GOVERNMENT MADE FIGURES UP

According to this Bloomberg Article (Jobless Claims in U.S. Decreased 27,000 to 451,000 Last Week)Unemployment figures had to be estimated for nine (9) states.

For the latest reporting week, nine states didn’t file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the federal holiday earlier this week, a Labor Department official told reporters. As a result, California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven, the official said.

Hopefully the estimators are better than the ones who said ObomaCare would reduce the Deficit!

Why didn't they just postpone the announcement of the figures until the actual figures could be made available?

WHO'S RACIST????

Mary Frances Berry is former chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Currently the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania said this about the Democrats use of the label "Racist" in reference to the Tea Party Movement.

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness. [Emphasis Mine]

YOUR TAX BILL IS GOING UP...UNLESS

120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History describes the Federal Tax Increases unless Congress enacts new legislation by December 31, 2010.

In addition, the states have designs on your income through their own Tax Measures. New Report Outlines Significant State Tax Changes in 2010

What can you do about it? Exercise your right to vote. When voting, consider your choices carefully.

UPDATE: Here is a table of how the Bush Tax Cuts impacts each State and Congressional district. Effect of Expiration of Bush-Era Tax Cuts on Average Middle-Income Family, by State and Congressional District

WAKE-UP CALL ON IMMIGRATION

The latest proof that the United States of America is being invaded by the Mexican Drug Cartels is in this article. Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head. It is time to secure the border. What to do with those who came here illegally is a secondary consideration.

We cannot have foreign Nationals threatening our people. It is time to send in the troops and secure the border.

DEMOCRATS NEED TO SHOW RESPONSIBILITY

According to at least one Democrat in the House, it is Republicans who are holding immigration reform back. That's rather silly considering the Democrats hold a 255 to 178 majority in the House. They could pass anything WITHOUT a single Republican Vote. Gutierrez: Despite Democrats’ 255 Seats in House, GOP’s Lack of ‘Bipartisanship’ Is Why Immigration Reform Hasn’t Passed makes Congressman Gutierrez look a little foolish.

RACISM IN CONGRESS

Racism charges have been hurled by Howard Dean, most of the Left Leaning Media, NAACP, Shirley Sherrod etc. It is a favorite claim of the Liberals. Distract your opponent by making them defend themselves from a charge of Race Bias.

The latest charges appear to be coming from Congress and directed at Congress. Ethics cases raise racial questions

HARRY'S WRONG ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader, recently said Social Security is not broke. Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option"

During a question and answer session, Reid also argued against "fear tactics of those who say Social Security is going broke. It's not."

And here. Out-Of-Touch Harry Reid Calls Social Security Insolvency A Myth

Reno, NV - During the Nevada Democratic Party Convention that was held over weekend, Senator Harry Reid called the idea of Social Security insolvency a “myth” while claiming that the fund should remain solvent for at least another 40 years. Reid went on to say that this “myth” was perpetuated in order to scare senior citizens,as noted by reporter Jon Ralston.

That's what Harry says. This is the truth. Social Security Jitters? Better Prepare Now
is from the "New York Times".

The program, which has its own dedicated stream of income, is projected to pay out more this year than it is taking in, but that is a function of the weak economy. [Emphasis Mine]

That's the bad news. The good news is this.

Social Security will, according to the last annual report from its trustees, be able to pay full benefits through 2037. Then, if there are no changes in the program in the meantime, the taxes collected will be enough to pay out only about 75 percent of benefits through 2083.

However it is prudent to note that the Social Security Trust Funds are not in a Lock Box. These dollars have been used by Congress for years to fund all the spending. What is really in the Social Security Lock Box is a bunch of IOUs signed by Congress.

These IOUs can only be made good by Congress taking money from the General Revenue, unless some changes are made in The Social Security System. There are several proposals. Raise the retirement age to 70, or cut benefits, or raise the FICA payroll taxes, or increase the limit on earnings subject to Social Security Tax, or some combination of these ideas. But it is clear. Something must be done and the sooner the better. The other thing clear to me is Harry Reid is Wrong.

WHAT HAPPENED TO SHIRLEY?

Apparently SHIRLEY SHERROD live is no longer interesting to the media or the Liberals. Where in the World is Shirley Sherrod? asks and answers the question of why this lack of interest. Simply put Shirley is a liability to the Liberal Media, Democrats like Howard Dean and the Obama Administration. A liability because she is not quite so innocent as she was painted.

Recall that she was ousted by the Obama Administration for her now infamous speech at a NAACP event in Georgia where she admits, back in the day, that she “didn’t give the full force” of her resources as a state USDA official to a white farmer because, well, he was white. But then she saw the light and came to realize that it’s not only about white and black (her words), but it’s also about rich and poor. So she helped the guy out.

On the surface, Shirley is a great story of an Innocent Victim. But below this facade, Shirley makes the Liberals, Democrats and Liberal Media look bad. The NAACP reacted without checking facts, even though the NAACP had a FULL copy of the tape. Tom Vilsack and The Obama Administration reacted without checking facts, and without allowing Ms. Sherrod to explain. Howard Dean, DNC chairman, falsely accused Fox News of being raciest. The Liberal Media, who continue to accuse the Conservative Movement in America of racism also looks like a bunch of hypocrites.

After Andrew Breitbart released the video of her remarks, the left’s media race-baiters went into all-out attack mode. From CNN to Newsweek, from CBS to CNBC, those outlets helped to saint Sherrod, claiming that Breitbart was a ‘nut job’ (Ed Shultz from MSNBC said that gem), a “bully” (CNN’s Anderson Cooper) and that Breitbart was engaged in, along with Fox News, a “smear campaign” (Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter). This all before we even heard Mrs. Sherrod’s side of the story.

Up to this point it's great copy for all with a Liberal agenda including the Obama Administration. It's another story to show all Conservatives as racist.

But then Shirley speaks.

Then, she stepped to the podium and confirmed to America what Breitbart’s video conveyed: Shirley Sherrod is a rambling race-hustler. Speaking with Anderson Cooper, she said that Andrew Breitbart would like to “get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again.” Uh. What? How can she even come out and imply that this is how Andrew Breitbart feels when she doesn’t even know him and all she does know about him is of a videotape that he released of her own words?

Oops Shirley is beginning to sound very racist herself.

Then, Shirley took her anger out on—who else?—Fox News. Speaking with the Washington Post, Sherrod said she wouldn’t go on Fox because she felt that they considered her a “pawn” and that the network wanted to go “back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

Suddenly Shirley is no longer news. She has become a liability.

Since Sherrod’s incoherent and racial media blitz, she hasn’t popped up anywhere. Where’s the media’s canonized darling? “Reporters” have been quieter than a church mouse on the whole incident. Granted, our propagandist press probably realized that they fabricated Fox’s and Breitbart’s involvement in Sherrod’s firing (even Jon Stewart acknowledged this!)

So here is the answer to the question "What Happened to Shirley?"

Shirley Sherrod went on a racially tinged rant, this time in the safe confines of the leftist media, and was never heard from since. They’ve given her a pass. Sherrod is now harder to find than Waldo. I don’t blame her. She’s demonstrated that her world view is deeply shaped by race and gender.

Apparently Shirley is no longer useful to the Left.

UPDATE: Here is a link (Race on the Brain) to another race related story. Consider how the Obama Administration uses Race Politics to further the Obama Agenda.

The Obama administration’s race absorption apparently has a shelf life of about three years. Consider the list: Reverend Wright, “typical white person,” the Pennsylvania clingers, Michelle’s campaign editorializing about the U.S., “cowards,” the Professor Gates mess, “wise Latina,” the president’s race-based DNC video, the suing of Arizona, the comments made before the law was read, the sudden characterization of al-Qaeda as racist, the disturbing stories coming out of the Justice Department that some decisions are now race-based — and on and on. Each outburst in isolation is a sort of Macaca moment, a brief news item; in their totality, they have now more or less cemented in the minds of most Americans that Obama and his appointees see race as a sort of wedge issue by which to further an agenda.

Here is another related Link (Left Admits: Racism Charges Against Tea Parties a Tactic, Not a Truth)

Washington, D.C. – Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning the left's false use of the accusation "racist" as a political tactic, saying they recognize the strategy from the teaching of left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky.

Former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman Mary Frances Berry, a long-time prominent liberal activist, has admitted in an interview with Politico that the left is trying to smear the tea party movement as "racist" for strategic reasons, not out of genuine concern that the movement is itself racist.

Berry called the tactic an "effective strategy" and chose not to denounce it.

Race relations will not get better as long as comments like the following are allowed to go unchallenged by the Left.

Berry, now the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania, was asked, "will branding the tea party 'racist' work?"

Berry replied:

Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

President Obama, The first Black President, has become a Race Polarizing President.

OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE

On July 7th of this year, President Obama made several recess appointments. One of those was Dr. Donald Berwick who will head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Recess appointments usually cause grumblings from the opposite political party. In this case Republicans. But also in this case the complaints came for some Democrats. Obama Uses Recess Appointment To Install Berwick As Head Of Medicare, Medicaid from Kaiser Health has a summary of comments from the media.

One of the Democrats is Max Baucus of Montana. Senator Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As such Senator Baucus is the one who would schedule the hearings for Dr. Berwick's nomination. Senator Baucus had not scheduled any hearings as yet, so this is one nomination which cannot be blamed on the Republicans.

[Sen. Max Baucus] "said he was 'troubled' that Obama chose to install Berwick without a formal confirmation process. 'Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered"

There is a very real possibility that Dr. Berwick's confirmation both in committee and before the full Senate, might not happen because of his Health Care Views.

Dr. Berwick does not believe waste in Medicine. But waste to him appears to mean something different than what most Americans call waste. It means Health Care rationing to Dr. Berwick.

Dr. Berwick has championed the interests of patients and consumers. At the same time, he has spoken of the need to ration health care and cap spending, has supported efforts to 'reduce the total supply of high-technology medical and surgical care' and has expressed great admiration for the British health care system. [Emphasis Mine]

In a interview with Katherine T. Adams, senior editor of Biotechnology Healthcare, published in June 2009, Rethinking Comparative Effectiveness Research, Dr. Berwick states ...

The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. [Emphasis Mine]

That's what Dr. Berwick means by waste. He wants to measure the care of each patient, each procedure as to whether it is COST EFFECTIVE.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Berwick "...has expressed great admiration for the British health care system". Here is a look at the present state of British Health Care. Axe falls on NHS services is an Investigative Report form the UK's "Sunday Telegraph".

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

How brutal. Here is what the investigation found.

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

Many laughed when Sarah Palin talked about Death Panels. In light of the above, can anyone seriously say these cuts will not cut short the quality of care and possibly result in premature death for some of the patients covered under British Health Care? The same kind of Health Care System favored by Dr. Berwick? The same kind of Health Care System which is the result of ObamaCare? And now ObamaCare under Dr. Berwick?

BUSH TAX CUTS

President Bush requested and Congress approved what are now known as the Bush Tax Cuts. Those cuts are due to expire on December 31, 2010 (less than 6 months from now). What happens then. Here is the analysis from the Heritage Foundation. (Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent)

If the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are allowed to expire, millions of working families will see their economic prospects dim, their job opportunities diminish, and economic uncertainty rise.

By the way this study was published on January 5, 2006, but nothing has changed these findings.

Taking a look at what Taxes were cut, will reveal how your Taxes will change.

• Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points; [4.5%]
• Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate; [50% increase]
• Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;
• Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;
• taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009;
• taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and
• Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

[Note: the dividends and capital gains items were extended by further tax cuts in 2006. The correct date for increased taxes on dividends and capital gains is now also January 1, 2011]

What if the Bush Tax Cuts are made permanent? These are the economic benefits starting in 2011.

• Total employment will rise by 1,087,000 jobs per year, on average;
• Annual GDP will be over $111 billion higher, after inflation;
• Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year, on average, after inflation; and
• After-tax household income will grow by an annual average of $274 billion per year, after inflation.

However, these benefits become economic losses if Congress fails to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. What is the cost of failing to act? Over one million lost jobs each year between 2011 and 2014; over a hundred billion dollars less in economic output per year; slower wage and salary growth; slower savings growth; and so on.

The argument on the Liberal side of the aisle is that we cannot afford the loss of income extending the tax cuts will cause. Further any tax cut should not benefit the wealthy. Therefore Liberals/Democrats in Congress will only allow those tax cuts to expire on those making $250,000 or more (the wealthy).

Conservative/Republicans in Congress disagree. The fact remains that taxing the wealthy increases the share of Tax Revenue the rich pay. But, if tax increases take more of the Wealthy Classes money, the economy will suffer, unemployment will grow and Tax Revenue will actually decrease. It is a never ending spiral to bankruptcy.

Why can this claim be made? The reason is simple. Those who have wealth, are the ones who invest and expand capacity in business. Investment and expansion of capacity creates jobs. Those who have jobs, pay taxes. The more who pay something, the more tax revenue increases. It is true that as a by-product of the investment/expansion the rich get more too. But the benefits accumulate more for the not so rich. They have jobs. They can spend money. They pay taxes. It is the American dream that anyone can become wealthy. But they need a job 1st to start the creation of wealth process.

Think about this. If Tax Increases are good, why stop at a rate of 39.5%? Why not make it 50%, 75% or even 100%? The reason is also obvious. Ask yourself, who creates jobs? The more we take from the wealthy, the less they have to create jobs. The wealthy also have less incentive to earn more. If the wealthy earn less, Tax Revenues also decrease. It is not a never ending bucket to be dipped into at will

However, to end here is not enough. We must also cut spending. The Government is not really much different than your household. Government, like you, cannot continue to spend more than Income without collapsing in Bankruptcy.

We have gotten away from the principle of a budget which we must live within. We have gotten away from the reason Income and other Taxes are necessary. Taxes are necessary to fund our Government Spending. They should be tied together. We must cut spending with the Tax Cuts. Tax Cuts by the way are not the same as additional spending. They do not increase the National Debt. Spending does that. Tax Cuts will, as history has shown, increase Tax Revenue and bring Economic Health to the USA.

Tax Cuts in the short term, reduce income, but we are here for the long term. We all want something better for our children and grandchildren. Tax Cuts, along with Budget Cuts, are the two things that will insure we do leave them something better.

ILLINOIS POLITICS HAVE GONE NATIONAL

Another writer has decided that what President Obama learned in Chicago he has taken to the White House. PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY writes in Investors Business Daily (IBD) Illinois Failures Go Nationwide Under Obama that President Obama has taken the failure of the financial policies to a National Level.

'Unsustainable" is a scary word that recently entered political discourse, coming authoritatively from Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf. Unsustainability is the operative moniker for Barack Obama's massive deficit spending, which Elmendorf said "cannot be solved through minor tinkering."

Massive Deficit Spending, in other words spending much more than income over a period of time. How much is illustrated by this statement.

The CBO predicts an increase in our public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if Obama's fiscal 2011 budget is implemented. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt will rise to 90% from 53%.

By the end of 2020 our current fiscal policy will almost double the National Debt in 11 years. By 2020 we will be spending 9 cents for every 10 cents of National Gross Product. This is the path of Greece. And it is ludicrous to think that the richest country in the world will be financially unable to sustain itself by 2020.

So what will be necessary to avoid this fate?

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., sharpened the focus by asking the CBO director: "What's going to be necessary (is) either a 25% increase in taxes or a 20% reduction in spending, or some combination thereof. Is that correct?" Elmendorf replied "yes."

A 25% increase in TAXES is one choice. Think you are paying too much in Taxes now? Consider what a 25% increase would do to your family.

There is another problem with a tax increase. Once Congress gets its hands on more revenue, they find another way to spend it. Politicians don't like to give up money. On the other hand, this madness of Spend, Spend, Spend and let someone else pay for it has to stop. It must stop before we are bankrupt.

For an example of where we are headed, lets look at where Obama came from.

Illinois was the stomping ground for years for Obama, his top advisers Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, and his appointees such as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. After they promoted themselves to Washington to run the country, other Obama associates who didn't make the cut continued to run Illinois into the ground, as the Illinois unemployment rate jumped from less than 5% to nearly 11%.

Illinois is now projected to be in a worse financial condition than California. Want proof?

Under years of Democratic leadership, Illinois has refused to honor its obligations, cut spending or trim its shockingly large deficit, which at $12 billion per year approaches nearly half its budget. As a result, Illinois' credit rating has been downgraded and it pays a massive amount in interest on its loans.

Unemployment is nearly 10% at present. Actually it is much higher. The only reason the "Official Unemployment Figure" is 9.5% is the Government has stopped counting those who have given up looking for a job. Business owners are not hiring because of the cost of doing business is uncertain. Taxes are going up. Health Insurance Tax, Business Taxes, Estate Taxes and Income Taxes are going up, but nobody knows how much. In this unsettling financial climate, employers cannot afford to hire new people.

The challenge for all of us who vote is to elect the people who will create jobs. The jobs will be created by balancing the budget and reducing the size of Government.

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS BEING DISINGENUOUS

Obama to GOP: Restore Jobless Benefits contains a video link and some of the text of President Obama's address today. It is rather shameful that he is playing partisan politics and name calling.

On Monday, he sought to cast his Republican opponents as hypocritical for having voted for extensions of unemployment benefits when his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, was in the White House, but not now. He accused Republican leaders of subscribing to what he called a misguided notion that providing unemployment aid to people lowers their incentive to look hard for a job.

However, the following quote is the most disingenuous, misleading, misrepresentation of the facts.

"That attitude, I think, reflects a lack of faith in the American people," Obama said. [Emphasis Mine]

Our President should be a positive influence, not practicing what can only be called highly partisan remarks. Obama knows and Harry Reid knows that an alternative Republican proposal is on the table which would allow passage of extended Unemployment Benefits. The only question is how do we pay for the $34 cost of the extension.

Update:
Offshore drilling moratorium affects everyone to the tune of 12,046 Jobs lost. That's directly due to President Obama's Moratorium on Offshore Drilling in The Gulf of Mexico.

TARP Audit Questions Rush to Close Auto Dealers shows that when the Obama Administration chose to cancel the contract of GM and Chrysler dealerships this move cost 10s of thousands of jobs.

WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH?

The Liberal members of Congress (mostly Democrats) and President Obama say the Conservatives members of Congress (mostly Republicans) are blocking passage of Legislation to extend Unemployment Benefits. Obama slams GOP for obstructing economic progress. In truth it is politics that is blocking this extension.

The Liberals want to extend the benefits at the expense of increasing the Federal Debt. The Conservatives want the extended benefits to be approved without increasing the Federal Debt. Conservatives say this can be done by using some of the unspent Stimulus Money. Liberals don't want to do that.

Again, each side is trying to paint the other as the bad guy. However, since the Stimulus is not working, why not put those funds to use? That way we can have both!