Opinion

The economic numbers continue to campaign for Republicans

Photo of Ron Hart
Ron Hart
Contributor

The laws of economics are the new Jim Crow laws. If the Democrats cannot paint their opponents as racist or greedy, then they are pretty much out of solutions for any issue.

Economic numbers tend to be more biased when the administration overseeing them knows nothing about business and the economy. Attorney General Eric Holder has a team of lawyers trying to figure out whom to sue over our dismal economic state. As every liberal Democrat from John Edwards to Eric Holder knows, the way to make money in America is to sue someone who is productive and has money to take.

But the Democrats’ problems are nothing some nice word-smithing cannot fix. Instead of focusing on the four million jobs lost in 2009 alone, they have invented their own metric, “jobs saved or created.” The main jobs they are looking to save now are their own in November.

The “me, my and I” speeches Obama gives, in which he takes credit for his minor accomplishments and blames Bush for all else, no longer work. The economy has been under Democratic House and Senate rule since 2006. Obama taking credit for jobs “saved” is like the 9/11 hijackers taking credit for creating TSA jobs.

I would not be surprised if the White House spins the latest bad jobs numbers to somehow make them look better for businesses in America. To their way of thinking, each month businesses have a larger and more talented pool of unemployed workers from which to hire.  But businesses are not hiring, because they have no idea how much extra cost ObamaCare will mean for each employee and how much increased regulation will be placed on them at the fiat of this bumbling administration.

The states with the worst unemployment are Democratic-dominated bastions where years of liberal policies have wrought havoc. States like California, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, which have been the Petri dishes of Democratic economic theories, have the highest unemployment rates. If that is not a leading economic indicator of the results of Obama’s economic policies, I do not know what is.

My guess is that by continuing to use semantics and by nuancing each economic issue, the Obama White House will appeal to its base for re-election. These are the 51% of Americans who can be told “things are better” but who are not good enough at math to know they are, in fact, not. We know them as the liberal Democrat base.

The Obama cabinet seems like it was assembled at Ikea by a college poli-sci professor.  JP Morgan did a study of administrations which had the most and fewest cabinet members with business experience.  The result helps explain our current economic mess.

The president whose cabinet had the highest percentage of private sector folks was none other than Dwight Eisenhower, who oversaw an era of sustained economic growth. Fifty-eight percent of the members of his cabinet had private sector experience. Until Obama, Kennedy’s cabinet had the lowest percentage of members with private sector experience, at about 27%. The average since 1900 of every president is about 38%. As he has with many things, Obama’s cabinet has set a new low on this metric of real world experience; only 7% of his cabinet members have private sector experience. That 7% probably matches the percentage of his cabinet members who paid their income taxes properly.

The reason businesses are sitting on $1.7 trillion in cash, and banks hoarding another $1 trillion in reserves they could be using to make loans, is that they have no confidence in this administration. Many believe there will be a “double-dip” recession caused by those double-dips in Washington. Until it knows it will not be taxed through the roof, regulated to death, and then lambasted for political gain, no business is going to make the leap of faith to invest in the USA. Ultimately, growth and expansion are private businesses’ expressions of faith and confidence in the economy, something they currently do not have.

Hopefully, come November Nancy Pelosi will learn some economic truths, like the cost of a coach airline ticket from Washington D.C. to San Francisco.

Ron Hart is a syndicated op-ed humorist, author and TV/radio commentator.  Email Ron@RonaldHart.com or at visit RonaldHart.com.

  • carpediemtexas

    snarfblat is right, as is Hart–those vacation states really do not matter.

    Look at all the union , pension drained Blue States, they stink.

    Obama only cares about handing money out to unions, he does not give a flip about real stimulus.

    Hart is a fine writer, I really look forward to his humor each week. I have to laugh, or I would cry about DC politics.

  • snarfblat

    Uh… Hawaii is your example of liberal “success”? REALLY? The reason their unemployment is so low is that their unemployment has run out and a sizable amount of them are on welfare. Women don’t get married in order to stay on welfare, teach their daughters how to work the system (it’s actually a joke on some of the islands – keep your sons locked up so they won’t be contributing to the system as they girls are expected to get pregnant), and you end up with three and four generations of welfare recipients in one home. By Choice! They don’t want to work. I hired a welfare recipient (I was just supposed to sign her form for the welfare office saying she applied for a job – I didn’t know the scam yet) and actually received DEATH THREATS. This is a chosen, entitled way of life for many of these people. I lived there for a decade – it’s not a place for those with a work ethic. In 1993 a women with two kids could suck over $27k in entitlements from the government before Clinton initiated Welfare to Work (which Obama just obliterated). Oh, for every $1.00 the State paid towards the welfare recipient, the Feds would refund $1.50 to the State!!! Great SCAM!!! OB/GYN offices would actually sign you up for benefits without you even knowing if you were pregnant. This is the slippery slop the rest of the liberal-loving states have to look forward to. But hey, I’m sure they all deserve all this money; unfortunately, it comes from those of us who actually contribute to society.

  • cashman

    I agree Mothertucker, clearly the states Hart mentions are the most Obama like states in the union, and the ones with the most problems. Harrisburg PN just defaulted on its GO debt…the capitol of PN the great Blue State.

    Hart has a way of making important issues funny and all the while making his libertarian points. He is a joy to read.

  • mothertucker

    Hart is dead on and funny as always in his P J O’rourke style.

    And what about California gooners, you seem to have left that loonie tune state out?

    It drives you libs nuts when a humor writer like Hart makes fun of your precious and revered leftist leaders.

    Well done Mr Hart!

  • Bsmooth

    California’s economy was destroyed when the massive scam known as the housing market finally collapsed.
    Also while the Dems did control the Senate and House, they and their GOP counterparts qually passed the bailouts.
    Your 4 million jobs is a little off. From the last year of Bush’s tenure into 2009 our economy shed around 8 million jobs. The majority of those jobs were lost before Obama even had a chance to put into effect his policies.
    You can argue for or against Obama’s policies and their effectiveness, but the numbers of jobs lost on the timeline do not lie.
    Blaming the man who was sworn into office for the first time in 2009 and had to set up his cabinet and then come up with policies to counteract the economic losses as being responsible for all the job losses in that same year is disingenuious at best and downright ignorant at worst. It is as bad as the policy of blaming Bush for everything that the other side cries out is unfair.
    So who gets the blame for 2009? The guy going out or the guy coming in?

  • gooners

    What are you talking about? The Petri dishes of Democratic economic theories? Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan have high unemployment rates because they are manufacturing and mining states – industries that don’t employ anymore. California has had a Republican governor ever since 2003. Cherrypicking state unemployment rates and blaming a political party is stupid anyway. This recession has been a long time building and they are all responsible. There are also so-called “liberal” states with very low unemployment – Vermont and Hawaii – and so-called “conservative” states with very high – South Carolina and Mississippi.

    But at least you got the Obama – terrorist comparison in there.

    Hack.

    • snarfblat

      Regarding the “Conservative” state of South Carlina with high unemployment – it’s true. And it’s directly attributed to the bail out of the Banks – Fifth Third bank decided to use the money it received to buy a failing bank down in Florida – To help build up it’s Assets, they went to South Carolina to all the recreational customers (Boat builders, boat dealers, RVs, etc.) and CALLED IN ALL THEIR BUSINESS loans to generate quick cash. This is a state that depends on their recreational businesses. The head of the Senate Banking committee(ah… who is that?) was contacted numerous times and informed of the thousands of jobs that would be lost in South Carolina alone… he didn’t care. Letters sent to the President – (Obama, not Bush), and guess what, he didn’t care, either. Thousands of letters were sent – NO ONE CARED. Maybe it was punishment for being a “conservative” state? Who knows – after all, no one cares. Thousands lost their jobs and businesses. No one cared. But hey, use South Carolina as an example of a “Conservative” state with high unemployment and spin it any way you want – doesn’t change the reality of the situation and the part democrats played.