Republicans, Compromise Is Impossible With The Intractable Obama

One thing is sure, Obama has the negotiation style of no compromise.

The day following the embarrassing defeat of the Democrats in the midterm elections,  the President announced that he would act alone on immigration by year's end; arguing that it can't wait because there is a cost to waiting. Therefore, instead of seeing if he could get something done with the new Republican Congress, he is figuratively flipping them the bird.  If this isn't a sign that he is unwilling to  work together for the common good, nothing is.

As to his claim that there is a cost to waiting?  He had an opportunity to act on immigration for nearly six years;  especially in the first two of those years when Democrats completely controlled both houses. Then, earlier this year he announced he would issue an executive order on the issue at the end of the summer.  Of course, when he realized the immigration order would jeopardize the Democrat's chances, he announced he would wait until after the election.  This despite the supposed cost of waiting.

On immigration, Obama sounds like a nut case.  In reality, he's only willing to do something now because he is no longer able to run for office and, presumably, because Democrats can't be damaged any more than they already have been.

At some point, in the same speech, the President sounded as if he may be willing to work with the new Congress.  That is until he said this: "You send me a bill that I can sign and those executive actions go away."  In other words, you send me what I want and I'll sign it and stop those executive actions.  Or, more clearly: "it's my way or the highway."  Nothing in that statement says anything about working together to get something done. It is always you versus me. "We" is never part of any equation.

Once again, President Obama is not taking the November defeat seriously.  It is obvious that it will be business as usual.  No compromise.  Because of this, he is seriously jeopardizing any Democrat's chances in 2016.

References:

Obama Pledges Immigration Executive Order By End Of Year:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/obama-immigration-executive-action_n_6109848.html

Does Obama Even Know How to Negotiate?: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-07/does-obama-even-know-how-to-negotiate

Obama's Political Calculus On Immigration Reform

Today, more than 5-1/2 years since taking office, President Obama blames the Republicans for not passing comprehensive immigration reform into law.  A fact that he claims has forced him to act alone.  But, instead of acting by the end of this summer, as promised, he has now pushed his go-it-alone executive actions back until after the fall elections.  His rationale for the the delay is that Republicans would use it as a wedge issue against vulnerable Democrats at this critical time.

Simply, Obama knows that any sort of amnesty for illegal aliens is politically lethal. 

Therefore, contrary to all the promises he made while running for the Presidency in 2008, he did nothing in his first two years in office at a time when he totally out-gunned the Republicans with complete control of Congress; including a veto-proof Senate.  His excuse: The economy was the priority.  However, during those supposed do-nothing-else-but-the-economy years, he did manage to pass ObamaCare into law.

Hispanics are being used by Obama.  Just as is every other minority group in this country. His promises and blame-the-Republicans tactic is being used to merely string along those who are eager for immigration reform.  Wake up Latino Americans.  Like everything else, Obama will never tackle any hard political issue unless it results in a sure political win.  As a State Senator in Illinois, he avoided any controversy by simply voting "present". Never a decisive "yea" or "nay" that could possible hurt his election chances.   A weak approach that he continues to use today

References:

Obama’s failed promise of a first-year immigration overhaul: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-failed-promise-of-a-first-year-immigration-overhaul/2012/09/25/06997958-0721-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

Obama to Delay Immigration Action Until After November Elections: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/obama-delay-immigration-action-until-after-november-elections-n197306

Obama's "present" tension: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/

The GOP Can't Win The Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Abraham Lincoln once said: "In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed."

In a new Washington Post/Pew Research poll, 53% of the respondents said that they would blame the Republicans if the Fiscal Cliff negotiations fail. Only 27% said they would blame Obama.  In other words, public opinion is siding with Obama on his solution to stave off the Fiscal Cliff; include tax hikes on the rich.

The problem is that the Republicans have lost the public relations war.  Just as Obama won the election, he has also won on this issue.  For him, the win was simple.  He has the presidential bully pulpit to paint the GOP as only being concerned about the rich and, he had a liberal media that sided with him.  Now, his is a position of strength and, the Republicans, even if they continue to stand on principal, will ultimately lose in the end.   The GOP know that tax hikes on the rich will weaken the economy but people just don't believe it.  Only if the tax hikes are passed and the economy falters will the American public finally realize that the President is wrong to hike taxes on higher-end earners, businesses, and entrepreneurs.

--- Pew Poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/04/National-Politics/Polling/release_181.xml

Obama Loses Big In The NY-9 Special Election

Last night's New York Congressional District 9 (NY-9) win by Republican, Bob Turner, must have the Democrats and Obama shaking in their political boots. That's because, in so many ways, a Republican should never have won.

First and foremost, NY-9 is almost totally owned by the Democrats with registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans by a factor of 3 to 1. Secondly, the district is heavily Jewish and Bob Turner, a Catholic, won handily against David Weprin, a Jewish Democrat, in what can only be seen as a historically significant contradiction. Additionally, Turner didn't really run against Weprin in defeating him. Instead, he outwardly ran against the policies of Obama. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that Obama was the biggest loser of the night. Furthermore, Turner's win came only days after the President's "big" jobs speech; proving that the jobs plan had no influence in turning things around in this heavily Democrat district. In fact, Turner seemed to gain momentum in polls following the speech. It's also important to note that Turner didn't just squeak this one out. He won by a landslide: 54 to 46 percent. Lastly, by running against Obama, Turner disproved the old political adage that all politics are local.

All morning, Democrats have been trying to downplay the significance of the NY-9 loss. But, in their mind's eye, I'm quite sure they're seeing a potential for big political problems in 2012. To me, last night's Republican win in a heavily Democrat district just shows that the voter sentiment by which the Republicans won last fall has not abated. If anything, there seems to be a growing momentum "against" Obama. Certainly, last night's loss must have Democrat strategists scurrying to find a new tactical direction for next year's election; even though, I think it's too late to change their fate.

The Antagonist-In-Chief

In this week's "Health Reform Summit", the President was supposed to be a moderator between the Democrats and Republicans of Congress. In that role, I would think it was his job to build consensus between the two parties so that some kind of common ground on health care reform could be found. But, instead, the American public saw Obama as some kind of petty politician, an antagonist, and not the "leader" who would bring the two sides together.

He would rudely cut off any Republicans if he so much as objected to a single point that they were trying make. As a result, the Democrats got the bulk of the talking time in front of the cameras and the Republicans got the dregs. You could literally see the irritation on Obama's face when the Republicans brought up facts about ObamaCare that he knew would not "not" sit well with the American people. He acted like a king ruling over what he seemed to think was "his" court; using slap-downs as much as possible to channel the direction of the "Summit" in his direction.

To me, Obama showed his lack of management skills. Any, lower tiered manager in business would be better experienced at "team building", establishing synergy, and directing "brainstorming sessions" than was exhibited by the President. The "Summit", itself, showed how partisan he is and how his Democratic colleges have no intention of working with Republicans. It is obvious that the Democrats were intent on using the "Summit" as theater and are still intent on ramming health care through. Being quite familiar with the health care bills in Congress, I saw numerous attempts by Obama to distort the facts about the separate legislation that was passed in each of the Houses. This either showed that Obama was unfamiliar with the details of those bills or that, more than likely, he was intentionally using false facts -- in front of those national cameras -- in an attempt to protect what is very ugly and very bad about either of those bills in Congress.

I think it was a P.R. disaster.

Clinton Has It Wrong On Health Care

Back on November 10th, in what was another Clinton-rewrite of history, Bill Clinton urged the Senate Democrats to pass health care reform because history has taught us that "The worst thing to do is nothing." With this statement, he seems to be implying that the Democrats had a sweeping loss of Congress in 1994 because they didn't pass health care reform.

If that was true, the electorate "wouldn't" have punished them by voting them out of office. Instead, the electorate would have given the Democrats more power by electing more of them so that they could have a greater majority. And, they would have punished the Republicans for blocking health care reform. Clinton's belief that Congress flipped from Democrat to Republican because health care didn't pass is blatantly absurd.

Right now, I am starting to see articles being written by left wing opinion writers that seem to suggest Clinton was right. This wishful thinking presumes that the Democrats will maintain control of Congress if health care reform is passed is, again, absurd. It is amazing how lemming-like the left is when they hear a distortion from their former American Idol -- Bill Clinton.

When the Democrats lost Congress, they lost it in the midst of a roaring economy that had it's genesis just before Clinton took office. This Congress is totally mired in high unemployment and rising foreclosures and they have actually done nothing to resolve the situation. The Stimulus Package is a failure. Health Care Reform is starting to look like a three ring circus. Cap and Trade is on shaky ground due to ClimateGate. And, the national debt and the future of high taxation looms big under their watch. The national polls show that this Congress has the least favorable rating in the history of polling. Harry Reid is looking like he's going to be another Democratic Senate Majority Leader -- like Tom Daschle -- to lose his job.

So, why, then, would anyone think that this Congress would be safe by passing health care reform? Given all the political headwinds -- especially on the economy and spending --- it doesn't look so. But, I guess the left can hope. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Clinton told the Democratic Senators in November. My guess is that the electorate will severely punish Congress if they pass health care reform in its current form with all the costs and service cuts that are currently known. The polls are already showing a lack of support for Congress' attempt to enact any health care reforms before the economy gets going again. Obviously, this is a change they don't want from either Obama or Congress.

The Truth Needs No Leader

The Democrats are always belittling the Republicans because they seem to think that the Republican Party has no leader. Yet, Obama and the Democrats seem to think that it was the leaderless Republicans that killed Obama-Care.

What they don't seem to understand is that: "The Truth Needs No Leader"

Over the last few weeks, America has turned against Obama-Care because of the truth. They didn't formulate that opinion based on the news media because the mainstream news media was absolutely pro-Obama and pro-Democrat on this issue.

The majority of Americans got the truth about Obama-Care in their discussions among themselves. They got it, figuratively, when at the water coolers or at coffee machines at work. They exchanged information and ideas at social events. This drove people to think and to seek information on the internet and elsewhere; like talk radio. Viewers even flocked to Fox News and, consequently, their ratings zoomed.

The result was a mass opposition that was solely driven by truth. There was no "Moses" that led them in that opposition. It was a truly grassroots effort and not some kind of supposed AstroTurf movement that was completely and artificially driven by the Republicans. After all, how could they do that anyway? The Republicans have no leader! But, again, the truth truly needs no leader!

The Minimum Wage Bomb

Today, the Federal minimum wage is being raised by nearly 11% or by 70 cents from $6.55 to $7.25 per hour (See Full Story). This change will affect at least 4 million workers in America. With the rate of inflation at about 2.2 to 2.3%, this is an increase in the minimum wage that is over 4-1/2 times greater than the current average rise in prices in America (See U.S. Department of Labor Report, Last Line of Table Q2).

Even in the best of times, any increase in the minimum wage would result in some amount of workers being laid off. Now, in the midst of a recession, a boost in the minimum wage could be even more detrimental to the employment situation than this country has ever seen before. Here are my reasons.

More Lost Jobs.

Almost all economists agree that raising the minimum wage will result in some job losses. However, there is a division among them as to how dramatic that impact would be. Some argue that the greater benefits outweigh any small loss of jobs. Of course, that might be a "hard sell" for those losing their jobs to the increase.

Certainly, in the best of economic times, the increase of the minimum wage could be lessened by the employer offsetting the increased labor costs by increasing their prices for their products and/or services that they sell. But, we aren't in the best of times. Product and services pricing is being constrained by the extremely tight competition for business in the midst of a deep economic recession. In an extremely labor intensive business, such as landscape maintenance, the consumer isn't going to tolerate an 11% increase in pricing when their own money is tight. This puts the employer in position to cut people; rather than lose customers.

Think of it this way. If a small company has 10 workers and those 10 workers suddenly become eligible for that 70 cents per hour raise in their wages, that's a combined increase of $7 per hour for that company. That extra seven dollars an hour is equal to the wage for one new employee being paid under the old minimum wage. If that company couldn't afford to hire another employee before the minimum wage increase went into effect, it certainly won't be able to afford the effective cost of another employee after the new minimum was imposed on them. Therefore, if a business owner can't raise prices, they will have no other choice but to let at least one of those 10 employees go.

It should also be mentioned that, depending on each State's individual laws regarding their own minimum wage, any increase in the Federal minimum can also trigger automatic increases in the State's minimum wage. Therefore, the loss of jobs can be expanded to include workers who were not directly affected by the Federal change in wages.

Lastly, a bottom up increase in wages can have a ripple effect for pay scales of worker who are above the minimum wage. That means that a company could be forced into a pyramidal series of wage increases in order to maintain wage parody for its longer-term and more valuable employees. This, too, could result in more entry-level employees being let go because most good companies would want to protect the jobs of their more senior and more experienced workers.

Losses in Federal and State Tax Revenues.

Businesses only pay income taxes on their profits. Profits are what is left over after a business deducts all it's expenses, including salaries, from the money or revenues that it takes in.

Based on what I just pointed out, the money that will be used to pay for the new minimum wage will be directly taken out of profits and moved into the pockets of the minimum wage earners. Since most all of the minimum wage earners are part of the 40% of Americans who don't pay any income taxes, that means that there will be a complete loss of tax revenues on that money that is being used to pay for the increase. For each dollar of a company's profits being use to pay the minimum wage, our Federal government could lose between 10 cent and 40 cents in tax revenues; depending on how profitable that company was before increase went into effect. States, too, will lose tax revenues if they have a progressive tax and if low end wage earners pay little or no taxes.

Any way you shake it, there will be a loss of tax revenue at a time when our Federal government and most States are realizing massive budget deficits.

Forced Wage Increases for Union Workers Could Kill Some Businesses and further hurt Governments.

Because many union contracts include a negotiated clause that would automatically adjust union wages upwards when the minimum wage is increased, many manufacturing and service companies will see cost increases for those workers who aren't even making the minimum wage. As a consequence, this could push some marginal companies into bankruptcy or into a complete shuttering of their businesses.

For the Federal government and some state and local governments, this could be a double-edged sword. First, as previously noted, there will be a loss of tax revenues as profits are being reduced. But, more than that, federal, state, and local expenses could increase when these kinds of "automatic clauses" are put into effect and if government employees are the ones being affected. That's because almost all state, local and federal workers belong to unions. In a State like California, that already has a massive budget deficit, this could be disastrous.

Consumer Price Inflation.

If they can, some companies will raise their prices to meet the new payroll demands of their minimum wage earners and for any other wages, above that level, that must be adjusted. In a recession, this type of price inflation is highly counterproductive. The consumer is already absent in this economic downturn and higher prices will only make "buying things" less attractive. That will further hurt the economy and could have the ripple effect of creating more job losses.

Some Workers Will Lose Government Aid Benefits.

Depending on whether or not a minimum wage earner is the sole provider of a family with children or a single parent, the increase in their salary could, in some cases, result in their loss of government subsidies like medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and many other special aid programs. The exact number affected and the amount of aid that will be lost to any low-income wage earner is probably unquantifiable. However, it is only logical that some minimum wage income earners , depending on the family structure, will exceed the pay threshold for some or all of their aid benefits.

My Final Comments.

I have never been a believer in a Federal minimum wage. I believe that the minimum wage should be left up to the individual states. That's because the standards of living vary so greatly from state to state. What might be a good wage in Tennessee or Mississippi may be an unlivable wage in a place like New York or San Francisco.

Every action by our Federal government always has some downside associated with it. When the Democrats passed this massive change in the minimum wage law in 2007, the economy looked to be in good shape. However, now, nothing could be farther from the truth and the impact of their actions will do nothing but send this economy into deeper depths. I don't know how many workers lost their jobs in 2008 when, on July 24th, the minimum wage was upped by 12% to $6.55 per hour. But, for sure, with the recession already underway at that time, there had to be some losses of jobs and, surely, some losses in tax revenues.

Now, with an ever increasing rate of unemployment, this 2009 increase couldn't have come at a worse time. Don't be surprised if this newest punch to the midsection of our business community doesn't have an even more disastrous effect on business profits in the next two quarters to come. I would even guess that some employees were given walking papers as of yesterday; the day just before the wage increase went into effect. If so, that fact should be reflected in the number of employees filing for first-time unemployment insurance over the next two weekly reporting cycles.

In a strange way, the prior Republican Congresses are responsible for this mess. From 1994 on, when they had complete control of Congress, they ignored doing anything about the minimum wage. They could have passed legislation that gradually and automatically increased the minimum, year-by-year, so that we wouldn't have had this massive impact that will hit our businesses today. But, they did nothing. Therefore, it was only logical that the Democrats, after having taken complete control of Congress in 2006, would make up for all those lost years by passing legislation that would literally and mindlessly correct the situation in just two short years. The Republicans had their chance to disarm the Democrats; but, they didn't! Now, we all might be paying for their sins of absenteeism on this issue with continued skyrocketing unemployment and the cost that will bring to our economy.