Outskirts Press, INC.

The 19% Plunge in the American Middle Class Standard of Living

Neither political party has been able to stem the plummeting fall in the Middle Class Standard of Living that has occurred since the Economic Meltdown of 2008. Moreover, in recent years, the average 1%-2% annual Cost of Living Index (CPI) calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics only belies, masks and understates the frightful upsurge in the dominant CPI Index cost components of Health Care, College Tuition, Energy, as well as Federal income tax hikes, which have economically devastated Middle Class Americans over the last five years. Innovative, yet pragmatic and equitable solutions must be formulated to not just stem the rise of these four major CPI cost factors, but go beyond and strive to achieve justifiable, permanent "rollbacks" and cost decreases as well. Together these four specific CPI cost factors have incrementally contributed to an actual, staggering 19% plunge in the American Middle Class Standard of Living just since 2009. And, even though Barack Obama, as President, has presided over this precipitous Middle Class economic decline, alternatively, the Republican Party has, for years, been successfully portrayed by Democrats as being “tone deaf” and indifferent to the plight of Middle Class America. Rightly or wrongly, perceived as primarily safeguarding the financial interests of the Wealthy, the GOP is further regarded by many as failing 1) to elevate and give priority emphasis to the dire economic straits that the Middle Class in America is currently facing and 2) to pro-actively devise specific common sense and apolitical solutions (as presented herein) that are, indeed, justifiably equitable and meant to rectify and justly remediate the disproportionate economic burden that Middle Class Americans have been relegated to endure. Unless and until the Republican Party is perceived as pro-actively adopting a Middle Class priority emphasis, it will continue to struggle to alter its "elitist" perception in the minds of a wide swath of Middle Class and Independent Voters. And, as a consequence, in future Presidential Elections, the Democrat Party will, by default, continue to dominate politically and occupy the White House.

“If you like your (health care) policy, you can keep it. Period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.” President Barack Obama (Repeatedly; at least 30 times) Recently (November 2013), even the Left-leaning media joined in, exposing that, in 2010 meetings, President Obama’s own political advisors had overruled White House staffers who had voiced serious reservations to President Obama’s unequivocal (“Period”), unconditional and emphatic use of the above declarations. In doing so, the President was purposely misleading millions of Americans before the Election who, one year after his re-election, found out that their insurance policies had been, in fact, summarily cancelled. One unnamed former White House official, who defended the decision not to qualify the slogan, did candidly concede “that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate, ‘if you like your plan, you can probably keep it’ is not a salable point…You try to talk in broad intelligible points that cut through, and you inevitably lose some accuracy when you do that.” To do otherwise, “could be confusing and would clutter the President’s message.” 89 Oh, really? At the very least, is that not the definition of being consciously and purposefully misleading? Isn’t that just a more subtle way of the Obama White House saying they would decide what is best for the American people; that the political expediency of re-electing President Obama was either 1) for their own good or, alternatively, that 2) the American people (as Jack Nicholson said in “A Few Good Men) just “can’t handle the truth.” Further, are the American people to believe that President Obama’s senior political advisors (i.e. Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and David Plouffe) who made the final decision, never discussed with him the protracted internal debate about the potential grave political ramifications that the President’s trademark ObamaCare slogan had engendered among his senior White House staff? And if the American people are to believe that they did not, Jarrett, Axelrod and Plouffe did President Obama a grievous disservice for which (one would think) the President should feel that he had “been burned” more by them than even his website. Although, President Obama has never expressed disappointment or lamented about not being advised by either Axelrod, Plouffe, or Jarrett of this controversy among White House staffers. However, if President Obama doesn’t feel they did him a disservice, wouldn’t that speak volumes as well - leading one to reasonably deduce that this controversy was, indeed, brought to the President’s attention at the time (in 2010) and the concerns of White House staffers were rejected by him as well. In the wake of the re-election of President Obama, the Left-leaning media had lauded Axelrod and Plouffe as shrewd political geniuses. But how hard could it be if Axelrod and Plouffe were not bound by and arbitrarily chose to eschew such burdensome, mundane moral constraints as telling the truth - for the express purpose of winning; by duping and manipulating the American people. Valerie Jarrett as President Obama’s Chief Economic Advisor If President Obama, indeed, had principally relied on his Chief Economic Advisors for advice, the related issue of President Obama’s actual knowledge of Economics would not be an issue at all. However, former Chief Economic Advisor Larry Summers, in fact, did warn President Obama concerning his misgivings about Obama Administration officials having the requisite competence to implement his signature ObamaCare Health Care program.113  SADLY WHY OBAMA WILL NOT SUPPORT INTERSTATE PRICE COMPETITION  Even more revealing, former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin once stated that, in a meeting with President Obama, he noted Obama’s sparse economic background (“you don‘t know anything about economics” or words to that effect) and specifically asked the President how he then proceeded to formulate his economic policy. Rather than Summers, President Obama confided proudly that, on such Economic matters, he actually relied on his closest senior White House advisor, attorney Valerie Jarrett - a Psych. Major at Stanford (Fox News - Hannity - Charles Gasparino - 7/9/2010). Illustrative of their immense mutual admiration, in an obviously calculated, near-worship response, Ms. Jarrett attempted to convey just how intelligent, erudite and special an individual Barack Obama truly is: “He knows exactly how smart he is…I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually…He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s too talented to do what ordinary people do…He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.” The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama – David Remnick (2010); Page 274. Oh boy…However, dissecting this quote from an alternative perspective - based upon his actions as President - each of these “qualities” that President Obama possesses (according to Ms. Jarrett) can, alternatively, be interpreted as potential flaws: 1. “He knows exactly how smart he is” – Such individuals can be susceptible to hubris; not cognizant of their own limitations or knowledge of a particular subject area - believing they know it all and dismissing the contrary advice of others. Such decision-makers “don’t know what they don’t know;” which – depending on the decision or crisis at hand – for a President (as well as the country and the world) can have perilous, monumental and, many times, irreversible ramifications (i.e. ObamaCare). 2. “I think he has never been really challenged intellectually...” – How can one’s beliefs really be “challenged intellectually” unless the decision-maker encourages (i.e. is not intimidated by) and is exposed to a full spectrum of divergent opinions – rather than merely relying on those of acolytes? 3. “He’s been bored all his life.” – Well then, how about another campaign-style trip? (Anywhere; but to adoring crowds only)… A vacation? (Separate jets optional)…Golf anyone? (No ordinary people, please). 4. “He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.” – Is Ms. Jarrett trying to impress upon all the rest of us just how lucky we really are to have him as President (but, alas, for only eight years)? However, specifically regarding Valerie Jarrett, recently Politico (“Lament of the Plutocrats”- 12/11/2013), quoted “a prominent Democrat on Wall Street who is otherwise very sympathetic to the Obama Administration” that confided: “She (Jarrett) knew almost nothing about how the banking and finance industry worked…there is no one I know who respects her as a businessperson or thinks she knows anything about business.” Ultimately, the deference given to Barack Obama’s opinion and expertise on Economic matters really has nothing to do with his actual knowledge of Economics. Rather, when it is all stripped away, it is singularly based on his political accomplishment of having won two Presidential Elections – nothing more. And if Barack Obama A) really has no Economic bona fides of his own and B) doesn’t rely primarily on the opinions of his Economic advisors, why should his opinion – from a purely economic standpoint - be given any more credence than that of the guy sitting at the end of the bar on a Friday night? And that’s not to disparage the guy sitting in the bar. Rather, it is to accentuate that President Obama really has no more known formal educational training or experience bona fides in Economics than the average American does. And, if that is the case, really, why should his opinion on Economic matters be elevated and given any more deference or credence. Just because he won two elections? Reiterating, this would not, at all, be an issue if the President did, indeed, principally rely upon the advice of his chosen Economic advisors. But, by his own admission, apparently, he does not. Rather, primarily choosing to cavalierly confide and rely upon on another attorney – like himself - with little or no Economic expertise of her own, Valerie Jarrett. Successful, Bold and “Dynamic Change” Leaders Assistant Professor at Harvard Business School, author Gautam Mukunda (Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter) asserts that analytically, although bold, dynamic change leaders (which he terms as “extreme” leaders) have the most impact, most extreme leaders fail because: “There are more ways to fail than succeed. Extreme leaders succeed when they do what no one else would do and what everyone else tells them not to do – and it’s the right idea. And they fail when they do what everyone else tells them not to do and it’s the wrong idea.” However, citing President Abraham Lincoln, Mukunda further noted that an unsuccessful extreme leader can recover, but must possess the humility and acuity to recognize when a new direction or midcourse correction is required. Specifically, it takes the intellectual humility to be open to alternative ideas and, if necessary, not fear changing course based on changing circumstances or incorrect original assumptions. 90 Ultimately, history will determine the success or failure of President Obama’s legacy and his signature legislative achievement, ObamaCare, will be the yardstick. And unless the President is willing to set his ego aside and seriously consider incorporating 1) Interstate Premium Price Competition; 2) Meaningful Tort Reform and 3) to severely curtail the inclusion of his Ten Essential Health Benefits, history may not prove to be so kind.