A Reno Conservative

Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret... the history of Islam

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:17:00 +0000

by Dr Bill Warner

http://www.politicalislam.com For a version with English Subtitles:http://www.mrctv.org/videos/bill-warner-islam-1400-years-fear-english-titles
The history of Islam in Europe and how it effects us to this day. This is a history based on numbers and facts that you may not see anywhere else and explains why we may be afraid to see Islam for what it is based on its own doctrine and practice.

What is Your Fair Share?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:38:00 +0000

Founders Revolution: What is Your Fair Share?

by Tom Mullen

“For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that ...

The Path to Prosperity: America's two futures, visualized

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:45:00 +0000

We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers - WSJ.com

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:44:00 +0000

By STEPHEN MOORE - WSJ.com

If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two—Indiana and Wisconsin—has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees—twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida's ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York's.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world—at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That's less than half of the state's 1.48 million government employees.

View Full Image

ImageZoo/Corbis

Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

President Obama says we have to retool our economy to "win the future." The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Full Article

Obama Will Make You Pay Higher Gas Prices

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:25:00 +0000

Obama Will Make You Pay Higher Gas Prices | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News

Morning Bell: Obama Will Make You Pay More at the Pump

Posted December 29th, 2010 at 8:45am in Energy and Environment

“What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you’re paying for that, right now?” This was a question asked of the president at a press conference in August…of 2006. The president was George W. Bush. In fact, it was a question that was asked in one way or another regularly during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency, regardless of where energy prices stood at that moment.

In May 2004, The New York Times reported that congressional Democrats “were stepping up pressure on the Bush Administration to ease gasoline prices,” when prices were still under $2/gallon. In April 2005, at another press conference, a journalist stated: “Mr. President a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of social security, gas prices…” In 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) exclaimed: “Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled…They are too cozy with the oil industry” after she drove one less-than-energy-efficient block to a press conference at a local Exxon station.

In 2008, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “blasted” the president for rising gas prices on his (and her) watch. In July 2008, ABC News asked the president what was his “short term advice for Americans about gas prices?” repeating a nearly identical question asked at a February 2008 press conference. In April 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said gas prices were “the number one issue facing America today.”

You get the point. Yet, at the end of President Bush’s presidency, gas prices were 9% lower than when he took office (adjusted for inflation). So where have these outspoken critics been since Bush left office?

Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, gas prices have been on the steady rise, as have home energy prices. During his tenure, he presided over arguably the worst federal response to an oil spill in our nation’s history, and has pressed legislation on Capitol Hill that would, in his own words, cause electricity prices to “skyrocket.” Yet there has been almost nothing said by the media as consumers face $3/gallon gasoline at the pump in December for the first time in U.S. history and see their home heating bills soar in the winter months.

Now this week, analysts including former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, say Americans could be paying $5/gallon of gasoline by 2012. Investment banks are predicting a return to $100/barrel oil, and OPEC is refusing to raise production. All of this news would be less frightening if the White House were focusing on potential ways to lower energy prices. Instead, President Obama is admittedly fixated with raising them.

Just last week (as frigid temperatures and blizzards blasted Europe and the U.S.), the EPA announced that it will begin regulating power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to curb global warming. The new regulations will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more expensive to turn fossil fuels into energy. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Bureau of Land Management would issue new rules making it harder to develop natural resources on government-owned land. These measures will not only drive up the cost of electricity and gasoline but will also make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy.

But none of these actions compare to the brazen way President Obama has unilaterally declared the U.S. oil industry dead. During the BP oil spill, Obama needlessly declared a moratorium on deepwater and shallow water drilling, since no White House advisers apparently could draw a distinction between the two. After two federal courts said the moratorium was illegal, the Obama administration instead moved to a de facto moratorium, by issuing no permits, while speeding up the permitting process for wind farms.

In October, President Obama “lifted” the moratorium, but since then has issued almost no new permits. In late November, his administration effectively issued a seven-year ban on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and across the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We’re not even talking about ANWR anymore; these are publicly and politically accepted areas of drilling. These actions, of course, increase our reliance on foreign oil, which as OPEC points out, will only become more expensive in the near future.

Finally, this all spells disaster for the jobs market. Higher energy prices translate into higher costs for small businesses, which cause less hiring. Energy producers are moving platforms out of U.S. waters rather than have multi-million dollar assets sit idle as the president destroys an industry. And local businesses and retailers who service this industry along the coast are losing money and employees, if not entirely shutting down.

President Obama knows energy prices are skyrocketing. The liberal mantra has long been to disincentive Americans from purchasing cheap fossil fuels, by driving costs up. Because the only way consumers will choose the vastly-more-expensive wind and solar alternatives is if all prices are high, rather than wait for the market to bring alternative prices down. This is a reckless and devastating way to make a point about global warming at the expense of American families.

Nearly no questions have been asked of President Obama by the media regarding: 1) his bungled response to the oil spill; 2) his unilateral policies that are creating higher home energy prices; 3) rising gas and oil prices; or 4) the de facto moratorium on domestic oil exploration. It’s time to start asking the White House some tough questions. A two year moratorium on accountability is long enough.

FULL ARTICLE

"Marxism in America" by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:29:00 +0000

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin
Friday, September 24, 2010
In this video entitled "Marxism in America" General Jerry Boykin discusses his background and training in understanding Marxist insurgencies and how this parallels current government actions.

STORY HERE... http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/...

The 'Chinese Professor' makes a case for Voting!!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:24:00 +0000

Chinese Professor

Nevada Representative's Voting Record - AFAAction.net

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:37:00 +0000

Choose Your State | See How Your NV Representative Voted - AFAAction.net

Keynesian logic is crap

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:01:00 +0000

Does spending create prosperity?

by RUSS ROBERTS on SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 | in STIMULUS,UNCATEGORIZED | cafehayek.com

Does spending create prosperity? It’s a weird idea when you think about it. Spending is consumption. Consumption uses stuff up. How could it create prosperity? If anything, the causation is reversed–it is prosperity that creates spending.

The Keynesian logic, though, is pretty appealing. In times when there is high unemployment, spending should create demand. Any kind of spending. So if consumers don’t want to spend, then government can stimulate the economy. And demand should create jobs, shouldn’t it, no matter where the demand comes from, right? And then the whole thing juices the system through what is usually called “circular flow” or what is also known as the Keynesian multiplier. The newly hired workers now have more money to spend. Their spending creates more demand which in turn creates more employment. And soon, the economy is humming again.

The standard argument against this story is that the money the government spends has to come from somewhere. (I’ve put forward a version of this argument myself, here.) But the real way to think about is that the resources have to come from somewhere. And when resources are highly underused (unemployment around 10%, say), this argument is not as compelling as it might be in prosperous times.

But even within the Keynesian framework and even in times of high unemployment, the aggregate demand argument is still problematic–businesses in the real world when facing an increase in demand for their products might simply decide to produce more by working current workers harder or by raising their prices instead of increasing production. Both are sensible and viable when unemployment is 10% and you and your workers are worried about the future. Employers are hesitant about hiring new workers in those conditions. Workers are eager to work a little harder rather than looking for a less demanding alternative.

But I think the better argument against the Keynesian position is more holistic. When the economy is broken, why would you think an increase in spending would get it going? Why would it have any impact other than an immediate short-term impact limited to the people who receive the money? Why would it get the whole economy going again?

Think of having a lot of wet wood and trying to get it going by lighting newspaper as kindling. There’s a fire for a while, while the newspaper is burning. But once the newspaper is consumed, the wood hasn’t caught. Even burning a lot more newspaper (bigger stimulus package) isn’t going to get the wood dry enough to catch fire.

And so we are left with an empirical question. Is the Keynesian narrative with all its modern mathematical underpinning anything more than just a story? Is it true that government spending of a dollar creates more than a dollar of economic activity? Or is it a flash that dies down and if anything, creates more pessimism about the future.

Economists from either side of the ideological aisle come up with very different answers to that question. What they do to answer that question is use various econometric techniques to tease out the independent effect of government spending holding everything else constant. The resulting estimates are all over the map.

So it is natural to look to natural experiments. The Keynesians have one. World War II. As I have argued before, there is no reason to think that government military spending did anything more than stimulate the military sector. It did not create a boom in private consumption. Keynesians point to rising GDP and low unemployment. But if the government drafted every man, women and child to make rope and tie giant knots that the government purchased and then buried using more conscripted labor, unemployment would be zero, GDP would be large if the government set high prices for knots, and we’d all starve to death. That’s not prosperity. It’s the opposite of prosperity.

As Robert Higgs has pointed out, forcing people to serve in the military and growth as measured by GDP (that includes all those tanks and bombs and military salaries) tells you nothing about prosperity. You have to look at what people were able to consume. And what was left over after the tank and gun and bomb production wasn’t very much. Times were lousy for the economy unless you were in the military sector.

But there’s another natural experiment that has been tried with trillions of dollars.

Foreign aid.

The Western world has sent trillions of dollars to poor countries. Unlike domestic stimulus, this kind is insulated from the criticism that the resources have to come from somewhere. In the case of foreign aid, the resources come from outside the system. So this should be the ideal test of Keynesian stimulus. Most of the recipients of foreign aid have high unemployment rates. So there’s plenty of extra resources lying around waiting to be put into action.

Think of all the dams and bridges and roads and other forms of infrastructure that have been funded by international aid money.

But has foreign aid spending created prosperity in those countries? Usually not. Or maybe never. The money gets spent and then it’s over. The multiplier never materializes. And that’s because these economies are broken. They have lousy government. They have corrupt practices. They have stagnant labor markets. So the influx of money doesn’t create prosperity. It simply creates rent-seeking for the politically favored.

People will argue forever whether the Obama stimulus package was a waste of money, saved the economy from an even bigger downturn, or delayed the natural rebound of the economy. There is no evidence that it saved the economy from a bigger downturn. It could be true, but there is no evidence. The evidence that we do have on massive injections of money into broken economies is that they have little effect on the economy as a whole. They benefit the people who receive the money but do not repair what is broken. FULL ARTICLE

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:06:00 +0000

CNSNews.com | By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

President Barack Obama speaks in Seattle on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

(CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.

By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.

In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.

The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion.

The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II.

“CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last year’s total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion,” said the CBO’smonthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday. “Relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded only by last year’s deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP.”

The Obama Tax Hikes: It’s Not Their Money!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:46:00 +0000

Posted on heritage.org in Entitlements, Ongoing Priorities Mike Gonzalez

America is having a serious conversation on taxes and their impact on economic growth: The Obama administration is making the case for raising taxes by not extending the Bush tax cuts; Opponents counter that raising taxes in the midst of a weak economy would be disastrous.

For the record, we agree with the latter group. But this important discussion should not depend on a willful distortion of the English language. Yet, such an Orwellian perversion takes place every time people repeat that when government does not raise taxes it incurs a “cost.” Often this assertion is followed by the further twist that this “cost” must be “paid” by raising taxes elsewhere.

The worst practitioners have become the ever-clever journalists who besiege politicians on Sunday news shows with the following question: “but how are you going to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts, Senator?” Usually, the latter is too dumbstruck to answer.

This is wrong. It doesn’t cost our government anything to allow us to keep the money we have earned. When a tax is not raised, the people get to keep their money, and that’s it.

The Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress specifically love this linguistic doublespeak. They love it because it hides many truths, including that government spending money—which is what the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress like to do—does represent a cost to the Treasury. It must be paid with taxes.

An otherwise sensible journalist in The Washington Post who is a strong supporter of Obama/Reid/Pelosi on Friday took things to new levels by referring to tax cuts as “government spending on auto-pilot.”

This is even more wrong. The people either spend their money themselves or put it in the bank. But that is the people making decisions on money that belongs to them. That is not a government spending program.

The reason we need to eradicate the Orwellian doublespeak is that it lulls us into the corrosive acceptance that all money belongs to the government; that when government does not raise taxes it is allowing us to keep our money.

It’s the reverse: The money belongs to the people who make it, before the tax man takes it away.

In his great essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell warned that the English language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts … if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

We shouldn’t let that happen. Let’s by all means have a debate on taxes and whether raising them or cutting them raises or lowers revenue for the Treasury. But let’s not pervert the English language. Link to Article

You can follow Mike Gonzalez on Twitter @Gundisalvus

Solutions for America

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:55:00 +0000

Read the Entire Policy Agenda
Full article on Heritage.org
Compiled by a team of Heritage experts, Solutions for America identifies the

nature and scope of our most pressing problems in 23 discrete policy areas,

and recommends 128 specific policy prescriptions for Congress to consider.

Some of the recommendations are groundbreaking. Others are familiar. Some

are being debated right now. All have one thing in common: They would return

power to the people. And, collectively, they will transform America, setting her

back on the track to prosperity and greatness.

Perilous times necessitate bold action. America is at a tipping point. To continue

on the current path of ever-expanding central government will plunge us into a

statist abyss of lost liberties, vanishing opportunity and dying prospects of a

better tomorrow. But our nation can just as well correct course, as she has

so often in the past.

Americans by the millions have begun the process, rallying around the vision

of the Founders. The policies articulated in Solutions for America are calculated

to make that vision a reality, to build an America where freedom, opportunity,

prosperity, and civil society flourish anew.
Read the Entire Policy Agenda

A Conservative Record vs. the Liberal Record

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:28:00 +0000

Food Stamps or Paychecks?

by Newt Gingrich | 08/18/2010

Dear Friend,

In the 2008 campaign, President Obama gave us all a hint of his socialist leanings when he promised to Joe the Plumber that he would "spread the wealth around." Last week, we found out that his policies and those of the Democrats are delivering on that promise...athough probably not in the way they expected.

The use of food stamps hit a record high in May 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with 40.8 million Americans receiving Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) subsidies for food purchases. This is more than one-eighth of the population.

Worse, the USDA projects the number of Americans using food stamps will rise to 43.3 million in 2011.

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are insisting that the economy has turned the corner and things are getting better. But how can the economy be getting better if the use of food stamps, a key metric in gauging the health of the American economy, is projected to increase over the next year?

A few weeks ago, in this newsletter, I wrote that the fall campaign should be framed around a choice between job killers and job creators. Sticking to that theme, another way to phrase that clear choice for voters is between policies that result in more Americans receiving food stamps and policies that result in more Americans receiving paychecks.

More Food Stamps vs. More Paychecks. That is the choice facing America this fall.

Going Backward
Unable to defend their dismal record on jobs or the big government, redistributionist policies that have made this the longest recession since the Great Depression, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are now trying to scare Americans out of embracing the free market again, arguing that we don't want to go “backwards.”
President Obama even likened our economic situation to driving a car, saying “You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in ‘D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in ‘R.'”
There's a key problem with the President's strained analogy: The decision to drive forward or backwards depends on where you are parked. And right now, the United States appears parked on the edge of a cliff.
In last week's newsletter, I highlighted three charts as visual proof of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid economic failure. Here is another chart that should give us a clue as to what direction to drive the American economy if we want more paychecks instead of more food stamps as our future.
Food Stamp Use and New Jobs: The Gingrich Record vs. the Pelosi RecordThe graph below depicts the number of Americans receiving food stamps during my term as Speaker versus Speaker Pelosi's term thus far. It also shows the change in unemployment rates during our two terms.

As you can see, Speaker Pelosi and I took office at a time when these two indicators were roughly similar: Food stamp use was at about the same level (around 26.5 million Americans) and there was only a 1% difference in the employment rate (5.6% in 1995 versus 4.6% in 2007).
The similarities end there. While the unemployment rate dropped significantly while I was Speaker to 4.2%, it has exploded under Speaker Pelosi, rising almost five percentage points to 9.5%. And while the use of food stamps dropped during my term as Speaker by 8 million Americans thanks to record job creation, it has increased under Speaker Pelosi by more than 14 million Americans.
In addition, when I was Speaker we turned a $107 billion deficit into a $125 billion surplus in four years. Speaker Pelosi's total lack of spending restraint has helped turn a $458 billion deficit into a $1.27 trilliondeficit. And from 1995-1999, the stock market increased in value by 140%. Under Speaker Pelosi, the stock market has decreased in value by 14.6%.
This clear difference in results is due to the clear difference in economic policies pursued by Congress during our terms.
When I was Speaker, we kept spending increases down to an average of 2.9% a year, including entitlements. That is the lowest rate of increase since President Calvin Coolidge. Under Speaker Pelosi, the federal budget has increased by an average of 9% a year.
We also cut capital gains taxes to spur economic growth and investment. Under Speaker Pelosi, House Democrats have raised taxes as part of the healthcare bill, passed a job-killing energy tax, and want to let the 2003 tax cuts expire.

It is hard to find a better illustration of the difference between the pro-jobs, pro-investment, free market policies of conservatives and the big government, high spending, anti-market policies of the left. (Check out To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular Socialist Machine for a more detailed analysis, including the results of the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts).
So the next time President Obama and Speaker Pelosi try to deflect questions on their failure on jobs by intoning that we don't want to go “backwards” to lowering taxes and controlling spending, maybe someone should point out the track record and ask, “Why not?”Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Some Firms Struggle to Hire Despite High Unemployment

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:40:00 +0000

By MARK WHITEHOUSE | Daniel Shea for The Wall Street Journal

A worker at Mechanical Devices in Bloomington, Ill., where the company set up a training

program to fill open machinist jobs.

In Bloomington, Ill., machine shop Mechanical Devices can't find the workers it needs to handle a sharp jump in business. Job fairs run by airline Emirates attract fewer applicants in the U.S. than in other countries. Truck-stop operator Pilot Flying J says job postings don't elicit many more applicants than they did when the unemployment rate was below 5%.

Mark Whitehouse discusses why, despite the tough economy, some companies are having a difficult time filling job openings.

With a 9.5% jobless rate and some 15 million Americans looking for work, many employers are inundated with applicants. But a surprising number say they are getting an underwhelming response, and many are having trouble filling open positions.

"This is as bad now as at the height of business back in the 1990s," says Dan Cunningham, chief executive of the Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., a maker of stamped-metal parts in West Chester, Ohio, that has been struggling to hire a few toolmakers. "It's bizarre. We are just not getting applicants."

Employers and economists point to several explanations. Extending jobless benefits to 99 weeks gives the unemployed less incentive to search out new work. Millions of homeowners are unable to move for a job because the real-estate collapse leaves them owing more on their homes than they are worth.

The job market itself also has changed. During the crisis, companies slashed millions of middle-skill, middle-wage jobs. That has created a glut of people who can't qualify for highly skilled jobs but have a hard time adjusting to low-pay, unskilled work like the food servers that Pilot Flying J seeks for its truck stops.

View Slideshow

Daniel Shea for The Wall Street Journal

Former truck driver Troy Arnett, 42, dropped out of a machinist training program at Mechanical Devices in Bloomington, Ill. The factory work, he says, was too restricting after years spent on the open road.

More photos and interactive graphics

The difficulty finding workers limits the economy's ability to grow. It is particularly troubling at a time when 4.3% of the labor force has been out of work for more than six months—a level much higher than after any other recession since 1948.

Some economists fear the U.S. could end up with a permanent caste of long-term unemployed, like those that weigh on government budgets in some European countries. "It is a very worrisome development," says Steven Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. "It leads over a long period of time to social alienation as well as economic hardship."

The Long-Term Unemployed

View Interactive

Nearly 1 in 10 Americans is unemployed, and 4.4 million of them have been out of a job at least a year and say they're still looking for work. Many more have given up. Here's a look at some of the people in this boat.

Faces—and Fates—of the Jobless

Although some employers report trouble finding workers, about 4.4 million Americans have been looking for jobs for at least a year—and that doesn't include the ones who have given up.Read some of their stories.

Matching people with available jobs is always difficult after a recession as the economy remakes itself. But Labor Department data suggest the disconnect is particularly acute this time around. Since the economy bottomed out in mid-2009, the number of job openings has risen more than twice as fast as actual hires, a gap that didn't appear until much later in the last recovery. The disparity is most notable in manufacturing, which has had among the biggest increases in openings. But it is also appearing in other areas, such as business services, education and health care.

If the job market were working normally—that is, if openings were getting filled as they usually do—the U.S. should have about five million more gainfully employed people than it does, estimates David Altig, research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. That would correspond to an unemployment rate of 6.8%, instead of 9.5%.

EXPERIENCE WSJ PROFESSIONAL

Editors' Deep Dive: Recovery Doubts Remain

ASSOCIATED PRESS NEWSWIRES
Consumers Save More
MARKETWATCH
Recession Deepens
DOW JONES CAPITAL MARKETS REPORT
Look Past Tax Credit to Jobs

Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More

Of course, many jobs remain easy to fill. Companies offering middle-skilled jobs can be flooded with applicants. Laquita Stribling, a senior area vice president in Nashville for staffing firm Randstad, says she received several hundred applications for a branch manager job that might have attracted a few dozen candidates before the recession.

"The talent pool has swollen to the point where it's almost overwhelming," says Ms. Stribling.

But other employers with lots of applicants say the pool of qualified workers is small for specialized jobs. Carolyn Henn, head of hiring at environmental consultancy Apex Companies, says she recently received about 150 applications for an industrial hygienist job paying as much as $47,000 a year, which requires special certifications and expertise to oversee projects such as asbestos cleanups. That is about three times the amount she received for similar jobs before the recession. But she says the number of qualified applicants—about five—is less than she got before.

"We've always been looking for a needle in a haystack," she says. "There's still only one needle, but the haystack has gotten a lot bigger than it was before."

Longer-term trends are at play. For one, the U.S. education system hasn't been producing enough people with the highly specialized skills that many companies, particularly in manufacturing, require to keep driving productivity gains. "There are a lot of people who are unemployed, but those aren't necessarily the people employers are looking for," says David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Manufacturers of high-precision products such as automobile and aircraft parts are in a particularly tough spot. Global competition keeps them from raising wages much. But they need workers with the combination of math skills, intuition and stamina required to operate the computer-controlled metalworking machines that now dominate the factory floor.

At Mechanical Devices, which supplies parts for earthmovers and other heavy equipment to manufacturers such as Caterpillar Inc., part owner Mark Sperry says he has been looking for $13-an-hour machinists since early this year. The lack of workers is "the key limitation to the growth of our business and to meeting our customers' expectations," says Mr. Sperry. He estimates the company could immediately boost sales by as much as 20% if it could find the 40 workers it needs.

Trips to several job fairs yielded almost nothing, so the company set up a 10-week training program to create its own machinists. Out of the first group of 24 trainees, 16 made it to graduation.

Mr. Sperry sees extended jobless benefits as one of the main culprits behind his company's hiring difficulties. Many of the applicants he saw at job fairs, he says, were just going through the motions so they could collect their unemployment checks.

Some workers agree that unemployment benefits make them less likely to take whatever job comes along, particularly when those jobs don't pay much. Michael Hatchell, a 52-year-old mechanic in Lumberton, N.C., says he turned down more than a dozen offers during the 59 weeks he was unemployed, because they didn't pay more than the $450 a week he was collecting in benefits. One auto-parts store, he says, offered him $7.75 an hour, which amounts to only $310 a week for 40 hours.

"I was not going to put myself in a situation where I was making that small of a wage," says Mr. Hatchell. He has since found a better-paying job at a different auto-parts dealer.

Unemployment benefits, though, can't explain the whole problem. Researchers at the Federal Reserve have estimated that the benefits could account for between 0.4 and 1.7 percentage points of the unemployment rate. That doesn't cover the 2.7-percentage-point gap between the current jobless rate and what Mr. Altig's analysis of job openings suggests the rate should be.

Some of the people who dropped out of the Mechanical Devices training program aren't collecting unemployment benefits and offer other reasons why they couldn't or wouldn't do the work. Former truck driver Troy Arnett says the prospect of standing in front of a machine all day was just too restricting after a career spent making about $60,000 a year on the open road.

"I figured in these economic times you've just got to bite the bullet, and I couldn't do it," says the 42-year-old Mr. Arnett. He considers himself among the lucky ones: He has since found a job installing railroad crossings that he expects will pay about $50,000 a year.

Employers say getting people to move for work has been especially difficult this time. Often, that is a function of the mortgage and credit problems many potential employees face. In a recent study, Fernando Ferreira and Joseph Gyourko of the University of Pennsylvania, together with Joseph Tracy of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, found that people who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth are about a third less mobile.

Journal Community

DISCUSS

“The few times I was unemployed in my life, I accepted almost any job. Why should anyone hire you at the top? Get a job and work your way up. All employers will give people raises and promotions, if they are deserving.”

—David Haley

At Emirates, four cabin-crew job fairs the airline held in Miami, Houston, San Francisco and Seattle attracted an average of about 50 people each, compared to a global average of about 150 and as many as 1,000 at some events in Europe and Asia. "I would have liked to have seen more and would have expected to see more," says Rick Helliwell, vice president of recruitment.

The jobs require little more than a high-school diploma and fluency in English. They include free accommodation and medical care, and starting pay of about $30,000 a year. Mr. Helliwell speculates that Americans might be hesitant to move to Dubai, where the jobs are based. "Maybe they have less of an adventurous spirit" given the uncertainties they face at home, he said.

The obstacles to moving are aggravated because many employers no longer provide the same job security they have in the past. Temporary jobs, for example, have increased 21% since September 2009 as more employers—including Mechanical Devices—hire through staffing agencies to help control health-care costs and maintain flexibility.

David Denton, a 63-year-old quality-control expert, recently quit a temporary job at Mechanical Devices. He says the terms of employment simply weren't attractive enough to make him pick up stakes and move. The one-hour commute from his hometown of Mt. Zion, Ill., proved to be too burdensome, he says, as the cost of gasoline cut into his $15-an-hour wage.

Like a number of older workers, Mr. Denton has decided to leave the work force rather than accept a lower-paying job. Mr. Denton says he plans to live on savings until he can collect full Social Security benefits at age 66. "I'm trying to hang on the best I can," he says.

The disconnect between workers and jobs could constrain the economy for some time. It makes it hard for even small firms, which as a group typically account for an outsize share of job growth in a rebound.

Paul McNarney, owner of The Mower Shop in Fishers, Ind., says he has been looking for a good lawnmower mechanic so he can guarantee a one-week turnaround on repairs. He received only two responses to an Internet ad he placed a couple of months ago, even though the job can generate income of more than $40,000 a year, depending how many mowers the mechanic repairs. Similar ads he placed before the recession attracted more than a dozen candidates, he says.

"My thought was that in a cr— economy I could probably find somebody good because a lot of people were looking," says Mr. McNarney, who has been in business for 13 years selling everything from simple lawnmowers to big riding models for large properties. "I didn't find anybody."

Write to Mark Whitehouse at mark.whitehouse@wsj.com | The Wall Street Journal

Employment-Population Ratio, Part Time Workers, Unemployed over 26 Weeks

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:24:00 +0000

by CalculatedRisk on 8/06/2010 09:50:00 AM

Here are a few more graphs based on the employment report ...

Percent Job Losses During Recessions, aligned at Bottom
Longer. Deeper. And flat at the bottom. Unfortunately that describes the 2007 employment recession.

Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows the job losses from the start of the employment recession, in percentage terms - this time aligned at the bottom of the recession (Both the 1991 and 2001 recessions were flat at the bottom, so the choice was a little arbitrary).

The dotted line shows the impact of Census hiring. In July, there were 196,000 temporary 2010 Census workers on the payroll. The number of Census workers will continue to decline - and the gap between the solid and dashed red lines will be gone in a few months.

Employment-Population Ratio

The Employment-Population ratio decreased to 58.4% in July from 58.5% in June. This had been increasing after plunging since the start of the recession, and the recovery in the Employment-Population ratio was considered a good sign - but the ratio has now decreased for three consecutive months.

This graph shows the employment-population ratio; this is the ratio of employed Americans to the adult population.

Note: the graph doesn't start at zero to better show the change.

The Labor Force Participation Rate decreased to 64.6% from 64.7% in June. This is the percentage of the working age population in the labor force. This decline is very disappointing, and the rate is well below the 66% to 67% rate that was normal over the last 20 years.

The reason the unemployment rate was steady at 9.5% was because people left the workforce - and that is not good news. As the employment picture improves, people will return to the labor force, and that will put upward pressure on the unemployment rate.

Part Time for Economic Reasons

From the BLS report:

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged over the month at 8.5 million but has declined by 623,000 since April. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

The number of workers only able to find part time jobs (or have had their hours cut for economic reasons) was at 8.53 million in July. This small decline was a little bit of good news.

The all time record of 9.24 million was set in October 2009.

These workers are included in the alternate measure of labor underutilization (U-6) that was steady at 16.5% in July.

Unemployed over 26 Weeks

The blue line is the number of workers unemployed for 27 weeks or more. The red line is the same data as a percent of the civilian workforce.

According to the BLS, there are 6.,572 million workers who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks and still want a job. This is 4.3% of the civilian workforce, just below the record set last month. (note: records started in 1948). The number of long term unemployed might have peaked ... perhaps because people are giving up.

Summary

The underlying details of the employment report were mixed. The positives: a slgiht increase in hours worked and in hourly wages, and the slight decreases in part time workers (for economic reasons) and in the long term unemployed.

The negatives include the weak hiring of only 12,000 ex-Census, the declines in the participation rate and employment-population rate, and the significant downward revision to the June employment report.

Overall this was a weak report.

Earlier employment post today:

July Employment Report: 12K Jobs ex-Census, 9.5% Unemployment Rate for graphs of unemployment rate and a comparison to previous recessions.

CalculatedRisk

Obama Jobs Gap surpasses 1 Million in July

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:56:00 +0000

By R.C. Hammond on August 9, 2010 12:15 PM americansolutions.com

Washington, DC - The Obama jobs gap surpassed one-million jobs in July as the President's job creation policies continue to fail the 17 million Americans needing work. According to the St. Petersburg Times the American economy should create 292,000 jobs a month beginning in February 2010 to reach 5% unemployment by 2015 - job creation has fallen 1,138,000 jobs off the necessary pace in the past six months.

"The President's policies have a sustaining rate of failure," said Dan Varroney, who heads American Solutions Jobs & Prosperity Taskforce. "The only thing President Obama offers small businesses is uncertainty, more regulation, and higher taxes. This is a recipe for economic disaster."

The Obama Jobs Gap ( ō-ˈbä-mə - jäbzˈ- gap): The number of jobs President Obama's economic policies are not creating each month extending the Obama Recession and leaving millions of Americans unemployed. The wider the Obama Jobs Gap the longer it will take for the U.S. economy to return to a 5% unemployment rate, a level most economist consider full-employment.

American Solutions small business owners continue to give the Obama Administration poor marks on the economy. When asked in the most recent American Solutions Small Business survey what Washington should be doing to help create jobs, small business owners said:

Cypress, Texas small business owner William Barnett: "Get rid of the Health Care bill and all the other things that have been dreamed up by this Congress in the last year and a half."

Sandy, Utah small business owner Dawn Gordon: "Get out of our way. Stop spending and passing laws that are in favor of big government and against business."

Yakima, Washington small business owner Bill Kramer: "Reduce regulation, lower taxes, reduce the size of the Federal Government by at least seventy-five percent."

Clermont, Florida small business owner Boyd Cochrane: "Cut taxes, cut red tape, cut governmental control, eliminate the 'managed economy' objective of this government, restore free markets."

American Solutions is proposing a series of tax cuts to spur small business. Introduced in the U.S. House as H.R. 5029, the Economic Freedom Act, the legislation has the support of forty-eight Members of Congress.

americansolutions.com

THE REPUBLICIANS PARTY OF NO PLATFORM

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:25:00 +0000

NO to Government out-of-control spending and YES to Consumer-controlled spending.
NO to Stimulating government jobs and YES to stimulating civilian jobs.
NO to Wealth Redistribution by government confiscation and YES to wealth creation by private citizens.
NO to Forcing new BIG government laws and YES to Enforcing Existing Laws.
NO to TAX INCREASES and IRS complication and YES to TAX CUTS and TAX Simplification.
NO to Bureaucratic Irresponsibility and YES to individual responsibility.
NO to Sweetheart deals to Unions and YES to Fair Deals in an Open Labor Market.
NO to Specials Favors to Bailout-seeking, mismanaged businesses and government enterprises and YES to Incentives for growth-seeking small businesses and enterprises!!!
NO to Trade Protection and YES to Free Trade.
MOST IMPORTANT – NO to turning AMERICA into an European WELFARE STATE and YES to Returning AMERICA to its Constitutional Roots!!!

Mark.Gallo

Articles of Freedom Delivery Day April 19th

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:32:00 +0000

http://www.articlesoffreedom.us/ThePlan.aspx

Mount Vernon Statement @heritage

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:13:00 +0000

Conservatives from across America are signing their names to the Mount Vernon Statement.

Add your name today!

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

http://www.heritage.org

The REALITY of... "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act"

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:17:00 +0000

Obama Promised Unemployment Would Not Rise Above 8 Percent With $862 Billion Stimulus. (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, "The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan," 1/9/09)

REALITY: Unemployment Currently At 10 Percent. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Obama Promised His Stimulus Would Create 3.5 Million Jobs By End Of 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)

REALITY: Since Obama Signed Stimulus Last February, America Has Lost 2.8 Million Jobs. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Biden Promised Stimulus Would Create Construction Jobs. "Road projects, energy projects and construction projects are being started as soon as they pass review, contracts are competitively bid and reporting systems are in place." (Joe Biden, "What You Might Not Know About The Recovery," The New York Times, 7/26/09)

REALITY: Since Obama Signed The Stimulus Last February, 712,000 Construction Jobs Have Been Lost. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Obama Claims Stimulus Created Manufacturing Jobs. "That's right -- the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it -- Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created." (President Barack Obama,Remarks In State Of The Union Address, Washington, DC, 1/27/10)

REALITY: Since Obama Signed The Stimulus Last February, 847,000 Manufacturing Jobs Have Been Lost. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Obama Claims Stimulus Created Teaching Jobs. "Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed -- 300,000 are teachers and other education workers." (President Barack Obama, Remarks In State Of The Union Address, Washington, DC, 1/27/10)

REALITY: Since Obama Signed The Stimulus Last February, 55,000 Education Jobs Have Been Lost. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,www.bls.gov, Accessed 2/4/10)

Obama Promised Recovery Act "Will Create Good Jobs That Pay Well And Can't Be Shipped Overseas." (The White House, "Remarks By The President And The Vice President On The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act," 4/13/09)

REALITY: Recently Distributed Stimulus Funds Going To Foreign Corporations Creating Jobs Overseas. "Nearly half of the $2.4 billion in federal grant money awarded Wednesday to stimulate the U.S. economy and boost the production of hybrid and electric vehicles went to six companies with ties to places as far away as Russia, China, South Korea and France. ... But because so few American companies have the necessary technology, much of the money will initially go toward manufacturing electric vehicle batteries overseas." (Jerry Seper, "Obama Sends Stimulus Aid To Foreign Firms," The Washington Times, 8/6/09)

Obama Promised Stimulus Would Have "Responsibility and Accountability." "'What I will need from [U.S. Mayors] is unprecedented responsibility and accountability on all of our parts,' Obama said. 'The American people are watching.'" (Michael D. Shear, "Obama To Watch Cities' Stimulus Spending," The Washington Post, 2/21/09)

REALITY: GAO Says Transparency, Oversight Lacking When Keeping Track of Stimulus' Effectiveness. "The Government Accountability Office said in a report that increased transparency and better oversight is needed to track stimulus money being sent to state and local governments. -- 'Questions remained about how to count jobs and measure performance under Recovery Act-funded programs,' the report said." (Rich Edson and Joanna Ossinger, "GAO: More Transparency Needed To Track Stimulus Money," Fox Business, 7/7/09)

Republican National Committee

DEM-O-CRAP blurrs the fiscal true...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:07:00 +0000

February 11, 2010

Deception as a Principle of Governance

By James Long | americanthinker

The Democrats all agree that President GeorgeBush received a surplus when he took office after President Clinton's term, and then he passed a deficit to President Obama. Democrats are outrageous prevaricators.

David Axelrod in the Washington Post, 15 January 2010:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

Hillary said much the same thing on "Meet the Press," 15 November 2009:

It, it breaks my heart, David (Gregory), that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus; and if we'd stayed on that path, we were heading toward eliminating our debt.

Similarly, Senator Robert Menendez on "This Week," 24 January 2010:

And, you know, I love my dear friend (Jim DeMint) talking about, you know, fiscal responsibility, but when George Bush came to office, he had a $236 billion surplus. Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit.

And a 07 February 2010 NYT editorial put it this way:

When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget had been in the black for three (four, actually) years, and continued surpluses were projected for a decade to come.

President Obama in his first State of the Union address also mentioned the large surplus that President Bush inherited in contrast to the deficit that Obama himself inherited.

Every one of the above statements is patently and provably false. The dot-com bubble crashed almost exactly one year before Clinton left office, and the value of the NASDAQ (symbol ^IXIC available on YAHOO!) fell by $2.5 trillion dollars (half its total value) before the end of the Clinton administration. When the dot-com bubble popped, as all economic bubbles do, the NASDAQ fell sharply. Every economic indicator during Clinton's last year in office turned decisively downward -- the surplus, government revenues, and the markets included. Economic projections made at the very top of an economic bubble are foolish, but the dot-com bubble had long since popped, and everything was going south by the time Clinton left office. Consequently, the Democrats' projections of surpluses years into the future at a time when all indices were falling are not just foolish, but dishonest.

A lot of things happened in the economy during Clinton's last year, all of them bad. Besides the dot-com bubble crash in January 2000, the DOW also peaked and started down shortly before Clinton left office, and the S&P started down shortly after that. The NASDAQ continued to fall for an eventual loss of $4 trillion, and the collapse of the DOW and the S&P also resulted in more trillions of dollars lost in the markets.

With the markets crashing, federal revenues were reduced, and GDP growth slowed as President Clinton left office. The vaunted Clinton surplus fell from $236 billion in FY 1999 (ending 30 September 1999) to $128 billion in FY 2000 (ending 30 September 2000), Clinton's last year. Axelrod's and Menendez's claims that the surplus was $236 billion on "[t]he day the Bush administration took over" were off by just sixteen months, during which time markets, government revenues, and the "Clinton surplus" were falling like rocks. At the end of the first FY of President Bush's term (2001), the budget had a deficit of over $157 billion. The "Clinton surplus" fell $393 billion in twenty-four months (FY 1999 to FY 2001) following the dot-com crash, and Clinton was still in office for sixteen of those months.

Empirically, if the American voters in late 2000 believed that the Clinton surplus was as high as the Democrats now claim, and if the long-term projection for the surplus was accepted as valid by those voters, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election in a landslide that would have rivaled President Reagan's victories. In reality, the voters in 2000 were nervous about the economy, having just witnessed trillions of dollars lost in the dot-com fiasco, and Bush won.

Not only did Bush inherit a plunging economy, but given the magnitude of the dot-com crash, this was an extremely perilous time for the American economic outlook. In the event, President Bush applied the proper corrective measures and the damage was minimized, with unemployment limited to a relatively benign 6.1%. The economy went on to register solid jobs, growth, and productivity from 2003 to 2007 until the next Democratic disaster hit: the unaffordable housing bubble.

Sandwiched between the stupid Clinton dot-com bubble and the deliberate Democratic housing bubble, the Bush economy did quite well from 2003 to 2007, with deficits steadily being reduced and government growing at a slower relative rate than the economy. But President Bush had to pay for the considerable costs of Clinton's dot-com bubble (unemployment compensation, job training, lost tax revenues, etc.) until the economy began to recover in 2003, and then, at the end of his term, Bush had to stop the economic collapse that was triggered by the Democrats' mortgage follies. Democrats have hung a bad rap on President Bush because they want to achieve power, and dishonesty is one of the tools they have used successfully (and frequently) in their quest to tell us how to live.

Every economic crisis we have suffered since WWII has been the result of Democratic Party malfeasance or misfeasance. LBJ's wasteful and corrupt War on Poverty did almost nothing to lessen poverty, cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty-year period, and ended when President Clinton signed off on a Republican initiative to end it. In comparison, the total national debt was $5.2 trillion at the point when the fraud-ridden, $6.6-trillion War on Poverty was mercifully ended. President Obama has now substantially reinstituted the War on Poverty with his non-stimulating stimulus package.

President Reagan and President Bush pulled us out of the first two Democratic disasters described above, but Obama's disaster is much worse. Obama is adding fuel to the raging inferno as the economy melts down, rather than taking known corrective actions similar to what Reagan and Bush (and Kennedy, in a similar scenario) did.

If Hillary is really interested in "heading toward eliminating our debt," then she could tell the Democrats to quit spending our money foolishly.

In the Soviet era, Pravda was the major official Soviet newspaper. The term "pravda" is usually translated as "truth," but as Russians use the term, pravda would be more accurately translated as "the official word." The official Democratic word and the official words of all declining mainstreamPravdas is that everything is President Bush's fault, even if the disastrous dot-com bubble and its inevitable crash happened during the Clinton administration.

James Long is a professional engineer and manager.

Obama's Nuclear Delusion

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:24:00 +0000

Obama’s Nuclear Dream Could Endanger America

Posted January 5th, 2010 at 1.20pm in Protect America | Heritage.org

According to a January 4 report in the Los Angeles Times, President Obama’s plan for nuclear disarmament is meeting opposition from the Department of Defense. Specifically, the Department of Defense believes that President Obama’s plan jeopardizes U.S. security. They are right.

First and foremost, the American people need to understand that U.S. nuclear forces and the infrastructure to support them have been atrophying since the end of the Cold War. Meanwhile, China and Russia are modernizing their nuclear forces and Iran and North Korea are looking to become de facto nuclear weapons states. From outward appearances, President Obama wants to atrophy the U.S. nuclear force out of existence by continuing on the path to decline.

The Department of Defense, apparently, has arrived at the conclusion that this atrophy cannot continue without undermining the overall deterrence posture of the United States. The facts support the Department of Defense’s conclusion. Modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and its supporting infrastructure must proceed if the U.S. deterrence posture is to be effective for whatever period of time nuclear weapons will continue to exist in the world. Even President Obama admits that this could be a very long time.

If President Obama insists that modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and its supporting infrastructure is inherently incompatible with his vision for nuclear disarmament, his vision deserves to fail. If it does fail, reports will probably surface that it was the Pentagon that killed it. These charges will lack merit. The Pentagon will not have killed President Obama’s vision for nuclear disarmament. It will be the policies of countries that seek to increase their power by threatening the U.S. and its allies with nuclear weapons that will have killed it. The Pentagon will only be responding to the realities presented by a dangerous world.

Vote them out in 2010, 2012, 2014

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:02:00 +0000

The entire Congress of the United States is corrupt.

And I mean both Houses and I mean both major parties.

I realize that a few Members of each House are trustworthy, but, as a group they are absolutely the most corrupt bunch to ever disgrace our Nation.

In November of 2010 the entire House of Representatives will stand for re-election; all 435 of them. One third of the Senate, a total of 33 of them, will also stand for re-election.

Vote every incumbent out.

And I mean every one of them.

No matter their Party affiliation.

Let's start all over in the House of Representatives with 435 people who have absolutely no experience in running that body, with no political favors owed to anyone but their own constituents.

Let's make them understand that they work for us.

They are answerable to us and they simply have to run that body with some common sense.

Two years later, in 2012, vote the next third of the incumbents in the Senate out.

We can do the same thing in 2014 and, by that time we will have put all new people in that body as well.

We, the People, have got to take this Country back and we HAVE to do it peacefully.

That's what the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.

I am also suggesting term limits on the new bunch: 8 years for Representatives and 12 years for Senators, no exceptions. The longer they stay in office, the more power they get, and they love it and will do anything to get re-elected.

We have term-limited the President, now lets have term-limits for the Legislators.

I would also suggest that once they leave office they have no retirement benefits other than Social Security!

VOTE THE POWER ABUSERS OUT..........

LETS TAKE AMERICA BACK!!!!!!!

IF YOU LIKE THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING IN OUR COUNTRY,

THEN DO NOTHING..........

Anonymous

Don't believe the criticism of Congress, READ the REPORT on Insurers Rescinded Coverage

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:39:00 +0000

Report outlines why and how often insurers rescinded coverage

Prior psychiatric conditions, including depression, were the most common reason for canceling a patient's health insurance.

By EMILY BERRY, amednews staff. Posted Dec. 25.

The draft NAIC committee report is available online HERE

A committee of the National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners has released a draft report detailing rescission rates and practices of major insurers across the country between 2004 and 2008.

The report comes on the heels of criticism from members of Congress, and years of state regulatory investigations and fines stemming from alleged improper rescissions of individual health policies.

The NAIC received data from 49 companies that collectively cover 80% of the individual insurance market. Those companies reported revoking a total of 27,246 policies between 2004 and 2008, at an average rate of 3.7 rescissions for every 1,000 policies issued.

In California, where the state Dept. of Managed Care issued fines to numerous companies over their rescission practices, rates began dropping in 2005, when the department's investigation began, the NAIC said.

According to the report, rescission rates nationwide peaked in 2005 and dropped thereafter, with rates at their lowest in 2008. Although the NAIC did not give a reason for the overall decline, it did admit that in California "there appears to be some connection" between the state investigations and fewer rescissions.

The report also found wide variation among states' rescission rates, from 18.5 rescissions per 1,000 policies issued in New Mexico to a low of zero in the five states where guaranteed issue laws bar insurers from rescinding policies.

Nearly half of rescissions were based on preexisting health conditions in four major categories: psychiatric, including depression (18%); hypertension (10%); height and weight, including obesity (9%); or substance use, including smoking (9%).

The draft NAIC committee report is available online HERE

The Geography of a Recession

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:07:00 +0000

According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are more than 31 million people currently unemployed -- that's including those involuntarily working parttime and those who want a job, but have given up on trying to find one. In the face of the worst economic upheaval since the Great Depression, millions of Americans are hurting. "The Decline: The Geography of a Recession," as created by labor writer LaToya Egwuekwe, serves as a vivid representation of just how much. Watch the deteriorating transformation of the U.S. economy from January 2007 -- approximately one year before the start of the recession -- to the most recent unemployment data available today. Original link. For more information, email latoya.egwuekwe@yahoo.com

A Reno Conservative

Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret... the history of Islam

by Dr Bill Warner

What is Your Fair Share?

The Path to Prosperity: America's two futures, visualized

We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers - WSJ.com

By STEPHEN MOORE - WSJ.com

Obama Will Make You Pay Higher Gas Prices

Morning Bell: Obama Will Make You Pay More at the Pump

"Marxism in America" by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin

The 'Chinese Professor' makes a case for Voting!!

Nevada Representative's Voting Record - AFAAction.net

Keynesian logic is crap

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined

The Obama Tax Hikes: It’s Not Their Money!

Solutions for America

A Conservative Record vs. the Liberal Record

Some Firms Struggle to Hire Despite High Unemployment

By MARK WHITEHOUSE | Daniel Shea for The Wall Street Journal

The Long-Term Unemployed

MARKETWATCH

Recession Deepens

DOW JONES CAPITAL MARKETS REPORT

Look Past Tax Credit to Jobs

Employment-Population Ratio, Part Time Workers, Unemployed over 26 Weeks

Obama Jobs Gap surpasses 1 Million in July

THE REPUBLICIANS PARTY OF NO PLATFORM

Articles of Freedom Delivery Day April 19th

Mount Vernon Statement @heritage

The REALITY of... "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act"

DEM-O-CRAP blurrs the fiscal true...

Obama's Nuclear Delusion

Vote them out in 2010, 2012, 2014

Don't believe the criticism of Congress, READ the REPORT on Insurers Rescinded Coverage

The Geography of a Recession