Why Obama is obsessed with "Middle Class"
- Details
- Created: Friday, 23 January 2015 12:45
- Written by Super User
During this weeks SOTU address, Barack Obama continued his bizarre obsession with the term "Middle Class." This is largely because he has no real understanding of the American "Middle Class."
First, he doesn't realize that for all practical purposes - it means - everyone. People with incomes ranging from 30k to 200k almost always self identify as "middle class." Less than 2% of Americans make more than 200K a year; and if one considers the value of Government Assistance, less than 5% earn less than 30K.
While the 200k earner with a Lexus and a 4k/month house payment lives more lavishly than the 30k single mom with a small apartment and a used F-150; they're both likely to be at the same store, restaurant, or movie - and when asked - both consider themselves "middle class."
Most importantly though - Obama doesn't know why we have a middle class.
It's not due to minimum wage laws, or fair housing laws, or any other intrusive government policy.
It's because we also have an "Entrepreneur Class" competing for general labor skills. This is largely that 1% that is so demonized by the administration. The only way for businesses to earn greater profits is to grow and hire people. The only way to be better than the competition is to employ better and more capable people. The only way to do that is to match or beat the compensation of ones competition.
Often general labor skills are transferable. For example, here in Texas; construction workers have seen an increase in wages as more and more are drawn into the oil fields. This competition for employees occurs in every field. When large revenues are generated by Google and Apple, they seek the best accountants and investment analysts that might previously have been at GM or Exxon.
In short, the existence of a strong middle class REQUIRES a strong and vibrant entrepreneurial class. Perhaps most importantly, the ability for new entrepreneurs to form and start new businesses has been crushed by the policies of this administration. It is often the bright eyed new start up that can most effectively attract the seasoned business veteran to peel away from his "safe job" for a chance to get in "on the ground floor."
This is Obama's biggest failure
The U.S. is no longer a great place to start a business.
- And yes - it's all his fault
From Dodd/Frank to Obamacare and every unpredictable assertion of governmental regulation in between. American businesses now crouch in a pure reactionary position waiting to respond to the next government mandate. Or, they are lobbying some idiot in Congress to mandate their new (probably green) innovation into the market - because they know it wouldn't generate any interest otherwise.
Quite predictably, this year more business failed in the U.S. than were started. This has never before happened in my life time. In other words, competition for general labor decreased, as businesses exited the market. As more businesses fail, the remaining few will have less competition for wages - and real income for the "middle class" will continue to fall.
So, thanks Barack Obama - you've made life tough enough on the 1% - so that they can let you take care of the other 99%.
Goodbye job - Hello foodstamps, medicade, and section 8 housing - Happy Days are Here Again!
Add a commentThe Fallacy of "Securing the Border"
- Details
- Created: Wednesday, 06 August 2014 10:48
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
The increasingly common refrain from conservatives to "Secure the Border," is troubling.
Troubling, not because it is a bad idea; but troubling because of what the common meaning of this phrase has become.
This phrase is commonly uttered as a required precedent for granting amnesty for those that have illegally crossed this "insecure" border. The implications is, that if we create a means by which to prevent illegal entry in the future, it will be fine to grant amnesty to those who've illegally crossed in the past.
The troubling aspect is that a "Secure Border" and "Amnesty" are mutually exclusive events.
Here's why...
The border is not physically "securable," from illegal crossing. Even if it was, almost half of the current "illegal" residents are here as the result of overstaying a "legal" entry visa. The currently applied definition of a "secure border" does not address the need for "internal enforcement" of immigration law.
Conversely, we seem to have given up the battle for internal enforcement in exchange for ranting about "secure the border," when in fact, their can be no meaningful border security without a corresponding measure of internal enforcement. On occasion, we will hear cries for "crack downs" on those employing illegals - but that is the limit of the acceptable discussion of internal enforcement.
Effectively, even Conservative immigration policy has become:
A. We will commit all available resources to prevent you from entering our country.
But...
B. If you DO make it in, we won't oppose; sanctuary, immunity from deportation, and eventual citizenship.
The point here is, that as long as the attraction of B exists, the policy position of A is futile.
In other words, as long as virtually every major city council in the country has proudly declared itself a "Sanctuary City," Federal Authorities declare deportations to be "off limits" for larger and larger defined groups, and Congress constantly flirts with granting citizenship to illegals; it's pointless to discuss "Securing the Border" while we are effectively declaring it meaningless.
Sadly, chants of "Secure the Border" have become the fund raising talking point for a party that is unwilling and unprepared to make the case for internal enforcement of immigration law; without which a "Secure Border" is impossible.
Add a comment
GOP Takes ObamaCare Numbers Bait
- Details
- Created: Wednesday, 02 April 2014 12:46
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
On the fitting day of April 1; the Obama administration loudly proclaimed that about 3% of Americans have opted to enroll in ObamaCare - and that constitutes a resounding success. So resounding in fact, that the President deemed the "debate" over the law's future to be OVER.
Somewhat predictably, much of the GOP has taken the "numbers bait" and called into question the validity of the WhiteHouse numbers. Yes, some think that the same administration that fabricated a tale of organic Muslim unrest driven by an unseen YouTube post to explain the Benghazi attack - might be "fudging" the numbers.
This is the wrong argument.
The underlying of fundamentals of "ObamaCare" are antithetical to the founding American principles of individual liberty and a Constitutionally limited Government. To divert the discussion to be about the quantity of participants - is to lose the argument about the underlying evils of ObamaCare.
It's as if in lieu of Health Care, the administration decided to solve the issue of Unemployment using the same concept, and passed "ObamaJob" instead.
The ObamaJob Legislation would:
1. Mandate all working age Americans get a job by March 31, 2014
2. All available jobs would meet the approved "ObamaJob" criteria and be listed on the "ObamaJob" website.
3. All current jobs not meeting the qualifying criteria of a job will be cancelled.
4. A myriad of un-elected boards and commissions will be established to determine what qualifies as a "job." - as the Secretary shall determine.
5. Anyone NOT signing up for an ObamaJob will be fined.
Then, after 5 years of executive changes, total employment market disruption, massive layoffs, the administration announces that 7 million people now have ObamaJobs - thereby calling it a resounding success.
Now, would the ObamaJob opponents then divert their opposition to dissecting the 7 million number asking:
-How many just switched jobs ?
-How many have actually received pay checks?
-How many were unemployed because ObamaJob caused them to be laid off?
The implication of these questions is that if the answers to the above were; 0, all, and none; then the ObamaJob law was just fine and dandy - and all that talk about individual liberty, and limited government was just happy talk.
Upon some reflection, if the opponents to ObamaJob were, Boehner, McConnell, and the increasingly lame Fox News analysts - they'd probably react exactly the same way.
Add a commentThe Inevitable Demographic Majority - Unless the GOP Kills It
- Details
- Created: Friday, 31 January 2014 17:54
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
If you read the headline and suspected this was going to be about "Hispanic voters" you're mistaken - well at least mostly...
There are two trends in national voting patterns that is strongly in favor of Republicans, no wonder that it's rarely mentioned in major media. Both trends may be rooted in the same phenomenon.
The two trends are:
1. Republican success in State Legislative elections.
2. Conservative success in "off year" elections.
These two trends are objectively verifiable. The breakdown of GOP, DEM, and split State Legislatures looks like this:
|
27 |
Republican-controlled Legislatures |
|
17 |
Democratic-controlled Legislatures |
|
6 |
Split Legislatures |
|
50 |
Total |
The conservative success in "off year" elections is somewhat more subtle, but every bit as important. This trend began in 1994 with the Gingrich lead "Contract for America". In 94 the GOP stunned Bill Clinton and the liberal media by winning a House majority for the first time in over 40 years.
It is a long held political theory that the Party that does not win the Presidency "normally" gains seats in an off year election. We contend this is an outdated theory that is no longer operative. Consider, for example, that in the following "off year" election (98) - Republicans only lost 5 seats in the House, and none in the Senate. The following "off year" (02) the Republicans gained in both houses - defying all conventional wisdom.
But what of O6 ? The Republicans got creamed - right?
Right.
But not by Democrats. Republicans got creamed by Conservatives. Conservatives had finally had enough of the empty rhetoric of the GOP. The big spending, large Government Republicans had worn thin on the Conservative portion of the party, and many of us sat out the election - or even cast a protest vote. Democrats capitalized on this by positioning a number of Congressional candidates as "conservative" Democrats. The result - voila - Democrat Congress.
The basis for conservative success in off year elections is the dramatically different "Turn Out" model. The most obvious differing aspect of the off year turn out model is the diminished size. The difference in size. Graphically the past decade looks like this:
The root that may explain both of these trends is the phenomenon of the "low information voter," and the fact that most conservatives are not "low information" voters. Conversely, the Democrat advantage in Presidential elections is largely due to the presence of around 40,000,000 generally uninformed, ignorant, voters who take their voting advice from pop culture and media icons - and show up in Presidential elections. These LI voters have little interest if there's no national media hype, to participate in a local or State wide election. (This may explain the Democrat obsession with trying to turn Wendy Davis into a national media star.)
The pop culture icons can do a good job of creating a wave of enthusiasm for a single national candidate. Often, they also receive some additional boost to their own status because the left leaning media is far more likely to broadcast the endorsement of the Democrat candidate.
Not so for "mid term" and State Legislature races. There's very little chance that Oprah et al, will lower herself to weigh in on a State of District race. Accordingly, the low information voter has no motivation to vote in these elections, giving conservatives a decided advantage. The contention here is that the mid term election voter model does NOT favor the "Party out of Power" - it favors "The Informed Voter" ie, "Conservative Voter."
Increasingly, Democrats must rely on the politically, and historically illiterate to win elections. Unfortunately, this is a large group. It is difficult to motivate this block, however, lacking a pop culture advocacy that brands support of candidates like Barack Obama as more of fashion statement than a political position. Given this reality, Republicans will consistently face an uphill battle in National Elections - fortunately - there is only ONE National election. Ok, from time to time, the media can cherry pick a local election or two and change an election. Todd Akin, comes to mind. But they just can't create waves of uninformed support for a multiplicity of candidates.
During six years that have been dominated by two decisive Democrat Presidential victories; Republicans have cleaned up in State Legislature elections, and Congressional elections. Even in losing, Mitt Romney "won" more individual congressional districts than Barack Obama. This serves to underscore the point that most of the GOP congressional majority is "safe," largely due to years of gerrymandering (by both parties) but most recently by Republican held State Houses.
Currently many Democrat Senators in conservative States hold their seats as something of a throwback to either the "old" Democrat party, or strong personal name ID. Undoubtedly, the rotation of 6 year Senate elections to "mid term" elections will inevitably place the Senate in GOP hands as well.
Oddly, the only thing on the political horizon that could alter the inevitability of permanent Republican Legislature - is wholesale amnesty for illegals. The presence of significant numbers of newly empowered voters could reasonably be expected to exercise more diligent voting habits. This would be especially true in States with large currently Illegal populations; like Texas, Arizona, and Nevada - even Georgia and Florida probably have enough to tip the balance of power away from conservatives in mid term elections.
So why is the GOP pushing for "Immigration Reform?"
Good question. There are lots of theories. None of which are particularly convincing. I've come to believe they believe it's their best way to maintain most of their safe seats, enjoy the trappings of power, and never have to really deal with governing. With apologies to a fine athlete, I call it the Brady Quinn syndrome.
What motivates the GOP leadership will remain a mystery to many of us; but if conservatives recognize and take advantage of their current advantage in "mid term" elections - the country may once again be The Land of the Free.
Add a comment