Obama on High Gas Prices: Buy a New Car

One broad change we can make that will start us on the road to lower prices at the pump, we could "trade in" Obama for a new president.

As you fill up your tank this week, paying the highest (prices) ever for this time of year, here is a reminder of what our president thinks about your struggle to pay for gas: just buy a new car.

Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.

"If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know," Obama said laughingly. "You might want to think about a trade-in."

See, it is your fault, not his.

Obama, who has done nothing to help fuel prices, openly mocked this gentleman who had the nerve to complain about the pain at the pumps.

Already, W. Howard Coudle, a retired machinist from Crestwood, Mo., has seen his monthly gasoline bill rise to $80 from about $60 in December. The closest service station is selling regular for $3.39 per gallon, the highest he's ever seen.

Mr Coudle, just buy a new car.

I am not sure which is worse: Obama insulting someone who raised a legitimate concern; his condescending ignorance that not every one can just trade their car in; or his clueless notion that anyone who gets over "8 miles a gallon" should not care about high gas prices.

Americans spent 8.4 percent of their household income on gasoline last year when gas averaged an all-time high of $3.51 a gallon. That's double the percentage a decade ago. They could pay even more this year, even though demand is the lowest in 11 years as people drive fewer miles in more efficient cars, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at OPIS.

You see, Obama thinks there is nothing that he can do to stop the astronomical rise in gas prices during his term.

"I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now," the president told workers at a wind turbine plant.

While that may be true, what has Obama done in the three years since he took office,a time when gas prices have more than doubled. Nothing.

Could it be that Obama could do something, but won't? Let's ask his Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered a measure to open up off-shore areas to new oil and natural gas drilling when the price of gas reached $4.50-per-gallon. Salazar objected. So McConnell changed it to $5-per-gallon. Salazar still objected.

And so on and so on it went until McConnell said $10-per-gallon. Salazar continued to object, at which point it was clear that, as the Democratic spokesman in that particular discussion, the Colorado senator would not allow America to produce more oil and gas even if Americans had to pay more than double what they were paying then for a gallon of gas.

Or, is it that Obama has intentionally driving up the prices of oil in order to drive his green energy initiatives?

There can be no doubt that the president took deliberate action to block access to the nation’s energy resources. A federal judge recently found the Interior Department in contempt for ignoring his order overturning the oil-drilling moratorium the administration imposed following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. On Feb. 22, Judge Martin Feldman upped the pressure by insisting that the department act on five pending permits within 30 days. Permits that would, under normal circumstances, be processed in two weeks have been ignored for four to nine months. “Not acting at all is not a lawful option,” Judge Feldman wrote. The department had no choice but to issue the first permit since the spill on Feb. 28.

The House Committee on Natural Resources (full disclosure, headed by a Republican) has a breath-taking list of the measures undertaken by the Obama administration that the committee feels have directly resulted in "skyrocketing" energy costs.

"Gas prices? They're going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that's going to take a couple of years to have serious effect," Obama said.

I know one broad change we can make that will start us on the road to lower prices at the pump, we could "trade in" Obama for a new president.

Obama's Contrived Contraceptives Crisis

President Obama wanted to force Catholic organizations to pay for services they morally oppose so that Obama could provide free birth control to maybe 6 million women who reportedly need help. Here again, a politician makes up a crisis so that he -- and only he -- can swoop in and save the day, opposition be damned.

One statistic jumped out at me during Obama's "contraception mandate" speech yesterday.

"Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. "

Wow! Considering that there are rougly 150,000,000 women in the United States (2010 census), that is a lot of pills.

Well, not exactly.

Because Obama couldn't be bothered to give us any real numbers, or tell us where he got that statistic, I searched on that line and found a Center for Disease Control report, Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982–2008 (PDF). What follows is a quick, Saturday morning parsing of the numbers.

From the CDC report:

99% of "women 15–44 years of age who had had intercourse at least once (referred to in the text as ‘sexually experienced’). The percentages shown are the proportions of sexually experienced women who reported that they (or their male partners) have ever used each method of contraception at least once, at some time in their lives.

Wait, I thought Obama said 99% of all women have relied, but the CDC reports usage for sexually experienced women who have ever used contraceptives, even once. And suddenly, women have relied on equals women have once used.

But still, these must be some staggering numbers for Obama to make such a big deal about it, to make speeches about it, to force the issue on people who are opposed to contraception. Back to the report:

In 2006–2008, about 62% of these 62 million women (18 to 54) were currently using a method of contraception, including male methods

OK. So 62% of 62 million is roughly 38 million. Wow. From 150,000,000 to 38,000,000. Quite a drop.

• Among the 62% of women who were using a method of contraception in 2006–2008, the leading methods currently used were:
• The oral contraceptive pill, used by 17.3%, or 10.7 million women.
• Female sterilization, used by 16.7%, or 10.3 million women.
• Male sterilization (vasectomy), used by the partners of 6.1%, or 3.7 million women.

Back out the male sterilization (is Obama fighting for that??), we are down to 21 million. What was that undocumented figure that Obama quoted on affordability?

And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.

Notice he changed the demographic from ALL women to women ages 18 through 34. The numbers on age are convoluted in the CDC report, more convoluted than I want to decipher on a Saturday morning. So, let's assume roughly half are in the 18 to 34 segment of the 18 to 54 grouping in the CDC report.

Down to 11.5 million.

Half of those, Obama assures us, need help. 6 million. I won't even endeavor to ascertain what percent of that 6% works for a religious organization or is on Medicaid or other program that covers birth control.

Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it.

The way he juxtaposes those two phrases, heavily emphasizing the "99%," certainly leads one to imagine some staggering numbers -- a veritable crisis.

Alas, no.

President Obama wanted to force Catholic organizations to pay for services they morally oppose so that Obama could provide free birth control to roughly 6 million women who reportedly need help. Here again, a politician makes up a crisis that he, and only he, can swarm in and solve, opposition be damned.

The REAL Problem with the ObamaCare "Contraception Mandate"

What is missing in this debate is the fact that one person, an unelected, unaccountable, appointed bureaucrat, has the ability under ObamaCare to tell everybody in the country what must be covered by their health insurance. ONE PERSON!!

I have been listening all week to the complaints by conservatives about Obama's recent decision to require all health plans offered by Catholic institutions to include "women's health services." A requirement that the administration seems to be backing quickly away from.

This is not about contraception; this is not about the Catholic Church. This is about whether the federal government of the United States should have the power to go in and require a religious organization to pay for something that the religious organization teaches against.

Mr. Rubio is close. This debate should be about whether the federal government of the United States has the power to tell an insurance company what it can or cannot provide to its customers. Because they cannot. Period. The government cannot tell a private company what legal goods and services it can provide and at what price.

What is missing in this debate is the fact that one person, an unelected, unaccountable, appointed bureaucrat, has the ability under ObamaCare to tell everybody in the country what is covered by their health insurance. ONE PERSON!!

This, to me, is a far more egregious violation our individual liberties and our freedom of choice when it comes to health insurance.

The argument that the "contraceptive mandate," as the requirement is becoming known in the main stream media (perhaps to hide the abortion coverage in the mandate) is specious, at best. If a religious institution purchases health insurance from any insurance company, their money is going to cover these disputed "women's health services."

Blue Cross, for example, does not have a specific account set up for Policy A, where all claims are paid through that account. Rather, monies paid for Policy A go into the general account, where all claims are paid, even "women's health services."

Could it be that the argument against the mandate is more about access to these services for religious women? Insurance coverage would make the services less costly, and thus more accessible. If that is the debate, the argument is more about encouraging people to follow the teachings of that religion, rather than changing a health insurance policy.

ObamaCare is a complete invasion into our freedoms and liberties. We simply cannot allow the federal government to force us to purchase a product from a private company, and then tell that private company what that product includes and how much to charge.

ObamaCare is patently unconstitutional and MUST be repealed. Our freedom and future is too important to let this stand.

UPDATE: 2:02pm 2/10/12

The President has announced that he plans to use power that he does not have to revert a decision that he should never have made.

The change would allow religious organizations to refuse to cover contraceptive care. It would also require insurers to offer a plan that does not include contraceptive care in their contracts with nonprofit religious groups. But the insurers would be required to make contraception available free of charge to women anyway. "We think this is a very workable solution," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Fox News, adding that it respects "religious objections."

Too bad that the "solution" does not respect the US Constitution.

A president of the United States DOES NOT have the authority to tell a private business what products it must sell and at what price. That is what just happened today. This would be akin to the president telling McDonald's that it must offer the McRib year-round and only charge $1 for it. It would not be fair to offer a popular meal choice only part of the year and at a higher price.

Interestingly, during his speech today, he all but admitted the initial decision was rushed, purportedly to avoid the issue becoming a political football.

...it became clear that spending months hammering out a solution was not going to be an option, that we needed to move this faster. So last week, I directed the Department of Health and Human Services to speed up the process that had already been envisioned. We weren’t going to spend a year doing this; we’re going to spend a week or two doing this.

Seems more likely to me that the president rushed this decision in order to get it done well ahead of the elections this fall. The administration took a "week" instead of a "year," and got themselves into hot water politically. The rushed decision turned the issue from a political football into a political punching bag, and Obama was the one getting punched.

This is what happens when a politician has no regard for the constitution and what he is legally allowed to do; when he doesn't care about the consequences of his decisions, or the people it affects. And another reason why ObamaCare must -- and will -- go.

So Now Credit Card Debt is a Good Thing???

So, today I learned that Americans increasing credit card debt is a good sign for the economy.

U.S. credit-card debt posted the second solid increase in a row during December, an indication Americans stuck with meager wage gains borrowed to pay for their holiday celebrations....But the Fed data are important for the clues to behavior by consumers, whose spending helps propel the economy.
The two solid gains in revolving credit during November and December came during the holidays — a sign consumers pulled out credit cards to buy gifts and make other seasonal purchases.

Isn't that wonderful. People who apparently used to pay for their holiday celebrations with cash, this year had to go further in debt for the same celebrations. But, slapping down the Visa credit card rather than the Visa debit card means that we are all doing great.

The upturn in card debt could be another sign that consumers are growing more confident about the economy, or at least about their personal job security.

Huh?

Wasn't it just a few years ago that we were told that using credit cards for expenses such as holiday celebrations was unhealthy and an indication that people's finances were getting worse, not better:

Finding themselves strapped for cash... Americans are increasingly turning to credit cards to cover gas, groceries and other living expenses....
Faced with soaring costs for food and fuel, people find they must charge more to make ends meet.
"They are not able to increase their income, but their expenses are going up, so the credit card becomes a way to cope," said Sara Gilbert, executive director of the Consumer Credit Counseling Service in Fort Collins, Colo.

Odd how that Wall Street Journal piece didn't mention that people needed credit cards to cope with higher food and fuel prices we have felt over the past few years.

The 2008 meltdown, we were told, was due in part to high personal credit card debt...

As the economy slows and unemployment rises, consumers are defaulting on credit-card payments more often. And though that trend is unlikely to create a crisis in line with the mortgage fallout, it's still a headache for banks that are already hurting.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/28/54880/are-credit-cards-the-next-collapse.html#storylink=cpy

...and that credit card debt was a sign of living beyond our means?

“For millions, they were living in a bubble,” says Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub, referring to Americans living on home equity and credit card debt five years ago. “If we end up overleveraging ourselves again, it’s going to be the same thing repeated in a few years.”

"Millions of ordinary people, unwilling to relinquish a bubble-era mentality of living beyond their means, will have borrowed beyond their ability to repay. If this sounds similar to the subprime mortgage crisis, that’s because it is"

Even Obama himself warned that he expect(s) consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe.

But now that Obama has saved us from the evils of the credit card companies, I guess it is in vogue to start slapping down the plastic again.

Well, if anyone wants to lecture us on living beyond our means, it might as well be Obama. He knows better than anyone how to put too much debt on the credit card.

Obama: Constitution Won't Let Me "Force Congress" to Do What I Want

We have a sitting president complaining about and denigrating the founding document of our nation.

That damn Constitution with all its checks and balances, Obama seemed to be saying on the Today show this morning with Matt Lauer:

It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.

It seems that Obama would be much more comfortable in a more autocratic system, where he can just push through anything he wants than with a government where the power is more evenly divided (emphasis added):

"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008," he said. "That's just the nature of being president," he said.

Yes, Barack, working with co-equal branches of government is what this country is all about. Darn it all!

In Federalist Papers 47, James Madison tells us that the separation of powers that Obama seems to lament is essential to liberty:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

We already know that Obama sees the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties that didn't address redistributive policies and social justice, we now find he thinks the U.S. Constitution as an impediment.

...the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

Recently, the Obama tried to negate the Supreme Court by deeming his own recess appointments constitutional.

The opinion “relies on no Supreme Court decision and many conclusions are unsupported in law or the Constitution,” (Sen. Charles) Grassley said in a statement. He added later that the opinion “flies in the face of more than 90 years of historical practice.”

We also heard from US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg whining to an Egyptian television audience that our constitution is just too darn old:

"(We have) “oldest written constitution still in force in the world... I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.

Could it be, your Honor and Mr. President, that our constitution is the oldest because it is the best?

We have a sitting president and a Supreme Court justice complaining about and denigrating the founding document of our nation. The connection between the two? Oh yeah, they are both Liberals.

Chrysler runs Obama campaign spot during the Super Bowl

Chrysler just handed President Obama a big, sloppy, wet kiss in the form of a free campaign ad during the Super Bowl.

In a spot dubbed Halftime in America, Clint Eastwood declared that it’s “halftime in America and our second half’s about to begin,” which could be interpreted as a reference to Obama’s second term. 

Gee, ya think so? Considering that President Reagan ran in 1984 on It's Morning in America using an eerily similar ad, any semblance with Halftime in America is pure coincidence.

Why would we want to return to where we were, just four short years ago closes the Reagan ad. Would that line be so out of place in the Obama -- er, Chrysler ad?

Ol' Clint sings the praises -- not of Chrysler's cars -- but of massive government bailout:

We all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one.

We find a way by borrowing billions of dollars, then loaning those dollars at advantageous terms to private business, putting the American people on the hook for $1.3 billion.

U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.
Now (CBO) estimates, by the time the $80 billion program is completely wrapped up, taxpayers will have lost $14 billion.

We find a way by overspending:

According to the Government Accountability Office... the government has spent $12.5 billion so far to bail out a $5 billion company (Chrysler).

Chrysler's CEO Sergio Marchionne assures there is no quid for Obama's quo:

“It was not intended to be any type of a political overture on our part,” Marchionne said. “Nobody inside Chrysler was attempting to influence decisions. The message is sufficiently universal and neutral that it should be appealing to everybody in this country and I sincerely hope that it doesn’t get utilized as political fodder in a debate.”

Of course you do, Mr. Marchionne, of course you do. He is shocked -- shocked to think "Halftime in America" would be interpreted as political fodder or is political payback.

Gualberto Ranieri, chief spokesman for Marchionne and for Chrysler, declined to comment on the notion that the advertisement was a thank-you gift to the Obama administration. "The advertisement speaks for itself," said Ranieri.

Maybe it is not payback, but a down-payment:

The Obama administration has yet to act on a $3.5 billion loan proposal from Chrysler for Department of Energy funds to help spur the development of more fuel-efficient automobiles.

White House spoke-flak, Jay Carney, promises that neither Obama nor his administration had any involvement in the spot’s creation. No, no one is suggesting they helped "create" the ad. Or, did they?

"And it's good to remember that the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die, because of folks coming together, we are now back in a place where we can compete with any car company in the world." Obama 1/31/12 (just last week! What a coincidence!)

I will be eagerly awaiting the Oval Office to demand an investigation to make sure the Chrysler Corporation isn't injecting a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, as Obama warned us after the Citizens United case. After all, The public interest requires nothing less, as Obama said.

We just know that Obama wouldn't use the auto industry for a photo-op, would he?

The Associated Press says for Obama, the auto bailout is a case study for his efforts to revive the economy and a potential point of contrast with Republican Mitt Romney, who opposed Obama's decision to pour billions of dollars into the auto companies. If Romney wins the GOP nomination, expect to hear a lot about the car industry.

Starting with this ad from Chrysler. Halftime in America. I can see the bumper stickers already.


UPDATE: Detroit is on such a rebound, the producers of the ad didn't feel the need to actually film the spot in Michigan, or anywhere nearby:

But contrary to what the might ad suggest, the spot was actually filmed in New Orleans and Los Angles. “Yes, part of it was filmed in New Orleans . . . and some was filmed in various parts—such as Los Angeles,” Dianna Gutierrez said.

No image of Detroit was shot for the specific use in this ad. Rather like the text of Obama's State of the Union address.

Is There a GOP "Enthusiam Gap"?

As the Republican electorate seems to be galvanizing around a candidate, the news has suddenly been aflutter with stories of a potential enthusiasm deficit for Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney.

In the four states to vote so far in the GOP nominating race, turnout has been strongest where people were energized to vote for somebody else.

In Florida, where Romney grabbed a commanding 46 percent of the vote this week, overall turnout was down significantly from four years ago. A county-by-county look at the Florida numbers shows that turnout was up from four years ago in counties where rival Newt Gingrich did well and down in counties where Romney dominated.

Could it be that turnout, if lower, was due to nice weather or polls showing the election was already decided? Recall that just two weeks ago, South Carolina, where the polls showed a neck-and-neck race, had record turnout for the primary vote.

The Republican primary in South Carolina had record turnout, with bigger gains in voter participation than in Iowa (STTLIA) and New Hampshire earlier this month.

But, the polls leading into Florida and Nevada showed Romney with double-digit leads. Perhaps people did decide to stay home because their guy was winning, rather than a lack of enthusiasm?

Particularly in Nevada, where the Republicans’ disappointing turnout foreshadows difficulty energizing GOP voters in Nevada.

Mitt Romney’s easy victory in Nevada’s Republican presidential caucuses might, in the long run, be less important than the fact that a surprising number of Republicans who could have participated Saturday chose to stay home.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that it was a beautiful 60-degree February day in Nevada Saturday? Nevada is a caucus state, where people huddle indoors for hours bickering about whom to support. Can't imagine anything more inviting on a day with 15 to 20 degree above average temperatures.

Not to be conspiratorial, but watch out for this as the latest attempt by the main stream media and lefty bloggers to support Obama at any cost, such as the hyper-activity over January's job numbers.

Now, maybe it is true that Romney is vanilla and boring and isn't inspiring the rabid following of a Newt or Ron Paul. Or, maybe people have better things to do than to waste an entire day voting for a sure-thing. I will go with the latter for now.

Obama Has His Priorities in Order: To Be Cool Again

In this delightful post on The Ulsterman Report blog, a Washington insider suggests that Obama desperately wants to be "cool again."

(Obama) was actually in on a meeting with some of the Plouffe gang and told them more than once he wanted to be cool again. “Like in ’08. We were the sh-t back in 08″. Those are the president’s words. He is obsessed with getting back to being cool like in ’08.

Well, isn't that special.

Instead of striving towards being a great president and leader; instead of wanting to get this country out of the economic doldrums, the President of the United States is apparently channeling his inner teenager.

Even that impromptu singing performance on the stage of the Apollo Theater was reportedly staged, planned all along.

Regarding that little singing bit the president did recently... That moment was rehearsed to death. As in over and over and over again... I wonder though if America would be so impressed if they knew how many hours the f***ing President of the United States spent practicing for those few seconds of song.

The blog goes on to say he hired people to pose as outsiders and post glowing comments, like "He's so cool."

And there were about 40 or 50 people in the crowd who had been instructed to “cheer loudly” the singing. And you can see how grateful the president is at the audience’s reaction. The guy needs that approval so damn much. The whole thing from beginning to end was a highly orchestrated effort. Not one second of it was spontaneous.

One minute this guy is posing as a president; one moment he tells us that Jesus supports the Buffet rule, and now he wants to be the big man on campus.

I have no idea if this post has any truth in it; but, I can certainly see it with this guy.

Desperate times indeed at the Obama White House. Desperate, sad, and pathetic times. Good thing there is such a short time left.

I Just Can't Wait for the Government to Control Health Care

When the government gets to decide what is in your insurance plan (in 2014), rest assured, and decisions will be made for you by a caring and concerned (not political!) bureaucrat.

I just can't wait for the US government to control health care, can you?

When confronted with concerns about religious employers having to provide women's health services (in English, that means contraception, abortion, and the like), the White House responded with sensitivity and grace: The decision has been made.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Thursday tried to shut down growing opposition to the president’s decision to force religious groups to pay fines if they decline to comply with a policy regarding health insurance and contraception.

“The decision has been made,” said Carney.

Regardless of the merits of the move, it has been met with significant controversy, which apparently is meeting with indifference from the White House.

“No, there’s not a debate” about the policy inside the administration, Carney said during Thursday’s White House press conference, where several reporters repeatedly pressured him about the new directive. “The decision has been made,” said Carney.

So, starting in 2014, when the government is in the job of determining what is a "qualified" insurance plan and what is not, and you have a concern with what is in your insurance plan, rest assured, “No, there’s not a debate. The decision has been made" for you.

Obama Celebrates the January 2012 Jobs Numbers. Why?

The fuzzy math that goes into the unemployment rate does not explain how someone out of work so long that he cannot collect unemployment is no longer out of work, despite the fact that he doesn't have a job.

The news media is giddy with reports that the US economy added 243,000 jobs last month. CBS News leads the celebrations, trumpeting that we "finally(!)" have a great jobs report (emphasis added, but not much).

Finally a great report
By all accounts, the results blew away expectations.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein chimed in:

As my colleague Neil Irwin tweeted, “That sound you hear is champagne corks in the West Wing."

While that is certainly good news for those 243,000 people, it ignores many of the deeper job numbers that simply aren't improving.

The New York Times seems to be one of the few who get it:

There are only two possible explanations for this bizarre combination of a falling employment rate and a falling unemployment rate. The second possible explanation -- a jump in the number of people who aren't working, who aren't actively looking but who would, in fact, like to find a good job -- is less comforting. It also appears to be the more accurate explanation.

The fuzzy math that goes into the unemployment rate you hear on the news (which doesn't count people who ran out of unemployment checks and those who have given up looking for a new job that is just not there) is a happy bit of nonsense for Obama and politicians alike, but does not explain how someone out of work so long that he cannot collect unemployment is no longer out of work, despite the fact that he doesn't have a job.

Obama must be thrilled with these new jobs numbers, such as

367,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 28.

Or

379,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 21.

Or

355,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 14.

He must be overjoyed that there are fewer full-time employed this month over last:

113,050,000 (12/11) 111,879,000 (1/12)

Or, the spike in the U6 unemployment numbers:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
15.2% (12/11) 16.2% (1/12)

How about these:

*Total Number of Unemployed: 12.8 million
*Long-term unemployed (jobless for 27 weeks and over): 5.5 million representing 43 percent of the total unemployed
*Average duration of unemployment: 40.1 weeks (down from 40.9, which was the highest on record)
*Average Hourly Earnings: up $0.04 to $23.29 (over past 12 months, earnings up 1.9 percent)

No, I think Obama is celebrating the fact that the incurious people in the main stream media just regurgitate the simple numbers handed to them and can't be bothered to take the 15 minutes to find more compelling and more telling data.

The Summer of Recovery, rescheduled from 2010, is still not upon us.

Obama Attorney General Covering Up Departmental Bribery?

Obama's Attorney General is quickly becoming one of the most ineffectual AGs since Clinton's Janet Reno or the most corrupt since Nixon's John Mitchell.

The Daily Caller web site is reporting that Eric Holder's Justice Department may be covering up bribery charges against "two DOJ prosecutors (who) accepted cash bribes from allegedly corrupt finance executives, according to a "trustworthy" source.

The bribed officials, an attorney with knowledge of the investigation told TheDC, remain on the taxpayers’ payroll at the Justice Department without any accountability. The DOJ source said Holder does not want to admit public officials accepted bribes while under his leadership.

Just add this to the list of real crimes that Holder is ignoring:

Guns being given to Mexican drug lords by the ATF.

Voter fraud in Indiana that allegedly helped elect his boss.

Black Panther members with weapons outside of polling places.

Many of these debacles stem from Holder’s failure to do due diligence: He failed to consult the intelligence community before giving the Christmas bomber a Miranda warning; he failed to read the memos in which career prosecutors explained why CIA prosecutions were a legal dead end; he failed to consult New York officials about trying Mohammed in their city; he failed to conduct even a cursory review before pushing Obama to announce the closure of Guantanamo; he failed to read the Arizona immigration law before publicly opposing it. One such failure is a mistake; this many is a pattern of gross incompetence.

Apparently, he is too busy prosecuting CIA agents for following orders, hiding his own legal briefs from Congress, suing states over laws they pass, and planning civilian trials for Muslim terrorists.