If one accepts that the economy and jobs can not improve until small business owners are confident enough to hire, the U.S. may be in for a long stretch of difficulty. We hear whispers of a “lost decade” but most people have problems imagining that.

Despite what President Obama is saying, the stimulus isn’t working and private sector job prospects are very poor.

Discover(R) Small Business Watch

–66% Unlikely to Hire New Workers With Proposed $5,000 Tax Credit.

– 4 percent rate the economy as good or excellent, down from 8 percent in January; 36 percent rate the current economy as fair, and 57 percent rate it as poor.

Few Small Business Owners Getting Help from Federal Stimulus Efforts

When asked if they are likely to hire new employees if offered a $5,000 tax credit, such as the one proposed by the Obama administration, 69 percent say that it is “not very likely” or “not at all likely,” 15 percent say they would be “very likely” to hire, 10 percent say they would be “somewhat likely,” and 6 percent weren’t sure.

The sour sentiments of small business are not likely to improve in the face of Obama’s renewed drive for mandated health care and the looming huge tax increases as the Bush tax cuts expire

Sorry, but there is no easy way out of the jobs wilderness. The current federal and most state spending levels are not sustainable. The country opted to try to mitigate the pain of fiscal and economic crisis by spending and borrowing like there are no tomorrows. The Democrats have decided at the same time that NOW, in the midst of an extreme economic downturn, is the time to impose a national health care cramdown. And oh, by the way, lots of new mandates and taxes.

The Obama progressive plan to spend our way out of our problems can not work and will lead to an even more severe long term recession (depression?). Or, the debt can be wiped away by a greatly devalued currency. Two bad options. . .

The proper course to follow is to take the pain now. Cut spending and cut federal entitlement programs and do it SOON. Drastically reduce unemployment insurance - 99 weeks is ridiculous and very damaging to the economy. Reduce the minimum wage. Hold the line on withholding taxes but drastically cut capital gains. Give full same year deduction for equipment purchases. Just remember, even with this prescription the country will continue to lose jobs, especially government jobs, in the near term. The unemployed may have to accept jobs that are available, instead of holding on for nearly two years for a job making what they used to make. This is part of the pain but offers a way back to prosperity.

To have any chance to do what is needed, first we need to elect a lot of conservative Republicans this November because . . .

None of this - none of what is needed is even remotely possible with the current Congress.

One year ago today the stimulus bill was signed by Obama. Though he voted against the stimulus, Senator Bennett still managed to secure funding for projects that had no job creation associated with them. He has become out of touch and irresponsible.

If we want to end out of control government spending in Washington, and get our fiscal house in order, we need to send a new generation of leaders to Washington D.C. It is time for fiscal discipline, real budget reform, and responsible leadership. This video highlights projects in Utah where “stimulus” money was allocated. How many actual jobs were created as a result of this funding?

The Democrats’ $862 billion stimulus bill turns a year old today, but don’t fret if you didn’t get a party invitation. Most Americans haven’t seen much in the past year of stimulus worth celebrating.

Democrats claimed their stimulus bill would have an immediate impact on job creation and the economy. Clearly, that was ridiculous. Just take a look at the bill – it’s mostly a hodge-podge of expensive giveaways and programs with little real impact on job creation.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), who just announced that he won’t seek reelection this year, recently had some sharp comments about this Congress’ record on jobs:

“If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months,” Bayh said.

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of Democrat policies, and no wonder. The number of jobs our economy has lost in just the last year is approaching 4 million, and the unemployment rate has hung around 10% for the past 6 months. And then there’s the 6.1 million unemployed Americans who want to work but aren’t included in the oft-quoted unemployment rate.

Even these numbers don’t paint the whole picture. Conventional wisdom says the U.S. needs to create about 125,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth. That’s where the Democrats’ job-killing agenda rears its ugly head. Employers aren’t likely to risk hiring and expanding without confidence that their businesses will be able to thrive in the future. When confronted by a government takeover of health care, a national energy tax, card check, skyrocketing debt, and higher taxes, most job creators aren’t trying to expand. They’re hunkering down in self-defense.

For robust and sustainable job growth, our entrepreneurs, small businesses, and other job creators require a job-friendly environment in which individuals and businesses can keep more of their hard-earned money without seeing the future mortgaged by irresponsible spenders in Washington.

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/-VjbuM4i–A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/-VjbuM4i–A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” allowScriptAccess=”always” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

The 862 Billion albatross is one year old today. President Obama is currently spinning this boondoggle as the savior of our nation. You see, if it hadn’t been passed America would resemble the post-apocalyptic world of Mad Max, complete with that wacky Thunderdome.

Mr. President, the American people simply aren’t buying your snake oil anymore.

If you’re wondering how such a large expenditure of the public wealth could have been frittered away to so little benefit I offer exhibit one from the Wall St Journal:

“Government data indicate that most of the jobs supported by stimulus spending belonged to public employees at the state and local level, including about 325,000 teachers and school staff.
Subsidizing those jobs avoided layoffs, or state and local tax increases that could have further undermined the economy. But they didn’t result in substantial hiring of people who had lost private-sector jobs.”

That’s right the stimulus was meant to protect politically connected and Democratic supporting government employees from sharing the pain of the Great Recession with their fellow citizens. Sometimes, even with politicians at all levels of government watching their backs their arrogance will get the best of them and they will get their due. Like those teachers’ at Central Falls High School in RI that refused to work an extra 25 minutes.

Exhibit 2:

A poll done by USA Today of 884 small business owners:

How has the Obama administration affected small-business success?

It has had a positive effect: 11%

It has hurt me: 77%

No effect: 13%

The majority of Americans work for and historically job growth comes from small businesses. The job market will recover when the Obama administration gives up its statist ambitions that are threatening to wipe out the small companies that enable the middle class to exist.

Why Obama’s Proposed Hiring Tax Credit is the Wrong Answer for Small Business.

The administration has recently proposed several measures to “stimulate” small business and encourage hiring. There are four components of the proposed plan: 1) a $5000 per worker tax credit for each net new hire, 2) a reimbursement of the increase in social security taxes incurred as a result of the net new hires, 3) elimination of capital gains taxes on investment in small business, and 4) additional SBA funding and loan guarantees.

As a small business owner, I can certainly appreciate the good intentions of the administration in attempting to help business succeed and grow. But, as a small business owner, I also understand the barriers to growth and new hiring, and I can see how the aforementioned proposed measures are unlikely to help.

In the current environment, there are a few reasons why a small business may be reluctant or unable to hire. First, the business may simple not have the capital or revenue stream to support an additional employee, or enough to reinvest in growth. Second, a small business who might have the capital or revenue stream may be reluctant to hire or grow because of uncertainty about the ongoing costs. Is revenue sustainable? Are there unforeseen new costs down the road that would make a new hire unsustainable? Are there foreseeable costs that appear to exceed any potential increase in revenue?

These issues boil down to one thing: uncertainty. The future for small business is more uncertain now than it has been in years. Are there new taxes coming? Will a cap-and-trade bill, or health care reform increase costs? As a physician, I ask, What will Congress do with the SGR formula this year? Will the Bush tax cuts expire, causing a new decrease in income to the business owners, that makes a new hire unaffordable?

Unfortunately, the Obama proposals do nothing to address these concerns. What they do is exacerbate them. Will a new hire, that a small business owner can now just barely afford, thanks to federal largesse, result in a sufficient increase in revenue so that the new hire is sustainable when the credit expires next year? Is the small business willing to take the risk that they will improve revenue sufficiently to avoid the cost of laying off the new hire, one year from now? What is the potential effect on the business’s unemployment rating?

Try this thought experiment: You run a small business. You would like to hire a new employee, and grow your business, but you have not been able to do so. For the sake of argument, your cost of a new hire is $40,000. Now, thanks to the Obama proposal (should it pass) you can get the same hire for about $33,000. (You get a $5000 credit and save your share of social security tax on this employee’s income.) You couldn’t afford the employee for $40K (else you would have hired them already), but perhaps you can at $33K. Will you be able to afford the employee a year from now? Will the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts make this $33K too expensive next year? Will the long term effect of laying off this employee next January offset any potential gains? What about Cap-and-Trade, health care mandates, and the SGR fix?

No – this small business is not likely to hire. (I am in this sort of position, and the 5K+ is not enough to induce me to hire). A larger “small business”, across town, that has more revenue and capital, was thinking about hiring five or six new employees already. Now, thanks to the tax credit, maybe they can afford to hire seven. The risk to this business is much less than the risk to the smaller business. But, being smart business people, they hire the six they were going to hire anyway, and apply the tax credit for the six to the bottom line. If they grow, maybe they’ll need the seventh hire next year, maybe not.

So you see, the proposed plan does very little to increase jobs. It rewards businesses that are ready to hire anyway with some additional cash. After all, even those businesses can recognize that the credit will expire next year – better to apply the credit to the bottom line.

So what, then, can be done to stimulate businesses that are not ready to hire, to hire? The administration could take actions which increase confidence among business owners that the environment they operate in today will exist tomorrow. Tax credits don’t help. Lower overall tax rates, which stimulate business even in the absence of hiring, will improve cash flow and improve the health of businesses so that they can grow and hire. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent, for example, would provide at least some certainty that there will not be a new, increased federal income tax bill next year. For medical businesses, Congress could fix, once and for all, the broken SGR formula. The administration could take a more measured approach to “reforms” such as health care and clean energy.

Otherwise, we will spend 30 billion rewarding businesses for doing what they would have done anyway, with no real net gain in jobs. Except of course the new IRS hires that will be required to administer the new credits.

.

Many of us have been saying it for a while. The White House intended that the stimulus money, which the White House intended to use to save or create jobs, would not really be spent in 2009 as unemployment soared to over 10%.

On page 9 of Obama’s budget proposal, we find that, in fact, the White House is now admitting this fact. You are still unemployed by government design.

Barack Obama writes,

All told, as of the end of November 2009, about 50 percent of Recovery Act funds—or $395 billion—has been either obligated or is providing assistance directly to Americans in the form of tax relief. By design, the bulk of the remaining 50 percent of Recovery Act funds will be deployed in the coming months of 2010 and during the beginning of 2011 to support additional job creation when our economy continues to need a boost. Many of the programs slated to receive additional funding in the near future are those with significant promise of job creation. These include more than $7 billion in broadband expansion, approximately $8 billion in funds to lay the foundation for a high-speed rail network, and continued funding for other transportation projects. All told, the Recovery Act is on track to meet the goal of disbursing 70 percent of its funds in the first 18 months of its life.

(Budget at p.9)

So wait? Even after 18 months all the money won’t be spent?

To put this in perspective, consider what the President said in his State of the Union address:

Read More →

With red ink as far as the eye can see and an election year upon us, Democrats are attempting to position themselves as more fiscally conservative. While the rhetoric sounds like something most Americans should support, a brief examination reveals this nonsense for what it is, a lie. There is so much waste that its hard to explain it and do it justice. Here is just a little taste of the mind-boggling waste.

In the January 31st edition of the New York Times, author William Yardley wrote:

As part of a $133 million renovation, the General Services Administration is planning to cultivate “vegetated fins” that will grow more than 200 feet high on the western facade of the main federal building here, a vertical garden that changes with the seasons and nurtures plants that yield energy savings.

“They will bloom in the spring and summer when you want the shade, and then they will go away in the winter when you want to let the light in,” said Bob Peck, commissioner of public buildings for the G.S.A. “Don’t ask me how you get them irrigated.”

Rainwater, captured on the roof, and perhaps even “gray water” recycled from the interior plumbing are both possibilities, the architects say. But they concede that they are still figuring out some of the finer points of renovating the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building, which was completed in 1975 and is currently 18 stories of concrete, glass and minimal inspiration.

Who will prune the facade? Maybe the same folks who wash skyscraper windows, the architects say. Perhaps the exterior concrete panels removed in the renovation could be reused as salmon habitat in a nearby river.

The G.S.A. says the building will use 60 percent to 65 percent less energy than comparable buildings and estimates a savings of $280,000 annually in energy costs. Solar panels could provide up to 15 percent of the building’s power needs. The use of rainwater and low-flow plumbing fixtures will reduce potable water consumption by 68 percent. And energy for lighting will be halved.

So, 133 million to grow plants on the side of a building….and this is considered “stimulus.” A little simple math reveals that for taxpayers to recoup their investment in this green boondoggle will take 480 years.

That’s the kind of math that only a government bureaucrat can appreciate.

The Ritz Report

Obama has been a president defined by speeches. But if the old adages are true, that “actions speak louder than words” and “talk is cheap,” Obama must rise above rhetoric and get something done.

Every crucial moment and every tough decision of the Obama presidency has been accompanied by a speech. As, The Australian wrote of Obama,

Obama makes uniformly brilliant speeches. His presidency is so far more defined by speeches than any previous presidency. In his big foreign policy speeches you can often discern an internal tension, even struggle, between the postmodern pieties with their characteristic high-toned vagueness, and the hard-nut realism of Chicago.

Moreover, they’ve worked. Whenever Barack Obama opens his mouth you can be sure that it will be accompanied by some positive movement in the polls. For instance,

• Following a speech in September, a CBS poll showed a 12% jump in how people perceived Obama’s handling of health care – from 40% to 52% approval
• After a speech to Congress in February, Obama’s “approval ratings , as well as his likeability, believability and sincerity, increasing among all parties”
• Obama’s speech at West Point, laying out his Afghanistan strategy, boosted the number of people who approved of his handling of Afghanistan from 41% to 49%

This jump in support is not the norm. A study by political scientist George Edwards concluded that,

“…[S]tatistically significant changes in approval rarely follow a televised presidential address. Typically, the president’s ratings hardly move at all. Most changes are well within the margin of error— and many of them show a loss of approval.

That Obama can influence the polls with a speech speaks to the level that people want to believe him. He is able to sound both smart and unassuming. He is a master of both diction and cadence. If words and promises made up the entire job description there is no doubt his presidency would be among the most accomplished. But in the end, none of this matters. Like Peyton Manning facing the Jets defense, people will eventually figure it out, and then…game over.

Last night’s State of the Union resurrected many of the ideas and promises that Obama made during his campaign. Should we expect a different outcome? Obama promised that the stimulus plan “would create up to 4 million new jobs, 90 percent of which will be generated by the private sector.” As to health care reform he said that “the only thing we’re going to try to do is lower costs.”  On earmark reform he quipped that “when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” The point being that Obama talks a big game, but rarely follows through. Even Nancy Pelosi has taken a swipe Obama’s failure to turn words into action, saying “”[t]here are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.”

But, Barack the-boy-who-cried-wolf Obama must now act, lest his latest grandiose speech become nothing more than another attempt to score as many political points as possible. The polls show that the strategy has worked thus far. In Year One voters have been content to support the nice-sounding but vague plans that Obama and the Democratic leadership have for the real life problems we face. But people, along with rank and file Congressional Democrats, are growing impatient with Barack Obama. If all Obama can accomplish is talk, there is a deep bench of Republicans ready to get into the game in 2010.

- Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

Read more: www.crnc.org