The big question is whether or not the voter samples these pollsters are using are representative of who will turn out to vote on Tuesday. In 2008, Obama rode a huge wave of bi-partisan support to defeat John McCain. A big part of that was a huge advantage in early and absentee voting and big support from Independents. McCain actually won the day-of vote tally by three points, but Obama took the early vote by 15 points and went on to a double-digit win. The underlying key: the Democratic ground game brought an unprecedented number of early and absentee votes to Obama in 2008. But will those same people do it again in 2012?

The answer is “no; not even close.” This is bad news for the President in that historically, the GOP wins the day-of vote every time. If the Obama camp cannot get out a similar number of early voters this time around, Romney will win. Add to this the large number of Independents who are supporting Romney, according to these very same polls, and you have a recipe for a comfortable win for the challenger.

Cox Radio’s Jamie Dupree takes a battleground state-by-state look at the polling data and reveals what one discovers by looking past the headline. Here’s a summary of what the data tells us:

OHIO: In Cleveland, 42,511 early votes have been cast, a drop of about 14% when compared to the same time four years ago; In 2008, 151,296 Democrats requested absentee ballots - as of November 2, Democrats had requested 122,771, a drop of 6% - but Republicans had increased their requests from 36,232 to 52,535, a jump of 45%.

That same pattern can be seen in other key counties in Ohio, like in Columbus where Republicans absentee ballot requests are up 6%, while Democratic absentee ballots are down 17%. The difference is even more dramatic in Dayton, where Republicans trailed in absentee ballots requested in 2008 by almost 5,000, but now they own the edge by over 6,000 - Democratic absentee ballots in that county are off by 65% from 2008.

In Cincinnati, Republicans have expanded their absentee advantage from 1100 ballots in 2008 to 3,000. In Toledo, Democrats led by 5700 absentee ballots in 2008 but this year the GOP owns a 600 ballot request edge.

Now one caveat about these figures - you aren't registered to a specific party in Ohio - instead, the way you are classified as Democrat or Republican depends on which party primary you voted in last. Still, the lower numbers in some key counties for absentee ballot requests by Democrats can't just be ignored.

VIRGINIA: A review of absentee ballot data found several key counties for Obama in 2008 are simply not producing the votes that were seen four years ago. In Arlington County, right next door to Washington, D.C., which delivered a 72-27% majority for Obama four years ago, so far there are 23,412 absentee ballots in - well short of the 34,232 that were sent in for all of 2008, about a 20% decline.

The numbers are about the same in Fairfax County, another key county for Democrats in the Washington, D.C. area that went 60-39% for Obama - back in 2008, 100,691 absentee ballots were returned - as of Friday, the numbers were only at 64,259.

Basically, the counties won by Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008 are faring much better in terms of absentee ballots than counties won by Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008. For example, Salem City, Virginia broke a record for early voting; that city went to McCain in 2008.

IOWA: Back in 2008, Iowa Democrats did their job in early voting, running up an 18% edge. This time, their advantage is 10%, one reason why Republicans are so optimistic about winning the state's 6 Electoral Votes. Democrats as of Monday have returned 42.2% of the absentee ballots, 32.1% for the GOP and 25.6% for Independent voters.

COLORADO: A review of the available data seems to give an edge to the GOP. Republicans have cast 37% of all early votes to 34.6% for Democrats - back in 2008, it was Democrats who had a slight edge.

Obviously the wild card is the high number of independent ballots that are already in - about 28% of the vote - and which side they back. Late polls from Colorado have shown Romney doing better with independents than earlier in the campaign. And at least in early voting, the GOP has an edge in several swing counties like Arapahoe, Jefferson and Larimer.

The Democrats have been touting their ground game for the past few months and how it will be key to an Obama victory. However, the numbers are not showing the same kind of early and absentee voting turnout as the President enjoyed in 2008. When you also consider Romney’s advantage among Independent voters, it looks more and more like Romney will emerge victorious after Tuesday.

In 2008, Obama’s message drove people to the polls in mass numbers. Four years later, the buzz is gone and the message has failed. Expect the final voting numbers to go against the grain of these polls and get ready to welcome Mitt Romney as the 45^th President of the United States.

September’s report came in with unexpectedly positive results, the unemployment rate dropping to 7.8% .  This upturn for U.S. jobs yielded a surge in President Obama’s numbers.  We could expect the same for either candidate if a dramatic report is issued, whether positive or negative.

However, Reuters doesn’t foresee that happening.  They are predicting a “lukewarm” report with a higher jobless rate than last month, but with “job gains [that] are within the range usually considered sufficient to keep the unemployment rate steady.”

In other words, we’re probably not going to stop the presses over this. Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University, is quoted as saying:

"Most people have an impression of the economy and their minds won't be changed at this late stage. Only a dramatic headline on either number in either direction might move the dial a bit more."

Bloomberg would be pleased about the above, as they published an editorial late Tuesday urging voters not to let the jobs report choose the next president, citing the large margins of error in the BLS statistics and the fact that a “random-number generator” should not be responsible for putting a human being into office.

Valid.  But both the Reuters forecast and the Bloomberg advice are not likely to change the fact that any voters who are left undecided when the report comes out (only 96 hours prior to voting time) will turn to the jobs numbers to help them made their choice.  In an election this close, those last minute votes really do count, and could mean the big chair in the Oval Office to Romney or Obama. 

It a recent article in The Washington Times, Llana Freeman points out that yet another dictator is backing President Obama.

"The latest [dictator] to publicly announce his support for the Commander- In-Chief’s reelection bid was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who this week assured he would vote for Obama if he were from the United States. The America-bashing strongman made the announcement on state-owned television, saying, “Obama is a good guy” and that if Obama was from Caracas, he’d surely return the favor by voting for Chavez."

This comes shortly after the government-official’s daughter of Cuban military dictator Raul Castro, proclaimed her country’s support for Obama during a visit to the U.S. “I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart.”

Obama has also been endorsed by Vladimir Putin who has said the reelection of Obama could improve political relations between the two countries. There is not much doubt about that after Obama was caught on a hot mike telling Putin’s predecessor, “"This is my last election ... after my election I have more flexibility," Obama said referring to America’s missile defense systems, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

It seems as though the leader of the free world would not want to be endorsed by some of the most anti-American leaders in modern time. These endorsements lead to some troubling thoughts. What has Obama told these leaders behind closed doors? There is a big question to be asked, why do all of these anti-American, anti-democracy leaders want Obama to be re-elected so badly?

The AP reported California had a delay in processing their unemployment figures, causing last week’s numbers to be artificially low.

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. The increase represents a rebound from the previous week's sharp drop. Both swings were largely due to technical factors.

Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008. This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week. A department spokesman said the seasonally adjusted numbers "are being distorted ... by an issue of timing."

The public was surprised last week and thought it was a sign the economy was slightly improving. The liberal media jumped all over the story, trying to buoy the president’s approval marks. Of course, don’t expect that same media to publicize the fact those numbers and all the accompanying hype was bogus.

The report provided the latest sign of an improvement in the job market, though the surprisingly large 30,000 drop in new claims may have reflected distortions because of seasonal adjustments that are likely to be smoothed out in coming weeks. “The overall trend seems to be that the labor market is improving,” said Brian Kim, a currency strategist at RBS Securities.

The government reported last Friday that the unemployment rate dropped sharply in September to 7.8 percent, the lowest level since Mr. Obama took office, even though employers added a modest 114,000 jobs.

So basically, things are still bad and unemployment is actually still above 8% for a consecutive 44^th month. To make matters worse, only 162,000 private-sector jobs were created last month, according to Automatic Data Processing Inc.

A private survey shows that U.S. businesses hired fewer workers in September than August, a sign that slow growth may be holding back hiring. Payroll processor ADP said Wednesday that companies added 162,000 jobs last month. That's below August's total of 189,000, which was revised lower.

The September increase was better than economists had expected and marks the latest in a string of modest hiring gains reported by the survey. Still, the gain isn't enough to significantly push down the unemployment rate, which has been above 8 percent for three and a half years.

About 100,000 new jobs are needed each month just to keep up with the growth of the working-age population. Twice as many are typically needed on a consistent basis to bring unemployment down rapidly.

The continued bad news about the economy and jobs is spelling doom for the Obama campaign. States along the “rust belt” of the country long thought to be locks for the President are now polling in a virtual dead heat, giving Mitt Romney even more avenues to winning the Electoral College.

Two weeks ago, Mitt Romney trailed in five Rust Belt battleground states by an average of 6.9 points in the Real Clear Politics Average of polls. This morning, his average deficit was just 3.2 points. While all 11 swing states have moved his direction since the Republican nominee’s boffo performance in his first debate with President Obama, Romney has seen the most significant improvement in the core column of the swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa.

President Obama may have won some points in this week’s debate on social issues and he may have even sidestepped the landmine that is Benghazi, Libya. But when it comes down to it, the voters of this country are going to vote with their wallet. Contrary to what Obama said Tuesday night, things are not getting better, only worse. These new, mind you accurate, job numbers bear that out and so will the last report just days before the election on November 2^nd. That report has Obama aides making strange and telling statements about their man’s chances.

“Of course we’re worried about it,” admitted an Obama campaign aide, on the prospect of an eleventh hour jobs report showing a spike in the unemployment rate. “But thankfully a large portion of the country will have voted by then.”

Wow. You are pinning your hopes on the off-chance most people who are still undecided will have voted early? Good luck with that.

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.” The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”

So while our leaders denied a request to increase security for our diplomats, they signed off on a Chevy Volt pet project in Austria. The Libya cover up just keeps getting more outrageous.

Here are the real, hard numbers: since 2009 only 827,000 people have been added to the labor force, while during that same time period, 8,208,000 have been added to those not in the labor force. Keep in mind this is not talking about unemployment (MUST READ) or jobs created. This is referring to the total number of people in the workforce vs. those not in the workforce in any capacity.

The Minority Senate Budget Committee states, “"The data is sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey, a sample of 60,000 households conducted by personal and telephone interviews. Basic labor force data are gathered monthly. The labor force consists of all people aged 16 and over who are either employed or actively seeking work. It does not include discouraged workers, people who have retired, or those on welfare or disability who are no longer looking for work. The 'not in the labor force' group is defined as the total civilian non-institutional population minus the labor force. Since January 2009, the labor force has grown by 0.54 percent, or 827,000 people (from 154,236,000 to 155,063,000). Those not in the labor force grew by 10.2 percent during the same period (8,208,000 people), from 80,502,000 to 88,710,000. In other words, for every one person added to the labor force of the United States since January 2009, the size of the U.S. population not in the labor force grew by 10 people.”

According to The Weekly Standard the report concludes, "These figures reveal several troubling trends: That the jobs market is not keeping pace with U.S. population growth; that not enough younger Americans are joining the labor force to account for retirement among an ageing population; and that a large number of workers have become so discouraged that they simply stopped looking for work and left the labor force entirely. These factors pose serious fiscal challenges for the United States. A historically low labor force participation rate—together with an ageing population and a record number of people drawing federal welfare benefits—puts severe strain on the federal budget in both the near and long term."

Don’t be fooled by the “4million private sector jobs created” line. While that may be true, 4million jobs created over 4 years barely keep up with population growth, much less jobs that were lost. This study shows that America is on the wrong track and will soon reach an unsustainable point. Can America afford 4 more years?

Expect Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, to come out swinging in an effort to make up for the President’s lackluster performance in Colorado. Expect Paul Ryan to talk about the role of government, balancing the budget, taxes and especially Medicare, which he will bring up before Biden in an effort to thwart an expected onslaught of accusations and lies.

"Because of the President's terrible performance, because Mitt Romney did such a good job of giving the country a choice, they don't have a choice but to have Joe Biden come at me," Ryan said in an interview that aired Sunday on Milwaukee radio station WTMJ. "He's a very disciplined person when he speaks in these kinds of situations. He doesn't produce gaffes in these moments," Ryan told Fox News last week, making a reference to Biden’s tendency to say stupid things in campaign speeches.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus admitted the vice president is no stranger to the pressures of debates, given his 2 previous presidential campaigns and 36 years as a senator. "Joe Biden is a gifted orator. He is very good at rhetoric, and I think is he very relatable," Priebus said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union. "They are very two different people. And I think it's going to be a great night."

Former debate coach for Mitt Romney, Brett O’Donnell told Fox News he expects Biden to come out with guns blazing. "I am sure that Vice President Biden got a phone call from the White House, and said, you know, 'Look, we didn't go after Governor Romney as much and so you have to turn up the heat.”

A recent CNN/ORC International poll found that 55% of likely voters thought Ryan will win the debate, while 39% said Biden will prevail. It seems the two running mates are picking up on the recent attention, targeting each other in speeches and interviews in the past week. Biden accused Ryan's budget plan of hitting seniors with more taxes to their Social Security benefits. Ryan shot back, saying the President and Vice-President were to blame for the current state of social security. "In fact, Joe Biden himself voted to raise taxes on Social Security benefits, and as a senator, President Obama voted to keep those tax increases in place three times," Ryan said at an Ohio campaign event.

But is all of this enough to get Americans to tune in Thursday night? Huffington Post’s Benjamin Knoll gives his top two reasons for breaking from the norm and actually watching a vice-presidential debate.

First, voters vote for the names at the top of the ticket. Thus, vice presidential candidates have a certain degree of "wiggle room" in their debate performances that the presidential candidates themselves do not enjoy. It often makes for a livelier and more energetic exchange. It has been observed that one of the primary roles of a vice presidential candidate is to be the "attack dog" of the campaign, doing the heavy lifting with the mudslinging so that the presidential candidate can afford to stay a little more "above the fray."

As a result, we may get a vice presidential debate that is a little more critical, frank, and realistic about the ideological differences between these tickets than we got in the first debate between Romney and Obama, where Romney defied expectations by portraying himself as a reasonable moderate instead of the Tea Party warrior we've seen through most of the campaign.

Second, we should remember that vice-presidential candidates are potentially only a "heartbeat away from the presidency." Yes, presidential candidates select vice-presidential candidates that will help them balance the ticket and maximize their electoral prospects.

However, they also select individuals who, in their view, are fit to assume the office of the presidency should the need unexpectedly arise. Debates allow us to get a look at the caliber and temperaments of the candidates as they perform in a situation of intense pressure. From this we can infer the sorts of personal qualities valued by the presidential candidates who picked them, which may speak to their priorities and styles of governance once in office.

Whereas in the past, most voters have skipped the VP debate, expect the combination of a motivated Biden and a shrinking Obama lead to make this event more than just a blip on the radar. Romney gained a lot of ground after last week’s debate and he needs Paul Ryan to continue the trend. Obama isn’t panicking, but he needs Biden to right the ship and take this thing to a third debate, where the President can try to redeem himself. If Ryan earns another big victory for the GOP, don’t expect anyone to still be around watching on debates three and four. That could spell doom for the incumbent.

Striking numbers for an economy that is bearing the effects of unemployment above 8 percent since February 2009, a month after President Obama took office. This historic length of high unemployment is the longest period of job losses above 8 percent since the Great Depression of the 1930s, a reality President Obama acknowledges himself. Any decrease in the unemployment rate has not come from an increase in net new jobs, but solely due to the fact that hundreds of thousands of individuals have left the labor force. The share of working-age people who are either working or looking for work—known as the labor-force participation rate—have recently fell to its lowest level since September 1981.

But as capitol has flowed into stocks, the outlook for corporate earnings has worsened. The gross domestic product, which gives the broadest indicator of health in the economy, was revised downward to show an anemic 1.3 percent growth versus an earlier estimate of 1.7 percent.

Earnings for the third quarter do not paint a better picture. Many analysts expect S&P Capital IQ to be negative for the third quarter with profits down 1.9 percent. This outlook is the weakest earnings picture since the second quarter of 2009, when we were right in the middle of the recession. Predicted revenue growth is just 1.4 percent, compared to 7 percent revenue growth over the last 10 years. This is not good.

So how many jobs will have to be added to get unemployment down to 6%? According to calculators on the Fed Reserve Atlanta’s website, it would take three straight years of adding an average of 193,000 jobs per month, assuming no change in the rate of labor force participation. If labor force participation rebounded to 66 percent, the rate it was in December 2007, it would take an unfathomably high 334,000 jobs created each month, just to get us back down to 6%.

So if the economy is doing so poorly, why is the stock market doing so well? Most Americans relate a good stock market with a good economy, but are they related? Well the answer to why the stock market is increasing during what many would consider a dismal economy is quite simple and can be summed up in one sentence: Cheap, almost free money from Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve. That is it. See, when the government continues to print money and flood the system with currency like the Fed’s have done recently, called QE (short for quantitative easing), it artificially inflates the stock market. Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke believes that by pushing up stock prices, individuals will feel better and spend more on consumer goods, in turn lifting up the economy. Bernanke believes that quantitative easing will help lift up the small wheel (stocks), which in turn will lift up the big wheel (the economy).

Unfortunately after three rounds of QE (QE1 in 2009, QE2 in 2010, QE3 in 2012), it has become very obvious that quantitative easing hasn’t worked nearly as well in fixing the economy as many would have liked. In the short term, QE will help push up the price of stocks, but in the long term, the economy is going to feel the effects of hundreds of billions of dollars flooding the system in the form of much higher interest and lending rates, which could further stifle economic growth. QE is like a medical drug – take it once, and you very well may heal without major side effects. But every time the disease comes back, you’ll need to take bigger and bigger doses of that drug, and each time you take the drug, the drug becomes less and less effective until eventually, the drug is useless. Unfortunately the illness in our economy is still here, and we’ve reached the point where the medicine is completely useless against it. Judgment day is coming.

On Friday corn futures jumped over 5 percent and hit the daily ceiling as the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported corn stocks on Sept. 1 were below 1 billion bushels for the first time in eight years. USDA's survey of farmers and warehouses showed 988 million bushels of corn on hand, which is a surprising 11 percent less than analysts expected. Consumer spending slowed in August largely in part to an increase in fuel prices which restricted many Americans from making additional purchases. The data suggests that many Americans are still struggling as restrained spending has continued to have a dampening effect on economic recovery.

To make matters worse, the increasing cost of fuel has put a serious dent in American “buying power.” According to data from AAA, the price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline averaged $3.83 through Sept. 27 compared with $3.70 in August and $3.42 the prior month. The rapid increase in food and fuel prices are adversely affecting many Americans and the Federal Reserves’ recent decision to prescribe another unlimited dose of quantitative easing has failed to lift growth forecasts ahead of the 'fiscal cliff' faced by taxpayers early next year.

“We are going to get more of the same, very slow growth in consumer spending,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at Maria Fiorini Ramirez Inc. in New York. That is “hardly surprising given the state of income growth and what is going on in the labor market.”

Higher commodity prices and higher energy costs are a direct result of the Obama administration’saddiction to “cheap money” in the form of QE 1, QE 2, and QE 3. As more dollars are flooded into the system, the value of the dollars already in circulation are worth less and less, which means it will take more dollars to purchase the same items. This is where “price inflation” kicks in: more money is “printed” and goods become more expensive to purchase. What many do not realize is that as commodity and fuel prices increase, the working poor and lower/ middle class are disproportionally affected compared to the rest of the population. Because a majority of their spending will be consumed by these two items, they are hit the hardest.

Last year the Arab Spring was triggered in part by high food prices in the region. In 2007-08, food prices spiked, with some staple crops doubling in price. In Egypt local food prices rose 37% in 2008-10. If our government’s reckless spending and excessive monetary easing is not put to an end, we could very well see Middle East type riots all over the globe.

So who is really looking out for the poor and lower/middle class? Barack Obama? The President seems to say he is the one “looking out for the little guy”, but his economics paint a different picture. This is an easy opportunity for Mitt Romney to contrast how his fiscal and energy policy will contrast the President’s, and result in lower commodity and energy prices for all Americans if he is elected.

He’s on The View, ditching Netanyahu for Letterman, calling our Middle East turmoil “bumps in the road,” referring to Iran’s threat to wipe Israel off the map “noise,” because let’s face it people, he just doesn’t have the time to deal with this. This was a comment given to the New York Times from an Obama advisor in response to the question of whether or not Obama would be meeting with foreign leaders in this time of chaos:

“Mr. Obama was scheduled to attend a reception for world leaders at the United Nations on Monday night. But a campaign adviser acknowledged privately that in this election year, campaigning trumped meetings with world leaders. “Look, if he met with one leader, he would have to meet with 10,” the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.”

While half the world hates us and is up in flames, that is either dumb or just pure lazy foreign policy. It’s also worth mentioning that while our Commander in Chief was speaking at the U.N., he blamed this anti-American uproar on a 14-minute video critical of the Muslim religion saying it was a “crude and disgusting” video. He said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” His administration has also spent $70,000 of taxpayer money on ads that denounce the video and sends yet another apology on behalf of America.

We’re not sure how this displays any ounce of leadership at all. We spend billions of dollars when our economy is in shambles to prop up nations who hate America and seek to destroy her. When is this apology tour going to end and since when is a campaign more important than the security of Americans? If you’re tired of paying for President Obama to put our security on the line and our economy under the water, it’s time to vote different in November.

The report is released in the states by the CATO Institute, a public policy research organization based in Washington DC. The think tank says the Economic Freedom of the World report aims to measure a country’s policies against factors of economic freedom and prosperity.

From the CATO website:

The foundations of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, and open markets. As Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek have stressed, freedom of exchange and market coordination provide the fuel for economic progress. Without exchange and entrepreneurial activity coordinated through markets, modern living standards would be impossible.

Potentially advantageous exchanges do not always occur. Their realization is dependent on the presence of sound money, rule of law, and security of property rights, among other factors.?Economic Freedom of the World?seeks to measure the consistency of the institutions and policies of various countries with voluntary exchange and the other dimensions of economic freedom. The report is co-published by…more than 70 think tanks around the world.

With the fall to number 18, the U.S. now ranks behind two “European welfare states - Finland and Denmark” according to the study’s authors. One of those authors, James Gwartney, a professor of Economics at Florida State University, says?a?recent increase in government is one of the factors contributing the country’s fall from the top ten.

“The U.S. is on the wrong track,” said Gwartney, “Countries with the freest economies grew more rapidly and achieved higher income levels for citizens, while the United States' decade-plus course of government expansion, increased debt and regulations and other moves created a system of crony capitalism. The declining economic freedom rating of the U.S. provides confirmation of this trend.”

Truth be told, this decline began in the Bush administration, but it has dramatically increased in the previous four years. President Obama’s first-term attack on small businesses?is?no doubt having an effect on the economic freedom of the country. The Washington Post’s Emi Kolawole points to the conclusion of the CATO report for confirmation of this fact.

Innovation does not factor prominently in the report, but entre­pre­neur­ship does, with the final chapter dedicated entirely to exploring how institutions promote entre­pre­neur­ship and growth. The study’s authors conclude most notably that, while few entrepreneurial ventures noticeably drive overall job creation, self-employment and small firms are a large component of overall job creation.

Earlier this month, the World Economic Forum, in its Global Competitiveness Report, dropped the U.S. to 7th in its rankings, a fall from 1st as recently as 2008. Their report listed weaknesses in dozens of areas compared to just a few years ago. Kolawole says the report?lays the blame squarely at the feet of current governmental policies.

The authors cite a continued lack of trust in government leaders on the part of the business community as well as businesses’ continued criticism of the public and private sectors. As for the lack of trust in government leaders, the authors write that it is “perhaps not surprising in light of recent political disputes that threaten to push the country back into recession through automatic spending cuts.”

The authors also zing U.S. spending priorities, writing, “the government spends its resources relatively wastefully,” a pillar under which the U.S. ranks 76th. Meanwhile, they continue, “a lack of macroeconomic stability continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness.”

Both reports say their report is designed to measure the degree to which the policies and institutions of countries are supportive of economic freedom. Cornerstones of this support include the size of government, personal choice, the freedom to trade internationally and the security of private property. Does this sound like the America of the last four years?

Many Americans are worried about the country turning into a welfare state, but even welfare state countries?have a stronger economy than ours now. Have we fallen that far, that fast? It appears so. The only remaining question to ask now is how low will this president take us? Do we really want to see the answer to that question?

A clip was released this week that shows President Barack Obama in 1998 speaking to a crowd at Loyola University about what he believed to be the proper role of government in the United States. In the recording, Obama says he wants to "resuscitate this notion that we're all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking how – what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live.”

Seems somewhat reasonable to want to help as many people as possible out of poverty, but it’s the next portion that has conservatives concerned about the “philosophy“ of the Commander-in-Chief.

"I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution – because I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot.”

The Romney campaign and other conservatives have characterized the President’s statement as a ringing endorsement of redistributing wealth. Many conservatives argue redistributing wealth is very close to socialist ideology; which is the norm in many European countries.

Appearing on Fox news yesterday Romney said, "The President's view is one of larger government. There's a tape that came out today where the President's saying he likes redistribution. I disagree. I think a society based upon a government centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that's the wrong course for America; that will not build a stronger America, or help people out of poverty."

The Obama Loyola University video release comes off the tail of the release of a Mitt Romney fundraiser video that has sent the presidential candidate from Massachusetts scrambling to play defense on comments he made saying “47% of Americans pay no income tax.”

Strikingly, a recent CNBC poll showed that 75% of readers agreed with Romney’s comments, which may motivate the Romney campaign to “get tough” and hammer down on the differences between liberal and conservative principles and clearly express to the American people why a Romney Presidency would be different from what we’ve seen since 2008.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a partnership of the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, 46.4 percent of American filers pay “zero or negative” income tax.Yes, that bottom-basement rate is the result of concerted cuts enacted under Reagan and Bush. And yes, when you include state and payroll taxes, the percent of zero-payers drops below 18 percent.

And finally, since almost all of Romney’s investment wealth is taxed as capital gains, it’s likely that he, too, pays almost no “income tax.” But since Romney specifically described the “47 percent” as those “who pay no income tax,” he’s still on factual footing—even if he should count himself as one of them.

Some critics are claiming Romney’s words showed how out of touch he is with the American people. They say the comments make a broad sweeping statement based on party stereotypes. Again, Klein says Romney is factually correct.

Paying no income tax is one thing. Being “dependent on government” is another. But under a broad definition of government dependence—that is, receiving federal entitlements—morethan 47 percent of us are in Romney’s category. According to the Census Bureau, 49 percent of Americans live in a household that receives a government entitlement for “health care” through Medicaid or Medicare, “food” through stamps, disability, Social Security, or a “housing” assistance program.

Most of these benefits are not paid for by their recipients, but by federal deficits. The gap between promises and anticipated funds for Social Security is $8.6 trillion for the next 75 years, according to the government’s own estimates. For Medicare, it’s $27 trillion.

So, Mitt Romney is right that, due to deductions and the rising burden of payroll taxes, 47 percent of Americans don’t pay income tax, and that just as many households are dependent on government transfers in some way.

A closer look at the voting stats and polls show the inferences the former governor made are backed up by facts many Democratic-leaning organizations have publically stated.

But what about the harder question: Is Mitt right to say that those people are more likely to support Obama? For the most part, yes. Crunching the Tax Policy Center’s figures, you find that 82.8 percent of those who pay no income tax live in households with income under $33,542. And according to Gallup, among those with incomes under $36,000, Obama has a massive, 15-point lead.

The question of whether those who receive entitlements—Romney’s “government dependents”— are in the bank for Obama is even harder to answer. According to a 2007 Campbell Public Affairs institute survey, “Democrats are more likely to have used government programs, and much more supportive of government doing more about inequality (74.9 percent) and using government as the vehicle to take action (37.9 percent).” Given a choice between the two parties, 63 percent of welfare recipients go Democratic, 67 percent of food-stamp users, 74 percent of those on Medicaid, and 81 percent of those in public housing.

The Democratic slant extends to those receiving federal unemployment benefits. In a 2011 NPR/Kaiser Family poll, 42 percent of the long-term unemployed identified themselves as Democrats; only 16 percent went Republican.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Romney’s statements is that many people agree with them. According to Businessinsider.com, 75% of those polled by CNBC concur with Mitt’s comments. Yahoo! Finance asked Americans if the statements made them more likely to vote for Romney, less likely to support him or if it will have no impact and the numbers were 48%, 28% and 24% respectively. You’re not likely to hear about those numbers at the top of the hour on CNN.

Romney appeared on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto to clarify the comments and point to the issue of smaller or larger government. Will this be a blip on the radar or a campaign-defining moment? Rick Wilson of Ricochet.com says these things historically never have a lasting impact. The lasting impact we could see is if the Romney camp can use these comments to focus on the wide gap between the Obama plan for American and what GOP is proposing. Of course, that only works if we get to hear that proposed plan.

If Romney wants to use this “gaffe” for his campaign’s benefit, we need to hear that plan quickly. While the Dems want to vilify Mitt for the comments, Romney can jump on the offensive and get those last 3-5% of undecided voters to hear and accept his policies for this country. There is a window of opportunity, but it is closing fast.

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Over the past decade, the federal government has issued almost 38,000 new final rules, according to the draft of the 2011 annual report to Congress on federal regulations by the Office of Management and Budget. That brought the total at the end of 2011 to 169,301 pages.

That is more than double the number of pages needed to publish the regulations back in 1975 when the bound edition consisted of 71,244 pages.

The Dems would like to point out how this trend got started under George Bush, and they would be right. But Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey compared the Obama administration’s work to that of the previous presidential administration and found:

To put this in perspective, the growth rate in the first George W. Bush term — when he enjoyed one-party control of Washington for a couple of years as well — was 4.4%. That was bad enough; by 2008, the annual compliance cost to the economy was $1.7 trillion, according to a 2010 Small Business Administration study. If compliance costs increase at the same ratio as regulations, the Obama administration added nearly $126 billion in compliance costs in three years.

But that ratio may not tell us the whole story. Regulations still remain to be written for Obama’s two biggest legislative “achievements” — ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. The passage of both bills created massive ambiguity on compliance costs, because both bills deferred a huge amount of regulatory production to bureaucrats within the executive branch. Much of that regulation remains to be written, no doubt delayed beyond the election so as to prevent discussion of the far-reaching implications of the power Congress handed to HHS and other agencies.

When those regimes get fully fleshed out, expect the increase rate of regulation to skyrocket — and investment to decline.

In a time where most companies cannot afford to hire new workers or expand production, the federal government is chugging along just fine. No matter who is to blame, it is a trend that needs to stop immediately. In the last 3+ years, regulatory agencies have seen a combined budget increase of 16% and an employment increase of 13%. Meanwhile, private sector jobs fell by 5.6%.

Expect more red tape and bureaucracy if Obama gets a second term. The U.S. Federal Register notes that more than 4,200 regulations are coming down the pike, and that doesn’t include impending clean air rules from the Environmental Protection Agency. It also does not factor the impending fuel economy mandates, Dodd-Frank regulations and ObamaCare. 

When you consider the EPA’s belief about how they think more regulation can kick-start the economy, you get all the evidence you need to make a change this November. "In periods of high unemployment, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may have a stimulative effect that results in a net increase in overall employment,” the agency noted in a statement this past February. If this administration gets four more years, there is no telling how big this government will grow, and how small our economy will shrink.

In his interview with Time Magazine Obama said he didn’t do a good enough job selling the American people on the stimulus and auto bailouts because he was so focused on fixing the economy. That’s right, Obama’s problem was that he was so focused on fixing the economy he just couldn’t explain to us dumb Americans how well his plan was working.  ““[We] were in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime crisis, so we had to just do stuff fast. And sometimes it wasn’t popular,” Obama told Time. “

And we didn’t have the luxury of six months to explain exactly what we were doing with the Recovery Act, which was basically a jobs act and making sure- middle-class-families-didn’t-fall-into-poverty act.” Obama does deserve some credit here for truthfulness. It is quite difficult to explain to 23 million unemployed/underemployed Americans why your plans can’t create any jobs, but it does bail out big labor, failing green energy companies and campaign bundlers.

Perhaps one of the more outlandish answers he gave during the interview is when he explained why he ran in 08 and why he will run again. The message I have for them is no different than the message I have for the rest of the country, which is, I ran for office to not only deal with a looming economic crisis but also reverse a decade in which middle-class families had seen their security erode. And everything I’ve done — most of the time in cooperation with Congress , but sometimes working around Congress — has been geared toward that central goal of making sure that we have a strong, vibrant, growing middle class and we got ladders of opportunity for people who are willing to work hard to get into the middle class. It’s just hard to get people to really believe these lines when Americans have lost nearly 40% of their wealth over the last 4 years. 

From the Washington Examiner:

“America’s 50 states are collectively over $4 trillion in debt according to a new study by an independent, non-partisan think tank.

State Budget Solutions‘ third annual State Debt Report shows that aggregate state debt fell from $4.24 trillion last year to $4.19 trillion this year. State Budget Solutions’ debt calculations include a state’s regular debt, the fiscal year 2013 budget gap, outstanding unemployment trust fund loans, unfunded other post employment benefit liabilities, and the state’s unfunded pension liabilities.

California, again, led all states in total debt weighing in at $617 billion in unfunded liabilities. On a per capita basis, each Californian faces $16,386 in state debt compared to just $11,117 owed by each Texan. The top five states in total debt burden where California, New York ($300 billion), Texas ($286 billion), New Jersey ($282 billion), and New Jersey ($271 billion). The same five states led the ranking last year.

Unfunded public pension liabilities are the main drivers of state fiscal woes, accounting for $2.8 trillion of the shortfall. Other post employment benefits, including health care, account for another $627 billion in debt. California faces $398 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and alone.”

Leaders like NJ Governor Chris Christie and VP Nominee Paul Ryan have been saying this for years: We must address the third rail of politics in order to avoid this fiscal cliff we’re about to go off of. We must elect leaders who are willing to stand up to the teacher’s and public sector unions so that we can reform these unfunded liabilities. Otherwise, it’s off the cliff we go.

Correction: In the Washington Examiner article we posted, New Jersey is listed twice. According to the State Budget Solutions Annual State Debt Report, New Jesery is #5 with a debt of $258 billion and Illinois is #4 at $271 billion. Thanks to DJ Raven for pointing this out to us.

Thanks to the Wall Street Journal, we know that claim is based on an out-of-date CBO estimate of the gap between the cost of healthcare 10 years from now (2022) and the size of the House budget’s premium-support subsidy for a typical 65-year-old in 2022. The CBO also said in that out of date report that the $6,400 number is uncertain and "will depend on the evolution of the health care and health insurance systems over time, which is hard to predict."

That CBO estimate was based on Ryan’s original proposal that Ryan presented to Democrats to make revisions to and the CBO has now admitted that they cannot score his new proposal for 2013 because it doesn’t have the capability to estimate market forces in the new budget. Paul Ryan’s plan for anyone 54 and younger turns Medicare over to the private sector where private healthcare companies bid for a voucher from YOU, the patient. It lets the consumer choose which healthcare plan he or she wants to use. The government basically gives the voucher to the company with the best value and quality healthcare that made the second-lowest bid.

If Seniors 54 and younger choose that second-lowest bidding company, he or she breaks even and pays nothing extra. If he or she picked the cheapest healthcare plan, they get to keep the cash. Keep in mind; this is ONLY for Seniors 54 and younger. Seniors 55 and older will see no changes to their Medicare. Another important gem to point out about the Romney plan is that anyone, no matter what age, will always have the option to enroll in traditional government Medicare. Who would want to do that tough after they aren’t paying anything out of pocket?

This is what our healthcare should be: a private sector environment where companies bid for your money to offer you the best quality healthcare for the lowest price. That is nothing scary about that.

“The projection is down a bit from an earlier estimate pegging the deficit this year at $1.2 trillion. 

The report also warned that a new recession is likely if an ongoing stalemate over tax and spending cuts continues between Democrats and Republicans. 

In its annual summertime report, the budget office said Wednesday that letting decade-old tax Bush tax rates expire and sweeping spending cuts occur in January -- which will happen without congressional action -- "would lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession." 

If that happened, the economy would contract by 0.5 percent -- a gloomier projection than the budget office made earlier this year when it envisioned slight growth under that scenario. Unemployment would rise to around 9 percent by late next year if the standoff persists, the analysts said.”

Let’s see here, a group of government budget analysts say that if Washington raises taxes and fails to cut the budget, we will experience a double dip recession. Then why is President Obama vowing that we are one tax increase and deficit spending bill away from prosperity? He argues that taxing the rich more and spending more money on “investments” will pull us out of the economic ditch we’re in.

The House of Representatives led by a Republican majority has passed two budgets that have lowered taxes, reformed our entitlements, and cut the budget. That seems more in line with what the Congressional Budget Office is recommending. It’s clear that the only thing standing in the way of the prevention of a double dip recession is Obama and the Democrats.

From USA Today:

“Last month alone, Obama spent nearly $59 million through his main campaign account — $10 million more than he raised, financial reports filed late Monday afternoon show. The cost of his campaign so far: more than $325 million, not counting spending by the Democratic Party committees aiding his re-election.

By contrast, President Bush had spent $205.4 million to retain the White House at this point in the 2004 election.

The Democratic National Committee also stepped up its spending on the president's behalf last month, burning through $32 million — more than double what the national party spent a month earlier, as it undertook fresh rounds of polling and advertising to help Obama.

The president's new investments included additional staffers. He employed 853 people in July, up from 779 a month earlier, a USA TODAY analysis shows. Romney had 326 staffers on his payroll last month, up from 272 in June. Obama pumped more than $48 million into advertising last month, more than twice what Romney spent.

The Romney campaign has been on a winning streak when it comes to fundraising, besting Obama and Democrats for three straight months. Romney and his fundraising operation reported collecting $101 million in July, outgunning Obama and his allies by $25 million.”

Clearly there is no amount of staffers that can make Obama’s record look better than it is. This is typical of Obama: spend more than you take in with nothing to show for it. The American people have suffered the consequences of Obama doing to the country what he has done to the campaign. Perhaps now Obama has fallen victim to his own policies. You wouldn’t keep a CEO who ran a business the way Obama has run the country. How a man handles his finances tells a lot about him; we have seen it first hand with Obama, and it’s time to fire him in November.

Davis now lives in Virginia and has been one of Mitt Romney’s staunchest supporters in that area of the country. The former congressman said he planned to give a new message of hope for those who, like him, had bought in to the campaign message Barack Obama presented back in 2008.

“The one thing that I can bring to the table is to be something of a voice for that group of people. Senator Obama — ran on two broad themes. One of those broad themes was reunifying this country. And another broad theme was turning this economy around.... I’ll certainly be talking about those two failures. Those were powerful sounding, tough words from a Democratic candidate in 2007 and 2008 who was trying, frankly, to reach out to the center. I think we all know, four years later, candidate Obama has been a very different person than President Obama."

At the Democratic convention in 2008, Davis carried quite a different tune when he addressed the crowd after Obama was officially nominated:

“This is the cause for which we stand: An American President named Barack Obama, who will lead and inspire the Free World,” Davis said then. “An American President named Barack Obama, who will stand for the rule of law, who will remember that torture is the way of the people who hate us, and not our way. (This) takes us closer to becoming what we know American can be.”

The announcement that Davis will take the stage also mentioned five more speakers set to encourage and excite the crowd sometime during the four-day convention. U.S. Senator from New Hampshire Kelly Ayotte, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Florida Congressman Connie Mack, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and U.S. Senator from Ohio Rob Portman were all presented as convention speakers in a statement by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus on Thursday morning.

Well has it worked? The AP has released a finding that, along with dozens of other reports, show that Obama’s plan has not been as successful as the administration would like you to think . In fact, the AP reports that Obama’s economy is the worst recovery since the Great Depression.

Paul Wiseman of the Associated Press states, “Since World War II, 10 U.S. recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest… Economic growth has never been weaker in a postwar recovery. Consumer spending has never been so slack. Only once has job growth been slower.”

The main components of the slowed recovery are feeble growth, exhausted consumers, the jobs hole and shrinking paychecks. Via TheBlaze.com:

Feeble Growth:          

America’s gross domestic product — the broadest measure of economic output — grew 6.8 percent from the April-June quarter of 2009 through the same quarter this year, the slowest in the first three years of a postwar recovery. GDP grew an average of 15.5 percent in the first three years of the eight other comebacks analyzed. The engines that usually drive recoveries aren’t firing this time.

Exhausted Consumers:

Consumer spending has grown just 6.5 percent since the recession ended, feeblest in a postwar recovery. In the first three years of previous recoveries, spending rose an average of nearly 14 percent.

It’s no mystery why consumers are being frugal. Many have lost access to credit, which fueled their spending in the 2000s. Home equity has evaporated and credit cards have been canceled. Falling home prices have slashed home equity 49 percent, from $13.2 trillion in 2005 to $6.7 trillion early this year

Jobs Hole:

The economy shed a staggering 8.8 million jobs during and shortly after the recession. Since employment hit bottom, the economy has created just over 4 million jobs. So the new hiring has replaced 46 percent of the lost jobs, by far the worst performance since World War II. In the previous eight recoveries, the economy had regained more than 350 percent of the jobs lost, on average.

During the 1981-82 Recession, the U.S. lost 2.8 million jobs. In the three years and one month after that recession ended, the economy added 9.8 million – replacing the 2.8 million and adding 7 million more.

Never before have so many Americans been unemployed for so long - three years into a recovery. Nearly 5.2 million have been out of work for six months or more. The long-term unemployed account for 41 percent of the jobless; the highest mark in the other recoveries was 22 percent.

Shrinking Paychecks:

Earnings for production and nonsupervisory workers — a category that covers about 80 percent of the private, nonfarm workforce — have risen just over 6.2 percent since June 2009. Consumer prices have risen nearly 7.2 percent. Adjusted for inflation, wages have fallen 0.8 percent. In the previous five recoveries -the records go back only to 1964 – real wages had gone up an average 1.5 percent at this point

There is a very clear choice for this November: Barack Obama who considers this report as “doing fine” and the Democratic plan as “working, or Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan who have real fiscal sense and proven track records when it comes to jobs and budgets. One thing is clear, America can’t afford four more years of Barack Obama.

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic organization, found Obama leading Romney in Ohio by three points, 48% to 45%, with a 3.2% margin of error. Rasmussen Reports’ most recent Ohio poll found the two men even at 45% and includes a 4.5% margin of error. PPP’s New Hampshire poll showed Romney picking up six points on Obama, cutting the President’s lead in half since May, 51% to 45%.

According to PPP, Romney’s New Hampshire gains are due largely to the challenger securing his Republican base and not to any sudden increase due to picking Paul Ryan for the ticket:

"Romney ceded 13% of his party to Obama in the previous poll, but now is losing only 8% of them. Romney’s new running mate Paul Ryan is still a fairly unknown quantity to many of the state’s voters, and those who do say they have an opinion on him already are split about evenly.  27% are either unaware of him at this point or not able to say how they feel about him.  The rest break down at 36% favorable and 37% unfavorable.  Ryan will be a polarizing figure, and that effect should only increase as he campaigns more for the ticket.  67% of Republicans like him, and 64% of Democrats dislike him, while independents fall at 33-39."

The organization’s Ohio poll was conducted before the Ryan announcement, so the numbers do not reflect the impact of the VP choice:

"PPP was unable to test an Obama-Biden, Romney-Ryan matchup. However, Paul Ryan’s favorability rating was measured at +1. The partisan splits are largely predictable, with independents cool to Ryan at -11. While his 67% name recognition is certainly more than healthy for an out-of-state representative, we can assume that the numbers will shift as Ryan becomes more visible on the national stage. That said, there is reason to believe that even some of those who offered an opinion don’t know much about the Wisconsin Republican."

Rasmussen’s survey revealed strong numbers for the senator from Wisconsin:

"51% of those surveyed had a favorable opinion of Ryan and 39% had an unfavorable opinion (respondents to the poll were told that Ryan was Romney's vice presidential candidate before being asked to rank him). Respondents were more divided on Ryan's readiness to be president: 38 percent said he was, while 41 percent said he was not. However, by a 49 percent-to-22 percent plurality, Rasmussen respondents said Romney's selection of Ryan was the right choice."

It will be very interesting to watch just how the polls change and move after Paul Ryan has a full week in the spotlight. Most experts agree the pick will have a substantial effect on the numbers, one way or the other. The GOP will continue to push Ryan in front of the cameras, hoping he can clearly articulate his plan to return the country to economic strength. The question remains whether or not he will be able to withstand the arrows the Dems throw his way on Medicare and seniors. Romney is betting on Ryan and so far, it appears to be a good move.

From the Detroit News:

“The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.

The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM's stock price was $22.20 a share. On Monday, GM stock fell $0.07, or 0.3 percent, to $20.47. At that price, the government would lose another $850 million on its GM bailout.

The government still holds 500 million shares of GM stock and needs to sell them for about $53 each to recover its entire $49.5 billion bailout. At the current price, the Treasury would lose more than $16 billion on its GM bailout.

The steep decline in GM's stock price has indefinitely delayed the Treasury's sale of its remaining 26 percent stake in GM. No sale will take place before the November election.”

If we were to have allowed the auto industry to take it’s natural free market course of bankrupting, private investors would have bought the auto companies and made them into a bigger and better industry that would be even more profitable. Instead, we have delayed the inevitable so that Obama and the Democrats can get votes from labor unions and the workers they represent.

Obama recently said at a campaign event that he wanted to do the same thing that he did with the auto bailout to every industry. If making taxpayers pay $25 billion for a failing industry is considered successful, then we have hit a new level of normal, ladies and gentlemen.

At a campaign stop in Pueblo, Colorado, while no doubt spreading false accusations about Mitt Romney, Barack Obama boasted about the success of the auto industry bailout and essentially touted his belief that the government should bail out every industry.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry."

“I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China, I want those jobs taking root in places like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd gathered for a campaign rally at the Palace of Agriculture at the Colorado State Fairgrounds here.

So were the auto bailouts successful? Well, supporters of the bailout say that GM and Chrysler have completely paid back their loans, but unfortunately that is not true. The tax payer loans will likely never be paid back in full.

The Heritage Foundation completed an extensive study that shows tax payers will lose nearly $23 billion on the bailout. Not only did the bailout cost tax payers billions of dollars, the Obama administration schemed with the UAW to save their pensions while destroying non-unionized workers.

“I worked for 34 years at GM/Delphi Corp. When Delphi went bankrupt, we lost everything,” Dana Strickland of Michigan wrote me. “Because I was salaried (middle management), we lost our pension and health insurance. I did not belong to the union, so GM/Delphi could have cared less. I have never felt so betrayed. We never hear this brought to the public’s attention. People need to know how we were screwed, while the Obama administration kissed up to the union.”

The Heritage Foundation report goes on to state:

The U.S. government will lose about $23 billion on the 2008-2009 bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. President Obama emphatically defends his decision to subsidize the automakers, arguing it was necessary to prevent massive job losses. But, even accepting this premise, the government could have executed the bailout with no net cost to taxpayers. It could have—had the Administration required the United Auto Workers (UAW) to accept standard bankruptcy concessions instead of granting the union preferential treatment. The extra UAW subsidies cost $26.5 billion—more than the entire foreign aid budget in 2011. The Administration did not need to lose money to keep GM and Chrysler operating. The Detroit auto bailout was, in fact, a UAW bailout.

With corrupt Chicago politics permeating the Obama White House, the last thing America needs is for the government to take over more industry. The combination of lower taxes, smarter regulation, and more personal responsibility is the solution to an ailing economy. Had the government let the free market work itself out, the auto industry would have restructured as normal, the UAW would not have received billions in preferential treatment, and GM would not continue wasting billions on cars like the unprofitable Chevy Volt on the tax payers dime. 

According to a report by the Associated Press, you really wanted to retire fifty years ago.

If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women. As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Today’s retirees face a grimmer picture. With fewer and fewer people in the workforce, due to the boomers retiring and the increase in unemployment, there are less people to pay the payroll taxes necessary to fund Social Security. A 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington D.C. think tank, paints out a scary picture.

A married couple retiring last year, after both spouses earned average lifetime wages, paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85. Future generations are going to do worse because either they are going to get fewer benefits or they are going to pay higher taxes.

While most people don’t understand how Social Security benefits are calculated, they do understand the only solution is to work and/or live longer. Social Security payments continue until you die, so taking good care of oneself will bring a double-dose of benefits. Don’t take Social Security benefits before age 70, if you are in good health and can afford to wait. Every year you delay, your monthly benefit rises by 8%, giving you a good shot at an even bigger lifetime payout.

For those just starting out in the workforce, get used to just about every payroll tax dollar you pay to be spent on someone else with very little hope someone will be able to do the same for you. Sounds encouraging, doesn’t it? Seems like one more example of how big government fails once again.

According to The Blaze, Wayne Allyn Root is a 1983 graduate of Columbia College, and a former classmate of Barack Obama. Root was a political science and pre-law major, which is the same degree that Barack Obama claims to have received from Columbia. There is only one problem, Root doesn’t remember ever knowing, seeing or hearing of any Barack Obama – formerly known as Barry Soetoro. Root also claims that no one that he knows from Columbia remembers Barack Obama.

He doubles down on this claim by citing the Wall Street Journal report that recounts the Fox News interviews with 400 Columbia University “classmates” of Obama. The 400 interviews did not turn up one person who knew Barry Soetoro.

Now Root makes his living by his “gut feeling” as the most successful Las Vegas odds maker ever. He even has a star on the Vegas Walk of Stars for his success. His gut feeling on this issue is that it is not due to poor grades or a lack of attendance that Obama has sealed his records. After all, he did get into Harvard Law School. So what could it be?

Root believes it is because he was accepted as a foreign exchange student. Everyone knows Obama was raised for a considerable portion of his youth in Indonesia. Root believes that if the Columbia transcripts were uncovered several things would come to light:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to foreign students.

Again, these points are solely based on Mr. Root’s speculation of the President as an ’83 graduate of Columbia with Barack Obama. Is any of this fact? It’s uncertain to determine, but just like the President’s birth certificate, questions will continue to loom as long as there is not full disclosure to the American people. Is there any credibility to the attacks on Mitt Romney’s tax returns? Sure, but it needs to be put into perspective. Has Mitt Romney broken the law? The answer is, absolutely not. If he did, IRS agents would have already paid him a visit.

The Mitt Romney tax return issue is nothing but a distraction proliferated by the White House and political talking heads like Harry Reid to distract from the disastrous reality that is the Obama record. It is time for Romney to change the narrative and shoot back at the Obama camp. With record high unemployment, trillions in deficits each year, and the dramatic expansion of the welfare state, this should be a no brainer for conservatives and independents alike to rally behind the Romney camp to defeat President Obama in November.

So he has called in Bill Clinton, scheduling him to speak in a prime time slot at the Democratic National Convention in September. Clinton, despite scandal and impeachment, maintains a valued reputation in both parties, and is seen as one of the great Presidents of recent history. There is no question as to why President Obama would want to buddy up to Bill at a moment when his campaign is drowning. We just want to tell him that it won’t work.

Bill Clinton’s record as president is strong enough to stand against his sex scandal and impeachment, evidenced by having one of the highest approval ratings of a departing President, 61% for his final quarter, and being deemed the most qualified past president to handle the crises of today’s world. However, President Clinton’s record will not change that of President Obama. Clinton’s record setting job approval rate will not raise Obama’s 45% rate, which is almost 10 percentage points below the historical average for U.S. presidents. The 4.2% unemployment rate under Clinton will not lower Obama’s 8.2% rate.

The discrepancies continue from there. It is crystal clear that President Obama is no Bill Clinton, and we don’t think anybody is confused about that fact. Ryan Williams from the Romney campaign summed it up very well in saying:

“From balanced budgets to economic growth, President Clinton accomplished goals that President Obama simply hasn’t matched. After three and a half years, President Obama has added trillions of dollars in new debt and deficits and has threatened to undo President Clinton’s historic welfare reforms. Voters deserve better, and they deserve a president who can run on his own record in office.”

We agree. President Obama cannot ride on Clinton’s coattails, and it is delusional for his campaign to believe otherwise. David Axelrod said that the decision to put Clinton in front of the mic is “about deploying our assets in the most effective way.” Yes, Clinton is an asset to the Democratic Party, but he will not be able to distract Americans from the overwhelmingly bad record of our 44^th president. 

So why hasn’t Obama’s jobs panel met since January?

That’s right. As the jobs numbers continue to slip and the unemployment rate climbs, the President has not called a meeting in six months.

Before pouncing, let’s see what exactly this jobs panel is. Officially titled the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, its function is, to quote the White House website:

“To provide non-partisan advice to the President on continuing to strengthen the Nation's economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States and on ways to create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity for the American people.”

It is made up of non-government experts, including CEOs, founders, presidents and partners of important businesses across the country. Sounds like a pretty good idea to us, taking advice on jobs from people who aren’t politicians and who actually have a stake in the workforce, those who know a thing or to about what it takes to grow the economy from a business perspective.

Unfortunately, President Obama has recently decided that businesses are nothing less the root of all the world’s evil, at least that is what his recent ads seem to say.

The campaigning, specifically that which is intended to slam Mitt Romney over his time at Bain Capital, takes special offense to the outsourcing of jobs. Which, incidentally, it seems that Obama’s jobs council, all 26 members of which he chose and appointed himself, is quite good at.

To name a few:

“General Electric, represented on the council by CEO Jeffrey Immelt, has lost 37,000 American jobs and added 25,000 jobs overseas since 2001.

Boeing, represented by CEO James McNerney, has cast off over 14,000 American jobs since 2008.

Xerox, represented by CEO Ursula Burns, has a business modelthat depends on providing its outsourcing services to other companies worldwide. In its most recent annual report, Xerox said it is the “largest worldwide diversified business process outsourcing company in the large and growing BPO market.”

American Express, represented by Kenneth I. Chenault, still depends on “outsourcing functions … [and] relocating certain functions to lower-cost overseas locations,” according to its most recent SEC filings.”

So maybe now we understand why Obama has pushed his jobs panel into the shadows. Like everything else for Mr. Obama, it’s a campaign strategy. His attack angle at Mitt Romney has proven itself to hinge on pummeling Romney’s business experience, attempting to prove to the public that his policies as an executive would be bad for America. So Mr. Obama has elected to choose politics over the American people (yet again). Instead of assembling this board who could potentially have a solution or two for the dire jobs situation in this country, he has tried to cover them up, afraid the pasts of his hand-selected panel would reflect hypocrisy on him and his campaign.

And they do.

It is really a double whammy for President Obama. Not only does this information derail his vicious attack ads on Mitt Romney, it also works to cement the Presidents image as “campaigner-in-chief,” always looking to save face rather than doing his job. A Romney advisor was quoted in Politico, saying:

“With a half-million jobs lost since President Obama took office, he would be well served to spend more time listening to job creators about what it’s going to take to get the American economy growing again,” Saul said Tuesday in response to a query from POLITICO. “Instead, he’s spent the last two weeks talking about raising taxes on job creation and attacking a central recommendation of his Jobs Council for fundamental tax reform of the kind Gov. Romney has proposed.”

It seems the president has really stepped in it this time. Yet another misstep to add to the list.

Rasmussen quotes the Federalist Papers No. 2 in their release, reproduced below:

“the people must cede to [the Constitution] some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”

This we, as Americans, do freely and willingly, with the trust that those individuals we elect to uphold the Constitution will not take advantage of the power that the concession of a portion of our individual rights gives them. This high rate of dissatisfaction begs the conclusion that government is, in fact, abusing us.

These numbers follow a Gallup poll from earlier this year, which showed that Americans were at a record low in their satisfaction with the size and power of government with only 29% of people content. This was down from a peak at 60% under George W. Bush’s administration.

Gallup reported the following:

“Republicans in particular are displeased with the size and power of the federal government, with 16% satisfied and 84% dissatisfied. Democrats are more positive about the federal government, but hardly overwhelmingly so, with 49% satisfied and 47% dissatisfied. The politically crucial group of independents is slightly more negative than the national average.”

To sum it up: yes, those who are expected to be unhappy are overwhelmingly so. But, more importantly, those who could go either way, namely, independents, express the same sentiment of disappointment. Finally, those who would, predictably, be content (ie: democrats) express such contentment weakly and to a lesser degree than would be projected. Americans are not happy.

Despite this measured fact, President Obama has proven time and time again that he supports the minority, standing with the 8% of Americans who believe that we need more government and that individual freedoms should take another cut and ignoring 92% of his citizens who cry out for the contrary. The President has worked to put more aspects of American life into the hands of the government rather than the individual, the prime example being his health care reform. Now he even wants to accredit the government with the success of small, privately owned businesses.

Instead of being ignored by the executive branch, the numbers found in these two surveys should carry more weight; they should be reflected by the voices of our elected officials, especially the President, who should represent the goals and hopes of the majority of American people.  We hope to see this problem remedied in the upcoming elections.

"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The health care law that Obama signed on March 23, 2010, raises taxes on many things regardless of income. Everything ranging from a tax on indoor tanning services, to a fine, levied through income taxes on those that go uninsured.

Below are a few of the tax hikes buried in the 2700 page law:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

2. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

3. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

4. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

5. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

Capital Gains Dividends Other*

2012 15% 15% 35%

2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%

Seventy-five “percent of the [Obamacare] mandate penalty… falls on Americans earning less than $120,000 a year … [so] President Obama has imposed one of the largest tax hikes in American history on the middle class,” said a statement from the Republican minority of the Senate budget committee.

President Obama and his liberal friends may deny that the health insurance premium is a tax. But the defenders of the bill -including Budget Director Peter Orszag, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and we can’t forget Democrats in Congress -also denied the mandate was a tax. But when the bills survival was at risk, it conveniently became very useful for the law’s supporters to consider the mandate a “tax.” A 180 flip flop that became even more apparent when the U.S. Attorney representing the federal government also defended it in front of the Supreme Court justices as a tax.

As the law stands, there are over $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, which makes the President’s healthcare law one of the largest tax increases in American history. This is without taking into account the unintended consequences that happen from any large government takeover. This monster of a law is horrible for our American healthcare system and must be voted out come November.  

Bernanke said the Fed is willing to do more to boost the economy if hiring doesn't pick up:

"We'll continue to monitor the economy and see how things evolve. ... If we don't see continued improvement in the labor market, we're prepared to take additional steps." 

Steps could include "additional asset purchases," which likely would mean more purchases of Treasury bonds which in turn would continue to lower interest rates. 

Unfortunately the new Fed action comes with a deadline of Dec. 31, 2012, the same date the Bush tax cuts will expire if action is not taken. Many business and political leaders are calling this a “fiscal cliff” as the additional stimulus is withdrawn and Bush tax cuts and automatic spending cuts would kick in exactly at the same time. 

Bernanke warned  that the impending expiration of tax cuts early next year and imposition of big spending cuts, known as the "fiscal cliff," is already creating uncertainty that could slow hiring:

"Putting all these things together, you have a very substantial withdrawal of income from the economy that will affect spending and will affect the ability of the economy to recover."

The Wall Street Journal expressed, “Just what the economy needs: Another temporary stimulus that may or may not end when the powers in Washington claim it will.”

The Fed began Operation Twist last September, selling $400 billion of its short term securities while buying a like amount of Treasuries with six- to 30-year maturities. 

Has all of this monetary policy helped? The results have fallen short of the Fed’s expectations. Fed officials have reduced their forecasts for GDP growth to between 1.9% and 2.4% for this year’s down from 2.4%-2.9% just two short months ago.

Fed officials have obviously felt the pressure by the Obama administration to spur growth and stimulate the economy, but if cheap money were the answer, the economy should be booming already. Instead, each different infusion of monetary easing has boosted short term market optimism followed shortly after by a slow growth reality. Relying solely on monetary policy to promote growth has proven ineffective in solving our economic woes because it teaches the market to anticipate that more “easy money” is coming down the pipeline. We need to infuse confidence into our system, and that starts with supply-side fiscal and regulatory policies that gives business owners the confidence to hire more employees and plan in advance as to what their cost of doing business will be. 

A bold choice just for even the most popular and successful President, this recent amnesty order was all the more risky for Obama, whose approval rates and economic numbers are still on the downslide. Paired with the fact that this was a blatant pull for the Hispanic vote, the President’s choice seems all the more egotistical.

This is by no means the first time Obama has overstepped the boundaries of the Executive office. Obama’s “We Can’t Wait” initiative to pass what is effectively the American Jobs Act broken into smaller pieces, is more of the same: executive orders signed off by the President to put his plans into action without any of the checks and balances that keep our democracy just that—a democracy. The fact that this bill was already voted down by Congress is not an issue because the President can do whatever he pleases. Don’t you remember reading that in the Constitution?

We don’t either.

At this point, it is surprising that President Obama can even fit through the Oval Office door. He believes his will alone is a foreign policy strategy, evidenced by his faith in the fact that Iran will stop making nuclear weapons simply because he said they should. He took the liberty of changing healthcare for all Americans, even those who were perfectly happy with their plans. And who could forget his Nobel Peace prize, awarded to him on the basis of his existence alone (because what could it have possibly been for?)

Yes, President Obama’s most recent move is ridiculous, but not altogether surprising. Instead of bringing back the down-to-earth guy who stole the hearts and votes of America in 2008, Obama is painting a picture of exactly the politician he decries in his campaign speeches, narcissistic and hungry for power, and he still thinks he’s got your vote locked in. It’s official: he is the most arrogant man in the world.

Watch, "The Most Arrogant Man in the World" and share responsibly:

The move by Obama has now thrust Rubio into the spotlight. The Florida Republican is the only Hispanic in the U.S. Senate and has been a favorite for the V.P. ticket for quite some time. Many are saying Romney needs to pick Rubio to counteract the President’s new immigration plan. “If in fact this announcement turns into more Latino enthusiasm for Obama, it is one more reason for Mitt Romney to look at Marco Rubio,” said Miami-based Republican strategist Ana Navarro. Rubio does not come without risk, but Romney may have no choice. The President is playing political hardball and Rubio is seen favorably among the Latino community.

Townhall’s Wayne Allyn Root goes so far as to suggest the time and place  for the Rubio as Vice-President announcement: the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in Orlando, Florida this weekend. Apparently, Obama and Romney will both be there and the expectation is the crowd will now be very pro-Obama given his recent announcement. Root says the ultimate way to upstage the President would be to announce Rubio as his running mate. 

Not everyone feels so strongly about Rubio’s chances or even his fit as the V.P. candidate. Is his stance on immigration too liberal for the GOP? Does an appointment to the ticket come across as merely a political move to gain votes from the Latin American community? These are questions people in the Romney campaign are no doubt asking themselves these days. Pressure is coming from inside and outside Romney’s camp to make an announcement soon. Will Rubio be the choice?

The Obama campaign continues to grapple with how to gain a footing with voters in the upcoming November election. It now appears as though he has simply crowned himself ‘dictator’ and begun to recruit upwards of 800,000 new voters – all unregistered illegal aliens.

“Young people who were brought to the United States through no fault of their own as children, who meet several key criteria, will no longer be removed from the country or entered into removal proceedings,” said Napolitano in a conference call with reporters on Friday morning.

“This grant of deferred action is not immunity, it is not amnesty, it is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system," she said. "It will help us continue to streamline immigration enforcement, ensure that resources are not spent pursuing the removal of low priority cases involving productive young people."

That sounds all well and good, but it is absolutely nothing more than an extremely bold political move to gain votes for a President who is continuously losing ground and has struggled to produce any clear vision or plan on how to move the country ‘forward’. If you have been wondering why the corrupt AG Eric Holder has been suing states for implementing voter ID laws or voter roll purging; wonder no longer. The last puzzle piece just fell into place.

Obama is banking on this move to rally the Hispanic vote in his direction. He has the states in a position to not be able to distinguish between registered and unregistered voters, and now he has added (what he obviously hopes to be) 800,000 new Obama voters that cannot be turned away at the polls.

If this despot autocratic decision by dictator Obama does not wake up and enrage all freedom loving Americans, nothing will. This country and her people will not stand by and watch their beloved country be taken over and ruled by this autocrat who has contempt in his heart for America’s very foundations. It doesn’t matter if you are black, white, red blue or green this is a decision no American can stand by. There is no choice – if America is to remain the Land of the Free her people must FIRE BARACK OBAMA. 

"Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government, oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility of the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."

The guys at Investor’s Business Daily crunched the numbers and it’s easy to see that what Obama said is just simply not accurate. According to data from the Labor Department, private sector jobs are down 4.6 million (4%) from January 2008 versus government jobs that are down 407,000 (1.8%). Federal employment is actually 250,000 jobs above the January 2008 level. That’s an 11.4% increase! See chart courtesy of IBD below:

It is true that the private sector payrolls have been adding jobs each month while the government has been cutting jobs, but IBD notes that it is because governments did not immediately cut jobs. The recession was also a great time for federal employment – after all, that was the sector that was rewarded by the Stimulus program. Excluding the 2010 Census hiring surge, federal jobs rose until March 2011. Stimulus hiring merely delayed the layoffs for state and local governments and did barely anything but leave taxpayers on the hook for Obama’s energy loan bankruptcies.

Payroll change since January 2008

Total: -5.01 million  -3.6%

Private: -4.61 million  -4%

Government: -407,000  -1.8%

Federal Government: (excluding post office) +225,000 , 11.4%

Sorry Mr. Obama, but the numbers don’t lie. The only sector of our economy that is arguably “doing fine” is the government sector that has ballooned under President Obama. Thought to ponder: when will it be considered politically correct to say that Obama literally makes up the data he uses in his speeches?

So what do you do as a President running for re-election when you can barely fill half of the same venue you filled just four short years ago? Well for starters, you appeal to America’s modern day ruling class. These are the elitist folks that fill our movie screens and occupy our “top 40” airwaves. The same ones who preach raising taxes on Americans, yet freely give very little to charity. The Washington Examiner highlighted that President Obama had one of the biggest star-studded fundraising nights of his re-election campaign this week, less than a month after he attended a celebrity fundraiser hosted by actor George Clooney in May. According to analysis of the President’s calendar and news reports, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have held over 25 fundraisers featuring Hollywood actors, producers, or singers. At a time when many Americans are continually frustrated with the state of jobs and the economy, celebrity money has continued to pour in through dinners, endorsements, and award show plugs. 

This list includes events that President Obama and/or Michelle Obama have personally attended over the past year:

June 13, 2011:  Michelle Obama attends fundraiser in Westwood California, featuring actors Ryan Phillippe, and actresses Ellen DeGeneres, Portia de Rossi, Drew Barrymore and Vanessa Williams.

June 14, 2011: Michelle Obama attends a fundraising breakfast attended by actress Jennifer Garner. Tickets cost $1,000 to $25,000.

June 23, 2011: Whoopie Goldberg hosts "Sister Act" performance fundraiser on Broadway in New York. Seats cost $10,000 including a photo with President Obama.

Sept. 25, 2011: Obama attends West Hollywood fundraiser hosted by Dreamworks producer Jeffrey Katzenberg, attended by Jamie Foxx, Eva Longoria, will.i.am, Danny DeVito and Judd Apatow. Tickets cost $35,800 per couple.

Sept. 25, 2011: Obama attends fundraiser  hosted by Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg in Atherton, Calif.. Singer Lady Gaga attends the event. Tickets cost $35,800 per person.

Sept. 25, 2011: Obama attends West Hollywood House of Blues fundraiser with actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson of the TV show “Modern Family,” Tickets cost between $250 and $10,000.

October 24, 2011: Obama attends fundraiser dinner at the home of Hitch producer James Lassiter, in Los Angeles co-hosted by actors Will and Jada Pinkett Smith; Tickets sell for $35,800. 

October 24, 2011: Latino gala fundraiser at the home of Melanie Griffith and Antonio Banderas, co-hosted by actress Eva Longoria. Tickets cost between $5,000 and $35,800.

January 5, 2012 Obama attends Chicago "Gen-44" concert featuring actor Hill Harper and R&B star Janelle Monae. Tickets ranging from $44 to $1,000.

January 19, 2012: Filmmaker Spike Lee and wife Tonya host a fundraising dinner, guests include singer Mariah Carey.

January 19, 2012: President Obama attends New York City fundraiser at the Apollo Theater with singer Al Green.

Feb. 15, 2012: Obama speaks at Foo Fighters concert fundraiser for more than 1,000 guests, featuring actor Jack Black and actress Rashida Jones. Tickets cost $500.

Feb. 15, 2012: Dinner hosted by soap opera mogul Bradley Bell at their Los Angeles home, co-hosted by actor Will Ferrell, (who couldn’t attend) and attended by actors Jim Belushi and George Clooney.

March 1, 2012: Fundraiser with Parks and Recreation's Aziz Ansari at ABC Kitchen in New York City.

March 19, 2012: Michelle Obama attends cocktail reception hosted by actor Robert De Niro and wife Grace Hightowner De Niro in New York City; host committee includes Whoopi Goldberg, Angela Bassett, Star Jones, Tina Knowles.

March 16, 2012: President Obama attends a concert event at the home of film producer Tyler Perry featuring singer Cee Lo Green; tickets were between $500 and $10,000.

17. March 16, 2012: President Obama attends Atlanta, Georgia fundraiser attended by Oprah Winfrey at the home of Tyler Perry. Tickets are $35,800 each.

May 10th, 2012: President Obama attends lunch fundraiser featuring musician Dave Matthews in Seattle. Tickets cost $1,000 for general admission and $5,000 for an individual photo reception.

May 23, 2012: Obama attends fundraiser dinner featuring rockers Crosby, Stills, and Nash in Atherton, CA. Actor Don Cheadle attends. Cost is $35,800 per plate.

May 23, 2012: President Obama visits the Fox Theater for a concert featuring singer Ben Harper. Tickets cost $250 per person.

 May 10, 2012: Obama attends fundraiser  at George Clooney's home; nets $15 million. Hollywood stars attending the event include Barbra Streisand, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Billy Crystal, Salma Hayek, Tobey Maguire and J.J. Abrams.

May 14, 2012: Obama attends fundraiser in New York City hosted by singer Ricky Martin. Tickets cost $5,000 to $35,800 to attend.

June 4, 2012: Bon Jovi gets a ride on Air Force One to New York City; attends fundraiser with President Obama and former President Clinton. Tickets range from $2,500 to $35,800.

June 4, 2012: President Obama and President Clinton attend “Barack on Broadway” fundraiser in New York City attended by actor James Earl Jones and show producers. Tickets cost between $250 and $1,000.

June 6, 2012: President Obama attends an LGBT fundraiser gala featuring Glee star Darren Criss. Speakers include actresses Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, and Ellen DeGeneres. Tickets cost up to $25,000 per couple.

June 6, 2012: Fundraising dinner with Glee co-creator Ryan Murphy and fiancé David Miller in Beverly Hills. Tickets cost $40,000 per couple.

It would be hard for anyone to keep up with this self-congratulatory, ego boosting, celeb hand holding type of rigorous schedule that even the President himself seems to be losing track. 

“I just came from a wonderful event over at the Wilshire or the Hilton -- I'm not sure which,” Obama said in his remarks at the Beverly Hills, California home of Glee co-creator Ryan Murphy and his fiancé David Miller, admitting a confusing schedule. “Here's what happens... because you go through the kitchens of all these places and so you never are quite sure where you are."

President Barack Obama has indebted the United States with over 5 trillion dollars, but has nothing to show for all his spending today. Millions of Americans are unemployed, under employed, under waged, and the promises of Hope and Change never materialized. But aren’t we all happy that he gets to brush shoulders with his modern day oligarch friends on OUR tax dollars?

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.

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:

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.

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.

Our national debt is the main reason our economy is not growing and President Obama is the only man standing in the way of fixing it.  This is precisely because he will add more debt than all 43 Presidents combined in one term alone and he will add even more if voters give him a second.

Publicly Held Debt versus Total Public Debt

The debt held by the public includes all of the money borrowed by the federal government and owed by individuals, corporations, and state or local governments.  The total public debt is a little different.  It combines all the debt held by the public plus all of the future pledged debt (unfunded liabilities), like the Social Security Trust Fund.  Even though Obama is planning on adding a lot to total publicly held debt; he has done a big number on our current publicly held debt.

Obama versus All 43 Presidents Combined

When President Obama was inaugurated on January 20^th, 2009, the public held debt stood at $6,307,310,739,681.66.  Let’s shave off $310,739,681.66 to keep it short and say the public held debt was $6.307 trillion.  So, all 43 President’s combined (including George W. Bush), left President Obama with $6.307 trillion in public held debt.  Obama called this big spending “unpatriotic.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the publicly held debt will reach $12.784 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2013, which marks the end of Obama’s last budget from his first term.

Obama will have added $6.477 trillion in one term as President.  What all of our past Presidents did in 220 years, Obama will do in four.

Talk about profound irresponsibility! Obama is right; our problems are rooted in past mistakes. We cannot afford to make another one in 2012.

Sources:

1.     http://www.savingsbonds.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner

2.     http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/10/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-will-add-more-debt-4/

3.     http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4831719-503544.html

Here’s why:

“Long-term unemployment may be a bigger problem than high unemployment.Americans have been understandably frustrated by the slow pace of job growth. But economists say much of that slowness is explained by the weak economic growth since the recession ended more than two years ago. In that sense, the problem isn't the "jobless recovery" but rather that the recovery itself has been so weak. If the recovery gains steam—as some economists believe has been happening in recent months—the growth in jobs should pick up as well.

Unprecedented rates of long-term unemployment could threaten the economy's recent gains. Some 5.6 million Americans have been out of work at least six months, 3.9 million of them for a year or more. Research shows that the longer people are unemployed, the less likely they are to find jobs. Economists aren't sure why—to what degree it's because workers' skills deteriorate, or because they find ways to cope and give up looking for work, or whether the stigma of being unemployed for so long makes companies unlikely to hire them—but the effect is the same: Many of the people out of work the longest likely will never work again.

The risk, economists say, is that the U.S. will develop an underclass of semipermanently unemployed workers, with severe consequences for productivity, public finances and even social stability. Europe, which faced a similar problem in the 1980s, is still dealing with the consequences.

Many problems predated the recession.The recession caused a dramatic rise in unemployment, but it also revealed deeper challenges that had been brewing for decades. By a wide range of measures, the U.S. labor market has over the past two decades lost much of the edge it enjoyed over other developed countries. The big gains in education in the early 20th century have slowed. Americans are moving less frequently and changing jobs less often, making the job market less flexible. And most critically, a smaller share of Americans are working. The labor force participation rate—the percentage of adults who are working or looking for work—peaked in 2000 and has been falling for more than a decade.

The recovery is only the beginning.Increased hiring and a falling unemployment rate are good signs, economists say. But even if the unemployment rate were to return to a healthy level by the end of the year—an outcome almost no experts predict—the labor market would still be far from healed. The length and depth of the crisis, unprecedented since the Great Depression, will have a lasting effect on both individuals and the economy as a whole.”

President Obama not only needs a jobs plan for Americans but one for the Americans that have left the labor force for good as a result of his policies.

Raising the debt ceiling has become the norm for the Obama administration, and this request comes at a moment when incessant spending and failed stimulus packages have caused our national debt to swell to such an unmanageable size that we can no longer afford to fund the government for a couple months at a time.

Senator Marco Rubio has had enough. In a scathing letter sent to President Obama this morning, Rubio says:

“This pending request will be the sixth time during your Presidency that Congress is being asked to keep allowing government and spending to grow at rates that are unsustainable. In other words, you have made it a routine part of your job to ask for more room to spend without any plan to reduce our debt.

Obama constantly talks about the need to live within our means and restore the middle-class, yet he continues to add to an already massive national deficit that cripples our economy and paralyzes our country. What’s worse, his Democrat friends in Congress continue to support his spending spree that threatens the welfare of the middle class for generations to come.

Nobody in his or her right mind subscribes to this kind of logic. In the real world, when a child doesn’t do their chores, we don’t give them their allowance. When a waiter doesn’t do a good job, we don’t give them a good tip. But in Washington, when President Obama champions massive stimulus packages that fail repeatedly, Congress rewards his failure by raising the debt ceiling time and time again.

Later in Rubio’s letter, he says:

“When you served in the Senate in 2006, you called raising the debt limit “a sign of leadership failure.” Using your own standard, this request will mark your sixth “sign of leadership failure” on the debt ceiling issue alone. Throughout our history, Americans have revered courageous leaders and celebrated them as profiles in courage. Unfortunately, the first three years of your presidency have been a profile in leadership failure. While you may choose to run your reelection campaign against a “Do-Nothing Congress,” your insistence on doing nothing to meaningfully tackle our debt poses a direct threat to America’s exceptional character and is leading us towards a diminished future.”

Thinking back on all of the great President’s, they all share one important characteristic – courage. But it’s not the kind of courage you immediately think of, like the kind it takes to run into a burning building. The kind they’ve all had has been the courage to take risks that could have ended in political disaster. They didn’t care about what their party thought. They didn’t care about what the polls said. The only thing they cared about was doing what was right for the American people.

We love amazing leaders like Lincoln, Reagan, and Kennedy because they were able to use their courage to pull America through some very trying times. Believe it or not, this is a time in our country’s history that is equally trying. Unemployment is at record highs and the national deficit is spiraling out of control. Only an extremely strong leader will be able to pull us through. Unfortunately, President Obama, our so-called leader, would rather do nothing. He’s too scared of losing votes before the next election.

We have to figure out a way to pay for handouts somehow and doing it on the back of Defense has long been a goal of the Progressive agenda.  Part of the deal that gave Obama the highest debt ceiling raise ever meant risking our national security to do so.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stood alongside Obama yesterday as he detailed the downsize, including replacing our troops with drones:

“Cyberwarfare and unmanned drones would continue to grow in priority, as would countering attempts by China and Iran to block U.S. power projection capabilities in areas like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.

But the size of the U.S. Army and Marines Corps would shrink. So too might the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the U.S. military footprint in Europe.”

There will also be cuts to our selected weapons systems, salaries and benefits from military personal, and cuts an estimated amount of 500,000 troops over 10 years.  Right as Obama celebrates the latest jobs report, he cuts half a million jobs for the troops.  Hooray!  We added 200,000 jobs this month at the same time we put 500,000 people that ensure our freedom out of work.

As if this slap in the face to our military wasn’t enough, Obama proposed a .5% pay increase for government workers the very day after he announced the men and women of our military’s would get a pay cut.  Despite his failure to present any plan of his own, Obama has called for a balanced approach to reducing our deficit. Some balance.  In the coming weeks, the specific numbers of cuts to Defense will be revealed and we should hold Obama accountable.

From the National Journal:

“House Republicans on Thursday crumpled under the weight of White House and public pressure and have agreed to pass a two-month extension of the payroll-tax cut, Republican and Democratic sources told National Journal.

The House made the move after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed to appoint conferees to a committee to resolve differences between the Senate's two-month, 2 percentage point, payroll-tax cut and the House's one-year alternative.

The House will pass the two-month extension with a technical correction to the language designed to minimize difficulties businesses might experience implementing the short-term, two-month tax cut extension.”

Emphasize the phrase “minimize difficulties.”  They are referring to the fact that two payroll system groups said that the Senate’s plan would: "create substantial problems, confusion, and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees."  This is one of three reasons the Senate’s plan that House Republicans are now agreeing to is worthless.  Let’s recap.

First, it borrows from the Social Security trust fund, which is a terrible thing to do seeing as though entitlements are the biggest drivers of our debt.  Second, it is a two-month extension that businesses will most likely not be able to comply with at all. Third, it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy.  This was a battle that Republicans should have stuck to in the beginning, even if it meant making Keystone a separate battle once Congress reconvenes from their holiday recess.

We have a President in re-elect mode making it sound like middle class families are going to die unless Republicans pass a two month $83 payroll tax cut.  If $166 was so important to Senate Democrats, they would have stopped making Christmas cookies and gone back to Washington where they belong.  Shame on Senate Democrats. Shame on President Obama. And Shame on House Republicans.

Breaking News; Boehner just released this statement:

“Senator Reid and I have reached an agreement that will ensure taxes do not increase for working families on January 1 while ensuring that a complex new reporting burden is not unintentionally imposed on small business job creators. Under the terms of our agreement, a new bill will be approved by the House that reflects the bipartisan agreement in the Senate along with new language that allows job creators to process and withhold payroll taxation under the same accounting structure that is currently in place. The Senate will join the House in immediately appointing conferees, with instructions to reach agreement in the weeks ahead on a full-year payroll tax extension. We will ask the House and Senate to approve this agreement by unanimous consent before Christmas. I thank our Members – particularly those who have remained here in the Capitol with the holidays approaching – for their efforts to enact a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut for working families.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced he would NOT seek reelection in 2012 because of redistricting:

“The Newton Democrat faced the prospect of a bruising reelection campaign next year after surviving a brutal battle in 2010. He also would have run in an altered district that retained his Newton stronghold but encompassed more conservative towns like Walpole.”

Be sure to thank the 2010 Census because Frank’s decision to cash out is the best chance we have at ending the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ails that played a large part in nearly collapsing our economy.   

Almost eight years ago, the Bush administration tried to reform the bad lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank was the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee at the time and he opposed the Bush reforms saying:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis.'' 

He has argued that their financial foot was sound for years.  He has also pressured and blocked all attempts to fix these government sponsored entities headed for bankruptcy approximately six times over the course of eight years.

He was responsible for encouraging companies to guarantee more housing loans to those who could not afford to be in homes at all.  He was also successful in getting Fannie and Freddie to guarantee larger mortgages to those that could not afford it.  The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Frank’s biggest payoff was the “affordable housing trust fund” coincidentally included in the Wall Street Reform bill, known as Dodd-Frank.

“This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests.

This is also why Mr. Frank won't tolerate cutting the companies' MBS portfolios. He knows those portfolios (bought with debt borrowed at taxpayer-subsidized rates) were a main source of Fannie's profits before the housing crash, and he figures that once this crisis passes they can do it again. And this time, his fund will get part of the loot.”

Frank has also played a part in those million dollar taxpayer funded bonuses awarded to the top guys at Fannie and Freddie after they posted their biggest quarterly loss this year:

“Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.

Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie."

The Wall Street Journal also pointed out in 2008 that Frank opposed a provision from the Treasury in his own Wall Street reform bill that reduced the size of high-risk mortgage backed securities portfolios.  This is the reason that you hear critics of Dodd-Frank call for Frank’s firing – he opposed the reforms that caused these GSE’s to go bankrupt in the first place.

Thanks to Rep. Barney Frank, you owe the government $200 billion for his mishandling and corruption with Fannie and Freddie throughout the 1990s.  When politicians direct markets by picking winners and losers, the real losers are the taxpayers.  Good Riddance Barney Frank.

From CNBC:

“Despite the downward revision, last quarter's growth is still a step-up from the April-June period's 1.3 percent pace. Part of the pick-up in output during the last quarter reflects a reversal of factors that held back growth earlier in the year.”

That may be a “step up” when you compare these numbers to the recession.  Our average GDP is 2.0% and economists predict it will be less than 2.0% when we close out the year.  The fact we went up .5% in GDP after a recession means our economy is not recovering.

We are stabilizing, not growing. Only in Washington will you hear politicians hailing that a stagnant economy is a success and a decrease in a standard growth rate is a cut.  The Supercommittee was tasked with cutting $1.2 trillion from the budget in 10 years; a task they failed to complete.  This will now cause a “trigger” of $1.2 trillion in cuts across the board. The trigger is not really a cut.  Instead, it’s a reduction in overall spending growth, not cuts from current spending levels.

There’s a public misconception that Congress is making cuts, but they aren’t cuts. Let’s say a family of four’s budget for 2011 is $100,000 and their predicted budget for 2012 is $160,000 because they’re expecting a raise.  They end up not getting a raise as high as they thought, so their budget for 2012 is $130,000 – that is not a cut, just a reduction in what they thought they would get.  They are still spending more.

See this graph courtesy of Veronique de Rugy from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University:

The economy is not growing and government is not cutting.  Do not let them fool you.

Courtesy of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) Communications director:

Let’s start with when the Democrats were elected the majority party in Washington in January 2007.  Our national debt was $8.67 trillion.

Upon President Obama’s Inaugural on January 20^th, 2009, our national debt was $10.62 trillion.

President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill on February 17, 2009.  Our national debt was $10.789 trillion.

On February 13, 2010, President Obama signed “Pay as you Go” legislation and signed it into law. 

Coincidentally, our national debt topped $12.351 trillion right as Obama was preaching about how to conduct a responsible budget.

President Obama then proposed his budget and said, “I believe we can live within our means,” on April 16, 2011.  Our national debt was $14.305 trillion.  Not one Democratic Senator voted for it, it failed in the Senate 0-97.

November 16, 2011 was the day that President Obama spent the day in Australia and Indonesia as the team of 12 forecasted a failure in being able to cut $1.2 trillion from the budget.  Our national debt topped $15 trillion.

It’s been over 930 days since Senate Democrats passed a budget.  It’s been 313 days since the GOP took the House and they have passed a budget along with over 22 jobs bills and a balanced budget amendment.

President Obama is rooting for Congress to fail on passing a budget, cutting the deficit, and making the government job friendly again.  He knows it will help his re-election chances to run against a failed Congress as he knows uneducated voters will think he is their only hope.  What’s worse is Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is helping him out by not letting the Senate vote on those 22 jobs bills the House has passed. 

Our leaders that have had the majority are unwilling to publicly commit to anything that has a chance of solving our debt crisis.   We deserve better, but we do not deserve better if we keep electing these big spenders into office.

The CEO of Freddie Mac, Charles E. Haldeman Jr., said he sympathized with their outrage because we have over 14 million people out of work and millions of families at risk of losing their homes.  However, the executives said these bonuses were necessary to keep their best workers:

"These are challenging jobs and challenging circumstances, and we need to reward the people willing to do them," said Michael J. Williams, the president and CEO of Fannie Mae.”

The agency responsible for approving these million dollar bonuses was the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the executives said the bonuses were necessary as they were losing employees to higher paying jobs because of the uncertain housing climate.  The director of FHFA also supported what the executives think are necessary bonuses:

“Edward DeMarco, the acting director of the FHFA, which regulates Fannie and Freddie, stressed Wednesday that the federal support does not mean the GSEs are government entities.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac employees are not government employees and these are not government agencies. They remain private corporations," he said.”

First of all, Fannie and Freddie posted their worst quarterly loss of this year, which is why they asked for another $6 billion taxpayer bailout.  That is hardly performance worth rewarding.  Second, Fannie and Freddie are absolutely NOT private corporations.  They are GSE’s, which are government-sponsored enterprises.  Now they are a taxpayer-sponsored enterprise because taxpayers bailed them out.  At a time when unemployment is more like 20% than 9% with millions of Americans unable to find a low paying job, it’s safe to say the taxpayers do not justify these $13 million bonuses.

Even the Democrats at the hearing agreed:

"I'm mystified as to why these so called achievements can justify million-dollar bonuses," Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said.”

“Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on the panel who has repeatedly pressured DeMarco for more homeowner assistance, called current efforts by Fannie and Freddie "woefully inadequate."

The efforts of Fannie and Freddie have been woefully inadequate because of the inadequate policies from the Obama administration that failed to fix the housing crisis.

President Obama signed the Wall Street reform bill, which gave them the bailout in the first place and allowed them to continue down the same dangerous path they had been on for years.  They continued to write bad loans to those who could not afford a home and taxpayers are still going to be bailing them out.  You would think Obama would learn from all of this.  No.  He signed an executive order that made Fannie and Freddie pressure banks to continue to write bad loans to homeowners no matter how underwater they are.

Obama’s policies failed to fix the problem, which is why these mortgage companies are losing money and paying out million dollars to their employees.  The real outrage should be at the Obama administration for being cognizant of the problem and making it worse.

John B. Taylor from the Wall Street Journal says our weak recovery that’s been obstructed by Obamacare, regulations, record debt, and threats of higher taxes is preventing us from leading the world:

“By contrast, in the years after World War II, the U.S. led the world in promoting economic growth through reliance on the market and the incentives it provides, the rule of law, limited government, and more predictable fiscal and monetary policy. It created a rules-based, open trading system by helping to found the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which slashed tariffs multilaterally. The miraculous postwar European and Japanese recoveries came from greater adherence to these principles of economic freedom and direct support from the U.S.”

After getting off track with interventionist policies in the 1970s, the U.S. put its economic house in order in the 1980s, adopting pro-growth policies and creating a long boom that lasted through the 1990s. Again its economic ideas were contagious, not just in Britain under Margaret Thatcher but in the developing world. Seeing the advantages of American-style economic liberty over state intervention and control, Deng Xiaoping expanded his initial and tentative market-based reforms in China and created an economic renaissance. The U.S. helped the countries in Central and Eastern Europe implement market-based reforms, and it encouraged other countries and the international financial institutions to do the same in Africa and Latin America.”

The Unites States has moved away from adopting policies that grow the economy and more towards policies that redistribute it.  This may be a win for the Obama administration and all who agree with him, but it’s a losing game for anyone looking for a job.  Kevin Logan, the chief US economist at HSBC in New York said this in a note to his clients:

“Fiscal austerity at the state and local government level will be compounded by prospective cutbacks in spending at the federal level” said Logan, who believes 2012 growth will average a “bit less” than 2.0 percent.  This will not in Logan’s opinion be enough to put a “serious dent” in the level of unemployment.

“All in all, we expect GDP growth to average a bit less than 2.0 percent in the year ahead, not enough to put a serious dent in the current high level of unemployment,” said Logan.”

The GDP needs to be at least 2.5% each quarter to even have a chance at chipping away at the unemployment rate and it barely grew at all the first half of this year.

The economy also needs to add 110,000 jobs every month to bring down the 9% jobless rate.  The unemployment rate has been at least 9% for 32 straight months and when you count those who have dropped out of the labor force all together it is at least 20%.  It is impossible for an economy dependent on the government to lead the world.  President Obama is selling us a policy that will not get us where he says it will.

Wynn Resorts CEO Steve Wynn slams President Obama and congressional Democrats on health care and the economy.

"The policies of this administration have destroyed the living standard of the working class in America. What is ostensibly the base of the Democratic Party is taking the worst hit in history because of these unbelievably uninformed policies of this president and his colleagues who have fostered this ridiculous class warfare, these nonsensical policies that have been proven to be ineffective and unsuccessful everywhere they've ever been tried in the world."

Steve brings up a good point.  If you want a good look into the aftermath of the types of policies the Obama administration is implementing, Google “EU Turmoil.”  Greece is a perfect example.  They have a Socialist economy largely based around the public sector and they are currently trying to get a bailout for the second time in a little over a year because of their massive debt.  In order to get that bailout, the EU is demanding Greece cut public sector employees and make private sector investments to jumpstart their economy.  Look at how well they are reacting to their handouts being taken away:

“Spasms of violence shook Greece's capital on Wednesday as demonstrators armed with gasoline bombs, stones and steel rods clashed with riot police, marring a massive protest against a new batch of proposed budget cuts that officials say are needed to stave off a devastating debt default.”

Think about this logically for a moment, the Euro zone is demanding Greece adopt Capitalist policies like private investment because they know that is the only way to grow their economy.  If Greece’s economy continues to center around the public sector, than the EU will just have to bail them out again.

There are plenty of ways to get the United State’s economy back on the ups.   Using speeches that incite class warfare to win voters over on more government dependence is never going to create the jobs that Americans are looking for.  Bailouts, Stimulus, unemployment benefits, regulations, and tax hikes do nothing to foster job creation.

President Obama recently said at a campaign event to a handful of Hollywood celebrities: “I’ve finished 60% of my goals, I'm pretty confident we can get the next 40% done in the next 5 years."  If he is including record unemployment, debt, poverty, gas prices, healthcare costs and a credit downgrade in that 60%, we are scared to see the other 40%.

“The speeches are great, the actions are horrifying.” –Steve Wynn

You are not alone Steve.  We are scared too.

In fact, Ratigan’s argument was so on point that it made Ed Schultz end the interview prematurely.  Watch Ratigan’s argument below:

“You and I both know that 20% of people are unemployed, that’s 60 million people.  If you take the President’s number, 9% is what he said in his press conference is unemployed, that’s 25-30 million people.  Can I tell you what frustrates me Ed as I look here not from a political standpoint, but as an American and as a journalist?

He went on to say, “The best case scenario for Obama’s jobs bill is to create 1.2 million jobs. Which is less than 3% of the problem.”

Ratigan starts by citing the total unemployment number, which he estimates to be around 20% of Americans; or 60 million people.  He says that President Obama uses the low unemployment estimate from the Department of Labor when speaking about the jobless rate, which is currently 9.1%, or 25-30 million people.  He says that President Obama’s jobs bill is estimated to create 1.2 million jobs and that he is frustrated because that only solves less than 3% of the problem.

The error in Ratigan’s math is that he appears to be using the total population of the United States, which the U.S. census estimates to be 312,376,934 million people.  Ratigan simply divided both the 20% unemployment rate and the 9% unemployment rate by the 312 million people to get the number of persons unemployed for each respective jobless rate.  The problem with using the total population for the U.S. is it counts persons who would not normally be considered as part of the labor force, like children and retirees.

Working population: Our calculations are slightly different after we used the working population as the ratio, which is 153,846,154 people.  To find the working population, we used numbers from the most recent Department of Labor report.  The unemployment rate is 9.1% with 14.0 million persons unemployed.  To get the working population, you take the number of unemployed (14.0 million) and divide that by .091 or 9.1% to get you the total working population.  That is 153,846,154 million people in the U.S. workforce.

The Actual Jobless Rate: Ratigan is correct in citing that the actual unemployment rate is around 20% because the DOL only considers those who have been unemployed for four weeks.  They do not count those who have been unemployed for longer or have dropped out of the labor force all together.  To find the actual number of Americans unemployed, we took the total working population and multiplied it by .20 or 20% to get 30,769,231 million people.

Number of Jobs Obama’s Bill Creates: Ratigan also says Obama’s jobs bill is estimated to create 1.2 million jobs.  The President said himself that his jobs bill is expected to create 1.9 million jobs; so let’s take Obama at his word.  If Obama says his bill will put 1.8 million people back to work when there are 30,769,231 million persons unemployed, then that means his jobs bill solves less than 6% of the problem, not less than 3%.  We got to this number by dividing the real number of persons unemployed by the number of people Obama claims his bill would put back to work.

Although our calculations work more in Obama’s favor, they do not solve our problem of steady unemployment over 9%. Do you want a President who is only capable of solving less than 6% of the problem?  Ratigan is right on this point, Americans deserve to be frustrated with this entire apparatus for it’s refusal to acknowledge the size of the problem and address it on a scale that will solve it.

Let’s pretend Mr. Obama actually considered that proposition.  A good place to start would be to have a conversation with Doug Oberhelman, the CEO of Caterpillar about the attitude job creators have towards investing in America:

After he talked to Doug, he should have a meeting with Robert Johnson, the CEO of Black Entertainment Television about stopping class warfare:

Then Obama should travel over to Vegas to party with the self-proclaimed “Democratic and Republican businessman” Steve Wynn, the CEO of Wynn Resorts in Las Vegas to learn about the redistribution of wealth’s affect on job creation:

The CEO of CKE Restaurants Andy Puzder could really teach him a thing or two and give him a five-step plan to create jobs:

If Obama felt in over his head with all of this advice, he could look to the guy who helped form AOL, Ted Leonsis for some encouragement:

“Economic Success has somehow become the new boogie man; some in the Democratic party are now casting about for enemies and business leaders and anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success is being cast as a bad guy in a black hat. This is counter to the American Dream and is really turning off so many people that love American and basically carry our country on their back by paying taxes and by employing people and creating GDP.”

President Obama may have Warren Buffett on his side, but there are a gang of job creators who are questioning whether or not President Obama is as serious as he says he is about creating jobs.   To echo the CEO who has maxed out his limit for personal donations to Obama’s re-election campaign, “Rethink how to talk to businesses and sell business leaders on your plan to make America great!  Many of us want to be a part of the solution. We aren’t the problem.”

If President Obama spent as much time meeting with CEOs like this as he does demonizing them, we may break the 31-month streak of jobless claims above 9%.

In an interview with a Florida radio station, Biden said voters should hold Obama accountable for being on the brink of a double dip recession.  Via the Daily Caller:

“Conservative PAC American Crossroads circulated the startling statement Thursday afternoon, expecting it will take Democratic campaign strategists by surprise.

“Right now, understandably — totally legitimate — this is a referendum on Obama and Biden and the nature of the state of the economy,” Biden said.

Polls indicating that more Americans blame Bush for the economy than Obama are not relevant, Biden said.

“Even though fifty-some percent of the American people think that the economy tanked because of the last administration, that’s not relevant,” Biden stressed. “What’s relevant is we’re in charge. And right now we are the ones in charge and it’s gotten better, but it hasn’t gotten good enough.”

Don’t worry Joey, we will hold you accountable.

House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor (R-VA) sent a memo that included the top 10 job destroying regulations on middle class jobs.  One of which, is an EPA rule preventing a plant from opening that would create 140 jobs in Alabama.Meet, Spencer Weitman:

Instead of focusing on a $350 million project that would create over a hundred jobs right now, Weitman has been forced to stop building and start complying.  A major problem with the EPA, as Weitman points out, is there are conflicting standards and deadlines from the EPA.  As National Cement complies with one law, they end up violating another rule at the same time.

These costly regulations give government the ability to choose which industries will lose the opportunity to create jobs.  Washington is picking winners and losers in the private sector, and when that happens, we all lose.

Economists were expecting growth for the month of August and forecasted about a 2 percent annual growth rate improvement in the July-September quarter.  Instead they got nothing:

“Employers stopped adding jobs in August, an alarming setback for an economy that has struggled to grow and might be at risk of another recession.  It was the weakest jobs report since September 2010. The unemployment rate remained at 9.1 percent.”

An already volatile stock market that posted negative for the year responded accordingly:

“Stock futures plunged on the news. In the 15 minutes after the report was released, Dow futures fell 94 points, from 11,401 to 11,318.  A strike by 45,000 Verizon workers lowered the job totals. Those workers are now back on the job.”

Well that may be good for Verizon workers but there are still 14 million unemployed Americans.  As CNBC reports, the amount of workers not even included in the employment population ratio is disturbing:

“Among the more disturbing numbers: the amount of people "marginally attached to the labor force" rose to 2.6 million from 2.4 million. These are workers not included in the unemployment count because they had not sought work in the past four weeks but have looked in the past year.”

Even more disturbing than that, our economy is growing at 1% growth rate that is not large enough to support the amount we are spending.  In other words, our economy is not big enough to sustain the stimulus spending, large deficits, increased healthcare costs, costly Energy policies, and the new 219 regulations President Obama has proposed.

Coincidentally, all of the problems holding our country back happen to be part of the Obama administration’s economic policy.  President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on Thursday to promote his new economic policy that includes more stimulus spending that run large deficits, more Energy spending, and more business regulations.  How many more times are we going to accept this circle of misery before we realize President Obama’s economic policies are failing us?

John Steele Gordon from the Wall Street Journal defines the debt by breaking down all of the terms and their significance relating to our national debt:

1. National debt

2. Publicly held debt

3. Intra-governmental debt

The national debt includes every single bill, note and bond issued by the Treasury that has not been cashed in. 

The publicly held debt is the money borrowed by the Treasury and other government agencies that is held by those outside the federal government such as individuals and institutions.  As Gordon points out, foreign governments are responsible for holding that debt as well including China, Great Britain and Japan.

The intra-governmental debt or more commonly referred to as “liabilities” is the sum of Treasury bonds held by agencies of the federal government including the Social Security payments, federal pensions, healthcare, etc. pledged under current legislation. 

Our entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the two largest drivers of our debt.  It is important to consider the intra governmental debt or liabilites because of the massive burden they are to our debt as a whole.  The Social Security Trust Fund is disappearing because the number of people retiring is growing larger than those who are paying into the program.  As new retirees redeem the money from the system they paid into their whole lives, the Treasury is forced to cash more bonds.  The major problem is that the Treasury does not have the cash to back up the pledged bonds.

Gordon also points out that Congress has three options: cut discretionary spending, raise taxes on job creators, or print more money.  The track the current administration and Congress is on, it looks as though they will continue to print more money and leave the tab for future generations.  This is why our unfunded liabilities are worth paying attention to.   Economists have predicted that our unfunded liabilities will range anywhere from $40-$100 trillion dollars. 

Even more worthy of paying attention to is our gross domestic product (GDP) and how our publicly held debt compares to what our economy is worth.  Once our debt starts outweighing our economic production, we have serious problems.  The GDP of the United States was $15.003 trillion at the end of the first quarter in 2011 meaning the public debt was over 66% of GDP and the intra-governmental debt was at over 31%.  Even scarier, our total debt is now climbing to 97.2% of GDP which means we are spending way over what we are taking in.

When President Bush left office, that debt-to-GDP ratio was 67.7%.  After one year under President Obama, it reached 84.4%.  After another year, it climbed to 93.8%.  Still under President Obama, it is quickly headed towards 100% and beyond.  The current Congress and administration has vowed to grow the economy and reduce our deficit.  The problem is that the policies created under our current administration are more about spreading the growth from one class to another instead of growing the economy as a whole.  Spreading growth and growing are two fundamentally separate ideas. 

President Obama focused his economic policy on increasing taxes on the wealthy because they can afford to “pay a little more” and has lost focus on what he can do to actually grow our economy.  Tax increases may pay off what he managed to spend on August 4^th, but it will not put our economy on track to sustain the amount our leaders are spending.

Mr. Obama said both parties are committed to reducing the debt, but disagree on how to get there.  Could it perhaps be that Obama’s way of getting there does not actually get us there?

Coincidentally, the proposal is very similar to the “Cut, Cap and Balance” act that was passed by the House, killed by the Senate and deemed unrealistic by the Obama administration. 

Immediate Spending Cuts

The proposal achieves spending cuts through a two-part process.  We will see an immediate spending cut of up to $900 billion over two years if the Budget Control At of 2011 is passed.

There will be immediate spending caps placed on discretionary spending (non entitlement programs) for FY 2012 through 2021.  This will save $756- $935 billion over 10 years according to the CBO.  The spending cap for FY 2012 is $1.043 trillion and the cap for FY 2013 is $1.047 trillion.  For both years, there cannot be a slash in cuts to defense to achieve savings.  Military pay is also exempt from the immediate cuts.

Future Spending Cuts

A Joint Select Committee made up of 12 members of Congress equally divided with 3 House Republicans, House Democrats, Senate Republicans, and Senate Democrats will be formed from this act with the task of finding ways to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. 

The Joint Select Committee must vote by a simple majority by November 23, 2011 on legislation to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion.   Any legislation proposed by this Committee will be voted on by December 23^rd by both Chambers of Congress.    If the Committee approves legislation that achieves $1.2 trillion or more in cuts, the President has the authority to increase the debt limit again by up to $1.5 trillion. The President also has the authority to veto the cuts that Congress puts forth.

Balanced Budget Amendment

The Budget Control Act will require Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment no sooner than October 1, 2011 and no later than December 31, 2011.   If the House or Senate passes that amendment, the prospective Chamber is required to consider it.  The House will most likely pass a balanced budget amendment as they passed the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act” a few weeks ago.  If this happened again before November 3^rd, Harry Reid would be required to consider putting it up for a vote.  Politically, this provision favors the House GOP as it would require Democrats to come out publically and state why they disagree with being required to balance the budget.   We can’t wait to hear those excuses…

In the event that the House and Senate approve the balanced budget amendment and it is sent to the States for a vote, the President would have the authority to request a debt limit increase of $1.5 trillion, subject to disapproval and veto, no matter what the Joint Select Committee decides.  This would never happen because as long as Democrats have the majority, there will be no balanced budget amendment.  See this for proof.

More On The Joint Select Committee

Let’s say the Joint Select Committee can not find a way to cut at least $1.2 trillion and the balanced budget amendment fails (which it will), the President has the authority to request a $1.2 trillion debt limit raise which Congress can disapprove and the President can veto.

If the Committee fails to cut $1.2 trillion, it would be regained by whatever savings were enacted after the Joint Committee process if there were any at all AND an across-the-board spending cut using the House’s original general language.  If the Committee fails to save anything, an expanded process from the original language would recover the full $1.2 trillion used by the House to cut.  This scenario would happen regardless of whether or not a balanced budget amendment was sent to the States.

This general cut in spending would be split evenly from defense and non-defense spending.  The non-defense cuts are subject to a limited amount of Medicare and some mandatory spending.  This happens if and only if the Joint Select Committee fails to find savings.

More Rules For The Budget Control Act of 2011

 Basically, everything rides on the Joint Select Committee. If they fail to come up with $1.5 trillion in savings, the debt ceiling will be raised at a minimum of $2.1 trillion.  If they succeed in passing $1.5 trillion in cuts, the maximum the debt ceiling can be raised if $2.4 trillion.  No matter if the debt ceiling is raised by $2.1 trillion or $2.4 trillion, there has to be a dollar for dollar cuts coupled with the debt ceiling increase.

There will be no tax hikes or increased revenues no matter what decision the Joint Select Committee comes to.  If the Joint Committee fails, the total debt limit increase is capped at $2.1 trillion, which raises the possibility of having to raise the debt ceiling again before the election. 

Conclusion: Our current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling will be increased by an amount between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion depending on what the Joint Select Committee is able to accomplish.  This amount will give the Treasury the ability to borrow enough money to operate beyond the 2012 election into 2013, taking the issue off the table for Obama during elections.  There will be $900 billion in immediate cuts and up to $1.5 trillion in cuts decided later on by the Joint Select Committee.  If two thirds of both House and Senate adopt a balanced budget amendment and send to States for approval, the second debt limit increase would be $1.5 trillion.

The White House called this a “Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline.” At the end of day, we have a $14.5 trillion national debt.  This debt deal increased our spending by roughly $2.4 trillion while cutting $2.4 trillion in a two-step process.  We are still left with $14.5 trillion and growing national debt.  This debt deal adopted a process by which our national debt crisis is becoming more serious by a lesser amount.  You tell us, is this a win?  The House is expected to vote on the deal tonight.

According to the June statement from the U.S. Treasury for June – which is the latest report, the U.S. government had an operating cash balance on Wednesday of $73.8 billion.

According to Apple’s latest earnings report, the iPad extraordinaire had $76.2 billion in cash at the end of June – that’s $2.4 billion more than the U.S. government.  Steve Jobs is giving the U.S. government a run for their money.

Hypothetically, if the U.S. changed it’s mind about China and asked for a bailout from Apple, Steve Jobs would say no:

"We don't let the cash burn a hole in the pocket or make stupid acquisitions," CEO Jobs said last fall. "We'd like to continue to keep our powder dry because we think there are one or more strategic opportunities in the future."

Jobs brings up a point that most successful private sector businesses understand  - do not spend more money than you are taking in.  The U.S. government has failed to understand or follow this, which is why we are in the middle of a debt crisis in the first place.  A sobering fact: our national debt is $14.4 trillion and we have $73.8 billion to our name.  To put this into perspective, entitlement spending known as mandatory spending topped $2.1 trillion for FY 2012. 

Social Security - $761 billion
Medicare - $468 billion
Medicaid - $269 billion
TARP - $13 billion
All other mandatory programs - $598 billion. Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition and Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the Disabled and Student Loans.

If the United States were to use the actual cash it has in the bank, it could only pay 9.7% of Social Security for this FY 2012.  In other words, The U.S. has enough cash to pay almost 10% of Social Security – which means, we can’t afford any other program including Defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

When President Obama says we need to increase taxes to pay for these beloved programs like Medicare and Social Security – he ought to think about how is going to afford them with only $73.8 billion.  Obama continues to throw stones at private companies that have more money in the bank than his entire government – no wonder we are in this debt crisis.

The end of NASA's space shuttle program was a casualty of an influx of government spending. With all of the other plates spinning on a national level, it is just not possible to publicly fund trips to space any more. NASA will now be privately-funded, which might not be terrible for the organization, considering there are plenty of passionate scientists and space balls out there who are not finished exploring the unknown reaches of the galaxy.

But there are Earth-dwelling casualties of the loss of the space shuttle program, one of the most ambitious American endeavors ever to be undertaken. For one, according to the Florida Times-Union, about 7,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the closing, not to mention all of the funding for tourism that Cape Canaveral has enjoyed when thousands of people travel to see the spectacle of a space shuttle taking flight. Compare those 7,000 jobs lost in Florida to the 18,000 jobs created nationwide in the month of June. Hopefully the government will realize that lowering the national debt by raising unemployment is not the only way to solve this crisis.

Another thing that is lost is that dream that kids have as children to be astronauts. All of us thought of it some time, and with no actual manned trips to outer space planned in the near future, will kids still have that dream? It's hard to tell our future generations to reach for the stars when we are no longer literally reaching for them.

American innovation will never fail us; that is definite. So even though we will not publicly be going into the great unknown, we will find another thing for kids to dream about, because we can never stop pushing to find new discoveries and ways of thinking.

In case you missed the launch, you can walk it below:

It's been a good run, NASA. Thank you for the discoveries and the inspiration.  One question remains: when those astronauts aboard the Atlantis come back in 12 days, what is the country they will be coming back to? By Sunday, we should hear more definite answers to the debt negotiations, and tensions between parties are certainly reaching new highs. Will they come back to a nation that has finally figured out a suitable blueprint and has started acting appropriately, or will they come back to a nation still blaming political problems on personal reasons and continuing to stall our financial crisis in a stalemate. Let's hope those astronauts call ahead before coming back down to Earth, because if the wrong decisions are might, they might just want to stay in space.

Instead of focusing on how to create an environment where businesses are free to create jobs, Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is dictating where the American company Boeing can and cannot operate.  Why?  South Carolina is a right to work state, meaning if employees want a union; they are free to hold elections to create one.  If some employees choose not to be in a union, they don’t have to be in one and are free from the obligation of paying union dues.  The NLRB asked Boeing to close its doors in South Carolina because it would upset workers in the state of Washington – where Boeing is unionized. 

The opening of Boeing in South Carolina created over 1,000 new jobs and brought $2 billion worth of investment into South Carolina.  You would think this would be something President Obama would celebrate.  Instead, he sent the NLRB on Boeing to prevent the creation of 1,000 jobs.  Why would Obama prevent a business from opening up its doors to job creation?

Neil Whitman, president of Dunhill Staffing Services in South Carolina may not have the answer, but he does have a personal story about how Obama’s regulatory business approach has affected his company:

Obama can’t get reelected without union money.  If he doesn’t have the support of the union bosses, he loses all of the campaign money.  When Obama tells you he is for companies hiring, there is a major stipulation: it must be in compliance with everything the unions want.  Obama would rather see jobs like the one’s Neil’s company would create disappear than to get an angry call from Richard Trumka.

The economic environment that Obama and his administration have created is pathetic, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is causing it.  The economic data says it all:  Manufacturing is at a 20-month low, we have record unemployment, U.S. consumer confidence hits a seven-month low, consumer economic confidence drops below 2010 levels, and consumer spending remains stagnant.

 Obamanomics has stifled job creation and the NLRB’s strong arm on Boeing is a perfect example of it.  Obama-1, You-0.

Granted, President George W. Bush signed a little over 200 over eight years, but Bush didn’t make a campaign promise like this:

“I taught the Constitution for ten years. I believe in the Constitution. And I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not gonna use signing statements as way of doing an end run around Congress. Alright.”

For someone who is so adamant about obeying the Constitution, he sure has proved how useless it can be.  Since he has taken office, he has used executive orders to bypass Congress on our kinetic military action in Libya, advance cap and trade regulation, healthcare, and funding his Czars.  Now, he is using another statement to reinstate a law that Congress literally struck down when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker.  Remember the DREAM Act?:

“On Friday, the Obama administration issued a memo announcing that federal immigration officials do not have to deport illegal aliens if they are enrolled in any type of education program, if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service, or even if they are pregnant or nursing.

This new policy of “prosecutorial discretion” was quietly announced on Friday afternoon, and completely ignored by the mainstream press.”

The DREAM Act will grant automatic citizenship to over 2 million illegal aliens and does nothing to increase immigration enforcement.  The tragedy is that President Obama failed to produce an immigration policy despite his promise to have one by the first year of his Presidency and is now trying to pass off an executive order to enforce the DREAM ACT as an immigration policy.

The DREAM ACT executive order is unique in that a Democratic-led Senate defeated the DREAM ACT.   Congress had good reason to strike down this law; one reason is that it is a band-aid for an immigration policy.  You can also expect these executive orders to start appearing in bulk:

“Mr. Obama has not given up hope of progress on Capitol Hill, aides said, and has scheduled a session with Republican leaders on health care later this month. But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.

We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat. And Mr. Obama’s success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress.”

If Obama is going to go willy-nilly on passing laws, why does he even need Congress?  Clearly he needs a lesson in obeying the Constitution.

They must have been tired of waking up to Groundhog Day in Washington:

“U.S. House and Senate Republican negotiators said they were pulling out of the bipartisan budget talks headed by Vice President Joe Biden for now because the group has reached an impasse over taxes that only President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner could resolve.

We've reached the point where the dynamic needs to change," Mr. Cantor said. "It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We've reached the end of this phase. Now is the time for these talks to go into abeyance."

The whole country could fall into a coma; wake up two weeks later, and nothing besides the size of our debt would have changed.  If this doesn't signal a severe lack of leadership, then we don’t know what does. 

Most agree that this problem needs to be addressed immediately, but why does it feel like our elected officials are treating this like a Sunday stroll? Ironically, the newest hurdle to face lawmakers in the debt ceiling talks has been a push by the Democrats to include new spending and more borrowing as a condition in the debt ceiling deal.  These discussions are supposed to be about the amount we should be cutting, not the amount we should keep spending.  

This country is in serious financial trouble because "leaders" are willing to live every day as Phil Connors in fear of their poll numbers moving in the wrong direction.  The culture in Washington, D.C. is broken and requires a new leader willing to talk the talk and walk the walk.

In 2008, Barack Obama captivated millions of Americans because he was living proof of the American dream.  In a land where only decades earlier the sign "Whites Only" used to hang over water fountains, Barack Obama was elected the first African-American President of the United States.  Such an incredible accomplishment was not a result of dreams based on mediocrity, but dreams based on the idea that if America can put a man on the moon, then the unthinkable was possible.

Obama took everybody, well most everybody, by storm because his story was so powerful.  He had credibility because he grew up during a time when people were telling him that he couldn't do something.   Despite the naysayers, he went to Harvard, became a Senator of Illinois, and then became President of the United States of America.  He inspired people with his life and his words that focused on the Hope of the American Dream.

Now that he’s grabbed our attention, it seems like he wants to make sure we all know that his story is one of a kind. The 44th President of the U.S. is trying to bring us back down to earth.  He says most Americans are just asking for small things.   He said they want a middle class lifestyle and desire only a job that pays the bills – nothing more and nothing less.  Making just enough to get by has become the dream, not the norm.  In fact, Obama has gone as far as cutting off the dreamers at $250,000 to make the middle class lifestyle the new American dream.

Obama’s strategy is to say he is for the American dream, but then make us feel guilty for living too well.  This is the complete opposite message that Ronald Reagan delivered to us.  Reagan understood that telling Americans to be ashamed of the fruits of their labor was not the way, but it was the job of the government to invest their profits wisely.  Reagan understood the American people and appreciated their desire for the American Dream.  

He also understood the significance of being the President.  Just like a small rudder can steer a massive ship, one man can steer an entire country.  Obama has had almost three years of being captain and time has proven his policies have slowly steered the American Dream into a sea of mediocrity.  Instead of recognizing this, he's telling us to exercise patience and to be more realistic.  He is telling us to be satisfied with a part time job at McDonald’s that pays the bills.

If the middle class has become the dream, that must mean the lower class has become the norm - just ask any of the 13 million Americans without a job.  Dreams are supposed to replenish us, to keep us going, and to give us Hope for a better future.  The American Dream used to mean that no matter your race, religion, creed, or socio-economic class, you had a chance to be something special if you worked hard.   If you’re fortunate enough to make six figures as a result for working hard, Mr. Obama has made it a penalty.  He believes it is “fair” to spread the wealth around.  Unfortunately, that wealth is being spread to programs that breed government waste and suffocate the job creators.

If we can found the greatest nation on earth, end racial inequality, put a man on the moon and build an atomic bomb, we can certainly solve the problems that are threatening the big American Dream.  Instead of believing in the government, we ought to believe in ourselves.  As one dreamer who experienced the same type of problems we are facing today once said, “We are too great of a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams.”  Happy Flag Day!

We don’t know what’s worse, cash-strapped Americans picking up the tab on a failed job’s project, or the fact that Obama thinks it’s funny:

“Last summer, the administration claimed the $830 billion stimulus plan "saved or created" 3.6 million jobs. Though such a claim would be impossible to verify, the shovel-ready projects did not prevent the unemployment from pitching skyward.

The administration had pledged the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. But the jobless rate has gone from 8.2 percent when Obama signed the stimulus in early 2009 to 9.1 percent last month. The number of employed people in the United States has also fallen by nearly 2 million since that time, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A new Gallup poll shows confidence in the U.S. economy plunging, dipping below where it was one year ago. Given this and other recent economic data, Republicans seized on the president's comment.”

You can’t count on Obama to take responsibility for his failed economic policy but you can count on him to crack a joke about it.

Senator Rubio tells his views on Medicare through the story of his parents who were immigrants that relied on Medicare for healthcare:

Here are some highlights:

“America needs Medicare. We need it to continue without any benefit reductions for those like my mother currently in the system. And we need it to survive for my generation and my children’s generation.

But Medicare is going bankrupt. Anyone who says it is not is simply lying. And anyone who is in favor of doing nothing to deal with this fact is in favor of bankrupting it. Medicare will go broke in as little as nine years. No one likes this news, but it is the undeniable truth. And the sooner we begin to deal with it, the better off we are all going to be.”

Rubio then tells America what type of Medicare legislation he will support:

“My goals are simple. First, I will not support any plan that changes Medicare for people like my mother who are currently on the plan. We cannot ask seniors to go out and get a job to pay for their healthcare.

Second, any solution must solve the problem. We need to save Medicare, not simply delay its bankruptcy.

And third, any solution cannot hurt economic growth. At a time of high unemployment, Americans cannot afford to pay more taxes.”

Coincidentally, that is the blueprint for Paul Ryan’s budget as it changes nothing whatsoever for anyone age 55 and older, then puts Seniors on the same healthcare system members of Congress enjoy, and raises the retirement age which reigns in the deficit.  You may not agree with his plan, but it is the only one out there because the Democrats have failed to produce one.  Rubio asks:

“Where is the House Democrat plan to save Medicare? Where is the Senate Democrat plan to save Medicare?  Where is President Obama’s plan to save Medicare?  They have no plan to save it, and they do not plan to offer one. They have decided that winning their next election is more important than saving Medicare for my mother and retirees like her.”

Who’s really pushing Granny off a cliff here?  Rubio also said how “disgusted” he was by the reality that Washington has too many people who think their personal political careers are more important than our country’s future.  This is exactly why Harry Reid informed Democrats it would be “foolish” to pass a budget – all Democrats care about is reelection.  Paul Ryan could care less about reelection.

Ryan says if taking up Medicare reform causes him to lose his house, then so be it:

"Now is not that time to be worried about political careers. Sincerely, I will be fine if I lose my House seat because you know what? I will know I did what I thought was right to save this country from fiscal ruin."

Our nation’s fiscal restoration depends on leaders like Rubio and Ryan. If Democrats have it their way, Medicare won’t be the only thing that goes bankrupt.

The Middle Eastern countries aren’t the only ones in need of money.  Congress cannot figure out how we are going to avoid the most predictable economic crisis of our time.  The biggest driver’s of our nation’s $14.3 trillion debt are entitlement programs, all of which are in danger of going bankrupt.  This is not the time to be handing out billions of dollars to countries, especially when we have no idea whose hands the money is going to:

“Barack Obama is to announce that the United States and the west will pour billions of dollars into the Middle East in support of Egypt, Tunisia and other countries embracing democracy, a move the White House portrayed as being on the scale of aid to former communist countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

Before we start “investing” billions of dollars into these countries “embracing democracies,” we should do some serious investigating into who will control that money.  Take Mubarak for example, he was a longtime U.S. ally who was ousted by his people in Egypt and replaced with leaders from The Muslim Brotherhood.  The same Muslim Brotherhood that enthusiastically applauded Osama Bin Laden.  In Osama Bin Laden’s recent “speech beyond the grave,” he celebrated the uprisings and regime changes in Egypt telling Muslims it would be a "sin to lose this opportunity."

"The winds of change flew to the square of Tahrir," he says, referring to Cairo, "and a great revolution was begun. This wasn't a revolution of starving and pain, but a revolution of giving and peace."

The great oppression in our countries has reached great levels, and we have delayed enough the wave of change," says bin Laden. "Let the truth ring out. Remember those that go out with a sword are true believers, those that go fight with their tongue are true believers, and those that fight in their hearts are true believers.

Oh Muslims, you have seen many revolutions in your past," says bin Laden. "Those that the people have been so happy about, but then have turned into nothing. And the way to keep these revolutions from having the same problem is fighting ignorance. And some of the most important information is Islam. For this is the true crisis that has hit our nations."

Ironically, Cairo is seeking U.S. aid and the U.S. is ready to provide them with $1 billion:

“Senior U.S. officials are particularly alarmed by the deterioration in Cairo's finances since the street revolt that ousted President Hosni Mubarak in February. The Egyptian government has been forced to spend between $3 billion and $3.5 billion of its foreign-exchange reserves a month to pay for food and other commodities as tourism has plunged and overseas remittances have dried up.  Egypt's government has been seeking relief on around $1 billion in debts tied to wheat purchases in the 1970s, according to officials involved in the talks. Cairo has paid off the principal on these loans, but continues to service interest payments.”

Just some food for thought, but why exactly is Obama calling for billions of dollars in U.S. aid to fund what he believes are the right regime changes.  The same changes Osama Bin Laden is calling a “great revolution?”

Coincidentally, the Muslim Brotherhood is deeply controversial as it seeks to terminate Egypt’s peace treaty with the Jewish state of Israel.  They aren’t the only ones backing Palestine.  Obama broke with longstanding U.S. policy and called for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders saying, “the status quo is unsustainable.”  Israel Prime Minister’s response: not going to happen.  Netanyahu said complying with those 1967 borders would jeopardize Israel’s security and leave the West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders. 

In one small speech, President Obama ignores the United State’s economic crisis by calling for more deficit spending on countries whose potential new leaders applaud Bin Laden.  Then he snubs our longtime ally, Israel by demanding it adhere to Palestine settlements.  President Obama has a plethora of top priorities, it just seems like his own country and Israel aren’t one of them.

To avoid what Geithner called a potential “catastrophe”, he took money from two federal workers pension funds to fund the government until August 2^nd.   He wrote a letter to congressional leaders urging them of the extreme consequences for not raising the ceiling, leaving some members to believe Geithner is crying wolf:

“They are the newest breed of government skeptics, the swelling ranks of Republicans who don’t believe the Obama administration when it says a failure to raise the debt limit will prove catastrophic.

And they stand ready to make negotiations over raising the cap on debt as grueling as possible, leaving Treasury officials and Wall Street more nervous than ever that the country could suffer an unprecedented default, with consequences no one can predict.

The suspicion, which once flourished only on the conservative outskirts of economic circles, has seeped into the mainstream in recent weeks, gaining broader acceptance among establishment Republicans even as the administration issues increasingly dire warnings.”

Even House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) validated the default naysayers saying he understands their doubts.  Conservatives are not particularly trustworthy of President Obama, especially after Mr. Obama and the Democrats requested a “clean debt vote” that would be absent of any cuts or entitlement reform.  Republican leadership has requested that the debt ceiling be raised as long as it comes with the same amount of cuts.  Boehner said this week he is ready to cut a deal on the debt limit as long as Obama got serious about cutting spending. 

It is interesting that President Obama and the Democrats are extremely serious about increasing spending but pessimistic about cutting it.  After all, it’s the out of control spending that got us into this mess in the first place.  Democrats may be concerned with the markets, but they hardly seem worried about stopping the problem that caused this crisis.  It’s easy to see why Boehner would be understanding of those who think Geithner is crying wolf.

Despite the American sounding name, Chesapeake Bay Candle is a global company trying to set up shop in the U.S.  Thanks to The Wall Street Journal report, we are beginning to see that President Obama may be ready to bring the talent to America, but unwilling to create an atmosphere for the talented to work:

Chesapeake Bay Candles can be bought at Kohl’s and Target, and has set up three factories in Asia over the past 16 years.    The founders of the trade company behind Chesapeake Bay - one being a Chinese immigrant, decided to set up shop in the United States. This U.S. factory would have created 100 jobs and sell to smaller businesses that focus on products made in the U.S.  They factory was supposed to open last fall and cost $2.5 million:

“But $3.5 million and 13 months later, the couple is still waiting for their final occupancy permit. A temporary sign is draped across the front of the beige concrete structure, a former liquor warehouse on the outskirts of Baltimore.”

Ms. Xu is a Chinese immigrant who founded Pacific Trade International, the company behind Chesapeake Bay in 1994.   She was not ready for the regulatory obstacles for creating jobs in the U.S.:

In total, Chesapeake Bay Candles now estimates 30% of the project's $3.5 million price tag is related to various aspects of code compliance.  Of course, code compliance is necessary to ensure safety.  What Ms. Xu would argues is unnecessary are the overlapping rules to get approval.

"I think our government needs to ask itself, 'Are we really ready for business to come back from Asia?'," says Ms. Xu, a Chinese immigrant who with her husband founded Pacific Trade International, the Rockville, Md.-based company behind the Chesapeake Bay brand, in 1994. "I'm not sure it is."

The final permit that is holding up the process is the occupancy permit.  This permit allows you to hire workers.  If Ms. Xu thought code compliance was complicated, just wait until she starts paying Employer’s tax.  Once Chesapeake Bay Candle starts bringing in revenue, she will then have to pay Federal taxes, property taxes, and the corporate income taxes – Ms. Xu ain’t seen nothin’ yet.   If Obama thinks businesses have a responsibility to create jobs, he should look into adopting policies that are more pro-businesses.

Obama delivered his speech in El Paso:

“President Barack Obama headed to Texas Tuesday toting a pledge to jump-start work on a comprehensive immigration bill — a long-awaited, never-attained goal of a Hispanic community that is crucial to Obama’s hopes of winning key southwestern states in 2012.  Are they cheering his newfound commitment to the goal? Hardly.

Maybe they are not cheering because they gave up him two years ago when he broke his promise to have immigration reform complete by the first term of his Presidency:

In case you chose not to watch the video, Univision Anchor Jorge Ramos asked Obama when he would have an immigration policy complete.  Obama’s response:

“What I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.”

The majority of Hispanics supported President Obama in 2008 when he ran against John McCain in part because he promised immigration reform. One year later and nothing has been done on immigration; no wonder Obama is hearing crickets from Hispanics.  The reason Hispanics are not willing to support Obama’s new push to rush immigration reform is because it is too late:

“Not only is Obama resisting requests to use his executive power, but there also is no evidence the administration has a legislative strategy to pass a bill through Congress. That has left many to question Obama’s motives: Is he really serious this time, or is he just checking a political box ahead of the 2012 election?”

Well, if you’re questioning whether or not Obama is checking a political box ahead of an election, watch the video below. 

Hispanics held Obama to his word and unfortunately, he ended up not delivering.  Let’s see if they are willing to give him a second chance in 2012.

Despite the outrageous gas prices, jobs have been added:

“Payrolls expanded by 244,000 last month, the biggest gain since May 2010, after a revised 221,000 increase the prior month, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The jobless rate climbed to 9 percent, the first increase since November, a separate survey of households showed. Employment was forecast to grow by 185,000 last month, according to the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.”

Even though 244,000 jobs sounds like good news, it is not enough to help the 13.7 million Americans looking for work:

“The U.S. economy has now created jobs for seven straight months, but the gains have been too meager to make much of dent in the pool of 13.7 million Americans out of work.”

The National Journal has explained the fuzzy math and reported the origin has to do with the separate surveys the numbers come from:

“Payroll jobs numbers and the unemployment rate are calculated from two separate surveys, which helps explain the conflicting readings of faster job growth and higher unemployment. The precise reason for the discrepancy isn't yet clear, but the unemployment survey has a smaller sample size and tends to be more volatile than payroll numbers, which are generally a more reliable indicator of labor market health.”

The most important thing to take away from this is the economy’s growth to spending ratio.  It will take another two and a half years before the economy has a chance of reaching precession levels.  At a time when we are borrowing half of what we spend, can we really sustain the levels of debt being added to the economy each day?  These miniscule improvements are not enough to boost consumer confidence, especially when households are paying 9% of their budget towards gasoline.

The House Republicans dropped three bills that they hope will jump start oil prices to increase crude oil production. 

The first bill is H.R. 1229 and is cited as the “Putting The Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act.”  It essentially puts the Gulf back to work by unclogging the logjam in the Interior Department for issuing drilling permits.  It requires the Interior department to decide whether or not to issue a permit in 30 days.

The second bill is H.R. 1230 and is cited as the “Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act.” This bill will require the Interior to start conducting offshore oil and gas lease sales.  This will open up opportunities for drilling companies to purchase land to drill from and respond to the oil demands.

The third bill is H.R. 1231 and is cited as the “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act.”  This bill in essence requires the gas-leasing program to offer leases in the areas with the most potential of producing oil.  The U.S. has the largest supply of energy resources in the world and this act requires we start drilling on the ones with the most potential.

All of the Republican acts listed above have three areas of common ground.  They all create jobs, they all give regard to the environment, and they ensure the production of oil. 

The House Democrats unveiled their “new” energy plan that they hope will increase oil production.

The first part of the plan is to go after the tax breaks for Big Oil companies.  It eliminates the $32 billion in tax breaks for the five major oil companies over the next decade.

The second part of the plan will give the Federal Trade Commission power to give civil and criminal penalties for price gouging gas prices.

The third part of the plan will give President Obama authority to drain our emergency oil reserves and replace is with “refined” products in 5 years. 

All of the Democratic plans listed above have three areas of common ground.  They all increase taxes and restrictions on oil companies.  They all give more government agencies more authority, and they all fail to increase production of oil.  In fact, the only oil that will be obtained from these plans will be from the United States emergency oil reserves.  This is a short-term solution that drains our reserves and fails to replace it with a reliable system for replenishing them.

As this is being written, the House just passed H.R. 1231 to speed up drilling leases.   Almost three-dozen Democrats voted for the proposal.  Apparently, Democrats are favoring the Republican Energy proposal.  You be the judge of which one eases your pain at the pump.

In an article that came out this past Monday, General Motors Co. said they “will raise car and truck prices by an average of $123 per vehicle to make up for the higher oil and metal costs.”  GM is not alone, as Toyota announced they would be doing the same about a month prior.  Don’t be fooled, the price of cars is not the only consumer good affected by rising oil prices.  In February, the cost of food rose faster than any month since 1974.  The problem is that the cost of living is increasing, wages are decreasing or staying the same, and unemployment continues to hover around 10%.  Americans cannot afford a liaise-faire attitude in regards to oil and gas prices, as it further puts a stranglehold on their purchasing power.

President Obama is famous for talking about the America he once knew.  He talks about a country “that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness”, yet his policies would have never allowed that to happen.  The country he once knew had leaders who took action when needed.  Americans waited in long lines at the gas station when Carter was president because he failed to take action, but Reagan recognized the problem and made the right change by drilling more in the U.S. While our current president continues to focus on winning the future, Americans are struggling to stay competitive in the present.  Let’s hope 2012 brings another Reagan and says goodbye to another Carter.

Just like an out of control credit card swiper suffers the consequences for massive debt in the form of a low credit score, the U.S. got its most updated:

“Standard & Poor's Ratings Services Inc. cut its outlook on the U.S. to negative, increasing the likelihood of a potential downgrade from its triple-A rating, as the path from large budget deficits and rising government debt remains unclear.

"More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S. policy makers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures," S&P credit analyst Nikola G. Swann said. He said the rating agency puts the chance of a U.S. downgrade within two years at least one-in-three.

The move comes amid continued hand-wringing over the balance sheet of the world's largest economy and disagreement among politicians on how to address fiscal woes as economic growth remains tepid.”

If only the disagreement among politicians were about how much to cut; Instead, it’s about how much we can afford to spend.  So far, the President claims his budget cuts $4 trillion from the deficit, but he is still spending $11 trillion.  So, any deficit cuts he is taking credit for are the very deficits his spending budget creates. 

If the nation’s credit rating drops, this means our debt payments will only continue to get higher.  The S&P’s suggestion for lowering government debt is not to default on it, but for politicians to make the right change and address the issue of balancing the debt to income ratio.

President Obama is always first in line to punt an issue that requires leadership to a commission or a blue-ribbon panel.  Perhaps he should take a clue from the free credit report.com band:

“When your debt goes up your score goes down when you pay a little off it goes the other way around.”

If we do not adopt some form of the GOP budget that requires cuts, the United States will most certainly be living in the proverbial “parents basement.”

One would think it would be much easier to decide against spending more money than to decide where to make cuts.  The problem is the decision to cap Congress's taxpayer funded credit card comes with a slew of unintended consequences:

“Most economic experts say national, and most likely international, economic calamity would ensue if the United States were to default on its obligations. On a political level, that would create a crisis for anyone in elective office. But the president, depending on a fragile recovery as he seeks reelection in 2012, has the most to lose of anyone in Washington.

Given the state of the economy, it is hard to pin Timothy Geithner as an expert, but he argues the same:

“For one, the government would grind to a halt — cutting off military salaries and retirement benefits, along with Social Security and Medicare payments. Worse still, default would also plunge the U.S. back into recession. Interest rates and borrowing costs would surge, while the dollar would plummet. In a worse case scenario, the markets would go into a death spiral as investors distanced themselves from the U.S. The consequences would be "catastrophic," says Geithner. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it would be a "recovery-ending event."

While some of that may be true, others across the isle argue the capping the ceiling prevents “economic catastrophe” in the future:

“What it comes down to is we’re plunging through that debt ceiling,” freshman Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told POLITICO. “We need a structural rethinking. We need to change how we do business. If the president thinks he can just come here and get us to vote for the debt ceiling without fundamental changes, he’s sadly mistaken.”

Many Republicans have argued for raising the debt ceiling but not unless it came with serious reforms.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said he would against raising the ceiling unless it comes with an overhaul:

“I will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorize and is accompanied by a plan for fundamental tax reform, an overhaul of our regulatory structure, a cut to discretionary spending, a balanced-budget amendment, and reforms to save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”

Speaker John Boehner agrees that if Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling, he better be ready to come to the negotiating table again with the right change.

The CBO said without the bailout bill, the collapse of Fannie and Freddie would result in another bailout of $1 trillion dollars.  So the taxpayers bailed out Fannie and Freddie and guess what we got? Another bailout anyway.  Washington Post reports Another Fannie and Freddie bailout that could more than double in size during the next three years.  This is from projections from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The now federally controlled mortgage giants will likely need as much as $215 billion from taxpayers in the next three years to pay for it.

The taxpayers are still not happy about the burden from the first bailout.  Taxpayers responsible for $145 billion connected to losses from Fannie and Freddie writing bad loans.  The CBO says losses could go up to $400 billion if the housing crisis continues, which it is, and eventually peek at $1 trillion.  Mind you, this is all from the first bailout we had.  This would have never happened if Obama and the Democrats included Fannie and Freddie in financial reform.  Instead the taxpayers paid for them to continue down their same path and will now have to bail them out again.  Are you ready to pay up?

Let’s start with the biggest ticket item.  Coming in at $685 Billion, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage giants could need a rescue and overhaul cost of $685 Billion.  This is in addition to the $134 Billion it has already costed taxpayers.  This information is courtesy of an analysis by the S&P who said this overhaul “is an extensive repair job for U.S. taxpayers.” Taxpayers are already on the hook for $145 billion because of Fannie and Freddie writing bad loans. Why is the taxpayer responsible for shady and unethical business practices from Fannie and Freddie who continue to practice the same lending deals that caused the need for their bailout in the first place?

Obama Inc. - Wall Street Reform from RightChange on Vimeo.

Coming in at a close second, at $600 Billion, the Fed’s announced the new $600 Billion Stimulus package. The Federal Reserve said it will buy $600 Billion worth of U.S. government bonds over the next eight months.  So basically, the Feds will print more money, which will lead to a long list of consequences.  They are, but not limited to: more inflation that will lead to deflation, more budget deficits, higher unemployment, a weaker U.S. dollar and higher U.S. interests rates.  So why is this stimulus even on the table?

The government could spend $1,285,000,000,000 of your money, so what is an extra $2 Billion?  It is what Obama’s post-election trip to India could cost taxpayers.  Obama’s trip to Mumbai, India is projected to cost $200 million a day and will need the following: 34 warships, an aircraft carrier, 3 Marine One choppers that will be disassembled and reassembled in India in case of emergency, 2 jets, 40 cars, 13 heavy-life aircrafts, sniffer dogs, and a 3,000 person entourage including top corporate leaders and a reservation of the entire Taj Mahal Hotel.  That list is not including all of the security measures that will begin before Obama even arrives. 

This puts you the taxpayer at $1,287,000,000 for government purchases in the past 3 days.   And the biggest question is if any of these purchases are necessary. The Fannie and Freddie bailout has only put more of a burden on tax-payers and allowed the mortgage giants to continue down the same dangerous path that got us into this mess in the first place.  The OLD stimulus has cost taxpayers $187,000 a piece and has increased the unemployment rate higher than what it was before the stimulus passed. Lastly, reports from officials in India say that according to India and U.S. briefings, the outcome of Obama’s trip to India is not significant and nothing too important will come out of it.

Nothing too important may come out of Obama’s India trip, but a lot will be coming out of taxpayer’s pockets.