Tonight, President Barack Obama will deliver his third State of the Union Address–and his sixth address to a joint session of Congress. That’s more than either President Bush or President Clinton had addressed in any single term.

Despite his purported skill as an orator, none of Obama’s addresses to Congress has been particularly successful. They are typically remembered more for the rancor they caused than for any positive effects.

Obama is expected to make inequality the focus of his address. That’s an important campaign theme, as well as a refrain of the Occupy Wall Street movement that Obama supported in the fall of 2011.

Yet it is not a significant departure from the tone of previous addresses, in which Obama bullied opponents and Supreme Court justices; fabricated health insurance horror stories; and called upon “millionaires and billionaires” to pay.

For reference purposes as you watch tonight’s State of the Union, here is a concise summary of Obama’s five previous speeches to Congress, and how they were received:

Obama's first address: February 24, 2009

***

Address to Joint Session of Congress, February 24, 2009

In his first speech as the 44th President, Obama wanted to put his stamp on the presidency and introduce his ambitious policy agenda–one “that begins with jobs,” he said. The highlight of his address was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act–i.e. the stimulus–which he promised would receive “tough, unprecedented oversight” under Vice President Joe Biden.

Obama also announced a government lending program to ease credit, a new housing plan to prevent foreclosures, and assistance to struggling banks. He asked for “long-term investments” in green energy; for a commitment to health care reform; and for new funding for schools, along with education reforms. And he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, partly by letting “tax breaks” for the wealthy expire.

In addition, Obama touched on national security, reiterating his promise to close the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay, hinting that he would press for civilian trials for terrorists, and promising to “defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism.” On foreign policy, Obama declared “a new era of engagement” through negotiations with hostile powers, and announced the appointment of a new envoy to help end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The reaction to Obama’s speech was somewhat negative: he apparently intended to govern from the left, not from the center (as some had hoped). Stock prices fell sharply the next morning, recovering by the afternoon but ending firmly in the red. In retrospect, though Obama kept his promises on assisting banks and fighting al Qaeda, he broke many other pledges, and saw many of his policies–especially the stimulus–fail badly. (more…)

Across the country, utility companies are in the process of installing digital AMR (Automatic Meter Reading) “smart meters”.  This will allow for remote meter reading instead of having to send a meter reader out to your home.  What appears to be a great advancement in electric meter technology will allow for your home to ultimately be connected to the “smart grid.”

Mission Point Capital Partners, “a private investment firm established by Mark Schwartz, former President and Chief Executive Officer of Soros Fund Management and former Chairman of Goldman Sachs (Asia); Jesse M. Fink, co-founder and former Chief Operating Officer of priceline.com; and Mark J. Cirilli, former Chief Investment Officer of Marshall Street Management,” explains:

The Smart Grid is a collection of energy control and monitoring devices, software, networking and communications infrastructure that are installed in homes, businesses, and throughout the electricity distribution grid. This collective system provides a “nervous system” for the grid and for customers that provides the ability to monitor and control energy consumption comprehensively in real time. Think of it as the Internet for Energy… Smart meters and other smart grid technologies… are designed with this ability, and they can provide the infrastructure that will support the implementation of responsible climate change policy. [emphasis added]

Smart thermostats, smart meters and the smart grid will provide the utility with information and the ability to monitor energy consumption throughout the country. These devices will enable them to regulate your use of electricity and turn it on and off at their discretion.  According to SmartGrid.gov, “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with about $4.5 billion to modernize the electric power grid and to implement Title XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which focused on the Smart Grid.”  This site shows the government’s progress  in implementing smart grid technology through the country.  The money put into this is staggering! The Solyndra scandal is only the tip of the iceberg of this Administration’s green radicalism. (more…)

In a stunning reversal of voter opinions since the first weekend in August; the Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey reveals that “Likely U.S. Voters” has flipped from 75% feeling it is at least somewhat important for the government to launch a new stimulus program to create jobs (57% saying “it is Very Important”), to just 38% now supporting the President’s $447 billion jobs plan presented to the Joint Session of Congress. This nose-dive in support for a bold new government spending initiative to fight unemployment is directly tied to the violent plunge in the U.S. stock prices caused by the credit rating downgrade of the United States of America.

Likely voters have good reason to be concerned about the negative consequences of another round of big government spending. U.S. stock prices of the 500 large largest American companies in the S&P 500 Index made all-time highs just prior to the real estate and banking 2008 Credit Crisis. Over the next seven months, the stock prices of these conservative companies fell by 50% and heralded the start of the worst economic decline in America history since the Great Depression.

Here are a few statistics that demonstrate just how historic last month’s response has been to the downgrade of America’s credit rating by the S&P 500 Stock Index:

• The index was down whapping 5.7% for the month;
• The sum total of the violent up and down moves during the month was equal to 47%;
• Volatility was in the 98th percent highest level of any month since 1928;
• Investment return was in the bottom 10% of monthly returns since 1928;
• If September shows a loss, it will be only the 9th consecutive 5 month loss since 1928;
• The last 5 months of continuous stock losses before the Credit Crisis of 2008, was 1974.

The stock market is predicting that the United States reliance on big government initiatives funded by deficit spending is over. Next year, the recent deal to increase the debt ceiling requires $71 billion spending cuts. Furthermore, on December 31, 2011 the 100% depreciation of corporate capital purchases for 2011 will expire. The net effect of these cutbacks will result in approximately a 2% reduction in GDP. This will be the largest reduction in government activity since WWII.

(more…)

Labor unions and leftist activists are expected to once again descend upon the Captiol in Madison, WI on Tuesday. They plan to protest Governor Scott Walker’s first 2-year budget proposal, which seeks to cap entitlement programs and make cuts in education while expanding school voucher programs, in an attempt to close a $3 billion budget deficit. Republicans also expect to add the collective bargaining provisions that were passed in March, unless the State Supreme Court issues a ruling before then.

Opponents of Walker’s proposal view their side as an issue of human rights and a statement against corporations, and have not surprisingly ratcheted up the rhetoric. On its website announcing Tuesday’s protest, the Wisconsin state AFL-CIO posted:

Debate will be limited, democracy will be circumvented and the balance will greatly tip in favor of ramming through an anti-worker, anti-family, anti-community agenda. Come bear witness to this denial of democracy… Please take part in democracy and bear witness to the extreme attack on the people of Wisconsin. Join us tomorrow, Tuesday, June 14, as we continue to stand strong against a budget that guts public schools, attacks health care, raises taxes on workers and seniors, and jeopardizes public services like police and fire. All while handing over $300 million a year in tax breaks to the rich.

Oh, the drama….

(more…)

If you want to take a pulse on the political vibe in this country, one need only look at Wisconsin.  The state has become the barometer for judging not just the public’s appetite for political battle, but the competitive landscape as well.  The spotlight on anything that has six degrees of separation from a Koch brother has been great drama for Wisconsin’s ongoing soap opera, but audiences in the state and nationwide might get a better show by turning their attention leftward.  Few have examined the strange pattern of money and favor trading that’s been pervading Wisconsin’s beloved circle of progressive politics.

The activity in Wisconsin over the last few months becomes crucially pertinent as the state gears up for the 2012 Wisconsin Senate race.  It’s worth looking at the financial innards  of the Supreme Court race and the protests against Governor Scott Walker in order to assess what the fight for the Wisconsin Senate seat, soon to be vacated by retiring Democratic Senator Herb Kohl, will look like.  What many don’t realize is that this race could have broader implications – not just in national politics, but in specific policy areas, like health care and your personal medical records, for example.  Lots of money, fueled by liberal business interests and an ever-growing progressive movement in Wisconsin, has already been freely flowing.

But is anyone watching? Who are some of these donors?

Let’s start by looking back at the recent Wisconsin protests and the Supreme Court election, and then dissecting some of the money trail.

The hostility stemmed from the union reform bill signed by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on March 11^th as a stand-alone portion of the overall budget repair bill.

(more…)

A funny thing happened on the way to the voting booth: Americans discovered that most federal “stimulus” funds were being used to stimulate government, not the economy.

I was on the road recently, driving from my home in southeast Louisiana through a long stretch of Mississippi to Tuscaloosa, Ala., then to the outskirts of Birmingham and on to Auburn, Ala., and finally back to my home by way of Montgomery and Mobile. Along the way I was slowed from time to time as I passed by road and bridge repair projects marked with prominent signs indicating they were funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, President Obama’s so-called stimulus bill.

Naturally I was thrilled to see my tax dollars at work, although honesty compels me to report that not much actual work seemed to be going on at any of the sites. Most of the visible workers were just standing around. Of course, such standing around is typical of public construction projects, so I don’t suppose that what I saw was in any way owing to the stimulus funding in particular.

This huge legislative enactment provides for a great variety of increased spending and some reduction in taxes over a period of 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office computed that the net amount of money to be injected into, or not removed from, the economy as a result of the stimulus bill totals about $787 billion.

At the time the bill was being debated and discussed, a common plea in its defense had to do with funding so-called shovel-ready projects to repair or replace public roads, bridges and other structures widely taken to be in a state of decay or disrepair. This plea made an appealing talking point, since most Americans place at least some value on such infrastructure.

Alas, only a tiny proportion of the funds expended so far has been directed to this well-advertised objective.

(more…)

In her recent essay at Slate, (Elizabeth) Curtis Sittenfield asks, “Am I the last person in America who still adores President Obama”?  She’ll be happy to know that, no, she isn’t.  There are plenty of other people who remain, “unfailingly struck by his intelligence and charisma, by his easygoing humor, and by the magnificence of his megawatt smile”.

Ms. Sittenfield apparently bottled whatever Obama’s campaign managers put in the water, and she has been sipping it for the past two years, because her essay reads like a 7th grader’s love note to the handsome school principal.  And like most 7th graders, she is uneducated about politics and economics.

Sittenfield illustrates all that is wrong with the least astute of Americans.

They place their faith in politicians, whose first priority is their own survival, not the desires of their constituents.

They place emotion above practicality.

They ignore the most basic economic concepts.

These are the Sittenfield Americans, folks who can’t — or won’t — see beyond Obama’s gleaming surface, where they would find that almost every policy decision made by this Administration….uh….fell short of what was promised.

(more…)

You are probably familiar by now with this infamous graph published by the White House in January 2009 highlighting their expectations for the impact of the Recovery Act on the rate of unemployment. Far from leveling off at 8% and then declining, the actual unemployment rate ran up to 10% by the end of 2009 and has declined only slightly since to 9.5%, largely due to a decline in labor force participation. This in spite of the rapid passage of the massive $787 billion stimulus bill in February 2009. (Geoff at the Innocent Bystanders blog deserves everlasting credit for being the first to point out this disconnect.)

With the White House and other Democrats resolutely sticking to their claim that the stimulus bill “saved or created” 3-4 million jobs, I thought it might be worthwhile to point out that the very same January 2009 White House report also included an industry by industry forecast of where these 3-4 million jobs would come from. Here it is:

Thanks to the inclination of economists to model verifiable data (even when they are pulling numbers out of the sky), these industry categories happen to align perfectly with employment data tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thus we can easily compare the actual changes in employment to the figures forecast by the White House. In the table below, I’ve calculated the net change in employment by industry from February 2009, when the stimulus bill was passed, to July 2010, using the latest data available from the BLS. (Click row headings for data source.)

(more…)

The current recession and, especially, the related financial panic in the fall of 2008 have given rise to an extraordinary surge in the U.S. government’s size, scope, and power. As I write, the financial panic has subsided, but the recession, already the longest since the 1930s, seems likely to continue for a long time. Even when it has passed, however, the government will certainly retain much of the augmentation it has gained recently. Hence, this crisis will prove to be the occasion for another episode of the ratchet effect in the growth of government.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began early in 2008, but the decline became severe only in the latter part of the year. The financial panic that came to a head in late September 2008 proved to be the catalyst for an accelerated decline in real GDP and rise in the rate of unemployment. The so-called credit crunch in the fall of 2008 prompted the Fed, the Treasury, and the Congress to take a series of extraordinary actions in quick succession.

In September 2008, the Federal Reserve System (“the Fed”) took control of the insurance giant American International Group (AIG), and the Federal Housing Finance Authority took over the huge government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, secondary lending institutions that held or insured more than half of the total value of U.S. residential mortgages. On October 3, the president signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which, among other things, created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), authorizing as much as $700 billion for the purchase of so-called troubled assets, primarily mortgage-related securities, held by banks and other financial institutions. Instead of making the authorized purchases, however, the Treasury used the TARP to inject funds into the banks by purchasing their preferred shares. In this way, the government acquired an ownership interest in nearly 600 commercial banks.

Meanwhile, the Fed made a series of unprecedented types of asset purchases and loans, loan guarantees, and asset swaps, and provided other forms of assistance to securities dealers, money-market mutual funds, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, Citigroup, fourteen foreign central banks, and buyers of certain asset-backed securities based on consumer and small-business loans. As a result, the monetary base of the United States increased by more than 100 percent between August 2008 and January 2009.

(more…)

I’ve never had the kind of fun enjoyed by passengers in this 1980 Greyhound commercial, but I’m thinking about taking a ride on the commercial bus line soon. Why? Because, as a taxpayer, I’m paying for it.

I came across this news after reading a release on the White House web site that listed the Missouri Department of Transportation as the recipient of $4.9 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a., “stimulus”) funds for use in “construction of two facilities and purchase of two intercity vehicles.” Curious as to the specifics of the spending, I placed a phone call to MoDOT and reached spokesperson Jorma Durant.

During the first conversation, he explained that his agency would be spending the money on construction of buildings for two nonprofit transportation agencies — one each in Poplar Bluffs and Macon, Mo. — as well as on the purchase of two Greyhound buses.

Somewhat surprised, I asked him to explain why the MoDOT was buying Greyhound buses. Durant’s reply was open and honest.

“You have a great question,” he said. “You have an amazing question. Why are we dealing with Greyhound bus? Actually, it kind of surprised me as well. And I’m probably not going to have the right answer for you.”

(more…)

The good folks at Sen. Tom Coburn’s office draw our attention to their latest report on Stimulus spending (published in cooperation with Sen. John McCain’s office). From the introduction:

Over the past ten years, the national debt more than doubled as Congress went on a spending spree—and yet we still find ourselves in the midst of an economic downturn.

Americans who have lost their job, health insurance, or home, are facing mounting personal debts, but are also faced with the question of who will pay off the staggering national debt that has grown by more than $1.4 trillion over the past year.

FINALCOPY_stimulus2report12809 –

(more…)

Pelican Institute reporter Steve Beatty has a new story demonstrating that hundreds of jobs allegedly “saved or created” in Louisiana may be incorrect or exaggerated:

The issue of phantom Congressional districts listed in the national stimulus database recently created a stir. But the tally of Louisiana jobs allegedly created or saved by President Obama’s signature domestic policy program raises more serious questions about this database.

A review of the self-reported information may inspire a chuckle or a sneer, particularly when less-than-savvy recipients of federal money don’t know what Congressional district they’re in, or that the state only has seven such districts. That unsophisticated approach made headlines when money was listed as being spent in various districts that just didn’t exist. In the end, though, those reports are likely to be modified and will land in the appropriate district.

A greater concern is the 475 jobs listed as created or saved in Louisiana, even though the related projects aren’t started. And the 171 jobs chalked up when small raises were given to Head Start workers. And the over 100 low-paying work-study jobs on college campuses that count just as much as, say, a full-time architect for a major building program. Other entries indicate what could be an under-reporting of jobs.

These are just some examples of questionable figures in the statewide data analyzed by The Pelican Institute for Public Policy.

(more…)

Earlier this year the federal government sent $3 billion tax dollars to the state of Illinois to provide financial support for education as part of the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009, a.k.a. “the stimulus,”.  Not for building schools, mind you.  There is money for that elsewhere in the $787 billion spend-a-thon.  This is for good old-fashioned reading, writing and arithmetic.  Of course, there are many reasons this is antithetical to the temporary economic jump-start concept behind the stimulus, but that is not the point here.

The State of Illinois dutifully began doling out this newfound largess to boost funding for low income schools under the Title 1 program, and to fund special education under the IDEA Part A program.  One can see the rationalization to increase funding for schools in poor areas in a recession, but it’s a bit of a stretch to see how the economic downturn has increased demand for special education.  But, again, that is not the subject of this piece.

As the Obama Administration has ramped up its efforts to portray the stimulus as an unqualified success that has rescued us from certain doom, they have resorted to the kinds of shoddy claims that smack of political desperation.

(more…)

Byron York, in today’s Examiner:

First Lady Michelle Obama visited the headquarters of the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington Tuesday. She devoted much of her talk to “the growing threat of obesity, particularly childhood obesity” in the United States, and she touted HHS’s recently-announced plan to spend $373 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on plans to, among other things, improve the healthfulness of foods in vending machines.

The first lady did not discuss how such work might stimulate the economy or speed economic recovery. But she had glowing praise for the stimulus’ role in fighting obesity. “Congress and the president included $1 billion for prevention and wellness programs in the Recovery Act,” she told the crowd of cheering DHS workers, “and that includes funding for initiatives that will give communities the resources they need to address the obesity epidemic in their communities. This includes $373 million announced last month that would be available for communities that put together comprehensive plans to reduce obesity –- $373 million — and that would include everything from incentivizing grocery stores to locate in underserved areas; it could include improving meals at school; to getting more healthy, affordable foods into vending machines; to creating more safe, accessible places for people to exercise and play; and a whole lot more.”

 Read the whole thing here. File this away as further evidence, if possibly needed, that the ’stimulus’ bill mostly just funded a grab-bag of long-wished-for lefty government programs.

Federal stimulus spending may evoke images of hard hats and road construction, but around $14 million has been allocated for projects at Montana State University that range from researching volcanic action in the Andes mountains and treatment of periodontal disease to funding to assist with productions of Shakespeare.

A total of $14.38 million in federal stimulus funds has been allocated for about 35 different projects to date at Montana State University, according to university officials. The grants are funded by the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress in February to spur economic growth and create jobs.

Critics of the funding say it misses the mark of the goals set by Congress and amounts to wasteful spending. Supporters say the research does have an economic impact and will produce numerous long-term positive benefits.

The spending was criticized by National Taxpayers Union Vice President for Politics and Communication Pete Sepp. He said many taxpayers think of stimulus spending as long-term job creation in the private sector and not “expeditions to the Andes or, more up close, expeditions into people’s gums.”

(more…)

The health care plan advocated by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid and The Democratic Majority is hazardous to the health of every American. What the President would like to do with your health care is currently being widely debated, but what is lesser known is a panel has already been created in Part I of his two-part health care plan  through buried language in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the Stimulus Bill, which became law last February.

The name given to this panel in the President’s Stimulus Bill is The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, and is an already funded $1.1 billion enterprise run by federal bureaucrats—not practicing doctors on the front line or patients.  All 15 members of The Council have already been appointed by President Obama.  The two part Plan consists of 53 boards and councils, whose underlying method of cutting costs is based on rationing and denying care, not preventing health care need, much like the British Health Care System.

Part II of the Obama health care plan, dubbed “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” empowers this Council to create another level of bureaucracy, The Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which as in The British System, will determine whether to approve or reject treatment for patients based upon the cost of treatment and the number of years the patient will likely benefit from the treatment.  This will have the biggest impact on seniors, but rightly has caused concern for Americans of all ages.

Part I of the President’s plan dictates that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology.  This “Coordinator”, who has already been appointed by President Obama, will be responsible for monitoring treatments to ensure doctors and hospitals strictly follow what the government deems appropriate and cost effective, and to “guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.”  

(more…)

The point of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was to encourage national economic growth. The point was to curb unemployment. The point was to help small businesses be what D.C. has forever claimed they are—the national economic backbone. The point was to stimulate the economy… not the federal government.

But that’s what we’ve got. A federal government stimulated and growing by the day.

The Recovery Act was doomed from the start. Increasing spending while cutting taxes is a great way to grow a deficit and create future economic problems, not save an economy. The stimulus money never really had a shot at creating 3 million jobs, as was promised, and have them be sustainable. But the stimulus is failing even by the flawed standards of its creators!

With national unemployment at 9.7%, the USA Today reported Thursday morning that the number of civilian workers in federal government has increased by 25,000 since December of 2008:

Fourteen of the top federal agencies responsible for spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act say they’ve hired about 3,000 workers with stimulus money. That’s helped fuel the continued growth of the federal government, which increased by more than 25,000 employees, or 1.3%, since December 2008, according to the latest quarterly report. During that time, the ranks of the nation’s unemployed increased by nearly 4 million, Labor Department statistics show. Overall, there are about 2 million federal workers, the data show.

Thirteen agencies that report stimulus-related administrative expenses separately on their weekly spending reports say they’ve spent $186.8 million so far on salaries and other overhead. Those agencies have reported spending $46.1 billion in stimulus funds overall.

(more…)