Saturday, July 14, 2012

Obama channels Elizabeth Warren




Hot Air ^ | July 14,2012 | JAZZ SHAW

The basic message here is that the President just wants to help. Times are tough and employers are having a hard time creating jobs. (::: cough ::: regulations ::: cough :::) But if you happen to be a business owner, the President wishes you the best. His help and good wishes, however, come with one small caveat… just remember that you didn’t build that business, so don’t get too cocky.

OBAMA:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

Average teacher makes $44G while their top union bosses pull in nearly $500G




http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/14/teacher-union-bigs-rake-in-dough-despite-budget-cuts-across-education-sector/ ^
Posted on Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13:21 PM by dewawi
Teachers across the country face pay freezes and possible layoffs, but the heads of the two biggest teachers unions saw their pay jump 20 percent last year, to nearly half a million dollars apiece.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association
“The NEA is a volunteer-based organization that relies upon its members to perform much of the Association’s work. In turn, the members are supported by a network of staff at the local, state, and national levels. The stated goal of NEA’s work is encapsulated in its vision: “building great public schools for every student.”[2]”
Are the guys at the top volunteers, also? If so, they are getting paid quite a bit for their volunteering services and skills.
Did you know that the NEA actually has a code of ethics?
http://www.nea.org/home/30442.htm
Now if they could only be applied to the people at the top, too!

Sheriff Joe's would-be assassins indicted




wnd ^ | July 12, 2012 | Bob Unruh

Members of 'Mexican Mafia' already in custody on other charges

Law enforcement officers in Arizona say they have broken up an alleged plot to assassinate Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is at odds with the White House over his investigation of Obama’s birth documentation, with the Department of Justice over his crackdown on illegal aliens, and assorted criminals already in jail.

The sheriff’s office said today that three maximum security inmates were arrested for conspiracy to commit murder “stemming from a complex plot” that involved the assassination of the sheriff as well as a plot to murder another inmate.
Authorities report Mark Cons, 33, and Rudolfa Santos, 37, “members of the Mexican Mafia currently housed in the sheriff’s 4th Avenue Jail on felony counts,” were served with arrest warrants for the alleged plots.
Samual Matta, 29, “a member of a documented street gang and who is currently incarcerated in the state prison in Florence,” also was accused of conspiracy to commit murder.
Authorities say the investigation began several months ago when detectives were tipped off by an inmate in jail on multiple homicide charges that Matta allegedly was planning to assassinate Arpaio using a rifle.
“Matta, who was planning to carry out the assassination plot once he was released from jail, believed that the sheriff was personally responsible
-snip-
The spokesman said Arpaio’s high profile positions on issues such as the investigation of Obama’s eligibility, and his determination to enforce laws against illegal immigration, have made him a bigger target than some sheriffs.
One of the threats, in fact, specifically cited Arpaio’s work on the Obama case.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Natural Gas Boom Hints At U.S. Energy Sufficiency


Investors.com ^ | July 11,2012 | DONALD H. GOLD

Pilot Flying J, a big coast-to-coast chain of truck stops, is installing natural-gas pumps at 150 of its 450 fueling stations over the next two years. Now a trucker can easily carry goods across the continent in a natgas-fueled vehicle.

United Parcel Service (UPS) is adding 48 trucks to its natural-gas-fueled fleet. The tractor-trailers travel between Las Vegas and Southern California, relying partly on UPS' own fueling stations.
These steps are just snapshots of a larger revolution that is gripping the energy industry and may profoundly impact consumers and business — for the better.

After decades of rising prices, hostile foreign suppliers and warnings that Americans will have to bicycle to work, the world faces the possibility of vast amounts of cheap, plentiful fuel. And the source for much of this new supply? The U.S.
"If this is true, this could be another dominant American century," said Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust Advisors, money managers in Wheaton, Ill.
U.S. natural-gas production is growing 4% to 5% a year, driven by sharply higher shale gas output. Shale gas production is forecast at 7.609 trillion cubic feet this year, up 11.6% from 2011 and 12 times the 2004 level.
Political Obstacles
Challenges remain, including political hurdles. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. can achieve the holy grail of energy self-sufficiency. But economists aren't ruling out the possibility.
"This is credible," said Mike Montgomery, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight. He says that if the U.S. reaches self-sufficiency, its vast stores of natural gas will make the difference.
Natgas prices have plunged 83% since their December 2005 peak, which is why truckers are switching over their fleets. Natgas now costs far less than diesel, truckers' longtime fuel of choice.
Maybe the U.S. won't be the next Saudi Arabia.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Obligatory: Dem Governor Questions GOP’s Patriotism!




Townhall.com ^ | July 13, 2012 | Daniel Doherty

Dan Malloy -- the Democratic governor of Connecticut -- didn’t mince words Friday morning when he publicly questioned the patriotism of the Grand Old Party. Brace yourselves.
Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat, questioned the patriotism of Republicans on Friday, saying their sole mission is to defeat President Barack Obama instead of passing meaningful legislation. "To be a Republican today, you have to deny reality and embrace a message that has no other purpose than to elect their candidate as President of the United States," Malloy said at a press conference with other Democratic governors in Williamsburg, the site of the National Governors Association annual meeting.
As proof, Malloy cited the GOP's inability to develop a coherent alternative to the president's health care reform law.
"They know what they're against, but they can't tell you what they're for," he said. Malloy called the situation "surreal."
"In other times taking those positions would be described as unpatriotic, but our politics have become so distorted that to be against a jobs bill is a good thing, and to be against health reform is a good thing," he said.
Let’s examine that last paragraph, shall we? It’s a fallacy to say Republican lawmakers are against “health reform.” Sure, they oppose the full implementation of Obamacare (as do most Americans), but that doesn’t necessarily mean they oppose reforming the nation’s health care system. On the contrary, Republicans do in fact have solutions to the nation’s health care woes – and, of course, recognize it’s one of the most important policy issues of our time. Remember, though, the president’s health care law was passed exclusively on partisan lines; Democrats couldn’t even get one single Republican to vote for it. And yet, somehow, if one disagrees with this deeply unpopular law – or the progressive worldview, for that matter – those same individuals are instantly deemed opponents of health reform. Incredible.
Let’s not forget, either, that Democrats (Governor Malloy included, it seems) have sought to portray the GOP as overseers of a “do nothing” Republican Congress. Speaker Boehner, on the other hand, contends that the Republican-controlled House has passed at least 15 jobs bills, only to watch them die in the United States Senate. And, in fact, as Guy explained earlier this year, Congressional Republicans did indeed work with President Obama and Senate Democrats to pass, among other things, the bi-partisan JOBS ACT.
The Republican-held House passed this bill in early March. After some pointless foot-dragging, the Democratic Senate eventually approved the measure, and now it's law. Let the record show that as of today, the "do nothing," "Republican" Congress has worked with the president by extending the payroll tax cut extension, passing patent reform, repealing a counter-productive withholding rule, and approving three free trade agreements. These were all elements of President Obama's jobs agenda. Now he's signed a job creation bill championed by House Republicans. Remember this roster of bipartisan accomplishments as our desperate president castigates his Congressional opponents as unflinching ideological obstructionists -- as he's guaranteed to do for the next seven months. The truth is that Republicans cooperate with this president when it's sensible to do so; they attempt to jettison his worst ideas, like cap and trade, Obamacare, higher taxes, and a second slush fund stimulus...
Perhaps if Republicans introduced a comprehensive plan to repeal and replace Obamacare they’d have much more credibility; but to say – or even imply – that Republicans are unpatriotic for opposing the policies of this administration is truly beyond the pale.

Team Obama: No, We Won't Apologize for Falsely Suggesting Romney's a Felon!




Townhall.com ^ | July 13, 2012 | Guy Benson

Raise your hand if you're surprised by this. Dishonorable people behave dishonorably (click through for video):

Ed Schultz, MSNBC: "Now the Romney campaign wants President Obama to apologize for Stephanie Cutter's remarks, you heard earlier, we played on that conference call about Mitt Romney either being a liar or a potential felon. Will there be an apology?"

Ben LaBolt, Obama campaign press secretary: "There won't be. You know, Mitt Romney has been telling voters, since he ran for office in Massachusetts, that he left Bain in 1999. And the Boston Globe reported today that that wasn't true.

Actually, that's not what the Boston Globe reported, and Romney's long-standing explanation for these events has been confirmed by multiple fact-checkers, as well as contemporaneous reporting -- including stories from the Boston Globe. As we've established, the Obama campaign certainly understands the difference between titular ownership and participation in the managerial process. They haven't even attempted to offer any evidence that Romney was running Bain after 1999, because no such evidence exists. The Republican was off in Utah working 80-to-100-hour weeks to (successfully) save the Winter Olympics. What Team O is doing here is glorying in their own lies, even (especially?) after they've been widely and scrupulously debunked. The message is simple: "We are going to do and say whatever the hell we want to damage our opponent, and we think we're going to get away with it." To make this point crystal clear, they've rolled out a new ad repeating the lie that independent analysts have just spent the last 30 hours picking apart. This is what we call tripling down:

Your Turn
very last element of this ad is untrue. First, Mitt Romney does deny that he shipped jobs overseas. That's the whole point of this multi-week spat. The Obama campaign has surely been making the claim over and over and over again, but Romney has denied it at every turn. And guess what? Mitt Romney is right. The Washington Post gave Obama 'Four Pinocchios' for his team's original claims, and FactCheck.org affirmed that there is "no evidence" to support the accusations. Second, there are no "newly disclosed" documents that disprove, or even disrupt, Romney's assertions on his Bain timeline. The very newspaper that ran the story cited in the new spot addressed this exact controversy ten years ago when Massachusetts Democrats were launching similar attacks (more on this later):

BOSTON GLOBE IN 2002: “Is it accurate? Romney's investment firm, Bain Capital, bought a majority stake in GS Technologies in 1993. Last year, with Bain still in control, the company filed for bankruptcy and Bain announced it would close the company's Kansas City steel rod plant, which employed 750 people. But Romney was not at Bain when the decision to close the plant was made: He left in 1999 to help organize the Olympics, though he was still signing official SEC documents as the company's president and CEO.

So the Globe story was not "new" or "evidence." Yesterday was Romney's "turn" to explain, and he did. The fact-checkers agreed with him. But Chicago pumped out a new attack ad anyway. For what it's worth (precious little to Captain HopenChange and his minions, evidently), there are additional facts on this front. The Washington Post's fact-checker awarded Obama 'Three Pinocchios' for the "felony" allegation today, reasserting its previous rulings on this Groundhog Day controversy:

As we wrote yesterday, we are standing with our assessment that Mitt Romney left the helm of Bain Capital in 1999, when he departed to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. The date is important because some questionable investments by Bain took place between 1999 and 2002, when he ran for governor. But a Boston Globe article on Thursday raised new questions about that timeline, citing SEC filings, and the Obama campaign jumped to take advantage of it. Despite the furor, we did not see much new in the Globe article. We had examined many SEC documents related to Romney and Bain in January, and concluded that much of the language saying Romney was “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” was boilerplate that did not reveal whether he was actually managing Bain at the time. (For instance, there is no standard definition of a “chief executive,” securities law experts say, and there is no requirement for anyone to have any responsibilities even if they have that title.)
The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here.We realize that Bauer gets to the word “criminal” by mentioning “investigation,” but that distinction might be lost on most listeners. Meanwhile, the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999. He stated that in a federal disclosure form he signed, under threat of criminal penalties. He said he was a “former employee” in a state disclosure form. A state commission concluded 10 years ago that he did, indeed, leave Bain in 1999. Investors in Bain funds were told he was not part of the management team. We were tempted to award this claim Four Pinocchios, but the documents with his signature leave some room for inquiry. But, overall, they shrink in importance to the other evidence cited above. (Our colleagues at FactCheck.Org also reaffirmed their similar conclusion.) Still, if the Obama campaign wants to put its money where its mouth is, it should immediately lodge a complaint about Romney’s financial disclosure form, filed just last year, rather than try to mislead people about potential violations in relatively unimportant SEC documents. Three Pinocchios.

Here's one more interesting and telling nugget WaPo raised:

Let’s also not forget that Massachusetts Democrats tried to keep Romney off the ballot in the 2002 governor’s race on the grounds that he had been living and working in Utah, even paying taxes there, and thus had failed to meet the requirement to have lived seven consecutive years in Massachusetts. The effort failed, but not after Democrats waged an expensive, months’ long battle to prove he worked so much on the Olympics that he was in effect a citizen of Utah.

Democrats in 2002: Romney was so involved with the Salt Lake City Olympics that he should be considered a resident of Utah, and therefore ineligble to run for governor! Democrats in 2012: Romney was actually running his business is Massachusetts the whole time, and his "outsourcing" after 1999 should prevent him from becoming president! It's impressive how the same political party can seize upon the same time period in Mitt Romney's life to bludgeon him for two explicitly contradictory reasons without any sense of shame. Finally, here's CNN reporting that Romney is telling the truth about his Bain departure, effectively invalidating three full rounds of Obama's negative ads, including the one embedded above:

CNN Report Debunks Latest False Attack From Obama Campaign
Note well that two overt, "active" Obama supporters at Bain have independently confirmed Mitt Romney's veracity in all of this, even though they want him to lose the election. Which reminds me: Hasn't a certain sitting president raked in major donations from Bain employees? Maybe Obama would have preferred in-kind donations instead, in the form of lying on his behalf about Mitt Romney's hasty exit in 1999, to provide some cover for his discredited attacks. Oh well -- the cash will have to suffice.

UPDATE - Some prominent Democrats are starting to feel queasy over the Obama campaign's unhinged, unsubstantiated "felony" language:



One wonders what "a lot too far" might look like. Meanwhile, the Romney campaign passes along this montage of Obama campaign officials getting raked over the coals for peddling untrue attacks; bear in mind that these confrontations all occurred before Team O released their latest "triple down" ad. Shamelessness on parade:

Ed Rendell: Obama Campaign Went "Too Far"
One wonders what "a lot too far" might look like. Meanwhile, the Romney campaign passes along this montage of Obama campaign officials getting raked over the coals for peddling untrue attacks; bear in mind that these confrontations all occurred before Team O released their latest "triple down" ad. Shamelessness on parade:
False Obama Attacks Collide With The Truth
Kudos to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC (!), ABC News, and CBS News for shooting straight on this so far. The unanimity of calumny demonstrates how incontrovertible the evidence against Obama really is.

Reid:Taxes must be raised to avoid military cuts




The Columbia Daily Tribune. ^ | July 13, 2012 | AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate's Democratic leader insisted yesterday that if House Republicans desperately want to avert automatic cuts to the military, they have to compromise and make tax increases part of any solution.


In a biting letter to the GOP members of the House Armed Services Committee, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would like to come up with an alternative "sooner rather than later" to the $1.2 trillion across-the-board cuts in domestic and military programs that kick in Jan. 2. But Reid argued that it will only happen if the GOP relents on closing tax loopholes to raise revenue.


"Given your concern about sequestration, I would encourage you to focus your energy on convincing Republicans that forging a balanced compromise that protects the middle class is more important than adhering to the Tea Party's rigid, extreme ideology," Reid wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at columbiatribune.com ...

Telecom firm received stimulus funds, sold U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran!



The Obama Report ^ | 7/13/12

ZTE USA, a U.S. subsidiary of the Chinese telecom firm, ZTE, has allegedly sold banned U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran, essentially bypassing current U.S. trade restrictions and embargoes imposed on Iran.


ZTE USA reaped substantial profits from the stimulus funds.

In January of 2010, US regional operator, Commnet Wireless contracted with ZTE USA to build broadband infrastructure network covering parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. And, at the time, ZTE USA and the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority were reportedly in discussions for additional US Broadband Stimulus funding from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
And, indeed, the National Telecommunications & Information Agency [NTIA] announced in March of 2010 that the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority received a $32.2 million broadband infrastructure grant as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to bring high-speed affordable broadband services to the Navajo Nation.
Likewise, Fierce Broadband Wireless News reported in April of 2011 that "the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and Commnet Wireless formalized a partnership this week after the two entities secured $32.1 million in broadband stimulus funds in March."
Hence, it appears as if ZTE USA, the company that allegedly sold banned U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran, profited substantially from the U.S. tax payer funded stimulus program.
Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal reported in October of 2010 that "four lawmakers [had] sent a letter Oct. 19 urging the Federal Communications Commission to take a closer look at ZTE..., and to consider restrictions that would make it harder for them to do business in the U.S."
The letter says Chinese telecom-gear makers are potentially subject to "significant influence by the Chinese military which may create an opportunity for manipulation of switches, routers, or software embedded in American telecommunications network so that communications can be disrupted, intercepted, tampered with, or purposely misrouted."
ZTE said the letter is a mischaracterization of the company, [as] it has no current ties to the Chinese government or military.
Apparently, the Obama administration ignored the letter, as evidenced by the fact that ZTE USA secured the $32.1 million in broadband stimulus funds the following year, in March of 2011.
And now, the company which previously disavowed any ties to the Chinese government, has allegedly sold banned U.S. surveillance equipment to Iran.

Chavez: Venezuela is no threat, Obama is a "good guy"



Reuters ^ | July 13, 2012


CARACAS (Reuters) - President Hugo Chavez denied on Friday that Venezuela was a threat to anyone, after U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney criticized Barack Obama for playing down the risk posed by the socialist leader.


Obama told a Spanish-language television station in an interview screened this week that Chavez's actions over recent years had not had a serious impact on the national security of the United States!


Romney said Obama's comments were "stunning and shocking" and showed a pattern of weakness in the Democratic president's foreign policy.

In an interview with a local Venezuelan television station on Friday, Chavez dismissed the allegations he posed any danger.

"The Venezuela of today is no threat to anyone," he said.
"It has all been a hoax by the imperialists and global far right: that uranium is being enriched in Venezuela, that we're setting up missiles here, that we're supporting terrorism."

(Excerpt) Read more at thestar.com.my ...

NAACP and the white sexual anarchists



WorldNetDaily ^ | Matt Barber

As his re-election hopes dim, the mainstream “progressive” media continue to run interference for Barack Obama. It’s predictable. They no longer even try to hide it. They persist in slobbering on their over-hyped, under-capable would-be savior as his campaign collapses around them. The sycophancy is embarrassing and the desperation palpable.

Most recently, they’ve created a stir around the NAACP crowd booing Mitt Romney at the decidedly liberal group’s national convention in Houston, Texas. The activist attendees didn’t like the fact that President Obama’s presumptive GOP challenger intends to repeal Obamacare if elected. Ads by Google
RushlimbaughListen to Conservative Talk Shows Right From Your Browser - For Free! www.ConservativeTalkNow.com Public Arrest Records1) Enter Name and State. 2) Access Full Background Checks Instantly. InstantCheckmate.com
Still, what you won’t hear from the mainstream media is the fact that those very same left-leaning activists gave Mr. Romney a rousing ovation when he pledged to defend the institution of real marriage from secular extremists’ ongoing attempts to radically re-define it.
During his speech, Romney quoted former NAACP Executive Director Benjamin Hooks, noting that the family “remains the bulwark and the mainstay of the black community. That great truth must not be overlooked.”
The former Massachusetts governor then promised the conference-goers: “Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country, and that must be our goal. As president, I will promote strong families – and I will defend traditional marriage!”
At this, the crowd erupted into sustained applause.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

Erskine Bowles: ‘We Are Going Over the Fiscal Cliff’




ABC News ^ | Jul 12, 2012 11:36am | Amy Bingham

Three of the country’s most prominent minds on U.S. budgetary problems issued a stark warning to lawmakers today as Congress approaches what many have called a “fiscal cliff” of tax hikes and spending cuts that are set to take effect Jan. 1.

Erskine Bowles, who served as President Clinton’s chief of staff, former Sen. Alan Simpson and billionaire investor Warren Buffet all expressed pessimism as to whether Congress and President Obama could reach a compromise to reduce the debt and avoid another fiscal crisis, during an interview with CNBC Thursday morning.

While both Republicans and Democrats have said they do not want to let all the tax cuts expire and plan to stave off the bulk of the spending cuts, Bowles said partisan politics would likely thwart any deal to avoid the looming taxmageddon.

“I think if I had to tell you the probability, I’d say the chances are we are going over the fiscal cliff,” Bowles said. “I hate to say it, but I think that’s probably right.” …

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...

California’s crazy train: On the fast track for fiscal ruin (high speed rail etc.)


New York Post ^ | 12:44 AM, July 11, 2012 | Ben Boychuk

California is broke and broken. Its freeways and roads are crumbling. Many cities—like Stockton, which declared bankruptcy two weeks ago—are straining under hundreds of millions in bond debt and unfunded pensions for retired public workers.

In the face of a slow-motion fiscal train wreck, why would state lawmakers commit to spending $5.8 billion in state and federal funds on the first phase of a high-speed rail line that practically nobody wants in part of the state where practically nobody lives?

The state Senate on Friday narrowly approved legislation to start work on a 130-mile stretch of rail between Madera and Bakersfield, where a tiny fraction of Californians live and work—mostly on farms. …

Yet the best explanation may be the Obama administration’s desperation for a win. The US Department of Transportation thrust $3.5 billion in stimulus money into the state’s grubby hands (billions that Florida and Ohio wisely turned down) and said “build it.”

But the feds then told California to break ground on the project this year—or lose the cash. …

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Obama’s Big, Bad Story Isn’t Right!



Townhall.com ^ | July 14, 2012 | John Ransom


Obama’s latest mea culpa just confirms how far gone this presidency is.
In an interview with CBS’s Charlie Rose, Obama says that the problem he’s had isn’t with the failed policies of his first term, but rather that he failed “to tell a story to the American people,” according to a report in the Christian Science Monitor.

"The mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that's important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times," said the president.

We’re paying White House staffers $38 million yearly, according to Politico, plus looking at roughly $750 million to a billion dollars in campaign spending to support this president- and the best excuse he can come up with for his failed presidency is that he’s not a good story-teller?

This is a man who largely won the presidency on nothing other than a fantastic and unbelievable story he sold to America via willing accomplices in the press.
Remember the story about Chris Matthews and the tingle that ran up his leg when Obama spoke?
That was a true story; a sad story, but still true.
But being president in one way or another, and at some point in time, for us grown ups in TV land, should become about truth, policy and the American way- not leg tingles.
Leg tingles are great for a romance, but they don’t create jobs; they’re no substitute for an energy policy; they don’t make medical bills magically disappear; they don’t pay the student loans the administration tricked students into taking; they don’t win the war in Afghanistan when you surge more troops into the country and more American troops die; they don’t solve the banking crisis; or make green investments smart; nor do leg tingles restore confidence in government and industry.
But what can you expect from an administration that has nothing to offer but new stories about it being someone else’s fault?
Leg tingles? Forget it.
That was 2008.
For 2012 the tingle is entirely different.
“Because that's how you play the game in Washington,” admitted then-candidate Obama according to a transcript of his 2008 “closing argument” speech released by the Chicago Sun Times. “If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas and maybe make some up."
Indeed you do, Mr. Obama.
Because you can’t take the horror story that’s become Obama’s War-on-Everything and sell it as a children’s tome, or a feel good drama or even as a journey of personal discovery- as we were once warned about by Sarah Palin.
Because the story that led to those leg tingles has turned into one that makes the hair on the back of our neck stand straight up after three-and-a-half years.
And we can all feel the tingle now.
It’s the tingle of coal miners without jobs, teachers being laid off, public pension crunches, businesses, small and large, struggling with the most massive government intervention in this history of our country- outside of war- to what purpose?
So Obama can tell us that the only problem is that he hasn’t told us the right story yet.
Save it for your next, navel-gazing book, Mr. President.
And the sooner you write it, the better.
Because there’s another way to tell the story.
It’s the only way that really matters to all of us- regardless of our political persuasion.
You want money for roads and bridges and policeman and pension payments and health benefits already promised to retirees? You want money for teachers and new hospitals and wellness programs?
Then let’s try telling a story about prosperity.
For that story we’ll have to write a new chapter in the book of life; a chapter without President Barack Hussein Obama, and the new, improved massive federal government.
And the chapter will start like this:
Once upon a time there was a business that sold things to people. After a long struggle, it made money and sold more things to people; and so it hired more people to sell more things; and it made a very nice profit for Bain Capital, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, and so Wall Street and Main Street rejoiced alike.
That’s a story every president should believe in.
And never tire of telling us.
It’s a story that Obama will never understand.

Did you know that public uncertainty about federal economic policy is at a 30-year high?


Townhall.com ^ | July 14, 2012 | John C. Goodman

Did you know that public uncertainty about federal economic policy is at a 30-year high? Economists at Stanford University and the University of Chicago have actually discovered a way of measuring how uncertain people are. They find that their measure of uncertainty correlates with such economic activities as deciding to invest, deciding how much to produce and deciding whether to hire more workers.

One source of uncertainty is what will happen next January when American taxpayers will be hit with a large tax increase (mainly the expiration of the Bush tax cuts) and a major decrease in government spending (the result of last year's budget deal). Will President Obama and the Congress agree to put off the tax increases? Will they agree to delay the spending cuts? Not knowing the answers to those questions appears to have more impact on the decisions of businesses and consumers than if everyone simply agreed to go ahead and let the bad things happen.

Some causes of uncertainty (such as the crisis with in the Eurozone) are not under President Obama's control. But in other areas, he is directly responsible for creating anxiety for the business community and the public. Three policies jump out: Dodd-Frank financial regulation, an unhealthy desire to tax capital, and ObamaCare.
Overall, the economists calculate public policy uncertainty is the apparent cause of a 3.2% drop in real gross domestic product, a 16% decline in private investment and the loss of 2.3 million jobs over the past five years.
Uncertainty is one of the reasons employers are not hiring like they have at the end of past recessions. When an employer hires a full-time worker, the employer thinks of the relationship as long term. During an initial training and learning period, the employer probably pays out more in wages and benefits than the company gets back in production. But over a longer period, the hope is to turn that around and make a profit.
When employers hire new employees, they are making a gamble. They are betting that, over time, the economics of the relationship will pan out.
The problem in the current economy is that hiring new workers and committing to new production has become risky. An employer who hires workers today has no way of knowing the company's future labor costs; its building and facility costs; its cost of capital; or its taxes.
Take the cost of ObamaCare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the average annual cost of a minimum benefit package at $4,500 to $5,000 for individuals and $12,000 to $12,500 for families in 2016. That translates into a minimum health benefit of $2.28 an hour for individual coverage and $5.89 an hour for family coverage.
In another year and a half, the minimum cost of labor will be a $7.25 cash minimum wage and a $5.89 health minimum wage (family), for a total of $13.14 an hour or about $27,331 a year. You can see already that few firms are going to want to hire low-wage workers with families.
Employers could decide to drop their health insurance altogether; and if they do so they must pay a fine of $2,000 per employee per year. Yet if a lot of employers do this (and apparently a lot of them are thinking about it), it is likely the federal government will respond by making the fine a lot higher.
The jobs numbers tell two different stories. In terms of hours worked, the labor market has recovered. But in terms of the actual number of people working, we haven't even started to recover. People with jobs are working just as many hours as they did before the recession began. This is consistent with the incentives under ObamaCare: Nothing happens to the employers' health care costs if people work additional hours. However, there is a substantial increase in health care costs, if the employer hires one more worker. This may be the reason for the jobless recovery.
I testified this week at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on this subject of economic uncertainty and the role ObamaCare plays. In addition, my new book, Priceless , explains how to dismantle and replace ObamaCare.