Now, For Some Real Job Creation

Fiscal Policy: President Obama’s much-anticipated jobs package reportedly costs hundreds of billions more in make-work temp jobs and food-stamp stimulus. He still doesn’t get it.

Those remedies didn’t work last time — the unemployment rate is now higher, to say nothing of the debt — and they won’t work this time.

Americans have grown weary of Obama’s warmed-over Keynesian ideas. Polls show that seven in 10 think he’s steering the economy the wrong way; while four in 10 agree that he has “no idea” how to create jobs.

Instead of consulting with James Hoffa and other union bosses, he should listen to CEOs — the folks who actually make payroll. Here are several measures they say will incentivize them to hire permanent employees for jobs that will pay for themselves:
[…]
The jobs engine is missing from the economy Obama supposedly “pulled out of the ditch.” Now the tires have come off, and he’s sitting behind the wheel without a clue. Asking the Teamsters for a tow is not the answer.

Read more from IBD Editorials

Obama Insanity: Haven’t We Heard This Before? By the Bear

Albert Einstein once said:

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    and …”Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

    and… “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. – Randall Terry

I think these guys above were referring to Obama’s speech on job creation before Congress. After listening to what he said it was like deja vu, as I have heard all this before.

As for me, I am suffering from an acute case of Obama-itis which leads to migraine headaches and visual impairment. I can’t stand seeing a man who is hell bent on destroying this country and constantly blaming all others for his own failures. Grow up, man and accept the responsibility that comes with the office or get OUT!

I am just sick to my stomach (another symptom of Obama-itis) that this man can continually go in the wrong direction and not make a course correction. Only a man with solid granite between his big ears could constantly go down this insane path he has chosen to follow.

So here we again with Obama yelling PASS THIS BILL, a bill that as of this writing, has NOT been written yet, with a promise that he will show us how is going to pay for it in the future.

How those that go…FOOL ME ONCE…

SideBear: From here on I think Obama’s speeches should be on the Comedy Channel, so we could take them for what they are, a joke.

Related

Voters get clear choice on jobs with Obama, GOP By: Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Contrasts between President Obama’s job creation proposals and those of Republican presidential candidates have never been clearer. With Obama’s Thursday address to a joint session of Congress, following Republicans’ Wednesday debate, Americans have a choice of two divergent paths.The president’s path, more government spending, has not led to economic prosperity. The other, lower taxes and regulatory reform, just might.

As this column went to press, CBS reports that Obama will call for an additional $400 billion in spending, with an extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits, more infrastructure spending, and additional aid for state and local governments. These job creation proposals were part of the $825 billion stimulus, which failed to spur gross domestic product growth and create jobs, despite record low interest rates and monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve.

“Shovel-ready” infrastructure projects that weren’t, grants to the poor and the unemployed, funds for unionized public sector workers … we saw this in 2009. Stanford economics professor Michael Boskin calculates that each job created or saved by the stimulus cost $280,000 — five times as much as median wage.

Read more from the Washington Examiner:

An Open Letter to Illinois Republican Party Chairman, Pat Brady

Pat Brady (pbrady@ilgop.org)
Chairman, Illinois Republican Party

Pat,

I attended my first Republican State Central Committee meeting yesterday – partly out of curiosity, but also out of concern for a couple of issues that were to be discussed. Before I share my thoughts/observations from yesterday’s meeting, I’ll give you some background that brought me there.

I’m a father of 4, a grandfather, an American citizen, a Christian, a conservative, a business owner, and a resident of Wayne, IL. With the exception of some brain cramps I overcame when I first got out of college, I’ve voted conservatively my entire life. I do not, however, call or consider myself a Republican because of the inherent hypocrisy of what the party allows itself to accept – all in the name of cronyism and/or the desire to win at any cost. Bringing all those factors together, I’m also a proud and active member of the Tea Party movement. Some might rightfully extract from that that I’m a ‘true’ Republican – one who believes in and upholds its conservative tenets. Ironically and unfortunately, along with the Democratic liberals who are doing their best to destroy this nation, some of the people who least understand and fail to embrace the essence of the TP movement are those of the GOP party establishment.

In February of 2009, the same month I became a part of the TP movement, I attended my first GOP township meeting in Wayne Township. Dismayed and disgusted with a party that was unable to stand tall and defeat the most un-American presidential candidate of our lifetime, I wanted to see firsthand what could allow this to happen. Within a single meeting, it was not difficult to discern. There is nothing – zilch – that happens within those monthly meetings that one would think would be designed to strengthen the party’s base, extend its message, and expand its reach. Instead, it’s a social networking event that focuses on candidates pressing flesh, announcements of fundraising activities, plans for parades, a few updates from municipal/legislative representatives – in other words, mostly information that could be captured in advanced and published, leaving valuable time to dedicate to growing/improving the party.

As an assistant precinct committeeman for the GOP, I have raised these concerns multiple times under two different township GOP chairmen and there has been no response – literally, no response. Though I still attend, I refuse to be a victim of the party. Instead, I devote my time and energies to promoting responsible citizen activism to do for this country what the GOP refuses to do. It was not surprising to see the number of citizen activists – Tea Party or otherwise – who were in attendance at yesterday’s SCC meeting. A healthy Republican Party should have been concerned with the lack of participation from its supposedly active members. Though there were a small handful of county GOP chairmen present, they were woefully under-represented. One could easily get the impression that party ‘regulars’ just don’t care. But in all fairness, that raises the question of the adequacy of communication that proceeded it.

That brings me to yesterday’s meeting. Stated more accurately, what brought me to that meeting was the diligence and communication of State Treasurer Dan Rutherford and Doug Ibendahl. Despite your claim that it was on the Party’s website, there was no evidence of such. And even if that claim were true, for issues such as those of which you were to discuss and rule upon, is a ‘pull’ type of communication that requires citizens to regularly check the ILGOP website the best alternative for means of communicating? Would not a ‘push’ type of communication that is fed outwardly to multiple outlets be more effective? That is, of course, if the assumption was that the SCC wanted public participation in the first place.

Here are my thoughts/observations from the meeting:

    • I came to that meeting with more questions for clarification than those of concern. After all, it’s difficult to have concerns if you don’t fully understand the proposal(s). It was semi-comforting to see that several of the SCC members had the same questions.
    • It was, however, disconcerting to witness the lack of understanding and preparation within the committee in readying themselves to make a that decision. Suffice it to say, there were many unanswered questions that no one could answer – and for which you finally committed to contacting the RNC and getting answers in righting. That was a reasonable idea, but would have been more impressive had it been done in advance of the meeting. I couldn’t help but draw an unfortunate parallel to the infamous remark from Nancy Pelosi who insultingly stated that that Congress would have to pass the Obamacare bill in order to find out what was actually in it. Despite all of the confusion reflected in the committee members and the urging of so many speakers, you still proceeded in forcing a final vote. Thankfully, enough of the members were listening to the concerns that were raised and defeated a poorly crafted resolution.

• Questions for which answers were not readily apparent included:

    o Whether or not the proportionality rules applied to the Congressional district level or the total number of state delegates. Considering the relatively small numbers of delegates in the respective districts, applying them to what would could conceivably amount to 3-6 or more candidates with vote percentages ranging from 10-49% would be impossible to perform without difficulties due to rounding rules for the respective delegates. Applying those percentages to the larger sum of delegates would certainly minimize the rounding issues.
    o Whether or not the proportionality, ‘50% +1’, and minimum threshold rules pertain to the existing process. More than one person indicated that this was supposedly a mandate from the RNC. Why was this not clarified?
    o What rules would be followed for candidates who, though on the ballot, had recently dropped from the race?
    o Where is the clarity around how delegates would have been selected under the proposed new process? We heard explanations that implied that presidential candidates would make the selection, but that certification would be performed by the SCC. Whether it’s certification by the SCC or actual selection by the SCC, I can guarantee you that neither option would sit well with citizens who are paying attention. We simply have no faith in or evidence of any qualifying credentials that would allow us to believe that the party’s governing body that has allowed the Republican Party to deteriorate to such a joke in this state has a clue of how to turn the party around. In fact, the real suspicion is that they have no desire to turn the party around.
    • Interestingly, you seemed in a hurry to adjourn that meeting because of the fact that “we were going to lose the room”. At least 30 minutes after the meeting was adjourned, there were still a couple dozen people still remaining and talking in the room – and no one was present looking to clean up or move us out. If there was, indeed, such a rush to end the public comments, you might have considered limiting the number/length of speeches given by committee members. Whether you intended it or not, you ended up giving the impression that you had heard enough feedback.
    • It was gratifying to see the Angel Garcia proposal for the SCC to interfere in the certification of RNHA chapters by county chairmen be withdrawn. Mr. Garcia and his fellow band of RINOs were rejected by the state’s annual RNHA convention and denied recognition by the national organization as well. Not content to accept defeat and/or understand what it means to be a conservative, Mr. Garcia hoped to throw his weight around by taking the issue to the SCC. I only hope the withdrawal of his proposal was a matter of inappropriateness rather than just bad timing.

The last bullet-points were merely observations from the specific meeting. My closing point is a much broader concern and certainly more substantive than processes of altering our means of selecting nominating convention delegates. The Republican Party in Illinois is dying a slow death. Some argue that the Congressional victories in 2010 were evidence of otherwise, but an honest person will acknowledge that it was the influence of grassroots conservative organizations such as the Tea Party that were directly responsible for those wins – not the Republican establishment. And as distasteful as a Mark Kirk victory was for the Senate position, only an Obama crony as his opponent along with reluctant Tea Party propulsion made that happen. Realizing that there is still a long way for the IL GOP to go, I contend that if the Illinois GOP was a for-profit business, the combination of apathy, resignation, elitism, and sheer ineffectiveness of the organization would have resulted in mass changes in the party’s infrastructure long ago.

What are the leadership expectations for the GOP? What are the prospects/strategies for turning this state around? What will the SCC and the rest of the party infrastructure do to encourage and facilitate candidates who stand by party principles and have the wherewithal to win on their merits? Someone made a comment about the Bill Brady disaster last November, and you quickly dismissed it by saying “we don’t live in the past”. Well, we may not live in the past, but we damn well better learn from it. The failure of the IL GOP to deliver victory for Bill Brady has cost this state dearly in terms of legislative representation, higher taxes, the IL Dream Act, and more – if for no other reason than for vetoes. That comment clearly deserved more respect and less smugness than what you offered. Heads should have rolled for that failure and there didn’t seem to be any awareness or sense of urgency emanating from the State Central Committee last evening. Illinois’ citizens deserve better and it’s sure as heck isn’t going to come from the Democrats. We need a heightened level of commitment and focus from Republican leadership – and it cannot wait for trivial procedural pursuits.

By Rick who is On the Right Side of the Issues

Three Polls: Everyone’s Soured on Obama’s Handling of the Economy by Erik Hayden

One reason why Obama is unveiling his overly-anticipated jobs plan this week: everyone’s still in a very sour mood about his handling of the economy. This morning, the president was bombarded with three dour new polls from Politico/George Washington University, Washington Post/ABC News and The Wall Street Journal/NBC News showcasing–take your pick–“economic foreboding,” “summer of discontent,” or “rapid erosion of confidence” in his administration’s policies. Not great post-Labor Day news to wake up to.

Read more from Atlantic Wire.com

Today’s Toon