About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

All You Need To Know About ObamaCare On One Website Plus The Latest ObamaCare Turn

For those who don't want to keep waiting to find out what is in the ObamaCare bill & are not inclined to read all 2,700 pages please click on this excellent website prepared by Independent Women's Voice (IWV).
Full disclosure – Carol & I met Heather Higgins, President & CEO of IWV @ the Liberty and Justice for All conference in NYC last June that was cohosted by the Philanthropy Roundtable & DonorsTrust.  Heather was one of the speakers @ the conference & the thoroughness of the website is a fitting reflection of the marvelous work she does for America.
The website will take you through four Q&A sections that will not only test your current knowledge of ObamaCare but will furnish the answers to each question.  The topics are: 1) how many people are covered, 2) coverage for under-26 year olds, 3) pre-existing conditions & guaranteed insurance, & 4) what's in the law.  The homepage will take you through further explanations & excellent references.
Although the website researched & documented many little known features of ObamaCare IWV's main thrust in this endeavor is running the Repeal Pledge – a pledge by politicians to work to repeal ObamaCare every chance they get.
The Repeal Pledge has been signed by the usual handful of incumbents who consistently work for America & are regularly highlighted on RTE – Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Jeff Flake, Tom Coburn, Mike Lee, Mike Pence, Tim Huelskamp, Joe Walsh, Marsha Blackburn, Trent Franks, Phil Gingrey, Louie Gohmert, & Ben QuayleCongressional candidates of a similar mindset seeking office who have signed the pledge include another list of people regularly & favorably highlighted on RTE including Anna Little, Ted Cruz, Richard Mourdock, Josh Mandel, George Allen, & Deb FischerThese are the type of people we should be helping this election season & the ones shown in red are losing or are in close races.  Ben Quayle has already lost his primary.  The full list of signers, including Mitt Romney, is on the IWV website.
The establishment Republican leadership – Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy, & Ways & Means Chairman David Camp – has not signed the Repeal Pledge.  The IWV website provides a page to contact these people to encourage them to sign.
Now for some of the little known features of ObamaCare that IWV has uncovered – here's five:
1.  The ObamaCare requirement for insurance companies to offer health insurance to "children" up to age 26 as part of their parents' insurance coverage has been received very popularly by many people on the face of things – namely it sounds free.  In fact this requirement alone has already raised  premiums between $150-$450 per year.  Total average premium increase for a family of four since the passage of ObamaCare is just under $2,000 per year.
2.  Three months after ObamaCare passed into law thirty seven states enacted legal provisions that extended dependent coverage @ least to the age of 26 & many even longer – e.g. – NJ's provision extends coverage for young adults on their parents' policies until age 31.  Check your own state.  Even if ObamaCare is repealed the state provisions will stand until each state acts to repeal.  The costs will continue as indicated above until young adults in their 20s up to 31 in NJ go out on their own – but that's another problem.
3.  After full implementation of ObamaCare there will still be over 30 million people uninsured; over 10 million of the people added to coverage will be added through Medicaid.  Already more & more doctors are refusing to see Medicaid patients because the government's reimbursement schedules do not even cover the doctors' costs.
4.  It was originally expected that 700,000 Americans previously denied insurance coverage because of a pre-existing health condition like cancer, diabetes, or asthma would get coverage under "high risk pools" that are part of a special program created in the new law.  So far (over two & one half years) only 78,000 people have applied under this program providing another indication that the complete revamp of America's healthcare system was not justified.
5.  The parts of the 2,700 page ObamaCare law that pertains to healthcare coverage is about 60 pages.  The rest is devoted to 1) describing 50 new government boards including the 15 unelected member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAD) who will sit in judgment trying to find savings in Medicare theoretically without affecting coverage or quality – right, 2) detailing the twenty one new or increased taxes (see Grabbing All Of Our Stuff), & 3) specifying 968 new powers for the Secretary of Health & Human Services.
Now the ObamaCare law may have taken another turn during the past few days.  The October 14 posting on RTE mentioned that "Oklahoma has filed a new legal challenge re employers being fined in Oklahoma where they – & several other states - do not intend to set up & run their own health insurance exchanges."  This idea of the Oklahoma AG is starting to get legs - I read several investigative reports last week that concluded the IRS does not have the authority under ObamaCare to assess penalties against employers in states where the state itself did not set up the specified health insurance exchange.  It is estimated that about 30 states will not set up the health insurance exchanges thereby leaving it up to the federal government (Secretary of HHS – Kathleen Sibelius) to do so in accordance with the law.  The rub & the Oklahoma AG's claim is that the tax assessments by the IRS are not allowed against employers who do not furnish health insurance to their employees unless the states set up the health insurance exchanges.  This interpretation could affect 12 million people including 250,000 in Oklahoma.  The deadline for states establishing health insurance exchanges, or not, is November 16.  Sixteen states (led by California) & DC have already established health insurance exchanges & seven states (led by Texas) have said they will not establish health insurance exchanges.  The stage is set for the next round of legalities.


Thursday, October 25, 2012

Supply-Side Economics Lesson For Mitt Romney

The Wall Street Journal published my letter below today, along with three others, that responded to their recent lead editorial entitled Romney's Tax Deduction Cap.
My letter focused on the principles of supply-side economics that are not followed by Mitt's so-called economic growth plan or the many TV hosts like Larry Kudlow & Sean Hannity who shamelessly endorse Mitt & his policies no matter what they are.  I am sure Larry knows better re the economics.
The other three published letters focused on the AMT & why there will not be deficit reduction with Mitt's economic plan, Mitt's plan doing nothing to simplify the tax code, & the negative impact on taxpayers that will result over time by having any tax deduction cap be based on a fixed amount as Mitt has presented rather than as a percentage of income.
Dear Editor,
Gov. Romney's plan to reduce rates across the board by 20% and eliminate deductions mostly for high-income people will result in an equal or most likely higher effective tax rate on the highest income earners than at present, resulting in no real incentive for growth.

The Romney campaign is hamstrung by its contradictory three-legged-stool position that makes up its own class warfare struggle: "I will not reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income earners," "I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit" and "I will lower taxes on middle-income families."

The missing point from supply-side economic principles in the Romney plan is that the reduction of the size of government and its claims on earned income is what fuels economic growth when coupled with lower marginal tax rates for the highest income earners and sound-money policies. There is no economic growth if Gov. Romney cuts the top marginal income-tax rate and the deductions for high-income earners leaving the effective tax rate the same or higher for these people who are the job creators.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Third Party Debate Shows We Have More Than Two Choices

I have discussed the Third Party Debate seen live on C-SPAN last night with several people today – hope you saw it because the debaters' directness & sincerity was refreshing after watching the series of four nationally televised debates among the Democrat & Republican candidates earlier this month whose positions were carefully orchestrated based on political calculations to win over one group or another.
Four candidates for President from the Green Party (Jill Stein), Justice Party (Rocky Anderson), Constitution Party (Virgil Goode), & Libertarian Party (Gary Johnson) participated in the Third Party Debate moderated by Larry King – who did an excellent job of controlling the time allotments & only once or twice had to keep the debaters on topic.
The debate was presented by Free and Equal Elections.  Click here to learn more about this group who is organizing a second Third Party Debate but this time only between the top two on-line vote getters from the four candidates debating last night.  This second debate will be held on October 30 on C-SPAN.
There are more people eligible to vote who do not vote than will vote for any presidential candidate.
I am an undecided voter & believe the Democrat & Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential election have produced three choices for the electorate:
1.  ABBO – anybody but BO.  The problem is the "anybody" turns out to be Mitt & anyone who votes for Mitt has no idea what he really will do if elected – you can just hope or believe.  Still the desire to oust BO will make this type of voter vote for Mitt.
2.  Do you want to waste your vote?  Gary Johnson answered the wasted vote question last night by saying - "Wasted Vote? The only wasted vote is when you vote for someone you don't TRULY believe in."  That describes BO & Mitt to a T.
3.  Need for a third (or more) parties.  I have advocated for years that we need more than two major parties (currently two wings of one Big Government Party).  To me you can't have enough parties & if you have more than two viable parties many presidential elections will be decided in the House of Representatives (who vote for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes) per the Constitution when no one candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (currently 270).  A much better system than two parties taking turns being in power.
If any of this interests you I suggest watching the next Third Party Debate on October 30.  You can't start sooner than this election to break the two party cycle that produces congresses with under 20% approval ratings but 90% incumbent reelection rates or candidates for president who we vote for to their benefit & our expense.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Dynamic Analysis Of Budget Problems Points To Needed Mindset Change

Thanks to our SC businessman for sending the link for this excellent video that presents the viewpoint that our elected representatives cannot balance the budget even if they wanted to because the operating portion of the federal government is paid for entirely with borrowed money – i.e., – the annual deficit is larger than the amount Congress appropriates to operate the federal government.  The video demonstrates that even if all discretionary programs like Education & Energy as well as constitutional functions such as Defense were eliminated there is not enough tax revenue collected to pay the interest on the debt & fund the misnamed mandatory programs like Social Security & Medicare.   The accountant who narrates the video offers two painful choices: 1) raise tax revenue 50% (the deficit is 50% of the amount of tax revenue collected) or 2) eliminate the operating portion of the federal government – neither of which is a viable solution.
Now this is an excellent video for presenting the real problem but its fault lies in relying on a static analysis for its hopeless solutions.  For many months RTE has presented the dynamic analysis that offers a much better solution than raising taxes 50% for those who pay taxes (the bottom half of income earners still pay nothing) or shutting down the Department of Defense, et al.  I have documented through many postings the dynamic mindset change that is so desperately needed in our country & this video vividly shows why it is needed – posthaste.  I'm sure that people who read these messages carefully quickly thought of the solutions below while watching the video.
But time gets shorter every day to implement the proper solutions – it gets harder the longer we wait until the ultimate cruelty comes when the elderly who currently count on Social Security & Medicare learn one day that it is just not there any more for them in any where near the form they now realize. 
Please click on the January 31, 2012 posting entitled Four Points Highlight The Needed Change In Mindset to see the way out of our financial pickle illustrated on the video summarized as follows:  1) repeal ObamaCare & implement a premium support plan for Medicare based on Ryan's original proposal (see graph on above posting) that bends the cost curve down for this gigantic entitlement, 2) reduce the initial Social Security benefit for people under 55 so that the initial benefit is calculated based on the CPI rate instead of the wage rate as it is now, 3) implement Ken Blackwell's "cut, cap, & balance" plan, & 4) enact the FairTax under HR 25 – the problems depicted in the video illustrate why HR 25 is the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes for America.
Now even despite the very poor economic conditions being tolerated in America we still have time to make the above four corrections before the terms labor squeeze, concessions, & austerity measures are prevalent throughout America – these terms already are well known in several towns across the country. Time is not a luxury the PIIGS countries of Europe have (had) & we should learn accordingly from them before we fall down the same metaphorical flight of stairs & have labor riots in our streets.
In fact the timing of the presentation of this video & the four highlighted solutions is perfect coming two weeks before the election.  RTE has listed candidates all year long who follow the type of economic principles that will really make the difference in our lives & for our country – not the politically correct solutions that tinker around the edges of our problems that readers of these messages know are no help.  Several of these candidates are losing their races or are in very tight races.  Thanks to everyone who has let me know they are working with candidates who are people of substance.  For the rest it is not too late even now – just let me know privately & I will help you make a selection of a candidate to work with if you do not have a local candidate that follows America's founding principles of limited government, personal responsibility, & free enterprise.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Responses - Questions For Tuesday's Presidential Town Hall Debate

The responses to the subject questions were hot (see below) & so were the post debate comments mostly about the moderator.
Four of the nine questions I listed in the last posting were touched upon by the eleven questions asked by the undecided voters in the town hall format debate @ Hofstra University Tuesday night summarized as follows (see last posting for exact questions):
1.  Mitt's comment from last May @ a fund raiser re the 47% of income earners who pay no income tax & regard themselves as victims dependent on government was brought up in the very last question of the night with BO answering & no follow up comment from Mitt allowed – this was a more serious put-up job by the moderator who chose the questions & the order in which they were asked than her interjecting a comment helping BO on the Libyan question.  Mitt will have plenty of opportunities @ the next debate devoted strictly to foreign affairs to set the Libyan question straight – it will be a stretch for him to bring up the 47% issue again.  Many readers told me they were tweeting the moderator about Libya.  Although she is not happy about her obvious WWE tag-team style involvement re the Libyan answer letting her know about the last question bias shows a discerning audience who picks up subtle issues re the hostile anti-American media.
2.  Mitt repeated his no-growth tax plan again emphasizing that he would keep the effective income tax rate the same for high income earners who would continue to pay the same share of federal revenues as they do under BO.  This is Mitt's own class warfare fight.  See response #3 below.
3.  Mitt also repeated his protectionist policies against China & @ one point even said he would put tariffs in place.  Tariffs are what led to the Great Depression.
4.  BO offered no position on how he would return America to prosperity – he merely restated that things were bad when he came in & he needs more time to make the economy better.  To think that BO's government dependent programs can or will help bring back prosperity is absurd – they will lead to more poverty.  At one point during the debate BO said that he knows that government does not create jobs but rather it is the private sector that does.  Based on all of his actions since he became a national figure this is laughable.
Below are five responses to my nine questions that ranged from feeling my questions were too easy on BO, to listing topics I left out (it was only a ninety minute debate & four of them got in), to letting me know that one of my questions (Alinsky) would never be asked.  Thanks for all the spirited responses both before & after the debate.
---Response #1---
Doug - Fantastic. Questions.  I will be happy if one or two make it.  I hope we get no big bird or contraceptive entitlements for law school students.  My favorite question is the Alinsky one.  Will hope someone read Rules for Radicals and is connecting the dots observing BO implementing Alinsky's plan.
---Response #2---
Doug - Questions 1 to 5 maybe but question 6 NEVER.
---Response #3---
You are letting BO off too easy.  Question him on economics, and why, when history shows you reduce the tax rate, taxpayers (particularly "the rich"), more revenue is raised.  Yet BO wants to raise the tax rate, which ultimately will lead to "the rich" paying less?
---Response #4---
Too bad one cannot tweet questions in.
---Response #5---
Eliminate ethanol in fuels, stop local governments from raising taxes, keep local governments from expanding, give bids to private companies, keep local taxes from rising more than .5%. Stop local government from taking grants, tax payers still have to pay 20% of cost and over runs.  Make politicians abide by the same rules and laws we have to.  If they are caught cheating they lose all pensions and perqs.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Questions For Tuesday's Presidential Town Hall Debate

With two debates down & two more to go time is running out to hear the candidates discuss the economic topics they have so far not mentioned or just barely touched on.  This is especially true with Tuesday's town hall format debate being only 50% devoted to domestic policy & the last debate being only on foreign affairs.
Questioners in Tuesday's debate will be undecided voters chosen by Gallup.  Now @ this stage of the election process an undecided voter who has been paying attention could very well be someone who doesn't like what they imagine a second BO presidency has in store for America & doesn't know what Mitt's programs will be.
I hope the following topics will be covered in questions asked to both candidates (all topics covered on ReturnToExcellence during the campaign):
1.  What will they do to avoid the fiscal cliff & sequester scheduled for January 1 that will affect virtually every American?
2.  How will they handle the next debt ceiling deadline?  We already know how BO did – see question #1.
3.  How did Fan & Fred (& other federal agencies) get into the position of backing more than 90% of today's home loans – up from two-thirds before the housing bubble? (Fan & Fred don't actually make loans but instead buy them from banks & other lenders. The loans are then packaged & resold to investors as mortgage backed securities with Fan & Fred's backing.)
4.  What is the future of the Federal Reserve & the country's monetary policy especially highlighting Chairman Ben Bernanke & quantitative easing?  Do they think it is fair to harm senior citizens' CD interest income by manipulating artificial interest rates controlled by the Fed – do they want the Fed to continue this practice?
5.  What does each candidate think about 47% of income earners, according to Mitt, not paying any income tax – the principal funder of the constitutionally delineated functions of the government?  Is it healthy for a country to have nearly half of the people not pay for the government?  I refer to this as the "tax paying gap."
6.  BO has extensive experience in community organization – especially the Alinsky method following Rules For Radicals in which the goal is to transfer wealth from the "haves" to the "have-nots" especially in exchange for votes.  How does each of the candidates see this training influencing BO's presidency & do they think the public is aware of this?
Questions for Mitt:
1.  Mitt should be asked to explain exactly how his (lack of) growth policy will work as it relates to his three legged stool position – 1) "I will not reduce the share of taxes paid by high income earners," 2) "I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit," & 3) "I will lower taxes on middle-income families."  Mitt's missing point from supply side economic principles is that the reduction of the size of government & its claims on earned income is what fuels economic growth when coupled with marginal income tax cuts & sound money policies.  There is no economic growth if Mitt cuts the top marginal income tax rates & also the deductions for high earners leaving the effective tax rate the same for these people who are the job creators.  Mitt never explains what budget cuts he would make (other than Big Bird) & Ryan's House budget plan adds trillions of dollars to the debt over the next ten years.  Do supporters of Mitt really know what they are getting or are they just believing in what they hope will happen?
2) Mitt has developed a protectionist message that is very dangerous in which he wants to "stand up to cheaters (currency manipulators – China)...&...protect jobs for American people."  This sounds good but is @ the heart of what caused the Great Depression.  This gets us back to Mitt's point #1 – what does Mitt really believe?
Question For BO:
1.  Please answer the following question without mentioning Bush or Mitt – what is your positive plan for returning America to prosperity?

Sunday, October 14, 2012

The Latest Example - Part Of The High Opportunity Cost Of Implementing ObamaCare

Thanks to Congressman Frelinghuysen for providing the latest example of the ObamaCare law's high compliance costs that continue to be uncovered. These problems will affect all of our lives one way or another.
Since being passed into law on March 23, 2010 the 2,700 page Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) - look carefully @ Dr. Bellar in the last posting & you will see she is standing on the document - has resulted in the IRS and Treasury issuing thousands of pages of additional new rules and regulations, including 40 notices, 17 regulations, 5 revenue procedures, 2 revenue rulings, and 14 Treasury decisions.  Source Congressman Frelinghuysen.
The Washington Examiner reports that the bureaucrats @ HHS & the IRS needed 18 pages to define the term "full-time employee" under ObamaCare. Such definition is required to specify which companies will be required to provide healthcare insurance to their employees under the new law. The government has determined that a "full-time employee" is an employee who works an average of 30 hours per week meaning that companies that employ more than fifty such workers must provide healthcare insurance or be fined.  (Oklahoma has filed a new legal challenge re employers being fined in Oklahoma where they – & several other states - do not intend to set up & run their own health insurance exchanges.)
This is a tit-for-tat battle because some companies were planning to hire part-time workers to get around ObamaCare forcing them to provide healthcare insurance for employees so the 30 hour work week definition for "full time employee" will counter this type of plan.  Meanwhile Darden Restaurants, which owns the Red Lobster, Olive Garden and Long Horn Steakhouse counters the reg's actions by starting to offer only 28 hour workweek schedules to hourly employees in four markets & many large companies are shedding employees and hiring contractors to do their work.  Again, source Congressman Frelinghuysen.
The above example of the cost of compliance is small compared to the total opportunity cost under ObamaCare that is staggering.  Congressman Frelinghuysen reports that the IRS estimates the new healthcare law will take American job creators and families nearly 80 million hours to comply with.

To put this in perspective - what can be done in 80 million hours?
  • The Empire State building, which took 7 million man-hours to build, could be constructed 11 times.
  • The Curiosity Rover (Mars Science Laboratory) could travel from Earth to Mars 13,048 times.
  • Halley's comet, seen from Earth once every 76 years, could be spotted 119 times.
So while we are working on complying with the above type of regulations China, Brazil, & all of the other economically growing countries we are in competition with just keep speeding along in the global economy. Congressman Frelinghuysen points out that every hour and dollar spent complying with the new healthcare law are time and resources being taken from growing a business, hiring new workers, or caring for patients – these are the real opportunity costs of implementing ObamaCare.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Barbara Bellar's Fight For The Illinois State Senate & Opposition To ObamaCare

Click here to see Illinois State Senate candidate Barbara Bellar's viral video opposing ObamaCare.  The video had 1.8 million views when I first saw it a week ago & it is up to 2.6 million currently.  Dr. Bellar has been on TV with Lou Dobbs & Greta Van Susteren.
Now everyone who has talked to me about this video is taken by its comic dimension but it has a very serious side in that Dr. Bellar is a very able State Senate candidate in Illinois' 18th district.
Bellar's credentials include, in addition to being a licensed physician, being a Benedictine Nun, an Army Major, licensed Attorney, Professor, small business owner, & has one Masters Degree & is working on another.  In short she may be just the type of accomplished candidate we need.
If you have not settled on a candidate in your area or state to support (which many of you have told me you have not) I suggest learning more about Barbara Bellar.  Her website is http://electbellar.com/.
BTW – long time readers will recognize the text of the above video – click on BO's Healthcare Reform Team Leaders from August 2009 that was sent to us by one of our Illinois subscribers.  Hmmmm – maybe Barbara was working on this even back then.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Understanding What September's 7.8% Unemployment Rate Means to Employment

"Worse yet let the unemployment rate fall to 7.9% between now & November (one lousy tick below the maximum 8% shown in the graph for the "with recovery plan" i.e., stimulus) for business cycle reasons & BO will release a barrage of ads saying his plan is working – just a little late because things were worse under Bush than could ever have been imagined. Such a similar plan worked to get FDR reelected in the 1930s when the economy was even worse."  This was just part of the June 1, 2012 posting entitled The Most Important Unemployment Number May Be Yet To Come – & of course it came on Friday in the September unemployment report two ticks below the psychological 8.0% unemployment level.
Any euphoria in Mitt's camp from the results of the first debate was erased by September's unemployment report of a reduced 7.8% unemployment rate as partisans like Jack Welch & Sean Hannity said both the lower rate & the reported 873,000 jobs increase were out of line to the point they were even part of a conspiracy.  After 43 months of finding the unemployment reports just fine for their purposes all of a sudden this one is phony to them.
Rather than complain - the better course to find out what is happening is to study the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) detailed reports – which I did.
The BLS reported that the total number of people employed in September was 143 million – an increase of 873,000 in the month & a decrease of 456,000 in the unemployment ranks.  The doubts of Jack & Sean re the validity of these numbers originate in the fact that it has been thirty years since this type of a high monthly increase was reported.  With the economy limping along with less than 2% growth & Thursday's report of first time unemployment claims still very high the 7.8% number is suspicious & does require further study to make sure the books were not cooked in BO's favor.
The difference is that in the 1980s real good paying full time jobs were being plentifully created by the private sector.  Last month there was an increase of 582,000 jobs in a category the BLS calls "part time for economic reasons" such as slack work, poor business conditions, or could only find part time work.  People in this category who really want full time work totaled 8.6 million.  All of these people are counted as employed members of the labor force if they worked as little as one hour per week & received pay.
Take all of the above stats & apply them with the decades long consistent BLS methodology & the arithmetic results in the determination that the unemployment rate fell from 8.1% in August to 7.8% in September. 
Now the lower unemployment rate by itself seems good (you could even quote BO & say we are on the right track) until you know the above explanation.  But if you take the 12.1 million unemployed plus the 8.6 million involuntary part timers plus the 2.5 million marginally attached to the labor force (this figure includes 802,000 discouraged workers - those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as they think no work is available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination) & add them up & do the appropriate arithmetic you find that the U6 unemployment-underemployment rate remained 14.7% in September - unchanged from August meaning we are not on a new right track but rather on the same rotten track. 
The U6 unemployment-underemployment rate leads to the uncovering of the real problem – namely the jobs being created are not good ones (i.e., they are low paying with no future for the worker or the country).  The creation of low paying jobs & a hesitancy by employers to hire @ all are typical characteristics coming out of any recession but we have not been in a recession since June 2009.  To think that BO's government dependent programs can or will help bring back prosperity is absurd – they will lead to more poverty.  Since the recession ended more unemployed workers dropped out of the labor force than found jobs.
Although BO is pretending during the campaign that he wants to improve this situation we know from all of the documentation since January 20, 2009 that the U6 unemployment-underemployment situation fits right in with BO's plans to complete the socialization of America – for starters.   Over half of college graduates under 25 were underemployed in 2011 – source Center for Labor Market Studies @ Northeastern University, senior citizens are plagued by drastic reductions in CD interest income, & many people in their fifties realize they will never work again.  The rest of the citizenry is just waiting for the ax to fall on them.  It is important to resist turning to BO & the government even under these circumstances.  We don't have to live under these conditions & the sooner we change the current government-dependent mindset the sooner things will improve.
Like BO, Mitt has his own class warfare fight going on that is rooted in his statement during the debate – "I will not reduce the share of taxes paid by high income earners."  This lack of growth message offers no help to our economic or employment problems.  It is the top marginal income tax rate that needs to be cut for growth to occur – not the middle or lower class rates.  In fact lowering marginal income tax rates for every bracket while leaving the effective tax rate the same for upper income people will only add to the deficit.  Mitt has two conflicting dueling goals: 1) "I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit," & 2) "I will lower taxes on middle-income families."  Mitt will cut the top marginal rates & also the deductions for the high earners leaving them & America right where we are now.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Answer - Seven Word Quiz

Thanks to everyone who responded to the subject quiz.  Two people answered it correctly – namely, in all of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word, and then spell the word backwards, it will be the same word.  Below are the two correct answers.  You can read a sampling of a few of the others on RTE under comments.
---Correct Answer #1---
Ok, I've got it now, each word will spell the same way if you put the first letter at the back.
---Correct Answer #2---
After removing the first letter, they all read the same forwards and backwards.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Seven Word Quiz

If you are like me you have heard far too many analyses of the performances in the first presidential debate held last night.  We all have our opinions but really have to wait for the impact, if any, on the outcome of the race. 
Meanwhile - from time to time I mention to various subscribers that I receive quizzes – most of which I don't present to the readership because they are far too unchallenging.  Below is one that will call on all of your analytical & problem solving abilities.  One subscriber who I mentioned this to recently told me with no sense of humility re his own personal record re past quizzes - "Bring on the quiz!"
So here it is below from one of our Mid-west subscribers.  If anyone gets it I will publish the answer.  If you don't get it let me know & I will privately send you the answer. 
What do these seven words have in common?  
1. Banana
2. Dresser
3. Grammar
4. Potato
5. Revive
6. Uneven
7. Assess