Where Are The Jobs? Why Are So Few Hiring?

I've seen alot of squawking on the Internet about how corporations and businesses are sitting on $8 trillion in assets but won't hire new workers. As the husband of a woman who owns a small business, I have yet to see any of that $8 trillion in my wife's bookkeeping.

But, even if that $8 trillion really existed, the question of so few hirings would have nothing to do with that money and have everything to do with government constantly intervening in economic matters, usually at the expense of the economy in general.

John Stossel has this to say about why there are so few new hires right now:

The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden. In at least three big areas — health insurance, financial regulation, and taxes — no one can know what will happen. New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers. Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies." These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity. The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A "distinguished" deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax? Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads.

It wouldn't matter if the assets totaled more than $8 quadrillion or $8 quintillion. With uncertainty like this coming out of the Obama White House and the Pelosi-Reid Congress, hiring on the scale we need to boost the economy is not going to happen anytime soon.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Big Government Policies Aren't Creating New Jobs
John Stossel
NewsMax.com
August 24, 2010

The Dumbing Down Of America: John Stossel Highlights Why Indoctrination In Our Schools Is So Devestating

One thing that we bloggers do which, by and large, the MSM does not, is we reference previous news stories and blog entries to give a greater understanding of how certain issues affect us or to show that those issues have a greater effect than is generally acknowledged. That is why John Stossel's column about the ignorance and lack of knowledge demonstrated by certain young voters reminded me of something I posted several weeks ago.

The National Education Association held a conference during which they hammered out their agenda for what they thought should be taught to children in public schools. It was quite a long list, but what is important to note are the things that were not included. Things like mathematics, history, science, reading and writing. No, instead, they proposed that children of all ages be indoctrinated in other topics like same-sex relationships, politics of global warming (not the science, the politcs as prescribed by Al Gore), political activism, gender politics, affirmative action quotas and the NEA also proposes that only state-licensed teacher do the indoctrinating so that parents are cut out of the loop as much as possible.

The National Education Association (NEA) Spells Out Its Policies
84rules
August 6, 2008

Well, John Stossel's column, which really exposes the lack of knowledge demonstrated by kids coming out of our public schools today, shows exactly what effect the efforts of the NEA and other leftist teacher's groups are having. He talked with some of those potential voters and got some very troubling responses to his questions. From ABC News:

Some people were knowledgeable. "There are two senators from each state, making a total of 100," one young voter said. Another knew that "the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution." But many of the young voters didn't seem very informed. Some didn't know how many states are in the U.S. or how many senators there are. Few could explain Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling upholding abortion rights. "Roe v. Wade is segregation maybe?" one new voter guessed. Another asked: "Was Roe v. Wade where we declared bankruptcy?" And still another wondered, "That was about a black person and a white person?"

How important those history lessons and civics classes seem now.

And it wasn't just the kids at rock concerts:

Maybe it's not fair to pick on kids at a rock concert. So "20/20" moved on to our nation's capital and spoke to prospective voters on the Washington Mall. Certainly people there will know more, won't they? People were shown some pictures of prominent Americans, like John McCain and Barack Obama. Everyone recognized Obama and McCain. And maybe half the people knew who Sarah Palin was. But Joe Biden? Most didn't recognize the Democratic vice presidential nominee. Few recognized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yet almost everyone recognized television's Judge Judy. "Maybe 75 percent of people can name the vice president. ... The public's knowledge of politics is shockingly low," economist Bryan Caplan said. In his book "The Myth of the Rational Voter," Caplan argues that people who know little about our government ought to stay home on Election Day. But aren't Americans always told it's their civic duty to vote?

There has been a major push for the last 30 years to dumb-down America and that push has come from leftists groups like the NEA. The effect is starting to show. Students' heads are being filled with alot of knowledge that is utterly useless to them, but useful to those who would like to control them.

We need to be taking a closer look at what our teachers are teaching our children and begin holding them accountable for failing to educate. Of course, this means that the NEA will come to their defense and demand even more indoctrination, but we have to stand firm against them too. Our children are too precious a resource to waste on the political agendas of the NEA and teacher's unions.

The end result will be voters who think there are 57 states and elected officials who pal around with domestic terrorists.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Maybe It's Your Civic Duty Not To Vote
John Stossel
ABC News
October 9, 2008

Homeschooling Case Exposes Liberal Left

Leftists are becoming bolder about what they really stand for. That is actually an amazing fact since left-wing policies were shown to be such dismal failures, especially in Eastern Europe and most third-world countries.

This time, the left has come out and stated in unambiguous terms their goal with our children through public education. It came out in a case in California where an appellate court ruled that parents have no right to homeschool.

According to John Stossel at TownHall.com:

The cat is finally out of the bag. A California appellate court, ruling that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children, pinned its decision on this ominous quotation from a 47-year-old case, "A primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare." There you have it; a primary purpose of government schools is to train schoolchildren "in loyalty to the state." Somehow that protects "the public welfare" more than allowing parents to homeschool their children, even though homeschooled kids routinely outperform government-schooled kids academically. In 2006, homeschooled students had an average ACT composite score of 22.4. The national average was 21.1.

Yes, I too noticed the phrases "primary purpose of the educational system" and "lotalty to the state." It immediately reminded me of what Albert J. Nock wrote in his classic essay, Our Enemy, The State. But that will be a topic for another post.

What should be scaring the living bejeezus out of you right now is that little phrase "loyalty to the state." It means that our public education system is no longer committed to educating our children, rather that it is now in place to indoctrinate them the same way Soviet-style Communist regimes indoctrinated their children. It is there to teach kids to become dependent on the paternalistic government rather than be self-reliant and self-determinating.

But dependency on the State worked so well in the old Soviet bloc, didn't it? Leftists and libs are completely ignorant of history. And they seem to want to make everyone else ignorant of it too. Hence, the ruling by the California appellate court.

Stossel also notes something else:

The court finds no constitutional right to homeschool one's children. But in a free country, people are free to do anything not expressly prohibited by law.

Yep. If libs think that parents shouldn't be allowed to homeschool because that right is not specifically listed in the Constitution, then all libs should be required to change their beliefs from pro-abortion to pro-life since the right to an abortion also does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

But then, hypocrisy is a garment the left has always worn with pride.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Threat To Homeschooling
John Stossel
TownHall.com
April 2, 2008

Guns Save Lives

John Stossel really lit up the skyline with this column. The New York Times has rolled out the gun-control bandwagon and offered some criticism towards the U.S. Dept. of Interior for rethinking gun bans in National Parks. Check out these excerpts:

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. ... As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. ... That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime.

Great column!

You can access it on-line here:

Guns Save Lives
John Stossel
TownHall.com
February 27, 2008