It is almost astounding to watch the news analysis programs after the latest jobs reports of the creation of a paltry 18,000 jobs and unemployment ticking up to 9.2%. Nearly lost in the data is that the news from prior months was revised in a negative direction and at the same time the progressive talking heads say the stimulus worked.

Well some do. Those with the courage to admit that it didn’t work are quick to say that it was only because it wasn’t big enough. Great! What we really need right now is to be $20 trillion in debt before we find out that didn’t work either. The other argument is the shoulda, coulda, woulda argument. “Imagine, how bad it would have been if we did nothing.” Back at you, “Imagine how great we would be doing if we didn’t have a Washington run ponzi scheme called Social Security and had personal savings accounts instead. Imagine how there would have been no financial crisis if Washington didn’t decided long ago that everyone has to own a home whether they could afford it or not. Imagine how energy independent we would be if Washington didn’t force us away from our own oil, natural gas, and nuclear power to buy from foreign despots.” I could go on, but I think you get the point.

When the talk on main street is about our massive debt and how concerned the average American is, the progressives launch into such things as saying the Republicans haven’t written a jobs bill, and cling desperately to their tax raising wealth transfer programs.

The Two Myths

The two progressive myths I refer to are that 1) government is responsible for creating jobs; and 2) we need the government to transfer wealth from those who have to those who don’t through taxes.

Private industry creates jobs, and more specifically small businesses create the most. The best way for the government to help with job creation is to stay the hell out of the way. As an example, there were a couple of wineries on Long Island whose business was stuck because they were waiting for word from Washington on approval of a change to the shape of the wine bottle and the label that would go on it. It took the involvement of a U.S. Congressman to get the process, which normally takes 48 hours but has been stuck for months, to break up the log jam. Why is Washington even involved? As a wine consumer, unless a skull and crossbones is on the label, there is nothing there that is a deal breaker in my decision on whether to buy that wine or not. It is a combination of price, type of wine, reputation of the winery, year that will most influence my decision. If the result is me is spraying the room with a mouthful of wine that tastes like dishwater, the news will spread about the reputation of the winery. Some clerk in a cubicle in Washington isn’t going to be the final arbiter of my choice.

Let’s look at innovation that is done by private industry and the fallacy of government genius becomes crystal clear. When a new technology product comes on the market it is typically expensive, often very expensive, and its features are few. In my own experience, when I first went to college to study engineering, on my first Christmas home I received a calculator as a present. I was thrilled. This was basically a four function calculator and it retailed for $130. Today, four function calculators are throw away items. The first automobile GPS system cost thousands of dollars and it required a large unit be installed in the trunk of the car. Today you can carry them in your pocket.

So what does all of this have to do with the topic at hand? Well, to get these products off the ground someone has to buy them. Who can afford them? The richer folks among us. In doing so, they have made a decision and a choice to take their wealth and exchange it for the new gadget. By doing so, their purchases fuel the innovation that improves the product and drives down the price. Driving down the price to the point where the masses can afford it with their lesser wealth while at the same time creating jobs by the thousands. All without a government program in sight. So there is your wealth transfer and job program, all without government programs, entered into willingly by all participants. We like to call that freedom and liberty.

“Wait a minute!” the progressives will exclaim, “How do you think GPS got invented if not for the government?” True enough. It was invented by or for the military, the same as was the case for the Internet. But the last time I looked the military is right there in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution, so I am okay with that.

But so much for the invention, rolling it out to the masses was still done by private industry, not government. And because of the efforts of private industry, we are all a little bit richer than we otherwise might be, or than people elsewhere still are. Here is a further example.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FB0EhPM_M4

Can it be true? Those greedy capitalists thinking of ways to get rich by making products cheaper so that more people can afford them? The bastards! So the government should get out of the way of private enterprise. It cannot pick winners and losers. The Soviets couldn’t do it, the Cubans can’t do it, the Chinese are giving up on it, so why are the progressives clinging to it? We are not in the mess we are in because of a lack of government regulation and programs. We are in the mess we are in because 180 cases of wine sit on a loading dock on Long Island waiting for a phone call in Washington to say, “You’re label passed our excellent standards.” Please!

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

For nearly eight years we heard the left scream, “Bush Lied!” over the decision to invade Iraq.  One decision and the same refrain repeated over and over again.  Where is the scrutiny of the truth police where President Obama is concerned?

In his State of the Union address he took the unprecedented step of calling out the Supreme Court and encouraging his minions to give that rebuke a standing ovation.  Shameful.  This is not to say that Obama cannot criticize other branches of government, but there is a time and a place.  When Joe Wilson called out “LIAR!” during a previous speech by President Obama he was roundly criticized and rightly so.  Not for the criticism, but for the time and the place.  Joe Wilson called the president to apologize.  Did Obama do the same?

The timing of the act was bad enough, but the accusation he made was not true, as Samuel Alito could be seen saying, if you can read lips.  In the midst of his constitutional duty to report to Congress on the State of the Union, he uses a blatant lie to attack his guests. But that wasn’t all.  His speech was sprinkled throughout with falsehoods, not least of which was his statement on jobs.

Counting the Uncountable

To try to put a positive spin on his porkulus bill, he had to make up a statistic that no reputable economist can endorse, “jobs saved”.  In his State of the Union speech and on the Sunday morning talk show circuit, Obama and his team talked about 2 million jobs created or saved. But they weren’t all on the same page, some said 1.8 million, but regardless it is blatant dishonesty.

Jobs created is a real statistic.  As a small business owner I can tell you that when you hire someone there are a number of government agencies that you have to report it to and you have a deadline in which to do so.  There is also some paperwork involved when you eliminate a job.  But I have never, never had to report to any agency when I thought about eliminating a job and then changed my mind.  After all wouldn’t that be the definition of a job saved?

If I never thought about eliminating the position, then the job is not “saved” it just continues to exist.  If I thought about eliminating the position and did so, it would not be a job “saved” it would be a job eliminated, no?  So it is this two step process of thinking about the action and then not following through that could reasonably be thought of as a “job saved”.  How do you measure that thought process?  Hiring someone is an observable action.  Eliminating a job is an observable action.  Saving a job are two related thought processes not externally observable, they can only be “reported” by the decision maker and it cannot be independently verified.  Is that the kind of statistic upon which you want your government to base billions of dollars in spending decision?   The only added feature of Obamanomics is that some money changes hands.  Money that comes from you, dear taxpayer, and goes to the businessman.  Can you see why such a statistic is ridiculous?

Which One Is It Mr. President?  Mr. Biden? Anyone?

Let’s pretend for a moment that “jobs saved” is a real statistic.  If the president has a figure in his head of 2 million jobs created or saved, and for the aforementioned reasons the number of jobs created is a hard number reported to some agency, then the number of jobs saved should be a matter of simple math.  2 million minus the number of jobs actually created equals the number of jobs saved.  So why not report it as such?  100,000 jobs created and 1.9 million jobs saved, for example.  Why lump them together?  Because when you lump them together its harder to tell how big of a lie the president is telling.

Stimulus recipients previously reported that they had directly “created or saved” 640,329 jobs by Sept. 30, but their filings were criticized after it emerged that some people had reported saving jobs when they had actually spent the money on pay raises or paying employees who were not in danger of being laid off.

In December, the White House Office of Management and Budget changed its guidance, telling recipients they should start counting every worker whose salary was funded with stimulus money, rather than guessing whether the jobs would have existed in the absence of the federal plan. Opponents of the program accused the administration of “moving the goal posts” to make the plan appear more successful. — Wall Street Journal, Latest Stimulus Report Fuels Jobs Pressure, Feb. 1 2010

So companies using stimulus money to give people raises was counted as jobs saved!  We have 10%-17% of our workforce idled and taxpayers are being fleeced to give people raises and this administration is calling that successful policy.  When do we start firing people in this administration?  How about Janet Napolitano?  How about Eric Holder?  or are we saving their jobs too so that the numbers look good?  The other reports are just as galling: $1000 purchase of a lawn mower is credited with saving jobs;  using stimulus money to purchase boots with each boot (left and right) being counted as a job saved because someone had to make the boots; stimulus money going to create jobs in Congressional districts that do not exist.  Does anyone have any confidence that this administration has a clue about how to run a government?  This is beyond embarrassing.

The Next Stimulus

But fear not, since the first stimulus was so successful, President Obama is teeing up the next one, but don’t worry this one is only $100 billion.  Doesn’t that just make you feel warm all over?