Leading Indicators Bloomberg Economic Calendar 18 Oct 2012 "Highlights A sweep of positives are lifting the index of leading economic indicators which is up a very sharp 0.6 percent in September. The stock market is a positive in the month as is the report's component for credit conditions. A separate reading on interest rates remains a major contributor though its methodology, which tracks the spread between long and short rates, may need a tune up, as the component's contribution to the index is waning, not increasing, as long rates are moving lower. Low mortgage rates right now are a major factor behind acceleration in the housing sector with building permits the largest contributor in September. "A negative in the report is a decline in the ISM new orders component with a small drag from unemployment claims another negative. Consumer expectations are also a negative for September but they look to be a big positive for the next report given last week's jump in the mid-month consumer sentiment report, improvement confirmed by this morning's Bloomberg consumer comfort index. "Today's report also includes a 0.2 percent rise in the coincident index which points to ongoing growth for the economy. The headline gain for the LEI, together with a positive headline from the Philly Fed, are giving a morning lift to the Dow. "Market Consensus before announcement The Conference Board's index of leading indicators in August dipped 0.1 percent for the third contraction in the last five months. The decline for the ISM new orders index weighed most heavily on the August LEI. Consumer expectations were the second biggest negative. A sustained positive was and will be the interest rate spread although the decline underway in long rates has reduced this component's contribution to the leading index. This is counter intuitive as lower long rates will help economic growth. Other data include a small 0.1 percent rise in the coincident index, down from 0.3 percent July but up from June's 0.2 percent decline. "
Obamaâs Poverty Trap by Gerri Willis We talk a lot about entitlement programs on our show and the escalating costs of these programs under President Obama. A new report from the Congressional Research Service shows just how out of control this spending is. Federal spending on anti-poverty programs has increased by 33% since 2008, at which time it was less that $800 billion. When you add in state spending on these programs, the total is $1.03 trillion. When it comes down to numbers, thatâs $1.03 trillion to anti-poverty programs, more than the $725 billion on social security, $480 billion on Medicare, and $540 billion on non-war defense. Authors say most of that increase came from Obamaâs stimulus program. CRS is non-partisan. In fact, this non-partisan study takes out social security, Medicare, and veterans programs. Tracking the spending is no easy thing because there are no fewer than 83 welfare programs, many of them overlapping. Itâs hard to find a government department that doesnât run an anti-poverty program. To be sure, a weak economy has translated into more Americans looking for assistance. This week we reported that the numbers of Americans on food stamps has hit a new high. However, there is more behind the increased spending than just the economy. More than ever, the government is advertising these programs. In fact, our government has an official partnership with the Mexican government to expand food stamp enrollment among foreign nationals. All this welfare spending adds up to $20,610 for every poor man, woman, and child in the country. For a family of four, thatâs more than $82,000. The poverty line for that family is just over $18,000. With this kind of spending, poverty should be wiped out. Instead, itâs growing. Today, one in seven Americans is living in poverty; the most in almost two decades. All the while spending is soaring. Hereâs welfare spending for the last four decades in a nutshell. Adjusted for inflation, and going up, up, up. How can we spend all of this money and see so little progress? Instead of pushing this line higher and expanding the welfare state, we should be stopping the taxes and bloated regulations. They hold back economic growth and job creation. People need work, not handouts. Look, the point isnât that people should not receive help when they need it. Instead more of the governmentâs resources should be focused on getting this economy going again so that more Americans can be self reliant. When it comes to jobs, Americans just arenât interested in settling for less.
The Trillion-Dollar Cost of Welfare By Elizabeth MacDonald You may have seen the headlines on the Internet, that Republicans hate the poor. A few examples from a quick search reveal these: Why do Republicans hate poor, hungry people? Inside The Sickness That Makes Republicans Hate Poor Children Why do Republicans and born-again Christians hate the poor? Political Ruminations: Republicans Hate Poor People But are these attacks accurate, or are they missing a broader story? Have you seen the latest data out today about how much federal and state governments spend on welfare? The dollar amounts are truly stunning and show how off-base this criticism really is. Of course Americans want to help the poor. But missing in this reporting is exactly how U.S. taxpayers do just that. The Senate Budget Committee is out with a new report today that shows there are 83 overlapping government welfare programs that together represent $1.03 trillion in fiscal 2011 spending by federal and state governments, based on data from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The report says âtotal means-tested welfare spending is currently the single-largest category of spending in the federal budget.â That means that welfare costs in this country have reached a point where they account for more than the sums the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense â the amounts spent on welfare equal the budget for defense and Medicare combined. Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, requested the report from the CRS, and GOP budget committee staffers crunched the numbers. Specifically, the CRS found that the federal government spends $745.84 billion on 83 programs that it identified as welfare programs. And "based on data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance, budget committee staff calculated at least an additional $283 billion in state contributions to those same federal programs, for a total annual expenditure of $1.03 trillion," a report from the GOP members of the Senate Budget Committee says. The $1.03 trillion figure doesn't include entitlement programs to which people contribute like Social Security and Medicare, nor does it include government veteran programs. âNo longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends, but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty,â says Sen. Sessions in a statement. âWelfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible, and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence.â The staff report notes that âthe federal share of spending on these federal programs is up 32% since 2008, and now comprises 21% of federal outlays.â That compares to 4% under the Administration of John F. Kennedy. The reports adds that âspending on the 10 largest of the 83 programs..has doubled as a share of the federal budget over just the last 30 years. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount expended on these 10 programs has increased by 378% over that time." The new data come as debate in Washington, D.C. intensifies over health reform, which is expected to increase the number of people on Medicaid by an estimated 15 million, half of the estimated uninsured in the country. Moreover, the Senate staffers found this growth is by design. âExisting federal policy has explicitly encouraged growth in welfare enrollment â combined with a weakening of welfare standards and rules,â says the report. Take food stamps. This program has quadrupled in the last decade. But, rather than trying to curb spending here, the government advertises to get more people on the books, the Senator and his staffers note. The report says: âGovernment spending on food stamps â the second-largest federal welfare program â has quadrupled since 2001, yet the USDA [U.S. Dept. of Agriculture] has a variety of programs and advertisements whose explicit and unmistakable goal is to expand enrollment to new record highs.â The report notes that USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, in a letter, has been trading correspondence with Sen. Sessions about this spending. For a link to background analysis from Sen. Sessionsâ budget committee office on the CRS review of the 83 programs, as well as a look at how spending has increased over time, click here. And you can find CRSâs report here. The Senatorâs office has also compiled examples of government efforts to expand welfare enrollment, and noted in its press release: âA Spanish-language ad in which an individual is pressured into accepting food stamps even though she says her family is financially self-sufficient.â âAn assertion that communities are 'losing out' when individuals choose not to participate in the food stamp program.â âEveryone wins when eligible people take advantage of benefits to which they are entitled.â â2011 Hunger Champions award for 'counteracting mountain pride.'â
Existing Home Sales Bloomberg Economic Calendar 19 Oct 2012 "Highlights After two prior months of strong growth, sales of existing home sales fell back in September, down 1.7 percent to an as-expected 4.750 million for what is still the second best annual rate since the stimulus programs back in the spring of 2010. September's details show weakness but also strength. Sales in three of four regions show single digit declines with the South, which is by far the largest region, showing a fractional gain. Prices dipped fractionally in the month though the year-on-year rate for the median price, at plus 11.3 percent, is in double-digit ground for the first time of the recovery. Supply, at only 5.9 months at the September sales rate, is extremely tight which is not a plus for sales though it is for prices. Tight inventory is likely to further ramp up construction of new homes. Median days on the market for existing homes are 70 vs 101 days a year ago. "September's dip in existing home sales only slows the upward trajectory for housing, which is getting a boost from the Fed's policy of working down mortgage rates. The new home market has been especially active. New home sales for September will be posted on Tuesday. The Dow is holding at opening lows following today's report. "Market Consensus before announcement Existing home sales rose strongly for a second straight month, up 7.8 percent in August to an annual unit rate of 4.82 million. This was the largest monthly percentage gain since last August and the highest rate since May 2010. All regions showed high single digit gains in the month. Supply on the market, at 6.1 months at the current sales rate, remains tight and may be limiting sales." <img src="http://bloomberg.econoday.com/showimage.asp?imageid=23391">
Romney Gains In Third Debate http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-ga...s&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
The Third Debate: Obama Wins on Style and Substance By Joe Klein "President Obama won the foreign policy debate, cleanly and decisively, on both style and substance. It was as clear a victory as Mitt Romneyâs in the first debate. And Romney lost in similar fashion: he seemed nervous, scattered, unconvincing â and he practiced unilateral disarmament, agreeing with Obama hither and yon ⦠on Iraq (as opposed to two weeks ago), on Afghanistan (as opposed to interviews heâs given this fall), on Libya and Syria and Iran. He didnât have a single creative or elegantly stated foreign policy thought and, indeed, seemed foolish at times, using the word peace about as often as George McGovern in 1972 (not that McGovern was foolish, but Romney has run so hot and aggressive on foreign policy that he seemed a sudden convert to transcendental meditation or Yoko Onoâs secret consort). Romney did have some strong moments â but they were, once again, on the domestic economy. And Obama didnât have a single weak or unconvincing moment. "This was not only a strong debate for Obama, it was a clever one. He mentioned Israel three times as our greatest ally in the region before Romney mentioned it once. It was especially convenient that we are conducting joint military exercises with Israel this week, exercises that had been delayed from last spring at Israelâs request (and after Matt Drudge and other weasels blamed Obama for delaying them at the time). I thought Obamaâs âzingerâ about Romney favoring the âforeign policy of the â80s, the social policy of the â50s and the economic policy of the â20sâ seemed transparently precooked, if true. But the Presidentâs strongest moment â also precooked â came when he noted Romneyâs frequent assertion that Americans have the smallest Navy since 1916: âWe also have fewer horses and bayonets,â Obama said. âWe have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.â There were some commentators who thought this was too sarcastic or condescending. I didnât. The fact is, Romneyâs foreign- and national-security policies have been a steaming heap of nonsense from the start..." Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/22/the-third-debate-perfect-symmetry/#ixzz2A8VwYwOp
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin By Erick Erickson The whole time during the last Presidential debate, Mitt Romney looked like the incumbent and Barack Obama looked like a challenger trying to keep it together. More specifically, Barack Obama, when he made eye contact, looked like he was seeing and invisible hand writing âMene, Mene, Tekel, Parsinâ on the wall behind Bob Schieffer. This was a man who knows the gig is almost up. Throughout the debate, Mitt Romney smiled, agreed, and avoided fights. Barack Obama did everything he could to get into fights. Thatâs not what incumbents in a comfortable lead do. The biggest issue to come out of this debate, though, was Barack Obama totally claiming that sequestration was Congressâs fault â he signed it into law â and that it would not happen, despite it being the law of the land. Within mere moments after the conclusion of the debate, the Obama camp already walked it back. It is never good for the President of the United States when, immediately upon conclusion of a must win debate, his campaign team is already walking back his bold statements. His jokes about sequestration will haunt him in military towns and his dismissiveness of the American Navy will hurt him in key swing states. Mitt Romney won this debate. Barack Obama, by the end, when not distracted by the handwriting on the wall, must have secretly been contemplating how good a deal he could get from U-Haul on moving boxes.
CNN Poll: Nearly half of debate watchers say Obama won showdown "(CNN) - Give the slight edge to President Obama. Thanks to an aggressive performance and a couple of zingers, a plurality of debate watchers questioned in a national survey say that the president won his final faceoff with Republican nominee Mitt Romney..." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/22/cnn-poll-who-won-the-debate/?hpt=hp_t1
A Solid Romney Win Where It Matters by Carol Platt Liebau When analyzing who won a debate, you can look at a number of factors: Who achieved their overarchhing objective, who had the most memorable lines, who might have left behind ticking time bombs in terms of statements that will return to haunt them. Looking at any of the three, Romney was the clear winner, and Obama the loser. Obviously, Romney's overarching objective wasn't to score debate points on Benghazi or Syria. It was to prove that he is competent, calm, knowledgeable and -- most emphatically -- not a warmonger. It was to make sure he seemed presidential. He achieved it. By contrast, the President needed to highlight some perceived Romney mistake or lack of knowledge, or unsuitability of temperament or other disqualifying characteristic. He failed -- and worse, he made himself dislikable in his efforts to goad Romney into a fight . . . especially when Romney serenely declined to take the bait. On memorable lines that provide the moments viewers remember, Romney obviously had it all over the President. From "attacking me is not an agenda" to "Mr. President, America Has Not Dictated to Other Nations; We Have Freed Other Nations From Dictatorsâ to "Nowhere in the world is America's influence stronger than it was 4 years ago" (an echo of "are you better off than you were four years ago?") he had the memorable take-away phrases. Ticking time bombs? How 'bout Obama's statement that the sequestration "would not happen" -- already being walked back and shown up for the bluster that it was? Or the dismissive invocation of "bayonets" and the Navy -- sure to sit well in Virginia (and ignorant of the fact that Marines still fight with bayonets)? Or his misstatements on Iraq status of forces agreement? Look, some focus groups feel like Obama won the foreign policy portion of the debate. Fine. But Romney didn't need to win on debate points -- he needed not to lose, and to maintain his strong advantages on the economy, and to remain presidential. He did all of it, and more. At the same time, President Obama seemed nervous, on the attack, again condescending and did nothing to raise his flagging likability numbers (he even seemed to me to be lecturing voters in his closing statement!). What struck me the most was that for Romney, it is clear about America and its future. For Obama, it is all about him -- whether he was right, what he has done -- and not about a policy or a vision for this country . . yet again, he failed to lay one out. And that, in the end, reveals how apt Governor Romney's invocation was when, in his closing statement, he highlighted the two very different paths for this country that each man represents.
The challenger versus the Commander-in-Chief By: Newt Gingrich An amazing thing happened in the course of three presidential debates. The president became the challenger and the challenger became the Commander-in Chief. If you turn down the sound and just watch the body language in the third debate, it is clear Romney has become the calm, authoritative leader and Obama has become the aggressive, intense challenger. This is a remarkable turn of events. People who score these events as debates miss the far larger drama which surrounds them. Mike Deaver, President Ronald Reaganâs communications adviser, used to watch events with the sound off. Television, he asserted, was 85 percent visual, 10 percent tone of voice, and only 5 percent what you actually say. Reagan and Romney had a similar challenge in taking on an incumbent president with a weak record. Many people wanted a change but they felt a president is so central to our national survival that they needed reassurance that the challenger would be calm and stable. Both Reagan and Romney had reassurance, a focus on peace not war, and a tone of stable competence as a major goal in their debates. David Gergen captured Romneyâs achievement in the third debate when he said Romney had passed the Commander-in-Chief test. People left the debate feeling Romney was capable of dealing with global realities and with regional complexities. Some partisans wanted Romney to be more aggressive, but that would have violated his strategic goal. It is very important in settings like a presidential debate to remember why you are there and what you are trying to accomplish. These are not college debate sessions with points scored by debate judges based on debate criterion. These are political events designed to gain votes. Romney had done so well in the first two debates that he entered the third debate with a very specific goal. Romney had already built a huge lead among men â the elite media seldom note Obamaâs huge gender gap among men but it is enormous. Romney has also rallied conservatives and Republican partisans. These are the groups that like arguments and he already had their support. The Romney challenge in the third debate was to appeal to women and to moderate independents. Both dislike confrontation. Both dislike negativity and hostility. It is clear Obamaâs polling showed him losing ground going into the third debate. As a result, he went into the foreign policy debate overly aggressive and overly hostile. Obamaâs sarcasm about the size of the military was exactly the wrong style for women and independent moderates. His contempt for Romney came through in that answer and contempt is alienating and irritating to women and independent moderates. It was this difference between debating points and political points that has undercut Obama in both the second and third debates. After a disastrous performance in the first debate â the worst by an incumbent president in the 62 year history of presidential debates â Obama shifted to a much more aggressive and energetic style for the second and third debates. Americans have been trained by American Idol, Dancing with the Stars and other TV shows to judge performances. They have also learned to distinguish important nuances. In both the second and third debate Americans said Obama was a better performer. Yet in both debates people said they were more likely to vote for Romney as a result of the debate. It is this difference between style and substance, between performance and politics that has kept Obama off balance and allowed Romney to build momentum.