What Will Obama’s Legacy Be?

March 7, 2013 3 Comments

Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker has an interesting piece about the powerless President Obama. The President last week complained that he doesn’t have a secret formula to force Boehner and the Republicans to see he’s right. This despite the fact that Obama is convinced all reasonable people see things his way. Lizza notes that Obama is one of the few President’s to publicly whine about their power limits. Lizza’s thesis is that in order for a President to be truly successful, he needs to have his party in control of Congress. Otherwise the government is divided and divided government leads to a weak President.

In some respects Lizza is right. Obama has become increasingly powerless against a united Republican opposition. He couldn’t work out a sequestration deal and odds are he’s going to have a hard time getting much of anything passed in the next couple years. The administration has so much as admitted they’re campaigning for 2014, hoping to win back a Democrat House majority. What we’re likely to see in 2013 and 2014 is an administration talking about building bridges with the GOP while refusing to actually sit down and negotiate any deals. When negotiation does take place, Obama will refuse a deal and try to paint the GOP as extreme. It’s all a rouse, he wants no deal because no deal aids the Democrats midterm election arguments.

Lizza’s argument fails because there are two President’s in recent memory who worked with opposition Congress’s and got part of their agenda passed. Reagan worked with a full Democrat Congress for six years and a Democrat House for eight. He negotiated with Congress. He won tax cuts and military spending increases, he gave up cuts to social programs in exchange. Clinton worked with a Republican majority for six years, he won a welfare reform battle where he co-opted the issue winning the reform plan he wanted. In both cases the President worked with and negotiated with Congress. They didn’t get everything they wanted but they got something done.

Obama was elected in 2008 claiming to be post-partisan. In his first week in office he declared that he had won and refused to listen to Republicans concerning the Stimulus bill. He set the tone for his Presidency, he likely had no clue the GOP would win the House in 2010. It’s very en vogue to blame gridlock in Washington on extreme partisanship.The reality is that Democrats and Republicans have been at each others throats in DC for 150 years. There was plenty of partisan rancor when Reagan and Clinton were in the White House. Recall Clinton was impeached while Reagan was subjected to Iran-Contra hearings.

Yet Reagan and Clinton were able to work with an opposition Congress and Obama has not been able to. The media won’t ever put the blame on Obama, they wonder why he can’t just lock them in a room and force Congress to negotiate. However blame certainly can be laid at the steps of the White House. This is a President who spent two years shutting the GOP out, now he wants something from them. That isn’t how it works in politics. You never shut out the opposition, you never get so arrogant as to think you or your party will never lose. A good President understand that he never knows what the future will bring and it’s best to keep as many political doors open as possible.

Obama expects everyone to cater to him because he’s the President. From day one he’s had a very elementary school view of the Presidency. He won’t work with Republicans because Republicans won’t give in to his every demand. When he gets Republicans to agree to something, he suddenly wants more like he did during the 2011 debt ceiling negotiation that gave us sequestration. Obama wants it all, he is unwilling to seriously negotiate. That’s on him, it isn’t on a suddenly united GOP front. When and if the Democrats fail to retake the House next year, the majority of Obama’s Presidency will have been spent on minor squabbles with the House. That will this President’s legacy. If that comes true, it will be on the President alone. The buck stops at the Oval Office.

Filed under Obama Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Obama Convention Bounce Really A Clinton Bounce

September 10, 2012 2 Comments

Obama has received a substantial convention bounce that could easily propel him to victory in November. He’s up 4 in the Rasmussen poll and 5 in the Gallup poll. Other polls show him up 2-4 points. Republicans will try to make themselves sleep better by telling ourselves that Carter was up 8 on Reagan in October and Dukakis was up 17 on Bush after the 1988 Democratic Convention. We’re fooling ourselves if we think that Romney can lead us to a landslide victory like Reagan and Bush did. The cold hard fact is that there aren’t as many independent voters who can be swayed by Romney as there were back in the 80′s.

Having said that we should recognize that historically the Democrats have received a bigger convention bounce than the Republicans. For whatever reason Democrats can get undecided voters on their side after a convention, if only for a week. The fact is, convention bounces tend to fade quickly. Romney’s did, Obama’s is likely to. Especially when you consider that only 35 million people watched his speech. That’s more than Romney’s but it’s way off where Convention ratings used to be. It’s hard to sustain a lasting Convention bounce when only a quarter of the electorate is watching.

My theory on Obama’s convention bounce is that it’s really a Clinton bounce. We cannot discount how much people like Bill Clinton and how much they wish Clinton were in office rather than Bush or Obama. Is there any doubt that if he were allowed to run in 2000 that Clinton would have won? Obama’s poll numbers started shooting up after the Clinton speech, which was far better than Obama’s. If Obama’s convention bounce is really an Obama bounce, then the bounce will fade away very quickly. After all, Obama is not Clinton and he can’t trot out Clinton in his stead at campaign events.

Romney is doing what he can to eliminate Obama’s convention bounce. He is apparently ‘carpet bombing’ swing states with ads. That’s a good start for him. One mistake he made last week was not holding any major rallies and thus he was completely out of the spotlight. Surprisingly Obama and Clinton hardly mentioned Romney’s name, neither did most of the other Dem speakers. The Democrats planned to have Biden crash Tampa during the GOP Convention, our guys should have been in Charlotte last week. Instead, as usual, the Republicans don’t know how to take the fight to the Democrats and Romney and Ryan were neither seen nor heard from all week. A huge blunder in today’s instant information society.

After the GOP Convention I thought maybe Romney had a 50% chance of winning. Now, I don’t even think he’s at 40%. At best Romney has a 33% chance of beating Obama. It isn’t so much the convention bounce as much as it’s Romney’s strategy. He clearly doesn’t get it and if doesn’t get it, he isn’t going to win. Beyond that, if the public isn’t scared off by a party with an extreme, up front abortion agenda such as the Democrats or a party that boos God then we have to ask ourselves whether we’re lost as a country. The answer of course is yes, we’ve been lost for decades. Romney isn’t going to save us, he’s not an authentic conservative and he isn’t a Christian. How can we expect to beat an authentic liberal with an inauthentic conservative? What was the GOP thinking? Even if we accept Obama’s bounce is due to Clinton, what pathway is there for a Romney victory if all it takes for Obama is a Clinton speech?

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

It Takes A Village To Boo God, Take Fake Indians and Bill Clinton Seriously

September 6, 2012 10 Comments

The Democrats got to boo God yesterday as well as hear speeches from a serial whore who wants taxpayers to pay for her consequences free sex, a fake Indian and a serial philanderer who happens to be an ex-President. Quite a night for the hope and change crowd don’t you think? The theme of the night seemed to be ‘we’re all in this together’ or perhaps in reality ‘you pay for it.’ Just looking at the lineup of speakers, is there any one of them who on his face appears to be someone who could convince people that Obama deserves a second term?

The Democrats booed God yesterday. The Democrat platform took out a section concerning God as well as a section on Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Those sections had been in the Dem platform for quite some time. Once the GOP and Jewish Democrats got wind of it, they went wild. The result? Even though Obama approved the initial platform we’re told he insisted on putting the God and Jerusalem sections back in the platform. This required a vote of the delegates and it had to pass by a 2/3 majority. By voice vote at best it appeared 50/50, it of course passed. The result? Booing and hissing on the convention floor. Apparently God is disfavored by the rank and file.

Fauxcahontas, aka Massachusetts Senate candidate and the Democrats resident fake Indian Elizabeth Warren, once again doubled down on Obama’s ‘you didn’t build that’ line.  She declared that ‘we built it together.’ Was she talking about roads or was she spouting the typical leftist nonsense that capitalists didn’t build anything, their workers did. Obama and Warren expose themselves as people who were at least schooled in Marxist ideology when they drop lines like ‘you didn’t build that.’ In their minds, workers built everything and capitalists are lazy exploiters. They don’t understand capitalism, they don’t really care to. That Fauxcahontas got a prime slot at the Convention shows how much Obama really believes in this line of thinking.

Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton. He gave the sort of speech one would expect him to give. He made vague arguments in favor of Obama and spent a lot of time talking about himself. He was up against NFL Football, so no one is even going to see his speech even if you think it was masterful. It says a lot about Obama that he needs Bill Clinton to save him. From all accounts these two really don’t like each other. Clinton is doing this for Hillary, he’s securing her spot as the next nominee. But if Obama didn’t need Clinton he wouldn’t go anywhere near him. That Clinton is the keynote speaker and nominated Obama is itself a sign of desperation from the current President.

For all the positive things Clinton said about Obama last night, he cannot shake what he’s said in the past. Obama would have been getting Clinton’s bags and coffee for him just a few years ago, so Bubba said. Romney is qualified to be President, so Bubba has said. Over the last few years Clinton has had a number of attacks on Obama. These guys don’t care for each other and are using one another to further their own ends. Obama needs Clinton’s base, Clinton used the stage last night to campaign for Hillary 2016. The result is a good speech, likely better than Obama’s tonight. But it didn’t earn Obama any votes. It didn’t make a strong case for Obama’s re-election.

The Democrat Convention has been all about abortion, tax funded sex, socialism and booing God. There hasn’t been a clear message, outside of the Democrats fanatical and extreme support for abortion. The GOP Convention had very clear themes, what exactly is the clear theme of the Democrat Convention? We have an economic disaster on our hands and a major debt problem. The Democrats can’t make themes out of these issues because they have no credibility. Clinton danced around the debt issue and played fast and loose with economic statistics. He can’t even make a credible argument for Obama’s handling of the economy. The lack of clarity, the lack of Convention themes on the economy will ultimately be the downfall of this Convention and perhaps this President.

UPDATE: A little fact checking for Clinton’s speech.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Bill Clinton Headlines Democrat Convention

August 1, 2012 Leave a comment

Bill Clinton has been asked by President Obama to speak at the Democrat Convention and to nominate the President for re-election. Obama must be desperate to rely on Clinton to nominate him for re-election, much less take up a major primetime slot on the Convention. It’s hardly a secret that Bill wanted Hillary to run against Obama in the Democrat Primary. For the last year Bill has spent more time jabbing Obama and half back tracking then outright supporting the President. That he is being selected for such an important primetime slot is at best curious and at worst a sign of desperation.

It’s likely an act of desperation by Obama. He needs the sort of Democrats and independents that voted for Clinton twice and votes for Hillary in 2008. The Democrats are hemorrhaging among these voters who are largely white working class men. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that Romney was up 20 points with white voters. Obama cannot win re-election if Romney is winning white voters 60-40. Thus he’s going to his arch frienemy Bill Clinton for a major Convention speech. It’s a major risk for Obama but one he must believe he has to take.

Clinton won’t throw Obama under the bus at the convention of course. He’ll give a fine rah rah speech outlining why the Democrats are better than the Republicans. If Clinton does anything he’ll give such a fine speech that it overshadows Obama’s. Bill is more than capable of doing that so don’t be surprised when it happens and make no mistake it will be intentional on Bill’s part. Even if Clinton’s speech doesn’t overshadow Obama’s, look for him to take subtle jabs at Obama every so often for the next few months. Clinton doesn’t want Obama to win, he wants Hillary to face Romney in 2016 rather than have Hillary face the daunting task of winning a third Obama term.

If Clinton wasn’t interesting enough for the Democrat Convention, his warm act takes the cake. Indian squaw Elizabeth Warren has been tapped to warm the crowd up for Clinton. This is the same Elizabeth Warren who beat Obama to the “you didn’t build that” punch. In recent months she’s claimed to be the intellectual architect of Occupy Wall Street, she’s claimed she’ll be the savior of capitalism and Wall Street only to back peddle when everyone burst out laughing. This is the same woman who spent a quarter of a century lying about her racial and ethnic background in order to move up in the academic world.

It ought to be quite a night when Bubba and the Indian squaw take the stage for Obama. How desperate must Obama be to invite someone he knows will stab him in the back and a woman who is a known liar about her racial and ethnic heritage? At least we know what Clinton brings to the table for Obama but what does the Indian squaw bring? Is there really a Democrat constituency made up of people who lie about their race and ethnicity in order to move up in the racially charged liberal academic world that Obama needs to shore up? If not, there seems no reason why Warren would appeal to any independent white voters. After all, 25% of Obama voters in Massachusetts are poised to vote for Scott Brown in Warren’s Senate race.

Obama is nervous about his re-election chances, which means Romney really does have a shot. Just a few months ago, Romney was very much a long shot and Obama had little to worry about. With poor economic news and Obamacare back in the spotlight, Obama has a lot to worry about. So much so that he has to rely on Clinton to drum up support for him. There must be nothing worse for Obama than to be forced to rely on Bubba, who he must know will steal his thunder, at the Democrat Convention. Scary enough, Obama has likely talked himself into the idea that he’s one upped Clinton. The truth though is that Clinton is going to out shine Obama at the Convention and then he’s going to attack him during the campaign.

UPDATE:  Elizabeth Warren ought to be great to listen to before Clinton. She recently declared she wants the US to be like China and spend 9% of our GDP on internal improvements. This would require $1 trillion in additional Federal spending each year and it would require us to ignore the fact that China wastes a fortune building ghost cities and other structures that never even used.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

Obama Unilaterally Rewrites Welfare Reform

July 14, 2012 6 Comments

Unreported in the mainstream press yesterday, President Obama gutted the 90′s welfare reform law. The will of Congress in passing welfare reform, which was of course signed by President Clinton, was to force work requirements on welfare recipients. That was the whole point of the reform package. So of course Obama is eliminating work requirements thus stripping the law of its entire point and purpose. It’s yet another in a long line of lawless executive actions by Obama. While the media is absurdly questioning whether Romney is a felon, the current President is unilaterally rewriting law in violation of the Constitution.

So what is Obama really up to here? No doubt Obama didn’t like welfare reform when it passed in the mid 90′s. But if he didn’t like the work requirements one wonders why he didn’t push for repeal when he had a 60% Democrat majority in the House and Senate. If Obama believed he could rewrite the entire law via executive order, why didn’t he do that in 2009, 2010 or 2011? Why would Obama choose to rewrite this law, affecting 3 million welfare recipients, in July 2012? On its face it simply makes no sense. Surely the people on welfare who don’t want to work would have loved to not have a work requirement earlier in the Obama administration.

The answer lies in the 1936 election, which Obama seems to be trying to follow. Part of FDR’s New Deal was the Works Progress Administration. The WPA became a government arm of the Democrat Party. The WPA was used as a patronage reward in various cities across the country. It just so happened that Mayors and cities aligned with FDR got the money and the Mayor got to put his guys in charge of the WPA. The WPA was largely funded with discretionary funds, thus enabling FDR and the Democrats to direct funds to where it was politically most expedient. Did I mention people in the WPA, some 3.5 million at the time of the 1936 election, were often forced to donate money to the Democrats lest they lose their WPA job?

So you ask what does the WPA have to do with Obama’s lawless welfare reform rewrite? In October 1936 FDR magically increased pay for those on the WPA rolls. Those folks got that money right before the election. Keep in mind, the economy in 1936 was terrible as the unemployment rate was still 17%. FDR pulled a series of stunts, increasing pay for large groups of welfare recipients and assorted New Deal workers before both the 1936 and 1940 elections. With 3.5 million WPA workers getting more money directly from an order of FDR it surprised no one when 85% of them voted to re-elect the President.

Obama is looking at FDR’s moves in 1936 and 1940 and trying to translate them into a victory in 2012. He’s essentially handing welfare recipients a free gift. Now they get money without having to do any work. Obama is banking on them remembering this at election time, just three months after the no work requirements go into effect. Had he done this in 2009, the three million that are affected would have forgotten. They’re more likely to remember what happened three months before the election. In short,  Obama believes he can win this election by appeasing various groups of constituents via executive order. He believes that these law changes, specifically ignoring Congress passed laws, will be felt by his constituents and they’ll then show up on election day.

It’s an interesting, if lawless, strategy. The question is where do these three million lazy welfare recipients live. If they’re in New York, California, Illinois or Texas, Obama is wasting his time. But if there are a significant number in Ohio or Florida he may be onto something. As a former community organizer, perhaps he believes there is general resentment of the work requirements in the black community and thus he believes this move will get blacks who aren’t on welfare to the polls on election day. It’s becoming clear that for the Obama campaign this election is about turnout, specifically whether he can get blacks, Hispanics and other groups to show up on election day.

For the rest of us we have to wonder what’s next. He’s already unilaterally rewritten America’s immigration laws. He’s already refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Now he’s rewriting welfare laws. This President isn’t only picking and choosing which laws he will enforce, he’s also picking and choosing which laws he will rewrite. He’s ignoring the Constitutional order of government, all to suit his voters. It makes one wonder what he would do as a lame duck for four years.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Clinton Undermines Obama’s Arguments Against Romney

June 5, 2012 2 Comments

Last week Bill Clinton called Romney’s business career at Bain Capital “sterling.” He also declared that in addition to Romney’s business career, his career as Governor makes him qualified to be President of the United States. Conservatives have run with Clinton’s comments, with Rush Limbaugh leading the way, declaring that Clinton affectively endorsed Romney. Nothing could be further from the truth. Clinton didn’t endorse Romney, he merely said he was qualified to be President. While Clinton isn’t endorsing Romney, he’s clearly up to no good.

Obama’s biggest argument against Romney is that his career at Bain Capital was less than sterling. Obama has claimed that Bain gutted businesses for profit and cost thousands their jobs. Obama’s claim isn’t factual, it furthermore requires Obama to have not the slightest clue as to what Bain Capital does to make money for its investors. Nevertheless, that’s Obama’s argument and in the very least it appeases the far left and may appeal to some independent voters. He’s been making it for the better part of the last month, the Obama team clearly thinks it is a winning argument to make as they try to paint a negative picture of Romney.

Now you can see that Bill Clinton was up to no good in praising Romney’s business career. It’s one thing for the Mayor of an irrelevant city (Cory Booker) to criticize the Bain attacks, it’s another thing for a washed up former Governor (Ed Rendell) or Congressman (Harold Ford) to criticize the Obama Bain attacks. It’s something entirely different when the still popular former Democrat President of the United States, with a wife eying a 2016 run says it. Clinton is undermining the Obama argument and he knows exactly what he’s doing.

A substantial number of Democrats still listen to Clinton and believe everything he says. Many of these Democrats are the sort of blue collar folks who voted for Hillary in 2008. They’re the sort of blue collar Democrats who voted for a convicted felon in West Virginia rather than Obama last month and who voted for someone no one has ever heard of in Arkansas rather than Obama. But worse than that, independent voters still respect Clinton’s judgment. Thus when Clinton praises Romney’s record at Bain Capital, it completely undermines Obama’s attacks with this group of important voters.

Obama may not be after independent voters this time around, his campaign is going to be won or lost based on his ability to turn out the far left in greater numbers than Romney can turn out the right and middle. Clinton is doing two things though. First, he’s undermining Obama’s argument knowing that many independent voters will listen to him rather than the President. In doing this, Clinton imagines he’s setting Obama up for defeat in November. An Obama defeat will make it easier for Hillary to win in 2016. Which is the second thing Obama is doing, he’s positioning Hillary to appeal to independent voters down the road. Hillary is no less liberal than Obama is but Bill can position her to appear more moderate in comparison to Obama on this and other largely irrelevant issues of importance during this campaign.

Expect to see Clinton undermine Obama’s arguments every so often between now and November. Ole Bill will still be out there campaigning for Obama and putting on a good show of support. Make no mistake, Clinton will play the part of the good Democrat all while undermining Obama both in public and in private. He desperately wanted Hillary to take on Obama in this years primary. He’s eying an Obama defeat to set Hillary up in 2016. Clinton is willing to lose the White House for a few  years if it helps him, so expect him to put on a good show of support while occasionally undermining Obama’s arguments on all the important campaign issues. Bill Clinton is a calculating politician and he’s calculating a return to the White House in January 2017.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Is Opposing Obama Racist?

September 26, 2011 2 Comments

Last week Hollywood actor Morgan Freeman declared that the Tea Party is racist. He complains that the Tea Party’s goal is to make sure Obama only serves one term as President. In Freeman’s mind, this is racism. Rep. Maxine Waters and various members of the Congressional Black Caucus aren’t any different, they also accuse the Tea Party and Republicans of racism. They never cite any actual examples, mere opposition to Obama in their minds is absolute proof of racism. It’s interesting that when liberals opposed Justice Clarence Thomas it wasn’t considered racism.

Is it shocking to anyone that members of the opposite party of the President would like to see him serve only one term? Is such a position so shocking that it must be racism? When Democrats desired that President Bush only serve one term, was it anything other than expected? It would be a shock if Democrats wanted Bush to serve two terms. Likewise it would be shocking to hear Republicans say they want Obama or any other Democrat to serve two terms in the White House. That Republicans want to win back the White House isn’t an example of racism just because the current occupant is black.

We have in the recent past a good example of how Republicans react when they aren’t in the White House. Bill Clinton served two terms. The GOP won a landslide Congressional election in 1994 wherein they won 54 House seats and took back that chamber for the first time in 40 years. Republican attacks on Clinton, and on Hillary, were just as nasty as they have been with Obama. (and at least close to as nasty as Dem attacks on Bush) The GOP opposed Clinton’s tax increases and they opposed Hillarycare. They called Clinton a communist and a whoremonger. (the latter absolutely justifiable)  The Republicans ultimately impeached Clinton for lying under oath.

Is the Republican Party anywhere near impeaching President Obama? Are there endless investigations of this White House ongoing? Even Solyndra doesn’t have a special prosecutor at this point, nor has one been demanded by the GOP. Yes, Republicans desire Obama to be a one term President. Yes, conservatives are attacking Obama’s political positions. Yes, Republicans and conservatives don’t like Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama’s race, it has everything to do with his ideology.

In order to believe Republican actions are racist, you must ignore the Clinton years. You must assume that any political opposition to a black pol is equal to racism. To do this is to cheapen actual racism. There are legitimate political reasons for opposing Obama’s plans. It is perfectly legitimate for Republicans to desire he only serve one term so that our party can be back in the White House, just as it was legitimate for Democrats to do the same when Bush was President. In order to declare the Republicans or Tea Party racist, there have to be actual examples of actual racism. The far left can provide no examples.

When leftists accuse the right of racism we on the right need to directly confront the absurdity of the claim. It is not racist to desire smaller government. It is not racist to oppose Obamacare. It is not racist to oppose Obama’s socialist policies. The GOP needs to grow a backbone and attack these baseless ad hominem attacks head on. If it isn’t racist to oppose Justice Thomas’ and his decisions, then surely it cannot be racist to oppose Obama and his positions.

Filed under 2012 election, Obama Tagged with , , , , , ,

How Obama Can Turn The Economy Around And Win In 2012

July 6, 2011 1 Comment

President Obama has been in office for 29 months and in none of those months has Gallup showed 50% of Americans believing that the economy is getting better. In fact, the highest month on record only hit 41%. In the last three day period only 31% of Americans believed the economy was improving. 63% thought it was getting worse. Those numbers are astounding three years into a recession. They don’t bode well for a President who is looking at re-election next year.

If next year’s election were about terrorism or foreign policy, the economic numbers wouldn’t matter so much. Unfortunately for Obama it isn’t 2004 and even the killing of Osama bin Laden hasn’t helped the President’s poll numbers long term. The 2012 election will be a referendum on Obama’s job handling the economy. So far, it’s not looking so hot for Obama.

Obama spent his first two years in office playing around with Obamacare while the American people clamored for the President to focus on jobs. After losing 60+ seats in the House, you would think the President would have listened. The biggest issues that people voted on last year were the economy and jobs. It appears the President still hasn’t listened to the American people. Since November has the President offered any plan to get Americans back to work? The Republicans can’t get a plan on the debt ceiling from the White House, the Senate minority leader can’t even get the President to sit down with him to discuss the debt ceiling. Those waiting for a plan on jobs and the economy generally are out of luck.

Obama seems to rest his job making abilities on the Stimulus and the auto bailout. But the fact is the American public is generally against both of those moves. The Stimulus didn’t create the jobs Obama said it would and the auto bailout smells like a sweetheart deal between Obama and the UAW. Not to mention it cost taxpayers nearly $20 billion that has not and will not be repaid. Most of these moves haven’t affected those who are unemployed, they’ve done nothing to create conditions where employment is possible.

In fact, this is the very problem with Obama’s economic outlook. He believes that jobs are created in Washington by acts of Congress, the President and various bureaucratic minions. The average unemployed American is unemployed over six months, up from five weeks less than five years ago. With 14 million unemployed Americans, and tens of millions more underemployed, no amount of government spending is going to get them back to work. Certainly not at $287,000 per job.

Because Obama believes government creates jobs he is handcuffed and unable to do much of anything for the unemployed. With Congress unwilling to spend more money and a public tired of massive deficits and growing government, Obama doesn’t know what to do about the economy. His core beliefs have stifled economic recovery and have the potential to bring down his Presidency.

President Obama can do something today that will change the direction of the economy and earn him re-election. He can call for tax cuts and spending cuts. Cut the top personal income rate to 28%, the same as much of the 80′s and cut capital gains taxes to 14%. Cut Corporate tax rates, even Bill Clinton supports this. Eliminate wasteful government spending and repeal Obamacare and any number of business unfriendly regulations.

Obama of course won’t do any of this. But it’s the only way we’re going to see an upswing in the economy. Never forget that the top 2 % are responsible for 1/3 of the consumer spending in this country. Tax cuts will only increase consumer spending, as it has in the past. Ultimately that benefits the middle class and the economy as a whole. But don’t look for Obama to support any of this. He believes jobs are created in Washington and he seems unable to shift from that position.

Filed under 2012 election, economy, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Failed Stimulus Costs $287,000 Per Job

July 5, 2011 1 Comment

On Friday the Obama administration released a report from its Counsel of Economic Advisors concerning the effects of the Stimulus bill on the economy. You figure it had to be bad news because not only was it released on Friday (bad news always comes on Friday, often after 5pm) but it was also released over a holiday weekend. It was bad news indeed. Obama’s Stimulus package has spent $666 billion and has “saved or created” 2.4 million jobs. That comes out to $278,000 per job “saved or created.”

We’ll ignore the dubious claim of jobs saved and pretend that these are all actual jobs. Obama’s own economic advisors acknowledge that the Stimulus has actually reversed itself over the last six months. In January the administration boasted that the Stimulus “saved or created” 2.7 million jobs. Now it appears they’ve lost 300,000 of them. No wonder Obama wanted this report issued on a Friday before a holiday weekend. As Jeffrey Anderson of the Weekly Standard pointed out, the Federal government could have just cut a check to 2.4 million people for $100,000 and taxpayers would be over $400 billion ahead of where we are now.

Those on the far left from Bill Clinton to Paul Krugman have argued that the Stimulus wasn’t big enough. I’m sure Krugman will note that the 300,000 lost Stimulus jobs over the past six months is absolute proof that the Stimulus wasn’t big enough. In fact the opposite is true, the Stimulus simply didn’t work. The cost to taxpayers for each job has been extreme. No private sector employer would shell out $278,000 for each $40,000 a year job they create. Only the government would think that’s a great deal.

The fact is the Obama administration has so far spent $666 billion that our country doesn’t have on jobs that were largely not new. Let’s be honest, the jobs saved is more or less a fictitious number. The Stimulus created very few jobs that didn’t already exist and likely would have existed without the Federal government spending more money. So not only did the Stimulus not create anything but it put the country further in debt. This is debt that our grandchildren will be stuck paying off.

The Stimulus was a failure, just like most massive government programs. The Stimulus was filled with waste and abuse. It didn’t create the jobs Democrats and Obama claimed it would produce. It didn’t keep unemployment under 7% like Obama and the Democrats claimed it would. It cost taxpayers more per job than it would have to cut yearly salaries to 2.4 million people for two years. Most importantly, the Stimulus did nothing to help the economy. It didn’t create jobs and it didn’t create residual jobs. Like nearly all of Obama’s economic policies, the Stimulus was an abject failure.

I surely cannot blame the administration for trying to hide these dismal numbers. If I had wasted $666 billion (it will be $800 billion once all the Stimulus funds are spent) that didn’t achieve what it was promised to achieve, I would want to hide the failure as well. The Stimulus is not only a failure of government and the administration, it’s yet another failure of the philosophy of big government. Government cannot create jobs just by spending money. It takes a private sector with profit motive to create real, lasting jobs.

Filed under economy, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Poll Numbers Down; Is Bill Clinton Signaling a Hillary Run?

March 15, 2011 2 Comments

According to Rasmussen Reports, the President’s approval ratings are down to 43%. I wouldn’t put much stock in that number as I suspect it is largely the product of high gas prices. Generally speaking, the President’s approval rating is between 46-48% and has been for the better part of the last year.  Confidence in government is at a 35 year low, which doesn’t bode well for the current President. You have to go back to Watergate for American confidence in government as low as it is today.

Not surprisingly President Obama is trying to come up with ways to fire up his base. The President has two problems with his base. His first problem is that the far left is unhappy with Obama for backing down on the so called public option during the Obamacare debate and for backing down on the Bush tax cuts. They’re also upset with his public willingness to compromise with House Republicans. The extreme left doesn’t think Obama has been liberal enough and are seemingly willing to ignore Obama’s left-wing regulatory push to focus on bills that Obama was unable to get passed during the Democrat Congress.

Obama’s second base problem is Hillary Clinton. Make no mistake, there is still time for ole Hillary to enter Democrat primary race against Obama. Bill Clinton is out making waves right now, declaring the administration’s delay on new drilling is ‘ridiculous.’ Make no mistake, this is a calculated move on Clinton’s part. He’s sending warning signals to the administration that Hillary can still run. The drilling issue hits home with Hillary’s base of Democrats, who are largely working class and adversely affected by high gas prices. Hillary may not run next year, but Bill is sending warning signals that she is still out there. No doubt Obama has noted this and will presumably act accordingly.

Obama is going to have a tough time rallying his fractured base. I have no doubt that in the end he can do it. It will require him to ignore the fractures and issues and focus exclusively on scaring the base about Republicans. Obama isn’t going to be able to rally Americans on hope and change because he’s the establishment now. He also isn’t going to be able to rally people on the prospect of a historic Presidency. No one cares about Obama being a historic President at this point, the prospect of a second term doesn’t carry the same appeal to history seekers thrilled with the idea of voting for the first black President. These are two major rallying points that Obama is going to lose next year.

The 2012 election is going to be a referendum on Obama’s first four years in office. This is no different than any other President running for re-election. The question for voters is do they want more instability in our foreign policy, do they want more big government programs like Obamacare and do they want more massive deficits like the ones we’ve had under Obama. Right now, the election is a tossup and it could swing Republican if Hillary decides to run. Bill is vocally opposing the administration right now, in doing so he’s shooting out warning flares that Hillary may be on the way.

Filed under 2012 election, Obama, Obamacare, Politics Tagged with , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers