This tells the story

This tells the story, why the Bush “inheritance” really began in January 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress. 

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 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 the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:

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 SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that 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!

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!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

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

So when someone tries to blame Bush..

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed 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 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

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. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Economic Freedom & Quality of Life

Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America

Allen West---9 Step Action Plan

Here Is Your Hope and Change

Can Rick Scott Put Florida to Work?

By STEPHEN MOORE
OPINION Wall Street Journal
DECEMBER 31, 2010

"I'm going to run this state like a business,"
the new governor says.

Everyone's talking about the incoming Republican majority in the
House of Representatives, but we shouldn't forget the 17 newly
elected reformist GOP governors—from New Mexico to Ohio to Maine—
who are nearly all hostile to the overweening ambitions of the
federal government. Florida's Rick Scott may emerge as one
of the boldest.

As far as Washington goes, he says there's been "enough spending
and borrowing." And as far as relations between the nation's capital
and the states are concerned, his mantra is even more blunt:
"Give us our power back. Give us our money and let us run our states."

Mr. Scott, who over the past quarter-century built a $20 billion
hospital empire, Columbia-HCA, has practically zero political
experience. The Florida governorship is his first elected office.
But his campaign theme—
"7 steps to create 700,000 jobs in 7 years"
—clearly resonated with anxious voters.
Florida has lost 700,000 jobs since the recession began and ranks
among the top five states in terms of mortgage foreclosures.
Home prices are down by 40% or more in cities like Tampa,
Fort Lauderdale and Naples.

"I'm going to run this state like a business," Mr. Scott promises.
"When businesses think of locating in North America,
I want to make sure that they think first about Florida."
His first executive order to jump-start the economy will be a
freeze on new regulations."We have plenty of rules already," he says.
He also wants to phase out the state corporate income tax over
the next seven years, slash property taxes by 19%, and rapidly
expand the state's K-12 vouchers and charter schools so Florida
parents have more educational options.

Associated Press

'Give us our power back. Give us our money and
let us run our states,' says Florida Governor-elect Rick Scott.



Florida's budget deficit is $3.5 billion, and to deal with it
Mr. Scott says that state agencies will have to justify every
penny they want to spend.

"We will look at every agency and ask . . .

'What are you trying to achieve,

and is there a lower-cost way to do it?'"

He hopes to save $1.4 billion annually on Florida's public-employee
pensions by requiring greater worker contributions to the funds and
by steering new workers into 401k retirement plans. He wants to
cut Florida's budget all the way back to its 2004 baseline.

Mr. Scott is unquestionably an expert on health-care issues, but
he has come under intense attack for $1.6 billion in fraudulent
Medicare and Medicaid claims submitted in the mid-1990s by
Columbia Hospital Corporation, the name of Mr. Scott's firm at
the time. Mr. Scott persuaded voters that he wasn't personally
to blame, but those complaints will doubtless surface again as
he tries to uproot the current health-care financing structure in
the state.

Mr. Scott believes that the growing financial squeeze from
programs such as Medicaid means that"there's going to be a
lot of pressure from the new governors to get Congress to
block-grant the [Medicaid] money back to us." The theory is
that the states can more efficiently administer the program.

His cost-containment strategy involves creating a health-care
voucher for eligible Medicaid recipients so that they can shop
around for health care and explore money-saving options like
high-deductible health savings accounts. "If poor people are
spending their own money, it is amazing how fast they will
figure out how to keep a lid on medical bills," he says,
based on his own experience in the private sector.

Critics say this will inhibit preventive care, but Mr. Scott scoffs
at the claim. "If the money is yours, don't you think you will
change to a healthier lifestyle?"

Like so many of the new GOP governors, Mr. Scott thinks that
states' financial problems can be solved by applying sound
business principles. A business model applied to government can
certainly reduce inefficiency and improve accountability. But
those trying to implement the model may crash into a wall of
opposition from the permanent bureaucracy and government unions.
Mr. Scott sounds more than a little naive when I ask about how hard
he thinks it will be to impose alien money-saving concepts on the
fifth-largest state government in America.

For those who doubt the wisdom of his strategy to downsize
government, he carries around a chart which shows, fairly persuasively,
that over the past 30 years Florida has prospered when government
spending was low and floundered when it was high. If he's right about this
—and if he can deliver on the changes he wants—then those 700,000 new
jobs may be on their way. And don't be surprised if this plan turns Florida's
real-estate bust into another boom.

(Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for the
Wall Street Journal editorial page.)

Stupid People are what's killing America

Numerous Intriguing Polls Flying Around.

Numerous Intriguing Polls Flying Around.

Andrew Malcolm
L.A. Times

Judging by President Obama's remarks and media coverage,

the No. 1 topic on Americans' minds nowadays is the awful

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Not!

 

Gallup finds terrorism remains the top concern.

But it has now been joined by -- Hello, big Democratic spenders

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- the exploding enormity of the

federal deficits. And here's the midterm election year political

problem for both of these Democrats: Republicans are viewed

as better at handling both of those concerns.

 

ABC News finds voter frustration at the boiling point.

The number of Americans approving of ...

... their local House member has dropped below 50%

for the first time since Bill Clinton's first midterm elections in 1994.

Anybody remember which party named Republican seized control

of both houses of Congress that year for the first time in four decades? 

Voter approval of Congress is now at 26%, down 18 points since the

same Democrats took majority control of both houses in 2007.

 

As a Public Opinion Strategies memo notes here, Americans' perception

of the economy has actually weakened in the last two months.

And predictably they are turning to the federal government's top talker for

the blame; 44% of the country approves of Obama's handling of the economy

while 53% disapprove.

The even better news for Republicans is that the GOP has increased its

lead on the so-called generic congressional ballot this month.

That is, which party's candidate are you most likely to vote for on Nov. 2?

Republicans now lead Democrats by nine points, 44-35,

Rasmussen Reports reports.

 

The Harris Poll has an interesting new survey out on how 2,503 Americans

rate 16 elements of life in their country. Large majorities give positive ratings

to America's science and technology (75%), its Constitution (70%),

quality of life

(66%) and even its overpriced colleges and universities (65%).

The more education you have, the higher you rate these categories.

However, the healthcare system (33%), public schools (32%) and the

economic system (28%) don't get rated very well.

Incumbent Alert: You'll never guess which sector gets the worst rating

from Americans: Political (23%).

 

Some interesting wrinkles within, though. There's not much difference

among Republicans, Democrats and independents on many segments.

However, America's civil rights get better ratings from Republicans (70%)

than Democrats (53%); equality of opportunity (65% GOP, 47% Democrat)

and the environment (61% GOP, 37% Democrat). Only 19% of Republicans,

however, rate the system of government highly, while 33% of Democrats do.

 

The good polling news for Obama is that after 17 months of hope and change,

less than half of all Americans (47%) approve of his overall job performance in

the White House.

 

The bad news for Obama is, despite his nationally televised professed readiness

to consult experts on whose "ass" to kick over the slick mess, way less (40%)

approve of his handling of the nation's worst environmental disaster ever,

Gallup finds.

 

One other piece of good news for the ex-state senator.

It is true that a significant majority of Americans disagree with him and approve

of Arizona's tough new illegal immigrant legislation and wish their state would

do the same and blame Obama's federal government for porous border security

with Mexico. All that's true.

 

However, the good news for the Democrat is that if the 2012 presidential election

was held today, Obama could defeat Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer.

No one's never talked about her running. And he wouldn't beat her by much (44%-39%).

But Obama would still win. So that's gotta make him feel good these days.

A Recovery Only Washington Could Love

The Heritage Foundation
Today's Morning Bell

Today the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics released

its monthly jobs report showing that the nation’s unemployment rose to

9.9% in April despite the addition of 290,000 jobs, 66,000 of which were

temporary Census 2010 jobs. The rise in unemployment was driven by

the entrance of 195,000 previously discouraged Americans reentering the

workforce. In total, the U.S. economy has now lost a net of 2.6 million jobs

since President Barack Obama signed his $862 billion stimulus plan.

We are 7.6 million jobs short of the 137.8 million he promised the American

economy would support by 2010.

It is encouraging to see the American economy beginning to recover,

but these numbers again indicate that the Obama administration's heavy

government hand has retarded and deformed what otherwise would have

been a more robust recovery. The White House may tout Congressional

Budget Office (CBO) reports showing their $862 billion stimulus created jobs,

but the CBO has also admitted their computer simulation didn't take any actual

new real world data into account. To the contrary, an independent study of real

world stimulus facts found:

1) no statistical correlation between unemployment and how the $862 billion was spent;

2) that Democratic districts received one-and-a-half times as many awards as

Republican ones; and

3) an average cost of $286,000 was awarded per job created. $286,000 per job created.

And what kind of jobs were created? According to Gallup the federal government

is hiring at a significantly faster pace than the private sector. And data from BLS

confirms that governments are increasing public sector pay at far faster rates than

the private sector. None of this should be a surprise. President Obama

specifically designed his stimulus to preserve government union jobs.

Not that President Obama's agenda has failed to produce any private sector jobs.

The Washington economy is booming as private firms have been forced to hire

legions of lawyers and lobbyists to both protect their firms from Obama's new agenda

and find ways they can turn it into profit. This is why energy companies are

spending millions on lobbyists to shape legislation instead of on scientists to find energy.

It is why software companies are spending millions on lawyers to get federal government

business instead of on engineers to develop new technologies.

 

Back in 1994, columnist Jonathan Rauch explains what happens when Washington

becomes a center of profit for the private sector:

Economic thinkers have recognized for generations that every

person has two ways to become wealthier. One is to produce more,

the other is to capture more of what others produce. …

Washington looks increasingly like a public-works jobs program for

lawyers and lobbyists, a profit center for professionals who are in

business for themselves.

What happens when big government, and the big businesses best capitalized

to influence it, are the main drivers of economic recovery? The recovery is slower

and smaller than it otherwise would have been.

A recent study by the Kaufman Foundation found that small businesses have led

America out of its last seven recessions, generating about two of every three new

jobs during a recovery. But under this Obama recovery, not only are government jobs

growing faster than private sector jobs, but jobs are rebounding faster at large employers

than small businesses.

And the Obama agenda is only set to make the environment for small businesses worse.

The Obama budget plans to raise taxes on the small businesses that earn 72% of

all small business income.

Taxes on capital gains are set to increase to 20% while taxes on dividends are set

to rise to 39.6%.

 

Obamacare not only inflicts $503 billion in new taxes by 2019, $87 billion of which

come from employer mandate penalties, but also burdens small businesses with

new 1099 IRS paperwork every time they do more than $600 in business with another

entity. Oh, and Obama is proposing more IRS funding and a change in law that will

make it harder for small businesses to hire independent contractors.

There are far more types of small businesses engaged in more kinds of economic

activity than Congress can devise special policy to help.

This sort of one-off, micro-managing, tinkering policy may gain a headline and support,

 but it will not help small businesses broadly.

The more Washington taxes and regulates, the harder it is for small businesses to innovate,

force big businesses to be more productive and create new jobs.

The more the Obama agenda is implemented, the slower our recovery will be.