Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina sinks confirmation of Thomas Farr to US District Court in this congress, but cocaine Mitch may have another plan

Sen. Tim Scott announces opposition to judicial nominee Thomas Farr, effectively dooming confirmation:

South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott announced Thursday he will oppose embattled judicial nominee Thomas Farr, in a reversal of his position a day earlier that seemingly ends the nominee's chances for now amid fierce criticism by civil rights groups. ...

Farr was first nominated to the federal court in the Eastern District of North Carolina by former President George W. Bush in 2006, but never received a confirmation vote. ...

Prominent Democrats immediately applauded Scott's decision Thursday to oppose Farr, and attacked President Trump for doubling down on Bush's nomination. ...

Top Republicans had also stood behind Farr this week. It remains unclear whether the Senate's GOP leadership will try to reconsider Farr when the new 53-47 Republican majority -- sans Flake -- is seated in January.

“The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary -- a body that's frequently been held up by my Democratic colleagues as the ‘gold standard’ -- has awarded Mr. Farr its highest possible rating: unanimously well qualified,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The "Conservatarians" are as condescending toward Trump voters today as Hillary's voters were yesterday

To Hillary, Trump voters were deplorables.

To conservatarians, Trump voters are the WrestleMania vote, the ignorant gulls who fill Trump's rallies around the country to this day.

Jon Gabriel of Ricochet and Stephen L. Miller count themselves conservatarians, here.

Like Frank Meyer's fusionism which tried to combine libertarianism and traditionalism, conservatarianism also conceives of itself as a libertarian mixture, but with social liberalism not traditionalism.

As such, however, this simply represents the failed status quo, which has been only too happy to use the traditional right at election time since Reagan but otherwise has paid but lip service to it once in power. Its main interest on the one side claims to be fiscal probity, but vainly imagines that its reprobate self even wants smaller deficits. Under Bush 43, debt to the penny soared from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion. In truth, conservatarianism only affects conservatism. Its real interest is in Bacchus. 

Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish? -- James 3:11

Nay, nay.

Kooky "Macro Tourist" tells us to put aside our political views, uses crabbed Talking Points Memo graph to warn us about Republican federal spending increases

THINGS HAVE CHANGED...:

Although the Republicans are supposedly the party of fiscal conservatism, we all know that sort of talk is only for when they are not in power. ... There should be little surprise that under Republican stewardship, the greatest fiscal stimulus in the past decade has been instituted. Not saying if it is good or bad because my opinion is completely irrelevant. ... You would be foolish to ignore the dramatic change in the world’s attitude towards economic policy. “Tight fiscal and easy monetary policy” is being replaced with “easy fiscal and (somewhat) tighter monetary policy”. And ironically enough, the Republican Party under Trump’s “leadership” is at the forefront of this change.

Apparently the guy can't figure out the facts for himself, which show that Trump is projected by the center left Tax Policy Center to be in the same league as Obama through fiscal 2020, not in the Reagan league, not in the Nixon league, not in the Bush 41 league, either. Hell, he's not even projected to make the Bush 43 league, which was bad enough. Spending is going up under Trump, too be sure, but it's a world away from previous Republican administrations.

What really matters for spending is who controls the purse strings, which is Congress. Until Clinton, Republican presidents had to bargain with Democrat Congresses to get what they wanted. That often meant agreeing to big spending bills. The Republican resurgence in Congress under Clinton marked a new era in spending, which comparatively speaking is way down on a compound annual growth rate basis, even under spendthrift Bush 43.

Personally I'm less fearful than I had been of a new spending spree under Trump with Republicans in control of Congress. Trump is adversarial with the Republican Establishment in a way that no Republican president of the past has been. Getting what he wants hasn't been at all easy for this very reason. Republicans are obstructing him no less than Democrats are even as Trump folds like a house of cards on taxes and regulation without getting anything in return, like a wall. At some point he's going to veto something, or go down to electoral defeat.

At any rate, talk of a new dramatic change is simply kooky.

Sorry Charlie: Jeff Cox of CNBC wildly exaggerates wages under Trump, "the last missing piece of the economic recovery"

Here in "Trump has set economic growth on fire":

Friday brought another round of good news: Nonfarm payrolls rose by a better-than-expected 201,000 and wages, the last missing piece of the economic recovery, increased by 2.9 percent year over year to the highest level since April 2009. That made it the best gain since the recession ended in June 2009. ... Indeed, the economy does seem to be on fire, and it's fairly easy to draw a straight line from Trump's policies to the current trends.

The wage series used by Cox for all workers differs little in August 2018 from the series for the 80% of workers who are production and nonsupervisory, except that the latter goes back much farther than 2006, giving a truer picture of where we are at. And where we are at is slightly better off than under Obama, but that's about it. It's still not as good as under George W. Bush, for crying out loud. And it's certainly not "on fire".

This is not an economic boom for most working people.

John McCain is dead, the so-called conservative politician who relied on independents and liberals to win

From the 2004 story here about the South Carolina primary in 2000 against George W. Bush:

McCain’s overall strategy relied heavily on the state’s 400,000 veterans and military retirees’ siding with the war hero, and on his appealing, as he had in New Hampshire, to independents and liberals. He thought a high turnout in the open primary would favor him.

The turnout on Saturday, February 19, was huge—573,000 voters, more than double the previous high in a primary—but Bush still won by 11 points, 53 to 42. (Alan Keyes got a little less than 5 percent.) The veterans’ vote split evenly; Bush was buoyed by a two-to-one margin among Christian conservatives, a third of total voters. McCain outpolled him only in the more liberal coastal counties. Remarkably, a majority of voters saw Bush as the one who had run the more positive campaign, despite the attacks from pro-Bush groups.

Author finds cost of housing and daycare to be the main drivers of the middle class "squeeze"

From the transcript of the podcast here:

Middle-class life is 30% more expensive than it was 20 years ago. ... The main problem is the cost of housing. ... The second problem was the cost of daycare. A lot of it had to do with wages that were just not keeping up with other kinds of expenses. ...  [R]eal estate is no longer a place to live, but it’s an investment vehicle. That has driven up the cost of housing for ordinary people or the precarious middle class, as I call them. 

Unstated here is the new necessity of two incomes once women entered the labor force in quantity after the 1960s under the influence of feminist ideology. For the first twenty years of the post-war this was not so. When you dramatically increase the size of the labor force, the cost of the labor naturally comes down. The result was that women entering the workforce increased their average real income, but only just enough over time to pay for the cost of daycare, a wash. Meanwhile real male incomes stagnated.

Women working in large numbers naturally put pressure on the future growth of the labor force as well. Because they were not having the children who would become the country's next workers, a future labor shortage was inevitable as the post-war 4-child families transformed into 2-child families.

Enter the pressure to increase immigration, wink at low-labor-cost illegal immigration, and export jobs, a new era of which was inaugurated under George H. W. Bush in 1989, who doubled the level of legal immigration overnight, and under his son George W. Bush in 2001, who presided over the export of 3 million manufacturing jobs, a trend continued under Barack Obama who exported 3 million more. Manufacturing jobs had been the most important anchors and hubs for middle class jobs in American communities, the absence of which turned college from an option into a necessity in order to maintain what was formerly possible with only a high school diploma. Increase the demand for college, and you increase its price, and with it the pressure on stagnating pocketbooks.

Housing prices rose dramatically from the late 1990s in consequence of the fateful decision under Bill Clinton to unleash the savings hidden in the nation's housing stock for sixty years. Clinton signed in 1997 the libertarian Republican legislation rewriting the tax laws which had forced homeowners to stay in their homes or move up to avoid large capital gains tax hits. Large economic forces were behind this, not the least of which was the growing sense of the unsustainability of the middle class consumption culture without a new source of savings. 

The birth of the housing ATM under Reagan in the 1980s had no doubt prepared the way for these developments, who infamously did away with the tax deductibility of credit card interest while increasing the same for home equity lines of credit. The effect was to get the children of the Baby Boom to think of their homes as mere commodities which could be exploited to extract value. The liquidity unleashed by the Clinton legislation ten years later hit the economy like a tidal wave, driving prices higher and higher into the now infamous housing bubble as homes were churned by flippers and families alike. It took just ten years of that to drive the economy into the worst panic it had experienced since the Great Depression.

Reversing these horrible developments would require a civilizational transformation of values which in the past only Protestant Christianity seems to have been able to provide. Feminist ideology, like all ideology, has done nothing but take away. The revaluation of values necessary in our situation would have to begin with women insisting on fidelity and marriage once again. Women are biologically predisposed to the self-sacrifice needed. To get the men to go along they will need a Lysistrata, but she's probably not Camille Paglia.

Communism works in only one place.  

Good comparison of the presidents on GDP by Justin Fox at Bloomberg

Guess Which Presidents Really Oversaw Economic Booms

Fox well reminds his readers that GDP is an inadequate measure in many respects, and gives credit where credit is due even when the numbers don't seem to show it.

His second chart is the better chart since it is a political comparison, which is what this is all about, pegging beginning and end of analysis to fourth quarters when presidents are elected or eclipsed.

He has Kennedy and Johnson first and second (5.5% and 5%), followed by Clinton (3.8%), Reagan 3.6%), Carter (3.2%) and Nixon 3.0%), then IKE (2.5%), then Ford and Bush 41 tied (2.2%), with Obama (1.9%) and Bush 43 (1.8%) bringing up the rear. (Trump so far is seventh, ahead of IKE but behind Nixon, at 2.7%).

A few quibbles.

The data is plenty fine for Truman 1948-1952. He should be included. His performance is the best of them all on a full term basis (5.54%), using the same compound annual growth rate Fox uses. The secret to Truman's success? He slashed government spending in the wind-down from World War II. No one seems to get that. By cutting taxes and not slashing spending, Republicans since Truman only defeat themselves and discredit what works.

Secondly, JFK didn't serve out his first term, Nixon his second. Therefore it makes more sense to view JFK coterminous with LBJ (5.19% together), and Ford with Nixon (2.73%), evaluating them together in two eight year periods of Democrat and Republican political administration respectively, which is what it was.

Third, Fox rounds his numbers, which obscures how close Bush and Obama were in their terrible records (1.83% and 1.88% respectively). 

All in all, though, we come up with similar results: Truman is first (5.54), followed by JFK/LBJ (5.19), Clinton (3.81), Reagan (3.55), Carter (3.19), Nixon/Ford (2.73), IKE (2.52), Bush 41 (2.21), Obama (1.88), and Bush 43 (1.83).

Trump's first year through 4Q2017 is 2.47%. Measured 2Q2017 on 2Q2018 just completed he's at 2.85%.

Only by comparison with the previous sixteen years is this anything to cheer about, but thankfully we have that.

In 2011 a judge told us to forgo something is acting, in 2018 a judge insists refusing to help is not the same as impeding

Judge Kessler in 2011, here, a liberal Clinton appointee, in re Obamacare.

Judge Mendez in 2018, here, a liberal Bush 43 appointee, in re immigration enforcement.

Liberals always rule to advance liberal objectives, even if it means that not acting is acting once upon a time but later on in a different situation it is not.

The manifest politicization of the judiciary ought to mean that they all must resign when the guy who appointed them finishes his term. It would be a more honest acknowledgement of the truth that the law is an ass, and that elections have consequences.

Manufactured crisis of child separations: Both Bush and Obama separated families by the hundreds of thousands

And there are lots of photos, here.

The "crisis" is being used to move poor legislation, and the president is its easy mark:

Representative Mark Meadows said Trump told Republican members of the House at a meeting on Capitol Hill that they needed to get something done on immigration "right away."

This is why conservative temperament matters: It isn't manipulated easily or hastily. Unfortunately Trump has no such temperament.

Bush's and Obama's legal immigrants have taken all the jobs, no matter how you measure them

We have 16.1 million total unemployed in May 2018, and 16.8 million new legal immigrants since Bush 43 was elected

That doesn't make any sense!

Sorry Jonathon Trugman, one month does not a full-time story make

Here he is, without data:

"Yes, folks, things really are looking better for full-time employment." 

It's true that the percentage of the population working full-time in May 2018 is up, to 50.1%.

Unfortunately the average for the first five months of 2018 is only 49.3%, the same as for the whole of 2017. Despite the surge in May, the average indicates no progress over 2017, yet.

Full-time peaks every year in July or August, so we'll see what happens. But when all is said and done, I'm expecting the full year to average about 49.8%, up about a half point.

In any event, we're still down in the basement trying to climb back to 52.1%, the pre-Great Recession average. To do it, we'll need another 5.1 million jobs, right quick like. If using the averages, 7 million.

But there is no driver for such jobs in this country, because we threw out the old one: housing. The whole economy was based on housing in the post-war, and once the Baby Boom bankers and politicians got their grubby little hands on it under Clinton and Bush 43, they managed to screw that pooch right along with everything else they've touched. A bunch of spendthrifts and squanderers are we. 

So-called National People's Congress of China votes 2,959-2 to remove term limits for Xi Jinping, with 3 abstentions

The story is here.

So, our two main rivals in the world are now each ruled by perpetual dictators, as they were in the past.

And to think from 1992 some in the West foolishly accepted the idea of the end of history, "that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government."

Not even Francis Fukuyama believed it for more than three years.

Unfortunately the George W. Bush administration, in its ignorant hubris, did.

But here we now are, having squandered the intervening years, and Trump is just fine with the new dictatorships. He admires them no less than Obama did. They are grandiose, like he is, like Obama is. He wishes he could be one of them, too.

When was the last time you heard a statesman from the West call on these rival powers to throw off their chains and embrace freedom?

I can't remember, either.

Freedom as we have known it in the world is in great peril, and we hardly care.

Therefore we will lose it, sooner rather than later.

The fool of a president George W. Bush is as pathetic as Trump in seeking validation at this point in his life

George W. Bush was easily the worst post-war president until Barack Obama came along.

And a lot of water has to go under the bridge before the verdict is in on Trump.

Meanwhile, these presidents who constantly look for validation or constantly assert their egos are a reflection of the decline of America, not its greatness. Comparisons between them amount to nothing more than sorting out the cleanest dirty shirt in the laundry.

Are there no real men left?

The face of the declining middle class in 2016 was concealed as 15 million more lived in doubled-up households than in 2005

Zillow reported (here) in December that working age adults in 2016 were living in doubled-up households at a rate of 30% compared with 21% in 2005.

That works out to roughly 32 million in 2005 at the 21% rate vs. 50 million in 2016 at the 30% rate, using the Working Age Population data from FRED.

Had the rate remained 21% in 2016, just 35 million would be living doubled-up instead of 50 million. 

That's 15 million more adults who can't afford to buy, and can't even afford to rent, thanks to the feckless performances of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama.

h/t Jeffrey Snider, Alhambra Investments

Retiring Sen. Bob Corker demands Republicans raise taxes in order to cut them

We had to destroy the village in order to save it.

Bombing is the only way forward.

We had to have a war between the States in order to save them.

Export subsidies are necessary in order to preserve free trade.

I have abandoned free market principles in order to save the free market system.

The London Interbank Overnight Rate system had to be suppressed in order to save the banking system.

We had to bail out the banks so that we could sue them. 

The North Korea problem in a nutshell

George W. Bush cried wolf in Iraq, and now when faced with a genuine threat, Democrats and Republicans alike think Trump is evil for crying like a wolf. They are in denial, shrinking from reality, and incapable of anything save appeasement. There is incontrovertible evidence of a pattern of North Korean use of force, not just threats of it. Do they really want to be responsible for the deaths of many innocents before we are forced to take out North Korea's nuclear capability?

They both agree on abortion, so I guess the answer is yes.

Full-time job growth under Trump so far beats Obama and Bush, but that's about it

Note that employers panicked under Obama and fired people like crazy after his election, so there was a steep decline in full-time.

So far the growth of full-time shows a tentative thumbs-up to Trump, but still nothing like the vote of confidence typical after previous changes at the helm of state.

The puny 2.5% growth under George W. Bush, keep in mind, was still all pre-911 and post-Reagan bull market, which ended in August 2000. Trump is doing better than Bush, but not by much.

The Reagan GDP miracle is a complete myth: It was all government spending (on defense)

And it set a horrible precedent for the dramatic overspending of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which has sent us on a course to oblivion. You can argue it was necessary to defeat the USSR, but you can't argue that baseline spending (in black) has done anything but go up, up, up to dangerous new levels as a result (notice the baseline Jimmy Carter inherited from liberal Republicanism, for which he got the blame from Ronald Reagan, which wasn't very nice of the old man who went on to bequeath a similar giant new baseline to his successor, G.H.W. Bush).

No, the real miracle was the pathetic loser in Iran, Jimmy Carter, who spent the least in the post-war for his additional GDP, followed by Bill Clinton.

Of course, the spending is all the prerogative of the Congress. The president proposes but the Congress disposes, as the saying goes.

Beware libertarian politicians preaching balanced budgets, as well as utopian infrastructure spending enthusiasts promising the moon and liberal Republicans selling government spending as security to senior citizens at the expense of younger Americans in a time of protracted war. They have delivered little beyond $20 trillion in debt.

Ralph Peters becomes irrational about Putin like Bush, under questioning by Tucker Carlson

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy – I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Here:

[Vladimir Putin] is malevolent and he is as close to pure evil as I can find. ... [H]e is as bad as Hitler. ... Vladimir Putin hates America, he wants to hurt us. ... Russia is evil, Russia is our enemy.