Religious Freedom

From AD 30 to 33, as the millennia are now reckoned, an itinerant rabbi named Yeshua ben Yusef, later surnamed el-Mashīah, preached a new gospel to the Jews, God's chosen people. He was tried, condemned and executed for this preaching because it threatened the existing religious and civil authority – or so those authorities thought. Hastily buried before a coming Jewish holiday, His body lay in a borrowed tomb. As dawn rose after the holy day was completed, two women, devout disciples, returned to the tomb to give the body proper care. They found the tomb open and a heavenly herald standing nearby:

And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. [Matthew 27:5-6, KJV]

The Messiah had fulfilled, in the ultimate, the commandment given to Moses – to "proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." [Leviticus 25:10 ] But the work of proclaiming this gospel, the "good news" of salvation, was just beginning. Though the Roman Empire was generally tolerant of the religions of the conquered, this new faith bore watching. Paganism was the state religion and the Emperor was Pontifex Maximus. No new gods were permitted to challenge Caesar, only the conquered gods of conquered states.

 
For 300 years, Christians, as they came to be called, met n secret; in homes and forests and catacombs. Then, according to legend, Constantine, surnamed the Great, was riding at the head of his army when he saw, in daylight vision, a cross and heard, "By this sign, conquer!" The victory that followed convinced this lifelong pagan that this new god was God, and an imperial edict made Christianity a legal religion. Two generation later, a Christian Emperor would disclaim the title Pontifex Maximus, making Christianity the Empire's state religion. In fact, when Rome fell, and a thousand years later, when Constantinople fell, the Churches were the only imperial institutions to survive. By that time, the oppressed had become the establishment – the Roman Catholic Church in the west, and the Orthodox Church in the east. They, too, would look with disfavor on any challenge to their authority, whether by those they called heretics, or between those two seats of power.

 
But, as these things do, times changed. Though the Roman Catholic Church was synonymous with Christianity in Western Europe, not all the faithful were also the satisfied. Silent questions became open debates in 1517, when a monk, Martin Luther, distributed his now-famous 95 Theses. According to legend, he tacked them to the door of his church. More likely, they were distributed in letters to other monks and bishops, to spark debates over the practice of indulgences. Whatever the history, history changed from that moment. Building on the quiet efforts of Wycliffe and Zwingli, the dissatisfied became more open, and these scattered dissidents became aware that they were not alone.

 
Of course, the Powers-That-Were were not pleased. The divine right of kings was established political doctrine, and challenges to the Church could likewise be challenges to the throne. The "Lutherans" were declared outlaw, but, as Jerusalem and Rome had proven centuries earlier, one cannot outlaw conscience. Luther, Zwingli, Henry VIII, Calvin, Knox and others formalized their dissent. Lutherans, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Reformed, Presbyterians and other churches began to operate outside Rome's sanction. Before the first generation of Reformers was laid to rest, the first of many religious wars was fought. The War of Schmalkald (1546-55) pitted Catholic Holy Roman Emperor Charles V against German principalities that had adopted Lutheranism. Though Charles was militarily victorious, he could not force the Lutherans back to Catholicism. Europe formally adopts the concept of a "state religion" in the Peace of Augsburg: Each prince in the Empire will choose an official religion for his territory – Catholicism or Lutheranism. It is a blow to the Reformers, but not a fatal one; those who do not follow the state-sanctioned faith are guaranteed the right to leave the state.

 
Some rulers, over the centuries that follow, would experiment with various levels of religious freedom, but most of these come only after long, painful, internal struggles. England was a typical example: When Henry VIII broke from Rome and established the Church of England, many of his subjects (including his daughter, Mary) refused to renounce their Catholic faith. After succeeding her father, she tried to repoint England's moral compass toward Rome, but her death brought her Anglican half-sister, Elizabeth, to the throne in 1558. She and her successors firmly established Anglican authority, so much so that when Catholic James II was crowned king in 1685, a fuse was lit which touched off an explosion just 3 years later. Parliament called on James' Anglican daughter, Anne, and her husband/cousin, William of Orange, to oust Catholic James in what became known as "The Glorious Revolution." Similar stories could be told of France and elsewhere.

 
To be sure, there were abuses on both sides of the state religion debate. The most heinous, certainly, came from Spain. Though the Pope had authorized an inquisition in to the faithfulness of church members everywhere, in Spain, the insane cruelty of Torquemada (1420-98) and his confederates made theirs The Inquisition, and their infamy a hiss and a byword to the present day.

 
It was politics, not religion, that ultimately drove the Americans to rebellion, but when their political freedom was won, they chose to include religion in their definition of freedom of conscience. When the United States Constitution was first amended to include a Bill of Rights (complementing such Bills already operating in State governments), the first clause of the first article mandated:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Formally adopted by acts of the several States and effective December 15, 1791, it was the first such constitutional guarantee in recorded history.

 
It was not, of course, the end of religious persecution in America or elsewhere. Catholics and Jews had suffered and would continue to suffer. Less than a half-century after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Latter-day Saints were declared outlaw by the Governor of Missouri, who determined they "must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary for the public good."

 
Nor did this religious tolerance immediately extend beyond America's example. Under communist rule, open hostility toward religion drove worshipers into hiding as in Roman times, and, in the 21st Century, the government of China officially opposes numerous religious groups, while Islam proclaims the death penalty for those who convert to other faiths.

 
As Christendom concludes its celebration of the greatest event in world history – the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ – and as conservatives dedicated to the fight for good government, we must not forget that fellow Christians, and others by the millions, still wait for the day when they can enjoy the freedoms we hold so fundamental. Let us not sheath our pens nor our swords until every son of Adam and every daughter of Eve is free to bow before whatever God their conscience leads them to worship.
 
That fight should be as self-evident as the unalienable rights for which our Founders fought over 230 years ago.

 
Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Utah Offers New Educational Opportunity

The Utah legislature is getting a lot of heat these days for what a good number of people are calling really bad mistakes. I have discussed some of them in previous blogs, but I don't want anyone to think I don't appreciate the legislators when they get it right, which is the more frequent result by far. So, this week, I want to let you in on an idea that is as good, if not better, than passing the Sound Money Act:

 
Substitute Senate Bill 65 (SB65-S), the "Statewide Online Education Act," was sponsored by Sen. Howard Stephenson with Rep. Bradley Daw as House sponsor. SB65-S creates, according to the bill, a "Statewide Online Education Program to enable a student to earn high school graduation credit through the completion of online courses."

 
Colleges and universities pioneered online education over a decade ago, and secondary schools are now in the act as well. In fact, Western Governors University is a Utah-based, accredited university operated as a cooperative effort by the governors of 19 western states, and the Open High School of Utah is a public charter school – both operate entirely in cyberspace. Adding this option to more traditional schools was inevitable and SB65-S made that leap.
 

The goal is simple, as the bill specifies: "The purposes of an online school are to provide a student with access to online learning options regardless of where the student attends school, whether a public, private, or home school; provide high quality learning options for a student regardless of language, residence, family income, or special needs." [Emphasis mine.]
 

According to the 2011 Legislative Scorecard, published by Parents for Choice in Education (PCE), a Utah advocacy group, the Act won the support of most of Utah's Republican legislators, and passed in spite of nay votes from every single Democrat in the Utah Senate and House of Representatives.
 

Notice that private school and home school students are specifically included in this Act! I have personally seen some animosity toward non-public schooling by the "educational establishment," and it is very reassuring to see that these parts of Utah's education sector have not been ignored.

The system will take some time to get fully up and running, but for the next two academic years (AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13) any public high school student can take two credits online. That option increases steadily until AY 2016-17, when it maxes out at 6 credits per student per year. Home and private school students can enter in year three (AY 2013-14) of the program. For Utah students, the program is covered by current state taxes. Students whose custodial parent isn't a Utah resident may enroll on a space-available basis by paying tuition.
 

Remember the famous New Yorker cartoon, "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."? As with any Internet activity, there are (and should be) quality concerns. SB65-S establishes the Electronic High School (EHS) as the statewide oversight entity for this program starting with AY 2012-13. Local school districts and charter schools also have the option to create their own programs. As a public charter school, EHS will operate under the auspices of the Utah State Board of Education just like any other public school.
 

PCE also notes that, "Online course teachers are required to be certified by state law and are subject to the same qualifications as all Utah public school teachers." This won't be a state-run diploma mill, in fact, it might be harder that traditional schools, since there are neither in-class lectures nor attendance credit, "students . . . progress through course material at their own pace, and demonstrate competency when knowledge and skills have been mastered." As teenagers, most of us tried to pull a snow-job on a teacher more than once, and most of us probably got away with it a time or two. Go ahead, try that with a computer!
 

The program was designed with many goals in mind, including meeting the usual challenges of high school. PCE summarizes it better than I could:

This program will not affect a student's ability to participate in extra-curricular activities, co-curricular activities or released time for off campus religious classes. In fact, it may help provide greater flexibility in scheduling courses and released time at the student's high school because they will be taking online courses, freeing up more available class times. The student will still take the majority of their classes from their public high school. . . .
Online Course Providers are part of the public school system. All Providers are accredited education agencies. Successfully completed courses will provide full credit towards graduation and are part of the student's counselor led Student Education Occupation Plan (SEOP). . . .
A student can take additional courses to graduate early in accordance with their counselor led Student Education Occupation Plan (SEOP).

The SEOP and counselor will be integral parts of the program. The counselors will assist in the development of a written online educational plan; help complete a written Course Credit Agreement (necessary before a student can start course work) then provide direction as the student progresses through the plan and courses. The counselor will not dictate terms or courses; they will be much like traditional guidance counselors. Control rests with the student and his or her parents.
 

I see one possibility, which SB65-s does not address, but which might develop on its own – specialization. The Electronic High School won't be the sole course provider. As mentioned, public school districts and charter schools can also provide their own courses. Students are free to choose courses from any provider. Perhaps District X will choose to put their online resources into history and citizenship, District Y will focus on math and sciences, District Z will set their sights on English and literature. It is even more probable that the natural variations in talent distribution will give certain districts natural advantages in developing course work. These "expert" courses, for lack of a better descriptive, will naturally become more popular among the more serious students.
 

As in business, the high quality programs will rise to the top and the lesser quality programs will fall by the wayside. Competition will naturally guarantee (as best anything can be guaranteed) that Utah students will get the best education available.
 

Perhaps PCE or some other group will take on the challenge of rating the various programs and offering grades or some other independent evaluation for students and parents to view before choosing their online courses.
 

Of course, there are some subjects that, in my opinion, will never drift far into the cyber-world. Theater, music and other arts as well as foreign languages come to mind. These require personal attention at a level I think is still beyond our technology. However, the flexibility that online course give to more general subjects should allow students more time to focus on subjects that require personal attention. We already see specialized programs in Salt Lake County school districts because there is sufficient population in a small geographic area. Imagine the possibilities for larger counties with smaller populations – create an arts or language program that meets for a full day or two per week then lets the students work on other subjects at home.
 

Maybe that would work; maybe not – the point is possibilities. Our children are going to make very important decisions (like selecting our nursing homes), we need to prepare them in every way possible to make the best decisions. We need to prepare them to earn a living (so they don't end up living in our basements). We need to prepare them to be responsible, involved citizens that won't repeat our mistakes (or the ones we repeated from previous generations).
 

The Statewide Online Education Program will take time to develop. Mistakes will be made; we'll learn from those mistakes and adjust the program. In a very few years, however, I see Utah's students having a powerful new tool to prepare them for life. And, it wouldn’t surprise me if, by the time this experiment is pronounced a success, other new ideas will have come forward that might again revolutionize the education process. It's so exciting that it almost makes you want to try high school all over again, right?
 

Okay, maybe not that exciting.
 

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

To the Rich -- A Well-deserved Thank You!

I'm tired of liberal wealth-bashing.

Tax breaks only benefit the wealthy." "Corporations pay no taxes." "The inheritance tax only applies to the richest 2% of the people." And so on, ad nauseum. The official position of the Democratic-Socialist-Marxist Party is that wealth is a bad thing. (Of course, many liberals are very, very wealthy, but we'll leave the discussion of liberal hypocrisy for another day.) They want to tax the wealthy into poverty because those evil wealth-mongers have taken their ill-gotten plunder and are hoarding it like Smaug the Dragon in a mountain cavern, or like a Pharaoh filling his tomb for the voyage to the afterlife.

Now, you and I know that such treasure troves are the stuff of myth and history. Every rich person probably has "a stash," but all of us should have a stash – savings accounts and IRAs and such. Most rich people use their wealth in a variety of ways. In fact, for some wealthy people, managing their finances is a full-time job, and charity is a key part of their management plan.

Charity, in the broadest sense of the word, could be defined as any action designed to improve the quality of life. That means the individual life, the community life, the whole world. Allow me to suggest a few example of how those "evil" rich people make the world a better place:

Charitable giving continues – in spite of the economy.

"Despite the recession, wealthy Americans still gave to charitable causes last year," says a study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Actual donations fell sharply, from about $83,000 in 2007 to $54,000 in 2009 (inflation adjusted), but stayed steady at around 9% of total income. "Wealthy philanthropists appeared to adjust their priorities in response to the recession. The portion who gave to basic human needs rose from 75 percent in 2007 to 85 percent in 2009."

“What we have often stressed is that high-net-worth donors have remained committed to giving,” said Una Osili, the Center's director of research. In fact, "Study results show 98 percent of high net-worth households donated to charity in 2009 – a figure consistent with findings from studies done before the economy soured."
 
The term wealthy, of course, depends on who is asked. For this study, the Center surveyed 800 households with annual incomes over $200,000 and/or a net worth of at least $1 million. "The average net worth of respondents was $10 million." [Scott Olson, "Rich Still Giving to Charity, but in Smaller Amounts," Indianapolis Business Journal, 19 November 2010.]

A quick calculation: If just 800 households averaging $200,000 income are giving about 9% to charity, that's $14,400,000 per year to worthy causes. (By the way, Huffington Post says there were about 7.8 million millionaires in the USA in 2008. Much as I dislike HuffPo, this number I think we can trust. Many sources suggest that most of these aren't inheritors, they are new rich who earned their wealth.)

Giving every day, at work.

Charities may get the lion's share of good press, but there are other opportunities for giving, perhaps more effective than charities, according to one analyst.

"Bill Gates and Warren Buffett announced this month that 40 of America's richest people have agreed to sign a 'Giving Pledge' to donate at least half of their wealth to charity. With a collective net worth said to total $230 billion, that promise translates to at least $115 billion." Impressive, or is it?
Kimberly Dennis, CEO of the Searle Freedom Trust, wrote a fascinating editorial in the Wall Street Journal, explaining some flaws in the great master plan of these great American entrepreneurs:
It's an impressive number. Yet some – including Messrs. Gates and Buffett – say it isn't enough. Perhaps it's actually too much: the wealthy may help humanity more as businessmen and women than as philanthropists.
What are the chances, after all, that the two forces behind the Giving Pledge will contribute anywhere near as much to the betterment of society through their charity as they have through their business pursuits? In building Microsoft, Bill Gates changed the way the world creates and shares knowledge [including how this blog post was written!]. Warren Buffett's investments have birthed and grown innumerable profitable enterprises, making capital markets work more efficiently and enriching many in the process . . .
Successful entrepreneurs-turned-philanthropists typically say they feel a responsibility to "give back" to society. But "giving back" implies they have taken something. What, exactly, have they taken? Yes, they have amassed great sums of wealth. But that wealth is the reward they have earned for investing their time and talent in creating products and services that others value. They haven't taken from society, but rather enriched us in ways that were previously unimaginable. [Kimberly Dennis, "Gates and Buffett Take the Pledge," Wall Street Journal, 20 August 2010, emphasis added.]

Without people like Bill Hewlett, David Packard and other hardware pioneers, without Leonard Kleinrock, Douglas Engelbart and the other parents of data networking, without Pyra Labs (the company that created blogsot.com) and thousands of others – many of whom became very, very wealthy for their efforts – this blog post would be nothing more than a clever idea trapped between my ears. Without these and their software-developing counterparts, Baron Phoenix Media, my one-man writing & desktop publishing shop, would not – indeed, could not – exist!
 
How many lives have been saved by cell phones? How many crimes have been solved by DNA testing? How many jobs exist in industries which were the stuff of Star Trek a generation ago; of Buck Rogers two generations ago; of Jules Verne three generations ago?

Rich people spend more money than you and I.

I have the good fortune to count among my friends Hyrum Smith, one of the founders of Franklin-Covey. In building that business, and subsequently as a motivational speaker and trainer, he has traveled millions of miles. He once told me about his visit with a CEO who had asked him to come and speak to his employees. The CEO hosted Hyrum at his home, in the rich part of town, and gave Hyrum a tour of the house and grounds. If memory serves, the cost of construction, landscaping, décor, etc., was somewhere around $11,000,000, or so the CEO bragged to Hyrum.
 
According to InvestmentTools.com, the average home price in the USA is in the neighborhood of $250,000; let's call it a cool third-of-a-million with furnishings and other stuff. That means this CEO spent as much for his crib as you and I and 30 of our friends will spend on ours. Who got that money? The architects, real estate agents, carpenters, framers, carpet layers, plasterers, cabinet makers, landscapers, plumbers, masons, pavers and all the other white-collar professionals and blue-collar craftsmen who built the place! And, I'd make a bet that not one of those contractors gave the CEO a discount rate. This visit took place about 20 years ago, so, in that time, I'd also bet that the CEO has spent additional millions for maintenance and upgrades.
 
Rich people buy stuff because they can! They want it, they can afford it, they buy it. (Yes, it's just that simple, and, yes, you or I would do the same.) So what if the guy or gal has 6 cars and 2 boats. Think of the salesmen's and mechanics' paychecks they provide. Think of the gas they buy. So what if they invite a few dozen friends for a Super Bowl party or an Academy Awards gala? Think of the people they employ to cater those lavish parties. Literally billions of dollars are pumped into the American economy every single day by rich people who are purchasing stuff you and I can't afford, or buying more stuff than you and I can afford.
 
Years ago, I was part of the entertainment at a company party. I made just $50 for the 2-hour show; but I got a dinner I doubt I could touch at a restaurant for less than $50 and was given a $50 tip! The owner had a very successful year and wanted to share it with the people who made it possible, his employees. I was happy to help him.

And, while we're at it, think about the taxes they pay.

Yes, many people in this country pay more in taxes in one year than you or I will earn in a lifetime! Even if we ignore federal income taxes for the moment, and think only on the sales taxes, property taxes and other local taxes that fund our police and fire departments, parks and libraries and so much more, it is an impressive sum.

To every wealthy person in America:

I congratulate you for your success. I thank you for whatever part of your wealth Reaganomically trickled down to my little business. I thank you for all the money you spent buying from my friends and relatives. I thank you for the grants to my alma mater and the symphony and the soup kitchen and the historical society and the homeless shelter and the education foundation and all the other good causes in my community.

President Obama and the Democratic Party may hate and vilify you, but, in the immortal words of George M. Cohan, "My father thanks you, my mother thanks you, my sister thanks you and I thank you."

And I thank you for listening, tune in next week for another rant.

Unemployment -- the Real Story

I know, most of you don't like having loads of numbers thrown at you, but this is one of those times when numbers can't be avoided. The bottom line is, if you are unemployed or underemployed, your rate is 100% and that's all you care about. I understand this and commiserate – underemployment was the norm for me during the "boom" of the 1980s and '90s. I missed it completely. But, we do need to see the big picture here, and that picture is beginning to resemble Dorian Gray:

The Department of Labor (DOL) announced, and the mainstream media has enthusiastically reported, that US unemployment has just dropped back below 9% and more recovery is on the way. That's the good news. There is also bad news: The Obama administration is lying; there is no recovery, this is just more political trickery designed to boost Obama's ever decreasing chances for re-election. Under scrutiny – even such inexperienced and limited scrutiny as I am able to provide here – the numbers just don't match the reality.

First – there are 6 unemployment rates, and the government isn't telling us the whole story:

The DOL doesn't say why they keep six sets of books, but here are the unemployment rates defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

U-1	Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U-2	Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs.
U-3	"Total unemployed" (this is the official unemployment rate).
U-4	U-3 plus "discouraged workers."
U-5	U-4 plus "persons marginally attached to the labor force."
U-6	U-5 plus "employed part time for economic reasons."

The U-3 rate is the rate the government and their media sheep keep quoting. I read in multiple sources that this is actually the number of people collecting unemployment. No government sources make this statement, so I cannot judge its validity; however, the DOL does add these definitions:

"Discouraged workers" are not job hunting due to a "job-market related reason."

"Persons marginally attached to the labor force" are those who have given up looking, but are available and were looking within the last year.

"Persons employed part time" want fulltime work but have had to settle for less.

We could call U-6 the "total unemployed or underemployed." I agree with commentators who say U-6 is the more accurate indication of our economy's strength or weakness.

You may also notice that government and media quote month-to-month changes. Frankly, that's ridiculous. Things don't change much month-to-month; I think 6 to 12 months is more accurate because it accounts better for the inertia in a $14.5 trillion economy. Compare, for example, the last 26 months of George Bush against the first 26 months of Barak Obama, two time periods that represent major differences in economic policy (also from DOL):

Year	Month	U-3	U-6	Year	Month	U-3	U-6
2006	Sep	4.4	7.6	2009	Jan	8.5	15.4
2007	Jan	5.0	9.1		Jul	9.7	16.8
	Jul	4.9	8.6	2010	Jan	10.6	18.0
2008	Jan	5.4	9.9		Jul	9.7	16.8
	Jul	6.0	10.8	2011	Mar	9.2	16.2

How this latest recession came to be is a discussion we'll save for later. Notice, however, that this recession was declared in December 2007, but unemployment rose only 0.6% from January to July 2008 then jumped 2.5% from July 2008 to January 2009. By inauguration day, the recession was more than a year old and the recovery should have started. [Check out Wikipedia's "List of recessions in the United States" – since the Great Depression, we've had 13 recessions, only 4 lasted over 12 months.]

I recall seeing a video of an Obama speech that promised his near-$800 billion stimulus would keep the U-3 under 8%. The U-3 went above 8% that month, and is still there. The average U-3 for the 26 months since inauguration is 10.2%; the U-6 has averaged 17.8%. Yes, the numbers are going down, but, with almost 1 in 5 Americans still unemployed or underemployed, we are far from what any reasonable American would call a recovery.

Second – the government isn't the only one looking at this situation.

A) Gallup, Inc.: One of the most respect pollsters in the world disagrees with the DOL. Gallup says, "contrary to the federal government's recent job reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures suggest that recent job increases have not been sufficient to significantly improve the jobs situation so far in 2011. Although both of Gallup's measures were marginally better in March, they remain higher now than they were in January." Overall, since January 2010, Gallup estimates U-3 has averaged 9.8%, with U-6 at 19.0%, well above the DOL numbers.

B) InvestingAnswers.com: In mid-February, Michael Snyder gave us "10 Reasons Why the Latest Unemployment Numbers are no Reason to Cheer." I summarize:

1) Economists were expecting 145,000 jobs new in January; the 36,000 new jobs were "a huge disappointment." (Ever notice that it's always a surprise – "higher than expected" or "lower than expected"; but these government economists never get it right!)

2) 150,000 jobs need to be added to the economy monthly to keep up with population growth. Not happening.

3) 504,000 Americans "dropped out of the labor force" in January. This makes the unemployment numbers look better, but most of those half-million Americans still need jobs.

4) Gallup says the unemployment rate actually increased to 9.8% in January.

5) Gallup says the underemployment rate actually increased to 18.9% in January.

6) 28,000,000 Americans want full-time jobs but don't have full-time jobs.

7) Zero Hedge says if you add those people to the official figure, unemployment would be 12.8%.

8) Calculated Risk calls this "the deepest and most brutal employment downturn . . . since World War II"; and there's no indication we'll return to pre-recession levels "any time soon."

9) DOL announced job growth during 2010 was much weaker than previously reported; after revisions, 215,000 fewer jobs were created during 2010 than originally estimated. (Again, they never get it right.)

10) According to another survey, 4 of 10 Americans are struggling "a lot" to pay the bills right now.

C) USDA: Many news sources have reprinted a chart showing the increase in food stamp use, officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In December 2007, approx. 27,500,000 Americans were using food stamps. In January 2009, participation reached 32,000,000, an increase of 16.35% in just over one year. In January 2011, it reached 44,000,000, an increase of 60% in three years. In other words – despite spending $1.5 trillion dollars bailing out banks and auto companies or stimulating "shovel-ready" jobs; despite thousands of jobs "saved or created"; despite "decreasing" unemployment and underemployment – food stamp use has steadily increased for 37 of the last 39 months! (There was one tiny dip following the 2008 election.)

Is there any good news?

Yes, if you like government work. In January, The American, a publication of the American Enterprise Institute (The Enterprise Blog) reported that the government sector has increased by almost 100,000 jobs since December 2007. The private sector, by comparison, has lost 7,340,000 jobs in the same period. Contributing editor Mark Perry declares:

What about the stimulus package, revised yesterday upward to $862 billion, that President Obama claimed recently had already "created or saved 640,000 jobs" through last November, and would eventually save or create 3.5 million jobs in total? The employment data [from the DOL!] suggest that the $862 billion stimulus has yet to create a single new private sector job, as the private sector continues to shed jobs and hasn't seen a monthly gain in jobs for 24 months. To the extent that the stimulus has created or saved any jobs, they've been in the public sector, and have likely come at the expense of crowding out the growth that might otherwise have taken place in the private sector.

Last set of numbers, I promise: On average, 188,000 Americans have lost their jobs every single month for the last 39 months. According to Obama, the stimulus saved or created an average of 29,000 jobs per month during its first 22 months. January's 36,000 new jobs were above average growth, perhaps, but they were basically nothing compared to the mounting losses.

Hey, wait a minute; I thought this section was about good news!

It was, but there's just such a small amount of good news, it didn't take long for the discussion to fall back onto bad news. And, with all due respect to the President (what little there is), there won't be much good news until these liberal socialists are completely removed from the political power structure of the United States. It has been said that no part of a man's anatomy is as sensitive as his wallet. So, vote your wallet – vote conservative – then hold those conservative feet to the fire until they make substantive changes in US economic policy!

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.