Wall Street Weekly | 11/06/2009 11:45 am
Liz Peek: Obama Deaf to Election Warning But May Get Bailed Out
As bad as the recent jobs report is, the president is likely to receive some good news over the next several months …
Bears, Bulls, Chickens and Pigs: wOw’s Wall Street Weekly with Liz Peek (Week of 11/2)
Editor’s Note: Liz Peek is a financial columnist.The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate rose from 9.8% to 10.2% in October, the highest level since 1983. Job losses were primarily in construction, manufacturing and retail, and were worse than expected. This is not good news; the terrible job market clearly weighs on consumer sentiment and spending, slowing the recovery. The debilitating payroll cuts also produced some cranky voters this past Election Day.
All politics may be local, but it is hard not to read national significance into Tuesday’s election results. Voters rallied against high taxes and the worrisome economy, while in Virginia, disillusioned young and independent voters crossed the aisle yet again to elect a long-odds Republican.
Astonishingly, the Obama administration has chalked up this apparent warning shot to circumstances beyond their control. Neither tea parties nor sinking polls or, now, pointed election returns seem to have made the slightest dent in their enthusiasm for policies that the majority of Americans do not embrace. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could barely contain her glee that the Democrats had picked up an extra House seat in New York – all the better to ram health-care legislation through. Remember Obama’s words on the night he was elected? "I will listen to you, especially when we disagree."
Americans are genuinely concerned about their country’s fiscal prospects, and about Obama’s programs that will create even worse deficits down the road. Fundamentally, they are worried that a shrinking number of people are supporting a growing segment of the population. The jobs being "saved" or added currently are mainly government jobs; the private sector continues to lay off workers. Even a caveman (with all due respect) gets that this is an unworkable trend.
In 2007 economist Gary Shilling wrote that 52.6% of Americans received "significant income from government programs, up from 49.4% in 2000 and 28.3% in 1950." These figures included, for 2007, 19 million Americans on food stamps, 57 million receiving Social Security payments, over 4 million collecting income from the Veterans’ Administration and millions more employed by the government. For sure, the figure has risen in the past two years as increasing numbers have received unemployment assistance and as the government has propped up banks and autos.
At the same time, a growing number of Americans do not contribute to our tax roles. The Tax Foundation reports that about one-third of our population files returns but pays no taxes, up from 18% in the early 1980s, while another 20 million Americans do not file returns at all.
This is not about social justice. It’s about a shifting of the economic burden in a way that is unsustainable. As baby boomers approach retirement and begin to receive Social Security, the number of people paying in more than they are taking out is going to shrink yet again. Add to that inevitability the millions that will receive health care under the legislation working its way through Congress and it is no wonder that young voters shifted gears. They see the burden contained in the legislation that Democrats are so eager to adopt. It is worth noting that, in 1980, 55% of Americans were receiving government handouts – a level that ushered in the Reagan revolution.
Read more about: Barack Obama, Cisco, Economy, Gary Shilling, health care, Liz Peek, Nancy Pelosi, News, Obama Administration, Ralph Lauren, U.S., Unemployment, Wall Street Weekly, Warren Buffett
























433 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Liz
As a small business owner to have more taxes loaded on top of us is only going to help shrink this ship. It almost sunk us in the 90’s when Clinton took away many deductions (which is a tax) and our income did not move much. It was difficult. We have more employees now and work comp in CA just raised our premium (although we have never had a claim against us) because they don’t want to have to fire anyone else. They are part of SEIU - I guess that is Andy Stern, who makes $726,000 per year- who visited the WH 22 times. Now I am all for them having their jobs, but if unemployment goes down so do their revenues, so they need to make adjustments too. I didn’t do it and it isn’t my fault, so why am I being taxed? Hell, the SEIU collects $550 Million from their California members per month.
As this article illustrates, they have tremendous sway in the WH. I am sure they have incredible power in CA because we have been hearing for so long how deals were made by this union with CA legislators - that are sinking our state in pension costs.
White House insider calls SEIU in California ‘budget terrorists’
When I got my notice from Work Comp, I called their office and said I want to make an appointment for someone to come out and sit down with me and help me decide which employee I will have to fire. They have to choose who loses their job, because eventually, that is what will happen. I will then have to pay unemployment benefits for the employee. BOHICA
From PolitiFact:
‘Surcharge’ on small businesses"Page 336 - Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar ‘surcharge,’ more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs."
False. Obama’s economic adviser — Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers — has never said that a tax in the health care bill would cost up to 5.5 million jobs. Republicans have used her 2007 research to develop a calculation for job losses for any type of tax increase. If you have a number for tax revenues generated, then this model will give you a number of jobs lost. But there are factors that make this type of analysis troublesome when it comes to the health care bill. Romer’s 2007 research, for example, said that tax increases that fund spending for social programs tend to balance out, and economic growth stays on an even keel. Another problem is that the Republicans take tax increases that happen over 10 years and treat them as if they happen in one year, which inflates the numbers of jobs that might be lost. Finally, this particular Republican analysis includes more taxes than just the surtax of page 336; it also includes the employer mandates of page 313. We find this analysis to be problematic and contrary to how Obama’s economic adviser said the model should work.
"Ignornant red neck voters"? How nice, Sherrie.
If those are the ones that actually researched how radically left Obama was, and if they are those that can understand the debt that this administration is happily burying us in, and if they are the ones that are standing up and demanding that health care reform is done responsibly…then COUNT ME AN IGNORANT RED NECK VOTER.
Seems that the bloom is off of the rose, doesn’t it? Obama is an inexperienced politician, and the Soros based agenda has been uncovered by many Americans. And guess what? They don’t want it!
Too bad that so many will be left in the dust while Americans take ahold of their country and sweep the representatives out of office. To be stuck in some kind of left/right mindset means that the real issue is being ignored.
phyllis, seems the majority of Americans aren’t buying the "bull****" if I may use your vernacular. I believe many democrats are well into the hard symptoms of "buyer’s remorse" for this president and yet they keep promoting a president who is incapable of leading, incapable of transparency, incapable of completing important tasks and incapable of basic math. If that’s the path you will blindly follow and applaud then I want you to sit back and get ready for Mr. and Mrs. Inflation because the printing press is going strong printing $.50 of every dollar this administration is spending. It’s wreckless and it’s the wrong path for our country. Now that has a smelly ring to it because it will raise our fixed monthly expenses by about 25%.
You don’t compound excessive spending by spending more. Basic math. At some point the economy will flatline. That’s called a depression.
Let me be clear, phyllis, it doesn’t take an economist to understand basic math. Buyer’s remorse, as you know, is, in this case, "voting" for someone and wishing you hadn’t. As for Glenn Beck, he is digging for the truth and coming up with interesting tid bits.
I never believed Obama had the experience to be president much less a president who was handed a recession. Let’s face it. He has never really had a real job. He has never been responsible for payroll or running a company. His $787 billion stimulus was a political gift to his campaign donors. He literally took care of special interest groups and ignored our small businesses. I call that either plain stupid. I don’t honestly believe he has had an original idea since the day he took office. Puppetman…marketingman….and after one year his selling ability has gone south. He’s going to have a rough three years ahead of him.
You mean like this interesting tid-bit?
"John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."I agree, Beck certainly does dig for truth; the problem is he gives up after two shovelfuls and makes up the rest.
And yes, it’s a pity that our President never had a REAL job. Those darn law professors never could muster enough clout to consider teaching anything like a job. But I have a question for you? How would being responsible for a payroll or running a company prepare one for becoming president of the United States? Is this really the criteria you want to be using? And please do more looking into exactly what that stimulus is doing for states––(I think it should have been much more). Without it we would have been in worse shape than we are now. And small business was not ignored. Lest you think I am singing the liberal lyrics, my concern is, and I’ve said this to you before, our financial behemoths ––the banks, investment houses, Wall Street derivative schemers. Obama promised change in this and in lobbying practices. I am waiting for this change. So far I am not satisfied with the little that has been done.
Yes, Deber is amazing! It is amazing how well she stay on point although attacked continually!
I find it funny how some will attempt to attribute her own opinons to other poltical pundits. There are millions of us that think the same way, we don’t need a Beck to agree with us, we need a Beck to get our voices heard!
Oh, and you DID buy a President. How much do you think they paid to get Obama elected? $500 million? More? Billions? Obama bought the election and now he is attempting to buy health care. Promises for bailouts and threats against primary support, Obama is using his dirty politics to purchase votes against the publics will.
The word that you are looking for Phyllis, is Olygarchy. That’s what you call Obama and large corporations controlling our economy and taking over our country.