Tag Archive: jobs


Are you better off?

Romney will need to remind Americans of the problems that President Obama has created and/or has failed to solve. Pictured: Romney speaking to a crowd.

In recent weeks, Mitt Romney has emerged as the Republican candidate to take on President Obama in November. Tonight, Romney will be giving a speech to debut his official general election message, and based on some early excerpts of the speech released by the Romney campaign, it seems that Romney is framing the next election perfectly.

Mitt Romney has been running with several general themes throughout the primary season. He has talked about the need to roll back regulation, simplify the American tax code, and to grow the American economy. However, Romney spent little time on semantics and delivery of his message during the primary season, and thus, the kind of striking slogans and mottoes that characterized Barack Obama’s successful run back in 2008 have largely eluded Mr. Romney…until now. Romney plans to focus voters’ attention upon one crucial question: are you better off than you were four years ago?

The wave of enthusiasm that propelled President Obama into the White House has since vanished, and Obama is floundering in his attempts to convince voters that he has bettered their lives. Unemployment has refused to duck below pre-recession levels, even with massive numbers of Americans leaving the labor force and artificially lowering the unemployment rate. Companies are moving jobs overseas as fast as they can, domestic energy costs have skyrocketed, and the national debt has ballooned to near-catastrophic levels. Amid all these problems, Obama is still claiming success with every piece of good economic news, and of course, taking no credit for economic failures.

Romney posing this profound question to voters is an extremely intelligent move on his part. When voters go to the polls this coming November, they will not listen to either Mitt Romney or his opponent to determine whether or not President Obama deserves another four years in office. Instead, a voter will look back and think about how the incumbent has improved or decreased his quality of life. And based on our current economic situation, with new doomsday news emerging everyday, it seems fairly obvious to me that the vast majority of voters will find President Obama’s work over the past few years to be utterly unsatisfactory.

To get an idea of how damaging Mr. Romney’s speech tonight will be for the Obama campaign, only take a look at the media coverage it is (or rather, isn’t) receiving. NBC News and CBS are refusing to interrupt their normal broadcasting to cover Mr. Romney’s speech, and according to BuzzFeed, ABC News has not yet commented but – in my view – is unlikely to cover Mr. Romney either. Try to catch Romney’s speech on Fox News or CNN tonight, and comment on this article or on our Facebook page to tell me what you think about it! Is it effective?

President Obama says that without his leadership, the economy and the state of our country could be worse. However, it is an argument that won't fly.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night was more of a preview of his new campaign strategy than an actual review of our current situation as a nation. Our growing deficit and our debt crisis, the two elephants in the room, were barely mentioned by President Obama, who preferred to spend his time bemoaning the success of wealthy Americans and pitting rich against poor. Fortunately, if these items are any indication of President Obama’s reelection strategy, Republicans should defeat him easily.

President Obama’s new strategy seems to depend on two central tactics: the first being to wage war against the rich in America and the second being to marginalize the problems that his administration has perpetrated. Pitting the rich against the poor and demonizing the successful in America will allow President Obama to essentially shift the blame for our current economic crisis onto the wealthiest Americans, who represent a minority in the United States. Castigating the rich can indeed win some voters, as some Americans are jealous of the wealth and prosperity of others. Fortunately, however, scapegoating the successful is not an effective strategy in the long term because it invites criticism from those on the right. Republican leaders have already decried President Obama numerous times for his divisiveness and for his pursuit of class warfare.

The more dangerous campaign strategy of the president is one that diminishes the real magnitude of the problems to which he has greatly contributed. Our national debt has increased by several trillion dollars since President Obama’s election back in 2009, and things are getting worse by the day. The United States debt currently sits at an alarmingly high $15.2 trillion, and Obama’s attempts to control spending have been quite literally non-existent. In fact, Mr. Obama has been more dedicated to increasing spending over his first term than he has been dedicated to decreasing it, as evidenced by Obamacare and the infamously wasteful stimulus programs that he championed. The economy continues to be driven into a ditch as disappointed, dispirited Americans continue to leave the workforce in droves and artificially suppress the unemployment rate, and the wanton waste of taxpayer dollars on government-funded messes like Solyndra shows an utter lack of stewardship of the hard-earned money of Americans by the Obama administration. All of these issues present major shortfalls for Obama’s reelection campaign, so the president’s new strategy is to simply minimize these topics. For example, the president has been attempting to diminish his failure at managing the American economy by saying that things could have been worse. However, be assured that whomever the Republican Party nominates to face the president this year will definitely focus on these topics and will make the president account for his failures. It is up to voters to listen to the truth and to realize that President Obama’s shortcomings far outweigh any of his supposed virtues.

Obama and the fairness doctrine

President Obama believes in an economy of equal results. I believe in an economy of equal opportunity. Pictured: President Obama's January 2011 State of the Union address.

“We can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.” -President Obama in a video to supporters

As the election nears, President Obama has been greatly increasing the volume of his populist appeals. His calls for tax hikes on the top 1% of Americans and for economic “fairness” have become commonplace in his public appearances. However, while President Obama believes that his policies are the solution to income inequality and our current economic crisis, I believe that these same policies will cripple the foundations of our country’s values and principles and will only perpetuate the very problems that these policies attempt to solve.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the United States of America declared that every person shall be entitled to the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” When Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wrote this line, they did so to emphasize that the members of a free society do not by any means achieve outright happiness from their government. It is the personal pursuit of that happiness that is most important in a free society, and this is where President Obama and I differ. President Obama wishes to extend the size of government to provide for the happiness and security of American citizens. Obamacare, the stimulus programs, and the takeover of General Motors all are clear examples of President Obama’s government-cures-all philosophy. Meanwhile, contrary to the president, I believe that market-based reforms are needed to truly conform with the basic values of our country’s founding. The utilization of private health insurance programs in Chile has led to the commercialization of hospitals and health care, which has in turn lowered costs and raised care quality for consumers. Contrary to the government handouts that have characterized President Obama’s presidency (read Solyndra), across-the-board tax cuts offer significant financial relief to all businesses and job-creating innovators, not just big businesses with billion-dollar lobbying forces or political campaign donors.

The past few years have shown that Barack Obama’s economic philosophy has failed miserably. Under President Obama’s policies, record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamps and other forms of government welfare, and more Americans are unemployed than under the Bush administration. Still more Americans have given up looking for work all together and have resigned themselves to a life of dependence on government. Obviously and unfortunately, the equal result promised by President Obama’s philosophy has worked, but it has made life worse for Americans across the board. This November, Americans will decide between this failed policy and the tried and tested solutions offered by the philosophy of equal opportunity. Let’s hope that we make the right decision.

Ronald Reagan put it nicely.

<object width=”420″ height=”315″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/6ixNPplo-SU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param></object>

If unemployment begins to rise again, President Obama's already lacking economic platform will disappear completely. Pictured: An unemployment line.

President Obama has long held that the gradual decrease in unemployment is the direct result of his stimulus spending programs and other big government economic policies. However, in a speech two days ago in Indiana, Charles Evans – the president of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank – expressed his concern that this decrease in unemployment is only “transitory.” Moreover, Evans warned of the possibility of an increase in unemployment by the end of the year. If Mr. Evans is correct, could President Obama’s reelection bid this year be doomed?

Firstly, President Obama’s reelection chances depend heavily upon the economy. In a CBS News poll conducted from Jan. 4-8, 55% of respondents said that the biggest problem facing the United States today is the economy and job creation. Discounting those who answered “other” (22%), the nearest runner-up answer of any remote specificity was “politicians and government,” polling at a minuscule 5%. Economic concerns have also been reflected in President Obama’s approval rating. According to Gallup polling data, President Obama’s approval numbers have improved by six percentage points from September 2011 to January 2012. Interestingly, this improvement corresponds with a .6% decrease in measured unemployment. Thus, if unemployment continues to trend downward, President Obama will be viewed more favorably by voters this November.

On the other hand, however, an increase in unemployment would severely cripple President Obama’s reelection bid. His economic argument centers on two main points: the first being that his policies have reduced the duration of the recession, and the second being that increased regulation protects consumers and encourages job growth. An increase in unemployment would greatly reduce the effectiveness of these arguments because such an increase would indicate both the continuation of the recession and the negative impact of Obama’s regulations on the economy. Thus, President Obama would have an abysmal record of job creation in an election season where the economy is the most important issue. Doomed? I’d certainly say so.

New unemployment numbers hide the truth

From January 1948 to December 2010, the percentage of civilians over age 16 that aren't in the labor force.

The US unemployment rate for November declined from 9% to 8.6%. This sharp decrease was a pleasant surprise when compared to the October trend, which would have only decreased the unemployment rate by .1%. However, the truth of these unemployment numbers is far less encouraging.

Employers only hired 120,000 workers, a minuscule .004% of the US population, last month. Discounting people under the age of 16, this percentage climbs slightly. Despite this, however, it is clear that job creation alone could not have had a 100-fold impact on unemployment. The real cause of the .4% drop in the unemployment rate lies in the 315,000 people who left the labor force outright.

To the left of your screen is a graph which shows the percentage of Americans over the age of 16 that are not in the labor force. Although this graph only gives data through December 2010, it very clearly displays the severity of our current economic recession. When the economy remains in a stagnant state for a lengthy period of time, many unemployed Americans become frustrated with trying to find work and give up altogether. Even though the employment status of these people has not changed, the US government does not consider them to be unemployed, and thus the startling percentage of Americans not involved in the labor force doesn’t get much publicity in the mainstream media.

Besides the percentage of Americans that aren’t in the labor force, there is another telling statistic. The average duration for joblessness is now a record-high 41 weeks. As Democrats in Congress continue to advocate the extension of unemployment benefits, it is important to consider the impact of these benefits on motivation among the unemployed. When the government provides monetary benefits to people who are not employed to help them get back on their feet, there is a strong motivation on the part of the recipient of these federal funds to simply milk the government for more tax dollars.

There is a simple solution to the jobs crisis. Pro-growth measures such as Reaganesque tax cuts, the removal of government subsidies, and deficit reduction should be the first items on the agenda of Congress. Additionally, revamping the unemployment benefit system to incentivize employment rather than dependency on government will help push those not in the labor force back into it. If these crucial items are pursued by this Congress, our economy will explode and will experience a dramatic recovery unlike any we have ever seen before in American history.

A successful Black Friday will be a boon to the economy and will consequentially improve consumer confidence.

In their latest move of idiocy, some “Occupy” protesters have set their sights upon large retailers participating in the national Black Friday sales event. These retailers, according to the “Stop Black Friday” website, are “in the pockets of Wall Street” and thus deserve to be occupied and/or boycotted by the American public. All corporations that are publicly traded are fair game for occupation, and among the businesses to be occupied are AT&T, Home Depot, Walmart, and the Dollar Tree. The goal of this entire operation is to “hit the corporations that corrupt and control American politics where it hurts[:] their profits.”

Oh, the noble intentions of these Occupy protesters! For the good of society, they are going to move the violent, Nazi-backed street marches of Occupy Wall Street to Walmarts and Dollar Trees across the country!

Seriously though, this protest does absolutely nothing for everyday Americans, who are often touted as the 99% by the Occupy movement. Take Walmart for example. Walmart is the largest private employer in the country, employing over two million Americans (that’s right, almost 1% of the entire American population). If Occupy Black Friday causes a significant loss in profits, the company could stop hiring workers and even reduce wages or fire employees. None of these options would bode well for any of Walmart’s customers either, as decreased profits could lead to price increases. As with Walmart, all other companies that feel the bite of Occupy Black Friday will only transfer their losses, if significant, onto consumers and employees that belong to the “99%.” Thus, by targeting the largest companies in their occupation, Occupy Black Friday is gunning for everyday Americans who work at or purchase goods from these corporations.

Fortunately, however, I think that the Occupy Black Friday movement will be unable to gain enough strength to accomplish its goal. Unlike Wall Street, which is viewed as distant and inherently evil, Walmart and other large corporations provide many visible benefits to communities and individuals and therefore are viewed in a favorable light by most people. Personally, I love my neighborhood Walmart, and I am sure that most of the people in my community are of the exact same feeling.

Please check out the Facebook page for the Project or follow us via email by clicking the “Follow” button in the lower right-hand corner of your screen. Also, please share this blog with your friends!

The GOP field: (left to right) Jon Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among voters with the Republican primary field. Every candidate seems to have their own problems: Cain is struggling with sexual harassment allegations and is weak on foreign policy; Perry is inarticulate and has been hammered about the law he signed as governor that allowed children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates; Gingrich is articulate and intelligent but suffers from tremendous personal flaws; and Ron Paul is viewed as a fringe candidate by most GOP voters. Bachmann was a one-hit wonder with her win in the Iowa straw poll, and both Huntsman and Santorum have been constrained to the single-digits.

Then there’s Mitt Romney. An articulate, knowledgeable gentleman, the former Massachusetts governor has proven to be an effective debater and an extraordinary leader during his tenure in politics. He has a great deal of private sector experience, working at Bain Capital to fund and streamline companies like Staples and Domino’s Pizza. In 2002, Romney saved the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City by turning a $379 million shortfall into a $100 million profit by the end of the international competition. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney turned a projected $3 billion budget shortfall into a significant surplus.

Romney has some difficulties as well, but as the primary election continues to play out, it is becoming clear that he is more than capable of conquering his shortcomings. Romney came up with a Massachusetts healthcare plan, dubbed “Romneycare” by critics, that includes an individual mandate, which is a crucial and much protested piece of President Obama’s landmark federal healthcare legislation. In the general election, however, Romney cannot be attacked on his push for statewide healthcare in Massachusetts because President Obama did exactly the same thing federally! Additionally, in every debate, Romney has forcefully proclaimed that he will sign an executive order on his first day in office to “grant a waiver to all fifty states” to exempt them from the plan as he moves to repeal the foolhardy law. Mr. Romney also has been attacked as a flip-flopper on abortion; however, he has acknowledged his change in position and has described it as “human” that he has changed his mind about the issue.

GOP voters shouldn’t keep looking for the perfect candidate, the jewel of the bunch. No one that the Republican Party nominates will be perfect on all fronts. However, when it comes to flaws, Mitt Romney has the least of all of the other Republican candidates. And in my opinion, Romney is shaping up to be the most capable man to take back the White House and turn this country around.

Jon Huntsman (far left) speaking at the foreign policy debate on Saturday.

At the CBS News/National Journal debate last night, the Republican candidates got the opportunity to discuss the substantial subject of foreign policy. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney definitely profited from their excellent performances in the debate, while Herman Cain proved that he has a lot to learn about foreign policy.

Mr. Gingrich did especially well at last night’s debate because he has an extremely firm grasp of history. His ability to put past events in context, combined with his excellent delivery of his ideas, makes him an extremely effective speaker and debater. Last night, he proved yet again that he has more than enough knowledge and debating skill to completely trounce Obama in the general election. Gingrich also showed that he is ready and willing to defend the United States from threats at home and abroad. When asked about the Iranian nuclear threat, Gingrich said that he was ready and willing to use military action to protect our nation. When asked about enhanced interrogation techniques, he said that al-Qaeda terrorists (including American citizens) forfeit their right to the law when they attempt to attack this country.

Romney also had a strong debate performance. His answers were articulate and well-versed, and his positions regarding Iran and the assassination of terrorists were comforting to me, as I am deeply concerned about national security. Like Gingrich, he supports military action as a last resort regarding Iran, and he approves of the assassination of al-Qaeda members even if they are American citizens. Mitt Romney’s defiant position on China is also comforting, as I get the feeling that the other GOP candidates (Mr. Huntsman, for example) would not be willing to take on China’s shameless currency manipulation. Romney actually seemed to strive for a victory at this debate, and it was nice to see that take place.

Cain did not perform very well at the debate. He has very little foreign policy depth, and this is obvious when he answers almost every question by saying that he would leave that situation to the generals to decide. He seemed unsure of himself and extraordinarily tentative at the debate, which took away from his good answers. I think that Cain will suffer because of this debate, as both Gingrich and Romney looked infinitely more competent than him on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum did extremely well at the debate, but unfortunately for him, it will do little to improve his struggling candidacy. He hit a home run on nearly every question and showed a new facet of his political persona. However, it may be too little too late for Mr. Santorum, as his early focus on social conservatism severely set back his campaign in an environment where economic issues and foreign policy are at the forefront of every American mind.

No more unemployment benefits? Good!

An unemployment line

Finally, after nine extensions by the Obama administration, unemployment benefits are now beginning to time out for many Americans. Some economists and Democrat politicians claim that allowing these benefits to expire will negatively impact job creation and will force many into poverty. However, I completely disagree.

First of all, the entire concept of unemployment benefits completely ignores the natural desire of humans to seek the path of greatest reward for the least amount of work. Current unemployment programs pay people hundreds of dollars a week for not working, and this free income fosters dependence on the program. This dependence, unfortunately, has been furthered by President Obama and the Democrats, who have extended unemployment benefits several times in hopes of putting people back to work. If I were in charge, I would immediately turn the benefit system on its head so that those enrolled will only receive money after employment. This would quickly eliminate any dependence and would provide a strong incentive for people to find work quickly.

When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, she said that unemployment benefits “create jobs” and “return two dollars for every one dollar” spent by the government to provide these benefits. And using the numbers of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), she is right. Here is an excerpt from a CNBC article regarding the CBO and unemployment benefits:

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that each $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth. The CBO has found that the program is the most effective government policy for increasing growth among 11 options it’s analyzed.

If this is actually the case, we might as well mandate that private employers fire all of their workers so that everyone can be on the government dough! These calculations are completely bogus because they, among other things, assume that unemployed people have the income available to spend twice what the government is giving them to stimulate the economy. If those receiving government benefits are in fact unemployed, how could they be receiving any money beyond what the government is allotting them? How can one dollar from the government double itself? It is also important to note that the extension of unemployment benefits coincides with increasing numbers of unemployed individuals. And to the most obvious point of all: unemployment benefits don’t create jobs because they encourage continued unemployment and dependence upon government.

Another thing to note is that unemployment benefits are not all that necessary, given the many entitlements our government offers. Many people on unemployment benefits also receive food stamps or some other government aid. At the least, our leaders in Congress should stop giving unemployment benefits to people already drawing from other federal programs to sustain themselves. If poverty is a concern, we should replace unemployment benefits with food stamps so that every person without a job can feed himself until he finds one.

In essence, unemployment benefits sap the desire to work from human beings and compels them to sell their desires, dreams, and personal productivity in exchange for free money. Rather than rewarding dependence on government and unemployment, American unemployment benefits should incentivize hard work and employment.

High gas prices, high inflation, high unemployment, and an overall stagnating economy. Sound familiar?

Ronald Reagan

In January 1981, Ronald Reagan became the 40th President of the United States and inherited all of these problems. A few short years later, the American economy was booming, posting extraordinary growth rates in the midst of massive government reforms by the Reagan administration. Today, as we watch our country drift ever closer toward economic collapse, it is clear that President Reagan’s policies are exactly what we need to bring the United States back to the forefront of the world economy and to remove government from the lives of the American people.

Almost immediately upon entry into public office, Reagan made drastic and crucial changes to the federal government. He sliced the top income tax rate from 70% to 28% and cut corporate tax rates significantly. Reagan also eliminated many federal regulations and worked tirelessly to make government smaller. He treated government employees like employees in the private sector by operating with a willingness to terminate the jobs of those who failed to fulfill their working duties. For those who don’t remember, during Reagan’s first year in office, thousands of air traffic controllers from the PATCO labor union went on strike, asking for higher wages and a 32-hour workweek (barely more than five hours per day in a six day workweek). President Reagan warned the strikers to return to their jobs, and when the strikes continued, he fired the remaining 11,345 striking air traffic controllers and hired replacements. As a man dedicated to the protection of democracy throughout the world, Ronald Reagan also increased military spending to counter the emerging Soviet threat. His missile defense program, called “Star Wars” by critics, struck fear in the hearts of Soviet leaders and forced them to come to the table to negotiate with the United States.

The impact of Reagan’s policies on the United States and the world were massive. Reagan’s policies ignited an economic boom unlike any other in American history; in fact, during Reagan’s presidency alone, the US economy grew a whopping 35.7% (real GDP). In the decade following Reagan’s presidency, real GDP grew by 33.0%. Also, the Dow Jones Industrial Average grew an average of 15.0% annually over Reagan’s presidency and the decade following! Tax cuts improved the economic standing of all Americans and encouraged consumers to purchase goods and to contribute to the US economy. Interest rates and inflation dropped dramatically from the Carter administration, thanks to Reagan’s sound monetary policies and massive economic growth. Reagan’s foreign policy of strength and leadership contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, both major symbols and perpetrators of communist oppression in the world.

Today, in the midst of calls to raise taxes, a massive national debt, and ever growing government intrusion into our lives, I often recall the Carter years, which were miserable for the American economy, and how Reagan turned the United States onto the road toward a brighter future. It is time for our elected leadership to remember Reagan’s success and to implement Reagan’s economic measures to strengthen the US economy. By strengthening our economy at home, we can pull ourselves and our European allies out of the current economic recession and into a new era of peace and economic prosperity.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers