In the 2012 election campaign I mistakenly criticized Obama for “intentionally dividing, rather than unifying the nation, solely for the purpose of re-election.” I failed to recognize his intention to govern for four more years by continuing to divide the nation in seven areas: age, economic status; gender, national origin; race; religion; sexual orientation.
Much in the economic news, again, are hated “one-percenters” – comprised, according to mainstream media, almost exclusively of corporate executives whose annual salaries have reached unconscionable and scandalously high multiples of their companies’ employees’ median income – who, also, have recovered from the great recession well ahead of middle-income Americans. Obama’s end game appears to be a “maximum wage” for corporate executives that can’t exceed a yet-to-be Democrat-determined multiple of median employee income.
Obama pretends it is “us (the 99%) versus them (the 1%)” although he and Michelle qualify as one-percenters. So, also do scads of professional athletes, models, TV & movie stars, other entertainers and personalities. Are those one-percenters exempt from scrutiny and criticism since the vast majority of them contribute to and support the Democrat party and virtually all “progressive” causes? Will these one-percenters also be subject to a maximum wage based on a yet-to-be determined Democrat formula?
The Associated Press recently identified “a rich-poor employment gap hitting (the) middle class” and claimed “the employment disparity between rich and poor households remains at the highest levels in more than a decade”.
During his re-election campaign Obama said his economic policies had driven the unemployment rate below 8%. Now Obama, his mainstream media and other sycophants, say Republicans (especially in Texas) are at fault for creating minimum wage jobs of less than 30 hours per week. It is understandable Obama prefers to attack job creation in Red States rather than admit the unemployment rate on his watch improved because hundreds of thousands of workers ended their job search rather than millions becoming gainfully employed. “In August 2013, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 219,000 from a year earlier. These individuals were not in the labor force (and) were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.”
Also, per the table “SSI Federally-Administered New Recipients, Calendar Years 1974‑2035” more than 1,000,000 were added to SSI disability rolls each year in 2009 and 2010 – with that 1,000,000 annual increase projected each year through 2013 – further reducing the unemployment rate.
The U.S. Debt Clock reports: “Official Unemployed” of 11.2 million; “Actual Unemployed” of 21.2 million; Disabled (SSI) of 14.2 million. (09/21/2013)
Meanwhile, despite claiming to be focused on job creation, Obama remains irrationally opposed to developing vast U.S. fossil fuel reserves while touting alternative fuels. He continues to raise the bar for approving the Keystone Pipeline although recent studies show the environmental impact of developing Canadian oil tar sands will be the same for North America whether the heavy crude is pipelined to the U.S. or shipped to China.
Obama ignores these facts; Keystone, if approved, would: create a substantial number of well-paying USA jobs; improve national security by lessening U.S. dependence on heavy crude from Venezuela and imports from other politically unstable countries; reduce our balance-of-payments deficit.
While holding the Keystone Pipeline hostage on environmental issues Obama, through the EPA, is hell bent on more stringent carbon emission controls for new energy plant construction. Although new plants are the alleged targets, stricter emission controls on existing plants will increase energy costs for consumers in energy producing states especially the leading energy producing state, Texas.
One of Obama’s favorite claims is he wants “a fair deal for everyone”. Before significant economic projects can start, an environmental impact study must be completed. Environmentalists are then free to oppose and attack the study’s findings.
So, why doesn’t Obama require the EPA to conduct economic studies to determine the total cost of emission controls versus the benefits in terms of volumetric reductions of emissions? In layman’s terms, what is the cost benefit ratio and do the results justify increased energy costs imposed on energy users most of whom, coincidentally, are taxpayers? Of course, both industry leaders and energy consumers should be able to oppose the EPA findings just as environmentalists can oppose environmental studies.
Recently, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated entitlement programs are the crucial budgetary issue because they are unsustainable at present levels. “The CBO’s new long-term projections show that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. Within 25 years, under laws currently in place: Federal debt is projected to reach 100% of GDP and, under an alternate scenario, could rise to 190% of GDP.”
“Spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and insurance exchange subsidies will account for all of the growth in noninterest spending Major entitlement programs are predicted to grow to 14% of GDP — double their historical average of 7%. Revenue is projected to increase from 17% of GDP in 2013 to 19.7% of GDP. U.S. debt is on an unsustainable path if current laws remain unchanged.”
LBJ declared “war on poverty” about 50 years ago. Medicare, a crucial component of LBJ’s war, currently has unfunded liabilities of $87 trillion not including almost $22 trillion for Prescription Drug liabilities. Social Security unfunded liabilities total $16.5 trillion. Unfunded liabilities are neither included in the annual budget nor reflected in the national debt. Indeed, Obama has yet to acknowledge these unfunded liabilities that in total saddle each U.S. taxpayer with an unfunded liability of $1,100,000.
Obama, continuing his Imperial Presidency – by resisting any and all attempts to lower the national debt via spending cuts rather than increasing the debt ceiling – accuses Republicans of holding the nation “hostage” by refusing to increase the debt ceiling as Obama dictates.
His terminology is confusing: kidnappers who take hostages typically demand money, or ransom, be raised and paid to them before they release hostages. Perhaps, as President through contacts with the FBI, Obama is aware of situations where kidnappers freed hostages although no ransom was raised. Or could the real hostage taker be Obama who, once again, is holding U.S. taxpayers hostage?