Monthly Archives: March 2009

Economy, Politics

Obama's Oval Office Chat On The Economy

President Obama spoke in the Oval Office today, Friday 13, 2009, after meeting with economic adviser Paul Volcker and members of his business advisory board. Here’s AP’s account of the chat, ‘Obama: Help coming for those facing economic pain.’ What does ‘for those’ mean?’ I’m of the impression that the whole country is facing economic pain, not just ‘those.’

– President Barack Obama on Friday acknowledged that many families are suffering “incredible pain” from the economy but said his government is on a daily campaign to get credit flowing and build a long-term recovery.

He is right about one thing. The ‘daily campaign’ part. The ‘his government’ was kind of cute too. The teleprompter just isn’t working to boost confidence that he has a clue. Confidence is what the market is looking for, and does not yet have. The ’empty suit’ is showing again.

“If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy – all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy – then we’re going to get through this,” Obama told reporters in the Oval Office. “And I’m very confident about that.”

Did he say ‘the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy?’ (bad images of John McCain going through my head) I’m glad President Obama feels confident. I’m not. This one statement shows Obama’s lack of understanding of our economy. There is one fundamental aspect of our economy that he omits, the weight and level of involvement of government on the free market. To be fair, it may not be a lack of understanding on his part. If not that, then he is being intellectually dishonest and deceptive in discussing the economy and its performance by leaving government involvement out of the picture. Neither one makes me feel very confident. Which one works for you?

Under his bailouts, nationalization and stimulus plans, the exceptionalism of our people (he refers to as workers), and the innovation and dynamism of our companies will be all but gone. I suppose it depends on what your definition of ‘getting through this’ is? Someone should ask him. Maybe Jim Cramer from  CNBC’s business channel. Does it mean recovering once again as a free-market economy like we used to be, or recovering as a more socialist country with the lousy economy that goes with socialism?

He said more help will be announced soon for small businesses, but did not elaborate.

I can elaborate. Card Check. That’s what he has in store for small business. Card Check is a labor union ticket to organize small business, and any other size business. Card Check will depress and suppress small business. Which will be mirrored by the economy. Can’t wait to hear him spin Card Check as being good for small business. I mean, when he campaigned, he said  ‘no more earmarks.’ Now that he’s elected, and the Pelosi / Reid budgets are in front of him, earmarks are cool.

Pushing a big agenda for health care, energy and education, Obama said he was seeking a “post-bubble economic growth model.”

Wouldn’t it be preferable, safer, and cheaper to recover the economy BEFORE going into the grand government health care scheme?  NO, before nationalized health care. How about announcing your plans to fix Social Security, which even if we were in good economic times, will bankrupt the country all on its own? On that point, there isn’t even any argument. (embarrasing images of Obama, the ‘long-term thinker’ come to mind)

“The days when we are going to be able to grow this economy just on an overheated housing market or people maxing out on their credit cards, those days are over,” he said.

It’s good that he is at least admitting, in a way that only Obama can, that the Left’s idea of putting people in houses that they can’t afford was not a good idea.

“We’ve got to get through this difficult period,” he said. “And, look, there are a lot of individual families who are experiencing incredible pain and hardship right now. If you’ve been laid off at your job, if you’ve lost your home, then, you know, right now is very tough. But we’re providing help along the way.”

And getting used to living in a socialist nation will take time. Just hang in there and remember, we feel your pain.

Economy, Energy, Fair Tax, Politics

'Stimulus' Is Working, For Switzerland

Here’s a real-life example that speaks to the benefits of the Fair Tax in attracting business from around the world. It is the exodus of business from the United States as they escape the ‘tax hammer’ of the politicos in Washington. They are moving their domicile to Switzerland. How’s that for an economic stimulus?

As the Obama administration prepares to hit the energy industry with a $10 Billion tax ‘incentive’ (his word, not mine), the law of free-market economics does what it does just as sure as gravity does what it does, it ignores the will of the political class.

The tidy towns and mountain vistas of Switzerland are an unlikely setting for an oil boom. Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland — mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama’s tax-seeking administration.

In a country with scant crude oil production of its own, the virtual energy boom has changed the canton or state of Zug, about 30 minutes’ drive from Zurich, beyond all recognition. Its economy was based on farming until it slashed tax rates to attract commerce after World War Two.

The Fair Tax would, all on its own and without increasing our national debt, change the global business paradigm by making the United States the tax haven for businesses around the world.

Link: RPT-FEATURE-Corporate oil booms in low-tax Switzerland

Economy, Energy, Pensacola, Politics

Rush Has Zero Impact

‘Limbaugh’s political influence is not vast at all.’ That, according to Air America Radio host of the Ring of Fire program, Mike Papantonio.

That’s why I thought it odd that he would go to all the trouble to offer his political advice to RNC Chariman Michael Steele. Which is, have Rush start a third party.

I’m sure Rush will be taking advice from Mike Papantonio and/or Michael Steele. Besides he wouldn’t take the pay cut. Look what good advice it is. Split the party, dilute what little solidarity there is in the GOP, guarantee Democrats stay in power in Washington. Yeah, that sounds like a plan Rush would like. 🙄

The heartburn Papantonio has with Rush is two-fold. Professional envy is probably his biggest motivator. Rush is a conservative first, not a Republican first. And, Papantonio knows that conservatism is the antidote to the liberalism / socialism as proscribed by the Democrats in Washington today.

That one man, Rush, can create such an uproar on the Left belies the irrelevancy that is ascribed to him by Mike. It takes away from examining the real issues, like how Obama’s Cap and Trade plan will raise the cost on the poor for gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil, and electricity.

The poor can thank Obama for not raising their taxes. The poor can also thank Obama for replacing it with higher fuel and energy costs on them. And Rush can stay right where he is.

Link: Papantonio: GOP should turn its back on Limbaugh

Uncategorized

Employee Free Choice Act Is Democrats' Quid Pro Quo

1 Comment

(Due to the fact that the bill is being debated in Congress today, I’m bringing this post out of the November 2008 archives) 

Among the first items on President-elect Obama’s agenda will be to pay back labor unions for their generous campaign contributions in the name of the Employee Free Choice Act. As if government is not already involved in all kinds of things of a socialist nature that it should not be involved in, but is, Democrats in Washington, if not by executive order itself by our new President, will resume the effort to boost labor union membership by enacting new legislation. Since when does boosting labor unions membership become a responsibility of the government? The easy answer to that is to follow the money. If you do that then you’ll know why the bill was sponsored solely by Democrats including Barack Obama.

The bill was mis-named on purpose. Had it been named correctly, it would have been named the Employee Forced Choice Act. The meat of the bill will remove the private ballot in union organizing and replace it with a public one. It is more than a little ironic that Democrats would have such contempt for a private ballot when every other kind of vote Americans participate in is a private one.

And be prepared also for the Left to attach this bill to their favorite political tact, class warfare. Last year, Sen. Hillary Clinton was speaking for this bill and said that it is for ‘the middle class’ because, she asserts, labor union members are middle class. Although Democrats purport to support ‘the working people,’ what they really support are labor unions.

Didn’t we just learn that small businesses create something like 80 percent of jobs in this country, and that most of these small business owners and their employees are ‘middle class?’ And that’s why Obama wants a ‘middle class’ tax cut while raising taxes on ‘the rich.’

Let’s examine Barack Obama’s economic theory. He wants to increase minimum wage to over $9/hr. He wants to increase taxes on small businesses with incomes higher than $120,000. He wants to enable labor unions to unionize small businesses. Does this sound like a pro-growth economic policy to you? It sounds like disaster that will only worsen our economic woes.

In 1983, 20 percent of workers in the U.S. were union workers. In 2007 that percentage was 12.1 percent, up .1 percent from 2006.

Much of last year’s growth came in the West. California’s rate of union membership rose one percentage point, to 16.7 percent, an increase of more than 200,000 members. Nevada showed an increase of 15,000 union members, reflecting the organization of casino and construction workers.

As you might expect, union membership in the Midwest decreased.

In the Midwest, manufacturing job losses reduced union membership. Michigan lost 23,000 union members. The largest decrease came in Illinois, where union rolls dropped 89,000. Ben Zipperer, research associate at the Center for Economic Policy Research, said the manufacturing sector — long the stronghold of U.S. unions — is being supplanted by the construction and private health-care fields, where union membership is growing.

The reason union membership has declined over the years is that employers have negated the need for them by paying more and offering benefits that employees want, without them having to pay dues to a union. This so-called Card Check legislation is a mistake for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that it is not the government’s job to increase labor union membership. The other reason is the negative impact on business that come with unions in vastly increased overhead and payroll expense.

Look what labor unions do the the auto industry. Did you know that . . .

At a time when the average American company requires workers to pay more than $2,000 a year toward family health insurance premiums, the auto industry is among the 4% of employers that offer free family health coverage.

And these figures are from 2005, it is only worse now . . .

The cost of providing health care adds from $1,100 to $1,500 to the cost of each of the 4.65 million vehicles GM sold last year, according to various calculations. GM expects to spend at least $5.6 billion on health care this year, more than it spent on advertising last year.

Granted that it was the management of these automakers that agreed to such extravagant benefits, at the threat of a strike, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how labor unions can put not only the auto industry, but any industry at a competitive disadvantage, including small businesses that need all the help they can get. If unions go away, no one suffers. If small businesses go away, everyone suffers.

related links: Union Membership Up Slightly in 2007 | Obama renews promise on NAFTA, ‘card check’ | Employee Free Choice Act, Part Two

Economy, Pensacola, Politics

Socialism Is To Nationalism

As Liberal is to Progressive. From the Left front, it is official. They have come out of the closet for socialism. In case you missed it, this was part of Saturday’s program, on Air America Radio.

We’ve also got best-selling author David Sirota with us today, and he’s gonna tell us why we shouldn’t be afraid of nationalism, because if you look closely, you’ll see that its already all around us.

David Sirota gave two examples of nationalization that, he says, the American people like. Social Security and Medicare. Both of which will be financially unsustainable in the not too distant future all on their own. A fact that was overlooked by the show’s host, Mike Papantonio, on his Ring of Fire radio program. What’s funny is the ‘if you look closely’ line. To some, like this conservative, the Left’s urge for government control of as much of our lives as possible, does not require close examination. It wasn’t neocon hysteria after all. It’s out there.

Ring of Fire radio link: Hour 3 William Kleinknecht David Sirota (Sirota’s segment goes from the middle to the end of the audio file)

Bio: Mike Papantonio hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, the Ring of Fire, on Air America Radio and is the founder of GoLeft.tvGoLeft.tv. He is a partner in the Levin Papantonio law firm in Pensacola.

Economy, Politics

Earmarks Of Epic Proportions

On the subject of earmarks, I’m not feeling too confident that the Obama who ran for election these last 2 years is the same Obama that is in the White House today. Fool me once . . .

He said he was against earmarks and wouldn’t sign a bill with earmarks in it. He described an earmark as legislation that gets thrown in that escapes public scrutiny and debate.  There will be no more putting things into legislation without full disclosure and examination. Such was his position.

By the President’s own definition, the $787 billion stimulus package is an earmark. President Obama told Congress they had to approve that bill immediately. Things were getting so bad that the world would end if Congress did not act fast. They didn’t have enough time to even know what was in the 1,100 page bill before they voted for it.

Now, the President has upped the ante to our future generations in his free-market regression, or spending binge. He is now saying that people are going bankrupt because of health care costs, and, that’s why we have to implement government run health care right away. He characterizes this socialist cherry as being a stimulus.  What?   And we have no time to waste in nationalizing health care. It will save us money. Right! For Congress to save money, someone would have to take their pens away so they couldn’t sign anything.

Never mind the shifting of power from the people to politicians in Washington for a moment. Solely on a monetary basis, to believe that spending trillions of dollars more of money belonging to future generations will help to stimulate and stabilize our economy today, to quote another Democrat, ‘requires a suspension of dis-belief.’

Speaking of our Secretary of State, how many months, or years did she work on THE PLAN to take over the health care industry? Let’s just say for arguments sake, that it took longer than a week. And President Obama today wants us to jump on board a plan that does not exist. Unless it is Hillary’s plan that he’s talking about, how is it possible that Obama has a plan that we should vote for right away? He is saying, trust me, you don’t need to know how I’m going to do this, just vote for it. There’s a crisis going on.

By the President’s definition, the stimulus bill and his nationalized health care ‘plan’ are both earmarks of epic proportions.

Media, Politics

What A Conservative Is

Rush Limbaugh did a great job of explaining what it is to be a conservative at the CPAC get-together in Washington yesterday. Making excellent use of a large TV audience and fulfilling his role as the Doctor of Democracy, in his own words, Rush explained conservatism.

He not only explained conservatism, he also contrasted that to what the Obama administration has in store for us and its effect on the nation. Cal Thomas writes . . .

Rush embodies real leadership: he knows where he wants the country to go and he is unapologetic about giving directions. He properly ridiculed liberals for their abject and proven failure to deliver the poor from poverty and wondered why the poor continue to vote for Democrats when their position remains unchanged; at least it is unchanged for those who would rather accept a government check than do what is necessary to climb out of poverty.

Rush also made the point that people watching or hearing from him for the first time will be surprised to see the difference between what they will see of him and the media’s characterization of him.

In its entirety, the speech is motivational in a sense of looking forward and what we, as conservatives, will have to do to rebuild a majority party again.

Congressional Republicans and those who seek the presidency ought to listen and re-listen to this speech. It is the core of conservatism and it embodies not only the spirit of true conservatism, but the spirit of America’s past and America’s future, if we will embrace it.

In case you missed it, the entire speech that Rush Limbaugh gave at CPAC in Washington yesterday is below.