Factoids That You Can Use

While the nation's spotlight has been focused on Arizona, the influx of illegal immigration is quietly swamping state resources in Texas. According to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies, there are an estimated 1.7 million undocumented aliens residing in the Lone Star state. By their estimates, illegal immigrants make up eight to nine percent of the Texas workforce. The cost to state government is a reported $4.7 billion, which includes expenses for education, medical care and incarceration. Those figures were compiled by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The organization calculated that it costs each Texas taxpaying household $725 per year to foot the bill. The breakdown of costs shows spending for educating the children of illegal immigrants costs the state $4 billion; the tab for medical care is $520 million; and, incarceration for lawbreakers works out to $150 million annually. Even those staggering figures are on the low side. The $4.7 billion does not include costs for local jail detention, increased law enforcement and judicial expenses, welfare benefits and special English instruction in schools. Likewise, it does not take into account the monetary cost of crime on law-abiding citizens. It's no wonder that states that border Mexico are calling on the federal government to step up enforcement to stem the tide of illegal immigrants flooding into the United States. Unless something changes, the soaring costs of illegal immigration will force more states to do like Arizona and tackle the issue head on, rather than penning their hopes on federal government solutions.

iPad's Future: A contrarian view

At first blush, it may appear sheer lunacy to question the future of the iPad, Apple's wildly successful entry into the tablet computer market. In its latest update, the Cupertino, California-based maker announced it had sold three million units of the touchscreen device. That would suggest a bright future for the iPad as sales graphs resemble the proverbial hockey-stick.

However, here's a note of caution for Apple investors. The iPad rocketed off the launch pad on April 3, selling 300,000 units by the first weekend. Sales hit one million units less than one month into the introduction of the new product. Since then, reports continue to show steady gains, but nothing like the super-heated introductory phase.

Is the market getting Apple fatigue? Has the iPad fad run its course? Has the growth been driven by early-adopters instead of broad mass market appeal? Are sales about to reach a peak? And what about tablet computer introductions promised by Dell, Hewlett Packard and Lenovo? Only Dell has tiptoed into the category with a new product announcement earlier this month. If this is such a hot category, why are there so few imitators?

Those questions are likely causing heartburn for a few Wall Street analysts. This observer sees trouble ahead for the iPad, unless Apple ramps up unique applications for the device. Right now, most of the apps that run on the iPad are spiffed up versions available on the iPhone. As Apple demonstrated with its iPhone, it's all about the apps. Any manufacturer can produce a smartphone. What makes the iPhone unique is the applications that turn the device into a powerful personal assistant. The same applies to tablet computers.

A larger issue is defining the iPad for consumers and businesses. That may sound simplistic, but to what product category does this device belong? It does not have the processing power of a laptop. For example, it lacks media creation capabilities that computers have.

Furthermore, it cannot do things, like take pictures or handle voice calls, that smartphones can do. It has some appeal to gamers, but when compared with Xbox for example, it comes up short on gaming experience. While it has been hailed as a reader, it costs nearly twice as much as competitors' models, including Amazon's Kindle. And Apple's selection of e-books pales in comparison with Amazon's robust library.

To be fair, the Ipad is a useful device for reading, watching and browsing. It has a cool, high-definition touchscreen, but not much else to distinguish it from the competition. That's why it seems more of a complement for a personal computer, but does not replace a netbook, laptop or desktop. Its an orphan product looking for a niche to fill.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs didn't help matters when he introduced the new hand-held product as a tablet computer. Given the dismal history of tablet computers, that was not the most flattering market niche for Apple's slick new device. Jobs had an opportunity to define a whole new market in his introduction but blew it. And that name? High gag factor. It sounds like a feminine hygiene product.

Long term, Apple needs to find a market niche for the iPad. For starters, Apple should stop referring to the device as a tablet computer. That's like calling a $250,000 Porsche an automobile. The iPad is a souped-up, high-tech, eye-candy network explorer that excels at visual media.

(Personal Note: Yes, I purchased an iPad and use it mostly to access email and browse the net when I travel. It replaced my clunky, six-year-old laptop. But I don't need the processing power most heavy computer users expect and require.)

Apple should focus its marketing and application efforts in some basic categories to solidify its long-term prospects. Here are a few ideas:

1. HOSPITALS: Patient charts litter hospital wards. It's time to end the paper trail and hang iPads off patient beds. With the right software, doctors and nurses could enter patient data and transfer it instantly to the attending physician. That would allow doctors to check on patients without physically visiting hospitals so often. It would also streamline the way hospitals track drug treatments, medical observations and patient data. Medical record-keeping would be revolutionized. Even the lightest laptops are too bulky for the task.

2. RESEARCH: Research abounds in the country: from political polls to consumer mall research. Most research is done over the phone or with pen (or pencils) and paper. Why not fill out the survey on an iPad and then download the information to a server? The data could be tallied and available faster. In addition, clients could assess the data in real time, aiding the decision-making process. Another application is door-to-door surveys, such as the U.S. Census. Results could be released in months, instead of years.

3. STATE AGENCIES: State governments chew up paper like a first grader on Rendlin. Take one example: the Department of Motor Vehicles. Think of the time and money savings if agencies could use iPads to administer tests, collect information and record data. It would take some of the pain out of the citizen experience with government agencies and increase job satisfaction for state workers.

4. RESTAURANTS: Eateries with diverse menus and large dinning rooms could serve more people faster if waiters used iPads to take orders. The information would be inputted once and sent over a wireless network to a screen in the kitchen. Waiters could spend more time with customers, meeting their needs, and less time darting back and forth between tables and the kitchen.

5. DOCTORS OFFICE: A visit to the doctor's office--even your regular family physician--usually involves filling out countless forms. The paper documents are stored in files that clog up space in cramped quarters. Wouldn't it be a better solution to let patients complete the forms on an iPad and then push "send"? We vote that way today, so why does this seem like such a foreign concept to the medical profession?

Those are just a few of the uses for an iPad that come readily to mind. There are many more out there. The iPad is easily portable, can be operated with one hand and has the screen size (readability) and graphic definition to make it a superior device for inputting information, reading charts, graphs or MRI scans.

iPads could become ubiquitous in many settings because the cost is reasonable ($499 to $829), certainly cheaper than a high-end, awkward laptop that requires (most) users to be in a sitting position to pound the keyboard.

The future is there for the taking. But Apple must re-trench to take advantage of the opportunities. Tablet computers have a terrible track record. Apple thumbed its nose at market history and decided in its arrogance to show the world that its iconic logo could sell tablet computers where others have failed.

I know. I know. It's tough to argue with Apple's track record for success. But even a great company can make a bone-headed miscalculation. The corporate graveyard is littered with examples of once dynamic firms whose visions were clouded by cool technology while ignoring market realities.

It will be worth watching what Apple does next, especially if iPad sales begin to stall. Betting against Apple is always risky. The prediction here is that Jobs will swallow his pride and reposition the iPad. If he doesn't, there may be rough seas ahead for the much ballyhooed device that was predicted to save the tablet computer category from extinction.

Mosque Flap: Muslins Trump Christians

As the furor escalates over the so-called ground zero mosque, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church's request to rebuild its cathedral only blocks away has languished. The church's petition has been tangled in bureaucratic red tape, while New York's political elitists have rushed to approve the construction of a 13-story Muslim community center two blocks from the epicenter of the September 11th attacks.

St. Nicholas Church was buried under tons of rubble after it was crushed by the fall of the Twin Towers in 2001. Within a month of the attacks in New York City, Archbishop Demetrios pledged that the four-story church would rise again on the same spot it had occupied since 1922. The church filed a request with the New York Port Authority, the agency overseeing the reconstruction.

That was nearly nine years ago. The Port Authority has yet to rule on the church petition, despite the endorsement from then Gov. George E. Pataki. Issues have arisen over the size of the church complex and the amount of funding the Port Authority will contribute to the construction of the new building.

The seventy families who worshipped at the Greek Orthodox church now congregate at a cathedral in downtown Brooklyn. Church members have waited patiently for the rebuilding of their small cathedral in downtown Manhattan. A spokesman for the congregation says members are becoming "restless" over the stalled project.

When Mayor Bloomberg was appraised of the church's dilemma this week, he feigned surprise. He admitted the reconstruction had been "a bone of contention between the church and the Port Authority." The mayor, who did not hesitate to leap into the fray when an uproar ensued over the mosque, took a hands off approach, saying he did not want to "interfere" with the Port Authority's deliberations over the church's rebuilding project.

It appears, at least in New York City, it is easier for Muslims to construct a new community center with a mosque than it is for Christians to rebuild a church destroyed by the worst attack on American soil. The mayor's hypocrisy over the issue only underscores the rush to political correctness by city officials eager to use religious freedom and tolerance as an excuse to favor one group over another.

Even the Lecturer-in-Chief, Barack Obama, got into the act. At a Ramadan dinner in the White House State Dining Room, the President opined that Muslims had the right "to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan." He wagged his finger and admonished his fellow countrymen, "This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

The tone-deaf President was off the mark even wider than usual. No one on the other side of this issue has claimed Muslims, Christians or any other religion does not have the right to build a place of worship. The President just wants people to believe that is the issue. He knows better, but chooses to scold Christians about their lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

Apparently, he is suffering from an awful memory lapse. Radical members of Islam piloted the planes into the Twin Towers, praising Allah all the way to their deaths. Would any Muslim nation--say Iran or Saudi Arabia--allow a Christian church to be built within sight of its holiest shrines? Of course not. Then why is it so unreasonable for Americans to suggest it is inappropriate to build a mosque near ground zero?

Most citizens just want the Muslims to show a little tolerance for our values. Ground Zero is a sacred piece of our shared experience as Americans. Out of respect, Muslims should heed calls from concerned voices that are suggesting the community center be built at another location. By the way, there are nearly 30 mosques in New York City alone. No one could argue that Muslims don't have a place to worship in Manhattan.

Muslims championing the community center have refused to bow to these reasonable requests. With the mayor of New York City and the President in their corner, why should they budge? However, the Muslims and the politicians have misjudged the depth of American outrage at their decision to move forward with the project at the current site. Surveys show 60 to 70 percent of Americans prefer the mosque to be built somewhere else in Manhattan.

Perhaps, supporters have been blinded by a recent endorsement for the project. None other than Mahmoud al-Zahar, the leader of the notorious Hamas terrorist group, announced his support for the building of the place of worship. There is no word on whether Bloomberg or Obama would endorse Hamas building a recruiting center in Manhattan.

Meanwhile St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church remains out in the cold. Church leaders continue to press forward while the Port Authority dawdles. It would be nice if Bloomberg and Obama could summon up what little courage they have to make sure the Greek Orthodox congregation obtains the same speedy approvals as Muslims did to build a house of worship in lower Manhattan.

Then again why should they change their tune? Bloomberg and Obama have already chosen sides in this debate. Based on their words and actions, Muslims' interests trump Christians in the building of worship houses.

Foreclosure Aid: Another Government Boondoggle

The Obama Administration's efforts to solve the housing foreclosure problem by throwing billions of dollars at it has been exposed as an unqualified flop. However, it took Wall Street analysts to force the government to admit the $50 billion Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has failed to achieve its objectives.

In reviewing statistics released by the Treasury Department, some smart money folks noticed the numbers were out of whack with rising foreclosure rates. They asked Treasury to audit its numbers. Treasury passed the buck to Fannie Mae. The statistics were revised, which is government speak for, "We were caught red-handed with bogus data."

The new data released by Treasury raised eyebrows from Wall Street to Main Street. Here are just a few nuggets from the "revised" statistics about the HAMP program, which began in March, 2009:

1. More than 40 percent or about 1.3 million borrowers who started in the program have dropped out. Less than 30 percent have received permanent new terms on their loans.

2. Dropout rates among borrowers are increasing. About 91,000 borrowers dropped out in June, nearly twice the pace of those getting a permanent modification in their mortgage terms.

3. Borrowers with modified mortgages are defaulting on their liens at nearly twice the rate as it was originally reported by Treasury. For example, those borrowers who had their permanent modifications at least nine months defaulted at six times the rate the original numbers showed.

4. For loans permanently modified for at least nine months, 19.6 of those loans are now at least two months behind on their payments. On loans modified for at least half a year, 10.1 percent of homeowners are 60 days or more behind on payments.

These numbers come as no surprise. The government is bailing out people who should have never bought a home in the first place because they did not qualify. Does anyone expect that in today's lousy economy these same people will somehow find the new terms easier to meet?

Even these dismal figures are suspect. Consider that Realty/Trac, an independent research and tracking firm, says that lenders repossessed 92,858 homes in July, the second-highest monthly total ever recorded. Bank repossessions rose six percent from a year ago, when the housing market was in worse shape than today.

An objective review of the situation should convince Washington bureaucrats to quit throwing more money at the problem. That's what is wrong with rational thinking in today's environment dominated by an out-of-control Democrat-led spending spree that is creating a staggering mountain of debt.

The Obama Administration announced this week it would add another $3 billion in foreclosure aid to bailout homeowners. This is throwing good money after bad and expecting a different outcome.

But that's not the most insidious aspect of this new effort. Instead of spreading the money to homeowners across the country, the government in its wisdom decided to spend $2 billion in only 17 states and the District of Columbia. Those states, with two exceptions, are states that voted Democratic in the past election. Coincidence? Not in this administration.

Here's a prediction: when this newest effort fails, as it surely will, the Obama Administration will dump billions of additional dollars into already bankrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to permanently bailout irresponsible home borrowers. They will be given some sort of mortgage "amnesty" to allow them to live "free" in their homes just in time for the November mid-term elections.

Remember where you heard it first.

Unmasking Media Bias

Media bias is a subject that is tossed around these days more often than a Frisbee on a California beach. Many people, especially politicians, have a hard time defining the term, but they certainly will vouch they know it when they see it. They argue that it must be bias if doesn't fit their political or world view.

However, real bias usually is harder to detect. The prejudice that pervades today's mainstream media flows mainly from the decision about what qualifies as news. Those editorial judgements, made behind the scenes, are reflected in the selection of what stories are assigned for coverage.

Once editors decide what merits coverage, reporters are given instructions on pursuing a predetermined news angle. After stories are written or videoed, they are reviewed and edited for display in print or broadcast. Then another set of editors decides placement, directing where the story runs in a newscast or print publication.

Reporters often are blamed for news bias because their faces or names appear next to the coverage. But the editors pull the strings. Reporters are mere puppets dangled about by editors who are making judgements every day about what to cover, how to report it, and where to display it.

With that as a primer, here's a personal story that better illustrates how bias reflects an editor's judgement. Once while working at The Dallas Times-Herald, yours truly was given an assignment to produce a story about car-pooling. At that time, circa 1970, car-pooling was catching on in a handful of big cities in the country.

Like a good reporter should, I conducted interviews with a myriad of sources, including corporate spokesmen, city transportation agencies, state highway department officials and the chamber of commerce. What I found was that no company, save for Texas Instruments, had shown any interest in car-pooling. It was virtually non-existent in Dallas except for two vans operated by TI.

When I turned in my article, the news editor blew a gasket. "This isn't the story I wanted," he bellowed. "I want a story showing how car-pooling is growing in Dallas. It's good for the city."

I went back to my desk, sufficiently chastened. I dug out my notes and rewrote the story, emphasising that only one company was backing car-pooling, but it was surely a trend. I used the same set of facts and just ignored those that did not support the notion that car-pooling was going to save Dallas' traffic clogged freeways. The editor loved it so much it ran on the front page.

Although this episode happened decades ago, editors and journalists are employing the same tactic today. Closely examine most articles and reports and you will be able to spot how "selective facts" are chosen to make a point or advance an agenda. From the media's viewpoint, that isn't bias as along as the report is factual. However,leaving out facts and choosing only quotes and sources in support of a viewpoint, fails the test of being fair and balanced.

The best way to illustrate today's media bias is by listing some recent examples. In some cases, editors ignored the same news they once covered with gusto. In other instances, editors elected to use select facts to change the tenor of the reporting. Their choices have neutered the media's once proud journalism standards.

Here are just a few examples to illustrate the point:

1. BANK FAILURES: When a few California banks went under during President Bush's final year in office, the major broadcast networks showed long times of depositors waiting to withdraw their money from the institutions. The scene was described as reminiscent of The Great Depression. For perspective, there have been only two years since 1934 when no U.S. banks failed. Both years (2005 & 2006) occurred during the Bush Administration. Bank failures this year are on pace to break all previous records. Already, 103 banks have shuttered their doors. Have you seen any pictures of long lines of anxious bank customers on the television news? Of course not. The media has decided the country wants to see the economy recover and therefore doesn't need to be reminded of impending disaster. The news "narrative" has changed to showing and reporting facts and sources that support that agenda. No one could argue that a new record in bank closures does not merit news coverage.

2. AFGHAN WAR: During President Bush's two terms, the number of Americans killed or wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan ran on the front pages of most newspapers. The broadcast news followed suit, often with graphic footage of the unloading of flag draped caskets as a grim reminder of the war's toll. Each milestone reached in war dead became a new headline. During Bush's eight years there were 630 Americans killed in Afghanistan. In less than two years of his presidency, Barack Obama has presided over a war toll that now stands at 577. Have you seen front page charts showing the rising number of soldiers killed? Where are those flag-draped casket photos? The media has obviously decided that Americans no longer care about the killing of young men and women in uniform. Their narrative calls for stories that show the war is winding down to a successful conclusion.

3. HOME FORECLOSURES: During the last fading light of the Bush Administration, the media covered home foreclosures as if every American would soon be homeless. Interviews dominated the news with sobbing single mothers and minority families thrown out of their homes because they couldn't make the payments. Many claimed they were duped by greedy mortgage companies. In yet another irony, home foreclosures continue to spike with hardly any coverage. There is the odd mention of the percentage of mortgages under water, but there have been no snapshots of vans parked outside the domiciles of homeowners who are moving out of homes that they can no longer afford. No homeowner tears are being shown on the nightly news. Judging from the coverage, one would assume foreclosures are no longer a problem for the country. Yet the country has experienced 26 consecutive months of year-over-year increases in home foreclosures. Home foreclosures among the most credit-worthy borrowers have risen an alarming 425 percent (yes, 425%) since January 2008, according to Lender Processing Services, a mortgage data firm. Wouldn't you think that merited a few teary eyed homeowners pouring out their heart about their bad luck?

4. PROTEST: During the Bush Administration, Democrats and the media championed dissent as a sign of the First Amendment right of every American to speak out on the country's ills. Overnight, protesters gained celebrity status, such as Cindy Sheehan, a mother of a slain U.S. solider, who camped out near Bush's Crawford ranch. Pictures of protest placards with unflattering images of President Bush were served up in print photos and on television. There was even the famous footage of the Iraqi journalist throwing his shoe at President Bush during a news conference. No less an authority that Hillary Clinton claimed disagreement with a president was a holy exercise of American patriotism. Protest seemed like a great American ideal until the Tea Party came along. Then the media decided protest was a bad thing after all. Noisy citizens with signs were called Nazis, racists and kooks. The tenor of the coverage went from fawning to frightful. The media began snooping for dirt on protesters, particularly after Democrats and the President were critical of the dissent. Today Tea Party protests go largely unreported, although often the numbers of people involved far exceed the "mass" demonstrations aimed at Bush's administration.

Is it any wonder that surveys show the public distrusts the media almost as much as politicians? For decades, the media has sold its soul to promote ideas, causes and viewpoints instead of using its resources to inform and educate the public.

As a result, the media industry has suffered crippling declines in viewership and readership. Captains of media conglomerates complain that people just don't read newspapers and consume news broadcasts like they once did. They point the finger of blame at the Internet and an uneducated, dumbed-down public who does not care about what's happening in their country.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The news media needs to quit looking elsewhere for scapegoats. Today's media have become the enemy of truth, accuracy, balance and fairness. They have dug themselves a deep credibility hole that threatens to bury the industry in a grave they will never escape.

Ditch the Census

This year's U.S. Census already is the most expensive in the nation's history, even adjusting for inflation. Estimates for the total price tag are about $14.5 billion. That works out to be about $46.93 for every man, woman and child in the country, based on a projected population count of 308 million.

Even those bloated billion dollar figures are suspect. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office called the cost estimates "not reliable because it lacks adequate documentation." As if that wasn't damning enough, it added that the figures were "not comprehensive, accurate or credible." In other words, the estimates are meaningless.

In its summary, the GAO said without improvements, the Census Bureau's ability to manage its operations will be "hampered" and Congress' efforts to oversee the process will be "constrained." No kidding.

For some perspective, consider that the first U.S. Census in 1790 was conducted at a total cost of $44,377 or about 1.13 cents per person. That headcount was done entirely on horseback as census takers when house-to-house. With computers and sophisticated digital resources at its disposal, today's Census Bureau could not even approach that kind of efficiency.

There are some apologists who would argue that times have changed. The population is more spread out across the country. There are millions more people to count than the 3.9 million who were tallied in the 1790 census. Even acknowledging those facts, does not account for the wide disparity in costs.

In fact, figures for the latest census in 2000 underscore the point. The cost of the national count that year was $4.5 billion or $15.99 a person. In a decade, the cost has more than tripled. By comparison, the cost of the 2000 census was less than twice the figure for the 1990 population count ($2.4 billion and $10.02 a person).

One reason, albeit not the major one, the costs have escalated is the amount of information collected. Those early census were designed to count people. Today's modern census reaches for more details, including ethnicity and home ownership. Followup questions to a select sample are even more intrusive. Is all that data really necessary?

However, the real cost driver for the rising census expense can be laid at the feet of the Obama Administration. The President and his henchmen decided to use the current Census as a political tool. Thousands of temporary workers have been added to the payrolls to dress up the unemployment numbers. Reports have circulated about workers being "hired", trained and sent home. Other news accounts suggest workers were recycled through the same training several times to enable the Census Bureau to continue to keep the individual on the payroll, even though no work was being done.

Without such chicanery, unemployment would have reached double digits by now. Democrats were determined to avoid crossing that threshold at all costs, including using the U.S. Census to game the numbers.

That's another reason that it is time to end the charade. Once the current population count is completed, Washington needs to pull the plug on the decennial U.S. Census. It makes no economic sense to continue this costly exercise.

Federal and state governments already have boat loads of information on citizens. It exists in data bases maintained by agencies from the federal Internal Revenue Service to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Mine the available data. Estimate a population headcount and then be done with it.

Does it really matter of the count is off by say a million or so people? Some politicians have argued for years that the current method under counts some groups of people. If that's the case, then no one can argue that an estimate based on available government data could be any worse and it certainly could done at a lower cost.

Vodoo Economics

Of all the ludicrous claims voiced by Democrats, the latest boast about jobless payments stimulating the economy merits special recognition for its utter lack of intellectual honesty.

When legislation to extend unemployment benefits reached a stalemate in Congress last week, the Democrats went on the offensive. They painted Republicans as a party that cares not a wit for the downtrodden because the GOP was insisting on budget cuts to pay for the extension. President Obama weighed in, calling the GOP tactics shameful. That gained sufficient traction in the media to compel a few cowardly Republicans to end their attempts to block passage of the measure.

Once the bill was signed into law, Democrats began crowing about how the measure was really about "economic stimulus". House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, only two heartbeats removed from the Presidency, used those exact words in defending the billions added to the federal deficit as a result of the legislation. Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown chimed in, calling the extension "the smart thing to do for our economy".

The logic behind such assertions rests on thin ice. Under the Democrats' reasoning, once employment benefits are restored, these out-of-work citizens will become consumers again. Their spending will pump more money into the Obama Recession Economy. Only an economic illiterate would believe such a flimsy hoax. Democrats obviously think most Americans are Dumb and Dumber.

First of all, the benefits fall far short of what most people need just to meet their monthly rent. Jobless payments will average $309 a week for the nearly five million people whose 26 weeks of benefits had expired. Imagine all the consumption and economic pump priming that kind of money will buy. After paying for rent, utilities and food, there can't be much left over on an income of $1,235 a month. Therefore, it is sheer folly to suggest that the benefits will somehow lift the country out of the recession.

Secondly, economists have pointed out that the total benefits to be paid out represent less than one-quarter of one percent of the economy. In other words, its impact can hardly even be measured, much less felt. Yet according to Democrats, the billions of dollars paid in benefits is the smartest thing to do for our sickly economy. Really? If that's true, the Democrats' actions are a sad admission that they have no idea how to rebuild America's economic engine.

Thirdly, every dollar paid in jobless benefits is one dollar less that another American has in his pocket. The government took the money from taxpayers to give to the unemployed. When one taxpayer has less money and another gains income at that person's expense, then the net-net economic impact is zilch. Only an economic moron would claim that the economy was boosted by a transference of wealth.

Furthermore, one could argue that the taxpayer would have spent the $309 on discretionary goods and services that actually would benefit the economy, instead of using it for the essentials. This is not to suggest that the unemployed should be stripped of benefits. But it illustrates how it is an egregious lie to argue that giving taxpayer handouts to the jobless actually boosts the economy.

Of course, no one in the media ever points out any of this. Instead, they repeat the words uttered by Democrat politicians without a ounce of fact checking.

Speaker Pelosi and her minions have done nothing to create more employment opportunities for out-of-work Americans who are forced to accept government largess. The sad fact is Democrats and President Obama don't understand government's role in putting more people back to work.

If the Democrats really wanted to help the jobless, they would reduce taxes on every business, create incentives for corporate investment, open the credit spigot for small firms and reduce regulations across the board. Instead, they are patting themselves on the back for extending jobless payments.

That should give every American pause to consider whether the current Washington crowd should be entrusted with reviving the moribund economy.