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

As The Nation’s Workforce Suffers, Government’s Thrives

There are basically two camps in the debate about how to stimulate an economy. On the one hand you have the capitalists who hold that economies are driven by the private sector and that it is most important for the people to have money to spend. On the other hand you have the socialists who think that government spending drives an economy and that it is more important for the government to raise taxes in order to have money to spend.

Right now, the socialists are in power and they are doing everything they can to implement their agenda no matter how disastrous it may be.

Writing for Publius Forum, Warner Todd Huston looks at what is happening in the private sector versus how the Federal government is growing:

Our stern and earnest president told us that it is time for Americans to sacrifice. Gone are the good times, he’s told us. We are in for austere days, he says. Sacrifice, people, sacrifice. That is the word of the day. Well, it’s the word for we commoners, anyway. For if you happen to be looking at government don’t expect to find any “sacrifice” going on at any level. In fact, government seems to be a boom business under the president of change and “sacrifice.”

There is no sacrifice at the Federal level. Government workers can see their pay increase from an average of $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 in 2009. And as one who lives in the D.C. area, I can honestly tell you that for that money, we taxpayers are getting very little in return.

Warner even quotes from CBS News to show how fast the Federal government is growing:

Some of the Feds’ hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama’s 2010 budget without significant changes.)

Now, those of us in the private sector are struggling and we pray on a daily basis that we will still have a job tomorrow. Out pay raises haven't been anything like the Federal workers are getting. Where is the government getting the money from to pay for those raises? Taxes. Tax money that if left in the private sector would do more to grow our economy than any bloated government would ever be able to do. The tax money the Feds confiscate to give out pay raises to government employees could very well have been money that employers could have used to give private sector employees bigger pay raises.

Keep in mind that the only region of the nation that benefits from higher taxes is the Washington D.C. Metro area and parts of Northern Virginia and Southern/Central Maryland. The rest of the nation suffers economic decline.

Warner's parting shot:

What we see here is that President Obama is not helping the economy at all. He is helping inflate the power of government. And, since government is only a drag on the economy, he is making matter far worse than they were. What we have here with this perpetual Obama political campaign is not a president that is a savior of the economy, but one that is the patron saint of the expansion of big government.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

As The Nation’s Workforce Suffers, Government’s Thrives
Warner Todd Huston
Publius Forum
May 19, 2009

A Few Items About Barack Obama: Immigration, Budget Reporting And Obamanomics

It's been a few days since I last posted. But, that is to be expected when you are the father of a four-and-a-half month old baby boy. Many times, your obligations to your family simply outweigh any other activity you engage in.

That said, let's catch up on a few things that are brewing out there. (In a later post today, I'll try to tackle Nancy Pelosi's lies about her being briefed on waterboarding and a little something about states declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.)

First, Obama appears to have reversed his position on immigration. Contrary to his many promises during the campaign last year, he now supports "enforcement first" immigration policies. From the Washington Times:

[Obama] now says he can't move forward with the type of comprehensive bill he wants until voters are convinced that the borders can be enforced. Having already backed off his pledge to have an immigration bill this year, Mr. Obama boosted his commitment to enforcement in the budget released Thursday. The spending blueprint calls for extra money to build an employee-verification system and to pay for more personnel and equipment to patrol the border. This security-first stance is not unlike that of President George W. Bush, Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who said their immigration bill failed in 2007 because voters didn't trust the government to be serious about enforcement.

But Obama is still trying to convince illegal immigrant support groups that he wants to legalize illegals. Somewhere along the line, Obama must have realized that if he stays the course on such an explosive issue, the Democrat majority in Congress will be in greater danger in 2010 than it already is.

You can read the complete article on-line here:

Obama Reverses Stance On Immigration
Stephan Dinan
Washington Times
May 8, 2009

---

Obama seems to have come to another realization about the economy and is taking steps to hide certain things. Despite what he or any other politician says about the way things are going, people can walk through the downtown shopping districts of their hometowns or cities and see the truth.

They see business owners doing everything possible to stretch a nickel into a dime while the Obama adminstration and the Democrat-controlled Congress run up huge national debts by spending way more money that they have to spend.

So, in an effort to stem the tide of public opinion, Obama is issuing instructions to the press about how to report on economic issues. Obama is betting that Joe and Jane Average American aren't smart enough to see reality and will instead believe whatever Old Media spoon-feeds them.

From the American Thinker:

Well, I guess it's better than the $100 million he asked his department heads to trim a couple of weeks ago. But $17 billion cut from a $3.4 Trillion budget is still a microscopic amount. Congress sneezes and spends $17 billion on Kleenex. But the truly weird part of this story is the president of the United States instructing journalists how to report this story. Brian Montopoli of CBS News quotes the president giving instructions in how to spin the miniscule budget cutting efforts of his administration: As Steve Chaggaris noted in Hotsheet's morning bulletin today, the news that the cuts totaled $17 billion "landed with a bit of a thud" in the media. Reporters stressed that the cuts made up "a tiny fraction" of the total budget and that they would be hard to push through; USA Today noted that the "proposed cuts are about one-fiftieth the size of this year's $787 billion economic stimulus package - all of which was added to the deficit." In his remarks today, the president sought to change that tenor of that coverage. He mocked the notion that smaller savings are considered "trivial" in Washington and stressed that "these savings, large and small, add up." And he told journalists directly that they should stress the fact that the cuts are "significant" - a surprisingly direct appeal to reporters concerning which angle they should take in their coverage. Update - Thomas Lifson adds: Well, now it is out there for all to see. Obama sees the press as his flacks. I applaud the President for his honest and forthright acknowledgement that the White House press corps exists to publish flattering information about him, and has given up any pretense of objectivity. And if any of them from Fox News or the Washington Times or Examiner break the rules, they won't ever get any more press conference questions. The New York Times will be enchanted to do his bidding.

It seems as if Obama would like to re-write economic history. He knows his policies will only lead to more dependency on the government and hence, greater government control over people's lives.

Lifson's remarks are right on the money.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Schools The Press On How To Report His 'Budget Cuts'
Rick Moran
American Thinker
May 8, 2009

---

And finally, we have to ask: Is Obama intentionally hurting our economy, or is he simply naïve?

Austin Hill over at Town Hall looks at that very issue:

Okay. Let’s consider the possibility that President Obama is, simply, “a little naïve.” So was it this presumed “naivety” that led him to defy U.S. bankruptcy law, and insert himself in between a corporation and its secured creditors? According to such law, a company in bankruptcy must pay its debts to its “secured creditors” before it pays its unsecured creditors. Not only that, in most cases, secured creditors can demand to be paid in full. In the case of Chrysler, several of the institutions to which it owes money are banks that accepted government bail-out funds last year and earlier this year. Those banks are now enslaved to whatever President Obama and the U.S. Treasury Department tell them to do. So when Obama tells, say, “bank X” to “accept twenty-eight cents on the dollar as payment of the debt Chrysler owes you,” well, those banks are obliged to obey Obama, whether or not it makes financial sense to do so, and whether or not bankruptcy law allows that bank to demand more.

You would think that a president who was also a lawyer would know these things, right? So why would he intentionally go against the law? Is it deliberate, or is Obama really that uninformed about such things?

More:

President Obama has now demonstrated to the world’s investors that rules and laws don’t matter - - his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process. If Obama’s objectve is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a “more fair world,” he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford.

Amen.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obamanomics: Naive, Or Intentionally Destructive?
Austin Hill
TownHall.com
May 10, 2009

Why The American Economy Needs John McCain

In a comparison of the final three candidates for President, one can see a huge difference. Barack Obama has proposed $281 billion in new spending, Hillary Clinton $250 billion and John McCain just $7 billion. You see, John McCain knows what would have to be done to raise $250 to $281 billion and what effect it would have on our economy. Obama and Clinton seem to think that money can simply be produced out of thin air. Those two couldn't be more wrong with their ideas that amount ot nothing more than wasteful socialist spending.

Yomin Postelnik is a Floridian who is writing for the Canada Free Press. Here is what he has to say about John McCain's fiscal policies:

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office is equally open about the fact that no member of Congress will do anything about this matter until people realize the necessity to act. Few politicians want to embrace unpopular positions like huge rollbacks and caps on spending. That’s the difference between them and leaders. Leaders work for five, ten, twenty years to alert the public to important realities and awaken their hearts and minds to problems and propose solutions that have little support before the public realizes their need. When it comes to the all important issue of wasteful spending, an issue that can mean the difference between continued growth and expansion or economic collapse, John McCain is such a leader. Remarkably, his battles against pork and pork’s favorite barbeque chefs on both sides of the congressional aisle, haven’t tarnished his ability to work with members of congress. Though a lesser man would have alienated himself from members of both sides with his steadfast campaign against their habits, John McCain’s sincere devotion to this cause, his steadfastness and his reasoned approach to all other issues have earned him a level of respect and cooperation from members of both parties than most senators can ever hope to achieve. The fight against spending is simply another battle the scars of which John McCain wears well.

I can't remember how many Conservative pundits have called for spending to be brought under control over the past few years. Well, now we have a candidate who is pledging to do just that.

The national debt is out of hand and we cannot continue to borrow money forever. We are closer than almost anyone realizes to losing our current credit rating and to having our debt turn to junk bond status. The United States has maintained a triple A bond score since 1917, but this year Moody’s attached an asterisk to the rating, a note of caution. The Congressional Budget Office worries about a real decline in rating. This is all thanks to the reckless spending of both parties. There’s one candidate who’s willing to do something about it. His name is John McCain and he’s been fighting ruinous pork barrel spending for over 25 years. This is one of the reasons I suggest that entrepreneurs and all who care for the nation’s economy support John McCain for President. He understands the need to invest in education, defense and technology and brings concrete solutions to the table as opposed to empty platitudes. But most of all, his career-long battle against reckless spending shows him for the man of integrity, sound judgment and leadership that he is.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Why America Would Be Headed For Disaster Without John McCain
Yomin Postelnik
Canada Free Press
March 2, 2008

More Economic Bad News, Congress Asks About Firing Of Terrorism Expert And The Politics Of Race And Sex

The ripples are already being felt around the world. But is anyone watching and really paying attention? Check out the following from Yahoo News:

Asian markets plunged Wednesday on growing speculation the U.S. economy -- a vital export market -- is sliding into a recession that could lead to a global slowdown. Investors dumped stocks after an overnight sell-off on Wall Street and on news that Citigroup Inc. had lost nearly $10 billion in the fourth quarter as it wrote down mountains of bad mortgage assets -- the latest fallout from the credit crisis. Weak U.S. retail sales figures added to the gloom. ... In Hong Kong, the benchmark Hang Seng index sank 5.4 percent -- its biggest percentage drop since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- to 24,450.85. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index fell 3.4 percent to 13,504.51 points, its lowest in more than two years. Markets in Australia, China, India, South Korea, New Zealand and the Philippines also dropped sharply on uncertainty about the U.S. economic outlook and the full extent of the subprime mortgage crisis.

The signs are all there. What more do you need? Call you financial advisor and ask about how you can weather the coming storm. It will not be a small one.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Asian Stock Markets Plunge
Dikky Sinn
Associated Press via Yahoo News
January 16, 2008

---

Those who practice the idiotic philosophy of political correctness are going to get hundreds, if not thousands, of people hurt or killed. Jeopardizing the safety of American citizens seems to be of no concern to some, especially if that is the price we have to pay for not offending some particular group. From Cybercast News Service:

Members of Congress are seeking more information regarding the firing of a top terrorism expert at the Pentagon following reports that he was dismissed for being too critical of Islamic law. Earlier this month, the Pentagon Joint Staff told Stephen Coughlin, a specialist on Islamic law at the Pentagon, that his contract would not be renewed in March. The firing apparently resulted from pressure by pro-Muslim officials working in the Department of Defense, according to numerous news reports. Meanwhile, members of Congress have not had much success in getting answers from the Pentagon either, said Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), co-chair of the bi-partisan House Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

Why is this necessary? Becasue of this:

Coughlin - who supporters say had one of the most important jobs in analyzing how Jihadists think -- crossed Hasham Islam, an aide to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, according The Washington Times. The paper reported, without attribution, that the aide told Coughlin to "soften his view" on radical Islam. When Coughlin refused, Hasham Islam called him a Christian zealot "with a pen," according to the report. The incomplete reports and near silence from the Pentagon creates the need to get at the truth, Myrick said.

But apparently, all Coughlin did was state the obvious about a religion that is inherently violent:

Coughlin's 333-page thesis, " To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad," was accepted last year by the National Defense Intelligence College. The report describes an Islamic culture that teaches violence from an early age. It says, for instance, "So how does one explain the prevailing assumption that Islam does not stand for such violence undertaken in its name with the fact that its laws and education materials validate the very acts undertaken by 'extremists' in Iraq?" And continues, "The first 'radicalizing' lessons Saudi youth receive that motivates them to travel to Iraq and fight coalition forces does not come from 'extremist' groups like al Qaeda, but rather is taught as part of Saudi Arabia's standard secondary school curriculum." The sentiments of Coughlin's research apparently were too much for some in the Pentagon, said Andrew Bostom, an author and lecturer on Islam, who has known Coughlin for more than three years.

So, according to some misguided fools, it is better to ignore the problem altogether rather than at least admit that the problem exists?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Congressmen Seek Answers About Terror Expert's Firing
Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 16, 2008

---

And finally, we have a very insightful column by Kathleen Parker from TownHall. For decades, the Dems have built their party around race-baiting and sex-baiting in the hopes to a) capture the black and women's vote and b) play on the collective white/masculine guilt of America.

From her column:

Despite their protests to the contrary, both Obama and Clinton have been playing to their respective demographics. Obama hasn't overtly made his campaign about race, but he didn't have to. In Clintonian tradition, he has let surrogates make the case for him. Oprah Winfrey laid it out plainly enough when she told a throng in Columbia, S.C.: "We don't have to just dream the dream anymore. We get to vote that dream into reality. I believe that now is the time for somebody like Barack Obama." "Somebody like Barack" and "the dream" don't require much elaboration. The dream was the Rev. Martin Luther King's, of a future when blacks and whites lived in harmony. And though Obama is unique in his broad appeal, Winfrey was clearly urging voters to put an African-American in the White House. For her part, Clinton has insisted that women shouldn't vote for her just because of gender. "I am not asking you to vote for me because I am a woman," she told a crowd in New Hampshire. "I am asking you to vote for me because I believe I am the most qualified person to hit the ground running in 2009." Except when she is urging women to vote for her because she's a woman. Speaking at her all-female alma mater, Wellesley College, Clinton called upon women to rally against "the all-boys club of presidential politics. We're ready to shatter that highest glass ceiling."

But in order to be a victim, you have to have come from a victim's background, which neither Clinton nor Obama can claim. As such, they have to re-invent themselves as victims and play to their own fabricated victimhood. But that means that each one must now pit their own "victimhood" against the other's. Not a good combo, especially considering how blatantly the Dems pander to such "victims." It will split their party.

Of course, an election should be about issues, but the Dems have yet to offer any real soultions to any of the most important issues (economy, immigration, terrorism, etc.).

In the end, the Democratic Party may be hostage to its own noble intentions. By co-opting equality as their party's identity and making victimhood their rallying cry, the battle for race and gender necessarily has become a fight between race and gender. If a Clinton victory is viewed as a victory for all women, then her defeat can only be viewed as a defeat for women. The same goes for Obama and African-Americans. It shouldn't be about race and gender, but it is. And the Democratic Party made it this way.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Perils of Pandering
Kathleen Parker
TownHall.com
January 16, 2008

Are Polls Worth Anything? And A Recession On the Horizon?

It is damn near impossible to turn on a TV news show, or pick up a newspaper or magazine without hearing or reading the words "According to the latest poll ..." I get sick and tired of it for the simple fact that no one from Gallup or Rasmussen or Zogby has ever polled me. Nor have they ever polled any of my friends or family.

What gives? We are average people with average lives. Aren't we the very type of people that the polls claim to represent?

Well, yes, but the polls almost never reflect our views. Why?

Because polls can be manipulated and twisted, that's why.

Writing for Human Events Online, Timothy P. Carney has this:

Pollsters don’t just call a random, representative sample of the electorate and tally up their responses. They make many assumptions: how many independents will vote, who counts as a “likely voter,” how many seniors will vote, and so on. If the pollster’s sample has 15% senior citizens, but he estimates that seniors will comprise 20% of the electorate, he will weight his results. There’s tons of guessing and tweaking. A couple of tweaks in the wrong direction, and you’ve got the wrong guy winning.

And it is not just the guesswork that should be questioned, it is the geography of the demographics as well. For example, if I took a poll of 5000 inner-city residents across the United States, I could rightly claim that it was a nationwide poll. But did the results actually reflect the nation as a whole? Not likely.

Thus, it can clearly be seen that Carney's most profound observation is right on the mark: Polling is an art, not a science.

Carney also offers three pieces of advice, of which the first is most important:

Basically, don’t trust polls.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Why The Polls Were Wrong In New Hampshire
Timothy P. Carney
Human Events Online
January 14, 2008

---

I know, most people don't like to talk about a slowing economy if they can avoid it. In fact, back before the big crash of 1929, people absolutely refused to listen to any naysayers who would question the strength of the U.S. economy during the 1920's. Well, they got a pretty big shock on Black Thursday (or Black Tuesday depending on when you think the Great Depression kicked off).

Irwin M. Stelzer, writing for the Weekly Standard has a few observations about the current market trends:

Economists and analysts are rushing to revise their 2008 forecasts, and journalists are competing for page one placements with scary stories about evicted homeowners sleeping in the streets, and consumers filing for bankruptcy. Western singer Kris Kristofferson did not have fallen CEOs and other investment bankers in mind in mind when he sang about the man who "Once ... had a future full of money, love, and dreams, which he spent like they was goin' out of style," but it is an apt description of many shell-shocked bankers and investors. They have reason to worry. Oil finally hit $100 per barrel, sending share prices tumbling, gold prices soaring in anticipation of renewed inflation, and developing nations deeper into poverty. Food prices continue their upward trajectory and, combined with gasoline prices that are due to break new records, are reducing consumer discretionary-spending power to a mere shadow of its former self. Latest surveys suggest that even soaring exports will not keep the U.S. manufacturing sector from slowing down, with falling sales of autos a particular drag. So desperate are dealers to clear inventory-laden lots that one has taken out a magazine ad offering 12-year financing to anyone who thinks he can afford the gasoline guzzled by one of the Rolls Royces sitting on his lot. Most important, last month the unemployment rate soared from 4.7 percent to 5 percent, with more industries losing than gaining jobs.

I think there is reason for concern. So, one of my New Year's Resolutions is to have a nice long talk with my financial advisor and figure out a strategy. No, I am not going to do any kind of advertising here. I am simply offering the advice that now is the time to start thinking about a major economic downturn and how to ride it out.

More:

We know, too, that as the greenback depreciates in value, foreign central banks are less and less inclined to keep stores of pictures of American presidents in their vaults, and more interested in diversifying their currency holdings. The dollar's share of central banks' holdings of foreign reserves has fallen from 66.5 percent to 63.8 percent in the past year. Equally important, oil-producing nations, which until now have accepted dollars-for-crude, and have pegged their currencies to the dollar, are finding it increasingly difficult to hold to that policy. The dollars they are getting, which they use to pay the large foreign workforces on which their work-shy citizens rely, buy less and less when remitted to the wives and families of these workers. That is causing social discontent of the sort that horrifies the ruling classes in the Arab countries. My guess is they will begin pegging their own currencies to a basket of currencies that includes the dollar, but in which the euro is importantly represented. A negative impact on U.S. influence in the region is one possible consequence.

And that all points to trouble. Now, the U.S. economy will survive but how well individual citizens weather the storm will depend on who takes the situation seriously.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Uncertainty Reigns
Irwin M. Stelzer
The Weekly Standard
January 8, 2008

Hidden Black On White Crimes, New Deal Economics And Alternative Fuel Woes

On this last day of the year 2007 A.D. (Yes, I say Anno Domini rather than the politically correct C.E.), I have three articles I would like to bring to the front. The first is a column by Dr. Walter Williams:

Whenever there is a case of white on black crime, whether real or alleged, it becomes front-page headline news. But, when it is black on white crime, well, then it is treated differently by Old Media.

Dr. Walter Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well. Oh yeah, for those of you who didn't know it, he is also a black man.

Here is what he writes about this issue over at TownHall.com:

If you're like I am, you've heard scores of media reports about the 2006 Duke University rape case, in which three white lacrosse players were falsely accused of raping a black stripper at a wild party at the home of one of the team members. These guys, convicted by the news media and Duke faculty, were later found innocent. It turned out that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was running for re-election. In seeking the black vote, he concealed DNA evidence that would have exonerated the lacrosse players. ... I don't know about you, but it was just recently that I heard about a gruesome murder in Knoxville, Tenn., that is far worse than the false charges in the Duke rape case and is at least as horrible, if not more so, than the dragging death of James Byrd. Unlike the Duke rape case and the Jasper lynching, the national news media's coverage of the interracial Knoxville murders paled in comparison. On Jan. 6, 2007, University of Tennessee student Channon Christian and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, were carjacked and kidnapped in Knoxville. Both of them were later murdered. According to a 46-count indictment, suspects Darnell Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson, George Thomas and Vanessa Coleman, all blacks, are charged with committing rape, including sodomy against Christian and Newsom, both of whom are white. After being raped, Newsom was shot several times and his body was found burned along nearby railroad tracks. Christian was forced to witness her boyfriend's rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was ultimately raped, tortured and murdered. The police discovered her body inside a large trash can in the kitchen of the home where the murders took place. Before disposing of her body, the murderers poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. Trial dates have been set for next May.

Dr. Williams rightly asks where the news media is and why they aren't covering this incident as closely and completely as they did the Duke fake-rape case. He also rightly asks why the NAACP doesn't speak out about this as they spoke out against the prosecution of the Jena 6.

Why is this so important to us? Read on:

According to the 2004 FBI National Crime Victimization Survey, in most instances of interracial crimes, the victim is white and the perpetrator is black. In the case of interracial murder for 2004, where the race of victim and perpetrator is known, more than twice as many whites were murdered by a black than cases of a white murdering a black. The failure of civil rights leaders, people like Jackson and Sharpton, as well as politicians to vocally condemn black-on-white crime -- and the relative silence of the news media in reporting it -- is not simply a matter of double standards. It's dangerous, for it contributes to a pile of racial kindling awaiting a racial arsonist to set it ablaze.

The column is short but profound and can be accessed on-line here:

Hiding Black Interracial Crimes
Dr. Walter Williams
TownHall.com
December 26, 2007

---

Since 2008 is a Presidential election year, it would be a good idea to start looking at the campaign promises of the various candidates and how those promises reflect on certain relevent issues. Probably the biggest issue is that of the economy. We all know that the market is heading for a massive readjustment pretty soon, probably within the next year. The question will be: how do we respond to it?

Many Democrats have already decided that the solution is to impose New Deal style socialist policies on the United States. But is that really a good idea?

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Amity Schlaes has the following:

Notwithstanding the largest peacetime appropriation in the history of the world, the New Deal recovery remained incomplete. From 1934 on--the period when the spending ramped up--monetary troubles were subsiding, and could no longer be blamed alone for the Depression. The story of the mid-1930s is the story of a heroic economy struggling to recuperate but failing to do so because lawmakers' preoccupation with public works rather got in the way of allowing productive businesses to expand and pull the rest forward. ... People became accustomed to a sort of calculus of frustration. The closer the country got to the prosperity of 1929, the more impossible reaching such prosperity seemed. The 1930s came to be known as the always recovering but never recovered decade. The Dow itself confirmed this pessimistic assessment by stubbornly remaining below 1929 levels through World War II and into the 1950s. The relevant points for today are simple. The famous "multiplier effect" of public spending may exist. U.S. cities do indeed need new highways, new buildings and new roads, maybe even from government. But these needs should be weighed against damage that comes when officials create projects and jobs for political reasons. An emergency such as a Great Depression, a Sept. 11, a Katrina, can serve as a catalyst for an infrastructure project and for job creation too. But the dire moral quality of that emergency does not guarantee that the project undertaken in its name will be more efficient than your standard earmark. In other words, candidates may want to be careful as they climb onto FDR's shoulders. The New Deal edifice may look solid, but it doesn't form a good basis for the American future.

Socialist policies have never succeeded in bringing any nation to economic prosperity. It didn't happen during the New Deal and certainly didn't happen when James Earl Carter unleashed his disasterous policies on the American economy back in the late 70's. So, why are the Dems so intent on inviting that same disaster here in the Y2k's? It would only lead to higher unemployment and more economic dispair which would in turn put a larger burden on the American people.

Free markets are the way to go, not inefficient central planning.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The New Deal Jobs Myth
Amity Schlaes
OpinionJournal.com
December 31, 2007

---

And finally we have another story about alternative fuels and what they are really costing us. Eric Berger, writing for the Houston Chronicle brings us the following:

The recent passage of the mammoth energy bill could have unintended consequences for the Gulf of Mexico that have nothing to do with oil and gas platforms. Under the law, production of ethanol is set to increase five-fold to 36 billion gallons a year by 2020. Some environmentalists are worried that the shift to ethanol — viewed as a home-grown alternative to foreign oil — could enlarge the northern Gulf's "dead zone," an 8,000-square-mile area so devoid of oxygen that fish, shrimp and other sea life cannot survive. Already ethanol, by doubling corn prices since 2002, has driven corn production to its highest levels since World War II. Growing corn requires considerably more nitrogen-based fertilizer than most crops. When the fertilizer runs off fields in the Midwest, it drains into the Mississippi and eventually reaches the Gulf of Mexico. "This year's dead zone is the third highest on record, and I think we're already seeing an impact from increased ethanol use," said Donald Scavia, a University of Michigan professor who studies farm practices and hypoxia, or low-oxygen water. Scientists say the Gulf's dead zone has grown larger since its discovery more than 20 years ago. According to Nancy Rabelais, a professor with the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium who annually surveys the area, the dead zone has been about 15 percent bigger in the last five years than normal.

It is a great truism of the Universe: you cannot get something for nothing. Sometimes the something you get is not worth it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Ethanol Stirring Coastal Concerns
Eric Berger
Houston Chronicle
December 31, 2007