Tag Archives: jobs

Arizona Republic Endorses Mitt Romney

The usually left leaning Arizona Republic today boldly announced its endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. Citing a desperate need for job creation, managed debt and a need for true health care reform the editorial staff of the Republic carefully explained desire to see the United States return to the super power of which it is capable.

From the Republic: We believe the nation’s best opportunity to escape the compounding woes of spiraling debt and economic stagnation lies with a president who believes in the free market’s capacity to heal its own wounds.

That leader is Romney. The nation’s economy now is in desperate need of the kind of jobs-creating animal spirits that President Romney would encourage.

The economy indisputably will benefit, perhaps significantly, from a flatter, fairer system of taxation along the lines proposed by Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan.

It will benefit, too, from a regulatory environment that does not smother small businesses with punitive, anti-competitive, hoop-jumping requirements that favor their bigger competitors. We expect a Romney administration to foster that kind of growth-oriented, business-friendly environment.

But, more to the point, we expect better job growth in a Romney economy mostly because Mitt Romney does not fear or dislike a free-wheeling, growing, free-market economy.

We cannot say the same of President Obama.

The editors remind the reader that President Obama has worked diligently to promote the view government not individuals grow the economy casting aside the long held belief that small business is the backbone of the country.

The reason Obama’s infamous “You didn’t build that” comment on July 13 in Roanoke, Va., resonated among his political opponents wasn’t because it revealed some great secret.

It resonated because it validated a suspicion that the president has done little to dismiss. He has consolidated federal power and reach in health care, banking, the auto industry and energy production. He has fostered the view that all good economic things flow from Washington.

It’s an interesting review. The state of Arizona continues to struggle with the poor housing market, foreclosures, and unacceptable unemployment numbers. Most analysts put the state in the red column so perhaps the Republic is just hoping to gain approval and perhaps subscriptions among its readers. Never the less, an endorsement by the newspaper of record for the of Arizona is still a coup for the Romney-Ryan team.

You can read the entire editorial at the Republic’s website AZCentral.

Do You Want More of the Same?

Who would have believed that Barrack Obama would be using the same speeches, the same words in 2012 that he used in 2008? Were his plans so wondrous that we should continue them on another four years? Or were they so ineffective that instead of accomplishing them in one term he is now begging for more time? (Remember how those ‘shovel ready’ projects were not so shovel ready?)

Here’s a strong ad comparing Obama’s words as senator to those this year as president. Watching the president singing the same song begs the question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” One might guess even the president doesn’t think so.

There’s an election in three weeks. Do you want more of the same?

Share this with  your friends. Remind them that the Obama of 2012 has no new ideas and still believes that his thus far failed programs will work.

Unemployment: Tinkering with the Numbers?

CA unemployment line. Photo: Wikimedia

Did you watch the news last week?  A miracle fell into the lap of the president. Three precious weeks before the hotly contested presidential election the ‘newly unemployed’ claims dropped to an unexpected low.

Coupled with the surprising unemployment decline these numbers were heralded by the left as a sure sign this was truly the beginning of the recovery and there were high-fives all around the MSNBC offices. To get unemployed numbers 40,000 less than expected was truly manna from the heavens and fed into the Democratic narrative of an improving economy. These good numbers quickly were incorporated into stump speeches by the left.

But…hold the applause… within a few hours it was reported that one ‘large’ state had not reported all its information. The large state soon revealed as California, a state with critically high unemployment. No, it wasn’t a holiday that interfered but perhaps one government worker was on vacation and didn’t get all the paperwork done. Additionally, multiple economists questioned how the unemployment percentage could be real. Businesses reported only 114,000 real jobs created while an extrapolated 800,000 people found work.

No matter. Democrats across the country gleefully reported these flawed statistics touting their candidate as ‘the one’ who could get us through this trouble he had inherited.

 Until today.

 Job numbers released this morning took a sharp swing on the pendulum back the other direction. As CNBC sadly headlined, Weekly Jobless Claims Drop Proves to be Short-lived.” The timing for those errant numbers last week are suspicious in the least. But those who watch these unemployment claims each week point to an alarming trend of underreporting. The released figures have been revised upward each week for more than 40 weeks in a row.  

Of course, it’s anticipated that President Obama will choose to ignore this week’s numbers. He’ll continue to spin that with more time and more tax payers’ money he will figure out how to fix this mess our country is in.

Still we are left with a significant question: Is it possible for this data to be tinkered with? It will be interesting to see how the numbers are reported once our new administration takes over in 2013.


Young Women Overwhelmingly Favor Lower Taxes and Less Government Spending to Help Job Creation

Majority of 18-29 year old women favor reduced government spending and tax cuts

Generation Opportunity released new polling data today on young women (18-29) showing they want smaller government and lower taxes.

“Young women don’t want someone who just talks a good game – they want someone who gets the job done. They are sick of empty promises, flashy gimmicks, and meaningless endorsements. Young women are being devastated by this economy and denied opportunities for independence so that they can build a future for themselves. Through no fault of their own, their lives have been placed on hold. They are paying for this administration’s failures personally through the lack of job opportunities. With unemployment for young women far above the already high national unemployment rate, they know the status quo is unacceptable, and they know that we can do better,” said Amber S. Roseboom, Executive Vice President of Generation Opportunity and a former Deputy Chief of Staff of the United States Office of Personnel Management.

“The message to Washington and to candidates from young women is clear – get out of the way – lower taxes and lower federal spending to get this economy moving again. To stubbornly press forward with an agenda that increases taxes and federal spending at the expense of jobs and opportunity is unfair and callous. For those who would arrogantly suggest that women either don’t care about a candidate’s record in office or will simply vote on a narrow band of issues, they had better wake up – women are paying attention, and they plan to vote this November,” Roseboom continued.

According to Generation Opportunity, the non-seasonally adjusted youth unemployment rate for 18-29 year old women in September 2012 was 11.6 percent.

The nationwide survey* was conducted by The Polling Company, inc./WomanTrend for Generation Opportunity  between July 27 and July 31, 2012 and contained a sample of  1,003 young adults ages 18-29.


  • 77% would decrease federal spending if given the opportunity to set America’s fiscal priorities.
  • 68% of young women agree with the statement “if taxes on business profits were reduced, companies would be more likely to hire.” Only 25% disagree.
  • 61% of agree with the statement “the economy grows best when individuals are allowed to create businesses without government interference.” Only 26% disagree.
  • 69% of 18-29 year old women agree with the statement “if taxes were lowered, the U.S. economy would grow faster.” Only 21% disagree.
  • 66% prefer reducing federal spending over raising taxes on individuals to balance the federal budget.
  • 51% of Millennial women would decrease taxes on individuals if given the opportunity to set America’s fiscal priorities.


  • 78% of young women plan to vote in the election for President this year.
  • Only 37% believe that today’s political leaders reflect the interests of young Americans.


  • 90% of 18-29 year old women changed some aspect of their day-to-day lives because of the current state of the economy (Accepted multiple responses) (Randomized):
  • 65% – reduced entertainment budget;
  • 56% – reduced grocery/food budget;
  • 48% – cut back on gifts for friends and family;
  • 43% – skipped a vacation;
  • 40% – driven less/relied more on public transit;
  • 39% – taken active steps to reduce home energy costs;
  • 32% – tried to find an additional job;
  • 27% – changed living situation (moved in with family, taken extra roommates, downgraded apartment or home);
  • 27% – sold personal items or property (cars, electronic appliances, or other possessions);
  • 18% – skipped a wedding, family reunion, or other significant social event;
  • 2% – other, specified;
  • 8% – none of the above (accepted only this response);
  • 2% – do not know/cannot judge (accepted only this response).
  • 84% of Millennial women have delayed or might not do at least one major life event due to the current state of the economy (Accepted multiple responses) (Randomized):
  • 40% – buy my own place;
  • 35% – go back to school/getting more education or training;
  • 31% – pay off student loans or other debt;
  • 29% – change jobs/cities;
  • 28% – start a family;
  • 25% – save for retirement;
  • 22% – get married;
  • 13% – none of the above (accepted only this response);
  • 3% – do not know/cannot judge (accepted only this response).
  • 62% believe the availability of more quality, full-time jobs upon graduation is more important than lower student loan interest rates.
  • 75% believe that the lack of job opportunities is shrinking the American middle class.

*The survey Randomly selected online opt-in panel participants were sent an invitation to the survey via email which included a secure link to the online questionnaire. Quotas were used to ensure the survey was representative of the larger 18-29 year old nationwide population with regard to race, region, and gender. The data were NOT weighted. The overall sampling margin of error for the survey is ±3.1% at a 95% confidence interval, meaning that the data obtained would not differ more than 3.1 percentage points in 95 out of 100 similar samples obtained. Margins of error for subgroups are higher. Women comprised 49% of the total sample for this study.

Obamacare Impact on Businesses

Last week we heard that the Darden restaurant chain was considering moving employees from full to part time. This week it’s Applebee’s.

These businesses are not alone in looking at ways to maintain their profitability. McDonald’s told investors last summer they also were looking at their number of full time employees.

What’s the cause of this sudden change? Beginning next year and by 2014 the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will require businesses to provide health coverage to all employees working over 30 hours per week. Restaurants in particular have a very narrow profit line and could see a significant impact in their labor costs. As seen in the video, the vague wording of the Affordable Care Act means no one yet knows the full cost to the businesses. The president and his administration are slow to share this information, possibly hoping to lessen its effect on the upcoming election. But in their real world life, business owners are already preparing budgets for 2013 trying to juggle the many unknowns of Obamacare with employee numbers and maintaining enough on the balance sheets to remain open.

In panel discussion on Ledbetter, liberals ignore shortchanging amongst Democrats

On October 11, The Federalist Society held a panel discussion at The National Press Club on Lilly Ledbetter (who lost her pay discrimination case in the Supreme Court because she failed to comply with a statutory deadline) and the media’s oversimplification of gender issues.  It featured Jennifer Braceras, a columnist and former Commissioner for the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights, Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment at the National Women’s Law Center, Marcia Greenberger, co-President of the National Women’s Law Center, and Sabrina Schaeffer, who serves as the Executive Director for the Independent Women’s Forum.

The discussion, moderated by Curt Levey, President of the Committee for Justice, was more policy based and how it influences our political discourse. Levey asked all four panelists how they felt about Lilly Ledbetter and the Paycheck Fairness Act.  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act expanded the statute of limitations concerning lawsuits related to discriminatory pay. The Paycheck Fairness Act  mandated that employers must detail why they have a discriminatory pay scale.

According to Fatima Graves, a liberal on the panel, it’s a question of fairness.  If employers were able to hide documentation of discriminatory pay, then no new remedies could be enacted to combat this issue.  She feels that this is what resonated with the American people.  After all, Ledbetter was passed on a bipartisan basis in Congress and is supported across party lines publicly.  Sabrina Schaeffer had a different assessment.

While she acknowledges that the Obama administration and liberals feel this is a victory for women, it’s merely a political strategy aimed at attracting voters for coalitions. However, given that 51% of the U.S. population is female, it’s wise, especially for Republicans, not to make any comments or construct policies that are viewed as “anti-women.”  Sadly, some folks, like Todd Akin, don’t seem to comprehend this concept.

Regardless, Schaeffer was adamant that Ledbetter’s expansion of the statute of limitation isn’t a preventative measure to stop pay discrimination.  She also reiterated other pieces of legislation, such as the Equal Pay Act, which has a three year statute of limitations for pay and two year statute for sexual discrimination, that deal more directly with discriminatory pay.

However, she noted how Ledbetter will make costs to employ women, especially to working mothers, making this another episode in the annals of how government regulation makes it more expensive for American enterprise to operate. Additionally, Schaeffer is skeptical of the law’s impact since only forty lawsuits have been filed under Ledbetter proper.

Jennifer Braceras was more forceful in her analysis, and declared that there is no “war on women.”  It’s a “silly” and “absurd” narrative since women are outperforming men in many areas of the economy.  She claimed that Ledbetter is a case about a technicality and when the clock on the statute of limitations starts running.  As for the socioeconomic health of women, she reiterated the notion that the “world is their oyster.”

The “war on women,” according to Ms. Braceras, is a political catchphrase meant to scare young and single women.  Lastly, alluding to the Sandra Fluke apologists within American liberalism, she noted that no one is trying to restrict access to birth control. It’s a question about who should pay for it.

Marcia Greenberger, who also represented the liberal view, prevaricated in her analysis and said that there is ” a war on policies critically important to women.”  She recollected Ledbetter’s story on how she would have never have know about the pay disparity if it weren’t for an anonymous note.  It was forbidden to discuss salaries and compensation at Goodyear.  Now, under The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the statute of limitations begins 180 days after the last discriminatory paycheck.

Greenberger mentions the Family Medical Leave Act, which she says is popular, but limited in its application.  It’s only good for companies with 50 or more employees. She implored that a discussion was desperately needed to analyze the policies and how they effect the day to day lives of these women in question.

Ms. Braceras retorted by saying that it’s how the media frames the issue. And in this case, it’s a deliberate messaging strategy that is pushed by the liberal media and disseminated by their allies within the feminist movement and other left-wing affiliates.

She also noted liberals’ penchant to ignore facts.  She recalled the past Democratic National Convention where Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick praised President Obama for his work in accomplishing equal pay for equal work.  However, such a law has been in place since 1963.  Obama didn’t make that happen.

Concerning the pay gap, which Ms. Schaeffer countered by saying that when you factor in single, urban women – they make 8% more than their male counterparts.  When you include all college educated women, the pay gap shrinks from 77 cents to a man’s dollar earned to 97 cents for women.  Yet, Ms. Graves pointed out that any one of these statistics could be fudged to convey any particular point of view.  In the end, you can “slice and dice” the data all you want – women still experience a pay disparity when compared to their male counterparts.

As the discussion moved from pay disparity to contraception and health care, Mr. Levey asked do we want judges making the distinctions and becoming the ultimate deciders in these areas?  Ms.Graves stated that it’s not from thin air that judges make determinations.  It’s not a judge determining what are appropriate practices for business, but reasons why a business has a pay disparity.  At this point, Ms. Greenberger interjected and noted the disparity within women in the workplace regarding their health care coverage from their employers.

Greenberger noted that married men and single women could get health coverage, with employer paid contraception, but such a policy is denied to married working women since it’s assumed their husbands would provide for them.  She noted the religious connotations in this decision process that centers on the male being the head of the household.

While Greenberger noted the inherent unfairness, Braceras mentioned the HHS mandate, which Greenberger supported, by saying it forced religious institutions to pay for something that went against their doctrinal beliefs.  It’s shameless. If a particular policy bothers you at the workplace, you are within your right to leave that employer.

Schaeffer returned to false narrative of the war on women to show how this wouldn’t have been an issue if the Republican Party didn’t win the women’s vote in 2010. After all, women aren’t a homogeneous voting bloc.  The largest bloc of voters in the female demographic are married women, which McCain won by 4 points in 2008.  However, Obama won singles by a margin of  72% to 27% – which prompted the political left to pour resources into political messaging to solidify that constituency.

Braceras reiterated what pollsters have been saying and that is women will decide the upcoming presidential election. But noted that the war on women messaging strategy would still have been executed by liberals.

Greenberger noted that polls depend on how the questions are asked and noted that a majority of the public feel that contraception should be included in all health care plans.  She then recollected Sandra Fluke’s denial to speak at the House Oversight Committee hearing of contraception.  The reason she was denied is because she’s a law student, not an expert.  Second, she’s a left-wing hack.  For Sandra Fluke, this isn’t her first time to the dance.  Although, Greenberger felt otherwise.

She later testified at the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee about the hardships women face obtaining birth control, including it’s prohibitive costs, which Braceras noted could be easily ascertained at Walmart for $10 a week.

Graves then stated that while women’s issues are important – they often become general economic issues.

However, one question that I aim at the liberal wing of this panel is how do they reconcile their beliefs with the politicians on their side of this issue who betray the principles they advocate daily in the public sphere.

Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted that:

Ms. Ledbetter knew about the pay disparity she later sued over for 5 years before filing an EEOC complaint over it, contrary to her later false claim, parroted by the Obama Administration and some in the media, that she only discovered the pay disparity right before suing.  Thus, it was her own delay, not unreasonableness by the Supreme Court, that resulted in her losing her pay discrimination case.  The Supreme Court’s decision did not say that the statutory deadline must be applied rigidly in all cases, but in fact, left open the possibility that the deadline could be extended in appropriate circumstances, in footnote 10 of its ruling.  It also noted that Ledbetter could have pressed her claim instead under another law, the Equal Pay Act, which has a longer deadline for suing.

Ledbetter learned of the pay disparity by 1992, as excerpts from her deposition, filed with the Supreme Court as part of the Joint Appendix, illustrate. In response to the question: “So you knew in 1992 that you were being paid less than your peers?” she answered simply “yes, sir.” (See Joint Appendix at pg. 233; page 123 of Ledbetter’s deposition). But she only filed a legal complaint over it in July 1998, shortly before her retirement later that year.

Furthermore, relating back to Bracera’s point about the war on women, Bader stated that during last week’s Vice Presidential debate “Joel Gerhke of the Washington Examiner…noted that the ACLU was asking supporters to get Joe Biden to raise the war on women theme — but it didn’t focus on pay discrimination, but rather abortion/contraception, although it shares the Obama Administration’s position on both sets of issues.”

Furthermore, concerning the female members of the Democratic Senate Caucus, they pay their female staffers significantly less.  Andrew Stiles at The Washington Free Beacon wrote back in May that:

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 33.8 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.

When the Paycheck Fairness Act failed in the Senate, Sen. Boxer’s office released this statement:

Senate Republicans let down the women of America – and their families – by refusing to stand up for the basic principle of equal pay for equal work. But just as we didn’t quit when Republicans tried to defeat the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we are not going to stop fighting until the Paycheck Fairness Act becomes the law of the land.

Yes, Sen. Boxer leading the charge for equal pay, while paying her female staffers $5,000 less than their male counterparts.

Lastly, some:

other notable Senators whose ‘gender pay gap’ was larger than 23 percent [include]:

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6 percent
  • Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.)—40 percent
  • Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.)—34.2 percent
  • Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.)—31.5 percent
  • Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.)—30.4 percent
  • Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.)–29.7 percent
  • Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)–29.2 percent
  • Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.)—26.5 percent
  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore)—26.4 percent
  • Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)—23.2 percent

Sen. Sanders, who is an avowed socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, has the worst gender gap by far. He employed more men (14) than women (10), and his chief of staff is male. Like many of his fellow partisans, he has previously accused Republicans of ‘trying to roll back the clock on women’s rights.’

Can you smell the hypocrisy?

For the Undecided

Decidedly Liberals, Progressives, or Socialists are not swayed them from their unbridled compassion. Categorically, Conservatives know that there are now only two choices, slow intoxicating governmental growth, or mainline fascist socialism. God bless the undecided, for they are the hope of this world.

The Undecided must balance their views with a sense of proportion. For instance, balance the need for the underprivileged to attain health care with the exorbitant cost of “Obama Care.” The voter must decide if taxing us all to pay for it will do more good than the unemployment that such taxing will so clearly cause? Each party points to the pain that the other party intends to cause, while explaining the good their plan creates.

An economy runs on profits. Only profits can perform R&D. Only profits can be reinvested. Profits grow a company, hire more workers, give workers raises, and send employees to school or training. It takes profits to take the risks of innovation. Taxes reduce profits. Taxes deplete job opportunities. Taxes slow R&D. Increased taxes downsize the workforce.

For those who believe that taxes are also used to create jobs, consider this. Stimulating an economy by taxing to create employment is akin to opening the refrigerator door to cool the kitchen. Although you’ll feel some cool for a short time just in front of the open door, the overall effect heats the kitchen. Eventually the refrigerator will work so hard trying to cool all the heat it is producing that it breaks down and there is no longer even a cool spot to show for it.

Considering real proportions, dynamics, and balance, the damage done by over taxing the economic system outweighs any employment it can “create.” Government should only be for those things that cannot be done by private industry, such as national defense and safety and monopoly regulations. Providing for everyone is never the efficient or effective way to accomplish such a goal. Private industry will provide for our needs because there is profit in it. If the need is real, industry will find a profitable way to fill it.

Often it is government that causes the inequities that plague a “free market system.” Free market does not mean that industry can do as it pleases but regulation for the sake of “leveling the playing field” always serves to tilt it. Once the market is unnaturally slanted, industry automatically takes advantage, and the public looses, despite the government’s intentions.

Find the candidate who wishes to remove unnecessary, unenforced, and unenforceable regulation while also removing the tax burden on the economy. Each time in our history that taxes are reduced, the economy has produced greater tax revenues because of how it stimulated a growth economy. Find the candidate who proposes to eliminate tax shelters and loopholes while stemming the revenue requirement.
When it comes to diplomacy, find the candidate that does not attempt to buy friends or placate them. Select the candidate that understands that Muslim nations take apologies as a sign of weakness to be taken advantage of.

It takes faith to reduce taxes in order to increases revenue. It takes faith to stand strong against terrorists in order to reduce their threat. It takes faith in the American system to allow industry to provide for its customers better than the government ever could.

The wise independent voter understands that it hurts the poor and increases their numbers to enable them with greater entitlements. With welfare perks like a home, food, healthcare, phones, and cars, many poor cannot afford to find a job.

The frugal voter understands that government entitlements inherently do more harm than the good they intend. The compassionate citizen understands that there is more compassion in supplying an opportunity than a handout.

God bless the undecided. May they choose well.

New Obama Ad: Sniffle, but this job is hard

In a new ad released for TV by the Obama for America campaign, it tells a tale of a Presidential difficulties and the successful rebound the nation is experiencing. Unfortunately for Obama – it’s all B.S.

The voice-over starts with “Every president inherits challenges. Few have faced so many.” JFK might be surprised to hear that after having to strongly push Russian missiles out of Cuba. Ronald Reagan might find that Obama’s handling of Russia and China is a little weak and his failure to turn around a struggling economy pales in comparison to the Gipper’s accomplishments. It goes on, the Great Depression, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iran hostage crisis…

The ad goes on to exclaim the accomplishments of Obama:

Four years later, our enemies have been brought to justice. Our heroes are coming home. Assembly lines are humming again.

Delusional? Perhaps. But Obama needs the voters to become just as enamored with his fake record as he is.

Where are the enemies brought to justice after the attack and murder of four Americans in Benghazi? Where is the justice for the U.S. security staffer murdered in Yemen? How about some justice for the U.S.S. Cole bombers from twelve years ago? This is the first President to lose an ambassador in 30 years!

A highly questionable jobs report is the only positive economic news the president can point to. Despite slowing job gains of only 114,000 vs. 144,000 per month average, the report defiantly dropped the unemployment rate .3% by dismissing a large swath of Americans from the employment picture. Not since Jimmy Carter has a President failed for so long to have an economic recovery. Not since Carter has a President failed to get Congress to act. Not since Carter has a President failed so visibly to lead.

Perhaps the ad is meant as an apology for the failures of the Obama administration. Maybe the campaign is trying to deal with Gallup polls showing Romney ahead of the incumbent, Rasmussen and RCP averages giving a win to Romney and battleground states steadily walking away from the failure-in-chief. Who knows – or better, who cares? The job may have challenges Mr. President, and you have failed to meet every single one of them.

Are You Better Off?

It’s the question candidates are asking. Are you better off? Last week’s job report seemed to indicate a slight improvement in business. But a quick look at the job layoff report might make one think otherwise.

Daily Job Cuts: October 10, 2012 Layoffs Report

Cummins announces plans to cut up to 1,500 jobs by end of 2012 http://trib.al/6a7AyE

FEDEX to cut thousands from workforce… http://drudge.tw/TycFJh

AP: American Airlines Notifies Thousands of a Layoff Risk as American goes through a bankruptcy reorganization.

KSL.com Nearly 300 employees laid off at EnergySolutions in Utah.

Orlando Sentinel: Lockheed Martin cuts 200 jobs.

These are just job layoffs. There’s another list of business closings…

Not convinced? Here are a few more statistics to ponder. This is every day life for many of us.

CNN: Home Ownership Falls to 1965 levels.

After a decades-long rise in in home ownership the rate dropped to 65.5% in the second quarter of 2012. A senior manager at Amherst Securities says if you include borrowers who have not made a mortgage payment in over a year and are facing foreclosure the ownership rate is actually 63.3%.

Nearly everyone knows someone who bought a home that is now worth less than they paid. The resulting foreclosures hurt all homeowners.

Bloomberg News: Food Stamp Recipients Jump in July.

About 46.68 million Americans received food stamps in July, the government said in a report released late on Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend, a traditional time for dumping bad news. The report for July, the most recent month that data was available, showed participation up by 11,532 from June and 2.9 percent higher than a year earlier.

The Obama legacy. Nearly 1 in 7 Americans are now on Food Stamps. That’s a record number!

Since when did we become dependent on the government to feed us? If we had jobs we wouldn’t need food stamps.

Consumer Reports: Price of gas in January 2009 $1.88.

National average price of gas on October 8, 2012 is $3.81. Californians are now paying average of $4.66 per gallon.

Ouch! My friend lives in Temecula, CA and drives into the city each day for work. There is no train. It’s a crazy $6.00 a gallon this week!

Reuters: US Loses Prized AAA Credit Rating.

In August, 2011 S&P dropped the credit rating for the United States of America due to concerns about the government’s budget deficit and the country’s rising debt burden. In September, 2012 ratings firm Egan-Jones cut its credit rating on the U.S. government further to “AA-” from “AA,” citing its opinion that quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve would hurt the U.S. economy and the country’s credit quality.

Young people might say, “So what?” But when they go to buy a car or get a loan they’ll discover that the better one’s credit rating the easier it is to get a loan and the less interest they’ll likely pay. A lower credit rating for the country means we’ll have fewer options for loans to pay off that whopping national debt. What happens when China wants us to pay up?

CNS News: Backlog Processing Vets Disability Claims Skyrockets.

The backlog of veterans’ disability claims has jumped by 179 percent during President Barack Obama’s first term in office, reaching 883,949 outstanding claims, according to Veterans Administration (VA) statistics.

Our veterans put their lives on the line so the rest of us can sleep in safety. Shouldn’t they be getting priority care instead of being met with more government bureaucracy?

Not a Vet? Do you know someone college age?

ASU: Tuition Nearly Doubles in 4 Years.

President Obama promised to make college more affordable. Tuition for a new undergrad student at Arizona State University was $5409 in 2008. Students entering fall of 2012 are paying $9208.

There’s more…the price of coffee, peanut butter, your McDonald’s Happy Meal (oh, but according to this administration you shouldn’t be eating those…)


So. Are you better off???? If you’re not, you’d better get out there and vote.



Unemployment 7.8% October Surprise

After having his hat handed to him and being shown the door by his opponent in a debate performance so poor for Barack Obama that his only recourse was to bully Mitt Romney on the campaign stump the next day, what is a candidate hoping for re-election supposed to do to change the momentum?

Have the Labor Department revise previous unemployment numbers to show that the economy created 86,000 more jobs during the summer than first reported, then conclude that as a result, the unemployment rate has actually fallen below 8.1 per cent in for the first time in almost four years.

What a coincidence.  Just like magic.

The Labor Department reported the economy had added 114,000 jobs in September.  That is not fast enough to keep pace with population growth, much less reduce the rate of unemployment.

If growth in the human population is creating new workers faster than economic growth is creating new jobs, how is it possible that the unemployment number went down?

And why did it unexpectedly happen in a report issued immediately after an Obama debate performance that left him on the ropes and displayed his weakness to a television audience of 67.2 million?

How about that?  A sudden, unexpected, unexplainable change in the jobs numbers making them more favorable to Obama’s re-election aspirations.  And it just so happens to occur at a crucial moment in the presidential race.


The fact is so many people have had such little success finding work they have fallen out the unemployment data pool.  How does that mean jobs outlooks are improving?  They have been out of work for so long they have reached their 99 week unemployment insurance benefits limit and thus are no longer counted by the Labor Department.

This artificially lowers the unemployment statistics and creates a false impression that “progress” is being made in the single most important number to struggling unemployed Americans.

Can you say false “Hope”?

Of course, this does not deter the “re-elect Barack Obama at any and all costs” members of the “progressive” Party Pravda.

What was their reaction?

Yahoo News headline: “US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low.”  The sub-headline: “US unemployment rate falls to 7.8 pct., lowest since 2009, giving Obama a potential boost.”

First paragraph: “The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years and giving President Barack Obama a potential boost with the election a month away.”

If this is not intended solely to make Obama look good at precisely the moment his campaign hits rock bottom, then Hugh Hefner is a virgin.


Disappointing Jobs Report Diminishes Obama Acceptance Speech

The latest Labor Department report shows that job growth in America slowed abruptly in August.  Economists expected payrolls to increase by 125,000, but instead, new hires rose by only 96,000.  That is not enough to keep up with population growth, much less brighten the picture for millions of out of work Americans.  The unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 percent to 8.1 percent, but that was due to the large percentage of the American labor force that has given up trying to find work.

Over the past three and one half years, America’s economic growth has been tepid at best, with a jobless rate that has remained above 8 percent for more than three years.  That is longer than any period since the Great Depression.


The latest bad news about the American economy has dealt yet another blow to Barrack Obama’s re-election chances.

When Obama and fellow “progressives” Democrats held un-opposable majorities in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, they passed a $787 billion stimulus package that they promised would “save or create” millions of jobs and keep unemploymentbelow 8 percent.  They told Americans that if the stimulus passed, unemployment today would be down to 5.4 percent.

Neither has happened.

This is why the disappointing jobs report diminishes the nomination acceptance speech Obama gave at the Democratic National Convention.

After three and one half years of economic stagnation, a minority of Americans still believe a litany of unfulfilled promises recycled from 2008 presidential campaign speeches.

Desperate “progressive” assertions that “It could have been worse” can easily be countered with “It could have been better without all that spending and future generations of Americas would owe a lot less money”  “It could have been worse” hold as much water as “I could have been rich.” Easy to say, sounds good, easy for low information/headline reading/sound-bite voters to remember. And it is impossible to prove.

Democratic “progressives” can go ahead and brush aside their candidate being reduced, at the last moment, to moving his acceptance speech into a venue that is 55,000 seats smaller than the one they originally planned to use.

The fact is, on the 2012 campaign trail, the largest crowd Obama has drawn is 14,000.

Where are the Greek columns? Where are the invitations for Obama to take his tour to European cities? Where are the females planted in the audience, fainting on cue to wow adoring crowds of impassioned, fervent believers?

Can you say phony Beatlemania?

What of the message coming out of this DNC? The only people who believe what was being said in Charlotte NC are the remaining low information/headline reading/sound-bite voters who believed what they were told back in 2008.  Obama having to relocate his speech to a smaller arena shows that today there are fewer “true believers.”

It was a disorganized, mishandled convention where thousands of “progressives”, while on national television, booed reinstating God and support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol into the “progressive” Democratic Party platform.


Members of the “progressive” Democratic Party should start getting used to hearing the words: “President Mitt Romney.”


WH: Todays Job Report Is Further Evidence of the Economic Recovery

Today the White House released its monthly jobs report, and strangely enough the White House continues to think that the recovery is strong despite strong evidence that says otherwise. “T oday’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover,” wrote Alan B. Krueger, chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Here is the memo the White House released to the press:

While there is more work that remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It is critical that we continue the policies that are building an economy that works for the middle class as we dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007. To create more jobs in particularly hard-hit sectors, President Obama continues to support the elements of the American Jobs Act that have not yet passed, including further investment in infrastructure to rebuild our Nation’s ports, roads and highways, and assistance to State and local governments to prevent layoffs and to enable them to rehire hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders. To build on the progress of the last few years, President Obama has also proposed an extension of middle class tax cuts that would prevent the typical middle class family from facing a $2,200 tax increase next year.

Today’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that private sector establishments added 103,000 jobs last month, and overall non-farm payroll employment rose by 96,000. The economy has now added private sector jobs for 30 straight months, for a total of 4.6 million jobs during that period.

The household survey showed that the unemployment rate declined from 8.3% to 8.1% in August.

Employment rose notably in leisure and hospitality (+34,000), professional and business services (+28,000), health care and social assistance (+21,700), and wholesale trade (+7,900). Manufacturing lost 15,000 jobs, including a 7,500 drop in motor vehicles and parts, which is partly payback for there having been relatively few seasonal auto plant shutdowns in July. Over the past 30 months, manufacturers have added more than 500,000 jobs. Government lost 7,000 jobs, as state government payrolls fell by 6,000 and local governments shed 4,000 jobs. Since February 2010, State and local governments have lost 504,000 jobs.

As the Administration stresses every month, the monthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.

Spain’s Present is Obama America’s Future

Although Spain is not as bad off as Greece, a look at Spain’s current economic reality reveals the future of America under four more years of Barrack Obama.

Despite European commitments to inject up to 100 billion euros into Spain’s faltering banking system, bank withdrawals have accelerated.  During July, doubts about Spain’s financial system caused Spaniards to withdraw a record $94 billion from their banks.   That amounts to 7 percent of Spain’s total domestic economic output.

Capital flight is beginning to include educated entrepreneurs who are fed up with scant job opportunities in a country with a 25 percent unemployment rate.  Statistics show that in a twelve month span 30,000 Spaniards have registered to work in Britain, an increase of 25 percent over 2011 levels.

Since taking office in 2009, Obama has aggressively promoted a “green energy” agenda modeled after the one pursued by Spain.  The assumption that pursuing the same agenda will bring about different results is based on no known empirical data.

If American voters are willing to accept 25 percent unemployment as the new normal and can live with a combination of major investment capital flight and disappearing employment opportunities, then Obama’s re-election is a foregone conclusion.

However, if Americans prefer to see a resurgence of American economic might through development of its domestic energy resources, and the millions of jobs that activity will create, then Obama’s days in the White House are numbered.


America Needs a New Sheriff

The American labor market showed few signs of new life in the latest jobs report.   First time filings for unemployment benefits rose again last week to a one-month high.  Claims rose for a second week, by 4,000 for the period ended Aug. 18.  After economists had predicted 365,000 new claims, the number climbed to 372,000.

The administration continues to cite the European debt crisis and economic slowdowns in Asia as deterrents to investment.


It is far easier to blame the global economy than to admit that this administration’s energy policies are killing jobs in America.  That this administration poked their thumbs into the eyes of millions of unemployed Americans when they laughed about “shovel-ready” projects not being as “shovel-ready” as advertised.  It is not the least bit funny to Americans when they discover that this administration does not know what they are doing, especially after they spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on plans that did not work and redistributed hundreds of billions of the taxpayer’s wealth to rich “progressive” bundlers for the administration’s campaign machine.

Across the country, Americans have had enough of this administration’s policies, starting with those that kill jobs; like the healthcare reform law that levies huge tax hikes on all Americans and imposes additional burdens on businesses.  Americans are done with the policies that are killing America’s energy industry, like stifling EPA regulations that make it impossible to build new petroleum refineries or use coal powered energy.  Americans can no longer tolerate a lack of policy; a lack that precludes any hope for recovery in the housing market.  Many small businesses will find it difficult if not impossible to exist, much less expand and hire while banking regulations imposed during this administration make it virtually impossible for banks to loan them money.

Why does America continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on foreign energy rather than developing the abundant energy in its own country? Why not keep those hundreds of billions of dollars at home in its own sluggish, cash strapped economy?

At a time when tens of millions of Americans are struggling to find work and its economy is starving for liquid capital, why does this administration refuse to take advantage of America’s wealth of natural resources? Why does this administration continue to prevent drilling for oil and natural gas or mining for coal? Why not put Americans back to work building refineries and power plants? Why not have Americans delivering gas, coal and natural gas to American consumers?

How many peripheral jobs will be created by that process?

For every new oil well, power plant, refinery or mine there will be new roads built, followed by restaurants, stores, housing, schools and places of worship. All generated by the only force capable of powering America’s economic recovery: the private sector.

The key to economic recovery in America is a shift in policy.  The only way for that shift to happen is to alter the governing philosophy.  For that alteration to take place, America must elect a new sheriff and new deputies.


Friends With Buyers Remorse? Share This With Them.

My Buyers Remorse is a website created by the American Jewish Coalition.

They are offering a series of testimonials by people who voted for Obama but have since recanted. Many were caught up in the Hope and Change hype of 2008 but are now concerned at the direction of this country. These short clips are candid person assessments of the current state of the economy and its impact.  They would be meaningful for all who might also be experiencing buyers remorse.

Share them. Let your friends know, it’s okay to vote Republican.

Obama supporter 2008. Discovered being a strong speaker doesn’t mean a strong leader. Concern about Iran situation.

Believed in Hope & Change campaign in 2008. Hope is gone. Change didn’t happen. With stakes this high we can do better than Obama.

Voted Obama in 2008. Contributed to Obama campaign. Concerned with administration belief that economy can be improved through additional taxation.

Campaigned for Obama. Had an Obama fundraiser in his home. Concern about returning Israel to ’67 borders and relationship with Netanyahu.


« Older Entries Recent Entries »