Obama plays fast and furious with oil production data

President Barack Obama calls fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – the “fuel of the past,” and heralds wind, solar and algae as the fuels of the future. But he ignored talking about the fuel of the present, as if it really doesn’t matter. But it does matter. The fuel of the present must exist in sufficient quantity, with sufficient infrastructure to get it to consumers, and be affordable. And there is only one source that meets those requirements: fossil fuels.

Despite his apparent disregard of this obvious fact, it does not take a rocket scientist, a community organizer, or even a law school lecturer to understand the importance of today’s situation: Fossil fuels work; green energy does not.

Favoring an impossible scenario, Mr. Obama resorts to being the class clown, offering playground humor to deflect the harsh criticism his foolish energy policy has earned. He told a fawning audience, "So do not tell me that we're not drilling. We're drilling all over this country. There are a few spots we're not drilling. We're not drilling in the National Mall. We're not drilling at your house."

Now, that’s a real knee-slapper. But the joke’s on those that believe this hogwash, and dream of plentiful wind farms standing motionless among dead birds waiting on a breeze, and seas of solar panels waiting in the dark for a cloudless sunrise.

Mr. Obama might have mentioned that we also are not drilling for oil off the Mid-Atlantic coast, off the Florida Gulf Coast and generally in the Gulf of Mexico, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, on federal lands in the Rockies. You know: places where billions of barrels of American oil await an American company with American workers operating drilling rigs. In these areas, drilling leases are down 70 percent under the Obama administration’s fairy-tale energy strategy. And while the president yuks it up in campaign appearances, Americans still get pummeled at the gas pump and are ignored in the presidential narrative.

But humor was not the only trick up Mr. Obama’s sleeve. He also slipped in a large dose of taking credit where credit is not due, and added a substantial measure of distorted facts. “Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That's a fact. That's a fact. We've quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs to a record high. So do not tell me that we're not drilling. We're drilling all over this country.”

Well, sort of. While that statement may be technically true, it turns reality on its head. By saying “under my administration” he suggests that it is because of his policies that drilling has increased. Actually, he had absolutely nothing to do with the policies that prompted all that drilling, which is being done on private land where he cannot stop it, as he has with drilling on federal lands. Oil production has increased in spite of his policies, not because of them. For the increase in drilling he can correctly blame George W. Bush.

The president should have stopped with the ridiculing of the clear thinkers who want to harvest our own oil and natural gas and build energy independence. But he just had to distort more facts for good measure. “America uses more than 20 percent of the world’s oil,” he declared. “If we drilled every square inch of this country …. we would still have only two percent of the world’s known oil reserves.”

Not so fast, Mr. President. The Institute for Energy Research reports that “in classic fashion, he’s using a technicality to skirt the facts and keep the myth of energy scarcity alive. The reality is that the U.S. has enough recoverable oil for the next 200 years, despite only having 2 percent of the world’s current proven oil reserves.”

Even The Washington Post decries the president’s tactic. “The president should drop this fact … or he runs the risk of misleading Americans about the extent of the U.S. oil resources.” It’s too late; he has already misled us.

According to the American Petroleum Institute’s online publication, Energy Tomorrow: “The market sees 87 percent of our offshore acreage off-limits, it sees Federal permits lagging in the areas we are allowed to develop in, both offshore and onshore.  It sees a million barrels a day from ANWR sitting on the sidelines, and it sees the U.S. blocking upwards of 800,000 barrels a day from Canada. The market sees that the U.S. could secure 100 percent of its liquid fuel needs by 2024.”

The CIA World Factbook lists the U.S. third in world oil production in 2011 at just below 9 percent of the total, a little behind Russia at 10.06 percent, and Saudi Arabia at 12.01 percent.

Apparently, Mr. Obama feels comfortable spreading falsehoods to the public, knowing that his fawning followers will believe anything he says, and the media, paralyzed by his charm, will not fact-check what he says.  But while he’s busy being fabulous, wowing the throngs, the country continues to suffer under punishing unemployment and gas prices predicted to set new records this summer.

More complicated?

Comments are invited. Click Here to Comment

After February’s jobs report, some straight talk about unemployment

President Barack Obama told workers at an aircraft-parts manufacturing plant in Virginia that "More companies are bringing jobs back and investing in America. And manufacturing is adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s." "The economy is getting stronger" he said.

The Labor Department revised the figures for job growth up by 61,000 in December and January, even though unemployment remained at 8.3 percent. Cumulative job growth for the three months through February was the fastest pace since early 2006.

Reuters trumpeted the job figures as great news for Mr. Obama: “Employers added more than 200,000 workers to their payrolls for a third straight month in February, a sign the economy was strengthening. … Friday's Labor Department report, which showed nonfarm payrolls increased 227,000 last month, also bolstered President Barack Obama's chances for re-election.”

The glee continued to flow: “The jobless rate held at a three-year low of 8.3 percent even as people flooded back into the labor force to hunt for work, and 61,000 more jobs were created in December and January than previously thought.”

Hooray and hallelujah! After three long years, at last the economy has begun to recover from the Obama Recovery. However, even the media cheerleading for the president cannot change reality.

President Obama boasts of 4 million jobs having been created during his tenure. That’s an impressive number. But it is substantially less impressive when we know the rest of the story. Consider that during the downturn an estimated 8-10 million jobs were lost, so after three years more than half the jobs – approximately 5.2 million – are still missing in action.

Further, if you have a tingle running up your leg after hearing the president’s job creation number, looking at the Initial Claims for Unemployment Insurance will sober you up quickly. For the unemployment rate to be affected positively, fewer than 400,000 new jobless claims must be filed each week. Since March of last year, 30 of those 52 weekly reports showed new jobless claims exceeding 400,000, ranging from a low of 354,000 to a high of 478,000. Weekly new jobless claims since last March averaged 401,300, and the total number of new jobless claims for 52 weeks is 20,866,000. That means that during the last 52 weeks, nearly 21 million Americans lost their job and filed for unemployment insurance for the first time, and some of them are still jobless.

“Some economists say the real reason for the recent fast drop in unemployment isn't that there are suddenly so many new jobs — it's that far fewer people than expected are looking for work,” writes Tim Mullaney in USA Today. “Nearly three years into the recovery, the unemployment rate has tumbled even though new job gains are far smaller than in past recoveries. Americans could see the unemployment rate continue dropping to — or even breaking through — the psychologically important 8 percent mark by Election Day with far fewer net gains in jobs each month,” he notes. He goes on to explain that Mr. Obama may benefit from a politically beneficial unemployment rate as the election approaches, even though there will be substantially fewer jobs in America this year than four year ago.

Since the manner of calculating unemployment was changed in the 1990s, only those who are looking for work count as unemployed, and those who have given up looking are not counted, even though many are likely at some point to start looking again. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed as a percentage of the labor force, which includes only those working or actively looking for work. A smaller number of those categorized as “unemployed” renders a lower unemployment rate.

Another important statistic is the labor force participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian population not in penal or medical institutions, and included only 63.7 percent of Americans in January of this year, the lowest rate in 30 years. Near the start of the recession, that rate stood at 66 percent. “If employment stays the same, a lower participation rate drives down the unemployment rate. If employment gains rise and the participation rate falls, the unemployment rate falls even more,” the USA Today story noted.

The story goes on to say that if “the participation rate had stayed at 66 percent, the economy would have needed 5.1 million more jobs to reach today's unemployment rate. And if the labor force had grown about as fast as mainstream economists expected, job gains since early 2010 would have been too little to reduce the jobless rate from the 9.8% level reached in February 2010, when net job losses from the recession finally ended.”

So, while the jobs picture does reflect some positive change, it is not so much a picture of a beautiful beach scene as one of a pig wearing lipstick.

As the election nears, we have to be aware of all the factors affecting the employment problem, not just the unemployment rate, given that it is a manipulated number that omits much of the story of how many Americans are suffering because they can’t find work.

Comments are invited. Click Here To Comment

The Three Terrors -- Jihad is Sweet, Jihad is Fun!

Comments are welcome and invited -- Click Here to Comment

Conception to birth -- visualized

Using new imaging and computer technology, supported with graphic images, Alexander Tsiaras has created a video illustrating what occurs in the human development process from conception to birth.

This video is fascinating and instructive.

Comments are invited - Click here to comment

An update from somewhere near the bottom of the slippery slope

We not infrequently hear an admonition against taking a particular action because doing so is the first step down a slippery slope that leads to disaster, or at least to some negative situation.

Over the last several decades we have seen a steady decline in what once was called “morality,” a concept increasingly regarded as something from the Stone Age; senseless restrictions hampering the good times of no rules and no responsibilities.

Perhaps it is a natural human reaction to want total freedom to do as one pleases, but wisdom and past experience show us that a society cannot succeed without some rules. However, social rules do not carry fines or jail time; breaking the rules brought only shame and having people whisper as you walked by. And as more and more people chose to ignore certain rules, the whispering faded out and the rules and the stigma attached to them gradually disappeared.

Without significant social penalties, the predictable results of casual and often careless sex increased, the most serious being unwanted pregnancy. Back in the day, when a female got pregnant, usually she had the baby and became a mother, and the male involved became a father. But that was inconvenient for one or both parents, so along with the loosening of sexual customs came a relaxed sense of responsibility for one’s actions, and unwed mothers and absentee fathers grew in number, along with children put up for adoption.

But having a baby you didn’t want was inconvenient for the mother, so abortion that was once used only when medical conditions warranted, such as when the health of the mother was at risk, became after-the-fact birth control.

Abortion advocates argue that a fetus, at least in the early stages, is not a human being, only a mass of cells. Therefore, relieving the woman of this tumor-like inhabitant is not killing a child, because it is a “nonviable tissue mass,” not a child.  The determination that a fetus is not a child is based upon the unresolved question of just when the fetus becomes a person: at conception, at viability (however that is defined) or at birth.

Now, two Australian ethicists – Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne – have provided an answer to the question: it doesn’t matter. They argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics  that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so, too, should be the “termination” of a newborn. This is what can happen when you climb onto that “slippery slope.”

And what is the philosophical, ethical justification for what once was considered cold-blooded murder? “[If] circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

In the abstract to the article Giubilini and Minerva explain that “abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” The authors say that adoption is not a viable alternative “because the mother might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption,” but not from killing it, apparently.

In the enlightened 21^st century, merely being human does not mean that humans have an actual right to life.

Our two ethicists conclude their article: “If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.” Being a newborn, you see, is just another stage along the way to becoming an “actual” person.

In their intellectual wanderings through the amoral desert, the authors discovered that there are “actual people” and persons who are not “actual people,” but merely “potential persons.”

Only a few decades ago this discussion would never have gotten out of the padded room in which it was hatched; today it is considered reasonable, perhaps even enlightened.

However, when a newborn is expendable on the whim of its mother, for any reason or no reason, and is considered less important than some endangered critter like the Clanwilliam Redfin, the Zerene Fritillary, or the Coffin Cave Mold Beetle, how long will it be before “no longer viable persons” with some disease, a mental or physical disability, or who are merely too old to take care of themselves, will also be disposable?

Comments are invited. Click here to comment.

Middle school coach fired for writing an anti-Obama song

A 26 year-old Tennessee middle school coach lost his job because he wrote and performed a song critical of President Barack Obama.

The song isn't dirty; it doesn't use racist language; doesn't call names. It is a fairly straight ahead country tune with a political point of view. But it is anti-Obama.

Comments are invited. Click here to comment

Latest from Bones

Comments are invited

What Obama wants to replace real cars with

Comments are welcome

Are greedy oil companies responsible for higher gasoline prices?

When something unpleasant happens, it’s helpful to have a scapegoat, and when there’s an economic crisis during a presidential re-election campaign, assessing blame is campaign strategy. With the recent rise in gasoline prices, the finger-pointers have been giving their digits a vigorous workout telling us who they want you to believe is responsible for the rising gas prices.

Blaming oil companies or speculators or George W. Bush may make people feel better about something they can’t control, and put political points on the board, but those things aren’t the problem. These price increases are a matter of basic economics, magnified by foolish energy policies.

Before the financial crisis hit in 2008, the price of West Texas Intermediate reached its high on July 14 at $145.16, and average gasoline prices reached their high the same day at $4.05 per gallon. The downward economic trend thereafter pushed oil down to $30.28 a barrel and pushed gasoline prices to an average low a week later at $1.59 per gallon.

As world economic growth picked up, so did oil prices, reaching a high of more than $109 a barrel last Friday, and gasoline prices also hit a recent high of over $3.60 a gallon. However, the change in both oil and gasoline prices fairly closely parallel world GDP growth.

Oil is the biggest factor in the cost of gasoline. John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, explained last week that “when crude is at $100 for a standard 42‐gallon barrel … a refiner pays almost $2.40 for each gallon of that crude to make a gallon of gasoline” that is priced around $3.60 a gallon. “The next biggest component is taxes,” he continued. “They now average almost 49 cents a gallon, including federal, state and local taxes.” Crude oil and taxes comprise $2.89 of the cost per gallon of gasoline, more than 80 percent.

Further, he reports “crude oil prices are up because of supply and demand. World demand for crude is increasing as the economies of the world begin to recover, and the world’s excess oil production capacity is shrinking. Buyers of crude oil also are clearly concerned about the instability of major oil producing nations in North Africa and the Middle East.”

Some criticize oil companies for exporting fuel overseas. However, the weak economy and more efficient vehicles have left the US with a surplus of fuel; hence there is excess product that must be sold somewhere else. Exporting unsold US supplies keeps Americans working, many at good paying US refinery jobs, and also lowers the trade deficit. There are 9.2 million jobs in the oil and natural-gas industry in this country, and it accounts for 8 percent of GDP and is responsible for 78 percent of total domestic energy production. Imagine where those numbers would be if the Obama administration wasn’t committed to killing traditional American energy production.

Some think that “big oil” is greedy. Profits reached a high in 2008 of 10.12 percent, and have been 5.46 percent, 6.56 percent, and 7.31 percent since. If your company is making only six to 10 cents on a dollar of investment, that ain’t greedy, folks.

All of this is academic where President Barack Obama is concerned. Whatever complaint he may voice over gasoline prices is really just “gas,” because high prices are precisely what he wants. As long as traditional energy and traditional motor vehicles are affordable and popular, the green energy-driven nation that Mr. Obama obsesses about will not become reality.

In 2008 Steven Chu, who is now Secretary of Energy, said: “Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe.” Mr. Chu and his boss think that ideally Americans ought to be paying around $10 a gallon for gasoline. And President Obama himself stated that a gradual increase to European levels would be a good thing.

Toward that end, a new Environmental Protection Agency proposal requires the sulfur content in gasoline to drop from 30 parts per million to 10 parts per million, and according to a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson from six US Senators (4 Republicans, 2 Democrats), this mandate will raise gasoline prices by 12 to 25 cents a gallon. The dream of European fuel prices gets a little closer to reality.

Democrat National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said recently that “the Republican field … thinks that we just need to remain tethered and dependent on foreign oil because all they would do is more and more drilling.” This Alice-in-Wonderland assessment assumes that drilling for our own oil will keep us dependent on foreign oil. So much for Democrat energy policy.

Oil production has increased of late, “higher than it's been in eight years," the White House boasts. But this occurred in spite of, rather than because of, the Obama energy policy. Remember that Mr. Obama declared most offshore areas off limits, substantially decreased oil and gas leases in the Rockies, and rejected the Keystone XL pipeline. The increase in production comes from wells on private property where Mr. Obama cannot stop it, and that production began under George W. Bush.

Comments are invited

I'm really, REALLY sorry!

Comments are welcome.

Afghanistan: Giant failure with a smiley face?

Writing in Foreign Policy, Douglas Wissing presents a picture of the Afghan entanglement that is sharply at odds with the official line out of Washington, coming not only from the politicians, but from military leaders as well.

His account begins: “If observers had any doubts about the failure of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, the past several days should have put them to rest. Since Feb. 21, anti-U.S. protests have erupted in virtually every major Afghan city over the revelation that American personnel had burned Qurans at Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. installation in the country. The demonstrations have at times turned violent, claiming the lives of at least seven Afghans. This wave of protest is just the latest example of how the United States has botched its attempt to win “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan, and another indicator that its war effort is heading toward failure.”

And then, this: “Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis has traveled over 9,000 miles across Afghanistan to learn a simple lesson: public statements made from podiums in Washington and Kabul bear little resemblance to the reality of the Afghan war. The 17-year U.S. Army veteran spent most of his time in the insurgency-enflamed provinces in the east and south, and was shaken to discover the U.S. military leadership’s glowing descriptions of progress against the Taliban insurgency did not jibe with the accounts of American soldiers on the front lines of the war.”

Read the rest of Wissing’s account at Foreign Policy

American showing their abysmal ignorance about ... most everything

There are several people who give Americans the opportunity to show how much they know about their country, the world, personalities, and other such topics, and when we see the results it appears that their goal was to show how stupid people are. 

 Unfortunately, people eagerly cooperate in this endeavor.

One of those people is Tonight Show host Jay Leno, whose "Jaywalking" episodes are good examples of the genre. Herewith, a Best Of Jaywalking:

Comments are welcome.

Practicing “gotcha” journalism and ignoring the Constitution

A viral news item recently is the controversy over the mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring insurance plans operated by Catholic-affiliated institutions, such as universities and hospitals, to offer contraception, sterilization and abortafacients, services which are opposed by the moral foundations of the church. And that is the genesis of a comment that sent people into a tizzy.

Foster Friess is a supporter of Republican presidential nomination seeker Rick Santorum. He’s a political activist and Christian conservative. In an interview on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell Mr. Friess made a comment about the contraception issue that left Ms. Mitchell stunned. Alluding to the costs of providing contraception, he concluded, “You know back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception.  The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

That comment has been roundly criticized as a tasteless condemnation of contraceptive protection for women, for which certain hyper-sensitive folks believe he should be hanged, or at least water boarded.

Two sub-stories arise from this event: First is the gotcha journalism so on display in the current political campaign, evidenced in the attempt to hold Mr. Santorum responsible for the behavior of people who support his candidacy.

Charlie Rose on CBS TV asked Sen. Santorum what he had said to Foster Friess about the offending comment. Implicit in his questions were: Did you, Mr. Santorum, rebuke Mr. Friess enough to satisfy the PC police? Is Mr. Friess contrite? Are you, Mr. Santorum, also suitably contrite, and prepared to take your 20 lashes?

All of this foolishness arises from the supposition by Charlie Rose that candidates are somehow responsible for what all/any of their supporters say at every moment, on any subject, under all circumstances, whether or not they were speaking on the candidate’s behalf.

You may remember that same critical standard was not in effect during the 2008 campaign when the racist and incendiary statements about America by Barack Obama’s preacher, Jeremiah Wright, came to light. Mr. Obama said that even though he had been in preacher Wright’s church for 20 years, he hadn’t heard any of those vile comments. The media did not question that explanation.

And there was the domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, who was suspected of being Mr. Obama’s friend, or at least a friendly neighbor who held campaign events in his home. But the alleged friendship with Bill Ayers was “tenuous.” It must be true; [begin ital] The Washington Post [end ital] said so.

Since Mr. Obama was not challenged by the media like Mr. Santorum was, about either Mr. Wright or his relationship with Weatherman Ayers, the media apparently believes that anti-American speech and bombing police stations aren’t as serious as opposing free contraceptives for women.

Mr. Santorum pointed out the “gotcha” aspect of the question, and then the discussion turned to the candidate’s position on recreational sex and promiscuity, which really is the essence of the contraception issue. And later on MSNBC Mr. Friess said that his comment was a joke. “Back in my days, they didn’t have the birth control pill, so to suggest that Bayer aspirin could be a birth control pill was considered pretty ridiculous and quite funny.  … [And] it gives an opportunity to really look at what this contraceptive issue is all about.” 

In Mr. Friess’ youthful days, recreational sex was pretty rare, certainly far less common than today. Why? Because the morality of the day placed a stigma on girls who “slept around” and an even greater no-no was a single girl who got pregnant, or a boy who didn’t do the right thing if he got a girl pregnant. However, in the decades since, our culture has stopped teaching and stressing morality, bowing to the “I’m free to do as I please” attitude leftover from the hippie sub-culture that emerged in the mid-60s. The resulting social pathologies of out-of-wedlock births, single-parent families, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions are just the price we have to pay so that people may be comfortably free from societal restrictions and the responsibilities that once accompanied personal behavior.

The HHS mandate is in line with the desires of free-love 60s hippies, but worse than enabling promiscuity and the misery it causes, the mandate violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection of religion by requiring religious employers to provide insurance plans that include coverage for things which run directly counter to the moral precepts of those employers.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says plainly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” It does not say, “Except where contraceptives, sterilization or abortion are concerned.” Even big-government liberals should understand that.

Therefore, the government cannot force religious organizations to provide any service that is regarded as immoral by that organization. The position of the Catholic Church does not deny women any service that they may desire, it merely refuses to provide those services or pay for them indirectly through an insurance policy, which is both proper and legal.

The Obama administration and the pro-contraceptive, pro-sterilization, pro-abortion faction will simply have to find another way to foster promiscuity without the assistance of the nation’s religious institutions.

Comments are invited

Getting ready for his second term

Comments are invited

You vill obey! You must do vhat I say!

Comments are invited

A lesson in fairness from Barack Obama

Stephen Moore has penned a great piece on the skewed, distorted, perverse sense of fairness held by President Barack Obama, who uses "fairness" as a weapon to arouse further the discontent of the dependence-oriented segment of America that believes everyone owes them something.

Here's an excerpt from Mr. Moore's recent column in The Wall Street Journal:

President Obama has frequently justified his policies — and judged their outcomes — in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system — and his own policy record — stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?
Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C. — but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money — paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars — must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

 The complete column is available here.

Comments are invited.

It’s all Greek to me! Watching America collapse, Grecian-style

The lack of concern among what seems like a majority of the American people about the critical state of the national debt and spending deficits exceeding a trillion dollars a year is nothing short of stunning. This large group includes the federal officials we elected, expecting that they would run the government sensibly and according to the Constitution.

Over several decades our elected officials have created a level of debt that now threatens America’s future, with little or no worry about what they were doing. It probably isn’t time to call 9-1-1 yet, but that moment is not far away and closing in on us. But, in the face of impending doom, the president and the Congress continue along the same destructive path, spending too much and spending irresponsibly, believing the Tooth Fairy’s promise that everything will be just fine if we raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell commented recently that “Most of us might be a little skittish about spending money if we were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. But the beauty of politics is that it is all other people's money, including among those other people generations yet unborn.” Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher informed us that the problem with liberalism is that before long you run out of other people’s money. Thus, when you put liberals in charge of Washington politics, you have the worst of both worlds.

The Greek cynic Diogenes spent his life searching for “an honest man.” Nearly as rare, apparently, are elected leaders who truly grasp the seriousness of our economic situation and have the courage to do something about it.

All one needs to do to predict our own future is to look to Diogenes’ homeland, where decades of living the socialist good-life created a populace that doesn’t understand that its government is about to collapse. Although collapse will leave them in far worse shape than if they just willingly give up some of their goodies, they will fight to the death to keep the joyride going.

Greece is home to 11 million people and a government that gives them many perks in return for high income tax rates of 18 to 45 percent for everyone making more than about $16,000. Employers pay 28 percent of salary and employees pay 16 percent of salary for social security, and there’s a Value Added Tax of 23 percent. And, the high income-related taxes have produced wide-spread tax evasion, affecting revenue.

One of every 11 Greeks works for the government in a cushy, non-demanding and often patronage-acquired job featuring bonuses for such things as showing up for work on time, using a computer, or for working out of doors. They get half a month’s extra salary at Easter and another half during the summer. Greeks also receive generous pensions that often kick in at age 45.

The socialist government spent too much money; they took all they could get from the Greek people and then they started borrowing, and now that has run out, as well. The Ministry of Employment is trying to find effective ways to fight unemployment, which is expected to reach record levels this year, and 220,000 companies are predicted to go bankrupt. The government is trying to implement austere methods like slashing public spending, freezing or cutting public sector pay, raising taxes and raising the retirement age. But all the protesting citizens care about is having the free ride continue.

The “Occupy Whatever” movement now making the rounds of American cities resembles the protesting Greeks in attitude and behavior, another sign that we are headed down that same road. The Heritage Foundation’s Patrick Tyrrell presents data showing that one in five Americans now relies on the federal government for housing, health care, food stamps, college tuition and retirement assistance; more than 67.3 million Americans receive subsidies from Washington. The average individual who relies on Washington receives benefits valued at approximately $32,748, slightly more than the national average disposable personal income of $32,446. Individual assistance programs eat up 70 percent of the federal government's budget, a huge outlay that is supported by only half the population, the ones who pay taxes.

Our public servants should take notice of the similarities to this Greek tragedy and ask themselves if a gargantuan, paternalistic government is such a great idea, why is Greece falling apart?

But instead of seeing the error of their ways and making the tough decisions we elected them to make, and which are necessary to save the country from their malfeasance, they instead asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to help identify a way forward that will allow them continue in their efforts to buy the votes of the dependent class by doling out taxpayer dollars to them. The CBO determined that by raising taxes on everyone, things will be just fine: Raise the lowest income tax bracket of 10 percent to 25 percent, the middle tax bracket of 25 percent to 66 percent and the 35 percent tax bracket to 92 percent, and, voila, problem solved.

This is why Barack Obama and a large number of US Senators must be driven from office in November.

Comments are invited

More evidence that American education needs to be sent to detention

Many Americans who have been around a few years and remember what schools were like when they were young have longed lamented the sorry state of public education in the United States. Among that large group are a fair number of us who have taught in public schools and know first-hand about the problems.

Perhaps you’ve seen the “Jay Walking” segments on The Tonight Show, as host Jay Leno wanders the streets of New York asking random people questions that every ought to be able to answer, and gets some very strange answers. On his radio show, Sean Hannity does a similar “man on the street” exercise, with the same sort of results.

A new experiment has made the news. A student at a Washington state high school student decided to question classmates for a video called “Lunch Scholars,” and learned that the Vice President of the United States is someone named “bin Laden,” and that there are 51 individual states in the US.

Check it out at TheBlaze

Comments are invited

Why the Great Depression wasn’t “Great” and the “CRAP” Act is even worse

By Dennis Evers

Have you ever wondered why they called the first depression great? I’ve eaten a great steak and seen a great movie, even driven a great car, but I can’t imagine a “Great Depression.” It’s like a “fantastic amputation” or “terrific bankruptcy” or “Senate Intelligence Committee” - the words just don’t go together. 

Part of the reason the Great Depression was improperly named was politicians weren’t PC driven like today. I remember when I was a child my grandfather telling me that he actually met a guy who had heard of an honest politician.

If I live through what appears to be shaping up to be an even “Greater Depression” than the first one, I wonder what the DC, PC pundits will name it.

In addition to creating self serving PC misnomers, our politicians also spend a great amount of energy naming bills so voting (or even opining) against them is considered un-American. Take the National Defense Authorization Act, or “NDAA,” as it is called. It sounds great, but if those politicians were going to be honest with us ordinary freedom-loving voters, they would have named it the “CRAP” act, or “Constitutional Rights Annihilation Program.” I am relieved, however, that the president says he won’t use it against us. My only thought is, why does he need it if he won’t use it? It’s kinda like buying a nice big house so you can’t live in it.

Our politicians do funny things to promote their agenda under the guise of helping us. Take green jobs for example. The concept is truly wonderful, but the fact that they run about five million dollars per job is a little pricey. However, fortunately for us, the politicians will be helping to share the burden of the bill due to their unique ability to get filthy stinking rich while in office, looking out for our best interests, from insider trading.

The Recovery Act and Auto Bailouts are another great example of a failed program that they actually sell as a success story. For example, once they got that bursting into flames thing taken care of, Chevy Volt sales have more than doubled. In January of 2012 they sold a whopping 603 cars. Compared to the 281 cars sold in February of 2011 that’s a staggering increase. Now granted, even though projected 2011 sales were off by over 10,000 vehicles, and they ended up costing us taxpayers $250,000 per car (a little factoid they inadvertently forgot to tell us) they still might catch up to Ford’s unleaded gas powered F series which sold 38,493 units last month alone.

Personally, I think they are going to have a tough time selling the current depression as a “bump on the road.” Finding an American that isn’t taking a hit is harder than finding a working Solyndra solar panel.

Part of the problem is the statistics. It’s almost to the point that you can’t trust what the politicians are saying. The unemployment rate conveniently forgets to add people that gave up looking for a job, and how about that non-existent inflation? Have you noticed how a lot of the food you buy now comes in “New Environmentally Friendly” smaller packaging? They forget to tell you you’re paying the same price for 50% LESS, and the potato chip bags are so full of air, I “popped” one open and had a ringing in my ears for a week. As far as the government measuring inflation, other than not including skyrocketing food and gas prices, inflation is in check. Now, that’s great if you don’t eat or drive a car, but what about those of us who do?

I have a feeling that if we recover from this current “bump on the road,” and add up the true numbers, we’ll find out that a staggering number of Americans lost their houses and became homeless under the current administration, while everyone else lost their entire investment in their home. It should also be noted that in real time, almost one out of every four Americans is out of work and gas has increased 83 percent, and that the Obama administration racked up more debt in three years than all of the other presidents from George Washington to George H.W. Bush COMBINED.

I’m confident that when the Obama administration finally sees that after well over three full years in charge, their profligate spending has trashed the country, they will finally “man-up” and do the right thing and take responsibility and name it “The Great Bush Depression.”

Unemployment rate drops to 8.3 percent; but economy still struggling

The headline in The Washington Post trumpeted “U.S. adds 243K jobs in January; unemployment rate drops to 8.3%,” and the story which followed provided the detail. “The nation’s unemployment rate dropped for the fifth straight month to 8.3 percent, its lowest level in three years, the Labor Department reported Friday, with widespread hiring across the economy,” the story said. “The Labor Department recorded gains in many parts of the economy including the restaurant business, accounting, health care and retail stores,” and “the ranks of the unemployed dropped to 12.8 million in January from 13.1 million the month before,” the story continued.

President Barack Obama lost no time making hay in that little bit of sunshine. "The unemployment rate came down because more people found work, and altogether we've added 3.7 million new jobs over the last 23 months," he said. And the San Francisco Chronicle issued this rose-colored account: “With Friday's jobs report punctuating the nation's steadily improving conditions, Mitt Romney and his advisers are confronting an unexpected economic turnaround that threatens to undercut the central rationale for his candidacy.”

Make no mistake: anytime an unemployed American gets a job these days it is reason for happiness. But while the president, the Post and the Chronicle were satisfied with that little bit of information, there is a good bit more that we need to know before popping the corks on the bubbly.

The rest of the story is that while 243,000 jobs were added to the economy, more than four times that many people – 1.177 million– gave up looking for work last month. If you want the unemployment rate to look better, all you have to do is lower the number of people in the job market, and that’s precisely what happened when those people dropped out. Furthermore, in the week ending January 28, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial jobless claims was 367,000, and that is 124,000 more than found work.

If 243,000 new jobs caused the unemployment rate to drop by two-tenths of a percent, from 8.5 to 8.3 percent, when you add back into the equation the 1.177 million that dropped out of the job market, the more accurate unemployment rate is around 9.4 percent.

One of the many serious problems getting little attention from an administration focused on putting the best possible spin on things is long-term unemployment. Testifying before the House Budget Committee last Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called the problem “particularly troubling.”

Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco compared the number of unemployed with the number of job openings in the United States and found that the main reason for the spike in long-term unemployment is that there simply are too few jobs to be had. “It is likely that the recent pattern of massive job losses and a weak jobs recovery is the primary explanation for elevated unemployment duration,” according to the authors, Rob Valletta and Katherine Kuang. Twenty-four million Americans are unemployed, under-employed or have stopped looking for work. Today’s labor force is the smallest since the 1980s.

So, despite all the grand rhetoric emanating from Democrat circles in Washington, things aren’t exactly peachy in Employment Land. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports figures showing a big “fail” from the $787 billion Obama stimulus: “In February 2009, when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) became law, 12.5 million Americans (8.1 percent of the work force) lacked jobs. In December 2011, with 80 percent of the ARRA's government ‘stimulus’ money spent, 13.1 million Americans (8.5 percent of the work force) lacked jobs.”And the near future holds no better news. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecasts that the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent both this year and next.

Mr. Obama was also spinning wildly on the nation’s economy. "We're also seeing more optimistic economic forecasts for the year ahead, in part due to the package of tax cuts I signed last month," he said. But the CBO sees things differently. Growth in GDP is forecast to be poor, with real GDP growing by an anemic 2.0 percent this year and just 1.1 percent next year.

With those kinds of results after three years of liberal, big-government policies, perhaps it would be wise to try something different.

During and after the campaign Mr. Obama often reminded us that we were suffering the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Yet, he wasted three years “not letting a good crisis go to waste,” focusing on his ideological dreams, like ruining the nation’s health care system by turning it into just one more government-run nightmare; spending nearly a trillion dollars on a stimulus program for projects “that weren’t as shovel ready as we thought”; throwing away more than a billion taxpayer dollars on green energy companies that have now declared bankruptcy; and blocking every effort to develop domestic energy resources.

Now the president tells us that he is at long last focusing on unemployment, if only out of political necessity. He may have no idea how to help the economy repair itself, but he sure does know how to campaign.

 Please leave a Comment

House takes big step on costs

A step in the right direction, undoing one of the dumbest laws ever enacted.

(CNSNews.com) – The House approved a potentially sweeping budget reform Friday that would force federal agencies to justify an annual increase, as opposed to getting an automatic increase under current budget law.

“What we are about to do could be the most responsible financial thing this Congress has done, this House has done in the whole last year,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said before the vote. “It could be $1.4 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years and all we’re doing is just stopping the automatic increase.”

The rest of the story 

Comments are welcome

Great explanation of the Debt Ceiling issue

Lots has been said and written about the idiotic situation with federal spending and the accompanying level of fiscal malfeasance of our elected officials.

Here's a video that puts it in perspective so well that even a liberal Democrat can understand it. 

Maybe.

Comments Welcome