Obama's Jobs Plan - Why the Rush Now?

I have a few questions for president Obama about his "jobs" plan.

1. What do payroll tax cuts have to do with jobs?  Is there any correlation between this "feel good" tax cut and job creation?  I am a small business and I fail to see the significance.  I also wonder why are you wanting to cut the only way to pay for Social Security and Medicare when those two programs are in serious trouble and are destined to collapse?  

My only conclusion to this is it is a program just so you can say you gave middle class tax cuts - even though by any logical assessment they are a bad idea.  Maybe it will buy you a few votes from the not so clever crowd.

2.  How is giving a $4000 tax break to a business for hiring a new employee going to increase jobs?  Do you think the new employee will cost only $4000?  Maybe you think it will only cost $10,000.  I don't think so.  This is another "feel good" tax break that will not create any more jobs.  It only gives a break to those businesses that were going to hire anyways.  

My conclusion to this is that you do not have anyone with any business sense giving you economic advice. Then again, maybe your buddy from GE that doesn't pay any taxes said it was a good idea.  Not that he would know since GE has done nothing to increase its hiring the last couple of years and has sent hundreds of jobs over seas.

3. Why is there urgency now?  Remember how we all had to wait until you were back from vacation before you would reveal your jobs plan?  I was expecting something new and clever, but no - it was the same old tired failed policies.

My only conclusion to this is that you are so arrogant that you and only you decide when something is urgent.  After all, your vacation was more urgent than "creating all of these jobs" with your jobs bill.  

4. Why should I bail out another failed state's plan? Again.  Really?  Your big plan is to send more borrowed money to the states that cannot manage their budgets so "teachers and firefighters and police" won't lose their jobs?  Does your bill even require the states to use the money that way?  What about the bailed out jobs from your last bailout?  Are those people even still working?

My conclusion to this is that again you are trying to buy votes with taxpayer money.  This is a very old and tired political tactic.  That, and you are still trying to curry favor with the unions.

5. Lastly - If jobs are so important, why not give an executive order making the NLRB lay off of Boeing so they can have their new billion dollar plant in South Carolina hire the thousands of workers they need to make more airplanes?  Why is some political viewpoint or union loyalty more important than jobs?  

My only conclusion to this is that you really do not care about jobs.  Until you take action concerning this, you can never convince me that Americans having jobs is an important issue to you at all.

You cannot convince me that you are for the working man and middle class by "giving tax cuts" for no reason other than to buy favor.    As a self employed businessman I find your whole "jobs plan" proposals offensive.

For the rest of you - Stay Safe!

The Economy - and What No One is Saying Right Now

There seems to be all this talk about how to get the economy going.  The press wants to make it 2 schools of thought: cut taxes or spend more money (by the government).  Neither one is the way to fix the economy.  While Obama is out touting his jobs bill - he doesn't even get it about what a real job is.  He keeps bringing up public sector jobs and claims no one else has a plan.  He forgets about all the plans that have not been voted on by the Senate or voted down.  HE is stuck on his mantra of wanting the rich to "pay their fair share" I guess he wasn't good at vocabulary in school, because fair never includes making someone pay more than another. But all of that is digression.

Again, no one is bringing up the point about how a nation having access to abundant inexpensive energy is the key to developing economically.  Apparently no one gets it.  No one on the right is touting this as the way to fix the economy - no one on the left is either.  Of course, some will say we need more regulations on energy and we need green energy.  "Green energy" is such a vague and I believe miss-used term that it is just another talking point (doesn't matter which side is bringing it up).  I remember when the long life mini fluorescent light bulbs were touted as being green.  They forgot that they all have mercury and in most cases technically you need an EPA clean up team to dispose of even one single bulb according to most federal and state regulations.  They may save a bit of energy, but they sent jobs to China and are now an environmental hazard of epic proportions, but the "green" folks are ignoring that part right now.

Most "green energy" programs cannot pay their own way.  There has been so little in the development of solar cells and wind generators the last 20 years compared to other sources of energy, it is pathetic.  Why?  Because it doesn't pay to develop them.  So far only the government has been willing to pay for green energy directly or indirectly through tax credits, etc.  The electric car isn't significantly better than ones developed 20-30 years ago.  There are a few batteries only a little better than they were 20 years ago, but the cost in energy to build such cars off sets any savings in energy.

Do develop the economy, you need to develop energy.  Natural gas, coal, and nuclear can all be developed and used inexpensively.  There needs to be a comprehensive energy program that focuses heavily on these energy sources.  Unleash the energy industry and you will see the economy boom, and jobs grow like crazy.  Continue the ridiculous regulations and the economy will remain stifled.

It is not about banks, wall street or corporations - it is about energy and regulations.  You can fix the economy for the cost of zero dollars.

This isn't to say the debt problem doesn't need fixed - but the fastest way to get the economy moving is abundant inexpensive energy.

(Editor's note:  After I published this Rick Perry came out with a plan that addresses these issues.  Good for him - at least someone sees the importance of this.)