ObamaCare Taxes on The Poor & Middle Class Stands

Instead of striking down ObamaCare on the basis that the Individual Mandate was an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause by forcing people to buy something they didn't want, the United States Supreme Court validated the Individual Mandate as a tax; and, the imposition of taxes is a constitutional right of Congress.   So, in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court just validated a whole host of new taxes that will be imposed on all Americans -- rich or poor -- under the guise of ObamaCare.

First of all, every individual who refuses to buy health insurance will be taxed $695 a year by 2016; phased in from $95 in 2014.  Families without insurance in 2016 will pay a $2085 penalty; not to exceed 2.5% of gross income.  Employers with 50 or more employees who are not providing health insurance will be assessed a tax of $2000 per employee with the first 30 getting a pass.  So, for a company with 49 employees, the choice is (1) don't hire another worker or (2) only hire temps from that point forward.  Employers with 200 employees or more cannot opt out of providing health care insurance; they are mandated to provide it under the law.

As of 2013, individuals making $200,000 per year and families making $250,000 a year will be assessed an additional 0.9% on their normal Medicare payroll tax. People and families in this same income bracket will be hit with a 3.8% surtax on investment incomes. But, prior to that surtax, the capital gains tax and dividends for all individuals will be raised from 15% to 20% in 2013.

For the last two years, there has been a 10% tanning tax and that will remain under this week's court ruling.  On January 1, 2013, a medical device tax of 2.3% will be applied to any device costing over $100.  This will effect the cost of manual and motorized wheel chairs; artificial hips; stents used in heart patients; defibrillators; and whole host of other products.  In effect this 2.3% tax will just be added to the cost of almost every device you can find in a hospital.  And, that cost will only wind up being passed onto all of us in the form of higher insurance rates.

If you have, what Congress defines as a "Cadillac" health plan -- a plan costing more than $8500 per individual or $23,000 per family -- you will be assessed a 40% surtax on that plan.  So, in effect, an individual with an $8500 a year plan will see that cost rise to 11,900 or, at least $32,200 a year for a "Cadillac" family.  Now, while it is true that most of those Cadillac plans involve the wealthy, some middle class families that include someone who is seriously ill, have chosen Cadillac plans because the cost under normal insurance would be a lot higher.  Also, like a lot of what Congress does, there's no automatic annual cost of living increases on the definition of what is a Cadillac plan; meaning that, eventually, normal plans will become Cadillac plans without a Congressional "fix" every year.

ObamaCare also imposes a sales tax (called the Premium Tax) on all health insurers to pay for the new health insurance exchanges.  In doing so, it is estimated that premiums for the average family will go up by 1.9% in 2013 and 2.4% in 2014..  Eventually, the tax could add as much 3.6% to the average annual cost of health care insurance; driving up the 10-year costs by $5,000.

Lastly, ObamaCare greatly expands Medicaid.  About 57% of the cost of Medicaid is picked up by the federal government.  The balance is paid for by state programs (basically, some form of taxes).  The expansion of these programs will only force many cash-strapped states to raise taxes on its citizens to pay the increased cost of Medicaid.

All these taxes, all over the place, were imposed intentionally by the Democrats so that no voter could specifically look at one tax for ObamaCare as being targeted  to them. Instead, they might see their health insurance premiums go up over here and dividend taxes going up over there; making it difficult to connect the dots and blame ObamaCare for the two tax increases.

Justice Roberts Pontius Pilate Moment on ObamaCare

In all gospel writings on the subject, Pontius Pilate refused to condemn Jesus Christ for claiming to be king of the Jews because such a claim was not a violation of Roman law.  To Pilate, it was purely a Jewish matter. So, he sent the issue back to the Jewish people for any punishment and, he symbolized this by literally washing his hands in front of an angry Jewish crowd that had amassed outside of his office window. 

In many ways, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts did the same thing as Pontius Pilate by his siding with the 4 liberals on the Supreme Court in upholding both ObamaCare and its individual mandate.  Thus, he figuratively washed his hands and the court's hands by, in essence,  sending it back to the people and Congress to resolve.   At the same time, he gave the court the  appearance of being apolitical; even though the rest of the court voted along politically ideological lines.

So, now, ObamaCare has become a big issue, besides the economy, for the voters in November.  If  the people want to keep it intact, they can vote for Obama and other Democrats.  If not, the voters will run them all out of town.

In a strange way, the Roberts decision may have actually given an advantage to the Republicans.  First of all, the law is already known to be broadly unpopular; even though many Americans like certain parts of it.  By upholding the law, on a constitutional basis, and sending it back to the people, Roberts may have actually energized voter turnout; with a higher number of Republicans and Independents coming out on election day to vote for those who would overturn the law.  At the same time, Roberts may have suppressed some amount of Democrat votes because it took away the anticipated campaign strategy that Obama would energize his voting base by running against a conservative Supreme Court.   Additionally, the court's decision exposes the penalties of ObamaCare as being a tax.  Something that the President specifically lied about when he was selling its passage.  That fact, alone, may turn off a certain number of voters.

All and all, today's Supreme Court decision may have been a good thing for the Republicans and the country.

Obama Broadly Paints Romney As An Overseas Outsourcer

In a revamp of a previous campaign tactic, Barack Obama has decided to try and turn America against Romney because he outsourced jobs while he was the head of Bain Capital, and as the Governor of Massachusetts.

Politifact has already debunked the Massachusetts claim by calling it a half-truth.  But, I think, given the facts, they're being overly lenient with Obama.  When Romney became its Governor, the State of Massachusetts had already contracted with Citigroup to process debit cards in support of the state's food stamp program.  In setting up customer service support for the program, Citigroup created a call center in India.  This was not unique.  At the time, 43 of our 50 states were involved in outsourcing certain services overseas.  But, let's be clear, neither Romney nor the State of Massachusetts outsourced the jobs to India; the contractor, Citigroup, did. Where the Obama campaign thinks they have Romney on the hook for outsourcing, is in regard to his 2005 veto of a bill that would forbid any state contractors from outsourcing.  Romney did it because the State budget couldn't afford premium, U.S.-only contracts; resulting in millions of extra taxpayer expenses. To anyone's knowledge, no jobs were actually outsourced since the Romney veto. And, the India call center?  It was shutdown in a new contract with jobs outsourced (from Mass.) to Utah.

Now, it is true that some companies that Bain was involved with while Romney was the chief did outsource jobs to both China and India.   But, so did most all of the Fortune 500 companies of this nation.  In fact, Obama's General Motors makes its Chevy Camaro in Canada and the GMC Sierra in Mexico.  And, oh yes,  Obama handed the American Chrysler Corporation over to the Italian company, Fiat. How long do you think it will be before Fiat starts making the most of the Chrysler parts (or, cars) in Italy?

On the Bain/Romney outsourcing, Obama and his surrogates should really back off.  That's because several of Obama's stimulus programs used products and parts that were made in China; and, consequently, created Chinese jobs.  Take, for example, a $2 billion program in the Obama stimulus package to build enough wind farms to support 2.4 million American homes.  The wind turbines, themselves, weren't built here.  Instead, they were built in China; creating 6000 Chinese jobs.  In the U.S., only about a couple of hundred jobs were created in installing all those Chinese-built wind turbines.   So, in essence, Obama, too, is an outsourcer!

The wind turbine story can be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949#.T-oX8fWDpkg

Our Nobel Peace Prize President Gets Slammed By Jimmy Carter For War Crimes

Last Sunday, Jimmy Carter wrote a New York Times op-ed that slammed the United States for violating human rights.  Key to his argument was the use of drones to kill targeted terrorists.  Carter cited several violations under of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to which the United States is a signatory.  But, in slamming the United States, he was really slamming Barack Obama for committing war crimes; while never actually mentioning the President by name. In the world of human rights, violating any human rights during wartime is, in actuality, a war crime.  Because it was Barack Obama who greatly increased our use of drone attacks in Pakistan, Carter is backhandedly charging our Nobel Peace Prize winning president with war crime violations.  And, this brain-dead, former Democrat President of the United States did this only 4-1/2 months away from Obama's bid for reelection. Speaking for all conservatives, I certainly appreciate Mr. Carter's timing in undermining President Obama.

America No Longer Has Immigration Enforcement

OK, the Supreme Court says Arizona can ask suspected illegals for their "papers".  But, so what?  If Arizona can't arrest them without federal permission and Obama and his Justice Department won't give that permission, then, we no longer have "any" immigration enforcement.  Someone really needs to sue the Obama Administration for failing to uphold their constitutional responsibilities by choosing to ignore federal immigration laws.  No American President should be allowed to pick-and-choose which laws will be enforced and which ones will be ignored.  In fact, a president choosing not to enforce federal law may be committing an impeachable offense.

One last thing.  Nowhere did you hear charges of judicial activism on the Arizona immigration decision.  That's because our conservative dominated Supreme Court sided with the liberals in striking down 3 of the key 4 mandates of the Arizona immigration law; proving that the court was more concerned with constitutionality than politics-based judicial activism.  Believe me, that fact will all be lost if ObamaCare is struck down on a 5-4, conservative basis.

ObamaCare And Judicial Activism

With a decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare just hours away, Democrats are already saying that any defeat of ObamaCare would be a blatant case of judicial activism by a conservative dominated court.   But, let's not forget that judicial activism goes both ways.  It's just as much judicial activism for a liberal justice to support an obviously liberal law as it for a conservative justice to strike it down.

Hopefully, all the Supreme Court justices will put their politics aside and come to a decision that truly is in line with our constitution.

On Fast & Furious, Jay Carney Is A Flatout Liar

At last Friday's daily presidential presser, White House spokesman Jay Carney called the GOP investigation into Fast and Furious and the death of Brian Terry a "politically motivated, taxpayer funded, election year fishing expedition." 

That statement is pure spin and, quite frankly, a pure lie.  The investigation into Terry's death has been ongoing for over a year.  It was Eric Holder's foot dragging and the refusal to release all the Department of Justice's documents regarding the investigation that has pushed it into this year; an election year.

And, let's not forget another Carney lie.  The one that said Fast and Furious started in the Bush Administration and Holder ended it.  If that was true, Obama and Holder would be scrambling all over themselves to give the national press those documents.  After all, Obama has literally made it his career to blame Bush for almost anything.  The fact is that the Bush Justice Department did have a gun walking program and, unlike Fast and Furious, it did track 400 guns that were walked over the border.  That 2006-2007 program, called Wide Receiver, failed to bring any convictions and, as a result, it was considered to be a failure and was ended in 2007.   That was a long before Holder ever got into office and even a  longer time before Brian Terry was killed in 2010.

If anyone is "playing" politics, it is Holder and the President by asserting Executive Privilege to prevent any possible damaging facts from coming out before the election.  To me and a lot of people, the assertion of Executive Privilege, at this late hour, just screams cover-up.

The Continuing Lie That Bush And The GOP Policies Created the Great Recession

If there's one thing that Democrats have gleaned from World War II Nazis, it's their firm belief in those famous words of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."  Nothing can be more true to that statement  than President Obama and his surrogates blaming Bush and the GOP for the economic mess we find ourselves in today.    

The fact is, that the 2007 Recession had its genesis in something that the Democrat-controlled Congress and Jimmy Carter passed into law in 1977.  That something was the Community Reinvestment Act or CRA.  Under the law, banks were forced to provide a certain percentage of their loans to low-income families within the community they served.  If not, they would lose Federal support for their banking operations such as FDIC or federally-provided loans in something called overnight lending.  Failure to meet the law also put banks into a position where they wouldn't get federal approval for expansions or mergers.  So, the bottom line was that banks were being forced to take on risky loans. 

When Clinton took office, he went even further with the CRA; requiring banks to provide even more community-centered low income loans.   But, while the original requirements of the law were doable, the new Clinton mandates were almost impossible because most people in that low-income category didn't have any savings; leastwise, enough savings to put 20% down on a home so that they could qualify for a mortgage.  So, one of the first things mortgage lenders did to meet the stricter guidelines of the CRA was to lessen the down payment requirements.  Eventually, that morphed into the no-money down loans that resulted in home ownership in the U.S. rising from 68% in 1993 to almost 94% by the time the housing bubble broke in 2007. 

In giving out all these low income mortgages with no-money down, the banks knew they were putting themselves at extreme risk.  To offset that risk, they bundled loans into trade-able securities and in investment products called Credit Default Swaps.  And we can thank Bill Clinton, again, for the banks ability to do that.  That's because in 1999, Clinton signed into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which gave banks the ability to create marketable securities and act as insurance companies and stock brokers; all under one roof. Unfortunately, the banks, themselves, now acting as stock brokers, were dumb enough to buy these risky investments from each other.  So, in 2007, when the housing bubble broke, the banks found themselves with a lot of worthless securities and the whole banking system was in trouble and had to be bailed out with programs like TARP.

Now, to be fair, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was a Republican led initiative. But, usually presidents get the blame for something because they're the  one's who sign bills into law and who have the right to veto any bad law that Congress comes up with.  Clinton had no such reservations on that law and, subsequently, he is clearly responsible for its enactment.

Now, I'm sure that those on the left would point to Bush's push for increased home ownership.  But, Bush didn't pass any laws or relax any requirements that forced banks into providing more loans.   If anything, he is to blame for not taking the actions that would have stopped the low-income mortgage debacle.

Lastly, the housing collapse and banking failure had many more peripheral causes and players than noted above.  However, rather than make things complex I purposely drilled down on the CRA as the primary reason for the Great Recession.  As I have clearly shown, Democrats are easily to blame; not the GOP  and certainly not George W. Bush.  But, the lie continues.

The Bogus Baby Boomer Retirement Argument For Record Low Workforce Participation Rates Under Obama

Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates what percentage of our population is working.  Today,  that number is at historical lows.  At every turn, Republicans make sure that the voters know this. Of course, people on the left don't like them to know that number because increasing record lows in the workforce participation rate discredits the highly manipulated and supposedly falling unemployment rate.

So, lately, left-leaning economists and Obama apologists have been floating the belief that the workforce is actually getting smaller because baby boomers are retiring at a faster rate than the population is growing. Those people doing the arguing always point back to that overused  statement: "starting in 2011, ten thousand baby boomers will retire each day over the next nineteen years."

Of course, having dealt with statistics for most of my college life and business career, I have always had problems with nicely rounded numbers like 10,000 a day.  To me, a number like that is often more political than statistical.  Further, that number, contrary to usually compounded population growth, is assumed to be unrealistically constant over that period of 19 years.  And, that just can't be.

In 1946, the first year of the baby boom, 2.738 million baby's were born.  So, theoretically, if none died, you would have slightly more than 7,500 babies per day hitting age 65 in 2011.   Not the 10,000 a day number that is being tossed around.  But, depending on what study you look at, somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of those born in 1946 would die before reaching age 65.  After all, the life expectancy for someone born that year was only 66.7 years.  So, best case, by using the 30% factor, only about 1.9 million of the original 2.738 million who were born in 1946 would still be around in 2011 and reach that ripe old reach age of 65.  Therefore, more realistically, you would have about 5,200 boomers turning 65 each day in 2011; almost half that ridiculous 10,000 a day number.  At the same time, 2011 should have added about 2.751 million new workers to the labor force; just due to the population additions that occured in the 20, or so, preceding years.

Now, call me crazy, but, what I have shown, above, seems to contest the belief that, somehow, the smaller workforce size is all due baby boomers retiring.  And, this is before you even consider the fact that many "age-sixty-fivers" are hardly in a financial position to retire; having lost 40% of their wealth  in the last 5 years.  Nor does my workforce calculation take into consideration that the U.S. allows 1.1 million people per year to lawfully enter the country on a permanent basis; and, of that, about 800,000 are of working age and should have entered the workforce in 2011.

The reality is that a lot of people have just given up looking for work under Obama's stewardship.  A fact that the left just won't admit. As for the baby boomers...?  Their impact will be to slow the "net" growth of the workforce.  Not to shrink it.

Spain's Current And Future Hikes In Electricity Rates Should Be A Wake Up Call On Obama's Going-Green Initiate

When it comes to going green, Spain is a world leader.  Subsequently, the environmental left just loves them for their "greenness".  In fact, if you view many of the eco websites around the Internet, you will see Spain referred to quite often.

Take, for example, this article, Wind Energy Output Hit Record High in Spain (Kept Electricity Prices Lower than Neighbors’), from the website CleanTechnica.com.  In it, there is nothing but glowing praises on how clean energy has helped Spain keep electricity costs down and created jobs. But, that article was written at the end of February.  By March and based on a prior-year Supreme Court ruling, the Spanish government announced that it must allow electricity rates to rise in order to reflect the "true" cost of energy production.  As a result, Spaniards were hit with a 7 percent rate increase in April.  At the time that the rate increase was announced, their energy minister also indicated that rates should have gone up by 40% to meet the Supreme Court mandate; but, didn't because of the hardship it would impose.  (Click here to see the official announcement)  So, you see, Spain's "lower than neighbors" energy costs just was just a lie; hidden by government subsidies. They are a perfect example of how expensive going green can be.

In the U.S., the average electricity bill is just under $1500 a year. In places like the desert Southwest and deep South, that amount can be twice as high. If President Obama is allowed to proceed with his green agenda for the U.S. by installing wind turbines and solar panels and by killing the coal industry, our rates, too, could easily go up by 40%. For an average family, that's $600 more per year that will have to go to pay the electric bill; hurting the poor and low income families the hardest. And let's also not forget that Spain's debt problems are partly a result of going green. Do we really want to become another Spain? I think it should be a true wake up call for all of us.

EU Commissioner Blames U.S. For Europe's Debt Problem

Following the conclusion of the G20 summit in Mexico, the EU Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, took aim at North America (specifically the U.S.) for Europe's deficit and spending problems.  In an oh-so Obama-esque blame-the-U.S. moment, he ranted that the U.S.  banking problems and U.S. housing collapse are responsible for the current, near collapse of the European Union and Euro dollar.  He went on to take a slap at our country by saying that Europe "needs no lessons on democracy or economics".  Of course, our own President nor anyone else in his Administration never once contested Barroso's claim or even came to the defense of the U.S.; proving, once again, our truly anti-American President really does blame us for every evil in world.


I think it should be pointed out that Mr. Barroso is a former Prime Minister of Portugal; and,  Portugal is one of the European "PIIGS" -- Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain -- who's out-of control-spending is in the process of literally bringing down the European Union.  

The economic problems in Portugal are simply defined and have nothing to do with the United States' banks or housing problems.  Due to liberal, socialist policies, the labor participation rate in Portugal is  only 56.4%; which means, conversely,  nearly 44% of the population doesn't work all.  Then, too, of those that do work, 30% don't pay any taxes.  So, in effect, you have 40% of the population pulling the load for the remaining 60%. Now, I wouldn't want to lecture or school Mr. Barroso on economics -- seeing that he has a Masters of the Science of Economics from Lisbon University -- but, when you have an economy where there are so few workers and so few people paying taxes to support an overspending government, you have a formula for economic disaster.   And, that's exactly what has happened to, not just Portugal, but all the rest of the PIIGS who are wallowing around in debt.  

The European financial problems were years in the making with the enactment of one fat social program after another.  The recession only caused the debt problems to be exposed earlier; rather than later.  But, even if there was no recession, the debt problems of the PIIGS would eventually come to light and, in doing so, the European Union would still be on shaky ground.  


I'm quite sure that Mr. Barroso knows that he is being disingenuous in his assertions about the U.S. causing his precious EU problems.  My guess is that he's playing the "blame North America" card as a political means to shame the United States into giving the European Union tons of bailout money so the PIIGS will no longer be forced to become fiscally responsible.  Of course, Obama, the consummate apologist for past U.S. policy, will feel the need to make things right with Europe and provide the bailout that the EU so desperately needs. 

Obama's Invocation Of Executive Privelege: Why Now? Why Not A Year Ago?

Since January of last year, a Republican lead Congressional Committee has conducted an investigation into the Department of Justice's gun-running program -- operationally called "Fast and Furious". As part of the "Fast and Furious" program, guns were purchased in this country and intentionally handed over to Mexican Drug Cartel members; resulting, not only in the deaths of many Mexican citizens, but, also, in the death of a U.S. Border Agent.

All along, Eric Holder and his Justice Department members have blocked the investigation from going forward.  From the very beginning, there have been nothing but lies; starting with the first lie that the program was some kind of "rouge" program that had been conducted by local people without approvals from above.  But, now we know that the program was pushed from very high levels within the Justice Department; with a scapegoated Assistant U.S. Attorney General being forced to step down over his involvement in the program. Beyond that, the Attorney General, himself, Eric Holder, has also been caught lying; with his lies being easily exposed by documents and emails.  So, it's no wonder that the Republicans smell a rat.  And, just maybe, the tail of that rat can be followed all the way to the White House.

Through the entire investigation, only about 5% of the thousands of "Furious" documents have been handed over to Congress; and, Holder has stonewalled on the access to any further documents for months.  The investigation finally came to a head when the Republicans threatened a "Contempt of Congress" charge and vote against Eric Holder.  Then, as of yesterday and in contradiction to Eric Holder's false promise that he would release an additional 1300 documents, President Obama stepped in and asserted Executive Privilege; thereby blocking any further document releases and, and as a result, effectively shutting down the investigation.

Anytime during the last year, the President could have played the Executive Privilege card.  But, he waited until "now"; only 4-1/2 months before the election.   Obama knows that "now" is too little time for Congress to go through the courts and get an override of the President's invocation of "Executive Privilege" and I believe this was strategically intentional.

Let's face it, if their wasn't anything in those documents that would point to high levels of involvement in "Fast and Furious",  many more could have been easily released; effectively forcing Congress to give up and shut down the whole investigation.  There's something there and Obama and Holder want it hidden; especially before the election.  Their argument that people and tactics would be exposed by releasing the rest of the documents is just bull.  It's bull because the heavy handed use of broad, black, permanent marker "redaction" could have been used to hide any truly sensitive names and facts.  Instead, stupidly, this President and his Attorney General may have just left the electorate thinking that they are  truly hiding something.  For some voters, this just might be enough to question voting for an Obama reelection.   And,  the Obama political blunders continue piling up.

pb

Obama's Weak-Handedness In Foreign Policy Has Gotten Us Nowhere

When Obama took office he extended his hand to Iran under the assumption that they were only negatively responding to the heavy-handedness of the Bush Administration.  Now, more than 3 years later, Iran is still as much an antagonist as they were during the Bush presidency.  As result, our pussy-cat role towards them has been abandoned and Obama has had to, once again, resort to those same heavy-handed measures of the prior Administration.

Then, there's Russia.  We supposedly "reset" our relationship with that former Cold War foe.  In essence, we said we'd play nice and, in return, Obama expected Russia to be our "BFF".  But, friendship was nowhere to be found.  They haven't played nice on missile defense; even threatening to launch air strikes against any  system we would deploy in Europe.  Then, too, they've attempted to block us on every move against Iran and its nuclear program.  They fought us, too, on our move to support Libyan rebels and dethrone Gaddafi.  And, now, we find out that Russia is providing helicopters to Syria and Assad to trample the rebel, democracy uprising.

When Egypt successfully forced Hosni Mubarak to step down, Obama called it "a beginning" for democracy.  Well, in the year that has passed since then, Egyptians have voted for the anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood and, then, just recently, the military conducted a coup, of sorts, by dissolving the current parliament and by putting themselves back in charge.  So much for that "beginning".

Israel has suffered greatly under Obama.  That tiny state is now as close to serious war as it has ever been.  If Iran successfully develops a nuke, Israel realizes it could be in serious trouble.  As a result, they may be forced to take a preemptive strike against Iran.  The once-friendly Egypt is looking more like a hostile Islamic neighbor.  The U.N. and President Obama's support of the Palestinians and a Palestinian state, is creating an extremely awkward relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

And, let's not forget North Korea.  Upon taking office, the President had all but declared six-party talks with North Korea a failure.  Instead, he decided to reinstate the previously failed bilateral talks between North Korea and the U.S.  Obama, once again, felt this up-close and personal negotiations would work with his guiding hand. Now, three years later, North Korea is still a nuclear power and, over time, has now developed nuclear delivery systems that could threaten the United States.

Lastly, there's that elephant in the room -- China, and a near trillion dollars in debt that we owe to that country.  The president-elect Obama promised change with China.  Change that would include better trade relations; China's support in negotiating with North Korea; freer human rights for all Chinese people; support of global warming initiatives; and, most importantly, convincing them to allow its currency to "float" in international trading so that U.S. products would be less expensive in China.  Of course, in typical fashion, China balked on these issues.  The once confident Obama seems as helpless as Bush when it comes to that country. 

When I see polling that gives the President high marks for foreign policy, I just have to laugh.  Things are no better today than they were under Bush.  If anything, foreign relations have only suffered. They've suffered because by Obama looks weak; and, no one ever wins in negotiations by looking weak.

Democrat Pollster Slams Gallup For Under-Polling Minorities

In a lengthy analysis that was published in the left-leaning Huffington Post, Democrat pollster, Mark Blumenthal, concluded that the Gallup polls were flawed and biased against President Obama because the Gallup organization always under-polls minorities.

Of course, the only reason that Blumenthal went through that analysis, in the first place, is because he's upset with the fact that Gallup has a tendency to show low approvals of "his" president.  This, unlike, all those other polls, from left leaning news agencies, that always show Obama in a much better light.

But, let's assume Blumenthal's analysis is correct and, in fact, the Gallup polling is too white in its results.   The real question, then, is whether or not they are biased against Obama.  To me, the only real answer to that question is how Gallup polled in the last presidential election in 2008; since, as of right now, we have no other way to confirm or discredit the polling results.  We get that answer from RealClearPolitics who conveniently summarized all of this nation's final polling prior to the presidential election.  When we look at the results, we find that Gallup was actually the outlier; predicting that Obama would win 55% to 44% over McCain. Except for Reuters/C-span/Zogby poll, which gave Obama a 54% win factor, every other polling organization put him below 53% in winning the election.  The actual results were that Obama won handily over McCain; 52.8% to 45.6%.

Obviously, the 2008 final numbers showed that Gallup was actually biased towards Obama; despite their typical under-polling of minorities. I'm quite sure Blumenthal was very happy with Gallup's 2008 position.  But, now, he's critical and wants to discredit them.   Blumenthal, like most political strategists and pollsters, know that negative polling can cause some of our electorate to switch their votes to the one who's winning.  So, in typical leftist fashion, I guess Blumenthal thinks it's time to kill the messenger.

Sources for this blog entry:

Mark Blumenthal's "Race Matters: Why Gallup Poll Finds Less Support For President Obama"

Election 2008 National Head-to-Head Polls: Final Results 

How Liberals View Fox And Conservatives View MSNBC

To many liberals, Fox News should be thrown off the air.  To them, Fox is a right wing news organization that constantly tells lies about the left.   On the other hand, liberals just love MSNBC because that network continually leans favorably towards the left and progressive ideals. 

But, do you ever hear conservatives saying that MSNBC should be taken off the airways?  Not hardly.  Instead, video clips and quotes from MSNBC have become a cottage industry, of sorts, for right wing blogs and commentary.  Why would any conservative want to kill MSNBC.  After all, MSNBC is literally the goose that lays so many beautiful golden goose-eggs for liberals.  People like Chris Matthews, Rachael Maddow, Ed Schultz and (my favorite) Al 'Foot In Mouth' Sharpton provide endless hours of ridiculous commentary for those on the right to quote.

The same can't be said about liberals and Fox.  They don't quote Fox as much because, really, they can't.  Instead, they would prefer to kill the messenger; all together.   There are left-wing petition drives all over the internet and Facebook, requesting that the FCC revoke Fox's license (even though, stupidly, they don't seem to know that Fox News needs no such license as a cable network).  The left is also threatening advertisers with boycotts if they continue to advertise on Fox. Such campaigns were successful in getting Glenn Beck off of Fox.

The bottom line is that liberals are afraid of the truth and, subsequently, like all leftists, freedom of speech should be damned!  That's why, in every leftist/socialist/communist country in the world, the freedom of press and speech is the first activity to be thrown out of the proverbial window.

The Lawlessness of the Obama Administration

Under our Constitution, it is the Congress who makes the laws; that's why we refer to Congressmen and Senators as "lawmakers".  The responsibility of the Executive Branch is to execute and administer those laws, and it is the responsibility of the Judicial Branch to pass judgement on anyone who is suspected of breaking them.

Nowhere does our Constitution give the Executive Branch the ability to decide which laws are or are not to be enforced. Yet, last Friday, President Obama did just that by sidestepping Congress and granting certain illegals the right to be in this country legally, and attend school and work without the threat of deportation or imprisonment.

This is not the first time that Obama's people have refused to pursue and prosecute certain offenders of the laws of this nation. The Obama Justice Department did it when it refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for polling place intimidation during the 2008 elections.   The same Justice Department has done it by ignoring the mandates of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Obama, himself, did it by making recess appointments while Congress was in still in session under the rules that define a "pro forma" session.  Then, too, Obama forced Catholic institutions to provide contraception when, in fact, the Constitution provides for free and clear practice of religion without federal intervention.  And, the list goes on.

Not since Richard Nixon have we had an Executive Branch who has so blatantly ignored the laws of the land and the Constitution.  I guarantee that Obama will only become a bigger violator if he is allowed to serve a second term.

When Did Disrespecting A President Become Racist? Oh, Only After Obama Got Elected!

On Friday, when a Daily Caller reporter interrupted an Obama speech with regard to changes to immigration, the left became outraged that their president would be so rudely treated.  On MSNBC that evening, Democrat strategist, Julian Epstein,  noted: "This is just so unprecedented and outrageous....We've never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We've never had a President like this heckled so disrespectfully."

Then, too, on CNN,  Congressional Representative Elijah Cummings made this comment to Martin Bashir with regard to the Caller/Obama incident: "There has been a disrespect not only for the President but for the office of the president and that is very, very alarming…Our country is better than that. And I think a lot of the same thing is happening with our attorney general. These are two men who are doing an outstanding job but there are folks who just don’t like it. And they’ve never treated other folks like this, but here they are doing it to these gentlemen."  In further questioning, Cummings went on to agree with Bashir that the disrespect is, at least, partly racially motivated.

Ever since President Obama has taken office, any negativity towards him has been defined as both "unprecedented" and obviously "racist".  But, apparently, the left has all but forgotten the treatment of George W. Bush.  For example, while giving the 2005 State Of The Union Address, several Democrats of Congress booed and hissed at Bush during his speech.  Ted Koppel of ABC noted: "When the President talked about the bankruptcy of Social Security, there were clearly some Democrats on the floor who thought that that was taking it too far. And they did something that, apparently, no one at this table has ever heard before. They booed."  John Roberts, a then CBS reporter, made this comment: "At a couple points in this address, it looked more like the British Parliament than the United States Congress. I've never heard the minority party shout at the President during the State of the Union address."

Of course, the most disrespect that had ever been literally hurled at a U.S. President came when George Bush had a shoe thrown at him by an Iraqi reporter during a joint news conference:



Over the eight years that Bush was president, the left constantly disrespected him.   He had swastika's painted onto his portraits.  He was burned in effigy.  The internet comments were absolutely beyond just being hateful. Politicians called him a racist for not acting quickly during the New Orleans hurricane/flooding disaster.  And, in interview after interview, Democrat politicians constantly took aim at everything that Bush did.  If anything, the fears that someone might be called a racist has probably kept Obama from getting as much or more criticism than his predecessor had ever gotten.  Also, I think Democrats would be wise to remember: "What goes around, comes around."  And, it was their treatment of Bush that has for evermore changed the respect for whoever is President.  Race has nothing to do with it!

Greece Avoids Disaster But Still Swims In Boiling Seas

The dreaded Greek elections are over and the fear that Greece would reject austerity was averted.  The pro-austerity, stay in the euro zone, New Democracy party won the majority of seats.  While everyone in Europe is probably breathing a sigh of relief, the worst may be yet to come.

The election didn't solve any of Greece's spending problems.  It only insured that there will be even more unrest from the anti-austerity youth and socialists as they continue to make spending cuts.  At least, after today, the they won't face the immediate revival of the drachma at a highly discounted rate -- causing rabid inflation and economic collapse.  However, that fate may still come later this year when austerity fails and the Greeks are left with no other choice but to leave the euro zone.

"Free" Health Care and Contraception Under ObamaCare and Medicare

In this, an election year, Obama and his campaign commercials are hyping the fact that, thanks to him, Americans will receive free contraception, free medical check ups, and free diagnostic screenings. But, this "free" B.S. is just that; and, it should only play well to the dumbest in our society. Nothing in health care is free. Doctors and nurses aren't working pro bono so that millions of Americans won't have to pay for checkups. Laboratories and their technicians aren't taking cuts in pay so they can hand out free diagnostics work. Lawyers aren't backing off their malpractice lawsuits so that doctors are cut a break in the cost of their malpractice insurance so they can more easily provide free services.

The reality is that "free" means that private health insurance providers will have to raise their premiums. Free also means that the federal and state governments will have to raise taxes to pay for the free services under Medicaid. It also means that Medicare will go broke faster unless tax revenues are increased. And, for those who think they get "free" service under Medicaid, think twice. Increasingly, the better doctors in America are dumping Medicaid (and Medicare) because those physicians lose money on every one of those patients they see. This means that Medicaid patients are literally being herded toward high volume clinics that are typically short on quality. The wait times for the poor and elderly to see a doctor are increasing dramatically. So, you see, money isn't everything went it comes to the "cost" of health care.

Even the air we breathe isn't free. Millions of dollars in tax money are being spent to support state and federal environmental protection agencies. U.S. manufacturers are spending billions to comply with the Clean Air Act and those costs are passed on to you and I in almost everything we buy. That car you own is probably 20 to 25% more expensive because of EPA standards. Even the gas cap on your car is 4 times more expensive than it should be.

So, stupid people will vote for Obama because they really think that things are free. However, the more intelligent of our society know that all "this" free health care will only raise costs for everyone. And just like TSA terrorism screening at airports, 99.99999999% of those being screened "for free" don't really need to be.

Spain's Bailout: Did Obama Get His Way On Aid Without Austerity

When it was announced that Spain was getting a $125 billion banking bailout, everyone thought that the European Union dodged another potential bankruptcy bullet and, with it, Spain would be on a path to getting it's fiscal house in order.  But, then, it was uncovered that Spain got that money without any commitment to austerity.  It was as if the powers to be had just given up on their austerity kick; those prior commitments that came along with previous handouts to Greece, Portugal, and Italy.  For President Obama, it was his dream come true and a put-down of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her constant calls for bailouts with committed austerity.

To many, the Spanish bailout is just a band aid.  It does nothing to fix the underlying fiscal mess that necessitated it in the first place.  For that reason, the Spanish bailout is so typical Obama.  It's like hisa bailout of GM.  GM's biggest problem, before bankruptcy, was underfunded pension commitments; and that problem, quite frankly, still exists.  It's just been swept under the carpet and is literally a ticking time-bomb that could go off and put GM right back into bankruptcy.  Obama has to know this but, from a political standpoint, he also knows that day will probably come long after he's out of office. 

Does Obama Even Remember 9/11?

In speech after speech, Barack Obama keeps blaming George Bush for his own economic and deficit woes.  The way he tells it, Bush took a Clinton surplus and turned it into a deficit by his spending on two wars, and because the Bush tax cuts (for the rich) made it so.

What is really infuriating about Obama's claim (along with many Democrats) is that it completely ignores why there was one of those wars and an increase in deficit spending, and why the tax cuts were even passed into law.  By blaming Bush for these problems, Obama is completely ignoring the impact of 9/11.

Besides the fact that 9/11 forced us to go to war in Afghanistan, that attack on the twin towers sent this country into a tailspin.  People stopped flying; especially to travel locations.  They were scared. Unemployment zoomed in travel destinations such as Las Vegas, Orlando, and Hawaii.  The economy suffered and tax revenues fell; resulting in budget deficits.

On top of that, Federal spending skyrocketed; further causing budget deficits to increase.  President Obama conveniently forgets that the Department of Homeland Security and the hiring of thousands of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport screeners arose from the ashes of 9/11.  Billions more were spent on screening devices and baggage scanning systems.  Aircraft cockpit doors were made entry proof.  Billions were spent in beefing up federal buildings in the U.S. and around the world to protect them from either drive up or drive into car bombings and/or walk-in terrorist bombers.   And, billions more were spent on container x-ray devices at every U.S. seaport of entry.

Lastly, the Bush Tax Cuts were passed into law in 2003 because 9/11 had literally slowed the economy to a snail's pace.  In fact, from 2001 to 2003, the economy only grew by an anemic 7.7%; when, in fact, a growth of 18% or more would have have normally been expected.  After the tax cuts became law, the economy recovered; increasing by 26% from 2004 until the the recession hit in 2007.

Obama's claims are truly being taken out of context.  And, don't expect the mainstream media to set the record straight!

Electricity Rates Are Rising Because of Conservation

All across the country, electricity rates are rising. But, surprisingly, what's really driving prices up is conservation.

First of all, 5 years of bad economic times have forced Americans to cut back on expenses like energy consumption; but, not enough for the electric power companies to lay off workers or shut down all or part of their power plants or to even reduce their actual fuel usage.  Simply speaking, the power companies have lost billing revenues while their operating costs have remained the same or, only moved down slightly.  So to compensate, they need  rate increases.

Another way that conservation is raising costs is because, in many states, power companies have been forced by their state utility commissions to implement energy savings programs.   Programs that give consumers a price break on buying energy-efficient light bulbs, air conditioners, refrigerators, and other appliances.  Literally, these programs are costing power companies millions of dollars per year. That cost has to be offset through rate increases. As noted above, these conservation programs only result in the consumer paying more.

Lastly, the environmental push for power companies to go green is costing them millions more because they are being forced to invest in costly forms of electricity production like wind and solar.  Again, they aren't able to reduce the people or traditional power production costs because those traditional forms of power production have to remain operational in the event that the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow quite enough.

Does Anyone Remember The Bill Clinton "COPS" Initiative?

Now, with President Obama heavily pushing for a jobs package to keep teachers, police, and fireman working, it would be a good time to recall President Clinton's initiative called C.O.P.S. (Community Oriented Policing Services) whereby, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 100,000 new police officers "were" to be put on the streets to combat crime.

But the problem with C.O.P.S. is that it actually didn't put that promised number of police on America's streets.  Depending on which study you looked at, the number added by the program was somewhere between 50 and 80 thousand.  In many cases, police departments used the money to hire already-budgeted officers or to fill vacancies.  Others used the money to buy computer systems and equipment that would keep more cops in the streets and away from doing desk time and paperwork. Though, often, that freed up time away from the desk didn't even equal the cost of hiring a single full-time police officer.  In some extreme cases, one-man and two-man police departments, in low-crime sleepy towns, were given money to hire a totally unneeded additional officer.  Lastly, the program was a one-year cash program; leaving the community holding the bag for the cost of the police officers they hired a year prior.

C.O.P.S. proved that a top-down, federal program to hire people should always be suspect.  When Obama talks about adding 280,000 teachers to the state payrolls and keeping thousands of police and fireman on the job, one would be wise to cut that optimism by as much as half or more; especially with his lousy track record. Back in 2009, President Obama instituted a mortgage assistance plan (called HARP) that was touted by Obama to help as many as 9 million families.  By last count, only 900,000 benefited from his plan.  His stimulus plan was supposed keep unemployment under 8%; yet, it shortly zoomed to over 10% and has been above 8% ever since.  So, now, we are all supposed believe his latest fairy tale.  You know, the one about jobs.

Where Are Those 4 Million Jobs, Mr. President?

In almost every campaign speech, Barack Obama continues to claim that he's created 4.3 million jobs since he's been in office.  But, here's the thing: Where's the "official" top-line, government number that supports that claim?

Logic would tell you that the first place you would look to see a creation of 4.3 million jobs would be in a reduction of the number of jobless workers since Obama became President.  But, according to Obama's own U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of unemployed workers has actually grown by 1.1 million; rising from 11.6 million job seekers in January 2009 to 12.7 million in last month's employment report.

So, then, if we can't see Obama's job creation number in the number of unemployed workers,  the only other place to find Obama's jobs number would be in an increase in the size of this nation's workforce. But, always keep in mind that  a workforce should naturally grow each year to accommodate all the new workers who would be entering the job market after exiting school.  Of course, this number would have to be net of any retirees who would be leaving the workforce at the same time.  For the United States, that net job growth number would be about 1% or 1.54 million new workers per year on a base of 154.2 million workers in the labor force when Obama took office.  Now here's the problem.  The workforce has only gown by 800,000 workers in the last 27 months.  Not enough to even cover the growth in the number of unemployed workers during that period; let alone, enough to cover Obama's supposed job creation record.


The fact is that nowhere -- except out of the mouth of this President -- can anyone really find those 4.3 million jobs. Even if the policies of this President did create that many jobs,  the top-line numbers would then "have to" suggest that for every "one job" being created, "two jobs" had to have been destroyed in the process.  And, probably, that's the real record of an Obama presidency.

The Property Tax: The Most Unfair Tax of All Taxes

To me, the most unfair tax in the world is the property tax (aka: the real estate tax). It's unfair because the tax is based on the value of home; which you really don't have any control of.  And, that tax is typically designed so that it will increase each year as the value of your home increases; leaving school districts to increase spending based on home values and not necessarily based on any political approval. In fact, prior to the housing collapse, those taxes were actually rising faster than salaries because housing values were skyrocketing.

But, it's mostly unfair because it doesn't care about your current economic situation. Even if you've lost your job, the tax is due; unabated. It doesn't care if you were forced to take a cut in pay. Or, if your income is lower due to retirement. Often, the calculated amount of the tax is driven higher by politicians who want to expand our school systems with the sole intent paying back the teachers and the teacher's unions for their political support.

And, despite a massive loss of home values since housing collapse, most real estate taxes have not gone down. Instead, most communities used "new math" to recalculate the tax and keep it at the same level it was before the housing crisis.

Today, North Dakota voters will vote to eliminate all property taxes.  I Applaud this and I would hope this becomes a trend throughout the United States. 

The Myth Of Teacher Layoffs

Back in September of last year, I wrote a blog regarding the President's fascination with some variant of the number 25 when quoting statistics.  So, it's no wonder that David Axelrod -- Obama's chief campaign strategist -- would comment that 250,000 teachers have lost their jobs in the last 27 months.  Not 200,000 or 225,000 or 300,000 but, in typical Obama fashion, 250,000.  Certainly, a number that big (if believable) would seem like a big deal.

But, you see, that 250,000 teachers is only 3.4% of the total 7.2 million that were on the job when Obama took office.  So, in other words, teacher's under Obama have only suffered a 3.4% unemployment rate while, at the same time, the rest of the workforce has had to contend with unemployment rates in excess of 8%.

This whole thing about keeping teachers on the job is all about preserving their  union jobs and, in essence, preserving union support for the President's reelection.  Further, fiscally irresponsible state governments aren't likely to get their acts together if Obama keeps using federal funds to support that irresponsibility.

Lastly, with more than 56 million students in America, being served by nearly 7 million teachers, I hardly feel that a student to teacher ratio of 8-1 is some kind of over-worked condition. There is plenty of room for a smarter application of available teachers to reform the cost of education and get those state budgets under control.  But, we have a president and many liberal state governors who think that the only solution to this nation's problems is more and more government and government spending.  That is just pure B.S.  One need only look to Wisconsin where union collective bargaining was reformed.  In doing so, the cost of government was reduced and a budget surplus was created.  More importantly, not a single state worker had to be laid off. 

Notes:

(1) The teacher and student data was sourced from a U.S. Census Bureau report on education.  You can click here to view that report. 

(2) Axelrod's claim of 250,000 teacher layoffs in 27 months is really suspect.  According to Congressional statistics as of March of last year, only 132,000 teachers had been laid off in the four years since the recession had begun.    Then, somehow, using Axelrod's math, we're supposed to believe a number greater than that had to have been lost in just the last year.  But after a lot of "Google-ing", I was only able to find out that about 58,000 teacher jobs were lost in the last year.  That, then, brings the 5-year or 60-month layoff total to about 190,000; well short of Axelrod's  27 month claim.

Obama: "The Private Sector Is Doing Fine"

Last Friday, President Obama made an outrageous claim that the "private sector is doing fine" and would have you and I believe that what the economy really needs is to spend money to keep police, firemen, and teachers on the job.  With that single statement, this President made it clear that he doesn't understand our economy.  And, since he doesn't understand our economy, it's no wonder job creation has suffered so much under his watch.

The private sector is not doing fine.  It's in trouble and seriously slowing. There is still high unemployment and the First Quarter growth for all private sector economic activity was only 1.9%; this, as measured by a statistic called the Gross Domestic Product or GDP.  Apparently, Obama doesn't understand that government spending is not part of that measurement.  That's because state, local, and federal governments aren't producers.  Instead, governments are a drain on the economy because they literally suck money out of the private sector through taxation.

There's a simple principal that seems to escape our President.  If the private sector grows, tax revenues will grow at the same time. And, if tax revenues grow, you won't have to layoff teachers, firemen, and police. The city of Detroit isn't on the verge of bankruptcy because there aren't enough teachers, police, and fireman.  Detroit is dying because the private sector is absolutely dead in that city.  Whole neighborhoods are being razed because the people have left and gone elsewhere.

Obviously, someone at the White House got to Obama right after he made such a stupid remark because, later on, he semi-retreated on his "doing fine" comment.  But, this apparent "Freudian slip" just proves, again, that the only thing this President is about is big government socialism.

Read one of the commentaries that sparked this blog entry:  Obama Says Private Sector 'Doing Fine'; GOP Jumps on Gaffe 

Jesse Jackson, Jr. Other Democrats Want The Minimum Wage Raised Again

17 House Democrats, headed up by Jesse Jackson, Jr., want to raise the national minimum wage by nearly 30% from $7.25 an hour to $10 (Click to see story from the Hill.com).   If anything could be more ridiculous in a weak and jobless economy, this is it.

These people are literally clueless when it comes to economics and business, in general.

You don't raise taxes in a weak economy and you certainly don't "force" 30% pay raises on companies that are already struggling.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about half those earning or eligible for a Federal minimum wage, are under 25 years of age.  The unemployment rate for those in that age group is already 16.2%; double the national average and even higher, if you consider Black and Hispanic youth unemployment.  Believe me, if the minimum wage is raised and businesses have to make a choice between survival and laying people off or going belly up, it will be layoffs that result.  And, I guarantee you that if an employer has to make a choice between an unmarried, live-at-home youth worker and someone who is married with a family, it will be the youth worker who hits the streets, jobless.

We already have more than 19 million people working part time in this country; and, half of those that are in this situation are forced to because of economic reasons.  One way that employers can avoid paying the Federal minimum wage is to replace a full-time worker with two part-time workers.  If the minimum wage is raised, part time worker rolls will only increase.  Many of the people who are already the hardest hit in this weak economy will suffer even further.

Finally, by raising the minimum wage by 30%, you force the wages of entry level workers to overrun the wages of more experienced workers.  This forces employers to compensate all the way up the line in a domino-like fashion.  This kind if wage/expense inflation, assuming it does kill the company in the process. will only result in price inflation for the products that you and I purchase.

Americans have already seen much of their purchasing power reduced since the recession began in earnest in 2008.  If purchasing power is further eroded through price inflation, a double dip recession is surely on the way.  After all, last week's economic news all but screamed recession with unemployment rising and economic growth stalling.  Now, with Jackson and other Democrats pushing a 30% increase in the minimum wage, its almost as if these idiots want the economy to fail.

Dianne Feinstein: The Leaker Who's Upset With Other Leakers

This week, the big Capital Hill flap is over security leaks regarding specific details about secret operations such as those associated with the Bin Laden killing; Obama's drone "Kill List"; and, the Stuxnet virus that threw Iran's nuclear program into disarray. On the political right, Senators John McCain and Saxby Chamblis are leading the charge for an investigation. On the left -- interestingly enough -- it is Senator Dianne Feinstein who is upset over the leaks. I suppose its good that there are calls for an investigation on a bi-partisan basis. But, at the same time, I find it a bit laughable that Dianne Feinstein seems so irate over the leaking of national security information.

Back in 2009, she shocked the U.S. intelligence community when she took it upon herself to release to the press the fact that the United States was conducting drone strikes originating out of Pakistan air bases: Dianne Feinstein Leaks Classified Info About Pakistan Drone. Prior to that, back in 1995, Feinstein -- as the then-Mayor of San Francisco -- stood before live TV cameras and completely disclosed intentionally withheld information about the famed Night Stalker serial killer case. Her release of that information may have actually delayed the eventual arrest of Richard Ramirez, by forcing him to move back to Los Angeles where he was able to kill again. I guess when it comes to confidential and secret information being leaked, it takes a leaker to know a leaker. And, for that, Feinstein is probably more qualified than anyone else to head up an investigation into the current spate of national security leaks.

Obama Creates Millions of Green Jobs By Just Calling Them Green Jobs

Note: The person responding to Rep. Issa's questions is the top statistician from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If this is the way green jobs are counted, it's no wonder the employment numbers are also so phony.

Bill Clinton: Obama's Antagonist From Within

Obama and the Democrats must be wildly shaking their heads lately, over remarks made by Bill Clinton.  It just seems like Clinton is on a one-man quest to undermine every campaign strategy that Obama has conjured up.

For days, the Obama campaign had tried to make Romney look like a job killer for his leadership of Bain Capital.  And, as part of that leadership, team Obama was trying to convince the voters that Romney was not qualified to be president.  Well, in one fell swoop, Clinton shot those arguments down with the following two comments: "I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this [Bain Capital] is bad work. This is good work...[and]...The man [Romney] who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold [for president]."

Then, just a couple of days ago, Clinton said that we should extend all the Bush Tax Cuts.  This after Obama has spent months trying to convince Americans that the Bush tax cuts for the rich should be left to expire.

These aren't just forgetful lapses by Clinton.  After all, Clinton is one of the most political savvy people in America today.  I think, in an odd way, Clinton is actually trying to push Obama into campaigning in a different direction.  I think he's trying to tell him to drop the Bain Capital and "unqualified" arguments that Romney can't be president.  At the same time, I think he feels that the attacks on the rich are not strategically wise.

Or, I could be dead wrong and Clinton is actually trying to shoot down Obama's reelection chance in retaliation for his treatment of Hillary in the lead-up to the 2008 primaries.

The False Story Told By Exit Polls In Wisconsin

Last night, Fox News admitted that they were unable to declare an "early" win for Scott Walker because the exit polling had told them that the race was going to be extremely close.  This was despite the fact that, at the time, Walker had a 20+ point lead against Barrett with more than 20% of vote counts in.  Finally, with 25% of the vote in, they declared a win for Walker.

The fact is that the exit polls were flawed.  People lied to the pollsters and the data was inaccurate.   They probably lied because other pro-union family members and friends were with them when the pollster was surveying the rationale behind their vote.  Yet, all night long, Democrat pundits (not just on Fox) cherry-picked various pro-Democrat parts of the polls to soft-pedal their loss for the night as if the exit polling was completely in line with the night's results.   In essence, they saw what they wanted to see; and the Democrats, my friends, are in complete denial.  Further, they concluded (probably quite falsely) that Obama still had a significant lead in Wisconsin by stating that exit polling indicated that many of those who voted for Walker would still vote for Obama.
 
This morning, with proper reflection, the level-headed opinion writers of the nation's media are painting a bleak picture for the future of public sector unions, the Democrats, and President Obama.  They understand the consequences of last night's loss.  They understand that a loss has "psychological" impact on voters going forward.  By that I mean that it is only human nature for people to not to want to align themselves with losers.  And, it wasn't the Republicans who were losers last night!

Obama Revives His Call For His Union Jobs Bill

Following  Friday's lousy jobs number, Obama and his operatives are, once again, calling for his $350 billion jobs bill to keep fireman, police, and teachers working  while spending billions more to rebuild the country's infrastructure (roads and bridges).  But every one of those jobs that the President is calling for, are all union.  In essence, he wants to spend another $350 billion dollars to help his union voting base in this, an election year.


Policeman, fireman and teachers are all part of the public sector workforce; and, the public sector workforce is only 16% of all American workers.  Of that 16%, only about 37% -- or 6% of this nation's total workforce -- are unionized policeman, fireman and teachers.  On the other hand, heavy equipment workers -- the kind who would work on rehabilitating roads and bridges -- are, again, all filling union jobs in the private sector.  But, unions only hold about 7% of the total private sector jobs in America.  

So, basically, Obama's jobs bill does nothing to help those unemployed Americans who would be part of the  more than 87% of  the entire workforce.  That, to me, is a totally irresponsible act by a president who is supposed to be the President of all the people.  Once again, Obama is putting party politics ahead of the health and well being of the greater good of the country.

Obama Has Left The Well Dry For An Economic Turnaround And Job Creation

If a government is going to do something positive to revive an economy, it takes money. A lot of money.  But, in less than 4 years, Obama has literally squandered the government's ability to realistically do anything to spur on any type of  recovery.  He's done that by increasing the nation's debt by nearly 50%; upping it from $10.6 trillion when Bush left office, to today's $15.8 trillion -- and counting.

Now, significant tax cuts are off the table because they, themselves, would seriously increase the nation's debt.  Tax increases would help lower that debt but, at the same time, cripple an already weak economy by draining it of much needed capital and discretionary spending.   Additionally, any government austerity, to reduce the debt and possibly reduce taxes, could actually have a debilitating effect because government employee layoffs would ensue and many forms of expenditures would be cut.  This could cause a ripple effect  and even higher unemployment.

The fact is that we are at an impasse in expecting the government to do anything related to taxes and spending.  The money well is dry.  The first thing that should be done is to freeze government spending at current levels; thus stopping any further increases in debt. Then, any excessive job killing government regulations should be suspended or repealed. This would spur on the private sector to create more jobs adding to economic revival.  Approve the Keystone pipeline and allow drilling areas that are now off limits.  This will also create jobs and put money in people's pockets because of lower prices at the pump.  Get the EPA off coal's back.  This too would help people with their expenses and allow money to be spent on something other than energy.

Further, dump ObamaCare.  It's reducing small business profits; it's causing health care insurance premiums to rise more quickly; and, it's associated taxes are taking money away from the economy.   Then, there is long term unemployment insurance.  There are 3.5 million jobs out there that people are applying for.  Often, this is because it's more comfy to stay on unemployment insurance than to find a job.  Lets cut insurance from the current 99 weeks to, say, 80 weeks and see if the job's situation improves.  If so, cut back the weeks of covered insurance even further. 

The bottom line is that we could get the economy going again without a lot of government spending and new taxes if our government would just get smart about regulations and wasteful spending. Obama has put our government in a box. It's the only thing left to do.

Bloomberg's Trap On All Fattening Foods

Last week, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City proposed a ban on the restaurant, movie theater, and street cart sales of any sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces.  Of course this is just stupid in that people will easily sidestep the ban by buying more than one 16 oz. drink at a time; or, by going back for seconds.  Bloomberg's argument for the ban is that these drinks contribute to obesity.

But, there is a bigger problem if Bloomberg gets way.  And, the problem is: "What's next?"

Will we then see bans on other fattening foods that contribute to obesity?  No more potato chips in New York City.  No fries. No cakes or donuts.  No Big Mac's or Whopper's. This list could be infinite.   People like Bloomberg think they can just legislate fat out of existence in the same way people like him thought they could legislate cigarette smoking out of existence.  Yet, despite extremely high legislated taxes and subsequently high prices for a pack of cigarettes, the number of Americans who smoke has only gone down from 28% in 1988 to today's 21%.  

The Latest Democrat Talking Point On Jobs: One Bad Employment Report Is Not A Trend

One day following a horrible jobs report, a bunch of Democratic operatives and Obama apologists are talking down yesterday's rise in the unemployment rate and the abysmal creation of only 69,000 jobs in May by using the old statistician's argument that "one month doesn't indicate a trend". The problem with this lie is that there is a trend; and, it's really bad.

Every month this year, job creation has weakened.  In January, the economy created 289,000 jobs.  A good number, but still well below what is expected from a truly recovering economy.  Then, in February, job creation fell by 25,000 jobs to 259,000.  In March, it was nearly cut in half to 142,000 and almost half again in April to 77,000.  If anything, yesterday's 69,000 job creation number actually bucked the trend of the previous two months by not coming in at nearly half April's 77,000 number.

As always, "a picture is worth a thousand words."  So, here's the chart and its associated trend line:

Now, if I was to project next month's job's data based on the above trend, I would say that there is a high probability that job creation might actually go negative.  What then all you Democrat pundits?

                                        Source of Data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Obama's Three-Strikes Week

This week was a really bad one for President Obama.  In one report after another, the economy looks to be faltering. This for a man who would want you to believe that his policies have turned things around and that we were on the right track.

First, there was a 5-month low in the Consumer Confidence index with that measurement falling from 68.7 in April to 64.9 in May.  Typically, a falling "Confidence" number indicates that the consumer could be pulling back on spending. And, since consumer spending accounts for 70% of economic activity, future growth could easily be in jeopardy.

Then, yesterday, there was the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) number; an overall measure of economic growth and activity.  It was revised downward from a previously reported 2.2% to an extremely anemic1.9% for the first quarter of this year.   Keep in mind that you need at least 2.5% growth per quarter to make any real dent in the unemployment rate. 

Finally, there was the horrible employment report of this morning.  As yesterday's poor GDP report had foretold,  job growth was extremely anemic with only 69,000 jobs added last month.  For the first time in months, the unemployment rate rose; moving from 8.1% to 8.2% The so-called expert economists thought that 150,000 jobs would be created in the month with the unemployment rate either holding at 8.1% or falling to 8%; completely ignoring the previously reported poor GDP number of 2.2% a month ago (1.9% this morning).   As I have pointed out many times in this blog, you need at least 160,000+ jobs created every month; just to cover population growth. With that in mind, the mere addition of 69,000 jobs is actually negative job growth.

It's hard to believe that these three days of poor economic numbers, taken all together, are somehow a one-month fluke.  A fluke might have been just one of them --- like the jobs number -- being weak.  But, all three taken together paints a picture of a faltering economy.  And, I, for one, would be surprised if things get any better going into the Fall elections.  That's because bad news, in itself, tends to spook the consumer with the economy and job creation suffering in the process.  It could very well be that the 2nd Quarter GDP falls below 1% and unemployment rises to 8.5% in the months ahead.  If true, there is no way that Obama could or should win reelection.

If Voters Were Logical and Not Ideological, Romney Would Win In A Heartbeat

There is an old saying about investing in the stock market: "Don't get married to a stock." This adage is born out of the fact that, too many times, an investor will hold onto a loser stock and justify that action by saying: "It'll come back." In reality, people cling to loser stocks because the don't want to admit they were wrong in buying it in the first place.  The pros are never so self-absorbed and they cut their losses right away; moving on to another stock or other investments that have more immediate promise.

Well, sometimes the same can be true with voters.  They won't admit they made a mistake in voting for someone the first time around. I think, that's why Obama still has a slight lead over Romney in the polls.  Even Democrats, in their heart of hearts, know that the Obama presidency is nothing like what they thought they were going to get when they voted for him in 2008.  All that "Hope and Change" was simply a political slogan.  A slogan, today, that isn't even uttered by either Obama or Biden.  Instead, all we get are excuses.  Excuses like: The recession was worse than we thought. It was Bush's fault.  Its because of the Republicans. Or, Congress. It was because of Japan's tsunami.  ATM's.  Or, whatever.  A winner doesn't make excuses.  A winner assumes a job; does it well; and, never looks back.  But, all the President does is look backward to find a reason for his failings.  This despite the fact that his latest campaign slogan is: "FORWARD!" A slogan that is truly laughable.

In my opinion, if those who voted for Obama in 2008 would put their pride and ideology aside and truly evaluate his performance on a logical basis, they would absolutely "not" give him four more losing years.  They would sell that stock, and In doing so, Romney would win in a heartbeat.