The Conservative Edge

Apparently, the road to economic recovery runs through Washington, D.C. The federal government seems to be the only recipient of the “quick jolt” promised by Barack Obama and the leading Democrats in Congress. According to the Associated Press, the latest employment figures show that 390,000 government jobs were added in May, aided by temporary Census-related positions. This number far exceeds the 41,000 private sector jobs added during the same period. Furthermore, there were 35,000 jobs lost in the construction industry, 12,000 jobs lost in financial services, and 6,600 jobs lost in retail trade.

Is this what economic recovery is all about? The White House can try to take credit for some uptick in job creation, but the fact remains that the government is adding jobs at the expense of most other industries. It is also true that both the percentage increase in unemployment, and the length of time from peak employment, surpass those from every recessionary period since World War 2.

McClatchy Newspapers reports that the full-time federal civilian work force (except postal workers) is expected to top 2.1 million in fiscal year 2010. More than 560,000 new workers will be hired in the next four years. Moreover, average compensation for federal civilian workers increased nearly twice as much as for the private sector from 2000 to 2008. Their average annual compensation is $119,982, including earnings and benefits. This ranks federal civilian workers seventh among 72 occupation categories, behind only high finance, energy and company management professions.

The problem is, 98 percent of working Americans are not federal employees. While many people keep losing their jobs—incidentally, another manufacturer here in southwest Ohio closed, putting 57 folks out of work—there is a growing number of people who wonder why the government isn’t cutting back like every other employer.

The answer is relatively simple. The government keeps expanding because it keeps adding layer upon layer of services and programs, with commensurate increases in federal bureaucracy. It will soon get to the point at which our economy will grind to a halt under all of the new taxes, laws, and regulations. Companies trying to conduct business here at home will soon find an economic climate favoring government oversight instead of productivity. We may, by the end of Obama’s first (and hopefully only) term, revisit the economic malaise brought on by the Carter administration: double digit unemployment, high inflation, and escalating interest rates. Even if inflation and interest rates never reach those levels, economists aren’t expecting the job market to reach pre-recession hiring levels until 2015.

It comes down to this: if you want to prosper, get a job working for Uncle Sam. Otherwise, get ready for an extended rough ride.

I didn’t watch President Obama’s State of the Union address. That was no accident. I didn’t tune in for two reasons: first, I knew the speech would be extensively published and reviewed, so I wouldn’t be missing anything; second, I didn’t care to witness Obama’s lack of accountability (from himself, his party, and the media) in defaulting on his campaign promises.

It seems that Obama spent roughly two-thirds of his speech explaining what he intends to do about the sputtering economy. Of course, he is not the only one responsible for crafting economic policy. However, the Democrats have always campaigned on their economic expertise. They claim to know what it takes to either cure a recession or accelerate economic growth. Bill Clinton became President by affirming his plan to pull America from the mild recession of the early 1990s. Obama was no different in 2008. He vowed that his administration would give a “quick jolt” to the economy, and that lots of new jobs would be made as green energy technology flourished.

On January 27, 2010, after one full year in office, Obama promised that he would make job growth his top priority. This begs the question: if job growth was NOT a priority, then what WAS his top priority? And why has it taken so long for him to give attention to the American economy?

Sadly, there were priorities that Obama and the Democrats had in mind. Some of the highlights: in January of 2009, they slapped additional taxes on tobacco products; they decided the government should own General Motors; Obama felt the need to apologize to foreign countries for America’s previous behavior; the Democrats reneged on Obama’s promise of transparency as they tried to pass health care legislation without debate, discussion, or acceptance by the American people; Obama “called out” Glenn Beck and Fox News; Obama traveled to Europe to plead for the Olympics to be held in Chicago; Obama pocketed a million bucks for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Those were just some of the items on the Democrats’ “to-do” list.

So, it becomes apparent that job creation never was a top priority. For all their self-proclaimed expertise, the Democrats do not understand that reducing unemployment is the key to economic recovery. Rebate programs like “Cash for Clunkers” mean nothing to people who are struggling to buy groceries or pay their mortgages. Obama’s chastisement of “fat cat” bankers may make us feel good for a while, but feelings don’t pay the bills.

Let’s hope that Obama and the Democrats really do get serious about fixing America’s economic problems. If they do not give heed, there will surely be more losses for the Democrats in upcoming elections. And they won’t have anyone to blame but themselves.

Sometimes you have to give credit when credit is due. I must commend Jonah Goldberg, a syndicated columnist, for his recent commentary published in the September 6 edition of the Dayton Daily News. His column focused on the media’s tendency to “give Obama as many do-overs as he needs.” Goldberg’s remark was made in light of the fact that Obama’s upcoming speech will be his third prime-time address in three months, and the fifth of his 7-month presidency.

Obama keeps making speeches, but he doesn’t put any meat with the potatoes, so to speak. He obviously enjoys getting TV exposure, and he makes sure the teleprompters are in place for every televised event, so his words will sound sophisticated and smooth. But when it comes to specific reforms, especially about health care, he doesn’t give many details. And when it seems that Congress isn’t acting fast enough on certain issues, the White House claims that Obama will assert himself to speed up the legislative process, and come up with solutions to America’s problems.

The trouble is, the only speedy actions taken by the dominant liberals in Congress have been to either raise taxes or expand government control of certain hated industries. As I’ve said before, the liberals have always despised cars, banks, and tobacco; as a result, the only decisive actions made by the liberals in Congress and the White House have been to raise tobacco taxes, seize banks and insurance companies, and cripple America’s car industry.

Meanwhile, unemployment keeps rising, beyond levels projected by Obama and his advisors. We keep hearing from the Obama administration that they didn’t realize the severity of the recession. But, Obama and other Democrats campaigned on their thorough knowledge of the economy, and what should be done to promote recovery. They can’t lean on the “we didn’t know” crutch forever, especially as millions of Americans are still waiting for the promise of job creation to be fulfilled. Indeed, the Associated Press reported on Joe Biden’s recent efforts to claim victory for the stimulus package: “Biden, Obama’s chief stimulus cheerleader, proudly pointed to more than 2,200 highway projects Thursday funded by the program, but didn’t mention the growing frustration among contractors that infrastructure money is only trickling out and thus far hasn’t delivered the needed boost in jobs.”

Americans may be growing impatient with all the talk, and Obama’s appetite for airtime. Goldberg observed in his excellent column, “Funny how the people who run the most sophisticated communication operation in the history of the presidency keep concluding that their difficulties stem from their inability to get their message out and never from what their message actually is.” I wonder if Americans might be more receptive to health care reform if they first believed that the Obama administration was serious about creating jobs. That was the message of the 2008 campaign, but it’s now a message that can’t be heard above Obama’s prime time noise.

There is an old Biblical proverb that says there is nothing new under the sun; things that are happening now have happened before (if you’re curious, read Ecclesiastes chapter one, verses 9 and 10).

That proverb has come to mind this week as I scanned a few articles in my local newspaper. I read about the proposals for health care reform, and legislation that will redefine or clarify abortion rights. I felt like I was reading articles from 1993. If you recall, it was Bill Clinton who, along with Hillary, attempted a massive overhaul of the American health care system. Clinton also endeavored to expand abortion services, and appropriate government funding for those services.

But during the election of 1992, Clinton had campaigned on economic issues. America had been in a mild recession, but statistics were showing that the economy was slowly recovering. However, the Democratic candidate painted a gloomy picture of our financial health, and promised quick action to stimulate our economy. His picture was indeed gloomy enough, and he was promptly elected.

Fast forward to 2008. As our nation faced a severe recession, Barack Obama promised to put thousands of Americans to work rebuilding our infrastructure. He also vowed to give a “quick Jolt” to the economy. But, like Clinton, Obama changed his priorities once he was sworn in to office. We now see the real goals set by the Democrats and liberals: higher taxes, increased regulation of banks and industry, health care reform, and abortion legislation.

It looks like Americans are going to recover in spite of the government, not because of it. There is still a lack of focus on job creation, which would stimulate the economy more than all the new regulations and taxes combined. Job prospects are still bleak. In my area of Ohio, for instance, there is the threat of closure of several public libraries. Voters will soon be deciding on whether to approve additional property taxes that will keep most library branches open. You know things are bad when public libraries have to shut down. But it’s like that all across the state.

I’m hoping that Obama will realize that the government should provide an environment for growth and innovation. When more people work, they buy more goods and contribute more revenue. But Obama’s efforts are going toward the taxation of the fewer Americans who are still working to create wealth. Many experts ridiculed the idea of “trickle-down” economics. If Obama isn’t careful, he will completely shut off the trickle we have left.

I’ve been listening to the debates over President Obama’s proposed stimulus plan. It seems that some people, like New York Times columnist Gail Collins, insist that there are no earmarks in the plan and that we should all just “give it a pat on the back” and accept it. Others, like columnist Paul Krugman, are accusing the Republicans of “trying to push the economy over the edge” as they object to the sheer size of the program. Of course, before Obama’s election, Mr. Krugman repeatedly charged the Republicans with overspending and running up the federal deficit. So much for his objectivity!

President Obama has ridiculed the Republican view that this stimulus is more about spending than about stimulating the economy. “What do you think a stimulus is?” he asked. Spending, he said, “is the whole point.” That callous response doesn’t make sense—common sense, that is. Most Americans understand the need to control their personal spending during tough times. Indeed, that’s partly why the economy is in a recession. People have tightened their budgets and expenditures; they’re saving money instead of spending it. How then can it be un-American to question the size and the intent of the stimulus plan? Didn’t the liberals question and over-analyze everything from the Patriot Act to Bush’s tax cuts?

The Democrats don’t understand (or won’t admit) that there may be ways to stimulate the economy without spending money like a shopaholic. For one, the government could slash the corporate tax rate, as America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. Businesses might be able to retain more American workers, instead of sending production overseas to offset the high taxes. Many countries in Europe, for example, also subsidize corporate energy costs, making it even cheaper to produce goods. This puts American business at a huge disadvantage. But for some reason, the Democrats hate Big Business, especially oil companies and tobacco companies. They don’t seem to realize that when you create an environment in which business can grow, you create opportunities for employment growth as well.

Aren’t there any reductions in the stimulus plan? Can’t the supposedly intelligent, qualified members of Obama’s Cabinet (and other Democratic Representatives and Senators) find excess and redundancy in government and cut it out? Instead, they are focused on their efforts to make government even bigger, with a resulting increase in government control. When Ronald Reagan’s administration took office in 1981, James Baker recalls that their top three priorities were: economic recovery, economic recovery, and economic recovery. But now, the Obama administration’s priorities are: spend, spend, and spend some more.

Maybe more Americans would have a positive view of the stimulus plan if all the Democrats would pay their income taxes…

In early 1993, I wrote a letter to my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, about Bill Clinton’s first 100 days in office. If you remember, Clinton had campaigned mostly on economic issues. The Democratic mantra of the time was “It’s the economy, stupid.” America was experiencing a mild recession at the time, but was coming out of it in the last half of 1992. The Democrats, predictably, still insisted that the economy was in shambles, and the only way to turn things around was to elect Clinton for president.

However, as I reminded the newspaper, Clinton changed his tune after he took office. In his first 100 days, his two top priorities were to legalize and fund abortions, and to change the military’s policy on homosexuals who served or would serve in the armed forces. Additionally, Hillary Clinton would embark on a reformation of America’s health care system. The economy suddenly became less important.

So now, in 2009, we again have a Democratic president who campaigned on giving the economy a “quick jolt” to help start a recovery from a serious recession. But what has happened since Barack Obama took office? First, there was a change in urgency. The message went from giving the economy a “quick jolt” to “it’s going to take a long time” to fix things. This attitude is in contrast to a recent poll conducted by Pew Research, which revealed that 82% of Americans feel that jobs/job creation is the most serious issue we will face in 2009.

But again, job creation has been put on the back burner. What has been the Democrats’ priorities since Obama took office? The new administration reversed the Bush stance toward abortion, and has provided new funding for the abortion industry. Guantanamo Bay has been closed, with some of the detainees already getting back to their terrorist activities. New taxes have been levied on all tobacco products. And now we have a “stimulus” plan that is devoid of any kind of jolt the economy sorely needs.

For example, there is $800 million going to AMTRAK. $345 million for new Agriculture Department computers. $650 million for TV converter boxes. $1 billion to deal with Census problems. $88 million to move the Public Health Service into a new building. The Senate wants $2.1 billion to pay off a shortfall in public housing accounts, $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other diseases. One of the more ominous provisions: $1 billion for “community organizing”.

No wonder the Democrats are telling us it’s going to be a long time until the economy recovers. The only thing being stimulated under this new administration is the size of the government. As Cal Thomas stated in one of his recent columns, “Democrats see government as a first resource and people as an expanding pool of victims who are incapable of independently bettering their lives.” As I try to tell people, the Democrats can only gain power as the people lose their power and independence.

Be extremely wary of all that “community organizing”. In Germany of the 1920s and 1930s, there had been a sort of national organization called the “Citizens Defense”, which was ready to stand against foreign involvement regarding certain German territories. When this defense group was officially outlawed, one of Adolf Hitler’s henchmen rebuilt the group into the SA, which enforced the will of the Nazi party on a “community” level. Given that Obama has already supported the likes of ACORN, what would his “community organizations” be equipped to do? Think about it!