According to recent unemployment reports, an additional 20,000 jobs were lost in January. Despite this loss, the unemployment rate declined from 10 percent to 9.7 percent. It is important to note that the unemployment rate does not account for any discouraged potential workers who are not actively seeking unemployment. More than half a million discouraged workers have left the job market in the past few months. 

According to Obama, the January job reports were: 

a cause for hope.

However, it seems that the only ones that should be hopeful about their future job prospects are those seeking federal government employment. Tad DeHaven, a scholar at the Cato Institute, explains that:

According to the president’s new budget, federal civilian employment in the executive branch will be 15 percent higher in 2011 than it was in 2007.

In addition, DeHaven includes that: 

Instead of fostering private sector growth, the administration is fostering government growth at the expense of the private sector.

This trend is unsustainable. Americans cannot afford to lose 20,000 jobs every month. In order to reverse the current economic downturn, the focus needs to be on creating private-sector jobs. The Heritage Foundation has suggestions on how Congress can spur private-sector job growth:

Strongly consider repealing Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, a provision that substantially raises business costs for little economic benefit.

Relax limitations on domestic energy development. 

Remove prevailing wage restrictions on government construction contractors to immediately create 160,000 new construction jobs.

Reform the tort system to reduce the unnecessary drag it places on the economy. The direct cost of unnecessary litigation drains $130 billion from the economy each year, with indirect costs being far higher.

An additional 20,000 Americans losing their jobs in one month is nothing to be hopeful about.  Since the recession began, in December 2007, Americans have lost a total of 8.4 million jobs. Private-sector job growth must be stimulated through lowering taxes and decreasing excessive government spending.

The actual unemployment numbers show an increase from 9.7% to 10.6%.

Table A-1.Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age Numbers in thousands

                                                                                    Jan.          Dec.        Jan.                                                                                 2009         2009         2010TOTALCivilian noninstitutional population                234,739    236,924    236,832Civilian labor force                                            153,445     152,693   152,957Participation rate                                                    65.4            64.4          64.6Employed                                                             140,436    137,953   136,809Employment-population ratio                               59.8           58.2          57.8Unemployed                                                          13,009      14,740      16,147Unemployment rate                                                    8.5            9.7          10.6Not in labor force                                                   81,293      84,231    83,876Persons who currently want a job                         5,866       5,939       6,108

the rate dropped from 10 percent the previous month because it revised the total payrolls to show there were 930,000 fewer jobs last March.

The actual unemployment in the economy did not go down, it’s just the data was revised. When you have a revision in the data like this, you really have to wait until next month, at least, to get a clear picture of what’s going on.

Some Americans have declared 2010 the “best year to die.” Due to the temporary expiration of the estate tax or death tax, all individuals that pass away this year are guaranteed that their loved ones will receive their inheritance in full. Those that pass away are not forced to leave their mourning family with the burden of paying exorbitant taxes on their belongings.

Yet, in Obama’s 2011 proposed fiscal budget he plans on reinstating the 45-percent death tax with a $3.5 million exemption. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McDonnell (R-Ky) concisely explains Americans dislike of the death tax: 

There's nothing that outrages the American people more than the thought that they will have to visit the IRS and the undertaker on the same day.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the 2011 proposed 45-percent death tax would disproportionally affect family farms and businesses:

Family-owned businesses are often asset-rich but cash-poor. They have equipment, real estate, and inventory that makes them appear valuable on paper. But they have comparatively little cash on hand. When a family member dies, the death tax is an enormous burden on them. Many have to sell their assets, or in some cases the entire business, to pay the tax. Or they must divert the precious cash flow they need to grow the business over many years to pay the tab.

In the above Heritage Foundation video, Kevin Hancock owner of Hancock Lumber explains how the death tax has hurt his 6th generation family business:

On the one hand, we inspire to grow our business to create more jobs and economic activity. On the other hand, we know as we do that the future potential estate tax obligation just continues to go up. For a family business, it’s very tough to plan for that and it’s an unfair competitive disadvantage… people often look at the income that is received from the estate tax but they don’t understand or look closely enough at the revenue that is lost from the disincentive that encourages family businesses to stay small...what the federal government is effectively doing is offering a major tax discount to sell your family business as opposed to keeping it. I can’t think of any tax structure more backward than that.

During the current economic crisis, with an average unemployment rate at 10% nationally and likely to rise, this is the worst time to restore the death tax. If Obama wishes to spur job growth, he should focus on repealing the unfair and immoral death tax. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that eliminating the death tax would increase employment and stimulate the economy, including:

 Create 1.5 million additional small business jobs, slash the current jobless rate by 0.9%, increase the probability of hiring by 8.6%, increase payrolls by 2.6%, expand investment by 3% , increase small business capital by over $1.6 trillion...

The Obama administration should repeal this immoral double tax that taxes one’s property that has already been previously taxed. In addition, it discourages savings and investment while punishing hard workers that wish to pass on their assets to their children. Daniel J. Mitchell, a scholar at the Cato Institute, explains the irrationally behind the death tax:

The tax code sends a perverse message to America's entrepreneurs, investors, small-business owners and farmers: If you squander your money as quickly as possible, the government will not tax you. But if you behave responsibly and invest in the nation's future, the government will swoop in like a flock of vultures and grab a huge chunk of your money when you die.

For more reasons why Americans should oppose the death tax, see: FreedomWorks’s death tax page.

By the end of February, the current $12.4 trillion debt limit is expected to be reached. However, instead of being fiscally responsible, the House is expected to vote on legislation today that would increase the debt limit to $14.3 trillion. 

On House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) website it states:

Today, the House will be considering the debt limit increase.  As one considers the recent rhetoric of fiscal responsibility from the majority party, perhaps this single image best stands in contrast and serves as a reminder of the Democratic record of fiscal recklessness.

Update: The House of Representatives has approved the measure to raise the debt limit by $1.9. Every Republican voted against the debt ceiling increase along with 30 Democrats. So much for a bipartisan effort.  

In a story that could never, ever happen here because our cap and trade would be better and no one would ever try to rip off the government, I'm sure, hackers have stolen millions in carbon credits from the German Emissions Trading Authoriy and resold them.  

Credit card numbers are so passe. Today’s hackers know the real powerhouse data to steal is emission certificates.

...

Under environmental cap-and-trade laws, there’s a limit to the greenhouse gases companies can emit. Companies that exceed this limit can purchase so-called carbon credits from entities that produce fewer greenhouse emissions than the limit provides them.

The scheme has produced a robust market for the trade of credits. More than 8 million tons of CO2 emissions worth $130 billion were traded in Europe last year.

According to the BBC, it’s estimated the hackers stole 250,000 carbon credit permits from six companies worth more than $4 million. At least seven out of 2,000 German firms that were targeted in the phishing scam fell for it. One of these unidentified firms reportedly lost $2.1 million in credits in the fraud.

The credits were resold for an undisclosed sum.

This is a not entirely shocking turn of events.  In fact, we totally called it in our Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade.  Up there with killing jobs, global competitiveness disadvantages and a few other reasons this is a bad idea is No. 9: "It opens the door to massive fraud and corruption." 

In a recent interview with Steve Grove broadcasted on Youtube, Obama stated that he was a strong advocate of net neutrality regulations: 

I'm a big believer in net neutrality. I campaigned on this. I continue to be a strong supporter of it. My FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has indicated that he shares the view that we've got to keep the Internet open; that we don't want to create a bunch of gateways that prevent somebody who doesn't have a lot of money but has a good idea from being able to start their next YouTube or their next Google on the Internet. So this is something we're committed to.

No firm or industry has ‘bottleneck control’ over or market power in the broadband marketplace; it is very much a competitive free-for-all.

If net neutrality applies neutrally to all players in the Web ecosystem, then it would regulate every component and entrepreneur in a vast and unknowable future. If neutrality applies selectively (oxymoron alert) to only one sliver of the network, then it is merely a political tool of one set of companies to cripple its competitors.

Today's non-neutral market keeps the Internet competitive, forcing iTunes, YouTube and others to invest in an upgrade of the network. Regardless of how you get your Internet service, wWeb sites could differentiate themselves from other sites by finding new ways to offer speedy delivery. That, in turn, could lead to further innovation and more choices for consumers, they say.

This is a video that explains why America cannot afford another fiscal stimulus.

At least according to AFL-CIO President Richard Tumka, who is predicting card check will pass this year. 

Trumka said that lawmakers would pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) as well as healthcare reform this year, despite Republicans having picked up enough votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster.

"I think we'll get health care done and I think we'll get labor law reform done before the year's up," Trumka said during an appearance on CNN.

This, of course, is after card check was supposed to pass last year when the President was riding on a wave of popularity early on in the term, Democrats had a super-majority, and it wasn't an election year.  One would think that if they couldn't get this already unpopular bill through with all that on their side, things will be a big stickier in 2010.

Good luck with that, Big Labor.

During Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, he claimed that the “stimulus” bill has been a continuous success. He attempted to reassure the American people by explaining that it had “saved” millions of jobs so far.

 Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year. The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right - the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill.

Due to the White House’s ever-changing job statistics, it has become nearly impossible to keep track of how many jobs the "stimulus" has supposedly “created.” Three officials from the Obama administration interviewed earlier this week had inconsistent information about how much of an impact the “stimulus” has had on job creation.

 Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace asserted that:

 Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year, largely as a result of the recovery plan that's put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.

 David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to President Obama, on CNN’s State of the Union believed that the “stimulus” had created considerably more jobs:

created more than – or saved more than 2 million jobs.

 Valerie Jerrett,  Senior Advisor to Obama, on NBC’s Meet the Press had a significantly lower estimate of the number of jobs “saved”:

The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs.

Apparently, the Obama administration cannot agree on which misleading job statistic to use during interviews. The vast differences in these job statistics would leave any concerned person asking a variety of questions. Since Americans have invested billions of taxpayer dollars into the “stimulus”, they should have every right to know how exactly these “saved” jobs are being calculated and the accuracy of this data. According to White House spokesman Bill Burton, these reasonable questions should be deemed “petty.” 

 Talk show host Bill Wills in Cleveland interviewed Bill Burton on the air:

WILLS: And finally Mr. Burton, on the Sunday shows, there were three different answers from the White House on jobs created out of the stimulus. Have you guys gotten together on that number yet?

BURTON: I have to say this is one of the more petty things that I’ve heard brought up in the last couple of days.                                                                                        

The range of the job creation data presented by the Obama administration is over one million. To the roughly estimated 15 million Americans out of work, the discrepancy of one million jobs does not seem petty.  It's time for the White House to be truthful and consistent--the "stimulus" has failed and zero jobs have been created due to the massive spending bill.