While wiping his feet on the First Amendment by trying to force Catholic institutions to bend to his will and force them to provide services that go against their core beliefs, President Obama took time to lecture us on the Bible, and twist it to fit his reelection campaign. This outrage doesn’t get a pass.

The Bible Supports Obama’s Tax Plan

Obama tried to use the bible verse about from those who have been given much, much is expected, as a call from God to pay more taxes. To follow the Buffett Rule, if you will. Here is the verse from Luke 12:48:

When much has been given a man, much will be required of him.

But the context is in terms of doing the master’s will, not paying taxes. When it comes to paying taxes, Jesus was asked specifically about it. Here is that passage:

They sent some Pharisees and Herodians after him to catch him in his speech. The two groups came and said to him: “Teacher, we know you are a truthful man, unconcerned about anyone’s opinion. It is evident you do not act out of human respect but teach God’s way of life sincerely. Is it lawful to pay the tax to the emperor or not? Are we to pay or not to pay?” Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, “Why are you trying to trip me up? Bring me a coin and let me see it.” When they brought one, he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose inscription is it?” “Caesar’s,” they told him. At that Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” Their amazement at him knew no bounds – Mark 12:1-17

When asked specifically about taxes Jesus dismissed them, seeing the political trap. Jesus didn’t say let’s go to Rome and lobby for the least of our brothers. He didn’t say, you know, we need a new government program. He didn’t tell of the Good Samaritan, calling his Roman Senator to pass a new law to provide free health care for victims of highway robbery found laying in a ditch. He said we should take care of such things ourselves, not pass the buck to someone else. So instead of asking the rich like Romney to pay more in taxes, ask Joe Biden how much he gives of the public’s money, that he has been living off most of his adult life, to charity. See if Obama wants to brag about so-called Catholic Biden, giving an average of $1 a day to charity while pulling down a tidy six figure income. Since 2010, Romney gave $7 million to charity. What about the Obamas? Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent. As former Louisiana Senator Russell Long famously said, “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” It is hypocrisy at its boldest. But then this president has never been shy.

Wasted Gifts

What should be embarrassing to Obama is that the passage he used really refers to him. Who has been given more than Obama?  He grew up in Hawaii, he got an Ivy League education, he has drawn a salary from the public trough as an Illinois state senator, a U.S. Senator, and President of the United States. What has he done with these gifts? We know he has played golf over ninety times, he has taken long vacations, he plays basketball every week, and rather than meeting with members of Congress he stonewalled them and then blames them for the state we are in. Let’s take the passage from Luke that Obama quoted and back it up a few verses:

The Lord said, “Who in your opinion is that faithful, farsighted steward whom the master will set over his servants to dispense their ration of grain in season? That servant is fortunate whom his master finds busy when he returns.”

It is not the rich who according to Obama do not pay enough taxes that the Bible refers to, but him, who was given bountiful gifts from God but squandered them. What would Jesus say to Illinois Senator Obama who opposed legislation that if a woman went to a hospital to have an abortion and if the child was actually born alive, the surviving child should be given all necessary medical care? Is that caring for the least of his brothers? Is that emulating the Good Samaritan? Is there no level to which Obama will not stoop to get himself reelected? America has had enough of this president. America deserves better.

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

For years Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the most thoughtful and erudite public servants we have had, published a document New York and the Federal Fisc that described the flow of dollars from New York and the great imbalance on the return trip.  Steve Israel seems to have taken up that mantle but his votes in the House are baffling.

In an article published in Newsday today titled, “Rep. Israel: Poorer states take NY’s share,” he has this to say,

“Nobody should be paying more than they get,” Israel said. “The unfairness should not be based on where you live. That’s what really drives me crazy. It’s not necessarily the numbers; it is the discrimination against states like New York” that have more high-income earners.”

That statement opens up at least three contradictory positions that Steve Israel has taken and indicates how out of touch the progressives are with the majority of the American people.  Let’s look at the three issues:

1. Redistribution of Wealth – is it a good thing or a bad thing?
2. Why send money to Washington if it is only going to send it back, albeit with a healthy chunk of overhead removed?
3. If New York is discriminated against because it has high income earners – is increasing taxes on high income earners by making permanent the Bush tax cuts a bad thing or a good thing?

Redistribution of Wealth

Steve Israel votes with his party 98.7% of the time.  We all remember what Barack Obama said to Joe the Plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”  He has voted for the very policies he complains about.  Let’s do some quick math.  Steve Israel voted for the $825 billion stimulus bill.  The stimulus, according to Recovery.gov, brought about $249 million into Mr. Israel’s district.  But based on the relative wealth of his district, his district pays about 0.4% of the nation’s individual income tax.  To make the number’s easier, if we assume that the stimulus borrowing will be repaid exclusively through individual income taxes, that means Mr. Israel’s district will have to re-pay $3.3 billion of the stimulus debt.  So he voted to send $3.3 billion to the rest of the country in return for $249 million for his constituents.  So what’s his argument?  His wound appears to be self-inflicted.

Round Trip Ticket for Your Tax Dollars

Mr. Israel has a 100% rating from the National Education Association, the teacher’s union.  Mr. Israel is part of the federal government.  Nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress empowered to do anything about education.  Education has always been a local matter.  We have local school boards who run the schools, and the bulk of our property taxes go toward funding the schools. 

But we also have a Department of Education.  So what do we do?  We tax the same people who pay for schools through property taxes and state taxes and we send that money to Washington.  The Treasury takes a cut to pay for the added resources it needs to manage this revenue.  The Department of Education takes a cut to pay for their overhead, and then the money is sent back to local school districts as federal aid.  Why not abolish the Department of Education and keep 100% of those tax dollars locally to pay for schools rather than eighty cents on the dollar for the privilege of having the geniuses in Washington handle our money and tell us what to do?  On top of that, what guarantee do we get that a further portion of our tax dollars are not going to pay for another state’s education instead of ours?  If we don’t give the money to Washington in the first place, they can’t give it to someone else rather than returning it.  It is lunacy. 

The article then describes this bizarre exchange:

Israel said “the fairest” situation would have each state receiving the same share of federal funding that it pays in federal taxes. He was asked if states should just keep all their revenue instead.

“It’s priorities!” he said. “The federal formulas need to be changed. It’s not as simple as saying it should be 1-1; it’s the formulas that need to be changed.”

It’s the formulas?  Why in the world would you send tax dollars to Washington and then expect to get an equal amount back?  Why send it in the first place?  If Washington kept to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, most of this discussion would be moot.  The Founding Fathers created the federal government to deal with mostly national issues concerning defense and foreign nations. In carrying those out I want the military to decide where to place their forts, arsenals, naval bases and not to make sure that we have the same amount in every Congressional district. 

The Bush Tax Cuts

Steve Israel has a voting record on tax policy:

• He voted against retaining reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends (Dec 2005)
• He voted against making the Bush tax cuts permanent (April 2002)
• He voted for raising taxes on those making over $250,000 (Dec 2010)
• He received an 18% rating from the National Taxpayers Union meaning he’s a big spender (Dec 2003)
• He received an 83% rating from Citizens for Tax Justice, meaning he supports progressive taxation (Dec 2006)

How do you square these positions with the complaint that New Yorkers send more tax revenue to Washington than they get back?  He voted for those very policies.  He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and then complains that New York sends more to Washington because we have wealthy people living in New York. Exactly where does Mr. Israel think those tax revenues are going? 

Solving the Problem

The problem may actually solve itself.  Because New York also has high state taxes, high property taxes, high city taxes, and high sales taxes, those wealthy folks might move to Texas or some other state.  Then Mr. Israel and his fellow progressives can finally be in the enviable position of begging Washington to send more money to a bankrupt New York than New York sends to Washington in tax revenue.

That’s my opinion. I’d like to know what you think.  Please add your comments below.

First it was that Bush spent all eight years of his presidency (and was reelected after four of those years) destroying the economy and so we need to give Obama, what, eight years to fix it?  Then it was blame Boehner.  That didn’t work, because not many people know who John Boehner is.  Then it was “the Republicans want to go back to the same old ways that got us into this mess.”  Tell that to Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Bob Bennett, Charlie Crist, Trey Grayson.  Same old, same old?  I don’t think so.

Now it is time to go negative.  No, I don’t mean campaign ads.  That was to be expected as the Democrats do not, repeat, do not want to run on their record, lest it get as ugly on November 2 as a town hall meeting.  No, they are going negative on their base.  The Democrat heavies are coming out and mocking their base to shame them into coming out and voting for them.  Consider some of these gems.

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.” – John Kerry

“Stop whining” and “buck up,” – Vice President Joe Biden

“If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.” – President Obama

The President demanded that his supporters “shake off this lethargy,” warning that it would be “inexcusable” for liberals to stay home on Election Day.

Well if that doesn’t work, there is always that Tea Party gang to demonize.  Now, if only the statists could find the leader of the Tea Party and destroy them, the movement would collapse.  Sorry, there is no such person.  There are numerous Tea Party groups with numerous leaders.

[T]he tea party movement is financed and directed by “powerful, special-interest lobbies.” – President Obama

“There are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the President.” – President Obama

Thomas Friedman wrote a piece in the New York Times today, “The Tea Kettle Movement,” as in just blowing off steam.  In it he makes several points that prove how ignorant the statists are regarding the Tea Party movement and will continue to be so as long as they get all their information from the main stream media, like the Times.

Democratic Pollster Stan Greenberg told me that when he does focus groups today this is what he hears: “People think the country is in trouble and that countries like China have a strategy for success and we don’t. They will follow someone who convinces them that they have a plan to make America great again. That is what they want to hear. It cuts across Republicans and Democrats.”

Yes China has a strategy, but don’t be fooled because it is a communist country into thinking that the answer is centralized control over all economic activity.  China’s success is because they realize that communism doesn’t work and they are moving more and more toward capitalism.  For example, China’s corporate tax rate is 16% while the U.S. rate is 35%.  Obama wants to move America to be more like the old, failed, socialist regimes but because he is smarter than everyone else, he will get it right.

To me [Friedman], that is a plan that starts by asking: what is America’s core competency and strategic advantage, and how do we nurture it? Answer: It is our ability to attract, develop and unleash creative talent. That means men and women who invent, build and sell more goods and services that make people’s lives more productive, healthy, comfortable, secure and entertained than any other country.

He seems to get the answer right but then progressives support policies that do just the opposite.  You don’t nurture the ability to attract, develop and unleash creative talent through bigger government, oppressive taxes, and burdensome regulation.  The progressives, in the midst of a feeble recovery, want to slam these very people with $700 billion in additional taxes.

Friedman, to his credit is not as out of touch as President Obama.  He suggests:

Actually raise some taxes — on, say, gasoline — and cut others — like payroll taxes and corporate taxes. It would require us to overhaul our immigration laws so we can better control our borders, let in more knowledge workers and retain those skilled foreigners going to college here. And it would require us to reduce some services — like Social Security — while expanding others, like education and research for a 21st-century economy.

Increasing the cost of energy through gasoline taxes is not the solution.  Perhaps that is a way to fund fixing the highways and bridges, but not unleash our productivity.  His immigration suggestion is not unlike the Tea Party movement and as he doesn’t mention illegals there might be a difference there, maybe not.  As far as reducing some service like Social Security, that is a result of a bad idea (ponzi scheme) put in place at the start.  If the same amount of money that is put into Social Security was put into private savings, there would be no need for a discussion.  The reason this is a big problem is the age old nanny state mentality, that people are too stupid to take care of themselves (put away for retirement) and that if the government doesn’t step in and take care of them now (payroll taxes), it will have to step in later to fix the lives they have screwed up.

No matter how you cut it, it is hardly a motivating message for either the base or anyone else to vote for the Democrats.  With little over thirty days left until the election, the Democrats are still throwing stuff against the wall to see if anything will stick.  This could be a bigger rout than we thought.

I don’t know who Linda McGibney is, so when a friend tweeted a video she was in rebutting Ben Stein on the fast approaching massive tax increase, I first watched the video and then went about Googling her to find out more about her.

The video begins with a clip of Ben Stein saying basically that if you want to consider raising taxes in the future that may be fine, but right now is not the time to do it, it is just punishment.  The video then cuts to Ms. McGibney, who like Barack Obama, begins to lecture us about what she knows so little.

“Ben Stein is wrong,” she intones.  She continues to describe herself as an American, in the highest tax bracket, and working in the entertainment business, just like Mr. Stein.  Wait a minute.  From what I could gather, Ms. McGibney is a screenwriter, which hardly makes her an authority on tax matters.  Mr. Stein on the other hand is an economist and a lawyer, besides being in the entertainment field.  His father was Herbert Stein who served as an economist in the Nixon administration and Ben Stein was a speechwriter for both Nixon and Ford.  So when it comes to speaking on matters, economic, I would tend to defer to Mr. Stein.

It becomes clearer when Ms. McGibney misses the whole point and assesses the issue on a purely personal level.  She talks about her taxes and her ability to pay them, and says the same holds true for Mr. Stein.  Mr. Stein’s point was not about the taxes unfairly punishing him, boo hoo,  but about a $700 billion increase in taxes as the economy staggers out of the recession under the weight of all the spending Mr. Obama has committed us to.

She goes on to parrot Joe Biden, about paying more taxes being our patriotic duty.  You probably recall Mr. Biden saying, when President Obama put him in charge of making sure the stimulus money was not squandered, that he himself knew little about finance or economics.  She then scolds us that she is not talking about charity, before proving the well known fact that conservatives give more to charity than liberals/progressives, by saying as much.  “This is about being a grown-up and accepting the fact that we made money during the bogus uptick in the economy,”  Continuing, “I suppose he [Stein] thinks he is beyond sharing his good fortune with the rest of Americans who are suffering financially.”  From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.  You have been schooled well, grasshopper, in the ways of Marx.

She says, “I have always understood that the ‘haves’ are greedy,” before continuing a few words later to say, “I am a ‘have’.”  She just called herself greedy!

Ms. McGibney, we still have some freedom in this country and while we do you have every right and ability to send a check for as large as you like to the federal government, you are not required to stop at that line on your tax form that has your tax liability.  You are not allowed to give less, but feel free to give more.  May I suggest 90% of your taxable income?  Better yet, why don’t you host a little party of your like minded friends and suggest that they do the same in the name of “Hope and Change?”

But the reality is the policies of the current administration have burdened the economy with such uncertainty that even Nancy Pelosi can’t figure out the laws that she’s passing (we have to pass the bill to know what is in it).  There is so much uncertainty, that small and medium businesses are not hiring because they can’t figure out what their health care will cost, what their taxes will be, how much new regulation they have to deal with, and on, and on.  The recession ended over a year ago and instead of roaring back the economy is slowing down.  The stimulus did nothing.  The recession ended before the money hit the streets.  But now the economy is saddled with an $800 debt to pay back and you want to pile another $700 billion rock on top of this feeble recovery?

Ben Stein is speaking as an economist.  You are speaking as a self righteous, greedy, partisan.  You are as clueless about what to do as this administration is.  Go back to writing screenplays.  I hope they are successful.  If you want to do your part, hire an assistant; give your staff a raise; eat at a restaurant every night; buy a new car.  I would rather that you take your wealth and spend it lavishly than turn it over to the government, which will only waste it on trying to get themselves reelected.  Join the free market.  If we get the government out of the way, this economy will come roaring back.  If we keep sending money to Washington it will only encourage them.

I, for one, am glad that all those people you see at Tea Party rallies, that you and your cranky friends like to mock, are better informed about how the economy works and the proper role of government than you will ever be.  I hope that they will change Washington.  It’s the spending, stupid.

Click the link to see the video. Linda McGibney Lectures Us on Paying Taxes

Who would you trust to better invest a million dollars in the economy, Bill Gates or Joe Biden?  Do the richest people in America bury their money in a pit in their back yard or do they either spend it or invest it?  Are taxes cuts where the American people give less of the wealth they created to the government or is it where the government gives money to the American people?

If you are like the overwhelming majority of Americans you would answer those questions as follows:  Bill Gates; spend or invest it; give less to the government.  But the Obama administration and their acolytes live in an alternate reality where Joe Biden, who President Obama put in charge of watching carefully how the stimulus money was spent because “nobody messes with Joe,” is in charge of spending $700+ billion; where they think nothing good happens from the most productive people in the economy when they have more resources to work with; where all money belongs to the government and the government gets to decide who and how much we can keep.

By excluding “the rich” from any tax cuts because we “can’t afford to give the rich a $700  billion tax cut”, this administration is saying that by giving Joe Biden $700 billion he will spend it in such a spectacular way that the economy will be humming before Recovery Summer has ended.  We are still waiting. 

What happens if Bill Gates has an extra million?  I could see three things.  One, he spends it.  Although he is not known to be an extravagant spender like his competitor Larry Ellison, I understand that Mr. Gates lives in a very nice state of the art house.  He may choose to upgrade it.  That will probably involve architects, engineers, general contractors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, laborers, and on and on.  In other words, jobs.  Isn’t that we need now?  How many stimulus projects are there that have sucked up money but created no jobs? (If you are struggling with that question go to www.recovery.gov and sample some of the projects)  Two, he could invest it.  He might fund a start-up which would again create jobs.  If the start up was successful, he might buy it outright which would put money back in the hands of the entrepreneurs who started the company and perhaps they would start another.  More jobs, more spending, a growing economy.  Three, he may put the money in his charity, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  That is a charity that does good things, but with a difference.  Because it is a charity not a government program, there will be people watching how the money is spent with the discretion to modify the program if it gets off track.  Government programs are built upon rules.  If  a crook gets a copy of the rulebook, he can rip off the program until someone gets around to re-writing the rules.  In the meantime it is ka-ching for the crook.

The incumbents in government believe that tax revenues are their money and tax cuts are gifts from the government to the people.  Taxes are what we the people give to the government.  We need to starve the beast and put it back in its cage.  Government is trying to run every aspect of our lives.  This country was founded because a tone deaf government was taxing America to the eyeballs.  It is that time again.  We should make the Bush tax cuts permanent now and clean house in November.

President Obama has demonstrated, as much as he would like to deny it, a strong anti-business sentiment.  He has acted in ways that remind one of a Castro or Chavez in that he is doing it in the name of the people against the greedy profiteers.

General Motors and Chrysler were bled dry by union contracts.  Management is culpable for agreeing to those contracts so they don’t get a pass in my view.  But government also piled on with CAFÉ mileage requirements that forced the auto companies to build cars at a loss (because of the union contracts) to meet this standard.  In the midst of the financial crisis the auto companies were running out of cash.  The Obama administration, rather than let them go into bankruptcy, muscles in and turns over major ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler to the unions who are loyal supporters of the Democrat Party, rather than pay bondholders who were entitled to be paid first.

The housing bubble was driven by government policies going back years.  The stated goals of the Clinton administration was to increase home ownership to as many people as possible.  When the bubble burst, the Obama administration forced TARP money on healthy banks who neither needed it nor wanted it.  The reason was to avoid showing who the real basket case banks were.  But these banks were forced by their government to take the money and then the Obama administration created a pay czar to make sure any company that took TARP money, voluntarily or not, could not pay their executives more than Team Obama said they could.

Lax regulation on the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico permitted BP to take short cuts that led to disaster.  President Obama is put in an embarrassing position, so he cranks up the Public Relations machine to throw maximum ire upon BP.  He then tries to be a hero by shaking down BP for $20 billion.  BP has never said they would not pay.  BP waived the limit on damages that was set by, you guessed it, the government and has steadfastly said they would make things right.  But President Obama wanted to look like he was actually doing something and by taking $20 billion and putting it under his control it might look like he was.  I agree with many that President Obama did not cause the leak in the Gulf any more than Bush created Hurricane Katrina, but if, as Obama likes to say, the buck stops here, then he is responsible for the lax enforcement by his administration that could have prevented it.

To create jobs this administration created a $787 billion bailout package that did next to nothing to create real jobs.  It was pork to be paid to union members such as teachers, contractors, and not to grow the economy and create sustainable jobs.

If a business that is solidly behind the Obama agenda, like General Electric who owns the NBC and MSNBC cheerleaders, and wants to be a key player in the cap and trade exchanges, this President will treat them kindly.  But if you are an independent business trying to grow, you will be taxed to your eye sockets.

We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws not a nation of men, but since this President has taken office he has a view that he is above the law and can do whatever he feels he needs to do.  It was somewhat surreal to have Congressman Joe Barton, apologize to BP for the shakedown.  No one owes BP an apology but I understand Congressman Barton’s distaste for the administrations boorish behavior.  No one has the right to demand another’s property without due process of law, and that’s what happened.  Perhaps Tony Heywood should be fired for going along with it.

Let’s keep this in mind.  We need BP to continue to be a viable profitable company, so that every last claim can be paid.  If this administration succeeds in driving BP into the ground, guess who will be next in line to pick up the tab?  That’s right, gentle readers, you and me;  the American taxpayers.

President Obama went about doing what he does best, giving another speech, and in doing so demonstrated his true colors.  He also demonstrated how far he has come from his empty promises to be a uniter and not a divider.  As millions across the country gathered to make their voices heard that we are over taxed and over governed, he smugly wondered to a crowd of supporters why the Tea Party members weren’t thanking him for lowering our taxes.

That claim holds about as much water as his continually proclaimed “jobs saved”, a statistic that he and Joe Biden frequently parrot but no one knows how to measure.  The Bush tax cuts are about to expire and Obama has no intention of extending them.  Thank you, Mr. President.  He took $787 billion of our hard earned tax dollars and squandered them on a stimulus program that actually made things worse.  How can I make such an outrageous statement?  I am relying on the words of the smartest man ever elected to the presidency of the United States.  He told us that if we did not implement his stimulus package, the unemployment rate would rise to 9%.  Well, it’s at 9.7% so it is not unreasonable to conclude the package that he passed actually made the situation worse.  Thank you, Mr. President

He has rammed through his health care program that will add taxes to drugs and medical devices, will tax citizens if they do not buy the insurance he wants us to have.  It will cost $1-2 trillion and where does he think that money is going to come from?  The Federal government only has one source of revenues, taxes and fees.  So how does he suppose he is going to pay for all of this?  Why, thank you, Mr. President

Keep mugging it up, Mr. President, keep sneering at the majority of Americans, and soon you can join Jimmy Carter’s elite club of bitter hope and change one term presidents.

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?

The Joke is on You

Joe Biden just held a press event to reveal how he was going to help the middle class.  The man who has a hard time reaching into his own pocket for more than $1 a day in charity to give to his fellow man, has no problem reaching into your pocket and give the fruit of your labor to someone else.  It’s a win-win.  It doesn’t cost Joe Biden and it helps him keep getting elected and drawing a salary that you pay for.

Here is what he revealed:

1. Nearly Doubling the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit — in an economy that has over 10% unemployment this administration is focusing on helping those who already have a job and income.  I’m all for tax cuts, but not targeted cuts.  Cut income tax rates and jobs will be created.  I don’t believe this administration knows how to aim anything well enough to hit a target
2. Limiting a student’s federal loan payments to 10 percent of his/her income above a basic living allowance — the administration is concerned about how much debt students leave college with.  Does it have any concern about how much debt they are piling on everyone, not just college graduates?  Biden pointed to the average indebtedness of around $25,000 for college graduates.  The federal debt is about $35,000 for every man, woman and child in America, not just college graduates and this administration shows no signs of stopping it.
3. Creating a system of automatic workplace IRAs — government first got involved in retirement with Social Security.  That system is bankrupt and this administration has no interest in fixing it.  When Republicans floated the idea of taking a portion of the Social Security payroll tax and diverting it to higher return private savings, the Democrats savaged them.  So the Democrat solution is to ignore the bankrupt Social Security system and start telling business what to do.
4. Expanding tax credits to match retirement savings and enacting new safeguards to protect retirement savings — again with Social Security bankrupt, they want to put more tax dollars into retirement.  How different is this than the Republican plan to take what exists and allow it to get better returns than the paltry rate it currently gets within the Social Security system? The difference is that the Republican plan wouldn’t cost anything extra.  The Democrat plan will either increase payroll taxes or increase the deficit.  Surprise!!!
5. Expanding support for families balancing work with caring for elderly relatives –I thought the Democrats had fixed this with “end of life counseling” in their health care plan, coupled with bringing back the Death Tax next year.

Fumbling and Stumbling

The way to create jobs is to let the job creators keep their money to invest in their business and expand.  Small business owners are stuck waiting to learn how much all of Obama’s social re-engineering is going to cost them and until they know that, hiring is the last thing they will do.  The only thing this administration seems to know how to do is bash business and spend money and the more they spend the longer the recover will take.  They are now planning another stimulus plan to follow the last stimulus plan that didn’t work, and the deficit continues to grow and grow and grow.

President Obama wants to create a bipartisan panel to recommend how to reduce the deficit.  He gives the back of his hand to bipartisanship when it comes to workable solutions to real problems, but he loves bipartisanship when it gives him political cover to make unpopular decisions.  All of his supporters love to say that experience doesn’t matter and that President Obama is the smartest guy in the room.  If that is true, he should not be afraid to propose bold spending cuts and shrinking government and be smart enough to explain it to Congress on his own.  If he does so, I am sure many Republicans would support him and vote for it (and almost all Democrats vote against it).  But he wants it both ways, he wants Republicans to yield to tie spending cuts to tax increases and put the package to an up or down vote.  He will then take that on the campaign trail to tell the world how Republicans voted for tax increases.  If you don’t believe me, look to history.  George Herbert Walker Bush, of the “no new taxes” pledge, got Congress to agree with spending cuts in return for a tax increase.  Bill Clinton clubbed him to death, like a baby seal, with that pledge and then enjoyed Bush’s restraint upon Congress on the spending side to generate budget surpluses.  Let President Obama take the lead.  Wasn’t that why he was elected?  Because he was a different kind of leader?  So, lead away.

There was a commercial not too long ago where a young man looked out his window to the village green where a bundle of money had just fallen.  He calls his wife/girlfriend over to show her.  She suggests running down and getting it, but he says, no, let’s wait.  Next you see a frizzy headed guy down on the green who screams, “MONEY!!!!”  In seconds, people came out of the woodwork and scoffed up all the money while the young couple looked on.

The image of that commercial popped into my head as I considered the job summit being led by President Obama.  To me, the young couple represented the government pondering how to direct the economy to achieve this specific goal or that.  The mob on the green was the free market.  While the government dithers over what kind of legislation to write, which special interest groups to pay off to pass it, how to develop incentives to get private industry to do this or that, if they would just cut taxes and get out of the way, the free market would get to work creating jobs where they are needed, not where some bureaucrat thinks they should go.

Uncertainty

The biggest cloud overhanging this economy is uncertainty.  The Obama administration is slamming through enormous changes: a $787 billion Porkulus package, cap and trade, health care.  Businesses look at this combined with the accumulation of massive government debt, tax increases rather than cuts (yes letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase, not just the expiration of tax cuts as Speaker Pelosi tries to spin it) and they don’t know what hiring that extra employee is going to cost, let alone what it will cost to keep the employees they already have.  So they don’t hire until the dust  settles and they can calculate the impact.

“Tax incentives for job creation are “worthy of further consideration,” he said, while adding that the administration is also set on making a big push in the area of green jobs.” – President Obama at Jobs Summit

“Worthy of further consideration”?  Since conservatives have been calling for tax cuts for a year now, this kind of statement in Obama-ese translates thusly, “I have to make a nod to the right, to acknowledge that I heard them, but it ain’t happening.”  Couple that with the “big push in the area of green jobs.”  We are in the midst of the scientific scandal that the “settled science” of man-made global warming could be the greatest hoax since Bernie Madoff, and Obama wants a big push in the area of green jobs.  What if that area collapses because the urgency that Al Gore has been screaming about is no longer urgent?  It’s government planning on the order of Soviet five-year plans or Mao’s Great Leap Forward programs.  It harkens back to Jimmy Carter’s giant Synfuels project that was going to convert coal into oil, until oil prices fell and the project imploded, but not before billions of tax dollars were poured into that rat hole.

How Simulating!

If you listen to Joe Biden, the stimulus plan is working better than expected.  But let’s take a closer look.  As of about three weeks ago only $120 billion of the stimulus money had been spent. (So why is Congress looking at another stimulus with over $600 billion left to spend in the first one?)  Of that money, 80% went to the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor.  What about all the “shovel ready” projects?  Only about $4 billion has gone to the Department of Transportation.  Feel better?

Jobs Summit Attendees

So who is meeting with President Obama at the jobs summit?  Well first let’s look at who was not invited:

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce — they have butted heads with Obama over health care and climate change policies
• National Federation of Independent Businesses

I don’t know about you, but I think they might have an idea or two about how to create conditions that let the free market create jobs.  As for the attendees:

• Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officer
• President of the American Federation of Teachers — a union of workers in a government run monopoly
• United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
• CEOs of some Fortune 500 companies

How many jobs do unions create, not occupy, create?  Think of the auto industry, steel industry, public K-12 education, the Postal Service, and government in general.  Do they bring images of thriving, vibrant, engines of job creation?  Or is the image more of the basket cases of the U.S. economy?  This is not a slight against the union workers themselves, but rather of their leadership who create so many restrictions on job rules to artificially create the need for more jobs.  There motto is: why have three people do the work, when you have five do it?

As far as big business is concerned, let me dispel the thought that conservatives and big business go hand in hand.  In many cases big business looks to cut deals with the government to protect their industries and markets from upstart companies.  They have gotten big and lethargic, rather than nimble and vibrant.  Small businesses create about 80% of the jobs in the U.S. and they didn’t have a seat at the table.

So was the jobs summit about creating jobs or just jive talk?  If you want a real jobs summit see what American Solutions was hosting in Cincinnati, Ohio and Jackson, Mississippi.  They actually discussed ideas that would work.