Obama has no interest in job creation...

With another 410,000 people filing first time unemployment claims and the "official" unemployment rate (I believe the true rate is much higher than that), one would think that Obama would want to do things that would help to create jobs.  President Obama and his administration's actions to stimulate job growth are like a gardener fostering growth in his or her garden by turning off the water.

The latest example of this comes from THIS story in the New York Times.  The headline reads that the Obama Administration objects to the Alaska Oil and Gas Development bill.  Never mind that such a bill would only help the US's issues with gas prices and US demand for foreign.  Never mind that the the environmentalist wacko's have hijacked this issue and are completely opposed to developing an area that is less than 1% of the Refuge.  Never mine that 75% of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR.  Never mind that using domestic sources of oil over foreign sources (from countries like Saudi Arabia and Libya) makes sense.

According to ANWR.org developing and drilling for oil in ANWR would create between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs.

Objecting or opposing this legislation makes no sense on so many levels. Look at the positives that this bill would bring:

1)  America's dependence on foreign oil would decrease.
2) A larger supply or even the expectation of a larger supply of oil would help to bring down the cost of oil traded on the stock market.
3) With advances in drilling techniques, the environmental impact on ANWR is tiny.
4) From this project alone as was stated above between 250 k and 750 k new jobs would be created.
5)  More people working means more people paying taxes, and more people spending which in turn will stimulate further economic growth.

High unemployment will continue to be a massive drag on any economic recovery.  The only real way that government can really affect the economy is through taxation and government regulation.  If Obama wants to have any chance at reelection, he is going to have to lower taxes and cut out regulations that hinder job growth.  Obama, however is a rigid ideologue who would rather sacrifice jobs to save the Caribou, than do what it take to get the American economy rolling again.  Obama's big ears seem to be deaf to the outcry from jobless Americans who are suffering.

Well at least Michelle, Sasha and Malia, will get to go to Botswana for their summer vacation, err "Official State Visit."

Why Obama's policies have not worked.

All of the left must be scratching their heads.  Most of them have been taught in the academic world that the Keynesian economic theory is the correct one.  What their liberal professors did not tell them was that Keynesian economics has never worked.  They were told that their hero, FDR pulled the US out of the Great Depression with is New Deal economic policies.  Shoot, I was taught that growing up in High School history.   However two UCLA professors (hardly a bastion of conservative thought) did a study and have concluded that his Keynesian policies did not work but lengthened the Great Depression by SEVEN YEARS. (click HERE to read more about this).  President Carter and his central planning policies led to something not thought possible in the Keynesian theory: Stagflation--a stagnant economy coupled with high inflation).

Flash forward to 2008.  The economy starts to tank, and the man in the White House and his party are blamed.  Should they be?  Well I say to some degree yes.  Because of loose monetary policy coupled with out of control spending that were at least to some degree contributing factors.  However these policies were not and should not be considered free market policies.  Obama sweeps into office under perfect economic and political conditions and starts a new round of Keynesian policies that would never and will never work.

:Lets look at the stimulus package that was passed when Obama first took office.  His $787 billion (an unheard of amount of money), we were told, would keep unemployment down.  In fact we were promised that the so called stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%.  Unemployment went up past 10% for a time and has not dropped below 8.9% since (the rate is at 9.1% now).  As the rate continued to skyrocket the left wing Keynesian economists just shrugged their shoulders and blamed Bush, saying the economy Obama inherited was much worse than originally thought.

What should have been reported by the main stream press was that this stimulus had no way of working, and there is one simple reason, the stimulus money was spent on crap, and not on things that would stimulate the conomy. Take a look at recovery.gov.  They have a pie chart break down of what was spent.  There is so much in there that I don't have time to write it all here, but it is obvious that these yahoos in the Obama administration had no clue as to how to stimulate the economy.  Take a look at the breakdown of where the money was spent.  The only thing that translates to job growth was the money spent on infrastructure.  Considering all of this stuff was temporary, those jobs would eventually disappear.  A bunch of the money was spent on retraining of workers.  Great, retrain people, but if there is no one to hire them, then where are they going to work when they are retrained.

The only way to really stimulate the economy is by stimulating the private sector.  Somewhere around 70% of jobs in the US (still looking for confirmation of this statistic) are private sector jobs.  Consider the fact that if the private sector is stimulated, and the economy starts moving again, companies will pay more taxes (due to increased profits), people will pay more income tax (because more people will be working), and consumers will buy more products leading to more tax revenue.  It really is simple, but the left just can't see this.  They believe that profits are evil and that government bureaucrats can make these decisions better than the hard working Americans.

History has shown that these policies don't work, but it does not stop the central planners from continuing to try.  We must stop them.

National Debt and Deficit Spending

I have been politically minded for a long time.  It has taken me a long time however to understand the significance of deficit spending.  I should have known better.  My religion warns its members against debt.  I have seen how debt in my own life can inhibit my ability to be financially secure.  As I have attempted to right my own financial ship (a work in progress i might add), I have become more of a deficit hawk.

I must call myself to the carpet though.  I was and still am a supporter of President George W. Bush, but I have come to realize how much damage he did by being such a big spender.  While Bush 43 did the right thing by cutting taxes to keep the economy chugging along after 9/11, he did not adhere to the other equally important part of Conservative principals, that is to keep government spending in check.  Bush increased spending more than Clinton did, and he did it with a Republican congress helping him.  

Now some might argue that part of this spending was for the War on Terror and was necessary to keep America safe.  But Bush also spent gobs of money on things like No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Benefit, two examples of new layers of Government bureaucracy that should never have been added to by a Republican president.  

I was not critical of President Bush.  I did not check the facts when conservative pundits said that it was because of the War on Terror, or I just was not listening when they talked about the skyrocketing debt. 

Well consider this person awoken to the perils of the deficit.  Bush may have increased the debt and should be greatly criticized for it, but Obama has gone crazy with it.  I will write more on this within the next twelve hours, but consider this.

Congress is debating whether or not to increase the debt ceiling by something like 2 trillion dollars.  If Obama continues to run deficits of 1.6 trillion dollars per year.  This debt limit increase will not get the US government two years before another debt limit increase has to be passed.

More on the deficit in a few hours.  

Should people vote for Mormon for High Office?

As a Mormon I have heard the types of arguments put forth here as to reasons why people should not vote for Mormons.  Mike Huckabee,, in the 2008 Presidential primaries, made some allusions to these arguments.  He is an Evangelical, like the person referenced in this article, and if you ask many LDS people, think he is an anti-Mormon bigot (I happen to believe this--Huckabee used some very strong anti-Mormon code words when he was running in '08).

The following is a link to an article in the Washington Post, written by Michael Otterson, Official spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Rather than try to put some original thoughts down on in my blog, I will just give you the reference and say, I agree with this article 100%.

http://wapo.st/kGpp4C

I will add that I personally have not made a decision about who I will vote for in the next election.  I personally like Mitt Romeny, but there are several other candidates that I like as well including Herman Cain.  When it gets closer to the primaries, I will make my decision.

Let me also say, that there is no way in H#@! I would ever vote for Harry Reid if he were my Senator.  It does not matter that he and I share the same religion.  That is about the only common belief we share.

Obama Fiddles while...

The Obamas with the German Chancelor

On Tuesday President Barack Obama held his fourth State Dinner: This one for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  According to several sources this State Dinner was scaled back.  The Washington Post asks the rhetorical question as to whether this was an aesthetic or a budget choice.
In all honesty I could care less.  When I saw this image, I became instantly frustrated and even more disgusted with this President than I usually am.  This was his 4th State dinner in less than two and a half years.  Forget the cost of such a dinner in a time when this country is accumulating debt faster than Sylvester can say "Suffering Succotash." Forget the fact that President George W. Bush had just 6 (count them, 6) State Dinners in eight years (Yes at this rate if Obama is reelected --Heaven Forbid--he will have between 13 and 16).

He, his wife and family, seem to be oblivious to the plight of regular Americans.  The U.S. is drowning in debt.  Many Americans are upside down in their homes (including me).  Unemployment is at 9.1% (Gallup puts the rate higher).  Gas prices are as high as $4.00 per gallon, in some places.  GDP has fallen to 1.2% in the last quarterly report.  The U.S. Military is fighting three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia) Yet, Obama and his wife parade around in lavish clothes, host State Dinners, play round after round of golf (the latest count I could find was 64 rounds--Bush played 32 in 8 years) and seemingly live it up.  Americans are suffering.  Way too many people are out of work.  Gas prices have stretched already thin family budgets even thinner.  In such difficult times, the supposed leader of his people should not be seen "living it up."

His decision to continue to do so, is more than just poor judgement or bad advice.  First it shows a stunning lack of restraint. But more importantly it makes him look out of touch, and smacks of extreme hubris.

Obama and State Dinners

Last night President Obama had his 4th State dinner since taking office in January 2009.  By comparison George W. Bush had 6 State dinners in 8 years. If Obama is reelected (heaven forbid), he will have between 13 and 15 state dinners. More on why this bothers me later. Blogging on my virtual keyboard, on my android phone is annoying.