The Weekly Standard does a great analysis of the growth of food stamps in comparison to the growth of jobs during the Obama Administration. Using FNS, BLS and USDA data, they calculated that food stamp enrollment was 75 times faster than job creation. This visual puts it into perspective:
I have written on this trend before in the last few months; as unemployment has remained high, we recently passed the point where more people have been added to the dependency rolls than payrolls. This has a high impact on our crushing deficit and is directly attributable to Obama’s legacy. The article sums it up:
Welfare spending is projected to remain permanently elevated; for instance, at no point in the next 10 years will fewer than 1 in 9 Americans be on food stamps. In fact, the Administration has actively sought to boost food stamp spending and enrollment, including through a partnership with the Mexican government to advertise benefits to foreign nationals, as well as materials that teach outreach workers how to “overcome the word ‘No.’” USDA even goes so far as to argue that the program is “the most direct stimulus you can get.”
Overall, in the last four years, the United States’ gross federal debt has increased 53 percent, food stamp enrollment has increased 46 percent, and the number of employed persons has increased just 0.15 percent. This picture, however, is even more ominous than it looks. While only 194,000 net jobs have been created since 2009, the working age population has increased by approximately 5 million—almost 25 times that amount. In other words, a shrinking share of working age adults have or are even looking for a job. The real unemployment number (U-6), therefore, is 14.6 percent.
To put this month’s job creation in historical perspective, in October of 1984, 286,000 jobs were created—67 percent more—at a time when the U.S. working age population was 26 percent smaller than it is today.
Over time, these trends, if not reversed, spell economic disaster for the United States and its citizens.
Obama’s speech didn’t sound like an incumbent President. It sounded like defensive one.
On Romney/Ryan: They want your vote, but they don’t want you to know their plan.…but Obama didn’t give us a plan, only class warfare and hope. The only “plan” he has is to hopefully tax the wealthy.
The stinging class warfare quote stuck with me because it was so contradictory:
My grandparents were given the chance to go to college, buy their own — their — their own home, and fulfill
the basic bargain at the heart of America’s story: the promise that hard work will pay off; that responsibility will be
rewarded; that everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules
The promise that hard work will pay off….for the government, who want to tax you more for your success (Buffett Rule, millionaire surtaxes, etc)
That responsibility will be rewarded…and so will irreponsibility (Sandra “pay for my contraception Fluke”, anyone?)
And the gem: “that everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules ….especially those darned wealthy who need to “pay their fair share”, to cover the 47% who didn’t pay taxes at all last year.
More on that theme:
I want to reform the tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on
incomes over $250,000, the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created
nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a whole lot of millionaires to boot
“I” was mentioned 72 times.
“HOPE” was mentioned 17 times
“Tax” was mentioned 12 times
“Fair” was mentioned 7 times
“Economy” was mentioned 6 times
“Constitution” was mentioned 0 times
“You elected me to tell you the truth“….no, we elected you to uphold the Constitution and lead the country back on a path to prosperity. You have not done so, and that is the truth.
In a recent interview with Entertainment Tonight, President Obama made the following remark: (h/t to RCP).
“We’re going around the country, talking about, ‘How do we put people back to work? How do we improve our schools? How do we make sure that we’re producing American energy? How do we lower our debt in a responsible way?’ And I don’t think you or anybody who’s been watching the campaign would say that in any way we have tried to divide the country. We’ve always tried to bring the country together,”
Last week, I noted that Obama announced he wants to bailout all the industries. To quoth:
“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.
Now, the Treasury Department issued an updated report today on the auto industry bailout.
The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That’s 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.
The government still holds 500 million shares of GM stock and needs to sell them for about $53 each to recover its entire $49.5 billion bailout.
Shares today were at $20.49
I guess Obamanomics is the only place where a $25 Billion loss of taxpayer money is considered “a success” and “roaring back”. The spin is that the losses are less than the estimated $44 Billion, so hey, it’s okay! We saved the taxpayers $19 Billion!
1) President Obama has spent more campaign cash more quickly than any incumbent in recent history
2) The price tag: about $400 million from the beginning of last year to June 30 this year, according to a New York Times analysis of Federal Election Commission records, including $86 million on advertising.
3) With less than a month to go before the national party conventions begin, the president’s once commanding cash advantage has evaporated, leaving Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee with about $25 million more cash on hand than the Democrats as of the beginning of July
Let’s couple these points with a recent report from the Hill:
The president spent $58.1 million in June despite bringing in just $45.9 million, meaning his reelection effort ran a deficit of more than $12 million dollars for the month. And the president spent an whopping $32.2 million in television ads, along with $4.5 million in online ads, over the 30-day period. The Romney campaign, by contrast, spent $10.4 million over that period on advertisements.
The total national debt is $15.8 trillion, increasing nearly 50% from the $10.6 trillion in debt when Obama took office. Additionally, the debt held by the public is up to $11 trillion from $6.3 trillion when Obama began his presidency, which is a 75% increase. Though it is commonly cited that Obama accumulated more public debt than all the other prior presidents combined, he falls $1.7 trillion short right now — though that is not too far off.
Another interesting statistic is that calculating the federal spending debt as a percentage of the GDP yields that Obama is higher than the last five presidents. The Office of Management and Budget statistics show that the debt percentage increases were: Reagan, up 14.9%; Bush 41, up 7.1%; Clinton, down 13.4%; George W. Bush 43, up 5.6%; and Obama, up 21.9%. Thus, Obama’s spending debt increases exceeded that of the last five presidents.
So right now, Obama’s campaign spending is the highest in recent history, and his campaign posted deficit spending last month. We know that his campaign is sending out multiple donation pleas daily to his supporters, just as Obama is talking about raising the tax margins in order to generate more government revenue. The most ironic part is that Obama is more than happy to attend and accept $35,000+ a-plate fundraising dinners, but then at the same time excoriates “millionaires and billionaires” and the “top 2%” for the sake of election class warfare rhetoric.
I guess these expensive campaign fundraisers is Obama’s interpretation of making sure the wealthy “pay their fair share” (to him).
After being caught by surprise on Tuesday at a press conference, Jay Carney admitted he did not know that Ohio military base — to which President Obama would be flying and landing — on August 1, would be closed due to defense cuts.
“What is holding us up right now is the Republican refusal to have the top two percent [of earners] pay their fair share,” Zients said in response to a question from Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.).”
At least one lawmaker rightfully called out Jeffrey Zients, director of OMB who made the remark. Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio responded in kind,
“We’re not usually in the habit of hearing such partisan comments in what is really a bipartisan committee,” Turner said. “We don’t usually hear people throw around ‘Republican’ and ‘Democrat,’ but you have, very, very well. I want to commend you on your broken record of partisanship.”
“Zients’ comments are pretty brazen in light of the $800 billion in wasted taxpayer dollars that was supposed to (but didn’t) stimulate the economy and which were, in effect, paid for by $800 billion in defense cuts,” said Gary Schmitt, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “And is he really suggesting the country’s national security be put at risk because the administration want to raise taxes (on more than the top 2 percent) in order to save PBS, Amtrak, and the Education Department?”
The possible military cuts (sequestration) would cut troops at several levels, affect medical benefits, military housing, and more. This would happen if $1.2 trillion in budget cuts are not found. As part of the “automatic trigger” put in place from the failed Super Committee last year, President Obama endorsed and signed the sequester plan.
But instead of offering alternative solutions to avoid this from happening on January 2nd, unlike the Republicans and the Ryan Plan, Obama and the Democrats have not offered another option. Resorting to the same old tired class warfare rhetoric doesn’t solve any real problems; it only makes the White House look more desperate as the campaign season limps along.
Shortly after the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court this past spring– which didn’t seem to go very well at the time — Obama warned against a version of constitutional “activism”:
“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
At the time, the thought of our President attacking the third branch of government seemed a little absurd, a little whiny. Now, looking back over the past three years of his presidency, the hypocrisy is alarming. Obama has continuously engaged in “ executive activism” from the Executive Branch.
Back in March 2008, President Obama made the following claim:
“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States”.
In hindsight of course, we now know that Obama doesn’t mean what he says. His executive activism has increased since he lost the House in 2010, but was evident from his liberal use of Czars and quasi-autonomous agencies since the beginning of his term.
Turning the tables on his aforementioned Supreme Court remarks, which specifically questioned the power of an “unelected group of people”, it is unfathomable for Obama to have raised such concerns in light of Obama’s cadre of unelecteds.
For instance, many of Obama’s czars are neither confirmed by Congress nor accountable to the president. The “Pay Czar”, Ken Feinburg, made unilateral decisions about the compensation of private businesses — something that is certainly not within the realm of the government’s constitutional authority. Or what about the “WMD Czar”, officially titled as Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation, and Terrorism? Gary Samore is unconfirmed; his job description is that of a “coordinator,” a title with vague and broad responsibilities.
Additionally, Obama has frequently made use of government agencies to impose that which failed to become law. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) passed limitations on emissions and implemented almost in its entirety the cap-and-trade bill that failed in Congress. Likewise, the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) passed rules that are virtually as onerous as the card check, which failed to get through Congress.
Abroad, the term QUANGO is widely used to describe such government agencies, standing for “QUasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organizations”. They execute actions meant to be carried out by the legislature. Among the most offending here are the Federal Reserve, the NRLB, the EPA, and the the Federal Trade Commission. Indeed, Obama has established an “order of succession” for several agencies via Executive Order, thereby raising the level of their importance.
Obama even created a new program specifically devoted to his “activism”, which was announced last October. Obama revealed new programs to aid college students to repay their federal loans, veterans to find employment, and homeowners make their mortgage obligations. All three initiatives were without legislation. He remarked, “We can’t wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won’t act, I will. We’re going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress.” Calling the offical program, “We Can’t Wait”, Obama claimed that inaction by Congress requires action from him, a clear overreach of power and presumption.
Legal criticism also mounted from Obama’s recess appointments last January. Circumventing Congressional confirmations, Obama approved the appointments on his own, whining that the “pro forma” sessions during the break – held specifically to block the ability of a recess appointment — were not legitimate. Of course, Obama was quick to forget that Senator Harry Reid was the creator of the “pro forma”, a strategy implemented by the Democrats themselves during the latter years of the Bush administration.
Earlier this summer, Obama implemented a version of the Dream Act and just announced it at a press conference. His policy is very similar to Mark Rubio’s undrafted legislation that was expected to enter Congressional debate very soon. Contrast Obama with Bush, who tried to get his somewhat unpopular ideas passed through Congress, including Social Security reform and immigration reform. The difference is that Bush didn’t skip the Constitution – and he wouldn’t have even considered such an idea. Obama, on the other hand, did precisely that.
Obama’s use of the Executive Order (EO) has also been alarming. His total count so far has been 130, and while this is in no way an extraordinary number compared to some other presidents, it’s the content of many of the EOs which gives pause. The most recent EO on July 6, 2012, allows for control over communications during a crisis, while earlier ones include subjects related to confiscation of private property and labor, national defense resources preparedness, control over food production, and more.
What happened to the Obama who (we were told) was supposed to bring everyone together? The Obama who criticized executive activism? What we have today is a President purposely making unilateral decisions to advance his own agenda. The various tactics that Obama have grossly expanded the power of the Executive Branch. The result is a sort of reckless imperialism, which will only continue to undermine the nation if he is once again elected to the Presidency.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Roads and bridges? Internet? Built by capital revenue provided by taxpayers and business owners, not the faceless “government”
Without the hard work and innovation by our citizens, wealth could not have been created. That wealth provides the thriving economy and tax revenue to pay for all the functions of government (necessary and unnecessary) — be it it infrastructure, education, or technology.
Obama seems to have forgotten that part…until he needs more taxes for his deficit spending and expansive government programs. Only a self-absorbed government bureaucrat could argue that their existence justifies everyone else’s existence.
Yesterday, President Obama demonstrated his ability to essentially plagiarize borrow part of a speech given originally by US Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren, back in September, 2011. Her speech went viral among the Left shortly after.
First, Elizabeth Warren’s:
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Alan Krueger, Chairman Of the Council of Economic Advisors, soothed Americans on his White House blog post regarding the unemployment numbers released today.
As the Administration stresses every month, the monthly employment and unemployment figures can be volatile, and employment estimates can be subject to substantial revision. Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available
June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
And the month before?
May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”
And so forth. Like a parrot.
March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the
context of other data that are becoming available.”
February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”
January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”
December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”
August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.”
June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”
Parrots repeat the same thing over and over ad nauseum. But they can’t read. Maybe the White House figures that people won’t really read their blog too closely either. Isn’t the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
