It has been over three years (1,111 days to be precise) since the U.S. Senate last passed a budget. The last time Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) fulfilled his legal responsibility, Conan was still on NBC, Tea Parties hadn’t come together and the iPad hadn’t yet been introduced. This is one of the biggest abdications of power we have seen on the part of our government in modern time. And there is no excuse. The Senate needs only 51 votes to pass a budget. Democrats have had well over that for President Obama’s entire term, yet they refuse to even offer a plan.

Let’s be clear. The Senate must pass a budget if we are going to halt Washington’s disastrous habit of overspending, overborrowing and overtaxing our fragile economy. While liberals sit on the sidelines saying ‘no,’ conservatives are offering solutions.

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and others have courageously put credible and thoughtful plans on the table. But today, I am happy to report that a member of the Senate has put forward an unprecedented new plan that directly confronts all of the major economic challenges our nation faces.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced a budget resolution that mirrors the bold and thorough reforms The Heritage Foundation first proposed in our comprehensive program, “Saving the American Dream.”

Recognizing that our nation has come to the point where we either change course or risk falling into permanent decline, Senator Lee’s “Saving the American Dream” budget resolution puts forth a framework for strengthening the core principles that make this country exceptional, namely:

• Limiting the size and scope of the federal government
• Reforming our entitlement programs so that they ensure real economic protection instead of unrealistic promises no government can sustain
• Simplifying our complex federal tax code so Americans have greater opportunities to create lasting economic prosperity.

Lee’s plan is a strong blueprint for restraining and ultimately reducing our nation’s massive debt, cutting Washington’s out-of-control spending and above all restoring our nation’s economic prosperity. This is the only way that we can make sure future generations are not saddled with debt that keeps them from having the same opportunity of achieving the American Dream.

The reaction from those who want to continue the status quo against all evidence that we can’t is predictable. They will demagogue Senator Lee and other conservatives of wanting to throw grandma over the cliff. How blind, and how irresponsible. If we fail to act then spending under programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will balloon unchecked and eventually the nation will effectively go bankrupt. The truth is that the president’s health reform law magnified the financial problem while already ending Medicare as we know it.

Instead of making promises Congress has no chance of keeping even with massive tax hikes, Social Security and Medicare should provide seniors with a reasonable, affordable and predicable benefit that protects seniors from the threat of living in poverty.

Under the Lee budget, Social Security is converted into a true insurance that supplements income for retirees who need it. For the more affluent, benefits will be quickly restored in cases of sudden reversals.

By completing the transition begun years ago to a premium-support program, Medicare would assist seniors in buying the affordable health coverage they want and need from a marketplace that would have been freed to be more competitive. Similar approaches in Medicare Part D and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (the plan Congress enjoys) have resulted in lower health care costs and higher value in the delivery of care.

You may have heard the false allegation that conservatives don’t have a plan to solve our health care problems once Obamacare is ultimately repealed. This plan provides the answer.

This budget finally addresses one of the biggest problems with the healthcare industry–ever rising costs. Senator Lee proposes changing the outdated tax treatment of health insurance so that every American receives a tax credit (equal to what they get today in the workplace) to buy and own health coverage that meets individual needs.

This can be done without mandates from the federal government that intrude upon the moral, religious and philosophical sensibilities of the American public. At the same time, the Lee budget resolution redesigns the entire federal tax code into an expenditure tax that has a single flat rate. That’s right, a single, simple and fair tax system.

The plan encourages more savings, benefiting every American who dreams of going to college, buying a house or starting a business. Greater savings and a less punitive business tax also means more resources to invest and more opportunities to invest in our economy, and that means more jobs for Americans who are out of work and better wages for those who have jobs.

Finally, like Heritage’s fiscal plan, Lee’s budget reevaluates what the federal government can do with taxpayer money and time. By substantially reducing the size and scope of the federal government, Lee’s plan rightfully moves government towards its core responsibilities that fit within the Constitution and original intent of our Founding Fathers.

It is encouraging to see lawmakers taking a serious look at the crucial steps that are necessary to get our nation on a path of fiscal, political and constitutional responsibility. But there is more to do, and we hope you’ll join us in our efforts to make sure that “Saving the American Dream” becomes a reality.

Share today’s Morning Bell on Facebook, Twitter or by email. Help us tell America about the #LeePlan.

Sincerely,

Ed Feulner
President, The Heritage Foundation

Rick Santorum endorsed presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney in an email to supporters sent late Monday night.

The one-time Republican presidential hopeful and former Pennsylvania senator said “the primary campaign certainly made it clear that Gov. Romney and I have some differences. But there are many significant areas in which we agree.”

“We both agree that President Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime,” said Santorum.

While his backing could shore up Romney’s position with the GOP’s conservative base, some could view it as a lukewarm endorsement of the party’s eventual nominee.

When it comes right down to it, this isn’t about Obama or Romney. This election is about the very survival of the United States.  Was Romney my choice?  That would be a big fat NO!  Will I vote for him in November?  Damn skippy I will!  Why?  Because we will not survive another four years of socialist/marxist rule!

You folks who have decided you won’t vote for Romney because he doesn’t represent everything you wanted in the candidate….stay home!  Voting 3rd party, or write in will only get us another four years of complete destruction.  If you want the socialists to completely take over, then just use your vote for Obama.  Don’t give me that crap about ‘standing on principles’.  Standing on principle is great and I’m all for it, but when it comes to this country, you need to get your head screwed on straight, and stand WITH those of us who KNOW we have to boot Obama from the White House.  We didn’t get this far down the sewer in one day, and we sure won’t be getting out of it in one election cycle.  If giving Obama his pink slip isn’t your goal, then you have lost sight of our real problems, and it ain’t Mitt!  Our problem is the GOPer elites, who need to be replaced, and the lame stream media, that needs to relearn the meaning of investigative journalism.  IF we stand together, eventually, we just might be able to TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

Obama has not been a leader.  He, and his minions, have basically crowned him king, and kings don’t give a flying flip about the peons that pay his bills.

Before the 2008 election, when Barack Hussein Obama was running, there were so many reasons NOT to vote for him, but the masses didn’t listen.  As my overly liberal sister put it, “It’s time.”  Time for what?  To vote for a half black, half white man?  If that’s the reason people voted for him, they seriously got the shaft, didn’t they.

Listed in 2008:

1. He supports infanticide, literally!

2. His spiritual mentor for 20 years has been Jeremiah Wright whom Obama personally chose out of many Chicago pastors. It strains credibility that he didn’t know about Wright’s views. He listened to tapes of Rev. Wright when he was at Harvard Law! So why did he choose him and stick with him for so long? The only possible explanation is that he approved of Wright’s tirades.

3. He is a close friend of William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists.

4. He is a target for assassination, not because he is black but because he is a Muslim apostate, according to devout Muslims around the world. Therefore, he cannot be a good Chief Diplomat to the Middle East.

5. He was mentored by a communist.

6. His economic plan will harm the US economy and create more fiscal irresponsibility with the Congressional Budget. Why do we want to return to the days of Jimmy Carter?

7. He is in favor of unilateral disarmament, leaving America defenseless against its enemies.

8. He is unaccomplished. He hasn’t really done anything of worth relative to the office of the US presidency. He’s only been in the Senate for about two years (assumed in office Jan of 2005 and announced his candidacy for the presidency in Feb 2007). One can’t be simultaneously a full-time senator and a full-time presidential candidate. Soon he will have campaigned for almost as long as he has been in the Senate.

9. He is willing to personally meet with hostile dictators like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad with no preconditions. They don’t deserve such a privilege of meeting the President of the USA. Reagan negotiated from a position of strength, when he thought he could gain something. What does Obama hope to gain?

10. Three other people: Tony Rezko, Eric Holder, Jim Johnson. Why does Obama associate with such shady characters?

Has anything changed since then?  No, actually, it’s gotten worse.  He now has a record he can’t run on because it has been such a massive failure.

Let’s look at each one through today’s eyes.

1.  He still supports the murdering of babies and he expects the taxpayers to pay for it.

2.  He may have thrown Jeremiah Wright under the bus when it came out that Wright was an American hating bigot, but that ‘teaching’ is still ingrained in Obama’s life.  We just see it more clearly that Obama is also an American hating bigot.

3.  Still buds with Ayers and Dorn, even though the denials keep right on coming.

4.  He attended a Muslim school in Indonesia.  Whether he was ever really a Muslim or not, he obviously has way too many close ties with the very people who want to destroy us.  Putting members of the Muslim Brotherhood in posts of authority is irrational to any true blue American, yet, there they are, right out in the open for all to see!  And please, let’s not forget about the great “apology tour“!

5.  Obviously, the goals of communism are still alive and well with The One!  “FORWARD!“  I mean, after all, when you want to take from those who produce, and give it to those who sit on their collective asses in mommy’s basement, what else could you call it?

6.  Dear Lord in heaven!  Someone needs to teach that man basic math!  All his big talk, giving OUR money to failed companies, wanting us to believe it’s for the greater good to fund a bankrupt business that pushes ‘green’ crap that was doomed to failure from the git go!

7.   Yep, his dreams of a weak America against her enemies hasn’t changed.

8.  The only thing Barack Hussein Obama has accomplished since being sworn into office is perfecting his campaign technique.  He’s quite accomplished at reading a teleprompter.  He has the ‘blame Bush’ down pat, and he’s taken a bad economy, under the failed House leadership of Nancy Pelosi, and made it a WHOLE lot worse.  I don’t know, but I honestly don’t think that’s much to crow about, do you? Bush was no prize, but he hasn’t been in office for nearly four years.  Time to take credit where credit is due.  Oh, and bin Laden is dead, although Obama isn’t the one who risked his life to get the sleeze weasel, he is taking credit for it, naturally.

9.  It seems to me that having a chat with folks who want to murder innocent people, and that would include U.S. citizens, isn’t a real bright idea.  Nor is letting terrorists walk away scott free.  But yet, that is what this administration is doing, and thinks it’s a good idea.  I disagree.  I’m all for firing squads, don’cha know.

10.  Well, Obama is still associating with shady character, Eric Holder.  While Obama could be considered the WORST president this country has ever seen, I’m fairly sure that Holder is THE worst, and quite possibly the most corrupt, attorney general ever to head the Department of Justice.

As a whole, this entire administration has been an abysmal failure.  Unless, of course, you consider the destruction of a nation a success, then, by golly, he’s been one heck of a prez.

Isn’t it odd that since Walker has been in office, the unemployment rate has dropped?  What happened to all those morons shouting at the Capital about how people were going to lose their jobs? From 7.6 to 6.8 (Mar ’11-Mar ’12).  It helps if your state has a business friendly atmosphere, which Walker has been trying to create.  Many school systems have been able to actually SAVE money through Gov. Walker’s budget reforms.  Unfortunately, the BIG union districts failed miserably.  Many teachers ended up losing their jobs.Why?  Well, let’s just say that selfish union thugs don’t give a damn about what’s best for the kids that they are entrusted to ‘educate’.  Wait a minute!  Isn’t that what the morons who banged drums and behaved like animals in the Capital said Walker’s budget would do?  Cost teachers their jobs?  It appears they are just as stupid as they appeared on the idjit box.

In the long run, this whole recall BS isn’t about ‘children suffering’, or job loss.  It’s about union power.  Plain and simple.  The years of Dopey Jim Doyle put the state into a financial disaster that only a person of strong character, and TRUE concern for the state could pull it out of, yet the unions have spend a fortune spreading the most absurd lies about the man.  And unfortunately for Wisconsin, the ill informed have bought into the crap being spewed.  You hear utter nonsense about how the Koch brothers bought Scott Walker.  Excuse me while I clean off my monitor.  Spewing coffee from laughter y’know.  Who is buying whom?  Well, let’s look, shall we?

Yep!  You Wisconsin union members are getting the shaft!  Is this why you pay your dues, voluntarily or forced?  I always thought those unions dues were for the members benefit, NOT the top echelon who want more and more power. But don’t forget, they also use the money you work for, and pay into as dues, for resorts trips (and let’s not forget the resort that was/is? owned by the fattest union of all)….not for you, who actually earned the money, but for those who having been sucking the life out of the U.S. economy for decades. Think Detroit.

Your head honchos are living high off the hog from your money, and yet, you continue to get out there and make total jackasses of yourselves…for THEIR benefit, NOT yours!  Please note the area where your dues is being spent.  Politics.  To say that the Koch’s are pouring money into politics is down right laughable.  More than half a BILLION dollars compared to 12 million over the course of, what….23 years?  In one state?  Come on people, snap out of it!  I know you can’t all be that damn ignorant!  Or, maybe you can.  I’ve seen some of the comments made by the leftard union thugs.  Logic does NOT enter into the conversation….only talking points and hysteria.  My goodness.  Grow up!

If Wisconsinites really love their state, as so many claim, then why on earth would you want to destroy it by electing another Dopey Doyle (totally owned by unions, especially WEAC).  Is it so much to ask for teachers, and other government employees, to actually contribute their own money, instead of the taxpayers, to their own health care and retirement?  Government employees work for the people.  The people spoke when they elected Scott Walker.  Get over it!  Stop throwing 2 year old tantrums!  If you aren’t happy with something, then go about it in the proper manner, instead making asses of yourselves, and showing the entire world just how totally ignorant, selfish, and childish Americans are…..especially UNION states.  Get over your gimme mentality…it is NOT all about YOU!  And you are NOT entitled to diddly!  Especially not OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!  But then, that’s the way of the communists, isn’t it.

This election isn’t just about the survival of Wisconsin.  No, this election is about the survival of the United States.  Governor Walker has brought Wisconsin back from the brink, and the rest of the country needs to follow in his footsteps…not the footsteps of Lenin and Stalin!  Scott Walker is the best thing to happen to Wisconsin in a VERY long time!  Use YOUR brain, not the union/commies’!

Weak Economy Disappoints Again
The Foundry

Every day, America waits for a brighter future to arrive — the promise of change that President Barack Obama made in 2009 when he set a benchmark for his success on the economy, remarking, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” More than three years later, very little has changed. As today’s jobs report shows, the U.S. economy only added 115,000 jobs in April — well below expectations and far, far below what is necessary to drive the economy back to full employment.

Lackluster employment results dominate today’s report. It’s been three years under the Obama policies, and 12.5 million Americans remain out of work. No demographic group except black workers saw an improvement in their unemployment rate, and 13 percent of black workers remain unemployed. What’s more, the labor force participation fell to the lowest level since 1981 at 63.6 percent. Americans are fleeing this economy when at this stage workers should be returning to the labor force.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. While little has changed with the economy, little has changed in President Obama’s failed policies. Rampant federal spending continues unchecked; the debt continues to grow; a monstrous tax hike is set to hit Americans on January 1, 2013, infecting the economy with renewed and debilitating uncertainty, and the country’s energy policy remains in shambles.

The latest example of the president’s recycling of his Administration’s failed ideas came in a speech this week to the Building and Construction Trades Department Conference. Obama used the opportunity to pander to his Big Labor allies and called for more federal spending on infrastructure as a panacea for job creation, claiming that his proposals would put “hundreds of thousands of construction workers back to work repairing our roads, our bridges, schools, transit systems.”

But here’s something to remember: President Obama’s near-trillion-dollar stimulus — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — was intended to inject demand into the economy and spur the creation of new jobs. That’s the very same theory the president is still advocating today. Apparently, it’s all he knows. It didn’t work then, it’s not going to work now.

Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen explains that dumping taxpayer money into projects like these “simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ unionized construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors.” But it still costs money — money the government gets by borrowing and thereby reducing private sector spending — so of course there’s no net job growth or economic boost for their “investment.”

The president’s call for more spending to boost a stagnant economy also exacerbates an already-serious problem: the national debt. As Heritage’s 2012 Edition of the Federal Budget in Pictures shows, federal spending per household is skyrocketing and is projected to rise to $34,602 per household by 2022. And because all that spending exceeds revenue by more than $1 trillion, America’s debt is continuing to grow, hitting 101 percent of GDP by 2021. Ultimately, this threatens to boost the country’s already-high tax burden, further discouraging investment and job creation.

That tax burden is set to get even worse in 2013 with the advent of Taxmageddon – a combined 34 percent increase in taxes resulting from the expiration of existing tax policies and the imposition of new ones. Ironically enough, President Obama once said that raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. And though America is not in a recession today, it still suffers high unemployment, and raising taxes will still have the same negative effect that the president claimed he wanted to avoid — higher tax burdens on workers and job creators hamper economic growth. Yet the president is sitting back in the face of the 2013 tax nightmare, apparently content to slam the economy for the sake of big government, while also calling for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and job creators ostensibly as a way to make society more “fair.” But really he’s just trying to distract the nation from his failed policies.

Throw in an energy policy that seeks to punish oil and natural gas companies, prevent the exploration of domestic resources, waste money on fruitless “green jobs” programs, and impose new regulations that make energy more expensive, and you have a recipe for the economic stagnation that America is seeing today.

The American people are not and should not be satisfied with 8 percent unemployment, an economy that’s inching along, and a spending-induced fiscal crisis that remains unresolved. The U.S. economy has great potential that’s just waiting to be unleashed. With the right policies — like those proposed in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan — the United States can solve the national debt crisis, reduce government spending, and get the economy back on track.

Citing an increasing debt burden, Egan-Jones Ratings Co. downgrades the US credit rating another notch. This is the second time they have done this in 8 months.

Here is what the President Sean Egan said in a telephone interview:

Reason for downgrade: “the increasing debt load coupled with the fact that there has been no tangible progress in addressing the country’s growing debt to GDP”

“Unfortunately, the debt is growing fairly rapidly while the GDP is not.”

The debt has climbed 23.6% from 2008 to 2010.

What is Obama doing to address this? Probably taking a vacation or campaigning.

This is dated April 9.  It’s now April 22.  Am I the only one who never heard a word about another downgrade?  I realize I haven’t been keeping up with the outside world as well as I should….too much going on…but seriously, I do watch the news once in a while, and if I heard about this, it evidently went in one ear, and out the other, which I find highly unlikely!

H/T: Lanie

Obama’s New Gas Price Scapegoat
The Foundry

High gas prices are not a president’s friend, especially in an election year, so it’s not surprising that President Barack Obama is trying his darndest to shift the blame for record-high fuel prices onto something other than his failed energy policies. Yesterday he made a desperate attempt to distract from those failures and redirect America’s gas price rage with a flawed proposal to punish speculators for supposedly driving up the cost of energy.

Speaking from the Rose Garden, the president announced a proposal to spend $52 million to fund increased government oversight of oil futures market trading in addition to harsher civil and criminal penalties for manipulation in energy markets. “We can’t afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions, while millions of American families get the short end of the stick,” Obama said. “That’s not the way the market should work.”

The implication, of course, is that evil Wall Street barons are the reason gas prices are so high, and that they’re walking away with millions at the expense of the rest of the country. (The president even went so far as to invoke Enron.) That simply isn’t the case, and even the president said that “none of these steps by themselves will bring gas prices down overnight” — a point that White House spokesman Jay Carney reiterated in a press conference later in the afternoon when he admitted “it’s hard to know” what the impact of the president’s proposal would be.

Heritage’s David Kreutzer explains that the president’s “the speculators did it” argument is flawed on several levels. If speculators are making unconscionable profits on energy, why are they only doing it occasionally and not all the time? Why are there only speculators in oil, not natural gas (whose current price is about half of what it averaged over the last decade)? And given how the petroleum market works — for every speculator who makes money on a trade, somebody else will lose money — the president’s theory “requires an endless string of chumps to take the other side of the speculators’ deals.” Finally, Kreutzer writes:

For speculation to drive up prices, the speculators must either cause oil production to slow down (which they haven’t) or to pull oil off the market. If the flow of petroleum and its products remains unchanged, the price at the pump will not change. If petroleum is pulled off the market, which can happen even though there are limits to what can be stored, it will eventually come back on the market.

The question becomes, ‘When the oil comes back on the market, is the price higher or lower than when it was pulled off the market?’ The price will only be higher if the amount supplied at that time is lower or the demand is higher. In either of those cases, speculators have helped moderate price fluctuations and will be rewarded with profits. If the price is lower, then the speculators did a bad thing and will be punished by losing money.

In short, the president’s theory that devious energy speculators are at work driving up the price of oil just doesn’t hold water. So what’s the point of all this? Action for the sake of action, in order to provide a distraction from his failed energy policies.

If the president truly wanted to lower gas prices, he would work to increase supply. But when given the opportunity, he just says “no.” He turned turned down the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada. His Administration has made it even harder for companies to explore and extract domestic energy resources by canceling, delaying, or withdrawing a number of lease sales for exploration and development. Meanwhile, huge swaths of federal lands have been put off limits for energy exploration.

The other energy policies he has pursued have either made energy prices higher or proven to be nothing more than abysmal wastes of taxpayer dollars. Take for example new EPA regulations that would effectively ban new coal power plants, thereby increasing the cost of your electricity, or new fuel efficiency standards for automobiles that could add $10,000 to the cost of a new car. Then there’s Obama’s green jobs stimulus, whose poster child of failure is none other than the bankrupt Solyndra solar company that took $540 million of taxpayer funds with it.

In yesterday’s press conference, Carney said, “The president had made clear that there is no silver bullet, there is no pixie dust, there are no magic beans that will — or a 3-point plan that will reduce the price of gas at the pump.” The president is hoping, though, that blaming speculators is all the magic he needs to convince the American people that his energy policies are not a total failure.

The day the Democrats took over was not January 20, 2009, it was actually January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:

On January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took control of Congress:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies had SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day…?

January 3rd, 2007 was the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!  THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney), for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy”, but…the sky did fall!)

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?  OBAMA!!!

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?  OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush…  REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel while they were driving the economy into the ditch. Budgets are not passed in the White House. They are passed by Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 (until the 2010 election and the Republicans took the majority in the House) is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009, as well as 2010 & 2011. Obama has now gone more than 1,000 days without a budget, and is still blaming it on the Republicans! In that first year, Congress had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending when Bush, somewhat belatedly, got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed “Lame Duck President” George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of those massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself and a Democratic Congress.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is: “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I expanded that deficit four-fold since January 20th 2009.”

Of course, the left will do all they can to silence the truth, but as Jesus said in John 8:32, “…And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

“The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.”

Shared by Sharon, with a few additions of my own.

Buffett Rule 101
The Foundry

President Obama traveled to Florida yesterday to distract the nation from its real problems by laying out his case for the Buffett Rule, a plan to drastically raise taxes on successful Americans and small businesses. The core of his argument is that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. It makes for great populist rhetoric, especially when families are hurting and angry under today’s high unemployment, but the result is terrible policy. Worse, it’s a distraction from the big issues facing the nation, like the deficit, the economy, jobs, gas prices, health care, and on and on, none of which are addressed by the President’s proposals, and none of which he wants to talk about.

Will the President’s tax hike at least tackle the country’s fiscal problems? No, it won’t.

According to a recent analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the Buffett Rule would raise a mere $47 billion over ten years. Meanwhile, President Obama’s budget calls for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt. That means that the Buffett Rule will only cover one half of one percent of the President’s new spending. Soaking the rich cannot get deficits down, only spending reductions can do that.

When it comes to the biggest problem America is facing — a weak economy and high unemployment — the Buffett Rule would weaken the economy and make matters worse. Heritage’s J.D. Foster and Curtis Dubay write that the tax would fall most heavily on job creators (who pay taxes at the individual rate) and confiscate their resources that would otherwise be used to start new businesses, grow existing businesses, and hire more workers. As a result, economic growth will slow down right along with job creation.

The President says, “This is not about a few people doing well. We want people to do well, that’s great. But this is about giving everybody the chance to do well.” Really? Raising taxes on the rich, weakening the economy, somehow gives everybody the chance to do well? Raising taxes on anybody somehow gives everybody the chance to do well? This is absurd even by the low standards of American political rhetoric.

Here’s what you really need to know about Obama’s plan.

Under the Buffett Rule, businesses and families earning $1 million will pay a minimum 30 percent effective tax rate. The President says those Americans aren’t paying enough, and as proof he points to billionaire Warren Buffett’s secretary who reportedly pays a higher tax rate than her uber-wealthy boss. But right from the get go, the President is distorting the facts.

So how can President Obama get away with saying that Warren Buffett pays lower tax rates than his secretary? Many wealthy Americans who have done well like Buffett receive dividends and capital gains — a form of investment income that is subject to multiple levels of tax. First, the investment income results from investment. This capital didn’t appear out of thin air. It was earned and taxed previously, often many times over at rates up to 35 percent.

Then, once invested, it generates income that is taxed at the corporate level at a 35 percent rate, and then it’s taxed again at the individual level at a 15 percent rate on dividends and capital gains. The combined rate on corporate earnings alone is over 45 percent, and this is all after the first layer of tax.

One way to think about this is to imagine you’re driving down a toll road, and you pay three separate tolls. The first toll of $3.50 is when you get on the highway. Then after a few miles you pay another $3.50 toll, and when you exit there’s a final toll of $1.50. A reporter asks you as you leave the last tollbooth how much toll you paid. What’s the most accurate answer — what you paid at the last tollbooth or what you paid altogether? Obviously, feeling some $8.50 lighter in the wallet, the correct answer is to respond with the total.

Conveniently for him, President Obama only talks about the last level of tax, the 15 percent portion, leaving out the rest. He only wants to talk about the last toll paid, not the total, and that’s how he makes his disingenuous argument. And all of this leaves out the final tax that many wealthy Americans pay — the death tax, which is set to return to its 55 percent level in 2013.

Then there’s the inconvenient fact that if you look at only the last level of tax, the data show clearly the highest-earning families and businesses in America are already shouldering the vast majority of the country’s tax burden. Heritage’s Curtis Dubay writes that the top 1 percent of income earners — those earning more than $380,000 in 2008 — paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income. Meanwhile, those in the top 10 percent ($114,000 and above) earned 45 percent of income and paid 70 percent of all taxes. By comparison, the bottom 50 percent of income earners — those earning less than $33,000 — earned 13 percent of all income and paid less than 3 percent of federal income taxes.

Like clockwork, the President has returned to his favorite policy solution: raising taxes. When gas prices went up, he called for higher taxes on oil companies. When he wanted to try to create jobs, he called for higher taxes to pay for stimulus spending. When health care needed a fix, he called for higher taxes to fund Obamacare. If President Obama truly wanted to be fair, he would pursue tax reform like The Heritage Foundation’s “New Flat Tax,” included in its Saving the American Dream plan. It’s simple, coherent, and comprehensive, encourages saving and investment, offers relief for seniors, and helps low and middle income families purchase health care and pay for higher education.

Leading with effective policy solutions, though, isn’t the name of the President’s game. Rather, his goal is to concoct a distraction from his failed leadership. Under his watch, the U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget for the last 1,078 days, the House unanimously rejected Obama’s latest budget, and meanwhile the national debt is closing in on $16 trillion. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are careening toward implosion, gas prices have doubled, the economy is underperforming, 12.7 million Americans remain out of work, and the President’s signature legislation — Obamacare — has never been more unpopular. Instead of offering solutions, the President is offering class warfare branded as the Buffett Rule.

Without those evil rich folks, there would be no middle class. Is that Obama’s intent? To completely destroy those of us in the ‘middle class’. Personally, I don’t see myself of any ‘class’. I’m an American, and I want and need, what is best for the country as a whole. When the rich do well, the rest of us do well. With one exception….those who have been feeding off the teat of the taxpayers, from one generation to the next.

IF Mitt Romney is the nominee, and IF he is able to take the White House from the Marxist in chief, I expect to see a much quicker turn around in the economy, with private sector job growth. I say IF because I seriously doubt the unions, and that a foreign owned company (Spain) will let our votes actually count.  Just who decided a foreign company could, or would, ensure that our elections would fair?  This is a FOREIGN company…not a U.S. company, that, IMHO, would do its utmost to make sure ever vote counts.  I am at the point where I don’t believe Obama will allow himself to be defeated, by whatever means necessary. There will be voter fraud out the wazoo, and of course, that useless piece of crap holding the highest law enforcement office in the land will turn a blind eye, just like he has done, time and time again. It wouldn’t surprise me one single bit if the head honchos at the DOJ are sitting in their ‘ivory towers’ right now, coming up with plans to basically steal the election from the American people.

Obama is not a leader. He is a campaigner. That’s what he does, day in, day out.  He is incapable of reason and logic.  He’s been campaigning since he managed to steal the Senate seat back in 2006, and evidently, he doesn’t know how to be a leader. All those ‘campaign promises’? Hot air from an empty suit. I was willing to give him a chance. Well, he had his chance, and he blew it! He has succeeded in one area though….the ‘blame game’. You see, none of his worthless policies have worked to turn the economy around, so, naturally, it’s someone else’s fault. “BUSH DID IT!” After 3 1/2 years, don’t you think it’s time for him to pull up his big boy pants, and take responsibility for his own actions?

To quote Charlie Sykes:  Life isn’t fair, get over it!  Everyone has the same opportunities to succeed.  It’s our choice whether or not we make use of those opportunities.  Success isn’t counted in dollar signs.  Success is what you do with your life, if you are happy, if you have filled that huge hole in your life, if you share joy with others, if your respect yourself, and raise your children to be productive, to respect themselves, and look toward yourself to meet your own goals.  THAT is success!

Apparently, the current occupant of the White House has never understood exactly what America, and Americans, stand for.   He was not raised in the country during his formative years, and those ‘role models’ he had while growing up, obviously didn’t understand the concept of liberty whatsoever.  They were incapable of understanding the principles taught in the Bible, and having a ‘pastor’ such a Jeremiah Wright was no help in setting him on the path of Truth.  He obviously has no idea what the true meaning of both the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution.  The warped sense of self is great in ‘the ONE’.  And he is obviously unfamiliar with the word ‘NO’.

Keep your powder dry!

H/T: Tena

America is at a crossroads. Today’s jobs report shows that two years into recovery the U.S. economy is still woefully underperforming, adding only 120,000 new jobs in March, about half the rate of job growth of the previous three months which were, themselves, somewhat disappointing for this stage of recovery.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the jobs report is the extent to which the labor market was “little changed,” an impression the report returns to repeatedly. For example, the unemployment rate at 8.2 percent, still two full percentage points higher than the peak during the 2001 recession, was “little changed.” Other examples, with italics added:

• The number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) was “little changed in March.”
• “Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult men (7.6 percent), adult women (7.4 percent), teenagers (25.0 percent), whites (7.3 percent), blacks (14.0 percent), and Hispanics (10.3 percent) showed little or no change.”
• “The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was essentially unchanged at 5.3 million in March.”
• “The civilian labor force participation rate (63.8 percent) and the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) were little changed in March.”
• “In March, 2.4 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier.”
• “Among the marginally attached, there were 865,000 discouraged workers in March, about the same as a year earlier.”

Thankfully, the economy continues to create jobs, yet growth can only be described at this stage as spotty, anemic, and disappointing.  America’s economy should, instead, be booming. That confirms once again that President Obama’s economic policies not only have failed to spur recovery, but have almost certainly held recovery back by increasing regulatory costs, increasing uncertainty, ballooning the budget deficit, and constantly threatening higher taxes consistent with a political ideology antithetical to economic prosperity.

So, what next? Where America and the American economy goes from here remains highly uncertain as Washington grapples with fundamental questions about which policies to pursue today and into the future. Fortunately, the upcoming national elections will focus all Americans’ attention on these difficult questions.

Of course, President Barack Obama will try to paint a happy face on this disappointing report, arguing that all manner of headwinds are thwarting his plans for prosperity but that, nevertheless, he will vacuously assert the country is headed in the right direction. But take a step back and remember where the President promised we would be. Under his trillion-dollar stimulus, he said, unemployment would never rise above 8 percent. He was wrong. And not just in his economic policy.

Energy policy? Under his Administration, gas prices have doubled. And under his watch, countless jobs are being left on the table thanks to his decision to say “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline while pursuing “green” energy programs that even Vice President Joe Biden’s former adviser says do not create long term jobs, despite costing billions of taxpayer dollars.

Budget policy? President Obama talks a good game about budget deficits and debt, but now the contrast in competing visions for America’s fiscal future has been laid bare. On the one hand is House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “Path to Prosperity Budget” which passed the House last week and includes proposals similar to those in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan. It’s a strong, positive effort that advances the serious and necessary conversation about securing America’s future, and it does so with market-based reforms to health entitlements, a tax plan that will help the economy grow, and spending cuts now and into the future.

On the other hand is President Obama’s FY 2013 budget, which was unanimously rejected by the House. His plan delivers massive tax increases and a fourth consecutive annual deficit exceeding $1 trillion with spending that rises from $3.8 trillion to $5.8 trillion in 2022. That’s no way to plan for the future, especially as America faces a near $16 trillion debt and a budget crisis that will cripple Social Security and Medicare, while foisting an unbearable tax burden on future generations.

Smarting from the failure of his plan to win not even a vote in the House, President Obama delivered a speech on Tuesday in which he painted the Ryan plan as a nefarious scheme of social Darwinism which would rob college students of financial aid, preschoolers of an education, seniors of their health care, and the middle class of a decent life.

Knowing that his best weapon is to try to deflect attention from his own policy and leadership shortcomings through class warfare, the President turned to divisive rhetoric and scare tactics. And next in his repertoire was a series of warmed-over complaints about President George W. Bush’s policies, the failings of supply-side economics, and predictions that under Ryan’s plan, the poor will suffer while the rich prosper. Top that off with a call for taxes on those making over $250,000 as a form of economic “fairness,” and you have the blueprint for Obama’s vision of the future. Enter an endless era of big government, stage left.

Today’s job growth once again raises serious questions why America’s economy is not doing, much, much better. Meager growth is not good enough, and the country’s fiscal realities are nothing future generations can bank on, especially with an unbalanced budget, a mounting tax burden, debt that’s too high, energy that costs too much, and a military that is stretched too thin.

And so, America has a choice. Will it choose to accept its current path of mediocrity and ignore the fiscal crisis that it faces, or will it choose to confront its challenges head on and enact policies that will lead to a sounder, stronger future? Now is the time to decide.

There aren’t many American-owned companies more iconic than Anheuser-Busch, the famous producer of Budweiser beer based in St. Louis, Missouri. That was true up until 2008, when the Brazilian-Belgian company InBev executed a hostile takeover of the historic brewer, leading to layoffs of more than 1,800 workers. Unfortunately, conditions in the United States are growing ripe for even more takeovers like these to occur, especially now that the nation’s corporate tax rate is officially the highest in the world.

As of yesterday, the U.S. corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent claimed the world’s top spot, edging out Japan which recently lowered its rate from 39.5 percent to 36.8 percent. (The U.S. rate includes the 35 percent federal rate plus the average rate the states add on.) That’s well above the 25 percent average of other developed nations. Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains the impact on companies based in the United States:

This gaping disparity means every other country that we compete with for new investment is better situated to land that new investment and the jobs that come with it, because the after-tax return from that investment promises to be higher in those lower-taxed nations.

Our high rate also makes our businesses prime targets for takeovers by businesses headquartered in foreign countries, because their worldwide profits are no longer subject to the highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate. Until Congress cuts the rate, more and more iconic U.S. businesses such as Anheuser-Busch will be bought by their foreign competitors.

Unfortunately, in the face of this tax rate, the Obama Administration is proposing measures that will make matters even worse for U.S. companies. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden proposed a “global minimum tax” in a wrongheaded effort to encourage companies to invest in the United States instead of overseas. Just like the rest of President Obama’s corporate tax policy, it will just make matters worse – punishing firms that seek new opportunities in growing markets by taxing their earnings in those developing markets even more heavily than they’re already taxed. The net result will be to make it even more likely that the companies’ assets would go up for sale to overseas firms in order to escape the Obama tax penalty. Unfortunately, America’s workers pay the price for this destructive tax policy. Heritage’s J.D. Foster explains why:

Economists and policymakers increasingly understand that while the tax is paid almost exclusively out of profits that would otherwise go to the shareholders, the true economic burden falls primarily on workers.

The reason is simply that the higher the effective corporate tax burden, the higher the hurdle rate on corporate investment. (The hurdle rate is the minimum rate a business must earn on investment to make the investment.) The higher the hurdle rate, the less investment takes place. The less investment takes place, the slower labor productivity grows, and the slower labor productivity grows, the slower wages grow.

Congress should act now to help make America more competitive on the global stage, and it can do so by reducing the corporate tax rate to match or preferably fall below the international average. The U.S. economy is struggling to recover from the global recession, and by lifting the burden of record-high corporate tax rates, Congress can give American companies incentive to grow and expand here at home. If not, the American people can expect to see more companies like Anheuser-Busch bought up by international competitors — and the jobs will go right along with them.

America’s fiscal condition is dauntingly dismal. The national debt is well on its way to $17 trillion, 13 million Americans are out of work, and the country is stuck in the slowest recovery in the post-war era. Despite Washington bleeding taxpayers dry with reckless overspending, the U.S. Senate has not passed a budget since nearly a year before Apple released the original iPad, leaving the country in a lurch, desperate for leadership in Congress that will bring bold changes and an end to the unconscionable pattern of spending and borrowing.

Last spring, America saw a bright spot emerge from the abyss when Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced a budget resolution that confronted the twin crises of spending and debt head on. Ryan’s proposal, which passed the House, was a solid step in the right direction — his budget would have gotten spending under control, repealed Obamacare, transformed Medicare, and offered a solid approach to controlling Medicaid’s spiraling costs. Unfortunately, the Senate said “no,” and America watched Washington get stuck in gridlock last summer, only to emerge with a half-baked deal that postponed real reform and put our national security in jeopardy.

In the coming weeks, the budget will again pass through Congress’ orbit, and it will be up to Ryan to steer it in the right direction. The Heritage Foundation’s Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy, David S. Addington, lays out six conservative goals that Ryan should include in his proposal — a tighter budget that spends less next year than this year; a budget headed toward balance (sooner rather than later); fixes to entitlements that get costs under control; no tax hikes; job-creating pro-growth tax reform; and ensuring a strong national defense:

The Heritage Foundation showed how best to achieve these goals with Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity.

The Heritage plan achieves a balanced federal budget within ten years and keeps it balanced thereafter, without raising taxes. The plan moves Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid toward the principle of insurance against the risk of poverty and away from the principle of open ended entitlement to government guaranteed income and benefits.

The plan abolishes the individual income tax, capital gains tax, and many other taxes and instead imposes a simplified, single-rate tax on expenditures by individuals–with no taxes on amounts saved–and a single tax on the domestic net cash flow of businesses. The plan also ensures that America has the capabilities it needs to defend our country and its interests around the globe.

With these policies, the Heritage plan achieves a permanently balanced budget and spurs economic growth, investment, and creation of jobs. The Heritage Foundation measures congressional progress toward conservative goals against the standard of Saving the American Dream.

Of course, there are those in Washington who stand opposed to these kinds of reforms. Yesterday, faced with the prospect of congressional conservatives’ calls for a budget that spends less, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accused Republicans of violating last summer’s agreement. “This wasn’t only a handshake, a pat on the back, it was a law we passed,” Mr. Reid told reporters. “Now the Republican right-wing in the House is trying to change the law.” Meanwhile, Reid and the Senate Democrats have offered no solutions to the problems staring them in the face.

Conservatives are looking for leaders in Congress to recognize the desperate times the country is in and take the necessary steps to put Washington on sound fiscal footing. As Addington writes, “The job will not get done with a little budget-trimming here, a few tax changes there, and the annual, never-realized promise that Congress will do better next time, as our national debt of more than $16 trillion continues to mount.” Chairman Ryan and the House of Representatives should now take the lead and propose a budget that gets federal spending and borrowing under control while advancing the conservative principles laid out in the Saving the American Dream plan.

1. It increases taxes on families earning over $250,000. In 2013, the employee portion of the Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for families earning $250,000 or more and individuals earning $200,000 or more. The income threshold is not indexed for inflation, so more and more middle-income families will be hit by the tax hike as time goes on.

2. It adds a new tax to investment income. The increased payroll tax rate is also applied to high-earners’ investment income for the first time beginning in 2013. It will hit capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties, discouraging investment and harming economic growth.
3. It puts new limitations on those with HSAs and FSAs. Starting in 2012, Obamacare restricts the products that consumers may purchase with a Health Savings Account (HSA) or Flexible Savings Account (FSA)—such as over-the-counter medications—and increases the penalty for such non-qualified uses of HSAs. It also limits the amount taxpayers may deposit into an FSA to $2,500 a year in 2013.
4. It adds a new tax on those who purchase medical devices. In 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax will be applied to medical devices, causing a $28.5 billion tax hike on medical device manufacturers. The industry will pay for this tax by reducing jobs and passing additional costs on to consumers.
5. It penalizes marriage. Obamacare creates new taxpayer-funded subsidies for the low and middle classes to purchase health coverage, but the structure of the subsidies allows two individuals to claim more in subsidies alone than if married. This discriminates against married couples and discourages marriage at almost all age and income levels.
6. It violates religious liberty. The Department of Health and Human Services included the full range of contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, among the women-specific preventive services that Obamacare requires insurers to include with no cost-sharing. This mandate violates Americans’ conscience rights and religious liberty. Its narrow exemption for religious employers will force many who find these products morally objectionable—including religious charities, hospitals, and schools—to pay for them.
7. It puts Medicare decisions in the hands of an unelected board. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a board of 15 unelected officials, will have the power to cut Medicare spending without congressional approval. These unaccountable government appointees will be able to restrict seniors’ access to providers, treatments, and services.
8. It puts a premium tax on health insurers. Obamacare adds a premium tax on health insurers that offer full coverage beginning in 2014. On average, the tax is expected to increase premiums by 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014 and between 2.8 percent and 3.7 percent by 2023. Combined with the other provisions in Obamacare, this tax will have a huge impact on the cost of premiums.
9. It creates a new unsustainable entitlement program. On top of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Obamacare created a new long-term care entitlement called the CLASS program. It is actuarially unsound, unworkable, and unsustainable. As a result, the Administration has already put its implementation “on hold.”
10. It puts over half of all Americans on a government program. Because of Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and creation of taxpayer-funded subsidies to purchase health coverage, more than half of all Americans will be dependent on a government health care program (Medicare, Medicaid, or the government exchanges) by the end of this decade.

….please remove your head from Obama’s hind end! NOTHING is free!

#1 Median household income in the United States is down 7.8 percent since December 2007 after adjusting for inflation.

#2 There are 5.6 million less jobs than there were when the last recession began back in late 2007.

#3 The U.S. government says that the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by 17.9 million between 2000 and 2011.  During the entire decade of the 1980s, the number of Americans “not in the labor force” rose by only 1.7 million.

#4 In 2007, the unemployment rate for the 20 to 29 age bracket was about 6.5 percent.  Today, the unemployment rate for that same age group is about 13 percent.

#5 In 2007, 73.2 percent of all young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 that were not enrolled in school had jobs.  Today, that number has declined to 65 percent.

#6 Back in the year 2000, more than 50 percent of all Americans teens had a job.  This past summer, only 29.6% of all American teens had a job.

#7 When Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million.  Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.

#8 The average duration of unemployment in the United States is nearly three times as long as it was back in the year 2000.

#9 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

#10 According to the Obama administration, about 20 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs back in the year 2000.  Today, about 5 percent of all jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.

#11 Sadly, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been shut down since 2001.

#12 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs.  Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

#13 The U.S. trade deficit with China during 2011 was 28 times larger than it was back in 1990.

#14 About twice as many new homes were sold in the United States in 1965 as are being sold today.

#15 Home prices in the 4th quarter of 2011 were four percent lower than they were during the 4th quarter of 2010.  Overall, U.S. home prices are 34 percent lower than they were back at the peak of the housing bubble.

#16 The total value of household real estate in America has declined from $22.7 trillion in 2006 to $16.2 trillion today.

#17 At the end of 2011, 22.8 percent of all homes in the United States with a mortgage were in negative equity.  That would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago.

#18 Total home mortgage debt in the United States is now about 5 times larger than it was just 20 years ago.

#19 Total consumer debt in the United States has increased by a whopping 1700% since 1971.

#20 Since the beginning of 2009, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has increased by more than90 percent.

#21 The number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent since 2007.

#22 Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty.  Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty.

#23 In November 2008, 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps.  Today, 46.5 million Americans are on food stamps.

#24 The U.S. dollar has lost 96.2 percent of its value since 1900.  You can thank the Federal Reserve system for that.

#25 In 1950, the United States was #1 in GDP per capita.  Today, the United States is #13 in GDP per capita.

#26 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government.  Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.

#27 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income.  Today, government transfer payments account for more than 18 percent of all income.

#28 Federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.

#29 Medicare spending increased by 138 percent between 1999 and 2010.

#30 Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for 32 percent of all health care spending in America.  Today, that figure is up to 45 percent and it is projected to surpass 50 percent very shortly.

#31 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.  Today, one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid, and things are about to get a whole lot worse.  It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

#32 Right now, spending by the federal government accounts for about 24 percent of GDP.  Back in 2001, it accounted for just 18 percent.

#33 In 2004, the U.S. government had a budget deficit of a little over 412 billion dollars.  This year, the U.S. government will run a budget deficit of over 1.3 trillion dollars.

#34 In 2001, the U.S. national debt was less than 6 trillion dollars.  Today, it is over 15 trillion dollars and it is increasing by about 150 million dollars every single hour.

#35 The U.S. national debt is now more than 22 times larger than it was when Jimmy Carter became president.

Unfortunately, these shocking statistics just don’t fully capture the horrible pain that many American families are having to endure in this economy.

Read it all here.

Shared by Jerry.