The Truth About American Poverty

May 24, 2012 5 Comments

In order to be considered below the poverty line, a family of 4 must have income of less than $22,350. There are apparently over 46 million such Americans these days, with substantial increases since Obama took office. These people are portrayed as desperate, starving people in dire need of assistance and help. The image we’re supposed to have of these people are of starving kids in Ethiopia or of children dressed like ragamuffins in tattered clothing during the Depression. But the truth is poverty in America is relative only to what the middle and upper classes have. The poor in American bare no resemblance to the truly poor and starving in other parts of the world.

According to the US Census, 87% of the American poor always have enough to eat. In fact, less than 3% of poor children suffer from stunted growth in America which isn’t surprising when 96% of poor parents report their children always have enough to eat. Less than 1% of the poor are homeless a single night during a year. In fact, 42% own their own homes. The average poor family household has 1,400 square feet of living space. That’s lower than the average American family which has over 2,100 square feet of living space but it’s higher than the average of any other nation in the world including all the nations of Europe.

The US Census reports that 80% of poor households have air conditioning (Only 36% of all US households had air conditioning in 1970). Around 92% of poor households have a microwave, just under 75% have a car or truck, 31% have two or more cars, nearly 2 out of 3 poor people has cable or satellite television service and a DVD player, over half of poor American children have a video game system, one third of the poor has a wide screen plasma or LCD television and half have a computer.

This is a starkly different picture presented of the poor than the one we’re fed by the media. The truth is the poor in America are rich in comparison to the poor of the rest of the world. They live a life of luxury when compared to the poor and starving in parts of Africa and Asia. In short, we’re not talking about the truly poor for the most part when we’re discussing the poor in America. We don’t have hoards of starving children, we don’t have legions of homeless. We have people who don’t have as much as the middle class but still have a microwave, television, cable, video game systems and a host of other consumer amenities.

The sob stories the media feeds us about the poor in America are really not about poor people. They’re about middle class Americans shocked by losing their jobs and being forced down into the lower class. It’s largely about their inability or their refusal to cope with their new reality. A reality that for most Americans is temporary. But this reality isn’t one of true poverty, it’s one of relative comfort just not at the level one is accustomed to. It’s a level of comfort that most of the world would love to have. Half of the world lives on less than $2 a day, do you think they wouldn’t enjoy the comforts the poor in America have?

Poverty is relative, even within the Federal government. Poverty levels are different at different agencies. Poverty is whatever suits the state at a particular time. When we look at poverty in the United States, we really need to recognize that poverty here is only relative to what the middle and upper classes have. When we compare American poverty to the rest of the world, it’s pathetic and laughable. We don’t have truly poor people in this country, the people we call poor are living large on consumer electronics. They’re hardly starving and homeless.  It should give us pause to wonder about our welfare state and whether we really should be paying for cable tv and video games for the lower class.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Surprise! Obama Opposes European Austerity

May 21, 2012 2 Comments

President Obama has urged Europe to back off of the austerity measures that are being implemented in countries that are about to go bankrupt. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are all on the brink of bankruptcy. Either they cut spending and raise taxes, get bailed out by the rest of Europe or they go bankrupt and perhaps take down the Euro. Most of these countries are taxed out, so raising taxes isn’t really an option. Cutting spending is. Not surprisingly Obama opposes any move away from a massive cradle to grave welfare state even if said welfare state brings a nation bankruptcy or threatens an entire currency.

Obama’s advice to the Europeans shows his complete lack of understanding about how economies work. He wants Europe to back off austerity, which of course means that the nations on the verge of bankruptcy will likely end up bankrupt or bailed out. At the same time he advocates the happy sounding idea of a “strong growth’ model. How does government create strong growth in the government? It cannot, at least in terms of actually creating the growth. Growth happens in the private sector. Government can create favorable conditions for growth by lowering taxes, cutting spending and backing off on regulations.

Obama isn’t interested in any of that though. He doesn’t want Europe to cut taxes or spending. All the talk of belt tightening from Obama is meaningless in light of his admonition that Europe stop austerity measures. The fact is Obama believes in a socialist top down economy. Government controls the economy from the top to the bottom in Obama’s world. That’s why he’s aligned himself with France’s new Socialist President. These people really believe that a socialist state will bring about prosperity, even to the point of ignoring the double digit unemployment that Europe’s most socialist countries enjoy.

Obama wants to follow Europe down the road to bankruptcy. In his three plus years in office, the Federal government has created $5 trillion in new debt. Any talk of cutting anything from the Federal budget is met with attack from the President. How much longer will it be before America turns into Greece? We surely won’t have Germany bailing us out. In fact, Germany may not bail out Greece this time around. But it begs the question why we would want this for ourselves?

One of the problems with the ‘too big to fail’ argument concerning bank and auto company bailouts is that people begin to apply it to government. Surely the Federal government is too big to fail and will be bailed out. The Federal government is big enough to fail and no one will bail us out. Greece’s economy isn’t anywhere near as big as our own. Yet it is about to fail and at some point it’s going to. Germany will have had enough and they’ll cut Greece and the other debtor nations in Europe free. Those nations have had their chance at bailouts, they’ve had their chance to get their fiscal house in order. So have we. We have a chance to cut spending significantly, we have a chance to get our debt under control. With Obama it won’t happen, with Romney it’s at best a 40% shot that it will happen.

Greece is a precursor to the problems we’re going to face down the road if we don’t get our Federal spending under control. Obama is quite clear about his position. He opposes European austerity, he believes in government control of the economy and has so much as stated this via is absurd “strong growth” position. We will not get spending under control under this President. We will not have a strong economy until we start cutting government spending and cut taxes. Obama’s mishandling of economic matters is bad enough here in the US. In Europe his position will likely lead to bankruptcy in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. It could even lead to the collapse of the Euro. Do we want this disaster for ourselves?

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

To Annoy The Media Discuss The Economy

May 12, 2012 2 Comments

The media wants to talk about any issue other than the economy these days. President Obama is thrilled that the media continues to report what his administration and campaign feed it. Make no mistake, the focus on everything but the economy comes directly from the White House. In the current economic climate, Obama stands little chance of re-election. Of course, if Rasmussen is to be believed the President’s flip flop return to his 1996 position on homosexual marriage isn’t helping him either, he’s now down 7 to Romney among likely voters. It’s the economy that matters though, even if the media doesn’t want to discuss it.

Everyone knows the 8.1% unemployment number is a sham. LD Jackson discussed it yesterday. The only way for the government to have the unemployment rate drop when only 115,000 jobs are created is to declare that hundreds of thousands of Americans are no longer in the work force. Some of these people have no doubt given up working, others are simply removed from the pool to make the government look better. The real unemployment rate is 14.5%. This government statistic measures those who are unemployed as well as those who have given up looking for work and those working part time who would like full time employment but cannot find it. This number may be artificially low as Gallup reports the underemployment rate (which measures the same people) is 18.3%.

Gallup reports that one in three young workers (ages 18-29) are underemployed. This fits right in with reports that recent college graduates are having a difficult time finding work. This is a group that Obama not only win but convince to come out to the polls in droves if he wants to win re-election. It begs the question why young people would want to vote for Obama when young underemployment hasn’t been higher in several generations and college graduates cannot find jobs. If you cannot find a job it really doesn’t matter what the government sets the student loan interest rate at because student loan debtors cannot pay either way.

Consumer confidence dropped in March and remained steady in April. In short, consumer confidence in the economy is not getting any better. The jobs market isn’t getting any better. Gas prices are down but they’re still over $3.50 a gallon. Real inflation is above 6%. Inflation is something the media never talks about anymore. The government inflation rate is based on big ticket items and goods that rarely change in price. When you include more volatile goods like food and gas the inflation rate goes up and government looks bad. Anyone who has been to the grocery can tell you when inflation is hitting because the price of meat, dairy and produce increases.

The economy is in a sad state right now. It’s something that needs to be discussed not just by media but by individual Americans sitting around their dinner table or talking to their friends in the front yard. Obama’s policies haven’t made the economy any better. He’s given us $5 trillion in new debt, massive new regulations, a meaningless Wall Street regulation package that couldn’t stop JP Morgan from losing $2 billion in risky investments (I don’t care if JP Morgan loses its money but Obama’s regulations were supposed to prevent this sort of thing thus they’re clearly a failure) and we won’t even discuss Obamacare which has been the single biggest drain on business since it was passed. The economy is a mess, the economy is Obama’s. No wonder he and the media don’t want to talk about it.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The Obama Economy Is Not Booming

April 9, 2012 1 Comment

Last month’s economic news wasn’t very good. No doubt the administration will brag about the 8.2% unemployment rate. What they don’t want to talk about is the fact that nearly 88 million adult Americans aren’t in the work force. If someone isn’t in the work force, they aren’t considered “unemployed.” In other words, a record number of people are either retired, a housewife or have simply given up looking for work. It’s the latter that is driving the number higher on a monthly basis. In short, the only reason why the unemployment rate is down is because the government isn’t counting the unemployed who have given up.

The rest of the jobs report isn’t good either. After posting new jobs over 200,000 in February, March saw only 120,000 created. More people gave up looking for work than jobs were created. Economic forecasters had predicted over 200,000 created jobs in March. With the economy creating less jobs than anticipated, many seem to believe that the jobs market is getting weak again. Keep in mind, we would have to have three years of monthly job growth like February just to get back all the jobs lost in the recession. For March to produce just over half of what was predicted is disappointing. Not surprisingly, it’s led to a stock sell off this morning.

The economy is a mess right now and bragging about the unemployment rate is just putting lipstick on a pig. Gallup reports the underemployment rate at 17.8%, meaning more than one out of six Americans is underemployed. (ie, they want to work fulltime but cannot find 40 hours of work per week) Inflation is hitting big as gas prices have increased substantially to $3.90 a gallon. We can expect to see food and clothing prices increase in the next couple months as a direct result of increased gas prices. Big ticket items might not increase in price but the cost of day to day living is on the rise and has been throughout the Obama administration while wages remain flat.

Poor economic news really gives Romney an opening this fall. If the economy cannot pick up steam, Obama may be in trouble. He can win re-election with economic news like February’s. But he cannot win with months like March. At some point, Romney is going to make the case that the unemployment rate is a farce because it so many are excluded. The underemployed rate and the number of adults no longer in the work force are the better measures of employment. With inflation, low job growth, Romney has an opening. He can ask Americans if they’re better off than they were four years ago. For most at this point the answer is no.

We’re not even getting into Obama’s direct economic contributions such as the failed Stimulus, the massive debt incurred under Obama’s watch, the financial reform package which didn’t reform anything but made the cost of business increase, the effect of various regulations or the uncertainty created by Obamacare. This is Obama’s economy, just like it’s Obama’s budget deficit and Obama’s GSA spending wildly in Las Vegas.  Obama has not made conditions good for business. He’s created tax and health care uncertainty. His energy policy is costing us jobs and money. His regulations are costing businesses money, which is seen in job cuts and/or failure to hire more workers. Creating 120,000 jobs isn’t enough when we lost so many millions during the recession. The economy is his, the question is whether Americans are content with mediocrity and whether Romney can take advantage if Americans are not content.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Ryan Budget A Good Start

March 21, 2012 9 Comments

In 2008 then Sen. Obama said that the deficit Bush racked up over his eight years was far too high. He called the new debt “irresponsible and unpatriotic.” In three years and two  months Obama has accumulated more debt than Bush did. Obama of course isn’t called irresponsible and unpatriotic by the press, Rep. Paul Ryan is. Ryan introduced the House GOP’s budget proposal the other day. It contains $5.3 trillion in cuts over a decade, or around $530 billion each year. The Ryan budget includes a revamped Medicare program for younger workers, Medicaid and other welfare reforms as well as a simple two tiered tax code with rates of 10% and 25%.

The left is of course howling about the Ryan budget and you can bet the next round of ads featuring Rep. Ryan throwing a wheelchair granny off a cliff will soon appear. The Ryan budget is a modest proposal though. It still includes yearly deficits, albeit at the so-called ‘historical’ average. Allegedly by 2040 the budget will be balanced, which is of course patently absurd in light of the fact that in the next 28 years we’ll have 14 Congresses that can muddle matters. Nevertheless, the Ryan budget is a starting point for a debate that must take place. We cannot afford trillion dollar plus annual budget deficits as we’ve had during the Obama years.

While the left is busy complaining about Ryan’s budget, they offer no budget of their own. The Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget during Obama’s term. Obama offered a budget, which defeated in the Senate 97-0. Not even Obama’s own party took his budget proposal seriously. Yet these people will sit back and accuse the Republicans of hating the poor and elderly, even while they try to revamp programs like Medicare in order to save them. The Democrats have no ideas of their own, other than to continue spending wildly without  a budget.

Taxpayers cannot afford annual $1 trillion deficits, nor can we afford to return to the annual $1.6 trillion deficits we saw when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. We have to start making cuts, Ryan’s budget does just that. There is no reason whatsoever why 45 million Americans are on food stamps. It’s to easy to get them, it’s time to make cuts. There are other forms of welfare that need to be time limited in the same manner as the welfare reforms of the 90′s. Medicare needs to be fixed otherwise it will bankrupt the nation. The idea that bureaucrats in Washington get to decide everything must be the way of the past.

The Democrats are whining about the Ryan tax proposal, with the typical class warfare we’ve come to expect from the left. We have over a $1 trillion deficit this year. Obama supports the Buffet rule which would net barely $4 billion a year and $47 billion over an 11 year budget period during which the government under Obama’s plan would see over $7 trillion in new debt. Obama’s other tax increase proposals for the rich wouldn’t even net $100 billion a year and that’s assuming the super rich don’t shift their assets to tax free bonds and other investments, which they have always done in the past. In short the issue with the budget deficit isn’t tax rates, it’s spending.

While the Democrats complain without offering an alternative, the Ryan budget still doesn’t balance the budget. It still calls for annual deficits and a substantial increase in the national debt. Why is it that the Federal government is unable to live within its means? Nevertheless, the Ryan budget is a good starting place. He revamps the tax code, saves Medicare and makes substantial welfare reforms. It’s a good start. Our nation cannot afford trillions in annual deficits and we cannot afford any more debt. The Democrats plan is more of the same, more spending, more deficits and more debt. At least the GOP is trying to change course.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , ,

How Inflation and Contraception Go Together

March 13, 2012 2 Comments

The media is boasting at the supposed economic recover. We’re to be excited about 250,000 or so new jobs. That’s great and all but we would need three years of 250,000 new jobs every month just to get back to the level of employment we had prior to the recession. The Obama administration unemployment figure of 8.3% is artificially low as they “seasonally” adjust rates to suit those in power and throw millions of Americans who have given up finding a job out of the ranks of the unemployed. The truth is that the economic recovery is very weak.

The biggest problem with the economic recovery, besides the fact that it is so slow, is inflation. Listen to the government and they’ll tell you that the inflation rate is 3.1%. They figure this number with a basket of goods that doesn’t include volatile products such as gas and food. In other words, they figure inflation by leaving out the things that hit middle class families the hardest.

If we were to figure inflation by looking at more than big ticket items like cars and houses (which with recent price drops keeps the government number artificially low) and instead looked at food, gas and other basic household expenses we would see the inflation rate is really 8.1%. Combine the government number and the volatile goods rate and we come up with an inflation rate of 5.6%. Since families buy both everyday goods and big ticket items, this number isn’t an unreasonable reflection of the current inflation rate.

When Obama runs for re-election he isn’t going to be running on the price of cars or homes. He’s going to be running against gas prices and food prices, which coupled with salary stagnation have reduced the quality of life for the average middle class family. Whether the Democrats like it or not, people are going to pass buy a gas station on their way to vote and if prices continue on the path they’re on now it won’t be good for the President. Gas prices averaged over $3.50 in 2011. They’re already approaching $4.00 this year and we haven’t even hit the heavy driving season or the government created cost increase also known as the summer blend. That doesn’t bode well for the President.

Gas isn’t the only commodity that has increased in price over the last few years. Meat, corn, wheat and rice have all gone up substantially. As such the price of making burgers for dinner is increased, cereal prices have increased substantially and the price of milk has increased by as much as a third in the past couple years. No wonder Obama is losing women voters. The real inflation rate perhaps explains why the administration is making up issues such as the contraception issue. They’ll do anything to deflect women’s attention away from the prices at the grocery store.

Polls for Obama have gone down over the past few weeks. They coincide with a substantial increase in gas prices. Obama was in perfect position a month ago. The GOP is fighting, no one likes any of the candidates. While the GOP candidates fight like children, Obama suddenly looked Presidential in comparison. Economic numbers were slightly improving, which helped him. The bottom has fallen out because of gas prices but there were warning signs in Obama’s poll numbers all along.

Lurking in the background was a female problem. Seeing the real inflation rate tells us why Obama was having trouble with them. Women do more grocery shopping than men, they see the price increases at the store while men often only see gas pump prices. Obama’s numbers among women have been down for awhile now. It’s clear why Obama made a desperate attempt to turn contraception into an issue. Obama cannot afford to lose women and he’s losing them right now because women are fed up with milk that costs over $3 a gallon. Inflation could be the issue that silently destroys this President.

Filed under economy, inflation Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Tax Policy A Disaster For The Middle Class

February 24, 2012 Leave a comment

The Obama budget is a tax policy nightmare. He has minor corporate tax decreases which are more than offset by eliminating loopholes. In short, he wishes to increase corporate taxes. He wants to triple the tax on dividends from 15% to nearly 45%. In short, if a corporation pays out a dividend each dollar distributed could be taxed at nearly two thirds. This is supposed to be a grand budget that will get the economy rolling. One wonders how that is possible with taxes so high.

Obama will shoot back that the dividend tax would only increase for those wicked rich people earning over $250,000 a year. But in reality this tax will hurt all of us. Why? Because corporations aren’t going to pay dividends when the people who sit on the board of directors will be taxed at such a high rate, in addition to the corporate tax already paid. The company will instead reinvest the profits. Who does this hurt? It hurts the poor and middle class because we’re the ones who either benefit from a dividend check the most or we reinvest our dividends via our mutual funds. In short, we’ll be making less because of this tax.

All of this in the name of fairness, not economic sense. In Britain they increased the top income tax to 50%. It’s really 65% for those who own their business as they’re stuck paying a 15% socialist healthcare tax in addition to income taxes. Now that the tax is law, tax receipts have dropped dramatically. The socialist Liberal Democrats want to keep the rate high “to demonstrate the rich are paying their fair share.” Sound familiar? It matters not to these people whether these taxes are actually increasing government revenue. It’s all a demonstration.

During the depression Hoover and FDR increased income taxes. Each time they did revenue from income taxes dropped. This was so even when during the 30′s FDR increased the top rate to over 75%. The only taxes which increased government revenue were excise taxes, which are hidden taxes added to the cost of goods. FDR massively increased excise taxes on everything from gas to clothes. During the Depression those taxes adversely affected the poor and middle class while the upper class was largely unharmed by FDR’s massive income tax increases. The rich simply stopped working and earning money, which of course did nothing more than extend the Depression.

We’re not in a depression, certainly not like the one in the 30′s. But the proposals coming from Obama are much the same. Tax increases for the wealthy, which won’t produce any more income for the Federal government. There has been talk of increasing excise taxes on gas, cigarettes and other items. Michelle Obama wants an excise tax on sugar and junk food. All of this would hurt the poor and middle class, who would pay the overwhelming majority of such taxes.  

Nearly half of Americans pay no income tax at all. Under Obama, we are fast becoming a split nation of taxpayers and recipients of taxpayer dollars. The top 50% are paying nearly all of the income tax revenue. The top 1% pay over 1/3 of all income tax revenue. The top 10% pay over 70% of all income tax revenue. There comes a point where increasing taxes produces diminishing marginal returns. Britain is already experiencing this. With diminishing marginal returns you can bet that the economy is going to start slowing down as the rich stop producing because they don’t see the point in working for the government.

Obama wants to take us to this point. All for show, so he can run around declaring the rich are “paying their fair share.” Of course fair share is never defined. Obama’s budget is a disaster for taxpayers and the economy. It will lead to economic ruin and a prolonged downturn. Worst of all, it will hurt the poor and middle class as we won’t be able to reap the benefits of the rich investing or the benefits of dividends.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , ,

Obama Rejects Keystone LX Pipeline; Fed Oil Leases Down 40%

January 19, 2012 9 Comments

President Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline yesterday. In doing so he blamed Republicans for only giving him 60 days to review the proposal. Never mind of course that the Federal government has known about the Keystone pipeline for years and has already before rejected it. Interestingly the President has until mid-February to make a final decision and yet he rejected it a month early. Such suggests he was always going to reject it and didn’t take the proposal seriously.

This is a pipeline that would create 20,000 jobs immediately and would create many more residual jobs. The President believes there are more jobs in unemployment benefits and tax rate extensions than in the Pipeline. But of course when has this President ever been rational about energy. He won’t allow new offshore drilling in the US, which would create American jobs. But he’s willing to pledge to buy offshore oil from Brazil. He won’t make it easy for Americans to buy Canadian oil but apparently we’re to continue to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations that hate us. Or does he think the Chevy Volt coal powered car is going to suddenly take off?

This administration is engaged in a full scale war against energy independence. While Obama is running around declaring that we produce more oil than ever in this country, none if it is thanks to the Federal government. It’s all thanks to private land owners in Texas and North Dakota.  Under Obama, Federal oil leases are down 40%. The Federal government only issued one offshore lease in 2011.

It should come as no surprise that Federal oil leases are down considering that Ken Salazar is in control of them. As a Senator Salazar repeatedly opposed Federal oil leases, especially offshore. Salazar has said that he isn’t opposed to $10/gallon gas. While the media isn’t reporting this, it’s important to note as the election heats up. The GOP candidate, whoever he may be, is a supporter of energy independence. Obama is a supporter of energy dependence with a dash of utopian environmentalism nonsense.

Keep in mind, in 2008 Obama said he supported higher gas prices. As President he’s done everything in his power to make sure prices rise and stick. Gas was $3.50 last year on average. Here in Michigan the average price today is $3.45. Keep in mind, January is a slow driving month. Prices are usually less during the winter. One can imagine that we’ll be looking at $4 gas come summer. This is exactly what Obama wants. Higher prices.

Obama has no interest in the Keystone Pipeline because he has no interest in energy independence and a return to cheap gas. He wants American dependant on the government and if there’s one thing that makes us less dependant and more free it’s the automobile. Couple that with Obama’s environmentalist agenda and it’s the perfect storm of higher gas prices and foreign energy dependence.

We can only hope the Canadians wait until after the election before selling their oil to China. If the GOP wins, we’ll finally start seeing cheaper gas. The Pipeline will be built and more permits will be issued. Oil can become the new natural gas. (note the left loved natural gas as a clean burning fuel until it could be extracted from shale rock and the price dropped dramatically. Then the left hated it) We can return to gas under $2 a gallon but not so long as Obama is President. This President is hellbent on increased gas prices and continuing America’s energy dependence.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Harry Reid Fact Checked But It Won’t Change Faulty Worldview

December 27, 2011 4 Comments

Forbes had a big splash over the weekend fact checking Sen. Harry Reid’s ridiculous assertion that millionaires don’t create jobs. Using the government’s own data, Forbes surmised that most millionaires do in fact create jobs and that of the 250,000 who earned a million or more in 2009 only 16,000 or so of them were the hedge fund managers and lawyers that Reid cited as being the only millionaires. Forbes rightly points out that even if Reid was correct about hedge fund managers and lawyers being the only millionaires, it’s not like they don’t hire secretaries and other staff to work for them. Thus they create jobs.

The problem here is that Forbes misses the boat completely. They’re allowing facts to cloud a worldview. The pesky facts, which any fool could have come up with, were never going to side with Reid on this issue. It is absurd to suggest that those who earn a million or more a year don’t create jobs. Especially in light of the fact that this income group earned $600+ billion. They either created jobs with their wealthy or they’re swimming in gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. Don’t laugh, there are liberals out there who really believe the millionaires and billionaires out there are swimming in gold coin money bins, Harry Reid is one of them.

The real problem though is that Reid is a progressive and as such he doesn’t believe the private sector creates jobs. He believes government creates jobs. This goes right in line with Obama’s top down approach to the economy. Decisions are made in Washington and the government is directly responsible for any and all job creation. If jobs are lost, the progressives in government whine about evil hedge fund managers and greedy lawyers and businessmen. This is one reason why Obama spent the better part of his first two years claiming the government “saved or created” millions of jobs. It’s because the progressives really believe it.

We in the GOP need to be careful not to fall into this trap. Bush spent his entire administration claiming he created millions of jobs. Lots of conservatives like to point to Reagan, claiming he created tens of millions of jobs. Bush, Reagan and the government did no such thing. Government doesn’t create private sector jobs. Private sector jobs are created by investors who foresee demand for certain services or products or by demand itself.

Government can only create conditions that are good or bad for job creation. But at the end government doesn’t create the jobs, the market does. High taxes and heavy regulation, both supported by Obama and the progressives, hinder job growth. It creates conditions that make the c0st of hiring overly expensive and thus risky. On the other hand, lowering taxes and reducing regulations can have the opposite effect. Lower taxes and lower costs create ripe conditions for job growth. But at the end of the day, it isn’t an act of government that creates a job. It’s businesses that create the job.

We conservatives need to be careful about giving to much credit to government concerning job creation. We to easily fall into the progressive trap by claiming that Rick Perry created a million jobs in Texas or that Jon Huntsman created jobs in Utah. Those men and all other Republican governors and presidents did no such thing. They may have created conditions that were good for job growth by reducing taxes and regulations. But they didn’t create the jobs, the private sector did. By falling into the progressive trap, to many Republicans falsely believe that government creates jobs. This is how the left wins and shifting the country ever leftward. Let’s not continue falling into this trap.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , ,

Obama Doesn’t Care That Keystone Pipeline Is Key For Middle Class

December 22, 2011 8 Comments

Obama has spent the better part of his three years in office claiming to for the poor and middle class. His economic policies haven’t exactly helped the middle class, but that hasn’t stopped Obama from claiming to love and support middle class Americans. Obama and the GOP are fighting over a minor tax cut extension that amounts to around $20 a week for the average American. No doubt preventing DC from getting any more money is a good thing. But let’s put that in perspective. Americans spent on average over $4,100 on gas in 2011. That’s nearly four times as much as it will cost Americans if the government fails to extend the payroll tax cut.

The average price of gas was around $3.50 this year, an all time record. It’s slightly lower right now as December has historically seen lower gas prices because of lower demand. What has Obama done to reduce the cost of gas for middle class Americans? Obama will of course point to increased fuel standards for automobiles. But of course we have to acknowledge that with increased fuel standards there is a trade off. You’ll pay less at the pump but you’ll pay more for a car. At best the trade off is equal, in which cases no one is better off financially. Obama will also point to the failed Chevy Volt, which has cost taxpayers a fortune while failing to win the hearts and wallets of average Americans.

There is of course one thing Obama can do to reduce the cost of gas. He can approve the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada. The Canadians have oil coming out their ears from the oil sands in northern Canada. By approving the pipeline, Obama can immediately reduce the price of oil on the world market and thus the price of gas. The mere prospect of more oil on the market causes the price to drop as futures markets anticipate the new source of oil. We’ve seen this happen before, particularly when the strategic oil reserve is tapped.

There of course is another thing Obama can do to reduce the price of oil and gas. He can allow more drilling in the Gulf Coast and in Alaska. This coupled with the Keystone pipeline could nearly eliminate our dependence on middle east oil. We would produce oil ourselves and obtain oil from friendly Canadians. Yet Obama refuses to do any of this.

Obama has two main political groups fighting to prevent us from having cheaper oil. He has the environmentalists demanding higher energy prices to fulfill their socialist, anti-freedom agenda. He also has your run of the mill top down socialists who want Americans dependant on government and see high energy costs as a means to that end. Obama himself has talked about $5-10 gas in glowing terms.

For someone who claims to support the middle class, Obama is doing the opposite in refusing to approve the Keystone pipeline. If the price of gas were cut in half because of increased supply it would result in $2,000 in the pocket of the average American. That’s twice as much as the payroll tax cut extension. And thus you see why Obama doesn’t want to approve Keystone. The middle class is dependant on Washington for a measly $20 a week in tax cuts and Obama right now has the middle class begging him to extend it, be it for two months or a year. Keystone would put twice as much in the pockets of Americans, all without direct government involvement. And thus we see why Obama refuses the pipeline.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 353 other followers