It is hard to reconcile Friday’s dismal Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report with Vice President Joe Biden’s claim from the previous Friday that “the Recovery Act is operating as advertised.” The BLS related the news that almost 200,000 more jobs were lost in the past month - the 14th consecutive month with losses in the hundreds of thousands - and that the unemployment rate now stands at 10.2 percent. Despite the barrage of terrible employment figures, don’t expect the administration to back off its bold claim that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is on pace to deliver its promised year-end 1 million jobs “created or saved.”

The Obama Administration has demonstrated a knack for clever grammatical constructions, and “created or saved” might be the most artful. By using jobs saved and not just jobs created as the measuring stick, the administration is able to trumpet eye-catchingly large numbers - as attested by the Biden’s triumphal pronouncement that $160 billion of spending had already created or saved almost 650,000 jobs.

And, as Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently explained, advertising success on the jobs front is crucial: “the number one subject on the minds of the American people,” she said after a meeting with economists, is “jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.”

Perhaps the Democrats are proud of their ability to dupe the masses with large, important-sounding but ultimately meaningless numbers.  But those of us actually concerned about the economic health of the nation are something less than impressed.

And even if we take Biden’s numbers as gospel truth, we’re talking about roughly $240,000 in taxpayer spending per job created or saved.

That’s hardly indicative of efficient government policy.

And with national unemployment at 10.2%, this is hardly the time for burdensome new regulations with questionable motivations.

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg)—The U.S. House passed legislation today opposed by DuPont Co. and other firms that would give the government the authority to force companies to replace chemicals that terrorists could use in attacks with safer alternatives.

The measure, approved 230-193, would make permanent the homeland security secretary’s power to oversee security practices at chemical plants. The legislation also proposes that Congress approve $900 million from 2011 to 2013 to fund chemical-plant security.

Congress in 2006 passed a law giving this oversight to the homeland security secretary in response to post-Sept. 11 fears that terrorists could steal dangerous chemicals or target the plants themselves. Lawmakers made the secretary’s power temporary because they couldn’t reach a compromise on permanent standards.

Chemical-industry lobbyists say that letting the secretary mandate substitutions in chemicals and manufacturing processes, as the House measure would do, could cause shortages of some products.

“A particular chemical could be singled out because it’s viewed as bad in one application” although it’s safe when used in other ways, said Marty Durbin, vice president of federal affairs for the American Chemistry Council.

The “chemical industry” sounds nasty, but keep in mind that what we’re talking about here are the companies that make the fertilizers and chemicals that allow our crops to be more substantial, and less prone to being wiped out by disease or insects.  We’re talking about the chemicals that control the spread of diseases like West Nile through insects.  We’re talking about products and services that make our lives easier and simpler.

After 9/11, we did a lot of silly things in a panic (I would say that the creation of the almost entirely redundant Department of Homeland Security was one of them) and I think these regulations are one of the silly things we did.  We all want the country to be safe from terrorism, but not at the expense of giving the government an unrestrained mandate to dictate to us the sort of products we can produce and buy.

Rep. Charlie Dent, ranking Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committe, said in opposition to this bill that “Mandating implementation would result in increased costs, higher consumer prices, and lower crop yields.”  And that nowhere in the bill is the government “required to consider the impact on the local economy and on the local workforce before imposing these unnecessary requirements.”

So ask yourselves: Why is Rep. Pomeroy voting for bills that saddle American industry, particularly the agricultural industry of his home state, with unnecessary requirements?

Because Rep. Pomeroy represents Nancy Pelosi’s interests more than North Dakota’s.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.

Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

Truth be told, I don’t think anyone truly has a handle on just how much this bill will cost.  Medicare, for instance, has exceeded every government estimate for its cost by a country mile.  There’s no reason to expect that this health care bill would remain within even the most extreme cost estimates.

Of course, the point here is to hide the costs until the bill is passed.  At which point it will be law and will never, ever go away (just like Medicare) no matter how shaky its fiscal foundations become.

Hope everyone is being safe out there.

Perhaps the most hilarious part of the episode is Rep. Frank’s denial:

Congressman Frank tells FOX25 that he was surprised and disappointed with what police found.  He also tells us that he wouldn’t recognize a marijuana plant if he saw one because he is, “not a great outdoorsman,” and ,“wouldn’t recognize most plants.”

For some reason I’m not quite believing him.

For what it’s worth, I don’t have a problem with Frank and his lover engaging in some recreational use of marijuana.  I, like Rep. Frank, think it should be legal to save us all a lot of hassle and money in enforcing laws against a benign substance.

That being said, the double standard here is egregious.  And Frank’s hilariously false denial is pathetic.

  Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who developed a close friendship with President Obama when they served together in the Senate, is threatening to have the entire health care bill read on the Senate floor.

  Senior Senate Democratic aides had heard Coburn was considering having potentially thousands of pages read aloud in effort to stall passage. “If he did this it would be even outrageous for a guy who’s become known as Dr. No around here,” one of them told POLITICO.

  Coburn’s office confirmed that he is indeed thinking about having the bill read.

Supposing just the 1,990 pages of the original bill (and undoubtedly a lot more when you start counting in amendments) and a steady 2 minutes per page rate of reading, it’d take roughly 66 hours to read through the bill.

Given that the Senate typically has other business to attend to, and isn’t likely to stay in session for the 12 hours a day for five days (with about six hours left over for a sixth day) it would take to read this thing the reading itself could stretch into weeks.  And if Republicans insist on the bill being read aloud again if there are changes or amendments, we’re talking about months of delay.

And yeah, that would totally be a publicity stunt.  But it would be a stunt that would at least slow the progress of this bill down enough so that the American public could get a handle on what it would do to the way they get health care.  And, you know, let the Senators being asked to vote on it time to actually read it for themselves too.

Remember that our founding fathers devised a government that would move slowly, and act only with broad consensus.  What Democrats are trying to do on health care is the exact opposite of that.

Good on Republicans for at least trying to foil their efforts.

  Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.

  Owens indicated in a press release that he was now in favor of the bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during his campaign.

  According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.

Funny how Democrats usually campaign with conservative stances on issues only to turn around and become true-liberals once in office.  Even Obama did it.  Remember all his talk about transparency and tax cuts and responsible spending?  Once in office he broke those promises almost immediately.

Meanwhile, Republicans plan to vote unanimously against Pelosi care.  That unified opposition will allow them to hang this ugly bill around the neck of Democrats later, but that’s cold comfort once we’re all locked into a government-run system.

House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to settle an impasse over abortion by letting the entire House vote on a proposed solution, a risky decision that could determine the fate of their trillion-dollar overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

Under the agreement, anti-abortion Democrats will be permitted to offer an amendment on the House floor to the health-care overhaul bill. The amendment would prohibit a new government-run insurance plan created by the health-care bill from offering to cover abortion services, congressional sources said. It would also block people who received federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance from buying policies that offered coverage for abortions.

The deal clears the way for the dozens of Democratic lawmakers who oppose abortion to lend their support to the health care package, the most dramatic expansion of health coverage in more than 40 years. It also satisfies the demands of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which had threatened to oppose the House bill.

Another issue with abortion in this “health care reform” few are considering is the fact that, once this bill is in place, Americans would only be able to purchase government-approved health care plans through a government-run health care exchange.  What’s to stop the government from requiring that some or all of the plans available cover abortion?

This is the problem with allowing the government to run or even just manage something like health care coverage.  It limits choice, and people tend to resent that sort of thing.

Not that arrogant political leaders like Nancy Pelosi care.  They know what’s best for you, so you’d best just shut up and fall in line.

Too big to fail:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Freddie Mac, the second largest provider of U.S. residential mortgage funding, on Friday posted a loss of $5 billion in the third quarter and predicted it would need more government support amid a “prolonged deterioration” in housing.

Increases in the value of securities Freddie Mac held over the period helped buoy its net worth, however, erasing its need to tap government funds for a second straight quarter to stay solvent while continuing to buy and guarantee home loans.

Including a $1.3 billion dividend payment on senior preferred stock bought by the Treasury in previous quarters, Freddie Mac’s third-quarter loss increases to $6.3 billion.

Remember that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been in financial trouble because they were the instruments used by the federal government to encourage home ownership by making “easy money” loans available.  Lenders across the mortgage market were pressured or lured into making subprime mortgage loans to people with a low probability of paying them back by promises from the government that Fannie or Freddie would secure them.

This created a new market for what amounted to bad loans that many other lenders exploited.  And when Fannie and Freddie, which owned or secured 51% of the $12 trillion mortgage market at the time of the financial collapse, flopped it set off a domino effect across the lending industry.

And now we taxpayers are being forced to pay the piper for the collapse of the bad loans market the government created in the first place.

What’s more, the government continues to try and lure people into taking out more loans when, frankly, they’d be better served by slowing spending.

It’s fiscal madness.

    President Barack Obama is traveling to Capitol Hill on Saturday to try to close the sale on his signature health care overhaul, facing a make-or-break vote in the House certain to be seen as a test of his presidency.

  Obama scheduled a late-morning visit with House Democrats convening a rare Saturday session on legislation to remake the U.S. health care system, extending coverage to tens of millions now uninsured and banning insurance company practices such as denial of coverage based on pre-existing medical problems.

  Late Friday, House Democrats cleared an abortion-related impasse blocking a vote and officials expressed optimism they had finally lined up the support needed to pass Obama’s signature issue.

  Under the arrangement, Democratic Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were promised an opportunity to insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.

  The leadership’s hope is that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.

  “We wish to maintain current law, which says no public funding for abortion,” Stupak said. “We are not writing a new federal abortion policy.”

No chance for the public to access the finalized bill online and read it.  No chance for those being asked to vote it in to law to read it and analyze it and seek out comment and guidance from their constituents.  Just a slammed-through vote, because Democrats can’t allow this ugly thing to hang out in public view any longer than necessary.

It’s said so often that it’s become cliche, but you can still make a difference with a phone call.  Given the short notice, calling Washington DC directly is probably the best tact.

Here’s the number: (202)224-3121.