The Truth of the Matter Is

"The truth of the matter is," President Obama said, "we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine."

According to Peter Ferrara, Forbes magazine contributor,  the truth of the matter is President Obama’s unemployment rate is stuck at 11% in real terms; 23 million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have dropped out of the labor force; the economy grew at a meager 1.9% in the first quarter; the median household income has dropped 10% over the last four years; and we have experienced record home foreclosures.

To use the President’s own phrase – “Let me be clear” --  the only way one can reconcile the preceding two positions is by solving the problem at a higher level than it was “created.” So let’s do a little engineering analysis … you know … make sure the President’s assertion is in effect not the engineering equivalent of a perpetual motion machine: that is, it does not violate the laws of physics and is mathematically rigorous. Then, we can compare it to the facts.

Here we go!

First, it does not matter how many jobs the President has “created.”   It only matters how many NET jobs exists for those looking for work.  The unemployment rate measures this, with one exception.  As I understand the calculation, it does not count the people who have become so discouraged they have stopped looking for a job.  The effect is to understate the unemployment rate.  So for example, suppose this month you have 3 people who are unemployed out of 10, and next month one person stops looking for work.   The first month, the unemployment rate is 30% (3/10).  The second month it is 22% (2/9), all other things being equal. 

Second, the President claims these jobs have been created over the past 27 months.  Using a standard Gregorian calendar, he has been president since Jan 20, 2009.  That means as of May 20, 2012, he has been President 40 months.  Wow, what happened those first 13 months? The engineer in me wonders if someone is fudging the data.

Third, the President does not provide any historical context of what one should expect when the economy comes out of a recession.  Here are some facts that should be considered in evaluating his rosy conclusion that all is well.

·        The National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized scorekeeper of when recessions start and end, declared this latest recession over in June, 2009, which would make it the longest recession since the Great Depression.

·        The historical precedent in America is the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery, as the American economy accelerates to return to its long term trendline.

·        Based on that precedent, we should be in the third year of a raging recovery boom by now.  But instead we have suffered the worst economic recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

So let’s put all this together:

·        In December 2008, the unemployment rate 7.3%; in December 2011 it was 8.5%.  As of April 2012, data shows it is 8.1%.

·        In April 2012, 52 months after the recession started, 115,000 new jobs were created but the labor force shrank by another 342,000 workers, and the unemployment rate reportedly declined from 8.2% (March) to 8.1% (April).  Without the decline in the labor force, unemployment would have risen in April 2012 to 8.3%.

·        The labor force in April 2012 is actually 365,000 workers smaller than it was in June, 2009 when the recession supposedly ended.  Counting population growth since June of 2009, the economy is actually missing 7.7 million workers that would be in the work force if the labor force participation rate had remained the same since the supposed end of the recession three years ago.

Compare and contrast this to the Reagan recovery.  After the Reagan recovery started, millions more people wanted to work than before the recession started.  Despite this large influx of new job seekers, the unemployment rate fell from 10.8 percent at the end of 1982 to 7.2 percent by the presidential election in 1984.  Compare Regan’s second year (September 1983) results to President Obama’s third year (April 2012) results  in which 115,000 new jobs were created: Reagan’s economy created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone, 10 times as much.

The bottom line is this:  the Wall Street Journal reported in their May 5-6 weekend edition, “Nearly three years into the [Obama] recovery, the U.S. still employs five million fewer workers than before the recession.” 

Now put a spin on that, Mr. President.

You Decide VA 2012: GOP Primary for US Senate

On July 12, 2012, the GOP will select its candidate for US Senate.  This candidate will run against Democrat Tim Kaine in the general election in November. The purpose of this post is: (1) to remind you to vote on June 12 and (2) to consider casting your ballot for EW Jackson to be the GOP candidate in November (www.jacksonforvirginia.com).  Links to relevant videos appear at the end of this post. 

My Thinking …

Many of the GOP faithful may be supporting Governor Allen, the GOP favorite.  I voted for Governor Allen for governor and for Senator – twice.  That said, I believe it is time to draw a sharp distinction between the GOP candidate and the Democrat candidate.  In my opinion, Gov. Allen’s record does not provide that sharp contrast.  In many instances, his record is easily confused with Tim Kaine's.  In fact, if he had not stumbled in his senate re-election campaign in 2006, we would have had one more vote in the US Senate, which in hindsight would have made a tremendous difference.

So, if you believe we need a different choice and are for smaller, constitutionally-limited government; fiscal responsibility; and individual responsibility and accountability, you have one of three choices: EW Jackson, Jamie Radtke, or Bob Marshall.   The following are my reasons for supporting EW Jackson.

Reason 1 to Vote on June 12, 2012 for EW Jackson for US Senate: He is inspiring.

After the Virginia Beach GOP 2nd District Mass Meeting, a Radtke supporter told me after the meeting that she had been organizing for Ms. Radtke for a while but after hearing Bishop Jackson, she was going to support him. In fact the quote was, “This is America, I guess I can change my mind.” Inspiration is just as important and sometimes more important than perspiration. During the second Senatorial debate, I deliberately watched the reaction of the crowd around me. The response to Jackson was palpable, even though the liberal media (read: not the GOP’s friends) made the story about Ms. Radtke’s attack on Gov. Allen. The media loves nothing better than dividing the party and playing the GOP against itself. Now the real story is this: many people who outwardly support Allen, will support Bishop Jackson in the voting booth. I see the response in every crowd he speaks to. People respond to leadership.

Reason 2 to Vote on June 12, 2012 for EW Jackson for GOP candidate for US Senate: He is experienced.

Jackson is 60 years old, has practiced law for 15 years representing small business interests, ran a Christian Gospel radio station for a number of years in Boston, MA (my understanding is the only one of its type at the time). At the radio station, he fought the FCC for two years (in Washington DC) to get a license for the station because the other stations in Boston did not want him to have the bandwidth (not “good public use”). These negotiating and legal skills demonstrate a level of political competency and persistence in the face of federal bureaucracy. As a practicing minister, he takes these skills and competency a step further: he must appeal to people on an ideological level and depend on their voluntary financial support to make a living. Again, demonstrating the critical political skills of listening, communicating, and leading in a way that changes lives.

Reason 3 to Vote on June 12, 2012 for EW Jackson for GOP candidate for US Senate: He is the ONLY Veteran in the race.

Very important to me is the fact that Bishop Jackson is the ONLY veteran in this race. Unlike his opponents, Jackson wore the uniform and actually has held a position where he swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. American servicemen are the true 1%. Every skill you learn in the military is 100% transferrable to being an effective leader. By stating this, I do not question anyone’s patriotism or ability to lead. But as a former Navy submarine officer, I know from experience that when you are 26 years old you have a different view of the world looking at it through a periscope in a hostile part of the world. This is a key criteria for me.

Reason 4 to Vote on June 12, 2012 for EW Jackson for GOP candidate for US Senate: He has successfully owned and operated for-profit and non-profit small businesses.

Others in the race claim to have small business experience. I suspect, they claim this on the basis of a consulting business they either run or have run, with few or no staff. As a small business person in Boston, Bishop Jackson managed a staff and had to make payroll every week. He currently operates a not-for profit, STAND (http://standamerica.us/ ).

Reason 5 to Vote on June 12, 2012 for EW Jackson for GOP candidate for US Senate: He is a strict Constitutionalist. #va #hrva #rpv #RPofVB #jackson4va

Bishop Jackson is Summa Cum Laude (Phi Beta Kappa) graduate of the University of Massachusetts and a Harvard Law School Graduate. He practiced law for 15 years. He is well versed in the Constitution and its foundational principles. He speaks to it all the time in his speeches and runs a not for profit (STAND) that emphasizes these principles. He was recently recognized for his knowledge of the Constitution by the American Patriot’s Committee (http://www.americanpatriotscommittee.com/) that certifies such things. I might add, he was one of three people in Virginia running for federal office who was so recognized.

Reason 6 to Vote on June 12, 2012 for EW Jackson for GOP candidate for US Senate: He brings a full and compelling personal story to the race.

Because Bishop Jackson’s age, his education, his heritage, and his personal life experience in successfully applying conservative principles to a world divided by race, gender, socio-economic class, etc., he can certainly represent the GOP to moderate democrats and independents as well, if not better, than any of the other candidates may hope to. He will not be a Senator for the next thirty years: his motivation to take action is driven by conviction and and not by the next election cycle. He has a limited time to accomplish his objective and will be measured based on his success.

Reason 7 to Vote on June 12, 2012 for EW Jackson for GOP candidate for US Senate: He is a Washington outsider.

Gov. Allen has experience, much of which will be used by Tim Kaine against him. Ms. Radtke cites experience as an aide to Sen. Jesse Helms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In many instances Gov. Allen voted like a Democrat and up until the 1970s Sen. Helms was a Democrat. Does anyone think Kaine will not use this? Personally, I and most of the people I have talked to working the polls over the last two years would prefer a total Washington outsider, whom a moderate democrat or independent will relate to on a personal – not a corporate experience – level. If you want corporate experience, Gov. Allen fits that bill.

Reason 8 to Vote for EW Jackson for GOP US Senate Candidate. It has been 30 years since Hampton Roads has been represented in the US Senate.

Vote Jackson June 12! It has been 30 years since Hampton Roads was represented by a Senator in the United States Senate (Sen. Paul Tribble (R-VA)) . With a Governor , a Congressman , a Senator, and a strong Republican state delegation from Hampton Roads, we will be a strong position to be heard in Washington!

 Video Links

·        http://bit.ly/IUQjYJ (YouTube - Message to Small Business Owners)

·        http://bit.ly/JC2Y4Z (YouTube - Message to Pastors)
·        http://bit.ly/JrxKRC (YouTube - Message to Veterans)
·       http://bit.ly/LLozZt   (YouTube - Debate Closing)

GET LOST

The Senate is commencing hearings on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), with the intention of ramming it through the Senate after the November 2012 elections during the lame duck session – much like the Democrats did with their most recent Christmas present – the START Treaty. LOST will cede American sovereignty to the United Nations and will tax the United States to fund UN military operations.  I oppose it.

Inconsistent with American principles, Sen. Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is chairing these hearings, but no one who opposes LOST has been invited to appear.  LOST supporters –  especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – don’t seem to understand the threat that it poses to American sovereignty. Under questioning by Sen. Mike Lee, Secy. Clinton came off as flustered, ill-informed, and “lost,” remaining captive to her talking points. 

Some of the problems with the treaty include:

·        it contains a backdoor tax increase on U.S. businesses that would be used to fund the operations of the international organization charged with overseeing it and could force America into the a Kyoto-style “cap and trade” system that would further damage the nation’s industrial productivity and move U.S. government funds offshore to yet another international body;

·        according to a “conservative” estimate by the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, the United States would transfer $70 billion to the International Seabed Authority, the organization charged with overseeing LOST;

·        under LOST, the responsibility for preserving freedom of the seas would be relegated to a United Nations body whose mission is to resolve conflicts before they become shooting wars. It is not in the national interest of the United States to have its maritime or economic power subject to the whims of a highly politicized U.N. bureaucracy often driven by an anti-American agenda. Nor is it in its interest to be a party to another treaty that other signatories might flout with impunity; and

·        in addition, the Treaty could also get in the way of fighting the war on terror, for which the United States needs maximum flexibility. The treaty identifies only four circumstances under which ships may be stopped on the high seas -- human trafficking, drug trafficking, piracy and illegal broadcasting;

America has been down this road before. It lead to war not to peace. During the period between WWI and WWII, the global powers developed a series of treaties intended to prevent war. The democratic states abided by them while the dictatorships in Germany, Italy and Japan did not. They cheated as all bad state actors do, and the world turned a blind eye to their dishonesty. This left the democracies at a distinct disadvantage and ill-prepared when war eventually came.
Peace, as Ronald Reagan famously said, is best secured through strength. America has been complying voluntarily with the terms of treaty since 1983 -- a situation that protects its sovereignty and gives it maximum flexibility.

Before we GET LOST, we should GET SMART.

To Pledge or Not to Pledge – That is the Question

I agree with Phyllis Sato (Virginian Pilot May 18, 2012, “Pledge to Fail”) that candidates and incumbents who take the Grover Norquist Taxpayer Protection Pledge to “solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases” may end up doing more harm than good.  

Representative Rigell (R- VA2) has not renewed the pledge, and conservative Representatives Allen West and Reid Ribble have refused to re-sign it.  They understand that while it may appear to give constituents a sense of comfort, it actually provides their opponents and the liberal media with one more weapon to use against them and one less chip to negotiate with on behalf of their constituents. If a pledger cuts spending by a trillion dollars, but then supports a bill that closes tax loopholes raising taxes by a million dollars, does that break the pledge? I think not.  Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga) put it succinctly, “True tax reform cannot be achieved until we are willing to abandon the current tax system in favor of something that is fair for all Americans.”

The only pledge that matters to me is Rep. Rigell’s oath as an elected representative to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and to take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and to well and faithfully discharge the duties of his office … so help him God.

Performance is preferable to pro forma pledges. 

Gods of the Supreme Court

“With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.”

From Gods of the Copybook Headings, Rudyard Kipling, 1919

The central message of Rudyard Kipling’s poem is that the basic and unvarying aspects of human nature will always reemerge in every society that becomes complacent and self-indulging.  And so it is with a legal ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael Urbanski that the first four of the commandments be redacted to convey a more secular message. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a student at Narrows High School, in Giles County, VA, who was upset by the display.

In their attempt to eliminate God from the marketplace of ideas, the progressives are, in fact, violating the First Amendment according to their own interpretation of it.  The Supreme Court ruled in Theriault v. Silber, 1978, that the First Amendment was too narrow and should be expanded to include those who have no religious belief:  (1) atheism may be a religion under the establishment clause (Malnak v Yogi, 1977) and (2) secular humanism may be a religion for purposes of the First Amendment (Grove v. Mead School District, 1985).  So, in effect, by requiring four of the commandments to be dropped, they may be imposing their secular humanist / atheistic "beliefs" on others in violation of their own principle of "separation of church and state" (which does not appear in the Constitution, but nonetheless is a principal tenet of liberal progressivism). 

Now all of this is moot anyway, because the Constitution (Amendment I) states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."  According to Webster's original dictionary (1828) “religion” was defined: "Includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, and in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties ... The practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion." [Emphasis mine]  Words form ideas and ideas have consequences ... in this case according to the original meaning of the term "religion" to those who wrote the Constitution, atheism and secular humanism were incorrectly classified in 1978 by the Supreme Court as religion (what else have they gotten wrong?) and therefore have no standing under it (in fact religion was a matter left to the states).

Before liberal readers jump on the federalizing of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) to conflate freedom of religion with civil rights, they should read the writings of those who lived at the time of the passage of the 14^th Amendment.  Samuel T. Spear, a respected commentator of that period, wrote (Religion and the State, 1876, p. 224): "the Rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the [Fourteenth Amendment] ... makes it inapplicable to the religious liberty of any other right of the citizen as determined by the State of which he is resident. The Court in the cases of Paul v. Virginia (8 Wallace, p.36) and of the New Orleans Slaughter-house (16 Wallace, p. 36) laid down the principle ... There is nothing in the last three amendments to the Constitution that reaches the question of religion, and nothing anywhere else in this instrument that places the States under the slightest restraint with reference to this subject; and hence it is true as remarked by Justice Story [one of the Supreme Court's most noted legal scholars, appointed by President James Madison] in his Commentaries on the Constitution (section 1879) that "the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their sense of justice and State constitutions." [Emphasis Added].  The federal government should not even be involved in this debate. 

But then again, progressivism is a political ideology whose ideas are so good they must be mandated. When facts get in the way, ignore them.  When institutions get in the way, abolish them.  When words get in the way, redefine them.   Rudyard Kipling had it right: “They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings; So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.”

Compassionate Capitalism or Socialist Servitude?

The occupy Wall Street crowd would have us believe that capitalism is the root of all our social ills. Now a report by James R. Otis, "An Audacious Promise: The Moral Case for Capitalism," Manhattan Institute, May 2012, attempts to quantify this claim.

A comparison of modern economic indicators since 1800 validates Milton Friedman’s conclusion (http://bit.ly/J0fhdX) that no other economic system has done more to eradicate poverty and improve the human condition than capitalism:

·         Since 1800, the world's population has increased six fold, yet despite this enormous increase, real income per person has increased approximately 16-fold.

·         In America, the increase is even more dramatic. In 1800 the country's total population was 5.3 million, life expectancy was 39 years, and the real Gross domestic product per capita was $1343 (in 2010 dollars).By 2011, the population is growing to 308 million, life expectancy doubled to 78 years, and GDP per capita increased 36 fold to $48,800.

Other factors being equal, capitalism has done more than anything else in the last 10,000 years of human history to alleviate social evil and poverty. As opposed to socialism, capitalism meets an individual's wants and needs by assisting them to obtain them. It recognizes that people are competent enough to take care of themselves and are the best providers of their own wants and needs.

And before one objects that the above metric is measured in pure dollars, a similar comparison can be made by looking at improvement in the quality of life. According to a Dallas Federal Reserve study based on U.S. Census Bureau data, the following table illustrates ownership of material goods in American society between 1970 and 2005. The table compares property ownership by all households in 1970 to “poor” households in 2005, as a percentage of population:

Households that Own	% All Households 1970	% Poor Households 2005
Washing machine	71	72
Close dryer	44	57
Dishwasher	19	37
Refrigerator	83	99
Stove	87	99
Microwave	1	73
Color TV	40	97
Videocassette/DVD	1	78
Personal computer	3	25
Telephone	93	96
Cell/mobile phone	1	60
Air conditioner	34	82

 Beyond these gains, Americans are the most generous citizens on the planet, giving more than $306 billion in 2007 to charity to help others while 60 million Americans volunteer time for nonprofits, hospitals, churches, and other causes.

So what is the socialist left’s alternative? Their answer is for the “1%" to give their wealth to the “99%." So who, exactly, are these top 1%? A study by Alan Meltzer, of the Wall Street Journal, in his article "A Look At The Global 1%", March 9, 2012 studied the income earned by the top 1% of earners in the United States, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden between 1903 in 2004. The percentage of total income earned by the top 1% has follows remarkably similar curves in all seven of these nations, even though their social policies are quite different. The median of the seven was approximately 18% in 1925, decreased to approximately 5% in 1980, and rose to approximately 9% in 2000. The United States, United Kingdom, and Canada departed from the group – on the upside – from about 1985 on, and averaged approximately 15% in the year 2000. Using the15% value, if the wealth of the 1% were taken away and given to the 99%, their incomes would rise by an average of 18%. However, this is not the only effect. Because the 1% invest much more of their income to provide jobs for the 99%, these jobs would be lost. In addition, once the wealth of the 1% is redistributed, everyone will realize that no one's property is safe, and the incentive to create business and industries would be sharply reduced. The economic circumstance of the entire nation will fall. Once private property is lost, liberty is lost. All that is left is tyranny, and wealth and power will be concentrated in those who control government. In effect, if the 99% are allowed to destroy the 1%, all of us will be ruled by the 0.000001%, a wealthy and corrupt few.

For those who currently believe themselves to be the “99%” – that is the Occupy Wall Street crowd, who apparently cannot do math, read history, or follow a rational argument –  the word picture is this: if Bill Gates’s $20 billion net worth were liquidated and divided among the people of the world, they would each receive about three dollars. Bill would be out of business and could not produce the software that provides the 99% with the capability to create information technology based jobs or to access online education that will lead to them creating their own wealth. Instead, all control would be transferred to a centralized government, like the Soviet Union, which collapsed under its own weight – unable to efficiently nor effectively meet the needs and wants of its people.

 History teaches us that it is better to be unequally wealthy rather that to be equally poor.

The Course of Our Discourse

Over the past two years, I – like many other Americans – have become very concerned about the direction of our Country and the inability of our political leaders to come together to solve the serious moral, social, and fiscal problems that confront us.  While there is an ideological divide in America, which must be acknowledged, the first step in solving our differences must be a willingness to communicate.  This requires trust, which at its core demands that each of us treat others with respect and in a civil manner.  Over the past two months, interestingly enough, three separate incidents reinforced my resolve to re-double my efforts in this regard: a speech by my Congressman (Rep. Scott Rigell www.scottrigell.com), a visit to the Virginia Capitol (http://www.virginiacapitol.gov/), and an article in the Virginian Pilot by Candy Hatcher (Shoring Up Civility, March 30, 2012 http://bit.ly/H50Y49).

On March 30, I attended a rally for Rep. Scott Rigell.  In his talk he stressed the need to treat each other with respect in our civil discourse because respect builds trust which is fundamental to effective communication.  Effective communication allows us to constructively deal with conflict.  He emphasized that civility should not be confused with weakness, because civil communication leads to understanding, which is the essence of strength.  He went on to illustrate his point by successes he has been able to achieve through his Republican colleagues and constructive, civil dialogue with many in government who do not share his political views.  Among others, these successes include:  (1) keeping a US Navy carrier in Norfolk; (2) creating 300 jobs on the eastern shore; (3) preserving medical benefits for veterans and improving living standards in military housing; (4) preserving the historical heritage of Fort Monroe; and (5) establishment of a new caucus based on constructive dialogue in government, the “Fix Congress Now” caucus.  In fact, Rep. Rigell has reached out to Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Bobby Scott, both Virginia Democrats on some issues, and they have reciprocated.

The month before, I was prepared for Rep. Rigell’s speech by a visit to our state capitol.   At the book store, I thumbed through a bound copy of George Washington’s “110 Rules of Civility.” The rules are based upon principles set forth by French Jesuits in 1595 and were used by Washington’s schoolmaster to teach him penmanship.  Washington translated them into a table, practiced them on a daily basis, and documented his progress towards achieving them.   These habits formed his character.  If it was good enough for Washington, I figured it was good enough for my grandson and me.  So I bought a copy and we started to work on them together.

The Virginian Pilot article, published the same day that I attended Rep. Rigell’s talk, brought these two events together.  In her article, Ms. Hatcher quotes University of Virginia professor Jonathan Haidt, who defines civility as “ … the ability to disagree with others while we respect their sincerity and decency.”  She goes on to say, “As I listened to Haidt’s speech, I was also thinking about my representative in Congress, freshman Rep. Scott Rigell, a Virginia Beach Republican whose positions are not often in synch with mine.  … He [Rep. Rigell] vowed to be careful about the tone of his conversation, to keep it civil and professional while still passionate and strong.  … [H]e promised to rely on facts, to go where they lead, not to follow emotion or simply align with a colleague out of loyalty.”  So she called him and asked how it was going.  Her conclusion is my conclusion, “It is a small step, … but if we are to find our way past anger, to financial stability and a more civil society, we have to stop calling names.  We have to start listening to, and learning from, each other.”