Unlike Obama, Scott Walker Delivered

Unlike Obama, Scott Walker delivers By: Sen. Ron Johnson May 31, 2012 09:39 PM EDT

Starting Wednesday, most of the folks I know in Wisconsin will be looking forward to a well-earned respite from what seems like a permanent campaign. Instead of taking a break from politics between elections, Wisconsin has for months been dealing with fugitive legislators, ugly protests, legal challenges and a series of recall contests allegedly aimed at overturning Gov. Scott Walker’s legislative agenda. There’s virtually no possibility that his successful reforms will be overturned, so one has to wonder: What exactly is the point of Tuesday’s recall vote? The simple facts are the governor’s reforms have worked, and Wisconsin is open for business. Since Walker and his allies in the Wisconsin state Legislature passed reforms that asked public-sector employees to contribute a small amount to their retirement and health care plans, prevented unions from automatically collecting dues from workers’ paychecks and granted local governments more flexibility in dealing with public-sector unions, property taxes have actually gone down. Counties and municipalities have balanced their budgets. And the state has gone from a budget deficit of $1.8 billion to a surplus of $275 million. These reforms have worked, and the people of Wisconsin recognize there’s no reason to return to the deficits of the past. When Republicans took control of Madison in 2011, the Legislature was dealing with a gaping budget deficit. While most elected officials prefer to decide whether to boost spending or cut taxes, this team was different. The serious-minded legislators elected in 2010 recognized that business as usual was ruining the state. Wisconsin’s business climate was worsening. Jobs were leaving. Budget deficits were growing. The leaders stepped up and adopted reforms they knew might not be popular at first, but would — over time — put the state on sound fiscal footing. Facing serious fiscal challenges, they made the hard decisions and took the tough votes. So far, it looks like they were right. We could use some of that fortitude in Washington. At the federal level, the problem is nearly 1,000 times worse than it was in Wisconsin — with Washington running annual deficits of well over $1 trillion every year since President Barack Obama was elected in 2008. Given the size of the problem and the consequences if we fail to act, the last signal the people of Wisconsin should send to our nation is that elected officials who make tough decisions will be booted out of office. Instead, we should encourage elected officials — in Washington and elsewhere — to take practical steps to control spending and rising deficits. That has not been the case in Washington, where the president has simply refused to lead. He has presented four federal budgets. None of them included reforms to save Social Security and Medicare. None included a plan to get this nation to a balanced budget. Instead, the Obama administration is content to prevail over historic levels of spending, deficits and debt. The president’s most recent budget was so unserious, it was defeated in the Senate, 99-0, after being rejected in the House, 414-0. This isn’t leadership; it’s a complete abdication of responsibility. Compare the president’s performance with the governor’s. Both benefited from voters who were deeply frustrated and disappointed with their predecessors and badly wanted a change in direction. Both were elected along with partisan majorities in control of both houses in their capitals — Walker in Madison and Obama in Washington. But as both prepare to face the voters again, Walker has assumed responsibility for what happened on his watch, while Obama is doing everything he can to avoid responsibility. Walker campaigned on a promise to control spending and encourage private-sector job creation. He’s governed as he campaigned — delivering the reforms he said Wisconsin needed. Contrast that with the president, who campaigned against an individual health insurance mandate, for net spending reductions, for cutting the deficit in half and for bringing the American people together. Instead of taking credit for promises kept, he’s now focused on shifting blame — to Republicans in Congress, to natural disasters, to the Arab Spring. Is that what the American people expect in a leader? What are the implications of Tuesday’s election in Wisconsin? It will tell us whether moderate and independents are willing to stick with an elected official who governed as he promised — even when it meant making tough calls on spending. It will tell us whether voters in a middle-of-the-road state such as Wisconsin recognize the importance of a little belt-tightening now, instead of much greater shocks down the road. Elected officials in Washington and elsewhere will be paying close attention to what the voters of Wisconsin have to say. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a businessman from Oshkosh, is a freshman who serves on the Appropriations, Budget, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees and on the Special Committee on Aging.

Obama War On Women: 766,000 More Women Unemployed Than When Obama Took office

(CNSNews.com) - The number of American women who are unemployed was 766,000 individuals greater in May 2012 than in January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In January 2009, there were approximately 5,005,000 unemployed women in the United States, according to BLS. In May 2012, there were 5,771,000.
The BLS derives its employment statistics from an overall number it calls the civilian non-institutional population. This includes all Americans 16 or over who are not on active duty in the military and who are not in an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home. From this civilian non-institutional population, BLS determines a subset it calls the civilian labor force, which includes all members of the civilian non-institutional population who are either employed or have made specific efforts to find work in the past four weeks. People who are not employed and who have not sought work in the past four weeks are considered by the BLS to have dropped out of the labor force.
Unemployed people are those who are in the labor force but do not have a job—despite having looked for one in the past four weeks. The unemployment rate is the percentage of the overall civilian labor force that does not have a job—that is, who have sought a job in the past four weeks and not found one.
In January 2009, according to BLS, the unemployment rate for American women was 7.0 percent. In May 2012, it was 7.9 percent.
When Obama took office in January 2009, the female civilian non-institutional population was 121,166,000. In May 2012, it hit 125,788,000—an increase of 4,622,000 since January 2012.
However, at the same time the female civilian non-institutional population was increasing, the percentage participating in the labor force was declining—following a long-term trend. In January 2009, 59.4 percent of women participated in the labor force, while in May 2012 it was 57.8.
May’s 57.8 percent female participation rate in the labor force was up from April’s rate of 57.6 percent—but that level (57.6 percent) was the lowest it had been since March 1993.Female participation in the labor force peaked at 60.3 percent in April 2000. The last time it was above 60 percent was March 2001, when it hit 60.2 percent.
Despite the increase in the female non-institutional population over the past three years, the actual number of women employed in the United States in May 2012 was about 83,000 lower than it was in January 2009. In January 2009, there were 66,969,000 women employed in the United States and in May 2012 there were 66,886,000.
The number of women employed in the United States peaked at 68,102,000 in April 2008, according to BLS.  The number of women employed in the United States today is 1,216,000 less than that.
BLS posts historical data on female employment going back to 1948. Since then, the female unemployment rate hit its lowest level—2.7 percent—in May 1953. At that time, however, only 34.0 percent of non-institutionalized American civilian women 16 or older participated in the labor force.