Opinion – Jobs Bill

As I predicted a few weeks ago, President Obama has come up with a new stimulus (Jobs??) bill. He and the Democratic Party have made a big production out of it, demanding that the bill be immediately passed.  Of course, details on how to pay for it will be determined …soon.

As I also predicted, the Republicans will never go along with it.

Clarke Daily News - Opinion & Editorial

I predicted our main stream “Pravda” press will run cover for the Democrats and they will turn this around and blame the Republicans of being obstructionists. Of course many Americans have no idea what’s going on in this country and couldn’t care less so long as their world isn’t to upset. They don’t remember or care that the Democrats had control of the Congress for the last 2 years of the Bush administration and had all branches of government for the first 2 years of the Obama presidency. The Republicans haven’t had control of anything until this year, winning the House.

The economic mess this country is in can be laid at the feet of the Socialist Democrats. Spending money and printing money will not stimulate the free markets.

If it is so important that this bill be passed immediately, then I have a question; Why did Obama spend the first year of his presidency trying to ram socialized medicine down our throats? While the economy slipped farther and farther down the slippery slope all we heard about was Obama Care, not one word about jobs and unemployment. Now with the 2012 election coming up and the economy in shambles he’s suddenly interested in job creation?

Please Mr. President, are you sure that this isn’t just part of your re-election campaign.

All about you and your agenda??????


Earl Ritter

Boyce, Virginia


  1. I don’t believe more government spending (stimulus) is the answer to our unemployment problems.
    Lower Taxes, Limited government & regulatory reform would be my direction.

    • You sound like Reagan! He lowered taxes, he limited the government, and cut back intrusive government regulations.

      • Your description doesn’t square with history.


        Tax receipts
        During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%. According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan’s two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of tax revenue to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of the tax revenue.
        Personal income tax revenues declined from 9.4% GDP in 1981 to 8.3% GDP in 1989, while payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP during the same period. This represented a more regressive tax regime, with more revenue derived from the flat payroll tax versus the progressive income tax.


        Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan’s 3%—in the government’s take of “national income.” And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.


        The economists Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales point out that many of the major deregulation efforts had either taken place or begun before Reagan (note the deregulation of airlines and trucking under Carter, and the beginning of deregulatory reform in railroads, telephones, natural gas, and banking). They argue for this and other reasons that “the move toward markets preceded the leader [Reagan] who is seen as one of their saviors.”[8] Economist William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and later chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes that deregulation had the “lowest priority” of the items on the Reagan agenda[2] given that Reagan “failed to sustain the momentum for deregulation initiated in the 1970s” and that he “added more trade barriers than any administration since Hoover.”

        • Longtime Berryville resident says:

          Thank you Bob Kelly! I appreciate your great information that you have shared in your comments. Are Homeland Security and the military defence budgets spending too much money?

        • Hmmmm. Who was in charge of the House and Senate during Reagans terms Bob?

          • Nice. You’re asking a question you already know the answer to, which makes it bait.

            Sarge, you know exactly what point I was making. The myth that is Reagan is separate from the reality. I will hand it to the man. He won the Cold War, by increasing defense spending to such a degree that the Soviet Union essentially went into bankruptcy and imploded.

          • Longtime Berryville resident says:

            Reagan was a good communicator and made inspiring speaches. In Berlin, Reagan requested loudly in a speech, “Mr. Gorbochev, Tear Down This Wall!” Unlike stubborn George W Bush, Reagan had forsight and was willing to meet with an adversary.

          • But in your wiki post you were trying to insinuate that Reagan was a pro government growth type, when in fact he was not. If you ever read the book “the Reagan Diaries”, in almost every entry that dealt with the budget, Reagan made some kind of entry that went along the lines of “I wish I coud get the Dems to go along with some budget cuts”. Yes, Reagan increased government spending, but most of that came from the military buildup, unlike the government spending that Obama is engaging in now. But the dems also knew Reagan wanted to build up the military and essentially told Reagan, “You want to build the military, you sign off on these programs as well”. That was the price that was paid to wreck the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, over the years people have found it pretty easy to cut the military. CLinton ruled in that department and essentailly balanced the budget with money taken from the military. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been nearly as easy to cut other government programs. In fact, I’d say it’s been nigh on impossible.

            I would venture to say that had Reagan had a Repub congress, things would have been much different. So again, trying to insinuate that Reagan was just as bad as Obama in government spending just doesn’t jive

          • The nice thing about Wikipedia is that the entries can be amended. Knock yourself out.

          • I don’t bother with wiki because of that very issue

          • You eschew consensus?

          • Earl Ritter says:

            He also created an atmosphere for the economy to grow. I lived thru that era…20% prime interest rates, economic malaise all before he came into office and corrected by his economic plan. Spending money doesn’t create wealth.

          • So the massive uptick in defense spending during the Reagan era was a bad thing?

          • Earl Ritter says:

            His across the board tax cuts caused the greatest economic boom in the history of this country….look it up. Tax revenues doubled during his 8 years but we had a Congress…Democrat if my memory serves me correctly, that spent all that revenue and then some. This nation is living far beyond it’s means. .40 cents of every dollar spent is BORROWED money. Contrary to the belief of many people we can’t continue to borrow and spend money to keep the ponzi scheme going. What we are doing is IMMORAL…we are saddling our children and grandchildren with all this debt….they will be paying it back just because we don’t want to give up this cushy life we have right now. Unfortunately we are going to have do go through some pain to solve the problem. All we are doing is kicking the can down the road. Had Obama given us a trillion dollar tax cut instead of spending all that money paying back unions,keeping state governments afloat and paying for public works , “shovel ready”, projects the economy would be booming right now.

          • Ended it without a war… And did not not add the Dept of Energy (which had a mandate to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which wad 25% in 79 when Carter put it in place. Now our dependency had hone all the way down to 75%

      • It was also on Reagan’s watch that America went from being the #1 lender nation to being the #1 borrower nation, as he ramped up the military industrial complex to beat the dreaded Soviet threat. We’re still paying off that debt, and we’re closing bases and mothballing ships that he led the charge for because we can’t afford them or we don’t need them or we must adapt to new realities.

        • Earl Ritter says:

          Congress has the spending authority …not the President. Revenues to the federal government doubled because of the tax cuts during the Regan presidency.Congress, like they always do just spent it all and then some. The national debt has increased by 5 trillion dollars since the Democrats got back in power for the last 2 years of the Bush Presidency and they had total control of the government during the first 2 years of the Obama presidency. Congress created this mess we’re in.

  2. If lower taxes are the answer, then why aren’t we swimming in jobs? Both Bush and Obama have cut taxes by historic proportions, yet the job losses in the previous decade are monstrous.

    • Earl Ritter says:

      Obama is doing everything he can, over regulation and spending and printing of money, to kill the economy.
      Stimulating government jobs does nothing for the private sector which is what will lead us out of the economic mess we are in.

    • Earl Ritter says:

      Obama is a liar the tax cuts that he gave us were a pittance. There was nothing historic about them! The job loses aren’t a result of tax cuts the job losses are due to over regulation ,Obama care, spending and borrowing and printing money. The uncertainty of what this man is going to come up with next is what has prolonged this recession. Obama care is loaded with tax increases. Rather than just parroting the liberal line Bob start looking at both sides of the issues. Read and watch something rather than the PRAVDA press!!!!

      • Longtime Berryville resident says:

        Part D Medicare is a give away to the drug companies. Americans spend more on health care and get less per dollar spent than citizens of other industrial countres. Obama care is an abomination that will not lower health care costs.. The individual mandate is a give-away to the greedy insurance companies.

  3. Concerned Townie says:

    “The economic mess this country is in can be laid at the feet of the Socialist Democrats. Spending money and printing money will not stimulate the free markets”

    That’s funny Earl. Apparently you were pretty silent when Dubbya blew away the Surplus that we had????
    Typical Republican spew….

    • Sorry my friend I had a problem with Bushes spending also.Obama’s spending and printing of money is Bush on steroids though. I was also against prescription drugs for Medicare recipients….we couldn’t afford that program. We currently are borrowing. 40 of ever federal dollar spent …we are going to bankrupt this country if we don’t rein in spending . This is just plain old common sense.

  4. B-ville Native says:

    If I can remember correctly? The whole ecomonic downward spiral began when gas prices went skyrocketing! And we have yet to rebound! Strictly my thoughts and opinion!

  5. Because I Care says:

    The real truth is, BOTH sides are to blame. The problem now is there are too many people stuck in a two-party mindset. Either democrat or republican. We need to think outside the two-party box for real change. The two we have now are in a constant state of do-nothingness. Yet both sides have fortified their defenses so much that it is next to impossible for a different party or parties to break through.

    There also seems to be a critical shortage of REAL leaders these days. People who actually get things done and have the ability to get the right people behind them. Could it be that the mindless, constant drivel in TV entertainment and electronics have stunted the growth of potential leaders in our modern day society?

    • Yep, the whole system as it is now is a complete [redacted]. Politics should not be a career.

    • The Independents are the new plurality.

    • I think a lot of potential candidates look at the process and say “To hell with that”. I know this will make some heads spin, but take Sarah Palin for example. Look how she got treated by the media as compared to Obama. Now, some of it was deserved, but really, did people need to move in next door to try and get dirt on her? She was absolutely destroyed by the media, and yet four years ago she had more experience in government and running things than Obama had at the point.

    • Earl Ritter says:

      How right you are. Politicians on both sides of the isle are concerned with one thing …how to keep their sorry butts in office.

  6. Believe it or not, she never said you can see Russia from her house, but the media ran it that way. However, you can indeed see Russia from Alaska. In fact, I have a picture I took from a C-130 of the Diamede Islands. They are side by side. One belongs to the US, and one belongs to Russia

  7. Uncle Jessie says:

    Where do I start with your mis-information? Where do those gov’t employees spend their money?

    “Stimulating government jobs does nothing for the private sector which is what will lead us out of the economic mess we are in.”

    Try changing the channel sometime.

    • The federal government only consumes. Does it build anything? No. Does it grow food? No. Nadt

      All the government does is it takes our money, hires bureaucrats to push some papers around and then gives that money to someone else. They are the consummate middleman, always taking a cut, never producing anything.

      Most of the time the government gets in the way of creating jobs. Creating regulations, restrictions, or limitations on what individuals can do. All their efforts to ‘Promote the General Welfare’ are putting us on welfare!

      I will be the first to admit we need a federal government for a strong defense and maybe build some roads, but honestly, that is about it. The rest should be taken care of at State and Local levels. That is how it was when our country was founded.

      As it says in the 10th amendment, ” … powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

      • Who built the Hoover Dam?

        • Who paid for about 90% of the interstate highway system?

          • Earl Ritter says:

            Why Bob …the tax payer did. You know that.

          • Who instituted Social Security then took the money to fund it? Who instituted Medicare? The “Great” Society? Welfare? Food Stamps?

            How in the world did Americans survive before those programs came to be?

        • Earl Ritter says:

          Your point is????

          When all the jobs programs are complete …then what do all the workers do?

          The taxpayer paid for it.

          • [redacted]

            Your rant included the following slanted viewpoint: “All the government does is it takes our money, hires bureaucrats to push some papers around and then gives that money to someone else. They are the consummate middleman, always taking a cut, never producing anything.”

            Government at the federal level is not as evil as you try to portray it. Who assembled the National Parks system? How could this sort of goodness exist without federal guidance? No amount of Getty-like largesse could accomplish wonderful things like the Hoover Dam, the Interstate Highway network, or the National Parks system.

          • “…No amount of Getty-like largesse could accomplish wonderful things like the Hoover Dam, the Interstate Highway network, or the National Parks system…”

            Agreed. That was then, this is now. What has the government done for us lately?


          • Wow Bob watch much Rachel Maddow? I saw your whole line of thought in her current ad campaign in front of the Hoover Dam and the National Parks. Ha ha.

          • It’s a good line of thought, James. What’s wrong with it, besides the fact that Rachel Maddow used it in a commercial?

          • No I don’t think it’s a good line of thought, but my point was it is unoriginal, recycled, and a horrible idea resurrected from a nostalgic view from days gone by.

            The bloated dysfunctional Federal Government should not be empowered to move forward on any project bigger than turning out the lights as 50% of the employees on the Federal payroll are dismissed. At that point we could probably look into some grand plans.

            I have worked side-by-side with Federal government employees for many years and for every great motivated civil servant on the payroll, there are 3 more that make a profession out of keeping their jobs not doing their jobs. An organization like that does not get blank checks to build the next “Wonders of the World.”

          • No one would disagree that the workplace should be cleansed of the millstones, and that would apply to both public and private settings. But to deny the good that has been done on the federal level is dishonest at best. And to completely rule out any possibility that Washington can’t create another CCC for example is denying the existence of real solutions. Not smart, imho.

            Starve the beast is not the answer, because it’s not a beast. It’s a workhorse that only needs wise handlers who possess vision and patience.

            I am truly sorry that it is midnight in your America. I still believe that bipartisan solutions are possible.

          • I’m sorry but you can’t pawn that rhetoric off on me.

            No one is denying that great things have been done. It was a smaller government at a different time in history. The Federal Government of today is broken and the time to fix it is now as it teeters under the weight of its own collapse.

            Better handlers are needed but the best handlers know how to get rid of the under performers and the way the system is now, the best handler in the world couldn’t do his job because it’s too difficult to fire government employees.

            You say “cleansed of the millstones, and that would apply to both public and private settings.” This is incorrect. The private sector has a built in mechanism to cull out the useless, it’s called the economy. You don’t perform where I work and you are out the door. No appeal, no union, good-bye.

            The bloated Fed feeds off the economy and has no mechanism to eliminate the useless. I have witnessed the governments methodology for dealing with under performers. If there is an under performer ruining a department, they promote him to get him out because they can’t fire him or her. It sounds like a joke but I have seen it happen and it is everywhere. The Feds could cut there staff in half and I doubt anyone would know the difference.

            Other than the people who would then be forced to find real jobs and do real work.

            No the Govies at the federal level have become a parasite on the country and now is the time to cut. It is not a “midnight hour bipartisan failure,” it’s an opportunity.

            The ridiculous growth of federal fat is a direct result of a lack of accountability at every level and a sense of, what’s the word…oh yes Entitlement.

            Liberal “thinkers” of Rachel Maddow’s ilk love to empower the Federal Government to answer all of life’s problems.

            No thanks

            You keep putting your faith in big government. I hope it serves you well.

            I prefer to look for real solutions in the new economy rather than harken back to the good ol’ days of the CCC.

      • “The rest should be taken care of at State and Local levels”.

        I am assuming that is why many of our states are bankrupt right now. The Feds put it all on the States to take care of. And what is the first thing the State cuts funding for? You got it – EDUCATION.

        • Most states are not bankrupt. Only badly run ones like New York and California are. And unlike the Federal Government, States have to balance their budgets, they have to live within their means.

          Concerning education in 2008 dollars (a constant) we spend TWICE as much today on education than we did 20 years ago, and almost 4 times as much as 50 years ago.


          Are the student twice as smart? No. Honestly they have fallen further behind. So were does all this extra money go? Obviously not to educating children.

          • So what are u saying Mr. Clarke Conservative? Bad teachers? Please elaborate…

          • Not at all. Too much money being spent out of the classroom and not on instruction. Like adminstration, un-needed technologies, etc.

            Good teachers educate our children. That is what we need to focus on.

          • … and if we have ‘bad teachers’ get rid of them.

          • along with bad School Board representation…

          • We spend more dollars now per pupil than years ago. Besides high salaries, teachers have lots of vacation time and summers off. Students need to be punctual and responsible and focus on their studies. Cell phones and technology gadgets distract student attention on the teacher. Students must gain effective study and work habbits.

          • Just a thought says:

            High salaries? Excuse me? And vacation time? I think you need to revisit what it means to be a teacher, especially in Clarke County.

            Also, technologies can be effective tools in the classroom.

  8. I totally agree! While he tries to magically create these jobs we are going to pay even higher taxes and things are going to get even messier! You know what? If the House cannot get it together and work together then it is a no win situation.
    “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” Abraham Lincoln
    I cannot believe the downhill spiral this country has taken.
    Let us hope for a new president and a better future for our country!

  9. Problem Solved says:

    Term Limits.

  10. Ken Cunningham says:

    Increased defense spending has never guaranteed a more effective, efficient US miiltary. The private sector main out bandits with the increase in military spending during the Reagan years. People don’t want to realized how much of economy is tied to defense spending. I served in the militiary proudly just after the Vietnam war and observed the poor use of resources and that was 30 years ago. Yes I am for a strong military, but want to see better use of our military resources and still be effective with the least amount of spending. One doesn’t have to look far for a major portion of current debt than the Iraq war.