Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

hen Barack Obama campaigns around the country and tells voters the difference between him and Republican challenger Mitt Romney is that he—Obama—wants to save the middle class by taxing the rich and that Romney, he says, wants to give millionaires like himself a $2 million tax cut and saddle the rapidly escalating national debt on the backs of the working class is just so much "who shot john." Why? Because you can't tax the rich beyond the level they are currently being taxed. What you can't tax today you can't tax tomorrow. Those assets are protected by tax exempt trust funds and foundations. So before we get into the thrust of this piece, let's settle the first issue. When Obama and the left talk about taxing the super rich he's not talking about those whose wealth is so extreme their names don't appear on anyone's list of the world's richest people who shield their wealth better than Obama shields his birth certificate. Obama and the left aren't really talking about taxing the rich. They're really talking about taxing the top tier of the middle class. The job creators. If you think about it, you know who they're getting ready to tax. It's the guy the majority of Americans work for—maybe even you.

When the super rich industrialists and bankers lobbied for their own personal piggybank called the Federal Reserve System in 1907, they structured—and Congress enacted—a resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States with what would become the 16th Amendment. It created a graduated federal income tax system to collect the revenues required to meet the government's unquenchable debt obligation. (Prior to the 16th Amendment, the States had to pay the bills of the federal government.) In 1907 the princes of industry acknowledged that to get the key to the piggy bank they had to dilute the supra-authority of the States over the federal government.

If they didn't, the money barons knew the Federal Reserve legislation would fail because the State bankers didn't want it. The State legislators opposed it. The princes of industry needed it. For the moment, the 17th Amendment was more important than the 16th Amendment since the 17th would remove the States from the equation of federal power by depriving the States (whose views and agenda many times are at odds with the views and agenda of the People within those States) of their voice and Constitutional authority to control its government.

Today, a triune authority controls the federal government just as it did in 1907. Only, it's different from the triune authority established by the Founding Fathers in 1787. Today it consists of an Executive Branch, a trifecta of powerful men comprised of the princes of industry, the baron of banking and the bullies of Big Labor (who replaced the legislative authority of the US Senate); and, in a more subservient role, the People—who have power only on Election Day. And since the princes of industry and Lords of Labor have figured out how to manipulate the votes they need to silence the majority on Election day, the trifecta now gets to rule pretty much as they please without interference from the States or the People.

If you're baby boomer, you live under a different form of government today than your father. And, he lived under a different form of government than his father—your grandfather. And, your children are living under a much more dictatorial system than you did when you were their age. Their children will be living under a socialist system the likes of which we haven't seen since the make-believe collapse of the Iron Curtain in August, 1990.

Today we are living in a socialist democracy much like social progressive Northern and Central Europe. Our fathers lived in a parliamentarian democracy like England. Our grandfathers lived in the greatest Republic in the history of the world. That Republic is gone. It was stolen from the American people by greedy industrialists and bankers through a contrived financial crisis, manufactured by John Pierpont Morgan and an international banking cartel which was determined to remove America from the gold standard, create a fiat monetary system and a privately owned central bank with the power to control all State and community banks in America.

The central banking system of the United States was created in November, 1910 by a cabal of seven banking families who now control not only the financial system of the United States but also the size and scope of the free enterprise system in the United States. Franklin D. Roosevelt's socialist New Deal created the laws that attempted to shackle small business to the yoke of government in order to stymie the financial potential of the middle class up-and-comings. The Supreme Court found many of those laws unconstitutional and vacated them.

But Obama, who views small business—you know, the rich people Obama keeps talking about who he wants to pay their "fair share" since they are, in his mind, a slush fund of tax receipts for the left. Because, Obama said, government paid for the roads. He believes because small businesses use the physical and cyber infrastructure their own tax dollars paid for, they owe government a share of their success for government's "help" in building the roads, bridges and, or course, the Internet which those business use..

Obama made that clear in a campaign speech in Roanoke, Virginia on Friday, July 13, 2012 when he said, "If you were successful, someone along the line gave you some help...If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Some body else made that happen." Not exactly one of the luckier campaign days for Obama. Once the media sliced and diced his words, and Obama caught the full broadside from angry middle class voters—and business owners—who built their businesses themselves, he insisted the Romney ads that followed were "...taking [his] words about small business out of context—they're flat-out wrong."

After listening to Obama's blatant lie in his own TV spot to recast what he said in an attempt to undo the damage he did to himself, here's his verbatim quote: "If you're successful, you didn't get there on your own...I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this great American system that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made it happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Here's the $64 thousand question: Did Obama make an irrelevant, off-the-cuff remark in a campaign round-robin for which he should not be held responsible for? No. Because it was neither "off the cuff" nor irrelevant. He actually plagiarized part of a well-publicized hump speech made by social progressive Elizabeth Warren [D-MA] who is running against conservative US Senator Scott Brown [R-MA] for what used to be Ted Kennedy's US Senate seat in Massachusetts before Brown beat Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.[DMA] to complete Kennedy's term. Like Romney against Obama, Brown is also using Warren's social progressive remarks that Massachusetts small business owners did not build their own businesses. The statement, "you didn't build it on your own," is the battle cry of the left against the prospering middle class that gives them the right to seize as much of what you own as they can because, in their view, you needed their help to become successful. They only want their "fair share" of that success—the rallying cry of the potentates of redistribution.

The Legal War
Against Small Business

Make no mistake about this. Obama's remark was not an accidental choice of words. It was a rehearsed communist declaration of war on the middle class because to Obama and his ilk, the middle class small business owner is the rich the left keeps referring to when they insist the rich need to pay their fair share. They—the social progressives—insist they actually helped you build your family business and thus, are entitled to share in your prosperity. Redistribution of wealth. It's a game everyone's playing. Not just the government. Anyone who wants to play—particularly in California—can play by simply suing small business owners for whatever they can win in court, or for whatever amount the business owner will settle for out-of-court.

For example, restaurateurs Jaime del Campo and Ramiro Arvizu opened their La Casita Mexicana restaurant in Bell, California believing they could provide the predominantly Latino population in the small town just outside of Los Angeles with an authentic taste of Mexico. The pair knew starting a business in a recession when they didn't have very much money was going to be a gamble, a fact testified to by the large number of vacant storefronts in Bell. But, they were equally confident the cuisine they served would separate them from those who came and, shortly, left.

One day Arvizu received a letter from a customer claiming he had visited their restaurant in a wheel chair a couple of times. On both occasions, he said, he had gone into their restroom. He checked their mirror and other stuff, he said, claiming that their restaurant caused him pain and suffering because their mirror was too high for him to use. He was suing them under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Arvizu and del Campo were shocked at the lawsuit and mentioned it to a few of their business neighbors who told them they had also been targeted by similar lawsuits—by the same plaintiff. The man had filed over 500 ADA lawsuits—all of them against small business owners, most of them Hispanic. Arvizu and del Campo pulled their security video and discovered that not only had the plaintiff not visited their restroom, he'd never been in their restaurant. Confronted with the evidence, the plaintiff quickly dropped his lawsuit. Most of the victims of the Californians with Disabilities Act didn't fare as well because in California the disabled don't need to prove they were discriminated against. The small business owners they sue are obligated to prove they didn't. Increasingly courts and juries expect the defendants in criminal and civil law suits to prove they are innocent of the charges, relieving the State or the plaintiff in a tort action to prove the defendant is guilty as charged.

When Roberto Guerrero and his family emigrated from Nicaragua in the 1980s, they opened a coffee shop in San Francisco in 1987. A year and a half later they opened a second store. Over the next decade the family opened several more coffee shops in the Bay area. Two of the shops were owned separately by Roberto. As Jaime del Campo and Ramiro Arvizu discovered, California's version of the Americans with Disabilities Act created much easier opportunities for those with disabilities to claim they were victimized by small business owners in that State. California law provides for stipend monetary damages of up to $4,000 for each infraction per visit to the offending business which, of course, encourages plaintiffs not to notify small business owners of infractions until the lawsuit is worth a substantial amount of money. In the case of Roberto Guerrero's two coffee shops, that substantial amount was $90 thousand because he had a recycling bin too close to a door and a pastry case too close to a counter. When he received a letter from the attorney for the plaintiff, he made the corrective changes the same day and invited the plaintiff and his lawyer to come in and see if the corrections satisfied them. The customer responded that the requested changes had been made but the lawsuit had already been filed, so it was too late to avoid the lawsuit. After a year of litigation, Guerrero settled the lawsuit. Sixteen other businesses in San Francisco were sued by the same plaintiff. The financial loss caused two of those sued to close their doors.

Sometimes you lose even though you win. Steve Arnold, the owner of Peachtree Pest Control in Atlanta, Georgia was sued in 1996 by a man who claimed he got sick due to pest control work done by Peachtree Pest Control at a business that was not located anywhere near where the plaintiff worked. The man sued. The jury found against the plaintiff and absolved Steve Arnold of any liability. The plaintiff appealed the verdict. Five years and several thousand dollars later a second jury absolved Peachtree Pest Control once again. And, again, the plaintiff sued. Arnold's reaction? "Everyone deserves their day in court," he said, "but when is enough enough? I know what it feels like to sit in a jury trial and see your life being auctioned off to the highest bidder."

With absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing against Arnold or his company over the past 16 years, the accuser is still hoping for a payday. Paul Harrington, another small businessman who was sued in a product liability case, said that his case took seven years to settle. "We won," he said, "but it was costly. The insurance company wanting to settle because it was cheaper to settle than fight. We made them fight. It cost $150 thousand to fight a $100 thousand lawsuit. The insurance company offered them $35 thousand to settle. They declined the offer. The scumbag," he concluded, "went home with nothing."

While Steve Arnold faced three trials over one event, Richard Singer, co-owner of Acra Cast, a foundry employing 15 people in Bay City, Michigan since 1966, has had frivolous lawsuits filed against his company 24 times. By the end of 2009—at the end of Obama's first year at the helm of the USS United States ship-of-state, unemployment reached 15% in Michigan. While several Bay City businesses were forced to lay off scores of their employees to keep their doors open, many closed their doors. Pattern makers. Machine shops. Other businesses.

The Singers, Richard (the son) and Dick (the father) struggled to keep their small foundry afloat—and keep the employees that helped build Acra Cast into a vehicle that would support all of them. The area of Bay City where Acra Cast is located is zoned "light industrial." It's not a residential neighborhood although there are a few homes several hundred yards to the east of the foundry and about 150 yards to the south. Yet, Singer noted, "We've never had a complaint from anyone until 2006. That's when a neighbor, who moved there in 2004, decided Acra Cast should help support him.

After two years he filed a lawsuit against Acra Cast alleging the foundry was destroying the paint on his vehicles, the siding on his house and the carpet inside his home. "When our lawyers, Singer said, "looked into these vehicles it was learned that of the five, two did not belong to him. And of the three vehicles that did belong to him, two had been sold before the lawsuit was filed." Singer noted that his neighbor "...had filed 23 previous lawsuits against other companies in Bay County in his lifetime...It's one thing to run a business," Singer added, "and put up with the pain and the hard work associated with that. It's an entirely different something to have someone come and walk in off the street and, short of putting a gun to your head, try to steal money from you/."

Singer's business has always been in compliance with all environmental regulations. Singer's lawyers ultimately found out from scrapings on the plaintiff's cars that the gritty material on the plaintiff's car had not been caused by wax burns at Acra Cast. The grit contained metal shavings and paint globules can can only come from a auto shop. Even so, the case dragged on for three years with the judge trying hard to force Acra Cast to offer a settlement to the plaintiff. He refused. In the end, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action with prejudice. But it still cost Singer and his father thousands of dollars to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit.

The Economic War
Against Small Business

For the sixth month in a row, The Christian Science Monitor reported that the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Optimism Index [SBBI] fell, dropping 0.9 points in July—a larger decline than in each of the previous three months. Dr. William Dunkelberg, chief economist for the NFIB added to small business' woes in August telling Bloomberg Businessweek that while the index grew from a 9 month low of 912 to 92.9 in September, Dunkelberg noted that the NFIB had monthly readings below 93 fifty times since they started the monthly index in 1986. Unfortunately, 43 of those have been during the Obama "economic recovery." In other words, that's every month since Obama assumed the economic responsibility for red and black ink. Why? Obama brought one thing to Washington that no other 20th century President except Jimmy Carter brought with them to the big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue—uncertainty triggered by a complete lack of know-how to do the job required of the man who sits in the Oval Office. Obama—whose only "work experience" prior to January, 2009 was in organizing protests against "the Man" and advocating on behalf of the socialists wealth redistribution agenda.

Leading the problems for small business, Dunkelberg noted was Obamacare and the cost uncertainties that are going to befall small business owners. Obamacare will likely double the small business owners' cost of doing business. "We just can't get out of the recession," Dunkelberg said. "Number two," he said, "is uncertainty in the economy. No one knows which way it's going to go. Number three is rising energy costs. Number four is government policy. We just don't know what's going to happen. Nobody wants to put their money on the table right now..." because they don't know what's going to happen in November."

While it was true that Obama greatly increased the welfare net, trying to trap as many Americans in his web of deceit as possible, ultimately raising the number of Americans receiving some form of welfare to 47%, his redistribution plan in 2009 was not aimed at people like Peggy Joseph nor minorities of any stripe. It was directed at the invisible elite who already own almost everything in the world but who want the rest of it. To get the rest of it, they knew they had to take it from the middle class because they are the only element of society which threatens them. The Old World Order in Europe collapsed because of the rising middle class.

In 1998, then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama told the media "...I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot." Addressing the NAACP's 99th Annual Convention on July 14, 2008, Obama said, "Social justice is not enough. The inseparable twin of racial justice is economic justice. It matters little if you have the right to sit in the front of the bus if you can't afford the bus fare. It matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth and...[the]...issue of political and economic justice in this society...[T]he Supreme Court interpreted in the same way that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the States can't do for you. It 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." Obama then promised to return to the NAACP's 100th Anniversary Conference and declare that the redistribution of wealth was taking place.

And, of course it was. But, not in the way the minorities who voted for Obama in 2008 thought it was supposed to happen. People like Peggy Joseph who put up Obama signs and believed Obama's non-recorded campaign speeches when he promised to redistribute the wealth of the middle class to them. She actually believed his rhetoric. When he won, she was convinced she wouldn't "...have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage," she told a NBC-TV channel 6 reporter, "if I help them, they're going to help me." Thousands of welfare blacks across the nation believed Obama's promise of change.

Because, before Obama could redistribute the middle class' wealth to the downtrodden minorities, Obama had to repay his campaign donors by redistributing a large portion of the $7.5 trillion in taxpayer dollars he spent during his first three years to the bankers, industrialists and community activists like ACORN who threw millions of dollars into his first race—or more important, delivered 35,626,580 fraudulent votes to assure that Obama, who actually won what appears to be only 33,830,317 votes ended up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Obama was hired to be America's 44th occupant of the White House—not by the People, by the princes of industry, the barons of banking and a rogue socialist billionaire named George Soros whose agenda he was hired to implement. The agenda? Collapsing the US economic system. How do you do it? Destroy the underpinnings that support the free enterprise system by crippling the middle class.

Once again, the rich fear the middle class because, for the most part, the super rich like the John D. Rockefeller Srs, the Cyrus McCormicks, the Jay Goulds, the Cornelius Vanderbilts, the George Peabodys, the S. Parker Gilberts, the Daniel Guggenheims, the Elijah Roots, the John Jacob Astors, the John Foster Dulles and scores of other princes of industry who rose from the same middle class they now fear because there is no room at the top for newcomers. So, when you hear the politicians talking about taxing the rich, they aren't really talking about taxing the rich, they're talking about taxing the middle class. Remember this: if you are a middle class American (regardless of nationality or ethicentricity), and you own your home, have two cars, are employed and pay your bills on time, you are the middle class Obama and the social progressive left is talking about when they promise to tax the rich. How do I know that? Because you can't tax the super rich. Their wealth is protected by tax exempt trust funds. The only taxable income they have is the interest they earn on their protected wealth.

There is no doubt whatsoever that, in addition to declaring war on the fossil fuel industry (which, of course, is not "fossil" fuel), the Obama Administration has launched a massive frontal assault against the middle class, believing he has won over the voters by aiming his sights on small business owners under the phony guise of taxing the rich. Taxing the rich has proven over the years to be safe bait when fishing for votes from the working class who believes they are already taxed too much. Logic suggests to them that since the rich have all the money in the world, they are rightly the ones who should be taxed. It is apparently beyond the reasoning capacity of the working class to think it through and realize that the reason why the rich have all the money in the world is because their wealth is sheltered by tax exempt trust funds and foundations.

When the richest men in America bought and, with bribes, paid for the 16th and 17th Amendments, the Federal Reserve Act and the legislation that created Woodrow Wilson's graduated income tax, and empowered the Internal Revenue Service (which was created by the Jacobin Republicans in 1862 to collect Abe Lincoln's unconstitutional income tax and to seize the property of Northerners who were sympathetic with the South), they created all of the loopholes the princes of industry, the barons of banking and the lords of the legal system needed to perpetually protect them from the IRS tax collectors. The taxable earnings of America's giant corporations (who are also legal "people") appear on the corporate financial statement for their shareholders as an expense item that is passed on to the working class stiffs who ultimately buy the goods or services of corporate America. In the end, when the checks are written, only the working class actually pays taxes. Corporate America simply bills Mr. and Mrs. America. In the end, by paying a few cents more for every commodity you buy, you reimburse corporate America for the taxes they could not escape. (Consider this your primer in Paying Taxes 101.)

So if you're a working class stiff attending an Obama rally, or are forced to endure his campaign rhetoric repeated over and over again free of charge as "news" by ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, PBS and C-Span, just remember the earned income credit (that you don't deserve) that gives you a tax refund each year much larger than the taxes you didn't pay, remember this—that money isn't coming from some rich guy named Rockefeller, Mellon, Morgan, Rothschild, Gates, DuPont or Brin. It's coming from some other working class stiff just a little better off than you who's busting his hump working 12 to 16 hours a day, six to seven days a week because he has medical bills to pay, or kids to put through college while you're chugging down a brew in front of the TV. Unfortunately, because working 24-7 earned the other working class stiff enough money to pay his bills, he wakes up on tax day and discovers that, in Barack Obama's world, he's suddenly a rich guy who isn't paying his fair share. Believe me when I say this—this IS the rich guy Obama is talking about.

Let me describe him for you, just so there are no misunderstandings. He has a wife and two or three kids. (If he's Catholic, he has maybe three to five kids.) He argues with his wife more than he used to because he worries more now about how to make the money stretch from payday to payday. He has a three bedroom home that needs some repairs. And he has two cars. One was paid off a couple of years ago and there are three or four payments left on the other one. One car perpetually needs tires. He planted a garden in the back yard in 2009 to cut down on the expense of fresh fruit and vegetables. When they "vacation," they go to visit family members for a few days each year. There is no Disneyland, no Yellowstone National Park, no week in the mountains or at the beach in their plans. Their annual leave is usually a "honey-do" vacation or, if offered by their employer, they sell their vacation time back to them for a token stipend and work their vacations.

That's the rich Obama says are not paying their fair share. Do they should familiar? They should. They're you. They're me. They're a million and one middle class working stiffs just like us, trying to survive in an increasingly expensive world who are deliberately being bankrupted by politicians who deliberately changed the bankruptcy laws to make sure when are forced into the bankruptcy court we can't escape the debt we can't pay before the taxman takes his money before our employer pays us what's left. Some of these "rich guys" are the the employees of small companies whose sweat investment builds in the equity value in their boss' business. Some are small business owners themselves. But regardless on which side of the coffee-stained metal desk in the boss' office you are on, you're both in the middle of the bullseye on the economic target the princes of industry have drawn on our backs. Mark my word, if somehow Obama steals his way back into the White House on January 20, 2013 we will be punished by Obama with higher taxes because, in Obamaspeak, we're the rich people Obama promised he would soak. It is our income—what little of it we have left today, about 30% less than it was on Bush-43's last day in office—that Obama plans to redistribute to the Peggy Josephs of the world for "reelecting" him when he knows if he gets back in it will be due to the efforts of ACORN and a very hesitant George Soros who only recently decided to help Obama's reelection efforts.

On October 5, two days after the drubbing Obama took in the first Presidential debate, Obama minions in the Labor Department are cooking the books to make it appear that Obama is not the economic imbecile he really is. Although the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the US economy added only 114,000 nonfarm, private sector jobs in September, a second report called the "US Department of Labor's Household Survey on The Employment Situation"—a completely fabricated piece of fiction written by Obama underlings in the Labor Department bureaucracy and hyped as real news by the Associated Press to make it appear that Obama has slipped below 8% unemployment. The Obama fiction writers claim jobs rose by 873,000 in September at the same time that unemployment dropped by 456,000. Anyone who got one of these jobs, please raise your hand. Let me count...oops—I only see see 114,000 hands raised. Maybe Obama was counting the ACORN and Project Vote "volunteers" who are registering illegal aliens under Motor Voter and collecting their absentee ballots?

Media Research Center challenged Obama's fabricated numbers in a Drudge Report piece on Oct. 5, saying that "...the economy added 114 thousand nonfarm payrolls in the month [of September] according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics with gains in healthcare, transportation and warehousing. Truly shocking in the report was that the number of unemployed people dropped by 456 thousand to 12.1 million. Maybe more shocking, total employment, as measured by the Household Survey, rose by 873 thousand in September to 142,974,000, the biggest one month jump since June, 1983. As such, total employment now stands at the highest level it's been since December, 2008 before Obama was inaugurated. But even more mysterious is the divergence in the two surveys done by the Labor Department."

Even more mysterious than the MRC statistics are the statements of small business owners in areas of the country where most of the nation's defense jobs are located who are already laying off help. They are laying off help right and left. The Obama Administration has offered to compensate defense contractors who do not notify their employees, before the election, that they will be laid off shortly after the election. Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification [WARN] Act, federal law requires employers to give workers sufficient notice if mass layoffs are due to federal budget cuts. After the election, defense contractors are losing $1.2 trillion in defense contracts, which will cause massive layoffs in the defense industry.

As Titusville, Florida automotive shop owner Don Slagle heard the news that Obama was shutting down the space program, it was only a few days later when Space Center employees were getting the pink slip. George Graves, a working class stiff who was employed at Slagle Automotive in Titusville, Florida when the Space Center announced major layoffs, told Florida Today that he was worried about his job, and about feeding his family because, he said, about half of Slagle Automotive's customers were Space Center employees. Graves was worried, but rumors that a couple of commercial companies were talking about creating a consumer market for space travel in Cape Kennedy. That was just one more Obama fantasy.

Don Slagle, who has operated Slagle Automotive since 1981 told Florida Today he was worried about the economy today, not some pipedream down the road. "Dropping seven thousand employees and making room for 1,700..." (from a potential future employer) "...is not enough for this town to survive. The Space Center has been extended, but there's going to be a lull—and this town won't make it through a three or four year lull." Slagle, who is currently one of those small business owners whose "corporate enterprise" grossed enough a year or so ago that he would have been targeted by Obama for a tax hike, had three full time employees working for him before the Space Center layoff. Now he is the sole employee with barely enough business to keep him afloat. Today, Slagle's small business is about as small as it was in 1981 when he started it—a one man shop with a lot of promise. Today, it's a one-man shop again, but the promise is uncertainty. America needs a man in the Oval Office who actually understands small business, and knows how to grow jobs. I'd venture a guess Slagle and most of Titusville, Florida will be voting for a guy named Mitt Romney in November.

I don't know a single small business owner anywhere who is hiring—or even thinking of hiring. At least, not until they see Obama lose the election. Lisa Steele, the owner of Bella Fabrics in Carrollton, Virginia is worried about the direction Obama has taken this country since 2009, and what happens if he's still steering the Ship of State in 2013.

Steele, like most business owners in America isn't tracking trends or statistics. She's tracking the number of customers who walk into her store—and walk out with a purchase. She doesn't need to look at the NFIB's Small Business Optimistic Index to know that business sucks. She only needs to look at her receipts and bank deposits.

To put it bluntly, Steele and scores of other small business owners around the country don't need to look at an "index." They're losing what little optimism they mustered when the media—and the Obama Administration—convinced them we were in the beginning of a recovery that would restore prosperity. Their optimism has become fear—the fear that there is no recovery in the foreseeable future as long the current administration who is expediting the money hemorrhage is still calling the shots in the nation's capital. But what small business owners now fear more than anything is that Obama, the community activist, is absolutely clueless how to fix the economy—except to throw good money—their money—after bad, intensifying our economic woes.

The US Chamber of Commerce released its third quarter summary on the small business community in the United States on Wed., Oct. 3. Interestingly—and in a complete contradiction to Obama's surprise Household Survey on The Employment Situation which claims that employers added 873 thousand new employees in September—83% of the employers surveyed indicated that based on the tax hikes they know are coming, they are not hiring now and don't expect to be hiring next year unless, it appears, someone other than Obama is in the Oval office. Only 17% of the employers surveyed indicated they will hire in 2013. Eighty-nine percent said tax increases will greatly hurt their prospects for success next year a statement that agrees with Gov. Mitt Romney's assessment that Obama's proposed tax increases "on the rich" will eliminate 750 thousand jobs next year. Nine out of ten business owners worry that their small businesses will be damaged by an Obama tax hike which will target 900,000 small businesses that employ 50% of all working people in the United States while the economic growth crawls along at 1.3% of gross domestic product.

According to the Chamber's report the US business community blames the malaise that has strangled America on three people: Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with Obama and Reid personally fanning the uncertain economic environment. Obama, according to the Chamber report, had a better grip on the economy in 2009 when he said it would be stupid to raise taxes in a recession. In point of fact, since Obama is clueless what you do or don't do during a recession, he said it only because Gov. Romney has been singing from that hymnal since the primaries and he wanted intelligent voters to believe he would not tax the middle class—in a recession. Adding to the recessionary woes that are hamstringing small business is the dramatic increase in government red tape. Obama has added over 90,000 new regulations since taking office. Each of these regulations cost one business or another thousands upon thousands of dollars that come right off the bottom line. Sixty-nine percent of America's small businesses believe those regulations are crippling their businesses. Now you have it in a nutshell why small business owners are afraid. These guys are truly the nation's job creators. Cripple them with higher taxes and strangulation red tape and tough times become catastrophic times. While these businesses write the paychecks for 50% of every working person in the United States, they now hire 70% of every new hire in the nation.

Barack Obama, who sees himself as a black FDR, is trying to rechart Roosevelt's history, walking in historic footprints that he believes will allow him, like Roosevelt, to blame their social progressive redistribution failures on their predecessors forever and ever. If America's job creators are going to survive Barack Obama, the American people need to demand that the Obama Administration take at least a 5-minute crash course in economics, not in fable-telling. We can create economic growth only by investing in the job creators, not penalizing them. Sadly, neither Reid nor Obama knows why what they are doing is wrong, and they are clueless how to fix it. And, that is why America's job creators are worried.






Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved