Private sector ain’t so hot, Mr. President

Hiding in the basement avoiding the heat. Two news items of note. The first, from James Pethokoukis, who emphasizes how “not fine” the private sector really is:

The government’s April Job Opening and Labor Turnover report was, in the words of JPMorgan economists, “soft, lending some credence to the view that the April-May slowing seen in the payroll report was real and not a statistical fluke.”

– The number of job openings in April fell 325,000 to 3.416 million. That’s the lowest level since November of last year.

– But here is the real red flag. Private job openings fell 282,000 — the most since early 2009 — to 3.080 million. Early 2009, if you recall, saw the economy just hemorrhaging jobs.

Hemorrhaging, eh? Wonderful news less than six months before an election. Have the Obami figured out how to make the unemployment number not reflect the new pool of job seekers they’ve illegally granted amnesty to–or will those folks simply not be counted as part of the labor pool?

Speaking of which, it will be interesting to see how much traction the handful of block-the-President bills gain. Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz) said of his bill:

“Last week, the president decided to grant amnesty and hand out work permits to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, while over 23 million Americans remain unemployed and the civilian participation rate is at a 30-year low,” he said Monday. “This amounts to an abdication of duty to the American people who are struggling in this economy.”Instead of working with Congress to secure our border and reform our immigration policy, President Obama sought to circumvent Congress once again.”

Pretty much.

I knew this would be an insane election season. I never knew how much. This salvo from Obama last week–only one step short of full amnesty, by fiat at that–shows he’s willing to stop at nothing.

Anyone else nervous about the newfound pools of voters they’ll dig out of graves, one way or another?


“Are We in Revolutionary Times?”

So asks Victor Davis Hanson of Obama’s unprecedented (and shameful) disregard of the Constitution yesterday in announcing he will  blatently ignore the law of the land (and the separation of powers) and not deport 800,000 illegal aliens. How quick can you get ’em on the voter rolls illegally, eh? Hanson writes:

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

Politically, Obama calculates that some polls showing the current likely Hispanic support for him in the high 50s or low 60s would not provide enough of a margin in critical states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, or perhaps also in Florida and Virginia, to counteract the growing slippage of the independent vote and the energy of the clinger/tea-party activists. Thus, what was not legal or advisable in 2009, 2010, or 2011, suddenly has become critical in mid-2012. No doubt free green cards will quickly lead to citizenship and a million new voters. Will it work politically? Obama must assume lots of things: that all Hispanics vote as a block in favoring exempting more illegal aliens from the law, and are without worry that the high unemployment rate hits their community among the hardest; that black voters, stung by his gay-marriage stance, will not resent what may be seen as de facto amnesty, possibly endangering his tiny (and slipping) lead in places like Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And because polls show overwhelming resistance to non-enforcement of immigrationlaw, Obama also figures that the minority who supports his recent action does so far more vehemently than the majority who opposes it. Time will tell; but my gut feeling is that his brazen act will enrage far more than it will delight — and for a variety of different reasons. As with all his special-interest efforts — the Keystone cancellation, war-on-women ploy, gay-marriage turnabout, and now de facto amnesty — Obama believes dividing Americans along class, ethnic, gender, and cultural lines will result in a cobbled together majority, far more preferable than a 1996 Clinton-like effort to win over the independents by forging  a bipartisan consensus.

There is no bipartisan consensus in Obama’s head. Yes, we can steamroll the Constitution! He is desperate, because in doing so, he’s going to make the employment situation bleaker for many. Read the rest.

Rush called this the “Catch, Release, Vote” plan. Fitting. His predictions of what comes next frighten me more.

UPDATE: Pundette has much more.

Change: For the first time since Depression, more Mexicans leave U.S. than enter

The border isn’t any stronger, folks. So what does this really mean? Oh: our economy is that bad. What an accomplishment! From the clueless WaPo:

According to the report, the Mexican-born population, which had been increasing since 1970, peaked at 12.6 million in 2007 and has dropped to 12 million since then.

The reversal appears to be a result of tightened border controls, a weak U.S. job and housing construction market, a rise in deportations and a decline in Mexican birthrates, said the study, which used U.S. and Mexican census figures and Mexican government surveys. Arrests of illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States have also dropped precipitously in recent years

There are no jobs to be had.

How’s this factoid:

One in 10 people born in Mexico live in the United States, and more than half entered illegally.

Or this one:

Although most Mexican deportees say they will try to return, their numbers are shrinking, too, the study said: According to a Mexican government survey, 20 percent of deportees in 2010 said they would not return to the United States, compared with 7 percent in 2005.

Half of those returning to Mexico took their entire families, including more than 100,000 U.S.-born children of Mexican immigrants.

Maybe the 20% grew tired of the over-regulation, too. Don’t blame ’em.

New Obama ’12 slogan: We didn’t mean to change that!

“Illegal immigration: For the sake of the children”

That’s the headline of the article at the LA Times. No joke.

Is there anything that can’t be rationalized with the argument but it’s for the children?

Apparently not:

This is what I learned in Mexico: that parents will make any sacrifice for their children. Why do so many come across the border illegally? If you told me that one of my daughters would die young after stepping on a nail in a village without a doctor, or that my girls would have to leave school because they were needed to work and support the family, or that they would be in danger every day from drug cartels, I can promise you I would risk everything to give them a better life, especially if that life was available just across the border.

Living only 100 miles from the Mexican border, I’ve seen wave after wave of immigration and a variety of laws intended to control it. I saw lives changed by Reagan’s amnesty in the 1980s and by Clinton’s Operation Gatekeeper in the 1990s. And through all the policy shifts, the migration has continued. We can’t simply open the borders, of course. But we need to acknowledge the labor issues, and family realities, that have produced the situation and develop policy that acknowledges those complexities.

A teacher friend told me recently about her second-grade student whose father was killed in drug violence. An uncle helped the boy and his mother get to California, but then the uncle was killed. The boy has nightmares and never says a word in class, and his mother is desperate. But will she return to Mexico? Would you?

Why can’t we “simply open the borders” since everyone on the other side who has a sob story or children apparently has the right to make that child’s life better by breaking a law? It’s for the children. They can learn to abuse the welfare state here without ever learning the language. It’s for the children.

It’s for the children until folks realize the local elementary school has more native Spanish speakers than locals, or when the local ER closes because it’s in bankruptcy after treating wave upon wave of illegals who cannot be denied treatment and who never pay. It’s for the children. Until that impacts your own.


Romney’s “crowning achievement” more than a blueprint for Obamacare

Who will repeal Obamacare? The one whose state mandate to purchase insurance provided Obama administration hacks not only the blueprint but also worked for Obama to get ‘er done?

The Romneycare bill rests next to Mitt's knee. His wife apparently approves, too.

From  NBC:

“The White House wanted to lean a lot on what we’d done in Massachusetts,” said Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care and who attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the president. “They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

So what, Romneycare advisors met with Obamacare advisors. Big deal?

You betcha. Ed Morrissey says “uh oh”:

Rick Perry and other Republicans have attacked Mitt Romney for providing the “blueprint” for ObamaCare, which Romney has successfully rebutted — at least until now.  NBC’s report shows that if Romney and his team didn’t provide the blueprint, the argument can be made that the Romney’s team provided at least some direction to Obama and his team.

These weren’t just offhand contacts, either.  Besides meeting with Obama himself, Gruber also met with economic adviser Larry Summers, OMB chief Peter Orzsag, and Obama’s point person on health care reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle.  Most significantly, these meetings resulted in a contract for $380,000 to produce federal legislation based on Gruber’s work in Massachusetts.  Two other Romney aides met several times at the White House on the same topic.

A $380,000 contract, eh? Sweet!

Contrary to every politically expedient thing rushing from his mouth, Mitt Romney is not the man who will repeal Obamacare.

Ann Coulter still swears up and down that immigration is a bigger deal for Perry than Romneycare is for Mitt. I beg to differ.

The exodus of illegals from Alabama

From the AP:

Hispanic students have started vanishing from Alabama public schools in the wake of a court ruling that upheld the state’s tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration.

Education officials say scores of immigrant families have withdrawn their children from classes or kept them home this week, afraid that sending the kids to school would draw attention from authorities.

There are no precise statewide numbers. But several districts with large immigrant enrollments — from small towns to large urban districts — reported a sudden exodus of children of Hispanic parents, some of whom told officials they planned to leave the state to avoid trouble with the law, which requires schools to check students’ immigration status.

But they’re not leaving the country, they’re headed to sanctuary states:

A school worker in Albertville — a community with a large poultry industry that employs many Hispanic workers — said Friday that many families might leave town over the weekend for other states. About 22 percent of the community’s 4,200 students are Hispanic.

It’s striking to me that no one dares to argue these folks should leave and try to come back legally. That isn’t even part of the discussion. They can flee and become a problem in another state due to the lack of any federal enforcement of, well, you know, laws.

Instead, we get the tears:

Many of the 223 Hispanic students at Foley Elementary came to school Thursday crying and afraid, said Principal Bill Lawrence. 

Nineteen of them withdrew, and another 39 were absent, Lawrence said, the day after a federal judge upheld much of Alabama’s strict new immigration law, which authorizes law enforcement to detain people suspected of not being U.S. citizens and requires schools to ask new enrollees for a copy of their birth certificate. 

Bad people, who expect folks to follow laws and who end up making children cry. The children are afraid! Boohiss. Mean bad people. What of the other students, the ones forced to deal with the consequences of so many resources being funneled to deal with the vast influx of ESL students? In our old neighborhood in Virginia, the Spanish-speaking kids outnumbered the English speakers, and teachers spent more time speaking in Spanish than they did in English. Great education.

But it’s mean and heartless to point out the obvious ripple effects of the federal government failing to secure the border.

“Our taxes are too high, our schools don’t educate our children well enough, unions and other special interests have more clout in the Legislature than the general public”

So argues Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, in explaining why he proposed his county and 13 others in Southern California secede from the state. More:

Stone said in a statement late Thursday that Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, Kings, Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa and Mono counties should form the new state of South California.

The creation of the new state would allow officials to focus on securing borders, balancing budgets, improving schools and creating a vibrant economy, he said.


He unveiled his proposal on the day Gov. Jerry Brown signed budget legislation that will divert about $14 million in 2011-12 vehicle license fee revenue from four new Riverside County cities.

Officials fear the cut will cripple the new cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee and Wildomar.

Stone said he would present his proposal to the Board of Supervisors July 12.

The new state would have no term limits, only a part-time legislature and limits on property taxes.

Red county in blue state. How many others feel the need to secede in order to secure the borders? Educate rather than indoctrinate? Create a vibrant economy?

h/t  pjHusband

UPDATE: linked by Pundette as a “Featured Blog.” Thanks!