Whichever way it works out, one side or another will overattribute the 2012 economy to Obama and the Democrats. The fact is, the president can’t do much more than tinker around the edges of a $14 trillion economy–for which we can humbly thank God every day. If presidents really did have the kind of power over the economy that their friends or enemies try to claim, the world would be a much more terrifying place.

One data point proves nothing – but it is suggestive that Germany’s economy (including employment) is starting to boom (as reported here by The Economist) while the US economy continues to sputter: government in the former nation is following a policy of (relative) fiscal austerity while government in the latter nation is following a policy of wild-spending and deficit-bloating fiscal expansion.

There are brute facts in the world, though most of us would all agree are interpreted facts and thus theory impregnated. Epistemological issues aside, as Tyler Cowen points to today, the fact is that temporary hiring has experienced a boom, while private sector permanent hiring is lagging behind. This is a strong indicator that the policies have created regime uncertainty which has clouded the investment horizon.

About four million jobs are created and destroyed each month

As we’ve noted on this blog, the Administration efforts to punish so-called strategic defaulters seem hopelessly misguided. First, it’s well nigh impossible to tell with simple screens who really could afford their house longer term (ie people who default suddenly, as opposed to wobble in and out of being current on their mortgage before folding, are likely to be anticipatory defaulters, who see their financial train wreck coming and decide to take action). Second, as a corollary, there’s a good reason banks just about never pursue defaulting borrowers on recourse mortgages for deficiency judgments: it’s a costly exercise and you can’t get blood from a turnip. Third, many borrowers have found it difficult if not impossible to reach servicers and get consistent responses as to whether they can work out a mod. Finally, true strategic defaulters have in all likelihood organized their affairs (most important, getting financial reserves out of banks and securities firms) so as to make the efforts to punish them ineffective.

The jobs picture is much worse than they’re telling you. Forget the “official” unemployment rate of 9.5%. Alternative measures? Try this: Just 61% of the adult population, age 20 or over, has any kind of job right now. That’s the lowest since the early 1980s — when many women stayed at home through choice, driving the numbers down. Among men today, it’s 66.9%. Back in the ’50s, incidentally, that figure was around 85%, though allowances should be made for the higher number of elderly people alive today. And many of those still working right now can only find part-time work, so just 59% of men age 20 or over currently have a full-time job. This is bullish?

We all know that health care spending has to be restrained in some manner. There are (at least) two approaches: 1. Have the federal government take a more active role in shutting down or limiting some reimbursements, based on efficacy studies (“death panels”). 2. Turn some or all of Medicare into a fixed voucher program and let individuals choose which set of restrictions they will accept from private suppliers (“grandma bangs on HMO door”). As I understand Ryan’s approach, he is putting a great deal of emphasis on #2, whereas most Democrats favor #1.

This has the feeling of a dyke about to burst. The government’s finger is forestalling the flood with Federal Reserve mortgage security purchases and government agencies that now issue over 90% of home mortgages. This does not put beer on the table which is a reason to think the housing market is going to topple again.

The entire Act is built around the concept of protecting the “financial stability” of the economy. The term “financial stability” is mentioned about 80 times in the Act but there is no definition of what it is.