Obama to Congress: Let's Stop All of These "Symbolic Battles" & Focus On Jobs

In his weekly address (Transcript here), President Obama took a shot at Republicans for taking up “symbolic battles”, such as trying to repeal ObamaCare, even though Republicans admit that it will not get past an Obama veto:

President Barack Obama urged newly empowered Republicans on Saturday not to wage "symbolic battles" against him but to instead work together to help spur job growth and economic recovery.
Obama issued his appeal in his weekly radio address after Republicans took power in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, setting up potentially fierce fights with the president and his Democrats on spending, debt and healthcare.
"Our fundamental mission must be to accelerate hiring and growth," Obama said.
He touted as an example of bipartisan cooperation a massive compromise tax cut package approved by Congress last month that he said had contributed to "more optimistic economic forecasts for the year ahead."

Where was this faux concern over “symbolic battles” and jobs, when the Democratic House tackled and passed environmental legislation to curb carbon emission that would have killed jobs, even though there was no chance of it passing the Senate? Of course, he doesn’t really care about this kind of symbolism or political theater. He’s more concerned that he might have to take a stand on his key piece of legislation and stand behind his program, which is very unpopular with the American people.

The repeal will pass the House, and the Repblicans will only need to get four Democrats to cross over to pass it in the Senate. Considering that many of the red-state Democrats are up for re-election in 2012 and how unpopular the legislation is in those states, they won’t want to go on record in favor of the bill, again, and may end up voting for the repeal. The red-state Democrats will do that because they don’t want ObamaCare to be used as an albatross throughout the next election.

Getting everyone on the record being for or against repeal is the reason behind this “exercise in futility”. Voters need to know where their representatives stand on this issue, once and for all.

Just as the Senate Democrats don’t want to go on record voting for the bill. Obama doesn’t really want to, either. If he wants to get re-elected, he has to distance himself from the past two years, including ObamaCare, and move to the center. Forcing him to veto the repeal that is passed by a majority in both the House and the Senate will make Obama own it for good, and his Republican challenger will pelt him with the unpopular bill over and over and over in the general campaign.

Now, let’s get to Obama’s claim that this has nothing to do with growing jobs. To Republicans, the repeal is just as important to creating more jobs as anything else that they will do. Incoming Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and other prominent Republicans have said that ObamaCare has and will continue to cost American jobs.

The Galen Institue, a conservative public policy research organization, has explains concisely just how ObamaCare is keeping employers from hiring new people and why they’re laying off workers:

Just as ridiculous, the administration is attributing the first glimmerings of an economic recovery and any jobs creation to the health law. This is outrageous! We all know that employers already are trying to figure out ways to either shed health insurance or employees -- or both -- to escape the mandates, higher costs, and potential penalties of ObamaCare. And they haven't even taken effect yet!

As a result of the new regulations, the costs of health care has skyrocketed. They haven’t fallen, as the Democrats claimed that it would, and as a result, businesses are having to spend their money on higher premiums, costs, and penalties that they would have ordinarily spent on salaries for new employees. All of this is a huge reason for the ongoing stalemate in job creation.

Repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with something that isn’t just a new huge entitlement program will go a long way to restoring confidence in the economy, and more confidence in the economy will lead to businesses feeling encouraged enough to start hiring again.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr to Unemployed: Please Send In Your Resumes, I Want to Use Them To "Dramatize" Issue

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr (D-IL), has put out a request for people that are unemployed to send in their resumes. Is there a job opening at his office? Does he need a new chief of staff? Dogwalker? No, he is looking to use those resumes to “put a face” on the unemployment crisis and to “dramatize” their plight:

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. wants unemployed Americans to send him their resumes. But the Illinois Democrat and son of the legendary civil rights leader isn't hiring or even offering to forward the resumes to those who are hiring. He just wants to "put a face on the job crisis we confront."


"By collecting these resumes, I hope to dramatize the shameful condition of unemployment and compel action to do something about it," he said Friday on the House floor. "I hope to remind my colleagues every day that we work for those Americans who have been left behind, but who want to work."

This is just a publicity stunt. He is looking to exploit the unemployed to gain personal political points for himself. There shouldn't be a representative in office, today, that isn’t aware of the unemployment crisis, and they see the face of the unemployed, everytime that they go home and hear from their constituents. They shouldn’t need to be urged to do something about it. It’s their job. We hired them to put people back to work and fix the economy, and they should go into office with the desire, already intact, to resolve the issue.

Also, why is Rep. Jackson, just now, feeling compelled, himself, to do something about unemployment? Why wasn’t he worried about the unemployed, when they were debating ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade, two non-urgent and job-killing bills, for the majority of the past two years?

Twice As Many Americans Disagree With Extending Unemployment Benefits Than Agree

This seems to fly in the face regarding to Obama's claim that Americans are with him on the issues:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that nearly half (49%) of adults, in fact, think providing unemployment benefits for 99 weeks increases the number of people who remain unemployed. Just 28% disagree, while another 23% are not sure.

Unemployed Americans are now eligible for up to 99 weeks of combined state and federal unemployment benefits because of emergency legislation passed by Congress. This legislation is now up for renewal. But 41% think 99 weeks for benefits is too long, while 16% say it’s too short a period. Thirty-four percent (34%) feel the benefits period is about right.

Perhaps one reason for the skepticism about the lengthy benefits arrangement is the finding that 58% of adults think it is possible for anyone with a college degree and willing to work to find a job within 99 weeks. Only 22% don’t think it’s possible for someone like that to find employment in a nearly two-year period. One-in-five (20%) are undecided.

He may have more of an argument regarding the upper-end tax hikes, but even then, Obama only has a very slight advantage over the GOP on the issue. However, most of the issues aren't that close.

This doesn't bode well for Obama and the Democrats, if he continues with the thinking that the American people are by-in-large on his side. They aren't, and last month's election should have proved that to the Democrats resoundingly. Unfortunately, they still haven't heard you. Americans will just have to talk louder in two years, if he doesn't wise-up by 2012.

Pelosi: Unemployment Benefits Is the Best Way to Create Jobs

Nancy Pelosi an interesting claim that handing out unemployment benefits is not just a great way to create jobs but the best way evah. Ed Morrissey breaks this absurdity down nicely:



The entire clip with the reporter’s question and her full answer can be found here.

Feingold Suggests Employer Tax Credits for Hiring New Workers

A Democrat actually put forth a good idea the other day that might actually increase job growth instead of killing it, for a change:

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) “introduced legislation today to help businesses hire workers and bring down unemployment through the creation of a jobs tax credit,” according to an e-mailed press release.

"The legislation creates a temporary jobs tax credit over the next two years for businesses that hire new employees, expand work hours for their current workforce, or simply raise worker pay."

This will help offset any extra cost that businesses will incur, when they hire a new employee. That could encourage employers to hire more without so much trepidation. My only worry is that they don't add more wasteful spending on such legislation that will offset any progress made from the tax credit.

Obama Takes Credit For "Improving" Economy While Unemployment Rises to Just Below 10%

Obama is trying to take credit for an "improving" economy, according to the Washington Post, that is still struggling and far from out of the woods of recession:

President Obama on Saturday continued his administration's careful efforts to take credit for the slowly improving economy, using his radio address to tout the economic turnaround since world leaders met in London in April.

He goes on:

"Because of the steps taken by our nation and all nations, we can now say that we have stopped our economic freefall," the president said in the address, which is broadcast on the radio and the internet.

Now, unemployment keeps on creeping toward the dreaded 10% mark nationally (9.7% as of August), and states like California and Oregon reach the obscene number of 12.2% unemployed last month. Forty-two states have, also, lost jobs, since the end of July.

If this is "improving" according to the Washington Post, I would hate to see what the economy would look like for them to admit that it's declining under Obama..

Businesses Flee US to Switzerland to Avoid Obama's High Tax Plan

RPT-FEATURE-Corporate oil booms in low-tax Switzerland 09:04 AM EDT
* Companies seek Swiss domiciles despite tax row
* U.S. political climate may be helping
* Appeal as corporate location may outlast offshore dispute

By Sam Cage
ZUG, Switzerland, March 12 (Reuters) - The tidy towns and mountain vistas of Switzerland are an unlikely setting for an oil boom.

Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration.

In a country with scant crude oil production of its own, the virtual energy boom has changed the canton or state of Zug, about 30 minutes' drive from Zurich, beyond all recognition. Its economy was based on farming until it slashed tax rates to attract commerce after World War Two.

It still has a chocolate-box old town with views over a lake to the high Alps, but is now surrounded by gleaming corporate offices -- including commodity trader Glencore and oil refiner Petroplus -- shopping malls and housing developments.

Local authorities say about 13 percent of full-time jobs in Zug canton are in the raw materials sector.

Over the past six months companies including offshore drilling contractors Noble Corp and Transocean, energy-focused engineering group Foster Wheeler and oilfield services company Weatherfield International have all announced plans to shift domicile to Switzerland.

Guido Jud, head of Zug's tax office, said about 1,200 companies had set up shop there in 2008 -- in line with the long-term average, though it is difficult to assess how many of those are foreign companies until they file tax returns.

Swiss cantons are free to set their own tax rates. For example in Zug, corporate tax is about 16 percent but can fall as low as 9.5 percent for companies that do most of their business outside Switzerland. That compares with an average global corporate tax rate of 25.9 percent, according to consultancy KPMG.

"One trend that we see is that particularly Bermuda-based companies are now moving to Switzerland," said Martin Frey, a partner at law company Baker & McKenzie. "That may only partly be obviously for tax reasons, but also for security reasons and the fact that the Obama administration may go after them."

CORPORATE APPEAL
The moves come as the Alpine country is under pressure to stop providing a haven to rich individuals who have been illegally dodging taxes: the U.S. political climate could be contributing to the corporate relocations as authorities seek to crack down on tax avoidance and boost their own revenues.

A bill introduced in the U.S. Congress in March targeting "offshore tax dodges" by individuals and companies names Switzerland among tax havens for evaders.

Offshore tax abuses cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $30-60 billion in lost revenues from corporation tax, plus $40-70 billion from individuals, according to the office of Senator Carl Levin, who is sponsoring the bill.

Switzerland holds around $2 trillion of estimated global undeclared assets, according to the Boston Consulting Group. Revenue generated from this could be squeezed as a U.S. probe of its biggest bank UBS dilutes banking secrecy.

Yet analysts say the Swiss, whose GDP in 2008 was about 530 billion Swiss francs ($460 billion) according to the International Monetary Fund, are less likely to meet opposition to the low-tax regimes that draw foreign companies: these are deemed less harmful tax avoidance, rather than evasion.

"They are still making some money by having lower taxes on companies," said Lee Sheppard, contributing editor to Tax Notes, a tax journal based in Washington DC.

"But they're not ever going to be making the amount that other governments are annoyed about losing."

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSL312427120090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This quote says it all:

"Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration".

This is just the beginning of companies fleeing the US or not coming here from overseas in order to avoid the high taxes that Obama and the Democrats want to burden businesses and corporations with to distribute the wealth.

Unfortunately, when you jack up the taxes so high that it isn't profitable to do business in the US, unemployment goes up because the "evil" rich people and corporations aren't here to hire anyone.

This is not a good time (if there is ever one) to run away companies that want to give Americans jobs. Unemployment is rising close to double digits, and we could use all the jobs we can get to turn this economy around.

We are going to keep losing jobs to countries like Switzerland or Ireland who have low taxes if the Democrats keep raising taxes to "spread the wealth around" or pay for the liberal fantasies and dreams. Obama needs to pay attention to history. Hoover raised taxes on businesses, and the depression deepened dramatically.

It's not too late. We need to keep telling those that we hired to take care of our government not to bring down the economy with tax raises not just for corporations or rich but everyone.