BloggeRhythms

As has become quite common by now, the government revised the results previously posted for the third quarter of the year.

Jeffry Bartash @marketwatch.com, reported yesterday that: “The economy expanded a touch slower in the third quarter than previously reported, revised government figures show, but the path of growth is still the same: The U.S. running well below the historical norm more than six years into a recovery.”

Gross domestic product increased at a 2% annual pace from July to September, according to the revision. “Previously the Commerce Department had said the U.S. grew at a 2.1% rate after a 3.9% increase in the second quarter.”

Mr. Bartash then explained that: “Historically the economy has expanded at a 3.3% rate.” Adding: “The good news: Consumers are spending money at a more rapid pace, helped by strong job creation. That’s what is mainly fueling growth since consumers account for more than two-thirds of economic activity.”

Bartash went on to include: “The bad news: Businesses have scaled back investment in response to sluggish exports, cheap oil and lower profits.” 

And that’s what prompted quoting from this article in the first place. Because it’s simply beyond rationality to try to understand how “cheap oil” can contribute to the slowing of economic growth. In fact, the reason consumers are spending money at a more rapid pace is that the cash isn’t going into their gas tanks, making it available for spending elsewhere on other things. Bartash himself wrote that in the paragraph above where he presented “the good news.”

Thus, this article doesn’t appear as if it was written by an impartial economic analyst. It seems much more like words coming from a Democrat flak, shilling for the White House.

On another recurring issue, in June, NOAA widely publicized a study refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change. Taking the other side, Texas Republican, Lamar S. Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has tried diligently to obtain all communications from NOAA surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency’s scientific process. 

After issuing a subpoena for the information, Smith then sent a letter on December 1^st, offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements. However, he hasn’t received any cooperation from NOAA, causing him to state: “Despite what some critics claim, the subpoena is not only about scientists. Political operatives and other NOAA employees likely played a large role in approving NOAA’s decision to adjust data that allegedly refutes the hiatus in warming. … The Committee needs to understand the full context of NOAA’s decision-making process.”

Chairman Smith then continued his efforts without receiving much, if any, real response from the NOAA. At the same time, Judicial Watch may once again succeed as the stimulus for the agency’s acquiescence, much like its role in obtaining release of Bill Clinton’s wife’s emails. The foundation announced yesterday, that it “filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models.”

Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, said: ““We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration.  The Obama administration seems to care not one whit for a congressional subpoena but knows from prior experience that a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit cannot be ignored.”

After a complaint was served on the agency on December 8, less than a week later, on Tuesday, December 15, NOAA finally began to turn over documents to the House committee. That same day, NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

This isn’t the first time that Judicial Watch has met with success on the same issue. Previously investigating alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration, in 2010, the foundation obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The documents related to a controversy erupting in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

So, what we have here is a major step toward exposing the administration’s fostering manipulation of climate data in order to confirm their point regarding global-warming. But, with all those billions of bucks involved in the scheme, it’s certainly should be no surprise that they’d lie, cheat and steal. What’s more, if the climate study grants were taken away, countless numbers of “scientist’s” might have to go out and actually work for a living, like the rest of us.

On another subject, according to POLITICO via Drudge, there's no limit on the number of candidates on the main stage for the next Republican debate. However, “calculations based on only the national polling available as of Tuesday, the prime-time stage would include Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, former Gov. Jeb Bush and Gov. Chris Christie. The early state polling wouldn't change the lineup as of Tuesday, according to POLITICO calculations of Iowa and New Hampshire polls.”

Which means that there are still a couple of candidate’s who actually know how to govern still in the race for the White House. Bush and Christie are the only one’s having any kind of proven success in office, while the only thing the other four wannabes’ can deliver is carloads of unrealistic promises and roomfuls of hot air. And, hopefully, as time goes on the voting public will recognize the difference between theoretical BS and reality, and then select a candidate who actually knows what he's doing.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

On top of yesterday’s dreadful news regarding the nation’s continually poor economic performance, significantly lower growth than previously reported, and an economy running well below the historical norm more than six years into a recovery, Bill’s wife called for a decade-long investment of $2 billion per year for Alzheimer's research, which her campaign called a fourfold increase over last year's $586 million.

While it’s doubtless that the idea sounds noble, and certainly would be appreciated by those affected by the disease, with the nation already carrying $20 trillion in debt, where does she think these additional funds will come from? Which means she’s approaching the problem from the wrong end. 

Because, the only way to cover the additional funds Bill's wife seeks is to vote a Republican into the White House. That would get the nation’s economy back where it belongs and raise the GDP to 4 or 5%, or more. Creating jobs, raising incomes, increasing tax collected and in turn, reducing the national debt. And that would provide the funds for all kinds of research, Alzheimer’s included.  

Leading to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.

Adios