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.

Obamacare And Obama’s Other Programs will Bankrupt the Country

Health care represents about 16% of the US economy and the percentage is increasing rapidly (some say it has already increased to 20%). The increase in the percentage is because the increase in health care costs exceeds the rate of inflation and many new costly procedures and pharmaceuticals are being developed all of the time. Many of these new products save lives or improve outcomes, but often increase the cost of treatment, although some of them actually decrease the overall cost of treatment by shortening the recovery time. The percentage of GDP spent of health care will increase unless there is Tort Reform. But there is no Tort Reform or any other cost saving proposals in ObamaCare. There are only tax increases that will actually increase the cost of health care.

Most economists agree that for a healthy economy, the Government’s taxes and expenses should not exceed 18% of GDP or at most 20%. Higher percentages lead to inflation, deficit spending and a weak currency. Government expenditures were at approximately 22% of GDP, before the February 2009 $787 billion stimulus or “porkulus” package, the phony 6 month pork packed extension of the ’08-’09 budget, and the largest in history pork packed ’09-’10 budget. In his first six months in office, Obama spent more money than every president before him from the first George W., George Washington to the last George W., George W. Bush. Of this money Obama spent, one dollar was borrowed for every two dollars that was spent. Adding the entire health care costs of 16% to 20% of GDP under Obama’s single payer system, together with the rest of the Government expenditures (including legitimate expenses, pork, waste, corruption and fraud), will cause the economy to collapse. We need to cut Government spending and cut taxes to grow the economy again.

If ObamaCare doesn’t bring down the economy by itself, Obama’s proposed Cap-and-Trade will. Obama’s Cap-and-Trade plan will cap and destroy our economy and trade our jobs to China and India. No economy could survive this massive tax and regulation on industrial production, energy production, food production, transportation and every other activity in life. Production and jobs will move to low cost and high polluting countries, such as China, India and Mexico. Since these countries are some of the biggest polluting countries in the world, pollution and the alleged “green house” gases will increase and not decrease, as the proponents of the bill claim, while destroying the US economy.

And, if ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade do not bring the econ0my down, Card Check will. Card Check will take away the secret ballot from employees, when union thugs intimidate employees to sign union organizing cards, and will impose binding arbitration for union contracts, if the company being organized does not cave in quickly to the union’s demands. Who would Obama appoint to be an arbitrator? Van Jones? Why Van Jones, Obama’s former Communist Green Jobs Czar, is now available. He is currently sitting down the way from the White House at the Center for Americans for Progress, where he was promptly hired by Leon Pannetta the day after he “resigned.” The Center for Americans for Progress was funded by the Hungarian Communist George Soros.

Unions have been very detrimental to the economy. In addition to the UAW bringing down GM and Chrysler, almost every manufacturing job, which has been lost in the recent recession, was from a union company. Unions demand more pay, benefits and job restrictions, than the economic conditions and value of their output justifies. For example, the American automobile companies cannot even upgrade equipment or shut down a production line without the UAW’s permission. That is why these US automobile companies were often profitable outside the US, while they lost money in the US. These high demands on employers in a competitive economy, particularly during a recession, result in layoffs, business failures and manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas.

Thus, there is a growing body of evidence that the collapse of the US economy will be the result of Obama’s initiatives. Could that be his plan?