Arrogant Barry and the band of Court Jesters

I have been trying to think of an appropriate title for the current occupant of the White House and his co-horts he’s placed throughout government agencies. I thought of “Barry and his Merry Miscreants”. “King Obama and his court jesters”. I even considered “Massa O and his Overseers”. That one I sort of dismissed because liberals already call anyone racist that dares to question Obama, let alone out and out disagree with him. But it really may be appropriate in some ways.

In the last week, we’ve seen Obama and his minions play both sides of the fence when it comes to the law in United States of America. Here’s a quick review:

Monday, the Supreme Court declares the Arizona law constitutional regarding stopping motorists and if found to be suspected of being in this country illegally, they would be detained and turned over to ICE. Within minutes the Secretary of Homeland Security announces that they will not do anything about any calls coming from Arizona. The Supreme Court, the final arbiter in the land, has spoken but the Obama Administration doesn’t like it, so they won’t follow the law.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court declares that Obamacare is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but that it is constitutional using the taxing authority. Obama comes out within hours and says that the “Supreme Court (the final arbiter in the land) has spoken” and the debate regarding health care doesn’t need to be continually argued about.

So apparently, on Monday the Supreme Court spoke and nobody was listening, but on Thursday, the Supreme Court spoke and the White House decided to pay attention. Maybe the Mama’s and Papa’s had it right. “Monday, Monday, can’t trust that day”.

There was another event that took place on Thursday. The United States House of Representatives voted to hold Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress. Within minutes, the U. S. Attorney, Ronald Machen, said they would not pursue the charges. Does Ronald Machen sound familiar? I’ll remind you in a minute if you don’t remember.

The House of Representatives is a group of elected officials. Elected by the PEOPLE from all around this country. The Attorney General is not elected. He’s appointed by the President. It’s not an elected office but rather a seat that is entrusted with enforcing the laws of the land. The laws come from the elected officials who were put in place by the PEOPLE. Could it be bad law? Yes, Congress is not above making mistakes, but it is the law and it’s to be followed. However, when the appointed Attorney General only selectively enforces laws, as in Arizona, as in Washington, then the laws really mean nothing.

This isn’t the first time this attorney general has refused to enforce laws. Shortly after taking his seat in 2009, he refused to prosecute those that were impeding the PEOPLE’s ability to vote. I’m sure it’s not because it was blacks impeding the whites from voting against the black man running for office, nor because the attorney general is also a black man (he said sarcastically).

More recently, there was the discovered National Security leaks. The FBI is investigating but the Attorney General appointed two U.S. Attorneys to head an independent investigation. One of those U.S. Attorneys is Ronald Mechan. Remember him? I mentioned him above as the one that refused to act on enforcing the law when it came to enforcing it against his own boss. In the business world, there is something similar when you favor relatives over other employees that might be more qualified. It’s called nepotism. Or when you hire someone over another due to their ethnicity rather than their ability. It’s called Affirmative Action. But I’m sliding into other topics for another time.

Can we really trust a guy, Ronald Mechan, to make good decisions when he won’t follow the law when it comes to his boss? He is now showing that he doesn’t apply the law fairly and equally. So when the leak investigation is completed, how can we trust the results? We already know that the leak came from inside the White House. Should we expect the White House receptionist or maybe the tour guide or a janitor, will be implicated to protect someone more powerful?

In addition to Holder being held in contempt, the President has invoked Executive Privilege. For a man who said repeatedly that he would have transparency I can only wonder what could he be hiding that we don’t have a clue about yet.

So we know that those in this administration don’t have any regard for the elected law makers, which means he has no regard for the people because they chose these law makers. They don’t have any regard for the law if it doesn’t suit them at the moment. They don’t have any regard for the truth. They don’t have any regard for their employees. After all, a federal employee was murdered and the weapon found at the murder scene was found to be provided by the White House to the drug cartels. But then, this was JUST a border patrol agent and we already know how this President feels about securing the borders. It occurs to me that if the border patrol agent had been a black man, would Obama and Holder think it’s just another black man that died and they die every day or would they actually do something about the border wars because the drug cartels or illegal aliens have dared to kill a black man.

Ok, I went far afield here (partially on purpose). What it boils down to is that this administration is incompetent, corrupt, and has turned out to be even a bigger failure than was stated to be hoped for back in 2009. Obama has no interest in the laws, nor the people. He is only interested in himself and his own self preservation. Arrogance doesn’t begin to describe this guy nor his little group of henchmen.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Tyranny Beat Freedom...Today

I tend to shy away from those that think only doom and gloom when it comes to the future of this country. This country was started because of tyranny from a foreign leader. In the days since, we’ve had great times, great people and great events that led this country to greater heights. It all started with the Revolution. Declaring independence from a country an ocean away, which in those days was much more than a six hour plane ride.

The crown passed tax after tax. The most well known was the tea tax. Not only did the king tax the tea, but he also banned any other tea than what was shipped by England. When the colonists in Boston dressed as Indians and dumped the tea into the Boston Harbor and refused to drink the Kings tea, the king then bottled up the city and cut it off from the rest of the colonies. This was the coercive or intolerable acts passed following the tea party in Boston. The year of the tea party was 1773.

It is now 2012. 239 years later, another leader is telling us that we must buy health insurance or pay a penalty. They claimed it wasn’t a tax when talking to the American people, but when talking to the Supreme Court, they claimed it was a tax. In other words, the reason for the health care plan is based on a lie. You decide who was lied to. You, or the Supreme Court. The truth has been sacrificed for a leaders personal agenda.

For 239 years we have celebrated sacrifice in this country. From a man sacrificing a meal that his wife and children might eat. A woman standing between her family and a wild animal. Soldiers sacrificing their lives for the freedoms of this country and his fellow countrymen.

How many times have we heard of a soldier that has rushed into a hail of gunfire to rescue another soldier that was trapped or even injured? How many times have we heard of police or firemen rushing into danger to remove citizens from that danger? Sometimes sacrificing their lives that a loved one might live or even that a stranger might live.

Remember the Alamo. Over 180 men held off 3,000 soldiers of Santa Anna’s for 13 days buying Sam Houston the time needed to train and prepare his men for the bigger battle to defeat Santa Anna.  Those men gave their lives for what they believed in. By contrast, todays leaders are cowards and liars. 


Obama claimed this wasn't a tax, but then said it was. He said you could keep your insurance, but failed to mention that companies will cut their expenses by dropping the coverage and paying the fines each year. And on and on. 

Now we have a government that is looking to control the people of this country. The immigration question was decided on Monday and immediately, Obama directed his departments not to enforce the laws. Just ignore it. They won’t go after illegal aliens and if Arizona officials find them and report in to the Federal Government, they will not get satisfaction.

Health care has been upheld. Not the mandate based on the Commerce Clause but rather because the government has the power to tax and this health care plan is a monstrous tax increase.

The Boston Tea Party led to the American Revolution to eject tyranny from our shores. Here we are 239 years later and we’re faced with tyranny again. There are at this time two ways to fight this tyranny. Another revolution or at the ballot box. But ejecting Obama from office in the election will not be enough. If Democrats are left with 41 or more seats in the Senate, repealing Obamacare will be nearly impossible.

There are 23 seats currently held by Democrats in the Senate that are up for election. Connecticut, Hawaii, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin all have Democrats retiring or not running for re-election.

California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia are all held by Democrats that are running for re-election.

Remember how Obamacare passed. Not one Republican voted for it. It was all Democrats. But Senator Ted Kennedy died and in the election for the replacement for that seat, Scott Brown said he’d be the 41^st vote against it. So instead of bringing the reconciliation worked out between the House and Senate to the floor, the Democrats knew they’d lose and instead decided to vote on the House plan without any changes. This simple little process, which is not the way the Congress is run, allowed the Senate to choose the House plan meaning a simple majority rather than the normal 60 votes needed under normal circumstances.

Rather than working with the Republicans and coming up with a compromise, as they claim they always want to do, they bypassed the Republicans and voted for Obamacare.

Should the Republicans take the House and the Senate (with the supermajority) and the White House, there are disadvantages. The Republicans can then do as they wish despite the wishes of the people. The last time this happened, the Republicans abused it and spent more and more money, proving that they were no more responsible than Democrats. It will be important for the people to hold their elected officials feet to the fire should the Republicans take both houses and the White House.

It is past time for the people of this country to start making sure that their elected officials do as they say and not get away with lying to the American people. If we can’t have that sort of revolution, we are in danger of the other kind of revolution as the years go by.

The American government fails at every business it attempts to operate. There is no reason to believe that they can manage health care any better than they handled the steel industry during the first world war.

If we don’t stop this at the ballot box, we will all be the subjects of the government rather than the government being servants to the people.

Today, tyranny has won the battle over freedom. We cannot afford to wait for 5 or 10 years for people to figure out that this is an impossible plan. We need to bring back freedom in this election, with a loud and sure voice.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Your Vote Means More Than Our Laws

The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) is an American legislative proposal first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001, by  Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch. It has not passed. It didn’t pass when the Democrats had the House and Senate and it’s been sitting ever since.

President Obama, in an election year, has now decided to implement parts of the Dream Act. It doesn’t matter that the bodies of Government required to pass laws aren’t passing it. King Barry is doing it himself.

Children that are in this country illegally will now be, in effect, given amnesty. Now, these children came here illegally by the actions of their parents. Their parents broke the law by coming here improperly. They brought their children. These children that are now here illegally by no doing of their own, are being allowed to stay.

The Obama administration is not going to enforce the current laws of this land when it comes to these children. I am not saying that these children of illegal immigrants should pay the price for their parents transgressions. However, they should be deported. Sent back to their homeland and if they want to be here, do so in the legal way. By the way, these “children” can be as much as 30 years old. At my age of 55, yes, they are children to me. But they are adults. They just weren’t responsible for the crime they committed by coming to this country illegally.

We have a process in this country. Congress writes the laws, and either passes them or doesn’t. If they pass a law, it then goes to the President for his signature or veto. This gives time for debate in each House of Congress, and allows for the Executive Branch (President) to weigh in on it with either his signature or a veto. But he’s not the final say. The final say belongs to Congress. If the President veto’s a bill, Congress can override the veto. This is another form of check and balance which is supposed to serve the people that have entrusted these elected officials with the power to decide these things for us.

What Obama has done with this action is to remove Congress and the law from this debate. He has chosen which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce. It doesn’t matter if every single person in this country doesn’t want this. He’s thumbing his nose at every American by saying “you’re wrong, Congress is wrong and my way is the right way, so this law will not be enforced.” Isn’t that aiding and abetting a criminal? Isn’t that a violation of law?

Suppose I decided that my ex-wife should no longer have my children with her. So I keep my children and when the authorities come to arrest me for keeping my children away from her as the law states, I can say that I disagree with the law so they have no right to arrest me and she has no right to complain about me so I don’t let them arrest me.

Obama likes to say that the economy is doing so poorly (right after he says the private sector is doing fine) because the Republicans will not pass the law he wants. There are two sides to this debate. The House has passed 33 laws for a so-called jobs bill that the Senate Democrats have voted against with the blessing of Obama. Shouldn’t we now be claiming that the President and Democrats are the cause of the economies woes because they refuse to pass the House plans? What makes Obama’s ideas the correct ones? He’s already proven he’s failed with the economy following the Stimulus failure and who can forget the “cash for clunkers” debacle?

This is all about the election. Obama is in serious trouble in his re-election bid. So in recent weeks, he’s solidified the gay vote by coming out in favor of gay marriage and now he’s trying to secure the hispanic vote by stopping deportation of illegals.

In the past week, his justice department has been after the State of Florida for purging illegal voters from their rolls. In other words, dropping illegal voters so they can’t vote illegally. Do you liberals understand that? There are thousands in Florida that have no privilege to vote, no right to vote, and Obama’s administration is trying to stop the State of Florida from running a fair and honest election.

He’s got the hispanic vote already, so what has he gained other than to ignore the law of the land? He’s already got the gay vote so what has he gained by “evolving” into saying he believes in gay marriage?

But combining two of these, here’s what he has accomplished. Florida has a large hispanic vote. If he stops deporting (following the law) illegals in Florida, there is a chance that some of those illegals will fall through the cracks and vote for him and not be caught and have their vote thrown out. Those that are caught will claim voter suppression and blame the Republicans.

What everyone (conservatives and liberals) should be seeing is that there is a man that occupies the White House that is willing violate his oath of supporting the Constitution, and “possibly”(?) violate the law for his vote.

There is another possibility. If these "kids" are already working, will the administration then be able to say that the unemployment rate has dropped? 

Obama is not concerned about all Americans, he's concerned only about his re-election and to do that he has to divide the people into groups. Hmm, that almost sounds like a bias or another term for racist. Ok, well not "almost". It is. 

Voting for him is more important than the laws of the land.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Blame Bush. Can it Work?

This election is turning into Barack Obama vs. George W. Bush. But then, so did the last Presidential election. There is just one problem with this. George W. Bush and Barack Obama never faced each other in an election. Details, details. Obama is still running against Bush, and Bush is still not on the ballot.

Last week I posted the unemployment rates from the beginning of the Bush years through May of this year. I tried to show how the Bush years had full employment for the most part and for a couple of years, it was more than full employment. The purpose was to show that job creation cannot be compared by the numbers because if there is full employment, how do you hire still more?

Unfortunately, I forgot to point out something else about those years. The unemployment rate began to increase in 2007. In addition the economic growth rate began to decrease in 2007. Something else happened in 2007. In the election of 2006, the Democrats won both the House and the Senate and were sworn in in early January 2007.

So how does this relate to Obama blaming Bush? Well, the House and the Senate is not the only election in 2006. All House seats are up every two years and a third of the Senate is up every two years. But there are also state offices that are elected in the midterm elections. Michigan’s seat for Governor is one of those.

Prior to 2002, the Governor of Michigan was limited to three terms in office. In 2002 that changed to two four year terms. The Governor in Michigan prior to 2002 was John Engler, a Republican. He was finishing his third term. Taxes were lower, unemployment in the state was at 3%. Granholm ran and won her first term as Governor in 2002.

In 2006, she ran for a second term. Unemployment was soaring. Michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the country and it wasn’t showing any indication of stopping from going up. The state had begun to fall apart during Granholm’s four years. Her opponent in that election was Richard DeVos, the rich businessman best known as being the son of one of the two founders of Amway and very successful in his own right in business.

Granholm claimed that the states maladies had been caused by Engler and she had “inherited” his mess and she was still cleaning it up but that she needed four more years to finish the job. She didn’t run against DeVos, she ran against Engler. Engler’s years were successful and the state was thriving but she, and the willing press, claimed that it was falling apart because of her predecessor. In a state that is for the most part a liberal state, it was an easy sell. She was the bashed on female against the evil male millionaire who was more of the same of John Engler.

Granholm never faced Engler directly in an election. But she ran against him in the first election, even though the real opponent was Dick Posthumous the Lt. Governor. In 2006, she ran against Engler, even though her real opponent was Dick DeVos. This tactic gave Granholm four more years. What did she do with that four years? She increased the unemployment rate still higher. Michigan was falling apart.

Sound familiar? Barack Obama is running against Bush, who has never been the opposition on the ballot against Obama. Obama’s words? “I inherited a mess.”

Do not take blaming Bush lightly. Michigan is a perfect example why we should not take this tactic lightly however ridiculous it sounds. With Obama’s record the past three years, even Democrats should have been begging for Obama to be challenged in primaries. A serious challenge, not some convicted felon in Texas running in the West Virginia primary. Instead, Obama is running virtually unchallenged in his own party, so he sits back and claims it’s Bush’s fault for all of the problems in this country.

Each time I hear that Obama inherited the problems created by Bush, I think it’s silly that anyone would even consider this as viable. Yet,  it’s repeated by the press and the constant repetition has made it sound as though it’s a given.

Can blaming Bush work? The 2006 re-election of Jennifer Granholm in Michigan says it can work. 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

False Praise Doesn't Bring Excellence

Please read the following two paragraphs in quotes:

“You are not special. You are not exceptional,” "Yes, you've been pampered, cosseted, doted upon, helmeted, bubble-wrapped," . “Yes, capable adults with other things to do have held you, kissed you, fed you, wiped your mouth, wiped your bottom, trained you, taught you, tutored you, coached you, listened to you, counseled you, encouraged you, consoled you and encouraged you again. You've been nudged, cajoled, wheedled and implored. You've been feted and fawned over and called sweetie pie. ... But do not get the idea you're anything special. Because you're not."


 "Think about this: even if you're one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you."
 A 'B' is the new 'C.' Midlevel courses are the new advanced placement."

Finally!! Someone that says it like it is, albeit rather bluntly. The quotes above are from a speech that a teacher gave to students at their graduation. The teacher is David McCullough Jr. His father is better known for his historical books he's authored.

I have three children. They are special to me. They aren't favored over their cousins by their cousins parents, nor are they favored over their cousins by their grandparents. I know that my parents think their children are special to them. They don't favor my brothers or my sister over me and they don't favor me over my brothers and sister. I would think that in this day and age of broken marriages and remarriages that step children would be speical to step parents, at least I hope they are. But beyond that, children are not any more special to any one as they are to the parents and possibly step parents of those children.

Teachers, government authorities (including those charged with protecting endangered children from harm), neighbors, relatives and friends will never consider children special over their own children.

Yet for the past twenty years, lip service has been paid to them. "Do it for the children". They don't necessarily care for the unnamed children. They care more for their agenda and use the children to achieve that agenda. I'm not saying that they purposely use the children and I'm not saying that they all don't care. So please don't fall into the trap of lumping everyone under one umbrella. There are the those that will go out of their way for children even though those children aren't their own. But there is always a limit.

This is also not to say that children shouldn't be encouraged. But not false encouragement. One of the old lines that's been used, especially when the "self esteem of the children" was the hot topic, was that if little Johnny said in school that 2+2=5, he was to be praised for trying and not told he's wrong out of fear that it would destroy his self esteem and he'd become a homeless bum destined to walk to the streets and sleep under bridges. There's just a little problem with that. Little Johnny may remember that he got it right when he said 5 as his answer, and then one day uses a calculator and finds that it says the answer is really 4. Does he then swear up and down that he's got a defective calculator? Does he then decide that a school teacher that should have been helping him learn, has actually lied to him? Does he then question whether anything he was told was the truth in those 13 years of school?

When he starts working and his employer wants something done in a certain way, and he does it wrong, does the employer now have to provide therapy for little Johnny after he's told he's doing his job wrong? What if the employer actually fires little Johnny? Not many employers are going to worry about a persons self esteem when his business is going under because little Johnny has never learned disappointment nor been corrected when he's been wrong.

When kids are very young and play sports for the first time, many of these organizations tell the parents and coaches that they aren't going to keep score. But guess what. The children do keep score!

I used to coach my kids in baseball. Both my son and my daughters. Parents were told by the league that they could not yell negative things at the players during the game. Even yelling out after a kid dropped a popup that he or she should keep their eye on the ball, was considered wrong and the parents would be ejected and banned for the next game. But, as the coach, I could say it to them. At one point, my son was playing second base and turned around late to tell the outfield how many outs there were, as he was supposed to do. But he did it late. While his back was turned, the pitcher pitched and the batter hit a line drive towards my son. It whistled right past his face as he was turning to face the batter. I don't know who was more scared. Him or me. Luckily, it missed him.

I immediately yelled at him to keep his eyes front. I yelled it quickly and loudly and with some fear and anger in my voice. One of the parents came over to me and said that I shouldn't do that because everyone heard it and it only embarrasses my son.

Suppose I did what that parent suggested and kept my mouth shut and let it go so as not to embarrass him again. He'd never know he made a mistake. If he didn't have the mistake corrected the next line drive might break his jaw, cheek or knock some teeth out.

Suppose it was that parents child and I said nothing and it happened again to their child and because I didn't correct that child when it happened the next time and they were seriously hurt, would the parent be so willing to tell me not to say anything so as not to embarrass their child again?

Kids should be encouraged to improve in whatever they choose to do, but to tell them they are doing great at anything when what they are actually doing is poor, only makes them be satisfied with less than adequate results in anything they do.

This teacher is one that had it exactly right. If you strive for excellence and don't achieve that excellence to begin with, you won't reach excellence because you have nothing to improve on when adequate is completely acceptable.

Children are special to their parents. They have special talents but they are not talented at everything. If those talents are not found because we're so busy praising them but not correcting the mistakes they make, we get constant mediocrity rather than occasional excellence.

I like to use baseball as the example with this. Take a look at the batting averages of the professional ballplayers. Someone hitting .300 is considered a very good hitter. But .300 for an average means that you're only successful three out of ten times. It's one of the few times that failing seven out of ten times is an acceptable outcome. Every 20 or 30 years we get a player that flirts with a .400 average and it becomes the headline near the end of the season. Everyone is watching to see if he can actually accomplish that great of a task. Even if he does, he's still failed six out of ten times and he'll get in the record books.

But baseball is a game. Imagine if you build cars for a living and seven out of every ten cars you build have the doors falling off as the new owner is pulling out of the dealership. How long do you think you'll keep your job?

To berate children isn't right, but to heap false praise on them or even praising them but not helping them to improve when there is room for improvement is not doing them any good at all. Mediocrity should not be praised. Giving a trophy to a team that hasn't won a game because the other teams got a trophy keeps that trophy from being a reward for excellence.

David McCollough Jr. has it right and I wish there were more teachers like him out there.

What did the kids say in reaction to his speech? Well, this is something that I believe the children should be praised for.

"For once someone told us what we need to hear and not necessarily what we wanted to hear," 
"Undoing all 'they've' done in on 10-minute speech. My faith in the world may have been restored," 

The kids seem to understand what was meant by this teacher. It's too bad that some adults don't get it.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

Walker Didn't Survive, He WON!

The Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker (R), just won his second election in 18 months for the same job. He didn't survive the recall vote, as the news media is reporting. He beat his opponent by 7 points! That's not hanging on, or surviving. That's winning!

Walker first won election to the office in the 2010 election. He immediately set out to fix Wisconsin's deficit and other fiscal problems. In the process of doing this he made the unions mad by eliminating collective bargaining. So the unions set out to start a recall of the election of 2010.

The unions pumped in a ton of money from out of state as well as in state. One of the things that was eliminated was the unions ability to take the dues automatically from their membership. Now, the union members had a choice of whether or not to pay their union dues on their own. Tens of thousands did not pay their dues.

The media however, only talked about the millions pumped into Wisconsin by Republicans for Walker. They did not talk about the money from unions and Democrats.

There was another piece of news that came out yesterday. Michigan spent years at the bottom of the list in economic news. From 2002 until 2011, Michigan ran the highest unemployment rate, the slowest growth in the economy under Governor Jennifer Granholm (D). But in 2010 Rick Snyder (R) was elected governor of Michigan.

After spending 9 years falling to the bottom and reaching the bottom and staying at the bottom, it's taken less than two years and Michigan is now in sixth place in economic growth in the country!

You can draw your own conclusions about these two stories.

You're welcome to comment.

Brett

What Creates Jobs?

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2002	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	5.8	5.8	5.8	5.7	5.7	5.7	5.9	6.0
2003	5.8	5.9	5.9	6.0	6.1	6.3	6.2	6.1	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.7
2004	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.6	5.5	5.4	5.4	5.5	5.4	5.4
2005	5.3	5.4	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.0	5.0	4.9	5.0	5.0	5.0	4.9
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	8.9	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.7	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.5	9.6	9.5	9.5	9.8	9.4
2011	9.1	9.0	8.9	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.1	9.1	9.0	8.9	8.7	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.1	8.2

Don't you just love charts? Listening to the candidates about who creates more jobs, Obama or Romney, made me curious about some details we've always been told. Obama likes to say that he's created 4 million jobs and calls former President Bush a job killer, or that Bush created very few jobs in his eight years. 

Bush had eight years in office. During his first four years, his average rate of job creation was 0.51%. In his second term, his average rate of job creation was -0.84%. 

By comparison, Obama has been in office for just over 3 years. His average rate of job creation through 2011 (2 years) is 0.75%. 

If we stop there, the Obama team would be correct. They are creating more jobs. Bear with me a minute. I have a couple more numbers to throw at you and then I'll explain my thoughts. 

Since we can't fairly compare month to month, especially since Obama doesn't have the same amount of time as Bush had, we can only average out the figures. Each of the figures in the chart above are monthly unemployment rates. 

The average unemployment rate during the Bush years was 5.23%. 

The average unemployment rate during the Obama years was 9.15%. 

I have a few points to make on this and I apologize if you're not a statistical person. 

1. What effect does the change in tax rate have on unemployment? The tax cuts actually took place during the following year, and it does take some time for it to work it's way through the system to see the benefits or detriments of the change in tax rates. 

The average unemployment during 2002 was 5.3%. But in 2003, the average was 5.99%. Just using that, it would look like the tax cuts had a short term benefit to unemployment, if you want to consider six tenths of a percent as a detriment. However, there was another tax cut in 2003, which took effect in 2004. At the end of 2004, the average unemployment rate was 5.07%. If we use the same standard as above about it taking two years, then in 2005 the average unemployment rate was 5.08%. Virtually no change. But then look at 2006 and 2007. 4.22% and 4.61% respectively. 

2. What effect does spending have on unemployment? In 2009, Obama took office. In February of that year, one day following Presidents Day, Obama signed the stimulus bill. The average unemployment rate that year was 9.27%. 

However, I gave Bush a second year for the tax cuts to work their way through the system so let's do the same for Obama, after all, I don't want to be called a racist for not being fair to both. The average unemployment rate in 2010 was 9.62%. That's a four tenths of a percent increase. 

3. Which increases revenue to the government?  During the Bush years, following the tax cuts, the federal government brought in record amounts of income from taxes. During the Obama years, the revenues to the federal government have DECREASED. 

There is another comparison that is pretty important here. During the Bush years, he had a Republican House and Senate. During the Obama years, he had a Democrat House and Senate. 

With all Republicans, the tax rates were decreased, the revenue increased, and the unemployment decreased. With all Democrats, the revenue decreased, and spending exploded. 

This is not the first time this has happened. During the Reagan years, taxes came down, unemployment dropped and revenues to the government set record highs. 

This is what Democrats don't seem to understand. When the people have money, they spend it and they save it. When they save it, more investment is made. When they spend it, more businesses earn more money, allowing them to hire more people, invest more money and draw investments in their businesses. As the people make more money, they pay more in taxes even when they are paying a lower rate. Imagine if we lowed the business tax rate. Businesses would be able to hire more, they'd pay more in taxes because their businesses would be growing. 

Tax cuts don't need to be paid for but spending does need to be paid for. 

4. So why the difference in job creation? First of all, 5% -5.5% unemployment is considered full employment. I'm going to use just 5% to make it easy. 

Let's assume that we have a pool of 1 million people able to work. As mentioned earlier, the average unemployment rate during the Bush years was 5.23%. This means that of those 1 million people available to work, 52,300 aren't working. Obama has an average unemployment rate of 9.15% which means there are 91,500 workers unemployed and available to work. 

If each of those two Presidents were to find jobs for 10% of their unemployment pool, Obama would gain 9,150 jobs to his credit, but Bush, who gets the same percentage of 10% would only gain 5,230 jobs. 

By virtue of the fact that Obama has more workers available to create jobs for, it's simple math that he SHOULD be able to have higher numbers in job creation. 

Make no mistake, I'm not forgetting that many workers have been unemployed for so long that their unemployment has run out and they aren't counted in the unemployment rate now. I also understand that this wasn't a problem during the Bush years. After all, during just 2006 and 2007 the average unemployment rate was 4.42%. Bush just didn't have the pool of workers to draw from and the nation was not in the throes of a recession. 

Liberals will claim that Bush left a mess and Obama's numbers are actually caused by Bush, but if we were to look at economic growth (which is another topic for a later date), that argument falls by the wayside. 

What they won't tell you is that Bush warned us twice, with the last time being in 2005, that if we didn't rein in our spending, we'd end up with a huge economic mess and those problems would continue for years. Yet, the spending continued, and that includes Bush and the Republican Congress along with the Democrats. During the Bush years, the Republicans actually spent more than the Democrats ever spent. Unfortunately, since Obama was elected, the Democrats have regained that record and continue to add to it. 

It's not low tax rates that is the problem. It's the constant spending that is the problem. 

You're welcome to comment. 

Brett