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

History Is Against A Democrat President Being Elected In 2016

In terms of U.S. presidential politics, one thing is quite sure: Very rarely is an eight year reign of one political party occupying the White House, followed by another of the same party.

The fact is, that since the end of World War II, only one President, Ronald Reagan, was able to hand the reigns of  his eight-year Presidency to another of the same political party: George H.W. Bush.  I believe the only reason this happened was because Reagan was considered the best President since World War II and Americans wanted to give Republican leadership another chance.

But, other than George H.W. Bush's win, this is how the Presidency has cycled between Democrats and Republicans:

Harry S. Truman, a Democrat who served 8 years, was replaced by Republican Dwight Eisenhower.  After Eisenhower's 8 years, John Kennedy (assassinated) and Lyndon Johnson -- both Democrats -- served 8 years and, were followed by Richard Nixon, a Republican.  After 8 years of Nixon (resigning in shame) and Gerald Ford, Democrat Jimmy Carter then occupied the White House.  Four years later the 12 years of Republicans Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush were followed by Democrat Bill Clinton. Then, Clinton, after 8 years, was replaced by Republican George W. Bush; replaced 8 years later by Democrat President Barack Obama. 

In total, since the end of World War II, 6 Republican and 6 Democrats have been presidents of this country.  It appears that Americans can't take much more of one party or the other after 8 years.  Not  a glowing testament to one being better than the other.

So, for Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat hoping to be elected President in 2016, history is not on your side. Especially with Barack Obama having such low approval ratings and now being considered this country's worst President.

Reference:

Wikipedia: List of Presidents Of The United States:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Obama worst president since WWII, new poll shows. Reagan the Best: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-worst-president-wwii-new-poll-shows/?page=all
 

No, Mr. President, You Were On The Ballot And, Probably Will Be Again, In 2016

Just recently, Barack Obama said that he wasn't on any ballot, but his policies were.  As if one could separate them. Well, resoundingly, America has spoken and they have rejected those policies.  As such, the election and all the Democrat's losses were seen by many as a referendum on the President.

Democrats knew this.  That is why so few candidates wanted him to appear with them on the campaign trail. Where he did campaign, they generally lost.  If America had really wanted his policies, they would have strengthened his hand by giving the Democrats more control of Congress; not less.  As it was, they lost at least 7 seats in the Senate and another 14 in the House. Historically, as the Washington Post predicted, not since 1929 (85 years) have the Republicans had this much dominance in Congress.  So, the Democrat brand is broken and they can only blame Barack Obama and their own marching in lock-step with him for it.  This was especially true for ObamaCare.

Simply, the President's policies are out of step with most American's priorities.  They care less about the minimum wage, immigration, climate change, and, oh yes, the war on women.  Their focus is on jobs and the economy and a fix for ObamaCare.  They are also tired of all the empty speeches on these issues when they know, for a fact, that their personal situation and those of their family and friends don't match up with the rhetoric.

So, the challenge for this strongly ideological President is whether or not he can change his spots and start to work and compromise with a fully Republican Congress to achieve those things that Americans truly want.  Because, if Obama continues to go it alone with vetoes and executive orders, the losses in 2016 will only be greater. 

Similarly, the Republicans must also appear to be willing to work with Obama. Or, they, too, could feel the voters wrath two years from now.


References:

Obama: My Policies Are on the Ballot - Roll Call: http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-ballot-unemployment-extension/?dcz=

How Obama and Clinton candidates fared on Election Day: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014-midterm-elections-how-did-obama-and-clintons-candidates-fare-on-election-day/

This could be the most dominant Republican Congress since 1929: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/03/this-could-be-the-most-dominant-republican-congress-since-1929/

 Americans Rate Economy as Top Priority for Government: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166880/americans-rate-economy-top-priority-government.aspx

January 22, 2014 - Economy/Jobs And Healthcare Are Top Voter Priorities, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Obama Gets Low Grades On Top Priorities: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1999

UN Wants Zero Carbon Emissions By 2100

According to the latest report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the planet is doomed if we don't get down to zero carbon emissions by 2100.  Only, then, can the world begin to reverse the build up of atmospheric CO2 which they claim is causing global warming and climate change.

So, what would 2100 look like if the emissions did go to zero?

Well, I guess the world would be vegan.  All those CO2 exhaling and flatulence producing domestic cows, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs, turkeys that humans have a taste for will have to go.  Pets, too, would have be banned for the very same reason.

Somehow airplanes will need to fly without producing CO2.  Maybe using hydrogen as fuel.  You know, the gas that the Hindenburg was filled with when it exploded.

Of course, all of us will be driving electric cars.  Long haul truckers will have to park every few miles to recharge their batteries, and your packages and goods might take considerably longer to get to market or delivered to you home.  But, that's a small sacrifice to save the planet.

We'll also have to give up our fireplaces and gas stoves and, no more charcoal or gas barbecues.  For sure, no wood burning will be allowed in order to cook or keep warm.  Campers, you've been warned!

But, then, too, the world's beautiful and natural landscapes will become havens for solar panels and wind turbines as far as the eye can see.  Both of these green technologies will continue to kill off the world's birds and bats, but that will be a good thing since birds and bats also exhale CO2. 

However, there's one carbon producer that I can't predict the future for.  The world's population of humans.  They too, exhale CO2 and there will be an estimated 11 billion people pumping out 900 grams or roughly 2 pounds of CO2 per day per person by 2100.  That amounts to 724 lbs of carbon dioxide per person per year.  Short of killing off the world's population, I don't know how the "problem" of human respiration can be resolved.  But, maybe that will have to be done to save the human race from global warming and climate change. Right?

The point here is that the IPCC report is off-the-wall ridiculous and mentally unhinged.  Its this kind of silliness that is turning people off to climate change issues.  We've had 18 years of stagnant global temperatures and the link between rising CO2 levels (rising about 2% per year) is broken. Yet, the UN and most liberal politicians alike, keep getting even more dire in their predictions and more drastic in their CO2 reduction goals. 

References:

Carbon Emissions Need to Be Zero by 2100, UN Panel Warns: http://en.ria.ru/world/20141102/195006448/Carbon-Emissions-Need-to-Be-Zero-by-2100-UN-Panel-Warns.html

US Wind Turbines Kill 1.4 Million Birds and Bats Every Year: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/24/us-wind-turbines-kill-14-million-birds-and-bats-every-year

New Solar Power Plants are Incinerating Birds: http://www.weather.com/news/solar-plants-birds-20140818

World population to hit 11bn in 2100: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/18/world-population-new-study-11bn-2100

Math! How much CO2 is emitted by human on earth annually?: https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

It's official: no global warming for 18 years 1 month: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/

52 Reasons Why CO2 Is Not Responsible For Global Warming: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/09/52-reasons-why-co2-is-not-responsible.html

Liberal Professor Writes: Cancel The Midterms

Just a day before the midterm elections, a liberal associate professor from Duke University, David Schanzer, wrote a piece in the New York Times titled 'Cancel The Midterms'.   He sums up his argument with the following words:

"The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively."

So, apparently, Schanzer does like the fact that a President's power is weakened as a result of midterm elections.  However, what Schanzer fails to tell his readers is that, even though the President's party loses seats in Congress in almost all midterms, more often than not, it doesn't necessarily change control to the opposing political party. This, is noted in this graph from Wikipedia:

Click on Image to zoom

Over the years since World War II, more Republican Presidents have had to contend with the Democrat's control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate (in blue). From 1957 to 1977, the Democrats held control of the House for 40 years.  Similarly, from 1957 to 1981, 26 years straight, Democrats controlled the Senate.  Only now, with Obama possibly being weakened further, does Schanzer seem concerned about an opposing Congress.

But,  I would argue that if we didn't have midterm elections in 2010, when the House majority went to the Republicans and the Democrats lost their super majority in the Senate, Obama would have had two additional years to ram through his radical, liberal agenda.  And, just like 2010, this year's midterms may further weaken a low-rated President's power by shifting the Senate to the Republicans. Only then, maybe, Obama might start compromising with Congress on the legislation that really matters to the people of this country.

Simply, having midterms is an insurance policy that extremism doesn't prevail in governing.

Lastly, Schanzer is being disingenuous by not disclosing his Democrat past.  Thus, readers unjustly think he's writing from a professorial viewpoint and not a political one.

Reference:

David Schanzer: New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/cancel-the-midterms.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

"Prior to his academic appointments, Schanzer was the Democratic staff director for the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security from 2003 to 2005. He previously served as the legislative director for [Democrat] Sen. Jean Carnahan (2001-2002), counsel to [Democrat] Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (1996-1998)...": https://www.coursera.org/instructor/davidschanzer

The New Minimum Wage For Government Contracts Will Kill Jobs

On October 1, when there was just a little more than a month to go before the November 4th elections, the Department of Labor finalized the requirement that any company bidding on a Federal contract after January 1, 2015 must already be paying a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour or higher.  Thus, this fulfills Obama's February '14 executive order on this issue.

Unfortunately, this action is going to cost jobs at many companies who provide goods and services to both the Federal government as well as other non-Federal enterprises such as individuals, businesses, corporations, and state and local governments.

For example.  Let's assume that you own a shirt manufacturing operation and 25% of your business goes to the Federal government.  Under Obama's new mandate, if you want that Federal business relationship to continue, the signing of any new contracts will stipulate paying all your employees $10.10 and hour or higher.  But, your competitor, who has no Federal contracts, will keep their labor costs the same, and will only become more competitive if you do raise salaries to the new pay standard.  So, my guess is that this fictional shirt manufacture will no longer bid on any new work with the Federal government.  Thus, as their existing Federal contracts expire, they will have no other choice but to layoff that share of workers who had previously worked on those contracts.


Just another unforeseen consequence of big government action being taken without a lot of forethought but simply for political reasons in an election year.  To enact such a rule by executive order, you should be able to think like a business owner and, better yet, have the experience of being one.  The President is devoid of both.  Of course, the loss of jobs that will result from this action won't happen until long after the year's elections are over.

Reference:

Department of Labor News Release: Wage and Hour Division: US Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez announces final rule raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20141888.htm

Why Americans Are Slamming Obama On The Economy

Recently, only 33% of those surveyed by CNBC approved of Obama's handling of the economy. The reason for that horrible rating might just be explained in, one chart:

Clearly, Americans are losing ground when it comes to food prices and, for many people, food is their 3rd biggest expense behind housing and transportation costs:

However, with the current rate of inflation, it is quite possible that food can easily overtake the cost of transportation in the next two years.  Also note, for many seniors, food is their biggest expense because housing is generally paid for, and because their costs for transportation are lower because they no longer work.  Food inflation rates tend to hit the poor the hardest.  Today, we have a record high of more than 48 million Americans who are living in poverty. Most likely, that's another reason the President gets such low marks on the economy.

So, who is to be blamed for this high rate of inflation for food.

Weather for some of it.  But, the bulk can be blamed on government policies under Obama.  Beef and other meats and dairy depend on feed stocks that come from, primarily, corn.  Corn prices have been soaring because of the EPA's push toward renewable ethanol from corn.  Other price increases resulted from the 2007-2009 40% minimum wage increase.  The administration's policies on clean energy have also affected food prices by causing energy costs to rise above other inflation rates.

Simply, President Obama does deserve the blame for his handling of the economy.

References:

Confidence in Obama on economy hits new low: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/219978-confidence-in-obamas-economic-plan-hits-new-low

That's rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all

Corn Prices by Bushel: http://www.accuval.net/insights/newsletter/2012/SepOct/_images/price.png

EPA faces '14 accusations on ethanol: http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/217548-epa-faces-accusations-on-ethanol-standard

Food Prices Are Soaring And Washington Doesn’t Care: http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/08/food-prices-are-soaring-and-washington-doesnt-care/

48 million Americans live in poverty, Census Bureau says: http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/16/news/economy/48-million-americans-poverty-census-bureau/