Ken's Comments

If Democrat insiders - examples: Hillary Clinton, her campaign, Democrats who want her to win, President Obama and his supporters, and the Liberal media types who support them - really cared about the poor wouldn't they be talking about all the people out of work who have fallen off the Unemployment rolls?  Wouldn't they be saying the unemployment problem is much worse than the unemployment rate reported by the Government?  Wouldn't they be mentioning the fact that the employment levels in the US are lower than they have been in quite some time? If they really cared about the poor, wouldn't they be concerned about the number of people who are employed but who are holding lower paying jobs or who have to take a second job to make ends meet?  You might say arguing for a $15 minimum wage is an attempt to address that problem and that has a modicum of legitimacy.  My counter argument is two-fold.  First I'd rather they were proposing ideas to create better pa...

If it was not so tragic, I'd have to laugh at the people who are talking about a "jobless recovery" like it is a good thing. I've only seen one mainstream commentator - a former Clinton Administration official - come close to calling out the Obama Administration on the current economy. Instead you've got papers like the New York Times running articles saying that because there were not as many new people unemployed in the last reporting it is a sign of an improving economy. Why can't we call it like it is - all of the money the Government has spent over the last two years, under both President Bush and President Obama is only making the rich richer and it is not helping the little guys. Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Goldman Sachs pay out big bonuses to employees. Warren Buffet makes a mint off of investments he made into companies that got government support. People who can afford to invest a lot of money in the stock market are doing very well again. Chrysler...

Earlier some Republican Governors announced they would decline Federal Stimulus funds and the media and political opponents were highly critical. The State of PA is quietly considering whether to do the same thing. The Philadelphia Inquirer does a nice job of laying out the issues that point to why a state should consider rejecting "free money" to help unemployed workers. The gist of the Inquirer article (cited below) is essentially this - the PA Unemployment Fund is broke. The downturn in the economy has outstripped the funds available. A panel was appointed to figure out what to do. One of the things they were asked to consider is whether the state should accept $273 million in federal funds from the Stimulus package. Why would PA, or any state, reject free money from the federal government? Well primarily because it is not free. It will cost the Pennsylvania $300 million to get $273 million in federal funds. As the Inquirer article does a good job of describing, to ...