Sing Me a Sad Song

What do you call an election for union representation whose balloting went on for three days, whose union and company leaders wanted union representation, an election with Federal law heavily stacked in favor of the union, but whose workers – wooed for three years at a cost of $5 million – voted against union representation? A disaster. That’s what I’d call it.

Well, that’s what happened in the UAW’s first attempt to unionize workers in the 3-year old VW plant in Chattanooga last week. It was a Russian-style one-candidate (UAW) election that tried an end run around secret balloting with a card check phoney election until workers called the UAW's hand.

Still, so convinced of a union win, the high fives were already slapping, the champagne corks were popping, and UAW president Robert King was headed to a victory party in Chattanooga. That is, until retired circuit court judge Samuel Payne announced the vote count. The UAW lost the election 712 to 626 – close, but no cigar.

In the days following the announcement of the election results, editorials and articles tried to augur the meaning of the election outcome. Some opined that the workers were confused that this was an election for union representation, thinking instead that they were voting to install a European-style worker council that would allow them a say in how the plant was governed. I find that hard to believe. I find it harder to believe that the UAW would spend three years and millions of dollars to win the right for workers to represent themselves in council meetings, supplanting the historic role of union negotiation. 

Former Mayor of Chattanooga and now Senator Bob Corker who was instrumental in getting the VW plant built in his city certainly thought the election was for union representation because he inserted himself into the pre-election lobbying to voice his opposition. Obama thought it was an organizing vote, voicing his support for union representation. This was a high stakes big deal for both sides of a unionization attempt.

The defeat under US labor law means the UAW must keep its distance from Chattanooga VW for a year before another attempt to unionize the plant. Yet interestingly, despite their stinging defeat, the UAW has vowed to “fight back” – a curious comment from an organization whose “customer” isn’t buying its product. Fight back against whom? Everyone but a majority of the workers seemed to be on the union’s side.

This election outcome wasn’t an isolated rejection of labor activism. Unions have had declining membership in the private sector for 35 years, now down to only 400,000 members – a stunning loss of 75%. In order to “fight back” against the rejection of his product, UAW president Bob King has traveled the industrial world attempting to organize unions in various countries to act together in reasserting that unions are still a force to be reckoned with.

Lots of luck. Thanks to the baggage of feckless management and an over-paid unionized workforce, the American automobile industry’s has lost significant market share to foreign car makers who listened to the voice of the customers and gave them more car for less money. Foreign car makers employed technology to drive down the labor cost per unit to half that of an American car. Instead of developing a healthy sense of self-preservation, the union instead fought labor-saving technology with the zeal of Luddites and predictably the recent market share of American cars has dropped almost to 30%. Ten different foreign car makers have now populated plants in the US. Their output coupled with imports produced in other countries now account for two-thirds of the cars we buy.

If King hopes to resuscitate the union movement in America, he knows he would have to go after the foreign car makers with US plants. That was his strategy in attempting to bring the 1,550 VW workers in Chattanooga into the UAW fold.  King courted IG Metall, the powerful German labor union, to pressure VW management so it would cooperate in the unionization of the Tennessee plant. VW was to be the first of several union targets in the UAW plan to “invade the south,” which has been historically hostile to carpet-bagging unions and therefore historically attractive to companies seeking a stable, non-union workforce. After successfully unionizing VW the next targets were to be the Mercedes plant in Alabama, the Nissan plant in Mississippi, the BMW plant in South Carolina, and Texas – that vast greenfield of union opportunity with almost three million more wage earners than New York state but only a fourth of the union members. Well, at least that was the plan. Reality looked different.

A Chattanooga victory also would have boosted the UAW’s strong-arm tactics with the Detroit automakers whose companies have been decimated by years of supporting the union tapeworm. King had targeted the “unfairness” of entry-level Detroit auto workers earning only $15 per hour to watch robots assemble cars, while those with seniority make $29 for essentially the same “work.” The latter have just been watching robots longer. Both wages are the consequence of prior union contracts ($29) and bailout concessions ($15). Relative to the auto output of foreign-owned US-based carmakers, however, Detroit is a skinny rabbit getting skinnier. Still, the gall of it all! Michigan, the home of the UAW, has become a right to work state! Maybe King thinks it was time to teach these Michiganders a thing or two. They are getting too big for their breeches letting people opt out of union membership.

Failing to win at Chattanooga, the UAW now loses clout in Detroit. Unless it can represent workers in one or two other foreign-owned US-based automakers and get wage increases for their workforce, it has weakened its leverage to negotiate wage increases and demand dues from members. The VW failure is even more striking because of the support it got from management, including plant access to pitch workers – a privilege not granted to union opponents.

This defeat comes on the heels of union thugs getting their south ends kicked so badly by Scott Walker a couple of years ago in the Wisconsin teacher’s union brouhaha. Unions are getting a bad rep that they can’t deliver for workers. ‘Course after union dues to support the fat cats like Bob King, Richard Trumka, Andy Stern, Mary Kay Henry, and James Hoffa and after deductions for strike funds, union wages may start out higher but with dues and deductions they can net out less than non-union plants.

Maybe workers are figuring that out. Interviews after the election revealed that workers who voted for representation as well as those voting against were satisfied with their wages – $19.50 per hour for entry level workers, which is $4.50 more than their Detroit cousins are making. And interviews also indicated that anti-union voters were concerned about the disruptive legacy unions have in work relations concerning work rules and seniority, not to mention concern that unions make businesses less competitive. Money poured into the anti-union campaign reminded workers that union dues are used to fund Democrats and Obama who don’t win elections in southern states. (Obama lost Tennessee to Romney by 20%.) Moreover, unions spend money on liberal causes that aren’t popular in the south like gun control and abortion.

As Greg Poteet, one of the VW workers interviewed after the election put it,

The UAW isn’t good for my plant; they can’t offer me or any worker anything we don’t have already. I’m a Christian and a conservative and I refuse to give my (union dues) to things I oppose, like Planned Parenthood, gun control and the Democratic Party.

While there was a time when unions were bipartisan, they’ve grown increasing radical. Unions are a big part of financing the Democrat Party. Obama attributed his 2012 win to the UAW. But declining membership and losing elections translates into declining political influence among Democrats and bad news for Democrat candidates’ coffers on the eve of the 2014 mid-term elections. The unions dropped $14 million into the beg boxes of liberal causes and candidates in the 2012 election.

What’s next?

“Sing Me a Sad Song,” Lynn Anderson lamented in her 1970s hit. It may become the theme song of the UAW if it can’t organize US-based foreign auto makers. And even if to a large degree it could – a BIG if – it can’t influence relative wages paid to produce cars in other countries which are imported into America. History has shown that non-competitive wages, taxes, costs to build new plants simply force local production across borders into low wage, low tax, and low cost countries. The sad song of unions in this country is its product no longer has a market. It’s also the same sad song that Social Security is singing – a growing number of retirees and a shrinking number of wage earning workers. Yes, “Sing me a song of sadness and sing it as blue as I feel …”

Obama’s post-election comments suggested that everyone except the anti-union outsiders wanted the UAW to win the Chattanooga VW workers’ election. Well, Mr. Obama, 712 didn’t.

The GOP’s Gift to Obama

No issue plays into the hands of Obama the Divider quite as well as immigration. And Boehner the Weak is about to give in to him.

There are about 12 million illegals in this country. Yes, illegals – despite the scorn the PC crowd has attached to that label. The majority snuck in. Others overstayed their visas and melted into American society. What to do about them is one of the most divisive issues in the political debate.

Immigration reform proponents advocate legalizing illegals because (i) they are here and (ii) they aren’t paying taxes. Legalizing them would allow them to be rationalized into the workforce and make them and their employers abide by labor laws, pay taxes, support social welfare costs, and grow the gross domestic product. With rare exceptions illegals embrace American values, are motivated to pursue the American dream of success, and they hold jobs Americans don’t want. Or so the argument goes. Failing to integrate them into society is a form of racism, if not xenophobia, we’re warned.

Their opponents, on the other hand, argue that their presence is illegal. Granting them legal standing and a path to citizenship rewards their law-breaking and puts them at the front of the line ahead of those waiting to enter legally. They should be deported, denied access to citizenship and American welfare, and required to remain out of the country for a prescribed period before legally applying to reenter. In other words, go to the end of the line.

Both of these positions are impractical to implement and both ignore important economic and political issues in their public debate.

The Senate and the House have staked out different positions on the immigration issue. The House formulated a set of public principles at the beginning of this month that would offer a path to citizenship only to those brought illegally into this country as children by their parents (the so-called Dreamers.) The Senate bill, the work of Rubio and Schumer, would offer a path to citizenship to all who are in this country illegally. The Senate wants a sweeping comprehensive solution (think ObamaCare) whereas the House wants a piecemeal solution that enacts critical requirements – border security, citizenship pathway for Dreamers, immigration quotas for low and high skills, guest agricultural workers, and verification – separately into law. There are other differences but these are the main sticking points.

Too few voters are paying attention to the immigration debate, but for those who are, it requires understanding these facts.

Whereas many may think all illegals are Latinos, they aren’t. About three in four are; the rest are from other parts of the world, many from Asia, whose visas have expired. It’s also thought that illegals, especially Latinos, are undocumented Democrats. That’s mostly correct. The average turnout in the past six presidential elections for all voters is 54%; for Latinos it’s 48%. Latino voters break about 70% for Democrats (as compared to African-Americans who break 85% for Democrats.) So if all nine million illegal Latinos in this country were legalized to vote (those under age couldn’t vote) a bit over four million would exercise the right to vote and three million of them would vote Democrat. Three million is about 2% of the votes cast in recent presidential elections. Actually, the figure is probably half that, discounting for non-voter children.

The Senate bill, according to CBO, would increase the number of highly skilled and low skilled immigrant workers. It would admit fewer average skilled workers. We already have unemployment problems among low skill workers, a problem about to be made worse if Obama succeeds in raising the national minimum wage.

High skill workers in some specialties are already under competitive job pressures from the government’s corrupt management of the H-1B visa program which admits non-immigrant workers with certain skills to fill American jobs.  The original idea of the H-1B visa was to resolve shortages of specially-trained workers – math, science, medicine, technology, engineering, for example – to prevent them from restraining growth in certain economic sectors dependent on those skills. Foreign-trained workers were allowed to fill high skilled jobs temporarily after which they were to return to their home country when the need no longer existed. Business executives learned how to game the system in order to fill high skilled jobs with low paid foreign workers even when it cost Americans those jobs.

In one visa fraud case, for example, the government revealed that the number of IT workers admitted under the H-1B program exceeded the number of unemployed Americans capable of doing the same work. Companies that outsource IT and software programming to India often game the visa program to bring workers into this country without looking for domestic specialists or intentionally avoiding employment of local workers. Foreign workers are less expensive. I personally know of an Indian software engineer who worked in an American company for a year at an annual salary of $12,000 before returning home. An American filling that position would have cost $60,000 to $70,000. A professional association representing a particular type of expertise noted unemployment among its members correlated positively with the H-1B quotas.

If the truth be known, many of the people who fill American job slots under H-1B are no more skilled than American workers who are just as qualified. But they are cheaper. And while the provisions of the visa program specify that foreign workers must be paid the prevailing American wage, there are (like all government programs) so many loopholes that the foreign workers are paid sub-standard wages. If the H-1B worker learns he is being underpaid and gets “frisky” about it, the employer terminates him and reports it to the US Immigration Department. Unless the worker is picked up by another employer, the only choice is to return home.

Recognizing the potential for abuses like these, a number of Republican Senators have come out against the Schumer-Rubio Senate bill. The Democrats, on the other hand, are pressing to pass a loophole-riddled immigration bill, believing that they can gain leverage with the immigrant voting bloc as well as paint the Republicans as heartless thugs. There is a golden opportunity for Republicans to come out on the side of the working class and show their voters what the Senate bill – and the Democrats – will do to jeopardize middle class jobs. As usual, Republican leaders have failed to seize that opportunity.

Moreover, Republican House Speaker Boehner recently announced that immigration reform was dead in this session of Congress, refusing to bring the Senate bill to a vote in the House and/or to bring the several House bills that have cleared their committees to the floor for a vote. The conservative base has put pressure on him by lobbying for strong border security before any legislation is admitted for other parts of immigration reform, but the Heritage Foundation came out strongly against undertaking immigration reform even if border security became law. But Heritage also noted Obama’s proclivity to legislate without benefit of Congress, which has destroyed all trust that he would enforce any border security law. 

Schumer attempted to checkmate Heritage and Boehner by saying on this past week’s Sunday shows that the Senate bill could be modified so that it would not become law until 2017, after Obama had left office, allowing it to be passed by the House in this session. Schumer’s proposal supposedly takes Obama’s mendacity out of the equation. But why the rush to pass immigration reform before this Fall’s 2014 mid-term elections? If you’re a political cynic like me you’re wary of Greeks – or Schumer – bearing gifts.

Here’s why there’s a rush. What does every Democrat running for election in 2014 fear the most? ObamaCare, of course. The more that ObamaCare is allowed to fill the headlines with news of its disastrous effect on American lives the dimmer the Democrat prospects for holding the Senate look – not to mention their fate at state level elections.  Obama’s lawlessness has allowed him to delay provision after provision of this accursed law in order to delay its crushing weight until after the election. His poll numbers head south every time another negative ObamaCare-provoked impact is reported.

But if Obama and his goon squad in the Senate could convince Boehner the Weak that the Republicans will be chopped liver in the Fall elections unless they take up immigration reform, all sorts of magic will happen. Obama’s sagging approval numbers will be rejuvenated because immigration reform will be law – or nearly so. Since immigration is such a divisive issue among conservative voters, it will ignite a lose-lose food fight like we’ve never seen, paralyzing the GOP for the remainder of the year with in-fighting. Untold numbers of pro-Republican voters will sit out the 2014 election in fury. The Democrats will be able to paint the anti-immigration Republicans as Hispanic racists. And most importantly, ObamaCare will be replaced in the news by the immigration battle.

It will be the greatest gift the GOP could give Obama.

The Hits Just Keep On Comin’

ObamaCare – which was supposed to insure 30 million non-insured, reduce healthcare cost, shrink the deficit, increase choice, let you keep your doctor and health plan, increase employment, and make businesses more competitive – is proving daily to be failing in these lofty promises.

This past week the Congressional Budget Office report released this week projects bad news for the White House and Congressional Democrats facing elections this year. At least most people attach that interpretation to it; though the White House spin machine sees a different story.

The 30 million uninsureds (about 10% of the population) over which Obama sleeplessly tossed and turned every night while selling ObamaCare to the America people in 2010 will be unchanged by ObamaCare according to CBO. Yep. We are $2 trillion poorer and the US healthcare system has been permanently changed for the worse, but the objective – 30 million uninsured – will remain uninsured.

Moreover, due to an incompetent launch of the dot-gov website, which was due to incompetent design and incompetent project management, the expected enrollment will fall two million short of expected number – about 14% less.

People who are buying ObamaCare insurance are fainting from sticker shock. Premiums paid don’t buy the coverage that their pre-ObamaCare insurance covered because of the massive out-of-pocket deductibles. Obama and the Democrats may call the product they created “insurance” but it’s really annual self-insurance with a catastrophic episode rider – horse hockey insurance. The White House and Congressional zombies may claim they’ve brought down the cost of healthcare, but they did it by making the insured pay for healthcare (mostly out of pocket) instead of the insurer. So, if you’re keeping score, you can put an “X” by the “reduce cost” promise on the list in the first paragraph of this blog.

The deficit. Ah yes, that pesky old deficit. According to the CBO report it will decline slightly through 2015 and then go up in the following years. Another “X” by that Obama promise in the list above.

Increased choice? Surely you jest. Could you spell that please? Choice went out the window when ObamaCare specified the required coverage for insurance – like maternity benefits for a elderly single woman, I don’t have the space in this blog to recite even a sampling of the horror stories from seriously and terminally-ill patients whose healthcare plan was interrupted when they switched from private insurance to whatever you want to call the obscene ObamaCare-mandated insurance coverage. One story about a California woman whose care was terminated by ObamaCare – amounting to a death sentence for her – occupied the news for almost a week. Insureds are screaming about the limited doctor and hospital choices their ObamaCare plan allows. Narrower networks keep insurer costs down because providers accept lower fees in return for higher volume. Ah! Your government at work. Another “X” by the “more choice” promise, please.

You can keep your doctor and health plan. Hmm. Need I say anything about this one? One more “X.”

Employment will increase and businesses will be more competitive. The “Xs” by these two promises were what put the CBO report on the front page this past week and sent the White House spinmeisters into science fictional mode.

CBO projections expect “a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024.” What!? ObamaCare will reduce – not increase – employment! How? Ah! Killing jobs is the one thing this administration is really good at. Check my blog last month to see how good these guys really are.

ObamaCare will cost jobs, of course, because some employers will manipulate hours to avoid the having to provide insurance to employees – the so-called employer mandate. But CBO doesn’t even address that job killer in its estimate because Obama delayed the mandate. (He didn’t bother consulting Congress to modify the law because he’s King Obama, you know.) Absent the employer mandate effect, the CBO job loss estimate is underestimated.

The basis of the CBO estimates is entirely the projection of their models (which sounds better than “guess”) for the choices that employees will make faced with either working more hours, which will reduce the subsidies they receive to buy Obamainsurance, or working fewer hours. Recall that ObamaCare provides low income and unemployed people subsidies from the government (a fancy word for transfer payments taxed from high income earners, since “government” has no money other than taxes and borrowing.) Incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty line qualify for Medicaid (which is the majority of dot gov sign-ups to date) and subsidies beyond 138% are made available in diminishing amounts for incomes up to 400% of the poverty line. That will apply to incomes of almost $47,000 for a single person income and a little more than $94,000 for a family of four. That’s poverty in Obamaworld.

As incomes increase, the subsidy decreases, so the effect is like an increase in the marginal tax rate (the tax rate on the last dollar earned.) The marginal tax rate discourages working to earn more. When CBO built models for fewer subsidy credits versus more income dollars work against it projected the effect as a disincentive to work more hours and earn more dollars. This, according to CBO, will have the effect of reducing the hours the workforce produces by the equivalent of as many as 2.5 million full-time jobs. It is one of the perversities of ObamaCare.

For example, the federal poverty line for a family of four is $23,850. A four-person family earning $35,000 – the equivalent of about $18 per hour – would get annual Obamainsurance subsidies of $8,300, giving them an effective income of $43,300. If the family income increases to $50,000 the subsidy drops to $4,925, and effective income becomes $54,925. So, making $15,000 more in wages increases effective income $11, 625 income ignoring income taxes. Income taxes make the difference even less since taxes are progressive. In this example the subsidy acts like a 23% tax on added income and that’s on top of income tax increases.

CBO notes there is an abrupt drop once people cross the 400% of the poverty line threshold. Beyond 400% there are no subsidies. So a person or family making $1 more than the 400% threshold could find themselves paying thousands of dollars more for Obamainsurance depending on their age. Young people pay much less a penalty for crossing the threshold than older people – another perversity of ObamaCare.

People aren’t as stupid as Obama and his Congressional ObamaCare architects think them, therefore, they reduce hours or leave the workforce because they figure out the consequence of added income versus lost subsidies. Representative Paul Ryan reacted to the CBO report saying, “Washington is making the poverty trap worse." Say on, brother, say on!

Of course my analysis and the CBO report ignore the impact of higher taxes on the so-called “rich” to pay for these subsidies. Higher taxes reduce job creation too. But Obama and the Democrats don’t think the spending habits of the “rich” create jobs.

Another perversity not accounted for in an economic analysis of ObamaCare is the toll that not working takes on the human spirit. People were intended to work from the creation of the world and in modern times most work is intellectually enriching. Moreover our economy will suffer because these ObamaCare dropouts will reduce production and economic growth. And as liberal policies increase entitlements, not working become more attractive. Society’s takers will essentially vote themselves the right to invade the wallets of society’s makers with the corroboration of the government as his collection agent, of course.

Americans have a history of working harder than other industrial nation which accounts for our higher standard of living. However, as baby boomers retire and few people are left in the workforce to pay for entitlements, our concern should be increasing the labor participation rate, not decreasing it. Yet the CBO report projects the labor participation rate will continue its downhill slide at an alarming rate, compounded by the sorry economic policies of this administration. Clinton understood this and ultimately acknowledged the need to end welfare as we’ve known it. This president is committed to increase entitlements more than we’ve ever known.

Predictably, the White House rushed to put a happy face on the CBO report. Its Chief Economist said the shrinking workforce was good news because

It reflects the fact that workers have a new set of options and are making the best choices that they can choose to make for themselves given those options. Individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods … and have the opportunity to pursue their dreams.

Is this stuff written by Saturday Night Live?

"More Americans will be able to voluntarily choose to work fewer hours or not take a job because they don't depend on that job any more for the provision of health insurance," so said Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat.

So there you have it, folks. The new American dream is to not work.

The President’s Chestnuts Speech

The duties of the President, according to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, include:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...

In the years since George Washington gave the first State of the Union (SOTU) address, although it wasn’t called that until FDR used the term in 1934, it has remained each President’s choice to decide how to comply with this constitutional requirement.

Both Washington and his successor, John Adams gave their addresses in person. Jefferson, the third President, undoubtedly aware that this constitutional provision was modeled after the British Monarch’s “Address from the Throne,” thought it too “kingly” for the American executive to stand above the legislature and lecture it. His 1801 SOTU was dispatched in writing to Congress to be read by a clerk.

Jefferson’s precedent continued for 112 years until Woodrow Wilson, who believed it impossible that anyone could ever hear too much from him, including Wilson himself, resumed the SOTU delivery in person, and it has continued regrettably so since 1913.

The audience, as originally envisioned in the Constitution, is Congress. The requirement, as worded in the Constitution, was a marginally significant housekeeping formality. Yet in the years since Wilson, particularly in the era of television, presidents have used the occasion to expand the SOTU speech to a national audience. They have changed its purpose from a minor housekeeping duty to a major political stump speech replete with applause-evoking lines inserted to stir the voter base. Televised pre- and post-speech analysts augur meaning from the speech apart from its words. Next-day op-ed essays opine polar opposite conclusions of the same speech. And television statisticians collect and parse data to determine how many listened to the presidential grandiloquence. Their findings? SOTU television ratings have been on the decline for 20 years. Obama’s television audience this past week was the smallest over that period.

I read the text of his speech and watched a few video clips of parts of it. Obama had nothing new to say. But in the words of Charles Krauthammer, he delivered his tired ideas with conviction.

I would call it the chestnut speech. There were so many old chestnuts that were shown it was almost embarrassing. He brought out stuff from last year that went nowhere.

Little wonder. A recent Washington Post-ABC News shows that fully 63% of Americans have either little to no confidence that Obama will make the right decisions, half don’t believe he is trustworthy, and 52% believe Obama does not understand the problems of people like them. His disapproval rating stands currently at 50 percent, with 41 percent disapproving strongly – only 23 percent support him strongly.

The speech trotted out Obama’s usual bromides, among them his latest red herring deflection – inequality. He observed that corporate profits and the stock market have enriched those at the top, but “inequality has deepened … upward mobility has stalled.” An odd statement. We are five years into the Obama presidency, a good deal of which he spent blaming George Bush for every ill wind he encountered, yet with a stock market near new highs, the economy is growing at an anemic pace and an inadequate number of jobs are being created for the available labor force. Is there a plausible explanation for this?

The fact that 63% of the people think the direction of the country is on the wrong track ought to be a clue. The fact that 60% in a recent Wall Street Journal poll characterize the state of the nation as either “divided” or “troubled” ought to be a clue. The same poll revealed 59% were “pessimistic and worried” or “uncertain and wondering” about how well Obama will do in the remainder of his term. A whopping 74% in a Fox News poll believe the country is in a recession.

The government can’t create jobs, but government can certainly prevent the private sector from creating them. A Rasmussen poll last week showed 59% believed less government – not more – would narrow the income gap. I don’t believe in governing by polls, but it’s hard to ignore so many polls which indicate Obama’s policies aren’t working. After five years you’d think he’d “get it” and change his ideological course.

It was interesting, perhaps even telling, that ObamaCare, the law he wants to be his administration’s signature achievement, was not mentioned until he was 40 minutes into his 65-minute speech. Even then he spent less than five minutes on it. Good idea. A mid-term election is coming up in a few months and Democrats in tight races are dreading running against the unpopularity of his health law.

He did include a few misleading half-truths about the “success” of ObamaCare, however.

“More than nine million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage,” Obama chortled. Well, let’s just parse that a bit. He obviously wanted the audience to hear “this is the result of ObamaCare” like they first heard “you can keep your doctor.” About six million have signed up for Medicaid. Because of ObamaCare? Not necessary. Medicaid is essentially free and it’s not known how many meeting the subsidy guidelines were previously insured. Well, it’s known but HHS won’t tell us. One insurer estimates that almost 90% were previously insured, so only a small number of uninsured – the reason for turning American healthcare upside down – became newly insured. Moreover, many of the people Obama and HHS Secretary Sebelius claim have “signed up on the exchange” have actually registered on an exchange but haven’t paid their first premium. Writing a check should be the proof that the government’s insurance scheme is working. HHS won’t tell us that either.

No mention in the SOTU speech, of course, that more people have lost insurance as a result of ObamaCare than have signed up for it. No mention that the young aren’t signing up – an important problem since their premiums are needed to pay the claims of older insureds. (Thanks just the same; they’ll pay the fine.) No mention that people who were able to afford their prior private insurance can’t afford the premium cost and deductibles of ObamaCare. Certainly no mention that many healthcare providers – doctors and hospitals – aren’t accepting the O’care insurance. No mention that 43 O’care “navigators” in CA, who get access to personal information in the sign-up process, were discovered to be felons – 7 of them were repeat felons. No mention of the illegal waivers, the illegal subsidies paid to citizens of states that refused to set up exchanges, and no mention of the exemption that members of Congress get.

But the core of the SOTU speech was Obama’s threat to govern without Congress.

But America does not stand still -- and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do.

“I have a pen and I have a phone,” is the way he has framed his threat, meaning he’ll govern by executive order and agency regulations – his shadow government outside of Congress. That should concern all Americans.

In his 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama said he was a pragmatic problem solver – a guy who could reach across the aisle. He never showed that as a Senator, and he hasn’t shown it as President. He criticized President Bush for his use of executive orders, and promised that one of his first official acts as President would be to “order his attorney general”  to cancel all Bush executive orders that "trample on liberty" – whatever that meant. Now the shoe is on the other foot – his.

In the coming weeks, I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour – because if you cook our troops' meals or wash their dishes, you should not have to live in poverty.

Obama is frustrated that Congress won’t do his bidding on the minimum wage so now he’ll show ‘em!

I blogged on the folly of the minimum wage last December. Obama’s executive order is all symbolism and no substance. It’s not retroactive, it doesn’t start until next year, and it will affect only a tiny sliver of contractor employees because most make more than $10. But it made him look like a man of action. A scary man of action. One willing to test the limits of the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

Legislative and executive actions were separated by the Founders for a reason. Not only is it a threat to liberty when they are vested in the same person, but also the Founders intended for change by government diktat to be difficult and slow. Collaboration and compromise were designed into the system for a reason – because no ONE person is to be trusted with the keys to everyone’s freedom.

Obama’s approach to governing isn’t wrong because he’s a Democrat or because he has a radical agenda for the country. It’s wrong because it isn’t being done in accordance with a pact made between Americans and their government over 225 years ago that has served us well through 43 presidencies and 113 congresses.

Democracy and law-making is a deliberately messy business. President Reagan said, "If you can't make [Congress] see the light, make them feel the heat [of the electorate].” Yet Obama mentioned six times that if Congress does not enact his agenda, he is willing to exercise the executive power of the presidency to accomplish his goals. As he says, “I have a pen and I have a phone.” Apparently he doesn’t understand that the same people who elected him elected them. And apparently he doesn’t understand that the next president’s pen and phone can undo all of his executive orders – as he did to the Bush executive orders.

A recent poll showed that only 19% of the public trusts the federal government. Obama has now shown us why.