Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The Obama Tax Hikes: It’s Not Their Money!


America is having a serious conversation on taxes and their impact on economic growth: The Obama administration is making the case for raising taxes by not extending the Bush tax cuts; Opponents counter that raising taxes in the midst of a weak economy would be disastrous.
For the record, we agree with the latter group. But this important discussion should not depend on a willful distortion of the English language. Yet, such an Orwellian perversion takes place every time people repeat that when government does not raise taxes it incurs a “cost.” Often this assertion is followed by the further twist that this “cost” must be “paid” by raising taxes elsewhere.
The worst practitioners have become the ever-clever journalists who besiege politicians on Sunday news shows with the following question: “but how are you going to pay for extending the Bush tax cuts, Senator?” Usually, the latter is too dumbstruck to answer.
This is wrong. It doesn’t cost our government anything to allow us to keep the money we have earned. When a tax is not raised, the people get to keep their money, and that’s it.
The Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress specifically love this linguistic doublespeak. They love it because it hides many truths, including that government spending money—which is what the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress like to do—does represent a cost to the Treasury. It must be paid with taxes.
An otherwise sensible journalist in The Washington Post who is a strong supporter of Obama/Reid/Pelosi on Friday took things to new levels by referring to tax cuts as “government spending on auto-pilot.”
This is even more wrong. The people either spend their money themselves or put it in the bank. But that is the people making decisions on money that belongs to them. That is not a government spending program.
The reason we need to eradicate the Orwellian doublespeak is that it lulls us into the corrosive acceptance that all money belongs to the government; that when government does not raise taxes it is allowing us to keep our money.
It’s the reverse: The money belongs to the people who make it, before the tax man takes it away.
In his great essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell warned that the English language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts … if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
We shouldn’t let that happen. Let’s by all means have a debate on taxes and whether raising them or cutting them raises or lowers revenue for the Treasury. But let’s not pervert the English language. Link to Article
You can follow Mike Gonzalez on Twitter @Gundisalvus

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Solutions for America

Solutions for America
Read the Entire Policy Agenda
Full article on Heritage.org
Compiled by a team of Heritage experts, Solutions for America identifies the 
nature and scope of our most pressing problems in 23 discrete policy areas, 
and recommends 128 specific policy prescriptions for Congress to consider. 
Some of the recommendations are groundbreaking. Others are familiar. Some 
are being debated right now. All have one thing in common: They would return 
power to the people. And, collectively, they will transform America, setting her 
back on the track to prosperity and greatness.
Perilous times necessitate bold action. America is at a tipping point. To continue 
on the current path of ever-expanding central government will plunge us into a 
statist abyss of lost liberties, vanishing opportunity and dying prospects of a 
better tomorrow. But our nation can just as well correct course, as she has 
so often in the past.
Americans by the millions have begun the process, rallying around the vision 
of the Founders. The policies articulated in Solutions for America are calculated 
to make that vision a reality, to build an America where freedom, opportunity, 
prosperity, and civil society flourish anew.
Read the Entire Policy Agenda

A Conservative Record vs. the Liberal Record

Food Stamps or Paychecks?


Dear Friend,
In the 2008 campaign, President Obama gave us all a hint of his socialist leanings when he promised to Joe the Plumber that he would "spread the wealth around." Last week, we found out that his policies and those of the Democrats are delivering on that promise...athough probably not in the way they expected.
The use of food stamps hit a record high in May 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with 40.8 million Americans receiving Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) subsidies for food purchases. This is more than one-eighth of the population.
Worse, the USDA projects the number of Americans using food stamps will rise to 43.3 million in 2011.
President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are insisting that the economy has turned the corner and things are getting better. But how can the economy be getting better if the use of food stamps, a key metric in gauging the health of the American economy, is projected to increase over the next year?
A few weeks ago, in this newsletter, I wrote that the fall campaign should be framed around a choice between job killers and job creators. Sticking to that theme, another way to phrase that clear choice for voters is between policies that result in more Americans receiving food stamps and policies that result in more Americans receiving paychecks.
More Food Stamps vs. More Paychecks. That is the choice facing America this fall.
Going Backward
Unable to defend their dismal record on jobs or the big government, redistributionist policies that have made this the longest recession since the Great Depression, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are now trying to scare Americans out of embracing the free market again, arguing that we don't want to go “backwards.”
President Obama even likened our economic situation to driving a car, saying “You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in ‘D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in ‘R.'”
There's a key problem with the President's strained analogy: The decision to drive forward or backwards depends on where you are parked. And right now, the United States appears parked on the edge of a cliff.
In last week's newsletter, I highlighted three charts as visual proof of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid economic failure. Here is another chart that should give us a clue as to what direction to drive the American economy if we want more paychecks instead of more food stamps as our future.
Food Stamp Use and New Jobs: The Gingrich Record vs. the Pelosi RecordThe graph below depicts the number of Americans receiving food stamps during my term as Speaker versus Speaker Pelosi's term thus far. It also shows the change in unemployment rates during our two terms.
As you can see, Speaker Pelosi and I took office at a time when these two indicators were roughly similar: Food stamp use was at about the same level (around 26.5 million Americans) and there was only a 1% difference in the employment rate (5.6% in 1995 versus 4.6% in 2007).
The similarities end there. While the unemployment rate dropped significantly while I was Speaker to 4.2%, it has exploded under Speaker Pelosi, rising almost five percentage points to 9.5%. And while the use of food stamps dropped during my term as Speaker by 8 million Americans thanks to record job creation, it has increased under Speaker Pelosi by more than 14 million Americans.
In addition, when I was Speaker we turned a $107 billion deficit into a $125 billion surplus in four years. Speaker Pelosi's total lack of spending restraint has helped turn a $458 billion deficit into a $1.27 trilliondeficit. And from 1995-1999, the stock market increased in value by 140%. Under Speaker Pelosi, the stock market has decreased in value by 14.6%.
This clear difference in results is due to the clear difference in economic policies pursued by Congress during our terms.
When I was Speaker, we kept spending increases down to an average of 2.9% a year, including entitlements. That is the lowest rate of increase since President Calvin Coolidge. Under Speaker Pelosi, the federal budget has increased by an average of 9% a year.
We also cut capital gains taxes to spur economic growth and investment. Under Speaker Pelosi, House Democrats have raised taxes as part of the healthcare bill, passed a job-killing energy tax, and want to let the 2003 tax cuts expire.

It is hard to find a better illustration of the difference between the pro-jobs, pro-investment, free market policies of conservatives and the big government, high spending, anti-market policies of the left. (Check out 
To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular Socialist Machine for a more detailed analysis, including the results of the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts).
So the next time President Obama and Speaker Pelosi try to deflect questions on their failure on jobs by intoning that we don't want to go “backwards” to lowering taxes and controlling spending, maybe someone should point out the track record and ask, “Why not?”Your friend,

Newt Gingrich's Signature

Newt Gingrich

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Some Firms Struggle to Hire Despite High Unemployment

[hirepro2]
A worker at Mechanical Devices in Bloomington, Ill., where the company set up a training 
program to fill open machinist jobs.
In Bloomington, Ill., machine shop Mechanical Devices can't find the workers it needs to handle a sharp jump in business. Job fairs run by airline Emirates attract fewer applicants in the U.S. than in other countries. Truck-stop operator Pilot Flying J says job postings don't elicit many more applicants than they did when the unemployment rate was below 5%.
Mark Whitehouse discusses why, despite the tough economy, some companies are having a difficult time filling job openings.
With a 9.5% jobless rate and some 15 million Americans looking for work, many employers are inundated with applicants. But a surprising number say they are getting an underwhelming response, and many are having trouble filling open positions.
"This is as bad now as at the height of business back in the 1990s," says Dan Cunningham, chief executive of the Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., a maker of stamped-metal parts in West Chester, Ohio, that has been struggling to hire a few toolmakers. "It's bizarre. We are just not getting applicants."
Employers and economists point to several explanations. Extending jobless benefits to 99 weeks gives the unemployed less incentive to search out new work. Millions of homeowners are unable to move for a job because the real-estate collapse leaves them owing more on their homes than they are worth.
The job market itself also has changed. During the crisis, companies slashed millions of middle-skill, middle-wage jobs. That has created a glut of people who can't qualify for highly skilled jobs but have a hard time adjusting to low-pay, unskilled work like the food servers that Pilot Flying J seeks for its truck stops.
Daniel Shea for The Wall Street Journal
Former truck driver Troy Arnett, 42, dropped out of a machinist training program at Mechanical Devices in Bloomington, Ill. The factory work, he says, was too restricting after years spent on the open road.
The difficulty finding workers limits the economy's ability to grow. It is particularly troubling at a time when 4.3% of the labor force has been out of work for more than six months—a level much higher than after any other recession since 1948.
Some economists fear the U.S. could end up with a permanent caste of long-term unemployed, like those that weigh on government budgets in some European countries. "It is a very worrisome development," says Steven Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. "It leads over a long period of time to social alienation as well as economic hardship."

The Long-Term Unemployed

Nearly 1 in 10 Americans is unemployed, and 4.4 million of them have been out of a job at least a year and say they're still looking for work. Many more have given up. Here's a look at some of the people in this boat.

Faces—and Fates—of the Jobless

Although some employers report trouble finding workers, about 4.4 million Americans have been looking for jobs for at least a year—and that doesn't include the ones who have given up.Read some of their stories.
Matching people with available jobs is always difficult after a recession as the economy remakes itself. But Labor Department data suggest the disconnect is particularly acute this time around. Since the economy bottomed out in mid-2009, the number of job openings has risen more than twice as fast as actual hires, a gap that didn't appear until much later in the last recovery. The disparity is most notable in manufacturing, which has had among the biggest increases in openings. But it is also appearing in other areas, such as business services, education and health care.
If the job market were working normally—that is, if openings were getting filled as they usually do—the U.S. should have about five million more gainfully employed people than it does, estimates David Altig, research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. That would correspond to an unemployment rate of 6.8%, instead of 9.5%.

Editors' Deep Dive: Recovery Doubts Remain

Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More
Of course, many jobs remain easy to fill. Companies offering middle-skilled jobs can be flooded with applicants. Laquita Stribling, a senior area vice president in Nashville for staffing firm Randstad, says she received several hundred applications for a branch manager job that might have attracted a few dozen candidates before the recession.
"The talent pool has swollen to the point where it's almost overwhelming," says Ms. Stribling.
But other employers with lots of applicants say the pool of qualified workers is small for specialized jobs. Carolyn Henn, head of hiring at environmental consultancy Apex Companies, says she recently received about 150 applications for an industrial hygienist job paying as much as $47,000 a year, which requires special certifications and expertise to oversee projects such as asbestos cleanups. That is about three times the amount she received for similar jobs before the recession. But she says the number of qualified applicants—about five—is less than she got before.
[HIRE_p1]
"We've always been looking for a needle in a haystack," she says. "There's still only one needle, but the haystack has gotten a lot bigger than it was before."
Longer-term trends are at play. For one, the U.S. education system hasn't been producing enough people with the highly specialized skills that many companies, particularly in manufacturing, require to keep driving productivity gains. "There are a lot of people who are unemployed, but those aren't necessarily the people employers are looking for," says David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Manufacturers of high-precision products such as automobile and aircraft parts are in a particularly tough spot. Global competition keeps them from raising wages much. But they need workers with the combination of math skills, intuition and stamina required to operate the computer-controlled metalworking machines that now dominate the factory floor.
At Mechanical Devices, which supplies parts for earthmovers and other heavy equipment to manufacturers such as Caterpillar Inc., part owner Mark Sperry says he has been looking for $13-an-hour machinists since early this year. The lack of workers is "the key limitation to the growth of our business and to meeting our customers' expectations," says Mr. Sperry. He estimates the company could immediately boost sales by as much as 20% if it could find the 40 workers it needs.
Trips to several job fairs yielded almost nothing, so the company set up a 10-week training program to create its own machinists. Out of the first group of 24 trainees, 16 made it to graduation.
Mr. Sperry sees extended jobless benefits as one of the main culprits behind his company's hiring difficulties. Many of the applicants he saw at job fairs, he says, were just going through the motions so they could collect their unemployment checks.
Some workers agree that unemployment benefits make them less likely to take whatever job comes along, particularly when those jobs don't pay much. Michael Hatchell, a 52-year-old mechanic in Lumberton, N.C., says he turned down more than a dozen offers during the 59 weeks he was unemployed, because they didn't pay more than the $450 a week he was collecting in benefits. One auto-parts store, he says, offered him $7.75 an hour, which amounts to only $310 a week for 40 hours.
"I was not going to put myself in a situation where I was making that small of a wage," says Mr. Hatchell. He has since found a better-paying job at a different auto-parts dealer.
[HIRE_jmp]
Unemployment benefits, though, can't explain the whole problem. Researchers at the Federal Reserve have estimated that the benefits could account for between 0.4 and 1.7 percentage points of the unemployment rate. That doesn't cover the 2.7-percentage-point gap between the current jobless rate and what Mr. Altig's analysis of job openings suggests the rate should be.
Some of the people who dropped out of the Mechanical Devices training program aren't collecting unemployment benefits and offer other reasons why they couldn't or wouldn't do the work. Former truck driver Troy Arnett says the prospect of standing in front of a machine all day was just too restricting after a career spent making about $60,000 a year on the open road.
"I figured in these economic times you've just got to bite the bullet, and I couldn't do it," says the 42-year-old Mr. Arnett. He considers himself among the lucky ones: He has since found a job installing railroad crossings that he expects will pay about $50,000 a year.
Employers say getting people to move for work has been especially difficult this time. Often, that is a function of the mortgage and credit problems many potential employees face. In a recent study, Fernando Ferreira and Joseph Gyourko of the University of Pennsylvania, together with Joseph Tracy of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, found that people who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth are about a third less mobile.
At Emirates, four cabin-crew job fairs the airline held in Miami, Houston, San Francisco and Seattle attracted an average of about 50 people each, compared to a global average of about 150 and as many as 1,000 at some events in Europe and Asia. "I would have liked to have seen more and would have expected to see more," says Rick Helliwell, vice president of recruitment.
The jobs require little more than a high-school diploma and fluency in English. They include free accommodation and medical care, and starting pay of about $30,000 a year. Mr. Helliwell speculates that Americans might be hesitant to move to Dubai, where the jobs are based. "Maybe they have less of an adventurous spirit" given the uncertainties they face at home, he said.
The obstacles to moving are aggravated because many employers no longer provide the same job security they have in the past. Temporary jobs, for example, have increased 21% since September 2009 as more employers—including Mechanical Devices—hire through staffing agencies to help control health-care costs and maintain flexibility.
David Denton, a 63-year-old quality-control expert, recently quit a temporary job at Mechanical Devices. He says the terms of employment simply weren't attractive enough to make him pick up stakes and move. The one-hour commute from his hometown of Mt. Zion, Ill., proved to be too burdensome, he says, as the cost of gasoline cut into his $15-an-hour wage.
Like a number of older workers, Mr. Denton has decided to leave the work force rather than accept a lower-paying job. Mr. Denton says he plans to live on savings until he can collect full Social Security benefits at age 66. "I'm trying to hang on the best I can," he says.
The disconnect between workers and jobs could constrain the economy for some time. It makes it hard for even small firms, which as a group typically account for an outsize share of job growth in a rebound.
Paul McNarney, owner of The Mower Shop in Fishers, Ind., says he has been looking for a good lawnmower mechanic so he can guarantee a one-week turnaround on repairs. He received only two responses to an Internet ad he placed a couple of months ago, even though the job can generate income of more than $40,000 a year, depending how many mowers the mechanic repairs. Similar ads he placed before the recession attracted more than a dozen candidates, he says.
"My thought was that in a cr— economy I could probably find somebody good because a lot of people were looking," says Mr. McNarney, who has been in business for 13 years selling everything from simple lawnmowers to big riding models for large properties. "I didn't find anybody."
Write to Mark Whitehouse at mark.whitehouse@wsj.com | The Wall Street Journal

National Debt Clock