

After the supreme court's decision, General Romeo Velasquez tells President Zelaya that he is subject to a proper order from the Supreme Court and will not be able to carry out Zelaya's referendum. So ... Zelaya fires him. The Supreme Court orders Zelaya to reinstate Velasquez, and Zelaya refuses to do so.

At this point Zelaya's ego is getting the better of him. If the military won't run his illegal referendum, he'll just do it himself. He gins up a mob and leads them to the military compound where Hugo's ballots are stored and then has his supporters begin distributing the ballots to the masses.

Based on the Supreme Court's ruling the Honduran attorney general said that the proposed referendum was illegal and said that he would arrest anyone attempting to carry out the election. Zelaya was arrested by the military and was escorted out of the country.

Now ... does this sound like a military coup-de-etat to you? The attorney general and the military were operating in accordance with the Honduran rule of law. They acted under a valid court order. Coup? The Honduran congress has convened and designated a successor president, all in accordance with the Honduran Constitution. Military coup? The presidential elections set for November .. the election that Zelaya was trying to get around ... will go on as scheduled. A blow for democracy?

Fidel Castro, Daniel Noriega, Hugo Chavez ... all on the side of Zelaya. But Obama? Obama fighting against the rule of law and for a wannabe dictator? What gives?

Again, he's nicer to our enemies, than he is to our friends.

Funny, ain't it?

When Republicans get angry at the 8 Representatives who voted in favor of the Cap and Trade bill, and speak of removing them come election time, we are sneered and snickered at.

Yet now that Democrats have a Supermajority in the Senate, and there are rumblings that those numbers might not be enough, it doesn't get the same play.  Check out this story and the resulting comments from Huffington Post:

roger37 I'm a Fan of roger37 I'm a fan of this user permalink

Harry Reid will not strongarm Dems like Nelson and Landrieu. Get rid of Reid NOW!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 06/30/2009

- MrWampler I'm a Fan of MrWampler I'm a fan of this user permalink +

Republicans had 51/53 Senators and "jammed through their agenda."

I don't want to hear that Reid can't do it with 60.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 06/30/2009

- erinker I'm a Fan of erinker I'm a fan of this user permalink +

Time to kick the blue dog Dems out!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 PM on 06/30/2009

- condew I'm a Fan of condew I'm a fan of this user permalink +

I hope everyone realizes that when you say 60 votes may not be enough, you are talking about Democrats filibustering their own party.

Such a betrayal of trust would deserve serious consequences like losing membership on committees, and running a real Democrat against them in the next primary.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 PM on 06/30/2009

- proggirl I'm a Fan of proggirl I'm a fan of this user permalink +

Sadly, there is truth in this. Much as I hope for it, Dem unity is a frustrating rarity. However, I will encourage my senators Franken (!) and Klobuchar to support party unity.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 PM on 06/30/2009

- Icantbelieveher I'm a Fan of Icantbelieveher I'm a fan of this user permalink +

Your senators will work for the people of your state -- I keep calling my senators here in Colorado, and I'm hard pressed to find where either one of them stands on a public option. If they vote against it, I won't vote for them -- I would vote for their challenger in a primary. I would never vote for a republican, but I won't vote for them. I most certainly am not voting for Governor next year if he doesn't get a challenge in the primary. There will be some blank spaces on my form next year!

I don't think I will be the only person! We all worked hard to get our state to turn blue and if they sell us out, I'm done! They won't see any support from me and most of the people I worked so hard with to help them and President Obama get elected!

It's worse than we are being told..

Much worse.  It's interesting that while the economy was booming under Bush, the MSM kept telling us we were in a recession.  Now, when we really are in dire financial straits, the MSM is silent.  It's almost as if they have an agenda or something..

As we near the end of June, which is supposed to be one of the four biggest months for federal tax collections (January, April, and September are the others), it is clear that the serious receipts shortfalls are not only continuing, but have caused the March 20 projections of the administration and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) outdated.

Media coverage of the ongoing receipts dive has been minimal at best. A Google News search on "federal receipts" (typed in quotes) returns on seven items, two of them originating from yours truly.

Here is where things stand as of the last Friday of June in both 2009 and 2008, per Uncle Sam's related Daily Treasury Statements:

Comparing June 26, 2009 to June 27, 2008 is more valid than comparing the same days of both years, because each period contains the same number of Mondays, a big day for receipts, and Fridays, a big day for sending out refund checks.

As you can see, as we approach the end of the month, June 2009 receipts from economic activity are down 25% from last year. It's clear from last year's results that it would be unreasonable to expect a high level of receipts from other than withholdings in the final two days of this year.

Estimating on what I believe is the high side, it looks like total June 2009 receipts will come in at about $230 billion, consisting of about $198 billion in the line items identified above (i.e., another $13.2 billion will come in during the final two days) plus $32 billion in other receipts. That would be a 12% drop from last year's official total, but a 20% drop from last year's $287.8 billion in total receipts from economic activity.

Looking forward to the rest of the year, I estimate the following results based on how the government defines receipts:

I believe these estimates, if anything, are on the high side. July 2009 will probably come in at 90% or worse compared to July 2008, because July 2008 had over $13 billion in stimulus payments, which Uncle Sam (erroneously, in my opinion) treated as negative receipts instead of outlays. August 2009, vs. August 2008 will be worse than July, because August 2008 stimulus payments were barely $1 billion. September 2009 vs. will probably be even worse than the previous two months, because that month is heavily influenced by corporate income and non-withheld tax receipts, which as you can see above have fallen far more than the overall average. Also note that August and September of 2009 will show year-over-year declines for the second straight year. Monthly year-over-year receipts from economic activity increased for an almost unbroken string of four years up until August of last year, when the recession as normal people define it began.

You can also see that my full-year receipts estimate is almost $60 billion, or 2.8%, below the CBO's March 20 estimate (PDF) based on budget information supplied to it by the White House, and 4% below the White House's own estimate based on the same underlying information CBO used.

As I mentioned in a June 20 post (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), the repayments of roughly $68 billion of TARP money during June by many of the larger banks are not being treated as receipts by Uncle Sam, because the original TARP disbursements/"investments" were not treated as outlays. More on how "Net Present Value" accounting is rendering almost indecipherable federal financial information that used to be mostly understandable is here.

When federal spending is hemorrhaging in the hundreds of billions and trillions, it may seem relatively unimportant to focus on differences of less than $100 billion in receipts. But that is far from the case. First, the declines are far more than what one would expect from an economy that has contracted by about 3.2% (non-annualized) in the past three reported quarters, indicating that something beyond normal business reactions is at work here. Second, the steeper the receipts decline, the smaller the foundation on which to build an economic recovery will be, and the more likely it is that the administration will give us a fake hand-wring and push tax increases as the only answer to the shortfall -- even though tax increases, based on history, would more than likely extend the economic spiral instead of stopping it.

(H/T: Instapundit)

+++UPDATE+++

Welcome Instapundit readers.  Poke around, and check back from time to time..

Senator Franken..

It's official.

Not sure if he can play, but the guy has skillz!

Parrots..

Honeymoon over?

"Be cautious with our enemies, but come down hard on our friends."

Professor Jacobson looks at Iran and Honduras, and how Obama has reacted to each.

There is something strange about the Obama administration's diplomacy. We speak softly to our enemies, but use a big stick against our friends.

Protesters take to the streets in Iran in opposition to election fraud, and against a regime which is openly hostile to the U.S., and Obama treads with the greatest of care. First silence, then mixed messages assuring the regime we want to negotiate with it regardless of election fraud. Only after almost two weeks are there strong statements against regime violence.

Fast forward. The President of Honduras, who is aligned with our enemies such as Hugo Chavez, attempts an unlawful referendum giving him a third term. The Honduran legislature and courts rule such a referendum illegal, and put a stop to it when the President moves forward anyway. Acting on a court order, the military removes the President in order to protect Honduran democracy. There are swift and furious denunciations from Obama, who declares the action "not legal." The ultimate meddling, telling Honduras what is or is not legal in Honduras, regardless of what the Honduran courts say.

What is wrong with this picture? Be cautious with our enemies, but come down hard with our friends. Heads our enemies win, tails we lose.

Well put, Professor.