Bloodthirsty Liberal

We allowed her to overstay her visa for decades, turned a blind eye to her illegal contribution to her nephew’s campaign, and even gave her subsidized housing—against express regulations to the contrary. And when she got caught, we excused everything, as if her nephew himself had issued a blanket pardon.

No wonder she’s so sad:

Auntie Zeituni has written a book. It’s called “Tears of Abuse,” on account of how tough she’s had it.

Have I read it? Of course not. Have you read her nephew’s best-seller — Dreams from My Ghostwriter, I mean Father? No one has — it’s sold millions of copies, but until two weeks ago, not a single reader got far enough into it to learn that Obama was a dog-eater with “composite” girlfriends.

Anyway, I have the press release on “Tears of Abuse,” which describes Auntie Zeituni’s journey to the United States “where she faces the unthinkable; failing health and quarantined in a hospital while on vacation in a foreign country.”

Vacation? Surely she meant to say “welfare.”

“As her story unfolds she becomes a resident of (a) homeless shelter and a subject of deportation.”

How dare they! Just because she’s an illegal alien, they want to deport her.

Have they forgotten the immortal words of Marsha Coakley: “Technically it is not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts.”

And if you don’t believe Marsha, just ask Uncle Omar, Auntie Zeituni’s brother, or half-brother, or whatever. Technically, it is also apparently not illegal to be driving drunk illegally in Massachusetts, at least if you’re an illegal alien.

“Quarantined” in a Massachusetts hospital? How many sick people around the world do you think would choose to be “quarantined” in this mecca for medical care? All of them, give or take, right? And how much, I wonder, did that set her back financially? Was she also under “house arrest” in the subsidized house she somehow received over other candidates, more legal, if not more worthy?

“‘Tears of Abuse’ reveals how this remarkable woman turns the unfathomable into triumph.”

Public housing, on the dole — what else would you call it but a triumph? The inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty needs to be rewritten. Forget the huddled masses yearning to “breathe free.” Now the huddled masses demand to “live free.”

Speaking of “the homeless, tempest-tost,” Uncle Omar gets his driver’s license back today. I hope nobody at the registry is even thinking of slapping that $100 license-restoration fee on this proud Kenyan illegal alien assistant manager of Conti’s Liquors in Framingham. That restoration fee is for U.S. citizens only.

Howie’s right, though. Democrats don’t have the habit of reading the actual documents they favor. ObamaCare, Dreams of Barack’s Father (Wm. Ayers, author), I, Zeituni—no one actually reads them. They just feel them. You provide the abuse, we provide the tears. It’s a win-win.

Because “The Sucky, Dependent, Unaffordable Society” didn’t have the cachet:

Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest “means tested” federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty. Here’s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars”); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.

Haskins’s list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesn’t. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

So, welfare spending increases when times are bad and increases when times are good. It only increases, never decreases, never goes away. It increases when fraud is rampant, it increases when the deficit yawns like an alpine chasm, it increases when independent studies show that reckless spending without consequences leads only to further reckless spending without consequences.

And buys votes. Oh yeah, now I get it.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending — programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare — and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.

You can debate whether all this spending is too much or too little. My point is different: These numbers speak volumes about our politics.

…

The larger lesson is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, American politics have not become insensitive to the “the people.” In many ways, just the opposite is true. Politicians are too responsive to popular will. The real Washington is in the business of pleasing as many people as possible for as long as possible. There are now vast constituencies dependent on the largesse of the federal government. This is the main cause of huge “structural” budget deficits, meaning that they aren’t simply a hangover from the Great Recession.

…

Political leaders don’t lead. They take the path of least resistance, which has been to do little except to find scapegoats — “the rich,” “special interests,” “liberals,” “conservatives” — that arouse their supporters’ angriest antagonisms. It helps explain polarization. This is really what Washington does. It’s a demoralizing commentary on the state of American democracy.

Whenever we get to such a point of demoralization, I just recall the Carter years. There has never been anything worse in my life. Sure, the Vietnam protests were a bid deal, but nothing like the National Malaise Carter’s administration inflicted on the country for four years. That to Reagan, and a decade of revitalization (after a rather harsh recession).

As we and others never tire of pointing out, Obama is another Carter.

We know more people aren’t working, despite the unemployment rate’s bogus decline. So, how are they making ends meet? Food stamps, obviously, as we’ve reported. (And the rampant abuse of EBT cards, as we’ve also reported.)

But wait, there’s more!

A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data, as discouraged workers increasingly give up looking for jobs and take advantage of the federal program.

This is straining already-stretched government finances while posing a long-term economic threat by creating an ever-growing pool of permanently dependent working-age Americans.

Since the recession ended in June 2009, the number of new enrollees to Social Security’s disability insurance program is twice the job growth figure. (See nearby chart.) In just the first four months of this year, 539,000 joined the disability rolls and more than 725,000 put in applications.

As a result, by April there were a total of 10.8 million people on disability, according to Social Security Administration data released this week. Even after accounting for all those who’ve left the program — about 700,000 drop out each year, mainly because they hit retirement age or died — that’s up 53% from a decade ago.

Get that? Since the recession ended, 4.7 million have gone on disability—twice as many as have found jobs.

Since the recession ended!!!

To be sure, this trend predates Obama, but let’s just look at Obama’s contribution to the epidemic of disability:

But the big factor in the recent surge is the slow pace of the economic recovery after the severe recession. That has kept the unemployment rate above 8% and created an enormous pool of long-term unemployed and discouraged workers. More than 5 million people have been jobless for 27 weeks or more, nearly twice the previous high set in 1983, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

…

The number of applications last year was up 24% compared with 2008, Social Security Administration data show.

The explosive growth in disability enrollment also “helps explain some of the drop in the labor force participation rate,” noted economist Ed Yardeni on his blog.

In fact, the participation rate — the share of working-age people who have or are looking for a job — has fallen to 63.8% compared with 65.7% at the start of Obama’s term.

Ironically, this drives down the unemployment rate, which simply measures how many people are looking for work but haven’t been able to find it. When people quit looking or sign up for disability benefits, they no longer count as unemployed.

The problem is that few people who get on disability will ever participate in the labor force again.

You only get off SSDI by death or retirement. Not that I’m complaining: nice work if you can get it.

Lastly:

What’s more, the explosive growth in enrollment is not only increasing the financial strain on the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund — which is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2018 — it’s boosting costs for Medicare as well, since SSDI enrollees can qualify for Medicare after two years. SSDI now accounts for more than 16% of Social Security’s budget and more than 15% of Medicare’s.

I wonder what number you get when total up all the welfare benefits shelled out to the victims of this Obama-covery? Have we discovered a number that big?

As Aggie reported yesterday, more Americans than ever are on food stamps—45 million, or the population of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan combined—about one in seven Americans.

Democrats couldn’t be happier. They’ll tell you welfare is stimulus, that it shows our humanity (the more humanity the better, I guess), that it benefits their reelection chances. Maybe they won’t tell you the last part, though it’s probably the chief reason for their support.

But if welfare in general and food stamps in particular are so holy, isn’t their abuse a sin? Where’s the outrage from the Left over taking food out of the mouths of the hungry?

Pat Lu, 48, pleaded not guilty to conspiracy and fraud after police raided his Quincy, Mass. mini-mart and said he was personally skimming $30,000 per month from the federal government’s food-stamp debit card system. Bail was set at $100,000.

According to a report from NECN-TV, Lu was the ringleader of a complex scheme involving at least 53 suspects engaged in welfare fraud that has netted $700,000 in the past year and a half.

Police said customers would come into Lu’s store with debit cards they had received as part of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Lu would swipe the card, ring up a phony sale for the value of the card, give the customer 50 cents on the dollar in cash, and pocket the rest.

Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said there were 31 arrests in Boston on Thursday, though police refused to disclose the locations. The Patriot-Ledger reported that another 21 people have been charged with redeeming their food stamp benefits fraudulently.

I’ve been hearing stories like this on Howie Carr’s local radio show for years.

Haven’t I, Howie?

Are you paying attention, Gov. Deval Patrick, wherever you are this morning? Another 32 EBT “anecdotes” arrested or cited yesterday and charged with welfare fraud.

You say the Herald is in “the business of making people angry,” so wasn’t it nice of the Boston police, the attorney general, the state auditor, the IRS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to join in our jihad against your loyal constituents?

…

I know a few of these places they busted. Like the C Mart Supermarket on Washington Street. I always wondered why all those cars were lined up on Washington Street, waiting to get into the tiny parking lot. Now I know.

And the New Saigon Sandwich Shop — good, cheap sandwiches, but they’d never take a credit card. Now I understand. I was just using the wrong kind of plastic.

Just two weeks ago, state Auditor Suzanne Bump was in Deval denial, even dismissing this poverty-pimp crime wave with the governor’s own favorite word — “anecdotes.” Now she’s seen the light, or maybe the polls. She’s describing EBT fraud as “a trend that is literally sweeping across the nation.”

Of course, other states care enough about the taxpayers to crack down. Consider Florida. Before a layabout can get an EBT card there now, he has to pass a drug test — and he has to pay for the test himself. Call it, tough love. Call it, reducing the welfare rolls, very quickly.

Anecdotes? Here’s an anecdote I heard yesterday, Governor, from two people, including a cop in Lawrence. These two people have both seen workers from a Lawrence “nightclub” up at a big discount store in Salem, N.H., buying cases of Corona beer and paying for them with a Mass. EBT card.

The average layabout collects $450 a month on his card. And 20,000 cards are “lost” every month (and then replaced at no charge). Do the math — could be close to $9 million a month in fraud, just on those “lost” cards. Yet Deval’s appointees claim it’s too expensive to put the welfare recipient’s photo on the card.

…

A mother with three kids from Lowell named Annette called me last night, distraught.

“I see people in the checkout line buying better food that me because I’m on a budget, and I can’t afford tenderloin like they can.” She paused. “And then they pull out the iPhone.”

Which you paid for too, Annette, one way or another.

Maybe you don’t like the word “layabout”. Maybe you prefer leech or deadbeat. Dems call them the “less fortunate”, and no doubt many of them are. So, why on earth wouldn’t we protect the precious resources to make sure their needs are being met?

You don’t have to answer that. I already did above.

It’s not about helping people, that’s for sure:

Strip clubs, tattoo parlors, nail salons, gun shops and casinos would be banned from accepting taxpayer-funded EBT cards under a blue-ribbon panel’s report slated to be unveiled today — but Republicans warn the so-called reforms will hardly put a dent in rampant abuse of the taxpayer-funded system.

“The report is woefully inadequate to address any of the problems we were charged with addressing,” said state Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton), who originally called for the commission’s creation.

“It’s probably the least reform we could do and say that something got done.”

An eight-member special state commission — made up of lawmakers, the inspector general, the head of the state welfare program and representatives from the retail industry and an advocacy group — is expected to approve the report’s recommendations at its final meeting today. Members were impaneled after a series of Herald exposes found some welfare recipients using EBT cards to buy booze, smokes, scratch tickets and flat-screen TVs.

The commission will recommend that lawmakers file legislation banning liquor stores, nail salons, tattoo parlors, bars, smoke shops, gambling palaces, strip clubs and spas from accepting EBT cards or letting cardholders snag cash from ATMs on the premises.

But the commission refused to stop similar practices at jewelry stores, health clubs, rent-a-centers — and cruise liners.

“We couldn’t even get cruise ships added to the list,” said state Sen. Robert Hedlund, a member of the commission. “You could use an EBT card in an ATM on a cruise ship and walk into a casino on the cruise ship and then go to the bar and buy booze.

“One of the people that voted against it said, ‘I don’t think we should put it on the list because it sends the wrong message that people with EBT cards take cruises,” he added. “That was the rationale.”

See what we’re dealing with up here? Every day? No wonder these people hate Republicans.

Republicans argued the reforms don’t get to the root of the problem, because EBT card recipients can still use their cards at ATMs to access cash, which is then nearly impossible to trace.

“Nothing is stopping a person from going in an ATM across the street, taking cash, walking into a tattoo parlor and buying a tattoo with cash taken out from an ATM with your EBT card,” Hedlund said.

Related:

Bay State EBT cardholders are overwhelmingly using banks, credit unions and ATMs for straight cash rather than on products at grocery, convenience and discount department stores, according to a new report, making it nearly impossible to trace how millions in taxpayer-funded benefits are actually being spent, critics argued.

Bank of America, Sovereign Bank, Citizens Bank, ATM vendor Cardtronics and TD Bank were the top five places where EBT cash benefits were accessed, accounting for $14.6 million in just one month, January 2011. Twelve of the top 20 were banks or ATV vendors, accounting for 68 percent of the total amount of cash benefits redeemed that month, the EBT commission’s report found.

Critics argue that translates into a taxpayer-funded ATM.

And cash is untraceable—meaning the abuse cited above is just the traceable abuse.

And:

The EBT Card Commission won’t recommend banning out-of-state use of the taxpayer-funded cards, arguing it’s too much work for abuse that rarely occurs.

Just under 3 percent of transactions were made out of state in January 2012, according to the EBT draft report to be unveiled today.

…

All told, 3,554 out-of-state transactions were made in New Hampshire.

Get the logic? It’s too expensive to save money.

Btw, they shop in New Hampshire the same reason we all shop in New Hampshire: to avoid taxes (especially on booze and smokes). How’s that for irony? Even the ticks and leeches who live off the blood of taxpayers hate paying taxes. But then, so do our legislators:

Last word, as always to Howie Carr:

[I]f you can’t use an EBT card to get cash, what’s the point of having one? You get your food from the local food bank, or church, or some other charity. The fatherless kids get all their meals at school, for free. The EBT card is for all those essential non-essentials, like visits to your local nail salon or tattoo parlor.

Tsk-tsk, Howie.

But if I had a nickel for every caller I’ve heard who’s phoned in to Howie’s show with an anecdote about EBT scams they’ve observed, I could tattoo every inch of my body. (My favorite is one I’ve heard over and over: sell a $100 EBT card for $60 outside a grocery store, and take the cash to the liquor store next door. Now, how can you police that?)

Not only is it not racist to call Obama the Food Stamp President (based on the fact that he is), Jesse Jackson says it’s a compliment!

Say, it’s an honor to be a food stamp president. Food stamps feed the hungry. Food stamps save the children. Food stamps help the farmer. Food stamps help the truck driver. Food stamps help the warehouse. Food stamps help the store. Food stamps hire people and feed people. Food stamps save people from starvation and malnutrition. Whenever you attack feeding the hungry, you undermine the moral authority of our faith. Give President Barack Obama a big hand. Show your love. Show your appreciation.

Food stamps wash your windshield and change your child’s diapers! They know a six-letter word for Australian marsupial (wombat) and remind you where you left your keys. Like unemployment benefits, they are stimulus. If everyone were on them, imagine what a wonderful world this would be. Left-wing Shangri-La.

That’s my reaction to this piece:

Last week, the Heritage Foundation published commentary on the number of Americans who pay income tax, and decried the fact that 49.5 percent of Americans are “not represented on a taxable return.” The Daily Mail then picked up the statistics and announced that “HALF of Americans don’t pay income tax despite crippling government debt.”

To its credit, the body of the Heritage post began with a reference to the “the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance.” The emphasis of the piece, however, and thus, the emphasis of the other news outlets and pundits who have picked up on the statistic, is that too few people pay taxes.

The increase in reliance on government assistance is the problem here, not a lack of people who pay income tax.

I would agree with the first sentiment about government assistance—but don’t see that excluding the second point about income tax. Both are saying the same thing: the rich are paying more than their fair share, and more and more are taking more than theirs.

The Conservative obsession with getting people to pay more in taxes comes from a preoccupation with class warfare in which it is assumed that if middle-class and wealthy people are paying too much in taxes (which they are), then the solution is to punish low-income people by making them pay more in taxes. It’s allegedly not “fair” if everyone is not being extorted by the state in a similar fashion.

I disagree. If lower taxes are a laudable goal, why not incentivize everyone to keep them low? If half pay no federal income tax, what do they care with the other half pays?

We might also note that this statistic apparently only applies to income taxes. It says nothing about payroll taxes, which for many middle-class people is by far the largest part of one’s monthly tax bill. Any teenager with his first job notices just how much those payroll taxes take out of one’s paycheck. So, to claim that people aren’t paying taxes simply because they’re not paying income tax is rather disingenuous. Since there’s no such thing as a Social Security or Medicare trust fund, payroll taxes are really just income taxes under another name.

Yes… and no. That’s really just a rhetorical sleight of hand. It’s not disingenuous to say they’re not paying income tax if they’re not—and they are not. But I agree that since there are no “trust funds” or “lock boxes”, SocSec and Miedicare do amount to a kind of income tax. Just not the federal income tax, which half still do not pay, no matter how you argue it.

Also, any demand for more taxation is really just a demand for increased government revenue. It’s a call for more money so government can bomb more people, bail out more banks and spread around more largesse to politically well-connected friends.

See above. Who’s going to argue against a tax they don’t have to pay? Want to bring the tax rate down? Make everyone pay.

The larger point is that far too many Americans receive government benefits. Indeed, recent increases in income as measured by the BLS, reflect increases in government transfer payments, as I’ve shown here.

Ludwig von Mises wrote in Bureaucracy that a system in which a majority of the population is dependent on the government dole leads to an unstable political and economic situation, since a majority of the population then has a vested interest in increasing the power of government to redistribute wealth.

Hear-hear!

But then this:

While the Heritage article makes some comments in this vein, it nevertheless makes the claim that “The rapid growth of Americans who don’t pay income taxes is particularly alarming for the fate of the American form of government.” Really? By that logic, “the American form of government” would be in danger if the income tax were abolished. Oh, how did America ever survive prior to the 16th Amendment?

There is no doubt that the growth in dependency on government largesse is a serious problem, but that doesn’t mean that any American pays too little in taxes. It simply means that the government spends too much money.

The author rightly and persuasively argues against redistributive policies like Obama’s—but seems willfully ignorant that a federal income tax that gives half the population a free ride accomplishes the same thing: it stymies change.

Say, you know what we need more of? Saul Alinsky and food stamps.

I [bleep] you not.

The nation’s food stamp program is an essential part of the American safety net. Why? Because people can’t be productive — in school, at work or looking for work — if they are hungry and fearful about not having enough food to feed their families.

The program serves 46 million people, almost as many people as Medicare. And that’s despite the fact that more than one-third of those eligible for the benefit are not receiving it. If all those who qualified for food stamps enrolled in the program, it would include 20% to 25% of Americans.

Not surprisingly, given the large numbers who participate, food stamp recipients are a diverse bunch, including the elderly, the disabled, one-parent families, two-parent families, low-wage workers, students, soldiers and the unemployed.

But if Republicans have their way, they will turn food stamp recipients into the new “welfare queens.”

The conservative Heritage Foundation has reprised the false charges once leveled at welfare, suggesting that food stamps may make recipients “dependent on government.” And Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.” (This, despite the fact that only 22% of food stamp recipients are black.)

I told you! Being anti-food stamp is not being anti-black! Calling Obama the food stamp president is not racist. Du-uh!

But Gingrich’s point is still valid, even vital. Food stamps (or their equivalent) may be necessary, but they are not good. (And that’s before considering the rampant abuse of EBT cards—72,300 hits and counting.) To end poverty, people need jobs, not welfare—which means Gingrich is right again! Paychecks not food stamps!

But we’re used to the celebration of welfare around here. Democrats like Nancy Pelosi even laud welfare as economic stimulus.

But who would celebrate an avowed socialist radical like Saul Alinsky?

Bill Moyers, that’s who:

Saul Alinsky is not around to defend himself, but that hasn’t kept Newt Gingrich from using his name to whip up the froth and frenzy of his followers, whose ignorance of the man is no deterrence to their eagerness, at Gingrich’s behest, to tar and feather him posthumously.

…

It’s all quite clever and insidious, a classic lesson in how to slander someone who cannot answer from the grave, reminiscent of the tactics Gingrich used in those GOPAC memos back in 1996, when he suggested buzz words and phrases to demonize opponents: corrupt, decay, pathetic, permissive attitude, self-serving, and, of course, radical.

In the case of Saul Alinsky, most of the crowd knows nothing about the target except that they’re supposed to hate him. And why not? There’s the strange foreign name — obviously an alien. One of them. And a socialist at that. What’s a socialist? Don’t know — but Obama’s one, isn’t he? Barack Hussein Obama, Saul Alinsky — bingo! Two peas in a pod, and a sinister, subversive pod at that.

Well, his name is Saul Alinsky. What’s Gingrich supposed to call him?

And is Moyers suggesting they aren’t two peas in a pod? Not as such:

The two men never met, although when Obama arrived on the South Side of Chicago as a community organizer, some of his grass roots work with the poor was with an Alinsky-affiliated organization.

Maybe not peas—but certainly lima beans:

Alinsky died in 1972, when Obama was 11 years old. But three of Obama’s mentors from his Chicago days studied at a school Alinsky founded, and they taught their students the philosophy and methods of one of the first “community organizers.” Ryan Lizza wrote a 6,500-word piece on Alinsky’s influence on Obama for The New Republic, noting, “On his campaign website, one can find a photo of Obama in a classroom teaching students Alinskian methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,’ an idea illustrated by a diagram of the flow of money from corporations to the mayor.”

In a letter to the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son wrote that “the Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style…. Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.”

Obama is about as sincere and real as he is a fan of the Chicago White Sox.

Oh wait, you never heard? (Major League Baseball has pulled down all clips, citing “copyright.”)

After throwing out the first pitch at the Nationals-Mets game today in D.C., Barack Obama visited with the Nats TV broadcast team, which included former White Sox pitcher Rob Dibble.

Obama to Dibble on why he wore a White Sox fan to throw out the first pitch in Washington: “I’m a Southside kid, I gotta make sure (White Sox owner) Jerry Reinsdorf doesn’t get to angry with me.”

Dibble: “Having played with the White Sox for a short time, I know how the Cubs fans and White Sox fans go back and forth. Who was one of your favorite White Sox players growing up?”

Obama: “You know uh ….. I … I thought that … uh …. you know … the truth is a lot of the Cubs I like too! But, uh

… I did not become a Sox fan until I moved to Chicago. Because I uh …. I was growing up in Hawaii so I ended up actually being an Oakland A’s fan.”

Obvious follow-ups: so, who were your favorite Oakland Athletics?

And you said you were a Southside kid, yet you didn’t move to Chicago until you were in your 20s—WTF?!

Robert Sameulson nails it. Welfare: can’t live with it, can’t live without it.

We Americans fool ourselves if we ignore the parallels between Europe’s problems and our own. It’s reassuring to think them separate, and the fixation on the euro — Europe’s common currency — buttresses that mindset. But Europe’s turmoil is more than a currency crisis and was inevitable, in some form, even if the euro had never been created. It’s ultimately a crisis of the welfare state, which has grown too large to be easily supported economically. People can’t live with it — and can’t live without it. The American predicament is little different.

Yup.

The numbers — to those who don’t know them — are astonishing. In 1870, all government spending was 7.3 percent of national income in the United States, 9.4 percent in Britain, 10 percent in Germany and 12.6 percent in France. By 2007, the figures were 36.6 percent for the United States, 44.6 percent for Britain, 43.9 percent for Germany and 52.6 percent for France. Military costs once dominated budgets; now, social spending does.

Numbers are just numbers, but they also have meaning behind them. So-called social sending actually means a transfer of money from those who work and produce and create wealth to those can’t, won’t, or just don’t. Maybe 10% was too small—but 50% is unsustainable. Especially the 50% (or near enough) who make no contribution—none—in federal income taxes.

I cite Mark Steyn all the time, and here goes again: a “social program” that lasts maybe a generation or two is the height of selfishness. After the budget has been irremediably busted, the money is gone for good, for everyone. I’ll also cite Carol, who wrote something like yoking those who work to support those who don’t sounds a lot like slavery, which is frowned upon these days.

We covered a lot of this yesterday, but the WSJ summarizes nicely:

An 8.6% unemployment rate is hardly worth celebrating, but after nearly two years of mediocre job growth and unemployment at 9% or above, yesterday’s November jobs report feels like a bigger improvement than it is. Private sector job growth of 140,000 was respectable but still less than half the 300,000 or so monthly job creation that is typically associated with expansions. The September and October payrolls were revised upward by 72,000 jobs, also signs that the economy has bounced back from the growth slump earlier in the year.

There was a huge 594,000 decline in the number of Americans who are officially unemployed. But the main reason for the big drop in that number and the fall in the jobless rate wasn’t more people working, but fewer people looking for work. The labor force declined by 315,000 workers and the labor force participation rate fell to 64% from 64.2% in October. The labor force participation rate has fallen by some two percentage points since early 2009, which means that more than two million Americans have withdrawn from the work force. Normally during a recovery as hiring picks up, Americans get back into the jobs market.

…

All of this points to an economy that is growing, but in fits and starts and at a low trajectory. There are still six million fewer Americans working today than before the financial meltdown, making this by far the worst jobs recovery in modern times. Americans deserve better, and in particular they deserve a Presidential debate focused above all on returning the private economy to the engine of prosperity it was until only a few years ago.

Inspired by my liberal friends, who were so febrile during the Bush years, let me indulge in a little freestyle, improvised conspiracy theorizing myself. No numbers can be believed if they come from the Executive Branch led by this regime. None. Sometimes they admit their deception, as when “growth” is “revised” from 2.5% to 2% or “productivity” from 3.1% to 2.3%, with further “revisions” “expected”. (Those “numbers” are provided by the Commerce and Labor Departments, respectively.)

Other times, as now, we are left scratching our heads.

How can the economy add jobs (both in initial counts and in “revisions”), dropping the unemployment rate a whopping 0.4% in one month (when “expectations” were for no change), yet the percentage of people in the workforce actually fell?

Here’s how:

That’s a chart of workforce participation rate over the last decade from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Fairly steady during the Bush years, it fell sharply in 2008, as you might expect—and hasn’t stopped falling since. We’ve been in “recovery” for two and a half years, and 64% is the new 67%. There are 6,000,000 Americans working today than before the 2008 crisis. Where did they go? What are they doing?

That’s a chart of foodstamp (SNAP) participation (sorry for the truncation—full chart here).

Notice a correlation? Let me spell it out: fewer people are working than either before or during the recession; more people are on foodstamps than either before or during the recession.

Here it is in percentages:

Is it any wonder the Obama reelection strategy is to shun a shrinking demographic (workers) and embrace a growing one (welfare recipients)? He couldn’t have done better if he tried—which I maintain he did. This is all going according to plan.

As he told Joe the plumber, he’s not about creating wealth, he’s about spreading it. As was said of the Messiah, “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill made low, the crooked straight, and the rough places plain.” (Isaiah 40:4) In a modern translation, that would read “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage… If I help Him, He’s gonna help me.”

Aggie and I have been wondering how the unemployment rate can drop when…

* the number of new jobs added was less than population growth;

* the number was less (only just) than economists were expecting—and they “expected” unemployment to remain unchanged;

* new claims for unemployment rose above 400k again last week.

Here’s your answer, and it’s not anywhere near the good news that you’re hearing:

The economy added 120,000 jobs in November, and unemployment fell to 8.6% from 9% in October.

It’s probably closer to 18%.

Job growth in the range of 120,000 should be expected to accommodate labor force growth, but not a much-lower unemployment rate — especially not by nearly half a percentage point.

However, the scarcity of jobs is causing many professional to establish home-based businesses that really don’t provide full-time employment but do take workers off the unemployment rolls.

Also, many adults have quit looking for work altogether, and the adult labor force participation rate fell sharply in November. Working-age adults not participating in the labor force — those neither employed nor looking for work — increased by 487,000 in November.

As Rush noted:

Now, the truth of the matter is — and Bloomberg News even points out that the only way — it’s a corrupt number. It is a corrupt number. Folks, the number of people who have quit looking for work in the last few weeks is 315,000. Those are the people have thrown up their hands after 99 weeks or more of being unemployed; and they’ve said, “I’m quitting. I’m not looking.” So they’re not counted. Therefore, the universe of jobs available in the country is down by 315,000. That is the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate is a meager 64%. It fell to 64% from 64.2%. So the 0.2% drop equals 315,000 people leaving the workforce.

I asked where did they go, the people who dropped out?

How could I forget?

Nearly 15% of the U.S. population relied on food stamps in May, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.

The number of Americans using the government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — more commonly referred to as food stamps — shot to an all-time high of 45.8 million in May, the USDA reported. That’s up 12% from a year ago, and 34% higher than two years ago.

Do you see the evil brilliance of the Democrats? Discourage workers to drop out of the labor force (perversely lowering unemployment) and go on welfare (insuring their dependence on Democrats).

It’s a win-win—for everyone except the country!

One point I neglected to mention in my Barney exegesis is that he’s bored being in the congressional minority, and he figures that’s not going to change for a while.

But Barney may be looking at the White House and saying to himself “They say I’m meshugah. But I’ve got nothing on that schwartze Obama.” (Or words to that effect.)

He’s alienated whole constituencies from his first election, not least independents, who are walking away from him in droves. How does he expect to get reelected?

Out: Hope and Change. In: Dopes and Mange.

Let me read this first paragraph to you. “The Future of the Obama Coalition — For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.” The Democrat Party is just abandoning white working class voters. The Democrat Party is punting. The Democrat Party is saying, “Sayonara, we don’t care.” They are going after the welfare state full-fledged. They are going after the entitlement mentality people in this country full-fledged. They’re not making any pretenses.

…

“All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.” So the Democrat Party, according to the Obama coalition, according to the New York Times, is going after the entitlement class, the welfare dependent class and the elite in academia, art, human resource management, lawyers, librarians, and social workers and so forth. What a coalition, the backbone of America. And that’s who they’re going after.

…

And here’s Obama and the Democrat Party saying, “You are who we’re looking for. You who don’t work; you who need welfare; you who need unemployment compensation extension; you who need food stamps, that’s who we want. You are our people.” Well, how do you get those people? You promise ‘em more. You don’t challenge them. You don’t tell ‘em that they’re gonna have to improve themselves. You don’t tell ‘em that they’re gonna have to go out and find work. No. You excuse them. We understand. We understand you’re where you are because of people like these conservative Republicans who hate you. Well, we’re here to take care of you.

I am not surprised that this is their coalition. I’m just stunned that they’re so publicly admitting it. I think it’s a big deal.

That was Rush yesterday.

But imagine what kind of country that strategy envisions. There are those who work, and there are those who don’t. And they are to be pitted against each other. And standing with the layabouts are the elitists, whose guilt at the successes they and their class and their country have achieved forces them to betray the very foundations of success. Success is a dirty word, lusted after only by gluttons. The successful are only as useful as the funds they contribute to the care and feeding of the unsuccessful. As Obama said about taxes, it’s not about revenue, it’s about “fairness”. It’s not about creating wealth, but spreading it.