Why Britain And Its Pound Sterling Won't Avoid The Impact of A EuroDollar Collapse

Too many British, feel that  they've dodged a bullet by not joining the Euro-zone and adopting the Eurodollar as their base currency.  But, hold on a minute.  Nearly 44% of Britain's exports are with Euro-Zone countries like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.  So, if those economies fail because of a Eurodollar collapse, 44% of Britain's export business could be at some degree of risk.  I seriously think Britain should be concerned with the collapse of the Eurodollar; just as the USA is concerned.  God only knows what kind or ripple effect could take place should there be a major collapse of any world currency at a time when most economies in the world are in already in trouble.  

The Democrats And The Keynesian Con Game

In the hands of a Democrat, Keynesian economics is simply an excuse to spend; a con game.  When they spend it is usually in the form of crony capitalism or in the form of paybacks to their union buddies.  When it doesn't turn the economy around, they always complain that the spending wasn't enough.  Yes, they need more!   A lot more!  When they've driven the deficits to new heights, they balk at any spending cuts because they say it will hurt the economy.  Even though the economy never benefited from it in the first place.  Instead, they would rather raise taxes.  Today it's on the rich.  Tomorrow it might just have to be on everyone.   And, that, my friends, is why liberals have always been referred to as "tax and spend Democrats".

Reagan's Words Of 32 Years Ago Are As True Today

            (to save some time you can start the video at 3:24 point)



Note: Right now there is a lot of talk about a "mystery" speaker at this year's DNC Convention.  Personally, I think they would be smart to replay this very video; or, at least parts of it.

To The Democrats: Seniors Fear ObamaCare More Than Ryan Plan

When Ryan's name was announced, some Democrats rejoiced over the fact that they could eat Romney and Ryan alive over Ryan's "extremist" views on reforming Medicare.  But, once again, this attitude by Democrats failed to understand that seniors aren't some robotic bunch of idiots that will only vote Democrat when it comes to Medicare. Like a lot of people  in this country,  seniors are concerned about the impact of ObamaCare on Medicare.  Nearly half of all seniors understand that ObamaCare robs Medicare of billions.  They understand that they will lose the Medicare Advantage programs; thanks to ObamaCare.  And, they understand how ObamaCare may infringe on the ability to get broad-based and adequate health care in the future because, ObamaCare will ultimately decide that some seniors will be considered  "too old" to receive certain drugs and certain procedures.

Rasmussen took a couple of polls and here are the results that prove the Democrats wrong:


Poll: Florida voters more afraid of Obama's Medicare plan than Ryan's: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/16/poll-florida-voters-more-afraid-obama-medicare-plan-than-ryan/

National Poll: 47% Fear Health Care Law More Than Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/social_security_medicare/47_fear_health_care_law_more_than_ryan_s_medicare_reform_plan

The Demcrats Are Conducting The Real War On Women And All The American People

If you listen to Obama and the Democrats, the Republican's stance on abortion, their wish to de-fund Planned Parenthood, and their objection to forcing religious groups to provide free contraception is an outright war on women.  But, is it?

The Republican view of abortion is really an issue of protecting the life of an unborn child who has no rights at all in the Democrat's argument.  Republicans know they can't stop abortions.  After all, the Supreme Court has made it legal.  But, hopefully, by objecting to it, women will become more sensitive to it. Then, when it comes to Planned Parenthood, abortion is again at issue. It sponsors nearly a quarter of the 1.2 million abortions conducted in this country every year and gets nearly $100 million a year in federal funding.  Now, under the law, federal funds cannot be used for abortion and, because those federal funds are fungible, there is no way that Planned Parenthood can guarantee that these funds aren't being used for abortions.  Further, the new women's mandates under ObamaCare, replace much of the "free" services that Planned Parenthood provided.  Lastly, free contraception was simply a campaign tactic.  It could have been declared part of ObamaCare when the law was passed in 2010, but of course, Obama and Sibelius waited until this, an election year.

All these issues are small potatoes when you consider what Obama and the Democrats have done to women's lives in the last three years.   Based on a recent study, the average American family has lost more than $4,000 in purchasing power since Obama took office; with the median income moving from $54,983 in 2009 to $50,964 this year.  That's a larger loss of income than under any of the Bush years; including the peak recession years of 2007 and 2008.

As I have contended all along, Obama's massive spending spree has caused this situation.  The weak dollar  is inflationary and hurts everyone's pocketbook.  For a woman trying to tend to the needs of her family, any loss of income can be devastating; especially those living in poverty and at low income levels.  That, to me, is the real war on woman.

Source of Chart:  Wall Street Journal article: Negative $4,019. The Obama years have been brutal on middle-class incomes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468750027784434.html#

Is Obama Breaking The Law On Foreign Campaign Donations?

In January, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that it is unconstitutional and illegal to solicit or receive campaign donations from foreigners.  Yet, on August 27,  George Clooney held a fundraiser in Geneva Switzerland on behalf of Obama. Even though the event was titled "Americans Abroad for Obama", who did a passport check at the door to keep this thing legal?

References:

Clooney to raise money for Obama in Geneva: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/clooney-raise-money-obama-geneva

Supreme Court Retains Ban on Foreign Campaign Donations: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court-retains-ban-on-foreign-campaign-donations/

Balancing The Budget Is As Simple As Freezing Spending For Just A Few Years

Sorry, Barack. Joe. GM Is Not The #1 Auto Company In The World

On the campaign trail, both Obama and Biden continue to perpetuate the lie that GM is the world's largest auto maker.  The clueless Biden even goes so far as to claim that GM is the world's largest company.

Here's the facts.

GM briefly held the top spot over Toyota because Toyota sales were hurt in two ways.  First there was the "acceleration pedal" recall.  This really tarnished Toyota's quality image and, as a result, impacted sales.  Secondly, there was the Tsunami that severely hampered Toyota's manufacturing output.  But, as reported in May, Toyota is now back on top.

Biden and Obama both have to know that GM didn't become #1 because of increased sales.  It's just illogical to think that their sales increased after having dumped Humvee, Saab and Volvo and shutdown Saturn and Pontiac.  But, politically for them, they must think they can keep telling the lie and no one will call them on it, and from the looks of things, no one in the mainstream media has.

References:

Toyota back, passes GM as world's largest automaker: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/05/toyota-retakes-worlds-largest-automaker-status-from-gm/1#.UDZl6qNT8uc

The Debt As A Percentage Of GDP Argument

Liberal economists like Paul Krugman continue to argue that the current debt, as percentage of GDP, is still lower than it was following World War II.  And, yes it is.  But, not by much.  However, in making this argument, these left-wing economists seem to feel that there's room for more stimulus spending because, after all, we recovered quite nicely from all the debt that was accumulated during the Great Depression and  the war years. 

Well things have changed a lot since WWII.  For one thing, nearly half the population, today, pays zero taxes. In the years following the war, only about a quarter of the population paid no taxes; reaching a low of 16% by 1969.  In other words, we now have a huge debt with a lot less people available to pay it off.   At the same time, those who did paid taxes, back then, paid their taxes at a higher rate.  The lowest tax rate in 1945 was 22% on $2,000 of income; and, the top wage earners paid 91% on incomes in excess of $200,000.  Today, the bottom rate is only 10% and the top rate is 35%.

The bottom line is that the country was better able to pay off its debts following the war.  Today, liberal tax policies have created a situation where we have too few people paying too little in taxes to adequately address our deficit spending; which has gone up 57% under Obama.  This year alone, the "interest" on the  federal debt will be in excess of $430 billion dollars.  Next year, it will be closer to $500 billion.  Obama's solution?  Raise the taxes on the rich. Not cut spending.  But raising taxes on the rich will only result in a about $85 billion more in tax revenues next year.  That increase in revenues won't even pay off 20% of the interest payments on our debt.  Meanwhile, the debt will only continue to increase at a rapid rate.

To me, its like having $10,000 in credit card debt and, all you do every month is pay the minimum amount.  While doing this might avoid penalties, the compounding of interest and continued use of that credit card  will eventually send you to bankruptcy court.  And that appears to be something that the Krugmans of the world and Obama don't seem to understand.  Or, sadly, maybe they do!

References:

1945 Federal Tax Instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040--1945.pdf

Percentage of Population Paying Taxes: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/

Debt as a Percentage of GDP: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Obama Stimulus: $738,000 Per Job

The President always likes to say his plan "worked".  Well, a few days ago, his Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, proudly declared that the $48 billion spent on infrastructure projects created 65,000 jobs on 15,000 projects.  

As I've said before, heavy construction projects -- like the ones that the federal government gets involved  in -- are more equipment and material dependent than people dependent; and, that kind of spending doesn't replace the lost consumer spending that caused the recession.  Therefore, a lot of money is spent with only a few people actually gaining work.  When you do the math on Lahood's proudly declared projects, the government actually spent $738,000 on each job it created.   And, when those transportation projects were finished, the workers went back being unemployed.

This is why Keynesian-style stimulus is such a waste, and, this is why so-called government stimulus won't create jobs and won't cause an economy to recover.  Obama's plan is socialist idiocy!  Now, we're saddled with trillions of dollars in debt and nothing to show for it; creating thousands of jobs when millions are unemployed.  Let's replace this guy in the fall.  He's literally destroying this country from within!

Reference for this post:

More Stimulus Madness -- $738,000 For Each Job Created By DOT: http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/21/more-stimulus-spending-madness-738000-fo

There Are Liars. Damn Liars. And, Obama's Stephanie Cutter.

Stephanie Cutter is Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager.  She's the one who has introduced so many lies to the campaign, that its almost hard to keep track.  She's the one who claimed that she knew nothing about the ad where a man said his wife died of cancer because of Romney.  Even though, just two months earlier, the news media was all ears, when she had that same man on conference call while he told the very same story.  Then, too, she tried to imply that Romney was a felon for filing improper SEC forms when stepped down from Bain.

Now, the latest lie from the one who seems to think that Obama's reelection is just one more lie away, is her claim that Obama's recovery is better than the much heralded Reagan recovery because Obama has created 4.5 million jobs in the last 27 months.

The fact is that in the first 27 months of the Reagan recovery, more than 9.8 million jobs were created; 1.1 million in a single month (September 1983).   In Reagan's first term, the total civilian and government workforce grew from 146.6 million in 1981 to 153.4 million in 1985.  That's a growth of nearly 5% in 4 years.  For Obama, the workforce has actually shrunk; moving from 201.5 workers in January 2009 to a projected 200.7 million by year's end.  So, somehow, the claim that Obama created 4.3 million jobs is a little hard to swallow when the workforce, itself, has fallen.  As I have said before, if the President actually did create 4.3 million jobs, more than double that amount of jobs had to be destroyed for the workforce to have remain nearly flat over 4 years.

Lastly, when Reagan took office, the unemployment rate was 13.8%.  By the end of Reagan's first term, unemployment stood at 7%.  Obama, on the other hand, was handed an unemployment rate of 7.6%.  Within months, it zoomed to 10.2% and the new CBO estimates expected it to be closer to 9% by the year's end.  On top of that, Obama holds the modern day record of having 42 straight months of unemployment above 8%.

The Cutter Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/22/cutter_obama_has_created_more_jobs_than_the_reagan_recovery.html

Why Romney/Ryan Medicare Voucher Systems Are A Good Thing

Forget about the Democrat's ad that shows a Ryan-looking person throwing Grandma off a cliff.  Instead, there should be an ad showing the Democrats throwing Medicare off a cliff.  Because, that's what's really happening.  First, and foremost, ObamaCare steals $716 billion from the Medicare trust to pay for non-senior ObamaCare expenses.  Secondly, to control costs, ObamaCare establishes something called an IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) who will try to control costs by rationing how much care seniors will be able to get and when.  The bottom line is that Medicare will start going broke in 2024.

Now, enter Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.  Each of them understand that Medicare is going broke because the cash outlays are exceeding the program's sources of revenues; with this situation only getting worse as the country ages due to the retirement of the baby boomers.   Like Social Security, there just aren't enough younger people paying into the system in order to cover the high cost of providing healthcare to citizens in their later years.  Essentially, Medicare is a program that is completely trapped into providing healthcare to the most costly group of patients: This nation's elder population. So, the trick to saving Medicare is to create a system in which there is a lot cash input from younger participants to help offset the high cost of providing care for our nation's elders.

Understanding this, both Ryan and Romney have independently decided that a "voucher system" would push the cost of caring for seniors out of the federal domain and shove it into the private sector by inviting private insurance companies into the Medicare program.  In essence, future seniors would be given the option of either traditional Medicare or a voucher; something that the "throwing Granny off the cliff" ad doesn't say.

If they elect to stay with traditional Medicare, then, they will have all the benefits and, make no mistake, the weakness of the current system.  However, if they opt to go with the voucher system, they will be able to go into the free marketplace and insurers will compete for their business.  The participants can then pick and chose the type of coverage they want and how much they are willing to pay for it.  If the voucher participants can find good health care at a cost lower than the amount of the voucher, they can pocket the savings.  If they want more of an upscale health plan, they pay the difference.  But, the big thing about the voucher system is that the high cost of payouts for the healthcare of the voucher system participants will rest with the private sector and no longer with the federal government vis a vis the Medicare trust. 

In essence, free-market competition will save Medicare because costs (and, I think fraud) will be controlled by the private sector and because those private sector insurers will have a healthcare insured base of both young and old.  Something that Medicare is unable to achieve. 

For a concise understanding of current Medicare spending and financing, please refer to this Kaiser Family Foundation Report: http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305_03.pdf 

Ryan Will "End Medicare As We Know It" ?

In psychology, it is well known that you can condition one's mind through word associations and the constant repetition of those associations.   When it comes to Paul Ryan and his Medicare reform planning, the Democrats have consistently repeated the phrase "end Medicare as we know it".  If you don't think so, just go to YouTube and search on those very words.  You will find, video after video, from Obama on down, Democrat after Democrat, like the lemmings they are, using those exact same words when talking about the GOP or Paul Ryan's attempts to reform or save Medicare..

Of course, logically, any change to Medicare would "end Medicare as we know it".  So, basically,  the Democrats have decided on this particular phraseology to block any changes.  Yet, Medicare is in trouble and, if not 'ended as we know it,' it will go bankrupt at least by 2024; just 12 years from now. Note this report from CNBC last year:



I find it utterly disgusting that the Democrats are willing to let Medicare go belly up when it could be saved through some moderate changes as being proposed by Paul Ryan and the GOP.  What is the Democrat's strategy?  Just let it go insolvent and then raise taxes -- on the rich, of course -- to save Medicare.  But ask yourself this: At what point do you run out of the rich's money to save all these floundering social programs like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and Food Stamps? Probably not too long from now with the way that Obama and the Democrats have spent money in the last 3-1/2 years.

Romney's Tax Return Issue Isn't Going Away

Between the liberal media and the Democrats, Romney continues to get hammered on the release of his tax returns.  Even the polling agencies have gotten into the act by asking Americans if Romney should release 10 years of taxes.  The latest poll from the left-leaning CNN, says 63 percent of Americans want Romney to release additional tax returns.  Of course, that same poll said that Obama had a 7 point lead over Romney when most other polls show Romney slightly behind or, in fact, leading.  Here's a composite of all the polls at Real Clear Politics (click on chart to see enlarged version):

 

Romney's problem is that this tax thing isn't going away.  Obama and his surrogates want it to be a bigger issue, politically, than either the economy or jobs.  But, Romney was handed an out by Harry Reid.  Harry's claim is that the Governor hasn't paid taxes for ten years.  For that reason, he only has to prove that he has.  If I was Mitt, I would have a Certified Public Accounting agency review his returns and then publish the amount of taxes paid each year, thus killing the bogus claim.  I'm betting Romney paid a lot of taxes in the last 10 years.

Rep. Akin Is Simply Akin To Stupidity

In Missouri, the Republicans "were" licking their chops for an easy Senate seat win over the current Democrat Senator, Claire McCaskill.   That's because, in the polls, McCaskill is in trouble.  But, sometimes, it only takes one stupid act or totally stupid comment by a challenger to erase what should have been a cakewalk.  Remember when Howard Dean "screeched" himself out of his lead in the 2004 primaries?

Now, we have a similar situation with Rep. Todd Akin; McCaskill's GOP challenger.  In an interview, he said that women who are "legitimately raped" won't get pregnant because doctors have "told him" that women are able to biologically shutdown the pregnancy after being raped.  Of course, the implication is that all those woman who do get pregnant after being raped are just lying.

It's really hard to believe that this person has been a U.S. Representative from Missouri for over a decade with these kinds of views.  It's one thing to be anti-abortion. But, to come up with some kind of silly science to argue that abortion shouldn't be allowed in the case of rape or incest is simply akin to stupidity.  This guy needs to step down now so the GOP can put someone else on the ballot.

The Free-Market Works: CO2 Emissions At 20-Year Low

Earlier this month, I wrote a post, Liberal Stupidity: Fighting Coal and Fracking At The Same Time, where I argued that the process of fracking to extract natural gas was doing more to reduce dirty coal emissions than any planned government regulation.

Today, the theory, as expressed in that post, was proven to be true.  In a report released by the Department of Energy, CO2 emissions in the United States are now at a 20-year low.  Not because of Obama or his EPA or wind or solar but, because of fracking.  Fracking has made natural gas prices so low that power producers are switching over from coal at a rapid rate.  There is a profit motive; driven by our free-market system, but, at the same time, liberal environmentalists should be rejoicing because the burning of natural gas to produce electricity versus coal cuts CO2 emissions in half.

In the Associated Press article that was the basis of this blog entry (AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low), the writer said this:

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Sadly, this news didn't get much press because the left and left-wing media don't want natural gas to be a success story.  After all, natural gas still produces CO2 and, in the extreme mind of the environmentalist, any CO2 is intolerable; even though each one of those environmentalists produce CO2 every time they exhale.  

If I Were An Alien

If I came from another planet, why would I come to earth?  The air is dirty.  People are at war all the time.  But, then, there's Joe Biden.  Everyone needs a good laugh, sometimes.  Even an alien.

Because of Politics, Chevy Loses On Every Volt It Sells

Before the General Motors (GM) bailout, it was estimated that the company was losing $1800 on every car it sold.  Well, it seems old habits are hard to break.  Now, it appears that GM is losing thousands on every Chevy Volt it sells.

Back in November 2010, Obama's Car-Czar, Steven Rattner, wrote this in his book titled Overhaul:

"At least in the early years, each Volt would cost around $40,000 to manufacture (development costs not included).” 

With that in mind, it was a little surprising that the initial Volt MSRP was set at $41,000.  Normally, a car that costs $40,000 would have a price tag set at the mid-to-high $40's.   Even more surprising was the fact that GM, several months later, lowered the price below the psychologically-impacting $40,000 level. 

While the dealers are able to make a profit on each Volt they sell,  GM, itself, is selling it at about a $4,000 loss.  That's just not a good business decision. Instead, it's a political decision. This is what happens when a liberal politician, like Obama, gets his hands on private enterprise.  And, I don't care if the enterprise is Solyndra or health care system.

Reference:

Report: Each Volt Costs $40,000 To Build: http://gm-volt.com/2010/11/26/report-each-volt-costs-40000-to-build/

GM Confirms, Yes, We're Losing Money on Every Volt We Build: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1052107_gm-confirms-yes-were-losing-money-on-every-volt-we-build

Fact Checking Obama's 'Get The Facts' On America's Dependence On Foreign Oil Under His Administration

I'm quite sure that most of you have seen this campaign ad that claims that, under the policies of Obama, our dependence on foreign oil has dropped to a 16-year low:



But, anyone who knows oil knows that this ad is a complete distortion of the facts; if not, an outright lie. They know that any current increases in oil production had to have started under George Bush.  That's because it takes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 years or more to bring an oil well in after having acquired a lease.  So, the earliest any new production under Obama wouldn't be seen until 2012 or later. Not, 2011 as the Obama ad implies.

But, those in the know also know that Obama has done everything possible to shut down domestic oil production.  He's blocked drilling in ANWR and off the coasts of California and Florida and in West Texas. He's nearly stalled drilling the Gulf of Mexico following the BP oil spill; and, he issued the fewest possible leases on federal lands.  In fact, because of these blocking actions, it would be just a matter of time before our dependence would start rising again and Obama's lies would be exposed.  And, that time is now.

According to an article appearing in the Democrat's own paper of record, the New York Times, oil imports from Saudi Arabia are on the rise again after having fallen for more than a decade; starting under Bush.  In fact, from 2001 to 2011, Saudi imports fell 32%.  But, in just the last year, Saudi imports have risen again. Not by a little amount but, by a whopping 20%.  So, so much for Obama's lie to have reduced our dependence of foreign oil!

References:

Christian Science Monitor Chart On Foreign Oil Dependency from 2001 to 2001:  http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/0412-chart/12259091-1-eng-US/0412-chart_full_600.jpg

New York Times article: U.S. Reliance on Oil From Saudi Arabia Is Growing Again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/business/energy-environment/us-reliance-on-saudi-oil-is-growing-again.html?pagewanted=all

On Medicare, The Dems Are Living In A Glass House

There's that old saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."  Apparently, when it comes to Medicare, the Democrats have forgotten this sage advice.  As soon as Ryan was named as Romney's V.P. pick, they went after him on the basis that he would change Medicare.  This was stupid on their part, because, as we all know now, Obama and the Democrats have, themselves, "changed Medicare as we know it" by draining $716 billion from it to pay for ObamaCare.

The cat's out of the bag and, believe me, there's no putting that cat back.  From now to November, the Republicans should just hammer Obama on his handling of Medicare.  Medicare is already in trouble because of funding and is expected to be insolvent in just 12 years, and taking $716 billion away from it will just shorten that time. 

For Reference: Trustees: Medicare Will Go Broke in 2016, If You Exclude Obamacare's Double-Counting: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/23/trustees-medicare-will-go-broke-in-2016-if-you-exclude-obamacares-double-counting/

David Axelrod "Seems Very Upset And Very Agitated"

Recently, on MSNBC's Morning Joe show,  there was this discussion:



Let me also say that you can see this attitude in the speeches being given by Obama and Biden. For the President smoothness is being replaced with anger and hardness.  The same is true with Biden.  I personally think that Team Obama is infuriated over the fact that they spent a summer and millions attacking Romney and they have been unable to move the needle in any positive way for themselves, nor have they significantly moved it against Romney.  I also think the Ryan appointment took them all by surprise.  Now, they're being forced to talk about high debt and spending without a resulting improvement in the economy or jobs. 

Not All Democrats Have Decried Paul Ryan and His Budget Plan

While Obama and other Democrats have spent the last few days demonizing Paul Ryan, it wasn't but a few month's ago that two influential Democrats were giving Ryan "props":

Bill Clinton:



Erskine Bowles:



I guess Bill Clinton doesn't seem to think that Paul Ryan is going to throw Granny off the cliff! 

Russell Simmons: Romney-Ryan Will 'Destroy Our People'

Following the announcement of the Romney-Ryan ticket, black music mogul, Russell Simmons tweeted that Romney-Ryan will "destroy our people".   This from a guy who's probably done more damage to the black community than anyone else.   He's the co-founder of Def Jam records.  A recording company that clearly promotes so-called "artists" that continually refer to women as "hoes" and "bitches".  "Brothers" are endearingly referred to as the "N" word; in the plural when referring to all blacks.  And, Def Jam is a cozy home to Gangsta Rap.  Here's what Wikipedia says about that form of "artistic" expression:

"The subject matter inherent in gangsta rap has caused a great deal of controversy. Criticism has come from both left wing and right wing commentators, and religious leaders, who have accused the genre of promoting crime, violence, profanity, sex, homophobia, racism, promiscuity, misogyny, rape, street gangs, drive-by shootings, vandalism, thievery, drug dealing, alcohol abuse, substance abuse and materialism."

In effect, Simmons has made his millions off the destruction of the moral fiber of his black community.

But, more than that, Simmons is just stupid to imply that, somehow, Romney-Ryan would be bad for the black community.  I say stupid because he apparently doesn't understand how poor and low income blacks have suffered under Obama.  All that spending has cheapened the dollar; making things like food, gasoline, energy, and clothing more expensive.   Do you think a doubling of gasoline prices hurts the rich?  Romney-Ryan would strengthen the dollar.  Prices would come down.  Retail sales would increase and jobs would be created.  Obama has done the opposite.

Russell Simmons story link: http://www.mediaite.com/online/russell-simmons-romney-ryan-will-destroy-our-people-laugh-all-the-way-to-the-bank/

The Ad Obama Can't Make

I'm sure you've all seen the commercial for SelectQuote which opens up showing a young man with his family as the narrator says "Jim is 38. He has a mortgage...a wife...and, three great kids."  Then the ad goes on to show that Jim could save a lot of money using SelectQuote to buy term life insurance.

This is an ad that Obama can't make because, for a middle class family like Jim's, Obama has done nothing but cost him money.

When it comes to health care insurance, Jim's rates have risen faster than any other time in the last decade; following the passage of ObamaCare.  Prior to ObamaCare, health insurance costs were rising at about 6% per year.  In 2011, costs rose 9% and, this year, it is expected that rates will rise over 7%.  In 2010, the average family health care insurance bill was $13,770.  In 2011, after ObamaCare's passage, Jim's costs were $15,073.  This year they will probably be above $16,128.  So, instead of saving him money as Obama had promised, his costs for his family's health insurance rose by more than $2300; and, that's $2300 that Jim won't be able to spend on his wife or his three great kids.

Then, there's the family gasoline bill.  Since December 31, 2008 -- just before Obama took office -- the weak economy had driven gasoline prices down to $1.61 a gallon.  Because Jim's is probably a two-car family, his annual gasoline bill was down to around $2000 a year.  But, as federal spending and debt increased under Obama, the price of oil increased accordingly; this, despite a weak economy and growing oil reserves.  By fall of 2010, gasoline prices had risen to more than $3 and Jim and his family were out another $2000 a year just by paying their gasoline bill. This was all before the so-called Arab Spring and the current intensity over Iran's nuclear program.  Today, because of those two factors, gasoline is now over $3.66 a gallon and rising.   So, in essence, Jim is short another $2500 that he can't spend on his family.  The current rise in oil prices could have been avoided if Gulf drilling had been restored to normal; the EPA wasn't fighting West Texas drilling; ANWAR was opened up for drilling; and, the Keystone pipeline was approved.

As far as electricity prices are concerned, Obama's green energy push has done nothing but increase Jim's electricity bill.  Obama's attack on coal and his push for solar and wind has only driven electricity prices up.  In fact, in 2010, Jim's electricity bill probably went up by $300; an increase of 26%, and, in 2011 and this year, he has only seen more increases.  In general, Obama's policies have probably cost Jim another $600 a year.

Then there's the food bill. If Jim and his family like to have steak and poultry for dinner and cereal for breakfast, he probably has to pay a lot more for this meals.  Again, because of excessive Obama spending and debt, food prices are rising substantially faster than salaries.  Perhaps, Jim got a raise or raises in the last three years; or, maybe not. But, one thing is sure: he is probably paying a lot more for his food bills under Obama's stewardship.  For Jim and his family, that means another $500 he has been shorted under Obama.

The bottom line is that Jim has seen his purchasing power decline by nearly $6000 a year because of Obama's liberal ideas about spending.  That, in turn, is one of the reason's the economy has weakened every year since the recession ended. If anything the weakening economy should have held prices down but, excessive government spending has its consequences.  Contrary to Obama's stump speeches, he isn't helping the middle class, he is killing it.

References:

Household electricity bills skyrocket: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-13/electric-bills/51840042/1

GasBuddy historical gasoline price chart: http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

USDA Food Charts: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/usdafoodcost-home.htm

Costs Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge in 2011: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2011/september/27/employer-health-coverage-survey-shows-employer-spending-spike.aspx

Six Reasons Why Ryan Was A Great Choice

The Democrats would have you believe that the choice of Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate is exactly what Obama wanted; theorizing that Ryan is too far right.  Ryan, after all, is the guy that one liberal ad showed throwing Granny off the cliff.

But, Democrats should be fearing this choice.

First, with it, Romney has framed the debate to focus in on the two most important issues that most concern voters:  The economy and debt.  No longer can the President avoid or dance around these issues. Romney also brings his turnaround experience to the team; having done so at Bain Capital and having effectively saved the Utah Olympics.  Ryan is the budget and spending wiz; and, his collaboration on Medicare reform with Democrat Senator Ron Wyden proves he can work across the aisle.

Second, the Ryan choice is also the best choice that he could have made to coalesce the Republican party.  Prior to the Ryan pick, Republicans were again starting to grumble and have second thoughts about Romney.  And, the one thing that was not needed now, especially this late in the election process, is a fractured Republican party.  Romney's selection of Ryan made the team look conservative; erasing the air of liberalism that had been surrounding Romney's past.  This, in turn, will ensure that the Tea Party will be on Romney's side.

Third,  the Romney/Ryan team represents "reform" and this will ultimately appeal to those Independents who think that the federal government is spinning out of control.  Romney and Ryan are the real "hope" and the "real" change candidates because, under 3-plus years of Obama, "hope" turned to hopelessness and any "change" was not for the better.  That's why team Obama can't talk about anything that has truly happened over the last 3-1/2 years.

Fourth and contrary to what liberals may think, Ryan will appeal to woman.  He's a man with a very young family.  When he talks about the legacy of debt being left to our children, he is believable because of this.  His dedication to his family is sure to be appealing to most woman. He's a guy that goes home every week.  He literally sleeps in his office; refusing to set up roots in D.C. and away from his home life in Wisconsin.

Fifth, he's Catholic.  Unlike JFK's Catholicism which was seen to be a possible deficit, Ryan's Catholicism is a plus for Romney.  By picking an obviously strong Catholic, as Ryan appears to be, Romney has de-focused the election from his Mormon faith.  At the same time, Catholics, who traditionally vote Democrat, may just want to vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket; especially with Obama disrespecting the Catholic Church with his contraception edict.

Lastly, Paul Ryan is a man without anger.  He's cool under fire and, certainly, he has been under fire from the left ever since his budget plan was announced. That level-headedness is a quality that will appeal to many voters; regardless of their political affiliation.

Is Ryan Romney's Merlin?

In lore, Merlin was a wizard, a seer, an adviser to King Arthur.  In many ways Ryan could be that man for a President Romney.

In terms of budgets and spending, he is truly a wizard.  Ryan has shown himself to fully understand budgeting by Congress and the Executive branches.  It seems like, in minutes, he can slice, dice and dissect them; easily exposing the good, the bad, and the ugly of any government spending plan.  In fact, he made his mark when he confronted Obama over the budgeting tricks and lies used in trying to pass ObamaCare into law (click to view video).

At the same time, he is a seer. He's earned the title of being the  "intellectual" of the Republican party.  After 14 years in Congress he knows Washington politics.  He clearly has the "vision" to understand the consequences of anything that Congress is up to.

Like Merlin to King Arthur, Ryan will be an excellent adviser to Romney.  And, that's what great leaders want.  They surround themselves with very talented people as advisers and with people who can get the job done without any useless hand holding.  That's why Romney was so successful at Bain Capital and in his fixing of the Utah Olympics.  Romney-Ryan is a great team.  Because, great people collectively equal great results.

On Paul Ryan, The Liberal Attacks Have Already Started

Right after it was learned that Paul Ryan would be Mitt Romney's choice for running mate, the liberals hit the keyboards to absolutely denounce the choice.  One such liberal reporter, Ryan Lizza, wrote this for The New Yorker:

For one thing, Ryan has no significant private-sector experience. Besides summer jobs working at McDonald’s or at his family’s construction company, or waiting tables as a young Washington staffer, Ryan has none of the business-world experience Romney frequently touts as essential for governing. In the run-up to his first campaign for Congress, in 1998, that gap was enough of a concern for Ryan that he briefly became a “marketing consultant” at the family business, an obvious bit of résumé puffing.

But Ryan’s Washington experience is also light, at least for a potential President—which, after all, is the main job description of a Vice-President. Ryan has worked as a think-tank staffer and Congressman, but he’s never been in charge of a large organization, and he has little experience with foreign policy. Given how Sarah Palin was criticized for her lack of such experience, I’m surprised that Romney would pick someone whose ability to immediately step into the top job is open to question.

I would simply ask this of the liberal Mr. Lizza:  Where were these thoughts when you so whole-hardheadedly backed a freshman Senator, Barack Obama, when he ran for an even more important job: President?   A man with less than two years in the Senate and in Washington and who had never once had anything close to private sector, business experience.  And, as far as foreign policy is concerned, Obama lived in Indonesia. That's about as "foreign policy" as it got.

Are these people just idiots or hypocrites or what!


Mr. Lizza liberal rambling on Ryan:  http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/looks-like-ryan-mitts-pick.html

CBS/New York Times Poll Is Skewed To Make Obama Look Better

The most recent CBS/NY Times poll has Obama leading Romney by significant numbers in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.  But, this poll is dishonest and may be intentionally skewed to give the President a psychological advantage when it comes to public opinion.

If, for example, you just look at Pennsylvania, you would find that the CBS/NYT poll has Obama ahead by 11 points.  This is surprising since in 2008 he only won this very liberal state by 10 points.  Then, in 2010, out of 8.75 million registered voters, the Democrats comprised 48%, and the Republicans only 34%.  That's a spread of 15 points.  Yet, when all was said and done, Pennsylvania mostly voted Republican.  The voters chose a Republican to be governor.  A Republican became their newest U.S. Senator and, the U.S. House representation saw a 5 seat shift from Democrat to Republican.  Exit polls showed a substantial falloff in party affiliation with only 40% saying they were Democrats and 37% Republican.  Apparently, Democrats stayed at home in droves and independents sided with the Republicans.  So, what 2010 proved is that registered voter polls mean nothing when it comes to election day.  It all has to do with the level of party enthusiasm and voter turnout.  Therefore, the results of all three of those polls could be highly exaggerated.


References:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/propaganda_poll_shows_obama_ahead.html

http://hearourvoices.us/post/2012/02/18/2012-Swing-State-Election-Analysis-Pennsylvania.aspx

What A Difference A 'May' Makes

When you have a campaign that is so immersed in lying, it is only inevitable that it will ultimately get caught in its own lies.  This is the case with Stephanie Cutter and the Obama campaign.  Back in May it was alright to hold a conference call with the press to tell a story of how a worker, Joe Soptic, lost his wife to cancer because Romney and Bain Capital cost him his job and his health care insurance.

But, Stephanie and other Obama team members seem to have forgotten that "May" call.  Especially since the Joe Soptic story has been turned into a discredited and dishonest SuperPac campaign ad.  The President now has two problems.  The ad, itself, makes team Obama look bad because it has serious holes in its facts and because there is a growing belief that it is a totally below-the-belt hit job.  But, Obama has another problem.  Possibly a legal one.  That May conference call seems to show that Obama and the Priorities USA SuperPac had coordinated this particular attack.  If so, that is illegal under campaign laws.

So, now you have mass amnesia at the Obama campaign.  But, this one is not going away.  Even some in the liberal press smell blood.

Related story:

Obama camp denies knowledge of cancer tale it told in May: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-camp-denies-knowledge-cancer-tale-told-may-195237581.html

An Important Message In The 'Romney Killed My Wife' Campaign Ad

Every time I see that Priorities USA ad that implies that Romney was responsible for Joe Soptic's wife dying of cancer, I seethe with anger because I know exactly how dishonest it is.

At the same time, I am legitimately saddened by the fact that Joe Soptic's wife had to have died from such a horrible form of cancer.  Lung Cancer.  What's even more saddening is the that fact almost 90% of lung cancer cases can be traced back to either first-hand or second-hand smoking by an individual, a spouse, or a family member.  If, in fact, Joe's wife died because she or he had smoked, there's a message there.  Joe Soptic should take some responsibility and tell the true story of why his wife died.  The story is that smoking kills.  Often, too early in life.  That's the kind of ad Joe Soptic should be running.  An ad that, just maybe, could save some lives.

Obama Is Gutting Welfare Reform

 Currently, Obama and his people are touting this Romney ad as being a complete lie:



But, is it?


In 1995, before welfare was reformed, there was nearly 10 million individuals and their families receiving  checks.  Back then, all you needed to do to stay on welfare was to go to your local welfare office and tell them that you have been looking for work.  Because of that simple requirement, this country literally created a "permanent" and "growing" class of welfare recipients.  But, in 1996, welfare was replaced with TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families); signed into law by Bill Clinton.  With that, the rolls started to shrink.  Today, there are just about half as many welfare recipients as there were in 1995.  To put that into a better perspective, it is estimated that, by now, the welfare rolls would have been more than triple without the TANF reform.

Key to the success of TANF was the "working requirement" of the law.  If a job was available, you had to take it in order to receive payments, and, acceptable jobs were clearly defined in the law. This became a wake-up call for those who would otherwise prefer to stay on welfare.   Logically, people started looking for work on their own because, if they were going to have to work anyway, they wanted a decent job with decent pay.

Now zoom forward to the Obama Administration.  Using his assumed executive power to do so, Obama had his Health and Human Services (HHS) department send a letter to the states advising them that they could seek waivers on what had been clearly defined as "work" in the original law.  With those waivers, states could fall back on the old "looking for work" as a standard for receiving welfare assistance.  Here's the exact words in that HHS letter that actually does that:

"...job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates..."

In essence, those words gut the law and return welfare back to the system that was in place in 1995, and, Romney is right to expose it as doing so.  In theory, and under what HHS has said, something like dieting could be easily defined as a "job search/readiness" program.  And, believe me, liberal states like California or New York just might do something like that.  Especially, if liberal politicians think they can secure votes in doing so.

Here's the HHS letter: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html#

CNN Clearly Exposes the "Wife Died of Cancer" Attack On Romney As Being Fraudulently Presented

Let me say that it is shame that this man lost his wife.  But, let me also say that it is shameful that he would "use" his wife's death in such a below-the-belt, political fashion.  He and that SuperPac are being totally dishonest and that needed to be exposed.

Another Obama Sleight-of-Hand Lie About Romney

Last week, in Ohio,  President Barack Obama gave a campaign speech in which he attacked Romney's tax restructuring plan.  In it, he basically said that Romney's plan would soak the middle class while giving tax breaks to people "like him", the rich.  Then, he went on to explain that it was not him or "his staff" saying this but, it was based on an independent study that had been done.

Now, the study that Mr. Obama is referring to is one that was produced by the left-of-center and highly partisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) which is a joint project of two left-leaning think-tanks: the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute.  The report was co-authored by a former Obama senior economist/staffer , Adam Looney,  who sat on his Council of Economic Advisers and who also worked under the President's  Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner; and, by another author, William Gale who was a frequent visitor to the White House over the last three years.

Before going further, I need to make a couple of pertinent points.

The Romney plan is very similar to the plan that was produced by Obama's own debt reduction commission: Simpson-Bowles.  It differs in that the extra revenues being produced by his plan are passed on to "all" taxpayers in the form of lower tax rates; thus, stimulating the economy in much the same way that Reagan did.  It theorizes that a better economy would produce more tax revenues that would help reduce the debt. Romney also has a separate debt reduction plan that would cut spending throughout government. Simpson-Bowles, on the other hand, retains the revenue increases to straight-up reduce the debt.

Secondly,  the Romney plan, at this juncture, is simply an outline with the details to be filled in much later,  and, this is the "door" that the TPC used to provide this highly slanted review of Romney plan.  Because the TPC had no details, they had to make some assumptions of their own, and, if your liberal group and your President are in the process of conducting a class warfare, rich-versus-us campaign, you're going to make a bunch of assumptions that support the Obama campaign.   And, that's exactly what happened.  The best article written about this comes from Jennifer Rubin in a commentary that was published in the Washington Post: Tax plans and tax spin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/tax-plans-and-tax-spin/2012/08/04/d9fe2346-ddac-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_blog.html

The bottom line is that we have a President who, as usual, is practicing political dishonesty.  I call it "sleight-of-hand" because he's delivering the facts in such a way so as to make you believe that this "report" is all on the up and up.  He says things like "it's not me or my staff saying this", when, if fact, the people writing the report certainly have a dotted-line relationship with him.  He uses the term "independent group" to describe the TPC so that you  might deduce that the group is non-partisan, and, as far as the left leaning media is concerned, they are all siding with the TPC and the President's explanation that Romney will soak the middle class.  Take, for example, this headline editorial from the Tampa Bay Times: 'Romney's tax plan crunches middle class'.

Between lying reports, a lying president, and a media that refuses to "fact check" what Obama says, it seems impossible for Romney to win.

Related reading:

Free Beacon: Obama cites ‘independent, nonpartisan study’ former staffer wrote.. Obama emphasized staff did not put study together: http://freebeacon.com/obama-cites-independent-nonpartisan-study-former-staffer-wrote/

NewsBusters: CNN Promotes Liberal Analysis of Gingrich Tax Plan as 'Non-Partisan: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/12/13/cnn-promotes-liberal-analysis-gingrich-tax-plan-non-partisan

Tax Policy Center: Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan: More Big Tax Cuts for the Rich: http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/03/23/paul-ryans-budget-plan-more-big-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/


Note: The last two articles just proves how partisan the Tax Policy Center is.  And, that it has a history of doing hit-pieces on conservative tax plans.

GM Still Has One Big Financial Problem

Based on the current stock price, anyone could buy GM for a mere $31 billion and change.  However, if you did buy the company, you would also take on $109 billion in "current" pension liabilities.  That's a burden that is 350% greater than the market value of the company. 

In June, GM announced that it was going to try and reduce those liabilities by $26 billion by offering 42,000 non-union employees a chance to opt out of their pensions by accepting a one-time, lump-sum payout at age 65.  The payout, itself, would be equal to whatever the annual pension would have been  over 12 years; starting at age 65.  Now, the cash for this is basically taxpayer money; part of the $33 billion that was left over from the $50 billion that the government gave GM to remain solvent.

But, even with this lump-sum program, GM is still left with $83 billion in liabilities; of which, $71 billion are theoretically non-negotiable union pensions.  That $83 billion is still 260% greater than the company's value, and, because union pension programs remained intact following last year's 4-year labor contract agreement, those pension liabilities will only continue to grow. 

Now, even if GM could fund the pension liabilities with every dollar it made in profits, it would still mean that it would take a decade or more to cover that liability in total; and, of course, realistically, that just won't happen.  Its pension liabilities could be a ticking time bomb that could sink the company once again.

The problem here was the way GM was bailed out.  Obama sided with labor, and all the labor commitments and contracts were left unchanged.  That would not have happened if they went through a normal bankruptcy process.  As a result, you have a company that, in the short term, looks to be successful,  but, in the long term, may be a disaster waiting to happen.  This is a major reason why GM's stock price is so low; below $20/share.  And, the taxpayers?   They're really screwed because its looking like it will never get back to the $53/share that is needed for us to breakeven on Obama's bailout of the company.  Basically, GM is another Obama Solyndra.   This time, a bankruptcy in slow motion.

Rahm Emmanuel And Chicago Values

Following the Chick-Fil-A dust up over same sex marriage, Chicago Mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, aired this public statement:

Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values. They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you're gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.

Now, having lived most of my life in the Chicago area, I'm really not sure that any company would want to even share in Chicago's values.  Chicago is a city that has always been know as one of the most corrupt in the nation.  It is a city that is dominated by union demands.  It is a city where cronyism, kickbacks, and thuggery are practiced by politicians and police, alike.  It is a home for organized crime and gangs with nationally-recognized violence.  It was the home of Al Capone, and, when it comes to voter fraud, there's this old slogan about voting in Chicago:

Vote early and often.  And, don't forget to bring your dead relatives with you so they can vote, too!

Then, too, the Mayor seems to be ignoring the fact that Illinois has a law on the books that bans same-sex marriage.

Lastly, gay marriage in not supported by most blacks, who make up nearly 33% of the city's population.  Apparently, Rahm is also implying that black values aren't Chicago values.

Taxing The Rich Won't Result In Obama's Estimated Revenues

According to Barack Obama, eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich will produce $850 billion in increased revenues over 10 years.   But, I'm betting that won't even come close to happening.

First of all, the rejiggering of the top two tax brackets will actually result in expanding the middle 28% tax bracket; lowering the rates of many who are currently paying a 33% tax rate.  In the case of those filing as singles, the upper limit of the 28% tax bracket will have to be adjusted from the current $178,650 ceiling to a new ceiling of $199,999.  As a result, all those currently making between $178,651 and $199,999 will see their taxes lowered.  Those married and filing jointly will see the 28% tax ceiling raised from $217,750 to $249,999.  And, marrieds filing separately will see the 28% tax bracket expanded from a current ceiling of $108,725 to $124,999.  So, in a way, there could be a lot of upper middle class taxpayers who will actually see their tax rates lowered.

Then, too, the married but filing separately option will probably become more attractive for many.  Take for example, a family where one income earner is making $120,000 and the other $130,000.  Under the Obama tax scenario, filing jointly would result in a tax bill of 36% or approximately $90,000.   If they filed separately, their total combined tax would be only $70,000; for a savings of $20,000.  Of course, tax advice is essential since some tax deductions are lost when filing separately.  But, if you don't have those deductions, its all gravy.

Lastly, don't expect the rich to just lay down and accept the new Obama tax.  Simply increasing charitable contributions will save many who are close to paying Obama's higher tax.  Businesses may accelerate certain purchases to increase the deductions and keep them in a lower bracket. Investments in tax free bonds will become more popular.  Even buying a Chevy Volt could keep some from paying the higher tax.  Setting up trusts can save thousands in income taxes.  And, I am quite sure the "brains" of those tax consultants are working overtime to find as many ways as possible to save their clients money.  For sure, their business will pickup because the higher amount of taxes being paid will warrant paying their fees.  Also, being forced to buy health insurance for their employees or pay a penalty may actually keep some businesses from having to pay the new, higher Obama tax on the rich.  Ain't that a kick in the Prez's pants!

The Truth About Our "Obstructionist Congress"

 I heard it twice again this morning.  Two democrats, in two separate interviews, blaming the "obstructionist Congress" for President Obama not being able to get the things done that would get the economy going again.  Obama, himself, makes that very same claim at every opportunity on the campaign trail.  But, this "blame the obstructionist Congress" just ignores the reality of how we got to an "obstructionist Congress".

In the first two years of the Obama presidency, the Democrats had complete control.  Or, to put it another way, Obama pretty much had full unobstructed power to do anything he wanted and, he used that unobstructed power to pass a near-trillion dollar stimulus that only increased unemployment.  He spent billions more of the people's money so that GM and Chrysler wouldn't go through a conventional bankruptcy; thus, protecting the unions while screwing the creditors and stockholders.  Then, there was the passage of the highly unpopular ObamaCare. 

Well, in 2010, the American voters had decided that they had had enough of Obama's unfettered control of Congress and, they voted in as many Republicans as they could.   Pelosi lost control of the House and the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  So, Obama, Democrats, stop whining.  We have an obstructionist Congress because the people wanted it that way.  It's a bed you made, yourselves.

The Housing Market: Never Analyze Statistics In A Vacuum

In May, several analysts, who should have known better, were all a twitter over the supposed improvement in housing statistics. It was especially true for those analysts who appear to be in the tank for Obama.  After all, an improving housing market, in an election year, can only be a good thing for Obama's reelection chances. Take for example, this May video of Ali Velshi at the always-Obama-loving CNN (click to view). My God!  He was so excited he actually said the housing numbers "shows signs of remarkable resurgence".  Of course, Velshi violated the first rule of analyzing statistics which is: One month doesn't make a trend.  In fact, a month later, the newest set of statistics are now showing a worsening of the housing market.  In June, new homes sales fell hard; down by 8.4%.  At the same time,  sales of existing homes fell by 5.4%.  Completely gone was that "remarkable resurgence."

Where people like Velshi make their mistake is in not understanding what, sometimes, causes anomalies in statistics.   The fact that home buying was up in May had less to do with Americans suddenly buying homes again; and, more to do with the value of the dollar and how that caused foreign investors to swoop in and snatch up real estate deals in terms of their own, improving currencies.  Check out this March article that appeared in the L.A. Times: Foreign buyers are snapping up U.S. homes. Apparently, that buying activity has now ceased with the fall in June sales. Probably, because foreign investors now see a risk in U.S. real estate with the apparent weakening of our economy.

Then, there's the issue of  rising home prices; and, a surprising reduction in the number of foreclosures; and, a reduction in the inventory of unsold homes.  Well, those positive facts are just temporary; and, have a lot to do with the fact that, over the last year-and-a-half, the number of foreclosures has come to a near standstill following the robo-signing foreclosure scandal and the resulting passage of nearly 400 anti-foreclosure laws across the entire United States.   Basically, the scandal had to do with the fact that banks were foreclosing on people without having, in their possession, all the original mortgage documents.  This was due to the fact that high risk mortgages were being sold from one bank to another during the height of the housing boom; and, the paperwork got misplaced in the process.   So, then came the laws that prevented banks and other lenders from foreclosing on anyone unless they had all the paperwork to support it.   Of course these laws completely ignored the fact that homes that were or would have been foreclosed on were all in arrears on their mortgage payments; a problem that is still with us.  So, we now have a paperwork snarl where, I'm sure, the banks are trying desperately to gain possession of the documents so they can proceed with foreclosure against any delinquent mortgagees.  When that happens, I'm quite sure that all those pent up foreclosures will hit like a roaring storm; with unsold inventories rising and prices falling again.

Velshi and a lot of analysts should have seriously questioned why housing statistics were improving while the economy and unemployment were in the process of worsening.  It didn't make sense and those improvements should have come into question.  But, all too often, people put their political ideology ahead of logic.

Data Sources:

June New Home Sales: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48318563

June Existing Home Sales: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/07/u-s-existing-home-sales-decline-in-june/

Impact of the Robo-Signing Scandal  on the Rate of Foreclosures: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/27/us-usa-housing-nevada-idINBRE85Q05520120627

Harry Reid's Un-American Charge That Romney Didn't Pay 10 Years of Taxes

As an American, each of us has 3 sacred rights when it comes to being accused of something.  First, everyone is presumed innocent until "proven" guilty.  Second, each of us has a right to "face" our accuser, and three, "hearsay" evidence is "no proof of one's guilt or innocence" unless substantiated by other facts.

But, in Harry Reid's America, those rights don't exist.  This week he "publicly" charged that Romney had paid no taxes for 10 years; citing an anonymous source.  Further, he went on to say that Romney needs to prove otherwise.  In doing so, he violated all three of those basic rights.

The burden of proof is on Harry; not Romney. Romney has the right to know who told Harry that he didn't pay taxes; because, not to do so violates the hearsay rule of law and Romney's right to face his accuser.  Simply, in violating Romney's rights, Reid is committing both slander and defamation of character.  Until Reid can prove his claims, Reid can only be viewed as a liar.

Forget The Obama Hype, This Was A Very Bad Jobs Report

Obama will once again hit the airways and tell us how many consecutive months he's had job creation under his "plan" and, as usual, he will also say that his Administration has created x-million jobs.  But all that is just so much political B.S.  You have to ask yourself this simple question: "If the unemployment rate rose last month, how is it possible that the economy could have actually added 163,000 new jobs?"  The answer is as simple as the question.  The workforce size was being manipulated.

Here are the "real" facts.  For 42 consecutive months, the unemployment rate has been above 8%.  In the last 4 months, the rate has gone "up" from 8.1% in April to 8.2% in May; and, from 8.2% in June to 8.3% in July.  That's the wrong direction.  When Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 7.6%. At the same time, the workforce size was 154.2 million and there were 11.6 million unemployed.  Today, the workforce size is 155 million workers and the unemployed number is 12.8 million.  Net those numbers all together and you would find that the economy actually lost 400,000 jobs since Obama took office; not created them.  The bottom line is that you couldn't have created x-million jobs when, on a net basis, our economy actually lost jobs.

Finally, let's not forget this propagandist chart that the President's economic team put together to justify a near trillion dollars in stimulus spending:

Click on graph for enlarged view

According to the chart, the stimulus was to keep unemployment under 7.9%; and, that, by now, the unemployment rate should be around 5.6%.  Instead, the economy did even worse than what Obama said it would do without stimulus.  Without stimulus, unemployment was supposed to top out at 9%.  In actuality, with stimulus, the unemployment rate hit 10.2%.  Without stimulus, today's unemployment rate was projected to be at about 6%.  Yet, for months, the stimulus has kept us consistently above 8%.  And, now, it's rising again..

Here's a Daily News story on the jobs report: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/weak-hiring-expected-fourth-straight-month-article-1.1128191

Liberal Stupidity: Fighting Coal and Fracking At The Same Time

As most of us know, Obama and his left-wing EPA are bound and determined to shutdown every coal-fired power plant they can with almost ridiculous environmental regulation requirements.  At the same time, the EPA is looking to see if a process called "fracking" should be banned in the U.S.  But, you see, fracking has made natural gas prices extremely cheap.  In fact, much cheaper than coal.  And, it is the competition from cheap natural gas that is shutting down many of the coal plants in this country.

The stupidity, here, is that people like Obama are picking fights with the coal industry and pissing off their own politicians and liberal constituents in states like West Virgina that are heavily dependent on coal.  And, they don't have to.  They could just stand aside and let private sector competition do what they wanted to.  Liberals should be embracing fracking for saving the planet from dirty coal.  Not trying to shut it down.  Further, the current EPA has yet to prove that fracking hurts the environment.  They've filed three lawsuits to block, and have had to drop all three for the lack of sound scientific facts.

Sources for this commentary:

The low price of natural gas resulting from the shale boom has led to reduced coal consumption and made the shutdowns necessary, experts say: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/28/record-number-of-coal-fired-generators-to-be-shut-down-in-2012

"EPA Backpedals on Fracking Contamination. Texas Water-Pollution Suit Dropped; Third Recent Setback on Drilling for Agency": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577313741463447670.html

Maybe Obama Should Have Used Bain Capital?

With every passing month, we learn of another Obama-funded green-energy company going belly up. This last time, it was the solar panel company Amonix which closed its doors only 14 months after getting taxpayer subsidies.   With Obama's lousy track record on funding green companies, it's obvious he and his people lack the skills to pick winners.  Maybe the President should have consulted with a company who's job it is to successfully fund upstart and struggling businesses?  You know.  Like Bain Capital.  The company that Romney started and the one that Obama attacks constantly.