Daffy duck and elmer fudd still don't get it. They only speak on the campagine trail of jobs for gov. state, city employees only. They are all union jobs and a drain to the taxpayer, to support there contracts. My question would be who were the elected idiots that made this commitments. None other then your Demo/ lib's of course.

Biden/Obama say they will do everything in their power to create jobs. How many jobs did Obama contribute to ever in his lifetime? They will do everything except release the chokehold the government has on business. They will only increase restrictions and regulations on businesses. Its time to get a person with brains in the whitehouse. These "lawmakers" need to be redefined. They need to be lawenders. End all of the stupid regulations on business and let the country get on with it. Obama/Biden dont have a clue about "creating jobs". The jobs will be there when the chokehold is released.

Joe biden is nothing more than a foolish clown, nothing he says matters.

In an email to supporters, President Barack Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina, said the Scott Walker Wisconsin recall vote was a "terrifying experiment." He joins a litany of Democrats, including Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who are saying the election should have never taken place.

Frank took to blaming unions and liberal activists for instigating the recall. "I think the people on the Democratic side made a big mistake and the funding thing was a big deal," he told The Hill on Wednesday. "The recall was upsetting to people . . . it's not a fight I would have picked." He echoed Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell on Wednesday who told The Hill that the race was a "dumb political fight" for labor to have picked.

Spending was at the forefront of the Democrats' woes. Messina said the debacle that ended with Gov. Scott Walker fending off Democrat Tom Barrett was propelled by a better-prepared Republican Party, which outspent Democrats and unions 8-to-1, according to The Hill.

But Insiders say spending is only part of Obama's problem — political winds may be shifting permanently in Republicans' favor. Charles Franklin, a visiting professor of law and public policy at Marquette University, said Obama, has "reason to worry," according to The Hill. Wisconsin is "more a battleground state than a toss-up state, but I think it can become a very competitive race rather quickly," Franklin said.

Political observers credit Walker's policies for helping employers put more people back to work — the unemployment rate dropped from 7.4 percent when Walker first took office in 2011, to 6.7 percent in April, reported by AP, far below the national average of 8.2 percent.

For Republicans' part, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called the election an "absolute disaster" for Obama, in a memo on Wednesday, according to the Washington Examiner. He said the election had far-reaching implications for the upcoming presidential election.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama Campaign Manager: Wisconsin a 'Terrifying Experiment'
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

How can Republicans clean Democrat clocks all over the country? All it will take is a simple message: Republicans can govern. Democrats can't.

Think of all the contrasts available between adroit Republican governors and flailing Democratic ones. For one, the surreal spectacle of Wisconsin Democrats focusing resources on their third election campaign since the 2010 election to defeat Scott Walker's collective bargaining reform, even when that reform is no longer a real issue, shows that Democrats are in election mode every moment of every year.

This difference has shown up elsewhere in state and local government. Rudy Giuliani may not have been a conservative, but as Mayor of New York, he was a courageous and effective leader, which gained him admiration from conservatives. The contrast between Giuliani and Dinkins, the hapless Democrat cipher who preceded him, is stark.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is also not conservative, but he is an honest and courageous executive in the spirit of Giuliani. The contrast between Christie and Jon Corzine, his Democrat predecessor who has managed to mislay one billion dollars of investors' money, is stunning.

In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina blasted the states around the Gulf of Mexico, Democrat Governor Blanco of Louisiana engaged in crass political maneuvering against her rival Democrat Mayor Negin of New Orleans. Republican Governor Barbour, meanwhile, in neighboring Mississippi, acted decisively and effectively to protect his fellow Mississippians.

Two years ago, when the BP oil spill was threatening the livelihood and safety of Americans, Obama was that nervous skinny man who spouted meaningless rhetoric, while Republican Governor Jindal was the effective executive who inspired Louisianans with his quick actions to minimize the damage.

Governor Jerry Brown ought to know as much about California government as any person around, and yet he has been unable to turn the state around. Indianans will be picking a new governor to succeed term-limited Mitch Daniels, but the sheer administrative brilliance of Daniels has preserved a state right in the middle of the rust belt.

Governor Nikki Haley brought jobs to South Carolina, something which the politically naïve might think organizations representing South Carolina workers would applaud, and the outgoing AFL-CIO president in the state, Donna Dewitt, smashed the governor's face on a piñata. (NOW, of course, immediately condemned this as an egregious mockery of the serious problem of battered women...just kidding!)

This is a recurring pattern. Republican government executives take political risks, spend political capital, and challenge political bosses after they win elections. What has Obama done? His latest "budget" was recently shot down, with no one in his own party in either house of Congress voting for it. Obama has tried to gain points by silly attacks upon a serious budget, the one proposed by Congressman Ryan. Obama is utterly incapable of doing anything but politicking and campaigning; he is a pawn of Saul Alinsky's and Bill Ayers's radical political theater.

No wonder, then, that Obama sounds as if he is running against Republicans in power, even though his party won Congress in 2006 and he won the White House in 2008, and no wonder that David Axelrod last month spoke so directly against the status quo that one cannot imagine that he or his boss sees Obama as responsible for anything.

If Republicans handle this theme well, then the corporate executive experience of Mitt Romney can be used to highlight how his presidency would differ from the drifting wreckage of the Obama presidency. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has said on several occasions, dating back at least to February, that Mitt Romney "likes" firing people. Good executives, of course, must be willing to let poorly situated companies shrink or even go into bankruptcy and must be willing to trim unnecessary personnel costs.

The Republican retort to this sort of attack should be that Republicans government executives like Scott Walker and Chris Christie have shown a willingness to make hard and unpopular decisions. Mitt Romney, for his part, has shown at Bain Capital and in his handling of the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had been mired in cronyism and corruption, that he can take risks and do things which cause people pain, if his office requires it.

The options for real leadership in the White House are shrinking fast. Last August we suffered a downgrade in federal sovereign debt, which means that saving our nation cannot be accomplished with smoke and mirrors. Four years ago, Americans gave Democrats massive majorities in Congress (a filibuster-proof Senate majority) and gave Obama not just the presidency, but a huge reservoir of personal goodwill.

Republicans like Walker, Christie, Giuliani, and Jindal have shown that they will use executive offices to solve problems even if that means being made into a Nikki Haley-headed piñata. If Romney can convince Americans that the way back is neither easy nor painless, but will grow harder and more problematic the longer we wait, then this theme of governing may give Republicans the muscle they need to get the job done.

Does it bother you that the most powerful man on the planet was a longtime drug user? Does it bother you that he has attempted to use his drug abuse to gain credibility with young Americans? Does it bother you that his acknowledgment of having been a serious drug user has been given a pass in the news media?

If any of these facts do bother you, then you obviously fail to recognize their significance. Don't you see? Barack Obama is the first U.S. president to admit to cocaine abuse, to describe it in a manner designed to impress the young, and to get away with it. It's historic.

Consider his most famous "admission." In Dreams from My Father, the first of his two autobiographies (a historic number of pre-presidential autobiographies), he describes his college drug use this way:

I had learned not to care. ... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though[.] ... Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd be headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Except the highs hadn't been about that, me trying to prove what a down brother I was. Not by then anyway. I got just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.
Where to begin? Why does a grown man (34 years old, and about to embark on a state senatorial campaign), looking back on his past from a presumably sober, adult perspective, feel the need to use street lingo like "pot," "blow," and "smack"? Perhaps it is true that his drug use -- "by then anyway" -- was not aimed at proving "what a down brother" he was, but this adult reversion to the hip language of the street punk certainly is aimed at exactly that.

George W. Bush, grilled about his alleged drug use, demurred that he had been wayward in his youth, but that God had saved him from all that. In other words, he at least tried to maintain his adult dignity by drawing an explicit maturity barrier between the numbskull he had been and the gentleman he had since become. Even Bill Clinton, who never did become an adult, nevertheless saw the need to fake it, and thus produced the Clintonesque charmer about not having inhaled.

By contrast, in 2006, when Jay Leno asked Obama a scripted question about whether he had inhaled, the U.S. Senator smilingly replied, "That was the point."

A clever smack (er, I mean "shot") at Clinton, to be sure, and one which Obama used repeatedly before and during his primary campaign against Clinton's wife...but isn't there something unsavory about a presidential candidate elevating himself above a past president by quipping, in effect, "Clinton was a square; I know how to smoke dope"?

And consider the historic pomposity of his self-justification in that Dreams passage:

I got just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind, something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.
What a load of claptrap. Obama attempts to romanticize, even to mythologize, his drug abuse by musing that, although it may initially have been about proving "what a down brother" he was, it later became part of his struggle for identity -- about pushing "questions of who he was" out of his mind, about flattening his bumpy heart, about blurring "the edges of his memory."

Stripped of the self-glorifying language, what has he really said? In boring translation: I started using drugs because I wanted to fit in, but I continued to use them because I got hooked on the sensation of losing contact with reality. How is this different from the experience of any other "junkie" or "pothead"?

His romanticized language, however, does qualify him as the first president to publish drug poetry, which is certainly historic. Unless, of course, Jack Cashill is right, and Dreams was actually written by a guy in Obama's neighborhood named Bill Ayers, in which case Obama would be historic as the first president ever to have his autobiography ghostwritten by someone who, according to an FBI informant, openly discussed the necessity of killing the ten percent of the U.S. population who could not be re-educated after the revolution.

While his "pot" and "booze" intake was apparently substantial -- perhaps historically so, at least by presidential standards -- Obama/Ayers (identity is such a free-flowing thing when you're high) is careful to qualify his cocaine use as "maybe a little blow when you could afford it." Notice the highly literary trick of using the impersonal "you" in that sentence, rather than "I." After all, he is explicitly describing his own substance abuse here, and he uses the first-person pronoun throughout the passage. Suddenly, however, in the "blow" reference, he becomes "you," and qualifies his activity with the distancing "maybe," thereby rendering his cocaine use generic, abstract, almost a collective experience rather than a personal one. It is as though he wishes to put his use of hard drugs on the table, but simultaneously to "spread the crime around," if you will, by categorizing it as just one of those things "you" do as a student.

I don't know about you, but I was a student within roughly the same timeframe as Obama, and I never used cocaine, even "when I could afford it." I never smoked marijuana, either. This is not holier-than-thou preaching. In high school, I had a few friends who smoked marijuana and hashish "when they could afford it" -- i.e., very regularly. I didn't disown them for it, but I also never chose to join them in it. One doesn't have to, you know.

But I can say this with certainty: if one of my drug-using high school friends were running for public office today, I wouldn't be able to vote for him. In fact, I would be surprised that he would have the gall to do it, given his past indulgence in illegal and disreputable activities. I would be unable to avoid thinking of him as I so often saw him in the past, and as voters should picture Obama now: glazed over, using Visine eye drops to remove the redness before class, smiling stupidly at nothing in particular, snickering uncontrollably with other stoned friends in the classroom, talking like an idiot about the things stoners talk about -- and cruising through school neighborhoods in search of a local pusher with whom to engage, conscience-free, in his habitual criminal activity.

And the people I knew were "merely" using so-called soft drugs; they did not share Obama's cocaine habit. The lifelong protection from media scrutiny that Obama has earned with that clever abstract phrase from 1995 -- "maybe a little blow when you could afford it" -- is historic as the most practically efficacious admission of felonious behavior in presidential history.

Notice that he doesn't say he did only a little cocaine. He says he did "a little" cocaine when he had the money to buy it. How often was that? And couldn't the most hardened addict say the same? Obama was not a kid who, like so many succumbing to peer pressure, "tried" drugs. He was a full-blown (oops, I mean "habitual") drug-user.

Historians of the future will be hard-pressed to explain how the most successful nation on Earth, with the most destructive weapons at its command, and with a political system that invests everything in the prudence and self-restraint of its leaders, could have elected as its president a man who is impervious to shame in talking about his long-term drug use, and who appears on comedy shows to make jokes about having been a better pot-smoker than another president.

While they're at it, those scholars might take a crack at explaining how such a nation could have elected a president who has been described by a Ph.D. who knew him in his historic university days as a committed Marxist-Leninist; a president who explained his historic choice to work as a community organizer in Chicago as a search for "what the possibilities were for progressive politics in the black community"; a president whose academic records have remained historically sealed; a president who, as a state senator, publicly criticized the U.S. Constitution as ignoring "issues of redistribution of wealth, and ... economic justice," bemoaned the Warren Court's lack of radicalism, and criticized the civil rights movement for neglecting "the activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change"; and a president who has historically strolled blithely through all of these revelations without serious media questioning in the country that entrenched freedom of the press in the first entry of its Bill of Rights.

However they explain these things, there is no doubt that those future historians will regard their collective effect as historic -- whether as the final slap in the face that revived a great nation, or as a perfect symbol of the irreparable moral deterioration of a once-noble civilization, it's still too early to tell.

Notwithstanding Obama's pro forma protestations about not being "proud" of his drug use, he is clearly unable to resist using this cool past to attract cool voters, and to differentiate himself from his square predecessors. This is not surprising. He got caught up in drugs in the first place out of a desire to be cool, to prove he was "a down brother."

Perhaps today, without the objective distance of history, only the "uncool" can see what the pop-cultural euphemism "cool" -- as the term has been used since the 1960s -- really means. To be cool, whatever its self-deluded admirers might like to imagine, means to be a follower, to lack independent thought, to be afraid of standing apart from even the dumbest trends among one's peers -- to be willing, if necessary, to annihilate one's own reason and conscience in order to "fit in" and be liked. Thus, if your friends are cokeheads, cool means being a cokehead. If your friends are leftist radicals, cool means being a leftist radical. Obama is nothing if not cool.

When it comes to choosing the leaders of the free world, however, I'll take the squares every time.

In a Bill Clintonesque off-script moment, on Friday, Obama declared that the economy is fine during a rare press conference. Maybe that would explain why dealing with the economy and finding a meaningful solution for continued record unemployment are not his biggest concerns right now.

"The economy is fine so now I can concentrate on more important things."

What could be more important?

Raising money for his campaign, of course.

That's right. Since declaring his candidacy a year ago he has done 153 fundraisers. That's nearly double the number that President Bush had done to the same point in 2004.

And it doesn't include his numerous trips around the country supposedly promoting his "ideas" for improving the economy which never turned into "plans" which never resulted in "action" because he was too busy campaigning and raising money to sit down in his office and try to build consensus to pass something.

You remember those trips. Most famously the taxpayer funded Midwest bus tour last August that involved driving around in big black million dollar Canadian manufactured buses. Or Obama's numerous taxpayer funded trips to the friendly confines of Liberal college campuses or now bankrupt green energy manufacturers. Add those in and his total probably doubles.

It's not just the fundraising keeping Obama from the Oval Office and performing the job he used $778 million to buy in 2008. Somehow he has managed to find time in his exhausting non-stop campaign schedule to get in 99 rounds of golf in the last three years.

The Lefties are just fine with it too. When CBS This Morning anchor Erica Hill wondered if the charge that Obama is the Campaigner-in-Chief could be "harmful" to the President, Bob Schieffer laughed aloud and replied, "If he raises enough money, it won't hurt him at all." It really is all about the money with these people.

Jimmy Carter pulled off the campaign trail in order to do his presidential duty and deal with the fuel crisis and the Iran hostage situation. Our current President, who is self-proclaimed as one of the top four Presidents in history, won't make that mistake. He apparently thinks that the number one priority for our country is not jobs or the economy or even national security. The single most urgent matter in the world today is making sure that Romney doesn't get elected.

I am confident that at this point there are at least 51% of the voters that would disagree.

It will be really tough to vote Demo this year after being a life long Demo party loyalist. The President needs to stay at home and get some of the peoples work completed. His basket ball buddies and Chicago politicians have theirs,the american worker/VOTER can't see the ending through the forest. Will never vote GOP but could stay home on election day. No action no vote.

"The economy is in a better place after my first term" ~Barack Obama

. . . . ._______
. . . ./. . . . . . . . . \
. . . .| . .R.I.P. . . .|
. . . .| . . U.S. . . .|
. . . .| Economy |
###| . . . . . . . . . |##
##############

Bigmouth and Oblaima, keep to put the blaim on Congress when it is the Senate (Democrat controlled) that has put the stop on everything, (Although considering Reid's past acomplishments it should be considered a good thing). The house as been busy sending bills to the Senate, where they sit on Reid's desk collecting dust.

I see Ole' Feisty Redhead's days as "QUEEN" of these boards are pretty much over! Now that her Race-baiting Messiah Barack (If I had a son) Obama is now finished kaput going down in flames very quickly now!!! I personally can not wait until next January the 20th when we will all be saying thinking "I WONDER WHAT PRESIDENT MITT ROMNEY IS UP TOO TODAY" Doubt that old Democrat Liberal Bag of HOT! air Feisty will even still be around by then! Once the Reigning Queen of these MSNBC message boards soon destined to become just another Old Bag Lady on the streets of Chicago!!! Too FUNNY!!! Sad how the BIGGER they are the HARDER they seem to fall, BYE! Feisty Redhead BYE! Barack (If I had a son) Obama and his faithful but quite SILLY sidekick Jumping Joe Biden!!!!!

Biden, the only thing you could do to help is GET OUT OF WHITE HOUSE.

i'm so sick of the 4.3 million jobs created, that is created or saved 4.3 million. so that means every company that took stimlus money is counted, even if they were not going to layoff any one. more BS from this admin.

Oh such spin.....

To quote, "We will use every power that is legally under our constitutional capacity to act when the Congress will not," Biden told a supportive crowd of about 600 at Wake Forest BioTech Place in Winston-Salem. "But understand our Republican friends in Congress are just as determined to not act."

I think it is clearly a false statement that Republicans are just as determined to not act. Why even Harry Reid is unwilling to act on many of Obama's proposals.

What is more accurate to say is that Republicans desire to act in a DIFFERENT DIRECTION from Obama. I think it must be assumes that both parties desire to do what they think will help this country out of its economic doldrums. Let's at least get over the conclusion that either party desires to hurt this county.

Yet, it takes 2 to have a stalemate. But it appears that Obama feels it must be his way or he will effectively bypass the legislative branch (comprised of both the Republican controlled House and the Democratically controlled Senate) and use his acumen of constitutional law to cram his way down everyones throat. It sounds a little like what the Dems complained about with Scott Walker in Wisconsin, doesn't it? And of course there is always the question as to whether Obama's constitutional law acumen is that great. We will see what happens with the Affordable Health Act.

Will, I have to wonder if that is what true leadership is all about. To me it sounds a whole lot more like the playground bully who either gets his way or take his ball and goes home. How can this be a formula for more bi-partisan cooperation in Washington, D.C.?

Oh such spin.....

To quote, "We will use every power that is legally under our constitutional capacity to act when the Congress will not," Biden told a supportive crowd of about 600 at Wake Forest BioTech Place in Winston-Salem. "But understand our Republican friends in Congress are just as determined to not act."

I think it is clearly a false statement that Republicans are just as determined to not act. Why even Harry Reid is unwilling to act on many of Obama's proposals.

What is more accurate to say is that Republicans desire to act in a DIFFERENT DIRECTION from Obama. I think it must be assumes that both parties desire to do what they think will help this country out of its economic doldrums. Let's at least get over the conclusion that either party desires to hurt this county.

Yet, it takes 2 to have a stalemate. But it appears that Obama feels it must be his way or he will effectively bypass the legislative branch (comprised of both the Republican controlled House and the Democratically controlled Senate) and use his acumen of constitutional law to cram his way down everyones throat. It sounds a little like what the Dems complained about with Scott Walker in Wisconsin, doesn't it? And of course there is always the question as to whether Obama's constitutional law acumen is that great. We will see what happens with the Affordable Health Act.

Will, I have to wonder if that is what true leadership is all about. To me it sounds a whole lot more like the playground bully who either gets his way or take his ball and goes home. How can this be a formula for more bi-partisan cooperation in Washington, D.C.?

Who's Biden think he's fooling? This administration got almost everything it asked for the first two years of office when it had a majority in "both" houses, stimulus trillion, and Obama care for starters. The only thing President Obama had shot down was "his budget proposal", and that was shot down by his own party unanimously! Obama Care will probably be ruled unconstitutional, and the 4 million jobs he claims to have created were at a cost of $400,000 each, and were mostly in the public, not the private sector. The public sector jobs are a minus when you consider tax dollars pay their salaries. Only private sector jobs should count, because they cost the taxpayer nothing, and generate revenue for the government!

Everyone admits Romney made money (profit) for the stockholders of Bain.

As a stockholder of this country, I'd trust Romney over President Obama to start showing us stockholders a profit in the operation of our country!

Oh what....now they are worried about jobs now that their a$$es are on the line. Where were these guys three years ago when they were passing job killing healthcare reforms and denying projects???.... Talk about flip flopping.... They couldn't care less about American (non-union) workers and have proven it time and again. Even now the only thing he cares about is "public sector" jobs now that they have no money to stuff his re-election coffers.

the private sector does not hire or create jobs. the government is not hiring either and in fact laying off government workers...MY QUESTION IS WHO WILL CREATE JOBS OR HIRE WORKERS? this question is directed to the "Do Nothing Congress".

As far as Biden's comments, it shows HE and Libs responding really have a very simplistic or ignorant view of the legislative process within Congress. IF you did, you'd really SHUT UP and quit blaming Republicans in Congress.

Congress has 2 branches...A: House, B: Senate...Typically House will bring BILLS, budgets and other legislation to Senate, which then is SUPPOSED to A: Vote...B: open up for floor discussion...C: create alternatives. ALL of these then lead to compromise.

Considering that HOUSE has presented 19 plus JOBS Bills to Senate, all of which Harry Reid REFUSES to allow VOTE or open floor discussion on, and has no alternatives it's pretty clear WHO is obstructing.

Considering HOUSE has presented budgets for 2012 and 2013 to Senate, both of which Harry Reid REFUSES to allow VOTE or open floor discussion on, and has no alternatives, it's pretty clear WHO is obstructing.

Now, my Liberal Comrades....I understand that the House bills are very Conservative and likely too much so for YOUR blood. Of course, we should expect that from a House, controlled by Republicans, who were voted IN to office in 2010 mid-terms in a record landslide change in House. BUT, WHERE is the Senate alternative?

Obama's 2012 and 2013 budgets were voted DOWN by Senate unanimously, 97-0, and 99-0 respectively. There is a REASON Obama has QUIT talking about these, as HE can't even get Democrats to VOTE for this.

Obama and Biden preaching to Congress show they don't understand their roles in Gov't, nor the creation of bills.

Plus, when Obama has on multiple occassions publically stated he would VETO anything that House sends forward that passes Senate, PRIOR to review it is SAD and a clear sign that HE is leading the obstruction.

WHY would he PUBLICALLY state he'll veto before he knows what it is? He had no trouble signing the Health Care ACT, which his OWN Democrats stated they didn't know what was in it.

Funny, but the FACTS show that it is the DEMOCRATS and Obama that are obstructing...but...MY comrades...you'd have to undestand the legislative process to know that.

The real problem in Government is the voters who keep voting for these people. Every current incumbent should be voted out in November. All of them. If you vote for Obama or any other incumbent it is you who are responsible for a failing America. I do find it appalling that there are cheerleaders here for Biden's claim that they will circumvent Congress, since that is illegal when it comes to any and all Government spending. Always amazes me that there are people out there who think cheating is fine.

"We will use every power that is legally under our constitutional capacity to act when the Congress will not,"

TRANSLATION: The B.O. administration will circumvent the law however possible to get their agenda passed.

These idiots have no respect for the Constitution or separation of powers whatsoever. Ignoring laws they don't like is their specialty. Refusing to investigate matters that are clearly against the law is another. They're too busy suing states over legitimate voter I.D. laws. I can't wait for the day when these fools are put out on their @sses, although O'Biden does provide quite a bit of entertainment with his stupid and off-message comments. Hard to believe anyone takes this dip$hit or B.O. seriously.

0dumfk should be starting his kindergarten tour anyday now. he's pretty much wore evrything else out. what an absolute bore!!

Joe Bite-me is a liar and had to withdraw from his Presidential bid in 1988, for "embellishing" his college records. I do not understand why anyone believes that gains in the public sector, equate job gains. It takes, I believe the taxing of 7 private sector employees to pay the wages of 1 public sector employee. With 80 million Americans unemployed, how are we suppose to pay for simply "creating" and filling public service jobs?