Up until Friday's disappointing unemployment numbers, the stock market appeared ready to regain the year's high all in one week. However, the ugly news that the nation hired a meager 18,000 of our unemployed dashed investor's hopes that the economy might be gaining strength in the second half.

Equities plummeted across the board, as did commodities, while Treasury bonds and gold provided safe havens for worried investors. The Republicans were quick to call a news conference highlighting the Obama administration's failure to create jobs while providing platitudes on how to get America back to work. Unfortunately, neither party has come up with anything close to effective in combating unemployment here at home.

Unfortunately, much of what ails our country's work force has little to do with the here and now. For years, unskilled jobs in environmentally unfriendly industrial and manufacturing industries have been exported overseas. At the same time the construction sector, which had absorbed so much of the unskilled labor pool, is in the doldrums.

Both the government and private sectors have exhorted America's future workers to stay in school, go to college or technical school and obtain skills that would be salable in the new service/technical economy of the country. Instead, the dropout rate has increased while our educational system has continued to decline. Older workers, for the most part, have also refused to either go back to school or acquire new skills.

Now, before we get all jumpy about one month's unemployment numbers remember that the standard deviation (the accuracy) of any one job number is plus/minus 100,000 jobs. That’s right, this week’s number may be off by as much as 86,000 and we won’t know the true figure for months!

But the string of disappointing employment numbers recently has quite a bit to do with layoffs in the public sector. Recall that there was a big spike in the unemployment rate a few months back when U.S. census workers were terminated. Now we are experiencing a new wave of municipal layoffs. Federal aid to states has declined drastically. At the same time, almost every state finds itself in debt with the need to balance their budgets. So unemployment is being fueled by layoffs among state workers with the biggest hit in the health and education areas.

What concerns me most about that is the demand by the Republicans (Tea Party) to cut spending drastically right now. Has anyone given thought to how that is going to impact unemployment and growth in the next six months? For some reason I can't fathom, the GOP believes as long as taxes remain the same everything will be fine. That math doesn't add up.

What I hope comes out of Sunday's negotiations between the leaders of the two parties is a plan to cut the deficit over the long term while continuing to stimulate the economy in the short term. You might argue that I can't have both. But what if we all agreed to cuts in entitlements such as Medicare/Medicaid and higher taxes but wait a year or two, say 2013, before putting that plan into action? At the same time, continue tax breaks this year for both corporations and individuals.

That would give the economy the breathing room to gather strength while giving all of us a heads-up on what's coming around the corner. A deal like that would give the markets confidence that Washington is doing something about the deficit while removing another stress factor (the debt ceiling) from the markets. As for the markets, I remain bullish. After a 6 percent move up in one week, a 1 or 2 percent decline would be a normal reaction.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net . Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

By now we have reached our debt limit of $14.294 trillion here in the United States. As you read this, the U.S. Treasury is already shuffling bits of electronic paper around to stay current on our nation's debt payments. By Aug. 2 even this desperate farce will have come to an end.

The Obama administration's deadline is even earlier. By July 22, there must be a deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling or else there will not be enough time to ratify an agreement before the beginning of August, when Congress begins its recess. The situation is serious enough for both parties to forgo their July vacations and work for a compromise this week in steamy Washington, D.C.

A new development has the president challenging the Republicans to work out a longer-term compromise solution to the deficit right here and right now. It remains to be seen whether the GOP will accept the challenge.

The nation's debt ceiling was first established back in 1917 at a hilariously low $11.5 billion. Since 1962, it has been raised 74 times, without a problem on either side of the aisle. So why has the debt ceiling suddenly become such a contentious issue?

Politics is the short answer. The Republican Party, which passed an increase in the debt ceiling eight times during the Bush presidency, claims to have suddenly found religion when it comes to the nation's debt. And if you believe that one, you deserve to be fleeced by the shills in Washington.

The GOP is demanding $4.4 trillion be cut from the deficit over the next 10 years. They are using the ceiling to affect changes in Medicare and Medicaid spending that would probably not see the light of day in any other circumstances. The Obama administration countered with a plan that would cut $4 trillion over the same time period without changing any of the major entitlements programs. One would think that a compromise could be worked out, but as time goes by it seems as if neither side really wants a solution. As the 11th-hour approaches, opposing politicians are milking the drama for very hour of prime time they can capture.

By now just about everyone realizes there will be major fallout from failing to pass a new debt ceiling. The most obvious and immediate outcomes would be that the U.S. would technically default on its loans, our interest rates would spike, and the stock market plummet. Even if our "leaders" had a change of heart and approved a new ceiling a day later, the damage would have been done.

It would be similar if you or your household declared bankruptcy. Although you might be able to work your way back to financial health quickly, the bankruptcy would be part of your credit history for years into the future and with it would come certain costs.

Everyone from the head of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury to every elder statesmen of the economy has warned of the folly of allowing the country to default. And yet a recent Gallup poll indicates that 47 percent of Americans are opposed to raising the debt ceiling while 34 percent say they don't know enough to make a decision. I suspect that most Americans mistakenly believe that raising the debt limit will automatically mean an increase in federal spending. That's not true.

Increasing spending would require authorization by Congress. In today's anti-spending environment that kind of legislation would have few backers. But failing to increase the debt limit will immediately make the debt we owe climb higher. It would force the government to suspend interest payments on the debt we already owe. Those interest payments would continue to accrue into the foreseeable future. The same would happen to you if you failed to make your minimum payment on your credit card. So your overall debt continues to rise, and quickly.

At the same time, as a result of our default, investors worldwide would demand higher and higher rates of interest to lend to a country that had already failed to pay its existing debtors on time. The fact that we might change gears later would not mitigate the actions we failed to take when they were required. The damage has been done and we would pay for it in the form of higher rates for years into the future.

I have long since lost faith in politicians. Their actions indicate that time after time they have put their own interest above the common good. So, yes, this debate makes me nervous. I don't want to see Washington once again play with our livelihoods. A U.S. default will severely impact our car loans, mortgage rates, student loans, credit cards and a whole host of personal debt liabilities. If push comes to shove, it may come down to fighting fire with fire.

The Fourteenth Amendment states:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned."

If the GOP is dead set on using the threat of a U.S. bankruptcy to wheedle spending cuts (but not tax increases) from the administration, than, in my opinion, using the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling without legislation is a proper and responsible alternative. God knows, I am all for spending cuts and have been for decades, but this in not the time nor the arena to force change.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

"Wax on, right hand. Wax off, left hand. Wax on, wax off. Breathe in through nose, out the mouth. Wax on, wax off. Don't forget to breathe, very important." — Mr. Miyagi, from "The Karate Kid"

Miles of newsprint and thousands of terabytes of Internet space has been devoted to what happens Friday, the day after the end of the Federal Reserve Bank's quantitative easing experiment. Some say it bodes ill for bond and stock prices. Others argue it will have little or no impact. I say it is simply the end of one program and the beginning of another.

The total cost of the Fed's Treasury bond purchase program amounted to $600 billion. The goal of QE II was to put more money in the hands of consumers and corporations (especially small businesses) in an effort to boost spending and hiring. Unfortunately, it did little to jump start the economy in either area.

In a circular exercise similar to Mr. Miyagi's admonition to "wax on, wax off" the Fed purchased the bonds from the banks, hoping that they would in turn lend that sudden windfall of money to us. But instead, these banks just bought back more treasury bonds. The banks simply refused to lend that money and the Fed has no authority to make them.

QE II did result in lowering interest rates to historical lows, however, which allowed financial speculators to borrow money cheaply and to invest that cash (really short-term speculative trading) into commodities, stocks and all sorts of higher yielding securities. Those of us who have retirement savings also benefited somewhat as the stock market rose and we regained some of the losses incurred in 2008-2009.

All it meant for the average Joe was higher gas and food prices as commodities skyrocketed into the world’s latest financial bubble. That actually slowed spending. As for corporations, the big guys already had more cash on their books than they needed. Their profits were exploding as well and none of them felt the urge to hire more labor since they were doing just fine with what they have now. And why not, since their workers have had no wage increases in years, have had their benefits cut to the bone, and if they complained, well, there are always 13.9 million unemployed American who would be happy to take their job at an even lower pay rate ... As for small business, QE II was a total bust for them.

Doomsayers, such as Bill Gross, the highly respected portfolio manager of the world's largest bond house, Pimco, believe that without the Fed’s support, interest rates in the Treasury market will spike, the economy will fall back into recession, and the stock market will tank in response. A host of knowledgeable players subscribe to that theory and have made their views known to anyone who will listen.

Others believe that there are still plenty of potential investors, especially overseas, who will still want to own U.S. Treasury bonds as a safe haven and as a dependable source of income. Interest rates might rise a little, especially on long term bonds (10-20-30 years) but the rise would depend on the growth rate of the economy and inflation expectations. The stock market would no longer be underpinned by the easy money policy of QEII but that might actually be a good thing since it would reduce the amount of speculation that seems to be a massive part of today’s stock markets.

Of course, the caveat here is that Washington politicians come to their senses and do not allow the country to default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

In my opinion, I do not think that the Federal Reserve has taken us this far only to cast us adrift to the whims of fate. The Federal Reserve will continue to keep its role as the largest buyer of Treasuries. A week ago, for example, the Fed stated that it intends to use the proceeds of maturing debt that it already owns to buy more treasury bonds as needed. A total of $112.1 billion will mature within the next 12 months. The Fed also holds $914.4 billion of mortgage-backed debt and $118.4 billion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds,  which will also mature. That will mean an additonal$10 billion to $16 billion of cash maturing every month. When you add it all up, the Fed has another $300 billion in cash, more than enough to maintain its support of the bond market.

Remember too that the Fed isn't about to give up on the economy just because QE II didn't quite do the job that they intended. Like Daniel in The Karate Kid, the Fed has learned some valuable lessons from their latest experiment.

I predict that they will try again, as early as next month, to come up with yet another way to stimulate the economy. I’m not sure what they have up their sleeves, but I expect we will start hearing rumors about a new plan very shortly. That will certainly play well in the stock market, don’t you think?

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

On Thursday, for only the third time in its history, the International Energy Agency decided to release 60 million barrels of oil from global strategic petroleum reserves. They did so in order to "ensure a soft landing for the world economy."

As readers are aware, I suggested that investors "take profits" on oil as it soared past $100 a barrel almost two months ago. I argued that the clearing price on oil should be closer to $85 a barrel, given the slow growth of world economies. I was early in my recommendation, since oil subsequently climbed as high as $112 a barrel before plummeting to its present level of around $90 a barrel. I fully expect my price target will be reached in the coming weeks.

However, while oil dropped 5 percent Thursday, generating an annualized benefit of $36 billion to American consumers, the stock market fell by over a percent equating to a $200 billion loss. To me, that is a major contradiction. Here's why.

In energy, the rule of thumb economists often site is for every $10 increase in the price of oil, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) drops by one half of one percent. By March of this year, we had experienced a $25 hike in a barrel of oil in a very short time period. Economists were predicting that when (not if) oil reached $120 a barrel, the U.S. economy could easily fall back into recession.

Consumers bear the brunt of higher energy prices. Every one cent increase in the price of gasoline takes $1 billion out of our pockets. And actually it is much more than that (almost double) when you include things like home heating, electricity and price rises in alternative sources of fuel such as propane.

The real tipping point in impacting our consumption behavior occurs when energy prices reach 6 percent of average consumer spending, which occurred in March 2011 at 6.27 percent of spending. At that point, the top 20 percent of income earning Americans were spending 7.9 percent of their disposable income on food and energy. That may be a manageable hit for the rich, but not so for the bottom 20 percent of income-generating Americans. For them, energy and food account for a whopping 44.1 percent of after tax income. No wonder consumer spending and employment fell off a cliff.

As a result of higher energy and food prices, together with the fallout from the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, our economy has hit a soft patch which triggered the present decline in the stock markets. But circumstances have changed and in my opinion it won't be long before market players begin to realize that.

We can't have it both ways. The steep decline in oil and other commodity prices will boost consumer spending and economic growth while reducing unemployment. For consumers, it should be a matter of days before we begin to see this decline reflected in the price at the pump, in electric bills and in other areas. It is an instant and fairly hefty equivalent to a tax cut. Corporations will feel it too, but consumers benefit from that as well in the form of lower prices for products.

Right now, investors can't see the forest for the trees. With Greece threatening to collapse, unemployment rising a bit and the economy still slowing, it is hard to focus on what is just around the corner. But that, my dear reader, is exactly why I write this column — to help you focus on the horizon because there are better days are ahead.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.

Here we are in the middle of June, in the third year of a presidential cycle, and no one is talking of its historical bullish implications. Despite all the present gloom and doom about the economy and the stock market, here's something to remember. There has never been a negative return in the stock market during the third year of any president's four-year term since 1939.

Sure, there could always be a first time. And if you look at the historical data and compare it to this cycle, you can understand why. Usually, the year immediately following a president's election is negative. Barak Obama's first year, however, was extremely positive. The stock market lows were put in March of that year and the S&P 500 Index gained 23.5 percent in 2009 and then another 12.8 percent last year.

Right now, all three stock market averages are roughly flat for the year after climbing as high as 8.9 percent earlier in the year. Most pundits believe we still have more downside ahead of us. How much is the question. Some strategists believe we are closer to a bottom than a top; me included. Of course, we could technically have an up year by simply gaining 1 or 2 percent from here. Yet, only once in the last 72 years has the S&P 500 closed more than 10 percent below its previous end-of-year close during a president's third year in office. On the other hand, the index has gained over 10 percent (or more) at least once during the third year on 15 out of the last 17 occurrences. We have yet to do that.

There is a political rhythm to this cycle that makes a good deal of economic sense. Initially, when a new president is elected, he makes the hard choices and absorbs any negative fallout in the economy in his first and second years. Raising taxes or cutting spending are simply two examples of a new administration "biting the bullet" early on. By year three, re-election considerations come to the forefront.

The state of the economy is usually a major determinant on who will be elected and what party will dominate the political arena. This election cycle it is already clear that the economy will be the major factor in next year's presidential election. Traditionally, the sitting president will do everything in his power (whether a lame duck or not) to insure that his party garners the most votes possible.

The problem this time around is that the Obama administration has already done everything in its power to both stimulate the economy and get people working again. The Federal Reserve Bank and its board, which is ostensibly above politics but in reality owes their positions to the sitting administration, is already doing all they can to stimulate the economy. Tactics such as reducing interest rates and other "easy money" policies are already in place and have been for two years.

I have often said that when things look the darkest, that's usually the time to pay attention to the facts and not get sucked down into an emotional morass. Although the presidential cycle is not, nor will ever be, the determining factor in whether this market finishes the year with a loss or a gain, I believe it is simply another arrow in my quiver when I say that good times lie ahead for the market and the economy this year.

Bill Schmick is an independent investor with Berkshire Money Management. (See "About" for more information.) None of the information presented in any of these articles is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at (toll free) or e-mail him at wschmick@fairpoint.net. Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill's insights.