Category: Liberty Features Syndicate

On Monday it was announced that Fox News inked former Alaska Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin to a multi-year contract as a contributor to the news network. While her on-air duties were not specifically spelled out, it’s expected that she’ll provide expert analysis to the network’s election-night coverage and host an upcoming Fox News program called “Real American Stories,” which the network bills as, “a series exploring inspirational real-life tales of overcoming adversity throughout the American landscape.”

Straddling a border between politics and media is nothing new, although more often than not the line has been crossed the other way – Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger are but two examples of those who made their name in media before trying their luck in politics, while Senator and former presidential candidate Fred Thompson has managed a successful career in both arenas. Former CNN host and anchor Lou Dobbs is among those considering a similar move into the political scene after years in media.

But more and more that border is being traversed in the opposite direction.

Before Palin joined Fox News, one of the network’s brightest new stars was former Presidential contender and fellow governor Mike Huckabee. While his 2012 Presidential hopes may have been snuffed out by the recent murder of four police officers in Washington state by Maurice Clemmons, a convicted felon Huckabee helped to free from prison by commuting his sentence while serving as governor, when he was signed by Fox Governor Huckabee was still considered by many as a favorite for the 2012 GOP nod along with Sarah Palin and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Obviously in Huckabee’s instance, the Clemmons incident didn’t stem from anything he said as a Fox News employee. But given the propensity of the remainder of media to judge Sarah Palin by unrealistically high double standards, anything Palin says on the Fox network can and will be used against her in the court of public opinion.

Perhaps the best approach Fox can take with Palin heeds the old show business saying, “always leave ‘em wanting more.” One criticism leveled at President Obama is that he is always on television, the very definition of a media hog. Contrary to belief inside the White House, this overexposure is hurting his approval and credibility.

After Ronald Reagan left office as Governor of California, he had the opportunity to write and deliver a brief radio commentary each weekday for several years leading up to his 1980 campaign. These short essays kept him just close enough to the fray to be remembered but didn’t make him seem overexposed by being in the media for hours on end.

By that same token, if Governor Palin has the opportunity to judiciously dole out her appearances instead of being a nightly staple on Fox News it will enhance her political chances in the long run. With fewer opportunities for critics to jump on any misstatement she makes, Palin won’t be making the news so much as she’ll be delivering her message. And since her message of conservative principles is currently popular with the largest segment of the American people, exerting as much control of it as possible is in her best interest politically should she desire to return to that arena.

At the moment Palin’s approval ratings are comparable to those of the current Oval Office occupant. If she’s shrewd about the opportunity presented to her, Sarah Palin could create the message of her 2012 campaign and have the luxury of controlling it too.

Michael Swartz, an architect and editor of monoblogue, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Hey, I like the tagline and link. This effort for LFS cleared on January 15th and was picked up by the Palos Heights (IL) Reporter on January 21st.

It’s a new year and the economy can’t improve soon enough for cash-strapped cities, counties, and states across the country. With receipts from income taxes falling due to high unemployment, property tax dollars declining thanks to shrinking home values, and sales tax revenue flat despite increasing rates in many areas, state and local governments are searching hard for money to pay their bills.

When times were better, corporations shrewdly pitted cities and states against one another in a search for the best tax breaks. Local government was willing to give these large employers a break on some of their tax burden and help out with needed infrastructure in order to draw these companies and the employment they promised to provide to local communities. It was a win-win situation for both as companies had a willing partner in local government while politicians pointed with pride to the jobs they brought home to their districts.

Eventually the good times had to come to an end, however, and both employers and government struggle with trying to make ends meet. Yet those employers who took advantage of tax breaks to improve their bottom line have found difficulty meeting the numerical employee targets set by their agreements with local entities. Adding to their problem is having more and more local and state governing bodies use the “clawback” provision in their contracts with these corporations to cancel the tax breaks they gave away to attract the company in the first place.

Obviously a deal is a deal and local politicians rarely let the chance to add money to their coffers slip by, but perhaps in this case they are being a little hasty.

There are two categories of employers who have taken advantage of sweetheart deals with government to settle into a community. Some have never lived up to the employment promises made in their contracts for an assortment of reasons, but most were maintaining their employment numbers until economic conditions forced their hand, resulting in layoffs. Those companies are the ones who government should work with in order to find a suitable compromise measure instead of exacting a full penalty to a struggling company.

While economic conditions are difficult here, there are still hundreds of entities competing for large employers domestically, not to mention the siren song attraction of other nations who can woo manufacturers with the promises of cheaper labor costs and fewer regulations.

Certainly some companies who have never kept their word on employment numbers and feel pressured by local government to comply with their contracts to the letter may opt to bolt for greener pastures, but eventually that reputation will catch up to them and local politicians may be gunshy about believing the promises these scofflaws make. The ones who made the effort but decide to pull the plug because local authorities won’t work with them to find a sound middle ground for the time being would be the ones missed the most when they’re gone.

Unlike the popular perception created by Hollywood and the media, most employers attempt to be good citizens and improve the local cities, counties, and school districts in which they’re located. They give of their time through encouraging employee volunteerism and their money via charitable efforts as they strive to improve the places they call home. Shaking them down for a few dollars more may help the government’s bottom line, but that funding could come at some much larger expense if relationships become strained over a temporary setback.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Another in my continuing LFS series, this cleared back on January 6th.

Given the fact that the weeks leading up to Christmas and New Year’s Day are typically a dead zone for newsworthy items, it’s probable that whatever headlines aren’t made by the continuing battle over health care in Washington and feel-good holiday stories will be dedicated to a continuing series of year-end wrap-ups. The editorial page is seldom different, so this column takes a look at the year’s accomplishments of our nation’s most prominent news figure, President Barack Obama. (You were expecting Tiger Woods?)

When the President makes his State of the Union speech next month it’s likely he’ll point to the passage of his health care plan as his major victory. Most odd about this, though, is that he never actually had a health care reform plan, instead leaving Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders in charge of crafting the bill which made it through the House while Harry Reid and assorted Democratic minions in the Senate came up with a completely separate proposal. By splitting the duty of health care reform, not only did the plan have to deal with constantly shifting aspects like the in-again, out-again “public option” but it also lost the “transparency” Obama promised when he took office.

Transparency was the least of the Obama’s problems, though. He had a raft of economic issues to address, most of which he adroitly blamed on his predecessor and “the last eight years.” And for putting up $787 billion in a stimulus program, the promise was that unemployment wouldn’t rise past 8 percent. Perhaps it’s because a large chunk of stimulus money went to propping up various state budgets instead of the “shovel ready” jobs originally slated for funding, but unemployment eventually jumped to 10.2 percent in October before easing slightly to a round 10 percent in November. The stimulus has been so successful that Newsweek glowing predicted high unemployment to be the “new norm.”

Yet unemployment isn’t such a problem at businesses the President deems “too big to fail.” By expertly revamping the concept of paying creditors in a bankruptcy, General Motors and Chrysler went from publicly-owned businesses to enterprises bailed out by government funding and turned over in large part to the United Auto Workers. In response, sales at Ford have been the lone bright spot for Detroit.

But the auto industry in general was aided by $3 billion spent on the “Cash for Clunkers” program, which paid Americans to buy over 700,000 new cars. Never mind that new car sales plummeted immediately after the program ended and having the old clunkers rendered unusable all but destroyed the used car and parts markets – the program is still considered a success.

Perhaps the biggest triumph of Obama’s year, though, was avoidance of a foreign policy mistake. In fact, not only did Obama not have “an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test (his) mettle,” as Vice-President Biden warned, but based on a scant few months in office he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps it was a tribute to Obama’s charisma that he received the prize despite ramping up a war in Afghanistan by sending over 30,000 more troops, but it’s more likely that his deliberation in taking months to decide on that number was the factor that sealed the deal.

Or maybe he bowed to the right people. Whatever the reason, it’s certain that President Obama can consider this year a success; after all, he gave himself a B-plus.

And to think – America has three more years to see if he can get to an A.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

This op-ed cleared on December 23rd and was featured in the Walterboro (SC) Press and Standard December 31st. Had they done it a couple days earlier I could have bought the paper on my way back from Florida!

In a recent edition of Newsweek, one article suggests, “Joblessness is Here to Stay,” and posits that, “flat is the new up” when it comes to employment figures. All in all, the article comes through as a manual on how to lower economic expectations.

Aside from the fact that the magazine itself may be the next venerable employer to shave jobs – as both circulation and advertising revenue continue to be in a free fall for Newsweek and its other weekly news magazine cousins – this points out a trend in economic reporting which also underlines why fewer and fewer people trust the old media for their information.

Over the last few months, bad economic news has become “unexpected,” as in “jobless claims unexpectedly increased to 500,000 for the week,” or, “wholesale prices unexpectedly jumped 4/10 of a percent, surprising analysts who expected a slight decline.” You get the picture.

It seemed like the shoe was on the other foot just a year or so ago, when the rosier economic numbers we experienced then always seemed to confound the so-called experts who expected declines. (If your local meteorologist’s weather forecasts were as poor as the performance some of these economists had put in recently, you’d be forced to keep an umbrella handy at all times just to be on the safe side.)

Newsweek could be correct in its assertion this time, though, and the high unemployment rate may be here for a number of years. The question not being asked, however, is how we got here in the first place and why was it a surprise?

Over the last few years, we have seen one bubble after another collapse in on itself, much as a house of cards falls down when one card is misplaced or disturbed. The burst of the housing bubble begat the fall of a number of banks and financial institutions, which, in turn, battered the market for consumer credit. Homeowners found themselves both under water on their mortgage based on the disappearance of the home’s equity value they had borrowed against and quite possibly out of a job as companies shed workers to maintain some semblance of a decent bottom line. Those newly jobless could no longer maintain their previous standard of living, even if they were drawing unemployment checks.

The idea of lowering expectations, though, provides cover for not properly addressing the conditions which led to the problem in the first place. President Obama’s recent “jobs summit” pointed this out quite well as the invitation list left out many in the private sector who have great ideas on how to create jobs but haven’t stood foursquare behind the idea of government intervention to jumpstart the economy.

We continually hear about how the unemployment numbers are the worst in a quarter-century, but we rarely hear about how these numbers eventually declined to the 5% rate (or less) we enjoyed as recently as May 2008.

Ronald Reagan chose to resurrect the horrible economy he inherited from Jimmy Carter through a broad-based tax cut. It’s also worth recalling that, like today, Reagan labored under a highly partisan Democratic House who refused to cut social program and entitlement spending.

But, since the only tax cuts President Obama seems to favor are those narrowly targeted for specific behaviors, it’s quite possible that Newsweek is simply making this prediction because they know the results of Obama’s policies will speak for themselves. And they’re right this time – if Obama continues on his course, don’t expect a real recovery anytime soon.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

My latest LFS piece originally cleared December 17.

An interesting poll came out this week and the result probably made Michael Steele and his Republican National Committee cohorts inside the Beltway lose some sleep.

With a question patterned after the generic Congressional ballots Rasmussen surveys from time to time, it was found that 36% of voters would vote for a Democrat and 18% of voters would support a Republican. But 23% would go with a third option, an option that Rasmussen pollsters characterized as imagining the TEA Party coalition as its own political party.

The surprise was apparent because in recent months the GOP had pulled ahead of Democrats in two-way generic Congressional polling just as President Obama has also seen his support tumbling. It looked like the path was clear for a GOP resurgence in 2010.

But this schism in the GOP manifested itself in the NY-23 Congressional race, where GOP selection Dede Scozzafava and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman split 51.3% of the vote, allowing Democrat Bill Owens a win by plurality.

On a more national scale, history suggests that America splits on the right side of the political spectrum more often than on the left, although recent elections have seen a third-party nominee upset the apple cart once on both sides. By running as part of a significant third party, Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 changed the course of those elections and helped place the eventual winner in office.

While some in the GOP have reached out to the once disaffected and now motivated electorate comprising much of the TEA Party movement, those voters recall the GOP was in control of Washington from 2000 to 2006 and made a lot of questionable moves such as creating a new prescription drug entitlement in Medicare Part D, placing the federal government in further control of local school districts with the No Child Left Behind legislation, and backing down on Social Security reform. All the while federal spending increased, leaving tax cuts and national security after the terrorist attacks on 9-11 the only satisfactory item on the checklist of most fiscal and social conservatives.

With the Rasmussen polling result in hand, those among the TEA Partiers who believe a third party is the way to go gained some fresh ammunition – or so they thought. But even the Rasmussen pollsters warned that an actual third party on the ballot would stand little chance of achieving the results suggested by the poll.

Instead, the better approach may be one that some TEA Party organizers and participants detest, and that’s becoming involved in the existing two-party political apparatus.

It’s apparent to some in the Republican Party grassroots that more attention should be paid to the activists demanding a return to Reagan-era conservatism. Witness the resolution to be debated at the upcoming RNC Winter Meeting which demands candidates who expect help from the national party to be supportive of at least eight points of a ten-point platform which stresses both fiscal and social conservative values along with a strong national defense.

But it’s up to GOP candidates to attract the 23 percent who would otherwise prefer a third-party alternative. With the TEA Party votes and campaign support, the GOP stands a chance of taking back Congress. Without that vote, they are doomed.

Many orators throughout our history have noted that, “united we stand, divided we fall.” Adding the TEA Party coalition to the Republican column can mean victory, but the Republicans need to give these voters a reason to come out and support them.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicate writer.

In my continuing series of op-eds I pen for LFS, this one cleared on December 11.

After the disastrous Christmas shopping season of 2008, it’s understandable that retailers desire 2009 to be a makeup year. They’re hoping that pent-up demand for “must have” electronic items and less pricey gifts catering to those desiring creature comforts like sweaters and other clothing items will place their bottom line squarely in the black this year – after all, Black Friday comes with the hope that subsequent holiday sales will make the year’s profit.

But even with the huge crowds swarming around stores in the predawn hours of Black Friday, retailers only saw a modest gain in overall sales. It could portend yet another lousy Christmas shopping season, particularly if the items drawing interest only did so because of heavy discounts placed on loss leaders.

Observers, though, always seem to be shocked by making the yearly realization that shoppers are waiting for a bargain. Even in the best of times there are price-conscious consumers, so it’s hardly a stretch to believe this year will not be a seller’s market.

One thing holding shoppers back from profligate spending is the new idea that cash is king. Not only are consumers holding out for the best bargains, the wait-and-see approach also comes from the realization that their next paycheck may well be their last. As private employers have reduced hours and slashed staff, even the employees of state and local governments once practically immune from job cuts face unpaid furlough days reducing their incomes too.

On the other side of the frugality equation is a preemptive strike by credit card companies to increase interest rates and reduce credit lines in the face of new government regulations affecting their industry. With many homeowners now unable to support their spending habit through home equity lines of credit because of sagging home values due to a glut of real estate on the market, they have little choice but to cut back on their giving and use their assets on hand rather than borrow in order to purchase gifts for their entire list.

There’s no question that Americans are being taught a useful lesson in living within their means this Christmas – in fact, this may be the year homemade gifts make a comeback. Unfortunately, the house of cards our consumer spending-driven economy became is still tumbling down and government policies aren’t conducive to turn it into an economy driven by savings and investment, at least not in the short term.

With unemployment at a rate unseen in a quarter-century and Americans feeling the pinch of having their savings and assets wiped out by the downturn in the financial and housing markets, the prospects of a profitable green Christmas for retailers aren’t very good. Retailers who are invested in the mantra of “shop until you drop” may themselves end up dropping like flies like former electronics retailer Circuit City did last year. In turn that vicious cycle throws more people out of work and forces them to drain their assets in order to survive.

Millions of Americans can consider the last year a lost year insofar as saving for their future goes and a lot of people are back to square one financially, having lost everything they owned in a tide of mounting debt. Since they can’t print money like the federal government can to mask its deficit spending, making up their financial losses will take several years of frugality by Americans, and retailers may dread the prospect of getting several more lumps of coal in their stockings as Christmas shoppers try to recover over the next decade.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Written in the wake of Black Friday, this piece cleared LFS just last Monday.

Lost in the Democratic euphoria over the passage of H.R. 3962, the House health care bill, is that the 220-215 vote was aided by two House members hastily sworn in after special elections earlier in the week. Moreover, the lone Republican who voted for the bill, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana, only did so once the magic 218 vote threshold was passed. Had his vote been necessary to get to 218, it’s not clear whether he would have bucked his party.

In practice, most members of Congress are elected in November and sworn in the next January, leaving plenty of time for local election boards to have the races certified and assure the people’s choice is indeed going to Washington. But in this case neither Bill Owens, winner of the New York-23 election over Doug Hoffman nor John Garamendi of California had their election certified before being sworn in.

In Garamendi’s case, the margin of victory was insurmountable and the result won’t change. But Hoffman conceded the race on election night based on faulty information from two counties in the wide-ranging New York district. Given the counting errors which went against Hoffman and the thousands of absentee ballots which hadn’t been counted (or even received from far-flung military personnel stationed out of Fort Drum), there is a slight chance that the wrong person took the oath of office just in time to cast his vote for the Democrats’ bill.

Even if the New York-23 result doesn’t change, the practice of hurriedly adding members to the House in order to help assure bill passage does a disservice to the integrity of the process. There wasn’t the rush for the Senate to swear in Norm Coleman of Minnesota based on initial election results – as we found out, seemingly every break went Al Franken’s way and eventually it was ruled he had the higher vote total. So far the New York-23 count seems to be placing Doug Hoffman in Franken’s role.

While Democrats argued that Hoffman conceded the race on election night, recent history shows a case where a candidate for office conceded, then unconceded when he learned about alleged election irregularities. Recall how Al Gore fought the Florida results all the way to the Supreme Court, even after they were certified by the state.

Without the two new House members and Cao’s vote in favor, suddenly we have a situation where one vote literally makes a difference. No one would want to be known as the deciding vote for a bill that’s less than popular along the electorate at large, so it’s even questionable that Pelosi would bring a vote forward without an assured majority. She had a difficult time holding the Democrats she had without being short two votes.

Because they run the show in Washington, Democrats have been nearly ruthless in their quest for absolute power, even arranging to change state law in Massachusetts to quickly assure themselves the magic 60-seat majority in the Senate after the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Yet Democrats are the first to challenge election integrity when they find themselves on the short end of a close election. Certainly there is the occasional case where they are correct, but more often it’s a ploy to impose their will through the courts rather than fairly at the ballot box. If Doug Hoffman was the rightful winner in New York-23, it serves to bring up the question whether Democrats are more interested in maintaining the integrity of the electoral system or gaming it to achieve their own ends.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

The latest LFS contribution of mine cleared back on November 23rd.

Earlier this month it was announced the unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent, reaching double-digits for the first time in 26 years. Though the rate had been expected to top 10 percent for some time due to our anemic economic recovery – and despite billions of dollars in stimulus money – the stark reality of having an unemployment rate usually associated with the socialist regimes of Europe still smacked casual observers in the face.

Yet Congress used the same tired solutions to address the issue, further extending unemployment benefits while also extending and expanding a targeted tax break designed to maintain the housing industry. Unsurprisingly, the Realtor lobby was foursquare behind the extension.

Economists generally argue that unemployment is a lagging indicator; in other words the employment rate doesn’t keep up with the overall economy. True, the unemployment rate stayed under 5 percent well after the recession began in late 2007 and not holding above that mark until May of 2008.

However, the severity and wide range of this downturn through both business and personal finances means the financial spigot will be turned off for some time. High unemployment may also portend the start of a vicious cycle leading to a deeper, “double-dip” recession.

Over the last few decades, our economy has come to depend on consumer spending for about two-thirds of its activity. Fueled by easy credit and a continual increase in home values – which led to a boom in lending based on home equity – Americans spent money on consumer goods and increased their standard of living beyond that of any country in history.

This wave of prosperity can be traced all the way back to just after World War II. Once returning servicemen were absorbed by the job market, American prosperity grew at an unprecedented rate. All the while we slowly forgot the lessons of thrift and saving the generation growing up during the Great Depression learned the hard way. Certainly there were bumps in the road, but the general trend in economics was such even the poorest Americans had a standard of living unthinkable a generation prior.

As credit became easier and debt no longer feared, Americans overextended themselves at an alarming rate. Therein lies the biggest difference between the recession of the early 1980’s and today’s economic woes: whereas families kept savings to fall back on during previous times, their profligate spending over the last two decades left them deeply in debt and owning a house worth less than their mortgage thanks to the collapse of the housing bubble, not to mention likely to be either unemployed or having their hours cut back. In short, Americans are being burned by the heated economic expansion they created.

While the government attempts to create stimulus through spending and creating debt, prudent Americans are doing what they can to build savings and cutting back on unnecessary items, with retail analysts predicting a gloomy Christmas shopping season. Unfortunately, the spending by Uncle Sam will hamper the efforts of American families to get back on their feet and may prolong the down cycle.

It’s time for government to follow the lead of the last President who inherited a financial crisis. Worthy of note is that the high unemployment rate under President Reagan declined quickly once the tax cuts he pushed through Congress took effect. With President Bush’s tax cuts from earlier this decade due to expire next year, raising taxes on anyone now would be deleterious to the recovery we need.

America needs to be put to work through the private sector, so let’s allow capitalism to do its job.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

The latest in my series of op-eds for LFS, this cleared back on November 17th.

For decades, the AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons; now they simply go by the acronym) has advocated for the interest of senior citizens. In the process they’ve become known both as a fearsome lobbying group for older Americans and as a marketing brand whose imprimatur is highly sought after by other businesses who wish to cater to the early-era Baby Boomers and the Greatest Generation. Many of those businesses sell insurance and insurance-related products, so it’s obvious they have a stake in the pending fate of the health care reform some dub “Obamacare”.

And in this health care debate AARP is using the force of their lobbying (and, by extension, their supposed voter base) to enrich themselves as a marketing brand. A large percentage of AARP revenues come from their insurance brokering business, where insurers remit “royalty fees” to AARP as the cost for using their moniker. In fact, the income from licensing the AARP name to just one company – UnitedHealth Group – is now larger than its income from membership dues. UnitedHealth chipped in nearly $400 million to AARP’s coffers last year. By way of comparison, total AARP income from all sources was $1.1 billion.

This key portion of AARP’s revenue comes in large part from the sale of so-called “Medigap” policies, which are designed for those instances where Medicare doesn’t completely cover costs. These policies compete with Medicare Advantage, which leans more on private providers and is a target of cuts in health care reform bills circulating through Congress. Obviously slashing Medicare Advantage could positively impact AARP’s bottom line.

But there are other, less well known benefits to AARP in some of the health care legislation before Congress.

As one example, in H.R. 3200 Medicare Advantage would be required to spend 85 cents of every premium dollar on claims. But Medigap policies such as the ones AARP sells would be required to spend just 65 cents of each dollar for claims. While AARP affiliates offer both, the organization does a larger share of business from Medigap and would stand to make more profit through offering it – their Medicare Advantage insurance offerings could well “wither on the vine.” More importantly, AARP’s support of Obamacare could garner them an exception from the “windfall profits” tax insurers would pay under the legislation. When there’s $3.4 billion over the last decade at stake, being waived from paying a fair share means quite a chunk of change.

Meanwhile, backing Obamacare has driven thousands of former AARP participants to cancel their membership, although the group argues those dissatisfied are a tiny fraction of their overall base and pales in comparison to the number of those who are new or renewed over the timeframe.

The point these former members make, though, is a sound one. They contend that supporting Obamacare is detrimental to seniors in the long run. Much of that argument hinges on seniors’ legitimate fear of rationed care being instituted under the government’s not-so-watchful eye, and they chastise AARP for putting profits ahead of principle in this case. Certainly former AARP CEO William Novelli profited from his tenure, making over $1 million in total compensation last year.

Those who run and profit from the reputation of AARP may regret casting their lot with the Democrats on this issue. While the group bills itself as nonpartisan, they may find themselves on the losing end of both members and lobbying interests should Republicans use the organization’s support of Obamacare to cement the senior vote in the next few election cycles.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Another in my continuing series of LFS op-eds, this originally cleared November 6th.

The recent history of stimulus programs suggests that at least two ideas thought at first to be surefire winners left a lot to be desired once the results came in.

We all know that the nearly $800 billion package of government spending which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent has instead led to near-double digit joblessness – at least that’s according to the “official” rate, which doesn’t count those who have given up the job search. Factor that group in and the true number is roughly 1 in 6 workers who are jobless.

The second idea of direct cash payments, hatched in 2008 under the Bush administration, cost another $150 billion and barely made a dent in the economic decline as most saved the lump-sum payment or used it to catch up with bills. That initial stimulus turned out to be a short-term boon to creditors but did little to forestall the inevitable economic catastrophe.

So, after trying two “top-down” approaches which cost American taxpayers almost $1 trillion – funding, by the way, that the government didn’t have – perhaps a better idea would be one which keeps money in the pockets of hard-working Americans (at least those who have jobs), allowing them to direct their investment where they see fit. Moreover, it’s an idea already employed by millions of producers and entrepreneurs who aren’t among those receiving a regular paycheck but make their living as independent contractors or via commissions.

Earlier this year Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) advocated a two-month suspension of backup withholding by introducing legislation in the House. The reasoning behind his effort was to jumpstart the economy by keeping more money in the hands of working people and allowing them to choose whether they invested or spent what they earned.

Given our troubled economic times it makes sense to take a fresh look at the usefulness of backup withholding.

The practice came from the necessity of fighting World War II, and was billed as a temporary solution to the problem of keeping the federal coffers filled and maintaining our war effort against two far-flung enemies. Americans sacrificed in numerous ways during the wartime period but little by little those restrictions were phased out once hostilities ended – all except backup withholding.

Soon the working class deceived itself, embracing the method of taking a little extra out of each check to ensure a bigger refund from the IRS the next spring. The politicians shrewdly calculated this was the way to exact a loan for their spending from the American worker – a loan repaid, without interest, with the check grateful Americans saw as manna from Heaven.

On the other hand, making Americans pay taxes quarterly to the federal government places them in a position where they see the impact on their bank account frivolous federal spending makes. Because of this awareness, allowing wage earners to keep and control their money until the quarterly payment would come due is a benefit Uncle Sam is loath to provide, and they fret about having a shortfall in a time of need.

Yet the idea of trying the same old failed, budget-busting programs for any further stimulus seems like a continuation of Washington’s collective insanity, and given the choice of who controls the purse strings it’s far better to leave the individual in charge than to let Congress determine who wins and loses. Their track record in that regard is not very good.

Let’s follow Gohmert’s lead and put an end to backup withholding once and for all.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Featured Syndicated writer.

Yet another installment of my op-eds for LFS, this cleared back on October 29. Now we indeed have the double-digit unemployment.

It was just over a year ago that Congress allowed a ban on offshore oil exploration to expire. In the wake of a summer featuring $4 a gallon gasoline and an angry public demanding we “drill here, drill now, and pay less” the time was ripe for increasing domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas.

But as pump prices slowly declined from their peak and Barack Obama won the election with a promise to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the focus for our energy solution turned from finding new oil to research into new technologies in the renewable energy field. With 2009 having come and nearly gone without another huge spike in pump prices, there hasn’t been the intensity of demand for ramping up exploration for oil and natural gas off our shores – or anywhere else domestically for that matter.

Yet other nations haven’t turned their back on black gold. A large number of newly found oilfields worldwide may push this year’s total discovery to 20 billion barrels of new reserves, the best mark since 2000. While some American oil companies are involved in these finds and will bring those fields online in coming years, they do little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Instead, the Department of the Interior has dithered and delayed on the enactment of the most recent five-year offshore drilling plan and tacitly supported the numerous environmental groups who throw roadblocks into the process of finding oil and natural gas by demanding more impact studies. Their stalling tactics have placed a number of promising projects on the back burner and forced energy companies to go elsewhere for the supplies they need to meet our national demand.

It seems that the Obama administration’s haste to cut American carbon emissions – a process aided by our moribund economy – has led to no small amount of uncertainty among companies supplying our energy needs. It’s an uncertainty that exacerbates the oil import problem Obama pledged to solve because new technology, which certainly essential to our future needs, does little to help in the here and now. We can’t fuel those cars bought with the taxpayers’ “Cash for Clunkers” money with wind or sunshine.

Moreover, in a recessionary period where new private-sector jobs are scarce, the economic boost additional domestic oil and gas exploration can provide would aid in pulling America out of its doldrums. Each job created extracting oil or natural gas spawns other jobs in a number of service and manufacturing sectors at minimum cost to the taxpayer. In the case of offshore drilling the federal government stands to gain billions of dollars in leasing fees if exploration is allowed in areas previously off-limits.

The only thing seemingly standing in the way of a balanced approach combining increased exploration and development of America’s oil and natural gas reserves and the research and discovery of new energy technology is the lobby which believes in manmade climate change, despite the global temperature decline over the last decade. It’s that group pressing our government for concessions at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

Instead of passing the Waxman-Markey or Kerry-Boxer legislation, which favors the unproven technology of renewable energy and taxes the carbon-based energy sources we rely on now, let’s step back and allow the market to prevail. The sticker shock of $4 a gallon gasoline we experienced a summer ago may be a fond memory if we place ourselves at the mercy of foreign oil suppliers without a backup plan of new exploration to see us through.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicate writer.

This was the thirteenth in my continuing LFS series and cleared October 22nd.

A little-noticed aspect of Washington’s health care reform is the impact it will have on state spending. In this era where states find themselves behind the budgetary 8-ball because revenues constantly fall short of expectations, governors worry that assuming their share of the cost for an expanded Medicaid program could force them to make unpopular cuts elsewhere or send their treasuries spiraling toward bankruptcy.

So far, states have weathered these hard times in no small part due to the generosity of Uncle Sam, with a large portion of stimulus funding spent thus far devoted to firming up states financially. But the red ink will remain as long as the economy shows a lack of growth and revenue streams once thought reliable – such as “sin” taxes on tobacco and alcohol, increased opportunities for state-sponsored gambling, or additional levies on the wealthiest taxpayers – fail to bear monetary fruit. Much as governors hate to make hard decisions, eventually there will be a day of reckoning in the area where states spend the largest amount of money – education.

According to figures from the National Association of State Budget Officers, in 2007 the percentage of state spending on Medicaid and K-12 education was exactly the same: 21.2% of their total expenditures went to each of these two components, totaling about $3 for every $7 states spent overall. However, if you only count state general fund expenditures, the K-12 education share leaps to 34.5% while Medicaid drops off to 16.9 percent. Add in higher education and according to the NASBO figures nearly half of state general fund dollars go toward education. Thus one would expect at least some necessary cuts to come out of that large proportion of state spending, especially when states – unlike the federal government – have to balance their budgets.

Yet on the state level education seems to be a “third rail” issue: touch it and you’ll be politically dead. In certain states the amount of education funding has been mandated by court order, but all states have a politically powerful lobby best known as the teachers union and those who face election rarely dare to do battle with them.

It’s for this reason state governors worry about the upcoming budget strain that expanding Medicaid on a federal level may provide and why they look to Uncle Sam to pull them out of the fire. This dependence comes with big risk, though, because no one can truly gage the impact “free” health care will have on the bottom line. However, governors are quite aware of the political cost of making cuts to education.

There’s a solution few in Washington dare to talk about, though. While there are those in Congress who pay lip service to decreasing the size and scope of federal government, no one is forcefully advocating an obvious solution: allow the states to tailor their own programs and slowly back the federal government out of both the health care and education realms.

In a world where the status quo doesn’t seem to work anymore, states which simply pass their overspending on to the federal coffers and expect continual bailouts fall short of the expectations of their taxpayers who are screaming, “Enough!” The people have seen the result of increased federal involvement in state affairs over the years, so governors who put off the hard choices they have to make by going to the federal trough and seem unwilling to make cuts won’t get a lot of sympathy.

Governors should instead be pushing for the chance to govern for themselves, not be slaves to a Washington master.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

The twelfth in my series for LFS, this cleared back on October 15th.