Thursday, February 9, 2012


de·pend  [dih-pend]
verb (used without object)

1.  to rely; place trust (usually followed by on  or upon ): You may depend on the accuracy of the report.

2.  to rely for support, maintenance, help, etc. (usually followed by on  or upon ): Children depend on their parents, just as approximately 50% of households depend upon the Federal Government for subsidies.

3.  to be conditioned or contingent (usually followed by on  or upon ): America's success depends upon  the effort and ability (by roughly half of the population) to pay for the other half's lifestyle.

4.  to be undetermined or pending: the United States may become Europe or it may not, it all depends.

Yes.  It all 'Depends'.

I came across an article yesterday while eating lunch which gave me pause.  Surprisingly, it wasn't about Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum's status in the polls.  The aforementioned are 'temporary conditions', susceptible to the whims of marketing, Presidential Politics, the National 'mood', and mutually-assured personal destruction. 

The article I read had deeper roots. 

Evil.  Nasty.  Roots.

Excerpted from Investor's Business Daily Online:  The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."

Source:  Investors Business Daily Online
(I added the Dotted red line above to depict the Dependency Index since LBJ launched his 'Great Society'
The Solid red line shows the end of the Bush term and the beginning of the Obama Administration)

The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.

Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has produced the index for nine years.


The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.

At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.

Other findings:

The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% over the past two years.

In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income. 

The truly 'spooky' part of this article is that only the first two years of the Obama Administration are tracked, and reported here.  Another year has passed since these numbers were reported. 

Yes, I know there are people reading this who will say, "Yeah, but Moos, this period represents the Economy President Obama INHERITED from President Bush.  These numbers are NOT the current President's fault!  It's President Bush's FAULT - it's all his FAULT!" 

[This, of course would be followed by a series of grunting noises, wildly flailing hands, and spittle flying in almost all directions at once as the 'True Believer' of the President works him (or her) self into a full 'lather'.] 

Okay, I understand your desire to cling to the failed Obama policies of the recent past, but let me ask you this:  "How do YOU explain the following chart of US Workers NOT participating in the work force?" 

The following chart tracks the number of "Persons NOT in the Labor Force" through January 2012.  That 'straight up' line over to the right of the chart represents the 1.2 MILLION people the BLS 'Discarded' to get President Obama's (published) Unemployment Rate down to 8.3%

Why are the 1.2 MILLION 'eliminated workers' from the work force important?  Read on my friend, read on...

Source:  ZeroHedge Online...  A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million.

No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million.

Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. 

So, if you believe that the President 'Inherited' the bad economy, how do YOU explain the fact that while adding MILLIONS of Americans (in spite of the best efforts of Planned Parenthood, Unions, and Democrats to reduce our population ) over the past 30 years -- the Civilian Labor Force has shrunken to its lowest level during the same 30 year period?

'Fuzzy Math', or Federally-Sponsored Deceit? 

You pick. 

Oh, and while I'm asking the questions which no one seems to be able or willing to answer, let me ask you yet another question:  "Will America survive another four years of President Obama's rule?"

Well, it Depends. 

Depends on if he stays or goes, and what the Congress looks like following the upcoming elections. 

Because once again - you get to pick.  In November, 2012, you get the opportunity to fix the problem OR grow it.  Your call.

Have a nice day folks. 

Post a Comment