In 2009, President Obama created the Jobs Council to work very hard on recommendations for strengthening the economy. The Chair was Jeffrey Immelt, who runs General Electric. He’s also a big Obama supporter on this “non-partisan” council. Another prominent member was Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, which provided the shock troops for Obama in the last election. Good to know he’s non-partisan as well. There also were probably some genuine people on this council that really wanted to do something useful. However, since its inception nearly four years ago, the council has met only four times, the last meeting occurring one year ago. Apparently, they had nothing to talk about. The economy is thriving, jobs are being created at a record pace, and . . . oh, wait a minute . . . sorry, that was a White House talking point, not an actual report.

Last week, the Jobs Council was shut down for good. There’s no longer a need for it since its main purpose seemed to be providing cover for the president. It created the appearance he was doing something about the economy. Now that he’s won reelection, the need to provide cover has dissipated.

Jobs Council or not, we’re still stuck in the same old economy we’ve had throughout the Obama years, and we continue to hear the same old refrain for why things are dragging:

Yes, unlike the Jobs Council, the blame game has not shut down.

With this approach, don’t expect anything to improve anytime soon.

Now that we’re talking about taxing the rich more and face the specter of all the Bush tax cuts being eliminated, I thought I’d look up some figures from the 1980s to see what happened when Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rates. How did this affect revenue? An article from the Cato Institute provides the numbers. The author of the article, Richard Rahn, notes that most of the Reagan tax cuts were applied to those in the middle- and lower-income brackets, which is something that may surprise some readers who are used to being told Republicans only give tax breaks to the rich.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), total tax revenues in the 1980s did fall as a portion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but the reason that percentage went down is because the economy grew at an astounding rate. In real terms, it grew 34.3% from 1982 to 1989, “much faster than the 24.3% rate expected even by economists within the Reagan administration. Thus, by the time President Reagan left office, the economy was generating more tax revenue at a maximum 28% rate than many on the left forecast it to generate at a maximum 70% rate.”

In other words, there is a point at which higher tax rates are counterproductive. More revenue can be obtained with moderate rates than with high ones. Rahn concludes, “The Reagan tax-rate reductions did, in fact, pay for themselves—but it took about seven years.”

When Obama says he will only increase taxes on the rich, he’s talking about those who make more than $200,000 per year. Yet many small businesses fall in that category, and they are the ones who create most of the new jobs and fund new investment. In effect, the president will be declaring war on small businesses, and in the process putting more people in the unemployment lines.

In my opinion, that might be what he wants to do. The more people who are dependent on the government for their sustenance, the more loyalty he will generate for himself and his administration. His ideology is Marxist at its core, and he doesn’t really care to create prosperity via the private sector. He would rather see it shrink and watch the government grow more powerful.

Some may protest: surely he wouldn’t want us to follow the same path as other bankrupt nations, would he? I’m not so sure. An ideologue is an ideologue—it’s what motivates him.

We see the same thing happening in some states. California is a prime example. Gov. Jerry Brown is leading the state into increased spending and higher taxes while the state veers toward insolvency. Fortunately, the damage within a state can be contained, and people have the option to go elsewhere, to states that still grasp the basics of how free enterprise works.

So don’t be fooled by the rhetoric of “fairness.” In the end, if Obama and the Democrats get their way, we all will be worse off.

President Obama’s press conference last week didn’t go as well as he had hoped. When asked about the economy, he stated, “the private sector is doing fine.” That brought such a barrage of incredulity that he had to go before the cameras once more and walk back those remarks. But the damage was done. The Romney campaign already has an ad running touting how out of touch the president is. The ad is accurate.

Yet there was another part of his statement that was even more revealing than his knowledge deficit on the status of the private sector. He remarked that the “real” problem we face is the loss of jobs in state and local governments. That, he believes, is the true indicator of our economic woes. In other words, cutting back on government spending is the culprit. If only governments at all levels would spend more, this economy would be booming. You know, like it did after his stimulus package. Right.

These comments showcase the Obama worldview: it’s a world where government is the engine for prosperity, not private business. Only more government spending and more government control over the choices of individuals, families, churches, and businesses will create the type of society where all are happy.

Well, he’s had three years to test that hypothesis. His administration touted the summer of 2010 as “Recovery Summer.” Does anyone recall that recovery? Where do we stand this summer?

Recovery Summer III is a sequel that has lost its glitter.

That press conference was only the last of a series of awful events for this White House in the past few weeks. Here’s a short list of what has gone wrong for the Obama team:

• Key Democrats have criticized the Obama campaign’s attacks on Bain Capital, Romney’s old firm. Newark, New Jersey, mayor Cory Booker called the attacks “nauseating.” He’s no longer on the president’s short list for a cabinet post. Bill Clinton keeps going rogue as well, first saying that Romney did a fine job at Bain, then advocating the extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone, even the wealthy. He was called to task on that last one and did his own walkback. Some are seriously wondering if he’s secretly hoping to torpedo Obama’s reelection. They’ve never been the best of friends.
• The jobs report a week and a half ago was dismal. Even with more people dropping out of the workforce, the unemployment rate still went up.
• National security leaks have outraged both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress. Some of these leaks could only have come from individuals in the inner circle of the White House due to the nature of the knowledge leaked. Accusations that the Obama campaign is orchestrating the leaks to bolster Obama’s “tough guy” image are increasing.
• Scott Walker’s solid victory in the Wisconsin recall election does not bode well for Obama either. It means Wisconsin is probably in play for the Republicans. Obama studiously avoided being seen or heard anywhere near Wisconsin in the days leading up to the election. He knew defeat was looming.
• Attorney General Eric Holder is on the edge of receiving a contempt of Congress slap in the face for his continued stonewalling on the Fast and Furious investigation. Holder’s arrogance and stubbornness mirror that of his boss.

But of course we know none of this is Obama’s fault. How do we know? He has said so repeatedly. When his portrait is eventually placed in the White House next to George Bush’s [sooner rather than later, one hopes], I think it may be one of the most original of all the portraits:

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is truly fascinating. They seem to show up everywhere now. I guess they got tired of Wall Street. Newt Gingrich had his speech interrupted by some of them yesterday. I guess they’re also tired of free speech. What exactly do they want?

Well, some of them apparently aren’t all in for the cause . . . unless, of course, the cause benefits them personally. I think they still have an ally in the White House.

The cartoon above is referring to a pipeline project that will not only create jobs but will help America become more self-reliant in energy production.

So why is Obama nixing this project? I thought he was trying to create jobs. Hasn’t he said that’s his number one priority? Could it be that he’s not really serious about that? In fact, he seems to be bowing to the environmental extremists on this one, putting himself at odds with unions, another one of his key constituencies. It must be hard juggling all those interest groups all the time.

I have a novel idea. Why not just do the right thing? I know that’s kind of radical, but he might want to give it a try for a change.

All last week, the “green” scandals grew. The one getting the most press had to do with a solar energy company, Solyndra, that obtained a government-backed loan of more than half a billion dollars. The company was such a bad risk that the Bush administration refused the loan. Yet when Obama took over, it suddenly was on the table once more.

To the credit of the government officials who investigated Solyndra, they steadfastly warned the White House not to go ahead with the loan. They predicted the company would probably fail, and the taxpayers would have to eat the failed loan. Stubbornly, Obama and his inner circle dismissed the warnings.

The company went belly-up. The taxpayers are out more than half a billion dollars.

The story isn’t over. Investigations are just now ramping up. The latest accusation is that the administration reworked the loan so that one of Solyndra’s principal investors—also a big donor to Obama—would get reimbursed before any of the ordinary taxpayers. Politics, Chicago style. Corruption, Chicago style. That’s where the president cut his political teeth.

It’s not just Solyndra, however, and it’s not “merely” a half billion that has gone down the “green hole.” Ideological blindness has led this administration to spend $17 billion [so far---another $17 billion promised] for green energy programs. This stimulus was touted as a job creator. Let’s look at the results. That $17 billion created exactly 3,545 jobs, which comes to a princely sum of $4,853,000 per job. Spending nearly $5 million for each job? It’s beyond ridiculous. It truly is scandalous.

Everything President Obama has touched has turned to ashes. I don’t see how any fair observer of events can perceive anything but failure for all his programs. This is a failed presidency. What can he do to redeem himself? Well, if past actions are any indication, he will use this line of reasoning:

The only real question remaining is whether the American voter will allow this pitiful excuse for a presidency to continue.

There’s a new urgency in President Obama’s desire to create jobs. He’s certainly pushing for the passage of his new [?], improved [?] jobs bill. He keeps repeating two words over and over:

Good thing it’s a credit deal. I mean, otherwise we might actually have to pay for it sometime. Well, that seems to be how some people think—or don’t think. But here’s how it really works:

You see, that money doesn’t just appear by magic. It does have to come from somewhere:

The bill also is loaded with wonderful incentives for business:

Sounds a little difficult. So who really benefits from all this?

And why is that so important to this president?

Everything is now all about November 2012.

The details of the Obama jobs plan were unveiled yesterday. Most of the plan is warmed-over stimulus policy. The president is sold on the efficacy of the Keynesian model of economics. That’s where you spend tax money to try to promote growth. The only problem is that most of the growth is in the government sector. The private sector lags behind. Yet that’s where real jobs are grown.

We operate on a false assumption: government somehow creates prosperity. Presidents like Obama believe he and his policies are the engine whereby jobs are manufactured. That’s more “virtual reality” than anything else. He clings stubbornly to the idea that the next $400-some billion will finally do it—put us over the top economically. In the real world, all that does is put us deeper in debt.

One cartoonist explained the Obama approach this way:

Another one with the same perspective illustrated it in this manner:

They’re both right.

This foolishness needs to end before we do.