Members of the Senate sub-committee have predicted an 80% increase in various welfare payouts in the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office reports a 135% increase in food stamps for four years ending in 2011.
Who is going to pay for this? And again, the beneficiaries of these programs must hope for a booming economy. Job creators must succeed in putting able-bodied, working-age people in decent jobs.
The "safety nets" for older/or disadvantaged Americans come from taxpayers, not Congress or the White House.
Hopefully, the President ponders the above thoughtfully. He should review Romney's correct thinking on job creation, the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Trade Treachery of China.
Romney took responsibility for losing the election. Some fellow republicans claimed he didn't suitably explain his message.
Here's another idea.
Too many voters didn't study the issues.
Some shout, "The rich must pay their fair share!" Then, they find out that 68 cents of each dollar of federal tax comes from the top 20 percent of earners. (Source: C.B.O. Figures, 2009)
News websites downplay the Benghazi hearings and give us the latest on the Kardashians.
The "Buffett Rule", a definite obstacle to job creation, was accepted by many with no study. Thank Heaven it couldn't pass.
Meanwhile, Alison Redford, (Premier of Alberta) sees Obama's reluctance to approve Keystone XL Pipeline as a "significant thorn" in Canadian-American relations.
Thousands of potential jobs will be lost if Canada loses patience, builds the pipeline to the west coast and sells to China. Also lost will be lower prices and greater energy independence.
In these days of sequestration, should we not cut our financial support of the United Nations?
The State Department is to boost U. N. support to $3.6 billion. Of that amount, $2.09 billion is for "peace-keeping". We're aware of the pacifying influence the U. N. has had on Iran and North Korea. (Yes, Sheldon. That's sarcasm.)
U. N. programs to save sick children are worthy. Lectures to America about fossil fuels are not; save it for the Chinese.
The President and First lady are quite vocal on support for the poor and middle-class. While I don't doubt the sentiment, I've never seen a "First Couple" who was more celebrity-oriented.
Terry D. Hallock