California Votes to Become France + Greece

If conservative Californians didn't think the sweep of statewide offices by progressive Democrats in 2010 wasn't bad enough, yesterday was worse.

For all practical purposes, the state of California voted to become France + Greece - a Euro-statist entity that has decided to accelerate down the path of fiscal irresponsibility in the name of 'social justice' and 'fairness'.

California has been heading down this path pretty much since Jerry Brown's first term as Governor in 1975.  The recall of Grey Davis in 2003 did little to halt the embracing of the progressive statist agenda - and California seems to be right back at the forefront the country in terms of the sense of entitlement, embracing 'social justice', and the fallacy of government enforced 'fairness'.

Despite running $16-$25 billion annual deficits, government spending running 30% more today than it did in 2003, and the size and scope of government also being nearly a third larger than it was a decade ago, a majority of Californians not only embraced Proposition 30 - advertised as a tax increase on the rich for the benefit of education - but appears to have provided a super-majority of progressive votes in the State Senate and Assembly which permits the Legislature to pass tax increases without requiring a single Republican vote.

The two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases has vexed the progressives for years.  They blamed the economic challenges of the state on inadequate revenues caused by not getting needed tax increases - while ignoring the effects of increased government spending and ever increasing 'paybacks' to the public sector unions in the guise of jobs, wages, benefits, and pensions.

The lock has been taken off the cookie jar - and a ladder has been conveniently placed nearby to facilitate access to that cookie jar.

Governor Brown, faced with $16B to $25B in annual budget deficits [and this is before the $100 billion boondoggle known as high speed rail], and seeking to increase revenues, embarked on the farce known as Proposition 30.  The goal of Prop 30 - to raise $8.5 billion in additional revenues for the state coffers to offset the current annual budget deficit.  In fact, not only would it offset a deficit double the size of the expected revenue increase - it would also restore $6 billion in funding to education - funding the state pulled back because it was more important to use those funds to reward public sector unions and their workers than to use for students.

How would these revenues be raised?  Why, mainly on the backs of the 'wealthy' - as well as a 0.5% increase in the nation's largest state sales tax [which is paid by everyone].

If Prop 30 wouldn't get passed - the Governor promised not to cut redundant government programs and agencies, not cut government staffing and overreach, not cut government salaries, pensions, and benefits - but cut further funds to the school districts in the state - and close all schools 3 weeks earlier.

Yes, we were extorted to pass Prop 30 or else the school-aged children in the state would get it.  Nearly 60% of the State decided to vote to pay the bill - because we were told it's only affecting the 'wealthy'.

But since Prop 30 isn't enough to really address the size and scope of the state's fiscal irresponsibility-  more 'revenues' will be needed.  Prop 39 - a new tax on multistate businesses operating in CA was also passed - this is 'promised' to raise another $1 billion in new revenues.   But we're still short - so we're likely to see this fiscal year an effort to end Prop 13 - and the cap it imposes on property taxes as well as more income tax increases and fee increases.

Who will stop Excremento?   The voter no longer has a recourse as the fiscal conservatives are well outnumbered in CA.  In fact, the only remaining course for many in the middle class and upper middle class who will be the next tax targets is to flee the state for one of the few remaining red states that are not embracing progressivism, entitlementism, or statism.

Over the last five years - California has lost several million of the middle class / upper middle class to other states - as well as thousands of businesses.  The tax base has shrunk because those coming into California are immigrants and generally low income people.  Tax revenues shrink - increasing the pressure for more revenues - which drives more people out - shrinking tax revenues.

California owes more than any other state in the union.  It's debt service costs are the highest of any state.  It has the most resources, but between environmentalism and excessive regulations / fees, they are far underdeveloped.  But it can still borrow money.  It can still cook the fiscal books.  It can now pass even more taxes, oops, I'm sorry, revenue enhancement plans.  And if all else fails - it can get a bail out from the US government - just like GM, Chrysler, AIG, and Goldman Sachs.

Where's the downside?

There is none - California has become Greece + France.

Isn't it ironic that it rushes down this path even as Greece + France are failing?  But then reality doesn't come into play when people want stuff and things - including entitlements from the government.  Traditional American values are becoming extinct within America - and California, once again, is leading the way.

Summary of California's Propositions -

Prop 30 - Tax increase on wealthy / state sales tax increase - Passed
Prop 31 - Reform of State Local Government Budgets - Rejected
Prop 32 - End Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction - Rejected
Prop 33 - Auto Insurance Rates based on Driver History - Rejected
Prop 34 - Repeal of Death Penalty - Rejected
Prop 35 - Increased Human Trafficking Penalties - Passed
Prop 36 - Weaken Three Strikes Law - Passed
Prop 37 - Food Labeling - Rejected
Prop 38 - Tax increase across the board - Rejected
Prop 39 - Multistate Business tax increase - Passed
Prop 40 - Accept gerrymandered boundaries - Passed

LA County Propositions

A - Advisory Vote - Keep County Assessor an Elected Position - Yes
B - Require condom use by porn actors - Yes
 J - MTA Sales Tax Extension - Rejected

Measure J requires a 2/3rd majority to pass - it only got 64.72% of the vote - so it missed by just over 1.25%.

When You've Lost 'The New Yorker'....

Here are some other on target political cartoons from this past week....

Media Bias - NFL Replacement Ref style...

Comic 'Wizard of Id' parody of Barack Obama's campaign stump....

Barack Obama's clear 'red lines'....

And speaking of red - the 'red ink' of $16+ trillion of debt - a $6 trillion increase in 4 years...

For all of the talk by the Obama Administration and Campaign about the middle class - it's now been found...

Which brings us full circle back to the debate Wednesday night - and Michael Ramirez's take on the Clint Eastwood 'Empty Chair'....

Question to ponder - how much of the media is willing to sell what little remains of their integrity in a defense of Barack Obama and progressivism?  Or will they toss Barack Obama under the bus in order to save progressivism?

The Co-equal Fourth Branch of California Government

The Los Angeles Times today features, what is to me, a surprising article on the California Teacher's Association - the state's largest teacher union.  One prominent Democrat says that the union views itself as 'the co-equal fourth branch of government'.

In my posts and commentary about the fiscal and political state of California, a frequent target is the power and influence of the public sector unions - including the teachers unions.  These unions have had a seriously negative impact on the state of California - sharing the blame with the progressives that dominate the state government and legislature for our current fiscal challenges.  These challenges are not being addressed.  They are deepening - and the 'more of the same' ethically, fiscally, and intellectually dishonest approach to 'correct' these challenges have placed California in a death spiral.

I've cited that California needs the same bold acts of reform as those launched in another progressive state - a state that is turning 'red' because the people of that state have decided to stop 'more of the same' and enact  changes.  When Wisconsin elected Governor Scott Walker and a Republican controlled state house, they sent message that they did not want to become California.

The reforms enacted by Scott Walker and the GOP in Wisconsin targeting the public sector unions - limiting collective bargaining, ending the automatic withdrawal of union dues via payroll deduction, and the other steps to lessen the ability of unions to control government purse strings - has paid immediate real dividends for Wisconsin.  School districts, once in fiscal straits because of collective bargaining agreements that only enriched the unions, now have more control over their fiscal circumstances.  They're in the 'black' - and expanding their services to the students of their districts.  The state and local governments are also retaking control of their spending - and deficits are becoming surpluses....while union membership numbers are collapsing as fast as their power.

That is the model that California and other progressive states need to implement - but seem to lack the will do so.  But if more in California understand the real damage that is being done to all of us, in particular our students, by the California Teachers Association, perhaps we can find the will needed.  This article in the LA Times, is, I think, a step in that direction....even if the LA Times didn't intend it to be.

Last year, as Gov. Jerry Brown hammered out final details of the state budget, he huddled around a conference table with three of the most powerful people in state government: the Assembly speaker, the Senate leader — and Joe Nuñez, chief lobbyist for the California Teachers Assn.

California was on the edge of fiscal crisis. Negotiations had come down to one sticking point: Brown and the legislators would balance the books by assuming that billions of dollars in extra revenue would materialize, then cut deeply from schools if it didn't.

Nuñez said no.

Opposition from the powerful union, which had just staged a week of public protests against budget cuts, could mean a costly legal challenge. So the group took a break, and the officials retired to another room to hash out something acceptable to CTA while Nuñez awaited their return.

It may seem unorthodox for an unelected citizen to sit with Sacramento's elite as they pick winners and losers in the annual spending sweepstakes. But few major financial decisions in California are made without Nuñez, who represents what is arguably the most potent force in state politics.

…
Even before CTA helped Jerry Brown win election, he was sympathetic to many of its causes, such as limiting standardized testing and reducing government's role in schools. On his first full day in office, he sacked the majority of the state Board of Education.

He replaced several proponents of charter schools, parent power and teacher accountability with people friendlier to the union, including one of its lobbyists, Patricia Rucker. A few days later, Brown proposed a budget that eliminated money for a state database of such information as which courses a teacher had taught and what credentials he or she had, a system CTA opposed.

This is a rare, read it all article in the LA Times.

Oh, and how did a deal finally get cut for the California budget?

The deal came when the elected Democrat leadership agreed to a provision that stated no matter how fiscally strapped a school district might be - it could not lay off any teachers during the fiscal year.

So where is California fiscally?  Our budget deficit continues to soar - with Governor Brown's bet that the Facebook IPO would generate billions widely missing the mark and now even more so with state sales tax revenues being down 33.5% from what was estimated / projected in the state budget.  The $9.6 billion cash deficit that existed on the June 30th is now $18 billion and growing.

The state has avoided default by temporarily borrowing from state trust funds, but those accounts will soon need their cash back to continue operating. Today California quickly began trying to sell $10 billion in municipal bonds to fund the record $28 billion they need to keep the lights on. With tax revenue plummeting and the state already the second lowest rated credit in the country, if the independent credit rating agencies downgrade the state to “junk bond", California will be short up to $18 billion and default.

California is America's Greece and Spain....to the point that like Spain, CA is committing to spend $100 billion on a high speed rail network that has no viable business need or market  - all in the name of 'stimulus' - but will only enrich unions and other allies of Governor Brown.

The Golden State is no longer golden - and its time to realize why this is the case.

Fighting back against Mediscare

It's doubtful that the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign was caught unsuspecting by the tactics of the Obama campaign when it came to Paul Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare.  The evidence?

This excellent ad was released earlier today by the Romney campaign -



In 1965, Medicare was created as part of President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' initiatives - Title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

The Social Security Act was enacted on this day by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935.

Social Security is, today, 77 years old.

Medicare is 47 years old.

Both were created in different times.  The Medicare actuarial trustees, in this year's report, raise a major concern with the program, saying it will be insolvent by 2024.  That grim pronouncement did not include the impact to the plan by the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) pulling out $716 billion over the next decade to help cover the costs associated with the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The overall Social Security financial report worsened significantly in 2012 - from the 2012 report...

“Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare,” the trustees wrote. “If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

Contrary to the 'scare' tactics of the Democrats, the GOP, and in particular Romney / Ryan are not proposing that either of these plans be eliminated.  They do, however, insist that fiscal changes need to be taken to address the fiscal challenges of our country.  They also propose, in the case of Medicare, to reform the program so that it will remain viable well beyond 2024.  This includes ensuring that those 55 and older are exempted by any reforms while those under 55 have several options available to them, including remaining in Medicare as it is now or selecting the same health insurance options and coverages as currently provided employees of the federal government.

If we as voters are to be scared of anything, what we should be frightened of is four more years of the same anti-business, pro-big government, 'shared prosperity', social justice, stagnant economy, and misplaced priorities of the Obama Administration.

November 2012 is when we need to take action to start righting the course of our ship of state.  If we do not win in November, we may be too far down (as are Greece, Spain, and perhaps California and Illinois) to solve these problems without far more pain that we are willing to undertake.

The World Bank - A New Progressive Mission?

Late last month, the new President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, who was advanced to lead the organization by President Barack Obama from being the former President of Dartmouth College, spoke with the left wing British newspaper 'The Guardian' about his new mission for the World Bank - 'I want to eradicate poverty...'

"The evidence suggests that you've got to do a lot of good, good things in unison, to be able to make that happen," said Kim. "The private sector has to grow, you have to have social protection mechanisms, you have to have a functioning health and education system. The scientific evidence strongly suggests that it has to be green – you have to do it in a way that is sustainable both for the environment and financially. All the great themes that we've been dealing with here have to come together to eradicate poverty from the face of the Earth."

…Nevertheless, he is a big proponent of social protection policies. "I've always been engaged in social protection programmes. But now it is really a signature of the World Bank. We're very good at helping people look at their public expenditures and we say to them things like, fuel subsidies really aren't very helpful to the poor – what you really need is to remove fuel subsidies and focus on things like conditional cash transfer plans. The Bank is great at that."

New to him are climate change and sustainability, he says. "We are watching things happen with one degree changes in ocean temperature that we thought wouldn't happen until there were two or three degree changes in ocean temperature. These are facts. These are things that have actually happened … I think we now have plenty of evidence that should push us into thinking that this is disturbing data and should spur us to think ever more seriously about clean energy and how can we move our focus more towards clean energy."

Social justice.  Climate change.  Sustainability.  The World Bank, under Kim, is going to be Obama lite - led by another far left progressive academic who believes that poverty is 'eradicated' by the redistribution of wealth as it's 'fair' - and remains clueless to the fact that these steps create far more problems than they solve.

In Forbes Magazine, comes a compelling case that the smartest move might be to totally shut down the World Bank as an obsolete non-government entity that no longer has a real mission.

Whatever the merits of individual Bank projects—and the institution has backed some notable disasters over the years—only private sector development in Third World states will raise people out of poverty. And private sector development of the sort which reaches throughout society is possible only without government direction or control. Which means the less World Bank lending, the better.

Nancy Birdsall contended that “A new president needs to corral shareholders and disparate interests to create a fresh mandate for the bank.” Best would be no mandate at all.

The World Bank was created in a different age and time. “The World Bank doesn’t have any obvious role in the current world environment,” observed Easterly: “It’s in a state of crisis, losing its traditional market share.”

In contrast, Kim argued that “the World Bank’s best days are still ahead,” pointing to: “The economic success of emerging market economies, the rise of citizen power led by young people and the unprecedented penetration of new technologies are challenging old development paradigms.” All true—but all good reasons why the Bank is no longer needed.

In Africa, for example, funds from the People's Republic of China are flooding into the region - buying friends and allies from the recipients.  None of these are benign governments or rulers.  Poverty remains endemic throughout much of Africa.  Lost in the shuffle are the really effective and limited efforts by the US and a few international aid organizations who are targeting specific issues like AIDS and Malaria - but still have challenges working through or around the corruptocrats that control so many of those countries and are interested not in eradicating poverty, but enriching their bank accounts and staying in power.

In Africa, as in the United States, the governing elite are the greatest threat to the World's middle class - and the World's middle class is the springboard to really eradicating poverty.

Not even in this country are we really interested in eradicating poverty - because under the social justice, 'fairness' advocacy of President Barack Obama and his fellow progressive Democrats, the goal is all about putting even more people on welfare and government dependency....

The federal government actually runs 126 separate anti-poverty programs. They're managed by 13 different agencies.

We use the word "welfare" to describe money that goes to needy people. But the government's war on poverty is a whole lot bigger. And it's rife with waste and redundancy.

The federal government runs 33 different housing programs: 21 programs to provide food, eight healthcare programs, 27 cash or general assistance programs. It's hard to find a government department that doesn't run an anti-poverty program. All this adds up -- and this is just the federal government.

If you also include state and local spending, the government will spend nearly a trillion dollars this year fighting poverty. That's almost the size of the national deficit this year.

Now let me be clear, I don't object to poor people getting help. My problem is a government throwing money at programs that clearly aren't working. Consider this: All this welfare spending adds up to $20,610 for every poor man, woman and child in the country.

For a poor family of three, that's nearly $62,000 dollars. The poverty line for that family is just $18,500. With this kind of spending, poverty should be wiped out - instead it's growing.

Today, one in seven Americans is living in poverty. The most in almost two decades. All the while spending is soaring.

And, welfare spending for the last four decades -- adjusted for inflation? Up, up, up. How can we spend all this money, and see so little progress?

We don't eradicate poverty by creating and perpetuating cycles of dependency.

But perhaps the progressives can take a hard look at history - and Adam Smith as a foundation, and the US Founding Fathers as another, to see how poverty, if not eradicated, can be eliminated for so many as they find welcome paths into the middle class - and perhaps beyond.

"That Looks Bad"

Members of the White House Press Corps questioned White House Press Flack, Jay Carney, over the fact that the President's Job Council...

... has not met in the last 6 months - despite the collapse of new job growth in the 2nd Quarter of 2012...

...where only 225,000 new jobs were created, fewer than the number of Americans added to the Social Security Disability Insurance rolls over the same timeframe.

Jay Carney's response...

.... The President was 'too busy' over the last 6 months to meet with the members of his Job's Council....

... as he's attended 106 campaign fundraisers, basketball games, and who knows how many rounds of golf.  'The Busiest President'....
 

Perhaps we can add this to Bill Whittle's latest 'Afterburner' series where he makes 'The Case to Re-elect Barack Obama'....

"Obama's View on Business 'Explains Nearly Everything'"

President Obama's campaign stump speech in Virginia where he noted that 'if you got a business - you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen' continues to reverberate.  Fox News Senior Political Analyst, Brit Hume, editorialized last night that Barack Obama's view on business 'Explains Nearly Everything'...

It is fair to say that we know more tonight than we ever have about the president's view of business and the economy. His assertion over the weekend that, 'If you got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen' explains nearly everything. He wasn't talking about God, he was talking about government.


Here is a man that believes not just that the government provided framework of roads, bridges, defense and law enforcement helps the private sector. He believes these things are are the nerve center, the driving force. More important than any individual, talent, enterprise or initiative. As he put it: 'There are a lot of smart people out.' As for diligence: 'There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.' Success? 'You didn't get there on your own.'


This is a view that successful businessmen, women are merely the ones who did better at taking advantage of the benefits that government has bestowed. Therefore, he thinks they should be glad to pay an even greater share of federal taxes than they do. He calls that, 'giving back,' as if the government conferred all that they have and they shouldn't mind returning a bit more of it where it came from.


This explains why so much stimulus money was spent to protect government and why his legislation on healthcare and financial reform involved extending the reach and power of, you guessed it, government.

Chair of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan also took the President's embracement of liberal fascism to task in a discussion with James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute...

But Obama said it all. And Ryan absolutely tore into the president in a chat I had with him earlier today. Among the highlights:


– “The idea that these entrepreneurs owe all their success to some government bureaucrat or some centralized planner just defies reality.”


– “Every now and then, President Obama pierces the veil. He’s usually pretty coy about his ideology, but he lets the veil slip from time to time.”


– “We believe in free communities and this is a statist attack on free communities.”


– “He’s deluded himself into thinking that his so-called enemies are these crazy individualists who believe in some dog-eat-dog society when what he’s really doing is basically attacking people like entrepreneurs and stacking up a list of scapegoats to blame for his failures.”


– “As all of his big government spending programs fail to restore jobs and growth, he seems to be retreating into a statist vision of government direction and control of a free society that looks backward to the failed ideologies of the 20th century.”


– “Those of us who are conservative believe in government, we just believe government has limits. We want government to do what it does well and respect its limits so civil society and families can flourish on their own and do well and achieve their potential.”


– “He wants to be as transformational as Reagan by undoing the entire Reagan revolution.”

What the President is offering is not surprising - given his point of view... As the Investor's Business Daily notes in one of their editorials today...

He blasted Wall Street, big business, big banks, big oil, "excess profits," "corporate profits" and "fat contracts," "millionaires" and the "wealthy."


He called out the "corporation executive" for not paying his "fair" share.


He attacked "GOP" tax cuts that "spare the rich" and "benefit millionaires."


He trumpeted the public sector over the private sector.


He advocated wealth redistribution from greedy "corporations" to "health insurance" and "public works projects."


He favored taxpayer-funding of universal health care. He supported government stimulus to rescue America from (allegedly) another Great Depression.


He wanted to rid America of "huge funds" finding their way into the "pockets" of "Wall Street." "Instead," he declared, "money should be spent for the benefit of the people instead of the corporations."


He supported nationalization and singled out General Motors for government action.


He favored the Russians at the expense of countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia.


He rejected Winston Churchill, and wanted the heralded prime minister nowhere within the White House.


He insisted that American foreign policy was about "big profits" for big oil.


He cited the American Founders and the U.S. Constitution, and described himself and his policies as "progressive," while his detractors accused him of being a communist.


He adopted slogans like "Forward" and "Change." He wanted to transform America through what he called "fundamental change."


Who is this man?


If you answered "Barack Obama," you're only half right. The answer is Frank Marshall Davis, Hawaii mentor to Barack Obama, and Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member No. 47544.

The statement from Barack Obama does, as Brit Hume notes, 'explain everything'. This is how Barack Obama views the United States, views capitalism, and believes to his core - that government is the solution and property / wealth belongs to government. What individuals are 'permitted' to retain, are done so because of either the government's generosity or the cheating of the individual. The state is the primary focal point for all - and we citizens are subservient to the state.

It is, as John Sununu, a Romney campaign surrogate, notes in this video - 'I wish this President would learn to be an American...'

In the Fiscal Times, there is a commentary that notes that President Obama is now adding the U.S. Economy and it's recovery to those being tossed under the bus...

President Obama will stop at nothing to win four more years in the White House – including cracking this fragile egg shell of a recovery and sending the U.S. into recession. With every sign that the economy is slowing, our Campaigner in Chief is creating even more anxiety by taking an unwavering stand -- he will not, he affirms proudly, extend current tax rates on all Americans. Instead, he demands the wealthy pay more. That’s it. That’s his grand plan for getting the country moving again. A more harmful and negative campaign has surely never been waged.


Nearly every day there are new signs that the country may topple into recession. Today we read that retail sales fell 0.5 percent in June – the third consecutive monthly downturn. That hasn’t occurred since the fall of 2008, when the country was paralyzed with fear over the financial crisis. Think of that; consumers are reacting today just as they did when it looked like the world was coming to an end. That says volumes – about the tone set by the White House, the confidence this president has inspired in our citizenry, and about his inability to lead the country forward.
…
The people of the United States deserve better. We need a cheerleader and advocate. We do not need our president hoping to ignite anger and envy against our most productive citizens. We need to extend the Bush tax cuts, undertake serious tax reform and all the other issues – immigration, education, infrastructure investment, entitlements reform – that have been sidelined as President Obama focuses on being reelected.

While the President will not see his comment as a gaffe - after all, he is only speaking from his own deeply held beliefs - this is another major turning point that will damage the President's campaign. He might want to continue to press the meme of class warfare, to demonize the wealthy (and Mitt Romney in particular), to make a base play for the 50% of Americans who don't pay any taxes, and appeal to those captured in the government's quicksand of dependency - but this statement is so contrary to fundamental American values that it will ultimately turn even a number of those who are dependent on the government.

They will also, I believe, see the complete vapidity and fallacy around the standard arguments being made to excuse the President's telling comment - with the efforts to point out the exceptions to the rule and using those examples, like Obama's effort to use the DARPA development of the Internet, as proof that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other internet conglomerates only got where they are because the government built the Internet.

The government might have built the Internet. But it took entrepreneurs, visionaries, and risk takers from the private sector to build the powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Amazon, etc which took that basic foundation and turned it into so many jobs and so much wealth creation.

This election is about a very simple choice - Are we a people who exist to serve the government?  Or are we a people who has a government that is in place to serve us and help protect our inalienable rights?  If you believe in the former, then you will be voting for President Barack Obama and his continued expansion of the power and reach of the government.  You will be voting for liberal fascism and a version of socialism.  And with your vote for socialism, remember this...

'Socialism - Ideas so good that they have to be mandatory'

SCOTUS & Unions

The Supreme Court announced the disposition of 4 cases today, none of which were the highly watched Obamacare case or the Federal Government versus Arizona over SB1070 - the state's response to the Obama Administration's lack of enforcement of Federal immigration laws.

One of the cases was a strong 7-2 ruling against the SEIU - and another major rejection of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The specifics on this ruling comes from the exemplary SCOTUSBlog - one of the best sites in the blogosphere for information and analysis on Supreme Court cases....

Justice Alito announced the second opinion of the day, in Knox v. Service Employees International Union. By a vote of seven to two, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration. It held that the case is not moot; five members of the Court further held that the First Amendment does not allow a public-sector union to require objecting non-members to pay a special fee for the purposes of financing the union’s political and ideological activities. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.

This is not good news for unions which are under increased scrutiny over their collection of dues and the use of these dues for their political advocacy interests - without any consideration or approval from the union members for the use of their dues on those political issues.

An example of the impact is this Spring 2010 article, "The Beholden State - How Public Sector Unions Broke California"...

The camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California’s largest public-employee union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. “We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory,” she says matter-of-factly to the elected officials outside the shot. “Come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll get you out of office.’

This is no different from the actions of both public sector unions and private sector unions like the AFL/CIO which dumped tens of millions into Wisconsin to prevent Governor Scott Walker's reforms - and then attempt to recall the Governor when the legislation passed.

Here's another example about how some unions operate - and take advantage of their members...

Michigan School Union demands members bank account, credit card numbers to guarantee dues payments… A union president’s letter shows one school employee union planned to handle automatic dues collection of its members by demanding full payment at the start of the year or requiring its members to give a checking or savings account number or credit card for automatic monthly withdrawals.

Debbie Bence, president of the Plymouth-Canton Cafeteria Association, sent a letter to her union members on June 4 stating that the dues had to be paid as a condition of employment.

Bence said the financial information would be kept confidential and kept at the Michigan Education Association headquarters. News reports state that union dues to the MEA are capped at $778 a year.

I wonder what these teachers get for their $778 a year? Is it like the Sacramento, CA 'Teacher of the Year' I reported about last week who was laid off because of union seniority rules which protected older and less effective teachers?

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste? - UPDATED

Read it all to see 6/21 Updates.....

In the legend of the Sword of Damocles...

The Damocles of the anecdote was an obsequious courtier in the court of Dionysius II of Syracuse, a fourth century BC tyrant of Syracuse, Italy. Pandering to his king, Damocles exclaimed that, as a great man of power and authority surrounded by magnificence, Dionysius was truly extremely fortunate. Dionysius then offered to switch places with Damocles, so that Damocles could taste that very fortune first hand. Damocles quickly and eagerly accepted the king's proposal. Damocles sat down in the king's throne surrounded by every luxury, but Dionysius arranged that a huge sword should hang above the throne, held at the pommel only by a single hair of a horse's tail. Damocles finally begged the tyrant that he be allowed to depart, because he no longer wanted to be so fortunate.

The phrase has also come to be used in describing any situation with a sense of impending doom, especially when the peril is (or should be, to the astute observer) visible and close at hand—regardless of whether the victim is in a position of power. The American president John F. Kennedy compared the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation to a sword of Damocles hanging over the people of the world.

It is in this sense that I reference the sword - and it's position over the European Union.

Real Clear Politics featured an editorial today that makes the case that Germany will decide if the Euro survives the summer....

Just what are Europe's options? There are three: a full political union like that advocated on June 15 by German chancellor Angela Merkel; a sharp increase - well over a trillion euros - in transitional support for Europe's periphery countries to buy time for fiscal realignment among eurozone members and for recapitalization of Europe's increasingly run-prone periphery banks; and/or a collapse or contraction of the European Monetary Union. Europe could end up with all countries reverting to their pre-euro national currencies or with a smaller eurozone where countries like Germany, France, the Netherlands and Austria retain the euro while others revert to their national currencies - outcomes that would necessitate great financial and, very probably, political upheaval.

None of the options are particularly good or palatable. All will involve some or considerable pain - for the politicians, for the bankers, and for the people.

Is this all by design?

Bear with me on this, as this is pure speculation. The battle in Europe over the last three decades has been similar to the battle in the US between the right / conservatives and the left / progressives. It's been a battle around what a future Europe will look like. The leading intellectuals and politicians of the European progressive left, led by Jacques Delors, sought a strong federal Europe, a United States of Europe, with a strong central federal government with substantial powers over the region. These efforts were opposed by conservatives like Margaret Thatcher who believed the EU vision should be limited to a 'glorified free trade zone of like minded states' with limited government and individual accountability and responsibility.

[I covered this is in some detail in this post from December 4, 2011...]

The vision advocated by Delors, Francois Mitterand, and others could not be fully enacted, but was substantially enacted in the Maastricht Treaty which established the European Union and the Euro on the principles of a single market which ensures the free movement of goods, capital, people and services. It was only through this process that Mitterand's France would support the reunification of Germany - with the support made conditional on Germany's acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty and adopting the Euro.

What if the current challenges, coming two decades of the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, was something that was envisioned, planned for, and anticipated by those who failed to achieve their vision in 1992 but wanted to create a future 'crisis' where the 'best' solution would be to enact their vision?

As noted in the above excerpt from Real Clear Politics, one of the options that is being considered (and touted) is for a full political union of the European Union members - with the necessary requirement for a strong central / federal government and the member nations sacrificing national sovereignty to this political union.

The other alternatives available are being presented as the one's that would result in not only far greater economic and political costs, but would 'move Europe backwards' ultimately creating a 'have and have not' divided Europe which would bring great turmoil and suffering to those in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Italy, and other countries.

Could Europe be in the midst of a machiavellian plot?

One of the aspects of healthcare reform in the United States that raised the hackles of many was the original vision and intent of the progressives towards the US adopting a 'single payor' healthcare system where the federal government nationalizes and totally controls healthcare - like Britain's National Health Service (NHS). There was substantial political push back against the US adopting a 'single payor' system as being advocated by the progressives in Congress. With the contentious issue around the passage of 'Obamacare', progressives reluctantly announced that they would drop their insistence that reform would have to include 'single payor' and developed the alternative to single payor that is now part of Obamacare.

As Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said, 'we have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill' - and now that the bill has been passed, the majority of Americans are very concerned about not only the individual mandate, but the higher costs and other challenges this legislation will bring. Many believe that the legislation, as it is written now, is unworkable and will create a disaster in US healthcare.

Some have accused this as being part of the plan of the progressives who wrote this bill and rammed it through Congress....to create a disaster where new action will have to be taken...and that the only palatable option at that time would be to implement 'single payor' because to go back would not only be as or more painful, but result in 'millions' losing out on their healthcare coverage.

It is very possible that both the progressives / left of Europe and the progressives / left of the US are running a machiavellian plot to get what they want. 'The end justifies the means' is a common approach or justification from the left for their actions just as they try to mask their demands around 'fairness', 'social justice', and 'the right thing to do'. We can't go backwards to undo the 'compromise' because it wouldn't be fair, or it wouldn't be the right thing to do because of the pain, those who would 'lose' or be 'left out'.

The former Chief of Staff of President Barack Obama loved to say, 'Don't let a crisis go to waste'. It works far better when the crisis is planned and created...as in the EU and as in healthcare / the US domestic economic crisis.

6/21 Update:

A few quick examples that fit the premise that we're watching not planned obsolescence, but planned crisis intended to accelerate the policy initiative to the desired progressive end state past objections by opponents to the initiatives.

The first of these corresponds to a Daily Mail article that looks at who really is to blame over the Eurocrisis.  Lo and behold, number 10 on the list of the biggest contributors is the aforementioned Jacques Delors.  Here's what the Daily Mail article says about Delors' contribution:

10. Jacques Delors 9/10
Jacques Delors, the principal architect of the Euro, has admitted that the project was structurally flawed from the outset. He’s even admitted that British objections to the idea had real substance. (Thanks, Jacques, and it only took you 15 years to figure that out.) Basically, this project could never have worked and now here it is not working. Quelle surprise.

The principal architect knew it was flawed, the objections had 'real substance', that the effort would 'never work', but still pushed it forward knowing that its failure would move the process closer to the 'ideal' goal - a federal European socialist bureaucracy that replaces national sovereignty.

The second comes from the MSNBC blowhard Ed Schultz who frequently engages mouth before engaging brain....and is commentating on the Obamacare healthcare example I cite. This quote is courtesy of the site Weasel Zippers...

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the President’s health care law, and Former Governor Howard Dean says he hopes the individual mandate is thrown out, and he’s not alone: 77% of Americans want the President and Congress to come up with new legislation if the court strikes down the law. Ed Schultz explains why this is a great opportunity for liberals to get excited about a single-payer system.

We can even look at the latest scandal impacting the Obama Administration - Fast and Furious. This was a gun running program that permitted Mexican drug cartels to purchase weapons in the US with the knowledge of the US government - and did not involve the Mexican government or any effort to track the weapons until after they were used in crimes. 2 US Federal agents and, according to the Mexican Attorney General, 400+ Mexican civilians have been murdered by thugs using these weapons. Throughout the process, the President, the Attorney General, and their Congressional allies have used this carnage as a reason why the progressive policy goal of draconian gun control laws have to be enacted in the US.

Simply, for political purposes, the Obama Administraton created a crisis (which cost hundreds of lives) to promote / create the justification for draconian gun control laws. That is why the Administration is working so hard to cover the specifics about this program.

Proof?  CBS News obtains documents showing Holder used Fast and Furious scandal to justify crackdown on 2nd Amendment rights....

More Reasons Why Public Sector Unions Are Problems

Earlier this week, the Heritage Foundation noted that the union for Chicago teachers are demanding a 30% pay raise...

Yet in Chicago, where just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading (and just 56 percent of students graduate), the teachers union is set to strike if the district does not agree to a 30 percent increase in teachers’ salaries.


The average teacher in Chicago Public Schools—a district facing a $700 million deficit—makes $71,000 per year before benefits are included. If the district meets union demands and rewards teachers with the requested salary increase, education employees will receive compensation north of $92,000 per year.


According to the Illinois Policy Institute, the average annual income of a family in Chicago is $47,000 per year. If implemented, the 30 percent raise will mean that in nine months, a single teacher in the Chicago Public School system will take home nearly double what the average family in the city earns in a year.


According to the union, 91 percent of its members voted for the ability to strike. That vote gives the union the ability to walk out of public school classrooms as children return to school this fall.


The union argues that Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) wants to extend the school day, and that the requested salary increase would compensate them for extending the school day from 5.5 hours—among the nation’s shortest school days—to 7.5 hours.

This is just stunning. And its no real surprise that 91% of the members of the union voted to go on strike if their absurd demands are not met - would you vote to not demand a 30% pay raise?

What I am wondering is what is the most stunning? The 30% pay raise demand from a district already facing a $700 million operating deficit? Or the demand for this compensation to extend their working day from 5.5 hours / day to 7.5 hours / day? Or the demand to be earning more than double the median income of families in Chicago?

To me, the most stunning is the demand in the face of the facts that only 15% of the city's fourth graders are proficient in reading, and only 56% of the students graduate from High School.

But this is how the teachers unions operate. Under the rules of the teachers unions, the students are not the focus and clearly do not come first in their priorities. In Sacramento, California, the school district's 'Teacher of the Year' was just fired...

It doesn’t matter anymore how good you are at your job if you live in the failing state of California; if you’re on a lower rung of the ladder in terms of seniority, you’re toast.


Michelle Apperson, a teacher at the Sutterville Elementary School in Sacramento who was named “teacher of the year” by the school district, was fired because she was outranked in seniority.


The state’s budget deficit, which has ballooned to $16 million, has triggered a move by Governor Jerry Brown to make cuts across the board, and schools across the state are being forced by budget cuts to fire thousands of teachers.

These highlight the importance of Wisconsin and the actions of Governor Scott Walker - showing how to oppose public sector unions and refocus attention towards the students and fiscal responsibility. 

Taking Cooking the Books to the Next Level

Within a number of my daily 'Quick Hit' posts, I've been highlighting the efforts of the Obama Administration to 'cook the books' - to manipulate the economic numbers, in particular the jobs numbers, for their own political advantage.  They work diligently to take bad news and try to either make it look a lot less worse than it really is - or to make it look like a positive for the President.

This includes an unprecedented level of revisions being done to past information - revising numbers up or down in a manner to allow a pro-Obama spin on the current numbers.  We've seen past jobless numbers being quietly revised upwards to a point just above the current week's numbers so that the WH press release can reference a 'decline' in the number of jobless.  We've seen the labor participation rates being slashed so that the 'official' unemployment rate (U-3) can drop to give the appearance to voters that the economy is improving.

One of the areas that this is being done is in the number of jobs gained.  We heard all about this yesterday in the President's press conference / announcement where he's touted that his Administration has created over 4 million jobs since 2009, and over 800,000 thusfar in 2012.  But these numbers are 'cooked' for his political advantage. Big Journalism at Breitbart.com puts the job numbers in context...

In an onscreen graphic, CNN calls this the number of "jobs gained." What does that mean? Let’s add context. It takes at least 90,000 jobs created per month just for America to break even with job growth. That is the standard. As job growth is critical to this nation's future, it’s important to know what the “break even” number is. Some have said the break even number is as high as 150,000 a month (New York Times number); for the sake of argument, we'll take the lower number (don't say we don't give Obama a break).


90,000 to break even with job growth is a number that every American should know when they are told employment figures, but few do. The media fails to provide that context.


Instead of saying 69,000 jobs were "gained" in May, it should be reported that, “overall the economy lost at least 21,000 jobs.” In every graphic produced by the media, and in every report by the media, that 90,000 number should be considered.


When you take the last three months into consideration, the number overall is 40,000 jobs lost--230,000 jobs “created” and 270,000 needed to break even. Even an old sports guy like me can do this math.

Graphs work well to highlight not only that the Obama Administration has not been successful in creating jobs - but the levels to which they will cook the books to mask their failure.

This graph highlights just to what extent the Obama Administration is cooking the books.  The black line is the 'official' unemployment rate.  The red is the rate if games weren't being played by adjusting the labor participation rate.

This is the graph that shows that today's labor participation rate is at its lowest level in three decades.  Are we to believe that this decline is because of 'boomers' starting to retire?

This next graph highlights just what the Obama Administration's record really is regarding job creation. His policies have not created '4 million jobs'.  What these policies have done is created an economy today that has 12 million fewer jobs in it than it should.

How concerned is the Administration of the revelations of how it is actively cooking the books to create a political meme for the 2012 Presidential election?

So concerned that they are implementing draconian rules and limitations on journalists who write the stories about the economic data issued by the Obama Department of Labor.

Journalists are crying foul at a new Obama policy that will deny them the right to use their own computers to write stories from economic data issued inside the halls of the Department of Labor. Instead, the DoL says, journalists will have to use government-owned computers, government-selected software, and government-owned Internet transmission lines to write their stories about the data issued by the department.

All news organizations have been ordered to remove their computers, tools, and other electronics from the Department of Labor by June 15 and will not be allowed to bring any of their own electronics into the place from that point forward.

How Soviet of the Obama Administration.

Will this step turn out to be a changing point in the relationship between President Obama and the mainstream media?  Or will they sacrifice their principles for the 'greater good' of facilitating the re-election of their ideological partner?

FLASH - Obama's FY2013 Crashes and Burns in Senate - UPDATED

In March, the House of Representatives unanimously rejected the President's Fiscal Year 2013 budget by a vote of 0-414.

Earlier today, in the US Senate, the President's FY 2013 budget was unanimously rejected by a vote of 0-99.

This is a clean sweep rejection of the President's fiscal plan - as it failed to garner a single vote in either the House or Senate.

It is also the second year in a row where the Senate has unanimously rejected the President's budget - as it voted down the President's FY2012 budget by a vote of 0-97.

The Senate, which has not passed a budget in over 1,115 days, will be holding votes on 4 GOP budget proposals - the result of the GOP Senate leadership forcing the Harry Reid Senate to hold votes on a budget.  None of these plans are expected to get the 51 votes needed to pass. 

The Senate is comprised of 51 Democrats, 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 47 Republicans.

Majority Leader Reid is on record as saying that he has no intent to offer a Democrat budget from the Senate before this November's election - continuing the unprecedented case of the Senate not passing a budget for over 3 years.

UPDATE -

The House passed budget bill authored by Representative Paul Ryan was defeated in its Senate vote by a margin of 41 - 58.  Five Republicans joined the Democrats in voting against this budget - at least one of whom voted against it because it did not go far enough to address the current fiscal challenges.

Republican Senator Pat Toomey's budget proposal was defeated 42-57, as were 2 other Republican proposed budgets - each gaining unanimous Democrat votes to reject.

The Eurocrisis - An Update

The talks in Greece to form a new coalition government failed earlier today.  An interim government will be created, but the country will face new national elections in the mid-June timeframe as the Greek fiscal crisis continues to escalate.

Polls show the leftist Syriza party, which rejects the bailout and placed second in last week’s vote, is now on course to win, a result that would give it an automatic bonus of 50 seats in the 300-seat parliament. The conservative New Democracy party won the May 6 election, but only received 18.9 per cent of the vote as angry voters scattered to smaller parties.


New economic growth figures released Tuesday revealed the extent of Greece’s ongoing crisis. The country’s economic output slowed by 6.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2012, compared with the first three months of 2011, according to the Greek Statistical Authority.


European leaders say that they will cut off funding for Greece if it rejects the bailout agreed in March, which would mean bankruptcy and all but certain exit from the European single currency.

It seems far more likely that Greece will leave the Eurozone because of the impasse between the need, as stipulated by the EU, ECB, and IMF, for major austerity steps (reduced government spending and reduced government entitlements) to be honored as part of the over $140 billion bailout that Greece received earlier this year.

The failure of the talks weakens already ebbing confidence in Greece’s ability to remain in the euro.


On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Greece may be forced to leave the single currency if it refused to implement spending cuts agreed with the European Union. Syriza has already said it will not subject Greece to such cutbacks.


One outgoing Greek minister has even warned that the country could descend into “civil war” amid the chaos of a euro exit.


“If Greece cannot meet its obligations and serve its debt the pain will be great,” Michalis Chrysohoidis was quoted as telling a local radio station. “What will prevail are armed gangs with Kalashnikovs and which one has the greatest number of Kalashnikovs will count … we will end up in civil war.”

CNBC asks if a run has started on Greek banks over the future...

Stocks faded in the final hour of trading Tuesday to finish lower after a transcript from the Greek meeting showed deposits leaving the banking system, fueling speculation that the nation might leave the euro zone.


The S&P 500 closed at 3-month lows, while the Dow logged its ninth loss in the last 10 sessions.


According to the transcript, Greek depositors recently withdrew 700 million euros from the nation's local banks, said President Karolos Papoulias, though the exact timing of the transfer was unclear.


"I think people need to prepare for the eventual removal of Greece from the EU and investors are getting ahead of that before they're forced to," said Matthew McCormick, vice president and portfolio manager at Bahl & Gaynor Investment Counsel on CNBC's "Closing Bell." "It's a political market and an event-driven market."

If, or more accurately, when Greece leaves - that will not end the crisis for the Eurozone. The crisis will continue - shifting to not only other countries, but also major financial institutions within the Eurozone and US. Other countries, like Spain, Portugal, Italy, and perhaps France, will also reach this same tipping point....

Mistakenly, they have convinced themselves that it won't much matter if Greece leaves, and indeed that it might even help resolve the wider crisis to get rid of this persistent thorn in the flesh.


Bring it on, they mutter callously; it will be a lot worse for them than for us. On one level, this is just bravado. It's an attempt to put as nonchalant a face as possible on the now apparently inevitable. But they also seem to believe in their validity of their own analysis – that they have indeed used the past two years well, and are now fully prepared for a Greek exit.


Believe it if you will. The ineptitude to date of the eurozone's crisis response strongly suggests a different conclusion – both that the likely contagion from an exit has been hugely underestimated, and that by prompting a wider breakup, thereby tipping Europe into depression, it may end up as bad for everyone else as it is for Greece.


The Greek problem has been consistently misdiagnosed and mismanaged right from the start.

This is the fundamental problem with Greece and the Eurozone. They think that someone else's money will never end - so they can spend at will to fund and control so much of their economy....35 hour work weeks, massive centralized government planning and regulatory control to ensure 'fairness', massive entitlements combined with retirement ages at nearly full salary / pensions starting at age 50, the Greek government habit of paying out 14 months of benefits each and every 12 month calendar year, etc. They think that doubling taxes will result in double revenues - and that they will not lose when those who oppose paying for not only themselves but 2 or 3 others decide to pick up and relocate themselves someplace with a smaller burden. Growth doesn't come from government spending- otherwise the Eurozone would be significantly bigger than the US.

The mindset there is to do whatever we can do to avoid pain - even if that step to dodge a small pain today causes a far larger pain at some point in the future. The future is someone else's problem - so just kick that can down the road. And by all means, refuse to learn from history or the examples of others...

We have this same battle in approach and ideology here in the US between conservatism and progressivism.  But as the Wall Street Journal notes, we can see the two options at work directly in front of us - and select the more successful if we believe what we see - not see only what we want to believe...

Jerry Brown vs. Chris Christie - More states are realizing at the road to fiscal hell is paved with progressive intentions...

In his January 2011 inaugural address, California Gov. Jerry Brown declared it a "time to honestly assess our financial condition and make the tough choices." Plainly the choices weren't tough enough: Mr. Brown has just announced that he faces a state budget deficit of $16 billion—nearly twice the $9.2 billion he predicted in January. In Sacramento Monday, he coupled a new round of spending cuts with a call for some hefty new tax hikes.


In his own inaugural address back in January 2010, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also spoke of making tough choices for the people of his state. For his first full budget, Mr. Christie faced a deficit of $10.7 billion—one-third of projected revenues. Not only did Mr. Christie close that deficit without raising taxes, he is now plumping for a 10% across-the-board tax cut.


It's not just looks that make Mr. Brown Laurel to Mr. Christie's Hardy. It's also their political choices.

Read it all....
One state stagnating. One state turning its economy around. One is progressive. One is conservative. Which is acting in the best interests for the people of the state? Who is achieving the best results for the people of the state?

One can either exacerbate the challenge (a la Mr. Brown and much of the Eurozone leadership) or one solves the challenges (a la Chris Christie or Scott Walker). Let's learn from history - and what is happening in front of us re success or failure.  That is the battle the Eurozone faces - and the one that we face since we racing to catch up with the Eurozone.  To me, the answer is clear.

Obama's Weekly Address

A new chapter in Afghanistan leads to the same old failed policies domestically.

The President is making his case for taking the Afghanistan 'peace dividend' and spending the funds domestically in a new effort of economic stimulus.  There is no real difference in the stimulus he is now proposing than the failed $800 billion + stimulus that was done in 2009 to launch the economic recovery that we are now wallowing in.

Just as in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 when the President delivered $1.2 trillion or larger annual deficits, increased the national debt by over $5 trillion in just 39 months, and kicked off the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, he is looking to quadruple down on this record by using the funds for the war in Afghanistan towards more pro-union, anti-fossil fuel, and government entitlement programs.

And he's doing it with money that wouldn't be spent on Afghanistan as he's already committed to pulling the US out of Afghanistan by 2014....

These are the actions of an ideologue...

Tonight's Message...

"America Deserves a Better Path"

Obama's Credibility Re: Deficits = ZERO, NIL, ZILCH, NADA

While campaigning for President in July 2008, Barack Obama said the following regarding President George W. Bush...

...calling President Bush 'unpatriotic' for adding $4 Trillion to the total national debt during his two terms as President.

Ironic given that so far, in less than 4 years in office, President Barack Obama has added $5 Trillion to the national debt, and is on pace to add over $6 Trillion in his full 4 year term...including needing another increase to the national debt ceiling around September of this year - after securing one last fall that was supposed to last through early 2013.

But here's something else that is quite interesting about Barack Obama to consider for this election campaign...

Remember back to February 2009 when President Obama said....

...he will cut the budget deficit in half in 4 years....

Flash forward to 2012 from that promise...

...March 2012 - when the US Treasury Department announced that the February 2012 budget deficit was a record setting $232 billion dollars.


Let's savor that number for few minutes...  $232 Billion dollars....

Almost one quarter of a trillion dollars in a single month - and the shortest month (29 days) of the year....

If the nearly one quarter of a trillion dollar MONTHLY deficit isn't sufficiently staggering - February's budget deficit was a little more than $70 billion HIGHER THAN THE ENTIRE FY 2007 budget deficit of $161 billion dollars!  Yes, that's right, the last entirely GOP budget (GOP Congress and GOP WH) annual deficit was more than $70 billion lower than a monthly deficit that President Barack Obama achieved in ONE MONTH!.

To recap - Bush's $4 trillion in deficits over 8 years was unpatriotic - but he's fine with nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 4 years - highlighted by a monthly deficit in February 2012 that is more than $70 billion higher than Bush's entire 2007 budget deficit.

This does wonder's for one credibility during the campaign season.

If the Economy is Improving - Why is Dependency Growing?

According to the Obama Administration, the national unemployment rate in January 2012 dropped to 8.3% - still above the Administration's promises of a maximum post stimulus unemployment rate of 8% but well below the high water unemployment mark we experienced in the wake of the 2008-9 recession.

This is being touted by the Administration and their supporters in the mainstream media as proof that the economy is now in recovery from the recession.  But if we are in an economic recovery, there are a number of facts that question the strength and robustness of this recovery.

One of these is related to the questions around the validity of the unemployment numbers as released by the Administration..

49 months after the start of the 2008-9 recession, employment levels today lag significantly from previous economic recoveries - including the just as deep 1981-82 recession.

The participation rate of working Americans in the workforce is also declining significantly...

...which has the effect of reducing the number of Americans that are part of the calculations made to define the unemployment rate.  Fewer workers counted in the pool - and the lower the unemployment rate.  Some of this is reflected in the 'U6' employment number which includes those who are underemployed - but it's still skewed...

By these measures around unemployment, it's challenging for most Americans to believe that we are really in an economic recovery.

There is also another factor that brings into question the premise that we are in an economic recovery as we move towards a major election in November 2012.  That is the question - Why is dependency on the Government increasing if we are in an economic recovery?

The government is at full throttle to present the economy as improving especially in light of the upcoming election. At the same time, there has been a stunning rise in dependency as most recently presented by the Heritage Foundation.


Heritage defines dependency as significantly depending on the government for help in two of the following basic expense items: housing, food, shelter, income security or higher education.


At the end of 2007, Heritage conservatively estimates there were 59.4 million Americans significantly dependent on the government.


By the end of 2010, this number had risen to 67.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million. It is likely that another two or three million were added in 2011, for a net increase of 10 million to 11 million over the past four years.

On top of this massive increase in dependency on government programs by more and more Americans, we have the impact of this increase in usage on the budget challenges we face.  More than 70% of Federal spending goes to dependence programs - and this is on a trajectory of increasing significantly.

As dependency increases, we're also on a trajectory where only half of America are paying taxes into the government to fund these dependence programs.  

These might reflect the 'fundamental change' promised by President Obama in 2008, but they do not set the stage for an economic recovery or fiscal responsibility...

The link from Investor's Business Daily above that is the source of this question provides a loosely translated joke from the era of the USSR that is described as the 'Seven Wonders of Communism'...

1. Everyone had a job.
2. In spite of the fact that everyone had a job, no one worked.
3. In spite of the fact that no one worked, the production plan was always 100% completed.
4. In spite of the fact that the production plan was 100% successful, the stores shelves were always empty.
5. In spite of the fact that the store shelves were always empty, everyone had everything.
6. In spite of the fact that everybody had everything, everyone stole.
7. In spite of the fact that everyone stole, there was enough for everyone.

The Administration and its 'Ministry of Truth' sychopants in the mainstream media are going to work overtime this campaign season to convince us that the economy is recovering, that the Administration is 'fixing' the problems of the country in the name of 'fairness' and 'social justice', and that statism is the answer to the problems of capitalism.

Facts will be seen as inconvenient.  Traditional values and truths will be airbrushed out.  History reflecting the ethical, moral, and economic bankruptcy of statism will fixed by the new Ministry of Truth.  For us, the focus on our two minutes of hate will not be on the fictional Goldstein, but on 'conservativism, and on the barn walls will be a new set of commandments...