http://www.rightchange.com/ en lukerussellbaker@gmail.com Copyright 2012 2012-05-16T20:26:41+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_u.s._has_55_daily_encounters_with_suspected_terrorists http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_u.s._has_55_daily_encounters_with_suspected_terrorists#When:20:26:41Z Last week, we learned that the TSA pat downs and naked screeners would not have caught the latest underwear bomber. The only thing that stopped a potential terrorist attack last week was a CIA informant who posed as an Al Qaeda member willing to bomb an airplane made by Ibrahim Al-Asiri. Experts said that any future suicide bomb attempts on an airplane would not have been stopped by the TSA. Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano argued there was a “high likelihood” the bomber would have been stopped. One top law enforcement official insisted, “They would not have gotten them.” This is the second underwear bomber that has attempted to board a U.S. plane in one year (that we know of). That’s not even counting the potential attacks that we aren’t aware of. According to the latest reports by law enforcement and homeland security personnel, the U.S. has 55 daily encounters with “known or suspected terrorists” named on government watch lists: “The figure -- which equals more than 20,000 contacts per year -- underscores the growing sweep of the watchlists, which have expanded significantly since a failed Christmas Day 2009 bombing attempt of a U.S. airliner. But officials note that very few of those daily contacts lead to arrests.  Civil liberties groups question the use of watch lists, and they have been ridiculed for ensnaring innocent citizens.  U.S. officials said the encounters, which involve airport and border security personnel as well as federal and local law enforcement officers, are reported to the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), an interagency unit led by an FBI official based in a tightly guarded building in northern Virginia.” This raises the issue of whether or not the bureaucratic TSA and other screening technologies are capable combating terrorism. It also clearly brings up the debate on whether or not it’s appropriate to “profile” individuals. Facts show us that the TSA is incapable of catching today’s high tech terrorists. They underreport incidents, are hired without full background checks, and spend their time profiling Granny’s and disabled children. You decide what method of combating terrorism makes you feel the safest. Just remember the recently stopped terrorist attacks didn’t involve giving Grandma a pat down. Foreign Policy, Obama, 2012-05-16T20:26:41+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/how_republicans_plan_to_avoid_taxmageddon http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/how_republicans_plan_to_avoid_taxmageddon#When:15:57:28Z With the possibility of “Taxmageddon” looming over United State’s taxpayers, House Republicans are trying to get a head start in overhauling the tax code. If Congress fails to act before December 31st, 2012, the Bush era tax cuts are scheduled to expire. This would cause a slew of tax increases on Americans. Taxes will be raised on investment income, estates and gifts, and earnings at all levels. The marriage penalty for joint filers will return, the child credit will drop $500, and the rate everyone pays on the first $8,700 of wages will jump to 15%.  The Social Security payroll tax that Congress voted on in February will expire, and the new Medicare taxes that are a part of Obamacare will be imposed upon anyone who makes more than $200,000. All of these taxes could potentially take away $500 billion out of the economy in 2013 and are set to occur after the November 6th election. All of this is sure to occur next year, but not if Republicans have anything to do with it. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, says he plans to overhaul the tax system when the new Congress starts in January 2013. His plan would give lawmakers no more than one year to give the biggest rewrite of the tax code since President Reagan signed the tax reform act of 1986. This tax overhaul would be a major win for small business as it seeks to combine individual and corporate taxes since small business owners pay their business taxes through their personal income tax. It is likely that this plan would include some kind of competitive corporate tax rate. Camp hopes that the House will pass a temporary extension of the Bush-era tax cuts in conjunction with a plan that would lay out an “expedited” process for next year’s overhaul. This process would likely involve an up or down vote in the House and Senate. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this plan is not guaranteed to pass through Harry Reid’s do-nothing Senate. Hey, Republicans should be used to getting their responsible plans being cut off by Senate Democrats. Voters should keep this in mind when picking their representatives in November. If the Democrats keep control, you can expect to send more money to Uncle Sam as President Obama and the Democrats have vowed to raise taxes. Props to Camp and his fellow Republicans for going against the Washington grain and getting ahead of a serious issue facing our nation. 2012 Presidential Elections, Economy, Elections, Keep Congress Accountable, Obama, Taxes, 2012-05-16T15:57:28+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/obamas_private_equity_hipocrisy http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/obamas_private_equity_hipocrisy#When:21:04:48Z How many faces does Obama truly have? One can only imagine how hard it must be for him to keep up. His double speak occurs so frequently that at least one of them is bound to slip through the cracks and into the public spotlight. Obama launched a new round of negative TV ads against Mitt Romney, calling him a “heartless” “job destroyer” referring to his experience with Bain Capital. The Obama Reelection Team should have reviewed the most basic public relations strategy before they released these ads: timing is everything. From the Washington Post: “President Obama’s campaign is out with a tough new ad, “Steel,” attacking former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s record on job creation. The two-minute ad focuses on GS Technologies, a steel mill in Kansas City, Mo., that was bought by Romney’s private equity firm Bain Capital and went bankrupt soon after. The ad paints Romney as out of touch with the needs of the local workers and concerned only with Bain’s own profits. “We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer,” says one former mill worker in the ad. Another calls Bain “a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us.” A Vampire, eh? Oh the irony of Obama’s reelection staff’s choice to launch an attack on Romney’s private equity experience the same day Obama asked the heads of private equity firms for money at a $35,800 a head fundraiser. On Monday night, Obama spoke at a fundraiser in Manhattan at the home of Tony James, the president of the private-equity giant, the Blackstone Group. Many attendees from the private equity world paid $35k/head to listen to Obama speak, the same man who has referred to them as greedy “fat cats” and accused them of stealing jobs from America. Obama’s team, of course, claims there is nothing wrong with private equity: “Asked about the attack on Mr. Romney, deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said yesterday the President isn't "questioning private equity as a whole." But that wasn't the message as recently as April, when Team Obama posted on a website a list of eight private citizens who were Romney donors and whom it said had "less than reputable records. The targets included Paul "Chip" Schorr, who happens to be a partner at . . . Blackstone. The Obama campaign website accuses him and his private-equity brethren of outsourcing jobs as well as closing a "buyout of a Colorado travel reservations company that led to 841 layoffs while Blackstone and its partners recouped the billions of dollars they invested in less than a year.” Obama demonizes Wall Street and everything related to it, but welcomes their cash. Obama has also received more money from Bain Capital than Romney, as well as more money from Wall Street than any politician in American history. Apparently, it’s detrimental to America’s economy to elect a President with private equity experience, but America’s economy will be saved under the leadership of a President who is influenced by private equity cash? That’s at least the case in Obama’s twisted logic. Timing and forthrightness are crucial to a campaign. Obama’s team is struggling with both. 2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, Obama, 2012-05-15T21:04:48+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/can_the_hispanic_vote_carry_romney http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/can_the_hispanic_vote_carry_romney#When:21:05:57Z Barack Obama won the White House in 2008 thanks in no small part to his overwhelming popularity with Hispanic voters. This popularity stemmed from the soon-to-be-president’s promise that he would pass an immigration reform bill within the first two months of his first term. Despite the fact Obama controlled the congress and had little trouble getting bills passed (see Obamacare and the multiple stimulus packages), no attempt was made to follow through on this promise.  Now four years later, he is on record as saying it will happen in the first year of his second term. Just another empty promise conveniently shouted forth in an election year, according to the Romney camp. “President Obama only talks about immigration reform when he’s seeking votes,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. While this may be true, only the White House seems to be speaking at all about issues important to Hispanics. Where is Governor Romney’s plea to these important voters? New Mexico Governor, Susana Martinez, says the republican candidate has much to say and will capitalize on the failures of the current administration: “President Obama has a credibility problem with Hispanics. He made an unequivocal promise that he would pass comprehensive immigration reform…and yet he never bothered to push for (this).” According to Jennifer Korn of the Hispanic Leadership Network, “Hispanics are shopping around.” If this is true, does the Romney camp have a plan for taking control of this disgruntled, yet powerful group of decision makers? Whatever plan may be in the works, it had better focus on the states of Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Colorado. Hispanics account for at least 13% of the electorate in these states and the President holds a substantial lead in each of these states except Florida, where the polls show a tie. Will the Governor’s recent stance on the Arizona immigration laws cause him to lose the Hispanic vote in these crucial battleground states? Or will he soften on the “Dream Act” and utilize figures like Florida senator Marco Rubio and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to get help energize his lagging public opinion?  The experts agree, there are two critical truths regarding the Hispanic population and the future results of this impending election: the votes are in play right now and Romney better do something major if he wants to sway them. With over 100 electoral votes at stake in Hispanic-heavy states, it seems something well worth the governor’s time if he wants to occupy the White House come next January. 2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, Immigration, Obama, 2012-05-14T21:05:57+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/why_the_establishment_misses_lugar http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/why_the_establishment_misses_lugar#When:20:47:18Z Why does this have the establishment up in arms? Lugar was one of their own; part of the “old boy” network. He was out of touch. The "senator to the world" was a visitor in his home state. He didn't even have a residence in Indiana. He sold his Indiana home in 1977 to reside in the Washington suburbs, and had become more a creature of the Washington establishment than a beloved son. When he was in the Hoosier state, he stayed in hotels and billed the taxpayers. That cost him big in Tuesday's primary. It also didn't help that Lugar committed several conservative heresies including supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants and voting to confirm both of President Obama's Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Mourdock has been demonized by the national media after his win. The tea party has been vilified since its members began gathering to fight growing debt and runaway government. The Republican establishment loathes them. The Democratic establishment mocks them: "Lugar defeat fits Obama campaign narrative on GOP," said a headline in the Los Angeles Times. Ezra Klein wrote an article for Bloomberg entitled, “Lugar’s Loss Shows Republicans Are the Problem.” The New York Times also slapped Mourdock for sticking to principle rather than folding to liberal Democrats, with the headline "Many Pursuits, but Bipartisanship Isn't One of Them." Regardless of the lash back, the tea party is a force to be reckoned with. They have exchanged rallies and protests for more effective strategic and specific targeting of races and primaries which they hope to achieve conservative majorities.  "Lugar's defeat is a wake-up call from the Tea Party to the Republican establishment," said Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist and chairman of CivicForum PAC, which endorsed Mourdock and contributed to his campaign. "It will make them think about how to proceed, not just in what they say but how they vote in the run-up (November) election." Shortly after his win, an emotional Mourdock, cheered by hundreds of ecstatic supporters, called Lugar a "great Hoosier" and "a great American." "Hoosiers want the Republican Party to take a more conservative track in the United States Senate," he said. Super PACs poured about $4.6 million into the Indiana Senate primary, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. More than $3 million of that total went for ads supporting Mourdock or attacking Lugar, paid for by conservative groups such as Club for Growth, the National Rifle Association and Koch Industries-backed FreedomWorks For America. Democrats have more Senate seats up for grabs than Republicans this election cycle. Could this Indiana conservative upset be a foreshadowing of things to come? 2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, Keep Congress Accountable, 2012-05-14T20:47:18+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_is_the_economy_improving http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_is_the_economy_improving#When:21:14:37Z It is always hard to know what to believe in an election year. Every speech, every released report, must be analyzed and picked apart to know if it can be trusted. But who has time for that? Most of us do not get paid to once-over these transcripts and numbers with a fine-tooth comb. At some level, you’ve just got to trust. However, some of the recent job growth and unemployment data being released by the White House seems so fishy, it stinks. The American people deserve to know the truth what’s behind these monthly reports. The Obama Administration is finding creative ways to convince us the economy is improving. The latest tactic involves passing off a huge increase in people taking social security disability (SSDI) benefits as a drop in the unemployment numbers. According to a report by JPMorgan Chase, 2.2 million people have filed for SSDI since mid-2010. When people “go on the government’s payroll,” they are technically removed from the workforce, thereby not counting against unemployment numbers. Shrewd, huh? Many people still choose to work even though disabled according to the government’s standard. But when work is impossible to come by, the average $1,100 of monthly income handed out under SSDI looks pretty tempting. According to Morgan Stanley, 99% of social security disability beneficiaries remain in the program until retirement age. So Obama gets to carry people on the taxpayer’s dime, often until age 62, while still claiming unemployment is dropping. What a wonderful opportunity for the president to have his cake and eat it too. Despite the fact most Americans would not abuse disability income, $1,100 a month is a lot better than nothing and when faced with a choice, people do what they have to do to survive. Not to mention the amount of fraud these types of programs facilitate. Obama is using these people and programs to further his big government agenda while attempting to deceive the voters into believing his way is working. It isn’t and it never has. November is calling and it is time to put an end to all of the lies. 2012 Presidential Elections, Economy, Elections, Job Creation, Obama, 2012-05-10T21:14:37+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_voters_arent_buying_obamas_jobs_record http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_voters_arent_buying_obamas_jobs_record#When:21:10:12Z One component that bands the Democratic Party together is the fact that they will do whatever it takes to win. Rather than waste millions of dollars figuring out which candidate truly fits their ideological identity, they rally behind what they’ve got and spend their money on other election efforts, like this. That being sad, it comes as quite the surprise when a large group of Democratic voters choose a convict over their candidate. “This year the Democratic presidential primaries are only interesting when President Obama doesn't do well in them. That happened Tuesday night in West Virginia, when Texas inmate Keith Russell Judd got 40.6 percent of the vote in the state to Obama's 59.4 percent. For Obama, it's an embarrassing reminder that a lot of working-class white folks don't like him. For Judd, it's a massive victory after a nearly two-decade career pestering courts and election officials. Many pundits are citing Obama’s problem with working-class voters as the reason for this incumbent challenge. Well, it’s more about the problems working class voters have with him, and that’s especially apparent in West Virginia. Obama’s EPA regulations have suffocated a state that’s economy relies mostly on the coal industry. Clean energy may sound like a great idea, but when it lands us more Solyndra bankruptcies than jobs, it invokes more anger than feel good philosophy. So there you have it; mess with a man’s job and suddenly an inmate becomes more appealing than your incumbent candidate.  Even Democratic Senator Joe Manchin appears to think so. Democrats better band together and figure out a better way to convince voters that Obama’s record on jobs is solid if they want to win. It looks like West Virginia couldn’t be convinced; let’s hope the rest of America couldn’t either. 2012 Presidential Elections, Economy, Elections, Job Creation, Obama, 2012-05-10T21:10:12+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/west_virginias_democratic_primary http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/west_virginias_democratic_primary#When:20:44:54Z President Obama has never been the most popular politician in West Virginia, and even though he’s an incumbent president running essentially unopposed, Tuesday’s Democratic primary in the Appalachian state did little to change that perception. Just how unpopular is the president? Very much so, that a man in prison in Texas got 4 out of 10 votes in the West Virginia presidential primary. Come again? Yes that’s correct. Contrary to popular belief where Democrats typically get elected first, then go to prison, in West Virginia it’s the exact opposite. More than 40 percent of Democrats voting in West Virginia chose to cast their ballots for Keith Russell Judd, an inmate currently serving a 17-year sentence for extortion and threats.  "I voted against Obama," said Ronnie Brown, a 43-year-old electrician from Cross Lanes who called himself a conservative Democrat. "I don't like him. He didn't carry the state before and I'm not going to let him carry it again." When asked which presidential candidate he voted for, Brown said, "That guy out of Texas." Well that guy out of Texas with distinguished business in the front; party in the back mullet scored 42.28 percent of the vote — or 49,490 votes — compared with President Obama with 57.72 percent, or 67,562, according to state results. Where does this distain for Obama stem from? President Obama's energy policies and the Environmental Protection Agency's handling of coal mining-related permits have inflicted the wrath of West Virginia's coal industry. With West Virginia being the nation's second-largest producer of coal, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and Sen. Joe Manchin, both Democrats, have championed the industry and declined to say whether they will support Obama in November. Point of the story: You can’t tell an entire state you want to destroy their jobs and expect to win an election. The historic rise of an inmate serving time in the Democratic primary takes the ABO “Anyone But Obama” phrase and bumper sticker to a whole new level. 2012 Presidential Elections, Economy, Elections, Energy, Obama, 2012-05-09T20:44:54+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_the_real_unemployment_rate http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_the_real_unemployment_rate#When:20:31:33Z After April’s jobs report, we learned that the labor force participation rate was the lowest it’s been in thirty years with the economy adding a measly 115,000 jobs. The Washington Examiner points out that in April 1984, the most severe recession since World War 11, the U.S. jobless rate fell to 7.7% and the economy added 363,000 jobs. The Gross Domestic Product grew at an annual rate of 7.4%! This booming recovery helped President Reagan win reelection with a 49 state landslide. President Obama is in a similar situation, except he’s desperately trying to sell us on his economic record that is proving to be more like Europe than a recovery. As Europe endures a terrible economy from their bloated public sector, Lou Dobbs from Fox News reminds us that we are not exactly that far away from their situation. He also breaks down the fact that the only reason the unemployment rate is in decline is because the amount of individuals participating in the labor pool is at a thirty-year low. Watch the video below to see his breakdown: Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com Debt to GDP Ratio: U.S. 101%, France 86%, Italy 120%, Greece 165%. GDP Growth: U.S. 1.7%, France 1.7%, Italy .5%, Greece 7%. Retirement age: U.S. 65 years, France 59 years, Italy 60 years, Greece 61 years. Labor force participation rate: U.S. 63.6%, France 72%, Italy 75%, Greece 71%. Just to put that in perspective, our economic growth, debt, and retirement age is not very far behind European countries and they have more people working than we do! Our labor force has shrunk so much that if it were the same size it was when Obama took office; unemployment would be at 10.9%. None of this should come as a surprise as Obama is growing the public sector while refusing to put forth any plan that reforms our entitlement retirement programs. He is also refusing to implement policies that grow the private sector. If you don’t believe Obama is turning our country into a European style economy, then you can at least agree with the fact that he isn’t doing anything to steer us away from it. We shouldn’t settle for Europe; remember that in November. Economy, Obama, 2012-05-08T20:31:33+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/france_elects_socialist_president http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/france_elects_socialist_president#When:21:52:09Z In the name of fairness, the French have elected a Socialist President who is set to undo austerity measures as Europe deals with massive deficits from a bloated public sector. French voters said goodbye to Nicholas Sarkozy and hello to challenger François Hollande. Apparently the French think that more Socialism is the cure to their economic woes. These latest elections were a vote against austerity and with America facing a similar crisis; we ought to be paying attention. Mr. Hollande is already proposing the implementation of the same policies that caused the mess they are currently in. Their country has one of the overall highest tax burdens but has a national debt that is 90% of GDP. They have trillions in unfunded public pensions and healthcare obligations as their government controls 56% of French GDP. Hollande would increase spending and raise the tax burden on millionaires to 75%. Spending and taxing equals economic growth; it is an interesting paradigm to look through. However, it is not one that is unfamiliar as the taxing and spending policies that have dominated the EU are what have caused them to be pushed to the brink of collapse – look no further than Greece and Spain. It’s puzzling why any country would vote to keep the same policies in tact. It’s especially puzzling why voters would even consider keeping Barack Obama in office for another four years when his policies were taken straight out of Europe’s playbook. Just shy of four years, Obama added almost $5 trillion to the national debt to finance programs like Obamacare and his massive Stimulus bill. That is more than President Bush spent in eight years. All of these entitlements were touted and passed in the name of economic growth and investment – just ask the common man on the street how well they grew the economy. If reelected, his budget would add $9.8 trillion in deficits over 10 years. He also wants to raise the personal income tax rate to 39.6%, which would rise to 41% after he adds the phasing out of deductions. In addition to that, he would triple corporate tax rate, and add a 3.8% surtax – you can thank Obamacare for that one. So assuming a maximum 35% corporate tax rate and a 44.8% dividend tax, the total tax on corporate earnings passed through as dividends would be 64.1%. That doesn’t even include state taxes. Obama’s all-inclusive 64.1% tax rate isn’t far behind Hollande’s proposed 75% income tax rate. America should really look towards France as an example. We literally cannot afford to make France’s recent mistake in November. 2012 Presidential Elections, Deficit, Economy, Elections, Obama, Taxes, 2012-05-07T21:52:09+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/first_quarter_big_bank_lending_slows http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/first_quarter_big_bank_lending_slows#When:15:19:21Z Whatever slow economic growth we have seen recently may soon come to an end based on numbers released this past week. The big four banks, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup lent a total of $24 billion in the first three months of 2012. This figure is down $10 billion from the same time frame in 2011. Why is this important? When banks cut lending, it usually means two things, neither of which is good. Small businesses will have a harder time getting money to expand if there is less money available for credit. The drop in lending could also mean the actual demand for loans has dropped, meaning businesses and individuals are afraid to borrow due to concerns about the economy. Concerns lead to less spending which means the economy grinds to a halt. This news bucks the trend of lending at banks overall. The Federal Reserve released data this week stating U.S. bank loan volume rose by $95 billion in the first quarter. Are the big banks still feeling the pain of the recent financial crisis? Are they still reeling from the burn they got taking on bad mortgages? Just ask Bank of America – their lending alone has fallen $78 billion in the past two years. The rise in popularity of Credit Unions has helped the overall lending numbers rise, but these institutions generally focus on individuals, not businesses. Many of these credit unions shy away from loaning to small businesses due to the large amount of capital involved. As we know by now, small businesses drive the U.S. economy. If they are not growing and creating jobs, the economy doesn’t grow and job growth suffers. Despite the slow growth we have seen the first two months of the year and the expectations by many that the momentum would continue, the March lending and new jobs reports have been depressing. Could it be we are not out of the woods yet and what impact will this news have on the campaigns of Obama and Romney? Most likely, this election is going to come down to which man can convince us his plan is the best one to rescue the U.S. economy. Economy, Job Creation, Obama, 2012-05-04T15:19:21+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/obama_pushes_dream_act_again http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/obama_pushes_dream_act_again#When:15:14:45Z With recent speeches at universities in Chapel Hill, N.C., Iowa City, Iowa, and Boulder, Colorado, it is clear the Obama administration is worried about his support among young voters. As he should be according to the Public Religion Research Institute, which showed Obama ahead of "a Republican" by only 48 to 41 percent. Only 52 percent had favorable opinions of Obama, and 43 percent had unfavorable opinions. As you look at further polling data it becomes obvious that Obama is having a real problem inspiring young voters as he did in back in 2008.  A Gallup poll shows only 56 percent of Americans under 30 saying they definitely will vote. Among older Americans, the figure is over 80 percent. The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed only 45 percent of young people taking a big interest in the election, down from 63 percent in 2008. With the enthusiasm of young voters waning, Obama is going to the democratic play book and moving straight for minorities. Obama sounded close to desperation today when he addressed a Cinco de Mayo reception at the White House: “We’re going to keep fighting for this common-sense reform — not just because hundreds of thousands of talented young students depend on it, but because ultimately America depends on it. ‘No’ is not an option. I want to sign the DREAM Act into law. I’ve got the pens all ready. I’m willing to work with anybody who is serious to get this done, and to achieve bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that solves this challenge once and for all.” Speaking further Obama said, “We know that securing our future depends on making sure that all Americans have the opportunity to reach their potential. And that’s why we’ve worked hard over the last three and a half years to create jobs; to make sure you get the care you need when you get sick; to make college affordable for everybody; to ensure that no matter where you are, where you come from, what you look like, what your last name is — even if it’s Obama– you can make it if you try,” I guess Obama doesn’t think that currently all Americans do have the opportunity to reach their potential. He is also speaking about people who are NOT Americans, but illegal immigrants. We can expect a hard push from the Obama Administration leading up to the election to find or create votes wherever they can. It will be the job of vigilant citizens to keep a watchful eye and make sure we have a fair and democratic election. 2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, Immigration, Obama, 2012-05-04T15:14:45+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/april_unemployment_8.1_labor_force_shrinks_again http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/april_unemployment_8.1_labor_force_shrinks_again#When:14:56:30Z At the start of the new year, some economists said we should be “cautiously optimistic” about the 325,000 jobs added in December because of seasonal hiring and the tax incentives employers have to keep people on the payrolls until the end of the year. The latest jobs numbers for April corroborate their warning; it looks like it’s just going to be a slow Spring everybody. The unemployment rate fell from 8.2% to 8.1%, but not because employers added jobs. Job creators in the United States added fewer workers than predicted for the month of April and the unemployment rate fell because people left the labor force completely. If people leave the labor force, it shrinks the pool. It turns out that a shrinking unemployment rate isn’t something to celebrate. From The Bureau of Labor Statistics: “The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed at 5.1 million in April. These individuals made up 41.3 percent of the unemployed. Over the year, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen by 759,000. (See table A-12.) The civilian labor force participation rate declined in April to 63.6 percent, while the employment-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, changed little.” Employers only added 115,000, the smallest gain in six months. Economists estimated it would be about 165,000 after there were 154,000 additions in March. From Bloomberg: “A slowdown in hiring as corporate optimism cools may restrain the wage growth needed to fuel consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. Federal Reserve policy makers view unemployment as “elevated” and plan to hold borrowing costs low through late 2014.” Consumer spending is declining because people have nothing left to spend their money on after they fill up their gas tank. When there are millions of Americans jobless and the cost to fill up their gas tank is higher than their car payment, the economy is going to slow. This is simple economics. Obama’s economic policy is driving our stagnating economy. His energy policy is making gas more expensive. His healthcare policy is driving up costs. His tax policy is making employers not want to hire anyone. All of these policies may be good for his reelection efforts, but they are bad for business. April’s jobs report is just another proof that Obamanomics aren’t working. Economy, Elections, Job Creation, Obama, 2012-05-04T14:56:30+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/the_epas_scare_tactics http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/the_epas_scare_tactics#When:14:53:47Z Al Armendariz, a top Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, resigned Monday over comments he made back in 2010, which were recently revealed to the American public via YouTube. The reason: he basically compared the EPA’s method of controlling oil and gas companies to the way Rome intimidated its conquests in ancient history: with crucifixions.  Armendariz originally made the remarks at a local government meeting in Texas. He admitted the analogy was crude, but laughed while saying they accurately summed up his philosophy on enforcement.  "It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. You make examples out of people who are, in this case, not complying with the law ... and you hit them as hard as you can - to act as a deterrent to others.” The former EPA official was the President-appointed Administrator of Region 6, which includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and 66 Tribal Nations. These areas are home to 56% of domestic crude oil production and 59% of natural gas production. The Administrator’s remarks bring forth a high level of curiosity about the EPA’s motives when it comes to oil and gas companies. Some are saying the comments sum up this administration’s desire to burden and punish energy companies until they can no longer afford to do business. Some are saying this was a rogue remark not in the least reflective of the President’s policies or feelings. You can decide that for yourself. One thing is for sure, this is not the type of positive PR this White House was looking for given the past weeks’ flurry of scandals in the Secret Service and the GSA. With Armendariz being personally appointed by Mr. Obama, one has to wonder whether the Administrator was not properly vetted, or whether these outlandish remarks are in sync with the true methods and motives our president holds dear. Energy, Obama, 2012-05-04T14:53:47+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/obama_takes_credit_others_do_the_work http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/obama_takes_credit_others_do_the_work#When:21:46:48Z On the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, President Barack Obama is taking a victory lap. He is riling up conservatives and liberals while politicizing what our heroic Navy SEALS accomplished a little over one year ago today in killing Osama Bin Laden. Even the far left leaning Arianna Huffington is disgusted with how Obama is politicizing this military accomplishment. The Daily Caller reports that on “CBS This Morning” Arianna blasted the president saying, “Using the Osama bin Laden assassination, killing, the great news we had a year ago, in order to say basically that Obama did it and Romney may not have done it... I don’t think there should be an ad about that. I think it’s one thing to celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It’s one thing to have an NBC special from the ‘Situation Room’ … all of that is perfectly legitimate. But to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.” While one may agree with Arianna that this is despicable, the real problem lies in opening up the Situation Room and giving special access to his left leaning mainstream media partners. There are reports that Obama is taking way too much credit for a “no brainer” decision and a job that they carried out. One former Navy SEAL states, “The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call. I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice — it was a broader team effort.” Not only is the president taking credit for what the Navy SEALS accomplished, he is also stating that the last three years have all been a huge success unlike the previous 8 years under the Bush Administration. “Despite initial success, for a number of reasons, this war has taken longer than most anticipated. In 2002, Bin Laden and his lieutenants escaped across the border and established safe-havens in Pakistan. America spent nearly eight years fighting a different war in Iraq. And al-Qaida's extremist allies within the Taliban have waged a brutal insurgency. But over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban's momentum. We've built strong Afghan Security Forces. We devastated al-Qaida's leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders. And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden. The goal that I set - to defeat al-Qaida, and deny it a chance to rebuild - is within reach.” It is painfully clear that the groundwork for any success in the war on terror was established under the Bush Administration. Our military was able to take out Bin Laden due to years of war and enhanced interrogation, which Obama strongly denounced. Had it not been for others willingness to do the hard and unpopular work Obama would not have his self-glorifying day in the sun. Foreign Policy, Obama, 2012-05-03T21:46:48+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_job_growth_slows_in_april_manufacturing_falls http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_job_growth_slows_in_april_manufacturing_falls#When:19:59:33Z One of many things President Obama likes to take credit for these days is the manufacturing sector of our economy. The United States lost 2.2 million manufacturing jobs about four years ago and Obama likes to highlight the 429,000 manufacturing jobs that have been added over the past two years. Apparently he thinks it’s as a sign that America is on the rebound under him. At a fundraiser in March speaking in reference to the manufacturing industry, he exclaimed, “the recovery is accelerating. America is coming back.” You don’t need a report to convince you otherwise, ask the common man on the street if he or she thinks America is back in black. In case you do believe Mr. Obama, here is the latest data on job growth and the manufacturing sector. Private business hired at what the Wall Street Journal refers to as an “anemic” pace in April after factory jobs declined. There was also a separate report that showed that factory orders fell at the sharpest pace in three years because the demand for transportation equipment and other goods slumped: “Private-sector jobs in the U.S. increased 119,000 last month, according to a national employment report calculated by payroll processor Automatic Data Processing Inc. ADP -0.71% and the consultancy Macroeconomic Advisers. The gain was far less than economists' median expectation of 175,000 in a survey done by Dow Jones Newswires. The March data were revised to show an advance of 201,000 instead of the 209,000 increase reported earlier. The ADP survey tallies only private-sector jobs, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics' nonfarm-payroll data, to be released Friday, include government workers. The March change in nonfarm payrolls was disappointing, too, with 120,000 jobs added. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires expect that total nonfarm payrolls rose by 168,000 in April, but even that rate wouldn't be enough to change the jobless rate, which is forecast to remain at 8.2%. The weak ADP measure may cause economists to alter their payrolls forecast. The report showed that large businesses, with 500 employees or more, added 4,000 employees to their staffs in April, while medium-size businesses added 57,000 workers. Small businesses, which employ fewer than 50 workers, hired 58,000 new workers. Service-sector jobs increased by 123,000 last month, and factory jobs fell 5,000.” An accelerated recovery? America’s coming back? What a hoax! We didn’t need to tell you that, though. Obama can talk all he wants about raising taxes, investing in green jobs, and putting clean air regulations on business; but none of that will accelerate the recovery.  And this latest round economic data proves it. Economy, Job Creation, Obama, 2012-05-02T19:59:33+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_taxmageddon_is_coming1 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_taxmageddon_is_coming1#When:19:55:34Z We all can agree the Obama didn’t quite meet the expectations Americans had for Hope and Change. This time around is a little different; Americans will know exactly what we’re getting if we choose to give Obama another four years. He hasn’t exactly been shy about his intentions either: higher taxes, more spending, and more regulations. The Washington Post is also warning it’s readers about what some Congressional aides are calling, “Taxmaggedon.” On December 31st, 2012, the Bush-era tax cuts are scheduled to expire which will raise rates on investment income, estates and gifts, and earnings at all levels. The marriage penalty for joint filers will return, the child credit will drop $500, and the rate everyone pays on the first $8,700 of wages will jump to 15%.  The Social Security payroll tax that Congress voted on in February will expire, and the new Medicare taxes that are a part of Obamacare will be imposed upon anyone who makes more than $200,000. All of these taxes could potentially take away $500 billion out of the economy in 2013 and are set to occur after the November 6th election. Obama’s aides say he will not sign another full extension of the Bush tax cuts, but he will consider a provision that raises rates for all of those making over $250,000. Don’t think for a second that you won’t be affected if Obama gets his way, your boss that owns the company that generates over $250,000 in revenue will stick it to you. –He’s gotta make up the cost of Obama’s taxes somehow. This is why it is naïve to think taxing the rich will only have an affect on the rich. When taxes go up, companies cut back. That means you can kiss your hopes of a recovery goodbye. ‘Taxmageddon’ can be completely avoided if we elect leaders who are unafraid of reforming the tax code and who are ready to cut government spending. We can argue all day over how to reform the tax code and which programs to cut, but it all starts with a vote. The first step in getting the Hope and Change we all want lies within the power of the vote. 2012 Presidential Elections, Budget, Economy, Job Creation, Obama, Taxes, 2012-05-02T19:55:34+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_hit_man_holder_to_be_held_in_contempt http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_hit_man_holder_to_be_held_in_contempt#When:18:39:40Z GOP leaders said last week they are pursuing a plan to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the Justice Department in contempt for “stonewalling” them over information regarding the administration’s failed Fast and Furious gun-tracking program. Rep. Issa confirmed to Fox News that House Speaker John Boehner gave him and others on his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform the authority to draft a contempt of Congress resolution. “We have issued a subpoena,” Utah GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a member of the oversight committee, said earlier on Fox News. “We have bent over backwards to be patient and take time. (Holder) is leading us down a path where we have no other choice.” Despite not turning over thousands of pages of documents, Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials still say they are cooperating with Congress’ investigators. If the resolution is approved by the GOP-led House it could force Holder to release those thousands of pages of documents related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ program, Fast and Furious, which led to the fatal shooting of a Border Patrol agent. The Fast and Furious program was run by the ATF’s Phoenix office from 2009 until early 2011. It allowed illegal gun purchases with the expectation of tracking the weapons to Mexican drug cartel leaders. However, hundreds of guns disappeared, with some eventually turning up at crime scenes in Mexico. "The Justice Department has not fully cooperated with the investigation into gun walking that occurred in Operation Fast and Furious. The House Oversight Committee continues to make necessary preparations to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt if the Justice Department refuses to change course and stop blocking access to critical documents," a House Oversight Committee spokesperson said. "While the committee continues to move toward consideration of contempt, it is important to note that the next step in the process of contempt must be made by the Oversight committee Reports, based on anonymous sources, that decisions for consideration of contempt on the House floor have already been made are inaccurate.” A number of illegal straw purchasers have been indicted, and two others are charged in Terry's slaying, according to the Times. This is hardly the first time Holder has dropped the ball. Remember Terrorist Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani? Because of Holder, he was acquitted of 284 counts associated with murdering 212 innocent people, including 12 Americans. Holder decided to put terrorists including the mastermind behind September 11th onto U.S. soil for a “fairer” civilian trial.  A move that went against everyone from Congress to those who lost loved ones in 9/11 who were afraid of terrorists getting off scot free and “heartsick” for a theater show that would provide a platform for terrorists to plead their case. This latest Fast and the Furious scandal is just one more reason to replace Holder. Ethics, Foreign Policy, Keep Congress Accountable, Obama, 2012-05-02T18:39:40+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_campaign_slogan_forward http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_campaign_slogan_forward#When:17:58:51Z The Obama campaign machine released their new slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title simply has the word "Forward" with the familiar "O" from the Obama logo in 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning. You can view the new video here which MSN points out has a slogan very similar to the left leaning MSNBC. But is that the most radical association? Is it a coincidence that the term “Forward” has a long and well-noted association to European Marxism? Either the Obama campaign didn’t take the time to do a quick web search of the new slogan, or possibly they felt it appropriate.  The Washington Times points out that there have been several Communist and radical left leaning publications throughout the 19th and 20th centuries with the name "Forward!" or its foreign equivalents. A quick internet search will show that Wikipedia has an entire section called "Forward, generic name of socialist publications." Wikipedia states, "The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” Further research shows there have been at least two radical-left publications named "Vorwaerts" (the German word for "Forward"). The Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky carried this name. Another radical publication with this name was the 1844 bi-weekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin were all associated with that publication. In 1905 Vladimir Lenin founded "Vpered" (the Russian word for "forward".  While it would be hard to imagine the Obama campaign not researching their new slogan, it seems even more inconceivable they would blatantly use a Marxist campaign slogan. However, if you look at Obama’s noted numerous ties to radicalism and socialists with whom he has surrounded himself, from his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former Weather Underground members, to appointing a self-described communist as green jobs czar Van Jones, then perhaps it’s not all that surprising.  2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, Obama, 2012-05-02T17:58:51+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_middle_class_income_declines_under_obama http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_middle_class_income_declines_under_obama#When:19:56:51Z The formula for Obama’s campaign is easier than 2+ 2 -- I killed bin Laden + the rich are killing the middle Class = Four more years. Obama campaigned four years ago on the same platform in regards to the rich. He attacked George W. Bush for the wage losses suffered by the middle Class. He’s the self-proclaimed, “warrior for the Middle Class.” His entire reelection campaign is centered on the notion that he knows what’s best for the middle Class. Let’s see if his record proves so. The latest report from Bloomberg shows us that the decline of the middle class started before Obama took office after competition from lower-wage workers from overseas and advances in technology that allowed factories to produce more without the manpower. Candidate Obama in 2008 use these figures to show that median income from the middle class dropped more than $2,000 during the first seven years of Bush’s term. Bloomberg shows those figures worsening under Obama: “Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.” The report not only shows a double decline in middle class income since Obama took office, but it shows that the jobs available are also in decline: “Ninety-five percent of the net job losses during the recession were in middle-skill occupations, such as office workers, bank tellers and machine operators, according to research by economists Nir Jaimovich of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and Henry Siu of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. The job growth since has been clustered in either high- skill fields inaccessible to workers without advanced education or low-paying industries, they found. In March, 3.2 million fewer Americans held sales and office jobs than five years earlier, and 1.2 million fewer were employed in transportation and production fields, all areas that typically pay middle-income wages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Since President Obama took office in January 2009, median household income is down $4,300. Maybe that’s because the middle class paid for Obama’s $800 billion Stimulus that kept unemployment over 8% and gave over a billion dollars to Energy companies that bankrupted.  The middle class paid for $1.1 trillion for Obamacare as well. That caused healthcare premiums to skyrocket, imposed new regulations, and hired 16,500 IRS agents to ensure they comply with those regulations.   Or how about the bank bailouts funded by the middle class that paid millions of dollars in bonuses to the CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie? One would think that if Obama were truly the warrior for the middle class, he would refuse campaign contributions from Wall Street guys that he demonizes in his speeches.  Instead, he has accepted more money from the big banks than all GOP candidates combined. Obama may say he’s a warrior for the Middle Class, but that’s because they are the ones paying for his big government policies. Budget, Deficit, Obama, 2012-05-01T19:56:51+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/the_student_loan_rate_wont_go_up_but_what_happens_next_year http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/the_student_loan_rate_wont_go_up_but_what_happens_next_year#When:19:50:09Z The rate of federally subsidized Stafford student loans is set to double on July 1st of this year. You may remember back in 2007, President Bush and the democratic-controlled Congress passed legislation cutting the loan interest rate in half and holding it steady for a period of five years. Democrats and Republicans worked together back then to accomplish this feat and it will happen again this summer. How the Federal Government will pay the more than $6 billion dollar cost for freezing the rate is yet to be determined. John P. Kline Jr., the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce spoke out last week about the current dilemma. “Extending the low rate would be too costly, Mr. Kline said. “We must now choose between allowing interest rates to rise or piling billions of dollars on the backs of taxpayers,” he said. “I have serious concerns about any proposal that simply kicks the can down the road and creates more uncertainty in the long run — which is what put us in this situation in the first place.”  Both parties have proposed bills that would freeze the loan rates for one year, but they disagree on how to pay for this extension. Each side is using this election year as a way to reach out to twenty year olds and say their party is the one who care about this younger generation. One thing is for sure: a bill will get passed before July. Neither party can afford to alienate the critical younger voters in what promises to be a very tight race for the White House.  Most of the public rhetoric in the next few months will be centered how this legislation will be funded. But what happens in a year when the new bill expires? It won’t be an election year, so will whoever is in power care as much then as they do now? Are we going to keep “kicking this can down the road” as Kline said? Don’t we need to come up with a solution beyond the next 365 days? This important issue cannot just be a campaign strategy to gain political favor with the younger generation. Our nation’s future and success depends on longer-term thinking. Budget, Keep Congress Accountable, 2012-05-01T19:50:09+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_know_the_facts_before_you_vote http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_know_the_facts_before_you_vote#When:19:44:19Z Is there anyone in Washington D.C. we can trust these days? No matter the party affiliation, do we really feel like we’re getting the truth when someone opens his or her mouth in the District? Both the Obama and Romney campaign will do a lot of talking and make a lot of promises over the next few months. How do we know what and who to believe? Well, we do have recent history, on-the-record quotes (videos in some cases), and the candidate’s record of proposed and supported legislation. Take a little time and evaluate each man on the merits of their work and what is cloudy should become a little clearer. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to have plans to prevent student loan rates from rising, proposals to turn around the economy and ways to create more jobs . Depending on who you are, the other guys’ legislation “is to blame” for rising taxes, higher gas prices, falling home prices and the end of the American dream.  Sources like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), FactCheck.org, and Voterwatch.org provide non-partisan, mostly unbiased views on all things in U.S. politics. The CBO offers an interesting, long-term view of the current administration’s economic plan, which might open a few eyes and minds. There is no excuse for ignorance as you head to the polls this fall when the information age provides such easy access to the facts. We must do our homework. Read, watch or listen to the news stories, even if just for a few minutes a day. Don’t be swayed easily, no matter who or what the source is. This election could end up being one of the most important in history. Are we going to go down a path of higher taxes and more regulation on small businesses that limit economic growth? Or a path that minimizes headaches for business owners, lowers taxes, and helps entrepreneurs provide jobs. The decision of which candidate will run our country for the next four years cannot be based on how cool or mainstream he is. Check the facts and make an informed, intelligent decision. 2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, 2012-05-01T19:44:19+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_i_statements http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_i_statements#When:19:36:29Z As we move closer to the one-year anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama would like to remind everyone of his greatest accomplishment. He would like to remind you that it was a decision only he was capable of in hopes that you will remember that on election day. He also released an attack ad against Mitt Romney saying that he would not have made the decision to kill OBL.  When a reporter questioned Obama if he was over celebrating the death of Osama, he replied, “I said that I’d go after bin laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did.”  Bush’s speech after the capture of Sadam Hussein: “The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.” Obama’s speech after the capture of Osama bin Laden: "I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority . . . even as Icontinued our broader effort. . . . Then, after years of painstaking work by my intelligence community I was briefed . . . I met repeatedly with mynational security team . . . And finally last week I determined that I had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . ." Former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey wonders what Presidents Lincoln and Eisenhower would think of Obama’s bragging: “Lincoln took responsibility in August 1862 for failures that had been attributed to General George McClellan—eventually sacked for incompetence—and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Lincoln told a crowd that McClellan was not at fault for seeking more than Stanton could give, and "I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War." Dwight Eisenhower is famous for having penned a statement to be issued in anticipation of the failure of the Normandy invasion that reads in relevant part: "My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone." A week later, when the success of the invasion was apparent, Eisenhower saluted the Allied Expeditionary Forces: "One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes. Eisenhower did mention himself at the end: "I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, 'I am proud of you.'" Such examples are worth remembering every time President Obama claims bin Laden bragging rights.” We couldn’t agree more. Remember those examples every time Obama brags and especially in November. 2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, Foreign Policy, Obama, 2012-05-01T19:36:29+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_forward_video http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_forward_video#When:19:44:15Z President Obama isn’t known for his courageous foreign policy. Some would argue the opposite because of his OBL decision. His most renowned accomplishment thus far has been authorizing Navy Seal Team 6 to kill Osama Bin Laden, a decision that he sat on for five months and was made possible after eight years of missions in the Middle East under Bush--missions that Obama opposed as a Senator. However, if you looked at Obama’s latest seven minute campaign video, “Forward,” you would think he orchestrated eight years of foreign policy that led to Osama’s capture. You would think he was the one that started the Iraq war as he says he has waited for a long time to be able to say, “welcome home” to our troops. At the end of the video, the following appears on the screen: “Iraq war ended, Libya freed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ended, Osama Bin Laden Dead” – a courageous compilation of the foreign policy under President Obama. If you take the time to look beyond the video, you would know that our Commander-in-Chief is just really good at taking all of the credit for the work of others. The Iraq War, the same war he referred to as a “dumb war,” technically ended under his watch. What Mr. Obama fails to take credit for is the drawdown of troops that was negotiated by President Bush and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. That’s right; Obama is celebrating the ending of a war that already negotiated to end at a time established by his predecessor. He also fails to take credit for the resolution he and Senator Biden at the time drafted opposing the troop surge in Iraq – a resolution he supported because he said the surge would “fail.” Promise kept? You decide. The killing of Osama bin Laden has been placed at the top of Obama’s reelection talking points – which wouldn’t have been possible unless Bush implemented robust spending on the Special Operations Command. This specific operation took years of work dating back to the Bush administration in 2007: “The interrogations of KSM (which included waterboarding) and the interrogation of Hassan Ghul (held in “black site” prisons) were key to identifying the courier; the president then authorized military action in a foreign country without going to the United Nations or informing the host government; the military action was unilateral, and we did not consult with our allies; Congress was not informed of the military action; and it increasingly appears that no serious effort was made to treat Osama bin Laden as a criminal (reading him his rights, etc.). The monitoring of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s phone call was a result of an extensive global wiretapping system. Furthermore, as Charles Krauthammer notes, the helicopters used in the raid came from Bagram and Jalalabad; if we had withdrawn from Afghanistan on the antiwar Left’s timetable, we would have had no bases from which to launch this operation.” Not to undermine President Bush’s courageous and tenacious efforts to put his country before his reputation, but the ultimate credit for success belongs to the men and women of our armed services who pursued Osama for eight years and ultimately killed him. Mission Accomplished? You decide how much Obama accomplished. Ultimately some credit goes to Mr. Obama. Despite the warnings from U.S. military officials, Congress, and correspondents that Iraq is still unstable and needs a longer timeline, Obama made the choice to keep the troop withdrawal on the timeline negotiated by President Bush. Despite eight years of organization under President Bush that led to Osama; Obama ultimately authorized Seal Team 6 to kill bin Laden. What doesn’t make sense and is perhaps the most laughable accomplishment touted in Obama’s video is the freeing of Libya. When news broke in March 2011 that the Arab dictator Gaddafi was committing atrocities against his own people, Mr. Obama made the U.S. the last country to speak up on Libya (France was first).  Once he finally did, he said Gaddafi’s actions were “unacceptable” and the U.S. was “exploring options” on how to handle it.  One month later, Mr. Obama initiated 100 American missiles at Libya’s air-defense system – a move that infuriated Congress.  And for good reason.  He disregarded the constitution by violating the War Powers Resolution and let NATO take the lead in backing the rebels in capturing Gaddafi. Obama said our involvement in Libya would last “days, not weeks.” Gaddafi was eventually killed, but he was killed by an airstrike led by NATO. When France beats you to the punch to stand up to a dictator, you know it’s not right to take credit. Libya Freed? You decide how involved Obama was in that process. Of course Obama is going to take credit for the above mentioned, if he didn’t, what else would he have to run on? Mr. Obama wants us to look forward because if we looked backward, we would see he is taking credit for the hard work of others. 2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, Foreign Policy, Obama, Obama Libya Leadership, 2012-04-30T19:44:15+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/obamas_mixed_messages_to_ohio_government_cant_solve_all_our_problems http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/obamas_mixed_messages_to_ohio_government_cant_solve_all_our_problems#When:19:29:23Z Winning the state of Ohio is key to the upcoming election and nothing speaks louder to the state’s populace than jobs and the economy. This state stands to play a huge part in whomever takes the White House come November. No Republican has ever won the Oval Office without winning Ohio, so that explains why both Romney and Obama spent some time there in the last 5 days. But what message did the voters of this key state receive from the incumbent? For the first time, it seems the president is beginning to change his tune. Mr. Obama began his speech with his usual suspects: being neighborly and everyone having a “fair share.” But then he did a 180 degree turn and brought up conservative, capitalistic concepts like the free-market and personal responsibility. These two don’t seem to match, nor do they seem to be anywhere near the rhetoric laid forth by this administration the past four years. How does the author of the Buffett Rule, multiple government bailouts and nationalized healthcare support the theory of a free-market economy, much less personal responsibility? This is also the man who is now on record saying, “The government can’t solve all our problems…and we don’t want it to.” But haven’t the majority of his policies been just the opposite of that? His actions do not support the words that are coming out of his mouth. This is the same President who pushed for cap and trade and has made it virtually impossible to drill on public land. How did the constituents of Ohio receive this mixed message? The President knows how important winning the state of Ohio is and this seems to be nothing more than a push to appeal to independents in the Buckeye state. The American people have heard these promises before. Mr. Obama has proven our government can’t solve all our problems with his first term. Is he panicking that he won’t get a second? That would be the voting public truly taking some personal responsibility. Bailouts, Deficit, Economy, Elections, Obama, Stimulus, 2012-04-27T19:29:23+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_first_quarter_2012_growth_slows_weak_business_spending http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_first_quarter_2012_growth_slows_weak_business_spending#When:19:01:45Z Obama says we can’t wait for Congress to create jobs. While some Americans may appreciate his passionate gesture to bypass the Constitution to implement his policies, all of that fervor is good for nothing if the policies don’t actually create jobs. The economic data for the start of 2012 proves that whatever Obama is doing may just in fact be good for nothing. Obama and the Democrats celebrated a decline in the unemployment for the first three months of 2012, but it turns out that the U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter because businesses cut back on investment spending. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the measure of our economy, slowed to a growth rate of 2.2%. That is down from last quarter, which grew at a 3.0% rate. It’s also down from the pace economists’ estimated, which was 2.5%. CNBC reports there were some signs of an improvement like the small increase in consumer spending and a rise in home construction after an unusually warm winter. Don’t get too excited, the decline in business investment is really what really slowed the economy down. The amount that business spent investing in their companies plummeted to its lowest amount since 2009 with investment in equipment and software rising at its slowest pace since the recession ended. All of President Obama’s efforts to create jobs without Congress’s help really haven’t produced much but a negative start to 2012. His efforts to revive the economy include raising taxes, more regulations on small business, a healthcare law that is preventing businesses from hiring, and a massive stimulus bill.  He isn’t shy about his plans for the next four years should America give him the opportunity – he says there will be more taxes, more EPA regulations, and more stimulus spending. Can you imagine what the economy would look like with four more years of Obama on steroids? It would probably look a little like Spain’s, a country currently enduring an unemployment rate of 24% because of their big government Socialist policies. Spanish voters kicked out their Socialist government Fall 2011 in response to their debt crisis. If we ever want to see a positive economic report, we should consider getting rid of our big government in Fall 2012 as well. Deficit, Economy, Energy, Health Care, Obama, Obamacare, Taxes, 2012-04-27T19:01:45+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/more_mixed_messages_is_obama_helping_or_hurting_small_businesses http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/more_mixed_messages_is_obama_helping_or_hurting_small_businesses#When:18:54:53Z If you are a small business owner in this country, you’ve got to be confused by what you are hearing out of Washington these days. One day, the president is signing bi-partisan legislation designed to make it easier for small businesses to raise capital, the next day he threatens to veto a small business tax cut bill. And what about Obamacare and its multitude of new or higher taxes, several of which make things very difficult for those businesses with less than 100 employees? It’s no wonder many Americans don’t know what to think about most of the legislation proposed these days.  So, why the inconsistency from Mr. Obama? Recently, he encouraged a group of soon-to-be college graduates in North Carolina and Ohio to start small businesses and “make their own destiny.” The president pitched his bill to freeze student loan rates, while NOT explaining that this bill will be funded by taxes on small businesses – the very thing he was encouraging them to start. This seems like a giant conflict of interest despite the fact that freezing student loan rates is a good thing. The American people can’t forget every bill comes with a price that must be paid by someone. Yet the White House rolls out one job creation/small business stimulus bill after another. Should small business owners expect any benefit from these bills? Not likely, according to USA Today’s Rhonda Abrams, who says “…most of these changes aren't intended for you and other small-business owners. The primary purpose of the lower tax rate proposal is to entice large corporations to keep more of their money and their jobs in the United States instead of fleeing to foreign tax havens.”  Is the president merely pandering to these staples of the American economy in order to fund other billion-dollar big government legislation or is he genuinely trying everything he can to get this economy turned around? The next few months will, hopefully, clear up this incredibly cloudy picture. Economy, Obama, Taxes, 2012-04-27T18:54:53+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/fed_favorability_rating_at_15_year_low http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/fed_favorability_rating_at_15_year_low#When:18:44:17Z It comes as no surprise that the Obama Administration has lead the way to a 15 year low in the favorability rating of the federal government. Only one in three people have a favorable view of the federal government — the lowest level in 15 years, according to this recent Pew survey. While most Americas view the federal government very negatively, the majority of Americans are satisfied with their local and state governments — 61 percent and 52 percent, respectively. This is an extremely high number when compared to the lowly 33 percent that feel the same about the federal government. In 2002 the same federal government favorability rating was nearly double what it is today as it was at the 64 percent favorable rate. During that same time period in 2002 Americans held their local and state governments in similar high regards, at 67 percent and 62 percent, respectively. Of course there is a partisan gap as always. A not so surprising 51 percent of Democrats view the Obama government favorably. Probably the most shocking number is that only 27 percent of independents view the Obama Administration favorably, while only 20 percent of Republicans have the same view.  These numbers should not come as a shock to the White House as the job market continues to decline and as gas prices continue to be on the rise. You also have scandals such as Fast and Furious, where the federal government engaged in gun running which lead to the death of a US Border Patrol agent, and the GSA scandal which shed an even brighter light of out of control and careless government spending. On top of the GSA scandal the Daily Caller now reports that Michelle Obama’s 2010 Spain vacation cost the taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. At the same time you have the Obama administration embroiled in several lawsuits like Arizona over its immigration laws, which according to this article in the NY Times looks like it will be upheld, and fighting the courts to uphold the seeming unconstitutional Obamacare legislation. The poll also reveals that more Americans trust their state governments to be honest, efficient and less partisan than the federal government. It's safe to conclude that the best governing is done at the local level. HOPEfully this November, Americans will see the government in a better light. Economy, Health Care, Job Creation, Obama, Obamacare, 2012-04-27T18:44:17+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/can_obama_rekindle_the_flame_with_young_voters http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/can_obama_rekindle_the_flame_with_young_voters#When:20:53:39Z A new poll finds that the President's share of the youngest voting bloc has dropped significantly compared to four years ago. A weak labor market already has left half of young college graduates either jobless or underemployed in positions that don't fit the skills and knowledge they were trained for. About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. President Obama starts off on a two-day tour of college campuses Tuesday to tout a plan to keep student loans more affordable. The trip is listed as official business, but it has a campaign flavor. His first stop includes North Carolina, where Democrats will hold their national convention this summer. Young adults with bachelors degrees are increasingly scraping by in lower-wage jobs as waiters or waitresses, bartenders, receptionists, or retail clerks.  "You can make more money on average if you go to college, but it's not true for everybody," says Harvard economist Richard Freeman, highlighting the growing risk of a debt bubble with total U.S. student loan debt surpassing $1 trillion. "If you're not sure what you're going to be doing, it probably bodes well to take some job, if you can get one, and get a sense first of what you want from college." Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University who analyzed the numbers, said many people with a bachelor's degree face the worse of both worlds with rising tuition and poor job outcomes. "Simply put, we're failing kids coming out of college," he said, emphasizing that when it comes to jobs, a college major can make all the difference. We're going to need a lot better job growth and connections to the labor market, otherwise college debt will grow." While the president is campaigning at universities in North Carolina to young Americans, the largest unemployed age bloc, will they warm up to student loan relief or will the bleak prospects of getting a job in a debt laden, over taxed and over-regulated conomy leave a sour taste in their mouths? Economy, Obama, 2012-04-24T20:53:39+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_student_loan_rate_hike_not_a_lack_of_a_job_would_be_trem http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_student_loan_rate_hike_not_a_lack_of_a_job_would_be_trem#When:21:42:14Z “Is Obama in trouble with young voters?” A new poll released Thursday of last week begged that very question. Less than half of 18-24 year old voters want Obama reelected, according to a poll by Public Religion Research Institute and Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs. This poll indicated a huge drop from 2008, when Obama won the hearts of young people by a 34-point margin over McCain. Perhaps it was because he ignited the excitement in young people for a brighter future by promising them a solid economy and a good job. Now that four years have passed, young adults have come to find out that hope and change means a weak economy, no job, and more debt. President Obama is traveling to the University of North Carolina on Thursday in hopes that he can sway 8 million voters between the ages of 18 and 21 that they will suffer less under four more years of his economy. Obama is set to pitch his latest student debt plan in front of college students that would keep interest rates at their current level – 3.4% - before they double by law on July 1st.  This would potentially eliminate $1,000 extra per year that debtors would owe. The last measure he implemented to help students with debt was an executive order that ended up saving students an average of less than $10 month. All of this sounds like a nice little boost for students who were told that going into debt for their college education would guarantee them a spot in the labor force. Perhaps what Obama should be focusing on is creating a better environment that would get college students working instead of barely making a dent in their debt. It’s a bit ironic that Obama has chosen to make this pitch in front the college class of 2012. They are about to enter the world of the workforce and the best Obama has to give them is hope for a little debt relief? We suppose that’s the best he can do after he promised students a job in 2008 and delivered the worst recovery since the Great Depression. Since Mr. Obama has taken office, 1 in 2 new college graduates are jobless and underemployed according to an analysis of government data conducted for the Associated Press. To add to that, three in 10 young adults are living with the parents – the highest level since the 1950s. In turns out, the hope for a little debt relief is all Obama can really give young adults. How can he tell them that change is coming when 1 in ever pair of recent graduates don’t have a job? The fact is that is the best he can do; and he knows it. The average student loan debt is $25,000, so the best he can do is travel to North Carolina and get the kids excited about paying $24,000 instead of $25,000. As students line up and tune in to hear their Commander-in-Chief ask for their vote again, they should ponder this: What good is a lower student debt payment if you don’t have a job? Bailouts, Budget, Deficit, Economy, Obama, 2012-04-23T21:42:14+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_food_stamps_grow_70_since_2007 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_food_stamps_grow_70_since_2007#When:21:30:02Z President Obama attended a fundraiser this Wednesday in Michigan where he exclaimed, “We’ve begun to see what change looks like.” Sadly, he was referencing what he thinks has been a positive change. A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that since Obama has implemented his policies that were supposed to deliver change, the amount of food stamp recipients has increased 70%. Starting in 2007 through 2011, spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) increased 135%, costing $72 billion last year and one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year: “The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It  said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014. In a report, the CBO said roughly two-thirds of jump in spending was tied to an increase in the number of people participating in the program, which provides access to food for the poor, elderly, and disabled. It said another 20% “of the growth in spending can be attributed to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the” 2009 stimulus law. CBO said the number of people receiving benefits is expected to fall after 2014 because the economy will be improving. “Nevertheless, the number of people receiving SNAP benefits will remain high by historical standards,” the agency said. It estimated that 34 million people, or 1 in 10 U.S. residents, would receive SNAP benefits in 2022 “and SNAP expenditures, at about $73 billion, will be among the highest of all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households.” Obama was right, we have begun to see what change looks like. Right now, 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps and a decade from now, 1 in 10 will still be on them. This is not the recovery we were promised. Obama’s policies will keep 45 million Americans on food stamps if we do not act in November. Economy, Obama, 2012-04-20T21:30:02+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_happy_tax_day_facts_fair_share http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_happy_tax_day_facts_fair_share#When:18:54:28Z April 17th, 2012 marks one of the most depressing days of the year. It is the day when every American who pays taxes signs their name to a check to Uncle Sam. It is also serves as a reminder for how outdated and complex our tax code is. President Obama is taking advantage of tax time by promoting his view on changing our tax code. Remember these tidbits of information when Obama asks for more of your money. Half of Americans pay NO income taxes at all. Of that half that pays nothing, thirty-percent actually get back beyond what was deducted from their pay. That’s right, they actually get money from the government without paying income taxes. Of those Americans that do pay federal incomes taxes: The top 1% (everyone who makes $380,354 or more) pays 30% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% (everyone who makes $113,799 or more) pays 55% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% (everyone who makes between $33,049 and $69,280) pays 15% of all income taxes. That means that the top 10% of income earners ($113,799-$380,354+) pay over 70% of all income taxes. That isn’t just the millionaires and billionaires; it’s your everyday small business owners who own the supply store or the coffee shop. These earners are paying more than half of all of the taxes collected by the government. That also means that half of the U.S. population is paying for the other half. Something about that doesn’t seem fair, and President Obama agrees. His tax plan seeks to raise the federal income tax rate for all of the top income earners and leave the half of Americans dependant on the government to take care of them financially untouched. This isn’t tax reform; it’s tax fraud. Obama says if the rich would pay just a little bit more, our deficit woes would come to a halt. Not true. In 2010, the federal government received $2.2 trillion from taxpayers and spent $4.3 trillion. That’s a $1.3 trillion budget deficit for one year! Obama’s plan would raise taxes on top income earners, and would generate an extra $4.7 billion a year.  That’s hardly enough to put a dent in Obama’s budget deficit for 2010 of $1.3 trillion. Raising taxes on those that pay the majority of all of the taxes in this country comes with a price. It’s pretty simple: the more you tax people, the less they will invest. The less they invest, the less jobs that are created. Remember that next time Obama asks you to pay your fair share. Happy Tax Day, everyone and be sure to watch our latest Right Change video, “Fair Share.” Deficit, Economy, Job Creation, Obama, Taxes, 2012-04-17T18:54:28+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_regulations_to_shut_out_7_million_car_buyers http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_regulations_to_shut_out_7_million_car_buyers#When:21:35:01Z None of this should surprise you. When the government picks winners and losers, there are winners and losers. When it comes to Obama’s Energy Department, the winners are Green Companies like Solyndra and the losers are, well…the American consumer. Last summer, the Obama administration announced new fuel-efficient standards for passenger vehicles and light trucks. From the Washington Examiner: The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations that President Obama announced last summer will make it impossible for 7 million lower income consumers to buy a new car according to a National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) study released today. “While you can mandate what automakers must build, you can’t dictate what customers will buy, nor can you dictate if a bank will make a loan,” New Mexico Ford dealer Don Chalmers said today. Obama's proposed CAFE standards, which will begin taking effect in 2017, raise minimum average vehicle fleet fuel efficiency to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimate that this regulation will raise the average price of passenger cars and light trucks by $3,000.
 “The unintended consequences of the proposed fuel economy increases are clear,” NADA Used Car Guide analyst David Wagner said. “If the price of a vehicle goes up by the government estimate of almost $3,000, millions of people will no longer be able to finance a new vehicle.” If we continue to allow President Obama to pick which sector succeeds in this country, we will continue to be the losers of his economic policy.  Economy, Energy, Obama, 2012-04-13T21:35:01+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_buffett_rule_distraction http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_buffett_rule_distraction#When:16:11:20Z Yesterday, President Obama pitched his proposal for Populism where he demanded higher taxes on all of the millionaires and billionaires by implementing his so called, “Buffett Tax.” Democrats have been pushing this tax for months in hopes it will ignite negativity against Republicans as it raises taxes for all millionaires and billionaires at 30%.  Research shows us that Obama’s rhetoric about the Buffett tax is completely wrong, but it’s a huge distraction from Obama’s out of control spending. Obama in Boca Raton Florida: "You might have heard of this, but Warren Buffett is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. Now that's wrong. That's not fair and so we've got to choose which direction we want this country to go in," said Obama during the speech. "I've already told you where I stand, now it's time for members of Congress to tell you where they stand." Obama's "Buffett Rule" proposal would raise the effective tax rate for the wealthy on investment income to at least 30 percent.” Before we got into the Buffett Rule distraction, let’s point out the fact that the rich do not pay lower average tax rates than average salary earners. See table from the Wall Street Journal below: This tax increase Obama is proposing is on capital investment, which the U.S. taxes at 35%. Millionaires and Billionaires are paying double taxes, once at about 23.3%, then again at 35%. Their real capital gains tax rate is closer to 45%. Warren Buffet’s Secretary doesn’t pay a capital gains tax. Warren Buffett does. Obama originally touted this Buffett tax as a means to lower the deficit. The White House has since retracted that notion saying this new tax rule is to emphasize “fairness” over deficit reduction: “Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.” So if this won’t reduce our deficit or solve our economic and budget problems, why is it even in the conversation? Better yet, why is the Senate even expected to vote on this rule next week? It’s a political weapon. That’s all. This Buffett tax would generate $47 billion in revenue over 10 years. That would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama's budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax. Obama could also tax every billionaire in America at a 100% rate and it still wouldn’t make a dent in the federal deficit. The federal government has overspent $15.6 trillion and President Obama is responsible for a little over $5 trillion of that. Generating $47 billion from this tax won’t do a thing for our deficit or our economy, most likely because these millionaires and billionaires will take their business overseas. Obama loves to speak about fairness because people react positively to it. It’s only fair that these rich people pay more money because they don’t need it. We as a nation need to decide if that is the type of dictatorship we want to live under. If you think that the government should decide who deserves to keep their money, then Obama should be your vote in November 2012. The Buffett Tax is not only bad tax policy; it’s a distraction from Obama’s out-of-control spending. Budget, Deficit, Economy, Obama, Taxes, 2012-04-11T16:11:20+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_aprils_jobs_report_unemployment_at_8.2 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_aprils_jobs_report_unemployment_at_8.2#When:16:54:49Z The start to 2012 has been slow. Like, .1% slow. Of course, we are talking about the unemployment rate. Each jobs report has given us a .1% drop or none at all. It’s been a tepid recovery and economists everywhere agree that this decline won’t put us on the road to prosperity. The month of March proved no different. The U.S. jobless rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.2% with employers only adding 120,000 jobs. This was a drop in hiring from last month. How does this result in a drop in unemployment? The Wall Street Journal provides a plausible explanation: “This month, the decline in the jobless rate wasn’t a positive sign, as it primarily came from people dropping out of the labor force. The unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are without jobs, who are available to work and who have actively sought work in the prior four weeks. The “actively looking for work” definition is fairly broad, including people who contacted an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sent out resumes or filled out applications; or answered or placed ads, among other things. The rate is calculated by dividing that number by the total number of people in the labor force. When the unemployed no longer count as part of the labor force, both numbers decline and the unemployment rate falls. In March, the number of unemployed dropped by 133,000, but so did the number of people employed — by 31,000. That indicates that those people didn’t necessarily find new jobs, since the overall labor force declined by 164,000. When people leave the labor force it could be due to discouragement of the long-term unemployed or by choice over retirement or child care. The labor force has dropped dramatically over the course of recession and recovery, and concerns have been raised it was due to discouraged workers. To be sure, the moves in the household survey are volatile. This month’s numbers are a deviation from the trend so far this year. January and February saw workers returning to the labor force, and strong growth in the number of people employed. This month could just be payback for recent strength in the survey.” Another survey worth taking a glance at is the latest report from Rasmussen. A new Rasmussen Reports survey shows that 48% of adults know someone who’s given up looking for a job out of frustration with the current market. Unemployment is at 8.2%, hiring slows as employers add just 120k jobs, and 48% of Americans know someone who has given up looking for work. This is what Obama calls a recovery. This is not the economy Americans deserve. Let’s prove that November 6th, 2012. Economy, Job Creation, Obama, 2012-04-06T16:54:49+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_suggests_children_will_be_poisoned_under_republican_agen http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_suggests_children_will_be_poisoned_under_republican_agen#When:16:33:41Z Whoever is running Obama’s P.R. department needs some new material. At a fundraiser last night, Obama suggested that the main difference between him and the Republican agenda is Republicans would leave kids “poisoned.” From the Washington Examiner: "I believe that it is part of our solemn responsibility to future generations that we look after this planet; that we make sure our air is clean and our water is clean; that we’re not poisoning our kids," Obama said at a campaign fundraiser tonight. That credo came as he explained that "the contrast between visions in this election could not be more stark, because I believe that America is stronger when we’re looking for one another." Obama's line evokes his Associated Press speech this week, when he said Republicans believe that if the government "let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we’d all be better off." Mitt Romney, at his Associated Press luncheon speech, dismissed Obama's "rhetorical excess." White House Press Secretary Jay Carney called that AP speech a "wonky . . . policy speech," but has been refashioned by the campaign into an attack video and a fundraising speech.” Anytime there is a discussion over the debt ceiling, energy, or reforming healthcare, Obama and the Democrats run to the public forum to tell everybody how scary things will be under the Republican agenda. “Medicare will end as we know it”, “I can’t guarantee Social Security checks will be written,” “The troops may not get paid, “Our food may not be safe.” Obama may as well just spare us the specifics and say, “Vote for me, or you’ll die.” Is that the best argument Obama has to win your vote? 2012-04-06T16:33:41+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_unelected_group_of_people http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_unelected_group_of_people#When:20:05:16Z A slew of attacks on the Supreme Court of the United States bloomed out of the White House Rose Garden on April Fools Day this week. President Obama said he was confident that they would uphold the law, and if they didn’t, the would be guilty of “judicial activism.” He also deemed them a “group of unelected people.” From Real Clear Politics: "I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said to the White House press.” If Obama wants to take SCOTUS to task on government bureaucracy, we are happy to oblige. Let’s start with his Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). His healthcare law set up an unelected group of 15 people that will determine the outcome of millions of patients in America; this group is known as IPAB. They have the power to limit and lower reimbursements for Medicare providers beginning in 2014. They are NOT held accountable to taxpayers, Medicare beneficiaries, or doctors. They will make the decisions on the outcome of healthcare, like imposing indiscriminate prince controls. Talk about a vast overreach of bureaucratic authority. Another irony of the President’s comment is the fact that he appointed two of the nine Supreme Court Justices that he refers to as “unelected.” One of which, has been asked to recuse herself from judging the Obamacare case because of her past involvement in the Obama administration in defending the Obamacare court disputes. Or how about his National Labor Relations Board appointments? Obama picked three unelected members to the NLRB by using an executive order to fill the vacancies during a congressional recess, a move that many deemed unconstitutional.  Another unelected group of people is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was set up as a result of Obama’s Wall Street Reform bill. This unelected group of people has the power to write and enforce bank rules! Even more outrageous, the head of this unelected group of people in the CFPB is an unelected Obama appointee named Richard Cordray. Obama appointed Cordray when the Senate was in session, a serious violation of Article 11, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Two of Obama’s landmark bills (Obamacare and Wall Street Reform) have set up agencies that are ruled by an unelected group of people. If Obama wants to be the new spokesman against government bureaucracy, he ought to tone down the appointed agencies and people that have not been elected by the American public. Health Care, Obama, Obamacare, 2012-04-04T20:05:16+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_the_former_constitutional_professor http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_the_former_constitutional_professor#When:18:02:54Z After Obamacare took a beating in the oral arguments last week and as the Supreme Court of the United States finished their closed-door deliberations, Obama found it necessary to give them a lesson in judicial review. President Obama suggested that the Supreme Court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if they found the Obamacare mandate unconstitutional: “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law, Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.” He didn’t stop there. He said that overturning the law would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step since it was passed by majority of members in the House and Senate.” There are a couple of takeaways to this. The big one is that President Obama is overstepping his bounds by a landslide. He has already done this with Congress. He blames everything that goes wrong on them and has even labeled them as a “do-nothing” group of lawmakers. Now he is demonizing the Courts in the same fashion, calling them an “unelected group of people.” This group of unelected people was set up by our Founding Fathers to ultimately decide the meaning of the Constitution and to uphold it. Whether or not the law was passed by a “majority” of members of Congress (which is another myth on it’s own) is to be determined by the Supreme Court. There has been 200 years of judicial review to prove that point. As Ruth Marcus put so well in her editorial for the Washington Post:  “That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison.  The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.” A quick Constitutional lesson for the former Constitutional Professor: The Legislative Branch (CONGRESS) creates the law, The Executive Branch (PRESIDENT) enforces them, and the Judicial Branch (COURTS) interpret the laws. Even a citizen with basic constitutional knowledge knows that. President Obama was a former professor who taught the Constitution at Harvard, he would fail his own class! Leave the policy to the President and the Legislative Branch; leave judgment to the Judicial Branch. If SCOTUS finds the mandate unconstitutional, the only thing they would be guilty of is doing their job. Health Care, Obama, Obamacare, 2012-04-04T18:02:54+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_scotus_day_three_the_severability_clause http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_scotus_day_three_the_severability_clause#When:18:32:38Z Wednesday marks day three of the Obamacare SCOTUS hearings, which are arguably the most important arguments the Justices will hear. Yesterday was the debate on whether it was constitutional for the government to mandate you to purchase something. That of course is a crucial question – but what happens after the ACA is found unconstitutional is what could potentially leave us with a nationalized healthcare system. If you have some spare time and want a breakdown of the SCOTUS Obamacare hearings and their possible outcomes, visit this link. The Heritage Foundation did a fantastic job at putting all of the legal jargon into layman's terms. In particular, the issue that SCOTUS is deliberating today: the severability clause. In law, severability refers to a portion of the law that states that if parts of the law are found illegal, the remainder of the law should still be upheld. In regards to Obamacare, critics argue that Obama and the Democrats failed to include a severability clause in the legislation. This means that if SCOTUS decides that Obamacare does NOT include a severability clause and the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law has to be repealed. Heritage gives us three different ways the Court to decide to rule on this issue of severability: “Option 1:The Court decides to strike only the mandate from the law. But even the Obama administration has said that other insurance provisions—including those for pre-existing conditions and guaranteed issue requirements—must be invalidated for the insurance market to survive. In fact, Heritage scholars say many other Obamacare provisions would need to be struck down if the Court follows the government’s logic. Americans would no longer face a penalty for not buying health insurance, but the insurance market would face severe upheaval if other components of Obamacare were left in place. This could result in insurers getting out of the market and Americans losing the plans they liked.  Using the Supreme Court’s test, this is surely not what Congress had in mind. Option 2: The Supreme Court strikes the mandate and other “related” provisions in Obamacare. The problem is that there is no easy standard for the Court to use in order to determine which provisions are inseparable from the mandate. This puts the justices in the awkward position of determining which sections of Obamacare are so intertwined with the mandate that they must also be struck down. Heritage scholars said the Court could find the following provisions non-severable: Guaranteed issue; Community rating requirements; Prohibition on annual dollar limits of coverage; Comprehensive coverage requirements; Insurance premium tax (known as the “Cadillac tax”); The Medicaid eligibility expansion for Americans who are 138-percent above the poverty level; Medicaid and Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital payments; Limitations on cost sharing; New health care coverage subsidies; And the “Minimum Loss Ratio” requirement on health savings accounts. Even if the Court strikes down the mandate and aforementioned insurance provisions, the insurance market is left with a hodge-podge of regulations that inhibit competition and consumer choice. Congress would have to act to rectify immediate impacts. Option 3: The Court finds the mandate unconstitutional and that it is not severable from the law, so all of Obamacare is struck down.  Since the mandate is unconstitutional and the law implodes (in a way that Congress could not have intended) in its absence, the Court must strike down all of Obamacare.  Without the glue holding it together, the law falls apart. The insurance provisions already in force would be struck down under this option, which Congress can easily reenact. But this process would provide lawmakers with an opportunity to create more patient-centered reforms that do not centralize health-care decision making in Washington.” The only way to get rid of harmful effects of Obamcare, is for SCOTUS to choose Option 3. The ideal outcome for the Obama administration is Option 1. This would mean all of the provisions in Obamacare would remain and cause a slippery slope in the insurance market that has the potential to push us into a single-payer system." Steven Den Beste at Hot Air argues that this is what Obama and the Democrats wanted all along: “Single Payer is what they always wanted. The bill wasn’t originally written that way, though, because they knew that even with twin Democratic majorities, there was no chance of passing it. So they included the mandate instead. If the mandate is struck down, then Congress will have to act. There won’t be any way to repeal the rest of the law because Obama will veto, and the Senate will sustain the veto. The only thing he will agree to is implementation of single payer. That’s why the arguments yesterday and today were feeble: Obama wants to lose the first and second questions. Tomorrow’s argument is about severability, and that’s the one to watch. And it’s going to be interesting, because Congress didn’t include a severability clause in the ACA, which is usually routine boilerplate. It was in there originally, but got removed before the law was passed. The Obama administration is going to argue that nonetheless it should be treated as if there was a severability clause, despite evidence of Congressional intent to the contrary.” The Obama administration is going to argue that because they want to remind everyone of the “popular” portions of the bill like making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has already argued the importance of the popular provisions in the healthcare bill.  That’s great, but it is not what SCOTUS is there to determine. What may be “good” for the public may not be “constitutional.” Hopefully the Justices will keep that in mind. It isn’t about what people argue is “good” for the country. The job of the Supreme Court of the United States is to uphold the constitution and to determine what is constitutional. Obama argued it was “good” for America to put our troops in Libya, but that didn’t necessarily make it constitutional. What we need to do is scrap the entire law all together and allow Congress to start from scratch. If not, brace yourself for Britain’s healthcare system. Economy, Health Care, Obama, Obamacare, 2012-03-28T18:32:38+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_americans_angry_with_obama_over_gas_prices http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_americans_angry_with_obama_over_gas_prices#When:18:27:16Z It’s never a fun moment when you look to your gas meter in your vehicle to see the arrow pointing towards “E.” The frustration comes when you have to delay your destination in order to pull into a gas station. The anger begins once you pull out your card to pay for gasoline that’s almost or over $4/gallon. If you have experienced these series of emotions before, you are not alone. A new poll shows more than two thirds of Americans are angry with Obama over gas prices, but most do not blame him. According to a Reuters/Ipsos online poll: “Sixty-eight percent disapprove and 24 percent approve of how Obama is responding to price increases that have become one of the biggest issues in the 2012 presidential campaign. In the past month, U.S. fuel prices have jumped about $0.30 per gallon to about $3.90 and the Republicans seeking to replace the Democrat in the November 6 election have seized upon the issue to attack his energy policies. The disapproval reaches across party lines, potentially spelling trouble for Obama in the election, although the online survey showed voters hold oil companies or foreign countries more accountable than politicians for the price spike.” The poll also showed that 26% of respondents placed blame on oil companies, politicians, foreign countries that dominate oil reserves and environmentalists who want to limit oil exploration. In a way, the 26% are correct. President Obama cannot be blamed solely for the gas prices. He can be blamed for making it worse. Starting with permits. Obama says he is committed to an “all of the above” energy strategy by claiming the drilling has gone up under his administration. Government stats show drilling permits on federal lands have actually gone down under Obama. Obama also claims that he has approved 400 new offshore permits since his administration implemented stricter safety rules (June 10th, 2010). He says this is a “near new record.” According to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), since those rules have been implemented, 175 new well permits have been issued. If you count the day Obama was inaugurated to today's date, there have been 400 total permits issued.  Under Bush, there were 1,425 new well permits approved. That’s hardly a record for President Obama. Voters should also be angry over Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This pipeline would have brought oil from Canada to the United States and Obama rejected it. That is something he is currently trying to disguise as he made a campaign stop in Cushing, Oklahoma to demand officials approve part of the pipeline that runs from Oklahoma to Texas. He failed to mention that this portion didn’t need his approval in the first place and won’t speed construction. It also doesn’t help Americans if Obama supports a portion of the pipeline in the United States, but doesn’t support the pipeline that actually brings the oil from Canada to the U.S. in the first place. These soaring gas prices invoke anger in all of us, but the real outrage should come from knowing we have the energy capabilities to produce enough gas to make everyone happy – but out leaders in Washington refuse to take advantage of it. Economy, Energy, Obama, 2012-03-28T18:27:16+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_fed_chairman_bernanke_says_gas_prices_will_go_up_into_july http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_fed_chairman_bernanke_says_gas_prices_will_go_up_into_july#When:18:21:52Z The average price of gas rose 1.3 cents to $3.911 per gallon, making it that much closer to $4/gallon. Last month, the average was $3.70 and $3.59 this time one year ago. In 10 states and the District of Columbia, the price has already exceeded $4/gallon. From CNN Money: “Gasoline averages more than $4 a gallon in 10 states and the District of Columbia. At $4.55 a gallon, Hawaii has the nation's highest pump price. Prices are less than a nickel away from $4 a gallon in Nevada and Wisconsin. Wyoming has the nation's lowest gas prices, averaging nearly $3.51 a gallon. Gas prices have been rising on the back of soaring oil prices, which shot up in early 2012 amid fears that tensions with Iran could lead to an all-out war that causes a disruption in oil supplies. But the latest Lundberg Survey said gas prices may be peaking, as the price of crude oil has remained relatively steady in March.” Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke told ABC New’s Dianne Sawyer that consumers could expect them to keep soaring in July: “CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: Well-- there's a seasonal pattern to gas prices. You know, gas prices tend to rise-- during the driving season. So probably between now and the next couple months up to July 4th or so we'll probably see prices go up some-- somewhat further. After that-- if oil prices stay where they are or come down as-- some people think they will-- we should see some relief. But that's-- that's a guess.” A guess? Even the Fed Chairman cannot be certain that pump pain will ease. Unless we pursue a more aggressive drilling policy, which Obama refuses to do, then we can keep shelling out $100 for a tank of gas. Energy, Obama, 2012-03-28T18:21:52+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_house_dems_3.6_trillion_budget http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_house_dems_3.6_trillion_budget#When:22:06:18Z House Democrats introduced their new budget today and it comes with a hefty price tag. It’s more than Senate Democrats can say for themselves. Sponsored by Senior Democrat Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) on the House Budget Committee, this budget would spend $3.6 trillion for FY 2013. While it has no chance of passing, at least the House Dems took the time to fulfill their constitutional duty. From the Hill: “The proposal adopts much of President Obama's job-creation agenda, including tens of billions of dollars for near-term stimulus spending on infrastructure and other federal programs, while keeping Medicare and other entitlement benefits largely intact. The budget adds $6 trillion to deficits over 10 years, compared to $6.4 trillion for the president. It contains $643 billion less in spending, and $219 billion less in revenue.” This plan would put a $1.047 trillion cap on discretionary spending in 2013 – House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget lowers the discretionary spending cap to $1.028 trillion. Of course, the Democrats budget claims their budget “saves” money by counting the money that would have been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two things to take away from proposed budgets from lawmakers: 1) they aren’t cutting spending 2) not spending money doesn’t count as savings. This is another budget gimmick that Obama and the Democrats like to play to win favor in the public. The way the budget process works in Congress allows government agencies to grow their budget each year. If these agencies don’t spend all of the money allocated to them, they don’t get more money the following fiscal year. That means there is no incentive for these agencies to save money or ask for less. So, when lawmakers so they are saving money, they are simply reducing future spending levels that are already projected to increase. They also like to say that they are saving money from future war spending. If Congress hasn’t spent money on the war, that doesn’t mean they have the money in some “war bank” savings account. Choosing not to spend money you planned to spend does NOT count as savings. Especially when you’re over $15 trillion in the hole. This is just another irresponsible budget from Obama and the Democrats. Any budget that fails to cut from current spending levels is a failure for the American people. Budget, Keep Congress Accountable, 2012-03-27T22:06:18+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_could_there_be_another_housing_relapse http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_could_there_be_another_housing_relapse#When:22:13:58Z President Obama has instituted a slew of housing stimulus in order to get the market back to normal. All of which included allowing borrowers who owe more than their home is worth to refinance at lower rates. His latest plan cost $5 billion to $10 billion and did not require Congressional approval. The latest report from CNBC shows that Obama’s housing stimulus efforts may leading us toward another housing relapse. Imagine that? From CNBC: “A slew of new housing data last week disappointed the analysts and the stock market, and all of a sudden you started to hear concern that maybe housing wasn’t exactly in a robust recovery. From home builder sentiment to housing starts, to home builder earnings right through to sales of newly built homes, there was not one hopeful headline in any of it (except perhaps if you invest in rentals, as multi-family housing starts made more gains, but that is a contrary indicator to housing recovery). And then an email from a Realtor in New Jersey: “Just reviewed March buyer clicks, Google’s analytics on all the sites we monitor – March is turning out to be the weakest month since last October re: Buyer interest..” Now we start another week with another disappointment. Pending home sales, a measure of signed contracts for existing homes, not closings, fell half a percentage point month-to-month. That may not seem like a big deal, but the analysts were looking for a small gain. No doubt the Realtors will point to the solid 9% gain from a year ago, but so much of that gain is based on a change in the foreclosure pipeline.” Obama’s housing efforts may have led to a small gain, but the amount of rising foreclosures will put added pressure on the housing market. What does this mean? It means that Obama’s housing efforts are a temporary high. We borrow money from taxpayers to give to those who cannot afford to be in their homes. Of course this “solution” isn’t going to last. It’s time we elected a leader who will put the Housing market as well as the entire economy on a sound foot for the future. Bailouts, Economy, Housing, Obama, 2012-03-26T22:13:58+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_misleading_cushing_oklahoma_speech http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_misleading_cushing_oklahoma_speech#When:18:20:42Z After rising gas prices tampering his reelection efforts, President Obama made a crucial visit to Cushing, Oklahoma where he offered a strong defense of his failed energy policy and attempted to convince swing voters that he is pro-Keystone. He also offered a slew of misleading information on the oil industry as well as his policies. This stop was at one of the states of a planned four-swing state tour. Obama begin his trip in New Mexico and Nevada and ended it in Ohio, but he stopped in Cushing, OK and announced his plan to expedite the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama said: "Today I'm directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority," That’s very heroic of him to say. He wants to swoop in and save us from the tangled web of government bureaucracy. Where were those Superman powers during the Gulf Coast oil spill? Nice effort Obama, it’s too bad it wasn’t needed. The only problem is there is no red tape in the first place, definitely no bureaucratic hurdles, and this project already was a priority. The CBS Evening News reported: "With gas prices rising, President Obama has been defending his energy policy. Today, he focused on a hot-button issue: the Keystone pipeline. The President refused to fast track the entire project that would bring more oil down from Canada, but today, he did back a smaller section from Oklahoma to Texas." CBS (O'Donnell) added, "While the President threw his support behind a portion of the pipeline, he failed to mention a critical point: These pipes will be used to build the 485-mile southern portion of the pipeline. ... This part of the pipeline never required presidential approval." Even CNN agreed: “On CNN's John King USA, guest anchor Candy Crowley asked, "Republicans say the President really can't legitimately claim credit for this. Can he?" White House correspondent Brianna Keilar: "No, Candy, he really can't. And the company today, TransCanada, saying really on the federal level, all they have are some minor details to work out with the Army Corps of Engineers. It is not really something that requires presidential intervention." So does Bloomberg: “Obama’s action won’t shorten the timeline for the project, as construction is slated to start as soon as June. TransCanada is awaiting permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the last it needs to begin work, according to the company.” Not only is this not worth the President’s attention, but it is small potatoes in terms of energy. This portion brings oil from Oklahoma to Texas, but the oil has to come from Canada first. That is the portion Obama refuses to back. Another refusal from Barack Obama is to tell Americans the truth when it comes to oil production. He continues to make the claim that the United States only produced 2% of the world’s oil and consumers 20%. Even the Washington Post declared his claim “just simply wrong.” According to the federal government’s energy administration, the United States produces 10 percent of the world’s production, making it the third-largest oil-producing nation. We may rank third on how much oil we produce, but we actually rank first when it comes to who has the largest energy resources. This entire thing was nothing more than a ploy to buy votes during a time when Americans are fed up with paying $4/gallon for gas. What a waste of time to spend taxpayer dollars to fly around the country and talk about an accomplishment that was completely unnecessary in the first place. Obama is a lame-duck President. Expect every move he makes from here until the first Tuesday in November to be lame. 2012 Presidential Elections, Economy, Elections, Energy, Obama, 2012-03-23T18:20:42+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamacares_birthday_is_the_gift_that_keeps_on_giving http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamacares_birthday_is_the_gift_that_keeps_on_giving#When:18:10:16Z It was just under two years ago where Nancy Pelosi uttered those famous words that will haunt her forever: “we must pass the bill to see what’s in it.” Today marks the two-year anniversary of the passage of what was ironically named the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” It was President Obama and the Democrats landmark achievement. You couldn’t tell that though, as there are no celebratory speeches planned to tout its achievements. Perhaps that’s because 72% of all Americans and 56% of Democrats  say the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional. Hold the candles, America. It turns out, Obama’s healthcare law didn’t really protect patients and it certainly isn’t more affordable. “The Hill:The revised estimate of the law's coverage provisions shows about 2 million fewer people gaining coverage by 2016, reducing the number of uninsured Americans by 30 million instead of the 32 million projected a year ago. That would leave about 27 million people uninsured in 2016, two years after the law's insurance exchanges go online. Four million Americans can expect to lose their employer-provided healthcare by 2016, according to the revised figures, far more than the 1 million people estimated last year. And 1 million to 2 million fewer people will gain access to the law's subsidized exchanges than first thought, while an extra 1 million are expected to qualify for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Provision (CHIP).” “Washington Examiner: President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law. Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation. Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.” “Fox News:  Cost estimates for a key part of President Obama's health care overhaul law have ballooned by $111 billion from last year's budget, and a senior Republican lawmaker on Friday demanded an explanation. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., wants to know by Monday why the estimated ten-year cost of helping millions of middle-class Americans buy health insurance has jumped by about 30 percent.” Not only have the costs soared to the trillions and the number of uninsured to the millions, but companies are opting out of the law by the thousands. “The Hill: The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law enacted almost a year ago.” All of this muck and Obamacare is only two years old. We must repeal this law immediately or we will be stuck with it forever. The choice is yours come November 2012. Budget, Deficit, Economy, Keep Congress Accountable, Obama, Obamacare, 2012-03-23T18:10:16+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_officially_increases_national_debt_more_than_bush http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obama_officially_increases_national_debt_more_than_bush#When:19:47:54Z It’s been three years under Obama and it turns out the ditch got bigger and the Slurpees turned into Big Gulps. Obama has officially increased the national debt in three years more than eight years under President Bush! It rose $4.939 trillion during Bush’s first term and it has now gone up to $4.939 trillion during President Obama’s three years in office. From CBS: “The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services. Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds. The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022. Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars. Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now. As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it." His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come. If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.” If President Bush and the Republicans dug us into a ditch, then Obama made that ditch deeper in less than half the time! To be fair, the Democrats had control in both chambers of Congress for two years under Bush before they had a triple majority under Obama. Technically, it’s the Democrats who have been driving the car and sipping the Slurpees. It is clear who truly doesn’t “know how to drive” in Washington. We need to put a stop to the debt and cheesy Slurpee metaphors in November 2012! Budget, Debt Ceiling, Deficit, Keep Congress Accountable, Obama, 2012-03-22T19:47:54+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_senate_democrats_could_pass_a_budget_if_they_wanted_to http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_senate_democrats_could_pass_a_budget_if_they_wanted_to#When:19:36:18Z It’s been over 1,055 days and almost three years since Senate Democrats passed a budget. What is a necessary practice for a household is completely unnecessary for the government, specifically Senate Democrats. What is their excuse, you ask? Procedural partisan politics. Obama spokesman David Axelrod argued such during an interview with Fox New’s Bret Baier: As Brett points out, the Senate Democrats need a simple majority of 51 votes to pass a budget. They don’t need to work with the House to pass budget. They are free to pass whatever budget they choose. This is what House Republicans did. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) knew that his budget had no chance of passing a partisan Senate, but he put the time in and House Republicans passed it. That’s what lawmakers are supposed to do. All of the time Democrats waste pinning their lack of fiscal responsibility on the Republicans could have been used on coming up with their own budget. Nothing is stopping them from passing whatever budget they please. Well, there is one thing. Elections are coming up and they know that their plan has no chance of taking down the national debt. Voters across all political spectrums are not happy with the national debt, so the Democrats are punting the issue. This isn’t leadership and it certainly isn’t honorable. The only way to get Congress to balance the budget is to elect leaders who are capable of passing a budget. Budget, Economy, Keep Congress Accountable, 2012-03-22T19:36:18+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_manufacturing_industry_is_worse_than_we_thought http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/rightchange_manufacturing_industry_is_worse_than_we_thought#When:21:53:15Z The Obama administration is flat out wrong for touting success in the manufacturing industry. He has been a champion for the manufacturing industry, saying that it is an industry that is on the rebound and on the road to recovery. In fact, he is using these fudged numbers to ask Congress for more money to create more green energy manufacturing jobs. A new report shows that unfortunately, this industry has been in decline for 10 years and is currently in worse shape than we thought. The manufacturing industry has experienced devastating job losses since 2000. Economists from both sides of the political aisle have given the explanation that it meant that manufacturing companies had become more efficient and as a result, needed fewer people. They believed higher productivity meant stronger industry. This new report shows that is definitely not the case. In fact, it’s much weaker. From the Washington Post: “But a handful of economists are challenging that explanation, chipping away at the long-offered assurances that the state of U.S. manufacturing is not as bad as employment numbers make it look. Instead, they say, it’s significantly worse. What caused the job losses, in their view, is less the efficiency of U.S. factories than the failure of those factories to hold their own amid global competition and rising imports. The apparent productivity gains reflected in the official U.S. statistics have been miscalculated and misrepresented, they say, a position that has been at least partially validated by recent research. “I bought into this idea for a long time that it was superior labor productivity that caused most manufacturing job losses,” said Rob Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank. “Then I began to dig into the numbers.” The numbers that the government reports are misleading and do not truly capture the true productivity in the United States: “These numbers have been tossed about to say, ‘Look how productive U.S. factories have been,’ ” said Susan Houseman, senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute, co-author with three Federal Reserve economists of a paper that raises questions about the accuracy of the productivity numbers. “The reality is a lot more complex and not as flattering.” For starters, the reported productivity gains may be overstated because the statistics the government collects do not adequately reflect the changes that have come with globalization, as Houseman and Federal Reserve colleagues Christopher Kurz, Paul Lengermann and Benjamin Mandel have shown. Calculating labor productivity depends on determining the value of U.S. manufacturing output and dividing it by the number of manufacturing-worker hours. But in a time when factories increasingly have turned to outsourcing, it can be difficult to determine what is U.S. manufacturing output and what should be properly counted as output from a foreign factory. Critically, Houseman and others have shown that the price savings that U.S. factories have realized from outsourcing have incorrectly shown up as gains in U.S. output and productivity. This bias may have accounted for as much as half of the growth of U.S. manufacturing output from 1997 to 2007, excluding computers and electronics manufacturing, Houseman and her co-authors have estimated.” The Washington Post gives an example of these misleading calculations: “For example, suppose a U.S. factory decides to offshore the production of a part for which it used to pay $1. With the switch to an overseas supplier, it might pay 50 cents for the part. If U.S. statistics do not capture this drop in price, the savings by the U.S. factory can show up as a gain in output and productivity.” This shows you how much companies rely on productivity from overseas. This is because there is no incentive for companies to do business with the United States. President Obama has failed to create a business friendly environment in America. He wants higher taxes and more regulations. This cripples the manufacturing industry and this latest report proves such. Economy, Energy, Obama, 2012-03-21T21:53:15+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_energy_defense http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_obamas_energy_defense#When:19:27:05Z We all know that the President Obama does not set gas prices. What he does set is the environment and the policies for using the energy that America has at home. Currently, America has the energy resources in the world. That means we pay billion of dollars for oil from every other country when we have the most abundant supply. Where President Obama has failed is electing energy officials who have steered America away from being an energy producing super power. The top three Energy officials in the Obama administration have made it their top priority to make it nearly impossible for companies to drill domestically in order to put Americans behind the wheels of a Chevy volt. Gas prices are high because we are dependant upon foreign oil and there is turmoil in the Middle East. If the Obama administration pursued a domestic drilling policy that met the needs of the oil Americans needed, we wouldn’t be having discussions about high gas prices. Of course President Obama’s alternative solution is to pursue costly energy policy that would migrate America away from oil and towards green energy. This means solar panels, electric batteries, electric cars, wind energy, and hydroelectricity. In fact, Obama’s administration has already had three years worth of chances to woo us with their policies, starting with Stimulus. Through that law, taxpayers funded a $2.7 billion loan program that funded the green energy projects he wants to convert America to. Thanks to a Center for Public Integrity and ABC News Investigation, we know there are nearly 20 of those energy companies that received those loans and bankrupted. That is because they are expensive commodities that are simply not in demand. Consumers dictate the market and right now, they are saying they want to DRILL: “Interest in alternative energy sources like wind and solar has waned among Americans over the last year, while support for offshore oil and gas drilling has climbed back up to pre-BP oil spill levels, according to a poll released Monday. Fifty-two percent of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center support alternative energy, down 11 percent compared with March 2011. However, interest in developing oil, coal and natural gas resources rose by 10 percent, while the remainder to those who said they supported both or didn’t know. Support for offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters has also recovered to its levels prior to the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed now favor allowing increased offshore drilling, up from 57 percent a year ago and 44 percent in June 2010, during the spill.” The best way to create jobs and lower gas prices is to take advantage of our energy resources at home and wean ourselves off imported oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia. President Obama and his energy team have been against this from day one. Economy, Energy, Obama, 2012-03-19T19:27:05+00:00 http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_romney_wins_puerto_rico http://www.rightchange.com/blog/comments/right_change_romney_wins_puerto_rico#When:19:19:58Z Tuesday is Illinois presidential GOP primary and Mitt Romney will enter it with a big win in Puerto Rico, the 51st state. There are 1,144 delegates needed to win, and estimates show that Romney has locked down the majority with 518 delegates. Rick Santorum has 239, Gingrich has 139, and Paul has 69. This latest win for Romney was overwhelming: From CNN: “With about 83% of total ballots accounted for early Monday in Puerto Rico, Romney had garnered more than 98,000 votes -- or 83% of the total -- based on unofficial results obtained from local party and election officials. Rick Santorum was a distant second, at 8% with slightly more than 9,500 votes. The other two candidates, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, were barely registered in the race with 2,431 votes, or 2% of the vote, and 1,452 votes, or 1%, respectively.” After Romney’s big win, his wife called on the GOP to unite behind one candidate: “Ann Romney stood at her husband's side Sunday night at a rally in suburban Chicago and offered the campaign's most aggressive plea yet for Republicans to end their extended nomination fight. "We need to send a message that it's time to coalesce," Ann Romney said. "It's time to come together. It's time to get behind one candidate and get the job done so we can move on to the next challenge, bringing us one step closer to defeating Barack Obama. The comments came moments after Mitt Romney announced he had won all 20 of Puerto Rico's delegates in the island's Sunday primary.” Even though the Romney campaign is ready to win in Illinois and take the GOP nomination, conservative voters still appear to be split. The latest poll from Public Policy Polling shows that Romney is winning the moderates and Santorum is winning more of the Conservative vote: “Romney's particularly strong among voters who live in suburban areas (50-29) and with those who live in urban areas (46-23). But he's even running slightly ahead of Santorum, 38-36, with folks who identify as living in rural parts and that strength with a group of voters he hasn't tended to do that well with is why he's looking at such a lopsided margin of victory. Romney tends to win moderates in most states and Santorum usually win voters describing themselves as 'very conservative.' The swing group in the Republican electorate is those identifying as just 'somewhat conservative.' Romney is winning those folks by a whooping 60-20 margin in Illinois. Romney's also benefiting from a 52-28 advantage with seniors.” The indecisiveness of voters makes the GOP primary look like a circus and although the rallying behind one candidate will be refreshing, it looks like it is going to be a battle all the way up until the end. 2012 Presidential Elections, Elections, Obama, 2012-03-19T19:19:58+00:00