“There are many numbers in this plan…It will put billions of dollars in immediate tax relief into the pockets of working families.

But out of all these numbers, there is one that matters most to me: this recovery plan will save or create more than 3 million new jobs over the next few years. “

Despite this promise, unemployment today stands at 9.7%, the highest it’s been since 1983. The broader unemployment rate is a staggering 16.8%. Last month, unemployment surged in 27 states.

For the most part, there seems to be a consensus that unemployment is a lagging indicator, meaning its rise is delayed until after other segments of the economy have already improved. Even so, since the recession began in December 2007, 7.4 million jobs have been lost. 4 million of those have been shed since December of 2008, just a month before President Obama’s official transition to power. As of last month, 9.1 million people had accepted part-time work, unable to find full-time, permanent employment.

In fact, job creation as a result of the stimulus has been limited to government jobs. USA Today reports:

“Fourteen of the top federal agencies responsible for spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act say they’ve hired about 3,000 workers with stimulus money. That’s helped fuel the continued growth of the federal government, which increased by more than 25,000 employees, or 1.3%, since December 2008, according to the latest quarterly report.”

It gets even worse. Not only has the stimulus failed to create private sector jobs, but the administrative structures created to implement and oversee the stimulus are depleting the emergency funds they were created to oversee.

“Thirteen agencies that report stimulus-related administrative expenses separately on their weekly spending reports say they’ve spent $186.8 million so far on salaries and other overhead. Those agencies have reported spending $46.1 billion in stimulus funds overall.”

Supporters of the stimulus would argue that distributing the funds and creating jobs costs money. And, to a certain extent, that is true for any government action aimed at creating growth. Tax cuts also cost money — in theory — in decreased revenue for the government. But, they don’t drain the government of funds set to up to increase jobs, funds that are borrowed and upon which interest accrues.

Back in January, The Heritage Foundation pointed out that if the stimulus created 3.675 million jobs, each job would cost $217,000. I wonder if their figure included all the various administrative costs required to create the jobs in the first place. Or to oversee the distribution of the funds.

Presumably, there are some stimulus projects that have gotten underway. Road paving projects for one — because they are faster to get off the ground than construction projects that have numerous environmental hurdles to overcome. But, we now have seven months worth of data and no evidence that the stimulus has created any jobs — save for government jobs. As for saving jobs that would otherwise have been eliminated, I have yet to see anything that offers up a method of calculating this shaky proposition.

So, seven months into the program, unemployment is climbing, and jobs that were promised to Americans if only they trusted Washington to pass the biggest spending bill in U.S. history, are nowhere in sight.

In the statement quoted earlier, the President also promised:

“I can also promise that my administration will administer this recovery plan with a level of transparency and accountability never before seen in Washington. Once it is passed, every American will be able to go the website recovery.gov and see how and where their money is being spent.”

In addition to calling the stimulus bill a jobs bill, the President and his administration promised an unprecedented level of transparency related to the stimulus funds. Recovery.gov is a website that became all too familiar to Americans (well, except to Vice President Biden who famously blanked on the ‘number’ during a live TV spot). Yet, here we are seven months later, and recovery.gov offers nothing more than a very general overview of how stimulus funds have been distributed by state and department.

But, we now have a firm date for the new site, October 1. State and local contractors and other entities will have 10 days each quarter to provide specific information identifying the funds they received, how they were spent and how many jobs were created out of those funds.

But, even this is not without it’s problems. BusinessWeek reports:

“Put another way, without careful auditing, the government will have little way of judging whether all those tens of thousands of stimulus funds recipients are accurately relaying where they spent the money and how many jobs were truly created.”

Seven months in and unemployment is rising, job losses of 550,000 per week are nothing out of the norm, consumer spending is low despite the rebates included in the stimulus, and with Democrats’ health care reform and cap-and-trade proposals still on the table, the spending spree may not be over.

It’s time for Washington to come to terms with the fact that the stimulus is not working. Perhaps they should listen to the 60% of Americans who doubt that the feds will use the stimulus funds as promised on infrastructure or to the 75% of voters who do not believe that the stimulus has helped the economy.

The right thing to do is to cancel the stimulus and regroup. But, as Democrats have made clear with health care, their biggest fear is that they do not have time on their side. So, they refuse to tear up the old plans and start anew; instead, they’ll continue to pull numbers out of the air like ‘the stimulus has saved 1 million jobs.’ And sadly, in another 7 months, things might not look that different than they do today.

His statement was in regard to the “$900, on average — our families [pay] in higher premiums because of uncompensated care.” The President’s position is to regulate behavior and force everyone to either carry insurance or pay a fine.

“The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.“

As I wrote last week here on AIP, this assertion that we are all collectively picking up the tab for the uninsured to the tune of $900 to $1100 a year per family, is false. Unfortunately, the media has been slow to fact-check the President’s talking points on health care reform. The WSJ picked up the story about Otto Raddatz just last week when I wrote about it on AIP almost a month ago. Perhaps now that the President has repeated this fallacious claim about the uninsured a few more times, the media will cast some sunlight on the truth.

But, the President’s flawed data isn’t the only issue. It’s the sentiment he expressed in defending his plan, that we’re not going to have some people carry the burden for others. For today only, and only when it comes to this topic of the uninsured and their effect on premiums, the President positioned himself as against pinning the burden on one segment of society for the benefit of another.

But, isn’t this what his Presidency is based on? On all of us being each other’s keepers? How many times has he told reporters that successful people like him should pay more in taxes than the waitress struggling to make ends meet (an example he took a liking to on the campaign trail)?

Yet today, by the President’s logic, he expressed that when people don’t shoulder their responsibilities, when they expect for everyone else to carry them, everyone else pays the price. The collective suffers. And, this time, President Obama finds this unacceptable.

Surprised? Why the change from his normal philosophy of fairness — that is, taking from one group to pay for another because it’s the fair, socially just thing to do? What are we missing? What happened today?

The answer is that this is a good for today only, health-care specific policy he’s carved out. There is no reconciling his statement today with his belief that ’spreading the wealth around’ is the only way to success.

Charles Krauthammer wrote an excellent article this weekend on President Obama’s shaky relationship with the truth. He writes, “Obama doesn’t lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another.” When one tactic doesn’t work, he moves on to the next ploy. Krauthammer perfectly sums up Obama’s approach to his health care pitch. If you like your insurance, you can keep it — didn’t work. The public option is just an option — didn’t work. I will not sign a plan that adds a dime to the deficit — didn’t work. Illegal immigrants will not be covered under our plan — didn’t work.

So, our salesperson-in-chief moved on to his next gambit. Is it to obfuscate? To sound conservative? I’m not sure. What I do know is that President Obama’s policies embrace a philosophy that is completely opposed to the one he peddled today. But, with his health care proposals remaining unpopular, I guess he’ll try anything to sell his plan — including throwing a little conservative philosophy in there.  Many including Karl Rove and George Will have pointed out that when the President talks about health care, the poll numbers go down. This week’s numbers will tell whether this new untrustworthy sales tactic worked.

*Originally published September 20, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

According to Alter:

“The core principle behind health-care reform is-or should be-a combination of Social Security insurance and civil rights. Passage would end the shameful era in our nation’s history when we discriminated against people for no other reason than that they were sick. A decade from now, we will look back in wonder that we once lived in a country where half of all personal bankruptcies were caused by illness, where Americans lacked the basic security of knowing that if they lost their jobs they wouldn’t have to sell the house to pay for the medical treatments to keep them alive. We’ll look back in wonder-that is, if we pass the bill.”

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) agrees wholeheartedly with Alter, observing of the town hall protestors, “This is all about activity trying to deny the establishment of a civil right.”

Ending discrimination against the sick? A civil right? Are proponents of this argument really equating decisions made by private insurance companies operating within a framework that imposes a string of government regulations on them, that in turn limit access to would-be consumers, with civil rights violations?

First of all, this position confuses discrimination with disparity. Civil rights protect individuals from being singled out on the basis of any number of federally-protected characteristics including race, gender and disability to name a few. But not every disparity rises to the occasion of discrimination. Some instances of discrimination, or distinguishing one person or group of people from another, are perfectly legal, particularly in private settings.

Secondly, if you take the left’s argument that failing to provide a good to people who need it amounts to a  denial of their civil right to that good, where do you draw the line? As I wrote last week, health insurance is a good, a contractual obligation by which the insurer promises to pay out on the insured’s behalf should a certain agreed-upon event occur. In exchange, the insured promises to pay the insurance company in order to maintain coverage. The insured doesn’t receive a tangible good, but a reassurance, a warranty, from the insurance company.

As a private business, like other companies, insurance companies are under no obligation to do business with anyone. When you apply for a loan for example, the creditor has every right to reject your application based on a number of factors that might signal to them that the level of risk you present to them as an investment is unacceptable. As long as their reasons are legitimate and are not based on any of the aforementioned federally-protected characteristics, they have every right to ‘discriminate’ against you. In our society, we’ve come to equate discrimination with immoral behavior, when in reality to discriminate means to treat one differently based on a number of reasons, the majority of which are legitimate.

The inability to pay for a good or service based on disparities in individuals’ economic status is the most common reason for distinguishing between consumers. I realize liberals scoff at those motivated by profits, but private industry, including insurance companies, exists solely to turn profits. The same people on the left who are believers in big-government policies that strangle insurance companies with regulations that drive up costs and limit access to insurance, then, with a straight face, turn around and argue that the system in which they’ve set the ground rules, is denying people’s civil rights. Perhaps Alter is right, that this exploitive argument could have gained the left some traction by virtue of appealing to people’s emotions. After all, that seems to be the left’s motto these days, rallying around fairness whatever the cost.

Alter’s overstretched argument confuses the cause and effect of the situation here. The cause is not discrimination, although it is the effect in some cases. The cause is that government regulations on insurance companies have deprived them of any freedom to maneuver and get creative with insurance packages that could potentially bring down costs and therefore extend insurance benefits to a greater number of people.

If liberals are serious about ending this so-called discrimination against those unable to obtain coverage, either because they’re unable to pay or because of pre-existing conditions, then why don’t they concentrate solely on a plan that zeroes in on those problems rather than transforming the entire health care system as we know it? It seems that liberals are quick to claim discrimination but will stop short of fixing it if it requires that they let go of their larger goals of centralizing power within the federal government. Indeed, this explains why House Democrats have expressed their unwillingness to vote for any bill that does not include a public option. They aren’t concerned about civil rights, but about doing anything they can to change the subject, to distract from the facts at the center of this debate because the facts aren’t on their side. This is just politics as usual from the left, quick to point the finger at those who disagree with them, as un-American, racist and now, discriminating.

*Originally published August 25, 2009 on The American Issues Project Blog, here.

Gallup has compiled a ten-point list summarizing Americans’ problems with Democrats’ plans based on voter surveys taken in late July. They conclude that while Americans want some reforms in the long-term, they are in no hurry to see health care legislation pushed through quickly.

The list points out that Americans are primarily concerned about government spending, and in light of the enormous stimulus bill, which less than a third believe has made the economy better,  their concern is with the country’s economic well-being. The failure of the stimulus to stimulate anything (other than the government) has prompted them to step back, examine the details of the legislation and question how it would affect their lives.

The outrage significant numbers of people have expressed is due to the fact that they feel manipulated, and they’re sick of being lied to. The President and his administration had much success using his sales tactics and urgent rhetoric to sell people on the necessity of his plans early on in his Presidency – especially when it came to the stimulus. The President toured the country then too, telling people that the only way to get the economy back on track was to spend more – namely in the areas of health care, energy and infrastructure. Yet, here we are in August, with only about $70 billion of the $787 billion having been spent.  And even with a slight drop in the unemployment rate last week, with payrolls declining, struggling Americans who aren’t seeing any change in their lives are getting frustrated with Washington’s rabid spending, crafty rhetoric and overall incompetence.

And yet today, President Obama looked people in the eye at the town hall gathering in New Hampshire and lied to them once again. He was dishonest a few times, but the time I’d like to focus on is when he mentioned that he would not sign any bill that increased the deficit.

The current price tag for health care is a whopping $1 trillion. The CBO estimates that the proposals will increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next ten years. After the next 10 years, health care could add more than $880 billion to the deficit. And it gets worse with the possibility that the CBO may have underestimated the cost of health care by $1 trillion.

Despite these facts, Obama once again renewed his promise today to provide health care coverage to (almost) all Americans, bring down costs and make the system more efficient - without adding to the deficit.

Americans know when something seems off. And, after the stimulus debacle, they don’t want to be lied to. If liberals are going to sell their health care bill, they must engage voters honestly and have a real debate over the proposals. People went along with the stimulus because they believed that without spending that money, the economy would collapse. No one would be spared its effects. But, Americans learned their lesson, and they’re not buying anymore.

If anything, President Obama’s performance at the town hall today hurt his cause more than it helped it. All but a couple questions were from health care supporters who had already made up their minds. And, he stuck to the liberal talking points and continued to lie – about everything from the cost of the plan, to the alleged competitiveness it would foster, and even about his own prior position on a single-payer system.

It caught my attention when at one point, President Obama said, “if you’re in private insurance, first of all, your private insurance can do whatever you want.” That’s exactly the point Mr. President. Now how about some more of that honesty in the town hall forums coming later this week?

*Originally published on The American Issues Project Blog, here.

Two quotes in the WSJ article I linked to above (here) nicely sum up the debate. First, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama “suggested the measure would allow the government to impinge on the rights of private corporations. “Government bureaucrats don’t know what’s best for America,” he said.” On the other side, Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina said, “We have found out what happens when there are no rules, when there is no oversight, when there is no watchdog.”

There you have the two side of this debate. Each side is concerned with the broader ramifications of action and inaction. Action in terms of this bill puts the government in the driver’s seat once again, imposing terms on private companies and interfering instead of letting self-interested individual choices play out and determine the winners and losers. Inaction, we are warned, is what led us to the economic crisis we face now. So, action is urged.

But there are fundamental flaws in this second argument. First, as to the cause of the current crisis, it’s foolish and untrue to point to a lack of regulation as the cause of the crisis. A simple Google search of ’causes of the economic crisis 2008′ brings up 50,100,000 hits. This is too big a topic to delve into in this post, but I think it’s fair to say that government intervention through Fannie and Freddie along with individual greed and poor choices all played a part in bringing down the housing market. And, as far as I’m aware, banks, while they were greatly over-leveraged, were playing by the rules – investing in the safest market since Americans are known to pay this bill before all others – mortgages. To point the finger at banks and claim that a lack of regulation is to blame for the current situation amounts to singling out and demonizing Wall Street at worst and oversimplifying at best.

Second, it is simply a lie to claim that there were no rules, regulations or watchdogs around, and that in turn, their absence led to the dire economic situation we face. Securities laws and the Securities Exchange Commission were created long ago. They already dictate the makeup of boards of directors, including how many interested and disinterested directors there must be on each board. Further, unlike shareholders, boards of directors have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and must act in the interest of the company and its shareholders. A shareholder, however, can be anyone like you and me who purchases a stock and owes no responsibility to the company to become informed of the company’s structure, liabilities or finances at all. And unlike a director, if a shareholder becomes unhappy with the company, they can sell their shares and cut all ties instantly without any consequences.

It is always easy to blame the haves for anything that goes wrong. But it is irresponsible for members of Congress and the administration to oversimplify, spread misinformation and use the current economic climate to their advantage to inflate government at the expense of private industry and individual freedom. If people think a CEO’s salary is disconnected to his worth for the company, don’t buy that company’s stock. If they think a company is taking unnecessary risks, don’t invest in that company. Government interference is not going to solve problems that were created by many players, over an extended period of time, overnight. And, the ramifications of government continuously overstepping its boundaries like this should be worrisome for all of us.

*Originally published August 2, 2009 on The American Issues Project Blog, here.

This is one time when I can get behind President Obama’s sentiments – although he may not like my reasons for it. What Obama failed to recognize in making that statement is that if the founding fathers were around today, they would abhor his intrusive, expansionist policies. The ’spirit’ of the founders Obama alluded to was based on a fundamental distrust of those in power and of the tendencies of government itself. James Madison once said that “all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree”. Thomas Jefferson echoed this sentiment when he said, “Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” And thus, the founders designed the system of checks and balances we admire today to limit power and to hold government accountable.

Not only did the founders distrust the people in government, but government itself. Madison’s distrust of government is exemplified in his statement, “In framing a government…you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Obliging government to control itself – in making his remarks yesterday, President Obama seems to have forgotten the fear and distrust the founders had of placing too much power in the hands of a distant few governors with a tendency to want to grab more and more power.

Indeed, the actions of this administration thus far have been completely antithetical to the wishes of our founders. President Obama, not wanting to ‘let a crisis go to waste’ believes that the current economic crisis is his best opportunity to transform America – by passing the biggest spending bill in American history, making future generations and states beholden to the federal government, fundamentally changing our health care system so that the government is at the helm of that industry, and imposing burdensome standards and regulations on us in the guise of climate change when there is far from a consensus on global warming. (As I sit here writing on the 4th of July with temperatures in Chicago in the 60s, it’s especially difficult to buy into this theory!)

According to the Congressional Budget Office, within the next 10 years, government debt will be equal to 82% of GDP. The U.S. now has the same number of jobs as it did in the year 2000, erasing 9 years of job creation. And despite massive spending by the federal government, states like California, who received stimulus dollars, are now issuing IOUs to cover their bills.

So, President Obama was right yesterday when he called on all of us to the look to the founding fathers for answers. In this time of economic turmoil and great debate about the proper role of government, we should all turn to them for guidance and remember why the structures they put in place created a system that produced the most wealthy and innovative country in the history of the world. The founders created a magnificent structure. And, it is up to us to remember, understand and defend it from those who would wish to expand government at the expense of our freedoms through monolithic changes to our system with plans such as ‘health care reform’ (which should properly be termed government takeover of the health care industry) and cap and trade (more accurately known as cap & tax).

*Originally published July 5, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

So says Warren Buffett, Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and perhaps even more importantly, one of the President’s biggest supporters in the economic realm. No truer words were spoken about the energy bill passed by the House on Friday night.

Despite the significant number of skeptics of the man-made global warming theory, President Obama and his fellow liberals have wholly bought into this theory and made it a cornerstone of their energy policy. In his Saturday address, the President called the bill passed this week “a jobs bill.” Their argument is that reducing reliance on foreign oil will trigger investments and spending in new programs which will in turn create jobs. Sounds familiar? Isn’t this what the stimulus bill was supposed to do? And, how has that worked out so far?

That logic, that ‘investing’, code for racking up huge debts, would create jobs and even help bring in private capital from the sidelines has not worked as far as the stimulus is concerned. With unemployment nearing double digits, 30% of voters believe that stimulus is hurting the economy. According to that same Rasmussen poll, only 31% say the stimulus has helped the economy, down 3% from last month. These concerns have caused GOP members to start asking, where are the jobs this administration promised to create? Even worse, a staggering 76% of voters are wise enough to recognize that stimulus money will be wasted, while 46% believe that all new stimulus spending should be blocked altogether.

With liberals pushing energy reform, it’s about to get a lot worse for those struggling to make ends meet. On the campaign trail, then-candidate Obama often repeated the promise that no family making under $250,000 a year would face any tax increases. With the House passing the cap and tax bill, the President is just one step away from breaking this promise. The Heritage Foundation has calculated that cap & trade will increase heating bills by 56%, raise gas prices by 58% and raise electricity by as much as 90%. I guess President Obama meant no one in that tax bracket would face a direct tax increase?

In fact, Mr. Buffett is not the only Obama supporter to see the plan for what it really is — a tax in a time of recession, an economy killer. The left-leaning Brookings Institution concluded that cap and trade will decrease GDP by 2.5% by the year 2050 and that 35-40% of coal-related jobs would be shed by 2025, with the economy taking the biggest hit that year.

This so-called cap and trade scheme is just another route through which the government can intrude into the private sector and exert control over private business. The American Institute for Economic Research put it best when they pointed out that if renewable resources “are as advertised – clean, unlimited, and free – it would seem they would take over all by themselves and not require complex and expensive schemes like cap and trade.”

*Originally published June 28, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

In reality, the move has nothing to do with the safety of Coke Zero, nor is the government’s concern genuine. In fact, in 2008, Coke removed an artificial sweetener, sodium cyclamate, from the drink. Sodium cyclamate is banned in the US, though it is legal in other countries. Venezuela’s Coke Zero, however, did not contain this sweetener.

Surprised at the lack of details justifying the ban coming out of the country’s health ministry? You shouldn’t be given Venezuela’s President’s propensity toward nationalization of homegrown companies and bullying of foreign companies. For example, Venezuela has nationalized 74 of its oil companies and is set to complete nationalization of these companies by the end of the year. More recently, the government strong-armed Coke into giving up a parking lot to the government.

While this episode is just another example of Chavez’s anti-American lunacy, in the midst of our discussions about the proper role of government as it relates to the private sector and health care, this example of a government on steroids should give us all pause. Venezuela is a prime example of what can happen when government overreaches, intrudes in to the private sector, takes over domestic companies, kicks around foreign companies and even bans products with no explanation whatsoever – all in the name of the greater good, out of disingenuous concern over citizens’ health.

When a government runs health care, as would surely happen in the U.S. given that government-run health care would ultimately drive private insurance companies into the ground, the line between running the government and running citizens’ lives becomes murky. Want to take a jab at a company by forcing it to pull a product? Easy, do what Venezuela did, claim the product threatens the health of consumers.

Public health care is not affordable, is not efficient and is not the answer to the health care problems our country faces. There have been many pieces on this issue here on the American Issues Project Blog.

Aside from cost issues however, there are also issues of control. And what we can learn from Venezuela’s actions this week, is that a government-run health industry will not only be the first step toward destroying the best health care system any society has even known, but it will also be the first step toward total government control.

*Originally published June 12, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.

Not happy about the new ‘asset’ (if you could call it that) that you’ve acquired? Well, you’re not alone. A new Rasmussen poll shows that 67% of Americans oppose the new deal. But wait, it gets worse. Only 18% of people surveyed believe that the UAW and federal government will do a good job of running GM. Not surprisingly, government workers are the only ones cheering on the joint venture, while 54% of private employees believe that this won’t end well.

It’s no secret that the majority of the country, conservatives and liberals alike, are opposed to bailouts and the new bailout and spending addiction that has hit Washington. We’re told that had the Detroit companies been left alone, our economy would not have been able to handle the horrendous aftermath. But, no one is out there explaining why nationalization and spending more taxpayer money were the only solutions. Why isn’t the administration out there making the case and explaining why this was the only choice we had?

And most importantly, just as it happened with Chrysler, the administation muscled its way through these negotiatons and convinced yet another group of secured lenders to step back behind the administration’s friends and supporters, the unions, and accept less than what they should be repaid. In the new world we live in under President Obama, risk-takers and lenders get punished; failure is rewarded. Rich Lowry of National Review recently wrote that this way of running the economy will ultimately be corrupting and stultifying. With the administration strongarming secured lenders yet again, I think we’re already there.

*Originally published May 31, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.