affairs on President Obama. One headline proclaims, “Obama is destroying America.” Another article says, “No American president comes close to the national debt and economic destruction Obama has wrought.”
This exaggerated writing style demonstrates three rather simplistic assumptions:
First, the belief that whatever happens during a given president’s administration can be credited or blamed on that president. But presidents, governors and CEOs frequently have to deal with the consequences of decisions made before they entered office.
A second assumption is that everything that happens is somebody’s fault. While individuals make important decisions that have future consequences, recessions, business cycles, wars, technological changes, and free markets often display a will of their own.
A third unstated assumption in these letters is that presidents are omnipotent. You can almost imagine the president, behind a curtain, like the Wizard of Oz, manipulating levers controlling inflation, unemployment, the growth of GDP and the stock market.
Partisans on the extreme right blame the economy on President Obama.
But people who are serious about public policy look for causes, not blame. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine the sources of our deficits and debt. The numbers are very large.
The first source of our debt is the George W. Bush-era tax cuts that drove down revenue even as spending was increasing. The deficits started immediately after the tax cuts.
President Obama supported a renewal of the middle class tax cuts, so his fingerprints are now on that policy, too, though he opposed the extension to wealthy taxpayers.
The second source of deficits
was the adoption of a new ongoing Medicare drug entitlement. Unlike Social Security and Medicare, no special tax was established for the drug benefit, so we are borrowing to pay for it. President George W. Bush signed it, though many Democrats supported it, too.
The third source of deficits is the two wars. My parents were members of the World War II generation. My dad served in the Pacific. The Greatest Generation paid around 40 percent of the costs of the war through taxes and borrowed the rest. But they borrowed from themselves through the purchase of Liberty Bonds. After the war, they taxed themselves to pay off the bonds.
The only people sacrificing today are the men and women in uniform and their loved ones back home. The rest of us aren’t even paying taxes to fund the wars. This is probably the first time in history a nation went to war and cut taxes at the same time. We are paying for the wars with debt, much of it financed by foreigners.
The fourth source of the deficits is the economy itself. The Great Recession began in December 2007. By the time President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month!
Recessions create a double-whammy effect on budgets. Demands on the government for unemployment compensation and other safety-net programs skyrocket, just as tax revenues plunge because people are unemployed.
Other causes of the deficits include the Troubled Asset Relief Program established by the Bush administration. That $700 billion was used to lend money and to purchase stock. Current estimates are that the total cost of saving the world’s banking system will be around $25 billion, after the securities are liquidated.
President Obama’s stimulus plan was around $800 billion in combined spending and tax cuts over three years. Numerous studies suggest that the unemployment rate would have peaked between 12 percent and 14 percent without the stimulus. How much was saved by a couple of million people working and paying taxes instead of drawing unemployment? It’s hard to say.
There’s plenty of blame to go around for those who like to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey (or elephant).
There is a problem with the “whatever happened on your watch” school of thought, the “everything is somebody’s fault” assumption, and the “president is the Wizard of Oz” fantasy. These beliefs lead you to conclude that all we need to do to improve things is change personnel.
This is not how the world works.
• Mickey McGuire, a retired high school social studies teacher, is among a select group of local residents with columns in the Tracy Press.


I really feel there are some serious cracks in McGuires facts (for lack of better term) about unemployment and Obama.
In some cities the cracks are a lot more serious than he lets on. I think it is downright sneaky and not fair to Americans. I cannot just sit by. Sorry.
Read more.
"While Connecticut faces a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, among workers between the ages of 16 to 24, the rate doubles to 18.2 percent.
The study also notes that fewer graduates of Connecticut's public colleges and universities are finding full-time work within the first year of graduation. For example, while 79 percent of graduates of the Connecticut State University system found full-time work right out of college in 2006, that number fell to 62 percent last year.
Jobless rates also were particularly high among Hispanics and African-Americans, at 17.7 percent and 15.6 percent, respectively. By comparison, the unemployment rate among white residents seeking work is 7.5 percent.
Not surprisingly, Connecticut's urban centers, where minority populations are highest, felt the impact of the recession most heavily.
Cities with the highest unemployment rates include Hartford at 16.4 percent, Waterbury at 14.5 percent, Bridgeport at 14.3 percent and New Haven at 13.8 percent.
Though unemployment among African-Americans technically dropped from 16.1 percent in 2010 to 15.6 percent this year, blacks in Connecticut also suffer from high long-term unemployment. "It could be that the labor market has become so discouraging for African-American jobseekers for so long that many have dropped out of the labor force entirely since 2009, and are no longer looking for work," the report says.
While nearly 50 percent of Connecticut's unemployed population had been out of work at least six months in 2010, among African-Americans the rate approached 60 percent."
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/unemployment-rates-highest-among-teens-men-minorities-12197
Thanks! It's just difficult to swallow McGuire's unemployment facts.
"President Obama’s stimulus plan was around $800 billion in combined spending and tax cuts over three years. Numerous studies suggest that the unemployment rate would have peaked between 12 percent and 14 percent without the stimulus. How much was saved by a couple of million people working and paying taxes instead of drawing unemployment? It’s hard to say."
Well.
The unemployment figures were rolled out this week and here is what we found out. Unemployment is actually as high as McGuire feared, but it shows it's face among minorities.
Read.
"Unemployment rates highest among teens, men, minorities
California's unemployment rate remains the second-highest in the nation – 12 percent in July – but among some demographic groups, joblessness is even higher. "
"For non-white workers, unemployment over the past year has increased, from 12.4 percent to 13.4 percent. Whereas 11.6 percent of whites were out of work in July, 14.3 percent of Hispanics and 20.3 percent of blacks were unemployed."
Before we ask minorities to give 3 cheers for Obama, shouldn't we ask bipartisan Democrats to get their facts straight about the real unemployment rates? No BS!
Someone's $25B loss est. looks fancifully low."
Agree completely Mr. Cose. The federal government, via Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are currently suing the large banks involved in the securitized mortgage debacle, mortgage fraud and malfeasance. $25 Billion will not be even a down payment on that.
The banks that are failing have lost their capital many times over, due to the way banks leverage their loans over their capital, up to 10 or 20 times their capital. As asset prices continue to fall, those loans continue to collapse, sending a a tidal wave of red ink over the bank's balance sheets. If there is another move downward on asset prices, including homes, watch out below!
It is all over but the shouting.
"Nazi Germany progressively dominated her economy. Although many businesses were nominally private, the state determined what was produced in what quantities and at what prices. First, they unleashed massive inflation to finance their prolific spending on public works, welfare and military rearmament.
They then enforced price and wage controls to mask currency debasement’s harmful impact. This spawned shortages as it must, so Berlin imposed rationing.
When that failed, Albert Speer assumed complete power over production schedules, distribution channels and allowable profits..."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-the-biggest-lie-in-history/3/
McGuire: "Current estimates are that the total cost of saving the world’s banking system will be around $25 billion, after the securities are liquidated."
1986 S&L Failure public costs... about $41 Billion
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/2000dec/brv13n2_2.pdf
GSE (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) losses to date $164 billion
Someone's $25B loss est. looks fancifully low.
That's not a violation. People are debating under an article that questions whether we need change to get jobs in America.
Your using poor language. By the way who said I'm running for office, and if I was there would be a place to ask candidates questions, and it shouldn't be on this blog. Especially just by one or two people, who may not be qualified to ask the important questions.
I completely understood. But I don't feel this is a pissing contest. We, as Americans, need to undersand what people running for office are going to be debating. Otherwise they will pull the wool over our eyes.
TomBenigno,
In 1941 the government needed a war machine with all the accutraments - and the only way to acquire such a beast from the American people was to force them to give it at a reduced price.
Do you think people respect the POTUS enough, today, to give the same? Some might think they want him to keep his promise and instead pull the troops.
Call it what you like, but you're making the same mistake hitler made, fighting a two front war that cannot be won on both fronts.
In your case, both fronts.
1.) Supporting Going To War Economics that we were promised would be over.
2.) abandoning the job front.
The priorities are out of order.
Could you get into this dialog and square this person out, about what PRICE FREEZING is about. I think they have lost their way.
Thanks Tom.
THE TOPIC IS NOT PRICE FIXING IT'S "PRICE FREEZING". THE GOVERNMENT UNDER UNDER FDR, PASSED IT IN 1941 OR 1942. HOW IS THAT BEING SELF RIGHTEOUS WIN I TRY TO EXPLAIN A METHOD THAT WAS USED THEN IN TIME OF WAR. IT WILL CREATE JOBS,I'M EXPLAINING IT, BUT YOUR NOT TRYING TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT'S ABOUT. I THINK IT WAS A 2,000 PAGE DOCUMENT.
ENOUGH NEGATIVITY ALREADY. I DON'T REALLY WANT TO CONTINUE THIS DIALOG. THANKS.
I have tried to listen to TomBenigno's idea of price freezing, while others simply wrote his ideas off as a Socialist propaganda. I'm the only commenter that tried to take him seriously. Even though I'm skeptical I played his devil's advocate game. I even explained that his idea would be worth a second look, if (and that's if) there was something there. At this point, I feel that either price freezing is not a bright idea, or he needs a better spokesperson.
All the while I have maintained the opposite view of the author that we need jobs.
I feel that next years election will be decided solely on jobs, or lack thereof.
I suspect that TomBenigno knows we spent tax dollars on a solar company that is now pulling the plug, but I could be wrong.
At any point, the author's logic is seriously flawed, regarding his closing remark. And I have come to feel that TomBenigno is just as far off base, in his position, but I still feel that he should be allowed to speak his piece. Whatever that is.
My last comment was in regards to the job speech next week. You've telling us you waited three years and can only come up with an idea for price fixing? If you've been paying attention. Americans have one thing on their minds. They want jobs.
If Al Sharpton can't wait one more day out of 390 days - isn't this job issue important an issue we have paid more attention to? Come on.
I sorry you don't understand what has been going on,on this blog for the last 137 comment posts.
You will never get it I guess, I think the readers are tired of it also.
Thanks anyway.
Jon M can we have a new story we can comment on.
I don't know why we do this. Apparently we're going to build more roads.
Which means it's probably time for change.
Let's move on.
What you are confusing a price fix with an increase in social security. Thats a novel cause, but it's a contradiction.
The problem with social security is a more pertinent issue with Americans who lost their 401k's.
Let's not make things worse for them. You can get two loaves of bread for the price of one. It's not gold.
Rents will not go down because people lost their homes still need to rent a home.
People need a place to live, but banks won't lend money to a social security recipient, with a "stated income"
A price freeze would not change development. They are not building anyway. So there is no effect there.
A price freeze would also hurt senior citizens elsewhere because they would lose essential services.
The cost of shutting down American business has the largest single most impact on senior citizens who because of a price freeze cannot get a COL increase.
When you start tampering with senior citizens, taking away their essential services, Tom, you will open a pandora's box.
The latest unemployment issue is the problem. Let's not undermine the economy and take the senior citizens with it.
We need to focus on jobs, which is what you will see on Thursday
This person AM just wants you to believe, that holding prices down is bad for the economy. We haven't had a cost of living increase in our social security for over 3 years.
Todays dollars in social security,can't keep up with inflation. Soon we won't be able to buy a loaf of bread, with our checks. If you agree or dissagree is not important, just as long as you see this side of the story. I assume that many baby boomers will understand when they retired this year, they had better keep working.
As for the adjustable mortgage rates, yes they did get many people in trouble, but who's fault was that? The developers, they should have stopped building if they couldn't sell them. Ninty five % of the foreclosures were folks who bought these houses with nothing down,and high payments.
The other folks who put down large down payments on high priced homes took, the worst beating because of the short sales that created low comps.
NOW DO WE NEED A PRICE FREEZING PROGRAM?
What you're talking about will go over like an adjustable rate mortgage. That's what got us into this mess.
What I originally brought up was PRICE FREEZING, NOT PRICE FIXING.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
It means that wages, food prices, car, rents, interest and all services cannot raise their prices for a period of time that will allow new growth in the economy. General motors wont be able to raise the price of a Cad from $65,000 to $165,000.
Rents must stay the same until sch a time as the "depression" is over. This means even banks will take a hit, why not we bailed them out with our tax money. Now speaking of taxes the government wont be able to tax you like they want.
EVERYBODY WINS.
Moreover, if you can provide all the necessary tools of war to your opponent at a premium, stimulating your own economy by selling over-priced weaponry you have tilted the initial economic measure in your favor. After full payment of such arsenal by your unsuspecting competitor you commence full blown annihilation, destroying all aspects of the contender’s infrastructure, national defense, fiat, and people, thereby ruining their economy. Afterwards, the raised rival country will need to be rebuilt, at their own expense of course, you and your allies will retain full control of their GDP during their rebuilding. Such is the scramble that is going on now in Libya’s for its oil today, after the dethroning of Kaddafi. The best case scenario, if you will, would be for you not having to put boots on the ground and have two opponent countries fighting it out putting you in an arbitrage position, you win no matter who wins.
I will not point out the cost of human lives, as there really is no need to try, all lives are invaluable.