"Men are more downbeat than women about America's future."

CNBC: "Men More Downbeat Than Women About US Future":

A new CNBC All-America Economic Survey of 800 Americans shows 53 percent of men are mainly pessimistic, with 42 percent optimistic. Women are more evenly split at 48 percent pessimistic and 46 percent optimistic.

Put it all together, and the nation as a whole splits 50-44, favoring the pessimists over the optimists.

Married men are especially discouraged: 60 percent say they are pessimistic, compared to 44 percent of unmarried men.

The Palm Beach Economy (from my perspective)

I am still in Palm Beach at a law conference and spent part of the day walking around the shopping areas where things look pretty dead. There were only a few people in each of the stores around Worth Avenue and sales didn't look too promising. Of course, part of this might be because it is summer and many New Yorkers and others flee the area due to the heat, though from what I've heard, this might have been a mistake. There is also a lot of construction going on in front of the store fronts on Worth Avenue that may leave people deciding not to go to this particular shopping district (and it is rather expensive). A saleswoman told me that the construction is to widen the streets and the plan is to have more outdoor activities and seating to bring in more traffic to this area. So, eventually, the construction may be a good thing (or it may just draw more people to a free or cheap activity).

The restaurants with specials seemed to be more crowded then those without them. I went to an adorable cafe in a hotel with a three course meal for $20.00 that was delightful and full (though the maître d looked askance at my shorts and t-shirt but allowed me and my guest in). In another dinner place, we were almost the only ones there. At one of the local malls, the free outdoor concert was jammed but people did not seem to be going into the stores to buy things. However, the Cheesecake Factory (a chain) was packed. The emptiness of the stores and some restaurants here made me think of a recent trip to DC where most restaurants and shops seemed to be booming. I often think of all the tax payer money that is going to fund these federal "fat cats." If you have been in either of these areas recently, what was your take on the economies there?

Why I no longer have to worry about finances

Imagine how delighted I was to receive this credit card in the mail today from LibertyPropaganda.com with my name on it. Order yours today and we can all stop worrying about petty things like liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, and the economy. Thank goodness, all that stuff was getting to be a burden, don't ya think?

"America isn't hiring precisely because of government policy."

Jerry Bower, a guest blogger at CNBC, has good insight into why US companies are not hiring:

America isn't hiring precisely because of government policy. Small business owners, who are usually the first into and the first out of the job pool, are standing by the fence and watching. They are paralyzed by regulatory uncertainty. If they hire someone who ends up doing poorly, will they be able to fire that person? Will they have to pay their health care bills after they've been terminated? If so, for how long? Who will pay for all these stimulus checks? If it will turn out to be small business, why would they hire instead of keeping costs low to prepare for the big tax bill? Where will the market move? Are you in the right business or are your clients in a politically disfavored industry? Are your clients in health care (being nationalized), autos (already nationalized), banking (somewhat nationalized) or any energy production process which uses carbon (pulverized)? Until you know, you don't grow, and until you grow your market, you don't grow your payroll.

Jobs aren't languishing despite the government's best efforts. They're languishing because of them.

Exactly.

Small business prepares for battle with the administration

It seems that many small businesses are bracing for a tax battle, according to this Washington Post article (via Newsalert):

Business groups say they're bracing for even more battles with the administration.

"They're desperate for revenue. And therein lies the concern of the broader business community," said R. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"We're going to be a permanent target, and we understand that," added Catherine Schultz, vice president for tax policy at the National Foreign Trade Council. "The way they see it, corporations don't vote."

A nurse turned entrepreneur is used as an example of how much the extra tax would cost, to her pocket book as well as her ability to expand and hire:

The accountant, Carroll Hurst, said Johnson is unlikely to owe any federal taxes this year due to accounting changes that confer a one-time tax benefit. But in a typical year, he said, Johnson and her husband earn about $515,000 from various entities related to the schools. They claim around $90,000 in deductions -- much of it contributions to charity -- reducing their taxable income to around $425,000. Johnson said the sum they take home in wages is "substantially less."

In a typical year, Johnson's federal tax bill would be about $120,000. But starting in 2011, the higher marginal rates would add about $13,000 a year, Hurst said. Capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent would add another $10,000, for a total increase of $23,000.

And Johnson's tax bill stands to grow dramatically if Obama were to revive a plan to apply Social Security tax to income over $250,000 instead of capping it at the current $106,800. Because Johnson is an employee and an employer, she would have to pay both portions of the tax, Hurst said, tacking another $30,000 onto her bill.

Johnson said such an increase would force her to consider scaling back operations.

My prediction? More and more businesses like Johnson's will decrease hiring and expansion, and/or "go John Galt." People will wonder why their opportunities are drying up and look to the government for help, not really understanding that the government created the mess to begin with.

Does anyone have a 12% good growth mutual fund?

I must say as I watch the stock market dive today, I am really glad I got out of mutual funds completely a little over a week ago. I was sick of the ups and downs in my portfolio and the lack of control I had over my financial future. I realize, given the current administration, that my control is still limited--at some point, we may be forced to turn our SEPs and IRAs over to the government. But until then, I like the feeling of being invested in CDs, bonds and cash. "Stupid move," some experts or others might say--but sometimes a feeling of control is more important than money.

I have started watching Dave Ramsey, author of The Total Money Makeover, at the suggestion of some readers and he has some good general advice. However, I have to ask, "where are all those 12% good growth mutual funds that Ramsey is always harping about?" I have invested in numerous mutual funds but never gotten returns like that. Last time I heard about anyone getting returns that good, they were victims of the Benie Madoff scandal. I have been in many mutual funds over time (some as long as 13 or more years) and never had returns this good that lasted. Has anyone out there? Is so, tell us about about it--no need to tell us the names or any details, just whether you have made a killing in any "good growth mutual funds." Maybe my picks are just poor.

"Going Galt" continues...

Tom Blumer at PJM: Tax receipts plummet as Americans "go Galt:"

But then in mid to late June, along came the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy. The Democratic triumvirate’s intent to starve the nation of energy, regardless of the consequences, and newly minted presidential nominee Barack Obama’s designs on punitively taxing 5% of the nation’s most productive in the name of redistributing money to everyone else, both became crystal clear. As a result, paraphrasing what I wrote at the time, businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs responded to the trio’s total lack of seriousness by battening down the hatches and preparing for the worst.

Yes, lower tax receipts might be a result of the economy but they are just as much psychological. No one knows what to expect from this administration. Why invest and risk growing a buisiness if much of it might be taxed or regulated away?

"Dodging" is for Tim Geithner, not for honest Americans

I love the negative spin by ABC news when they pose a question to readers about Obama's proposed tax increase on those making over $250,000 (via Michelle Malkin) :

Lawyers, dentists and entrepreneurs are among some high-earning professionals brainstorming ways to decrease their pay to dodge [my emphasis] a proposed tax increase on incomes over $250,000.

Is it fair for people to reduce high salaries to sidestep President Obama's tax proposal?

Last time I looked, involuntary servitude was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment (but maybe not for long!). No one in the US (yet) can be forced to work just so they can keep paying money to the government and programs they may not want to support. I remember reading an article about an artist who decided to cut back on his hours and live on almost nothing because he did not want to pay taxes to support the war in Iraq under Bush. The article never questioned whether what this man was doing was "fair" or constituted "dodging" taxes.

Now the tables are turned and there are Americans who do not want to support Obama's socialist agenda or who simply do not want to work more for less and less money.

It is their right. We must fight to keep it that way.

"Dude-in-Chief: It just isn’t any of your business."

Dennis Kneale at CNBC comments on Obama's speech tonight:

Remember the excited, butterflies-in-the-tummy feeling we had the first time we got to watch the newly elected President Obama address the nation?

One month later a queasy sense of dread emerges whenever he takes the lectern. As our new president prepares to address both houses of Congress at 9 p.m. eastern, the markets and investors brace for his next damaging soundbite.

"Every time the guy speaks, the Dow starts falling," complains one venture capitalist, Ross Manel of ReStart Group in Addison, Texas.

Bam was the Message Man during his incredible campaign for the presidency, besotting millions with his reassuring call for hope and change. Since taking office he has plied an entirely different—and wrongheaded—message, one of fear and fingerwagging, of crisis-mongering and retribution.

This has been damaging to Citigroup, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and their ilk. We need these firms to help us find our way out of this financial abyss, yet the President decries a compensation system he doesn’t understand. He carps at Merrill Lynch’s now-ousted chief, John Thain, for spending the equivalent of ten minutes of revenue to redecorate his office.

Dude-in-Chief: It just isn’t any of your business.

I'm not sure that this Kneale guy was listening carefully enough when "the Message Man" was running his campaign. I heard the fear and fingerwagging then too. It wasn't like Obama was tryng to hide his message of retribution and crisis mongering then. It's just that no one wanted to hear it; they were too busy trying to get the first African American President in office to "make history." Nothing else mattered.

"The more irresponsibly you behave, the more government works for you."

I have to agree with David Harsanyi who said this in his column today in the Denver Post. He also makes some other good points:

Who knew that playing by the rules comes with a government warranty? After all, I may play by the rules and engage in bizarrely self-destructive behavior. You may not. You may have played by the rules — invested in the stock market, a home, a business, a career — and found yourself stuck with a financial dud.

As every 2-year-old knows, consequences are the incentive to avoid risky behavior. So why are we rewarding failure and abolishing consequences? Many of the homeowners who government is bailing out took unnecessarily chancy loans that helped fuel the financial jam we're in.

My question is, what do we tell our kids about how to get ahead in this new economy? I don't think telling our kids to scrimp, save and work hard only to turn their earnings over to others is prudent at this point. We have to teach our kids how to make it in the new system of rewards for failure and penalties for success. Or maybe just explain that success is failure now, that up is down, that wrong is right. That seems to be the prevailing "wisdom" with our new government overlords.

"A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies."

Bradley R. Schiller, author of The Economy Today has an interesting piece in the WSJ entitled, "Obama's Rhetoric is the Real 'Catastrophe.'" Mr. Schiller compares this recession with the Great Depression and finds that our economic woes don't come close to the 1930s. He states:

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies.

But would better policies pay off the supporters who voted for him?

"Yes, $400 billion to prevent sexually transmitted diseases will save your job."

So says David Harsanyi, in his column today in the Denver Post:

Yes, $400 billion to prevent sexually transmitted diseases will save your job. A $34 million remodeling of the Department of Commerce and $150 million for honey bee insurance and hundreds of billions in new government growth will create economic growth faster than a similar-sized business or payroll tax cut, you are led to believe.

The "stimulus" bill is all about payback to Obama's supporters and to a lesser degree, about fixing the economy. I am just hoping that the Senate Republicans are as savvy as those in the House about voting against the bill. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they do. If the stimulus works (I am dubious about this), then the Dems will get the credit. If the bill fails, those Republicans who signed on will be blamed, so what's the point?

"If you want money flowing to the companies with good lobbyists and powerful congressmen, then the stimulus bill may accomplish something."

David Boaz, author of Libertarianism: A Primer, has a good article on the economy at Real Clear Politics (via Newsalert):

Even if regulators are as smart as Leonardo da Vinci and as incorruptible as Mother Teresa, they can never have as much knowledge as the decentralized, competitive market process, so planned economies and planned industries fall further and further behind free-market systems. But in reality, even if they're smart, they're not incorruptible. Political influence always comes into play. What we're seeing with the bailout funds will also happen with the stimulus money.

Government planners claim to be able to aggregate all the available information and make informed decisions for the whole society. But market economies clearly produce far more economic growth than planned economies. It isn't just the United States versus the Soviet Union or East Germany versus West Germany. Consider the customer service and technological advances you get from FedEx versus the post office, or Microsoft and Apple versus the DMV.

If you want money flowing to the companies with good lobbyists and powerful congressmen, then the stimulus bill may accomplish something. But we should all recognize that we're taking money out of the competitive, individually directed part of society and turning it over to the politically controlled sector. Politicians rather than consumers will pick winners and losers. That's not a recipe for recovery.

Does a bad economy save lives?

Allure magazine has a segment in the most recent issue called "(Dollar) Signs of the Times" which looked at what's soaring and what's plunging in the current fiscal roller coaster. They stated that hemlines, exotic handbags, lipstick, and sex columns are the barometer used to predict the health of the world's economy. Sounds scientific.

Apparently cosmetic procedures, egg donation, chocolate, slow songs, self-tanner and "mature features" are on the rise. Why the last one, you might ask? According to the magazine, "during recessions, Playboy Playmates have larger waists and waist-to-hip ratios, while actresses tend to have small eyes, large chins, and thin faces, hallmarks of older women."

What's on the decline? Lipstick, long hair, sex columns, alcohol, lobster prices, and mortality rates. Allure mentions that sex columns are slowing down as they "seem frivolous" and they mention that the Village Voice and Playboy channel have recently eliminated staff sex experts. I guess any future gigs as a sexpert are out for me. Darn...

Anyway, the mortality rate decline was interesting. It seems that a "one-percentage-point rise in unemployment leads to about 14,000 fewer deaths per year. With more time and less money, people eat healthier, smoke less, and exercise more."

Also in recessions, prices on exercise equipment get slashed! I think I'll go buy a treadmill.