The Case To Fire Barack Obama

By His Own Standard, Obama Came Up Short

NOV.02.2012 (The Plastico) - The final data is in for 2008-2012 and while several metrics can be used to measure a President, the challenges of this moment have not been met with decisive executive leadership. Obama was elected into a precarious situation; multiple wars, an economy searching for a bottom, staggering budget deficits, and a darkening sky over every federal entitlement program.  

In short, the response has been uneven, unclear, and the basis for four additional years untenable.

We reviewed crucial data points on the economy and on the key issue of jobs.  We conclude that the past 4 years have been an unmitigated disaster with the labor participation rate now tumbling to a 30 year low. 

Romney has been accused of soliciting a war on women but Romney hasn't managed a workforce disaster for women.  On the last day of 2008 forty-seven million women had jobs.  Today, two million fewer women have jobs.  Those that do are making almost 10% less then they did the day Obama took office.  

In January of 2008 Women had an average salary of $47,418.00.  Today,  4 years later, a period mostly of  'recovery' since the conclusion of the recession in June of 2009 women now earn an average of $45,362.  Hang on, its worse than it sounds because that $2,000 or so in reduced pay calculated with basic inflation puts the true loss of income at approximately $4,000 for every working women during Obama's term.

How about minorities? The data is worse, as is total employment and the total pain of higher so called 'bread basket' costs. Want more - read all you want from the: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Who else is worse off?  The NY Times just reported that we now have a record number of people in jail, we all know that we have a record number people on food-stamps, and an alarming number of people being transferred to permanent disability - also a new record. 

In fact, this one had to be checked a few times - nearly 6 million people have gone on federal disability under Obama - a historic new record during a period where workplace safety has never been more carefully observed.  So how are all of these people getting hurt?  Economic pain maybe?

American's have always opposed Obamacare, a law that never received a Republican vote

You might remember that Obama said a few months ago that "The private sector is doing fine".  Many said that the comment was an accidental 'gaffe' and we were directed Obama's  quick apology to 'set it straight'.  But that rhetoric was a telling indication of just how Obama sees the private sector and its by looking narrowly at the Fortune 500 while ignoring the huge share of struggling small business' that he argued "Didn't build that".

The evidence is clear when reading the full context.  Obama stated that he thinks increased deficit spending through the hiring of government workers is the fix-

"The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in. And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments"

Obama may want to show less concern for government employees whose federal salaries are somehow 37% higher than the pay per hour of the rest of Americans who are digging deeper and deeper to pay out those salaries.

So who exactly is better off (in addition to Federal workers)? 

Big corporations have had a heyday under the Obama administration and have reeled in record profits during three endless rounds of Quantitative Easing.  Obama' team has generally kept in place the Greenspan/Bernanke/W. Bush policy of easy money.  In fact, he's put that policy on steroids.  

It's been a breathtaking long term party of low interest allowing banks to lend (mostly to well capitalized large corporations).  A policy that former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich points out "won’t help the economy, but will simply fuel a new round of mergers and acquisitions".  One example, George Lucas selling out to Disney just in time to beat Obama's tax hikes scheduled for January 1st. We saw M&A records crushed in 2011 with no end in site.  These policies are good for the stock market but terrible for employment and jobs says Reich, who notes that the first step of a buyout is to fire all the redundant positions between the two companies.

While most voters have no clue what quantitative easing means, seniors and retirees have been stuck with the brunt of the pain. For example, check on the current rates for a savings account or a certificate of deposit (the places that seniors keep retirement savings) and you will see the worst rate of return...ever.  On this point Romney has a clear plan that will help seniors first and foremost - allow a zero tax on dividends and interest for those making less than $250,000.  For seniors on fixed incomes- this would be a welcome relief to the past decade.

The Ryan plan tracks close to the Simpson-Bowles Plan that the President commissioned but refused to enact

A primary reason that the Obama administration wants a 2nd term is because they say that Mitt (and folks like him) simply pay way too little in taxes. Obama promised to raise taxes on 'the rich' during his 08' campaign but when given the chance every day for two years he didn't.  His reason - the economy was too fragile at the time.  

Now with GDP slower than it was in 2011 or 2010; Obama says its the right time to raise taxes.  Make sense? It shouldn't.  Americans are about to get the second half of Obama economic policy.  First came the spending that doubled the deficit and now comes the fiscal cliff of tax hikes and emergency cuts?

But since many of Obama's adds are personal attacks on Romney lets take a quick look at Obama's repeated claims that folks like Mitt pay less than the hard working middle class.  The facts tell a different story.  Here is a breakdown of income earners and what their effective rates are via Politifact-

Bottom fifth of earners: -12.3 percent (they pay no taxes, receive checks)
Second-to-bottom fifth : -4.2 percent (they pay no taxes, receive checks)
Middle fifth : 4.1 percent
Second-highest fifth : 8.2 percent
Highest fifth : 17.3 percent

The point missed completely is that anyone who collects their income via dividends (like Romney) is paying a double tax on income already taxed at the corporate level.  The current 35% rate, the highest in the industrialized world, has already been handed over to the feds no matter if the corporation is owned by one person or one thousand people. Dividends are a result of that already taxed money being distributed to the owners of the company.  Regarding Romney's 14.3% tax rate; try 44.3% for the IRS take.   This of course all before state, local, and every other excise is calculated in.  
 
Is there another way?  Yes, the Romney-Ryan plan is a growth plan to add new taxpayers while freeing up U.S. corporate capital.  The focus is on energy.  

Turning back the Keystone Pipeline was indeed an unforgivable act by Mr. Obama that cost thousands of jobs.  More importantly, it gave us a look into the Obama administrations criteria for energy:  If the environmental lobbyists want it, do it - if they don't, then we will stop it.  Romney certainly wont employ an energy secretary that is indifferent to gas prices, and he wont play a shell game with coal, gas, and crude oil drilling permits just so we can continue to ship money overseas in trade for tankers full of crude oil.  

Obama says he wants manufacturing jobs and one thing will get us there -more cheap natural gas for energy.  Just ask CNN's Fareed Zakaria who recently explained that more savings on energy makes America's factories competitive again. 

The real question for American's is simple. Can Obama's do in a 2nd term what he couldn't do in his first? What is he planning to do differently?

Bush's huge emergency asset relief plan or 'Tarp' was outdone by the Obama stimulus package.  While Tarp has reportedly turned a profit for the treasury, the stimulus package has a well deserved reputation of waste, earmarks, and nontraditional investments into the pockets of private companies that were friendly to Obama's thinking.  As Romney says correctly, the government should not be picking winners or losers.  

In doing so, the problems are profound; just look at one example that has been uncovered recently at LG Chemical where workers sit and play cards because there is nothing to do.  Why haven't they been laid off? Because you the taxpayer are paying their paycheck whether they work or not; sadly they are not.  The Chevy Volt they produce batteries for are essentially being made on the promise that unborn American children will repay unborn Chinese children (someday) for the loss of each vehicle produced. 

Finally the issue that could decide Ohio and therefore the election: the infamous 'auto bailout'.  By now, every voter knows that Ohio will likely be the linchpin for the election. The Obama camp is doubling down on one grossly misleading accusation: 'Mitt wanted Detroit (and apparently Ohio) to go bankrupt and we saved the day'.  

One might be tempted to agree with Obama after seeing thousands of ads and a complicit media describe the auto bailout.  But see if you can guess which candidate advocated for slashing exec pay and perks, letting stockholders take the hit to save the company, guaranteeing government support, demanding fuel savings, and advocating for the structural changes needed "To save Detroit for the long term..." 

Only a left wing radical like Mitt Romney would make those suggestions in 2008- maybe folks should actually just read Romney's article that Obama is betting his re-election on: 'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt'.  

After all, Detroit did go bankrupt; Chrysler was sold to the Italian company Fiat and Obama made sure that GM bondholders took it in the shorts while giving his supporters (the UAW) a better deal.  The rest of the deal that apparently saved America's heartland involved massive dealership closures across the country plus the sacrifice of Non-Union companies like Delphi. It's not Obama's fault that the Big 3 was in trouble, however, it was in large part the UAW's fault.  

We didn't hear about other manufacturers like Honda, Toyota, and Nissan going bankrupt - those companies all have auto plants in America.  Why? Those workers didn't cost near what the UAW was able to get from the big 3 after decades of collective bargaining and strikes.  The big 3 was no longer viable and Romney's bankruptcy plan would have given GM and Chrysler the flexibility to re-organize with government backing without the full $14B in losses that taxpayers suffered.

All of this aside Obama gave us his standard on fixing the economy, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then this is going to be a one‑term proposition.”.  More recently, he gave himself an incomplete on fixing the economy. On November 6th, It's time to fire Barack Obama; and this case was made without one mention of Benghazi, credit ratings, turning back the oceans, Joe Biden, Solyndra, Guantanamo, Immigration reform, or the 100's of other broken campaign promises that Obama never even attempted to employ.

The Plastico.Nov.02.2012