One reason college graduates and the unemployed cannot find jobs

May and June are graduation months. During this period, between 1.5 and 2.2 million students will be graduating from college with associates, bachelors, masters, and doctorate degrees.

In addition, between 6 and 8 million college age students will  be looking for summer employment.

At the same time, the politicians and news media are trying to paint a rosy picture of how the economy is improving. They cite that an average of 200,000 new jobs are being created monthly. This translates into 2.4 million new jobs per year.

But, when we compare the number of graduates who will be entering the workforce to the number of jobs being created, we find a net difference of only 200,000 to 900,000 new jobs over the year.

The problem facing young graduates is the pure size of  those graduating all at once. Of the total 1.5 to 2.2 million looking for work, only 200,000 jobs will be available in any one month. That leaves a large number who will not be employed right away. A Townhall article cites that only 16% of those graduating from college this year have already landed a job. That translates into 240,000 to 352,000 with jobs, which represents between 1 and 2 months of employment gain.

Making matters worse for the new graduates, is the fact that there is approximately 8 times more people who are currently unemployed and competing for new jobs (i.e. 10 to 12 million people).

Thus, at a time when jobs are hard to find, the new graduates only compound the unemployment situation. Using the current economic growth rate, it will take more than 10 years before everyone is absorbed into the workforce.

But, there are certain things that college graduates and others can do to improve their chances of finding a job. First, and foremost, is to consider moving to a region of the country where jobs are available. Several states where unemployment is lower than the national average are: Iowa, Minnesota, Wyoming, Kansas, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Texas.

While many graduates and their parents want their sons and daughters to remain home, very often there are not too many jobs available for those with your education. However, if you are willing to move, you may find that your specialty is in need somewhere else.

Now is the time for young graduates to make the move. Think of it as travel, an adventure. As a young person, you may not be tied down with a spouse or children. Second, you have a chance to get away. Third, if it doesn't work out, you can always move back home again.

Everything’s Bigger in Texas…Except the Unemployment Rate

Best of luck and congratulations to all!


Sources:

• Poll: More Than 40 Percent of College Grads are Underemployed…
• U.S. Adds 165,000 Jobs, Unemployment Rate Dips
• How many college students graduate every year?
• Unemployment Rate Down As Americans Give Up On Work
• Real Unemployment Rate: 5.5 Million Young People Are Out of Work, in a Major Crisis For the US
• 10 states with ridiculously low unemployment
• Unemployment Rates for States (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Aldon Hynes is running for the 114th Assembly District of the Connecticut General Assembly

I was thrilled to read that our friend and blogging associate, Aldon Hynes, has decided to seek public office and has accepted the Democratic nomination to run for the 114th District seat of the Connecticut General Assembly.

Most of us know Aldon through our blogging networks as the author of the Orient Lodge, a blog about politics, technology, social issues, and family.  During the past 3 or more years, I have enjoyed visiting his site and reading of his life experiences and beliefs.

While I do not always agree with his political viewpoint, I respect Aldon's thoughts and truthfulness. I know his opinions are honorable and well meaning. He is compassionate and is a dedicated family man. Plus, Aldon is a long time Connecticut resident who cares about his community.

Aldon is an intelligent individual with a broad range of skills and experiences. He has worked on Wall Street and is very analytical. He has also worked as a professional blogger covering important stories in Connecticut.  During the past year or two, he has been the Social Media Manager of the Community Health Center in Woodbridge CT.  He is one of the few people who possess both the literary and quantitative skills that would be important in performing the duties of a Connecticut Legislator.

For these reasons, I strongly endorse Aldon Hynes's candidacy and would recommend that he receives your vote.

Although Aldon is a Democrat, I would cross party lines and and cast my vote for him in this coming election.  Unfortunately, I do not live in his state or district, but I am wishing him well. If you watch the his nomination in the video below, you will understand why Aldon is running and why he would be perfect for the job.


Aldon believes that:

 "If you don’t like something,

don’t just try to block everyone else,

come up with better ideas".

Becoming a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives is not easy. The candidates must campaign endlessly throughout their district, meeting the voters and listening to their opinions.  Since I know that Aldon is sincere in representing his community and dedicated to the improvement of his State's government, he will campaign tirelessly.

Aldon Hynes is challenging a seven-term Republican incumbent. Since the State leans toward the Democratic side, and because the House is composed of 99 Democrats and 52 Republicans, Aldon may have a good chance of winning this November. But, he needs your vote.

Once elected, the members of the House of Representatives do not receive much compensation. However, they must work tirelessly, meeting amongst themselves and their constituency. They must give thought to proposed legislation and cast their votes in an unbiased manner.

I believe that Aldon would be a superb addition to the political landscape. He would make a terrific legislator and he will not let you down.

So, if you live in his Connecticut district, I would urge you to vote for Aldon Hynes and give him a chance. He will proudly represent you.

You can learn more about Aldon Hynes and the Connecticut Legislature by reading:

• Orient Lodge
• Hynes 2012 (the primary source for the above quote, video, and campaign image)
• Democrats Select Aldon Hynes For 114th Assembly District Run 
• THIS IS YOUR GENERAL ASSEMBLY    

Good Luck my Friend - I Hope You Win!
Note: This is not a political ad, just an endorsement of a friend.

JL ............

Google retires iGoogle on November 1, 2013 - here's an alternate suggestion.

As most are now aware, Google began posting a "iGoogle will not be available after November 1, 2103" message on our iGoogle homepages.

To many of us, this was quite a shock because we believe that having a customizable browser home page is one important feature that allows all of us to express our own individuality. iGoogle gave us the ability to change the background images based on our own criteria, whether it be the seasons, our mood, our interests, or whims.

iGoogle also gave us the ability to add little "Gadgets" to our home page. Thus, when we start our browsing session, we can immediately get a quick summary of those items that interest us most, such as: the weather, our horoscope, various news feeds, sporting results, lottery results, calculators, etc. The layout of our page was up to us and it could be as simple or complex as we wished.

iGoogle was a wonderful tool that provided all this information without having to click on anything. If we wanted to learn more, we could follow our links of interest with one simple keystroke.  Google hosted our layout information, bringing everything together as if by magic.

In it's "What's happening to iGoogle" explanation, Google tells us that "the need for something like iGoogle has eroded over time", and thus they will be retiring this important asset.  But, where ever I look in my office, I always see iGoogle homepages on co-workers computers.

So, my thinking is that there is more behind Google's decision to retire iGoogle.

Currently, iGoogle works on all available browsers: Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, Sea Monkey, Chrome, etc. 

But, Chrome is Google's proprietary browser, and they are aggressively pushing it presence. 

Now, as a replacement for the iGoogle functionality, Google suggests that we utilize Chrome. Within that framework, we can add "productivity tools" which are available in it's "Chrome Web Store".

This solution has two drawbacks:

• First, applications added to Chrome from the Chrome Web Store simply add "short-cut" icons on the new Tab page. If one one wishes to see the contents of that application, they must then click on the icon. Thus, the "at a glance" and "one-click" functionality is gone.
• Second, most iGoogle gadgets are not yet readily available in the Chrome Web Store. Gadget developers must now repackage their gadgets before adding them to the Store. But before they can do this, they must pay a one time fee to Google.

My thought is that Google is trying to be more like Apple. Since most Apple products only work on Apple hardware, Google appears to be trying to monopolize its own products. By retiring iGoogle and forcing users to utilize replacement applications that are only available on Chrome, Google is casting a tightly knit net around it's products.

I do not have a problem with this intention. But, I disagree with the proposed solution.

I believe that if Google's goal is to provide a self contained environment, then a better option for the iGoogle users of the world would be to announce that "iGoogle would only be available on Chrome beginning November 1, 2013". By doing this, all of us users could continue to have and enjoy the same iGoogle functionality, meaning immediate access to a broad range of information as we currently enjoy.

Further, Google could request that all Gadget developers pay the one time fee for providing the distribution service. I, for one, would do this. Those who do not pay the fee would lose the distribution of its gadgets.

Certainly, stating that iGoogle would only be available on Chrome would be a blatant statement to the marketplace. However, having the choice to either switch browsers or lose functionality would be in the hands of the end-user population, not Google's. People do not get mad at themselves. So, by having this choice, everyone would be happy. Users could continue to access iGoogle and their favorite gadgets, and Google would have a self-contained environment and a captured audience.

Mr. Obama: Delivering campaign speeches do not make the U.S. economy stronger.

A week ago last Friday, President Obama remarked that the "private sector was doing fine"¹ when speaking about the U.S. economy. This set off a fire storm of criticism by Republicans. So, hours later, he attempted to revise his statement and stated "it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine".²

While we realize the contradictory nature of these two statements were said to appease the voting public, the first was given to misrepresent the economical state of the country, and the latter given to appease his critics.

However, we believe the statements following his attempted clarification are more important and deserve a critical review. Mr. Obama stated:

"Listen, it is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine.  That's the reason I had the press conference.  That's why I spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week, this past month, and this past year talking about how we can make the economy stronger.^"2

Having documented the President's weekly schedule in our blog, The Traveling Fundraiser, we immediately knew that this was a false statement and another brash attempt to deceive the American public who pays his salary, housing, health care, and travel and entertainment expenses.

The truth is that Mr. Obama did not spend the day before his speech, nor that of 2 days before, nor that of the week before working on the economy. 

During that period, he had been traveling the country, appearing in multiple fundraising events, for the sole purpose of receiving campaign donations for his re-election campaign.  Lets look at the week:

• Friday, he delivers the statement
• Thursday, he attended a fundraiser in Los Angeles, then flew to Las Vegas and spoke about college affordability
• Wednesday, he flew from DC to San Francisco and attended 2 fundraisers. Then he flew to Los Angeles and attended 2 more fundraisers
• Tuesday, he had no public schedule
• Monday, he flew to New York City and spoke at 3 campaign events
• Sunday, he hosted a reception at the Ford's Theatre
• Friday, he flew to Minneapolis MN, toured a facility, read his "to do list" and attended 3 campaign events. The, he flew to Chicago IL and participated in 3 more campaign events.

Thus, when he said that he: "spent yesterday, the day before yesterday, this past week" talking about how we can make the economy stronger, what he really meant to say was that:

He (President Obama) was delivering campaign speeches for the sole purpose of soliciting donations to be spent in his re-election campaign.

The sad reality is that in the week before he implied he was working on the economy, he actually visited 6 different cities and attended 14 different fundraising events.

Yes, he may have spoken about how he could make the economy stronger, but, the speeches made at campaign events are simply political rhetoric targeted at like-minded audiences willing to give the President money.

Let's be truthful here. During that time, the President did not work for and with the country to try to improve the bleak economy. Instead, he took advantage of the perks of his office and used our tax dollars to pay for his lavish fundraising travels.

Attending campaign events and delivering speeches is not really working. While it is indeed time consuming, tedious, and tiring, it is not part of the official duties of the elected office. When a President, such as this one, boldly declines to work for the improvement of the economy and fiscal stability of this country, his attempts to mislead the public by misrepresenting his activities will later become important issues for the voting public.

Total combined fundraisers held for reelection committee and 
party committee in third and fourth years of first term.³

Sources

1. Remarks by the President
2. Remarks by President Obama and President Aquino of the Philippines after Bilateral Meeting
3. Obama Is Spending an Unprecedented Amount of Time Fundraising: Scandal?

Have security leaks damaged Obama's trustworthiness?

Sometimes, our political leaders must do the right thing and take a stand to protect the national security of our country. Such is the case of Dianne Feinstein, who is normally a very liberal Senator. However, she, along with 3 other legislators, has taken a hard stance in an effort to investigate and stop the recent public leaking and publication of our sensitive security measures. For this, she should be commended.

At issue are "two New York Times front-page articles about President Obama's 'kill list' and the US governments cyberattacks in Iran's nuclear facilities".¹

Apparently, the information presented was known only to a small handful of decision makers. Critics have alleged that only White House personnel were present in the formulation of these plans, and that the intention of the leaks are to portray the President as a tough military leader. Yesterday, a  spokesman discredited these assertions, and today, Mr. Obama denounced any White House involvement.

At present, it is unclear how the New York Times obtained their information, but bipartisan congressional leaders are joining forces to investigate this matter. The President has indicated he will investigate as well.

During the 5 weeks, the President has distanced himself from the executive duties of his office. In those 25 weekdays, Mr. Obama has been fundraising outside of DC for 9 days, and posted no public schedule (aside from 1 or 2 daily briefings)  on 5 days.  This means that he only worked 11 of the 25 days. In addition, he was involved with the G8 and NATO summits on 2 of the 11 days. Except on days that the President is traveling, he rarely schedules meetings before 10AM. (We intentionally eliminated weekend days).

Thus, we can see that Mr. Obama appears to spend little time on national affairs.

But, from his recent news conferences and announcements, we know that he has been working on other matters (such as contraception, education, taxation, etc) although these are not on his public agenda.

Thus, it is possible for him to have been involved in the formulation of the 'kill list' and the cyberattacks. In and of itself, the creation and implementation of these covert operations are not being questioned. By and of themselves, they may be applauded. But, such involvements or operations must not be publicized.

Now, because of the NYT disclosures, the problem the Nation faces is one of trust.

The world looks for the United States for leadership. But, if leadership means the public disclosure of our sensitive actions, then that leadership cannot be trusted in future operations. Since trust is crucial for maintaining the success of international relationships, Ms. Feinstein (et.al.) are stepping up to repair the damage.

However, the President suffers a larger problem. While no one questions whether he should have been involved in these operations, his initial silence casts doubts about his association with the leaks:

• if he was directly involved in the disclosures, then his judgement and confidentiality will be lost
• if he did not know about the operations, then his lack of leadership and involvement will be confirmed and his reputation will be stained.
• if he was involved in the operations and one of his confidants disclosed the information, then his judgement of individuals will be questioned

Unfortunately, the  publication of the New York Times articles has severely damaged the reputation of the President. No matter what he or his spokesman says, a shadow of doubt will remain.

Hopefully investigation will reveal that an unrelated individual (not the President or White House staff) inadvertently learned of the covert operations and independently leaked the information to the New York Times. The President has stated he too will pursue an investigation of the leaks and hopefully he will identify the source.

Lastly, one must ask why the New York Times published these articles in the first place. Did they think the stories would help the President? Were they given permission to publish the articles? Did they want to hurt the President or the country? Really, it's hard to imagine their motive.

Sources:

1. Dianne Feinstein, Saxby Chambliss Promise To Crack Down On National Security Leaks
2. 5 leaks that have Congress steamed
3. Pattern of White House Leaks Threatens Nation’s Security
4. The 'leak' wars

Is the Afghan Massacre Case being prosecuted faster than that of the Fort Hood Shooter?

Within 2 years and 4 months, two Army soldiers opened fire on innocent unarmed people, killing numerous and wounding others. On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan shot 43 people, killing 13 people and wounding 30. Now more recently, on March 11th 2012, Staff Sergeant Robert Bales assaulted innocent residents in 3 Afghan villages, killing 17 and wounding 6 others.

Because it is more recent, the news stories have filled their columns describing the rapid pace that justices have taken to move toward the speedy trial of Sgt. Bales.  After listening to many of these broadcasts, I wondered if Bales was being prosecuted  faster than Hasan.

Here we have Bales, thought to have committed these horrible Afghan murders, flown out of Afghanistan,  placed in confinement in Fort Leavenworth, and charged with the crimes within little more than a week.

While, Major Hasan, who committed his crime in November 2009, has yet to be tried. For him, it took 1 year just to be arraigned (Major Is Arraigned in Fort Hood Killings).

There are several similarities and differences between the two murderers:

• Both have been in the Army a long time
• Both were in their late 30s
• Hasan is an Officer, Bales an enlisted man
• Hasan is a Muslim, Bales a Christian
• Hasan killed in an American Military base, Bales killed in a foreign war zone
• Hasan has never been in war, Bales is on his 4th tour of combat duty
• Hasan killed mostly US soldiers, Bales killed Afghan civilians
• Hasan pursued radical beliefs, Bales seemed to have just cracked
• Hasan is portrayed as the "Fort Hood Shooter", Bales the "Afghan Massacre Suspect" (emphasis on Shooter and Massacre)

While we do not know the ultimate fate of these two individuals, we can agree that the crimes that they committed are equally horrendous. It is unimaginable to conceive of the acts they committed, and both should be punished. But, justice should treat both individuals equally, and judgement should not proceed rapidly for one individual while the other (although paralized) sits back and enjoys the comforts of confinement, similar to those in Guantanamo who are still awaiting trial by a sympathizing US Attorney General.

Obama Contraception Mandate: Could it be a political payoff?

In a stunning and defiant push, President Obama has mandated that all companies, including religious organizations, pay for health care insurance that covers contraception and sterilization. However, widespread complaints, particularly from the Catholic church and other groups, forced the President to modify his policy. His compromise was to require all insurance companies to provide contraception free of charge to everyone.

Initially, the President allotted a 1 year period for those who objected to come to terms with their religious souls and objections. But, after the push back, Mr. Obama shortened the timeline, and has set an August 2012 deadline for his new rule to be implemented.  This means the implementation of the rule would not be subject to his winning re-election.

Still infuriated that our constitutional religious freedom is being violated, seven States have now filed a lawsuit to block this mandate. But, the President is not budging.

Wondering about what is motivating the President's decision, I asked myself: Where are condoms were made. Were they manufactured in China? Could this be a reason to insist that condoms and other devices be provided for free? Is it something else?

Well, interestingly enough, I read the article: "How Products are Made, Volume 2: Condom".

Towards the bottom, they have a section headed "The Future", which talks about the "Reality" condom for women that is manufactured by Female Health Company (FHC). It is incorporated in Wisconsin and lists its principal executive offices in Chicago, Illinois. This is the same city where President Obama owns a home and where the President's re-election campaign, Obama for America, is located.

When visiting the FHC website, one is  presented with a Yahoo Finance chart which illustrates the company's stock price for the past 6 months. While having a few ups and downs, it has continually risen from approximately $4.5 a share to $5.50 per share during the past 6 months (see widget at right).

According to its history page, the Female Health Company has been licensed to provide female condoms since 1987. However, its latest product, FC2, was only given US FDA approval in 2009. The company was then listed on the NASDAQ-CM stock exchange that same year.

Coincidentally, the Obama "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009, and signed into law by the President on March 23, 2010.

Now given that:

• the Female Health Company went public about the same time as the Affordable Care Act was being written in 2009,
• its FC2 contraception device was FDA approved under the Obama administration in 2009,
• President Obama is requiring all insurance companies to provide free contraction devices, including those manufactured by this company,
• the FHC stock price has risen by nearly 20% in the past few months,
• and that FHC is headquartered in Chicago, along with the Obama political campaign,

we must raise the question:

Are there any political or financial connections between President Obama, his political staff, or other members of Congress and that of the Female Health Company which has motivated the President's mandate for all insurance companies to provide free contraception devices to all Americans?

We do not know the answer to this, but we do know that there is no Chinese connection as we originally thought. Could this be another Solyndra scandal? Or, is this all simply coincidental?  You decide.

Sources:

• Obama's Contraceptive Failure
• 7 states sue to block contraception mandate
• Obama / Biden - Contact us
• Female Health Company

Obama's 2012 State of the Union repeats demands for spending on education, research, clean energy, and infrastructure

Last year, we wrote an article comparing President Obama's 2011 State of the Union speech to his 2010 State of the Union (Same State of the Union Address in 2011 and 2010 Emphasizes Obama Steps to Reelection).

Since the two were extremely similar in theme, we were sure that his 2012 State of the Union would be a regurgitation of the last two. Needless to say, we were not disappointed as our table below shows the major points in each of the past 3 speeches.

Obama's State of the Union Theme
2012	2011	2010
Manufacturing
Education	Education	Education
Research	Research / Innovation	Innovation
Clean Energy	Technology & Clean Energy	Clean Energy
Infrastructure	Infrastructure	Infrastructure

What was interesting is that this year, he boldly added a new category "Manufacturing" and dropped last year's "Technology" push.

Since the President is now pushing his concept of "fairness" (where everyone plays by the same rules and pays their own fair share), we wonder whether there is any financial connection his use of U.S. taxpayer funds for:

• his Manufacturing and Research proposals and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt
• his Education focus and his friend Bill Ayers who also promotes education
• his Clean Energy drive and the 3 bankrupt clean energy companies that received Department of Energy funding
• his push to rebuild the country's infrastructure (bridges, roads, railway) and his friend Warren Buffet who owns BNSF Railway (Burlington Northern & Santa Fe railroads)

At least this year, many other professional writers and newsmen have realized the concurrent theme in each of his speeches, and his lack of originality.  For example, Townhall published a post Wow: RNC Video Highlights Obama SOTU Deja Vu which contains the following video:


To be fair to the President however, we must commend him for sticking to the same political platform during his presidential term.

Ode to Adgitize - Goodbye my friend, goodbye

On Tuesday, Ken Brown announced that Adgitize is abruptly closing on January 1st 2012. After three continuous years of service, this World Class Advertising network is calling it quits.  Unfortunately, the costs to operate the service exceed the revenues generated. And, with a 3 year IRS rule that requires small companies to earn a profit else lose the ability to deduct its losses, Adgitize like many, is forced to close.

Compounding the problem is that the Adgitize network required a 24 by 7 support effort. Its owner, Ken seemed to never sleep. He was there to help everyone open an account, approve the ads, answer questions, collect and forward payments and more.  (His wife was probably ready to divorce him).

Yet Adgitize was a great service for all of us bloggers. It brought many of us together and forged many friendships. Being required to click on 51 or 100 blogs a day, many of us became regular visitors of other blogs. We looked forward to reading new articles and watching them grow.

Being awarded points for publishing an article forced most of us to write new posts daily. We learned how to think of new topics, and write concise and interesting articles on short notice.

We are going to miss the organization that Adgitize brought to our blogging lives. There is my:

Ode to Adgitize

There will be No more:

Member's Lounge,

Preferred Publishers,

Leaderboard,

Conversations in the Forum.

We'll miss:

Daily Earnings

Clicks Earned Today

Page Views Today

Ad Views Earned Today.

And Gone are:

Total Points Earned This Month,

Blogs Not Clicked Today.

and More.

But most importantly,

we lose the

Adgitize Portal

and

Ken Brown Administrator.

Although I've only achieved 

Mentor status in the Forum, 

I'm sure the Marketing Masters,

Teachers, Scouts, Tenderfoots, and Students,

will all miss the Forum.

While you may may gone,

You will never be forgotten.

They say the good die young

and we will continue to make you proud.

So until we meet again, 

Goodbye my friend,

Goodbye

Here Comes Santa Clause

All across the globe, children are eagerly awaiting Santa's flight from the North Pole. Dreams of toys, presents, and games are filling their thoughts. Dolls and clothes, iPods and more are filling their dreams. Wagons and bikes, tractors and trucks, books and videos, ho ho ho.

Grown-ups alike are secretly praying that Santa surprises, a car, a tie, a dress, a necklace, perhaps.

From North to South and East to West, all eyes will be on the skies. Looking for the glitter, the twinkle, or blur that marks Santa's invisible dash of a magical flight.

Let all be well from here to yon. But most importantly, let good health be sprinkled on all. 

Ho ho ho.

Merry Christmas to all

and

to all

a good night!

"Welcome Home" soldiers and thank-you! - It's the best Christmas present ever: The Iraq War is over and the troops are coming home.

Thousands of our dedicated service men, women, and their families are receiving the best Christmas present ever.

The Iraq War is over and our soldiers are coming home!

Congratulations to all of you who have fought so hard and risked your lives so that we can be free.

Thank you for your selfish sacrifices and time you lost.
Thank you for protecting us and helping to establish freedom in a far off land.

Thank you to the lives you lost and the wounds you suffered.

Let us celebrate this Holiday Season, knowing that your job is done and you will be home for good. Back with your families and back with your friends.




 As one old soldier, I salute you all and Welcome You Home.

Merry Christmas to All!

Unemployment History from January 2001 to November 2011 contradicts Obama's slowest job growth remarks

In his speech in Osawatomie last Tuesday, President Obama told the audience that tax cuts in early 2000 led to slow job growth:

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security. (Remarks by the President on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas)

However, my recollection of those years is one of lower unemployment and economic prosperity for most of us in the middle class. I wasn't sure if I was correct, so I visited the Bureau of Labor Statistics and found the following graph:

Source: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

This shows the unemployment rate from January 2001 through November 2011. As shown, the unemployment rate increased from 4.2% in January 2001 to a peak of 6.3% in June 2003. Then it declined to 4.4% in May 2007. It rose modestly to 4.8% in February 2008 when President Obama took office.

After this new administration took control, the unemployment rate more than doubled. The unemployment rate hit a peak of 10.1% in October 2009 and has since fallen to 8.6% in November 2011.

So my memory was correct. Since Congress passed the two tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the economy picked up again. More people were employed and the job growth increased until 2008.

Reading President Obama's statement again, I realized the distortion in his words:

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. 

His message is misleading because it implies that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts led directly to a period of slow job growth. This is false. As we can see, the tax cuts were followed by 5 years of job growth and lower unemployment.

It wasn't until 2008 when Obama took office that unemployment climbed and America began experiencing a 3 year period of slow and stagnant job growth.

Semantically and factually though, the President's comment is indeed truthful because:

• we are experiencing the slowest job growth in half a century, and
• it is after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

However, his conclusion "And what did it get us?" is factually incorrect and misleading. To be more accurate, President Obama should have concluded:

The slowest job growth in half a century after I took office!

Your 401K and IRA deduction is targeted and the Government aims at taking it away

The Senate Finance Committee, headed by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) held a session to consider changing the current 401K and IRA tax exemptions. As its underlying premise, the Committee is utilizing The Brookings Institution's newly drafted proposal which aims at: eliminating the current tax deduction for the 401K and IRA contribution; and, replacing it with one of two options in which the Government credits the depositors account with:

• either 30% of their contribution,
• or 18% of the their contribution.

On the surface, their proposal seems reasonable. A casual reader would not believe that they would be affected. However:

Every family or individual 

with an adjusted gross income of 70,000 or greater 

will experience a tax increase 

ranging from $283 to $4,322 per year.

The Brookings proposal contains 2 tables showing this information. The tables are broken down into quintiles of income, which means 20% levels. In their 30% Proposal, those earning less than the top 90% would save on taxes. In their 18% Proposal, those in the lower 80% of earners would save in taxes.

You might say that doesn't affect you. However you would be wrong, because:

• the 80% threshold is about $70,000 per year,
• the 90% threshold is about $113,800 per year,
• the 95-99% threshold is $159,600 per year, and
• the top 1% is $380,400 per year.

If your household tax form income falls within any of these levels, your taxes will increase.

Remember, the top 25% of tax filers pay about 86% of the total taxes received. And, the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes received by the government.

The Brookings proposal shows tax savings for those in the first 60% of tax filers. But, of this amount, nearly 50% pay NO taxes at all. So they won't save anything. Thus, The Brookings proposal is misleading.

The remainder of us who are still employed and earn more than $70,000 per year (per person or family), will pay more taxes, especially if The Brookings 18% Proposal is adopted.

So don't be fooled. Tell your Congressman or Senator NOT to support this masked tax hike!

Sources:

Brookings - Proposal to Restructure Retirement Savings
The retirement myth – 1 out of 3 Americans has no savings or retirement account. Half of Americans have $2,000 or less in their retirement account. 401k new name for Wall Street grease.
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Are Democrats Eyeing 401(k)s, IRAs for Tax Hit?

Your military pension is not safe. It might not be paid or may be substantially reduced.

Military pensions are on the chopping block

and

you may lose all or part of your military pension.

The US Department of Defense Business Board (DBB), an advisory board whose mission is to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Department of Defense, has proposed the reorganization of current and future military pensions. In general, they have said:

• Military retirement is more generous and expensive compared to the private sector (meaning we are giving soldiers too much money).
• The current retirement plan is unfair because you have to be in the service for 20 years to be eligible.
• It is unaffordable and inflexible.

So, they want to replace it with a new Defined Contribution Plan in which:

• Soldiers will pay for their own retirement instead.
• Is not payable until 60 to 65 year of age (rather than after retirement)
• Will pay much smaller amounts ($3,600 compared to $24,000 per year for E7 age 40)
• Is mandatory
• Will be similar to a 401K plan (invested in the stock market)
• But, the government will pay some.

Their argument is that all soldiers would be eligible for a Military pension after the vesting period rather than being limited to only those soldiers who have 20 years of service.

However, they fail to highlight that the current pensions are:

• Currently 100% Free to All Soldiers.
• There is no risk of losing this benefit.
• Important factors in military retention.

A review of the credentials of the members of the DBB indicates that many are associated with the Mergers and Acquisition (M&A) industry, including the Chairman and Vice Chairman. The job of the M&A industry is to financially restructure and merge companies. In return, the M&A receives large sums of money. Many other members are associated with money management firms and investment banks. So, their proposal is based on their own self-interest goal of making money off the soldiers retirement income.

The DBB proposal advocates that both the government and soldiers contribute to the new Defined Contribution Plan. This means that someone needs to manage this amount of money. So, all or part would be managed by one or more private investment financial companies who would take portions of the contributions as payment for their services. Under their proposal,

• Career soldiers would receive much smaller pensions
• Money is at risk of being lost in the stock market
• Soldiers would get poorer
• The financial industry would get richer.

I believe that pensions for teachers, policemen, firefighters and soldiers are well deserved. Soldiers in particular do not earn a large amount of money. Making them pay for their retirement would be a financial hardship to them. If this plan was passed by our current administration, it would probably result in an immediate decline in the recruiting and retention of our military forces. Remember:

Soldiers put their life at risk every day

so that we can be safe.

They can be killed at any time.

Their retirement is the least we can do as Americans to say thanks!

You can learn more about this important issue by visiting and reading the sources listed below.

Sources

Military pension reform means an 85% cut for career veterans
Retiree Benefits for the Military Could Face Cuts
Modernizing the Military Retirement System (DDB - pfd)
Defense Business Board - The Members
Radical overhaul of military retirement eyed

In-state tuition for illegal or undocumented children? Yes.

A lot of criticism has been focused on Rick Perry's stance on providing in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants. This is one area where the Republican candidate and the Democratic party agree.

And, I, although a staunch conservative, strongly 

agree and support this position.

As a young child, I was raised by multiple families. But, I was blessed that they all agreed that my education was most important. All I had to do was go to school and study hard. If I did that, my tuition was completely paid for. Yes, I was blessed to have my adoptive parents, God, and my real mother in heaven watching over me. Because of their actions, I have had a successful career. I stressed the value of an education to my child, and he is now out of college and has a terrific job.

But what about all the other children in this country who suffer difficult lives? As Governor Perry states, the children of illegal immigrants were either born here or brought to this country. They didn't deal their hand, but live with the consequences of their parents decision daily.

Both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum blast Perry for the Texas law. Both cite the amount of money that the public is paying to subsidize the illegal children's education. They also say that Texas is denying a discounted education to other children of legalized status that live in other states. Neither take into account that:

• children in other states can attend their own state universities
• the cost of the education is paid by the people of Texas, and not the people of the United States.

Currently, 13 states have passed laws allowing undocumented children to be eligible to pay the reduced tuition if they meet certain condidions. In Texas, those who:

• have graduated high school in Texas,
• lived in the state for 3 years, and
• are applying for citizenship,

are eligible. To me, applying for citizenship is the critical requirement because it shows that the children are dedicated to our country, its beliefs, and opportunities.

While I'm not advocating the tolerance of illegal immigration,  I do support Mr. Perry and others, regardless of party, in their actions to provide these children with the opportunity to have a productive and rewarding life as educated citizens of the United States.

States that have passed Illegal Immigrant Tuition Legislation (see "illegal Immigrants ..." below):

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Illinois
4. Kansas
5. Maryland
6. Nebraska
7. New Mexico
8. New York
9. Oklahoma (with discretion)
10. Texas
11. Utah
12. Washington
13. Wisconsin

Note that neither Romney's Massachusetts or Santorum's Pennsylvania are on the list.

Sources

• Rick Perry supported giving in-state tuition to illegals
• U.S. high court OKs in-state tuition for illegals
• In-state college tuition for illegal aliens
• Candidates at GOP Debate Refine Their Pitches to Voters While Targeting Front-Runner Perry
• Foes in ‘heart’ attack
• Illegal Immigrants Pay In-State Tuition

Most people go home for vacation. A look at why Obama travels instead.

Most military personnel, college students, politicians, traveling salesmen, and people who work away, go back home on their leaves, recesses, and scheduled time off because:

Home,

home is where the heart is.

Oh, my home sweet home.

Even Harry Reid, who we like to criticize, lamented on August 1 about his upcoming recess:

“I have a home in Nevada that I haven’t seen in months, ..... My pomegranate trees are, I’m told, blossoming and have some pomegranates on them. I have some fig trees and roses and things that I just haven’t seen.” “It’s been a pretty hard work period we’ve had, the last two weekends and working late, and I think the Senate deserves to be able to go home as soon as we can,” said Reid, ...

Source: Reid laments pomegranates, figs blooming without him

So why does the President and Mrs. Obama use these opportunities to travel to lavish locations and vacation in exotic environments instead of going back home?

My theory is that they have no home to go to. His parents divorced when he was very young and his father went back to Kenya. His mother remarried and the family moved to Indonesia. Later, Barak was sent to stay with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii. His mother died in 1995 and his biological father died in 1982. He has a half sister but not much is written about her (see Parents Of Barack Obama). Both of his grandparents have also passed away. Thus, he has no real roots or place to call home.

On Michelle's side, the family grew up in Chicago. Her father died in 1991 and her mother lives with the Obama's in the White House. Her brother is a basketball coach in Oregon, and the Obama's remain close to him and his family.

Together, Barak and Michelle purchased a Chicago house in 2005 when he was a senator. One would normally consider this to be called home, but the First Family rarely returns to their residence. Apparently, they do not feel a family connection to this location either since none of her immediate family lives in the Chicago area.

So because of their lack of geographic roots, the Obama's have nowhere else to go when they are on recess. The President feels a connection with Hawaii, and therefore they return there every year around Christmas. Like Bill Clinton, they have discovered Martha's Vineyard which they have also visited twice.

However, the image of Harry Potter having to remain at Hogwarts during Christmas break is rather sad. Everyone else was going home for the holiday. But, Harry had no real home to return to.

And, like Harry, President Obama has no real home either. Either he stays at the White House, or he gets away to a wonderful resort. At least when everyone else returns to Washington, the President can say he enjoyed the break as well.

It's sad when
You can't go home again.

For comparison purposes, the following summarizes where other Presidents went when they were on break:

• Eisenhower: golfing in Georgia and Colorado
• Kennedy: the family's Hyannis Port waterfront property on Cape Cod MA
• Johnson: LBJ ranch in Texas
• Nixon: homes in Key Biscayne FL and San Clemente CA
• Ford: skiing in Colorado and relaxing in Montego Bay, Jamaica
• Carter: his home in Georgia
• Reagan: his Santa Barbara, California ranch
• G. H. W. Bush: Kennebunkport, Maine
• Clinton: Martha's Vineyard, MA
• G. W. Bush: Crawford TX ranch.

References:

Reporter's notebook: When presidents go on "vacation," controversy follows
What President Took the Longest Vacation? (And Other Fun Facts)
President’s Vacation: Not Much of a Secret
Richard Nixon's High-Class Hideaways
Top 10 presidential getaways
Drudge, NY Post report Obamas' NYC trip cost, ignore Bush's Crawford vacations

Pop goes the weasel (why America is going broke)

All around the Congress' desks

The president chased the taxpayer

Round and round

Up and down

Pop goes the country.

Last week, we discussed the availability of the Federal Taxpayer Receipt which breaks down how our tax dollars are spent. This is a two edged sword because while it helps explain where the money goes, it reveals the entitlement spending that so many are worried about.

To get an understanding of the scope of our debt problem, we need to put hard numbers into the calculator. Using a variety of sources below, we learn a variety of facts. (While many sources use numbers from 2008 to 2011, the exact calculations are not determined. But, we believe that on the average, these numbers provide a good ballpark overview).

• Annual federal spending = $2.4 trillion (source 7)
• Approximate income tax received = 1.032 trillion (source 1)
• 47% of population pay no taxes (source 3)
• Annual deficit shortfall = $1.4 trillion (derived)
• Average tax rate from all people = 12.24% (source 1)
• Average tax rate top 5% from all people = 20.7% (source 1)
• Number of  income tax forms received = 140 million (source 1)
• Average tax paid by individual form received = $7,371 (derived)

Entering the average taxpayer payment of $7,371 into the taxpayer receipt calculator, we identify some startling facts.

• Under Job and Family Security, we pay about $100 billion for supporting a portion of the poor (4.4% goes to unemployment insurance, 3.6% for food and nutrition assistance, 2.2% for housing assistance). This totals to $751 of our individual taxes.
• Approximately 6.5 million people receive unemployment insurance per month (source 6). This means that the country pays about $45.4 billion per year to fund the unemployed (140M * $324 each taxpayer).
• The average monthly food stamp payout is $133 (source 4). Since approximately 35 million people receive food stamps, we pay $4.65 billion per month or $50 billion per year for food stamps to support these people. As $265 is taken from each taxpayer for this, each taxpayer pays for 2 months of someone else's food stamps.
• By comparison, we only pay $20 - $40 billion per year (source 5) for the nearly 1 million retired military and survivors. 

As we can see, a large portion of our tax dollars go directly towards entitlement spending of providing the unemployed and poor with spending money. At the same time, the country receives less than 50% of the money it spends from taxes. This means that we go deeper into the hole every year.

So, maybe President Obama is right: It's time for shared sacrifice.

In order to have enough money to cover our spending, we would need to double everyone's taxes. However, if we do that, those who are working will not have any money left.

Perhaps we can eliminate all the entitlement spending. If we do this, we only save $100 billion which is far from sufficient.

What if we required everyone to pay taxes? This would mean that the 47% who are getting a free ride will have to pay. If we do this, and require all corporations to pay taxes, then just maybe we can begin to get close to having a balanced budget.

Notice that I haven't advocated the government cut spending. While this is logical, the current administration would not consider this, even though it is a shared sacrifice.

Unless we get the economy going by creating more U.S. jobs, more and more people will become unemployed. The annual tax revenue will decline and our entitlement spending will increase. This means the federal deficit will increase.

And, if inflation kicks in and interest rates rise, then:

Pop goes the weasel!

Sources:

1. Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
2. Gov’t handouts exceed taxes as percentage of average household income for first time since 1936
3. Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer.
4. Food stamp list soars past 35 million: USDA
5. Portrait of Retired Soldiers and Spouses
6. Record number getting jobless benefits
7. Federal Debt Ceiling

xxx

Will I continue to get my Social Security now or after I retire? Is Social Security safe?

On August 14, 2011, the country will mark the 76th anniversary of Social Security. Since it was first enacted, those who retired were able to count on the government providing much (or even all) of their financial support.

However, the recent debt crisis heightened awareness that Social Security payments may be in jeopardy. Thankfully, the bill that the Congress and Senate passed, and the President signed protects our citizens from future Social Security cuts should the newly formed bipartisan financial committee fail to make agreements.

During the past few years, a number of proposals have been raised that would change Social Security. President Bush favored privatizing it, meaning that our funds would be invested in the stock market. But, given the up and down volatility of the market, Democrats opposed this concept. Last year, in August 2010, President Obama recorded this message.


In the above video, the President vowed to keep Social Security safe and out of the hands of Wall Street. Thus far, he has kept his word.

However, many now realize that the Social Security Trust Fund contains no cash. The taxpayer dollars collected are used to purchase US Treasury bonds. This means that if the Government has fiscal or budget difficulties, then redeeming the bonds for recipient payments could be difficult.

The country is getting older, and with the Baby Boomer generation beginning to retire, there will be increased demands to redeem the bonds. Further, the poor economic climate and high unemployment rates are limiting the amount of new money that is entering the Social Security Trust.

Will you continue to get your Social Security payments?

Most likely yes!

However, Social Security, as we know it now, will have to change. When Social Security was created, the life span was shorter. Retirees were expected to live for only five years on average. Today, they will live at least three times longer.

To fund these payments, the government will most likely raise the retirement age for future generations.

In addition, they will limit the amount of increases that recipients get. This means that while your payments are safe, you cannot count on the amount that you may receive.

Sources:

• Social Security Safe - For Now
• Keeping Social Security Safe
• Weekly Address: Honoring Social Security, Not Privatizing It
• Social Security is Adding to the Debt Now
• Are our Social Security funds safe?

Will I get paid if the federal government shuts down on August 2, 2011?

Just like last April, a federal government shutdown deadline is rapidly approaching. With only 4 days to go, Americans all over the country are wondering what will happen on August 2, 2011. Will social security recipients, military personal, medicare bills, etc. get paid? What will be open?

To help answer these questions, we've examined a number of stories that listed the federal services that will be affected. While there is no absolute answer to these questions, (because much is at the discretion of the President and Treasury Secretary), the summary below offers a brief overview of what will be open and who may be paid.

• Congress, Senate, President:  Yes
• Federal employees: There are about 1.9 million civilian government workers. Of those, approximately 1/2 will remain on the job and the other half will be furloughed. Those who are not deemed as essential will not work and will not be paid. Unless Congress passes a new provision, these people are not entitled to receive back pay when  they return back to work. It is unclear if they will be entitled to unemployment insurance either.
• Social Security & Disability: The Social Security Trust Fund contains sufficient monies to provide continuous payments to those recipients. While there is little or actual money in the fund, it holds a numerous US Treasury bonds. Some of these may have to be sold or redeemed in order to cover the checks that will be written. However, because the agency may have limited staff, new claims may be delayed.
• Medicare: Like social security, medicare claims will continue to be paid. However, there may be a delay in the actual payments and new claims may be deferred as well.
• Veterans: Yes. The Veterans Administration receives yearly funds in advance. This means that money for all services has already been provided.
• Military: Everyone will continue to work, whether they are uniformed personnel or not. However, many will not be paid until the shutdown is ended. Others may only receive 1/2 pay during the shutdown, but the remainder of the money will be paid afterward as well.
• Mail delivery: The USPS is a separate self funded entity and will not be affected by a shutdown.
• Security: All aspects of national security are considered critical functions and all services will continue. This includes Homeland Security, Coast Guard, border patrol, jails, courts, food inspection programs, etc.
• National Parks: Unfortunately, this will be the first to go. Parks, zoos, and museums will all be closed to the public.
• Passports: Another inconvenience. If you are applying for a passport, you will probably have to wait unless it is an absolute emergency.
• IRS: Collection of taxes will remain in operation, but will experience a staff reduction.
• SBA & FHA: Both the Small Business Administration and Federal Housing Association will suspend approvals during a shutdown.

You can learn more by reading the articles written before the anticipated April shutdown.

Government shutdown: What it means for you
Who gets paid in a shutdown? Congress!
Government shutdown 2011: Will I get paid? What will be open? What can I expect?

Fear Not: the Federal Government has shutdown before and Social Security checks kept flowing

This is the third time during 2011 that Congress and the President have been negotiating a budget, and each time, fears of a Government shutdown loomed. Both in February 2011 and April 2011, short term budgets have rolled the inevitable forward for 3 months at a time.

Now once again, in an interview with Scott Pelley of the CBS Evening News, the President instilled fear in the retirement sector by stating that he couldn't guarantee that Social Security payments would be mailed to recipients.



However, this is not a new tactic for the President, as he provided a similar warning on February 15, 2011 when he said: If there’s a government shutdown, "people don’t get their Social Security checks." However, based on previous shutdowns, we know this is not true. Yet the President insists on holding senior citizens as hostages during the Republican debates.

Since 1976, the Federal Government has been shut down 17 times, and each time, Social Security checks were sent out ( This would be 18th government shutdown in U.S. history ).

1. 1976: 10 days beginning Thursday September 30
2. 1977: 12 days beginning Friday September 30
3. 1977: 8 days beginning Monday October 31
4. 1977: 8 days beginning Wednesday November 30
5. 1978: 17 days beginning Saturday September 30
6. 1979: 11 days beginning Sunday September 30
7. 1981: 2 days beginning Friday November 20
8. 1982: 1 day beginning Saturday September 30
9. 1982: 3 days beginning Tuesday December 21
10. 1983: 3 days beginning Thursday November 14
11. 1984: 2 days beginning Sunday September 30
12. 1984: 1 day beginning Wednesday October 3
13. 1986: 1 day beginning Thursday October 16
14. 1987: 1 day beginning Friday December 18
15. 1990: 3 days beginning Friday October 5
16. 1995: 5 days beginning Monday November 13
17. 1995: 10 days beginning Friday December 15

During those dates, many citizens were inconvenienced, but Social Security checks, Medicare, and Law Enforcement obligations were continuously honored and maintained.

Perhaps the biggest disruption of the possible August 2, 2011 shutdown will be to the President who will be celebrating his 50th birthday at a Chicago fund raising bash ( Obama 50th birthday bash set for August 3 ).

For the sake of the country, let's hope the Republicans stand together and block any increase to the federal debt and implementation of new taxes.