Unemployment in the White House

For the last few years, the denizens of the once-adversarial press have been on extended sabbatical with little to do but sing the praises of the current occupant of the White House. In the long political campaign that led to the 2008 presidential election, the American press did little to vet the aspiring Senator from Illinois. They ignored many of the questions that should have been asked of a man vying for leadership of the world’s most powerful economy (for now), and the most powerful military (also for now). They failed to ask many of the questions that are now being raised by the American people, many of whom feel they have been sold a bill of goods with Mr Obama. Indeed, Mr Obama’s birth certificate and his college transcripts seem to be the only information not yet available on Wiki Leaks.

In failing to report any “news” about Mr Obama, the American press has turned its back on competition for those prizes they value most: the back-slapping notoriety among their peers and prizes such as those issued by the Pulitzer Board for “excellence in Journalism.” For years the American press would figuratively crawl over broken glass to “get the story.” What they really sought was the product of winning the old prizes: the fawning acclamation of their peers, and some bargaining power at their next salary negotiation. But why would the watchdogs of democracy cease their quest for those prizes?

Members of the American press could not overlook the historic significance of the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Mr Obama fit their template for the correct candidate for them to support. He was a liberal; he “cared” for the working man; he was not a cowboy; his name was not Bush, and he was black. Well, he sort of fit the template. Their template did not include a man who is so completely ideological that he cannot conceive of changing his policies, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that his program is failing and is continuing to impede the economic recovery. The template does not go so far as to include a man whose role models include dedicated Marxists and violent terrorists, or does it? But he was in the ball park, he was not George Bush, and he was African-American.

In a year that has seen the imposition of the Obama Health Care monstrosity, coupled with a destroyed housing market and soaring unemployment (black unemployment continues to rise, from 16.3% in 2009 to 17.3% in 2010) and a new war in Libya, and the price of gasoline at the pump threatening to surpass $5.00 per gallon, what was the watchdog media to report? The Pulitzer Prizes are still being awarded, but alas, not for the vital reportage we need.

The 2010 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Journalism went to a writer at the Sarasota, Florida Herald-Tribune for a hard-hitting and timely investigation of property insurance in Florida. Runners up for the once-prestigious award were the New York Times for a dashing expose of medical radiation errors that led to some patient injuries and to the Chicago Tribune for a story on the deaths of 13 residents of a home for disabled children. Hmmm.

Those were all interesting and important subjects in their own communities. But one wonders in this year of rage in the Middle East and stagnation in the American economy if there might have been some other subjects the members of the adversary press might have addressed. We have a Senate that has not passed a budget for several years, and the press wants to know why republicans want to lower taxes on the rich. We have a president who has incurred more debt in his two years in office than all previous presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush combined, and the press reports breathlessly about the White House Easter Egg Hunt. We have a president who routinely turns his back on U.S. allies while apologizing and bowing to tyrants and dictators all over the world, and the watch dogs are sleeping.

And yet, there are grumblings from the somnolent American media. Some are noticing that something is terribly wrong with this occupant of the White House. DeWayne Wickham, a columnist for USA Today and founding member and former President of the National Association of Black Journalists has criticized Mr Obama for his lack of action on Black unemployment. Mr Wickham faults Mr Obama for failing to keep his campaign promise to reduce unemployment in the black community. See Mr Wickham’s column from USA Today at: http://dewaynewickham.blogspot.com/

The important question in Mr Wickham’s discourse, though, is not the resolution of black unemployment, though that is important, but whether the flood gates of honest reporting will be opened if a renowned black journalist leads the way by criticizing Mr Obama first. With that permission granted, will the derelict, negligent American media return to their typewriters and get to work? Or will they simply collect their unemployment checks and wait for the next republican administration to take office before resuming the chase for the prize?

Howie Carr Wisecrack

Howie Carr, Boston Herald columnist and Boston radio talk show host had an interesting remark concerning President Obama on a recent radio show.

Carr was discussing the Mainstream Media’s absolute lack of interest in reporting any stories critical to the historic president. Referring to Mr. Obama’s next book, Carr suggested that the title of it be, “Base on Balls, A Life of Intentional Passes.”

Obama's Economic Illiteracy

President Obama’s speech this week on the looming budget crisis correctly described the calamity we face as a nation as a result of the staggering, and rapidly increasing, national debt. Then, Mr Obama ruined any credibility he may have had by blaming everyone else in the room for the problem, despite the fact that he is personally responsible for doubling the nation debt in his own brief tenure in the White House.

Mr Obama then thoroughly trashed the serious and thoughtful plan presented by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to reduce spending and the national debt, incorrectly accusing the republicans of abandoning the elderly, the poor and the children. While that is a pretty standard democrat response to any plan, on any subject, presented by any republican, it is demonstrably false. Mr Obama went on to outline his plan that would continue all entitlement programs forever, while magically saving four trillion dollars in the next 12 years.

The problem is that the dilema so accurately described by Mr Obama in his opening remarks is real, and will not go away by wishing it away. In this area, unlike other areas where Mr Obama has enjoyed success, a good speech will do nothing to ease the problem. What is required is action; and Mr Obama’s proposal is nothing more than to continue to accelerate towards the cliff. He is like a man returning to a burning building holding a gas can.

Mr Obama’s statement of the problem followed by his intention to simply go ahead on his current spending plan is nothing less than dereliction of duty. It is irresponsible, immature and verges on criminal negligence. Likewise, the Senate has refused to seriously consider reductions in spending that have to be made. It is not like there is an alternative; spending must be reduced. But, like Mr Obama, his allies in the congress have been accusing republican attempts at fiscal restraint as abandoning the elderly, the poor, and the children, none of whom could possibly survive without the largess of their fellow taxpayers.

Where can we go to find expenditures to eliminate and thus reduce spending? Everywhere! The Heritage Foundation has identified more than $300 billion dollars in savings that could be made today by eliminating or reducing the spending on a variety of programs from all over the federal leviathan. They have suggested saving $60 billion in unspent stimulus funds, $45 billion by devolving the Federal Highway Program to the states, $15 billion in farm subsidies, $8 billion by returning educational Pell Grants to 2009 levels, $6.5 billion in reduced energy subsidies, and $1.9 billion by privatizing Amtrak, and many others. A personal favorite of my own is a savings of $300 million by returning the House and Senate budgets to the 2009 level of only $2.2 billion!

All of these programs, and literally hundreds of others funded by the federal government would be fine, even noble expenditures for a government that enjoyed huge surpluses in federal revenue. If we actually had the money, we’d all like to fund Pell Grants and provide subsidies to farmers. But the government of the United States is broke. We don’t have the money. We are borrowing from the Chinese and printing money just to keep up with the level of federal spending.

If we do not have the money, what responsible individual actually advocates continuing to spend what we do not have on marginal or even silly programs like the $2 billion we spend on the Foreign Agriculture Service? Much of the federal budget is wasted on unnecessary and wasteful expenditures on programs that just don’t matter and just don’t deserve to receive tax money from taxpayers, living and yet unborn. Chasing these recipients from the federal trough will take leadership and courage to do what is right for the American people. Unfortunately, we must endure nearly two more years of this incompetent president, who is neither a leader nor courageous.

Where did I put that Birth Certificate?

The sweeping republican victories in the November, 2010 elections may result in President Barack Obama being declared ineligible for re-election in the 2012 general election.

The republicans won dramatic victories in the U.S. House of Representative, gaining 62 seats and re-claiming the majority in that chamber. They enjoyed some success in the U.S. Senate as well, narrowing the democrat majority in that chamber to 53-47. But nationwide republicans gained 700 seats in state legislatures. They took control of 19 previously-democrat controlled state legislatures and now control 55 of the nation’s 93 legislative chambers (some states having only one legislative chamber). Additionally, republican state governors now outnumber democrats 29-20 (with one independent).

This has troubling implications to democrat hopes for future elections as many congressional districts will undergo redistricting in the next few years as a result of population changes highlighted by the 2010 census. Redistricting will re-apportion congressional seats based on the current population figures, but it is the state legislatures that draw the new district lines. They usually draw those new district boundaries to favor the electoral chances of the party in power, which is now the republicans.

But in recent weeks, another implication of the national republican victory has emerged. Arizona, and at least four other states, are considering passing laws that will require future presidential candidates to prove that they are eligible to hold the office of the presidency before allowing their names on the ballot. This, of course, stems from the discussions relating to Barack Obama’s citizenship. Mr Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii, but has not produced evidence of that event, to date. Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible for the Office of the President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five Years; and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Mr. Obama and his supporters have derisively referred to anyone who questions the authenticity of his citizenship as “Birthers,” with the clear implication that their sanity should be questioned due to their obviously poor judgement. But with republicans in charge of many state legislatures and governor’s offices, the chances are pretty good that Mr Obama will have to actually produce a long-form birth certificate to get his name on the ballot in several, perhaps many states for the 2012 presidential election.

All of this would be unnecessary, of course, if there was a vigorous, objective national press corps performing their constitutionally protected function; digging up facts and actually reporting news. If we were not possessed of a corrupt, derelict, lap dog media made up of hopeless sycophants breathlessly carrying Mr Obama’s water, some fearless “journalist” would have made his claim to the Pulitzer Prize and discovered the truth about Mr. Obama’s arrival in this life. Clearly, if he had nothing to hide, we'd have seen the proof by now. If Mr Obama was a republican, we would know every detail of his birth, and every unsavory moment of his life since.

Oregon...beautiful scenery, dimwitted voters

President Barack Obama has agreed to go along with the compromise plan to extend the Bush era tax rates for two more years. Note there is no tax cut in anyone’s future, save for the piddling 2% reduction in the Social Security taxes; simply a continuation of the rates that already exist. But from the whining and sobbing of the Obama base on the far left, it is pretty clear where Mr. Obama’s tax policy will go when this extension runs out.

Mr. Obama will surely press to raise the tax rates on the evil rich in another politically motivated economic decision. Of course, the intention will be to increase revenues to the federal treasury which he will then re-deploy to purchase democrat votes. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Mr Obama and his democrat allies in congress will raise the tax rates and sit back and expect more revenue to flow into the Treasury.

Raising taxes results in more revenue to the treasury only if all other conditions remain the same. This is the static model that democrats always use. However, in the real world, the dynamic model, every economic decision results in changed conditions, sometimes a multitude of changes. Even tiny changes in the price of anything will result in changes in demand.

Even though democrats do not believe it, people’s behavior will change if the price of living here (taxes) goes up. They can chose to move to another jurisdiction, or they can chose to do less business if doing more results in government confiscation. Or if they are truly evil rich, they will hire smart tax attorneys and keep a couple of congressmen on retainer to ensure favorable treatment. Whatever they do, their behavior will be different than it would have been before the change in economic conditions.

Where’s the evidence on the dynamic model of the market? A glance at what has happened in the People’s Republic of Oregon this year is illustrative. The voters, ever advancing the concept of social justice, voted to raise taxes on rich Oregonians in 2009. Naturally, they expected that existing tax revenues of $180 million would go through the roof when the 38,000 “rich” people of Oregon began paying their taxes at the new rates.

What actually happened in Oregon should provide a guide to greedy democrats seeking to gather other people’s money to spend on their next vote buying campaign. Tax revenues in Oregon fell by $50 million in one year! The supposed 38,000 rich Oregonians turned out to be only 28,000. I wonder what happened to the other 10,000 rich people? They either left the state or hired a good lawyer or politician to take care of their problem. Or perhaps they simply chose to do less business and earn less money.

And how is Oregon doing in the economic recovery, now that Mr Obama and his administration have brought us all back from the precipice? Oregon is lagging just a little bit. It does not have the highest unemployment rate in the nation, but it does have the second-highest unemployment rate in the entire United States, at 12.4 percent. Only Michigan, another state owned and operated by the democrat party and labor unions, has a higher rate of unemployment.

There are none so blind as those who just refuse to see, and who continue to make economic decisions for political reasons.

Stay in your lane, Governor

Governor Not So Bright

While brutal winter weather has brought holiday transportation to a standstill in Great Britain, and massive snowfalls are pummeling the west coast, outgoing California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is lobbying for a job in the Obama Administration to work on Global Warming, oh...excuse me, Climate Change.

In Great Britain, millions of travelers have been stranded in a “third-world” travel nightmare in airports and train stations all over the nation. The London Mail reports, “Heathrow, the country’s major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall. Substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling with deep snow, and there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country. More snow is expected today, especially in the north.”

Snowfall in Great Britain is a rare thing, and no figures are published for average snowfall. Snow does fall intermittently in northern and eastern areas, Wales and higher elevations, especially in the mountains of Scotland. Snow rarely lasts more than a week before melting.

Northern Ireland has experienced record low temperatures this week. One gent, quoted in the Mail said, “I can't remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven't even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Meanwhile, back in the states, Governor Schwarzenegger’s own state is being inundated with unusual winter precipitation whether it is heavy rain in the central valley or foot upon foot of snow in the mountains.

And yet California’s formerly republican governor, the husband of Kennedy niece Maria Schriver, is hoping to find employment by carrying the global warming, er climate change water for the Obama Administration.

While seeming to ignore the recent stories proliferating in the news confirming that global warming is a contrived hoax and that record cold temperature are being experienced all over the world, the governator continues to carry the torch for the environmental left. “I'm a big believer in environmental issues," Schwarzenegger said, who added that he wanted a post where he could use his "celebrity power … knowledge and experience" to impact public policy. "I've traveled the world. … I'm very familiar with the world."

Familiarity with the world is a good thing, governor. A measurable IQ would be pretty handy as well. Maybe you should get back to something you do well.

Mr Obama and his pal Russian President Medvedev

The Obama Administration, with the assistance of its Senate allies, is attempting another all-too-familiar scheme to ram a piece of questionable legislation through the Congress before the end of the so-called Lame Duck Session, this time with major foreign policy implications.

Sen. Reid (Democrat-Nevada) is urging senators to accept Mr Obama’s START Treaty, signed by the president and Russian President Medvedev last April. The treaty requires the approval of the senate, by a two thirds majority, before it can become law.

Republican senators have voiced objections to the treaty, claiming that ambiguous language in the treaty raises questions about the treaty’s possible limitation of U.S. missile defense. The preamble of the treaty contains language that republican senators believe could allow the Russians to withdraw from the treaty if they choose to do so. How interesting that we would involve ourselves in a treaty, which has the effect of federal law on our government, with a nation that can unilaterally decide to ignore it if they feel like doing so.

To clarify the situation, Republican senators have asked, repeatedly, for records of the treaty’s negotiations so as to decisively establish the meaning of the treaty’s language. Such requests for the negotiating record have been provided by republican administrations in 1972 for Nixon’s Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and in 1987 by the Reagan Administration for its Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty.
But, apparently, asking for the START negotiating record is something akin to asking for other closely held state secrets, like President Obama’s birth certificate or his collegiate academic performance. Instead, after only five days of discussion in the senate, and without having clarified the treaty’s language, Senator Dick Durban, number two ranking democrat, has urged that the treaty be brought to a vote. What is the rush, Senator Durban?

While the urgency of completing this treaty, which could have far-reaching effects on the capability of the United States to defend itself from missiles targeting U.S. cities is high on the list of democrat priorities, they did suspend debate on the measure to consider another bill of equal consequence, to them, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation that would permit homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military.

Democrats, and some republicans, seem inclined to accept the word of the Russians. They were also inclined to accept the word of the communist government of the U.S.S.R that preceded the current crowd in the Kremlin. They are inclined today to accept the terms of this treaty despite the evidence of Soviet-era duplicity and outright violation of previous treaties (Reagan withdrew from SALT II in 1986 after it became clear that the Soviets were ignoring the treaty). Committing the United States to an international treaty is serious business, and democrats and republicans should keep in mind that the Russians, like the Soviets before them, will always act in their own interest and never, ever in our interest.

They would be wise to consider the counsel of General George Washington to the Continental Congress on a very different matter of national interest, when he said, “It is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its own interest; and no prudent statesman or politician will venture to depart from it.” The Russians will always be bound by their own interests, and we should be prudent enough not to venture far from our own. Mr Obama’s treaty with the Russians has the potential to portend great danger to the United States and we should take the time necessary to understand it fully, and amend it if necessary, before making it U.S. law.