Michigan Became the 24^th State to Adopt a Right-to-Work Law

On December 11, 2012, Governor Snyder of Michigan signed into law two bills that, respectively, would allow private and public sector workers to opt out of joining a union and paying union dues, commonly referred to as Right-to-Work (“RTW”) Laws.  The public sector law carved out police and fire workers, because of safety concerns and the unpopularity of including safety workers in the new public employee law.  Pursuant to the new laws an employee cannot be required to join a union or be forced to have union dues deducted from his or her pay check as a condition for getting or keeping a job.  Contrary to the claims of unions, it does not prevent employees from joining a union, if they so choose.  It just gives the employee free choice.  Governor Snyder cited the favorable results in Indiana, including Indiana’s increase in new jobs and its new found ability to attract new businesses to Indiana, since its RTW Law went in to effect earlier in 2012.  Matthew Dolan and Kris Maher, “Unions Dealt Blow In UAW’s Home State,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/12/12 p. 1.  Governor Snyder also mentions the 9.3% unemployment rate in Michigan and reports that 90 new companies had decided to locate next door in Indiana, since that state had adopted RTW, as reasons for signing the laws.  “In Michigan, Heart Of Progressivism, It’s Right To Work Vs. Right To Pork,” Investors Business Daily (“IBD”), 12/10/12., p. A18.

Michigan’s new RTW Laws will not go into effect for ninety days after the end of the state legislature’s lame-duck session and will not apply to existing union contracts until they come up for renewal.  However, the United Auto Workers Union (“UAW”) has a master contract with the big three auto manufacturers, which doesn’t expire until 2015.  The big three auto companies are among the largest union employers in the state.  Matthew Dolan and Kris Maher, “Unions Dealt Blow,” Id.  Therefore, the favorable results of increased employment, reduced government expenses and reduced taxes, will not materialize to their full benefit in Michigan any time soon. This delay will give the unions a chance to attack the laws in court and by referendum before the residents of Michigan can see and feel the favorable results of the laws.

The UAW is upset because it had already been losing members for decades.  “The UAW once had more than one million members in the U.S., and as recently as 2004 had 654,000 active members.  Now, after years of cuts by Detroit’s big auto makers and their parts makers, the UAW’s national membership is down to roughly 380,000 members, according to Labor Department filings.”  Id.  The approximately 620,000 drop in UAW membership can be considered in very large part due to the UAW’ s excessive demands over the decades in terms of salary, health care, pension, working conditions, work rules, union grievance procedures, mandatory arbitration, strikes and appeals to the NLRB.  An auto manufacture cannot shut down a production line or change the manufacturing equipment without the UAW’s approval, which is likely to be denied or approval may come with onerous union demands.  Overall, between 2000 and 2010, union membership has declined 9.5% in non-RTW states and by 9.2% in RTW states, despite the increased number of union workers in government jobs.  “Right-To-Work Lies Fall Flat In Michigan,” IBD, 12/12/12, p.A1.

You may remember that back in the 1950’s Ford Motor Company had several assembly plants in New Jersey and nearby Pennsylvania.  However, in the mid-fifties, Ford starting shutting down plants.  Ford closed the Edgewater, NJ plant in 1955, the Chester, PA plant in 1961, the Mahwah, NJ plant in 1980 and the Edison, NJ plant in 2004.  It’s not that cars could not be profitably manufactured in the United States or that there was insufficient demand for cars in the United States, because during this same time frame many automobile manufacturing and assembly plants were built by Toyota, Honda, BMW, Nissan, Subaru, and Volkswagen.  Toyota alone opened approximately eleven plants from California to Pennsylvania, while the big three were closing plants from coast to coast.  However, many of these plants were built in RTW states, such as Tennessee, South Carolina and Alabama.  Tennessee was one of the first states to adopt RTW Laws in 1947, soon after the Taft-Hartley Act became law.  Since then Tennessee has become a major manufacturing center, particularly in the automotive field.  For example, Nissan opened its Smyrna, Tennessee plant in 1983 and has its US Headquarters in the Nashville area.  Toyota has a parts facility in Jackson, Tennessee, Bridgestone Tire has its US headquarters in Nashville and Volkswagen opened a plant in Chattanooga.  Even GM is reopening its old Spring Hill, Tennessee plant.  In large part because of its RTW Laws, Tennessee has mainly been spared the mass layoffs, plant closures and bailouts that affected the Detroit area.  Sean Higgins, “Tennessee Auto Industry Thrives Without Unions,” IBD, 3/5/12, p.A1, A6.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”), private-sector, inflation-adjusted compensation in RTW states increased by 12% between 2001 and 2011, while such compensation increased by only 3% in forced union dues states during the same period.  “Right-To-Work…Michigan,” Id.  Compensation in the RTW states was better partly because those states tend to attract more quality jobs, as well as having lower living costs and, in some cases, no income taxes.  In RTW states, jobs increased 2.4% over that decade, while forced union dues states saw jobs decline by 3.4% during that period.  Id.

Therefore, President Obama’s statement that RTW means “the right to work for less money” is at variance with the truth.   Obama made the statement at a campaign stop at a Daimler Diesel plant in Michigan on Monday 12/11/12; however, he failed to explain that incomes are up more in RTW states than non-RTW states and that new job development was being restrained in forced union dues states.  Id.  Obama conveniently forgot to mention that since the end of the last recession, 72% of all jobs created were in the 22 RTW states that existed during that recovery period; however, he is always quick to claim personal credit for the totals that include states with the very RTW policies that he vigorously opposes.  The obvious attractions of RTW states explain why their populations grew by 15.3% between 2000 and 2010, while non-RTW states populations grew by only 5.9% during that same time period.  Id.

Many polls have consistently shown nearly 80% of the Americans who are regular voters support the RTW principle.  “Hoosiers Deliver Clear Message to Congress,” National Right to Work News Letter (“NRWN”), Feb., 2012, p.3.  “[S]cientific surveys regularly show rank-and-file Democrats and Independents, as well as rank-and-file Republicans, overwhelmingly oppose compulsory unionism.” Id.  The American people feel that forced unionism is morally wrong and that it is also a detriment to the economy.  “Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest,” NRWN, 2/12, p.1, 2. The Republicans would do well with the general public to support the right of employees to work without being forced to pay union dues.  Hopefully, more states will adopt RTW Laws and give their employees the right to choose whether or not to join a union, have increased employment, merit-based pay increases, bonuses and advancement opportunities, lower cost of living and higher real compensation.   In a country that became great because it was a Meritocracy, anything other than the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union and the ability to choose merit advancement, is downright Un-American.

Everyone Benefits from the Right to Work

 

 In addition to Right-to-Work (“RTW”) Laws being morally correct, there are advantages to the RTW Laws for both employees and employers.  News coverage usually points to the obvious advantages to businesses of letting employees choose whether or not to join a union, but leaves out the advantages to the employees.  A recent survey of CEO’s ranked states in which they would like to do business on a variety of measures.  All of the states in the top 10 were RTW States.  Not one of the states in the bottom 20 was a RTW State.  In the ‘worst states for jobs’ list, New Jersey came in 45^th out of 50.   For most expensive states, New Jersey came in 5^th highest, above even New York.

Economists have noted that RTW States have more labor force flexibility, faster economic growth, higher employment, greater inward migration, lower living costs and higher real compensation.  In the ten RTW States rated the best in the nation, private sector employment increased 10.6% from 2000 to 2010, while in the 10 compulsory-unionism states rated the worst in the nation, which included New Jersey, employment increased just 1.9% over the same period.  It is obvious the increase in employment and greater labor force flexibility, due to the absence of strict union rules, together with lower cost of living in RTW States, helps employees.  RTW Laws are win-win laws for both employees and employers.  See, “More ‘Raspberries’ For Compulsory Union Dues,” National Right To Work Newsletter (“NRWN”), June 2112, p.1.  New Jersey has suffered net outward migration and its high taxes, high living expenses, forced-union dues and excessive regulations are all part of the cause.

Overall, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (the “BEA”) reported that from 2000 to 2011 private-sector, nonfarm employment increased 12.5% in RTW States, while in forced union dues states such employment only increased 3.5%.  Thus, the increase in employment in the RTW States was nine percentage points higher than, or over 3.5 times as great as, in forced-union dues states.  “Right to Work States Have Superior Job Growth,” NRWN, Oct. 2012, p. 6.  All of the bottom ten states in job creation in that period did not have protection for their employees from forced-union dues and monopoly union representation.  Id.

The benefits of the new RTW Law in Indiana are already showing up in a stronger economy.  When Indiana was a forced-union dues state, it was one of the worst economic states in the country by several important metrics.  From 2000 to 2010 the BLS determined that Indiana’s private-sector payroll employment declined by 9.1%.  Just two other states, both forced-union dues states, did worse during that time period.  The Midwest’s forced-union dues states as a group experienced a dismal decline of 9.8% during that period.  However, during the same decade, the five Midwestern states with RTW Laws actually experienced a slight increase by an average of 0.5%.  “’We’re Absolutely on the Right Track,’” NRWN, August 2012, p. 5.  During the first three months after Indiana’s new RTW Law took effect, Indiana’s private-sector payroll employment increased by nearly 73,000 or 3.0%, according to the BLS.  The gains were above the national average for that period.  Id.  By September, the Labor Department data showed that the number of new private-payroll jobs in Indiana has increased by nearly 100,000 or 4.1% since Indiana’s RTW Law went into effect.  “Indiana Right to Work Statute Is Working,” NRWN, Sept. 2012, p.5.

Furthermore, the job growth is likely to continue.  Dan Hasler, the head of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation reported that fifty-seven companies have Indiana investment projects in the pipeline, which will bring $1.6 billion in new investment into the state.  Hasler also stated that many companies had informed his agency that Right to Work would be a factor in their decision on whether to locate jobs to Indiana.  Id.

Twenty-three states have passed RTW Laws.  Tennessee was one of the first, passing its law in 1947.  As a result Tennessee has been attracting new domestic and foreign businesses for years and become a major auto manufacturing hub.  Nissan opened its Smyrna, Tennessee plant in 1983 and moved its US headquarters to north of Nashville in the mid-2000’s.  It recently added 1,000 employees to its Smyrna plant and plans on adding 1,300 more in 2013.  Toyota has a parts facility in Jackson, Bridgestone Tire has its American headquarters in Nashville, and Volkswagen opened its only US plant in Chattanooga in 2010.  Even GM is reopening its old Spring Hill, Tennessee Saturn plant for additional production needs.  Tennessee has mainly been spared the mass layoffs, plant closures and bailout that affected the Detroit area.  Many groups credit the fact that Tennessee is a RTW State as the key advantage that saved it the pain that other parts of the country suffered.  Sean Higgins, “Tennessee Auto Industry Thrives Without Unions,” Investor’s Business Daily, 3/5/12, p. A1-A6.

RTW States not only have better job creation, they also have better compensation growth for the employees.  According to Commerce Department data, private-sector compensation (wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses) fell by 0.7% from 2001 to 2011 in then forced-union dues Indiana, while it rose by 6.4% nationwide.  Indiana and the six other Midwestern forced-union dues states experienced an aggregate real private-sector compensation decline of 2.7% during the same time period.  During the same decade, the five Midwestern RTW States achieved an increase in real private-sector compensation of 13.0%. “Indiana Right to Work Statute is Working,” Id.  Superior job growth and superior compensation growth in the RTW States equals double win for the employees.  Effectively, under current Federal Law, an employer in a unionized company cannot offer merit-based pay increases or bonuses unless the union gives its permission or there is a federal finding of an “impasse.”  Mark Mix, “Union boss bargaining hurts our most productive workers,” The Washington Examiner, May 11-12, 2012.  In a country that became great because it was a Meritocracy, this Federal Law is downright Un-American.

Employees seem to appreciate that they are better off without being represented by a union.  In Wisconsin the membership in many of the state’s government unions plummeted within the first year after the adoption of Act 10, allowing employees to choose not to be in a public sector union.  According to the Wall Street Journal’s May 31 issue, membership in the Madison AFSCME Council 24 dropped from 22,300 to 7,100.  “Wisconsin Voters Rebuff Government Union Brass,” NRWN, July 2012, p.1 at p.2.  In another example, Nissan’s Tennessee plant workers rejected joining the UAW by roughly 2-1 in 1989 and 2001 and the UAW announced and then dropped an effort to unionize a foreign auto maker’s US plant last year.  “Tennessee Auto Industry,” Id. at 2.

Right to Work Laws even affect the school-aged populations.  Apparently, parents believe that they would rather raise their children in RTW States for a variety of reasons, including more job opportunities, better compensation, workforce flexibility, better chances for job advancement, lower cost of living, better living environment, non-union schools and lower taxes.  Whatever the reasons, the top seven states with the biggest gains in school-aged population from 2000 to 2011 were all RTW States.  Six of the seven states that lost the most school-aged children were forced-union dues states.  Katrina-ravaged Louisiana was the only exception of a RTW State that lost school-aged children among those seven states.  In the aggregate, RTW States’ K-12 populations increased by 1.87 million or 9.2% since 2000, while forced-union states have seen their school-aged populations drop by 1.21 million or 3.7%.   Naturally, states that are losing school-aged children are also providing fewer opportunities for teachers to obtain employment, keep their jobs and achieve career advancement, and vice-versa in states that are experiencing growth in the population of school-aged children.  “Right to Work = Teacher Job Opportunities,” NRWN, Sept. 2012, p.3.

An example of union action being detrimental to the teacher employees took place in Ohio.   There a union referendum was able to repeal Ohio’s new RTW Law, by flooding the airwaves with misleading ads claiming Ohio’s new RTW Law would lead to massive layoffs of teachers.  In reality, the public sector layoffs in Ohio were much worse than they would have been had the law not been repealed, since the law did not reduce the money spent, but only permitted more prudent allocation of the money.  Furthermore, the Ohio layoffs were much worse than those that occurred anywhere in Wisconsin, where the RTW Law survived union challenges.  For example, the Cleveland School Board laid off 17% of the district’s school teachers in April 2012.  “Government Union Lobby Remains Formidable,” NRWA, July 2012, p. 3.

Many polls have consistently shown nearly 80% of the Americans who are regular voters support the Right to Work principle.  “Hoosiers Deliver Clear Message to Congress,” NRWN, Feb. 2012, p.3.  “[S]cientific surveys regularly show rank-and-file Democrats and Independents, as well as rank-and-file Republicans, overwhelmingly oppose compulsory unionism.” Id.  The American people feel that forced unionism is morally wrong and that it is also a detriment to the economy.  “Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest” Id. at p.2. The Republicans would do well with the general public to support the right of employees to work without being forced to pay union dues.

Obama’s ‘‘Recovery” Remains Anemic

The Obama Administration announced that 171,000 new jobs had been created according to its October jobs report, but that the unemployment rate had ticked up to 7.9%.  Obama quickly claimed that the report showed that his policies were working, that it was not time to turn back and that he deserved four more years.  However, in the real world, Obama’s policies have caused the worst recovery since Hoover and Roosevelt used similar policies to turn a stock market event into the Great Depression.  Nonfarm payrolls remain 4.27 million below their old high.  In a normal recovery, such as the Reagan recovery of the 1980’s, that number would be much higher by this point in a recovery.   The labor force participation rate remains near an all time low, so that the unemployment rate does not look as bad as the real conditions in the economy.  “Obama Jobs Record Failed In Every Way,” Investor’s Business Daily (“IBD”), 11/5/12, p. A1.  Under Obama, 7.8 million people dropped out of the labor force and stopped looking for work.  Without the dropouts, the unemployment rate would be 10.6%.   According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) since Obama took office nearly one million more workers are working part time because they cannot find full-time employment.  Id.   Nearly 23 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have left the work force, despite Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus and other alleged stimulus programs.

In addition to the low labor force participation rate, only 59% of the adult population is working, which is below where it was when Obama took office, even though the percentage normally rises during a recovery. This low participation rate is a sign that Obama’s deliberate policies of encouraging dependency are working, and that the economy is not working.   People are signing up for social security disability at record levels, partly because of the poor economy and partly because the Obama Administration has lowered the standards for disability and encouraged people, who are coming off of 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, to apply for Federal disability.  Id.  Meanwhile, there has been an explosion in the number of people in poverty.  Id.  The BLS reported that those who are working have seen their real median weekly earnings drop 5% during the four years of the Obama Presidency.  Id.  Moreover, the median income of all households has dropped by 8%, hammering the middle class.  The number of people on food stamps has increased by 15 million to 47 million. “A Dire Four Years of Deficient Leadership,” IBD, 11/5/12, p. A18.  Obama’s policies have produced an anemic recovery with economic growth and job gains slower than in almost every other recovery on record.  Had Obama’s “recovery” merely matched the post-World War II average, eight million more people would be employed and the GDP would be $1.2 trillion higher. Id.

Lou Dobbs commented that in the 23 million unemployed, underemployed and no longer looking, there are now 5 million people unemployed for 6 months or more.  He also said that the average family income has gone down by some $4,900 under Obama and that there was a 1% increase in the African-American unemployment rate from 12.3% to 13.4%.  “The O’Reilly Factor,” Fox News Channel (‘FNC”), 11/2/12.   It seems that Obama’s policies have hurt the very people he claims to be helping.  Hispanic and African-American unemployment is high and going higher.  The jobless rate among black youth approaches 30%.  “A Dire Four Years of Deficient Leadership,” Id.  The price of gasoline has doubled because of Obama’s policies against fossil fuel.  Food and energy prices have gone up and health insurance premiums have gone up by $2,500 instead of down by $2,500, as Obama promised.  In addition, Obama has passed taxes on items that will hurt the middle and lower classes more than the rich.  Obama promised to cut the National debt by 50%, instead he has increased the National debt by 50% from $10.6 trillion when he came into office to over $16 trillion now.  He has put us on a path to potential insolvency.  Id.

Keith Hall, a senior research fellow at the George Mason Mercatus Center and former BLS commissioner, said, “We’re getting some growth, but it is not recovery growth.”  “Hiring Rises In Oct., Led By Low-Wage Retail, Food Service,” IBD, 11/5/12, p. A1.  He also said that monthly gains need to exceed 250,000 to qualify as recovery growth and the economy would have to expand by more than 3%.  Id.  Furthermore the concentration of jobs has been in low-paying retail and food service jobs. Id.

In his speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Romney referred to the economy as “stagnate” and that Obama had promised that at this time unemployment would be 5.4%.  However, Romney pointed out that Obama has fallen 9 million jobs short of that promise.  Romney continued by saying that we have almost forgotten what a real recovery looks like.  Romney stated he will limit government rather than limit Americans’ dreams.  While, if the President is reelected, he will promote government and kill jobs.  “American Election Headquarters,” FNC, 11/3/12.

Romney actually has a five point plan to get the economy growing rapidly again.  The plan includes developing our oil, natural gas and clean coal, including on Federal lands, and approving the Keystone Pipeline.  Romney will make the United States North American energy self-sufficient within eight years.  The plan also calls for actually cutting the Federal Government by 5% on day one, not just reducing the rate of growth.  He will issue waivers to every state from Obamacare, so that businesses will not be afraid to hire.  He will review all of Obama’s regulations with the view to ending the ones that hurt jobs.  Romney will support school children and their parents and not the unions.  He will support school choice, so that children can attend the schools that are successful and not be locked into the zip code school system we now have.  Id.  It is time to get a REAL RECOVERY going by electing Mitt Romney on November 6^th.

The Obama Administration may be “Juicing” the GDP Numbers

The Obama administration just reported 2% Advance Estimate of GDP growth in the 3^rd quarter, after reporting 1.3% GDP growth in the 2^nd quarter.  The Obama administration immediately touted the number as a great accomplishment, proof that his policies were working and that Obama was entitled to four more years to finish the job.  However, Stuart Varney, host of Varney & Company, promptly stated on “American Newsroom,” The Fox News Channel (“FNC”), 10/26/12, that it looked like the Obama Administration may have “juiced the numbers,” because government spending had “jumped” 9.6% in the 3^rd quarter.  Stuart said, “There is some suspicion these numbers had been juiced by government spending, deliberately in that quarter in the report right before the election.”  Stuart also thought the number would be revised downward as it had been in the previous quarters this year.  Even if the 2% is real, it is not enough to reduce unemployment when you consider the new people entering the labor force.  Stuart pointed out that it takes 3% GDP growth just to keep up with population growth.

Is it really possible that the same Administration whose trillion dollar stimulus created or “saved” lots of jobs in non-existent Congressional Districts and cooked up a phony 7.8% unemployment rate in the September unemployment report could have possibly deliberately  “juiced” the GDP growth rate by goosing government spending by 9.6% right before the election, just to win a Presidential election?

Stuart chided that the 2% number will get you a lot of “spin,” but it would not get you a lot of jobs. To have a substantial reduction in unemployment, Stuart said that you needed sustained growth of twice that number or 4% a quarter.  He continued, “What you really need for a robust recovery is 4% and sustain that over a couple of years and maybe growth of 5% just like we had in the rebound from the recession in the early ‘80’s.”  He added that the only time GDP hit 4% in the Obama Administration was the 4^th quarter of 2011.  When Bill Hemmer said that the ‘80’s were 30 years ago and asked haven’t we had sustained 4% growth since then, Stuart replied that the last time we had sustained GDP growth of 4% or above was in the middle of the last decade.  Of course the recovery of the ‘80’s was when Ronald Reagan cut taxes, reduced regulations and encouraged business and oil development, the opposite of the failed Obama policies, and sustained growth in the middle of the last decade was after the Bush tax cuts.

Furthermore, Tim Quinlan, a Wells Fargo Economist, reported that business spending was off more than 25% on a three month annualized basis.  He also pointed out that, “We have not seen that series drop by that magnitude in the last 20 years without a slowdown in overall economic growth.”  Id.  Also, J. D. Foster of the Heritage Foundation remarked that businesses don’t see a lot of hope in the immediate future, so they will just sit pat.  Id.  With these comments, there is not much substance behind the “Hope and Change” team spinning the GDP number as being something to brag about.

When asked whether the 2% was a good number by Martha MacCallum on “America Live,” FNC, 10/26/12, Lou Dobbs with a big smile sarcastically said “It’s a very good number, given that we have an economy that lacks leadership, that has CEO’s absolutely frozen, because of the uncertainly because of the fiscal cliff.  Because they are shepherding their cash, we are actually watching cash balances rise on corporate America’s balance sheets, as they await some greater clarity on the direction of the country.”

Martha MacCallum pointed out that under Reagan we were at 7% growth rate in GDP.   In discussing the 9.6% increase in Government spending, Martha said that some people were saying that the Administration was actually manipulating the numbers.  She went on to say that some people were saying, if you stripped out the defense spending increase, the number would be closer to 1.36% in the 3^rd quarter.  Lou said it was throughout the government and that the 9.6% was an exceptionally high increase in government spending.

When Martha chipped in that at least the number is going up, Lou Dobbs pointed out that the GDP rate was not growing.  It had been 2.4% in 2010, 1.8% in 2011 and even with the questionable 2% in the third quarter, it was still under 1.8% in 2012.  Lou thought that the Administration did not have one ounce of credibility when it came to the economy.  Lou Dobbs summed up, “Our growth is anemic.  We have not seen this Administration preside over a return to prosperity.  I don’t think the American people are willing to put up with much nonsense.”

Investor’s Business Daily(“IBD”) picked up on the theme of “anemic” economic growth in the headline,  “Economic Growth Less Anemic, But Investment Slumps,” by Jason Ma, IBD, 10/29/12, p.1.  The article said that the initial reading reported by the Administration for Q3 economic growth showed a pick up from “anemic” to modest, “but signs of momentum were scarce as business investment retreated ahead of the ‘fiscal cliff’ and exports slumped on global economic woes.”  The article also stated, “Federal government spending rose at a 9.6% pace in Q3, the first gain in five quarters, fueled by military outlays.  The surprise defense jump will likely be followed by a similar reversal later.  Exports probably won’t rebound quickly with Europe still mired in a debt crisis and China’s slump just starting to bottom out.”  Id.

Dylan Matthews headlined “Don’t believe the GDP report!” The Washington Post, Updated 11/26/12, www.washingtonpost.com , as he pointed out how subject to error these early GDP estimates are and that the second quarter was revised down from an initial estimate of 1.7% to 1.3%.  According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis the average revision between the 1^st and 2^nd estimates is .5 points, and 1.3 between the 1^st estimate and the last.  Dylan Matthews said that from 2008 to the 1^st quarter of 2012, “The initial data was generally much too optimistic throughout the recession and recovery.” Id.  In addition, some commentators are already saying that Superstorm Sandy will cause a dip in economic production that will reduce GDP in the 4^th quarter.

Should anyone believe the GDP numbers from the “faux Greek column” President?  The President that claimed his policies “created” 873,000 new jobs in September?  The last time the US economy created some 870,000 jobs in one month was during the Reagan recovery when the economy was growing at 7%, and Reagan’s policies of cutting taxes and regulations and promoting investment and capital spending were in place.  Obama’s policies of higher taxes, more regulation, attacks on energy production, class warfare and Obamacare have failed.  It is time for Obama to go.

There They Go Again: Obama and his Administration are Playing More Games

With the Jobs Numbers

The headline number for the September jobs report, based on the Household Survey, showed the unemployment rate dropping to 7.8%, and Obama immediately hit the campaign trail to tout it as a great accomplishment, proof that his tax and spend policies were working and that he was entitled to four more years.  However, Obama intentionally left out the fact that 582,000 of the 873,000 allegedly new jobs in the Household Survey were part time.  Furthermore, only 114,000 new jobs were reported in the more reliable Payroll Survey.  Although discrepancies have appeared between Payroll Survey and the very volatile, less reliable Household Survey before, the size of this discrepancy strains credibility so much that many people are crying foul, including Jack Welch, Ed Butowsky of Chapwood Capital Investment Management, and Karl Rove.   The skepticism increased because the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ U-6, which measures unemployed and underemployed, stayed stuck at 14.7%.  (Jenna Lee, “Happening Now”, Fox Business News (“FNC”), 10/5/12); Jason Ma, “Payroll Gains Slow; Jobless Rate Falls On Part-Time Spike,” Investor Business Daily(“IBD”), 10/8/12, p1.  Furthermore, the number of Americans that are unemployed, stopped looking and underemployed (working part time) went up by 100,000 from 23.1 million to 23.2 million.

Reporting on CNBC, Doug McKelway noted that unemployed people dropped by 456,000 while only 114,000 new jobs were created.  That means there are 344,000 persons who were unaccounted for. Id.  They just conveniently disappeared.  Dean Baker from the Economic and Policy Research Center said, “The jump in employment reported in September was almost certainly a statistical fluke.”  Id.  Diane Swonk, Chief Economist at Mesirow Financial, pointed out that while almost 600,000 part time jobs were reported on the Household Survey, only 104,000 new private sector jobs were allegedly created in the Payroll Survey.  That number was not enough to absorb all the new job entrants, let alone lower the unemployment rate from 8.2% in August to allegedly 7.8% in September.  She also stated that manufacturing was not doing well, and she predicted a sluggish 4^th quarter GDP.  “Squawk on the Street,” FNC, 10/5/12.   In fact manufacturing lost 16,000 jobs in September and 22,000 in August.  Jason Ma, “Part-Time Work Surge Sets Up One-Time Jobless Plunge,” Posted 4:46, Investors.com, 10/5/12; Jason Ma, “Payroll Gains Slow; Jobless Rate Falls On Part-Time Spike,” IBD, 10/8/12, p.1.  Together with the anemic GDP growth of around 2%, Obama’s jobs report does not add up and is not credible.  Many people are now suggesting the Obama Administration has cooked the books on this jobs report to win the election.  Some even mentioned that the closeness to Obama’s dismal performance in Wednesday night’s debate may be the reason.  Doing anything to win the election, so that he will have “more flexibility after the election,” has been Obama’s standard practice.

Romney’s staff also dismissed the report as an example of a stalled economy.  The Romney statement went on to say, “This is not what a real recovery looks like.  We created fewer jobs in September than in August, and fewer jobs in August than in July, and we’ve lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since President Obama took office.  If not for all of the people who have simply dropped out of the labor force, the real unemployment rate would be closer to 11%.” “Happening Now,” FNC, 10/5/12.

This has been the slowest and most sluggish recovery since the Great Depression.  Not surprisingly, the same leftwing, progressive policies that failed for Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, also failed for Obama.  You can’t tax, borrow, and spend your out of a recession.  If it was that easy, every country in the world would be able to do it.  That policy is now failing in Europe and has failed everywhere and every time it has been tried.  It is failing in Greece, Spain and Italy and has repeatedly failed in South America.  Every dollar that is taxed or borrowed to spend is a dollar taken from the productive economy and quite often used for unproductive activities, such as the bankrupt Solyndra, Ener 1, Beacon Power, Abound Solar and other bankrupt green businesses.

Tim Phillips, the President of American for Prosperity, also referred to the sluggish recovery by stating, “This mornings job numbers report is further proof that President Obama’s big-government agenda is failing Americans.  This has been the most sluggish economic ‘recovery’ in recent history.  More Americans are unemployed under President Obama than under the past 11 presidents combined.”  Tim Phillips went on to say, “At this rate the Great Recession job gap won’t be closed until 2025.  There are still over 12 million Americans unemployed today!  With 4.8 million of those Americans having been unemployed for more than 27 weeks.”  Tim also remarked, “For many, the American Dream is disappearing.  Our economy is being stifled by the big spending and over-regulation of the Obama Administration’s policies.”  Tim Phillips, “Crisis at the American Dinner Table,” email 10/5/12.

Obama and his Administration are Playing

Fast and Loose with the Jobless Numbers

Obama and his Administration are playing games with the jobless numbers to confuse the voting public.  When Obama, Biden and the Democrats say they created 4.5 million jobs, they are downright lying.  In February 2009, right after Obama and Biden were sworn in, the number of Americans working was 132,837,000 in non-farm jobs.  In August 2012 that number was 133,300,000, for an increase of 463,000 non-farm jobs.  Two of the smoke and mirrors tricks that the Obama/Biden Administration have been using are (1) to play fast and loose with the seasonal adjustments and (2) to revise the prior months’ job numbers downward, so that the most recent month always seems better than it really is.  For example, in the most recent report for August 2012 the Obama Administration reported 96,000 new non-farm jobs, but the July jobs number was lowered from 163,000 to 141,000 for a reduction of 22,000 and the June number was revised downward from 64,000 to 45,000 for a reduction of 19,000.   That adds up to a 41,000 reduction in the jobs base just over those two months.  So the real increase in September adjusted for the July reduction would be 72,000 new non-farm jobs and adjusted for the June and July reductions would be 51,000 new jobs in September 2012.  By failing to take into consideration the various adjustments to the jobs numbers over the last 43 months and only counting the new jobs allegedly created, without subtracting the downward adjustments that have been made, the Obama Administration has fraudulently stretched the jobs increase during its administration from 463,000 to 4.5 million.  (Eamon Javers, CNBC Business News, 9/7/12.)

Furthermore, if the workforce participation rate was the same as it was when Obama was sworn in, the unemployment rate would be 11.2%, rather than the 8.1% claimed last month.  In fact, 368,000 people left the labor force during the month of August or almost 4 people left the labor force for every job allegedly created.  The labor participation rate is at a 31 year low of 63.5%.  Even if one went back to the labor participation of only one month ago of 63.7%, the unemployment rate would have gone up to 8.4%, rather than down to 8.1%.  The Obama Administration had claimed that the unemployment rate would never go above 7% and would be at 5.5% today, if Congress would only give them a stimulus package that will cost the taxpayers a trillion dollars, counting interest expenses.  “Weak Job Growth, Labor Force Exodus Signal Major Woes,” Investor’s Business Daily (“IBD”), 9/10/12, p.1.  If one counts the underemployed and those who have given up looking, the percentage would be closer to 17.1%.  There are 23 million Americans who are unemployed or part time/underemployed, but want full time jobs, but cannot find them.

According to the US Department of Labor, during the downturn, 60% of the jobs lost were considered mid-wage jobs ($13.84 to $21.13 per hour), while during the alleged “recovery” 58% of the new jobs were low wage jobs ($7.66 to $13.83 per hour).  According to Obama’s own Treasury, Labor, Energy and Agriculture Departments, under Obama’s Presidency unemployment rose from 7.8% to 8.1%, median income went down $4,019, gasoline rose from $1.84 to $3.82 per gallon and people on food stamps went from 31.9 to 46.7 million.  With 46.7 million, or one in seven, Americans on food stamps, people taking 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, more people claiming disability than ever before and about 15% of the population below the poverty line, Obama cannot honestly claim his policies have created a good economy.  African Americans have fared ever worse the rest of the population with a poverty rate of 27.6%.  Furthermore, contrary to Obama income redistribution programs and attacks on the rich, inequality has also increased between blacks and whites and between rich and poor.  “Obamanomics: The Results Are In,” IBD, 9/13/12, p.1.  Furthermore, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, in his Jackson Hole speech, warned that this prolonged high unemployment could lead to structural damage to the economy.  We now have 5,033,000 million Americans who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer.

When one also reduces Obama's performance by all of the stimulus that the Federal Reserve provided (extended low interest rates, QE1, QE2, Twist 1, Twist 2, expanding its balance sheet and the monetary base by some $2.3 trillion), Obama's economic performance is obviously abysmal.  Obamanomics has been such a failure, that Ben Bernanke and the Fed just announced QE3, which will include open ended buying of $40 billion of mortgage backed securities and will continue buying $45 billion of treasury bonds in the ongoing operation twist.  “Fed Set To Launch Big New Bond Buys To Bolster Growth,” IBD 9/14/12, p.1.

Furthermore, half of the jobs that have been created since the recession ended in June of 2009, have been created in Texas, where the policies are the polar opposite of Obama’s.  Texas has no income tax, has right-to-work laws, and passed tort reform.  In fact, states with Republican Governors average unemployment rates that are 1% lower than the national average.  The Republican state policies on the surface makes Obama’s miserable performance not seem quite as bad as it actually is, until one examines where and why the jobs are actually being created.

Obama and his Democrats in Congress have not passed a budget in over 3 years (over 1,200 days and climbing), even though the law requires them to do so every year. This failure is despite the fact that they had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress for two years and still have a majority in the Senate.  Furthermore, Obama’s own proposed budgets could not even get one vote from either party in either the House or the Senate.   Since the Republicans took control of the House, they have done their job and repeatedly passed budgets.  However, Obama’s ally in the Senate, Harry Reid has refused to act on them or pass his own version, so that the differences could be resolved in a joint committee.  Instead, Obama and the Democrats have just run deficits of $1.3 to $1.5 trillion a year.  Obama has increased the National Debt by over $5 trillion in just over three and a half years until the debt now exceeds $16 trillion dollars or more than our GDP.  With the recent United States debt rating downgrade by Egan-Jones Rating Co., the US debt has been downgraded twice due to Obama’s spending and borrowing policies.  These two downgrades are the first US debt downgrades in history.  If Obama continues on his spending and borrowing spree, there will be more debt rating downgrades.

When Obama was sworn in, the United States was ranked number one for global competitiveness.  Each year that he has been in office our global competitiveness has dropped.  Last year we ranked 5^th in this area and this year we rank 7^th.  Clearly, Obama’s policies have hurt our global competitiveness and those policies should be ended.

And as far as the “he inherited a bad economy" myth, Obama, working with ACORN as a community organizer, helped Bill Clinton destroy the economy through Clinton’s amendments to Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton’s leveraging up Fannie and Freddie to an almost 50 to 1 debt to equity ratio and his requiring Fannie and Freddie to make 42% of their loans to low and subprime borrowers.  These terrible Clinton programs permitted people like Barack Obama, working with ACORN as community organizers and using the Saul Alinsky methods, to extort banks to make loans to people who could not possibly pay them back.

Clinton lied at the Democratic Convention when he said nobody could have turned around an economy as bad as the one in January 2009 in only four years.  Reagan turned around an even worse economy in four years.  Within four years of taking office, Reagan reduced unemployment from 10.8% to 7.0% and thereafter reduced unemployment to 5.0%.  Only the lying Democratic spin doctors could claim that Obama has done a good job and deserves another term.

The Greens Want None of the Above Energy Policy

The left-wing environmentalist greens really want a ‘none of the above’ energy policy.   The greens are clearly and vehemently opposed to conventional sources of energy that have not only been proven to work, but provide over 90% of our needed energy.  Driven by their now proven fraudulent  “Global Cooling,” “the Next Ice Age is Coming,” “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” claims, the greens not only want to attack and destroy coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear sources of energy, they are now suing to stop all allegedly “clean” sources of energy.  The examples abound.

In one example, the Portland Audubon Society and Oregon Natural Desert Association are suing to stop a wind farm on Oregon’s Steen’s Mountain, claiming the project will threaten eagles, big horn sheep and sage grouse.  They consider the project to be an irresponsible renewable energy development.  “Environmentalists Fight Solar, Wind, Renewable Energy,” Investor’s Business Daily, 8/10/12, p. 1.  Environmentalists sued a 100-turbine wind project in Kern County, California, claiming it would endanger golden eagles, condors, and other birds.    In remote Valley County, Montana, near the Canadian border, environmentalists succeeded in blocking a 500-megawatt wind project.  Id.

The greens hate coal plants, are hostile to oil refineries and protest against nuclear power plants, but, when it comes to the very type of alternative energy that they claim they are for and that they claim we must have to “save the planet” and keep the “oceans from rising,” they sue to stop it.  Remember that Ted Kennedy, the environmentalists’ poster child, used his weighty power to fight a wind farm in Nantucket Sound, near the Kennedy compound.

Another environmentalist group sued to save the allegedly endangered blunt- nose lizard and the kangaroo rat from a 3,200 acre, 399-megawatt solar power plant in California’s Panoche Valley.  The group claimed it was not a proper site.  The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Natural Resources Defense Council sued to stop the 4,600-acre Calico solar plant in Pisgah Valley near L.A., claiming it was “one of the most ecologically damaging renewable energy projects in the state.”  Id.  The environmentalists are not only hostile to all forms of conventional energy, they also have allegedly “valid reasons” why all alternative energy is bad.  If one is going to build a solar plant, logically it should be built where there is plenty of sunshine, such as a desert.  However, environmental groups alleged that solar plants, such as the Panoche Valley and Pisgah Valley plants, can disrupt desert ecosystems.  The greens have also sued in Nevada, West Virginia, Maryland, Vermont, Southern California and elsewhere.  Id.

In theory, a wind farm should be built where the wind blows a lot, but the Audubon Society says that’s where the endangered birds fly.  Environmentalists claim that biomass plants emit pollutants, hydroelectric dams disrupt fish migrations and spawning, and transmission lines needed to carry alternative energy from where it can be produced to where it is needed give off dangerous electromagnetic energy. The Center for Biological Diversity has even tried to stop the EPA from issuing an exemption to biomass plants from the EPA regulation on greenhouse gas emissions.  Id.  The bottom line is the greens have gone to the legislatures to have the legislatures mandate alternative green energy, but if anyone tries to produce it, the environmentalists will sue to stop the production of the alternative energy.

The U. S. Chamber of Commerce, in its appropriately name “Project No Project” report, found 140 renewable projects that were delayed or killed by fierce environmental groups’ opposition.  The Chamber’s report found 10 transmission projects, designed to bring solar and wind power to where it is needed, that were challenged by the greens, including killing the Green Path North Transmission Line, which was designed to carry “green” power to L.A. The Policy Review journal found that every one of the solar, wind and geothermal projects in the desert Southwest met with opposition from environmental groups.   Wind and solar projects use too much land.  Offshore wind projects not only use up large areas of otherwise navigable water and kill birds, they are also the most expensive form of electric generation by the Department of Energy’s own estimates.  The Energy Information Administration, an arm of the DOE, found that offshore wind generation costs $330.6/mwh verses $86.6/mwh from natural gas or almost four times as much.

For a while, Greens had supported natural gas as what they called a “bridge fuel.”  But once  completely safe fracking techniques, that had been used for over 70 years, were combined with horizontal and diagonal drilling to make shale oil and gas commercially viable, the greens started a fraudulent and hysterical attack on the very safe, long standing use of fracking.  The environmentalists saw the reduction of natural gas prices caused by combining horizontal drilling and fracking as an existential threat to their green agenda.

Clearly, the environmentalists only want A NONE OF THE ABOVE, NONE OF THE BELOW ENERGY POLICY.  They want us all to live life without power.  You might say they want us to return to wood for energy.  But many areas already have restrictions on burning wood.  Who does the environmentalist fight against all forms of energy policy help?  Clearly their policies do not help Americans.  But their policies do help Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran by driving up the price of oil and natural gas that their economies produce, depend on and export.  We could have wonderfully low energy prices here that would foster prosperity – we have abundant oil, natural gas and coal and, if environmentalists and Federal and local governments stopped attacking all three, we could become the “Saudi Arabia” of oil, natural gas and coal.  But by following the playbook of the U.N.’s Agenda 21, the greens are aiming to reduce the American way of life to a memory.

Obamacare is Unconstitutional and Unconscionable and

Affects Everyone in the Country

Obamacare is not only a national issue, it is a local issue that will affect every citizen of this country as well as every business and every government entity in this country.  For example, Obamacare will expand Medicaid in every State and have a devastating effect on each State’s budget.  It is important for Americans to understand the unconstitutionality of forcing everyone to buy, not just health insurance, but health insurance approved by Obama and his bureaucrats.  The Florida and Virginia Courts were correct in finding that this provision violates the Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court affirmed that.  The Commerce Clause permits the Federal Government to regulate commerce among the several States but does not permit the Federal Government to order citizens to purchase anything.  Article I, Section 8 Paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution.  There are more unconstitutional and unconscionable provisions in Obamacare than space here permits. However, a few of the additional unconstitutional provisions of Obamacare that have been raised in various lawsuits against Obamacare include: (1) the violation of section 1 of the 14^th Amendment due to the lack of due process, since there is no appeal of the bureaucrats’ decisions; (2) the violation of the 4^th  Amendment’s search and seizure clause, because the IRS can search people’s financial records without a search warrant or establishing probable cause; (3) the violation of the equal protection clause of Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment by granting waivers to some organizations, because they are politically connected, but not to everyone, and (4) a violation of the 10^th Amendment, because the matters, such as health, police and education that were not granted to the Federal Government in Article I, Section 8, were reserved to the several States.  The 10th Amendment; See also, e.g., James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 45.  The Supreme Court only heard arguments on a few limited issues this year.  These other issues may still make their way through the courts.

Examples of unconscionable provisions include: (1) taking half a trillion dollars from Medicare, which is already scheduled to go bankrupt, and diverting it to pay for Obamacare (which diversion also violates the ‘takings clause’ of the 5^th Amendment); (2) having a panel of 15 bureaucrats appointed by Obama decide what health care will be provided, rather than our doctors and family; and (3) the mandate that coerces States to expand the eligibility for Medicaid (which violates the 10^th Amendment).  The Supreme Court correctly found that Obamacare’s mandate of forcing the States to expand their Medicaid eligibility or lose all Federal funds for Medicaid, even the Medicaid the States were providing, was unconstitutionally coercive.  According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, New Jersey’s Medicaid population would increase by almost 43 percent if the State is coerced into the Obamacare mandate!  In 2010, Medicaid represented 21 percent of New Jersey’s total expenditures.  This increase will ensure the bankruptcy of New Jersey.  New Jersey and several other States have announced that they will not comply with the Obama Medicaid mandate. Many other States will surely follow suit.  Only five States currently have balanced budgets.  Obamacare will take that number to zero.

Obamacare has turned Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services, into an unconstitutional czar.  The Supreme Court has stated many times that the Constitution provides that Congress was granted the authority to pass legislation in accordance with Article I, and cannot completely delegate that function to a bureaucracy.  Congress must provide the outline of the law and the guidelines that the bureaucracy must follow in the statutes, and the bureaucracy has limited discretion in filling in the details.   Congress must provide, an “intelligible principle.” J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States,  (Chief Justice Taft, 1928); see also, Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat) 1,41 (Chief Justice Marshall, 1825); United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator, 278 U.S. 77,85 (1932).  The Supreme Court has struck down laws under this often cited principle, and Obamacare should also be struck down.  Obamacare clearly exceeds the limits on Congress’ constitutional authority to delegate.  This excessive delegation of authority is made clear by the huge number of mandates granted to the Secretary of HHS and by the actual mandates issued by Sebelius, working with Obama.  These mandates have demonstrated clear dictatorial misconduct and abuse of power.  Many lawsuits have already been filed to strike down this unconstitutional abuse of power.  If there ever was a case for striking down a statute for unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, Obamacare is definitely that case.

The taxpayers of the various states are already tapped out.  The taxpayers of New Jersey will have to pay for the expansion of Medicaid, if the State caves in to Obama. Furthermore, the State’s Supreme Court has just unconstitutionally legislated from the bench by ordering the State to pay an additional $500 million in aid to failed urban schools and their Transportation Trust Fund that is going broke.  Most people who have paid into Medicare their entire working careers are very upset that Obamacare is taking $500 billion out of Medicare and would like their Federal and State legislators to do whatever they can to stop the unconstitutional and unconscionable Obamacare from harming them more.  Even raising awareness on this issue will help bring an end to this terrible and egregiously overreaching legislation.  Obamacare must be repealed.  We must elect Mitt Romney and Conservative Republicans to majorities in both houses of Congress and make the repeal of this unconstitutional, unconscionable, intrusive and abhorred legislation a top priority.

                    Everyone Benefits from the Right to Work:

There are advantages of the Right to Work for both employees and employers. News coverage usually points to the obvious advantages to businesses of letting employees choose whether or not to join a union, but leaves out the advantages to employees. A recent survey of CEOs ranked states in which they would like to do business on a variety of measures. All of the states in the top 10 were Right to Work States. Not one of the states in the bottom 20 was a Right to Work State.   In the 'worst states for jobs' list, New Jersey came in 45th out of 50.   For most expensive states, New Jersey came in 5th highest, above even New York.   Economists have noted that Right to Work States have more labor force flexibility, faster economic growth, higher employment, greater inward migration, lower living costs and higher real compensation. In the ten Right to Work States rated the best in the nation, private sector employment increased 10.6% from 2000 to 2010, while in the 10 compulsory-unionism states rated the worst in the nation, which included New Jersey, employment increased just 1.9% over the same ten year period.  It is obvious the increase in employment and greater labor force flexibility, due to the absence of strict union rules, together with lower cost of living in Right to Work States, helps employees. Right-to-Work Laws are win-win laws for both employees and employers. See, “More ‘Raspberries’ For Compulsory Union Dues,” National Right To Work Newsletter (“NRWN”), June 2112, p.1. New Jersey has suffered net outward migration and its high taxes, high living expenses, forced union dues and excessive regulations are all part of the cause.

"Poll after poll shows nearly 80% of the Americans who regularly vote in federal elections support the Right to Work principle.” “Hoosiers Deliver Clear Message to Congress,” NRWN, Feb. 2012, p. 3. “Of course, scientific surveys regularly show rank-and-file Democrats and Independents, as well as rank-and-file Republicans, overwhelmingly oppose compulsory unionism.” Id. The American people feel that “Forced Unionism Is ‘Morally Wrong’ and It Is Also An ‘Economic Albatross’”. “Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest” Id. p. 1 at p. 2. The Republicans would do well with the general public to support the right of employees to work without being forced to pay union dues.