Home / Obamaantibusiness

Showing posts with label Obamaantibusiness. Show all posts

Destructive Flash Mob at Walmart in Jacksonville Florida

Do these individuals realize that they will drive businesses out of minority neighborhoods? Many people will pay higher prices from this destruction. One wonders if Obama's rhetoric that businesses are these greedy people who haven't worked hard encourages this type of behavior. This Walmart was apparently just two miles from a house party that police had broken up earlier in the evening. A newspaper story is available here:

A huge house party broken up by police in a North Jacksonville subdivision didn't end there Saturday night as hundreds of young partygoers ignited a flash mob at the Lem Turner Road Walmart Supercenter.
They caused havoc that was recorded and posted on YouTube until Tuesday afternoon, while one person reported being shot during the party.
The Sheriff's Office said investigations into both are "active and ongoing." The shooting is being investigated by the aggravated battery unit detectives while patrol officers follow up on the Walmart incident.
Walmart spokeswoman Dianna Gee said she learned of the incident Saturday night, then spoke with the shift manager at the 12100 Lem Turner Road store. She said the YouTube video is being reviewed, and that the employees did as they were trained by steering clear of the chaos and calling police.
"The actions of these teenagers was deplorable and put at risk the safety of innocent bystanders, staff and customers," Gee said. "We are committed to assisting law enforcement in any way we can to identify the people responsible for the commotion, including acts of vandalism and thefts at the store." . . .

New Fox News piece: Obama needs a history lesson on business and the US

Obamaantibusiness op-ed

My newest piece starts this way:

According to President Obama, his administration has been pro-business, indeed one of the most pro-business administrations ever. Yet, on Friday, in Roanoke, Virginia, Obama admonished those opposed to higher taxes on business: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
What a slap in the face to all those Americans who built successful businesses. And Obama wonders why businesses are afraid to invest, when he uses such rhetoric.
Obama, during his presidency, regularly has called Wall Street executives “fat cats,” bondholders “speculators,” and accuses doctors of giving patients unnecessary and harmful surgery.
He has regularly blamed private companies rather than the government for the financial crisis. Indeed, the only blame he gives to the federal government is that there wasn’t enough regulation.
Even for liberal New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg Obama's attacks have at times been too much: “[Obama’s] bashing of Wall Street is something that should worry everybody.” . . .

President Obama: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

book3 Obamaantibusiness obamadoesntunderstandeconomics

Transcript from a talk in Roanoke, Virginia on July 13, 2012:

So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before -- a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. . . .

Someone should really educate Obama about the history of the United States. A lot of states in the US didn't have public education until the 1870s, and yet they had literacy rates around 96 percent. Public universities got started well after private universities did, and so the vast majority of our colleges were originally private. That even the subways in NYC were originally built and operated privately until government price controls (a 5 cent maximum fare) and "capturing" of existing private lines. You had private highways in the US up until 1916.

"Mechanics of President Obama's Proposal to Raise Taxes on the 'Rich'"

Obamaantibusiness obamataxes Taxes wealthtransfers

TaxProf has a nice collection of links on Obama's tax the rich proposals available here.

Possibly one of the more interesting points that he links to is from the Tax Foundation:

The president and his economic team tend to dismiss the impact that such as tax hike will have on business activity because only 2 or 3 percent of taxpayers with business income are taxed at the highest rates.
While this statistic is true, the more economically meaningful statistic is how much overall business income will be taxed at the highest rates. For example, Treasury data for 2007 indicates that 50 percent of all pass-through income is earned by taxpayers subject to the top two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent. . . .
No matter how you cut the data, the fact is that hiking the top individual income tax rates would amount to one of the largest single tax increases on individually owned businesses in modern history and a threat to the long-term economic health of the nation.

Brit Hume: Obama ‘doesn’t get how the whole system works’

Obamaantibusiness

Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday:

“The president and his team seem to think that the idea of creating wealth is unrelated to creating jobs,” Hume said. “Every business person who runs a hamburger stand understands you are trying to make a profit, and that the business of making a profit has jobs as a bi-product. Not as if there is a favorite industry called ‘Jobs R Us,’ which is in the business for the purpose of creating jobs.” . . .

Romney calls the Obama administration: "the most anti-business administration" since Carter

Obamaantibusiness

My book Debacle goes through Obama's claims that he has been one of the most business friendly administrations ever and shows that the opposite is true. I think that Romney has it right:

Romney said the Obama White House is "the most anti-business administration" since President Carter's, and blasted Obama's proposed "Buffett Rule" that would establish a minimum income tax rate on wealthy individuals, arguing it would hurt small business.
"This is a business that’s taxed at the individual tax rate," he said, gesturing around the room. "This is a direct attack on small business and it's got to end."
He also attacked Obama for working closely with unions. While Virginia has trended Democratic in the last decade, largely due to suburban growth around Washington D.C., Virginia is a "right to work" state and unions are not as popular, or nearly as powerful, there as in some other swing states like Ohio.
"The attempt to change the playing field between management and labor is particularly frightening to small business," Romney said, adding that Obama's policies had "made it back-breaking for many small businesses and made it harder for people to regroup" coming out of the recession. . . .

JP Morgan losses $2 billion, Obama administration losses $66+ billion on GM, and the outrage is over JPMorgan

GM Obamaantibusiness

Here is a very typical headline: "Between Facebook and JPMorgan, Wall St. woes mount"

It was the second stumble this month by a major Wall Street firm. JPMorgan Chase, usually revered for taming risk, has yet to contain a growing $2 billion loss in one of its trading units.
The missteps are further eroding the confidence of Main Street, or what was left of it after the financial meltdown of 2008, and reinforcing the sense that the game is rigged. . . . .

By contrast, there is no massive media coverage of what Obama's $66+ billion losses at GM tell us and the Obama administration has a big campaign advertising blitz saying how great the spending was.

"Obama: Bain debate ‘is what the campaign is going to be about’"

BainCapital DemocratsturningonObama Obamaantibusiness ObamaDishonest Romney

From Politico:

Obama’s damn-the-torpedoes remarks were also aimed at some of his fellow Democrats who are increasingly anxious that their party’s leader is attacking a private equity firm for doing what such businesses were created to do: make cash within the confines of the law.
“My opponent, Gov. Romney, his main calling card for why he should be president is his business experience,” Obama told American and international reporters at McCormick Place at the conclusion of the two-day NATO summit focused on the seemingly weightier issues of Afghan withdrawal and Pakistan.
The deep blue of the NATO stage backdrop seemed, for a moment, to morph into the sky blue of Obama’s campaign sets.
“When you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. … So, if your main argument for how to grow the economy is ‘I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,’ then you’re missing what this job is about,” Obama said. “It doesn’t mean you weren’t good at private equity, but that’s not what my job is as president.”
Obama’s staff and Romney aides have been locked in an intensifying battle after Newark Mayor — and Obama ally — Cory Booker blasted the Obama campaign’s targeting of the venture capital firm as “nauseating” and a “distraction from the real issues.” . . .

Obama's comments about businesses taking the short term but him being concerned about the economy growing 10 years from now is just nuts.

From ABC News:

. . . As for the criticism that the Team Obama’s Bain attack is part of “nauseating” political discourse with which Booker has become “very uncomfortable,” Axelrod said, “on this particular instance he was just wrong.”
Booker is not the only Democrat to question the aggressive, negative portrayal of Romney’s work in private equity. Former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. said today he agreed with “the substance” of Booker’s comments and “would not have backed out.”
“I agree with him, private equity is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances,” the Democrat said in a separate appearance on MSNBC earlier in the day.
Former Obama administration economic adviser Steven Rattner made similar comments last week, calling a new Obama campaign TV ad attacking Romney’s role in the bankruptcy of a Bain-owned steel company “unfair.”
“Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to create profits for its investors,” Rattner said. ”‘It did it superbly well, acting within the rules, acting very responsibly. … This is part of capitalism, this is part of life. I don’t think there’s anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about.” . . .

Democrat Virginia Senator Mark Warner (a former venture capitalist):

Chuck Todd: "Do you think that Bain Capital practiced good or bad ethics here in the way that they went about their business?"

Senator Warner: "I think that Bain Capital was very successful business. I think they got a good return for their investors. That is what they were supposed to do."

Now what are we to make of Van Jones' comments here? They sure sound as if Van Jones' comments on integrity implies that even he agrees with Booker. Is that possible? Also from the Washington Examiner:

“An urban mayor who nearly DIED saving neighbor from a fire, has earned right 2 demand integrity & courage from other leaders,” Jones tweeted on Tuesday in a message addressed to Booker’s Twitter handle. . . .

UPDATE: Here is an interview with an Obama campaign spokesman defending the campaign's attacks on Bain capital. From Mediaite (video available at bottom of page):

The Obama campaign spent the better part of the day of attempting to recover from Newark MayorCory Booker‘s near-scuttling of a major component of their reelection effort, Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, coming very close with President Obama‘s strong double-down at a press conference this afternoon. Then, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt took to Anderson Cooper 360 to undo as much of that as he could. . . .
[Obama's reframing of the Bain question to whether Romney has the experience to be president] nearly did the trick, using their most effective weapon: President Obama himself. . . . More importantly, he changed the headline to “Obama Doubles Down.” . . .
[Anderson Cooper asked Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt] “How can President Obama attack Mitt Romney on his time at Bain, highlighting only times when Bain cost companies jobs, and at the same time hold high priced fund raisers with the head of another private equity firm that’s done work with Bain, the Blackstone Group, there are people who have worked at other private equity firms in his own administration?”
. . . Five or six times, Cooper tried to get LaBolt to answer that one question, only to be met with uninterrupted talking points, or naked subject changes.
The rest of the interview went on along the same lines. Asked if he agreed with Mayor Booker that Bain had “done a lot to grow businesses,” LaBolt responded, “You know what Mayor Booker also said?” . . .

UPDATE2: A new poll by Rasmussen suggests that the Bain attacks aren't working so well for the president.

Democrats have begun criticizing Mitt Romney’s business record, but a plurality of voters view the Republican’s business past as a positive.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that Romney’s track record in business is primarily a reason to vote for him. Thirty-three percent (33%) see his business career as chiefly a reason to vote against him. Twenty-two percent (22%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) . . .

Or how about this?

Voters now trust likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney more than President Obama on all five issues regularly surveyed by Rasmussen Reports, especially when it comes to money.
A new national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters trust Romney more than Obama when it comes the economy, while 39% trust the president more. Ten percent (10%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording,click here.) . . .

Just a copy of Booker's remarks:

"To me, it's just we're getting to a ridiculous point in America, especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital," Booker said. "If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses. And this, to me, I'm very uncomfortable with."

Nice summary of quotes from different Democrats upset with Obama's attacks on Bain Capital.

UPDATE: Some more Democrats speak out:

Deval Patrick: Bain "Not A Bad Company"

Ed Rendell: "Either/Or" On If He Agrees With How Obama Campaign Being Run

Rattner on Bain

More info available here.

To Obama, not all businesses are bad, not if they are run by Democrats

Obamaantibusiness Regulation

Demonizing businessmen? Obama saying nice things about Democratically run firms:

In the early days of his administration, Obama praised JPMorgan as an example of a well-run bank. “You know, keep in mind, though there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed, JPMorgan being a good example, Jamie Dimon, the CEO there, I don’t think should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio,” Obama told ABC News in February 2009. . . . .

In the past, Dimon has been an ardent opponent of tighter regulations on banks. And he’s been able to do so in part because he had outsized sway with Democrats in both Congress and the White House.
In the early days of his administration, Obama praised JPMorgan as an example of a well-run bank. “You know, keep in mind, though there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed, JPMorgan being a good example, Jamie Dimon, the CEO there, I don’t think should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio,” Obama told ABC News in February 2009. . . . .

Democrats think that the French and Greek votes are good news?

deficits EuroFinancialCrisis governmentwaste Obama2012 Obamaantibusiness

Do voters just want to spend more money without worrying how to pay for it? Dems think so. From the Washington Examiner:

Democrats say that the angry, anti-austerity elections this week that saw voters throw out reform-minded French and Greek leaders could be good news for them, a signal that their plan to spend billions more than the Republicans is a vote winner.
Those elections “confirm the position that many of us have taken, which is the most important thing right now is to sustain and nurture the very fragile economy,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
“While we have to develop and implement a long-term deficit reduction plan, we should be very careful in designing that, that we do nothing to hurt the fragile economy. In fact we believe that we should make some additional investments,” he added.
For example, he’s pushing for the passage of a massive $50 billion-plus infrastructure spending bonanza offered by President Obama, as well as spending on education, science, research and Middle Class programs. The reason: it would inject money into the economy and cut the 16 percent unemployment in construction and fix roads and bridges. . . .

More on Obama as Thug: Why campaign donations should be anonymous

CampaignFinanceRegulation Obamaantibusiness Regulation thugishgovernment

Would Obama have attacked these people if they had given to him? Obviously, not. From Kim Strassel at the WSJ:

This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them. . . .
The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents. . . .

Can Obama keep bashing the rich while taking the vacations he takes?

classwarfare Obamaantibusiness

Obama is a fairly wealthy guy. The question is whether people resent Obama using taxpayer money for outrageous vacations more than they dislike Romney r being wealthy. From the Washington Examiner:

Blue collar Democratic voters, stuck taking depressing “staycations” because they can’t afford gas and hotels, are resentful of the first family’s 17 lavish vacations around the world and don’t want their tax dollars paying for the Obamas’ holidays, according to a new analysis of swing voters.
“They view everything through their own personal situation and if they can’t afford to do it, they can’t enjoy it, they don’t like Obama using their tax dollars to benefit himself,” said pollster John McLaughlin. “In this case, they see him as out of touch. While they are struggling he’s not sharing in that struggle and he’s basically doing what they can’t do on their tax dollars,” added the GOP pollster.
He and several other top-tier Republican pollsters, organized by Resurgent Republic, traveled to 11 battleground states to host focus groups of independent and swing voters, mostly Democrats, who voted for President Obama in 2008 but who are now on the fence. . . .
The theme, said McLaughlin, is that the first family “is out of touch” with working class voters. . . .

He added that the president’s attack on the rich and GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney’s wealth is working . . . .

Obama administration's view of oil companies: "Crucify them"

Environment Obamaantibusiness

No antibusiness feelings here. From CNS:

. . . Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies. In the video, Administrator Armendariz says: “I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said: “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. “Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.” “It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages. Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech: “Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. “In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.” . . .

Obama continues blaming speculators

2012election conspiracytheories KeithOlbermann Obama2012 Obamaantibusiness obamadoesntunderstandeconomics speculation

I have tried several times to explain how speculation works, but Democrats can't pass up a chance to bash businesses.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: Let's talk a little bit more about the economy. Gas prices are starting to come down this week, but the president wanted to show he's on top of it, saying he's prepared to crack down on speculators.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: My administration will take new executive actions to better analyze and investigate trading activities in energy markets and more quickly implement the tough consumer protections under Wall Street reform. None of these steps by themselves will bring gas prices down overnight, but it will prevent market manipulation and make sure we're looking out for American consumers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Keith, the president did made a concession there. The problem is they actually hadn't been able to come up with any evidence that speculation was driving up the price. There's a lot of hunches, no hard evidence.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Yeah. One of the -- one of the things I turned to, to try to establish that was to look at the average gas price at various key moments, and the lowest price in the last six years, the nadir of gas prices at the pump, was the day of this president's inauguration in 2009. There has to be some connection between that being the least busy political moment of a president's career, where you're not going to -- you're not going to hurt them, you're not going to harm him that way, and the price of gas. There has to be an almost deliberate or at least a side effect quality to that. There must be.

The rambling here about conspiracy theories is crazy. Speculators make money my arbitraging away price differences. To sell gas when you think that it will rise in the future is a sure way to lose money. The same is true if you buy it up when you think that it will be lower in the future is another way to lose money. For a massive market like oil where this conspiracy trading increases the profits of other speculators to go in the other direction.

More Democrat attacks on business, going after oil companies again

Energy Obamaantibusiness

Democrats see the future as attacking oil companies. From Politico:

Democrats have a “huge opportunity” to reclaim control of the debate over gas prices by training attention on the excesses of oil companies, two prominent party strategists argue in a memo obtained by POLITICO.
The document circulating among Democrats was authored by Center for American Progress Chairman John Podesta and pollster Geoff Garin, and cites private polling that confirms “Americans are tired of the stranglehold oil companies have over our national energy policy.”
The strategists reveal that a CAP Action Fund poll taken by Garin’s firm, Hart Research, found that 59 percent of Americans say they’ve suffered due to high gas prices – “with large majorities of the public assigning a significant share of the blame to the major oil companies and Wall Street speculators.”
“The fact is domestic production is at an eight-year high, domestic demand for oil and oil products is down, and gas prices continue to rise. Meanwhile the big five oil companies earned a record $137 billion in profits in 2011,” Podesta and Garin write. . . .

Government continuing to play favorites, helping out some companies at the expense of others

Corruption governmentcontrol Obamaantibusiness

Why should the government subsidize businesses? All these subsidies of course help one firm versus another, though this is a more concrete example. From the Politico:

Turning up the heat on Boeing Co., Sen. Tom Coburn wants Congress to bar the Export-Import Bank from financing aircraft sales to foreign airlines if the transactions do “substantial injury” to American carriers competing for the same international routes.
As drafted now, Coburn’s legislative language appears to stop short of a strict, “shall not” prohibition. But he specifically targets “long-range aircraft” akin to Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner, which is heavily dependent on international sales supported by Ex-Im loan guarantees. . . .

New piece in Philadelphia Inquirer: Speculators smooth out the rough spots

Energy Obamaantibusiness obamadoesntunderstandeconomics op-ed pricecontrols speculation

My new piece with Grover Norquist in the Philadelphia Inquirer starts this way:

With regular gas prices topping $3.70 last weekend, angry politicians are blaming the higher prices on speculators and greedy oil companies. On Monday, The Hill newspaper reported that 23 senators and 45 congressmen, all Democrats except for one independent, called for urgent action against the "speculators" they hold responsible. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania demanded, "Consumers shouldn't be forced to pay higher prices at the pump because of speculative bets on Wall Street."

These politicians want the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use its new regulatory powers under a law signed by President Obama two years ago to limit the amount of oil that speculators can buy.

This isn't a new concern. Last April, when regular gas prices hit $4 a gallon, the president launched a Department of Justice investigation into what he called "manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices."

Unfortunately, neither the Democrats in Congress nor Obama appear to have a clue how markets work. The policy reminds one of Richard Nixon's attacks on speculators during the 1970s. . . .

A 64% total tax on corporate profits?: Obama sure knows how to encourage investment

Obama Obamaantibusiness ObamaDishonest obamadoesntunderstandeconomics

Companies already face a 40% marginal income tax. If they pay out their profits as dividends, Obama wants up to a 40% tax on those dividends. Those two taxes together would imply a 64% total tax on the profits earned by American shareholders. Of course, the total tax won't be that high because firms would immediately stop paying dividends, though I am sure that the Obama administration is assuming that the tax will have no effect on the dividend payout rate. From TVNZ:

President Barack Obama's 2013 election-year budget took investors by surprise with a call for significantly higher taxes on dividends, a major change from his earlier tax proposals and one that will raise the ire of dividend-paying companies.

Households earning more than $250,000 a year would see the tax they owe on dividends rise to a maximum of almost 40% next year, equal to the higher maximum income tax rate set to take effect in 2013. The current top income rate is 35%.

Obama again proposed raising the current 15% long-term capital gains tax rate to 20% for the wealthy. He had earlier also sought to set a 20% tax on dividends. . . .

Obama White House refuses to condemn Occupy Wall Street Rioters

ObamaAdministration Obamaantibusiness

From Fox News:

QUESTION: Occupy Wall Street protesters are making headlines again as you know over the weekend 400 protesters were arrested in Oakland and now today the national park services is expected to clear out protesters potentially as we speak from a site here in DC.

What is your reaction, is the administration concerned that some of these protesters are taking things too far?

CARNEY: Well, with regards to Oakland that’s obviously a local law enforcement matter. Here in Washington I would refer you for specifics to the U.S. National Park Services and U.S. Park Police and our position has been and continues to be that we need to balance first Amendment concerns, the right to demonstrate, the right to speak freely with public safety concerns and public health concerns and we understand that local law enforcement as well as National Park Service and U.S. Park Police are weighing these considerations when making these decisions and that’s appropriate.

Did Obama's union biased Stimulus slightly increase the number of workers in unionized firms?

Obamaantibusiness Unions

All those rules requiring that work be done by unionized workers only had a small (I assume temporary) impact on the percent of workers who are unionized. From the WSJ:

The percentage of workers who belong to a union inched down to 11.8% from 11.9% in 2010, a decline the Bureau of Labor Statistics said left the rate "essentially unchanged." . . .

In 2011, the private sector added about 110,000 union members, pushing the total there to 7.2 million. In the public sector, membership fell by 61,000 as budget-strapped federal, state and local governments cut jobs.

Still, public-sector union members continued to account for more than half of the nation's total union members, and their membership rate of 37% remained five times greater than the private sector's rate of 6.9%. . . .

Hot News of the World