The economy continues to signal weakness as unemployment rises to 9.2% in June.  Employers added a net 18,000 jobs falling far below expectations and pushing the unemployment rate up 0.1%.

The results fall far below the  7/7 ADP report that had expected unemployment to hold steady at 9.1% with employers adding over 100,000 jobs.

This comes as more bad news to the Obama administration as it attempts to make the case that President Obama deserves another 4 years in office.

Since Obama took office, the economy is down 2.5 million jobs with the jobless rate above 9% for 24 of the past 26 months.  And some are calling the current situation the worst economic recovery since the 1930′s.  The unemployment situation continues to look bleak with long term unemployment not declining and the number of short term unemployed rising sharply.

The Obama administration faces an uphill battle to convince the American people that the Obama policies should continue with Obama possibly facing the highest unemployment rate of any post-war president.

Since Obama took office, the country has suffered:

• Rising unemployment
• Rising energy costs (in line with the President’s desires)
• Rising food costs
• Record deficits
• Errosion of freedom

Look for President Obama to use the struggling economy to make that case for more spending and heavy taxation of businesses and the wealthy as the cure for the current economic situation.  Hopefully the President’s “spread the pain around” approach to fixing the economy will not be well received.

Ben Smith from Second City walked around the Rally for Sanity on Saturday with a sign that read “Obama = Keynesian?”.  You can see the video of these well informed people attending the Rally for Sanity on several blogs this morning taking issue with the question of “Obama = Keynesian?”

The best part of the video is 40 seconds in where a frustrated woman exclaims “…what proof do you want?  He was born in Hawaii”.  The logic seems to be that if Obama was born in America, by definition, Obama is not a Keynesian.

Thankfully, some people seemed to at least know and understand the question about Obama being Keynesian versus Obama being Kenyan although they did not seem so sure the Keynesian theory.

For those of you that may have traveled to the Rally for Sanity on the HuffPo bus,  Keynesian economic theory is based on ideas put forth by 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes.  Keynesian theory advocates a large role for the government in charting the course of the economy.  Oh, and Kenyans live in the East African country of Kenya.

Although some people believe that Obama is Kenyan as they believe he was born there, most people believe that Obama is a Keynesian based upon actual verifiable proof.

As the video shows, for every nut job at a Tea Party rally, there is at least an equal amount of nut jobs supporting “the other side”.

Oh, and if you didn’t catch the pun in the first sentence, don’t forget to go out and vote on November 3rd.

According to a story at Human Events: On behalf of the President, casting website Backstage.com put out a casting call for “males and females 18+” to fill out a questionnaire to include “your name, phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are interested in, or passionate about. Also provide a recent photo and short description of your political views.”

Obama town halls have been plagued recently by people asking unscripted questions which have embarrassed President Obama.  The upcoming Obama town hall is now being billed as the “Conversation with President Obama” in an attempt to spin this faux Obama town hall into a legitimate forum of the youth of America with President Obama.

Oddly enough, during the 2008 campaign, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for having questions planted in her town halls.  Apparently the President considers having an audience full of actors a legitimate town hall.

Obama hinted during the middle of the financial crisis “For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of an economic crisis is not only in bad taste – it’s bad strategy – and I will not tolerate it as president”.

It would seem unfair in the grand scheme of things for some people to be making millions of dollars while some people are out of work.  However, is it the job of the federal government to ensure that when times are tough, some people that are doing well should have their salaries cut or pay some sort of penalty?

Obama’s “pay czar” has stated openly that nobody should ever make over $500,000 except in very rare circumstances.  Odd considering that the President earned over 10 times that much last year (federal salary + other personal income).

Recently, President Obama strayed off teleprompter to say that “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”.  The question is, what happens when you get to that certain point where the President thinks that you have made enough money.  Maybe even more importantly, who gets to decide when you have enough?

The Federal Government much less the President, does not have the power granted in the Constitution to decide when an American has enough.  It is quite worrisome that in the Obama vision of America, there are limits on success.  Perhaps even more troubling is that many Americans tend to agree.

One of the key principles that this country was founded on is that individuals are free to experience as much success or failure that they are willing to bring upon themselves.  If I can create a product or service that people just have to have and make millions of dollars doing it, should the government step in at some point and say “OK, you can stop now.  You have enough”?

Granted, as a society in general, Americans feel that those with the means should give back.  However, do the American people or the government have the right to force this upon another individual?

America was founded on the concept of individual rights and not collective rights.  “We” do not have the right to free speech, religion, and to bear arms among many others, but “You” and “I” individually do.  However, when the rights of one are taken away, the rights of each of us are eroded.  If “I” lose my right to make over $500k, then so do “you”.

The problem is that many Americans do not care since they do not see taking away the right of some individuals to earn over a certain amount it also takes away their right to do so.  Since capping pay way into the six figure range doesn’t impact most people, many Americans don’t care.

Americans are just beginning to wake up an realize what has happened to our freedoms over the last 100 years or so.  Let us hope that it isn’t too late.

Reconciliation was set up to allow for budget items to get through Congress after both the House and Senate passed slightly different bills.  However, both parties have used reconciliation in the past to move through items that were not purely budgetary.

Now the President and the Congressional Democrat leadership is threatening to use reconciliation to pass their massive health care reform bill.

Several leading Congressmen have spoke out against using the reconciliation process.  The following are several quotes from several Senators:

1. “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”
2. “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum. “
3. “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”
4. “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.  It is a fundamental power grab.
5. “You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient — well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so.”
6. “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”
7. “This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”  

Who are all these Senators that have spoken out against the use of reconciliation to pass legislation? 

1. Barack Obama
2. Charles Schumer
3. Harry Reid
4. Joe Biden
5. Hillary Clinton
6. Charles Schumer
7. Max Baucus

Several more quotes against reconciliation can be found at Human Events. 

The hypocrisy that exists in our government is truly astounding.  Remember these quotes the President and Democrat leaders are on television or in the media talking about how they must pass health care reform through reconciliation.  President Obama is on record saying the the use of reconciliation is clearly something that the founders of our country did not intend.

Hot Air is reporting that even the NYT is pessimistic about the use of reconciliation.  This comes as even Nancy Pelosi is urging Democrats to support the health care reform bill even if the people the represent are against it as this is something “the people need” according to Pelosi.

The question is, are enough Sentators and Congressmen willing to fall on their swords to give the President and the Democrat leadership a political victory against the wishes of the majority of Americans?

By Robb Austin

Politicians know the best supporters are those who are not afraid to be public about their support – putting a yard sign up or a bumper sticker on their car. This is a clear signal they are proud of who they like and want the world to know about it. During the 2004 presidential election, Democrats desperately wanted John Kerry to defeat President George W. Bush, and when he did not, supporters continued to brandish their Kerry bumper stickers long after the election was over.

It was not uncommon to see Kerry for President bumper stickers on cars for years afterward, as the disappointment over his loss never waned. Thus, it was no surprise after the 2008 presidential election of Barrack Obama for supporters to celebrate his victory in a public way – wearing shirts with his name on it or displaying a bumper sticker on the car. They were excited for his election, and had great expectations for his success.

This is the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s historic swearing-in. Yet in the past year things have changed, and displays of public support for President Obama are now muted. Many still hope for his success, and believe he is trying hard, yet there is an uneasy feeling he has not delivered on his campaign promises.

There is a proverbial saying: Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. This holds true in politics. As President Obama struggles to explain policies, which remain unpopular to a majority of voters, the overwhelming display of public support that once existed is now fading from view.

As his political troubles mount, his job approval ratings continue to decline, and some professional pollsters say they are headed for a free fall. The President remains popular with his core support base, namely African-Americans and far-left liberals, but he is no longer supported among independents and moderates.

While every President goes through periods of unpopularity, the fact remains that the historical aspect of the Obama election has worn off, and voters now expect him to deliver on his promises. His handling of health care is a good example; the country does not want the proposed changes, but the President and his congressional majority are crafting the legislation anyway. This is largely being done in secret- with few, if any, Americans knowing exactly what is in the health care package, or how it will affect them.

The legislation is being written by insiders and lobbyists in the backrooms of Washington; yet, the President campaigned on the promise that he would change the way Washington works, and pledged that his programs would be drafted in the open with input from voters. Now it has come to light that some lawmakers were offered secret sweetheart deals in exchange for their vote on health care, and this has made many voters suspicious and mistrusting of both Congress, and the President. There is no question President Obama has been damaged in the process- and while it is not too late for him to recover, the soaring expectations, which accompanied his election, are forever gone.

Voters are letting the President know, in various ways, what they think of the job he is doing, and their public display of support or disapproval, or lack thereof, is part of this process. The Obama bumper sticker, once so prevalent, seems to now be disappearing.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robb_Austin
http://EzineArticles.com/?Where-Have-All-the-Bumper-Stickers-Gone?&id=3691843

If deficit spending is the way out of an economic downturn, as leftist economists like Paul Krugman keep telling us, then one way to characterize President Obama’s approach to reviving the ailing economy is “killing it with kindness.”

Another is “tough love” – not the kind where you force hard choices and self-discipline, but the kind where you shoot the poor beast to put it out of its misery.

James Clyburn, House Majority Whip, recently crystallized the Democrats’ position on fiscal responsibility when he announced, “We’re not going to save our way out of this recession. We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that.”

Here are some fun facts about Obama’s proposed federal budgets over the next decade:

- The projected deficit for Obama’s 2010 budget is $1.6 trillion, which is 10% larger than the 2009 deficit, which was three times as big as the record 2008 deficit under President Bush.

- The projected 2010 deficit is 10 times as large as the deficit for Bush’s 2007 budget, the latter of which included funding for the troop surge that won the war in Iraq. Nearly matching our accomplishment in Iraq, the White House Travel Office has approved a trip for Obama to go to Cambridge, Massachusetts in November to get a Democratic dogcatcher elected in Harvard Square.

- The projected 2010 deficit will render our national debt 13% bigger on the last day of this year than it is today. Projected 2010-11 deficits will cause the debt to swell 23% bigger than it is now. By 2020, the debt will be twice as big as it is today.

- By 2013 the deficit will recede to $700 billion, a “mere” half of the 2009 deficit, then ratchet up again to $1 trillion by 2020. Even this will happen only if Congress agrees to drastic spending cuts before 2013, which it has already expressed strong resistance to doing.

- All of these numbers are conditional on what many private sector economists call overly optimistic expectations held by the current administration regarding growth of the economy.

These sobering statistics raise a number of tough questions about the measures Obama proposes to bring down the deficit-which, naturally, he will never answer satisfactorily.

For example: in his budget address on Monday, Obama stated, “Because small businesses are critical creators of new jobs and economic growth, the budget eliminates capital gains taxes for investments in small firms and includes measures to increase these firms’ access to the loans they need to meet payroll, expand their operations, and hire new workers.”

Why only small businesses? Why not medium and large businesses? Who adds more jobs to the economy-Sal’s Pizzeria, a local franchise of Linens ‘n Things, or Microsoft Corporation?

Obama proposes letting the Bush tax cuts expire for families making over $250,000 a year. He wants to impose a new tax-sorry, “financial crisis responsibility fee”-on banks and corporations who received TARP money, some of whom were forced by the administration to take it. Obama wants to strip away tax breaks from oil and gas corporations.

So why would Obama want to choke the engines of growth and job creation by saddling them with tax increases? If the absence of a $5,000 tax credit would hinder a small business from new hiring, what does he think the addition of hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to corporations would do to their hiring? Do big corporations hire workers out of the goodness of their hearts, with no concern for the bottom line?

Also, given that many of those families who make over $250,000 are headed by small business owners, how does Obama justify giving them tax credits while simultaneously increasing their taxes? Is his administration even feigning consistency here?

History shows that cutting individual and corporate tax rates increases long-term tax revenue. Obama was specifically asked about this proven fact by George Stephanopoulos during a primary debate with Hillary Clinton. Obama stated outright that even if this pattern were true, he would still favor higher taxes on the wealthy to promote “fair” taxation.

Obama is free to endorse Marxist policies if he desires, but how can he turn around and claim that his proposal to increase taxes for the wealthy is an effective way to reduce long-term deficits?

When you’re handed a hot potato such as the sickly economy – a fate Obama has reminded us of precisely eight million times since he was elected office-the responsible solution is to let it cool down.

Instead, Obama proposes to cremate it.

http://www.scottspiegel.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Scott_Spiegel
http://EzineArticles.com/?Incinerating-a-Hot-Potato&id=3694855

As pointed out in a recent news story, during the 2008 campaign Senator Obama told a Grand Rapids group on October 2, 2008: ”I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all”.

As recently as March 4, Obama vowed to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts,” adding: “In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition….And that’s completely unacceptable.” 

However, despite all the campaign rhetoric and recent Presidential spin, the Obama administration continues to award no-bid contracts.  Even more troubling, they are awarding these no-bid contracts to firms that donated heavily to the Obama campaign as well as other Democrat organizations.

A recent $25 million contract was awarded to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi,  to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan. 

According to official records, Vincent Checchi donated close to the maximum amount to the Obama campaign as well as several other liberal activist groups.

This is a prime example of why pork added to bills is so corrupting.  According to a post at HotAir, “It’s a feedback loop to power; those favored with contracts get more money to make more donations to the people who get them the contracts.  This is the main reason why pork is so corrosive to clean government.”

As Obama’s poll numbers continue to fall, he will continue to blame Bush for all of his challenges.  However, now that he has fallen short on promises such as transparency, not raising middle class taxes, no lobbyists, and ending no-bid contracts it becomes clear that his biggest challenge is keeping promises.

Earlier this week, the head of the SEIU warned the President and Democrats that they must pass Obamacare or SEIU would be forced to not focus on getting Democrats elected in November.

The head of the SEIU is upset about reports that Democrats are considering pursuing a new bill that addresses the healthcare issues that both Democrats and Republicans agree on.  A compromise Obamacare bill could get pushed though that addresses life time caps, pre-existing conditions, and portability without costing trillions of dollars and creating a massive new government buracracy.

SEIU’s president, Andy Stern, warned that Democrats must pass the Senate version of the bill or SEIU members may be forced to focus on local candidates in the November mid-term elections rather that push for national candidates.

It will be interesting to see if the President and Congressional Democrats fear special interests groups more than the American people.

One of the facts that many Americans do not realize is that many banks were “encouraged” by federal regulators to take bailout money.  Think of it as similar “encouragement” that Tony Soprano may have applied to get his way from time to time.  Some banks needed funds, others did not.  Most of those banks paid back those funds as soon as the government allowed them even paying interest on the money the received.

Interestingly enough, this tax will not apply to profits, but to liabilities.  The following example should help those not versed in the ins and outs of balance sheet accounting:

Assume you and your neighbor both have car loans at bank A.  Times get tough and your neighbor asks for a home equity loan to help cover expenses.  Worried about everyone in your neighborhood, bank ”O” in its infinite wisdom gives you and all your neighbors home equity loans, even though you don’t want it. 

After some time, your bank allows those people in your neighborhood who can afford to, pay back their home equity loans (with interest). 

Later that month, bank “O” realizes that you have enough money to go on vacation and even tip the teen that mows your lawn.  Bank “O” then starts charging you interest on the balance of your car loan that you have at bank A.  In the words of the president of bank “O”, it was your and your neighborhood’s fault that you all took on risky car loans that caused many of you to face financial crisis. 

So even though you didn’t want the home equity loan and have paid it back, bank “O” wants to teach you a lesson and get money from you to help pay for the money your neighbor still owes to bank “O”.

As Michelle Malkin points out on her blog, this tax will pay for the incompetence of Tim Geithner when he was the NY fed reserve chair.  It will also be passed on directly to consumers.

The Obama administration also hopes that its new Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee will discourage banks from taking on risky behavior by adding liabilities to their balance sheets.  Liabilities are often the life blood that allows businesses to expand and grow.

The Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is also forcing healthy banks to pay a fee to help support less health banks.  As Marx said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. 

Marx would indeed be proud.