SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112531)9/9/2011 8:06:34 PM
From: TideGlider4 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224729
 
That makes a lot of sense since it is much cheaper to operate the schools. Curbing waste is a great thing!

I wasn't joking. Did you notice that the State of Wisconsin is now No. #1 in education cuts?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112531)9/9/2011 10:11:55 PM
From: tonto2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
Ok. I accept you were happy people suffered. Party first...
Now that a democrat is President...you are thankfully quiet as more people suffer...



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112531)9/10/2011 8:13:35 AM
From: lorne5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
ken...Does this bother you at all? what would you be saying if this was going on under President Bush's watch instead of hussein obama/

Fast and Furious guns tied to second violent crime
By Richard A. Serrano,
Washington Bureau
September 8, 2011
latimes.com

In the second violent crime in this country connected with the ATF’s failed Fast and Furious program, two Arizona undercover police officers were allegedly assaulted last year when they attempted to stop two men in a stolen vehicle with two of the program's weapons in a confrontation south of Phoenix.

The officers, members of an elite Arizona Department of Public Safety law enforcement unit, said the driver rammed their cars and threatened them with the firearms, and then fled into the Arizona desert. The driver was caught and arrested, and two firearms –- a Beretta pistol and AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle -- were found in the stolen Ford truck, the police said.

The suspect, Angel Hernandez-Diaz, 48, believed to be a Mexican national, was charged with aggravated assault on a police officer, driving the stolen vehicle and illegal possession of the weapons. He has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to stand trial in Pinal County, Ariz., next month.

Also arrested in the incident was the passenger, Rosario Zavala, 30, of Mexico, who was charged with possession of narcotics and the stolen vehicle.

The encounter came five months after the Fast and Furious program began, in which ATF agents allowed the illegal purchase of weapons to try to track the firearms to Mexican drug cartels. And it occurred nine months before the fatal slaying in December of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, killed in a separate assault in which two Fast and Furious firearms were discovered at the scene south of Tucson.

Sources said this is the first case so far of Fast and Furious weapons found at the scene of another violent crime other than Terry’s. Officials at ATF headquarters and the Justice Department are sifting through records to see whether there are more. About 2,000 weapons were allowed to be illegally purchased in the Phoenix area, and the vast majority were lost track of by ATF agents.

“There is bound to be a lot of them,” said one source close to case.

The new incident outside Phoenix, in the suburb of Maricopa, is the crime that the Justice Department alluded to last week in a report to congressional investigators reviewing Fast and Furious. They did not, however, provide any details. The Justice Department originally told Congress there were 11 sites in the U.S. with Fast and Furious guns, but last week revised the number to two identified so far.

Information about the crime surfaced Thursday after officials at the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at Washington headquarters contacted Arizona law enforcement officials, and they agreed to discuss it.

The weapons found in the vehicle were the 9-millimeter Beretta, hidden under the front console, and the AK-47 in the back seat. Authorities in Arizona said they were told both weapons were illegally purchased under the Fast and Furious program that began in November 2009. Also in the truck were four boxes of ammunition for the AK-47, a box of 23 9-mm bullets for the Beretta, and four cases of Bud Light beer.

According to police reports, indictments and Officer Carrick Cook, the truck was stopped on the night of March 4, 2010, when the undercover unit realized the vehicle was stolen. Rather than exit, the driver revved the car and repeatedly rammed the two unmarked police vehicles.

Inside the truck, the driver removed the Beretta from his waistband, flashed it at the officers, and then bolted from the truck. He then turned in a crouched position as though he was pointing another weapon. At that point, Officer Mike Ruiz fired several times because “he felt his life was in danger and that of the other officer.”

Ruiz missed, and Hernandez-Diaz surrendered.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112531)9/10/2011 8:17:11 AM
From: lorne5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
ken..Looks like obama's boss may be responsibel for riots and destruction all over the world...including the USA...does that make you feel proud?

Soros fingerprints all over protests here, too
Sordid ties of architect who specializes in crisis
: September 08, 2011
By Aaron Klein
wnd.com


TEL AVIV – The Democrat strategist identified as an architect of the social protests currently rocking Israel previously ran the campaign of Bolivia's former president, who was ushered into office amid escalating social protests in that country.

After Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada took power in Bolivia in 1985, he quickly implemented an economic "shock therapy" crafted by Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor who sits on the board of an organization literally seeking to reorganize the entire global economic system.

That group is the Institute for New Economic Thinking, or INET.

Philanthropist George Soros is INET's founding sponsor, with the billionaire having provided a reported $25 million over five years to support INET activities.

Last weekend saw the largest protests in Israel's history. Four hundred thousand people hit the streets in cities across the country purportedly to protest against the rising cost of living while demanding sweeping economic reforms.

That massive protest was the culmination of weeks of similar social demonstrations and protest tent cities that organized in various Israeli municipalities, principally in Tel Aviv.

WND has reported how similar tent cities are being planned by a slew of U.S. radicals calling for a "Day of Rage" targeting Wall Street and U.S. capitalism.

'Our brand is crisis'

According to an investigative report in Israel's Maariv's newspaper, the country's protests were engineered by a group of media strategists directed by prominent Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, John Kerry and others.

Greenberg reportedly is working with Israeli strategists who were behind left-wing leader Ehud Barak's successful race for prime minister in 1999. Greenberg himself helped to run Barak's campaign.

Greenberg founded the Democratic strategy firm Democracy Corps with Clinton advisers James Carville and Bob Shrum. Earlier, the trio ran a strategizing outfit called Greenberg Carville Shrum.

That firm in 2002 was behind a sophisticated campaign in Bolivia that helped de Lozada win his country's elections amid ongoing social protests. It was the second time de Lozada served as Bolivia's president.

In 1985, after de Lozada came to office the first time, he quickly implemented Sachs' "shock therapy." De Lozada attempted to engineer the restructuring of the Bolivian economy and the dismantling of the country's state-capitalist model that had prevailed there since the 1952 Bolivian Revolution.

Sachs is a renowned international economist best known for his work as an economic adviser to governments in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union

His "shock therapy" calls for drastically cutting inflation by scrapping all subsidies, price controls, restrictions on exports, imports and private business activity. The scheme also calls for linking each restructured country's economy with a more global currency.

Sachs' remedy for Bolivia, however, had dire consequences.

The Sachs plan did beat the country's inflation, but the price was continuing high unemployment, economic stagnation, labor revolt, a state of siege and a deepening involvement in the international drug market, reports noted.

To beat the hyperinflation under Sachs' plan, Bolivia ensured a large number of workers were laid off while others' salaries were slashed, leading to widespread worker strikes.

The Bolivian government imposed a state of siege in response to a wave of strikes.

Similar protests engulfed Bolivia when Greenberg's firm helped to orchestrate de Lozada's 2002 win. De Lozada had announced that he planned to once again implement Sachs' "shock therapy" for Bolivia.

A 2005 documentary, entitled, "Our Brand is Crisis: Exporting neoliberal spin," followed Greenberg's and Carville's electioneering in Bolivia on behalf of de Lozada.

The film noted Greenberg's team saw no need to recraft de Lozada's economic policy approach based on Sachs "shock therapy" plan.

De Lozada was victorious in the 2002 elections, but was run out of office one year later amid massive opposition to his economic policies. Protesters demanded a return to the capitalist system.

Bretton Woods and 'shocking' world economy

Sachs, meanwhile, sits on the board of the Soros-funded Institute for New Economic Thinking.

This past April, Sachs keynoted INET's annual meeting, which took place in the mountains of Bretton Woods, N.H.

The gathering took place at Mount Washington Hotel, famous for hosting the original Bretton Woods economic agreements drafted in 1944. That conference's goal was to rebuild a post-World War II international monetary system. The April gathering had a similar stated goal – a global economic restructuring.

A Business Insider report on last year's event related, "George Soros has brought together a crack team of the world's top economists and financial thinkers."

"Its aim," continued the business newspaper, "to remake the world's economy as they see fit."

More than two-thirds of the speakers at this year's conference had direct ties to Soros.

Besides his role at INET, Sachs, a special adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, is founder and co-president of the Soros-funded Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization that says it is dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger.

Global taxes

With $50 million in capital from Soros, Millennium promotes a global economy while urging cooperation and investment from international banks and the United Nations Development Program.

The group helped to found the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, a move that was advanced by Sachs. He served as director from 2002 to 2006.

The U.N. Millennium Development Goal has demanded the imposition of international taxes as part of a stated effort of "eradicating extreme poverty, reducing child mortality rates, fighting disease epidemics such as AIDS, and developing a global partnership for development."

Investor's Business Daily reported the Millennium goal called for a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection – oil, natural gas, coal," "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

Indeed, last September, a group of 60 nations, including France, Britain and Japan, propose at the U.N. summit on the Millennium Development Goals that a tax be introduced on international currency transactions to raise funds for development aid.

The proposed 0.005 percent tax on currency transactions would raise as much as $35 billion a year in development aid, claimed the proponents.

More Soros ties

Greenberg, meanwhile, also runs his own polling and strategy firm, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

A partner in the firm is Jeremy D. Rosner, who was special assistant to Clinton during his first term in office, serving as counselor and senior director for legislative affairs on the staff of the National Security Council.




To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112531)9/10/2011 8:17:54 AM
From: lorne5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
Memo to Congress: Impeachment probe needed now!
: September 09, 2011
wnd.com


Barack Obama is indeed succeeding in his plans to "transform America," but not in the way voters expected on Election Day in 2008. The number of the president's actions that arguably qualify as impeachable offenses is staggering.

The question before the country is what to do about it.

True, Obama faces the voters in 14 months, and that will be seen by many as a reason to avoid the turmoil of an impeachment proceeding. But one process has nothing to do with the other. Elections proceed on an established calendar, but if he has committed acts that warrant removal by way of impeachment, that process should proceed independent of the election calendar. While impeachment must never be used to override an election victory, neither should the prospects of electoral defeat be used as an argument to avoid impeachment.

Obama has demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and is increasingly resorting to rule by decree. He is recognized by a growing number of Americans as a danger to the republic – certainly a danger to our liberties and also a serious threat to our national security.

It is time for the House of Representatives to take its constitutional responsibility seriously and launch an impeachment investigation. The investigative committee should hold hearings, collect and weigh the evidence, and then present its findings to the Congress and the nation.

Has Obama committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" that warrant impeachment and removal? There is much evidence that says, yes, he has.

A special report with evidence galore: "The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America" just $4.95!

Impeachment of the president is justified on constitutional grounds if any of the following 12 questions is answered in the affirmative:

•Did President Obama have personal knowledge of the illegal "Fast and Furious" project run by ATF and approved by top officials in the Department of Justice, a plan to sell over 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels, weapons now linked to numerous crimes on both sides of the border including the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?


•Did the president have knowledge of the ongoing effort by Attorney General Eric Holder and other Justice Department officials to cover up the true purpose and scope of that ill-conceived, illegal project?


•Did the president direct his appointees on the National Labor Relations Board to bring a lawsuit against Boeing as a political payoff to organized labor?


•Did the president act contrary to the advice and pleas of his own CIA director, four previous intelligence agency heads of both parties and numerous experts on covert operations when, on April 16, 2009, he made public four internal Justice Department memos on terrorist interrogation techniques, thereby deliberately emasculating our anti-terrorist intelligence operations and endangering the lives of many intelligence agents?


•Did the president have knowledge of a plan by the Department of Homeland Security, ordered by Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano and the deputy commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, David Aguilar, to distort and falsify the Border Patrol's southwest border illegal-alien apprehension numbers by means of a deliberate, planned undercount – for the purpose of misleading the public and Congress about the true (abysmal) state of border security?


•By choosing not to secure the border against unlawful entry, has the president willfully disregarded his clear duty under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution to protect the states from foreign invasion? Did the president admit this in a candid exchange with Sen. Jon Kyl, telling him the reason he was not stopping the cross-border human trafficking was to force Republicans in Congress to strike a deal for amnesty legislation?


•Is the president showing contempt for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law by ordering an "administrative amnesty" for millions of illegal aliens through the implementation of the John Morton memo of June 2011?


•Has the president demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and violated the separation of powers by issuing numerous executive orders and agency rules that have no basis in statute and often contradict congressional votes against such actions?


•Did the president authorize Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to violate current federal laws against aiding and abetting illegal aliens by signing agreements with foreign countries and pledging to protect and fund educational efforts to inform illegal aliens of their workplace "rights"? Also did these "agreements" she signed with foreign countries violate Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution which clearly establishes the manner in which treaties are to be undertaken and ratified?


•Did the president violate his oath of office when he instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal courts? Does the Constitution permit the person designated by Article II, Section 1, as holding the "executive power" of government to decide unilaterally to not enforce a law he disagrees with?


•Did the president authorize or approve the offer of a federal job to Rep. Joe Sestek if he would withdraw from the 2010 Democratic primary race for U.S. senator in Pennsylvania?


•Did the president violate the War Powers Act by conducting military operations in Libya beyond the 60-day limitation?
If the president is not guilty of any of these crimes, then a thorough investigation by a House committee with subpoena power will clear the air. If he is guilty, then the U.S. House of Representatives has a moral obligation to vote for a resolution of impeachment, and the U.S. Senate must bring him to trial.

If the leaders of the House believe that some or all of these actions are indeed impeachable offenses but nonetheless refuse to launch a formal investigation to ascertain all the facts, then there are two parties involved in Obama's assault on the Constitution – the perpetrators and their accomplices. In layman's terms, Obama and his radical cronies are busy robbing the bank, while the House Republican leadership waits in the getaway car.

Concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the United States? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security" -- now just $9.95!

If some or all of the allegations are adopted as true by the House but rejected by the Senate as inadequate grounds for removal, that means the president of the United States can ignore the particulars of his oath to defend the Constitution. It means he can govern by edict instead of "taking care to faithfully execute the laws of the United States." It means that Barack Obama has indeed succeeded in his plans to "transform America." It means we are perilously close to crossing the line between constitutional republic and dictatorship.

There is no question that the impeachment and removal of Barack Obama is within the proper scope and purpose of the Constitution's impeachment provisions.

The history of the nation's two presidential impeachment cases shows that although treason and bribery are the only crimes mentioned by name, this does not limit Congress' authority to bring an indictment on other serious charges. Constitutionally speaking, "high crimes and misdemeanors" can mean almost anything Congress in its wisdom wants it to mean.

Clearly, the authors of the Constitution did not intend that presidents should be vulnerable to removal for light or petty reasons, hence the use of the adjective "high" in front of the words "crimes and misdemeanors." Nevertheless, what constitutes a "high crime" is up to Congress to decide.

It is also clear from history that the identification and naming of impeachable offenses is as much a political judgment as a legal one. The assignment of separate and distinct roles to the House and the Senate – and the two-thirds vote requirement for conviction and removal – were deemed by the founders as sufficient safeguards against removal of a president for transient or narrowly partisan reasons.

We learned that lesson forcefully in the Clinton impeachment case. Politics can and will play a part in the process, but that is expected and entirely consistent with constitutional principles.

President Clinton was charged with two counts each of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House thought the crimes serious enough to adopt the impeachment resolution in December of 1998. Two months later, the Senate disagreed and voted for acquittal – or more precisely, failed to muster the required two-thirds vote for conviction. In the House vote, only five Democrats voted for impeachment, and in the Senate, not a single Democrat voted for conviction. So much for keeping politics out of the courtroom.

The peculiar and revealing thing about those two Clinton impeachment votes is that no one seriously doubted the guilt of the president on the perjury and obstruction charges. But Democrats in Congress believed that even if true, the charges did not warrant removal from office. They reasoned that the charges dealt with a private matter – Clinton's sexual escapades – and not government business.

The Clinton case illustrates that for both Democrats and Republicans, in the last analysis, what is an impeachable offense is inevitably a political question as much as a legal one. Scholars and lawyers may have an opinion, but Congress' opinion is the only one that matters. Congress' supreme authority on impeachment questions is as much an embodiment of our separation of powers doctrine as the president's broad prerogatives in foreign policy.

Admittedly, the likelihood of the present Democrat-controlled Senate casting a two-thirds vote for conviction and removal is almost zero. However, this does not discharge the House from its constitutional obligation to pursue the matter if – in their considered judgment – the evidence warrants.

The questions posed above all relate to actions affecting national security and unlawful political intervention in the execution of our nation's laws – not mere policy differences. Obama's disastrous economic policies, his ideological war against domestic energy production and his reckless proposals to add new trillions to our national debt– all are policies that are damaging to our nation's well-being. However, such policies are not in themselves impeachable crimes. His contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law is a different matter altogether.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112531)9/10/2011 10:01:34 AM
From: locogringo6 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
DUMMY Obama........another screw up, but it's OK with his commie press. Not only covered up, but ACTIVELY ALTERED!

Makes ya proud, doesn't it kenny_troll? Gotta help out the MORON president of 57 states by changing history, and deleting his screwups.

At one point Mr. Obama made a major gaffe; he identified Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the Republican Party.

Lincoln did not join the Republicans until 1856, over two years after the party was founded. The first Republican convention was held in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.

Such a gaffe would have brought huge amounts of ridicule and derision on George W. Bush, but in the case of Obama the media yawned.

Actually, they did more than yawn; government-funded PBS has altered the transcript of the President's speech, removing the offending comment.

americanthinker.com

Geesh...Michelle Bachmann makes a mistake about Elvis, and the press goes BONKERS for over 2 weeks.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112531)9/10/2011 10:55:25 AM
From: longnshort6 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
So many to choose from.. you were right there with him wailing about Wisc Al.



Do Republicans Ideas Lead to Job Growth,in Wisconsin?
by Steverno Posted August 25, 2011

Democrats say that government can create jobs through borrowing, printing money and spending. They warn that trimming bureaucrats from payrolls will be an economic disaster. Republicans argue that the bigger the government is, the smaller the private sector. The Tea Party prescription: shrink government, lower taxes, decrease regulation, and the economy will rebound through private enterprise.

"Facts are hard to argue with," Governor Walker of Wisconsin declared in a Heritage interview earlier this month. In the three years before his election, the Democratic State legislature and Democratic governor presided over the loss of 150,000 jobs. In Walker's first six months in office, Wisconsin added a net of 39,000 jobs, including 14,000 in manufacturing. The remainder were in agriculture, tourism, biotech and medical technology.

In June, Walker earned boasting rights that half of the new jobs in the entire country -- a shocking and paltry 19,000 -- were created in his state. In the same month, Democrat Illinois next door lost 7,000 jobs. (For more on Illinois jobs, see this - ed.)

Not only did Wisconsin add private sector jobs, they trimmed government jobs by 3,000. Instead of leading to disaster, 12,500 private jobs were added, leading to the one month total of 9,500 net new jobs.

What changed for Wisconsin? Republican policies made the dramatic difference. In his first six months, Governor Walker and his Republican legislature passed tort reform and regulatory reform to create a legal system that fosters economic growth instead of suffocating it. They balanced the budget and cut taxes, including freezing property taxes. To encourage business expansion, they passed a manufacturing tax credit and capital gains tax credit.

The cuts were not at the expense of the health and senior services. The budget continues BadgerCare, Medical Assistance, and SeniorCare, and allocates an additional $1.2 billion into the state's Medicaid program. All new revenue in the next two years will go to the Department of Health Services.

The budget did cut $800 million in aid to local school districts. However, the Republicans freed school districts of onerous union requirements that expensive health insurance must be purchased through the union. School districts quickly turned to the competitive private insurance market and have saved as much as $700,000 a year.

Shrinking government is impossible without taking on the public sector unions. Walker gained national media coverage with his challenge to the public union scam: non-voluntary union dues from government workers are paid into Democrat coffers to elect officials that negotiate give-away contracts at a ruinous cost to the taxpayers. Government salaries and benefits are 60% of the taxpayer burden. Teacher benefit to salary ratio was running three times higher than the private sector. In Milwaukee, $100,000 teacher compensation packages were bankrupting the school system, leading to layoffs of hundreds of teachers, and explosion in class size to an estimated 34 students. Reforming collective bargaining was essential to protect taxpayers and Wisconsin's schoolchildren.

Wisconsin Republicans won a historic victory over this extortion racket of public sector unions. We all remember the famous February demonstrations and the flight of Democrat legislators. Despite the media circus, the Republicans passed a law that requires union members to contribute 12.6 percent toward health insurance premiums and 5.8 percent of their salaries toward their pensions. They had been paying nothing. Nationwide, in the private sector, the average contribution is 20% by employees for their health insurance and 8% towards their pension.

John McCormack, writing for The Weekly Standard, describes the beneficial effects of this single Republican reform. Case in point, the Brown Deer school district had been negotiating unsuccessfully with the local union to cope with a $1 million budget shortfall.

"We laid off 27 [teachers] as a precautionary measure," Koczela told Walker. "They were crying. Some of these people are my friends."

Republican reforms allowed the school district to save $600,000 by teachers paying 5.8% towards their pensions. Changes such as a $10 doctor's visit co-pay (up from nothing) ?saved $200,000. Increasing the workload from five classes to six saved another $200,000. The budget was balanced. None of the changes affected the children. 27 teachers' jobs were saved.

The Pittsfield school district made up their shortfall and reduced property taxes by 9 percent. The Kaukauna school district turned a $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. They plan to decrease class size, offer Chinese and Arabic, and offer more Advanced Placement classes. Children and taxpayers were the winners, and no teachers were laid off. The limitation on public sector unions' collective bargaining was the key to fiscal responsibility.

While Walker was taking on the teacher's unions, in neighbouring Democrat Illinois, the top school administrators get to retire at age 56 with a lifetime pension worth almost $9,000,000 each. Neil C. Codell of the Niles High School District (a suburb of Chicago) gets a salary of $885,327 and his pension is valued at $26,661,604. While Republicans were balancing the Wisconsin budget, Illinois has run up a $13,000,000,000 (yes that's billions) deficit. While Republican Wisconsin added jobs, the Illinois unemployment rate has been rising for three months, and stands at 9.5%. 33% of blacks age 20-24 have no jobs.

Obama's prescription, the famous stimulus, was wasted in Democrat-run Wisconsin by using it to pay the bloated public sector benefits for a single year. 80% of the $701 million federal stimulus funds Wisconsin received in 2009 went to public union workers. The cost to the taxpayer was $82,000per job. Wisconsin lost 118,000 jobs despite the Democrat spending. By July of 2011, the state had received another billion dollars, and the White House's stimulus tracking website was boasting less than 5,000 workers were employed as a result. That's costing taxpayers $2 million per job. How could it be this bad? Because government spending doesn't grow an economy. Ozaukee County's transit service used $600,000 dollars to buy nine new shared ride taxis, five minibuses and 22 mobile GPS systems. Jobs created: zero. The City of Racine got $800,000 in stimulus money and used it to put in energy efficient LED streetlights, hiring an unemployed electrician to install them. The $800,000 amounted to one temporary job. The University of Wisconsin received 2 million dollars and created 3.7 jobs, at more than half a million dollar per job. No wonder our country is going broke.

How did Illinois do with the Democratic prescription for government stimulus as the best and only way to create jobs? A mere $170 million was allocated to highway construction, the most in the country and double the next state, Iowa. Three quarters of the stimulus, $2.9 billion, was used to pay Medicare reimbursements that the state had not been able to pay for years, leading to no new jobs. The state claimed the creation of 15,000 jobs, the most in the nation. Yet in the two months of February- March 2009, Illinois lost 40,000 jobs. In the twelve months of the 2009 tax year, they lost 230,000 jobs, a loss of 11%. Despite the self-congratulation by Democrats on their stimulus policy, Illinois ranks 48th in the nation in job growth. The Democrats are hard put to point to any growth in the private sector. In Chicago, the list of funded projects reads like philanthropy, not economic growth:

$270,000 for the study of 'intergalactic gas' at the University of Chicago. No jobs were created
$462,000 to study sharks at the University of Chicago. No new jobs
$85,000 study on how parents contribute to their children's obesity, Northwestern University. No jobs
$500,000 to a private company for work on 'finger-tapping technology' for use on cell phones
$611,000 to the University of Illinois to study if stress makes people drink more
Democrat Illinois has a $13 billion deficit and passed a 66% state income tax increase in January. People are suffering, education is suffering, the economic situation appears hopeless.

Wisconsin's nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates Republican Wisconsin will finish the two-year budget with a $300 million surplus. They lowered classroom size and funded health care, created jobs and cut taxes. Their economy is on an upswing.

It's not rocket science. Ordinary Republican ideas for job growth work in the real world. America has enormous economic muscle. We just need to get the 800 pound government gorilla off our back.

From : The American Thinker
By : Karin McQuillan

More: americanthinker.com.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (112531)9/10/2011 1:49:06 PM
From: longnshort5 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
Chris Matthews on Social Security: Yep, It’s a Ponzi SchemeIn analyzing the exchange between Gov. Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Perry during this week's GOP debate, Chris Matthews concedes that by definition, the current Social Security setup is a Ponzi scheme.

Chris Matthews on Social Security: Yep, It’s a Ponzi Scheme