U.S. Creates No Jobs In August: Zero, Nothing

WASHINGTON — The struggling US economy added no jobs in August, a far worse reading than expected, official data showed Friday.
The Labor Department said the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.1 percent for a second month amid the zero job growth.
After a series of weak economic data, analysts had lowered their expectations for job growth, with the average estimate at net 70,000 in August.
That would be well below the 100,000 seen as necessary to support a steady unemployment rate, according to Briefing.com economists.
Employment in the private sector, which has been the main engine for jobs growth as revenue-strapped governments shed workers, "changed little" in most major industries, the Labor Department said.
The unchanged jobless rate was expected.

President Obama And The Burden Of American Exceptionalism

Shelby Steele - If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times: President Obama is destroying the country. Some say this destructiveness is intended; most say it is inadvertent, an outgrowth of inexperience, ideological wrong-headedness and an oddly undefined character. Indeed, on the matter of Mr. Obama's character, today's left now sounds like the right of three years ago. They have begun to see through the man and are surprised at how little is there.

Yet there is something more than inexperience or lack of character that defines this presidency: Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-'60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America's exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America's greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom.

Mr. Obama did not explicitly run on an anti-exceptionalism platform. Yet once he was elected it became clear that his idea of how and where to apply presidential power was shaped precisely by this brand of liberalism. There was his devotion to big government, his passion for redistribution, and his scolding and scapegoating of Wall Street—as if his mandate was somehow to overcome, or at least subdue, American capitalism itself.

Anti-exceptionalism has clearly shaped his "leading from behind" profile abroad—an offer of self-effacement to offset the presumed American evil of swaggering cowboyism. Once in office his "hope and change" campaign slogan came to look like the "hope" of overcoming American exceptionalism and "change" away from it.

So, in Mr. Obama, America gained a president with ambivalence, if not some antipathy, toward the singular greatness of the nation he had been elected to lead.

But then again, the American people did elect him. Clearly Americans were looking for a new kind of exceptionalism in him (a black president would show America to have achieved near perfect social mobility). But were they also looking for—in Mr. Obama—an assault on America's bedrock exceptionalism of military, economic and cultural pre-eminence?

American exceptionalism is, among other things, the result of a difficult rigor: the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law. Over time a society like this will become great. This is how—despite all our flagrant shortcomings and self-betrayals—America evolved into an exceptional nation.

Yet today America is fighting in a number of Muslim countries, and that number is as likely to rise as to fall. Our exceptionalism saddles us with overwhelming burdens. The entire world comes to our door when there is real trouble, and every day we spill blood and treasure in foreign lands—even as anti-Americanism plays around the world like a hit record.

At home the values that made us exceptional have been smeared with derision. Individual initiative and individual responsibility—the very engines of our exceptionalism—now carry a stigma of hypocrisy. For centuries America made sure that no amount of initiative would lift minorities and women. So in liberal quarters today—where historical shames are made to define the present—these values are seen as little more than the cynical remnants of a bygone era. Talk of "merit" or "a competition of excellence" in the admissions office of any Ivy League university today, and then stand by for the howls of incredulous laughter.

Our national exceptionalism both burdens and defames us, yet it remains our fate. We make others anxious, envious, resentful, admiring and sometimes hate-driven. There's a reason al Qaeda operatives targeted the U.S. on 9/11 and not, say, Buenos Aires. They wanted to enrich their act of evil with the gravitas of American exceptionalism. They wanted to steal our thunder.

So we Americans cannot help but feel some ambivalence toward our singularity in the world—with its draining entanglements abroad, the selfless demands it makes on both our military and our taxpayers, and all the false charges of imperial hubris it incurs. Therefore it is not surprising that America developed a liberalism—a political left—that took issue with our exceptionalism. It is a left that has no more fervent mission than to recast our greatness as the product of racism, imperialism and unbridled capitalism.

But this leaves the left mired in an absurdity: It seeks to trade the burdens of greatness for the relief of mediocrity. When greatness fades, when a nation contracts to a middling place in the world, then the world in fact no longer knocks on its door. (Think of England or France after empire.) To civilize America, to redeem the nation from its supposed avarice and hubris, the American left effectively makes a virtue of decline—as if we can redeem America only by making her indistinguishable from lesser nations.

Since the '60s we have enfeebled our public education system even as our wealth has expanded. Moral and cultural relativism now obscure individual responsibility. We are uninspired in the wars we fight, calculating our withdrawal even before we begin—and then we fight with a self-conscious, almost bureaucratic minimalism that makes the wars interminable.

America seems to be facing a pivotal moment: Do we move ahead by advancing or by receding—by reaffirming the values that made us exceptional or by letting go of those values, so that a creeping mediocrity begins to spare us the burdens of greatness?

As a president, Barack Obama has been a force for mediocrity. He has banked more on the hopeless interventions of government than on the exceptionalism of the people. His greatest weakness as a president is a limp confidence in his countrymen. He is afraid to ask difficult things of them.

Like me, he is black, and it was the government that in part saved us from the ignorances of the people. So the concept of the exceptionalism—the genius for freedom—of the American people may still be a stretch for him. But in fact he was elected to make that stretch. It should be held against him that he has failed to do so.

Should President Obama Resign From His Office?

Douglass MacKinnon -  As our economy continues to self-destruct; U.S. credit is shockingly downgraded; home prices remain at historic lows; unemployment rises; small businesses continue to close their doors; public-employee-bloated cities, towns, states and employers continue to default; race riots flare, Mexican drug cartels cross our sovereign border at will to establish ultraviolent operations; test scores for public school children continue to plummet; the health care system falls under the control of a failed socialist model; terrorism rises, and the world outside our borders spirals into deeper and more dangerous chaos, a serious and very legitimate question needs to be asked:
In the best interests of our nation and the American people, should President Obama resign his office?
Supporters of the president will be offended by the very question and more than likely fire the usual "racist" accusations my way. But it's a question that at least needs to be debated.
Even if Obama loses the election in November 2012, he will still remain in office until Jan. 20, 2013. If, as many people now believe, Obama is in way over his head and dramatically ill-equipped to handle the critical responsibilities of his office, then it seems logical to assume he can still do quite a bit more damage to our nation from now until then.
As to why he is so far over his head and so unqualified to be president, one of his strongest supporters just outlined the answer in a lengthy article for the liberal (and Obama-defending) New York Times.
In the piece, Drew Westen, a committed liberal, articulated his hopes and disappointments of Obama. By doing so, he (in a Nixon-going-to-China moment) pinpointed exactly why the Obama administration has been such an unmitigated disaster.
"Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography," Weston wrote, noting that Obama:
Had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state.
Had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography.
Had, before joining the U.S. Senate, voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.
Bingo! This is an incredibly important moment and revelation. While conservatives have been making this exact same point for years, now that a liberal is saying it in the most powerful liberal publication in the nation, maybe others will not only start to pay attention, but give these "disquieting aspects of his biography" the scrutiny they deserve.
In one paragraph, Westen has pulled back the curtain to reveal a man so far out of his element as to be a true threat to the well-being of our nation.
This is not a game. This is not a TV show or a horror movie we can turn off. This is the United States of America coming off the rails and cascading toward true anarchy because in large part, our president, as outlined by a liberal in the liberal bible, "accomplished very little before he ran for president" ... had "never run a business or state" ... "had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor" ... and is well-known for "dodging difficult issues."
Honestly, if more Americans knew of these indisputable facts, it's hard to see how Barack Obama could be elected mayor of a small town in Alaska, let alone president of the United States. And yet . .. here we are.
Since liberals and liberal publications are now starting to admit that the president may not be up to the job, maybe one of them can then offer up a scenario to get us out of this mess. Something like: have Joe Biden resign, have Obama appoint a competent and vetted vice president, and then have President Obama resign.
Liberals could do all that while finally conceding that real-world experience does matter and that Obama brought none to the White House. Hence, the train wreck.

Republicans, Conservatives And Tea Party: Pres. Obama is Guaranteed Re-Election In 2012

Wayward Herring - The killing of Osama Bin Laden by President Obama has made it almost impossible for the Republicans to recapture the Presidency 2012. The killing of Bin Laden has destroyed the mantra that President Obama is incompetent and weak on national defense which has been a serious problem for Democrats ever since, the failed Carter Presidency. The killing of Bin Laden by President Obama has also, destroyed the myth that a Democrat President could not handle a major national security mission without complete failure.The mission was flawless and without error and the American people will remember this on election day. Therefore, President Obama has transformed himself into a strong Commander In Chief in the eyes on many Americans after the killing of the most wanted man on the planet earth and that will be a hard task for any Republican nominee to overcome in 2012 general election campaign. The American people love a winner and President Obama is the biggest winner in the entire world and they will reward him with a second term in office, even though we have 9% unemployment, gas prices at a near record high and food skyrocketing to it's highest levels in decades. The Republicans don't have a strong enough candidate right now who can beat President Obama with his one billion dollar campaign chest in a potential match up in the race for the White House. There is no way in hell Mitt Romney the father of Obamacare is going to beat President Obama and Gov. Huckabee will be eaten alive by the Obama mainstream media machine. The only hope the Republicans have of making the election campaign even close is by nominating Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Rep. Paul Ryan Wisconsin or Sen. Marco Rubio  Florida will probably wait until 2016 to make a run for the Oval Office. Finally, it does not matter how much we cry about Obamacare, deficit or economy President Obama has found the silver bullet to remain in the White House for a second term and that is killing of Osama Bin Laden.

President Barack Obama, Cry Freakin Baby

Larry Johnson - If you’ve seen Drudge (and now Hot Air) you have probably seen Obama’s meltdown under the “grueling” questioning of a local Texas TV reporter. Steel yourselves boys and girls, this is brutal:

Man, did you notice the dozens of times that asshole of a reporter interrupted?

Nope. Me neither. The guy just asked some direct questions. Hell, Bret Baer of Fox News interrupted Obama far more when he did that interview.

This interview provides a brilliant video illustration of why Obama will not be re-elected. In 2008 he was the happy, easy going, nice Negro. He was a younger version of Bill Cosby. He was likable. Not shrill like that bitch Hillary (ball bustin’ Iron Maiden). And his voice? Like honey on fat honeycombs. Soothing, easy to follow, almost a musical cadence.

Now this. Petulant, angry, arrogant and smug. Not exactly the kind of guy you want to take home to meet Mom. Let’s face it. Barack Obama has morphed into a black Eddie Haskell. And for you Leave it to Beaver fans, you all know how “beloved” old Eddie was? Right?

Imagine how testy he will be when inflation tops 10%, along with unemployment and Americans are screaming about $5 a gallon gas. You’ll need body armor or a bomb suit to interview the dude if you want to survive the experience.

Cornell West Calls Obama a Black Mascot Of Wall Street Bankers

Cored Jefferson - As the 2012 presidential elections draws closer, the arguments for and against President Obama grow more heated. Last night, an outright shouting match between two of America’s most notable Black leaders—Cornel West and Al Sharpton—gave an indication as to just how important this election will be.

West, a Princeton professor and author, and Sharpton, a controversial civil rights icon, sat on a panel of experts on the Ed Schultz-led special program A Stronger America: The Black Agenda. The talk soon turned to what African-Americans can and should expect from Obama. Sharpton, whose recent National Action Network conference saw an Obama cameo, believes people are being too hard on the president. West vehemently disagreed.

In response to the sharp criticism Obama’s gotten from Blacks who say he’s not done enough for the minority community, Sharpton said, “Too many of us are putting it all on the president. If I see a [Paul] Ryan in Congress, where is the counterpoint to Ryan? That’s not President Obama’s job.… He shouldn’t lead the civil rights marches against himself. Everybody’s sitting around acting like we can’t do anything, Obama’s going to do it. That’s hogwash.”

Interrupting Sharpton, West leapt into the debate: “They [the Obama administration] have a Black constituency and there’s a context in the nation that a criticism of President Obama is an attempt to support the right-wing vicious attacks of Fox News and others,” he said.

West went on to say that the White House ignored the plight of the Black poor, and, in perhaps his most heated turn of phrase, called Obama “another Black mascot of these Wall Street oligarchs.”

Sharpton shot back that people like West like to sit in their “ivory towers” while people like Sharpton are “in the trenches at the labor rallies.” It eventually devolved into an all-out shouting match, with Sharpton being drowned out by West, who shouted, “Where’s the jobs bill?”

Ultimately, not much was accomplished on either side, but it made for exciting television, and it was just a taste of how hot the debates are going to be before voters head to the polls in 2012.

Fox Poll Shows Obama Approval Rating At New Low 40%

Ed Morriessey - A new poll by Fox News and Opinion Dynamics shows the job approval rating for Barack Obama hitting a new low, 40%, while disapproval hits 51%, just one point below his previous record set in September. Approval among independents hit an even lower level of 37/48, virtually unchanged from October’s 37/49. Andrew Malcolm reports that almost two-thirds of respondents now don’t believe that Obama will win a second term:

“Your best guess, as of today do you think Barack Obama will be reelected president in 2012 or not?”

Mid-December 2010 Overall: 29% Yes, 64% No.

Mid-December 2009 Overall: 44% Yes, 46% No.

Tellingly, among Obama’s core Democrats, those who believe he’ll be reelected fell from 71% a year ago to a minority, 49%, now. Those Democrats who say he won’t be reelected increased from 19% to 42%.

Among independents, a crucial part of the Democrat’s winning 2008 coalition, those who think he’ll be reelected fell from 46% to 31%. Those who predict he won’t jumped from 44% to 63%.

This stands in stark contrast to the Washington Post/ABC poll released earlier this week. That showed Obama losing ground on Afghanistan, with a 45/46 rating, and tanking on the economy, 43/54, and the deficit, 38/55 — but maintaining a 49/47 approval rating. However, even after 4 days of publishing stories from the poll results, neither WaPo nor ABC has released any of the sample data from the survey. Given their predilection for oversampling Democrats, the lack of transparency should warn anyone about taking it seriously, especially since Marist found the same trend as Fox and almost the same numbers (42/50).

Another question asked respondents whether Obama deserved to be re-elected after his performance in the first two years of his term. Those figures were only marginally better, with 35% saying Obama deserved a second term and 53% wanting to take their chances with someone else. Among independents, those numbers dropped to 32/50, and only 67% of Democrats think Obama should get a second term. That’s not exactly an enthusiastic base. On the plus side, Obama beats George W. Bush in a head-to-head match … but only by eight points and without a majority, 48/40.

Unlike the Post and ABC, Fox released the party-affiliation composition of its survey. Republicans have a three-point edge, which at least gets the leadership right, but the poll oversamples both parties a bit at the expense of independents (38/35/27). Given that the Marist poll showed similar results with a seven-point Democratic edge in the sample, it seems as though the consensus is that Obama’s doing poorly, just as the midterms indicated.

House-Senate Mid-Term Elections Porjections " Republican Win House 49 - Senate 7"

After months of partisan wrangling, it is finally time for the voters to deliver their decision on the 2010 mid-term elections in the Congress, as Republicans seem to have the edge today.

Republicans need to gain a net of 39 seats to charge of the House and 10 seats to take over the Senate. Political experts think the first is almost a given, while the latter is still a longshot.

It isn't difficult to get to 39 seats for a GOP takeover, as most political experts are expecting the Republicans to be back in charge of the House.

The big question is how many seats will the GOP win.

One Republican lawmaker told me yesterday that his guess is 55 seats - that's one more than what Republicans won in 1994.

Others though see the chance for a much larger haul - 60, 70, even 80 seats or more. If the "wave" is that high, then a number of unsuspecting Democrats will likely get swept out tonight, as happened in 2006 to then-Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), even though Democrats didn't even target him.

"You're going to see somebody like that fall this time," says Henry Olsen, an elections expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

"On my list, I have what I call 'Super Upset Specials'," as Olsen and many others around here try to figure out who might be at risk on a night like this.

I should resist making any predictions like that, but I will say that I wonder if the GOP advantage in the state of Michigan could mean that a longtime Democratic lawmaker will go down to defeat.

Where are Democrats at risk of losing seats? I don't mean to be flip - but 'just about anywhere' is the answer, from New England to Blue Dogs in the South, to the Midwest and West.

As of today, Republicans have no seats in New England in the U.S. House. They have a chance to change that in Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Republicans have only two of the 29 seats in the New York delegation. They have a chance to increase that dramatically.

In key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, the losses could approach a half dozen seats in each state if the wave is big enough for the GOP.

Virginia could see at least three Democrats go down. Meanwhile, Blue Dog Democrats are at risk in Virginia, North & South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi.

In Florida, Republicans think they can win four seats from the Democrats.

Texas could deliver as many as two to four seats for the GOP.

Indiana has three seats at risk, three or four more in Illinois, several in Michigan and Wisconsin could go to the GOP. Iowa has some GOP longshots.

Missouri has two seats that might shift, Arkansas has two or three, depending on the size of the Republican gains. Another one could go in Louisiana.

All three freshman Democrats in New Mexico are at risk, as are maybe four or five Democrats in Arizona. It probably didn't help to have arguments yesterday on the Arizona immigration law, a reminder for voters one day before the elections.

Democrats could lose the only House seat in both of the Dakotas, one in Kansas, three or four in Colorado, maybe one in Utah, another in Nevada and one in Idaho.

The Pacific Coast isn't immune either, as maybe three Democrats are at risk in California, another one or two in Oregon and a couple of seats in Washington State.

What about the GOP? Don't they have some seats at risk? Oh yeah, four or five tops - in Delaware, Louisiana, Hawaii, Illinois and south Florida. You can see how one-sided this election looks at this point.

So will the GOP win big? We'll see what the voters decide.

As for my election coverage tonight, I will be on with live reports starting through the evening, and then at 11pm EDT, I will be hosting several hours of election coverage, focusing on the race for Congress. Please check back on my blog all night, as I will be posting comments as the results unfold.

Harry Reid: "Obama is Like A Trapped Chilean Miner"

This might surprise you, but I agree with Harry Ried that Obama is like a trapped miner — both are in dangerously over their heads and begging for cigarettes:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has compared President Barack Obama to a trapped Chilean miner.

In a speech to supporters in Las Vegas on Sunday night, Reid said that when Obama replaced George W. Bush in the White House he found himself in a “hole so deep that he couldn’t see the outside world.

“It was like the Chilean miners, but he, being the man he is, rolled up his sleeves and said ‘I am going to get us out of this hole,’” Reid said at an “Early Vote GOTV” event.

It’s worth noting for Harry that the leader in saving the Chilean miners was a conservative.

From Spuddser in comments: “I guess that would be an apt comparison if the Chilean miners had all grabbed their shovels and started digging downward to get out of the hole.”

Unemployment Rises Unexpectedly 95,000 Jobs Lost. Heck Of A Job Barry Obama!

Protein Wisdom - The U.S. economy unexpectedly shed jobs in September for a fourth straight month as government payrolls fell and private hiring was less than expected, hardening expectations of further Federal Reserve action to spur the recovery.

Nonfarm payrolls dropped 95,000, the Labor Department said on Friday. Private employment, a better gauge of labor market health, increased 64,000 after rising 93,000 in August. A total of 77,000 temporary jobs for the decennial census were terminated last month.

Analysts polled by Reuters had expected overall payrolls would be unchanged, with private-sector hiring gaining 75,000.

The government revised data for July and August to show 15,000 more jobs lost that previously reported. It also said its preliminary benchmark revision estimate indicated employment in the 12 months to March had been overstated by 366,000.

United States Path To Collapse

NIA - The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission today held hearings with former Lehman Brothers Chairman Dick Fuld. They are trying to figure out why Lehman Brothers was allowed to collapse, with the belief that the failure of Lehman Brothers caused the financial crisis of 2008. The truth is, the failure of Lehman Brothers was a result of the crisis and allowing them to fail was the only correct decision the government made during the crisis.

The pain that was felt after the collapse of Lehman Brothers is nothing compared to the pain that will come when we begin to feel the effects of bailing out the rest of Wall Street. U.S. second quarter GDP growth was revised down on Friday from 2.4% to 1.6%. In order to get this 1.6% GDP growth, the U.S. government had to spend $3.7 trillion on bailouts, stimulus bills, the buying of mortgage backed securities, and other commitments.

General Motors reported today that their August deliveries fell 25% from one year ago to 185,176 vehicles. The U.S. government used "cash for clunkers" to buy GDP growth in 2009, but that growth stole from future automobile sales. NIA believes that GM's sales decline is a sign that the U.S. will likely see a sharp contraction in GDP beginning in the third-quarter, which will lead to the Federal Reserve implementing the mother of all quantitative easing and cause a massive sell off in the U.S. dollar.

Christina Romer, outgoing Chairwoman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, today called for more government spending and less taxes as a way to bring down unemployment. The combination of more government spending and less taxes equals massive inflation, but this represents the state of mind in Washington today. Inflation is still the last thing on their minds because they don't see it yet.

Even though we might not see massive across the board price inflation at this time, gold and silver prices have been surging ever since NIA released its article "Gold and Silver Capitulation is Near" on July 28th. Gold is very close to breaking its all time nominal high of $1,264.90 per ounce set during June and silver is getting ready to test the critical $20-$21 per ounce resistance level.

Rising gold and silver prices indicate that the U.S. is headed for an explosion in budget deficits that will rise far beyond what it can pay for through borrowing. Leading Chinese economists are now calling Japanese debt less risky than U.S. debt and with the Japanese savings rate in decline, the U.S. will soon have nobody left to borrow from. The only option will be monetization and already the Federal Reserve is getting ready to buy $10 billion to $30 billion per month in U.S. treasuries to keep its balance sheet at inflated levels.

There are now 50 million Americans on Medicaid, with annual Medicaid costs rising 36% over the past two years to $273 billion. The recently enacted health care bill will add 16 million more Americans to Medicaid beginning in 2014, but the U.S. government will likely go bust by then. It is impossible to have an economic recovery when jobless benefits are encouraging Americans to stay unemployed. U.S. unemployment insurance spending has nearly quadrupled since 2007 to $160 billion annually. Even food stamp costs have surged 80% over the past two years to $70 billion annually.

Once Americans get used to receiving and relying on government entitlement programs, it is hard to wean them off of them. NIA has been hearing reports from members with friends who say they will only "come out of retirement" if they can find a job that pays $25 per hour or more, because with anything less it wouldn't be worth losing their jobless and food stamp benefits. Americans expect to receive their jobless benefits forever and we are sure Obama will continue to extend them leading up to the 2012 election.

There are now countless warning signs all around us on a daily basis that the U.S. is headed for a complete societal collapse. NIA received an overwhelming response from its members when we asked you to submit any signs you see that a societal collapse is near. The response we received was so strong that we are now beginning to produce a documentary about America's upcoming collapse of society. The documentary will be over an hour long and we are hoping to release it by the end of October. It will go beyond the economic facts and statistics that were discussed in 'Meltup' and help expose the upcoming collapse from a real life perspective. NIA believes this documentary will appeal to a very mainstream audience and help open up the world's eyes to the truth about the path this country is on.

Obama Stimulus Plan: Homelessness Up 50% In New York City

MYFOXNY.COM - If you think you've been seeing more people sleep on city streets, statistics back up the perception. The homeless population living on New York City streets has gone up 50 percent in the past year, according to city statistics reported by the HellsKitchenLife.com blog.

The New York City Department of Homeless Services conducts a yearly survey of the streets of the city to count the number of homeless who are not in shelters. The HOPE survey was conducted in January 2010.

The number of homeless in the borough of Manhattan was up 47 percent in the past year, according to the count. The 2010 count had 1,145 people living in the streets. That is up 368 from 2009.

Brooklyn had the biggest increase of any borough. It saw a homeless increase of more than 100 percent in 2010.

More than 1,000 people now live in New York City's subway system -- up 11 percent in the past year.

While the numbers are alarming, they are still at historically low levels and the ratio of homeless to the general population remains low compared to other major cities, according to the city. The HOPE survey showed a 29 percent drop in homelessness from 2005.

DHS works to prevent homelessness and also provides short-term emergency shelter. The agency seeks to help homeless individuals move from shelters back to permanent housing.

For example, the DHS says it provided temporary, emergency shelter to 8,230 families with children -- equating to 25,204 adults and children in July. But the agency says shelters have seen fewer families. From October 2009 through June 2010, shelters had 11 percent fewer children, who are now back in homes of their own

Mexican Bullets Shut Down El Paso, Texas

Newsvine.com - Yes, this is another dispatch from the war zone along the Mexican border (where I live in El Paso, right across from Juarez, Mexico–a stone’s throw, or bullet path, away).

This story–from events over the weekend, but still making news today in El Paso–is beyond belief. I thought things were bad when the El Paso City Hall was splattered with bullets from a firefight across the river. But this weekend El Paso police SHUT DOWN part of downtown El Paso because of flying bullets from a gun battle in a house on a hill in Juarez–a gun battle that evidently lasted 30 minutes and illed at least three people in Juarez. No one was–a matter of luck–killed in El Paso, although there are reports that a shattered car window may have been from a bullet. It is evidently estimated (no, they can’t know) that about 50 bullets came over the border into downtown El Paso.

And Obama has the GALL to tell me it is SAFER along the border. The man is a piece of work. I have lived in the El Paso area of the Southwest for approximately 50 years. At NO time, during that entire period, do I remember this kin of thing happening. I think the last time anything close to it happended were in the days of Pancho Villa.

Obama Mosque Stance Hurting, Gallup Finds, Americans Disapprove of It And Him

L.A Times - Democrat president Barack Obama walks off Air Force One somewhere new

President Obama busily continued his five-state cross-country political money collection tour today.

But he took time out to declare that he has "no regrets" about his firm statement of support for a new mosque and social center near the site in New York City of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Shortly after, Gallup released a new overnight poll showing, however, that many Americans have regrets that their president made that statement.

The new survey found that among the 57% of Americans with an opinion, 37% of Americans disapprove of the Democrat's mosque comments. Twenty percent support them. Another 41% said they don't yet know enough to have an opinion.

Two-thirds of Americans told Gallup they are paying a great deal or fair amount of attention to the mosque issue, which Gallup suggests is playing a role in Obama's overall approval this week falling to 41%, the lowest level of his 19-month presidency.

Of course, Obama's not on any ballot for the Nov. 2 midterm elections.

But many Democrats worry that disapproval of him, his administration, controversial legislative agenda and now a mosque could cost them control of at least one house of Congress.

The party of presidents under 50% approval in midterm years usually suffers severe....

Democrat president Barack Obama speaks at White house Iftar dinner in the White House 8-13-10 supporting a new mosque near 9-11 Ground Zero site

...congressional losses. And another Gallup Poll earlier this week shows the Republican lead on the generic congressional ballot has grown to seven points, its largest this year.

We published the full text of Obama's remarks, as usual.

Friday night at a sundown White House Iftar dinner celebrating the breaking of the day's Ramadan fast, Obama said Sept. 11 was a traumatic event, that he supported America's religious freedoms and "that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

The next day criticism of Obama's mosque statement mounted. House Republican Leader John A. Boehner said:

The decision to build this mosque so close to ground zero is deeply troubling, as is the president’s decision to endorse it. The American people certainly don’t support it. The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding.

Former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin asked:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?

In Florida on another vacation, Obama attempted to clarify by saying: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there." Later, however, aides said the president was not back-pedaling on his dinner statement.

Gallup's overall approval polling, which includes the first two days of fallout after the mosque statement, would appear to confirm that Americans heard him supporting the idea.

This afternoon ABC News reported that mosque supporters said they would need $100 million for the development and would not rule out accepting funds from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations.

Exactly why an already embattled U.S. president would voluntarily insert himself into what had been a local controversy, thereby poking the country's still-tender Sept. 11 scars and raising a Muslim place of worship to a divisive national campaign issue, has puzzled many political observers. Especially since there is another mosque just 12 blocks from the site.

On the other hand, if people are arguing about a possible mosque near ground zero, they're not debating the responsibilities of Obama and his large Democratic congressional majorities for the stubbornly stagnant economy, high unemployment rates and deficits, which previous polls showed were their most vulnerable political points heading toward November.

1-15 Children In U.S. Has Illegal Immigrant Parents

Howard Fischer - About one out of every 15 children in the United States was born to a family where at least one parent is in this country illegally, according to a new report today.

And four out of five of them are “anchor babies,” the Pew Hispanic Center concluded.

The figures, which the organization calculated based on 2009 U.S. Census Bureau estimates, are the best estimates to date of the scope of the issue which has resulted in calls to amend the U.S. Constitution to deny automatic citizenship to children solely by virtue of their birth within this country.

That percentage of children of illegal immigrant parents might be increasing.

The overall figure is about 6.8 percent of all children 17 and younger have at least one illegal immigrant parent.

But the center calculated that about 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were offspring of “unauthorized” immigrants. That computes out to 7.9 percent.

Researchers peg the number of illegal immigrants in the United States at something slightly in excess of 4 percent of the total population.

“But because they are relatively young and have high birth rates, their children make up a much larger share of the newborn population and the child population in this country,” the report says.
The 14th Amendment says that anyone born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of both this country and the state where they reside. Courts have interpreted that to entitle citizenship to those born in the United States regardless of whether one or both parents had no legal right to be here.

Some foes, including Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, argue those rulings are flawed.

He noted that the amendment makes its provisions conditional on the children being “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country. Pearce said courts, citing that language, concluded for years that did not entitle Native Americans to citizenship even though they were clearly born within the country’s borders.

It was only after Congress specifically altered the law regarding Indians that situation changed.

15 Economic Statistics That Just Keep Getting Worse

Economic Collapse - A little over a week ago, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner penned an article for the New York Times entitled “Welcome To The Recovery” in which he touted the great strides that the U.S. economy was making. But with unemployment still dangerously high and with foreclosures and personal bankruptcies continuing to set all-time records, should we really be talking about a “recovery”? The truth is that the numbers don’t lie, and statistic after statistic shows that the economic fundamentals continue to get progressively worse. The U.S. government can continue to try to pump up with economy with more debt, but the reality is that there is not going to be a legitimate “recovery” until consumer spending rebounds. Consumer spending makes up the vast majority of U.S. GDP. But without good jobs, consumers are not going to be able to spend money. Unfortunately, our jobs base continues to be erode as millions upon millions of middle class jobs are shipped over to China, India and dozens of third world nations by the global predator corporations that now dominate the world economy.

The U.S. government cannot create real wealth out of thin air. It can borrow even more money and flood the economy with even more paper currency, but the short-term “buzz” that creates does absolutely nothing to solve our long-term economic problems.

It is the private sector that actually creates wealth. But unfortunately, over the last several decades we have allowed that wealth to become highly concentrated. Now the giant global predator corporations have decided that American workers aren’t really that desirable after all. They are slowly taking away their factories and their offices and they are moving them to where people are willing to work for one-tenth the pay.

So where does that leave middle class American “consumers”?

Well, it leaves us in a world of hurt.

The following are 15 key economic statistics that just keep getting worse and which reveal the horrific economic plight in which we now find ourselves….

1 – The number of Americans who are receiving food stamps rose to a new all-time record of 40.8 million in May. The number of Americans receiving food stamps has set a new all-time record for 18 months in a row. But there is every indication that things are going to get even worse. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the number of Americans on food stamps will increase to 43 million in 2011.

2 – The U.S. economy lost 131,000 more jobs during the month of July. But the truth is that the U.S. economy has been bleeding jobs for a long time. According to one analysis, the United States has lost 10.5 million jobs since 2007. Meanwhile, immigrants (both legal and illegal) continue to pour into this nation in unprecedented numbers.

3 – Americans who are out of work are finding it incredibly difficult to get back into the workforce. In the United States today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to an all-time record of 35.2 weeks.

4 – The U.S. government keeps trying to pump up the economy with debt, and in the process things are getting wildly out of control. According to a U.S. Treasury Department report to Congress, the U.S. national debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015.

5 – The interest on all of this debt is becoming increasingly oppressive. As of July 1st, the U.S. government had spent $355 billion so far in 2010 on interest payments to the holders of the national debt. The total for 2010 should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion. According to Erskine Bowles, one of the heads of Barack Obama’s national debt commission, the U.S. government will be spending $2 trillion just on interest on the national debt by 2020. Keep in mind that the entire U.S. government budget is less than $4 trillion for the entire year of 2010.

6 – If the U.S. government was forced to use GAAP accounting principles (like all publicly-traded corporations must), the annual U.S. government budget deficit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 trillion to $5 trillion.

7 – Social Security will pay out more in benefits in 2010 than it receives in payroll taxes. This was not supposed to happen until at least 2015. In the years ahead, these new “Social Security deficits” are projected to be absolutely catastrophic.

8 – There are simply far too many retirees and not nearly enough workers to support them. Back in 1950 each retiree’s Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 workers. Today, each retiree’s Social Security benefit is paid for by approximately 3.3 workers. By 2025 it is projected that there will be approximately two workers for each retiree.

9 – Wealth continues to become highly concentrated at the top. Since 1973, the average CEO’s salary has increased from 26 times the median income to over 300 times the median income.

10 – According to a poll taken in 2009, 61 percent of Americans ”always or usually” live paycheck to paycheck. That was up significantly from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Advertisement)

11 – The Mortgage Bankers Association recently announced that more than 10% of all U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one mortgage payment during the January to March time period. That was a new all-time record and represented an increase from 9.1 percent a year ago.

12 – A recent survey of last year’s college graduates found that 80 percent moved right back home with their parents after graduation. That was up substantially from 63 percent in 2006.

13 – During the first quarter of 2010, the total number of loans that are at least three months past due in the United States increased for the 16th consecutive quarter.

14 – The total number of U.S. bank failures passed the 100 mark in July of this year. In 2009, the total number of U.S. bank failures did not pass the century barrier until October.

15 – The U.S. dollar continues to rapidly decline in value. An item that cost $20.00 in 1970 would cost you $112.35 today. An item that cost $20.00 in 1913 would cost you $440.33 today.

Any rational observer (and clearly U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner does not qualify) can see that the foundations of the U.S. economy are coming apart. The rapidly accumulating mountain of debt that has fueled our “prosperity” is impossible to repay and is going to progressively choke the life out of our economic system. The good jobs that we have allowed to be shipped out of our country are never coming back. Every single day, more wealth flows out of this country than flows into it.

Anyone who claims that things are getting “better” is either ignorant, completely deluded or is purposely lying.

The U.S. economy is not getting “better”.

The U.S. economy is dying.

You should adjust your plans accordingly.

U.S. Is Bankrupt And We Don't Even Know It

Laurence Kotlikoff - Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund released its annual review of U.S. economic policy. Its summary contained these bland words about U.S. fiscal policy: “Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP.”

But delve deeper, and you will find that the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”

The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years.

Double Our Taxes

To put 14 percent of gross domestic product in perspective, current federal revenue totals 14.9 percent of GDP. So the IMF is saying that closing the U.S. fiscal gap, from the revenue side, requires, roughly speaking, an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy set down in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

Such a tax hike would leave the U.S. running a surplus equal to 5 percent of GDP this year, rather than a 9 percent deficit. So the IMF is really saying the U.S. needs to run a huge surplus now and for many years to come to pay for the spending that is scheduled. It’s also saying the longer the country waits to make tough fiscal adjustments, the more painful they will be.

Is the IMF bonkers?

No. It has done its homework. So has the Congressional Budget Office whose Long-Term Budget Outlook, released in June, shows an even larger problem.

‘Unofficial’ Liabilities

Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.

For example, our Social Security FICA contributions are called taxes and our future Social Security benefits are called transfer payments. The government could equally well have labeled our contributions “loans” and called our future benefits “repayment of these loans less an old age tax,” with the old age tax making up for any difference between the benefits promised and principal plus interest on the contributions.

The fiscal gap isn’t affected by fiscal labeling. It’s the only theoretically correct measure of our long-run fiscal condition because it considers all spending, no matter how labeled, and incorporates long-term and short-term policy.

$4 Trillion Bill

How can the fiscal gap be so enormous?

Simple. We have 78 million baby boomers who, when fully retired, will collect benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that, on average, exceed per-capita GDP. The annual costs of these entitlements will total about $4 trillion in today’s dollars. Yes, our economy will be bigger in 20 years, but not big enough to handle this size load year after year.

This is what happens when you run a massive Ponzi scheme for six decades straight, taking ever larger resources from the young and giving them to the old while promising the young their eventual turn at passing the generational buck.

Herb Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under U.S. President Richard Nixon, coined an oft-repeated phrase: “Something that can’t go on, will stop.” True enough. Uncle Sam’s Ponzi scheme will stop. But it will stop too late.

And it will stop in a very nasty manner. The first possibility is massive benefit cuts visited on the baby boomers in retirement. The second is astronomical tax increases that leave the young with little incentive to work and save. And the third is the government simply printing vast quantities of money to cover its bills.

Worse Than Greece

Most likely we will see a combination of all three responses with dramatic increases in poverty, tax, interest rates and consumer prices. This is an awful, downhill road to follow, but it’s the one we are on. And bond traders will kick us miles down our road once they wake up and realize the U.S. is in worse fiscal shape than Greece.

Some doctrinaire Keynesian economists would say any stimulus over the next few years won’t affect our ability to deal with deficits in the long run.

Laurence Kotlikoff - This is wrong as a simple matter of arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the government’s credit-card bill and each year’s 14 percent of GDP is the interest on that bill. If it doesn’t pay this year’s interest, it will be added to the balance.

Demand-siders say forgoing this year’s 14 percent fiscal tightening, and spending even more, will pay for itself, in present value, by expanding the economy and tax revenue.

My reaction? Get real, or go hang out with equally deluded supply-siders. Our country is broke and can no longer afford no- pain, all-gain “solutions.”

(Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University and author of “Jimmy Stewart Is Dead: Ending the World’s Ongoing Financial Plague with Limited Purpose Banking.” The opinions expressed are his own.)

Gallup Predicts A Republican Party Rout In The Midterms Based On Obama's Popularity Rating

Tyler Gurden - Gallup presents some troubling statistics for the democrats as we approach mid-term elections (a mere three months away). In a nutshell, the party of a president who has a sub-50% rating into midterms, has lost, on average, 36 seats since 1946. Alternatively, presidents with a popularity rating over 50%, lose just 14. As Gallup says: “The clear implication is that the Democrats are vulnerable to losing a significant number of House seats this fall with Barack Obama’s approval rating averaging 45% during the last two full weeks of Gallup Daily tracking. The Republicans would need to gain 40 House seats to retake majority control.”

Of course, the administration (and its dwindling members) is well-aware of this fact, which is why the next three months will likely see a record amount of pandering, populism and outright manipulation of everything that can be manipulated: that includes mortgages rates, and of course, stocks. Which leads us to observe the calendar of FOMC meetings until November: there are two - tomorrow and September 21. However, for a Fed loosening decision to have a material impact, the September meeting is likely cutting it too close to the election date, as the market will likely not have enough time to digest a favorable outcome, or in turn will be into its reactionary phase by the time November rolls around. Furthermore, the traditionally busy post-Labor day docket will likely mean events on the economic front already have to be in motion by then. Lastly, the fact that the Fed will have just a bare minimum quorum of just four directors through September 10 (at a minimum), means that any decision in the 11 days between then and the 21st will likely be far more problematic than one which has to be taken tomorrow. Which is why from a purely political calendar point of view, tomorrow’s Fed meeting is likely seen by the administration as a make or break. The tenuous 40 seat lead which will likely disappear should the current economic trajectory not change, is certainly on the radar for both Obama, and the very independent Federal Reserve.

More observations from Gallup:

On a historical basis, the Democrats under Jimmy Carter suffered the slimmest seat loss of a party whose president was below 50% approval, losing 11 seats in the 1978 midterms. More recently, Bill Clinton in 1994 and George W. Bush in 2006 saw their parties lose enough seats in the House to turn party control over to the opposition party when they had less than majority approval.

The president’s party nearly always loses seats in midterm elections, regardless of how well the president is rated by the public. Since World War II, only Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2002 saw their parties gain seats in a midterm. Both men had approval ratings above 60% at the time of those elections. However, the parties of the other three presidents with ratings above 60% (Eisenhower in 1954, Kennedy in 1962, and Reagan in 1986) lost seats.

In general, though, the more popular a president is, the fewer seats his party loses, as presidents with approval ratings above 60% have averaged just a three-seat loss.

Intel Experts Warn Obama And Israel May Bomb Iran Soon

Paul Joseph Watson - Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former intelligence and military officials, warns President Obama in a memo that Israel is preparing to attack Iran this month, and that Obama needs to publicly denounce such an attack in order to prevent a wider war and the ultimate destruction of Israel.

“We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war,” states the VIPS memo, which is addressed to the President.

The letter is signed by Phil Giraldi, former CIA (20 years), Larry Johnson, former CIA; DoS, (24 years), W. Patrick Lang, Col., USA, Special Forces (ret.); Director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years), Ray McGovern, US Army Intelligence Officer, CIA (30 years), Coleen Rowley, FBI (24 years), and Ann Wright, Col., US Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service Officer, Department of State (16 years).

The intelligence experts explain that Israel’s tactic is to launch the war suddenly and then make it politically untenable for Obama to do anything other than offer the United States’ full military support for the campaign.

Pointing out that Israel has habitually employed surprise and deception in furthering its geopolitical aims, VIPS warns Obama that misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s assurances that Israel would not launch a surprise attack would be foolhardy.

The memo highlights Netanyahu’s attitude to how pliable he believes the American government is to satisfying Israel’s demands, making reference to comments he made nine years ago on Israeli television.

“America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. … They won’t get in our way … Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd,” said Netanyahu.

“As we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian nuclear weapons, is Israel’s primary concern,” states the memo, adding, “A strong public statement by you, personally warning Israel not to attack Iran would most probably head off such an Israeli move.”

The VIPS members appeal to Obama that only he can now head off an attack on Iran that could take place as soon as this month. But the group’s call on Obama to denounce a planned military assault on Iran is likely to fall on deaf ears, because Washington has been almost as active as Israel in planning an attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.

A report in Time Magazine last month confirmed that Israel had convinced Washington to put the idea of a military strike firmly at the forefront of strategic planning. The report stated that US Central Command had been finalizing a plan of targeted air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and that Israel had been brought into that process.

On Sunday August 1st during an appearance on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reiterated that the military option remained on the table.

Any such attack would come from the air and would utilize B-2 bombers and cruise missiles as part of a knockout blow against Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would be followed by a velvet revolution in which opposition groups, which are largely controlled by the CIA and its allies, would overthrow the Ahmadinejad government.

Destabilization efforts in pursuit of this overthrow have been ongoing for years, the latest of which appears to be a claim that Ahmadinejad himself was the target of an assassination attempt today, a story the Iranian state media has strongly denied.

The U.S. government has been funding and training the Sunni terrorist group Jundullah, formerly headed by the accused mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to carry out bombings and other destabilization campaigns in Iran as part of a “campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs”.

As we have documented, political pressure is clearly being brought to bear on Obama in an effort to get the green light for the attack on Iran. Voices from both sides of the political spectrum are repeating the mantra that the only way to rescue Obama’s plummeting approval ratings is to rally the country behind another war in the Middle East.

Given this backdrop, it seems unlikely that the Obama administration would do anything other than vehemently support an Israeli-led attack on Iran. Perhaps the best way to try and stop such an outcome would be to appeal to current intelligence and military insiders who experienced the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction debacle at first hand and, as the November National Intelligence Estimate proved, are loathe to be hoodwinked into another staged war based on false pretenses.

Missouri Votes To Block Obamacare Health Insurance Mandate

(AP) - Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.

With about 90 percent of the vote counted late Tuesday, nearly three-quarters of voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

The Missouri law would conflict with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.

Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.

"To us, it symbolized everything," said Annette Read, a tea party participant from suburban St. Louis who quit her online retail job to lead a yearlong campaign for the Missouri ballot measure. "The entire frustration in the country ... how our government has misspent, how they haven't listened to the people, this measure in general encompassed all of that."

Missouri's ballot also featured primaries for U.S. Senate, Congress and numerous state legislative seats. But at many polling places, voters said they were most passionate about the health insurance referendum.

"I believe that the general public has been duped about the benefits of the health care proposal," said Mike Sampson of Jefferson City, an independent emergency management contractor, who voted for the proposition. "My guess is federal law will in fact supersede state law, but we need to send a message to the folks in Washington, D.C., that people in the hinterlands are not happy."

Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November. But Missouri was the first state to challenge aspects of the federal law in a referendum.

The intent of the federal requirement is to broaden the pool of healthy people covered by insurers, thus holding down premiums that otherwise would rise because of separate provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with poor health or pre-existing conditions.

But the insurance requirement has been one of the most contentious parts of the new federal law. Public officials in well over a dozen states, including Missouri, have filed lawsuits claiming Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to buy health insurance.

Federal courts are expected to weigh in well before the insurance requirement takes effect about whether the federal health care overhaul is constitutional.

The Missouri Hospital Association spent $400,000 warning people that passage of the ballot measure could increase hospitals' costs for treating the uninsured, but there was little opposition to the measure from either grass-roots organizations or from the unions and consumer groups that backed the federal overhaul.

Some Missouri voters who opposed the ballot measure cited a potential cost-shift to those who have insurance if some people are allowed to continue visiting emergency rooms without insurance. Other opponents of Missouri's ballot measure said they wanted to give Obama's health care plan a chance to work.

"I don't think people should be walking around sick," said Kathy Ward, a 57-year-old Columbia nurse, who voted against Missouri's law. "The fact remains, people have the right to have health care, and they should get it. It help makes a healthier society."