Barack Obama

Balance the Budget: Now is the Time

 

ARRA News Service - Tina Korbe, Hot Air said: When “Cut, Cap and Balance” failed the Senate and both chambers of Congress regrouped around new plans, the first to go of the three crucial elements in the House’s original plan was a balanced budget amendment. Neither of the deficit reduction plans presently on the table provides for the passage of a BBA. It’s also the element of CCB most frequently decried as unrealistic. But political lights from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan have called for such an amendment, as this video from GOP Labs illustrates. Let President Obama say, “We don’t need more studies; we don’t need a balanced budget amendment.” If ever any unfolding drama proved the need for such an amendment, the drama of the past week has been it. Leave cuts to Congress and what do you get? CBO-certified gimmicks on both sides — even on the side of one sincerely trying to garner savings, one who says he also “wanted more.”

 

President Reagan Said in a Speech to the Nation on Federal Budget, 4/29/1982: As former President Ronald Reagan says in this video, “Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget and most have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures to spend more. … We tried the carrot and it failed. With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government’s squandering and overtaxing ways and save our economy.”

Tags: balanced budget amendment, President, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, video, economic recovery, conservative, the Economy, taxes, bankrupt, Balance the Budget, Thomas Jefferson, American people

Barack and Me? (or why GOP Governors wont sign suicide pacts)

In today's Washington Post prominent economist Robert Samuelson penned this provocative columm

Is organized labor obsolete?

What we are witnessing in Wisconsin and elsewhere is the death knell of Big Labor

The President, of course, sees this differently.  He sees a future for the labor movement essentially maintaining the current status quo on into the 21st century economy.  Notwithstanding the increasing burden of pay, benefits and pensions, and the irrestistible pressure of global competition, we will "win the future" by making large infrastructure investments which will yield a high enough return to pay for our obligations.

Barack Obama, meet Roger Smith.

Smith and Obama seem an odd pair at first. But think this through. Both took over as CEO when their organizations were facing financial duress and existential threats to the enterprise. Both were, however,  "company men" (Is there a "company" more insular than the Chicago Democratic machine?). Both spent prodigious sums on big ticket infrastructure projects.  But neither was willing to do two absolutely essential things: a) restructure the enterprise to be smaller and more responsive and b)  address the long term labor cost obligations of the firm.

 

Smith instituted several initiatives that included forming strategic joint ventures with Japanese and Korean automakers, launching the Saturn division, investing heavily in technological automation and robotics, and attempting to rid the company of its risk-averse bureaucracy. However, Smith's far-reaching goals proved too overambitious and overwhelming to actually be implemented effectively, in the face of the company's resilient corporate culture and bureaucracy. Despite Smith's vision, he was unable to successfully integrate GM's major acquisitions, several of which also failed to tackle the root causes of GM's fundamental problems.

Smith's tenure is commonly viewed as a failure, as GM's share of the US market fell from 46% to 35%, and as it took on considerable debt causing it to lapse close to bankruptcy in the early 1990s. As a result, CNBC has called Smith one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time"

Smith's efforts were basically an effort to throw cash at GM's problems and hope the sheer weight of remedies would right the ship. But the technology fixes that buying EDS and Hughes were supposed to augur in fizzled. Saturn never achieved self-sufficiency and drained resources from the core brands. And new models arrived late and over budget.

The anti-Smith was Ross Perot, who came from a non-union background in Texas.  Perot was a major GM shareholder after the EDS deal and chafed at the waste and delay that exemplified GM, but was bought out and sent on his way before he could annoy the establishment further and cause the firm to mend its ways.

Perhaps Smith's greatest failure was his unwillingness to address GM's unsustainable labor and retirees costs.  Of course, Robert Stempel and John Smith, Roger Smith's successors, had no stomach for going toe- to toe with UAW. Instead, the same old UAW contracts were signed and the same jobs banks and retirement packages left in place as the firm slowly lost market share (propped up by low financing and fleet sales )

GM was left 15 years later hoping their retirees would expire fast enough to enable it to compete. It lost that race and filed bankruptcy under the auspices of the Obama administration.

Samuelson is right. The public sector is going to go down the same road as unionized manufacturers like GM.  The states are about where GM was in the 1980's---the bump in the road has been hit and the time was come to think long and hard about where to go next. And maintaining a cost structure that accelerates faster than the economy that pays for it is a ticket to doom.

Republican Governors like Scott Walker and Chris Christie aren't going to be playing the Roger Smith game.

They are going to restructure their long term labor and benefit cost structure in a fashion that over the next couple of decades their states can afford.  Remember, both NJ and WI are old industrial states with slow growth.  They need policies that will recharge the private sector, but have to come to grips that even the best-case scenario now won't pay for what prior adminstrations have promised.  

If there is to be pain, better it be dealt with now while the public instrumentalities across the nation are still going concerns, rather than later when actual insolvency turns our state governments into little Irelands and Greece.

The Democratic Governors claim their approach is "more pragmatic"   In the short term it will be more popular to keep labor peace and give bond money away. The GM management would have been excoriated in the short term by Wall Street had they pressed hard enough to cause a strike by the UAW. But in the long run, one or two bad quarters would not have caused the firm to fail.  Kicking the can down the road did.

And even in the not so long run it can look pretty bad.

After all, when GM couldn't sell its cars and was stuck with lots of big plants and high priced employees, what was Roger Smith left to do? Oh, yeah....he shuttered the plants in Flint and laid off the workers.

Will some annoying filmmaker in 2015 or 2018 be chasing President Obama or a Governor like Dan Malloy around asking why the public sector was forced into massive layoffs? Or  is that just not done to Democrats?

    

 

Response to President Obama's State of the Union Address

Introductory Note: In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama gave a response to the State of the Union Address of then-President George W. Bush prior to President Bush’s address to the joint session of Congress. I believe that turnabout is only fair play so I will give my response to President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address before he delivers it.

Good evening. My name is Alan Peel and I am a private citizen and small business owner in Leawood, Kansas.

Before I begin, I would like to extend my thoughts and prayers to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her family as well as the other victims and the victims’ families in the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona. We wish a speedy recovery for those who were injured and solace for those who lost loved ones in this senseless act.

We Americans are confronted with several issues and problems either with us currently or on the horizon that could imperil our country as we go deeper into the 21st Century. Applying many of the same solutions that have been implemented in the last century will not solve our debt problems, lack of spending restraint, everyday issues affecting businesses and households and challenges abroad.

We all agree that America has a debt problem. Borrowing $14 trillion without any ideas as to how to reduce our debt to countries that may or may not have our best interests at heart is not a good thing for our country. However, the way in which we get to complete debt elimination is where we the American people disagree vehemently with President Obama.

The American public has come to the conclusion that America has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. We already have some of the highest tax rates in the world even when state and local tax rates are excluded. Instead of hoping for an economic recovery to reduce our deficit or raising taxes in the middle of a fragile economic period, we should consider cutting spending significantly. I am personally looking forward to the House Republican’s unveiling of their plan to cut spending and reduce the debt by over $2 trillion by the end of the decade. I also invite President Obama to outline a budget that will significantly reduce the deficit and lead us to a balanced budget within the next three years.

One quick way for the president to reduce the debt in the future would be to support the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. When proposed, there were only six years of benefits, ten years of new taxes, kickbacks and pork-barrel spending and several accounting gimmicks that would make Bernie Madoff blush.  This was used by President Obama to sell his own party on passage of his disastrous health care plan and ultimately led to the a midterm election last November that even he called a "shellacking". Even as millions of jobs hang in the balance thanks to ObamaCare’s existence, we look forward to having ideas presented to the president as to how we can expand coverage for all Americans and to reduce health care costs without onerous levels of government regulations and bureaucratic interference.

Another understanding that has been reached by the American public is the idea that government spending as a means to create jobs and create prosperity is nothing more than an overhyped myth that leaves government deeper in debt and Americans jobless. Instead, we should be looking to permanently extend all of the Bush tax cuts before the end of the year and extend the payroll tax cuts for another three to five years while looking for ideas as to how we can improve the revenue streams for Social Security while looking for ways to reduce the tax burden for everyday Americans and by not cutting benefits for those who have paid into the system.

The American people are wide awake and realize that the plans of bailouts and stimulus do not work.  In fact, the recent actions taken by the Federal Reserve to inject more printed money into circulation will actually lead us to further chaos with massive inflation coming this year that risks ending any hopes of a strong economic rebound and puts us on the road to a lost decade similar to that of Japan's lost decade of the 1990's where stimulus and central planning hurt that nation's economy.

Furthermore, Washington needs to learn lessons from what families are doing during hard times. Most families have been getting their family budgets under control and have made great sacrifices to ensure their own financial security. In learning from everyday Americans, fiscal restraint is our only option at this time and we should solve our nation’s fiscal nightmare of trillion-dollar deficits by drastically reducing spending and getting government within its means.

The surest way to create jobs is to empower entrepreneurs. Keeping tax rates low and eliminating onerous regulations are essential for job growth and job creation. Millions of jobs can be created by unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit of our country. We have the most resourceful, talented, and knowledgeable workforce in the world. The only way that we can take advantage of our workforce is to motivate and empower them to produce for themselves so that they can take the necessary risks of hiring employees and improving America’s jobs picture.

Also, the American people are disheartened that we are getting more of the same from President Obama on energy policy. The drilling moratorium because of last year’s disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has begun the rise in fuel and energy prices. Sharing and depending on already scarce resources is not the way to ensure low energy prices. Instead, we need an all-at-once approach to cultivate and develop new resources and to allow the free markets to determine America’s energy future, not environmentalists using junk science and empty promises to manipulate us to pursue unproven energy technologies that are still a good 15 to 20 years away from being ready for the over 300 million people who require energy to for all of our everyday uses. Instead, we need to develop short-term resources such as domestic oil drilling and coal mining, develop more mid-range resources including nuclear energy, and longer-term resources that will ensure that we no longer import another drop of energy from OPEC.

Finally, America is best when she is at her strongest abroad. It hurts to see President Obama deferring to the United Nations and other countries when America’s leadership is essential and necessary.  We also believe that it is not constructive for our president to conduct constant apology tours or for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner to host a state dinner for the leader of a regime that currently has the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize recipient in prison whose only crime was speaking out for freedom.

Furthermore, a country without borders is not a nation.  Posting signs telling Americans on American soil that going beyond a certain point is not a sound border protection plan.  Instead, we need to empower border patrol agents to do their jobs and to stop this act of human trafficing, drug trafficing and rampant crime on our southern border.  Instead of pursuing politically-motivated amnesty for people here in this country illegally, we should be looking to enforce the law and to work with state and local law enforcement agencies to deal with the crime-related issues of illegal immigration.  Suing states like Arizona who have lost their patience with the federal government's refusal to enforce the law is not constructive and should be abandoned immediately.

Make no mistake: we care about the people in other countries and we especially love to have visitors and people who want to become Americans.  We just ask that we enforce the laws and regulations and expect everyone who comes to our country to become a part of America the right way.  Permitting those to come across our borders in violation of our laws is not the way it should be done.  Instead, we need to change our system so that more legal immigrants can enter our country and not be turned away.  Those who can provide skills to our already outstanding job force or those who want to pursue better educational opportunities for themselves and their children are always welcomed and our policies should be a reflection of that and not that of quotas or limits as to who can and cannot come to America.

We also have questions about whether or not America will win in Afghanistan before we draw down from our current troop levels. If we are to fight this war the right way, we should either be fighting to win in Afghanistan or we should immediately withdraw all our troops from Afghanistan. Instead of fighting to appease special interest anti-war groups, we should be fighting to ensure that our troops come home victorious and to do soon. We also don’t want to see future generations of Americans dying in our streets in acts of terrorism or have to fight wars in the future because we didn’t fight to win the ones we are currently fighting.

With these approaches and an embracing of American exceptionalism, America will be an even greater and stronger nation in the future. Thank you for your time. Good night and may God continue to bless this great nation of ours that we all love.

Mr. Boehner, Please Move Beyond Earmarks

This from the House Speaker-designate for the 112th Congress in today's Wall Street Journal:

[T]here are several steps I believe the next speaker should be prepared to take immediately. Among them:

No earmarks. Earmarks have become a symbol of a broken Washington, and an entire lobbying industry has been created around them. The speaker of the House shouldn't use the power of the office to raid the federal Treasury for pork-barrel projects. To the contrary, the speaker should be an advocate for ending the current earmark process, and should adhere to a personal no-earmarks policy that stands as an example for all members of Congress to follow.

I have maintained a no-earmarks policy throughout my time of service in Congress. I believe the House must adopt a moratorium on all earmarks as a signal of our commitment to ending business as usual in the spending process.

And this from the President during his post-election news conference on Wednesday:

My understanding is Eric Cantor today said that he wanted to see a moratorium on earmarks continuing.  That’s something I think we can -- we can work on together.

In light of the economy, I can understand why Boehner is focusing on earmarks as the most visible symbol of what needs to be fixed on Capitol Hill. And I agree that we need to fix the abuse of the earmark process by reforming it. But the fact is that not all earmarks can be construed as wasteful spending and not all wasteful spending are in earmarks. It's easy to come up with rhetoric denouncing "the evils of earmarks," but what we should be focusing on substantively is wasteful spending.

I don't want to get into debates over how Republicans should define public goods and wasteful spending. I do however want to talk about what principles should be espoused by Republicans when it comes to spending and how we can be innovative on sound spending policies.

What are some budgetary principles that should be communicated by Republicans to the American people?

  • The Solution Principle: Every challenge facing the American people does not require a federal office and federal funding.
  • The Priorities Principle: Every family and every business has to balance their checkbooks, their revenues with their expenses. Through good times and bad times, families and businesses have to sacrifice what they might want and prioritize their spending. The government should operate like any prudent family or business does, and prioritize.
  • The Investment Principle: The American people are "forced to invest" their income into government. Each taxpayer is, therefore, a shareholder in government. Because taxpayers have invested their money into government, taxpayers deserve the best return on their money. This means the "portfolio of investments" (otherwise known as government projects and agencies) must be reviewed carefully and objectively in order for the government to fulfill their due diligence.

How can we turn those principles into solutions? The answer is to do what's difficult, not easy (i.e. earmark moratoriums), and be innovative about our budget from both procedural and substantive points of view:

  • Follow the lead of Paul Ryan and his "Roadmap for America's Future" when it comes to restructuring our entitlements.
  • Don't allow earmarks to be placed during conference committees between the House and Senate.
  • Install a biennial budgeting process, something promoted by Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), while also requiring supermajorities to increase in a fiscal year after a budget has been passed (for legitimate emergencies).
  • Separate capital budgets from operating budgets for each department. Long term projects are very different from short term day-to-day costs.
  • Instead of an executive Chief Performance Officer that gets to pick and choose what works and what doesn't under subjective criteria, have Congress create a Congressional Agency Performance Office that has some independence (like CBO) to constantly scrutinize the operations of all government agencies.
  • On capital projects that go to specific state and local governments, quasi-agencies, and companies, start a Congressional Office for Spending Oversight. Just like every business has control officers, this independent office should scrutinize long term projects' spending practices. This can allow Congress to reward under-budgeted projects and punish over-budgeted projects.
  • Not only should spending be posted online before it's passed. It should also be posted online when it's spent. Just like many state governments have done, the federal government's checkbook should be posted online.

I'm glad that we're getting out in front of the President and Democrats on this. We need to be in a proactive position, not a reactive position. Talking about earmkars is too easy. This is just another area where we need to develop political communication and public policy entrepreneurship on a serious issue.

The Natural Majority

In thinking about what to write after a long election season hiatus, I honestly just thought of completely reposting this piece from back in May, which built upon an earlier case I laid out for a ginormous Republican seat gain by making the case that if you simply assigned House seats to their Cook PVI winner, the result would be a sizeable GOP majority. 

How big? The seat breakdown I had for a perfectly politically balanced House of Representatives was 239 Republicans to 196 Democrats. 

Right now, we sit at 239 and we'll end up in the 242-243 range. 

In an odd way, I think the Tea Party surge has ended up bringing Washington back to the true political center of the country, but not yet fully to the right. The obstacles Republicans faced in moving the needle in their House numbers -- entrenched Blue Dog incumbents like Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Chet Edwards, and Gene Taylor -- were moved away last night. These are not "surge" seats that will be surrendered at the next election, but now likely Republican for life -- and ones we didn't have during Republican control of the House from 1994 to 2006. I tweeted out a few possible remaining targets for 2012 -- Heath Shuler for one, Ben Chandler for another -- but in truth I was having trouble coming up with that many because the Blue Dog hit list was exhausted so completely. 

Meanwhile, we generated a 63 seat wave without much in the way of gains in deep blue areas. The second act to the Scott Brown miracle didn't happen as New England stayed staunchly blue with the exception of New Hampshire. That's unfortunate from a storytelling perspective, but it also means we defend our newfound majority from much more solid ground than either the Democrats from 2006 onwards or Republicans in the dozen years after the 1994 revolution. 

The atmosphere in Washington today is also much more muted than it was after '94. Check out this remarkable clip of Gingrich right after the '94 vote poking his finger in the eye of the White House, claiming a mandate and saying "We are revolutionaries." I remember all that, but it sounded so out of place in today's context given all the modest rhetoric about a "second chance." 

This election was also a direct repudiation of a leader elected under Messianic pretexts. It was only a matter of time before the arrogance of it all -- the Hope stuff, the "We are the change we've been waiting for," the pretentiousness of the sunrise "O" -- generated an equal and opposite reaction (kind of like all of you who love to hate the Yankees). With Republican enthusiasm in the toilet the last two cycles, their very legitimacy as a political opposition spit on by the media, Republican voters I talked to yesterday took enormous satisfaction in seizing upon Obama's political weakness as they cheerfully showed up to vote. 

The act of yelling "realignment" after an election is getting tired and farcical after an unprecedented third wave in a row, so I'll resist doing it here. In the House, there was a tactical realignment, as seats Democrats held for personal reasons now give way to natural conservative Republican-held strongholds we'll hold for a long time. Attitudinally, the pendulum simply swung from the far left to the center. The President will be a Democrat, the Senate will be narrowly Democratic, and the House Republican, and the overall result will be all sides canceling each other out, e.g. centrism.

While not conservative per se, it is in one important sense: very little will get done. And that's a good thing. D.C. types assume gridlock is a dirty word, but voters acted very deliberately to hit the breaks on the Democratic train that ramrodded Obamacare. A pause in the frenetic activity of the last two years in Washington, and the fact of the House as a de-facto veto on spending levels, means a profoundly conservative outcome, if not in policy, than in the nature and speed and pace of activity coming out of the nation's capital. 

Growing Momentum.

Barack Obama’s America doesn’t exist and never has. Seen through the eyes of Conservatives, it’s a bleak and desolate landscape. We should win in November. We should win really big in November.

What we have to be very careful of is over-confidence. Over-confidence has a way of creeping in, especially when all the political forecasts, even the left’s own, are indicating a huge sea-change. In the short-term we have to be prepared for the left’s usual election day hi-jinks.

Let us not forget the tens of thousands of false registrations generated by ACORN. By the way, ACORN is still lurking out there under various names, and there is evidence of a resurgent ACORN in some cities.

We watched Barney Frank literally steal an election. This should be a huge reality check… this sort of illegal behavior should be expected in any close race. The Democrats are going to be getting very desperate between now and the election, as are Obama and his administration. We have to be extra vigilant and move quickly to counter any DeMarxist cutesy tricks.

It’s time to consider what a Conservative government might look like. It was pointed out that, even after the new crop of Conservative Representatives and Senators, there will be plenty of work ahead. There’s just no room in the new Conservative Republican party for phony moderates – RINOs. To me, a moderate Republican is just a liberal without the guts to say so.

The coming Conservative revolution will be the shot heard around the world. The last thing our foreign enemies want to see is a strong, united Conservative government in the United States.

Once again, if you’re not registered, get that way. Talk to your friends and neighbors. If they’re not registered, help them get that way. See if there’s anyone in your area that would need a ride to their polling place. Encourage everyone you meet to vote!! That’s how we’re going to win.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Obama New $50 Billion Stimulus the Definition of Insanity

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” By that definition President Obama has gone insane. Or perhaps he’s not so much insane as he is just suffering from a bout of memory loss. Does he not remember how badly his previous effort at pumping money into the economy went? Nevertheless, here we are, a year and a half later and creeping unemployment remains undeterred by the federal government’s intervention and the President is pitching another stimulus.

By politically necessity this one is much smaller. He’s decided to take a piecemeal approach, breaking the approach into three prongs: (1) $50 billion in infrastructure improvements, (2) a R&D tax credit extension, and (3) an investment tax rebate. Nevermind that President Obama attempted to sell his $800 billion stimulus plan last February by listing previous “failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis” including “that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures.” Sounds to me like he’s embraced the piecemeal approach. Must be that memory loss.

The worst of the plan is President Obama’s decision to throw $50 billion at infrastructure improvements. After all, what happened to all those “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs that the first stimulus was supposed to contain? An even better question was posed in this Investor’s Business Daily editorial,

But why in the world do we need another stimulus when we’re not even close to exhausting the funds allocated for the last one?

This when $275 billion of the original $838 billion has still yet to be doled out. More specifically, less than a third of the $230 billion allocated to infrastructure projects has been spent. So with literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure investment still pending, why are we tacking on an additional $50 billion?

Well, because it sounds good. 150,000 miles of roads will be rebuilt. 4,000 miles of rail will be constructed or maintained. 150 miles of runways will be rehabilitated.

But while Obama was clear about how many miles of pavement or tracks would be laid, there was never a hint of how many jobs would be created. Apparently, the government is finally getting out of the “jobs created or saved” business. What it should be getting out of is the stimulus business altogether. The first one was an utter failure. In the last quarter the economy grew at 1.6 percent – not even fast enough to keep unemployment stable, much less than the speed necessary to actually create jobs. In fact the economy shed 54,000 jobs in August, a depressing finale to what was billed as the “Recovery Summer.”

The only true history made by the stimulus bill was the record levels of debt and deficits it has wrought upon America’s balance sheet. As the CBO wrote in their latest Budget and Economic Outlook, “relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years.” I’m betting you could guess what year had the largest. Things are not projected to get much better. As the CBO explains, “Beyond the 10-year budget window, the nation will face daunting long-term fiscal challenges . . . Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt over time would reduce long-term economic growth.”

$50 billion is not the cure to our problems, it only adds to them. The economic multiplier effect of Keynesian economics only works in theory. In the harsh reality we live in businesses care little for economic theory. They care about their bottom lines. They care about an uncertain policy environment clouded by an activist government. They care about how much taxes they are going to have to pay now, and in the future, as we are forced to pay for this unprecedented spending binge.

Democrats have already gone “all in” on their original stimulus package. They gambled with taxpayer money and lost. Now they want to ante up another $50 billion. But they’ve tried spending us out of this recession over and over again. Can we really expect different results this time around? A sane question likely to be ignored by an out-of-touch Washington.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/08/trying-the-same-thing-but-expecting-different-results/

Democrats’ Breach of Trust Could Lead to Big November Losses

We’re heading into the home stretch. We’ve rounded the final corner and are now speeding towards the November finish line. If you haven’t figured it out I’m talking about the upcoming elections where Democrats are trying their best to stay ahead of the Republicans in the race for Congressional control. But Democrats appear to be running out of fuel, the result of a failed “Recovery Summer” and the consistent lack of results from their tax-and-spend policies. Republican’s on the other hand have filled up their gas tank, fueled by voter response to their vision of change.

Voter’s desire for a new perspective in Washington is most clear when there is money on the line. In this cash-strapped, job-hunting society, the only thing we care about more than money is what diet Kim and Khloe Kardashian are on this week (or, if you’re a guy, the fact that the NFL starts next week). But still, money is king. It is what gives us the roof over our heads, puts food on the table, and puts the kids through college. Without Mr. Franklin and Mr. Grant backing up our country (for me its more like Mr. Washington and Mr. Lincoln) it will be impossible for us to remain an economic superpower.

This importance is evidence in the polls. According to Gallup, 93 percent of those polled believe that the economy is at least “very important” in determining their vote in the fall. That is trailed only slightly by job (92 percent) and federal spending (81 percent). That means three of the top four voting cues all have one thing in common – money – either the ability to earn it or the concern that Congress is mishandling it.

Saying an issue is important doesn’t necessarily tell you very much, so let’s dig a little deeper into the numbers. Now that we know everyone is anxious to have a few more greenback’s in their pockets, the key question is which party do you believe can help you do that?

Of those polled by Gallup, 49 percent believe that Republicans would do a better job at fixing the economy while 38 percent believed Democrats would do a better job. That’s a +11 for the GOP. Americans also said they trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issue of jobs, albeit by a slimmer 5 percent margin. But rather than analyze issue by issue, there is a greater trend at play here. Of the nine issues asked about in the polls Americans trusted Republicans more than Democrats on seven of them (and healthcare was essentially a tie).

Democrats have squandered our trust. In October of 2006, just prior to Democrats’ making major gains following George Bush’s reelection, Democrats led on all eight issues polled at the time. Americans reward trust and punish any breach of it. We were given reason to hope that the “Washington way “would be changed. Promise after promise was thrown at us. Everything from a promise to “drain the swamp,” to a promise to pay for “every dime” of their plans, to a promise that if the stimulus passed unemployment would fall below 8 percent. But none of it came true. Promises of change were dashed against the rocks of the same old Washington. Nothing is different, except for now things are worse.

The economy is comatose, largely the result of uncertainty caused by overregulation and the necessity of tax hikes to pay off our crushing debts. Unemployment remains high because no companies are willing to make the commitment to hire unless the government makes a commitment to back off. And federal spending has soared with years of historic deficits still ahead. For better or worse Americans care a lot about money, and the government hasn’t given us much reason to trust what they are doing with it. Their seeming addiction to the “spend, spend, and spend some more” mindset is leading us into serious trouble. They spend on stimulus, they spend on bailouts, they spend for healthcare reform. I can’t even list all their spending bills because I just don’t have the room.

Americans live within a budget. We are forced to balance our checkbooks, keep our accounts in the positive, and make regular payments on any debts we have. Why should we trust a Democratic Party who thinks they play by different rules? We shouldn’t. Or given the recent poll results perhaps it would be more appropriate to say – we don’t. Fortunately, with November right around the corner we’ll soon have an opportunity to show them just how much we appreciate their breach of trust.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Commitee

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/02/democrats-breach-of-trust-could-lead-to-big-november-losses/

Watching The Clock.

I’ve figured it out… we’ve got this all wrong. There have been 3.5 million new and saved jobs since Obama took office. We know ’cause they told us so.

The problem is, it’s not the truth. It’s not even close to the truth. The truth is that the American people aren’t buying the story lines any more. The spin scarcely has time to get started before we tear it apart and subject it to the ‘new media review’. By the time we unravel it, there’s not much spin.

I guess we’re all sort of stunned out here, watching this administration self destruct. It’s not just that Barack Obama and that pack of amateurs he has in his government are wrong in their approach to governing and economic policy for this country. It’s that they have been, and are, wrong about every single thing they’ve done since taking office.

With the November 2 elections right around the corner, the desperation in some corners of the Democrat establishment is palpable. With the clock running out, so are the options for incumbent Democrats, some of whom have already fallen by the wayside in primaries across the nation… with many more to come.

If the mood of the nation remains as ugly as it is today, it will become a historical event. It can’t come soon enough. Clock watching is hard work.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Democrats’ Cover Tactics – Shift The Blame.

Shirley Sherrod got her phone call from President Obama. I’m not quite sure why she was so eager to speak to him… she did not seem to hold him accountable for her recent predicament and, in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Sherrod stated that she did not want an apology from him or indeed expect one, given his position as President. Ms Sherrod has learned one thing – Obama only apologizes when overseas.


Shirley Sherrod

Barack Obama had no part in this affair, although the fallout has come back to sting him in the tail. A good leader is one that takes responsibility for the actions of his team. In that respect, he should have apologized for the hasty decision of his Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack.

The amount of embarrassment caused to the Obama administration could be gauged by the obvious discomfort of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. If I didn’t know better, I’d have said that Mr Gibbs’ new shoes were pinching, as he shifted awkwardly behind his lectern.

This whole mess was created by the Department of Agriculture, the NAACP and one or more members of the White House staff. Shirley Sherrod seemed convinced that her termination orders were issued by someone in the White House. It smacks of panic at the prospect of another race-related media attack on the administration. As usual, the liberals are trying to distract the public from their own failings by trying to pin the whole, sorry state of affairs on conservatives. While it may be true that the original video was posted by Andrew Breitbart, to openly accuse him of racism and a desire to return to the days of slavery is unwarranted. Perhaps the CNN video was not shown in its entirety, causing the message to be misconstrued also?

By her own confession, Shirley Sherrod had not given the white farmer “the full force of what [she] could do”. A later part of her speech, omitted in the original video posting, goes on to explain that “working with [the farmer] made me see that it’s really about those who have versus those who have not. They could be black. They could be white. They could be Hispanic”. This does not detract from the fact that, initially, she had little inspiration to help a white farmer. It reminds me a little of someone who was once a Klansman and later regretted the fact. Of course, being a Democrat, his expression of guilt absolved him.

The most ridiculous part of this fiasco is the left stream media’s attempt to apportion blame to Fox News, implying that their coverage of the speech instigated Sherrod’s dismissal. A number of other network and cable stations covered the item before FNC gave it any airtime. While the video was on their website, it was also on YouTube. Naturally, YouTube is not regarded as a threat by the liberals. It’s owned by Google. Google and the White House?… well, you can draw your own conclusions.

It is fairly obvious that the left are targeting Andrew Breitbart, Fox News and the Tea Party Movement in an attempt to save what remains of their unpopular, discredited government. They know that they are not afraid to confront their accusations head-on, as proved when Breitbart offered $100,000 for evidence of the racist attack by the Tea Party.

To use race as a political tool is reprehensible. To accuse those who are innocent of racism is abhorrent. Those who use these tactics as a last-ditch attempt to save themselves from defeat should think about the potential results of their actions, for they are the ones who could turn back the clock and recreate mistrust between black and white.

The fact that Barack Obama is black is immaterial to the Tea Party movement. The fact that he is steering the country to socialism, economic and social destruction is relevant. We will oppose anyone that does not respect the Constitution and threatens the very fabric of American society – regardless of color. That is equality!

(Editor Dee is in for Skip today)

 

Syndicate content