Adventures in Politicking II : No Shot

Repetitious Rhetoric vs. Genuine Policies

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

According to Barack Obama, “the President’s job is to make sure everyone has a fair shot.” But as I explained in Part I, the United States Constitution declares that a President’s real job is, “to the best of his/her Ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Whether or not Mr. Obama has abided by the true standard will soon be revealed, with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare. However, when judged according to his self-contrived measure, based upon his job performance to-date, Mr. Obama’s policies actually ensure that future generations of Americans will have ‘no shot’.

In my post entitled, “Stimulus: How China Created 22.0 Million Jobs While Obama Squandered 3.3 Million,” I compared the goals of the Chinese government to those of the Obama Administration. The reason Mr. Obama’s stimulus plan fell short wasn’t because the federal government didn’t spend enough; China’s two-year stimulus package cost an estimated $595.4 billion, while the Obama Administration spent more than $830 billion. The main reason the Obama-Plan faltered was because it didn’t raise the bar high enough. You see, the Chinese government set a goal of reaching full employment, while the Obama Administration merely sought to create 3.5 million jobs, by January of 2011. The fact that Mr. Obama set a goal of creating just 3.5 million jobs, at a time when more than 15 million Americans were unemployed, is telling.

Mr. Obama’s employment policies haven’t lived up to his self-contrived ideal of what a President should do. If a President’s job is to “make sure everyone has a fair shot”, then why didn’t Mr. Obama make full employment his objective? Wouldn’t this have been more consistent with a ‘fair shot’, than squandering better than $830 billion to salvage a mere 3.5 million jobs, while leaving 11.5 million people on the sidelines, to make due on unemployment benefits, welfare and food stamps? Although his repeated use of the catchwords “fair shot” may play well in politicking, if he means that everyone should have an opportunity to participate in the economy, then Mr. Obama has failed.

According the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, since December of 2008, a month before his inauguration, the Civilian Labor Force has declined by 261,000 (from 154,626,000 in December of 2008, to 154,365,000 by April of 2012). See chart below.

During the same time-frame, the Working Age Population (Civilian Noninstitutional Population) grew by 7,749,000 (from 235,035,000 in December of 2008, to 242,784,000 by April of 2012). See chart below.

So while the Working Age Population has grown by nearly 8 million, during Mr. Obama’s term, the Labor Force has contracted by 261,000. Is the fact that nearly 8 million newly added Working Age Americans haven’t gotten a shot at participating in the economy, since Mr. Obama took the oath, consistent with his rhetoric? That depends on your definition of the catchphrase, “to make sure everyone has a fair shot”. Is ‘no shot’ synonymous with a ‘fair shot’?

To top it off, the Number of Working Americans (Employment Level) has declined by 1,463,000 during Mr. Obama’s term (from 143,328,000 in December of 2008, to 141,865,000 by April of 2012). See chart below.

Has Mr. Obama learned the lesson and since shifted his policies towards a goal of full employment? Not as far as we know. All we hear from him lately is that everyone should have a fair shot, pay their fair share of taxes, and play by the same rules, as if this hasn’t always been the case.

Aside from repetitious rhetoric, what grand policy is Mr. Obama now promoting to advance his goal of fairness? Will the act of raising taxes on millionaires, and everyone else for that matter, open up new opportunities for the next generation? If so, how does that work? Will offering tax credits to small business owners that hire more workers and pay them higher wages, while simultaneously raising their tax rates, do the trick? Not in my opinion (see Obama’s Economic Fallacy: The Not-To-Do List).

The Bottom Line: Since Mr. Obama believes that his job has been to “make sure everyone has a fair shot”, and since the Labor Force has declined by 261,000, while the Working Age Population has expanded by 7,749,000, and the number of Working Americans has fallen by 1,463,000, all since the beginning of his four-year reign, and since he has taken a pass on making full employment his goal, it may be concluded that what Mr. Obama really means by the expression, a fair shot, is “no shot”. However you slice it, Mr. Obama had his shot, and failed. He has no shot at reelection.


To Give Americans a “Fair Shot,” Obama Should Stop Violating Our Rights

Adventures in Politicking I : A President’s Job

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

“In America the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs forever and ever.” ~ Oscar Wilde *

According to Barack Obama, the job of the President of the United States is to “make sure everyone has a fair shot.” However, according to Article II (Sections 1 – 3) of the United States Constitution, in which the job of the President is officially and clearly outlined, nowhere do we find such ‘verbage’. Therefore, it is unnecessary to try to figure out who’s included or excluded in ‘everyone’, and how fair a shot must be – before it becomes unfair. What a relief! So what’s the President’s real job?

According to the United States Constitution, a President’s main job is, to the best of his Ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Executive Power is vested in a President of the United States primarily to act as Commander in Chief of the Military, to Read the opinions of the Principal Officers of each Executive Department, and to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The Constitution also grants a President the power, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, to appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all Officers of the United States, although the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior Officers in the President alone, or in the Courts, or the Heads of Departments.

The President also has the power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Thus far, there’s no mention of making sure everyone has a fair shot. Has the current POTUS made enough nominations to to fill the growing number of judicial vacancies? No.

Other than the duties mentioned above, a President is commissioned by the Constitution to, from time to time, give to the Congress information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he may judge necessary and expedient.

I believe our forefathers meant that a President should give Congress the actual state of the Union, not just the part that improves his chances for reelection. And by making recommendations to Congress, I don’t think they meant publicly browbeating and demonizing those who might disagree.

The President may also, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both or either Houses of Congress, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper. The President is further directed to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers. Finally, a President must take care that the Law is faithfully executed, and to Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Well, that’s it. Nothing here about making sure everyone has a fair shot.

Although Article II (Section 3) states that the President shall from time to time recommend for Congressional consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient, that’s not the same thing as roaming around the countryside espousing radical, partisan ideals about what he feels is fair and unfair. In fact, some would call Mr. Obama’s attempts to indoctrinate the most radical elements of the public to his personal philosophy, through making repetitious statements regarding his own notion of fairness, instead of listening to the Principal Officers of each Executive Department, and instead of making his recommendations directly to our elected Representatives, as outlined in the Constitution, many of whom express genuine concern over whether such ideals may lead our Nation to the brink of bankruptcy, akin to Treason.

In other words, instead of egging on the most radical members of the public, inciting many to violence, Mr. Obama should be talking with our Congressional Representatives and Senators. The act of advocating to the general public, a policy of raising taxes in the midst of a weak Global economy, based upon nothing more than his own personal beliefs, after having been warned of, and in spite of, the dire consequences which will surely follow, instead of doing his job as clearly outlined in the Constitution, should be treated as a Crime against the United States. This is precisely why Article II (Section 4) adds that the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, may be removed from Office upon Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


The job of the President of the United States is outlined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The President’s job is not to lecture the public as Professor in Chief, nor to make sure everyone has a fair shot, whatever that means. And to take it a step further, it really doesn’t matter whether a presidential candidate used to be a college professor, a community organizer, a State senator or Governor, or the Chief Executive Officer of a Private Equity Firm, what matters is whether he or she is capable of comprehending the duties of the Office, as outlined in the Constitution, and has the willingness and ability to carry them out.

The qualifications for being President of the United States are also found in Article II (Section 1). “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” That’s it.

Is Obama qualified to be President? Is Mitt Romney qualified? Are Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Tom Hoefling qualified? Your guess is as good as mine, however, this Election isn’t about qualifications any more than it’s about some eccentric job description pulled out of thin air. This Election is about whether or not Mr. Obama has fulfilled the official job of President, not his make-believe ideal, to the satisfaction of the majority of the American people. It’s about whether we the people want real change, or perhaps just a freaking break. The fact that Mr. Obama has no idea what his job is, after nearly three-and-a-half years of on-the-job training, says a lot.


Hope and Change on Ice


The United States Constitution

Obama on Jobs: Reality is Not Optional

Reality is not optional

To: Obama and other Quasi-Socialist Progressive Fundamentalist Racism Chasers

In response to various comments regarding my last blog post: Obama on Jobs: Worst Track Record in History.

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

Actually the full quote as attributed to Economist, Thomas Sowell was: “Hope is not reality, and reality is not optional.”

Of all the jobs created, and recovered before progressives co-opted the Democrat party, how many were created by the lie that it is up to the Government to borrow money and use it to provide economic stimulus? The answer is none. The old liberal policy used to be called tax and spend (i.e. get the money first and then spend it). The tried and true conservative policy is to cut taxes and let the people spend their own money (i.e. let the free market dictate). The progressive slant has regressed into a new policy called, borrow and spend (i.e. borrow money by the trillion, spend it first, and then tax the hell out of anyone who survives).

We know that the first two methods worked to some degree, although we often disagreed on which was better. All we have to do is go back in history to measure their results. The goal has always been to grow our economy in line with the population, with limited inflation and full employment. But under this new borrow and spend philosophy, all we have is the hope that, if you are ever able to get your head above water, you will be taxed back into oblivion to pay for all the money spent to get you there. In the meantime you just hope that the $250 or $400 per year government handout is enough to get you by.

The hope that an unproven policy will be able to produce the same result as proven methods is not only uncertain, but in this matter impossible. Uncertainty is optional, but reality is not.

Joe Biden recently stated, “We will never be able to recover the eight million jobs that were lost.” Why would he say that? Because there is no way that it can be done under progressive ideology. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Under progressive ideology, the economy is something that will continue to function efficiently no matter which policies are crammed down its throat: stimulus, health care, energy policy, financial reform, etc… All of which may be noble goals in a fictitious world, but neither has anything to do with economic growth, nor job creation. True, each may create a few (net) jobs in the next 20 to 40 years, but there may not be any need by that time. In the end, you may be able to force all of these wonderful policies upon the peons, but by then no one will care because the great economy that once existed will be no more.

We need an economy that works for us today, not 20 years from now.

In reality, mandatory health insurance won’t do much good if there are no doctors or hospitals to visit. And where will one go to purchase it when all the insurance companies are gone? Renewable energy and carbon taxes won’t do much for the masses then living in cardboard boxes. Financial reform will be for naught if no one has any money left to save or invest. You can’t have it both ways. Either you put jobs and the economy first, or you fail on all counts.

Hoping that an unproven set of policies will work is not reality. We gave it a shot by spending well over $1 trillion, and it didn’t work. The national debt is now almost 100% of GDP and there is nothing to show for it. So what do you want to do? Do you want to keep on borrowing and stimulating until there’s nothing left? Or should we perhaps pause and consider making a u-turn? I say we heed the warning and make a u-turn before it’s too late.

We know what works, all we have to do is look back in our history at the policies that made America great.

“Reality is not optional.”


My previous blog post may also be found at the following sites: and,

Obama on Jobs: Worst Track Record in History

Obama: Worst President in History Award

Progressive Policies are Losing 4.2 Million Jobs Annually

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

On January 9, 2009, a staff writer for the Wall Street Journal wrote a smear piece entitled, “Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record,” in which an attempt was made to show that Bush was somehow the worst President, and that therefore, Conservative economic policies (i.e. tax cuts) don’t work.

According to the staff writer, George W. Bush created a dismal +375,000 jobs per year during his eight year term; Bill Clinton created +2.9 million jobs per year; while George H.W. Bush created +625,000; Reagan prospered by +2.0 million; Carter by +2.6 million; etc… The staff writer also went into population growth during each term and the percentage of change in the population (for whatever reason). You can find the smear piece and the WSJ table here. Following is an excerpt:

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Naturally it is important to use this same benchmark to measure how Barack H. Obama stacks up against his predecessors. So I went over to the good old Bureau of Labor Statistics website and made up my own table, based on the raw data. I brought my chart up to date through May 31, 2010. True, Obama has only been in office for 17 month’s, but we can at least get an idea of how he measures up.

Like the WSJ writer, the counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office (May 31, 2010 for Obama). Thus, there is no blaming the last POTUS for inheriting a bad economy, and no foul in taking credit for inheriting a good one. After all, being President is about leadership, and leaders take what is in front of them and do the best they can.

Net Job Creation by President (Click to Enlarge)

According to my table, Barack Obama has lost a total of -4.2 million jobs per year, making him, to date, the worst President in history. G.W. Bush actually created 1.1 million jobs per year during his eight-year term. Bill Clinton is responsible for 2.3 million jobs in each of his years. George H. W. Bush can lay claim to 881,000 during each of his four years. Reagan gets credit for 2.0 million jobs per year. And finally, even Jimmy Carter can boast in having created 2.6 million jobs per year. Net job creation is so much better than, economy killing, Progressive policies that there really is no comparison.

Now I am not naïve enough to believe that Presidents, or that governments for that matter, are responsible for job creation, but if you want to make that case, at least get the numbers right. It looks like the WSJ staffer padded Clinton’s numbers while taking away from both of the Bush’s. At the same time, he did manage to get both Reagan’s and Carter’s numbers right.

In conclusion, thus far, the Progressive policies of Barack H. Obama are failing. There ought to be a law. Actually there is a law. It’s called, ‘The Law of Supply and Demand’. When prices fall, demand increases. When taxes are reduced, investment, production and employment increase. And when supply is increased, prices fall, leading to increased demand. Government intervention in the private sector has never worked, and it never will. Reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, and decreasing government regulation actually work after all. We will most definitely be following up.