ObamaCare and Virginia: Where's The Lefty Outrage?

Yesterday the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that

The General Assembly has now affirmed Gov. Bob McDonnell’s decision to order state agencies to cut back part-time employee hours to no more than 29 a week to avoid triggering a requirement under the federal law to provide health insurance.

A Republican who is trying to get around paying for ObamaCare by reducing employees’ hours?  Where was the left-wing outrage?  Narry a peep from the usual suspects like the Huffington Post or Salon.

Things were sure different about two months ago when Papa John’s, Darden Restaurants, and Denny’s announced that they were considering similar cut-backs due to ObamaCare.  Then the left was in full-throated apoplexy. “The Corporate Blackmailing Of America Is Now All the Rage” one pundit ranted.  A little later, other liberal pundits were filled with glee to learn that the “brand names” of these companies supposedly took a hit due to the ObamaCare fall out.

Papa John’s CEO, John Schnatter, took the brunt of the criticism because he was a supporter of Mitt Romney.  My favorite piece was by Prachi Gupta of Salon, who wrote an article about Papa John’s with the sub-headline: “CEO John Schnatter insists that the Affordable Care Act necessitates price increases. Experts disagree.”  Isn’t it nice when there are experts out there that know the costs that businesses will incur better than the people who actually run those businesses?  

Regardless, though, the question sill remains: why no lefty outrage over what a GOP Governor Bob McDonnell is doing?

Perhaps the best explanation is that the evidence is beginning to pile up that this is not just a Republican CEO “thing.”  Other companies like Krispy Kreme, Frish’s (Bob’s Big Boy), and a Wendy’s franchise are also considering cutting back on employee hours.  Interestingly, various colleges and universities are looking at doing the same with their adjunct faculty.

There is even preliminary evidence from Bureau of Labor Statistics data.  As my former colleague Jed Graham noted for Investor’s Business Daily:

The fly in the ointment of January’s jobs report was the apparent shift to part-time work ahead of a key ObamaCare deadline.

Although retail payrolls grew by 32,600, total hours worked in the industry dipped, Labor Department data out Friday showed.

The explanation? Rank-and-file retail workers logged the shortest workweek since early 2010: just 30.1 hours, on average, vs. 30.4 in December….

A similar trend showed up in leisure and hospitality: January payrolls rose by 23,000 even as aggregate hours dipped 0.3%.

Reading over all the lefty outrage from a few months ago, it wasn’t clear that there was much understanding of what, exactly, ObamaCare requires of businesses. To be clear, business with 50 or more full-time employees (full-time defined as working 30 hour or more per week) must either buy their employees insurance or pay a fine.  If they pay the fine, they have a choice to pay whichever is less: 1. (The number of employee - 30) multiplied by $2,000; or 2. The number of employees who qualify for insurance on an exchange multiplied by $3,000.  Either way, those costs have to be paid.

Or shifted.  Businesses can try to reduce their number of employees to under 50 or reduce their employees’ hours to less than 30 per week.  In other words, the costs are shifted onto the employees in the form of fewer jobs and less work hours.

Perhaps the left is no longer outraged because evidence is piling up that, indeed, ObamaCare is going to have a very unpleasant effect on the U.S. labor market.  

Photo: iStockPhoto.com

Project 21's Charles Butler on Chicago Gun Violence: Blame Weak Politicians

On the 1/31/13 edition of “Real News,” Project 21 member Charles Butler tells Blaze TV’s Will Cain that politicians complaining about gun-related murders in Chicago are hypocrites who “know exactly what’s going on” in their crime-ridden communities but cannot accept that the city’s draconian anti-gun laws really make the situation more perilous for law-abiding citizens.

Charles adds that some neighborhoods in the Windy City are “at the mercy of urban terrorists.”  These neighborhoods are so bad that the police defer to gang leaders to keep the peace.

Allocating Electoral Votes By Congressional District is Worth a Serious Look

Writing over at the Outside the Beltway blog, Doug Mataconis has opined that "Allocating Electoral Votes By Congressional District Is A Bad Idea":

For many years, and in many posts at my personal blog and here at OTB, I was a supporter of the District Method of allocating Electoral Votes. However, it's become clear to me that, at least in our current political climate, this simply isn't a viable or appropriate way to allocate votes in the Electoral College. The primary reason for that, of course, is the fact that so many of our Congressional Districts have been drawn in such a way that they are essentially noncompetitive for the opposition party. Late last month, I took note of a study that found that the number of "swing" Congressional Districts had dropped from 103 in 1992 to just 35 in 2012, while the number of "safe" seats for both parties had increased to nearly 80% of Congressional seats. While there isn't always a correlation between how a district votes for Congress and how it votes for President, it's becoming increasing rare for ticket splitting of the type that made Ronald Reagan's landslides in 1980 and 1984 possible to take place. As long as Congressional District lines are drawn in a manner that protects party interests, using those lines to allocate Electoral Votes strikes me as an incredibly bad idea.

Further confirmation of just how bad the District Method actually is can be found in this study which finds that, had the method been in place in all 50 states this past November, Mitt Romney would have won the election despite losing the popular vote by some five million votes...

On the first point, Congressional District lines have always been drawn according to political interests, at least to some degree. There's a reason gerrymandering is named after a politician from the 18th Century. So it's a little odd that Doug ever supported allocating electoral votes by Congressional District if this is his concern. The real question from a fairness point of view is whether the various political parties have an equal chance at winning the state houses and governorships that control how Congressional Districts are drawn. They do.

The second point is Doug's claim that Romney would have won the 2012 presidential election had this system been in place at that time. But that's unknowable. President Obama's re-election campaign strategy, which famously included a very effective get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort, was based on the system we have right now. It presumably would have been similarly effective had the campaign been targeting districts here-and-there instead of states here-and-there.

I know liberals will say that GOP gerrymandering (as if that's the only kind we have) would make that harder, but how do they know that instead of GOP districts giving Romney an edge, that the Obama campaign doing GOTV on the congressional district level would not have led to more Democrats winning Congressional seats?

In a 2011 New York Times column, Nate Silver addressed a similar issue, that of whether Al Gore would have won in 2000 if we did not have the Electoral College:

...Mr. Gore would have won the election if not for the Electoral College, right?

Actually, not so fast.

Presidential campaigns strive to maximize their chances of winning the Electoral College. They devote more resources -- advertising dollars, field offices, candidate visits, and so forth -- to states that might be decisive in determining its outcome.

We can see some tangible effects of this in 2008, when Barack Obama -- who had much more money and much better field operations than John McCain -- over-performed in swing states relative to non-competitive ones.

In the closing months of the campaign, the Obama campaign was concentrating its efforts in 15 states, plus the Second Congressional District of Nebraska (which awards one electoral vote to the candidate that wins it regardless of statewide results).

Nationally, Mr. Obama improved on John Kerry's performance by a net of 9.7 percentage points. But in these swing states, he improved on Mr. Kerry's numbers by an average of 13 points...

...Now back to 2000. In that year, Mr. Bush was generally regarded as having the sorts of resource advantages that Mr. Obama had in 2008: more money, more volunteers, and better voter-targeting efforts.

Mr. Bush, evidently, deployed those resources efficiently from the standpoint of winning the Electoral College. But had there been no Electoral College, these advantages would have helped him to maximize his share of the popular vote instead.

Whether this would have been enough for him to close his 540,000 vote deficit with Mr. Gore is hard to say. But the Electoral College can cause significant enough distortions in turnout and strategy that this should be regarded as an unresolved question. The popular vote results that emerge from a universe like ours in which the Electoral College does exist are not quite the same as the ones we'd see in a world where it didn't.

As I wrote on January 26, I believe it is impossible to know which candidates and which parties would benefit in the short term from such a change, and I think, over time, that any advantages and disadvantages between the parties, to the extent they exist, would even out.

I find something Doug Mataconis wrote favoring the allocation of electoral votes by Congressional District in 2007 to be very persuasive:

...there is much about this proposal that is worthy of consideration.

First of all, it maintains the Electoral College's purpose of balancing large states against small ones, and regions against regions while at the same time addressing one of the biggest criticisms of the way that we elect Presidents. By tying at least one electoral vote in each state to a Congressional District, the proposal would put nearly every state into play in a Presidential election. Yes, the proposal would benefit Republicans in California, but it would also benefit Democrats in states like Florida and Texas. In the end, the benefits would probably balance themselves out across the nation, and candidates would be forced to run a campaign that addresses the country as a whole, rather than one that merely focuses on a few big states.

Second, unlike the NPV, the Congressional district allocation method has been tried before, and works. Both Nebraska and Maine have had this system in effect for several years and it's worked just fine.

Finally, unlike the NPV, the Congressional district allocation method is completely constitutional. The Constitution leaves to the individual states the method by which Electoral Votes are allocated.

As I've said before, I don't think that the Electoral College is as broken as some people think it is. In it's 200 year history, there have been only three occasions where the Electoral College winner did not also win the popular vote, and only two where no candidate got a majority of Electoral College votes, requiring the House of Representatives to choose the President. In some sense, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But, if reform is considered at all, the District Method seems to be the way to go.

Allocating electoral votes by Congressional District would make presidential campaigns about the entire country instead of mostly a few states. For that reason alone, it is worth serious consideration, especially if the only reason to oppose the idea is a partisan concern that, if it exists at all, evens out completely over time.

Want an Anti-Gun Violence Plan? I'll Give You a Plan

A small group of former football players has put together (or perhaps just appeared in) what they call (or the politicians' offices exploiting their fame calls) a "public service announcement" on gun violence.

In it, the football players "demand a plan" to end gun violence. Here's the entire ad:

DEION SANDERS: How many more? How many more street corners?

MARSHALL FAULK: How many more schools?

EMMITT SMITH: How many more movie theaters?

MICHAEL IRVIN: How many more half-time moments of silence?

LADAINIAN TOMLINSON: Enough.

EMMITT SMITH: For the children of Sandy Hook Elementary.

LADAINIAN TOMLINSON: Demand a plan.

DEION SANDERS: You can't win without a plan.

EMMITT SMITH: I chose the game.

MICHAEL IRVIN: I played the game.

DEION SANDERS: This -- right here? -- oh baby, this is not a game.

EMMITT SMITH: It's time.

MARSHALL FAULK: It's time for our leaders to do something.

MICHAEL IRVIN: Demand a plan. Right Now.

EMMITT SMITH: Right now.

DEION SANDERS: Now.

How helpful. Why, without this ad, no one would ever have thought of this. Not.

The press contacts on the press release bragging about this waste of humanity's time are the offices of the mayors of New York and Boston.

I'm feeling sorry for the taxpayers in those cities, so, here, former football guys, is a plan. You, as former football guys, are looked up to by large numbers of young people. Use that influence for good. Use your PSA, speechmaking and interview opportunities to send these young people a message. Tell them to get married before they have kids, stay married, provide stable homes, plenty of love, and, to their best of their ability, teach and model for their children good ethics and good values.

Carried out, this plan would do more to prevent future gun violence than any new gun control law ever could.

So there's the plan you asked for, guys. If you actually care about gun violence, model these behaviors and advocate them to young people.

If you really care.

P.S. Same goes for you, mayors.

photo credit: iStockphoto

Biden Doesn't Understand the Second Amendment, Says Project 21's Stacy Washington

Although Vice President Joe Biden recently extolled the virtues of owning a shotgun instead of an automatic rifle such as an AR-15, Project 21 member Stacy Washington — guest-hosting on Blaze TV’s “Real News” on January 25 — explains that Biden’s logic shows he “does not know why we have a Second Amendment.”

Stacy notes that the Second Amendment is not meant to solely protect hunting and shooting skeet as liberal politicians are suggesting these days.  Gun ownership was recognized by the Founding Fathers and protected in the Constitution as a means “to prevent governmental tyranny.”

Insurers Operating At A Loss Is A Good Thing!

Yesterday the Kaiser Family Foundation released a white paper which largely conceded that premiums in the individual market will likely be rising under ObamaCare due to the new benefits insurance plans must provide and the sicker people the plans are forced to cover.  

However, the authors argued that there will be countervailing forces pushing premiums downward:

The incentives for more efficient delivery and lower administrative costs, reinforced by the minimum loss ratio and rate review provisions, should set the stage for a more robust effort by the industry to limit costs and cost increases in this market. The large number of new enrollees also will provide greater incentive for the health plans to invest in cost control programs for the nongroup market.

Or they might set the stage for more insurers dropping out of the individual market.  

Under ObamaCare’s medical-loss-ratio regulations, insurers in the individual market are allowed to spend no more than 20% of their premiums on administrative costs, including profits.  These first went into effect in 2011, and the left-wing Commonwealth Fund recently examined what happened:

The other component of reduced overhead was lower profit margins, indicating that overall premium growth was restrained in the individual market. In 2010, individual insurers had an operating profit margin of 0.15 percent overall, but this dropped to an operating loss of –1.2 percent in 2011, amounting to a $351 million reduction in operating profits overall…On a per-member basis, individual insurers’ operating profits diminished (or losses increased) by $35.

The Commonwealth Fund argued that due to the profit losses and other reductions in administration costs “consumers benefitted in the form of restrained premium increases.”

Well, that’s one way to look at it.  Another way is that those “restrained premium increases” will be short-lived if insurers’ profit losses in the individual market continue long-term.   Since companies that consistently operate at a loss eventually go out of business, in the long-run you’ll see fewer insurers competing in the individual market. And less competition means that the price of premiums will rise.

Of course, left-wing policy wonks seldom look that far ahead, and politicians almost never do.  Insurers, on the other hand, may be.  Greg Scandlen recently pointed to some news articles showing that many insurers were wary about jumping into the exchanges: 

Health plan chains (multiple insurance companies with a single owner) gave notice that they will not even bother to apply to participate in health exchanges in half of all states. The revelation at investor conferences is a warning that despite all the political verbiage most private carriers do not need (or want) a large book of business in the small group and individual markets, and have no intention of losing money to sell rich benefits to people with higher-than-average underwriting risk.

Neither of the articles Scandlen links to makes notice of the effect medical-loss-ratio regulations have had on profits.  But it sure looks like insurers have.

photo credit: iStockphoto.com

Follow David Hogberg on Twitter @DavidHogberg

Lena’s Second Time Wasn’t a Charm

Actress Lena Dunham thrilled the liberal masses with a pre-2012 election video in which she double-entendred her way through a monologue likening her 2008 vote for Barack Obama with being deflowered.

A blog recently called out Dunham — the creator of and actress in the critically-acclaimed HBO series “Girls” — as a hypocrite for acting as a voter advocate despite not having registered to vote or voting in 2004 or in any subsequent pre-2008 election despite being of legal age.  To make matters worse, the Room 8 blog reported that Lena Dunham registered in Brooklyn (she lived in Manhattan before she became famous) did not vote in the 2012 election.

Calling out Dunham as a poser, the blogger suggested: 

When it comes to voting behavior, Ms. Dunham is almost exactly the role model the right wing should want her liberal generation to follow.

Did Dunham spurn her first love?  Apparently not, but what she claims she did questions New York ballot security and would make her more of a role model for the liberals than the Room 8 blogger ever imagined (just in a different, less distinguished way).

According to a subsequent report posted by the Los Angeles Times, Dunham claims she did vote — just not in Brooklyn.

Dunham says the process of getting an absentee ballot was too difficult for her.  She called the process “a steampunk cornmaze” (it’s a science fiction hipster thing, you wouldn’t understand).  So the dutiful Dunham got in an ozone-depleting, global warming-causing jet and flew back to the Big Apple to cast a ballot.  But she voted at the polling place where she voted before her move to Brooklyn.  She said: 

I wasn’t sure if my change of address had officially been registered so I went to my old polling place with my dad, where they let me vote by affidavit (what was totally allowed).

It may have been “totally allowed” by the poll workers in Manhattan, but why would she even think for a second it was legal?  She no longer lives with daddy.  She moved to Brooklyn.  She obviously remembers registering to vote in Brooklyn.  It’s unclear if she was purged from the voter roll at her old address, but that is what should happen in a perfect world (but what liberals sue to keep from happening).  This safeguard would keep Dunham from voting twice, or keep someone from voting in her name at either address, and thus nullify the vote of law-abiding citizens. 

But the current toast of the Hollywood elite apparently couldn’t be bothered with even crossing the East River to try to vote where she is registered.  And after she flew all the way to New York City to make sure she didn’t disappoint Obama.

In a perfect world, Lena Dunham would be prosecuted for vote fraud.  She lives in Brooklyn, is registered to vote in Brooklyn and had no right voting in Manhattan.  It’s an open-and-shut case.  But she likely won’t face charges.  It’s not like her vote was the one that tipped New York in Obama’s favor or anything.

It’s the principle of it all.

Dunham’s lame excuse, however, seems to prove the obvious message one gets from her TV show that young people are slackers.  In her case, she (or, more likely, her on-set personal assistant) couldn’t figure out the absentee ballot process and she apparently didn’t want to have to wait in possibly two lines on Election Day.  She took the easy way out.  That was wrong.

But bending the rules is what our society does for celebrities.  And liberals love to see that advantage — especially, it seems, in voting.  Why not let people vote without having to prove their identity?  Why not let people vote wherever they want?  What harm could come of that?

At least Dunham didn’t blatantly abuse the system like former congressional candidate Wendy Rosen, who did vote in the two places where she was registered and now faces up to ten years in jail for her fraudulent behavior now that its been uncovered.

All of this is a painful reminder of how permissive our electoral system is being abused by the fraudsters.

photo credit: iStockphoto

Update on Feb 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM by David W. Almasi

The blogger at Room 8 contacted us to mention that there was a special exception on Election Day 2012 that allowed Lena Dunham to vote in Manhattan.

Because of Hurricane Sandy, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order that allowed people to vote at any polling place as long as they submitted an affidavit regarding their identity.  According to data posted by Room 8, just under ten percent of voters in New York City took advantage of this allowance.

But, as Room 8 pointed out, [c]ounting such ballots takes a lot of time” and creates “a logistical nightmare” because the wayward ballots required intense scrutiny past the races for president and U.S. senator.

So, while it was legal for Dunham to vote with daddy in Manhattan, I contend it was still disingenuous to the electoral process and elevates her near the level of other celebrities who adovate voting but just don’t get it right.  If she was aware of the Cuomo order, she could have voted at her local Brooklyn polling place whether she was on the roll there or not — saving her a probably perilous and unnecessary trip into Manhattan.  As it happened, her votes for non-federal offices may have been lost in the confusion.

Whatever the case, she cannot say that this time was as satisfying as the first time.

Project 21's Derryck Green: Obama Birth Control Mandate Compromise Not Enough

Project 21 member Derryck Green says the recent minor compromise for religious institutions that the White House offered on its ObamaCare contraception mandate is “a step in the right direction” that must “go a lot further.”  Derryck tells host Amy Holmes of the Blaze TV program “Real News” on February 5 that the compromise is still unacceptable because it still discriminates against people of faith.  He believes this compromise is nothing more than a “test” by the Obama Administration to see if religious folk “will buy into” accepting the federal health care takeover.

As proof of the government’s insincerity, Derryck notes that companies owned by people with strong religious convictions who oppose the mandate for reasons of their faith are “still out in the cold” when it comes to the mandate.  He suggests that continued and loud opposition to the mandate is necessary and could lead to a eventual capitulation by the Obama Administration.

Medicare Demonstration Projects: Hope Springs Eternal

In an effort to improve quality and reduce costs, Medicare conducts “demonstration projects.”  These experiments in delivering medical care are tested in a few areas with the hope that, if they work, Medicare can apply them to the entire nation.

There’s just one problem.  As the Congressional Budget Office has noted, they seldom work.  After years of trying, Medicare has a hard time coming up with a demonstration project that improves the quality and cuts the cost of medical care.

Until now, that is.  As reported by amednews.com:

A Medicare test project that emphasized care coordination to keep patients from going back to the hospital scored lower readmission rates compared with similar regions without such a program in place.

A study on the Medicare quality improvement organization pilot in the Jan. 23/30 Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 30-day readmission rates in 14 communities were reduced by 5.7% over two years beginning in 2008. In an average locale serving 50,000 Medicare beneficiaries, the care coordination model would cost $1 million a year but also save $4 million by preventing return trips to hospitals, said lead author Jane Brock, MD, MSPH.

 Naturally, the folks who run Medicare are quite happy:

Following the success during the trial period, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has moved to expand these improvement groups nationwide by 2014. Researchers believe the program could save the system billions of dollars nationally.

It sounds almost too good to be true.  And if you look at the actual JAMA article, it probably is.

In this demonstration project, 14 communities participated in a system to improve “care transitions”—i.e. moving from the hospital to one’s home or nursing home—for Medicare patients.  The researchers found that in the communities in the demonstration project hospital readmissions were reduced .56 per 1000 per quarter versus communities not in the demonstration project.

However, to test whether that estimate of .56 is accurate, one uses a “confidence interval.”  If the confidence interval is pretty close to the estimate—let’s say, in this case, it had been .50 on the low end and .60 on the high end—then researchers could be pretty confident that the estimate is accurate.

Here’s the rub:  The actual confidence interval is 0.05 to 1.07.  That’s a pretty wide range around .56.  Worse, 0.05 on the low end is very close to zero, meaning that it’s possible that care transitions may have almost no effect on hospital readmissions.

It’s certainly not a good enough confidence interval for researchers to be saying that the project could save billions nationwide.  A more accurate statement would be it could save billions but it might also save next to nothing.

Of course, that kind of statement doesn’t make the folks at CMS too happy.

For more on why Medicare demonstration projects don’t work, see this excellent piece by Megan McArdle.

Two Very Different Authors Promote Fruits of Free Market Capitalism

What does the owner of a chain of funky natural food stores, revered for the quality of its fruit and produce, have in common with the buttoned-up, multi-billionaire scion of a publishing empire? 

A lot, it seems.

While, at first glance, they’re as different as apples and oranges, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey and publishing executive Malcolm Stevenson “Steve” Forbes are both passionate about capitalism, seeing business as inherently good.

As Chairman and Editor-In-Chief of Forbes, Inc., Mr. Forbes is very much Mr. Establishment, supervising the global conglomerate originally founded by his grandfather in 1917.  

Mr. Mackey’s Whole Foods Market is a vibrant, new capitalist success story, the sort of company on which Forbes Magazine reports.

But as authors of books on business, both men believe free enterprise and free markets create opportunities for people seeking to serve one another while striving for self-fulfillment and personal happiness.

The 72,000 dedicated employees at Mr. Mackey’s Whole Foods serve loyal customers through 344 stores in the U.S., Canada and the U.K., racking up an impressive $11.7 billion annually and record profits in the process.  

In his Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business, Mr. Mackey explains how it’s Whole Foods’ business philosophy that’s behind the company’s success; that a commitment to good business practices will secure a “more cooperative, humane and positive future.”

Says Mr. Mackey:

Business is fundamentally about people working together cooperatively to create value for other people.

Steve Forbes’ Freedom Manifesto argues along similar lines why “free markets are moral and Big Government isn’t.”

Says Mr. Mackey:

This is what we know to be true: business is good because it creates value, it is ethical because it is based on voluntary exchange, it is noble because it can elevate our existence, and it is heroic because it lifts people out of poverty and creates prosperity.

Both authors share a disdain for big governments that confiscate company’s profits - or family earnings - and transfer them to politically connected rent-seeking corporations in the form of subsidies.  

Mr. Forbes describes this as a struggle between meritocracy and crony capitalism:

Big government is supposed to promote ‘equal opportunity,’ ‘fairness,’ and ‘equality.’  But it actually encourages few-dalism.  Political cronyism and crony capitalism channel privileges to the favored few – the bureaucratic elite and their special interest constituents.  The most egregious examples of political aristocracy are found within the biggest governments, especially socialist or communist regimes ostensibly dedicated to ‘equality.’

Mr. Mackay also condemns crony capitalism:

Crony capitalists and governments have become locked in an unholy embrace, elevating the narrow, self-serving interests of the few over hte well-being of the many.  They use the coercive power of government to secure advantages not enjoyed by others: regulations that favor them but hinder competitors, laws that prevent market entry, and government-sanctioned cartels.

Mr. Forbes argues that capitalism and free markets succeed in “creating opportunity and abundance,” and “bringing out the best in people.” 

Profits, explains Mr. Mackey:

…are the by-product of higher purposes, great products and service, customer delight, team member happiness, and social and environmental stewardship.

To describe his particular brand of “conscious capitalism,” Mr. Mackey uses words like “love” and “healing,” ususual words for a book about business and economics.

He describes a commitment to a “higher purpose” and the process of “self actualization,” left-speak for Ayn Rand’s philosophy of “selfishness.”

While Steve Forbes and John Mackey are both successful businessmen, they come from very different backgrounds. 

Apples and oranges, they should see the world very differently.  But they don’t.

They are bound by a shared philosophy, a profound belief in the fine fruits of free market capitalism.

When engaged in consciously and respectfully, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Mackey believe capitalism is inherently good and liberates people.  Simple but true.

=====================================

Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research. 

Top photo: iStockPhoto.com. Second photo: Teresa Platt

Project 21’s LeBon: Americans Sickened by Increasing Food Regulation

A recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that — for the first time ever — a majority of the American people consider the federal government as a threat to their personal rights.

This seems to call into question the mandate that President Obama claims to have received in last November’s election and the government-heavy agenda he advocated in his inaugural address.

Taking on the increasing regulations on food and nutrition as a microcosm of the overall problem, Project 21 co-chair Cherylyn Harley LeBon points out how the nanny-state policies Americans are suffering under are making them fear their government rather than revere it.

Cherylyn says:

Skepticism of the government is at an all-time high — and with good reason.

In mid-January, a national survey conducted for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 53 percent of respondents thought the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.  Only 43 percent didn’t consider the federal government such a threat.

Pew reports this is the first time such distrust of Washington captured an outright majority, and it’s a significant change from a similar March of 2010 survey when just 47 percent professed such government distrust and 50 percent disagreed.

Of course, Pew was quick to point out that conservatives led in the public distrust of government.  But such widespread alarm about federal encroachment indicates there is absolutely a bipartisan, across-the-board concern about the assault on Americans’ personal freedoms, choices and ability to raise families on their own terms.

Whether it is ObamaCare, the Second Amendment or the constant barrage of “nanny state” regulations at all levels of government, Americans are speaking up about feeling threatened by institutional intrusion.

This intrusion is all around.

Late last month, for example, liberal New York State Senator Eric Adams of Brooklyn introduced a bill mandating that “no owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers.”  A complete ban on salt in restaurants!  Offenders could be fined up to $1,000 under the terms of the proposed law.

Adams’s heavy-handed intentions shouldn’t be surprising, considering that he serves in the same city where Mayor Mike Bloomberg is waging his own nanny-state war on salt.  Even as recently as when Hurricane Sandy devastated the New York region, Bloomberg reportedly continued city-imposed restrictions on food donations to homeless shelters.

Victims of the superstorm were dumpster-diving for nourishment, but at least what scraps they could get were apparently low-fat and low in sodium!

The proposed Adams salt ban was referred to the Committee on Consumer Protection.  This government entity is at the heart of the restriction machine.  In committees such as these — and in the bureaucracies that the legislation coming out of them creates — local, state and federal lawmakers feel they are protecting consumers when they promulgate regulations that, in this case, limit or outright ban the amount of salt people may consume.

But America is a free market society, where individuals should be allowed to make the best choices for themselves and their families without micromanagement by the government.  Hence the growing distrust of the American people when government intrudes.

Another recent example of why people feel the government is threatening their personal rights and freedoms, one that comes from the federal level, are the 160 new pages of rules handed down by the Obama Administration in early February that seek to further govern school foods.  The rules, required under the child nutrition law championed by Michelle Obama and passed by Congress in 2010, only seem to empower the government to once again act as the food police.

Under these newly-released rules on so-called “competitive” foods — what most people call snacks — schools must comply with federal mandates for nutritional value and percentage of fruit and vegetable content.  Only diet soda is allowed at high schools.  Noncompliance threatens federal subsidies for breakfast and lunch programs for poor families.  And this would apply to public schools and even private schools that accept such federal aid.

As a mother of two small children, I don’t want to see my choice of soft drinks limited in vending machines.  If I don’t want my children drinking diet soda, it should be my choice — just as such a decision should be the choice of each parent for their own child.

Rules with regard to what kids or customer eat should be guided by the mantra “my food, my choice” — but that’s absolutely not how government operates these days.  And that’s why so many Americans no longer seem to trust their elected leaders to be watching out for them.

Mike Schwartz, America Will Miss You

I was saddened to learn today, along with everyone here at the National Center for Public Policy Research who knew him, of the death of long-time conservative leader Mike Schwartz.

Mike died of ALS on Saturday. He will be missed by thousands, though his work easily benefited hundreds of millions.

Mike and I co-chaired the Family Forum (also called "Library Court") meetings of the social conservative segment of the conservative movement for several years about two decades ago. It is a time I remember very fondly, both for Mike's warmness but also for the many things we got accomplished.

Senator Tom Coburn, whom Mike served as chief-of-staff during Coburn's three terms in the House and then again during his Senate tenure, gave a moving tribute to Mike on the floor of the Senate in December, which can be viewed here.

Senator Coburn spoke about Mike's warm, giving nature and I agree with every word. While he also spoke of how valuable Mike was within his office, he did not speak much about Mike's leadership when he was not employed on Capitol Hill. I'm writing this today to help make sure Mike is remembered by the conservative movement for his many contributions during his time off the Hill, too.

It was easy for people who worked with Mike to see that Mike was fiercely dedicated to helping America be a place where everyone was safe and valued. This was most evident to me in his deep commitment to issues that help families, particularly babies and children, and those who were disadvantaged, to thrive. Mike also had a special interest in helping people, when it was possible, who were being persecuted overseas, or otherwise being harmed unjustly by people or forces more powerful than they were.

Once in a while you hear a phrase about a person that he or she was "the greatest this-or-that that you never heard of." This is about to be one of those times. Mike was one of the most effective and influential conservative leaders (most of) you have never heard of, and it's because he never sought credit or blew his own horn. He was always showing people how they could get things accomplished, putting people in touch with the right people who could help them (letting them use his name as a reference), or taking projects that were decent and turning them into something pretty spectacular through his deep knowledge of how policymaking works and just what it takes to make things happen. Mike was a leader, but a modest one. When you worked with him you knew it, but he never ran for the cameras -- given his influence, in fact, he must have been actively stepping away from the limelight. Back when we were working together I never thought about it, but I realize now that no one could be as influential as Mike without gracing magazine covers or constantly being sought by talk radio unless he was going out of his way to shine the lights elsewhere. Which is exactly how Mike was.

I can't tell you how many times I heard someone say, "let's see what Mike thinks." Now we'll say, "Let's do what Mike would have done."

God bless you, Mike. America is a better place because you were here, and we'll miss you. A lot.

Horace Cooper Discusses Potential Abuse of "Black Box" Information in Private Cars

On the February 3, 2013 edition of “America’s News Headquarters” on the Fox News Channel, National Center adjunct fellow and Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper discusses the “staggering” amount of information newer automobiles gather about driver habits and travels.

He also warns how proposed federal regulations to allow government access to that data does not adequately protect Americans from having personal information about their time behind the wheel abusively mined by the government or even private entities that may include advertisers and even stalkers.

As Horace notes, “If you create data, people are going to come for it.”

The Unprosecutable Killing of a Wanted Child

Do "pro-choice" activists really want abortion to be safe, legal and rare (the last word implying that abortion is not morally preferable), as their PR machine would have us believe?

Or are they, at best, ambivalent about the fact that abortion -- at the very least -- ends the development of a human life?

A clue may be found in the Colorado legislature this past week, where Democrats in that state's legislature killed legislation to make it a prosecutable crime to end the life of an unborn baby during the commission of a crime.

The legislation was initiated after a repeated drunk driver, drunk again, struck a vehicle carrying Heather Surovik, who was nine months pregnant, as well as Surovik's mother, Terry Koester, and Surovik's older son, aged five.

The group was heading home from a prenatal visit to the doctor for Heather and her son, named Brady Paul, whose delivery was days away.

All required hospital care. When Heather Surovik woke up in intensive care, she learned Brady had not survived.

Later, she learned Colorado law does not permit prosecutors to charge the drunk driver for the death of an unborn child. For damage to the car, yes. For the loss of Brady, no.

You see, although Brady was perfectly capable of thriving outside the womb, he hadn't taken a breath before he was killed. Had he inhaled, even once, his death would have been a prosecutable crime in Colorado.

The legislation designed to change this would seem to be a no-brainer, but Colorado's "abortion rights" community and Democrats in the legislature were staunchly against it, believing that any state law respecting the life of an unborn baby killed in the commission of a crime could somehow overturn Roe. v. Wade.

As reported by the Denver Post on January 28:

The Republican bill, from Rep. Janak Joshi of Colorado Springs, refers to 'proximate cause of death or injury to an unborn member of the species homo sapiens,' which critics said was a back-door attempt to outlaw abortion and mimicked 'personhood' efforts that have failed at the ballot.

Joshi said his bill had nothing to do with stopping abortion, and everything to do with someone who commits a crime and, in the process, kills a pregnant woman's unborn baby.

A Democratic-controlled House committee killed Joshi's measure 7-4 in a move that was praised by Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado.

'We are grateful to our lawmakers who recognized the dangers of this bill,' said Cathy Alderman, vice president of public affairs.

Never mind that no state legislature can overturn a Supreme Court decision, or that 38 states, including, ironically, Colorado under other circumstances, have some form of fetal homicide law without outlawing abortion.

Testifying against the measure to make the death of unborn babies during the commission of crime prosecutable, an "abortion rights" advocate refused even to acknowledge Brady Surovik's life had been lost, stubbornly calling 8 lb., 2 oz.* Brady just "a pregnancy."

A "pregnancy" who would be sitting up and eating semi-solid foods by now, that is, except for the actions of a drunk driver.

Colorado Democrats say they would support legislation that makes killing an unborn baby while committing a crime illegal, but only as a crime against the baby's mother. They oppose acknowledging that the unborn child himself has lost his life, or even that the unborn child's father has suffered from the loss of his offspring.

After the legislation was defeated, Brady's mother filed a proposed amendment to the constitution of Colorado calling for, as reported by the Denver Post, "fetal homicide laws to at last be applied to unborn victims of violence in Colorado."

Abortion advocates market what they support under slogans such as "every child a wanted child."

Brady Surovik was wanted.

The photo above is a screenshot of a CNN report on the case, viewable on YouTube here.

* News reports vary as to whether Brady weighed 8 lbs., 2 oz. at the time of his death, or 8 lbs., 12 oz.

The Origin and Purpose of Black History Month

Project 21 member Stacy Swimp has a new essay on the teaching and commemoration of black history as it was intended by its creators.  This essay is set to become an upcoming New Visions Commentary that will be distributed to black newspapers nationwide.

History is a clock that people use to tell their political and cultural time of day.  It is also a compass that people use to find themselves on the map of human geography.  History tells a people where they have been and what they have been, where they are and what they are.  Most important, history tells a people where they still must go, what they still must be.  The relationship of history to the people is the same as the relationship of a mother to her child.

– J.H. Clarke

Today is the first day of what is called “Black History Month.”

Its precursor, “Negro History Week,” was created by Dr. Carter G. Woodson in 1926 and observed on the second week of February.

A staunch Republican, Woodson choose that week in that month to honor the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.

Woodson created Negro History Week because black Americans and their accomplishments were largely left out of the educational curricula of that time.  Where blacks were mentioned, it was usually very demeaning imagery or discriminatory ideas.

Woodson founded the Association for the Study of Negro (now African-American) Life and History in 1915 and the Journal of Negro History in 1916.  He was dedicated to helping educate black and white Americans about blacks and their accomplishments and potential in a way that would benefit everyone.

His week-long observance was expanded to become Black History Month – officially recognized by the U.S. government – in 1976.

Unlike it often seems to be today, Woodson never intended black history to be solely about black firsts and a parade of black icons.  Woodson was a scholar.  He intended this observance as a means to get around the institutional hatred of the era and ultimately have this new information included in the teaching of American history, period.

In particular, Woodson wanted black Americans to understand the strong family values, work ethic, sense of individual responsibility, spirit of entrepreneurship and incredible dignity that was indicative of black Americans and their African ancestors.

This educational pursuit was also important to Woodson because he felt that historical awareness would inspire black Americans of his time to avoid becoming dependent on government to do for them what they could do for themselves.

Woodson also believed that, if white Americans knew the true history of blacks in America and in Africa, it would help overcome negative stereotyping.

Negro History Week was envisioned as a tool to develop and cultivate new awareness and new critiques.  It was about unity.  It was not a basis for ethnocentric pride and cultural divide – the path radical black Americans on the left have done over the past few decades.

I personally take advantage of the national spotlight that Black History Month provides to educate others about the real history leftist scholars rewrite or ignore and stress the original purpose of Negro History Week.

For the true goal was for there to no longer require a special week or month to highlight black Americans and their accomplishments.  Black history is American history – and a year-round school curricula relevant to all.

But that won’t occur under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Education and as long as there continues to be a left-wing domination of public education.

It is encouraging to find others like me who don’t want a hyphenated or segregated month for any Americans ethnicity or gender’s history.  The political left deserves scorn for their determination to keep America divided along ethnic, cultural and so-called class lines.

I am thankful for the work and the vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson.  History is indeed a human need.  His contribution and that of other black Americans is considerable and far more worthy than forcing black History into just one month.

I pray for a day when the true intent of Dr. Woodson for creating a “Negro History” observance comes to proper fruition.

Hollywood, Games and Gun Violence: It’s All in the Name

There is merely lip service being paid by some politicians about how movies, television and video games might contribute to the culture of violence that has lead to so many shootings these days.  And that’s considered bad enough.  The pushback from Big Entertainment and its supporters is intense.

In the wake of the Newtown shooting, President Obama is demanding gun control legislation from Congress immediately.  Unwilling to wait for the legislative process our nation is based upon to even begin, Obama quickly issued executive orders meant to make it harder for people to own guns and easier for the government to track those who have them or want them.

One thing Obama still hasn’t adequately addressed is the culture and how games and Hollywood could do their part by marketing less violent fare.  Why?  It likely boils down to politics and money.

An unnamed liberal strategist in California told the Washington Examiner in early January that asking Big Entertainment to tone it down would be a poor political move by the White House:

It’d be like giving Hollywood the finger.  “Thanks for all those fundraisers.  Now let me demonize you for one of our nation’s greatest tragedies.”  I don’t think the President has any appetite for that kind of hypocrisy.

But, by all means, go after the 2^nd Amendment, people who lawfully use guns and stores that lawfully sell guns and ammunition.  There’s no hypocrisy there.

Just because movies, TV shows and games make guns look cool certainly would never make someone want to emulate the cool stuff they see on-screen.  No one ever does that!

Hollywood producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura, for example, said: “Sane people know the difference.”  Arnold Schwarenegger struck a broader tone, when he added: “It’s finger-pointing.  I wouldn’t just go pointing at the NRA that it’s their fault.  Or video games.  Or gun manufacturers.  The reality is, it’s a very complex issue.”

It’s also because di Bonaventura and Schwarenegger were out promoting their new film “The Last Stand,” which features Arnold on the movie poster firing a really big machine gun.

Time magazine published an essay by Christopher J. Ferguson, a psychology professor and novelist at Texas A&M International University (not the world-famous one in College Station, but the affiliate in Laredo) who fancies himself as a “video game violence researcher.”  Ferguson wrote: “There is no good evidence that video games or other media contributes, even in a small way, to mass homicides or any other violence among youth.”

“[E]ven in a small way.”  Really?  REALLY?!

I say “Bullet to the Head.”

Coincidentally, there is a new movie and a new video game with that same name.  They collectively throw a lot of doubt on Big Entertainment’s see-no-evil-hear-no-evil defenders.

The starkness of the title kinda blunts any attempts at obfuscation, dontchathink?

First, there’s the movie that opens today.  Sylvester Stallone appears to play a hit man who is rescuing his daughter from bad guys who are apparently more evil than someone who kills for a living.  The trailer for the movie is full of guns.  The first few moments has a bullet traveling out of the trailer and at the viewer (oh, for the want of 3-D YouTube!).

See for yourself:

Granted, there are also explosives, axes and fisticuffs at play — so it’s not just guns.  Let’s be fair.

Don’t miss out on this heartfelt post-execution exchange in the trailer:

Sidekick: “You don’t just kill a guy like that.”

Stallone: “I just did.”

But that’s nothing.  The video game is even worse.

Produced after Newtown and in response to the NRA pointing out the violent excesses of Big Entertainment, some game designer (who has yet to reveal their true identity) is pushing a game called “Bullet to the Head of the NRA.”  It’s a pretty simple game: kill NRA president David Keene with a sniper rifle.

According to a report from the Daily Caller, the person who developed the game said he wanted to see NRA officials such as executive vice president Wayne LaPierre “wet his pants on television and bitch about being victimized in a video game.”  An apparent fan of the game posted this on-line about the thrill of killing LaPierre:

I really want to shoot Wayne in the head in a video game because I’m pissed about how he and others on his side have blamed violence on video games.

So this guy is looking forward to killing on-screen.  Fine.  But there are people who now really want to do harm to NRA officials and their families in real life.  Keene told the Daily Caller that he’s received plenty of death threats, and so have his kids — directly, not through threats to the father.  Keene, to be fair, didn’t indicate if the aspiring killers would use guns or other weapons.

Are those who were profoundly affected by what happened on Newtown now taking up arms against the NRA?  That’s not clear.  Are there people who love violent video games who want to at least present to kill David Keene and Wayne LaPierre with firearms?  Absolutely!

Adam Lanza, the Newtown killer, liked violent video games.  The “trench coat mafia” that shot up Columbine High School liked violent video games.  John Holmes, the Aurora movie theater killer, dressed like a popular murderous movie character and he committed his crimes.

Yet it’s those who lawfully use and sell guns and ammunition who are demonized.  Go figure.

photo credit: iStockphoto

How Free Are We? We’re Number 10! We’re Number 10!

The USA ranked Number 10 in the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom prepared by the conservative Heritage Foundation and the financially astute Wall Street Journal.  

Designed for the computer age, the Index features interactive graphs and charts.  Seriously, your kids are going to love this!

But it’s not simplistic.  There’s plenty in here for adults and economists.  The online site includes an 8-chapter digital book which further explores the Index, explaining: 

Countries with higher levels of economic freedom substantially outperform others in economic growth, per capita incomes, health care, education, protection of the environment, and reduction of poverty, according to data collected for the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom.

Lake Wanaka in New Zealand, ranked as the fourth freest country in the world.Where Do Free People Live?

Congratulations to Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia!  Their people earned the top three slots in the Economic Freedom Index. 

Beautiful New Zealand came in at #4, followed by Switzerland (#5) and Canada (#6). 

Chile (#7) and Africa’s Mauritius (#8) should be celebrated, along with Denmark (#9) - all now freer than we in the good old freedom-loving US of A (#10)!

The United Kingdown ranked way down at #14 and - no surprises here - the most repressed countries include Zimbabwe (#175), Cuba (#176) and North Korea (#177).

Even with all the discussions about reform in “capitalist” Communist China, it’s still not very free, ranked way down the list at #136:

The legal and regulatory system is vulnerable to political influence and Communist Party directives.  The party’s ultimate authority throughout the economic system undermines the rule of law and respect for contracts.  Corruption is widespread, and cronyism is institutionalized and pervasive.  Although leaders occasionally embrace market principles that could enhance efficiency and ensure long-term competitiveness, genuinely liberalizing economic reform has largely stalled.

US Supreme Court, where a property rights case can take three generations to resolve.You’ll want to read the full section explaining why the U.S. ranked poorly at #10.  Here’s a sobering snippet:

Registering a loss of economic freedom for the fifth consecutive year, the U.S. has recorded its lowest Index score since 2000.  Dynamic entrepreneurial growth is stifled by ever-more-bloated government and a trend toward cronyism that erodes the rule of law.  …Restoring the U.S. to a place among the world’s “free” economies will require significant policy reforms, particularly in reducing the size of government, overhauling the tax system, transforming costly entitlement programs, and streamlining regulations.

You knew it was bad.  Now you have proof!

Economic Freedom Runs Hot and Cold

You’ll want to play with the “Economic Freedom Heatmap” function of the report. It illustrates, by color and country, how economic freedom can run hot and cold.

The Heatmap tracks ten components of economic freedom and assigns a grade in each using a scale (0 to 100) with 100 representing maximum freedom. 

As Heritage and The Wall Street Journal explain:

The 10 economic freedoms are grouped into four broad categories or pillars of economic freedom:

Rule of Law (property rights, freedom from corruption);

Limited Government (fiscal freedom, government spending);

Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom); and

Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).

This grading system is then turned into colors so it’s a snap to use the Heatmap function to compare countries visually.

It makes sense that individual fiscal freedom declines as government spending soars, shackling citizens to  burgeoning debt and dragging everyone, inevitably, off a fiscal cliff.  U.S. citizens are clearly, as seen in color on the interactive Heatmap, becoming slaves to the burden of an oppressively large government structure. 

Toggle back and forth on the Heatmap between fiscal freedom and government spending.  Surprisingly, even the former Soviet Union (Russia) looks better in this area than the U.S.

The USA is #10 on the Freedom Index. We want to be #1!The Economic Freedom Index is something you’ll want to share with your friends around the world, especially with teachers and the computer whizzes among us - the younger generation.

My only complaint about the Index is that it doesn’t track by state.  I’d love to see how California compares to DC and Texas.  Wouldn’t you?

=======================================

Teresa Platt is the Director of the Environment and Enterprise Institute at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

All photos: Teresa Platt

Another Month, Another Bunch of Bad Economic News

Just like the office created to close Gitmo, the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness slowly faded away.  The Council, with a two-year mandate in which only four face-to-face meetings were held, officially ceased to exist yesterday.

Unfortunately for Obama, the timing for the demise of his job-creation brain trust couldn’t be more inappropriate.  Today’s jobless report from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the unemployment rate went up again in January to 7.9 percent.  This raises fears of the second Obama term being just like the first, with unemployment at or above eight percent.

The alternative U-6 unemployment rate that includes everyone who is underemployed or has given up looking for a job remained constant at 14.4 percent.

This dismal jobs report comes right on the heels of another Commerce Department report earlier this week that the economy contracted at the end of 2012 — the first time it has done that since 2009.

And the hits keep on coming.  Well in advance of next Monday’s mandated deadline, the Obama Administration announced they would not be releasing a proposed 2014 budget on time.  Then again, why should they bother considering that the liberal-dominated Senate hasn’t bothered to do their part and pass a budget since 2009.

All this gloomy economic news is giving Project 21 member Derryck Green a sense of déjà vu.  He’s unfortunately lived through all of this before.  Derryck, who regularly comments on the monthly jobs report on this blog, said:

Although it’s officially tomorrow, today feels like Groundhog Day.

Hearing the latest failings concerning Barack Obama’s economic policies with the monthly unemployment update is reminiscent of the movie “Groundhog Day,” where Bill Murray’s character relives the same day over and over again.

Our nation is similarly being forced to relive the same stagnant and depressing employment statistics and economic indicators over and over again under President Obama’s leadership.  While Murray’s character in the movie eventually figures life out and transcends his self-imposed rut.  The same unfortunately cannot be said for the rest of us.

In January, the overall unemployment rate jumped to 7.9 percent, while the unemployment rate for blacks only went to slightly below 14 percent [http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf].  The unemployment rate for all women remained steady at 7.3 percent.

The only big move was that the unemployment rate for black teens went down from 40.5 percent to 37.8 percent.  But, with the numbers already so abysmally high, this improvement is hardly something to celebrate.

President Obama stated in his inaugural address that “[a]n economic recovery has begun.”  In the Senate, Harry Reid has also decided to pursue this fantasy.  Statistics show otherwise.

Consider this:

• For the first time in several years, the economy actually shrank during the last quarter of 2012;
• The Federal Reserve noted last week that it will continue its $85 billion-per-month stimulus program in which it buys mortgage bonds and government-backed debt to falsely prop up the economy (officially called “quantitative easing”).  As a result of this scheme, the Fed now holds almost $1.7 trillion dollars of U.S. debt — up from $475 billion when President Obama took first office;
• Americans collecting federal disability money rose once again to another high — slightly over 8.8 million people.  This means that one person is collecting disability for every 13 people who are still working full-time;
• The amount of debt accumulated just during President Obama’s first term was approximately $5.8 trillion which, if dispersed equally, would represent a “fair share” debt of over $50,000 per American household.  Obama has also signaled his intent on spending even more during his second term; and
• The President decided to disband his so-called “jobs council,” which makes some sense considering he last met with the council last February.  With unemployment edging closer to eight percent yet again and millions of Americans still out of work or underemployed, it seems the only job that was worthy of the President’s concern all this time was his own.

This perpetual bad news regarding to unemployment and the economy isn’t a surprise.  The President seems preoccupied right now with gun control (with an emphasis on control), climate regulation, gay “rights” and continuing to attack successful Americans.  With Obama largely avoiding mention of the economy during his inauguration, we can only hope he will more thoughtfully address it during his State of the Union address later this month.  If recent history is any guide, however, holding one’s breath is not recommended.

Whatever the groundhog sees tomorrow concerning the remaining length of winter is merely a short-term prognosis.  As for the economy, the unfortunate forecast is to get ready for a likely four more years in the cold.

top photo credit: iStockphoto

Only Now is NAACP Leader Admitting Black Americans Suffer Under Obama

You didn’t hear it from Ben Jealous first!

For months now, particularly after the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on employment figures has been released, Project 21 members such as Derryck Green have regularly commented on the continuing economic malaise wrought by the Obama Administration.  In his past postings (found elsewhere on this blog), Green has noted how black Americans are suffering particularly hard under the President’s economic policies — with black unemployment far outpacing the general population and affecting them much more than their white counterparts.

Leave it to Ben Jealous to acknowledge this sad fact only after Obama’s second inauguration.  Having acted as a humble defender of Obama and his policies for the first four years, continued joblessness among black Americans apparently finally elicited a sharp criticism from the NAACP president and CEO.

On the January 27 edition of “Meet the Press” on NBC, Jealous said “[b]lack people are doing far worse” when it comes to finding a job during the Obama Administration.  Between November and December of last year, black unemployment rose 0.8 percent to 14 percent.  To put things in perspective, the black unemployment rate when Obama took office was 12.7 percent.  This is the highest level since 1983.  And disparate black unemployment is a factor consistent throughout the entire Obama tenure at the White House.

While NAACP officials did huddle with their fellow race-based Obama defenders from Al Sharpton’s National Action Network and the National Urban League last week to attempt to formulate a “black agenda” that will allegedly be presented to Obama at some later date, it’s uncertain how much of Jealous’s seemingly newfound skepticism will seep into any final product.

Project 21’s Kevin Martin is skeptical as well — of Ben Jealous.  Kevin is wondering why Jealous is so late in his realization that black Americans appear to have gotten such a raw deal under a president they fought so hard for and have defended so fiercely.

Kevin would certainly like to see more of this critical examination of the President in the NAACP’s future endeavors.  Kevin says:

For once, it appears that NAACP Chairman Ben Jealous has accepted the reality that has been before him all along — a reality that he has unfortunately denied until now — that black Americans are in a worse position today than they were four years ago.

While people like Ben Jealous and the rest of the NAACP seem to have made a living in recent years in attacking conservatives, especially conservatives of color, he can no longer deny what those same conservatives of color have been saying for years now.  This is the fact that, when liberal policies are applied, the very minorities that liberals claim will benefit from them are the same people who suffer under them the most.

With black unemployment now nearly double the national average and blacks are also overrepresented among home foreclosure figures and those suffering a general loss of wealth, it would seem that the NAACP would want to abandon support for any and all of the policies that have not advanced the general welfare of black America.

If the head of the NAACP can admit that black Americans are worse off today than under George W. Bush when it comes to jobs, then he needs to explain his group’s so-called report card grades on lawmakers as well as its platform — for this is a direct reflection of the political ideology of which they support.

Then again, why should Kevin be putting so much faith in the NAACP and Jealous.  Instead of focusing entirely on that “black agenda,” it appears the group is spreading itself out into things that would certainly have a dubious affect on blacks and jobs for blacks.  For example, the group just recently affiliated itself with the radical Service Employees International Union and other groups in promoting an April 10 rally in Washington, D.C. to promote policies that will likely lead to amnesty for illegal aliens.

top photo credit: iStockphoto

Why Think Progress' Liberal Hyperbole Over Congressional District Electoral College Voting Should Be Ignored

The hyperbolic report "How Republicans Plan To Rig The Next Presidential Election, In Six Pictures" is cited by the Center for American Progress Action Fund as its top article for the week. That and other evidence makes clear the left is freaking out because some states are considering awarding presidential electoral votes by Congressional district rather than winner-take-all.

It shouldn't.

Despite Think Progress' repeated claims that the idea, if implemented, would steal elections for the GOP, there's no reason to assume congressional district electoral vote allocations benefit one party more than the other, particularly over time.

Furthermore, allocating votes by Congressional district is no less valid under the Constitution than winner-take-all.

I like the idea of awarding electoral votes by congressional district. Why shouldn't the many liberals of Austin, Texas ever have their presidential votes count? Or the conservatives in San Diego? And why should all the presidential campaigns of both parties always focus on just a few states, while all-but-ignoring all the rest of us every time?

Make the campaigns truly national, I say, by forcing candidates to address the concerns of people in all 50 states, not just those of a few swing voters in Ohio, or Florida, or whichever few states seem the "swingingest" in any given year. Allocating electoral votes by congressional district could do that.

The Think Progress argument against change is that because the GOP controls more state legislatures right now, while the Democrat presidential candidate won more states in the last election, on paper, right now, the idea seems to favor the GOP.

But we aren't having a presidential election right now, and by the time we do have one, everything will look different. The states' demographics, the candidates, the parties' popularity -- everything.

Think Progress is especially upset that Virginia is considering allocating electoral votes by Congressional districts. Virginia has a Republican-dominated legislature, but (thanks to the high number of government employees in northern Virginia) it voted for Obama in 2012. Virginia Republicans see congressional district voting as a way to give a voice to more conservative voters outside Northern Virginia; Think Progress wants those Northern Virginia voters to keep driving the entire state's electoral college votes into Democrat hands.

Think Progress' position is that Virginia's Republicans should voluntarily surrender the opportunity to help the GOP that congressional district voting seems to afford them. (Note: It might not. Virginia could vote for the GOP candidate next time, in which case, congressional district allocation will help the Democrats.)

Unsurprisingly, Think Progress' support for voluntary nonpartisanship doesn't cross the Potomac, where Democrats control the legislature.

I live in Maryland's Congressional District 2. It looks like this:

Until it left me last year, I lived in Maryland's Congressional District 3. It now looks like this:

I am represented by a Democrat in Congress, yet the county I live in voted Romney over Obama.

Gerrymandering by Maryland's Democratic legislature in 2012 was designed to get rid of Republican Representative Roscoe Bartlett and, ten years before, it was designed to get Republican Representative Connie Morella out of Congress. It succeeded at both.

But when I put "gerrymander" and "maryland" into Think Progress' search engine, this is what I found:

Think Progress isn't indignant when the partisanship flows its way, and I daresay the GOP in Virginia can't be expected to be, either.

The real question is whether congressional district-based electoral vote allocations could benefit the country. I believe Think Progress, by focusing exclusively on its own partisan goals, misses the point that it could be.

Both parties are partisan, and probably always will be, but voting by district, if widely adopted, wouldn't be.