Friday, September 30, 2011

Gingrich Lays Out His Plan For America-- New Contract or Same Old Thing?

 Newt Gingrich has laid out his plan for American Recovery which he calls New Contract with America after watching Herman Cain surge in the polls and win the Straw poll after he put forth his plan in Florida last week. Here is an overview of his plan. How does it compare to Cain's and others?  Is it a New contract or just merely a rerun of his Old contract?
I have attempted to shorten the reading as much as possible and still keep the context of his plan.
While it is lengthy it is an opportunity to become informed on the issues that this candidate sees as important for the country.
It is vital to be informed in order to make the decision on who will lead this country in 2012 and for the next four years following.  



                                              Gingrich's Contract With America


 1.
Repeal Obamacare and pass a replacement that saves lives and money by
empowering patients and doctors, not bureaucrats and politicians.
 If the federal government can coerce individuals—by threat
of fines—to buy health insurance, there is no stopping the federal government from
forcing Americans to buy any good or service.
We must either limit government or we will have government limit us.

Replacement legislation must include provisions to make health insurance more affordable
and portable by allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines.
It must increase price competition in healthcare. It must improve patient safety and decrease
overhead costs by digitizing all medical records, and it must introduce lawsuit reform to stop the
frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of Medicine.
The federal tax code should provide the same tax relief for the individual
buying his own insurance as the employer providing health insurance to its employees.Return to robust job creation with a bold set of tax cuts and regulatory reforms
that will free American entrepreneurs to invest and hire, as well as by reforming
the Federal Reserve and creating a training requirement for extended federal
unemployment benefits to encourage work and improve the quality of our
Workforce.

2. JOBS AND PROSPERITY PLAN: LOWERING TAXES
First, I pledge to veto any tax increase. American families and businesses deserve
certainty and predictability, and I will work to make permanent all current rates of
taxation that would otherwise increase automatically in 2013.

JOBS AND PROSPERITY PLAN: TAX SIMPLIFICATION WITH AN
OPTIONAL FLAT TAX
My legislation will also include an optional flat tax. All tax filers would be given the
option to pay their income taxes subject to current income tax provisions or to pay under
a lower single rate of taxation with limited deductions.
Such an optional flat tax system would create a new standard deduction, which would be
above the established poverty level, meaning an optional flat tax would not unfairly target
the poor.
An optional flat tax would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. And if a person had
twice as much income as another, he or she would be taxed twice as much. Furthermore,
a single rate tax structure would eliminate taxes on savings, capital gains, and dividends.
Saving would increase and businesses would expand to create new jobs.

JOBS AND PROSPERITY PLAN: FEWER AND SMARTER REGULATIONS
To empower job-creators, we must get rid of regulations that prevent them from growing
and hiring.
My Jobs and Prosperity package would repeal the Dodd-Frank legislation, a 2,300-
page law passed in 2010 that mandates 400 new regulations written by unelected
bureaucrats.
Repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which has crippled American start-ups with
burdensome compliance costs, driven publicly-traded companies private, and forced
American companies overseas.
Replace the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which is harassing job
creators.
JOBS AND PROSPERITY PLAN: REFORMING THE FEDERAL RESERVE
I will also include in jobs and prosperity legislation provisions to reform the Federal
Reserve. They will include a full-scale audit of Federal Reserve activities as well as a
narrowing of the Fed’s statutory mandate.

JOBS AND PROSPERITY PLAN: REFORMING THE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION SYSTEM
The best way to repair our broken unemployment compensation system is to make the
problem of perennially high unemployment obsolete through robust economic growth.
It is fundamentally wrong to give people money for 99 weeks for doing nothing. That's
why we undertook and passed welfare reform when I was Speaker. It is also why I will
introduce a training requirement for extended federal unemployment benefits.
This program should be delegated to the 50 states so each can experiment with the best
way to use unemployment compensation as a job training program.
I look forward to learning more about the most innovative state-level job-training
programs, such as Georgia Works and Texas Back to Work...

3. Unleash America’s full energy production potential in oil, natural gas, coal,
biofuels, wind, nuclear oil shale and more, creating jobs, stimulating a
sustainable manufacturing boom, lowering gasoline and other energy prices,
increasing government revenues, strengthening the dollar, and bolstering
national security.
It is time to harness the immense natural energy resources our country has, get Americans
back to work, and lower gas, diesel, and other energy prices for every American.
My administration will pursue an “all of the above” American Energy Policy that allows
expanded development of oil, natural gas, coal, biofuels, wind, and nuclear sources of
energy.
As President, I will immediately reset our energy policy by removing bureaucratic and
legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States.

We must also replace the EPA, which pursues an anti-jobs agenda the economy simply
cannot sustain. A pro-growth Environmental Solutions Agency will in its place balance
environmental issues with economic realities and will focus on incentives for new
solutions, research, and technologies, and pursue a cooperative approach with local
communities.

4. Save Medicare and Social Security by giving Americans more choices and tools
to live longer, healthier lives with greater financial independence.
 ...we need to think outside the box with fundamental, structural reforms that would
transform and modernize these two programs, changing how they work to achieve their
goals. Any American who wants to enter or remain in the existing Medicare and Social
Security programs will be able to do so, but we will also introduce optional alternatives
that give Americans more control over their health and retirement.
Any American who wants to enjoy the existing Medicare and Social Security systems
will be able to do so. At the same time, this legislation will provide Americans with new
options. It will offer voluntary market-oriented alternatives that allow Americans to take
more control of their own retirement planning.
As more Americans move voluntarily onto the new market-oriented systems, costs will
naturally decline.
Medicare
First, stop paying the crooks. An estimated $70 to $120 billion a year is paid to crooks by
Medicare and Medicaid.
My proposed legislation will offer seniors new choices in Medicare, as well. It will give
them the option to choose, on a voluntary basis, either to remain on the existing program,
or to transition to a more personalized system in the private sector with greater options
for better care. If they select the personalized system, beneficiaries would receive support
to cover their private sector premiums
. Giving all seniors the option to choose their
insurance provider will improve price competition and help lower costs for the program.

5. Pass a balanced budget amendment
... each agency has to find better ways to do things and more innovative ways to get things done.

... to reducing the deficit ... empower job-creators to hire millions more
Americans by dramatically reducing tax and regulatory burdens, and a program to
unleash our bountiful untapped sources of American energy. By creating more wealth
and more taxpayers, and by developing billions of dollars worth of new American energy
resources, we will dramatically increase federal, state and local revenues and decrease
budget deficits.
More revenue can also come through American energy development and through better
development of federally owned land including the 69% of Alaska and 85% of Nevada
We can have higher revenues without having higher taxes.
That is why this legislation will strive above all to corral the reckless
growth of federal spending.
... legislation must dramatically overhaul the entire structure of the federal civil service,

6. Control the border by January 1, 2014 and establish English as the official
language of government; reform the legal visa system, and make it much easier
to deport criminals and gang members while making it easier for law abiding
visitors to come to the US.
This bill will waive every obstacle to controlling the border and would shift resources to
achieve virtually 100% control by January 1, 2014. If necessary, we would move one-half
of the 23,000 Washington-area Department of Homeland Security bureaucrats to the
Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona borders.
We want the best legal students in our universities and colleges, and then staying to
create American jobs.
We want legal businessmen and businesswomen visiting the United States easily and
comfortably so they can do more business in the United States and create more American
jobs.
We want potential investors and entrepreneurs to visit America easily so they can create
American jobs.
Finally, we want family members to find it easy to visit legally for holidays and family
events to strengthen the human bonds that we Americans cherish.

7.Revitalize our national security system to meet 21st century threats by
restructuring and adequately funding our security agencies to function within a
grand strategy for victory over those who seek to kill us or to limit American
freedom.
The next Administration and Congress must decisively address the following realities:
1. There are very, very different challenges emerging simultaneously and each
requires a fundamentally different strategic response;
2. The bureaucracies of national and homeland security, intelligence, diplomacy
and space activities are all decaying in their effective implementation
capability and are wrapped up in red tape and inefficiency;
3. Our military infrastructure has become dangerously outdated, with our arsenal
and equipment in urgent need of new investment;
4. There are new emerging technologies endangering us – for example,
electromagnetic pulse weapons, cyberwar, and lawfare, which we are not
prepared to deal with;
5. American leaders are tired after seven decades of being the world’s
preeminent power, and are very resistant to putting in the time and energy it
will take to understand the emerging threats and the necessary responses.

8. 
Maximize the speed and impact of medical breakthroughs by removing
unnecessary obstacles that block new treatments from reaching patients and
emphasizing research spending toward urgent national priorities, like brain
science with its impact on Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, mental health and
other conditions that knowledge of the brain will help solve.
A key first step is to transform the Food and Drug Administration to allow these
breakthroughs to proceed rapidly.


9. Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated
powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace
judges who violate the Constitution.
.The time has come to reestablish a balance among the three branches of government
according to the Constitution.

10.  Enforce the Tenth Amendment by starting an orderly transfer of power and
responsibility from the federal government back “to the states, respectively, or
to the people,” as the Constitution requires.

Read HERE the entire text of  the plan or you can copy and paste this link . The original is offered in the PDF format  which you find to the right of the document.

 http://www.desmoinesregister.com/section/documentcloud&dckeyword=253688-gingrich-contract-with-america_digest

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Newt vs Cain--- Is Newt merely copying Cain?

Newt Gingrich is planning to unveil his plan for America and how to get the country out of the mess. It is scheduled later this week or maybe early next week.  After last weeks showing by Herman Cain where he had an opportunity to actually lay out a lot of his plan and his sudden surge one has to wonder if Newt is merely copying Cain.

In the last week, Gingrich has said his new contract will be an evolving document that will be formed by his ideas and those of voters. So it appears that Cain's no nonsense, common sense campaign has gotten the attention to at least one of the candidates.

Gingrich, in a recent event  said that he has been  asking voters to be "with him" and not just "for him."  Gingrich said that if people were just for him, then they would just vote for him, go home, and expect him to clean up the country's mess.  Instead, Gingrich asked the audience to be with him not just through November, but for eight years after that to help return power back to the citizen from czars and bureaucrats in a big government run amok.

In this Gingrich is a day late and a dollar short and is just taking up  the idea's that Herman Cain's as expressed all along.

He also talked about replacing the Environmental Protection Agency​ with something that works better.  Hmm I believe he got that from Herman Cain in the Florida  debate of last Thursday so lets move on.

He said that because liberals hate vouchers but love Pell Grants, he wanted to give Pell Grants for K-12, so that schools would have to pay attention to parents and not to the federal Department of Education.

Now that dog won't hunt Newt, but it makes for good sound bites. Herman Cain says we need to get the Feds out of Education and the Parents in.

Calling on his history background he made reference to Abraham Lincoln's comments after the Dred Scott decision, in which Lincoln said that it should not be possible for nine appointed people to dictate to all Americans. Based on that thought by Gingrich threatened to abolish the courts run by liberal activist judges.

Now that is another good sound bite but anyone who reads the Constitution knows that the POTUS can not abolish courts or Obama would have already done so.
 
Gingrich claims that his contract will be different from the 1994 contract because, after watching things like the stimulus bill and ObamaCare being passed in Congress, he decided the new contract would be more "directional" and out in the open, something that would allow for regular hearings before legislation is written "the old-fashioned way."

Yet another Herman Cain idea. Looks as if Cain is getting a lot of folks off center and into thinking a little bit.  It also raises the question of why all this "old fashion way" of doing things didn't happen when he was Speaker and the GOP controlled both houses?

According to Gingrich, Americans have "to believe in our system of representative government," which cannot happen if legislation is written by staffers prone to be influenced by lobbyists.

Well Newt, good luck in getting rid of lobbyist or staffers. There are laws that limit lobbyist  gift giving and they were on the books back when you and the Republicans had a new "Contract with American" so how come you didn't enforce them then?    Nice try Newt but yet just another sound bite that plays well with the uninformed.

Gingrich has attempted to differentiate himself from some of his contenders.  He jabbed Gov. Rick Perry's Texas DREAM Act, which gave instate tuition rates to illegal immigrants, by joking about how, if citizens want cheaper tuition, they should attempt to cross the border, come back, and declare themselves noncitizens.

Now if Newt had really wanted to be different he could have said, Well Gov Perry what works for your state is all well and good but most folks are not convinced that it is good for the entire country. He could  have also added that according the the Tenth Amendment States have the right to pass such laws, but not the Feds.  That would have been different and educational at the same time and might have stopped the peeing match on the subject between Bachmann, Santorum ,Romney and Perry.

 
He also praised the spirit of the FairTax, but said he would be leery of the federal government imposing a national sales tax and an income tax because it would give Congress two methods in which to further tax Americans.

Here I can agree because I see it in a similar manner. The Flat Tax with the loopholes closed is a much more fair tax. I can't agree with Cain on the VAT tax which is exactly what the last 9 in his plan is, a consumer tax that will further kill the housing market and other high end purchases such as automobiles who are already suffering.  He needs to take another look at his 999 plan before it becomes his 666 plan with the Left and that is exactly what they will do if he does not reconsider at least parts of the 999. The first 9 is ok in that it lowers Corporate taxes but If I were Newt and wanted to make a real difference, I would go a step further and take it to zero for those companies who return their plants to the US and then gradually increase it back to 9 % over time. I would also increase it to fifty percent on those who didn't comply and add a large import tax on their goods. Now that would get some attention. 


Gingrich also spoke about why America is exceptional.  He said he has been shaped by Gettysburg, Valley Forge, and the events leading up to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Gingrich can talk about his being shaped by all the events above but Cain can say that America is exceptional with impunity because as a Black youth growing up in the south in the sixties and rising above all expectations  he has not only been shaped by such but has lived it. Now that is true American Exceptionalism.

So is Newt finally waking up or merely copying Cain?

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Cain, Mr. President, You're Wrong--It's Not His First Time

On Monday, the 26th I blogged on Cain in Herman Cain's Sudden Surge-- Reality or a Flash In The Pan.

 

I spoke  to the fact that Cain was a man not afraid of telling it like it is and went on to talk about his calling Obama a liar.

 

This is not the first time Cain has taken on a sitting President and told him he was wrong, i.e. lying.  He did it with Clinton some 17 or 18 years ago when Clinton was trying to sell Hillarycare.  Here is part of the story as written by David Weigel of the Slate:

Cain got a question in. He'd been a turnaround artist at Pillsbury, working with Burger King, and in 1986 he'd been put in command of the failing Godfather's Pizza franchise. He saved it with triage, closing 250 of around 800 restaurants, before leading an investor group that bought the franchise and put him in charge. By the time he met Clinton, he had been elected president of the National Restaurant Association. This explained some of his confidence as he lit into his president.


"On behalf of all of those business owners that are in a situation similar to mine," asked Cain, "my question is, quite simply, if I'm forced to do this what will I tell those people whose jobs I will have to eliminate?"


"Well, wait a minute," said Clinton, attempting a charm offensive. "Let's ask—let's talk a minute about what you would have to do." The employer mandate would add only 2 percent to Cain's costs, Clinton argued, and Cain could just charge more for pizza.
Advertisement
"I'm a satisfied customer, I'd keep buying from you."


"Mr. President," said Cain, "with all due respect, your calculation on what the impact would do, quite honestly, is incorrect."

Now, is it time for Cain to address Obama on his ObamaNOCare bill which is certainly going to come up before the Supreme Court prior to the 2012 elections? Continue on attacking his jobs bill?  His energy fiasco?

I am not so sure that Cain would be so "gentle " with Obama even though he has the tact to call a President a liar in so many words, smile and get away with it. 

What do you think?


Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Christie Say's NO!

Chris Christie say's NO to the call of RUN CHRIS RUN. 

Who will it help? Who will it hurt? Or does it really matter?

Monday, September 26, 2011

On Herman Cain's Sudden Surge-- Reality or a Flash In The Pan

I have to admit. I had about given up on Cain . He had not appeared to have done well in debates.  He had given no major speech in which he actually said something that showed some real guts and ability to take on Obama one on one. The debate on Thursday night showed a different Cain. The speech on Saturday showed a man not afraid of telling it like it is.  He had his "Joe Wilson" (its a lie) moment both in his speech and in an interview given to the Ticket. 


When asked about Obama's so called Economic Plan , Cain had this to say:“Can I be blunt? That’s a lie,” Cain said, before the sound of his voice began to rise noticeably higher. “You’re not supposed to call the president a liar. Well if you’re not supposed to call the president a liar, he shouldn’t tell a lie. If it’s not class warfare, it’s highway robbery. He wants us to believe it’s not class warfare, oh okay, it’s not class warfare. Pick my pockets, because that’s what he’s doing!”



Hmm, now I suppose the Left will be calling Cain a racist.



Cain continued:
“I have to tell people because I get so worked up . . . . I’m listening to all this bullshit that he’s talking about, ‘fairness’ and ‘balanced approach’ to get this economy going.”
In his speech he explained how he would handle the situation using his 9-9-9 plan.

It would replace the current tax code with three flat, nine-percent federal taxes on income, consumption and business.

I have a little problem with this plan especially the consumption tax. It sounds too much like a VAT plan, Value Added Tax Plan which is found in many European countries. Here is an example of such a plan and what perhaps Cain's 999 plan entails in his tax on consumption. VAT is basically a consumption tax or a Federal sales tax depending on who is naming it.  I have already questioned the Fair Tax, which is similar, and how it would effect the already struggling housing market by placing a tax on home purchases. Under the 999 plan that would add $ 18,000 UPFRONT to a  $200K home purchase.
It would add $1800 up front to the purchase of a $20K automobile.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense that you would want to add a tax on to an already struggling economy.



On a lesser expensive item but yet one has to add this to ALL purchases it works like this.

Pretend you want to buy a pen for $1.50 in both the United States and Germany.  The US has a 10% sales tax and Germany has a 10% VAT.
In the US, the transaction would look like this:
The manufacturer pays $1.00 for the raw materials, certifying it is not a final consumer.
The manufacturer charges the retailer $1.20, checking that the retailer is not a consumer, leaving the same profit of $0.20.
The retailer charges the consumer $1.65 ($1.50 + $1.50×10%) and pays the government $0.15, leaving the same profit of $0.30.
Total revenue to US government is $0.15.



In Germany, the transaction goes as follows:
The manufacturer pays $1.10 ($1 + $1×10%) for the raw materials, and the seller of the raw materials pays the government $0.10.
The manufacturer charges the retailer $1.32 ($1.20 + $1.20×10%) and pays the Government $0.02 ($0.12 minus $0.10), leaving the same profit of $0.20.
The retailer charges the consumer $1.65 ($1.50 + $1.50×10%) and pays the government $0.03 ($0.15 minus $0.12), leaving the profit of $0.30 (1.65-1.32-.03).
Total revenue to German government is $0.15.

In both cases the final consumer pays the same price of $1.65 and the government collects their cut of $0.15

He spoke about the "crisis" mentality in America and came down hard on both Republicans and Democrats for not first recognizing the problem for what it is and solving it instead of trying to solve a multitude of problems within the main problem and not having a clear solution for anything.  At least that is my take on what he was saying.

His continued message since declaring his candidacy has been:
"We have an economic crisis. We've got an energy crisis. We've got an immigration crisis. We've got a foggy, foreign policy crisis. We've got a national security crisis. We've got a moral crisis. And the worst crisis we have is a severe deficiency of leadership crisis."
On that he is totally correct and many other crisis have been manufactured by this administration.  Remember "Never let a good crisis go to waste?" It is clear that this administration is taking advanatage of these crisis for political gain and Herman Cain recognizes this and calls it like it is.

His fiery speech in Flordia and his performance in the debate gave him a victory in the Straw Poll which was a much needed boost for Cain if he is to continue in the race for the Republican nomination. Whether he can achieve this remains to be seen.

His direct answers in the debate showed that he is more interested in the country and getting his message of how he would solve the crisis to the voters than a oneupmanship on the other candidates. Not once did I hear him say, "let me address what so and so said first." He answer his questions in a straightforward manner and I found it refreshing.

This is the first debate in which all the candidates have been given a question to answer directly and IMO all the others failed when they went off track to attack or put their own agenda in the forefront instead of just answering the question presented.

If you noted , few of the candidates had any rebuttal to Cain's answers. Something that slipped by the panel and the talking heads afterward.

Will this give Cain the needed boost to obtain the nomination or is it just a flash in the pan?


 

Sunday, September 25, 2011

And The Beat (ing) Goes On Part 34-- More of Obama's Solar Pay to Play Schemes

I found this on Townhall  Finance.com. It is very interesting to say the least and shows yet another of Obama's Pay to Play schemes.  The name of the company Abound Solar . Another company that so far has not lived up to it's promises but sure has  racked up a ton of Taxpayer money both at Federal and State level. Read the entire article. It gets very interesting and a lot of names are included, all of which are on the Obama bandwagon of corruption. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 By now it’s obvious that the Solyndra scandal never should have happened.  It’s not even a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. A number of people involved could see the disaster coming.
There is a larger principle here. Government should not use taxpayer money to socialize risk while privatizing profits. Examples such as Colorado-based Abound Solar, which received a $400 million loan guarantee, prove that crony capitalism simply rewards the well connected at taxpayer expense.
Abound Solar
Abound Solar, according to its Web site, “produces next-generation thin-film cadmium telluride solar modules” and “is committed to reducing the cost of solar electricity to levels competitive with fossil fuels.”
It is the brainchild of former Colorado State University (CSU) Professor W.S. Sampath and two former students Kurt Barth and Al Enzenroth.  It began as AVA Solar and then incorporated into Abound in 2007.
The Web site says it employs 350 people in three Colorado locations.  Its Colorado manufacturing plant is located in Weld County, which granted Abound up to $100,000 per year for the next ten years in business property tax rebates.  According to sources, the reason for the rebate was job creation intended to benefit Weld County residents. Yet when officials and interested parties ask how many of the 350 jobs have gone to Weld County residents, the solar company does not answer.
Currently Abound has a manufacturing capacity of 65 megawatts expanding to 850 megawatts – at some point. However, in 2010 it manufactured only 30 megawatts. One wonders, if Abound can produce more, why doesn’t it?
The Web site does say it is “growing,” and news reports claim the company plans to add anywhere from 850 to 1,000 employees thanks to a $400 million taxpayer-guaranteed loan Abound received in July 2010.  The taxpayer cash is so it can expand its manufacturing capabilities to a facility in Tipton, Indiana. The Indiana Economic Development Corporation “extended up to $11.85 million in tax credits and $250,000 in training grants” as well.
Abound Solar further claims $260 million in private investments, part of which came from billionaire medical heiress Pat Stryker’s Bohemian Companies.  This is where the story gets interesting.


hanks to Independence Institute investigative reporter Todd Shepherd, we still have access to the Web page that lists Bohemian as an investor even though it does not appear on the company’s current Web site. The exact amount that Stryker has given is not public at this time. Also, CSU and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are listed as funding resources.
Total public and private monies equal $673,100,000. Assuming Abound can “create” some 1,350 jobs, that is $498,593 per job, of which $360,000 comes from public coffers.
However, Abound’s Indiana manufacturing facility is not scheduled to open until 2013 or 2014, which seems like a long time to wait to “create” jobs and turn a profit.
As a comparison, the Denver Bronco’s stadium cost $364 million to build of which 68 percent was publicly financed.  With a yes vote from taxpayers in November 1998, construction began in August 1999 and was completed in September 2001. 
This is not an endorsement of publicly funded professional sports facilities but rather an assumption that the Broncos management didn’t want a disruption in cash flow that could come from the inconvenience of a lengthy construction project.
I asked Abound if the company is still on track for a 2013 expansion and received no response. For most companies, time means money except in solar panels.
Pat Stryker
Forbes lists medical heiress and founder of Bohemian Companies/Foundation Pat Stryker as number 331 of its top “400 Richest People in America.” Worth $1.3 billion, the Fort Collins resident could single-handedly fund Abound Solar and still be well above the poverty line.
While some of her fortune has gone to Abound Solar, she also has chosen to donate more than $2.2 million (probably a low figure) to Democrats and their causes over the last several election cycles. Beneficiaries include Barack Obama, one-term Congresswoman and Fort Collins resident Betsy Markey, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar when he successfully ran for U.S. Senate in Colorado.
Stryker is also a charter member of the notorious “gang of four” which changed the political landscape in Colorado through an organization called the Colorado Democracy Alliance (CoDA).  Their success was titled the “Colorado Miracle” and is being replicated in other states.
Congresswoman Betsy Markey
With the help from Stryker in 2008, Markey beat incumbent republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado’s conservative 4th Congressional District.  Abound Solar, Pat Stryker, and Colorado State University are all in the 4th CD. Between 2008 and 2010 election cycles, CSU employees also donated nearly $27,000 to Markey’s campaigns.
When the Waxman-Markey (named for Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey) cap and trade bill, which included a national renewable energy standard, came up for a vote, Congresswoman Markey danced around the issue for weeks because it wasn’t a popular bill in the 4th CD. Ultimately she voted “yes.” 
In an interview on my radio show following the vote, Markey cited “green jobs” as one of her reasons.  What she didn’t cite was her relationship to Pat Stryker and Abound Solar or the $2,000 campaign contribution she received from Henry Waxman the night before the vote.
Shortly after the vote, Abound Solar was part of a group that helped pay for TV ads thanking Markey for saying yes to Waxman’s bill. Todd Shepherd exposed the politically incestuous relationship and suggested:
“[T]he connections between Representative Betsy Markey (D, CO-4), billionaire heiress Pat Stryker, and Abound Solar, appear to have all of the fingerprints of the kind of pay-to-play agenda that has left many Americans wondering how they got stuck with unpopular bills such as cap and trade, formally known as Waxman-Markey (named after a different Markey)
Markey also urged the approval of Abound’s $400 million taxpayer-guaranteed loan. The Denver Business Journal reported, “Abound applied for the loan guarantee more than a year ago, and Markey and other members of Colorado's congressional delegation pushed for approval.”
Colorado State University
Located in Fort Collins, Colorado, CSU fancies itself the “green” university:
“Colorado State University is internationally known for its green initiatives and clean-energy research including alternative fuels, clean engines, photovoltaics, "smart" grid technology, wind engineering, water resources, and satellite-based atmospheric monitoring and tracking systems. It's also known as a "green" university for its sustainability efforts on campus and abroad.
Abound Solar founders got their start at CSU as the university bragged in a 2007 press release.
Stryker also has a connection to CSU, having donated millions the university.  Furthermore, former CSU president Al Yates became Stryker’s mouthpiece and representative on CoDA. The Blueprint, a must-read book from Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer, details the Yates-Stryker relationship along with how democrats won control in Colorado.
Finally, CSU is home to the Center for the New Energy Economy headed by former
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, a renewable energy activist, and funded by private donations, a third of which came from Stryker’s Bohemian Foundation. Ritter now makes $300,000 to promote renewable energy throughout the country.
Governor Bill Ritter
With the help of CoDA and Pat Stryker, Democrat Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter won the 2006 Governor’s race. His one term legacy is the state’s New Energy Economy, 57 pieces of legislation to move the state from reliance on less costly on fossil fuels to renewables. Ritter is a true believer, an eco-evangelical, who signed laws mandating 30 percent renewable energy standards and fuel switching.
In April 2009, Governor Ritter hand-delivered two letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu who was touring NREL. One letter urged the Department of Energy to grant a $300 million taxpayer-guaranteed loan to Abound Solar:
“This request for $300 million would allow [Abound Solar] to triple production capacity within 12 months, develop a second manufacturing facility within 18 months and hire an additional 1,000 employees.
Abound received $400 million in July 2010. By all accounts, the solar panel company will not meet Ritter’s original promise of triple capacity in a year and a new facility within 18 months. Just won’t happen that fast.
When Ritter left office in January 2011, he became the Director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at CSU and one of the highest paid administrators on campus, thanks to Stryker.
President Barack Obama
President Obama received $11,700 directly from Stryker and Joseph Zimlich, who is a director at Abound Solar and is also associated with Stryker’s Bohemian Foundation. No doubt Obama benefitted as well from Stryker’s donations to other democrat causes including Campaign Money Watch and Democrat White House Victory Fund.
In Obama’s weekly radio address on July 3, 2010, he announced an acceleration of “the transition to a clean energy economy and doubling our use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power – steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America.”
He said that Abound Sola:
“will manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs.  A Colorado plant is already underway, and an Indiana plant will be built in what’s now an empty Chrysler factory.  When fully operational, these plants will produce millions of state-of-the-art solar panels each year."
That radio address was the formal announcement that Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Taxpayers get the risk while individuals get the profit.
To recap, Abound Solar receives support from Pat Stryker and Colorado State University both of which fund and promote Congresswoman Betsy Markey. She in turn votes yes on Cap and Trade and urges the federal government to approve the Abound loan.
Abound Solar then contributes to TV ads thanking Markey for her yes vote on Cap and Trade.
Governor Bill Ritter hand delivers letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu urging the DOE to grant the loan guarantee.  When he decides not to run for a second term, he is offered a job at CSU, which is funded in part by Pat Stryker.
President Barack Obama benefitted from Pat Stryker’s political donations.  In July 2010, he announces a $400 million loan guarantee to Abound.
Can’t get a $400 million loan? Apparently you don’t know and fund the right people.
Amy Oliver Cooke is the director of the Colorado Transparency Project for the Independence Institute and writes on energy policy.  She can be reached at amy@i2i.org

Sunday Morning Music Time




 This is an oldie but a goodie. Hope you enjoy.

Blackwood Brothers with JD Sumner - Somebody Loves Me


Just a reminder that yes, there is somebody that loves you.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

And The Beat (ing) Goes On Part 33-- Obama's Jobs Bill and the 11th Amendment


 This was posted on Maggies Notebook blog this AM.


Folks , you had better read this and take action before this travesty has a chance to pass. Remember this  is election season and $$$$$ overrule common sense.  


Obama Jobs Bill and Eleventh Amendment: State Sovereignty Extinguished




The Obama Jobs legislation took care to add a complete section waiving State’s “sovereign immunity.” It involves anything the Feds might be involved in, in creating jobs within any state, and specifically if the State takes Federal monies. I don’t know how Federal assistance might be construed, outside this particular bill, but I bet it creeps into areas we can’t imagine. The video below is the best you will likely ever find on our system of government, as set-up by our Founders. Call your Governor’s office, please, about Section 376 of the Obama Jobs legislation, and show the video to your children and your Liberal friends.

Section 376 of Obama’s tax and spend “jobs” bill ends state sovereignty, turns our Republic into a dictatorship and destroys the foundation upon which our country was built. The fundamental transformation of America is almost complete.

READ THE REST OF THE STORY HERE.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Saving Social Security--Part II


We are not going to save Social Security by continuing the same games and expenditures as have been and are currently going on.  There are more questions at the moment than there are answers as to how to save Social Security. In this post we will attempt to offer some solutions to this massive problem.
Some of the candidates for POTUS have recently or in times past called  Social Security a Ponzi scheme and in many ways it is the truth. 

Charles Krauthammer, one of the most intelligent men of recent times had this to say about Social Security.


"Even a mandatory Ponzi scheme like Social Security can fail if it cannot rustle up enough new entrants. You can force young people into Social Security, but if there just aren't enough young people in existence to support current beneficiaries, the system will collapse anyway. When Social Security began making monthly distributions in 1940, there were 160 workers for every senior receiving benefits. In 1950, there were 16.5; today, three; in 20 years, there will be but two. Now, the average senior receives in Social Security about a third of what the average worker makes. Applying that ratio retroactively, this means that in 1940, the average worker had to pay only 0.2 percent of his salary to sustain the older folks of his time; in 1950, 2 percent; today, 11 percent; in 20 years, 17 percent. This is a staggering sum, considering that it is apart from all the other taxes he pays to sustain other functions of government, such as Medicare whose costs are exploding. The Treasury already steps in and borrows the money required to cover the gap between what workers pay into Social Security and what seniors take out. When young people were plentiful, Social Security produced a surplus. Starting now and for decades to come, it will add to the deficit, increasingly so as the population ages. Demography is destiny."


Last post it was shown how the Treasury borrows or steals as some say, and then repays in IOU’s which are basically worthless since they too are already spent before they are deposited in the piggy bank. With fewer workers making few contributions there will be less to "steal" and no way to repay what has been taken even with worthless IOU's which will be worth less. Of course the current administration seems to believe that printing more money will solve that problem along with raising taxes while cutting the very tax that funds Social Security.  It is delusional to think that a program can continue to exist when being operated in such a manner.

So what is the answer? Could it be privatization of the program?  Of course the Liberals scream that the Right wants to take away Social Security and throw all the old people under the bus even at the mention of privatization or even changes to the system. They fear change much less privatization because both would lock the door on the safety deposit box and stop their incessant robbery of the funds to spend on useless programs and failed programs instituted under LBJ in his failed War on Poverty and under Obama and his failed Stimulus program and worthless ObamaNOcare plan.

Privatization or partial privatization works and no one gets thrown under the bus. In this post it will be shown how this can be done and has been done and debunk the lie of the Left that Seniors will be hurt, left in the cold and grandma thrown under the bus.

There are three pillars that must be used to insure a sustainable program.

1.     A safety net consisting of means –tested Government age pension system. (We have age pension system but as of yet no real means-test system but for now let us assume that we do.)
2.     Private savings generated through compulsory contributions to a upscale or super type system. Currently compulsory contributions are required by Social Security system but one could hardly consider them savings since they are immediately “stolen” by the treasury.  In this system the employee would contribute a set percentage of their income through their employer to a private savings plan.
3.     Voluntary savings through this upscale or super type system.  Employees would be allowed to contribute to this plan outside of the compulsory contributions.



The safety net, while workers would be responsible for savings for their own retirement, would remain in place  to ensure that no one would be worse off under privatization. In effect, every retiree would be guaranteed an age pension equal to 25 percent of the average workers wage.
The means testing, which is currently being looked at by both sides of the aisle would guarantee that most future seniors would get a full age pension depending on the date such a program is passed.  The means testing would not effect those who are of retirement age or nearing retirement age currently. More in depth look at this in future discussions.

What about employer’s contributions?  Employers would contribute a modest 9% of an employees ordinary time earnings. It would not be paid on overtime, bonuses, commissions above salary, or shift differentials.
The employers would be required to make the contributions to the upscale or super system at least every three months.  These contributions are invested over the period of the employees’ working life and the sum of the compulsory and voluntary contributions, plus earning, less taxes and fees is paid to the person when they choose to retire.  The sum most people receive is predominately made up of compulsory employer contributions.

When could one access their funds?:   Since this fund would be money invested for one’s retirement, strict governmental rules would have to be in place to prevent early access to preserve benefits except in very limited and restricted circumstances, including severe financial hardship or on compassionate ground such as medical treatment not available through Medicare.


What do workers contribute to the plan?  Workers contribute a minimum of 9% of their income. This is compulsory and they may make other voluntary contributions, which will be discussed at a later date.   Some of the benefits which will be discussed more in depth next time are: The mandatory savings could be augmented by tax favored voluntary contributions. By doing so the employee would have accumulated a much large nest egg from which to draw a secure and comfortable yearly income plus the safety net guarantees that all retirees will receive an income that at least matches the income they would have received under the original Social Security plan.

The compulsory system would turn America into a “shareholder” society even under modest economic growth. Under a buoyant economy more workers would become more involved in the voluntary system and take much more interest in their future.
Those making under a certain monthly wage, say $450 to $600 per month, those under 18 and those over age 70 would not fall under the upscale or super version of the savings guarantee plan. That eliminates the argument that such a program would hurt the young who must or desire to take part time work. It also does not inhibit those over the retirement age from working if they so desire and being penalized as they currently are if they make over a certain amount of income.

Individuals  can choose to make voluntary contributions to the fund and receive tax benefits for doing so.


Next: What are the benefits of such a plan.  

And The Beat (ing) Goes On Part 32-- Obama Described?

 A TRUTHFUL DESCRIPTION
















Believing that you're better than others


Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness


Exaggerating your achievements or talents


Expecting constant praise and admiration


Believing that you're special and acting accordingly


Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings


Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans


Taking advantage of others


Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior


Being jealous of others


Believing that others are jealous of you


Setting unrealistic goals


Having a fragile self-esteem


Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional



 Pretty much describes the "Pretender in Chief"

I am sure that each of you can remember a circumstance or a time when one or more of the above descriptive sentences would applyYou are welcome to share them.


If you are wondering about the descriptive sentences they are from Mayo Clinic Staff in their description of one who suffers from Narcissist Personality Disorder, a mental disease.

It would appear that we have a person in charge of the country who is suffering from a mental disease. If that is true then why is he still in the White House and not in a treatment facility?

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Sunday Morning Music Time

;


 While this is not a gospel song or story it is indeed a witness that God is present.
Listen to the song as you read along and see the story in his painting unfold.


What endeavor would you undertake knowing full well that the odds are you will fail? What would you give your all to knowing it's likely you will be severely injured or even die trying? What is the greatest possible reward and in that thought, what is the most valuable and priceless thing on earth?



 ======================================================



Paul and Chrissie are a young couple, in their twenties, and have started a new family.

Story as told by Chrissie

I'll never forget that day. My husband Paul didn't even eat breakfast, he was excited and wanted to get to the fire station early. It was his first week on the job. And there at the door, he stood he stood waiting for a hug from Jessie our adorable 3 year old. When Paul told that her he loved her, Jessie's face lit up with a big smile and in her tiny voice she said "Daddy, will you play with me when you get home?"

Paul smiled and said "Of course."


I hated that we both had to work, but I was glad that Jessie could go to Gail's apartment to play her daughter Jen. When we got there Jessie and Jen started playing with dolls right away. And then on my way out the door I heard Jessie tell Jen that her daddy is a fireman. She sounded so proud. I left feeling happy and proud of both Jessie and Paul.


I didn't know that that day would change my life forever.


They tell me that Jessie got up to go to the bathroom. Right after she closed the door there was huge explosion, the entire building shook. Gail said the apartment filled with smoke. Without even thinking Gail grabbed Jen and ran out.


Frantically she found the fire chief and told him that there was another little girl trapped in her apartment. But, the chief told her there was no way he could send anyone into that collapsing old building.


Then Gail heard Paul's voice on the radio saying he was on the second floor.

The chief told Paul to get out... that he had a family to think about, but Paul's voice came back on the radio and said that he wouldn't leave until he knew everyone was safe.


He said he heard there was a little girl trapped in one of the apartments. Little did he know...



The chief was yelling at him: "Are you insane, GET OUT OF THERE before the building collapses", but Paul refused.



When I got there I didn't see Jessie and just went crazy. I was going to go in there and get her myself. The chief had to grab me to stop me.



When he realized who I was he told me Paul was already in there. But when I asked him if they were OK, he just looked at me.


Then I heard Paul's voice on the radio. It was broken up, but I heard him say he it was really bad. He said he was going to try to get the child and make it to a window. He told the chief "You'd better call my wife. Tell Chrissie I love her and tell her to take good care of Jessie, and..." The radio went dead.


I screamed! All I could do was scream. "Paul, its Jessie! IT'S JESSIE! God, he doesn't know!"



The rest of the narrative is not available but the father finds the child and makes his way to a second story window as the roof is collapsing around him. With child in arms he jumps from the window placing the child in a position where upon landing the force will be on him and not on the child. 


All ends well as Father and child are re-united with the Mother safely. 

Friday, September 16, 2011

Saving Social Security Part I: Background

We are not going to save Social Security by continuing the same games and expenditures as have been and are currently going on. 
Cutting Payroll Taxes which Obama intends to extend through his so called Jobs Bill is not the way to keep the ship from sinking.
It is currently sinking fast and by 2012 will be broke but it will continue through borrowing and the percentage of GDP will increase to 6% or more by 2050.

Social Security was suppose to be a simply old age pension fund when first proposed but it has morphed into a monster that if truth were told , is one of the greatest contributors to the deficit. However this is denied and games are played with numbers to hide this fact.

Social Security was suppose to have a Trust Fund which would pay for old age retirement benefits however that Trust Fund doesn't exist except on paper. Why?  Because in 1969, in an agreement between Lyndon Johnson , Richard Nixon and the Congress the Social Security surplus was brought "on budget".  The so called 2,5 trillion dollar Trust Fund has been spend in it's entirety on other government programs.  I would draw you attention to the malise of Title programs instigated under LBJ and each one of them are entitled Title (what ever) of the Social Security Act. Each of them have become a nightmare of bureaucratic red tape , regulations, and wasteful spending.  Title IVA of the SSA is but one example. The same type of "stealing" continues today. (Source SS website, see Agency History)
The problem is because these monies have been spent via the Treasury, they can only be repaid or redeemed by future taxes or future borrowing.

In other words WE THE PEOPLE will pay $5 Trillion in taxes to provide $2.5 trillion in SS benefits that have been "stolen".

WE THE PEOPLE paid once as FICA taxes, to create that $2,5 Trillion surplus and will pay, AGAIN,  a second time, to redeem the funds.

If those funds had not been "stolen" the additional and unnecessary  $2.5 Trillion in taxes could have resulted in $100 Billion a year in tax cuts for 25 years and gone into the hands of WE THE PEOPLE to be spent in our households, college savings, debt reduction, retirement savings, business expansion, capital projects, new jobs etc.  But, that is only a pipe dream as of now.  The current administration and Congress insist on "borrowing" and have no clue as to how these funds will be repaid except by raising taxes over and over again.

The administration adds to the woes by cutting payroll taxes which contributes to SS funds and insists that it helps the economy.  Just more legal stealing.  The payroll taxes collected are to pay for future benefits and so they are handed over to the federal government which spends it. Every time the program runs a cash flow deficit, it redeems some of the trust fund IOU's and then the government has to borrow money which adds to the deficit.  "It is not the fault of SS but in reality the program contributes to the deficit." (Alan Viard) Of course many deny this but the proof is there.

Alan Viard offered this  in his article appearing On the Margin:
In 2009 -2010 Congress enacted four provisions authorizing implicit or explicit transfers of general revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund which only continued the pattern set by earlier provisions.
So it appears that things work both ways when it is convenient for the government  find a way to spend more money.   Social Security taxes collected from '84 to 2014 have been 'stolen'(my words, he uses borrowed) from the program. Current law provides that the surplus taxes will be paid back to SS fourfold enabling the program to pay out $7.3 trillion in benefits in excess of taxes from  2015 to 2037.  Unfortunately as with all things that look too good to be true, there is a catch.
By using general revenue financing it averts SS tax increases and benefit cuts BUT it forces larger tax increases and spending cuts(which we know do not happen) in the remainder of the federal budget. Using the general treasury as a piggy bank for SS distorts the budgetary process by giving the program the best of both worlds. Social Security receives political protection from tax increases and benefit cuts on the grounds that it is a self supporting program financed by earmarked taxes, however it is not required to live within its earmarked revenue.

The provisions mentioned above  by Viard are those from the stimulus bill, e.g. the one time $250 check for SS recipients and the Making Work Pay credits in 09 and 10 which refunded up to $400(single) and $800 (married couples) of employee's payroll taxes. ( a similar deal was put forth in the Jobs Bill  last week) Perhaps the $250 dollar SS check was a benefit for seniors but the other fiasco was nothing more than social engineering through the tax code and not an example of SS "stealing" from the general funds.

The only way, short of privatizing (which I favor and will show why at a later date) to save SS is to make the program a truly self supporting program which would collect taxes and earmark them for benefits only. In other words SS would not turn over it's cash to the Treasury to be spent on boondoogle programs as it has in the past and SS would not be allowed to receive money from the general revenue.  Don't look for liberals to favor either of these suggestions .  Spending money on useless programs (e.g.see war on poverty) is their insurance for future votes as it has always been. 

Next:  How to Save SS part II- Going Private?

Friday, September 9, 2011

And the Beat(ing) Goes On Part 31. How Obama Can Create Jobs and Spur the Economy

If Obama and the Democrats are serious about creating an environment for jobs and reviving the economy they would move in the direction of eliminating regulations as fast as Obama demanded that the Congress do in passing his fiasco of a Jobs Acts when he said, Pass it now! about 18 times.  Of course that would mean losing power in some ways and narcissist never relinquish power voluntarily.  The Republican need to be all over this after all Obama did bring up regulatory reform but anyone knows that the offer was disingenuous.

In a recent report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute they pointed out that the cost of regulatory compliance  stands at $175 Trillion and that doesn't include all the new regulations that will be piled on as Obamacare comes into play unless it is repealed or found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Take a look at some of the  findings:

 The Federal Register stands at an all-time record-high 81,405 pages.
In 2010, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules.

While agencies issued 3,573 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively “few” 217 bills. Considerable lawmaking power is delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies, an abuse addressed recently in proposals such as the REINS Act.(I strongly urge you to read this)

Alarmingly, proposed rules in the Federal Register have surged from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010, a jump of 19.3 percent

Of the 4,225 rules now in the regulatory pipeline, 224 are “economically significant” meaning they wield at least $100 million in economic impact—this is an increase of 22 percent over 2009’s 184 rules.

Given 2010’s government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory “hidden tax” of $1.75 trillion stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.

Regulatory costs exceed all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion.

Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion.

Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent—nearly double the level.

Regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion absorb 11.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), estimated at $14.649 trillion in 2010.

Combining regulatory costs with federal FY 2010 outlays of $3.456 trillion reveals a federal government whose share of the entire economy now reaches 35.5 percent.

Ponder, for a moment that final percentage.  35.5% of what our economy produces now is related to government spending or compliance to a government regulatory regime.


Here’s a thought – if the government wants to spur economic growth, create jobs and, most likely, increase revenue for government, perhaps a serious – and I mean very serious- look ought to be taken (along with action, please) at the mountain of costly regulations now imposed by said government and a majority of them rolled back.  Over 81,000 pages of regulations, and I’m sure some bureaucrat out there believes everyone of them is necessary. Clear thinking people find this to be insane.

The insane EPA regulations are enforced as if they were laws but for those not familiar with the Constitution of the US, only Congress can make laws. However that matters little to Climate Czar Carol Browner or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson who feel they are above the law and can decide what is good or bad for We The People.


Then there is the De facto moratorium on American oil and gas production.
Political decisions by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and his appointees have led to a steep decline in domestic oil and gas production on federal lands and offshore areas. All done by regulatory fiat.

So if Obama and the Democrats are serious they will take immediate action and in his next speech and outline of how he will create jobs in his new-retread stimulus plan he will shout "Pass it now" on doing away with the burdensome, job killing, economy killing regulatory nonsense.

In the meantime I would suggest that you not hold your breath.

And The Beat(ing) Goes On Part30-- Obama's Job Speech, a Re-Run, Nothing More


Remember this? Sounds a lot like last night's "campaign stump speech" doesn't it.  I have included some of the comments and the doubts are still the same. 




Thursday, February 11, 2010

JOBS : Who Are You Kidding?


Does Obama ever read what he says or listen to what he is being told?  The answer is NO. If you have doubts this should clear them for you. 


The Council of Economic Advisers also trumpeted the $787 billion economic stimulus package, which it said has saved or created about 2 million jobs. 


But we know that was a lie and now comes this

                                
                                 PROMISES PROMISES:  Jobs bill short on making jobs

 

WASHINGTON - There's a problem with the bipartisan jobs bill emerging in the Senate: It won't create many jobs.
WASHINGTON - The Senate's bipartisan jobs bill includes a tax break for companies that hire unemployed workers, money for highway construction, relief for private pensions and a one-year extension of the Patriot Act used to combat terrorism.


But Obummer says: 

The United States is likely to average 95,000 more jobs each month this year, while personal savings will remain high as credit remains tight, according to a White House report released Thursday but that the unemployment rate will remain high.


  BUT

The report also said that the unemployment rate may not come down much from the current level of 9.7 percent, and may even rise because of labor market growth and the return of more discouraged workers to the labor force.
 Guess that is because the jobs are going: 
 Green Stimulus Jobs Going to China? Jon Karl finds the stimulus is creating green jobs .... overseas 


What you want to bet Obummer counts these as part of his so called 95,000 per month.

Guess his TOTUS didn’t get the messages. Ya reckon?

10 comments:


GM Roper said...
Ticker, it is quite obvious that none of the yoyo's in the White House or at Blair House have ever had to make a payroll. How on earth can a company in the doldrums because of "low sales" (and it doesn't matter if it's goods or services) add staff? A tax break for hiring? OK... spend say 10,000 thousand to employ someone, 2 grand in benefits for an outlay of 12 grand when sales are down. Now, spending that kind of money earns you a tax break? Oh please... to make it do you hire 3 but let the 3 you have working for you go? Net new jobs would be ZERO... and there is absolutely no other way to make it work with a slow economy. Empty suits on them all!
Ticker said...
GM you nailed it! There is no way business can do new hires even with tax breaks. Not many jobs pay as little as $10K a year. Working at K mart or WalMart pays more than that plus benefits. I found all these headlines on Yahoo news today and put them together just to show that evidently the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing which of course comes as no surprise.
Anonymous said...
I'm glad I came by here to read this, because both of you just don't get it. Now, in keeping with his promises to the American people, Barack Obama hired 95,000 people each month for the first year of his administration. Of course, those 95,000 people per month were cronies he hired in the executive branch, all of them were felons are felons-in-waiting, but he did deliver on his promises. So anyway, what did you expect a communist to do? Serve America and the American people? Mustang out
Ticker said...
And of course Mustang those folks were not just new hires . They replaced someone who already was in the job. Net gain: ZERO
Chuck said...
There really is a simple explanation for all of this...he's lying. The complicated part is we don't what he's lying about.
Ticker said...
Of course we do Chuck it's JOBS in this instance but anything else that comes to his mind. But then he does all he can to discourage jobs by insisting on raising taxes on those who make a bit over $250K, the very folks who start and maintain small business which hires most of the people.
amit said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Always On Watch said...
The "man on the street" is not buying BHO's lies about job recovery.
Ticker said...
amit, if you have difficulty with this site then I suggest you leave and take your advertisement with you. I only allow ad's from those I know and trust. That is why I am deleting your post.
Debbie said...
I heard that extending the unemployment actually, according to economists, prolongs the jobless numbers, with people putting off getting a new job, moving for a new job, etc. until their benefits run out. Debbie Right Truth http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

Thursday, September 8, 2011

And The Beat(ing) Goes On Part 29-- Obama's Address to Congress

Did any one feel the need for "barf bags"  tonight while listening to Obama's Campaign speechyfying?
Here is a take on what he said and what he meant. Hope that you will take time to read it all.

The main theme once again was RAISING TAXES which has been his only plan from day one. His use of Warren Buffet as an example of those paying less taxes was not a good one since Buffet has failed to even pay his taxes while all the while calling for more taxation. Not a bad plan when you don't pay your taxes but expect others to do so. But then again Obama's own Sec. of Treasury is a tax evader as well. Nothing surprising here.
Raising capital gains taxes will do nothing but kill job creation but Obama insists that this must be done.

Taxing those who can produce jobs will not create jobs and will not solve the problem.
He said tax cuts for those people and tax cuts for what he calls middle class, you can't have both. so he intends to raise taxes on the very ones who produce jobs and reward those who don't produce anything other than perhaps children that they can't afford. 

Cutting the corporate tax rate which he referred to as being the highest was thrown in but then he disputed the idea by asking why big oil corporations should get a break when the low income worker didn't  and he said you can't have both. So much being serious
on reducing corporate taxes . It's time to reduce the corporate tax.

He said the plan would build schools.
"The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed Internet in classrooms all across this country. It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures."

 Sorry but it is not the job of the government to build schools, that is for the States. Now if he wants to cut spending and see that States are the beneficiaries of these cuts the well and good.  Nothing else in this part of his plan will create jobs now or in the future.

"...we'll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the economy.
This idea came from a bill written by a Texas Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat. The idea for a big boost in construction is supported by America's largest business organization and America's largest labor organization. It's the kind of proposal that's been supported in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. You should pass it right away."
It is not the job of Government to control job projects and award them to  who they "deem" to be right for the job.  However it is a nice payback to UNIONS.   I remind all that one of the biggest boondoggles in our history was created by a Texas politician by the name of Bush and a Massachusetts Democrat by the name of Ted Kennedy. It is known as NCLB.


"Pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. These are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher. But while they're adding teachers in places like South Korea, we're laying them off in droves. It's unfair to our kids. It undermines their future and ours. And it has to stop. Pass this jobs bill, and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong."

It is not the job of government to put teachers to work. It is a nice payback for teachers unions however. Again that is the duty of the States and should be funded by the states. One way is to eliminate the NCLB and all the regulations that it entails and takes money from the States in order to comply with NCLB rules.

Tax cuts for business hiring is not a job creator. Cutting their taxes and the number of regulations they have to comply with is.  His mention of this was to brag that he had found 500 regulations that would be cut but then said no regulation that was deemed a harm would be cut. The very regulations he refers too are the ones that killed job creation in this country and sent them overseas.
Tax cuts for hiring returning Vets  falls into the same category and fails to create jobs. Vets already have a 10 point preference in hiring but that has not created jobs now has it?

"Pass this bill, and hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people will have the hope and dignity of a summer job next year."
Since when did the government get into the business of making summer jobs for kids?  It is not a job creator but a detriment to hiring those who are out of work .

$4000 bonus for companies who hire those unemployed more than six months is nothing more than another boondoggle akin to his failed stimulus or cash for clunkers. It will only cost the tax payers money.  The average time of those unemployed is now over 32 weeks in duration. This number also includes all unemployeed from age 16 and up. So once again we see another attempt at a failed stimulus plan.

Building infrastructure, roads and bridges was the only idea which is Constitutional. The constitution says that the Congress can approve moneys for building of "post roads".  Of course this idea was replaced somewhat by building of "national defense roads" during the Eisenhower administration.  So yes this part of his plan may have some credence but it will take months to get this off the ground and do little for immediate job creation. Of course Obama says that he knows of a company that is ready to go to work next week on building a bridge in Kentucky. Well, Kentucky should be funding this bridge in the present and leave the long term to be figured out.  

Extension of Unemployment is not a Stimulus but Obama seems to not understand this. Cutting those off who have been laying around for over two  years would do more to stimulate these people than giving them more money not to work.  Obama doesn't get it.
The Democrats don't get it but it plays well in an election year.

"Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your paycheck will go right into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year. If we allow that tax cut to expire — if we refuse to act — middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time."
If this idea was so good why has it not done anything that was promised. Just a re-run of a failed plan which proves that Obama still doesn't have a NEW plan . The so called tax cut actually cost the average family more since they had to pay income taxes on this fiasco. The same thing will happen again since the IRS has yet to change the policy on this.
" the trillion dollars of spending cuts I've already signed into law, it's a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts;" 
Fact is it does nothing to reduce the deficit in the long run and actually will add to the debt. They raised the debt ceiling 2.4 trillion which they will spend over the next 18 months while they cut expenses 2.4 trillion to take place over the next 10 years. If you belive this will stick then I have beach property in North Dallas to sell you. So in fact this plan is only paid for through smoke and mirrors and Leftist Math.

He failed to say how he wanted to change Medicare. The best way would be to say, I will repeal my Obamacare . That would help Medicare and create jobs. Companies do not hire because of the uncertainty of what faces them in Obamacare. So far there are over 1 million words in the regulations in effect in Obamacare so far with more to come. This does nothing to encourage expansion of business or hiring of more employees. 
Time for Obama to admit his Obamacare is a big part of the problem and then repeal it.

"...to help responsible homeowners, we're going to work with Federal housing agencies to help more people refinance their mortgages at interest rates that are now near 4 percent — a step that can put more than $2,000 a year in a family's pocket, and give a lift to an economy still burdened by the drop in housing prices." 
What makes Obama think that more government interference in the housing market will create jobs or stimulate the economy?  Many of the people in that situation could not afford the houses to begin with but thanks to another failed government boondoggle created by Carter and perpetuated by Clinton called the Community Reinvestment Act . Congress controll by the democrats refused to hear the warnings of the Bush Administration and insisted that Mac and Mae were in good shape thanks to Barney Franks and Dodd.Now Obama thinks more of the same will create a different result. That is insanity or stupidity depending on how you define such action.

"Now it's time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea — while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition."

Then why has Obama been sitting on these agreements since he took office. They were created under Bush in his last term but yet Obama has refused to act on them. Why? because they didn't give Unions the advantage that he wanted so they have been tweeked to do just that and now it is urgent to get them passed, just in time for election and paybacks to UNIONS.  They will do little to nothing to create immediate jobs.

"We should have no more regulation than the health, safety, and security of the American people require. Every rule should meet that common sense test.But what we can't do — what I won't do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. "
Then he need to immediately repeal Obamacare which was  pointed out earlier will create over a thousand new regulations that will strangle job creation.  He need to rid the country of the EPA which has made laws without consent of Congress that has done more to kill jobs and the economy than anything else in the history of this country.  It is evident that he is not serious about removing regulations that will hinder his agenda and cause higher taxes and higher cost for Americans.

Obama's use of Lincoln and building railroads was disingenuous at best. The government did provide dollars but not the way Obama wishes to provide them. Each [ railroad] was required to build only 50 miles (80 km) in the first year; after that, only 50 miles (80 km) more were required each year. Each railroad received $16,000 per mile ($9,940/km) built over an easy grade, $32,000 per mile ($19,880/km) in the high plains, and $48,000 per mile ($29,830/km) in the mountains. This payment was in the form of government bonds that the companies could resell. To allow the railroads to raise additional money Congress provided additional assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants of federal lands.
Land Grant colleges were just that. Congress allowed them to be founded but not paid for by the government.  The States were responsible for paying for them and building them. Many of the schools received money from business men such as Carnegie and others, not the government. This is not Obama's plan. To him the government should foot the bill. Well folks we are the government and it is We The People who will foot the bill on yet another fiasco put forth by one who has no clue about the economy, job creation but understands only one thing, getting relected and appearing as the good guy. Narcissism at it's worst.

Furthermore he was less than honest when he said this:
"and listen to every good proposal, no matter which party comes up with it."
Actually he just plain lied because Harry Reid has been holding up a whole list of job and economic plans submitted by Republicans months ago. here is the list:


The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (H.R. 872), which would halt duplicative federal regulations on farmers and small business owners that are impeding job creation.

The Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910), which would stop the federal bureaucracy from imposing a job-destroying national energy tax.

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R. 2018), which would restrict the federal government’s ability to second-guess or delay a state’s permitting and water quality certification decisions under the Clean Water Act once the EPA has already approved a state’s program, preventing approval process delays that cost jobs and leave businesses hampered by uncertainty.

The Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act (H.R. 1315), which would increase consumer protection and government accountability by eliminating the ability of Dodd-Frank’s unelected Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director to unilaterally carry out regulations that hurt job growth.

The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230), which would help to address high gas prices and support the creation of new American jobs by increasing offshore energy production.

The Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act (H.R. 1229) and the Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act (H.R. 1231), which would help to put thousands of Americans back to work by ending the de facto moratorium on American energy production in the Gulf of Mexico in a safe, responsible and transparent manner by setting firm timelines for considering permits to drill
.
The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 (H.R. 2021), which would streamline the permit process for American energy production to help lower prices and create tens of thousands of new jobs.

The North American-Made Energy Security Act (H.R. 1938), which would require the federal government to make a determination by a date certain on whether or not it will allow the Keystone XL pipeline expansion, which is projected to directly create 20,000 jobs and support the creation of thousands more, to move forward.

A Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 (H.Con.Res. 34).  With Washington’s failure to control spending hurting job creation in America, the House has passed its budget, while the Senate has not yet considered a budget of its own.

So the question is-- Was Obama serious in his call for bipartisanship or just an exercise in politics as usual, my way or the highway, to get his way with an agenda which for the most part has proved a failure?

 Obama said You should pass it or language of that sort over 19 times. Sounds like my way or no way to me.