Alabama Nov 6, 2012 Ballot---Perspective on How To Vote and Why on Certain Amendments

Alabama Nov 6, 2012 Ballot---print also link (from Liberty Council) on backside-right to share information in churches-Amendments 3 and 5 left off (county)

Amendment 1  Vote NO        "Let the truth be known, Forever Wild is not financed with tax dollars, however the money used to acquire these lands are in fact OUR dollars from OUR Alabama Trust Fund and should be used for the benefit of our citizens... Hunting is purported to be a major attraction to Forever Wild land, however, most people do not know of Forever Wild and hunting is severely restricted. Mulberry Fork Wildlife Management Area offers a deer hunt only on January 27 and 28" --please read more on website notforeverwild.com

Amendment 2    Vote NO                 This gives tax incentives not available to in-state companies --unfair
Amendment 4    Vote Yes                Takes out old language (it doesn't add taxes)

Here's opinion of Mrs. B Moore :The Alabama Constitution Article XIV, Section 256, The Legislature shall establish, organize, and maintain a liberal system of public chools throughout the State for the benefit of the children thereof between the ages of seven and twenty-one years. I'm voting yes on the proposed amendment # 4 on the Nov. 6th ballot.

Amendment 6   Vote YES                Prevents Alabama from being compelled to be part of Obamacare  
OBamacare will mean:  $529 billion in cuts to Medicare; 569 billion in higher taxes; swelling of the ranks of Medicaid by 16 million-go to galen.org to find out more.

• It creates an unelected, unaccountable board —the Independent Payment Advisory Board — with powers to limit payment and access to health care for seniors and which will become Medicare’s rationing board.
• Doctors are already threatening to drop out of the program in large numbers if the Obamacare payment cuts go into effect!
• Medicare actuaries predict that more than 40% of Medicare providers eventually will either go out of business or stop seeing Medicare patients altogether if the law’s cuts take effect!
Amendment 7    Vote Yes               Allows for Secret Ballots In Union Votes!
Amendment 8    Vote Yes               Legislators will not give themselves a pay raise during their term
Amendment 9    Vote No                No to More Taxes
Amendment 10  Vote NO               Deal with authority of state legislature and banking in the state. A major change to Constitution doing away with Alabama's ability to establish a state bank and removes God and Silver standard.
Amendment 11  Vote Yes               Prevents Decatur from overpowering Lawrence County

Henry Burke and Common Core Standards--States Price Tags

States' Taxpayers Cannot Afford Common Core Standards

by Henry W. Burke

10.15.12

INTRODUCTION

The total nationwide cost for 7 years of the Common Core Standards Initiative is $15.8 billion.  This includes the cost to states of CCS Testing, Professional Development, Textbooks, and Technology.  (Other costs not shown in this report would be the cost to set up and administer a nationalized teacher evaluation system and a national student/educator database.)

The taxpayers in each of the 45 states (and D. C.) that have committed to the Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI) will be left "holding the bag" because our federal government with a national debt of $16 trillion cannot come in and alleviate the cost to the states.

Because it will cost California $2.2 billion to implement the Common Core Standards but California only received $104 million ($0.1 billion) from the federal government for competitive Stimulus awards, the taxpayers of California will have to come up with $2.1 billion out of their state coffers.

With California on the brink of bankruptcy, where would their taxpayers come up with $2.1 billion?  (Please see Table 1 at the end of this report for a complete listing of CCS losses per state.)

Where would other states such as the ones listed below find the extra funding to implement the Common Core Standards? 

Illinois  -- $733 million

Pennsylvania  -- $647 million

Michigan -- $569 million

As a block, the states will spend $16 billion and get only $5 billion in federal grants.  Why would the states change to a system that costs several times what they will receive in return?  That does not sound like a very good deal to me. 

The cost for CCS does not suddenly end at Year 7.  The ongoing cost for Year 8 and after will be $801 million per year.

The up-front, one-time cost for CCS implementation is two-thirds (67%) of the Total Cost for 7 years. 

This report will focus primarily on the cost of implementing the Common Core Standards in each of the 46 states (45 states plus D.C.).

*A very helpful compilation of Anti-CCSI Resources has recently been posted at:   

http://educationviews.org/list-of-anti-common-core-resources/

Background on Common Core Standards and RTTT

Picture this scenario: You are the CEO of a large company.  An outside company offered your company an incentive to persuade you to convert to their system.  Would you change the main system in your company if you knew it would cost more money to convert than the amount of the incentive? 

That is what 45 states (and the District of Columbia) did in adopting the Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI).  Under the U.S. Department of Education's Race to the Top program (RTTT), states competed for $4.35 Billion in federal grants. 

In exchange for the potential funds, states had to drop their own state education standards and adopt the Common Core Standards Initiative  (a.k.a., CCS) -- nationalized curriculum standards, nationalized curriculum, nationalized assessments, a nationalized teacher evaluation system, and a nationalized database.  

Under the $787 billion Stimulus measure, money was set aside for RTTT funding.  About $3.9 billion was awarded in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of RTTT in 2010; since then, an additional $1.5 billion has been granted.  This brings the total competitive awards to $5.4 billion.

Cost to Implement CCS

How about the costs?  One reliable estimate places the nationwide cost of implementing CCS at $15.8 billion.  Another estimate pegs the total CCS cost at $30 billion.

As a block, the states will spend $16 billion and get $5 billion in federal grants.  Why would the states change to a system that costs several times what they will receive in return?  That does not sound like a very good deal to me. 

When the states were competing for those coveted federal dollars, they were not calculating realistic costs for the conversion.  Theodor Rebarber, CEO and founder of AccountabilityWorks, explained: “States did almost no costs analysis” when they signed on to adopt the Common Core standards.  They sorely needed the money and viewed CCS through the proverbial "rose-colored glasses." 

If the RTTT grant money were the chief reason that states adopted the Common Core Standards Initiative (the nationalization of the public schools), would they drop out of CCS if the conversion costs were significantly higher than the RTTT funds received from the federal government?  That is a good question.

This report will briefly cover the federal RTTT awards; however, the major emphasis will be on the cost side of the equation.  I think many states will "get off the national standards train" once the real costs are known.

When I was searching for reliable cost estimates on implementing the Common Core Standards, I found an excellent White Paper report published by the Pioneer Institute entitled National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards by AccountabilityWorks, No. 82 - February 2012.

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf

My report is based almost entirely on this outstanding Pioneer Institute White Paper.

Quality of the Standards

I think it is obvious that money was the chief reason that the states gave up their own state standards and adopted the Common Core Standards (CCS). 

People might try to argue that the national standards are an improvement over the states' standards.  Numerous education experts certainly do not think the Common Core Standards are an improvement over the state standards.

Two of these experts are Dr. Sandra Stotsky and Ze'ev Wurman.  The Pioneer Institute included these statements on page 4 of the report:

            Pioneer Institute retained experts with knowledge of the subject matter to develop a series of white papers that provided specific recommendations for improvement and, ultimately, questioned whether states with highly regarded standards (e.g., Massachusetts and California) would benefit from replacing their current standards with the new Common Core standards.

            Ze’ev Wurman and Sandra Stotsky questioned the academic rigor, as well as a perceived lack of transparency and the accelerated nature of the development process, charging that it didn't permit sufficient time for public or other expert review and comment.

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf

On 5.20.10, The Pacific Research Institute released its report on the national standards:

'These proposed national standards are vague and lack the academic rigor of the standards in Massachusetts and a number of other states,' said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. ‘The new report shows that these weak standards will result in weak assessments.  After so much progress and the investment of billions of tax dollars, it amounts to snatching mediocrity from the jaws of excellence.’

 http://pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100520_emperors_new_clothes.pdf

Dr. R. James Milgram and Dr. Sandra Stotsky issued another report on the national standards for math and English.  The title best captures their overall sentiments: Fair to Middling: A National Standards Progress Report.  Stotsky determined that the elements were too broadly worded, and explicit goals were not established.  Also the literature standards were deemed to be very weak.  Dr. Milgram made these comments about the Mathematics standards:

            The proposed standards are, however, very uneven in quality and do not match up well either with the best state standards or with international expectations.

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100402_fair_to_middling.pdf 

Texas wisely shunned the national standards movement and devoted considerable energy into writing its own standards.  The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) adopted excellent standards documents during the last four years for English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR), Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics.  Many experts deem these four standards documents to be the best in the country!

Pioneer Institute White Paper Report

National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards, A Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project White Paper, No. 82 - February 2012

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf

The Pioneer white paper provides a thorough analysis of the cost of implementing the Common Core Standards.  The report states: 

            The goal of this analysis  was to develop a 'middle of the road' estimate of the 'incremental' (i.e., additional) cost of implementing the Common Core standards based, as much as possible, on actual state or local experience implementing similar initiatives.

Please note that the Pioneer Institute report gives the incremental or additional expenses borne by the states for implementing CCS during the 7-year period.

I strongly urge the readers to study the Pioneer Institute report.  Also, a wealth of information is included in the Appendices to the Pioneer white paper.  The Appendices provide enrollment numbers and detailed cost breakdowns for every state. 

http://www.accountabilityworks.org/photos/Appendices.Common_Core_Cost.AW.pdf 

Analysis of the Pioneer CCS Information

My goal has been to utilize the research done by the Pioneer Institute but to go one step further by calculating (1) the cost for each CCS category in each state, and (2) the total CCS cost for each state.

The Pioneer Institute white paper includes costs for four categories: Testing, Professional Development, Textbooks, and Technology.  The Appendices to the Pioneer Institute report provide dollar figures for Textbooks and Technology for each state.  I derived the Testing costs and Professional Development costs for each state from the Pioneer white paper Figure 2B (Table 5) and the Pioneer report's assumptions.

http://www.accountabilityworks.org/photos/Appendices.Common_Core_Cost.AW.pdf

Highlights from CCS Tables

CCS Loss Per State  (Please refer to Table 1)

1.  California will lose $2,084 million ($2.084 billion) on CCS implementation.  (Translation: California taxpayers will have to take $2.1 billion from their state coffers to pay for CCS.)

2.  Illinois will lose $733 million on CCS implementation.

(Translation: Illinois taxpayers will have to take $733 million out of their state coffers to pay for CCS.)

3.  Pennsylvania will lose $647 million on CCS implementation.

4.  Michigan will lose $569 million on CCS implementation.

5.  New Jersey will lose $564 million on CCS implementation.

6.  Indiana will lose $387 million on CCS implementation.

7.  Arizona will lose $349 million on CCS implementation.

8.  Missouri will lose $336 million on CCS implementation.

9.  Washington will lose $331 million on CCS implementation.

10.  Wisconsin will lose $313 million on CCS implementation.

11.  Six states show a gain (the federal awards are more than the expenditures for CCS implementation and administration). 

12.  Tennessee has the largest CCS gain, with $145 million; the District of Columbia has the second largest gain, at $76 million. 

13.  Maryland has the smallest gain, with $7 million.

CCS Cost Per Student  (Please refer to Table 2)

1.  In Vermont, the cost per student to implement and administer CCS will be $433.

2.  In the District of Columbia, the CCS Cost per Student will be $425.

3.  In North Dakota, the CCS Cost per Student will be $424.

4.  In New Jersey, the CCS Cost per Student will be $419.

5.  In Maine, the CCS Cost per Student will be $418.

6.  In New York, the CCS Cost per Student will be $411.

7.  In Wyoming, the CCS Cost per Student will be $410.

8.  In Rhode Island, the CCS Cost per Student will be $406.

9.  In New Hampshire, the CCS Cost per Student will be $404.

10.  In Arkansas, the CCS Cost per Student will be $403.

11.  The CCS Cost per Student varies from $337 (in Utah) to $433 (in Vermont); the average CCS Cost per Student for the 46 states is $379.

Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages  (Please refer to Table 4)

1.  The largest category is Technology, at $6.9 billion; this is 43% of the $15.8 billion Total Cost.

2.  The second largest category is Professional Development, at $5.3 billion; this is 33% of the Total Cost.

3.  The third largest category is Textbooks, at $2.5 billion; this is 16% of the Total Cost.

4. The smallest category is Testing, at $1.2 billion; this is 8% of the Total Cost.

Nationwide CCS Cost  (Please refer to Table 5)

1.  The Total Nationwide Cost for 7 years of CCS implementation is $15.835 billion.

2.  The up-front, one-time cost for CCS implementation is $10.5 billion; this is two-thirds (67%) of the Total Cost of $15.8 billion for 7 years.

3.  The cost for Year 1 operations is $503 million.

4.  The ongoing annual operational costs for Years 2-7 are $801.5 million.  [$801.5 million  x  6 years = $4.809 billion]

5.  The cost for CCS does not suddenly end at Year 7.  The ongoing cost for Year 8 and after will be $801 million per year.

Competitive Stimulus Awards  (Please refer to Table 8)

1.  Average Grant per State (51 States) = $105,430,332

2.  Average Grant per State (First 41 States) = $131,145,047

3.  Average Grant per Student (51 States) = $109

4.  Average Grant per Student (First 41 States) = $121

5.  Median Grant per Student (51 States) = $24

6.  Median Grant per Student (First 41 States) = $33

Description                             Total Awarded          Enrollment     Grant Per Student

Total for 51 States                 $5,376,946,918           49,181,237                  $109

Total for First 41 States        $5,376,946,918           44,522,237                  $121

CONCLUSION

The main reason that the states gave up their standards and adopted the Common Core Standards was the potential money offered under the Race to the Top program.  Unfortunately, that federal ploy of the "carrot and stick" has worked wonderfully; 45 states (plus D. C.) have signed on to the national standards.

The quality of the national standards is questionable and unproven.  The Common Core Standards have not been piloted under controlled research standards and have not been internationally benchmarked.  No one knows whether or not students will actually increase their academic achievement by being taught the CCS. 

The 45 states (and D. C.) committed to adopt the CCS before the standards documents (English and Math) were even completed and made public.  Several states blindly dropped their stellar standards in favor of the mediocre national standards.

The Pioneer Institute published a commendable breakdown of the cost to implement CCS.  

I expanded upon Pioneer's work to produce detailed CCS costs for every state.

Most states will lose money when they fully implement the national standards in their state.  California stands to lose a whopping $2 billion on CCS!  Illinois will lose $733 million; and Pennsylvania will lose $647 million.  Those states' taxpayers will have to make up for the differences from their state coffers.

The average cost per student for the implementation of CCS in the 45 CCS states (plus D. C.) is $379.  The costs varied from a low of $337 to a high of $433 per student.

However, the average amount of federal funding granted to the states was $109 per student. 

The decision by these 45 states (and D. C.) to adopt CCS will be terribly expensive indeed!

The Conclusion to the Pioneer Institute white paper provides these insights:

            While a handful of states have begun to analyze these costs, most states have signed on to the initiative without a thorough, public vetting of the costs and benefits.

            In particular, there has been very little attention to the potential technology infrastructure costs that currently cash-strapped districts may face in order to implement the Common Core assessments within a reasonable testing window.

I believe that when the states become aware of the high cost of implementing the Common Core Standards, they will seriously want to consider their options.  If a state is truly concerned about protecting the taxpayers, the state will opt out of the costly national standards.

===========================================

TABLES

Table No.                 Description

Table 1                      CCS Loss Per State

Table 2                      CCS Cost Per Student

Table 3                      Total CCS Cost

Table 4                      Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages

Table 5                      Nationwide CCS Cost (Pioneer Figure 2B)

Table 6                      Students and Teachers (CCS States)

Table 7                      Students and Teachers (Non-CCS States)

Table 8                      Competitive Stimulus Awards

Table 1-- CCS Loss Per State

($ Millions)

The following table (in millions of dollars) shows the difference between the amount of RTTT grant funds a state received and the total cost of implementation of CCS.  The states with the plus signs have a "gain" on cost minus awards.  All of the other states have a loss and will have to make up the difference out of their state coffers.

State Abr.	State	Total Cost	Federal Competitive Awards	State Loss (Cost - Awards) (+ = Gain)
AL	Alabama	281.693	0	281.693
AZ	Arizona	374.704	25.263	349.441
AR	Arkansas	193.529	9.833	183.696
CA	California	2,188.494	104.208	2,084.286
CO	Colorado	304.494	73.779	230.715
CT	Connecticut	226.215	4.473	221.742
DE	Delaware	48.892	119.122	+ 70.230
DC	District of Columbia	29.331	105.253	+ 75.922
FL	Florida	1,024.163	905.838	118.325
GA	Georgia	646.622	404.691	241.931
HI	Hawaii	67.556	74.935	+ 7.379
ID	Idaho	99.246	3.700	95.546
IL	Illinois	799.021	65.610	733.411
IN	Indiana	386.623	0	386.623
IA	Iowa	192.565	9.035	183.530
KS	Kansas	185.515	11.180	174.335
KY	Kentucky	256.754	4.999	251.755
LA	Louisiana	270.086	30.072	240.014
ME	Maine	79.189	7.315	71.874
MD	Maryland	327.234	334.284	+ 7.050
MA	Massachusetts	377.294	310.588	66.706
MI	Michigan	591.593	22.730	568.863
MS	Mississippi	187.300	7.570	179.730
MO	Missouri	362.058	26.531	335.527
MT	Montana	56.208	0.520	55.688
NV	Nevada	151.051	0	151.051
NH	New Hampshire	79.715	0	79.715
NJ	New Jersey	563.657	0	563.657
NM	New Mexico	128.751	10.727	118.024
NY	New York	1,088.436	845.659	242.777
NC	North Carolina	576.903	427.081	149.822
ND	North Dakota	40.281	0	40.281
OH	Ohio	662.048	468.320	193.728
OK	Oklahoma	246.387	15.466	230.921
OR	Oregon	201.964	19.937	182.027
PA	Pennsylvania	705.985	58.840	647.145
RI	Rhode Island	58.883	75.000	+ 16.117
SC	South Carolina	273.045	22.122	250.923
SD	South Dakota	49.301	19.684	29.617
TN	Tennessee	373.326	518.492	+ 145.166
UT	Utah	196.306	24.900	171.406
VT	Vermont	39.995	0	39.995
WA	Washington	365.092	34.330	330.762
WV	West Virginia	109.957	0	109.957
WI	Wisconsin	331.092	17.952	313.140
WY	Wyoming	36.163	0	36.163
	Totals	15,834.717	5,220.039	10,614.678

Table 2 -- CCS Cost Per Student

(Total Cost in $ Millions)  [Cost per Student in dollars as shown]

State Abr.	State	Total Cost	Students	Cost per Student
AL	Alabama	281.693	748,889	$376
AZ	Arizona	374.704	1,077,660	348
AR	Arkansas	193.529	480,088	403
CA	California	2,188.494	6,257,082	350
CO	Colorado	304.494	832,368	366
CT	Connecticut	226.215	563,985	401
DE	Delaware	48.892	126,801	386
DC	District of Columbia	29.331	68,984	425
FL	Florida	1,024.163	2,634,522	389
GA	Georgia	646.622	1,667,685	388
HI	Hawaii	67.556	180,008	375
ID	Idaho	99.246	276,299	359
IL	Illinois	799.021	2,104,175	380
IN	Indiana	386.623	1,046,661	369
IA	Iowa	192.565	491,842	392
KS	Kansas	185.515	470,057	395
KY	Kentucky	256.754	679,717	378
LA	Louisiana	270.086	690,915	391
ME	Maine	79.189	189,225	418
MD	Maryland	327.234	848,412	386
MA	Massachusetts	377.294	956,231	395
MI	Michigan	591.593	1,634,151	362
MS	Mississippi	187.300	484,467	387
MO	Missouri	362.058	917,982	394
MT	Montana	56.208	141,807	396
NV	Nevada	151.051	428,469	353
NH	New Hampshire	79.715	197,140	404
NJ	New Jersey	563.657	1,344,785	419
NM	New Mexico	128.751	334,419	385
NY	New York	1,088.436	2,650,201	411
NC	North Carolina	576.903	1,482,859	389
ND	North Dakota	40.281	95,073	424
OH	Ohio	662.048	1,764,297	375
OK	Oklahoma	246.387	653,118	377
OR	Oregon	201.964	582,839	347
PA	Pennsylvania	705.985	1,783,502	396
RI	Rhode Island	58.883	145,118	406
SC	South Carolina	273.045	723,143	378
SD	South Dakota	49.301	123,713	399
TN	Tennessee	373.326	972,549	384
UT	Utah	196.306	582,793	337
VT	Vermont	39.995	92,431	433
WA	Washington	365.092	1,035,347	353
WV	West Virginia	109.957	282,662	389
WI	Wisconsin	331.092	872,436	380
WY	Wyoming	36.163	88,155	410
	Totals	15,834.717	41,805,062	$379

Table 3 -- Total CCS Cost

($ Millions)

The column that is particularly significant is the far-right column -- Total Cost. This is the Total Cost (in millions of dollars) that each state will have to bear to implement the CCS.

State Abr.	Testing Cost	Prof. Dev. Cost	Textbook Cost	Technology Cost	Total Cost
AL	22.225	91.707	44.643	123.118	281.693
AZ	31.982	100.310	64.482	177.930	374.704
AR	14.247	71.910	28.151	79.221	193.529
CA	185.690	605.938	374.295	1,022.571	2,188.494
CO	24.702	94.735	48.476	136.581	304.494
CT	16.737	84.178	33.132	92.168	226.215
DE	3.763	16.684	7.608	20.837	48.892
DC	2.047	12.300	3.647	11.337	29.331
FL	78.184	354.970	155.810	435.199	1,024.163
GA	49.492	223.838	97.932	275.360	646.622
HI	5.342	22.021	10.784	29.409	67.556
ID	8.200	29.353	16.515	45.178	99.246
IL	62.445	267.411	121.910	347.255	799.021
IN	31.062	120.220	62.427	172.914	386.623
IA	14.596	69.211	28.483	80.275	192.565
KS	13.950	67.006	27.758	76.801	185.515
KY	20.172	85.680	39.328	111.574	256.754
LA	20.504	95.866	39.771	113.945	270.086
ME	5.616	31.427	11.221	30.925	79.189
MD	25.178	112.452	49.594	140.010	327.234
MA	28.378	134.994	56.056	157.866	377.294
MI	48.496	178.986	97.181	266.930	591.593
MS	14.377	63.922	28.961	80.040	187.300
MO	27.243	130.914	53.930	149.971	362.058
MT	4.208	20.316	8.502	23.182	56.208
NV	12.716	42.683	25.557	70.095	151.051
NH	5.850	29.913	11.717	32.235	79.715
NJ	39.909	222.544	79.168	222.036	563.657
NM	9.924	43.880	19.729	55.218	128.751
NY	78.650	414.787	157.198	437.801	1,088.436
NC	44.007	202.844	87.607	242.445	576.903
ND	2.821	16.155	5.689	15.616	40.281
OH	52.359	215.071	104.702	289.916	662.048
OK	19.382	82.411	37.024	107.570	246.387
OR	17.297	55.518	33.932	95.217	201.964
PA	52.929	252.930	106.979	293.147	705.985
RI	4.307	21.946	8.655	23.975	58.883
SC	21.461	90.718	42.110	118.756	273.045
SD	3.671	18.009	7.409	20.212	49.301
TN	28.862	126.212	57.696	160.556	373.326
UT	17.295	49.190	34.563	95.258	196.306
VT	2.743	16.865	5.302	15.085	39.995
WA	30.726	103.208	61.909	169.249	365.092
WV	8.389	39.197	16.233	46.138	109.957
WI	25.891	112.821	50.023	142.357	331.092
WY	2.616	13.838	5.299	14.410	36.163
Totals	1,240.641	5,257.089	2,469.098	6,867.889	15,834.717

Notes on Table 3:

1.  Testing -- The Testing cost for each state was determined by multiplying the number of students in the state by $29.6768 per student.  My total Testing cost of $1,240.641 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer's Figure 2B).

2.  Professional Development -- The Professional Development cost for each state was determined by multiplying the number of teachers in the state by $1,931 per teacher.  My total cost for Professional Development is consistent with the total number of teachers in the 46 CCS states (2,722,470 teachers).  My total Professional Development cost of $5,257.089 million is slightly under the Table 5 amount (Pioneer Figure 2B). 

3.  Textbooks -- The Textbook costs for each state were taken directly from the Pioneer report Appendix.  My total Textbook cost of $2,469.098 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer Figure 2B).

4.  Technology -- The Technology costs for each state were obtained directly from the Pioneer Appendix.  My total Technology cost of $6,867.889 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer Figure 2B). 

Table 4 -- Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages

Cost Category	Cost ($ Millions)	Percentage
Testing	$1,240.641	8 %
Professional Development	$5,257.089	33 %
Textbooks	$2,469.098	16 %
Technology	$6,867.889	43 %
Totals	$15,834.717	100 %

Table 5 -- Nationwide CCS Cost (Pioneer Figure 2B)

Overview of Projected Costs to Implement Common Core Standards

Cost Category	One-Time	Year 1 Operations	Years 2-7 Ongoing Operations (Annual)	Total of One-Time & 7 Operational Years
Testing	$0	$177,234,471	$177,234,471	$1,240,641,297
Profess. Dev.	$5,257,492,417	$0	$0	$5,257,492,417
Textbooks	$2,469,098,464	$0	$0	$2,469,098,464
Technology	$2,796,294,147	$326,042,312	$624,258,785	$6,867,889,169
Total Costs	$10,522,885,028	$503,276,783	$801,493,256	$15,835,121,347

Source:  Pioneer Institute report (page 2)

Table 6-- Students and Teachers  (CCS States)

State Abr.	State	Student Enrollment	Total Teachers	Students per Teacher
AL	Alabama	748,889	47,492	15.8
AZ	Arizona	1,077,660	51,947	20.7
AR	Arkansas	480,088	37,240	12.9
CA	California	6,257,082	313,795	19.9
CO	Colorado	832,368	49,060	17.0
CT	Connecticut	563,985	43,593	12.9
DE	Delaware	126,801	8,640	14.7
DC	District of Columbia	68,984	6,370	10.8
FL	Florida	2,634,522	183,827	14.3
GA	Georgia	1,667,685	115,918	14.4
HI	Hawaii	180,008	11,404	15.8
ID	Idaho	276,299	15,201	18.2
IL	Illinois	2,104,175	138,483	15.2
IN	Indiana	1,046,661	62,258	16.8
IA	Iowa	491,842	35,842	13.7
KS	Kansas	470,057	34,700	13.5
KY	Kentucky	679,717	44,371	15.3
LA	Louisiana	690,915	49,646	13.9
ME	Maine	189,225	16,275	11.6
MD	Maryland	848,412	58,235	14.6
MA	Massachusetts	956,231	69,909	13.7
MI	Michigan	1,634,151	92,691	17.6
MS	Mississippi	484,467	33,103	14.6
MO	Missouri	917,982	67,796	13.5
MT	Montana	141,807	10,521	13.5
NV	Nevada	428,469	22,104	19.4
NH	New Hampshire	197,140	15,491	12.7
NJ	New Jersey	1,344,785	115,248	11.7
NM	New Mexico	334,419	22,724	14.7
NY	New York	2,650,201	214,804	12.3
NC	North Carolina	1,482,859	105,046	14.1
ND	North Dakota	95,073	8,366	11.4
OH	Ohio	1,764,297	111,378	15.8
OK	Oklahoma	653,118	42,678	15.3
OR	Oregon	582,839	28,751	20.3
PA	Pennsylvania	1,783,502	130,984	13.6
RI	Rhode Island	145,118	11,365	12.8
SC	South Carolina	723,143	46,980	15.4
SD	South Dakota	123,713	9,326	13.3
TN	Tennessee	972,549	65,361	14.9
UT	Utah	582,793	25,474	22.9
VT	Vermont	92,431	8,734	10.6
WA	Washington	1,035,347	53,448	19.4
WV	West Virginia	282,662	20,299	13.9
WI	Wisconsin	872,436	58,426	14.9
WY	Wyoming	88,155	7,166	12.3
	Totals	41,805,062	2,722,470	15.4

Notes on Table 6:

1.  The Pioneer Institute report Appendix includes a table on student enrollment in each state.  The information was obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); figures are for the 2009 - 2010 School Year. 

2.  The figures in Table 6 were taken from the Pioneer Appendix.  The Appendix lists the Student enrollment for each grade and the total for all grades.  The Appendix table also shows the number of teachers and the students-per-teacher ratio for each state.

Table 7-- Students and Teachers  (Non-CCS States)

To date, 45 states plus the District of Columbia have officially committed to follow the CCSI.  The following states have not committed to the CCSI: Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia.

State Abr.	State	Student Enrollment	Teachers	Students per Teacher
AK	Alaska	131,661	8,083	16.3
MN	Minnesota	837,053	52,839	15.8
NE	Nebraska	295,368	22,256	13.3
TX	Texas	4,850,210	333,164	14.6
VA	Virginia	1,245,340	70,827	17.6
	Totals	7,359,632	487,169	15.1

Table 8 -- Competitive Stimulus Awards

(States Ranked by Total Grants Awarded, Per Student)

Table 8 emphasizes the Grant per Student.  Please notice how few dollars the states actually received per student; yet to receive the money, states completely aligned their education policies in accordance with the U. S. Department of Education's requirements.  In other words, for a pittance per student, states gave up control of their schools and put that control into the hands of the federal government.

Rank No.	State	Total Grants Awarded	Student Enrollment	Grant Per Student
1.	District of Colum.	$105,253,403	68,681	$1,533
2.	Delaware	$119,122,128	125,430	$950
3.	Tennessee	$518,492,264	971,950	$533
4.	Rhode Island	$75,000,000	145,342	$516
5.	Hawaii	$74,934,761	179,478	$418
6.	Maryland	$334,284,329	843,781	$396
7.	Florida	$905,838,204	2,631,020	$344
8.	Massachusetts	$310,588,393	958,910	$324
9.	New York	$845,659,232	2,740,805	$309
10.	North Carolina	$427,081,423	1,488,645	$287
11.	Ohio	$468,320,080	1,817,163	$258
12.	Georgia	$404,690,965	1,655,792	$244
13.	South Dakota	$19,683,676	126,624	$155
14.	Colorado	$73,778,692	818,443	$90
15.	Virginia	$81,070,962	1,235,795	$66
16.	Utah	$24,900,456	559,778	$44
17.	Louisiana	$30,072,268	684,873	$44
18.	Maine	$7,315,000	192,563	$38
19.	Oregon	$19,936,755	563,295	$35
20.	Pennsylvania	$58,840,473	1,769,789	$33
21.	Washington	$34,329,658	1,037,018	$33
22.	New Mexico	$10,727,264	330,245	$32
23.	Illinois	$65,609,983	2,119,707	$31
24.	South Carolina	$22,121,832	718,113	$31
25.	Missouri	$26,530,835	917,871	$29
26.	Oklahoma	$15,465,616	645,108	$24
27.	Kansas	$11,180,442	471,060	$24
28.	Arizona	$25,262,809	1,087,631	$23
29.	Minnesota	$17,411,488	836,048	$21
30.	Wisconsin	$17,952,005	873,750	$21
31.	Arkansas	$9,832,689	478,965	$21
32.	Iowa	$9,035,380	487,559	$19
33.	California	$104,207,642	6,252,031	$17
34.	Mississippi	$7,569,716	491,962	$15
35.	Michigan	$22,730,464	1,659,921	$14
36.	Idaho	$3,699,882	275,154	$13
37.	Texas	$57,586,897	4,752,148	$12
38.	Connecticut	$4,473,481	567,198	$8
39.	Kentucky	$4,999,458	670,030	$7
40.	Alaska	$835,470	130,662	$6
41.	Montana	$520,443	141,899	$4
42.	Wyoming	$0	91,000	$0
43.	West Virginia	$0	282,000	$0
44.	Vermont	$0	89,000	$0
45.	North Dakota	$0	93,000	$0
46.	New Jersey	$0	1,373,000	$0
47.	New Hampshire	$0	190,000	$0
48.	Nevada	$0	458,000	$0
49.	Nebraska	$0	298,000	$0
50.	Indiana	$0	1,044,000	$0
51.	Alabama	$0	741,000	$0

Sources for this report:  Education Week, "Competitive Stimulus Grants: Winners and Losers," September 21, 2012; and U.S. Department of Education.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/stimulus_competitive.html

Table taken from "Do Not Let the DOE Nationalize the Schools in Your State," by Henry W. Burke and Donna Garner, 9.23.12.

http://educationviews.org/do-not-let-the-doe-nationalize-the-schools-in-your-state-2/

============================

Bio for Henry W. Burke

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer  with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor. 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

 _____________________________________

Food for thought for those who do not wish to vote:

An elderly German man who lived through the Holocaust tells the following story:

I always considered myself a Christian. I attended a church since I was a small boy. We had heard the stories of what was happening to the Jews; but like most people in America today, we tried to distance ourselves from the reality of what was really taking place. What could anyone do to stop it?

A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from a distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we heard cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying Jews.

Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the Jews would begin to cry out to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns. If some of the screams reached our ears, we'd just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more.

Years have passed, and no one talks about it much any more; but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. I can still hear them crying out for help. God forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians, yet did nothing to intervene.

Link to speech by Ronald Reagan in Bergen-Belsen about one of these youths cut down by the tyranny:

 http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3412

Ronald Reagan quotes these words from Anne Frank:

Just 3 weeks before her capture, young Anne wrote these words: "It's really a wonder that I haven't dropped all my ideals because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them because in spite of everything I still believe that people are good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery, and death. I see the world gradually being turned into a wilderness. I hear the ever approaching thunder which will destroy us too; I can feel the suffering of millions and yet, if I looked up into the heavens I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end and that peace and tranquility will return again."

Obama Policies Shows A Record of Destruction From Life All The Way to Economy, From The Physical All The Way To The Spiritual--Vision of His Promised Rosy Future Is In A Decadent Past--as the Record Speaks

This is an excerpt from Nevada Life:

Leo Alexander, who was consultant to the Secretary of War and on duty with the office of Chief Counselor for War Crimes in Nuremberg, says that what happened in Nazi Germany "all started with the acceptance of the attitude that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived."

An elderly German man who lived through the Holocaust tells the following story:

I always considered myself a Christian. I attended a church since I was a small boy. We had heard the stories of what was happening to the Jews; but like most people in America today, we tried to distance ourselves from the reality of what was really taking place. What could anyone do to stop it?

A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from a distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we heard cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying Jews.

Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the Jews would begin to cry out to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns. If some of the screams reached our ears, we'd just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more.

Years have passed, and no one talks about it much any more; but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. I can still hear them crying out for help. God forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians, yet did nothing to intervene.

Hopefully we are shedding our apathy in this nation--so much so that this issue has held up the health care reform that was being pushed down our throats.  But there is so much more to be done.  So I call out to you for help for the little ones whose cries can't be heard as they move inside their mother's womb from those that makes sure they are never heard.  Please pray for strength for this nation and each of us individually to do our part.

If you are a mother who made the mistake and want to help turn the tide--please go to Operation Outcry where you can with full confidentiality sign an affidavit (initials-if you wish) as the Supreme Court has acknowledged the harm done by abortion but they need a much larger number of testimonies--your help is very much needed.

Number of abortions per year--Worldwide: Approximately 42 Million 
                                                           USA:              1.37 Million (1996)

Obama's first act opened door to abortion on demand to be sponsored the world over by US and this death and destruction policy has set the course for this nation.  For every action there is an equal re-action and I wonder if heaven did not groan at his lack of care for the life of a child.  Four years later his first move of destruction has been repeated towards the US economy as his protection of environment has stifled jobs and raised unemployment and chaos in family finances as well as family relationships.  His plans to help the poor with Obamacare has backfired as more people are unable to get care due to lack of doctors.  His plans to educate students and make them college and career ready with his passage of common core standards (national standards) has so far produced more deficits in state coffers to the point that states are robbing their own trust funds such as in Alabama.  He has protected his contributors and championed their causes such that Planned Parenthood, Green Energy Companies are welcome guests at the White House along with the Moslem Brotherhood.   Throughout the nation crime, theft and depravity has increased---will America say enough is enough?  We will find out very soon..

Romney Jobs Plan Will Create Millions of Jobs vs Obama's Job Record of Lost Jobs--Which Would Americans Prefer? Self-determination or Welfare Slavery is the Price of Your Vote

Audio Link To Interview-Click here

Excerpts from Henry W. Burke’s report, “Romney’s Plan Will Create Millions of Jobs” –

When we are dwelling on all of these job numbers, it is easy to forget that we are dealing with real people, people who have tangible needs.  I cannot get the 13 million unemployed persons or 23 million underemployed persons off my mind.  These people are being deprived of the dignity and satisfaction that flows from having a good job…

Unemployment is a serious matter.  All of us know people who are out of work.  They frequently lose confidence in themselves; they feel unworthy; and they often are depressed.  Financial problems ensue; homes are lost; marriages are destroyed; and bankruptcies occur.  Unemployment can impose a very heavy human toll…

In Obama's first 3.6 years, he has created a net total of zero jobs; in fact, he has actually lost 120,000 jobs!   By any measure, Obama has failed miserably at handling the economy.  Obama could not get the job done in just under 4 years yet he pleads for 4 more years.  The Reagan experience tells us that huge strides can be made in three years! 

=========================

Romney’s Plan Will Create Millions of Jobs

by Henry W. Burke

9.08.12

 http://libertylinked.com/posts/10085/romneys-plan-will-create/View.aspx

http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/romney-s-plan-will-create-millions-of-jobs-by-henry-w-burke-9-8

INTRODUCTION

Mitt Romney gave a very exciting acceptance speech on 8.30.12 for the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention (RNC).  Among other things, he said:

          What is needed in our country today is not complicated or profound. It doesn't take a special government commission to tell us what America needs.  What America needs is jobs.  Lots of jobs. 

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2012/08/31/romney-america-needs-jobs-lots-of-jobs/?subscriber=1

Many newspapers picked up those key words and entitled Romney's acceptance speech -- "What America needs is jobs.  Lots of jobs."

Later in his talk, Mitt Romney made this promise:  "And unlike the President, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs."

I will explore this subject in some detail to foster a better understanding of the issues.  To support the statements and conclusions, I will utilize data from reliable sources (Heritage Foundation, BLS, OMB, NBER and the Fed). Because the Reagan Plan produced proven results, it will play a central role in this discussion.

The following sections are included:

A.  Current Employment Picture

B.  Job Creation under Obama

C.  New Jobs Required for Population Growth

D.  Cursory View of Romney Plan

E.  Lessons from the Reagan Recovery

F.  Comparing the Reagan Recovery with the Obama Recovery

G.  Romney's Plan for Tax Reductions

H.  Evaluation of Romney's Job Creation Plan

A.  Current Employment Picture

The "Employment Situation Summary" for August was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on 9.07.12.

Current Employment Situation (August 2012)

(Millions of Persons)

Category	Aug. 2012 BLS Data
Civilian Non-institutional Population	243.566
Civilian Labor Force	154.645
Labor Force Participation Rate	63.5%
Not in Labor Force	88.921
Employed	142.101
Unemployed	12.544
Unemployment Rate	8.1%
Long-term Unemployed	5.033
Unemployed	12.544
Part-time for Economic Reasons	8.031
Marginally-attached	2.561
Total Underemployed	23.136
Underemployed Percent	15.0%

Source:  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 9.07.12.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% in July to 8.1% in August.  The fact that 368,000 people dropped out of the labor force suggests that many workers are giving up hope on finding a job.

The number of new jobs added during August was 96,000.  Our country needs to add 135,000 jobs per month to just break even with population growth.  This means that the Obama Administration was short 39,000 new jobs last month.

In August, 12.5 million persons were unemployed; the total number of underemployed persons was 23.1 million.  The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.0 million people; these individuals accounted for 40.1% of the unemployed.

Based upon the August labor statistics, if I were to ask 100 able-bodied workers to assemble in a room, 8 people would not have a job; and 4 of those people would have been out of work for at least six months.  An additional 7 people would be working only part time.

It is easy to view these figures as just "numbers."  These numbers represent real people.  Think about it --  23 million people are "underemployed" in this country and are struggling to pay their bills.  How do the 5 million people survive when they have been out of work for over six months?

Out of the total number of people who are able to work in America today, only 63.5% are employed.  The labor force participation rate of 63.5% is the lowest since 1981.  Many people have simply given up on finding a job and have dropped out of the labor force.

In fact, the report shows that 88.921 million people are not in the labor force (an increase of 581,000 from July).  This means that almost 90 million working-age adults are not participating in the workforce.

Unemployment is a serious matter.  All of us know people who are out of work.  They frequently lose confidence in themselves; they feel unworthy; and they often are depressed.  Financial problems ensue; homes are lost; marriages are destroyed; and bankruptcies occur.  Unemployment can impose a very heavy human toll.

No matter how Obama tries to spin it, the employment news is not good.  This economy is sick!

B.  Job Creation under Obama

I presented a detailed discussion of job creation during Obama's term in the following report:  "Obama Has Failed to Create Jobs."

http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/obama-has-failed-to-create-jobs-by-henry-w-burke-9-2-12-pt-1-of-2

http://libertylinked.com/posts/10068/pt-1-of-2----obama-has/View.aspx

The following conclusions can be drawn from this report:

1.  Over Obama's full time in office (42 months), he has created zero jobs.  Actually, the number of employed workers dropped by 1,000 between January 2009 and July 2012.

2.  Over the last 29 months (since March 2010), Obama claims that he has created 4.5 million jobs.  If this figure were correct, he created 155,000 jobs per month over this 29-month period. 

[4,500,000 / 29 months = 155,000 jobs per month]

3.  These are the correct figures for the period from March 2010 to July 2012.  According to BLS data, the correct figure is 3.268 million jobs.

[142.220 million - 138.952 million = 3.268 million]

This equates to 117,000 jobs per month.

[3,268,000 / 28 months = 117,000 jobs per month]

[I used 28 months in the denominator to be fair.]

Under Obama, job creation is very weak.  For the 29-month period from March 2010 to July 2012, Obama has created 3.3 million jobs not the 4.5 million jobs he has claimed.  During this 29-month period, job creation has averaged 117,000 jobs per month.

Additional conclusions (based on the August report) include:

1.  For Obama's full 43 months in office, it does not look good.  He has actually lost 120,000 jobs!

[142.221 million - 142.101 million = 0.120 million jobs]  (or 120,000 jobs)

2.  Nearly all of those 120,000 jobs were lost in August.  The number of jobs lost in August was 119,000.

[142.220 million - 142.101 million = 0.119 million jobs]  (or 119,000 jobs)

C.  New Jobs Required for Population Growth

Several conclusions can be drawn from the report "Obama Has Failed to Create Jobs:"

The U.S. population has grown by 205,000 per month in the last 3.5 years.  With the historical labor force participation rate of 65.8%, we need to add about 135,000 new jobs per month to just break even with population growth.  [65.8% x 205,000 = 134,890]

With the population increasing by 205,000 per month, the number of workers in the labor force needs to grow by 135,000 per month.

Unemployment will not improve significantly unless the economy is producing about 200,000 new jobs per month.

D.  Cursory View of Romney Plan

Is it reasonable for Romney to create 12 million jobs in four years?  This plan equates to creating 250,000 jobs per month over his first four-year term.

[12,000,000 jobs / 48 months = 250,000 jobs per month]

It is understandable why people are asking, "When I compare Romney's promise of 250,000 jobs per month with the 117,000 jobs per month under Obama, is Romney's goal reachable?"  Let history be the judge.

E.  Lessons from the Reagan Recovery

I need to move this discussion out of the "theoretical" category and include much-needed historical perspective.  We will see what Ronald Reagan actually was able to accomplish.  These are facts, not academic theories.

Ronald Reagan served as the 39th President of the United States from 1981 - 1989. 

 

Reagan inherited a terrible economy from Jimmy Carter with double-digit inflation rates, high unemployment, and heavy deficit spending.  For example, the prime interest rate was 21.5%!  The country spiraled into a deep recession in July 1981 that lasted 16 months and ended in November 1982.

 

Thanks to "bracket creep," the double-digit inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of Americans into higher tax brackets.  To help offset this tax increase and improve incentives to work, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax reductions.

In 1981, President Reagan formulated a plan to revitalize the economy.  His plan included:

1.     Reduce tax rates across the board.

2.     Decrease unnecessary regulations.

3.     Work with the Federal Reserve to maintain a stable monetary policy.

4.     Slow the growth of federal spending.

 

In August 1981, President Reagan signed into law the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA, also known as the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut).  The ERTA slashed marginal earned income tax rates by 25 % across the board over a three-year period.

 

The Reagan tax cut plan also included a reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. 

What happened when Reagan's Plan was implemented?  After the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, personal income tax revenues soared!  Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue! 

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), tax revenues nearly doubled during the 1980s.  Revenues went from about $525 billion in 1980 to about $1 trillion in 1990.  By 1995, tax revenues had climbed to over $1.3 trillion.  (Source: Heritage -- Chart 10). 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

 

Following the 1981 cut in the capital gains rate, capital gains revenues leaped from $12.5 billion in 1980 to $18.7 billion in 1983; this was a huge 50 % increase! 

 

The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.  The Heritage Foundation determined that the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% of earners jumped from 17.6% in 1981 to 27.5% in 1988.

 

On December 31, 1981, the stock market (Dow Jones Industrial Average) was at 875.00; it is around 13,000 today.  Reducing income and capital gains tax rates in 1981 helped to launch what we now appreciate as the greatest and longest period of wealth creation in world history! 

President Reagan "had faith in the American Promise" and believed the American people would do the right thing.  We can learn a great deal from his pro-growth lessons. 

President Reagan made these statements in his first inaugural address:

          We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/12081a.htm

President Reagan is often called "The Great Communicator."  In Reagan's farewell address, he explained:

            I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1989/011189i.htm

Democrats often forget that President John F. Kennedy saw the wisdom of making tax cuts.  Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions.   These cuts reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 % down to 70 %.

 

What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 %.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

 

F.  Comparing the Reagan Recovery with the Obama Recovery

 

Before we compare the two recoveries, we will highlight the differences between President Reagan and Obama:

• ·         
• ·        
• ·        
• ·        
• ·        

 

America has experienced 11 recessions and recoveries since World War II.  The Minneapolis Federal Reserve has produced an interactive chart that allows a side-by-side comparison between any of the 11 recessions or recoveries.  When you click on a box at the bottom, it plots that particular recession (e.g., this recession is 2007).  You can also change the chart to plot recoveries instead of recessions.  This is the link: 

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the last four recessions and their durations are as follows:

Last Four Recessions

Recession Started	Recession Ended	Duration of Recession
July 1981	Nov. 1982	16 months
July 1990	Mar. 1991	8 months
Mar. 2001	Nov. 2001	8 months
Dec. 2007	Jun. 2009	18 months

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

The recent recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.  The so-called "Obama Recovery" is presently underway.

I will focus on the Reagan Recovery and the Obama Recovery.

The 1981 Recession began in July 1981, lasted 16 months, and ended in November 1982.  Unemployment climbed to 10.8 % in November 1982 then dropped in 1983 and 1984.  By June 1984, unemployment was 7.2%.  This was a 3.6% drop in 19 months.

 

The recovery witnessed strong growth in jobs, housing starts, productivity, and GDP.  The prime interest rate was almost cut in half by January 1983, two years into Reagan's presidency.

 

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recent recession began in December 2007, lasted 18 months, and ended in June 2009.  The unemployment rate peaked at 10.1 % in October 2009 and stayed above 9.5% during 2010.  It dropped slightly in December 2011 to 8.5%; unemployment stands at 8.1% today.

 

We are now in the 37th month of the Obama Recovery and unemployment is still high at 8.1%.

 

DIRECT COMPARISON BETWEEN REAGAN AND OBAMA

Let us compare these again; this time, we will use percent increase in employment.  In the Reagan Recovery, employment increased 3.5% in 12 months and 6.0% in 18 months.  By 36 months, the Reagan Recovery recorded a 10.9% increase in employment. 

 

With the Obama Recovery, employment dropped 0.4% at 12 months and dropped 0.1% at 18 months.  At 36 months, the Obama Recovery showed an employment increase of only 2.0%.  The Obama Recovery is sick!

 

By 36 months, the Reagan Recovery recorded a 10.9% increase in employment; the Obama Recovery showed only a 2.0% increase.

 

This Table compares the Reagan and Obama (R & O) Recoveries on Employment:

 

Comparison of R & O Recoveries (Employment)

(Cumulative Percent Increase in BLS Employment)

Months After Start of Recovery	Reagan Recovery of 1981 (1982)	Obama Recovery of 2007 (2009)
6 months	1.0	-0.9
12 months	3.5	-0.4
18 months	6.0	-0.1
24 months	8.1	0.6
30 months	9.6	1.3
36 months	10.9	2.0
37 months*	11.1	2.1

* Current

Source:  Minneapolis Fed

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/data/historical_recessions_recoveries_data_08_29_2012.xls

 

This recession is supposedly over, yet unemployment remains high (a "jobless recovery").  The unemployment rate remains high because America isn't creating enough new jobs.

 

It appears that the only way the Obama Administration can get the unemployment rate to drop is by convincing people to quit looking for work.  As the number of weeks for unemployment compensation is increased, it discourages workers from seeking employment.

 

If the U.S. economy loses more jobs than it creates, the unemployment rate rises.  If the job losses are low but few jobs are created, the unemployment rate treads water.  During this recession, job losses increased, hitting 8.5 million jobs lost in the first quarter of 2009.

 

Also, welfare programs decrease the incentive to work.  The Obama Administration is actively encouraging people to sign up for food stamps.  The 50% increase in the number of food stamp recipients under Obama provides evidence that the efforts have been successful.

 

The 1981 Recession began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.  The Reagan Recovery started in December 1982.  I obtained the employment figures for the Fourth Quarter of 1982 (Q IV-1982) and the Fourth Quarter of 1985 (Q IV-1985) from the BLS.  (The fourth quarter is October, November, and December.)

 

Employment Growth in the Reagan Recovery

(Millions of Persons)

Description	Beginning of Recovery Q IV-1982	36 Months into Recovery Q IV-1985	Change in the 3-Year Period
Employed	99.120	107.973	8.853
Civilian Labor Force	110.959	116.187	5.228
Unemployment Rate	10.7%	7.1%	-3.6%

Source:  BLS, "The Employment Situation during 1986..."

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1987/02/art1full.pdf

 

During the Reagan Recovery, employment grew from 99.120 million persons to 107.973 persons in the 36-month period.  This is an employment growth of 8.853 million people (8,853,000).

[107.973 million - 99.120 million = 8.853 million persons]

This equates to an average employment growth rate of 250,000 jobs per month.

[8,853,000 / 36 months = 250,000 jobs per month]

 

How do the Reagan and Obama Recoveries compare in GDP growth?  The Minneapolis Fed also provides an interactive chart on Change in U.S. Output (GDP) during recoveries.  (This chart shows quarters instead of months.)

 http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm

In the Reagan Recovery, GDP increased 7.7% in 12 months and 11.7% in 18 months.  At 36 months, GDP in the Reagan recovery had improved 18.5%.

With the Obama Recovery, GDP increased 2.5% at 12 months and 3.8% at 18 months; and GDP was up 6.8% at 36 months.

Obama's "recovery" is showing about one-third the strength of the Reagan Recovery, and is taking much longer.

Comparison of Reagan and Obama Recoveries (GDP)

(Cumulative Percent Increase in GDP)

Quarters After Start of Recovery	Reagan Recovery of 1981 (1982)	Obama Recovery of 2007 (2009)
2 Qtrs. (6 mos.)	3.5	1.4
4 Qtrs. (12 mos.)	7.7	2.5
6 Qtrs. (18 mos.)	11.7	3.8
8 Qtrs. (24 mos.)	13.7	4.4
10 Qtrs. (30 mos.)	15.8	5.8
12 Qtrs. (36 mos.)*	18.5	6.8

* Current

Source:  Minneapolis Fed

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/data/historical_recessions_recoveries_data_08_29_2012.xls

G.  Romney's Plan for Tax Reductions

The Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan Team has developed an excellent plan, entitled "Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth."  The Plan includes the following sections:

1.  Tax

2.  Regulation

3.  Trade

4.  Labor

5.  Human Capital

6.  Spending   

TAXES

The Romney-Ryan Team knows the importance of taxes in the overall scheme of job creation.  The Campaign website states:

            Tax policy shapes almost everything individuals and enterprises do as they participate in the economy. With bad design, tax policy can discourage economic activity. With good design, it can encourage it.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

Tax reductions play a major part in achieving their stated goals.  The Mitt Romney website provides this information about Taxes:

Mitt's Plan

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.

• ·         Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
• ·         Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• ·         Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
• ·         Eliminate the Death Tax
• ·         Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

• ·         Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
• ·         Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• ·         Switch to a territorial tax system
• ·         Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

[I would suggest that the reader examine other sections of "Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth."  In the Spending section, for example, government spending is capped at 20% of GDP.]

H.  Evaluation of Romney's Job Creation Plan

I will pose the question again.  Is it reasonable for Romney to create 12 million jobs in four years?  This plan equates to creating 250,000 jobs per month over his first four-year term.

Again, let's look at the facts that describe the Reagan Recovery.

When President Ronald Reagan implemented his plan to revitalize the economy, economic activity soared.  Unemployment dropped by 3.6% in 3 years.   Employment grew by about 9 million people in the 36-month period.  This equates to an average employment growth rate of 250,000 jobs per month.

The economy quickly expanded under Reagan's plan.  The Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased about 8% in 12 months and 18% in 36 months.

In 1981, the stock market was at 875 (compared to about 13,000 today).  The Reagan Plan launched an extended period of wealth creation. (Of course, much of this wealth was decimated in the last few years.)

Fact:  Reductions in the tax rates actually produced an increase in total tax revenues.  According to the OMB, tax revenues went from about $525 billion in 1980 to about $1 trillion in 1990.  By 1995, tax revenues had climbed to over $1.3 trillion.  Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue; the opposite is true.

COMPARISON OF ROMNEY'S PLAN WITH REAGAN'S PLAN

How does Romney's plan compare with Reagan's plan? 

Reagan cut marginal income tax rates by 25% across the board over a 3-year period.  Romney proposes a 20% cut in the marginal rates.

Reagan reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%.  Romney would eliminate capital gains taxes for taxpayers with incomes under $200,000.  Also, Romney would repeal the unfair and ever-expanding Alternative Minimum tax (AMT). 

On the corporate front, the Romney plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.  Currently, the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world!

The similarities between the Reagan plan and the Romney plan are amazing!  I think it is obvious that the Romney team based much of their plan on the very successful Reagan Plan.  We know what the Reagan Plan accomplished; we can expect similar results from the Romney Plan.

The Reagan Plan resulted in an average job growth rate of 250,000 jobs per month over the 3-year period.  Because Romney's plan is similar to Reagan's fruitful plan, we can predict that Romney's Plan will also succeed.  Romney will create an average of 250,000 jobs per month over his first 4-year term.

CONCLUSION

Mitt Romney has a plan to create 12 million new jobs in four years.

Many lessons can be learned from the Reagan experience.

The Reagan Plan produced an economic recovery that created 250,000 jobs per month over the first three years.  Romney's Plan for 12 million jobs in four years also equates to 250,000 jobs per month.  These 12 million jobs will help middle class families move forward and restore the American dream.

Because of the similarities between Reagan's Plan and Romney's Plan, I can safely predict that the Romney Plan will be successful!  A Romney White House will create an abundance of jobs and will put millions of people back to work! 

After Reagan's tax cut plan was implemented, tax revenues almost doubled in 10 years.  Just think what will happen when more tax revenue flows into the federal treasury.  In combination with spending cuts, the deficits will be reduced and America will eventually see a balanced budget. 

We must elect Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in November to make this happen!

When we are dwelling on all of these job numbers, it is easy to forget that we are dealing with real people, people who have tangible needs.  I cannot get the 13 million unemployed persons or 23 million underemployed persons off my mind.  These people are being deprived of the dignity and satisfaction that flows from having a good job.

If 100 able-bodied people gathered for an event, 15 of those people would be "underemployed."

Before we vote in the November election, we need to picture these 23 million people (nearly 10% of our population) who are struggling to provide for their families.  Are we willing to allow Obama and Biden more time to lead us to "a better place?"

In Obama's presidential nomination acceptance speech on 9.06.12 at the Democratic National Convention, he said:

            Our problems can be solved.  And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades.

            http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/transcript-president-obamas-democratic-convention-speech/story?id=17175575

In Obama's first 3.6 years, he has created a net total of zero jobs; in fact, he has actually lost 120,000 jobs!   By any measure, Obama has failed miserably at handling the economy.  Obama could not get the job done in just under 4 years yet he pleads for 4 more years.  The Reagan experience tells us that huge strides can be made in three years! 

Why would we give Obama four more years to try the same failing strategies?

During his acceptance speech, Obama said this about his Republican challengers: "They want your vote, but they don't want you to know their plan."  Did Obama's speech writers go to Mitt Romney's website or listen to any of Romney's speeches or Ryan's speeches?  Apparently not.

Please make the right decision in November!  The future of our country is on the line!

Bio for Henry W. Burke

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer  with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor. 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

Obama The Jobs Killer

Audio Link to Interview Monday 9/24 (Covered Part 1 and Part 2)

 Obama: The Job Killer

[Part 2 of 2]

by Henry W. Burke

8.31.12

INTRODUCTION

We have seen that Obama has failed miserably atcreating jobs!

 [Please refer to "Obama Has Failed to Create Jobs."]

Rather than helping our struggling economy,Obama's policies have exacerbated the problem. Does he deserve the title -- "Obama: The Job Killer?"  This report will explore the following areas to prove the case:

A.  Obamacare Is Killing Jobs

B.  Taxmageddon Kills Jobs

C.  Extending Unemployment Insurance

D.  Free Trade Agreements

E.  Moratorium on Oil Drilling

F.  Keystone XL Pipeline

G.  EPA Regulations on Coal

H.  Increased Deficit Spending

I.  Competition from Assistance Programs

A.  Obamacare Is Killing Jobs

Obamacare is one of the biggest job killers.  The Heritage Foundation has determined that the healthcare measure harms job growth in these three ways:

1.  Employer Mandate.  Obamacare requires all businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a $2,000 penalty for each employee after the first 30 workers.  This employer mandate encourages businesses to hire part-time workers rather than full-time employees.  Also businesses can avoid penalties by keeping their number of employees under the 50-employee threshold.  This further discourages the creation of new jobs. 

Heritage research has calculated that the Obamacare mandate increases the cost of hiring a full-time worker by $10.03 per hour; the increase is at least $13.75 an hour for those with family health coverage.  

2.  New Taxes and Regulations.  Obamacare imposes 18 new taxes that total $502 billion in the first 10 years.  In later years, the cost dramatically increases to about $1.7 trillion per decade (triple the amount for the first decade).

The Obamacare tax increases will have a chilling effect on our economy.  The higher tax rates in Obamacare decrease the incentives for individuals to work and save more.

Obamacare will slow economic growth and destroy jobs.  The Obamacare taxes transfer money from productive private hands to the less efficient public sector.  Unlike government, the private sector allocates resources where they will contribute the most to economic growth.

One example of horrendous job losses comes from the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices.  Research has shown that this tax could result in job losses exceeding 43,000 workers.  Also these medical devices will be more expensive for the many senior citizens who need these life-saving and life-changing medical devices to ease their pain and suffering.

3.  Unpredictable Future Costs and Regulations.  A recent study found that 33 percent of business owners cited new requirements in Obamacare as either the biggest or second-biggest obstacle to hiring. In addition, Dennis Lockhart, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said:

 We have frequently heard strong comments to the effect of ‘My company won’t hire a single additional worker until we know what health insurance costs are going to be.'

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/23/the-3-biggest-ways-obamacare-kills-jobs/

Obamacare has frozen business hiring across America as businesses wait to see how the law will be applied.   

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/03/morning-bell-has-any-administration-policy-not-killed-jobs-lately/

B.  Taxmageddon Kills Jobs

Taxmageddon will amount to $494 billion in tax hikes.  Without Congressional and White House action, the largest tax increase in history will hit this country on January 1, 2013!

Businesses are holding off on hiring.  Although these taxes do not take effect until January 1, 2013, they are already having a negative impact on the economy.  This slows job creation and prevents many unemployed Americans from going back to work. 

Uncertainty harms everyone.  Families, businesses, and investors need certainty to operate.  They need to know how much they will pay in taxes next year before they make important economic decisions.  Politicians decry the fact that billions of dollars are sitting on the sidelines.  People will not invest in businesses and hire new employees in an uncertain business climate.  They are stuck in neutral while they wait to see if Congress and Obama will act.

Obama’s plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) would raise the top two marginal tax rates from 33 % to 36 %, and 35 % to 39.6 %.  The debate about whether to adopt Obama's tax increase centers heavily on how these higher tax rates would affect important job-creating businesses.   

By targeting his tax increases on incomes over $200,000, Obama is maximizing the detrimental effects of the tax hikes on job creation.  Obama's misguided tax policies will continue to destroy jobs and hamper an economic recovery. 

Two inter-connected issues are in play -- Taxmageddon and the "fiscal cliff."  The fiscal cliff consists of Taxmageddon and the mandatory federal spending reductions left over from the disastrous Budget Control act of 2011. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a recent report (8.22.12) on the impact of Taxmageddon and the fiscal cliff.  If no action is taken on the fiscal cliff by Obama and Congress,the CBO is predicting a recession in 2013.  The CBO report stated:

 Such fiscal tightening will lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession, with real GDP declining by 0.5 percent between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the fourth quarter of 2013 and the unemployment rate rising to about 9 percent in the second half of calendar year 2013.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539

The Republican-led House recently passed a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for next year and thereby defer part of Taxmageddon.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will not even allow a vote on the House measure; Obama has vowed to veto any such measure that reaches his desk.

C.  Extending Unemployment Insurance

As part of Obama's Stimulus measure, unemployment insurance was extended by 20 weeks.  Other measures extended unemployment compensation even further. 

Many people, including some business owners, do not understand how this works.  Because the government cuts the unemployment check, it is widely assumed that the government pays the unemployment benefits.  In reality, the benefits are funded by the employers' taxes.  Because it works like insurance, people's taxes will go up as the employees collect more unemployment benefits.  In many states, if an employee collects $10,000 in unemployment payments, he can expect to pay over $20,000 in increased premiums. 

Smart business owners control their costs.  One way of doing this is by limiting the hiring of new people.  Democrats may have thought they were showing compassion for the unemployed by extending the number of unemployment compensation weeks.  This is producing unintended consequences; employers are less likely to make new hires when unemployment insurance premiums are increasing.  

D.  Free Trade Agreements

Obama is killing jobs by refusing to move forward on the pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with Columbia, Panama and South Korea.  Obama is holding these three job-creating free trade agreements hostage to another measure.  He wants to increase funding for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program and is using this TAA as his ransom.  The White House claims that extending the TAA for another decade would cost $7.2 billion.

The free trade agreements would create thousands of jobs in America. Most estimates range above 100,000 new jobs.  Free trade offers Americans tremendous opportunities and we sorely need the jobs.  In Obama's first State of the Union Address, he set an ambitious goal: “double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.”  If the trade agreements die, Obama will have to explain why he shot the hostage!

Panama is working on a $5 billion expansion of the Panama Canal(originally built by the U.S. in 1914). This gigantic construction project will add a third set of locks and enlarge the system to accommodate larger ships.  Clearly an FTA with Panama would encourage U.S. participation in this mammoth project.

E.  Moratorium on Oil Drilling

After the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Administration imposed a six-month blanket moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf.  The moratorium was based on a flawed report by the Secretary of Interior.   In June 2010, a federal district court overturned Obama's ban.  Among other things, the court found that the summary recommendations were added afterthe report was peer reviewed by a team of seven experts.  As the court pointed out, there are 150,000 jobsdirectly related to offshore operations.

A House Committee issued subpoenas on 4.03.12 to the Obama Administration demanding documents about the editing of the report that accompanied the drilling ban.  TheWashington Times reported:

"The report falsely stated the professional views of independent engineers and the moratorium directly caused thousands of lost jobs, economic pain throughout the Gulf region, and a decline in American energy production,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, Washington Republican and Natural Resources Committee chairman. “It’s important to clearly understand exactly how this happened.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/3/house-gop-subpoenas-obama-administration-oil-drill/

F.  Keystone XL Pipeline

If Americans have any doubt about Obama's penchant for killing jobs, they need to look at the Keystone XL Pipeline.  On 11.10.11, the Obama Administration announced that it would delay a decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 election.  In a move to appease his leftist environmentalist base, Obama ignored the practical, scientific facts.

The environmental aspects of the pipeline have been studied to death, with a review that lasted three years.  The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rated the potential for water contamination as minimal and contained in a limited area.  

Obviously, he cares more about his re-election than the 13 million unemployed Americans sitting on the sidelines.  The $7 billion Keystone pipeline would bring at least 20,000 good jobs to the U.S.  Obama had to choose between alienating his union supporters and his green environmental folks.  He chose to side with the latter.  This decision reflects politics at its worst!

G.  EPA Regulations on Coal

Obama promised that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket as a result of his cap-and-trade system. He also said:

          So if someone wants to build a coal power plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/12/epa-regulations-will-kill-coal-jobs-in-texas/

While cap and trade never became law, Obama is making good on his promise to find other ways to get the job done.  If he cannot pass a particular measure, he circumvents Congress by using administrative means.  He is also making good on his promise to bankrupt coal and make it very expensive. 

Low-sulfur lignite coal is heavily used in coal-fired power plants around the country.  Directly and indirectly, lignite mining supports about 14,000 jobs and is the lifeblood of many communities. Obama is lousy at creating jobs but he is a master at destroying jobs!

H.  Increased Deficit Spending

Obama has racked up huge deficits and these deficits add to our burgeoning national debt. 

The national debt has increased by $5.4 trillion in the 3.5 years (42 months) Obama has been in office.  The national debt was $10.6 trillion on 1.20.09 and is $16.0 trillion today (on 8.28.12).

 [$16.0 trillion - $10.6 trillion = $5.4 trillion]

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

When the federal government borrows money through deficit spending, the government is competing with the private sector for funds.  This reduces private sector capital investment and adversely affects job growth. 

According to the CBO, high debt levels decrease the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  This hampers job growth and employment possibilities.   If we want to put people back to work, we must reduce the out-of-control deficit spending.

I.  Competition from Assistance Programs

Jobs can also be killed from another direction. For thousands of years, an old adage applied -- "If a man does not work, the man does not eat." 

Most compassionate Americans (including conservative Republicans) believe in a safety net for the truly needy.  We should provide assistance for the elderly, the mentally or physically-disabled, and those people who cannot work.  On the other hand, when the government is overly generous with the welfare programs, it destroys the incentive to work.

I mentioned above that unemployment compensation had been extended.  When unemployment compensation is increased to 99 weeks, for example, that destroys much of the incentive to look for a job. 

In Part 1, "Obama Has Failed to Create Jobs," I cited the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) figure that 7.7 million people had dropped out of the labor force.  Many of those people have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for a job.  However, millions of people are getting their needs met through various welfare programs and have no incentive to work.  Many examples could be given where this is occurring.  A few examples include:

1.  General Welfare Spending.  Under Obama, welfare spending has increased three times fasterthan prior increases.  Federal welfare spending has grown from $522 billion in 2008 to $717 billion in 2011 (a 37% increase in three years).

2.  Food Stamps.  Under Obama, food stamp spending has more than doubled, going from $39 billion in 2008 to $81 billion in 2012.  The number of people on food stamps has grown from 31 million people in 2008 to 45 million persons in 2011.  (This equates to 1 in 6 people.)  The Obama Administration is actively encouraging people to sign up for food stamps (including initiatives with the Mexican government to reach immigrants). 

3.  Housing Assistance.  Because no time limits or work requirements are associated with any of these programs, recipients have no incentive to find employment or leave the rolls.

4.  Social Security Disability.   With continuing high unemployment, more people are seeking Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits.  As a result, the SSDI program is paying out more money than it is taking in through payroll taxes.

Older workers are seeking Social Security retirement benefits earlier than expected, andsome are hoping they will qualify for SSDI.  Many people are faking disabilities to qualify for SSDI benefits.  SSDI benefits are somewhat more generous than retirement benefits and turn into retirement benefits once the recipient reaches full retirement age. In addition, SSDI benefits allow the recipient to qualify for Medicare after two years, regardless of what age the individual has reached at that time.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/23/social-securitys-disability-program-faces-an-empty-trust-fund/

5.  Elimination of Welfare Work Requirements. On 7.12.12, the Heritage Foundation broke the story that the Obama Administration had gutted the work requirements from the 1996 welfare reform law.  Heritage also revealed that a hidden provision in the Stimulus Bill had already waived the work requirement in the food stamp program. Obama is bypassing Congress and the enacted laws by changing the rules by executive fiat. Obama is not a king and America is not a monarchy!    

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/24/morning-bell-media-fact-checkers-promote-obamas-gutting-of-welfare-reform/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/15/obama-administration-already-tossed-the-food-stamp-work-requirement/

CONCLUSION

Obama has been responsible for numerous job killing activities.  These include: Obamacare, inaction on Taxmageddon, extension of unemployment insurance, failure to pass the free trade agreements, moratorium on Gulf oil drilling, Keystone XL Pipeline, EPA regulations on coal, increased deficit spending and mushrooming welfare programs. 

If we add all of these up, the job losses are in the millions of people!

Barack Obama certainly deserves the title -- "Obama: The Job Killer!"

Additionally, Obama's policies are adding huge amounts of money to our national debt.  Under Obama, the national debt has grown by $5.4 trillion in 3.5 years. 

We cannot afford four more years of Obama!

Bio for Henry W. Burke

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer  with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor. 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

Obama Has Failed To Create Jobs

Audio Link to this article (Part 1 and also Part 2)

 Obama Has Failed to Create Jobs

by Henry W. Burke

9.2.12

Excerpts from this article by Henry W. Burke:

"Fact-Checking" of Obama's speeches suggests that he is overstating the results on jobs created during his term. 

Obama said from March 2010 to December 2011, "We created 3 million jobs in 22 months" or 136,000 jobs per month.  Not so.  The number should be 84,000 jobs per month.

Obama said from March 2010 to July 2012, "We created 4.5 million jobs in 29 months" or 155,000 jobs per month.  Again, not so.  The number should be 113,000 jobs per month. 

========================

[Part 1 of 2]

INTRODUCTION

It is important to evaluate Obama's performance at creating jobs.  Of course, most knowledgeable people understand that the government does not create jobs (except jobs for government employees); rather, jobs are created by the private sector.  However, government policies can have a huge influence on job creation!

 Obama and the Democrats like to talk about all of the jobs they have created since he took office.  To verify or refute these claims, I will look at the current job picture and compare it with the job situation when he was inaugurated in January 2009. 

I will also analyze Obama's job creation rhetoric for accuracy and provide a tool to gauge the results.  Finally, I will discuss the success or failure of the Stimulus Bill. 

The following subjects will be covered:

A.  Current Job Picture

B.  Comparison between January 2009 and Current

C.  New Jobs Required to Keep Pace with Population Growth

D.  Obama's Rhetoric on Creating Jobs 

E.  Stimulus Bill -- Success or Failure?

F.  Stimulus Bill and Construction Jobs

A.  Current Job Picture

The recession that began in December 2007 officially ended in June 2009 but we would never know it.  Employment has fallen by over 7 million jobs since the recession began. The labor market remains stagnant and unemployment remains above 8 percent.  The unemployment rate has now been over 8 percent for 42 months (Obama's full time in office). 

This is the longest period with unemployment over 8 percent on record!

The current "recovery" is the weakest recovery of the post–World War II era.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its Employment Situation Summary for July on 8.03.12.  It showed that unemployment increased from 8.2 % to 8.3 %, with 12.8 million people unemployed.  Only 163,000 new jobs were created during July, far below the number needed for real growth.  (This data is shown in the table under the next section.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

There are 12.794 million unemployed workers and 155.013 million people in the civilian labor force.  [12.794 million / 155.013 million = 8.3% unemployment rate]  The number of unemployed workers increased from 12.749 million in June to 12.794 million in July (an increase of 45,000).  [12,794,000 - 12,749,000 = 45,000]

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.2 million persons; this group accounts for 40.7% of the total unemployed. 

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in July.  These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

In July, 2.5 million were marginally attached to the labor force.  The number of "underemployed" people increased in July to 23.6 million; the "underemployment rate" is 15.2%.  "Underemployed" includes unemployed, part-time for economic reasons and marginally attached.  [12.794 + 8.246 + 2.529 = 23.569 million]

The labor force participation rate dropped slightly from 63.8% in June to 63.7% in July.  (There are 155.013 million in civilian labor force and 243.354 million in civilian non-institutional population.)  [155.013 million / 243.354 million = 63.7%]

The employment population ratio dropped to 58.4% in July.  (There are 142.220 million employed and 243.354 in the civilian population.)  [142.220 / 243.354 = 58.4%]

B.  Comparison between January 2009 and Current

Obama took office on January 20, 2009.  How does the unemployment situation compare between his inauguration and today? 

Comparison between 2009 and Present*

(All figures are millions of persons)

Category	Jan. 2009	Jul. 2012	Change
Civilian non-institutional population	234.739	243.354	+ 8.615
Civilian labor force	154.140	155.013	+ 0.873
Employment	142.221	142.220	- 0..001
Unemployment	11.919	12.794	+ 0.875
Unemployment Percent	7.7 %	8.3%	+ 0.6%
Labor force participation rate	65.7%	63.7%	- 2.0%
Employment population ratio	60.6%	58.4%	- 2.2%
Not in labor force	80.599	88.340	+7.741
Persons who currently want a job	5.643	6.837	+1.194

* All figures in the table are seasonally adjusted.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Between January 2009 and the present (July 2012):

The civilian non-institutional population increased by 8.615 million (8,615,000) yet the civilian labor force has only grown by 0.873 million (873,000) people.

[243.354 - 234.739 = 8.615 million]

The civilian labor force has grown by 873,000 workers.

[155.013 - 154.140 = 0.873 million = 873,000 people]

The number of employed workers has dropped by 1,000.

[142.221 - 142.220 = 0.001 million = 1,000]

The number of unemployed people has increased by 875,000.

[12.794 - 11.919 = 0.875 million = 875,000]

The unemployment rate has gone from 7.7% to 8.3%, an increase of 0.6%.

[8.3% - 7.7% = 0.6%]

The civilian labor force is the sum of the number of employed workers plus unemployed people.  For July 2012, this is 155.013 million.

[142.220 + 12.794 = 155.014 million or 155,014,000]  (BLS has 155.013)

The civilian labor force participation rate is the civilian labor force divided by the civilian non-institutional population.  In January 2009, this rate was 65.7%.

[154.140 / 234.739 = 65.7%]

For July 2012, this rate is 63.7%.

[155.013 / 243.354 = 63.7%]

A 63.7% labor force participation rate is very low!  In fact, it is the lowest rate since 1984, and the lowest in this cycle.  For many years, a participation rate of 65.8% was the standard.  If our labor force participation rate was at its historical level of 65.8%, we would have 160.127 million workers in the labor force.

[160.127 / 243.354 = 65.8%]

C.  New Jobs Required to Keep Pace with Population Growth

The civilian population has grown by 8.615 million people since Obama took office in January 2009, but the labor force has increased by only 873,000 (0.873 million) in the 3.5 years.  In this 42-month period, the population expanded by 205,000 (0.205 million) per month while the labor force grew by only 21,000 (0.021 million) per month. 

[8.615 / 42 months = 0.205 million per month; and 0.873 / 42 months = 0.021 million per month]

The U.S. population has grown by 205,000 per month in the last 3.5 years.  With the historical labor force participation rate of 65.8%, we need to add about 135,000 new jobs per month to just break even with population growth.  [65.8% x 205,000 = 134,890]

With a current population of 243.354 million, and the historical labor force participation rate of 65.8%, we would expect the current labor force to be 160.127 million.  The labor force is 5.114 million (5,114,000) smaller than expected.

[65.8% x 243.354 million = 160.127 million; and 160.127 - 155.013 = 5.114 million]

With the population increasing by 205,000 per month, the number of workers in the labor force should increase by 134,890 per month.

Thus, Obama needs to add about 135,000 new jobs per month to just break even with population growth; but during the time that Obama has been in office, he has added a net total of zero jobs.

Unemployment will not improve significantly unless the economy is producing about 200,000 new jobs per month.

Employment has been essentially flat since Obama took office (a drop of 1,000 workers).  During that time, the population has increased by 8.615 million.  With the historical labor force participation rate of 65.8%, the current labor force should be 160.127 million.  Because the current labor force has only 155.013 million workers, it is 5.114 million workers lower than expected. 

Obviously, many workers are discouraged and have left the workforce.  According to the BLS, 7.7 million persons have dropped out of the labor force.  Obama has killed millions of jobs and has failed to create many new jobs.  His weak job creation has not kept up with the population growth.

D.  Obama's Rhetoric on Creating Jobs 

Democrats have their standard talking points about the number of jobs that Obama has created.  Obama delivered his 2012 State of the Union Address on January 24, 2012.  He stated:

                In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.  American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s.   The state of our Union is getting stronger. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/25/2012-state-union-address-enhanced-version#transcript

In a more recent example (on 8.03.12), Obama said the following:

            This morning, we learned that our businesses created 172,000 new jobs in the month of July.  That means that we've now created 4.5 million new jobs over the last 29 months -- and 1.1 million new jobs so far this year. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/03/remarks-president-tax-cuts-middle-class

When a person first hears these statements, he thinks Obama's policies must really be working.  (That is his desired goal.)  Let us examine these talking points.

Fact-Check:

If I wanted to maximize the number of jobs created, I would select a month with high unemployment as the base.  Under Obama, the highest unemployment month was October 2009, with 10.0%; March 2010 was close behind, with 9.7%.   I think this is why the Obama staff selected March 2010 as the base and not January 2009 (the month he started his term).  January 2009 had 7.7% unemployment. 

The base month or starting month in both cases is March 2010.  (January 2012 minus 22 months yields March 2010; July 2012 minus 29 months yields March 2010.) 

A speech delivered on 1.24.12 would use December 2011 unemployment figures; a speech given on 8.03.12 uses July 2012 unemployment figures.  I first analyzed these numbers by comparing the December 2011 unemployment figures with the March 2010 numbers.  I did the same thing with the July 2012 numbers. 

The results for the July numbers are summarized in the following table:

Comparison Between March 2010 and July 2012*

(All figures are millions of persons)

Category	Mar. 2010	Jul. 2012	Change
Civilian non-institutional population	237.159	243.354	+ 6.195
Civilian labor force	153.895	155.013	+1.118
Employment	138.952	142.220	+ 3.268
Unemployment	14.943	12.794	- 2.149
Unemployment Percent	9.7%	8.3%	- 1.4%
Labor force participation rate	64.9%	63.7%	- 1.2%
Employment population ratio	58.6%	58.4%	- 0.2%

* All figures in the table are seasonally adjusted.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

My Figures (based on BLS data):

In the above table, I will focus on the "Employment" line.  During the period from March 2010 to July 2012, employment increased by 3.268 million persons.

[142.220 million - 138.952 million = 3.268 million]

The period from March 2010 to July 2012 is 29 months.  Thus, the average number of jobs created per month is 113,000.

[3,268,000 / 29 months = 113,000 jobs per month]

I prepared a similar table to compare the period from March 2010 to December 2011.  (To save space, I will not include that table here.)

During that period, employment increased by 1.838 million.

[140.790 million - 138.952 million = 1.838 million]

The period from March 2010 to December 2011 is 22 months.  Thus, the average number of jobs created per month is 84,000.

[1,838,000 / 22 months = 84,000]

Obama's Figures:

Obama's January statement equates to about 136,000 jobs per month.  [3,000,000 / 22 months = 136,000 jobs per month]

Obama's August statement equates to about 155,000 jobs per month.  [4,500,000 / 29 months = 155,000 jobs per month]

Obama's figures and my figures are summarized in the following table:

Comparison Between 2012 and March 2010

(Jobs per month)

Speech Date	Months to Base	Calculated from Obama's Statement	Calculated from BLS Data
Jan. 2012	22	136,000	84,000
Aug. 2012	29	155,000	113,000

Comparison Results:

In Obama's January 2012 speech, his statement implied the period from March 2010 to December 2011.  For this period, Obama's statement that "we created 3 million jobs in 22 months" equates to 136,000 jobs per month.  My calculations (based on BLS data) show 84,000 jobs per month.  This is a huge difference!

In Obama's August 2012 speech, his statement implied the period from March 2010 to July 2012.  For this period, Obama's statement that "we created 4.5 million jobs in 29 months" equates to 155,000 jobs per month.  My calculations (based on BLS data) show 113,000 jobs per month.  Once again, this is a big difference.

This "Fact-Checking" of the two speeches indicates that Obama is overstating the number of jobs created in both cases.  If we were doing as well as Obama indicates, the unemployment rate would be dropping faster than it is.  Currently, unemployment is stuck in the 8.2% to 8.3% range.

The next time we hear this talking point, we need to do the math.  If we calculate about 150,000 jobs per month, we should be skeptical.  Obama and his minions are hoping that we do not understand that our population is growing and this demands an expanding job market. 

It takes at least 150,000 new jobs per month to just break even with population growth.  If we consistently produce 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs per month, the unemployment rate should drop and we will put people back to work.

E.  Stimulus Bill -- Success or Failure?

Obama rammed the $787 Billion Stimulus Bill through Congress during his first month in office.  (He signed the measure on 2.17.09.)  [The Stimulus was later increased to $862 Billion then adjusted to $814 Billion.] 

To help win approval, the White House promised that unemployment would not exceed 8.0%.  How should we gauge the success of the Stimulus Bill?

Instead of dropping, the unemployment rate began 2009 at 7.7% and steadily increased to 10.1% in October 2009 (average for the year was 9.3%).  In 2010, unemployment ranged from 9.4% to 9.9% and averaged 9.6%.  Unemployment hovered around 9.0% for most of 2011 and dropped slightly to 8.7% in November and 8.5% December.  Unemployment in 2012 is running from 8.1% to 8.3%.

Obama's Stimulus Bill relied on the flawed Keynesian model of rapidly increased spending to propel the economy forward.  The policy failed and we were left with huge deficits and a larger national debt. 

The Keynesian theory is like trying to raise the level of water in a swimming pool by taking water out of the other end.  It doesn't work very well!

By almost any economic measure, the Stimulus Bill has been a complete failure!  Ask some of the 13 million unemployed workers what they think of the Stimulus Bill. 

F.  Stimulus Bill and Construction Jobs

Stimulus money was supposed to target “shovel-ready” construction jobs.  Infrastructure spending was supposedly a big part of the measure; in reality, it amounted to only $105 billion or about 13% of the total bill.  

Construction is one of our largest industries yet it gets very little media coverage.  Talk with the millions of unemployed construction workers about the Stimulus, where the recession hit especially hard. 

The unemployment rate in the construction industry has been much higher than the national average for all workers (often double or more).  For example, the general unemployment rate in February 2010 was 9.7%, whereas, the unemployment rate for construction was a whopping 27.1% that same month!  (That set a 10-year high.) 

CONCLUSION

Under Obama's watch, our economy is experiencing the weakest recovery since World War II. 

"Fact-Checking" of Obama's speeches suggests that he is overstating the results on jobs created during his term.  Obama said from March 2010 to December 2011, "We created 3 million jobs in 22 months" or 136,000 jobs per month.  Not so.  The number should be 84,000 jobs per month. 

Obama said from March 2010 to July 2012, "We created 4.5 million jobs in 29 months" or 155,000 jobs per month.  Again, not so.  The number should be 113,000 jobs per month. 

Obama's $800 billion Stimulus Bill has been a complete failure!  The only thing it accomplished is an increase in our national debt. 

Because Obama has never had a real job, he knows nothing about job creation.  His policies are not working! 

Why should we give him four more years?

Bio for Henry W. Burke

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer  with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor. 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

Don't Bust The Trust--It's Not Necessary When Governors Commission Shows Savings Of More Than Needed!

The problem is our Legislature sought a quick fix for balancing this year's budget and how to pay the money owed by Education Trust Fund.  But it comes at the price of hurting the best thing Alabamians have had to help lower their taxes for years--to be destroyed by a vote when people are so panicked to vote for their own "only help" in the budget shortfalls--the Alabama Trust Fund.

This indeed is rather fishy when this amendment was read on the first day of the legislative session on Feb 7th.  It is really about the Rich Man vs Poor Man scenario.

We have heard a legislator say it is really putting money back in the ATF and it appears what they are saying is it is re-shufflling the money as they are going to pay back money owed to the ATF anyway.  However--they are talking about in essense borrowing the 437.5 million to pay back 437.5 million owed (as constitutionally required as in earlier borrowings wording) but this time around there is no wording for payback.  Wow--and then they berate citizens into passing this as the sky is falling and there will be loss of jobs, loss of care for elderly,mothers and children and release of prisoners when all it takes is their look at the proposals already given by the Governor's Commission done in January such as:

1.  Letting eligible state employees have early retirement--84 million save if 1,500 employees retire out of 11,000 eligible

2. By state making electronic payments vs check payments --can save 40 + million!

Here are articles that should convince reasonable people to voting No on September 18th

Alabama Forestry Assn.

Elois Zeanah--Pres of AFRW

Bussman Labels Amendment as Scare Tactics

Dick Brewbaker

 Definitions of General Fund and Education Fund