Help a Friend

Stacy McCain has put an SOS for conservative blogger Stogie.  Sadly, Stogie's plight is all too common these days.  He is in his fifties and college educated.  He has worked his entire life but now his job is gone.  He has gone through his savings and tapped out all his resources and now he is facing the loss of his home. 

I don't talk about my job in detail but here goes.  I work for a credit union whose membership is only open to members of trade unions-IBEW, Operating Engineers, Plumbers and Pipefitters, etc.  Unemployment in my county (Hillsborough, FL) is at twelve percent.  Obviously the membership and I are not politically on the same page.  None the less, I love my members and their families. 

Unemployment among our membership is rampant.  In the last few months I have seen and heard it all.  Because of our mission and our leadership, my credit union works with people when any other financial institution would have taken their home or their car.  As depressing as my job can be, I feel proud to be part of a team who helps individuals in need.  Which brings me back to Stogie.

Stogie needs help.  He has done all the right things in his life and through no fault of his own is facing the loss of everything.  I can't help everyone and neither can you, but I did visit Stogie's site and I did hit his tip jar. Please do the same.

A little musical inspiration:



I saw the play Hair in London when I was fifteen years old.  Almost four decades later I still love that song.

Obama to Wavering Critters: We've Got Your Back, Coburn to Critters: When Hell Freezes Over

From Ruby Slippers:

That's not all, Senate Republicans took to the microphone to telegraph a few more warnings today as well. Senator Tom Coburn warns vulnerable Dems considering switching their no vote from the fall to a yes, "sell your vote, and we will publish it." Coburn draws a chuckle from his contingent when he warns that anyone in the House taking a dive for health care, their fabulous new job awaiting them as reward might just be hung up in the confirmation process. Wouldn't that be sad? Anyone who would sell out their constituents for a failed president on the promise of a glam job, deserves to wait at the back of the line behind all those who have lost their jobs while this administration focused on health care, health care, health care.

No doubt Obama is trying to sell nervous CongressCritters on the idea that if they are punished by voters in November for voting for health care "reform" that he will see to it that they will be rewarded in their next lives.  Fat chance.  If wavering critters can count on anything it is that a very angry public is taking names and punishment is on the menu-for November, and beyond.   Obama can nominate but no Republican who cares about their own re-election will dare to confirm.  Anyone who votes for this crap sandwich, whether it passes or not, should understand that come November they will be lucky if they can find employment as a Walmart greeter.  

What use is "PayGo" if you don't pay as you go?

Earlier today I saw a post titled Bunning's callous grandstanding from the Lexington Herald Leader at Memeorandum.  The title aside as a former Kentuckian I was particularly interested in reading my former newspaper's point of view.  Here is a small excerpt that will give you the gist of the article:

As long as Republicans were in charge, Sen. Jim Bunning was OK with trading a surplus for a deficit. He voted to put two wars, tax cuts and a Medicare drug benefit on the nation's credit card.

Now that Republicans are no longer in charge, Bunning is drawing the line on deficit spending. He's doing it in a way that shows callous contempt for the more than one in 10 working Kentuckians whose jobs disappeared in the economic meltdown.

Needless to say, I felt compelled to comment.  I completed the registration form and was allowed to comment as a "guest" until I was sent and activated their activation link.  Fair enough.  I posted the following comment:
 

CarolynTackett wrote on 03/02/2010 05:17:51 PM:

If I understand your argument, you are saying that poor fiscal behavior in the past should prohibit Sen. Bunning from acting responsibly now. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on that one?

Bunning is not preventing the measure from coming to the floor or coming to a vote and this is not a filibuster. The bill can be passed without unanimous consent. Is there a reason why Dems don't want to go that route?

Which resulted in the following response:

SelfCenteredAmerican wrote on 03/02/2010 05:29:49 PM:

The extension needed unanimous consent to pass because Democrats have labeled it an emergency spending measure. Bunning rejected a motion for unanimous consent again Tuesday morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/02/jobless.benefits.bill/?hpt=T3

Ms Tackett, it is a public board but we all try to have our facts straight before we post. It's ok if you don't...all that will really happen is your credibility will suffer. You may care about that and then again you might not.

It occurred to me that I may not have been clear that unanimous consent would only be necessary if the bill was to be passed without bringing it to a floor for debate or full consideration as explained here, here, and here. 

Unfortunately, I suddenly wasn't allowed to comment as a "guest" and the activation link I was emailed didn't work.  Clearly, I have no God given right to comment anywhere and I reserve the right to delete or block any comments I see fit on this site.  However, I would not delete a comment or block a commenter simply because I disagreed with it.

That said, had I been able to comment I would have said that "PayGo" is worthless unless Congress actually pays as it goes.  I would have said that I am proud of Bunning for standing on principal and that it is a shame that we don't have more like him. 

Unemployment checks were never in danger despite the girlie men of the Left's characteristic hot flashes over not getting their way.  As I type this, Fox is reporting that Bunning and the Dems have decided to compromise, the money has been found and oh yeah, whatever "it" is the Dems will probably vote against it.  I don't know what "it" is so I'll take a wait and see attitude.  Further, Michelle Malkin has updated that Bunning's Kentucky offices have received a bomb threat.  That isn't the Kentucky I remember.

Read also Bunning Stands Alone

Charlie Crist may be the "absolute worst" govenor in the United States. Ya, think?

Writing in The Agenda at The National Review Reihan Salam has this to say about my governor, Charlie Crist:

Why would Democrats want Charlie Crist to switch parties? I understand that this would help reinforce the view that there is no home for moderates in the Republican Party, thus strengthening a key Democratic narrative. The problem is that Crist really is one of the worst governors in the United States, if not the absolute worst. This has nothing to do with ideology per se. Crist has backed conservative policies as well as liberal policies. He's even gotten some things right. For example, I think Crist was very wise to support reforming the criminal justice system and I also think that there's a decent case for restoring voting rights to ex-offenders. But on the central issues facing a governor or for that matter a U.S. senator — issues surrounding taxing and spending — Crist is clueless.

…Or, for that matter, Florida, where Crist's approach threatens the state's long-term fiscal health. Rather than see federal stimulus funds as a one-time injection that could spare the state pro-cyclical cuts while creating room for a long-term plan to reduce the size of state government in line with revenues, he seemed to think that it gave him an opportunity to permanently ratchet up spending while also cutting taxes. No wonder he embraced the president.

Those of us who are opposed to Crist becoming our Republican candidate for the US Senate have stated repeatedly that it was the way that Crist used the Stimulus money that was so upsetting to us. Crist should have swallowed hard and admitted that as a state we are in deep trouble and that cuts, big cuts, were necessary to put us on solid footing. However, he lacked the political courage to do that.
 
Let's look at a couple of facts.  Florida has no state income tax.  That is a wonderful thing except Florida currently has the second highest foreclosure rate in the nation.  Property values here have dropped like a rock.  Between the foreclosures and the decreased property values the state's revenue from property taxes has taken a major hit.  The state's unemployment rate is currently 11.8% and expected to rise.  Adding to the unemployment crisis is from Famuan Online:
 

The state's unemployment rate currently rests at 11.8 percent. Businesses, some of them facing 1,000 percent increases in unemployment taxes, are threatening layoffs.

Crist and legislative leaders want to delay the pain, but experts say that increases are unavoidable. Their plan would raise the per-employee tax to $25.20 this year and $53.90 the next. But it would soar to $192.95 in 2012.

With businesses already squeezed the increase in taxes will at a minimum delay companies from hiring any additional workers and in all likelihood will cause increased layoffs.  Increased layoffs will lead to more foreclosures and the cycle continues.

Now we are stuck.  Crist has already raised a whole slew of fees.  The only thing left to do is cut the budget to the absolute bare bones.  Unfortunately, Crist has shown no will to do so.  Just the opposite, Crist is asking that we increase our sales taxes to fund a train.  The insanity of it all is just mind boggling.

No one is under the delusion that budget cuts will be easy but unless we want a California size catastrophe we have no choice. 

Crist needs to set aside his political interests and start looking after the interests of the citizens of Florida.

Sen. Jim Bunning stands alone

Sen. Jim Bunning, from my former home state of Kentucky, stands alone.  From Redstate:

Last night, while most Americans were watching the Olympics, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) was standing strong for the American people on the floor of the United States Senate. Oh, it won’t be portrayed as such - believe me. But when no other Senator, including anyone in Republican leadership, would stand up, Senator Bunning took to the floor to object to a unanimous consent request to call up and pass the House-passed extension of a number of expiring so-called “stimulus” and other benefit programs, because Bunning dared to ask the simple question of how these extensions would be paid for.

Gee, when did we start worrying about how to pay for things?  Isn't that what China is for?

Some personal information just so nobody thinks that I am blowing the very real and very serious problem of unemployment off.  For the last ten plus years I have worked for a credit union whose membership is open only to labor union members and their families.  We are seeing nearly as many unemployment checks as paychecks and there is no end in sight.  I see the effects of unemployment every single day.  These are people that I have come to care very deeply about and I know exactly how difficult these times are for them.  And this is why the words of Sen. Jay Rockefeller make me angry:

“It is simply unfair for one senator to attempt to hold the Senate hostage on this issue,” Durbin said. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) told POLITICO that it’s “just awful,” and that Bunning’s objection could turn off televisions for millions of households with satellite dishes, since the package has provisions dealing with that issue.“You’ve got to be pretty mad about something to stop that,” Rockefeller said of Bunning. (emphasis added)

What, pray tell, does the ability to watch TV have to do with unemployment?  Unemployment is a serious issue, watching TV isn't.  Why are these two things tied together?  That is the problem with Washington.  Our Congressmen come up with a bill to deal with a specific subject and then load the bill up with nonsense so that if you object to the nonsense it affects the specific issue the bill was created to address.

Sen. Bunning is a champion for standing up against the "pass it and the taxpayers will pay for it" attitude that permeates Washington.  Millions of American families are making choices and setting priorities for the family budget.  Should a family choose to pay for cable TV over buying groceries?  Of course not.  That would be irresponsible.  It is no less irresponsible for the federal government to expect taxpayers to pony for their little pet projects. 

Sen. Bunning is asking a very simple question, "how are we going to pay for it?".  I would add to that, "what are we paying for?". 

Our government needs to take a lesson from our families and start setting some priorities.

Jobs saved or created-overseas

Okay folks, the President wants a "jobs" bill.  Yes, I know, that's what the Stimulus was supposed to be.  Didn't happen and now, a year later, we are back at square one.  Well, actually we're several steps back but...

If you have heard our dear leader speak, and how could you not, you probably are aware that Obama is big on "green" jobs.  I say that any bill that relies on green jobs should be opposed and here is why (warning the "emphasis added" monster has escaped):

New Wind Farms in the U.S. Do Not Bring Jobs

Despite all the talk of green jobs, the overwhelming majority of stimulus money spent on wind power has gone to foreign companies, according to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at the American University's School of Communication in Washington, D.C.

Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study found that nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

So Where Are the Jobs?

"Most of the jobs are going overseas," said Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He analyzed which foreign firms had accepted the most stimulus money. "According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S."

Boy, the powers that be are doing a bang up job of seeing that our money is spent wisely.  But I am being short sighted.  What are the long term effects of "green" jobs?  Let's look:

Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study 

March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

"Green" jobs translates in to higher unemployment, higher energy costs and higher taxes.  If the jobs bill includes incentives for producing green jobs taxpayers might as well reach in to their wallets, pull out whatever cash they have, and flush it down the toilet.  Of course, if Republicans oppose this bill they will be portrayed as being against jobs but the American people are not nearly as stupid as the President seems to believe.  If presented with the facts the public will see this bill for what it is-another Progressive disaster waiting to happen.

Go to your Congressman's contact page and tell them that if they want to "save or create" jobs that they should stay as far away from the President's "green" jobs proposals as possible.

What? Were you expecting groupies?

Carol at No Sheeples Here thinks that Obama seems bored:

Quote of the Day

"POTUS delivered a vague and cheerful pep talk to the Organizing For America team these last days, and he again used the old campaign rhetoric of how the hard stuff was hard, and that changing Washington was hard, and that it was hard not to give up but it was the right thing to do…and so forth. The cheers were prefab. POTUS appears distracted, and, if he were not POTUS, there would be the suspicion of boredom."

Well yes, life is a bitch when you have to work for a living.  Constituents just aren't as much fun as groupies and there are days when you are surrounded by people who don't want to be buried wearing your tee shirt.You have to deal with people who have no flippin' clue what the hell arugula is and couldn't afford to buy it anyway.  You have to deal with people would rather eat plaster than apply for food stamps but they haven't worked for months and their kids are hungry.  You have to deal with people who don't give two shits whether a bunch of honor killing, genital mutilating terrorists like us-they just want to get on a plane without worrying about some inbred thug blowing up his nasty bits and taking the entire plane out in the process.  You have to deal with people who don't give a rat's ass about Global Warming because (a) they don't believe it exists, (b) they think it is a scam and (c) they don't want to pay more for their electricity just because you and your buddies stand to make a killing off selling carbon credits.  You have to deal with people you are happy with their medical care and aren't going to stand for the government seizing one sixth of our economy for themselves.  You have deal with people who think that you are a self-serving arrogant schmuck.  Don't like it?  Look on the bright side-only three years to go.

Jobs numbers suck? Find a different way to count them.

Via Don Surber:

White House panics on jobs

I got a note from the Pro-Publica publicist pushing a post at its Web site: “Michael Grabell reports that the White House will no longer keep a cumulative tally of jobs created or saved, and instead it will count any person who works on a project funded with stimulus money—even if that person was never in danger of losing his or her job. The OMB added the new guidelines last month to simplify the counting rules, but Grabell notes, ‘the new guidance could significantly change what the public sees’.”

I smell desperation coming from the White House.

Fortunately, as Grabell pointed out, a congressman is calling the White House out on this attempt to rationalize their $787 billion stimulus — which sank the economy.

“But Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the Obama administration is making the job numbers even more misleading and is trying to pump them up by counting jobs that weren’t created or retained. He outlined his concerns in a letter Friday to the government’s stimulus watchdog, Earl Devaney,” Grabell reported.

That letter is here

Not only is President Obama running out of political capital, he is wasting his credibility

Working in a financial institution I see the effects of unemployment every day.  I know that the stimulus has failed and so do the people I deal with who are struggling to make ends meet on their unemployment checks.  The White House can use whatever system they like to say that one plus one equals five but those people who are desperate for a job, any job, to feed their family and keep a roof over their head stopped falling for the administration spin months ago.
 
I'm not sure that Obama has any credibility left to waste.

Throwing good money after bad

The Daley Gator:

New Obama ‘Green Jobs’ To Cost $135,295 Each – Washington Examiner

President Obama’s announcement earlier today of an additional $2.3 billion in federal tax credits for creating approximately 17,000 subsidized temporary jobs in the green energy industry is drawing a less than enthusiastic response from Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research:

“Show me one other industry that requests and receives a nearly 30 percent taxpayer subsidy. That’s what the wind and solar industries require – at a minimum – to exist. All the president did today is throw more money at an unproven technology that is not economically viable in the marketplace. Unfortunately, the only winners in this latest taxpayer giveaway will be Wall Street money managers and corporate interests in the wind and solar industry.

“If the president really wants to create an environment that will foster economic growth and job creation, he need not look any further than the domestic oil, gas and coal industries. These three industries and energy sources built this nation. For the administration to continue to ignore this fact and to keep the vast resources that taxpayers own under lock and key at the Department of Interior is irresponsible and a disservice to the American people.

One imagines that there must be a money tree growing somewhere in the Rose Garden.  After all, why would the President favor spending $2.3 billion dollars to create a mere 17,000 temporary jobs unless he has an endless supply of money that none of us are aware of?

If President Obama were in the least bit interested in expanding employment he would back off health care reform that has caused uncertainty among the nation's employers, cut taxes for the country's businesses, both small and large alike, and do away with regulations that impede expansion by the country's industries.  Unfortunately, the President would rather push an agenda than deal with the problems that now rest squarely on his shoulders.

President Obama's butt-kissing of special interest groups, in the case the "green" lobby, is digging us further and further down in an economic hole.   The President's policies do little to encourage risk taking or innovation, both the hallmarks of a vibrant economy, but instead, he is using his position to reward his political backers.

"To the victor goes the spoils" may be a viable political ploy in Chicago (though apparently not) but it stinks as a model for leadership. 

Do you know what tomorrow is?

Tomorrow is the one anniversary of the report issued by Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christine Romer, that said that unemployment would not go over eight percent if the Stimulus Package was passed.  As they say, that was then, this is now:

On the December Jobs Numbers
Posted by Christina Romer

Today’s employment report, though a setback from November, is consistent with the gradual labor market stabilization we have been seeing over the last several months.

Payroll employment declined 85,000 in December. To put this number in perspective, employment declined 139,000 in September and 127,000 in October. So, in a broad sense the trend toward moderating job loss is continuing. This trend is particularly obvious in the quarterly pattern: average monthly job loss was 691,000 in the first quarter of 2009, 428,000 in the second quarter, 199,000 in the third quarter, and 69,000 in the fourth quarter. (emphasis added)

Translating Romer's statement using my Administration Spin to Plain English dictionary, the gist is:  unemployment sucks and is getting suckier but even though it is far above the eight percent we promised it doesn't suck as bad as it could so therefore, we're doing a real bang up job of only somewhat really sucking.

Of course that is easy for Romer to say, she still has a job.

Why Are We Adding Another Entitlement Program When The Ones We Already Have Are Broke?

Washington Post:

The recession's jobless toll is draining unemployment-compensation funds so fast that according to federal projections, 40 state programs will go broke within two years and need $90 billion in loans to keep issuing the benefit checks.

The shortfalls are putting pressure on governments to either raise taxes or shrink the aid payments.

Debates over the state benefit programs have erupted in South Carolina, Nevada, Kansas, Vermont and Indiana. And the budget gaps are expected to spread and become more acute in the coming year, compelling legislators in many states to reconsider their operations.

Currently, 25 states have run out of unemployment money and have borrowed $24 billion from the federal government to cover the gaps. By 2011, according to Department of Labor estimates, 40 state funds will have been emptied by the jobless tsunami.

Chances are that on Christmas Eve we will be gifted with yet another entitlement program. Let’s look at the entitlement programs we already have-Medicare will be broke by 2017, Social Security may well beat Medicare to insolvency and now we learn that 25 states are out of their employment funds and that number will soon swell to 40.

In order to “rescue” these programs either benefits will be cut or taxes will be raised. Most likely, there will be a combination of both. Reid and Company recognized that ObamaCare would also require services/treatments be limited (rationed) so deep in the belly of the bill they hid a provision:

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

The Dem’s aim is to lock-in the Advisory Board’s ability to cut costs through rationing. In other words, while the Dems have been denying that rationing is a feature of government health care, they have been simultaneously planning for it.

Rather than pushing through yet another entitlement program that will increase taxes, increase hardship and decrease productivity our government should be concentrating on fixing the broken programs we already have. They should start by getting people back to work.

Let's Put Some Congressmen on the Unemployment Line

From The New York Times:

In all, more than one out of every six workers — 17.5 percent — were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982.

This includes the officially unemployed, who have looked for work in the last four weeks. It also includes discouraged workers, who have looked in the past year, as well as millions of part-time workers who want to be working full time.

The official jobless rate — 10.2 percent in October, up from 9.8 percent in September — remains lower than the early 1980s peak of 10.8 percent.

The Dems are making a big show of meeting on a Saturday to vote on a bill that amounts to a government takeover of one sixth of our economy. While the Dems preen in front the cameras, one out of six Americans has lost the job that pays for the roof that they put over their family's head. While the Dems pontificate about this "historic" bill, one out of six Americans has lost the job that pays for the food they put on their family's table.

Those grinning Dems aren't thinking about those unemployed citizens who are struggling day in and day out. The citizens aren't their priority. To say that Dems lack empathy for the American worker is an understatement. Perhaps if our Congressmen found themselves of out of job their priorities would change.

h/t Memeorandum

Incompetence or All Part Of The Plan?

Yesterday I wrote:

Bottom line-the "Stimulus" is a bust and those "shovel ready" jobs are a myth. The administration threw 787 BILLION dollars in to the wind with no oversight and with no regard for the the taxpayers who ponied up the money. This is the same administration that wants us to trust them with our health care.

Tonight Pundette quotes Thomas Sowell:

Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful
in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days-- after
which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on
vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation
takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September
2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists
expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

So here we are in the middle of a game of 'hurry up and wait', but to what end? Either the implementation of the Stimulus has been grossly incompetent OR the Stimulus was never meant to stimulate the economy. Here, Pundette quotes Roger Kimball:

Again, it would be wrong to infer that the so-called stimulus package was
for naught. It really is bearing fruit. It’s just not the fruit that Obama
promised. To appreciate this, you have to understand what the real — as distinct
from the announced — purposed of the stimulus package was. It was not, as Sowell
points out, “to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible.” On the contrary, the real purpose, Sowell explains,

was to get that money — and the power that goes with it — into the
hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

More money and power in the hands of government officials, less money
and power in the hands of individuals. That’s the real Obama ticket. Or, rather,
it’s part of the real Obama ticket. For what we seeing playing out in domestic
affairs is also going on in the international arena. What Obama is doing to us
as individuals he is also endeavoring to do to America as a whole: to render it
less powerful, less “exceptional,” more part of a housebroken collective.

For all of Obama's lofty words, he is not about 'power to the people.' Barack Obama is about 'power to the central government.' Since the stimulus passed the only segment of society that has grown is government. For the rest of America, the crisis has deepened and there is no end in sight. In turn, more Americans are becoming dependent on the government. Unintended consequences? Hardly.

A Very Unhappy Labor Day

Over at NTC News the outlook for the country on this Labor Day can be summed up as "bad", "really bad" and "flat out sucks". Millions of workers aren't being included in that 9.7% unemployment rate because they have given up on finding work. A Rutgers survey of the unemployed describe them as shaken, traumatized people coping with serious financial and psychological effects from an economic downturn of epic proportion . . . The London Telegraph is reporting that Obama is repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. Things can't get any worse? Wrong, we may be looking at 11% unemployment next year.

Bottom line-the "Stimulus" is a bust and those "shovel ready" jobs are a myth. The administration threw 787 BILLION dollars in to the wind with no oversight and with no regard for the the taxpayers who ponied up the money. This is the same administration that wants us to trust them with our health care.

Momma always told me that trust has to be earned. Obama hasn't earned it.

We Have A Question Mr President

The 134 Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted against the Stimulus Bill are raising their voices to ask the President a single question, “Where are the jobs?”

H/T Gateway Pundit

How Much Can It Get? Lots.

Via Don Surber:

From Jim Pinkerton at Fox News:

The economy is shaping up to be Barrack Osama’s Katrina. If President George W. Bush was blamed for his slow response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 -- there was plenty of blame to go around, of course, but the disaster was on Bush's watch--then Osama will get the blame for his slow response to the current recession. The difference, of course, is that Katrina afflicted a city and a few states, while the recession afflicts the whole country.

Unemployment is 9.5 percent and rising fast, certain to go higher than 10 percent. And what is the federal government doing about it? Not much. And so House Republican Leader John Boehner makes a good point when he asks, "Where are the jobs?"

On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said that the Osama administration had "misread" the economic indicators. So what are they likely to do about it? More of the same--which is to say, not much.

Considering that the administration refuses to rule a second stimulus, more of the same could push this country right over the edge.

“Where are the jobs?” There aren’t any. The stimulus was nothing more or less than political payola. The faithful have been rewarded, on the taxpayer’s dime, and they will remain faithful come hell or high water.

How much, in dollar and cents, is the census worth to ACORN? Beyond that, he who holds the pen writes the numbers. In other words, ACORN puts Obama in office, he gives them the huge census contract and viola(!), despite that fact Obama’s policies have caused the public to become more conservative, the numbers come back to favor the liberals. Granted, I am projecting a bit on the end game, but would you bet against it?

As long as the administration is keeping the (donor) base happy and the (dependent) base dependent, the rest us can be damned. Three and a half years from now Obama will still be using the ‘I’ word, INHEREITED, and the chosen will still be parroting it.