By Patricia L Johnson 

Looking at the following Press Release from Quinnipiac University you would think Barack Obama’s approval rating in Ohio (a major swing state) has dropped from 62% to 49% during the period from May 2009 to July 2009.  You would think that because that is basically what Quinnipiac is telling us.

FOR RELEASE: JULY 7, 2009

OBAMA’S APPROVAL DROPS IN OHIO – CRITICAL SWING STATE,

QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS;

2010 SENATE RACE TIPS SLIGHTLY TO DEMOCRATS

President Barack Obama gets a lackluster 49 – 44 percent approval rating in Ohio, considered by many to be the most important swing state in a presidential election, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. This is President Obama’s lowest approval rating in any national or statewide Quinnipiac University poll since he was inaugurated and is down from 62 – 31 percent in a May 6 survey.

Unfortunately, a poll is not any different than an article, either online or in a newspaper, magazine.  While an article is swayed by the bias of the individual (s) writing it, poll numbers are swayed by the exact questions asked, the number of individuals polled, whether or not they are registered voters, and what political party, if any, they prefer and their location.

The July 7, 2009 press release from Quinnipiac is a prime example.  The first paragraph deals entirely with President Obama’s drop in the polls in Ohio.  How does the average reader know whether or not Obama’s rating did actually drop in that state?  Our first step in answering that question is to look at the actual poll.     http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1347

The press release indicates a total of 1,259 Ohio voters [483 Democrats and 445 Republicans] were surveyed from June 26 – July 1, with a +/- 4.5 % margin of error on Democrats and a +/- 4.7% margin of error on Republicans [not sure why there would be a higher percentage of errors on Republican voters, so we’ll leave that question for another day].  The other 331 individuals making up the total of 1,259 were probably either Independents or chose not to state their political preference. 

The first question we should ask, on this poll, is why there were not an equal number of Democrats and Republicans polled.  If they only had 445 Republicans to poll; then they should have only polled 445 Democrats; not 483.  Another interesting fact to note on this poll is they are not indicating the actual number of voters in each category, only percentages, so we have no way of knowing whether or not their percentage calculations are correct.

The approval rating for President Obama stems from question number 24 on the Quinnipiac poll; the prior 23 questions all dealt with local politicians.  The fact the poll numbers for this particular question are split by Rep [Republican], Dem [Democrat], Ind [Independent], Men, Wom [Women] and WtBrnAgn Evnglcl [White Born Again Evangelical]; as well as into six geographic areas Cntrl [Central], NrthE [Northeast], NrthW [Northwest], SthE [Southeast], SthW [Southwest] and WstCnt [West Central] shows us how polls and poll numbers can be manipulated.

24. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

                                                               WtBrnAgn
                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Evnglcl



Approve              49%    19%    85%    38%    39%    57%    33%
Disapprove           44     75     11     48     53     36     59
DK/NA                 8      6      3     14      8      7      8



                     Cntrl  NrthE  NrthW  SthE   SthW   WstCnt



Approve              50%    52%    55%    46%    36%    47%
Disapprove           43     39     40     44     60     47
DK/NA                 6     10      6     10      4      6

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

                     Jul 7   May 6   Mar 18  Feb 6
                     2009    2009    2009    2009



Approve              49      62      57      67
Disapprove           44      31      33      16
DK/NA                 8       7      11      17

Just a cursory review of the poll will tell you that an extremely large percentage of Republican men, who are probably white, born again, Evangelicals, living in the [Southwest]  disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job.

Do you want the trend for Obama’s rating to drop further with the next poll?  Not a problem, simply interview more white, BAE Republican men in the southwest. 

It’s time for the voters in this country to wake up when it comes to poll numbers.  The only way you can tell whether or not any given poll is an accurate representation of the political views of individual voters is to research the poll.

Since the Quinnipiac poll is also broken down by geographic region, we have to ask whether or not this particular poll question was strictly limited to Ohio voters. If it is breaking down the various regions in Ohio, that is certainly another way of biasing a poll.  You find the geographic area with the results you want and simply interview more voters in that particular geographic area.

The following statement made by Peter A. Brown of the polling institute about this poll is interesting.  

"The economy in Ohio is as bad as anywhere in America. These numbers indicate that for the first time voters have decided that President Barack Obama bears some responsibility for their problems," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute

After President Obama has been in office for a total of five months;  Brown is suggesting the current President is responsible for some of the economic problems in Ohio.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.  When the prior administration left office no one knew the total economic damage that was caused by their economic policies.  It will be many, many more months before all the data is brought to light and the damage assessed.

We, as American voters, have continually been brainwashed into believing this or that based on someone else’s opinion - don’t rely on someone else's opinion, form your own based on the facts.  The only way you are going to be able to access the facts, and form an opinion, is to look at the actual data being discussed in the poll.

Please Note:  This article is not meant to insinuate the Quinnipiac poll is biased or manipulated, it is simply an example of what possibilities are available to pollsters.

Patricia L Johnson is a former special assignment writer/photographer and co-owner of the Articles and Answers news and information site.

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

Fox News, reporting with their usual fair and [un]balanced flair published a special report Monday titled “Pelosi Did Nothing With Knowledge About Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” [1]

The story indicates Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi “says she was made aware seven years ago that the CIA was contemplating using so-called enhanced interrogation techniques -- including waterboarding -- and that Justice Department lawyers had advised that such methods would be legal.” 

The article goes on to state that Speaker Pelosi did “nothing” with the information, but is now supporting an investigation into the legality of the advice the Justice Department provided.

This originally began with controversy over the date Speaker Pelosi was first notified by the CIA that the US was involved in torture, and has now turned into an accusation that even if she wasn’t told on the date the CIA stated, she was subsequently advised by the CIA [2]; therefore she should have done “something”.

The GOP has gone hog wild on the Pelosi subject.  John Boehner has demanded Pelosi provide evidence in support of her accusations, while Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is doing no less than calling for her resignation.

The GOP attack on Speaker Pelosi is absurd.  Republicans have a history of attacks anytime there is anything that could be remotely construed as controversial while keeping their closets filled to the brim with skeletons.   They appear to operate under two sets of rules.  Operating rules for them v. operating rules for the Democrats.  Two incidents immediately come to mind. 

· Former Speaker Gingrich was front and center leading the attack on President Clinton over his marital indiscretions;  all while Gingrich was having an affair of his own. [3]

· During the 911 Commission hearings most of us learned that, on an almost daily basis during the summer of 2001 Condoleezza Rice met with CIA Director, George Tenet, and on July 10, 2001 Director Tenet requested an emergency meeting to brief Rice and her staff on the possibility of a pending attack by Al Qaeda. At the time Condoleezza Rice was National Security Advisor, and claimed she did not recall the meeting.  White House records later confirmed the meeting was, in fact, held. [4]

GOP members are complaining that Speaker Pelosi did nothing after being advised of the [legality] of water boarding, yet did not find any fault with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice doing nothing after being informed in an emergency CIA meeting  of the possibility of a potential attack on US soil by terrorists.  60-days later, on 9/11/2001 the US was attacked.

Republicans were in charge when the CIA was committing torture.  What’s the media running on at the mouth about?  Not that the Republicans were in charge and George Bush was president when the CIA was committing torture.  No, the big story is they told Nancy so she’s the one to blame.

The sad part of all this is it's not that they're interested in what's right and wrong for the county, it's that they want to make the Democrats look bad.   And anybody that is anybody in their party is chomping at the bit to have their 10 minutes of fame at the expense of Democrats.

The mindset of Republicans is anything goes with them, as long as they think they will benefit.  The country? They don’t care.  The people?  They don’t care.

The Republican Party has set this country back 50 years.  That is how long it will take to undo the damage incurred while President Bush was in office. 

They lost control of the White House, they lost control of the US House of Representatives and they lost control of the US Senate.

How long is it going to take them to figure out their childish allegations are hurting the Republican party more than the opposing party?

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520586,00.html

[2] http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1168

[3] http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/03/09/sot.newt.gingrich.affair.fami

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/03ricecnd.html?ex=1164430800&en=b2b94cdf2a4ebea0&ei=5070

© 2009

Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson are co-owners of the Articles and Answers News and Information site Articles and Answers

By Richard E Walrath

Democrats are calling a special meeting to rename the Republican Party which looks like it is going down for the third time. 

In the future, GOP will stand for Grab Onto Pelosi and hold on for dear life.

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

When you allow yourself to be backed into a corner you suffer the consequences in the form of higher prices, and that is basically what has happened to the price of gasoline in the United States.

The retail price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States is split as follows:

• 13% - Taxes
• 11% - Distribution and Marketing
• 8%  - Refining
• 68% - Crude Oil

Source:  United States Department of Energy

The United States only produces 5.1 million barrels of crude oil per day, while our petroleum consumption exceeds 20.6 million barrels per day.

By using considerably more oil than we produce, the U.S. has to import oil in order to meet our daily needs.  At one time the majority of our oil imports came from the various  OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries)  but, we only import 5,517,000 barrels of crude per day from OPEC.  Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Venezuela are all members of OPEC.

The top three suppliers to the U.S. from the OPEC group are:

• Saudi Arabia - 1,463,000 bpd (barrels per day)
• Venezuela - 1,419,000 bpd
• Nigeria - 1,114,000 bpd

The top U.S. crude oil supplier is Canada  at 2,353,000 bpd and Mexico comes in second with 1,705,000 bpd.  Non-Opec suppliers result in U.S. imports of  8,190,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

The largest commodity market in the world is crude oil and the leading exchanges for crude oil futures are the NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange) and the IPE (International Petroleum Exchange in London).  Unless you've been on another planet, you know that oil futures hit a record high of $105.10 on March 6, 2008.  There are a couple reasons why oil futures continue to rise and hit a new high.

First is the increased world demand for oil - to that end, the United States, who uses 25% of the world oil supply, requested OPEC to increase production quotas at their Meeting of the Conference of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on March 5, 2008 in Vienna.  The conference decided to maintain current production levels and not increase OPEC production as had been requested.  Current commercial oil stocks are above their five year average, so they did not see the need for the increase, especially with the economic slowdown in the U.S.  

Second is the fall of the U.S. Dollar compared to other currencies.  Investors are able to purchase more oil futures with their currency than we are with the U.S. dollar.  We'll use the Euro as an example - As of this morning, the Euro has one and a half times the buying power of the USD.  1 USD = 0.648638 EUR - 1 EUR = 1.54169 USD (Live rates at 2008.03.08 17:34:30 UTC)

Since crude oil represents 68% of the price of a gallon of gasoline, the key to understanding fluctuating gasoline prices, is to understand the impact various global/national events have on the price.  For an example, we'll use changes in the past 7 years - the period of time that President Bush has been in office.

The first year President Bush was in office was 2001 and at the end of the year the average spot price for an imported barrel of crude oil was $15.86 (December 2001).  By December of 2007 the average spot price for an imported barrel had grown to $73.33 (December 2007).There are many factors that influence the price of crude oil and we'll use 2002 as an example because in 2002 the price of crude oil almost doubled, going from $18 per barrel in January to $34 per barrel in December.  

In April of 2002 Saddam Hussein suspended Iraqi oil exports for a period of one month.  The U.S. was importing 795,000,000 barrels per day from Iraq and the suspension, along with the Venezuela labor strikes in late 2002, created a shortage of crude oil that virtually shut down crude oil production and exports to the U.S. 

At the same time, the administration changed the policy on Department of Energy scheduled deliveries to the SPR, Strategic Petroleum Reserves.  Prior to 2002 oil companies were allowed to defer deliveries to the SPR when short term oil prices were high compared to long term prices. 

The oil companies were allowed to deposit extra oil to the reserves at a later date, to make up for shortages.  When the oil companies are forced by the government to fill the SPR with higher priced oil, instead of being able to use federally-owned oil from offshore oil leases, and selling the higher priced oil on the open market, it ends up costing taxpayers more.  Over the three months in 2002, filling the SPR with the higher priced oil, ended up costing consumers an additional $100 million dollars.

In December of 2002 Saddam Hussein refused to renew the U.S. oil company contracts and the rest is history, by the end of 2006 Iraq oil exports to the United States had dropped to 553 million bpd.  We invaded Iraq in March of 2003 and have yet been able to get crude oil exports from this country up to pre-war levels of 795 million bpd.  Anytime there is a pipeline explosion in Iraq, it effects the amount of oil the country is able to export. 

Nigeria has been another problem area with unrest and sabotaged pipelines.  Anytime there is an oil disruption it will go towards reducing the amount of oil available; thereby increasing the price.  Even minor interruptions, such as a fire in a refinery within the U.S. that stops production for a day or two has the ability to affect the price of gasoline, depending upon the location of the refinery. 

How much gasoline do we waste every day?  In the colder states, it is not unusual to see cars running in the parking lot of the local grocery store with men sitting there waiting, probably for their wives to do the shopping.  That happens now, even with gasoline headed for $4.00.  When it hits $5.00 a gallon maybe we can figure out a way to cut down. 

Following are some suggestions:

1.  Let the wife go grocery shopping by herself if she can drive.

2.  Let the husband do the shopping - obviously he can drive himself.

3.  Get out of the car and go into the store together -- turn the engine off.

4.  Make fewer trips.

5.  Turn in the Hummer.

This country has known for decades that we either need an alternate energy source, or we need to build more refineries to increase production, yet here we are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Source:  United States Department of Energy - 2006 data

And Report dated March 5, 2003 - U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

By Patricia L Johnson

Senator Obama has repeatedly attempted to put Senator Clinton on the defensive by bringing up her vote on H.J. Res. 114, the Joint Resolution providing President Bush with authorization for the use of Military Force Against Iraq.  In much the same manner as a Monday morning quarterback, Senator Obama has criticized the "yea" vote by Senator Clinton.

The problem with his criticism is there aren't too many people that don't feel we should not have attacked the Republic of Iraq.  Unfortunately, these same individuals were not  behind closed doors when confidential security data was being presented to Senators. 

In retrospect, Senator Obama has even been published as stating had he been privy to the intelligence the Senators were provided,  at the time, he may very well have voted 'yea' on the bill. 

If you recall correctly, this vote was taken in October of 2002, barely a year after the 9/11 attack on U.S. soil.  At the time, Senator Obama was NOT a member of the United States Senate.  How he would've, could've or should've voted on this bill is virtually meaningless because 'outsiders' simply do not have access to confidential intelligence reports prepared for members of the United States Senate.

Was Senator Clinton the only U.S. Senator to favor this bill?  Of course not, the vote on the bill was 77-23 which means a full 77 percent of U.S. Senators, after being exposed to the intelligence supplied by our agencies, felt the bill should  be passed.  In addition to Senator Clinton, the following U.S. Senators voted in favor of the bill and their names are listed at the end of this piece.

President George W. Bush had only been in office for barely over a year when this bill was brought before Congress.  He had not been in office long enough, at that time, for anyone to question motives as this country was still in a state of shock over the attacks of September 11, 2001.

H.J. Res. 114 was introduced into the House by, then Speaker of the House, Dennis J. Hastert on October 2, 2002 and was passed by the House and Senate in record breaking time with PL 107-243 being signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

In a nine-day  period of time this bill was introduced, went to the House Committee on International Relations, went through amendments, was placed on the House calendar for a vote, went to the Senate, was amended, went to the Senate floor for a vote and passed the Senate on October 11, 2002, without amendment.

Five days later it was signed into law by President Bush.

On October 4, 2002 the CBO released their cost estimate of this bill and their narrative begins with the following statement [emphasis added]:

"H. J. Res 114 would authorize the President to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate to defend the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

By itself, the resolution would not authorize any funding for the use of force, nor would it affect direct spending or receipts. While the resolution is a step toward building consensus for the use of force, it also might improve the chances of a diplomatic settlement without the use of force. The resolution would leave the decision to use force to the discretion of the President." Nevertheless, if the President should use the resolution to initiate a war against Iraq, the budgetary effects would be significant.

It is an absolute disgrace that Senator Obama would criticize Senator Clinton, or any of the other 77 Senators that voted to pass this joint resolution.  When you add in the 296 House votes you're talking about a total of 373 members of the United States Congress that voted 'yea' to giving President George W. Bush the authority to use military force, if needed.  They didn't authorize him to attack, they authorized him to use military force if necessary to protect U.S. interests.

President George W. Bush chose to attack Iraq.

To  have a Junior Senator criticize actions of other members of Congress, when he wasn't even involved in the discussions, for the sole purpose of benefiting his political aspirations,  is disgraceful and Senator Obama should be ashamed.

The voters in this country are sick of war.  We've seen our country literally fall to pieces, while we're spending $12 billion dollars a month on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We want something better for ourselves and our children.

Our members of Congress have to go to sleep every night and remember how their vote indirectly caused thousands of U.S. casualties and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties.

What they don't need is the Junior Senator from the state of Illinois throwing in his two cents.  If Senator Obama really had the interests of this country at heart, he would make a formal apology to Senator Clinton and to every other Senator listed below.

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Re:  Hillary's Math Problem  - Jonathan Alter - March 4, 2008

By Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

WE hope Jonathan won't mind if we Alter some of his math assumptions regarding the remaining primaries.

The Slate Delegate Calculator is indicating a fixed percentage of votes for Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont.   They're giving Obama 44% to Clinton's, 54% for Ohio,  Obama 40% to Clinton's 58% for Rhode Island, Obama 47% to Clinton's 51% for Texas and Obama 60% to Clinton's 38% for Vermont.

The following states will have upcoming elections, Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Caroline, West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon.

The article is basically stating  if Clinton won 60% in each of the above states she still would not be able to hit the magical number necessary for the nomination.

Well, let's go one step further with that calculation - let us be very generous to our up-and-coming political rock star and provide him with 80% of the vote in all remaining primaries.

We can be well assured that no matter how popular, charming or charismatic Senator Obama is he will not win 80% of the remaining votes, but even if he did, he still would not have enough pledged delegates to win the Democratic nomination.

Unpledged delegates (superdelegates) are going to a play a predominate role in this election.  Unpledged delegates will hold the key to the nomination, as will the final determination on Florida and Michigan.  If you recall correctly Senator Clinton did win both states.

What is the role of the unpledged delegates'?  According to Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean,

"Their role is to exercise their best judgement in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party"

Based on the following statement in the article "Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people" Mr. Alter doesn't seem to understand the role of the unpledged delegate. 

The Obama camp has consistently stated the unpledged delegate vote should follow the popular vote.  Looks like that would mean superdelegate votes for Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, Governor Deval Patrick, and Governor Janet Napolitano would then go to Senator Clinton wouldn't they?

Why are unpledged delegates even given a vote?   First you have to look at who the unpledged delegates are; they are Democratic Members of Congress, Democratic Governors, former party leaders, former presidents, etc.  In other words they are people that are well versed in politics and completely understand the issues that this country will face in the future.

What they are not is the young followers of  Senator Obama.  The fact that Barack Obama has been able to get our youngsters to the polls in droves is incredible and our hats are off to him.  According to federal election law, if a youngster is going to be 18 years old on the date of the general election, they are eligible to vote in their state's primary. 

Do you really think that 17 and 18 year old students are more qualified to nominate the Democratic candidate or should that decision  be left to the unpledged experts in a race this close?

Something that must also be taken into consideration is the fact the unpledged delegate or superdelegates vote is not set in stone - the number of superdelegate votes may change at any time if delegates leave office, leave the party, or for whatever reason cannot cast a vote at the Democratic National Convention. 

At this point in time the race for the Democratic nominee is not any different than the Super Bowl game with the Giants as a two touchdown underdog.  The Patriots were sure to win except they didn't. 

The game's not over until it's over. That's why they play the game to the finish.

By Patricia L Johnson

Data Source:  Federal Reserve Board

The percentage of household debt dropped from 10.2% in 2006 to 6.8% in 2007.  The decrease in household debt was due to slow growth of home mortgage debt.  Even though household credit card debt increased an an annual rate of 4.0%, slow growth in home mortgage debt resulted in a percentage decrease.

Non-Financial Debt outstanding, end of 4th quarter 2007:  $31.2 trillion broken down as follows: 

• $13.8 trillion - Household debt
• $10.1 trillion - Non-financial business debt
• $ 7.3 trillion - Total government debt (State and Federal)

By Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

Which will come first?  Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment or a woman president?  Both look a long way off.  The question that must be asked is if the U.S. can ever have a woman president without first having equal rights for women?

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was written in 1923 by Alice Paul.  It consists of the following three sentences:

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 1.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3.

This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

In 1971 the ERA bill was approved by the U.S. House by a vote of 354-24, and on March 22, 1972  U.S. Senate passed the bill by a vote of 84-8.  http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/history.html

There are two separate ways a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be made, one has never been used, so the most common is for the bill to be sent to the individual state legislatures for ratification, or approval.  Generally there is a time limit placed on the bill and was originally set at 7 years.  Since the ERA amendment was not ratified within the original 7 year period, a bill has been reintroduced into Congress each year. 

The ERA bill now has 35 of the 38 states necessary for ratification.  Once three more states ratify the bill, it will become the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The following states have failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA. 

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

What is interesting about the listing of states that have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment is the fact all, with the exception of Illinois, are considered "Red" states as apposed to "Blue". 

Red States vote Republican--doesn't matter who is running.  Since the Civil Rights bill was passed under LBJ, the Solid South turned Solid Red.  Missouri is a swing state.  It votes with the winner.  As you can see from the map, Bush took all the non-ratifying states except Illinois, in 2004.

Barack Obama claims to be a civil rights advocate and is from the State of Illinois, the only blue state NOT to ratify the ERA.  Not only is Illinois the home state of the U.S. Senator, it's also a state where he served in the legislature, and considered himself "a leader in the Illinois State Senate".

ERA was big news back in the 70's.  It was ancient history by the time Obama was old enough to think about it. 

Obama is 46 years old.  In the almost twenty years since he got out of school (Harvard Law School), he's written two auto-biographies, worked as a community organizer (not quite sure exactly what that entails).  He served in the state legislature and, since 2005 has been in the U. S. Senate.  Oh, yes, and he spent some time in a corporate law office.

The ERA amendment not only has not been ratified by the State of Illinois, the State of Illinois changed the rules on how many votes were required for ratification: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm

"Illinois changed its rules to require a three-fifths majority to ratify an amendment, thereby ensuring that their repeated simple majority votes in favor of the ERA did not count."

Why is it that no one in the media has ever questioned Obama on this subject or any other subject of merit?

If ever anybody got a free ride from the media, Obama is it.

With Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development Jaime Serra Puche and President Carlos Salinas of Mexico, U.S. Trade Representative Carla A. Hills, and Minister of International Trade Michael Wilson and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada at the initialing ceremony for the North American Free Trade Agreement in San Antonio, TX, October 7 [1992].   Source:  National Archives and Records Administration - Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States George H.W. Bush: 1992-93, Book II, Photographic Portfolio

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

When we think about NAFTA, most of us automatically think about two things, Bill Clinton and lost jobs.  Most people when they hear the word NAFTA, think NAFTA, CAFTA, or SHAFTA (as in shafted), but that's because they don't know the history.  Bill Clinton has consistently received both praise and criticism for the North American Free Trade Agreement and little credit for job creation.

The fact is there were 23.1 million jobs created during Bill Clinton's eight years in office, but the increases in payrolls during his tenure have been offset by the loss of jobs in the George W. Bush [Bush 43] presidency due to foreign trade.

Is Bill Clinton responsible for these job losses?  The answer is absolutely not - for two reasons. 

The losses we are experiencing in labor markets are losses due to cheap labor rates in India, China and other overseas countries, not due to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Second, the North American Free Trade Agreement was a twinkle in the eye of Ronald Reagan as can be determined by the following statement made during his speech announcing his candidacy for President in 1979.

"It may take the next 100 years but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the people's commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today."

The Canada-United States free trade agreement, CFTA, went into effect on January 1, 1989 and was eventually incorporated into NAFTA during negotiations by the George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) administration.

Following is an excerpt made by President George H.W. Bush during the initialing ceremony for NAFTA.  This speech was made October 7, 1992 - a month before Bill Clinton was elected to office and three months before he took office.

...Today the United States, Mexico, and Canada embark together on an extraordinary enterprise. We are creating the largest, richest, and most productive market in the entire world, a trillion market of 360 million people that stretches 5,000 miles from Alaska and the Yukon to the Yucatan Peninsula. NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement, is an achievement of three strong and proud nations. This accord expresses our confidence in economic freedom and personal freedom, in our peoples' energy and enterprise. The United States, Mexico, and Canada have already seen the powerful and beneficial impact of freer trade and more open markets. Over the past 5 years, as President Salinas reduced trade barriers under his bold reform program and as Prime Minister Mulroney and I implemented the United States-Canadian Free Trade Agreement, trade between our three countries has soared. In 1992 alone, that trade will reach an estimated 3 billion, up billion just since 1987...

His full speech may be read at the following link at the George Bush Presidential Library.

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?&year=1992&m

The Clinton administration promoted the free trade agreement between Mexico and Canada and NAFTA would never have been passed without the overwhelming support of the Republican members of Congress.

Clinton was for free trade between the three countries, and NAFTA would be good for the US if the price of crude oil hadn't skyrocketed over the past seven years. 

The U.S. International Trade report released February 14, 2008 indicated a 2007 trade deficit with Canada of $64.2 billion, The increase in imports from Canada was primarily due to crude oil and pharmaceuticals. 

We're also running a 2007 trade deficit with Mexico of $74.3 billion, for probably the same reason.  Mexico and Canada are our two biggest non-OPEC oil suppliers.

However, neither of the countries in NAFTA can even begin to compare with the $256.3 billion trade deficit with China for 2007.  No crude oil was imported from China during 2007.

The question that should  be asked on NAFTA is who would benefit the most from the North American Trade Agreement IF the United States was not so dependent upon crude oil as an energy source? 

Three Presidents, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and William J. Clinton promoted the idea over a period of almost thirty years. 

What has not been taken into consideration is the devastating effect the increased price of oil would have on trade balances between the three countries.  Just over the past 12-month period of time, imported petroleum prices have increased 66.9%.  NAFTA is good, crude oil dependence isn't.

When Bush [43] was interviewed by Lee Hochberg, PBS, he was asked if better coordination and synchronization of immigration policies between Canada and the U.S. were necessary.  President Bush replied "Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better".  Although the comment was obviously not what he meant, it does provide us with more of an understanding as to why trade agreements signed during the George W. Bush administration have been such dismal failures.

Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson are co-owners of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites. You may read more by these authors at Articles and Answers or Articles and Answers 2007

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

The $150 billion dollar economic growth package was announced by President Bush on January 24, 2008 after a bipartisan agreement was reached with the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The plan consists of $100 billion in temporary relief for families, and $50 billion in business incentives.

The plan calls for taxpayers to receive rebates of "up to" $600 for individuals, and "up to" $1,200 for couples.  Anyone eligible for the above, would also be eligible for an additional $300 per child, which sort of gives you the impression that if you're married and have two kids you're about to receive "up to" $1,800 from Uncle Sam.

Don't rush out and spend the money yet!

Whenever this administration uses the words "up to" you can bet your booties you're going to get less, so how much less?  Department of the Treasury examples follow:

Married with children:

1) Married couple with two children*, earned income of $4,000, no federal income tax paid.

Individual rebate = $600

Child tax credit = $600

TOTAL = $1,200

2) Married couple with two children, earned income in excess of $3,000, AGI = $45,000, federal income tax is $323.

Individual rebate = $600

Child tax credit = $600

TOTAL = $1,200

3) Married couple with two children, AGI = $48,000, federal income tax is $773.

Individual rebate = $773

Child tax credit = $600

TOTAL = $1,373

4) Married couple with two children, AGI = $80,000, federal income tax paid in excess of $1,200.

Individual rebate = $1,200

Child tax credit = $600

TOTAL = $1,800

5) Married couple with two children, AGI = $160,000, federal income tax paid in excess of $1,200.

Individual rebate = $1,200

Child tax credit = $600

Phaseout reduction = ($500) [5% x ($160,000 - $150,000) = $500]

TOTAL = $1,300

*All children referenced in the examples are qualifying children for purposes of the child tax credit.

Looks like you won't be pulling in $1,800 unless your adjusted gross income is more than $80,000 and you have paid in more than $1,200 in federal income tax.

The current agreement also provides a temporary tax cut for businesses providing them with the opportunity to purchase equipment this year and deduct an additional 50% of the cost in 2008.

Treasury Secretary Paulson says that he hopes the Senate doesn't meddle with the stimulus package.  He's afraid that the Senate might put some stimulus into it--like money for food stamps as well as extended unemployment compensation.

The package does not provide assistance in the form of extended unemployment insurance benefits, food stamp money, or spending on infrastructure, but it does provide some assistance for homeowners who are struggling to keep their homes in the current mortgage crisis. 

Will it be enough?

Of course not!

How much worse are economic conditions today than they were when the first Bush tax-cuts went into effect? 

Is there anyone who would disagree that they are much worse today than they were then?

So, why are we talking about a $150 billion stimulus, maybe, when hundreds of billions in tax-cuts were put into effect then?  Granted, most of those Bush tax cuts went to the rich and business, and we see how much benefit they provided to the economy. 

The purpose of the Jobs and Growth Plan of 2003 was to stimulate the economy with the influx of $350 billion dollars.  On a temporary basis it succeeded in providing some stimulus, but in 2003 we weren't looking at 1.8 million subprime loans getting ready to reset with higher rates over the next two years.

If the situation is far worse today--as it is--how is $150 billion going to solve the problem?

By Patricia L Johnson

A few months ago my partner and I, Richard Walrath, wrote an article on Income Mobility and a reader recently sent us an inquiry on the subject.

After a couple e-mails back and forth it finally occurred to me this reader was not completely aware of the difference in Earned and Unearned Income and I started wondering if other people are also confused on the subject.

Earned Income is any income derived from employment for services rendered.    If you are a contractor build a house, and get paid for your services, that is earned income.  If you are a contractor, get an advance payment for building the house, that is unearned income, once you build the house the unearned income then becomes 'earned' income.

Other forms of unearned income are civil service annuities, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, life insurance proceeds (over and above the cost of the deceased last illness and burial), gifts, support and alimony (either in cash or in-kind), prizes and awards, dividends and interest, rents and royalties (except those considered earned income), Social Security benefits, Railroad Retirement benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs pension and compensation payments, private pensions and annuities.

I used gifts as an example of unearned income in my e-mails, and I'll use it here also as there are probably many people that aren't fully aware of what a neat treat the IRS gave us in the form of gift tax exclusions. 

The following is from IRS publication 950

For Gift Tax Purposes the following are applicable:

Year:   2007, 2008 - Annual Exclusion:  $12,000

*Unified Credit Amount:  $345,800 - Applicable Exclusion Amount:  $1,000,000

Unified Credit (Applicable Exclusion Amount) A credit is an amount that eliminates or reduces tax. The unified credit against taxable gifts will remain at $345,800 (exempting $1 million from tax) through 2009.

Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts:

Gifts, excluding gifts of future interests, that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year,

Tuition or medical expenses you pay directly to a medical or educational institution for someone,

Gifts to your spouse,

Gifts to a political organization for its use, and

Gifts to charities.

Here are a few examples:

Example 1.    In 2007, you give your niece a cash gift of $8,000. It is your only gift to her this year. The gift is not a taxable gift because it is not more than the $12,000 annual exclusion.

Example 2.    You pay the $15,000 college tuition of your friend. Because the payment qualifies for the educational exclusion, the gift is not a taxable gift.

Example 3.    In 2007, you give $25,000 to your 25-year-old daughter. The first $12,000 of your gift is not subject to the gift tax because of the annual exclusion. The remaining $13,000 is a taxable gift. As explained later under Applying the Unified Credit to Gift Tax, you may not have to pay the gift tax on the remaining $13,000. However, you do have to file a gift tax return.

Please click the following link to read complete publication from the IRS.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p950/ar02.html#d0e308

By Richard E Walrath

The Democrats shouldn't waste time on Bush. Get a bill on his desk as soon as they can without tax-cuts for business and the rich.  That's the most inefficient means of providing stimulus.  They just pocket the money.  If Bush wants to veto the bill, let him do it.  

He and the Republicans can take the heat in November. 

Food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, and a month's rent would be good for starters. 

On the McLaughlin Group this past Friday, Monica Crowley said that the last time they gave out refunds some of the people didn't spend them--they saved them. 

That's because they started passing them out from the top. 

Try doing it from the bottom this time, and all the money will get spent.

By Patricia L Johnson

The U.S. stock markets were closed Monday in observation of Martin Luther King Jr. Day but that didn't stop the Dow Jones industrial average futures from dropping 436 points or 3.6%, following the lead of foreign markets.  Japan's Nikkei 225, Hong Kong's Hang Seng, London's FTSE-100, German's DAX 30 and France's CAC040 all dropped considerably on Monday and Tuesday.

So what happened - what spooked the world markets?

One thing that happened is the Conference Board leading index decreased by 0.2 percent in December.  This is the third month in a row this indicator has decreased, and it has been down four of the past six months.  Of the 10 components in this index, six were negative for the month of December 2007 -- not a real good sign.

The FOMC, under the direction of Chairman Ben Bernanke, has already taken adequate measures to date based on market conditions, but the foreign sell off caused an emergency video meeting Monday night and on Tuesday morning the FOMC announced a decrease in the federal funds rate 75 basis points to 3-1/2 percent and a decrease in the discount rate 75 basis point to 4.0 percent and left he door open for further cuts following their scheduled meeting for next week.

President Bush has announced his plans for a stimulus plan to jump-start the economy, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that Bush's new stimulus proposal will have little impact on the people in this country that need it most, the poor and the middle class.

Where the Democrats want a plan that provides additional spending for food stamps, extended unemployment and infrastructure projects, Bush has different priorities stated in his weekly radio address:  "This growth package must be built on broad-based tax relief that will directly affect economic growth -- not the kind of spending projects that would have little immediate impact on our economy".

The January 18, 2007 Press Briefing by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Ed Lazear provide us with few details on the plan.

The total package will probably be between $140 to $150 billion, with the biggest portion, perhaps $100 billion benefiting individuals and perhaps $50 billion for business investment incentives.

Secretary Paulson when asked whether or not Social Security recipients might get a one time payment responded:

..."The Christmas season has come and gone. We're not trying to decorate a Christmas tree here."

He further stated the proposed stimulus plan:

 "is focused on broad-based tax relief for those who are paying taxes, and that was the principle he [President Bush] laid out. This is something that has worked well before, has worked in 2001, worked in 2003 -- get to consumers, put money in the hands of people, letting them spend it rather than the government spend it."

The problem with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 [June 7, 2001] and The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 [May 28, 2003] is the outcome.

As Chairman Lazear indicates in the press briefing

"There are two major parts of the economy that we have to deal with: the consumption side, and the investment side. Consumption is important, of course, because it is the major component of GDP; it's 70 percent of GDP. But in addition to that, investment is extremely important not only because it's a significant part of GDP, but also because investment is the way that we create demand for labor. And demand for labor means more jobs and more wages, and that's the reason that we have to focus on that side as well."

Over the past seven years the stimulus plans put in place by this administration have added a grand total of 6,011,000 jobs to the economy.  That's 6.0 million in seven years, or little more than 71,000 jobs per month to an economy that needs twice that many jobs added just to keep pace with population growth.  Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics

The subprime mortgage crisis is the force pulling the economy down and with 1.7 million subprime mortgages scheduled to reset in 2008 and 2009, the maximum $150 billion dollar stimulus plan proposed by the White House may do little to curb recession fears.

What we may be looking at is another "growth" package from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave that grows little more than grass on the White House lawn and may be the very reason why world markets are ringing alarm bells.

By Richard E Walrath

So far, you'd think the subprime mortgage crisis affects only houses in the cheap rent districts.  Not so, the next wave is going to hit homes that look like these.

FDR declared a Bank Holiday until a way could be figured out to keep the banks from going under.  We need a a Home Holiday on mortgage increases for 90 days.

One of the funniest things the media is putting out now is the idea that Willard Romney will benefit from the economic crisis we're having because he has such extensive business experience. 

Does he have an MBA, too?  Just like Bush?

That will be such a help! 

Why do I refer to him as Willard Romney?  That's because it's his first name. 

By Patricia L Johnson

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is the organization responsible for calling a recession, "a recession".  They determine when a recession begins based on their definition: 

“A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real [inflation adjusted] GDP [gross domestic product], real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.”

The last time NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee called a recessionary period was in 2001, for the 8-month period beginning March 2001 and ending November 2001.

The November 2001 trough was announced July 17, 2003.
The March 2001 peak was announced November 26, 2001.

The CBO, in their January 2008 report Options for Responding to Short-Term Economic Weakness indicate five economists, "Richard Berner (Morgan Stanley), Martin Feldstein (HarvardUniversity), William Gross (PIMCO), Robert Shiller (Yale University) and Lawrence Summers (Harvard University) have all stated that the probability of a recession this year is greater than 50 percent."

All too often the media is full of reports about how this or that economist missed the boat on a forecast, but we'll give these guys the benefit of the doubt and agree that we'll probably have a recession this year.

Although a recession won't be called until 'after the fact' our economy is now operating in slow motion, so now what?

The Federal Reserve has been taking bold actions to keep the economy running on an even keel, but even the Big Bank may not be able to stop the tsunami caused by the subprime mortgage mess.  There are still 1.7 million subprime ARMs that will reset in 2008 and 2009.

Many of the 2008 presidential hopefuls have put together various stimulus packages.  Whether or not a stimulus package is needed to jump-start the economy has pretty much been answered, while the remaining question becomes what type of stimulus package will best serve our failing economy.

Three questions must be answered when looking at the various proposals.

1. Are they cost effective? 
2. Are they timely - do they provide a quick fix to the economy?
3. How sure are we of the end result?

The CBO has listed nine possibilities and prepared a chart (page 20) indicating the pros and cons of each.

• Lump-Sum Rebate
• Temporary Tax Reduction
  • Withholding Holiday for the Employee Payroll Tax
  • Across-the-Board Tax Rate Cut
• Deferring or Eliminating Scheduled Tax Increases
  • Extending the AMT Patch
  • Deferring or Eliminating Tax Rate Increase under EGTRRA or JGTRRA
• Cut in Corporate Tax Rates
• Incentives for New Investment
• Extending Operating Loss and Carryback Provision
• Direct Transfer Payments to Households
  • Extending or Expanding Unemployment Benefits
  • Temporarily Increasing Food Stamp Benefits
• Providing General Aid to State and Local Governments
• Investing in Public Works Project

Deciding what to do shouldn't be complicated if you look at the prior stimulus packages put into place during the Bush administration - they didn't work, so obviously a different approach is needed.   Providing tax cuts to the rich and tax and investment incentives to big business, just didn't provide the goals sought - unless the goal was to bankrupt the rest of us.

A review of the Consumer Price Index, CPI, report issued January 16, 2008 could provide an excellent case for directing the brunt of a new stimulus package to those needing it most, the poor and middle class.  The increases in basic necessities over the past year; food, energy and medical costs has impacted all of us, but has been especially detrimental to the poor and middle class. 

Nearly all the indicators have gone up considerably in the 12-months ended December 2007 v. the 12-months ended December 2006, with Energy commodities having the biggest increase at 29.4%, followed by Energy at 17.4%, Transportation 8.3%, Medical Care 5.2%, Food and Beverages 4.8%, Energy Services 3.4%, Other Goods and Services, 3.0%, Housing and Education at 3.0% each, Recreation at .8% and Apparel at -.3%.

The percentages indicated above are a sum of all items within a particular index.  Some increases in the food and beverage group over the past year are milk up 19.3%, cheese up 13.0%, cereal up 5.4%, bread up 10.5%, fruits and vegetables up 5.9%, and meats, poultry, fish and eggs up 5.4%.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that eating, staying warm and being able to afford medical care when necessary shouldn't be a luxury in this country, but that appears to be the direction we're heading.

By Patricia L Johnson

Each month the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) prepares the Employment Situation Report for the prior month.  This particular report is a big deal because it's a "market mover" meaning the results of this report have the ability to push the Dow Jones Industrial Average, DJIA, higher if the results are good, or send the stock market spiraling if the numbers are poor.

The employment report consists of a combination of data from two separate sources:

•  Household Survey is a sampling of approximately 60,000 households and only covers a small percentage of employed persons.
• Establishment Survey is a survey conducted on approximately 400,000 businesses of all sizes and represents about 33% of total nonfarm employment.

Between the two data sources the BLS is able to provide us with various information in their report, including the following figures for December 2007, as released on January 4, 2008. 

• Unemployment Rate - 5% - Household Survey
• Nonfarm payroll employment - +18,000 - Establishment Survey [138,495]
• Number of unemployed persons  - 7.7 - Household Survey
• Total employment - 146.2 million - Household Survey

The figures released each month are the seasonally adjusted totals and the key number is the increase/decrease in nonfarm payroll employment.  In the month of December 2007 the increase in nonfarm payroll employment is +18,000, meaning 18,000 jobs were added to payrolls during the month of December 2007.

During a President's term of office, the number of jobs produced during his/her administration becomes a very important issue because job creation is based on economic policies put in force by the administration.

Upon release of the January 4, 2008 Employment Situation Report, the White House placed a Fact Sheet on their website claiming "Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created". 

Knowing the Bush administration didn't start in August 2003 and knowing 8.3 million jobs since August 2003 averaged out to little more than 160,000 jobs a month I decided to research the subject further.

During the eight years, Bill Clinton was in office, his economic policies produced 23.1 million jobs [average 240,000 per month] as follows:

Data extracted on: January 12, 2008 (11:19:19 AM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector:  Total nonfarm
Industry:      Total nonfarm
NAICS Code:    N/A
Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year
Dec

1992
109418

2000
132484

At the end December 1992 the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS is indicating total, seasonally adjusted nonfarm employment, of 109,418,000.  At the end of December 2000, the total has increased to 132,484,000.  The difference is 23,066,000 or 23.1 million new jobs were produced during the Clinton presidency. 

In contrast, George Bush has been in office seven years and his economic policies have produced a total of 6.0 million jobs as follows:

Data extracted on: January 12, 2008 (11:31:47 AM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES0000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector:  Total nonfarm
Industry:      Total nonfarm
NAICS Code:    N/A
Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year
Dec

2000
132484

2007
138495(p)

p : preliminary

At the end December 2000 the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS is indicating total, seasonally adjusted nonfarm employment, of 132,484,000.  At the end of December 2007, the total has increased to a preliminary figure of 138,495,000.  The difference is 6,011,000 or 6.0 million new jobs have been produced during the seven year period from January 2001 through December 2007, the length of time President Bush has been in office.  

If the White House is stating 8.3 million jobs were created and I'm saying 6.0 million jobs have been created, who is correct? Both figures are correct - they just represent different periods of time.  The White House is simply ignoring the job losses incurred during the first 32 months of the Bush presidency.

There have been 8.3 million jobs created since August 2003, but there were 2.3 million jobs lost during the period from January 2001 through July 2003, bringing the job creation total down to 6.0 million from January 2001 through December 2007.

This is a very important subject and you really shouldn't believe either what the White House is stating, or what I'm indicating regarding these numbers.  To confirm the validity of the numbers, you should extract the data yourself from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What these numbers prove is the economic policies put forth by the Bush administration, mainly The Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 have backfired. 

The tax cuts in this plan were intended to "encourage consumer spending that will continue to boost the economic recovery and create jobs" and "promote investment by individuals and businesses that will lead to economic growth and job creation."

Our country cannot move forward with policies that create little more than 71,000 jobs per month.

Most Americans are worried about the economy and think this country needs change.  The major change needed is to go back to the policies that were in effect under the Clinton administration, where all of us prospered, not just the rich and big business.

Patricia L Johnson is a former special assignment writer/photographer and co-owner of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites. You may read more by this author at http://www.articlesandanswers.com or http://articles2007.spaces.live.com

By Richard E Walrath

People are way over their heads in debt, and have no way out except bankruptcy which the Republicans have made more difficult and more costly to protect their business interests, but bankruptcies are on the rise.

People on the bottom half just can't make it any more on their incomes.  The median household income is below $50,000.  Food, housing, health care and energy are consuming more and more of their incomes.

Add a debt burden that has been steadily growing to this picture, and you see the Big 'R' fast approaching.

What the bottom half needs is an increase in income--not just a short-time, one-time stimulus. 

Wages have been suppressed and depressed for years.  The minimum wage stayed at $5.15 an hour for almost ten years! 

Meanwhile, debt in the bottom half has soared.  Add to this grim picture growing unemployment and the financial crisis due to the subprime mortgage mess, and you can understand the situation we are in. 

By Richard E Walrath

The big 'R" is fast closing in on us, so now we hear about plans for doing something about heading it off. 

Hillary Clinton is proposing a $70 Billion stimulus plan for those with lower incomes--that's called trickle up.

What I don't understand is why does it take seven years and $700 billion of trickle down to get us where we are? 

Why not just skip the trickle down idea since we know it doesn't work?

If we can head off the big 'R' with only $70 Billion, just think of what we could do with $700 Billion!