The President Who Cried ‘Wolf’

There really is a wolf, but it’s not in the sequester–it’s in the unsustainable spending which is creating an unmanageable deficit. But that ‘wolf’ is being ignored–to some extent by both sides of the aisle in Washington.

But back to the President crying ‘wolf.’ Marc Thiessen posted an article at the American Enterprise Institute on Monday entitled, “The president who cried ‘Sequester!’”

Mr. Thiessen points out that so far the biggest damage done by the sequester has been to President Obama’s credibility. The credibility problem began during the final debate with Mitt Romney when President Obama stated, “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” I believe the Washington Post gave the President four pinocchio’s for that statement. The problem with the internet and YouTube is that it is very easy to look up past statements of people in office. The President also stated that the sequester would never happen. Oh well.

The discourse got worse. The sequester would bring plagues and pestilence; the sequester would mean that everything about America we know and love would be gone. The sky would fall, the glaciers would melt, etc. Secretary of education, Arne Duncan, claimed that teachers would get pink slips. Homeland Security began letting criminals out of jail. Children would lose the Head Start Program (which has been proven ineffective anyway). The janitors at the Capitol would take a pay cut. When investigated, all of these claims proved to be false.

The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was the answer given to Charles Brown of Raleigh, North Carolina, (see rightwinggranny.com) when he sent a memo to Washington asking how to implement the budget cuts in sequester. The bottom line of the answer he received was “make the cuts as painful to the public as possible.”

The posturing by the President and the Democrat Party on the sequester is not only bad politics, it is bad for the country. Can we please re-open the debate on term limits for Congress? That is probably not the total answer, but it would be a start.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Adding Some Facts To The Discussion On Unemployment

Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted an article yesterday with some of the Labor Department statistics on the workforce in America. It turns out that the President’s statement that “It’s very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine.” is simply not true. The original statement about the public sector was made by Harry Reid about six months ago when the Democrats were asking for another $35 billion to help states hire more public sector employees.

The article points out:

Obama and Reid have it precisely backward: It’s the public sector that’s doing fine. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for government workers last month was just 4.2 percent (up slightly from 3.9 percent a year ago). Compare that to private-sector industries such as construction (14.2 percent unemployment), leisure and hospitality services (9.7 percent), agriculture (9.5 percent), professional and business services (8.5 percent) and wholesale and retail trade (8.1 percent). As Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute points out, the public-sector unemployment rate “is the lowest of any industry or class of worker, even including the growing energy industry.” If the rest of Americans enjoyed the same unemployment rate as government workers, Obama would be cruising to reelection.

Figures don’t lie, but evidently politicians do. The article further reminds us that Obamacare will add $46 billion in annual costs of new regulations to an already struggling economy.

The problem with President Obama’s statement (other than the fact that it is not true) is that it reinforces the idea that the President is anti-business. There is a perception of the President that he does not believe wealth can be created without someone other than the person creating the wealth being exploited or shortchanged in some way. He simply does not seem to respect free enterprise or understand how it works.

The article concludes:

How bad is all this for the president? Here’s how bad: Last week Mitt Romney accused President Obama of being “out of touch with the American people.” When a guy building a California vacation mansion with a car elevator for his wife’s two Cadillacs calls you “out of touch” — and no one laughs — you know you are in trouble.

I think it’s time for the Obama Campaign to find another line of attack.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Choosing Your Financial Advisor

Most people over the age of twenty have realized that Social Security will not be there when they retire. Many of the younger generation have already been planning for this by setting up 401K plans, IRA’s and other ways to finance their retirement. One important aspect of this planning is choosing a competent financial advisor. As the presidential election approaches, who would you choose are your financial advisor–Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted some information last week that might make that choice easier. In recent days the President has been attacking Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, stating that it is a record of wealth creation–not job growth. Keep in mind that Bain Capital works with money volutarily put under their control by investors who invest in the company in order to make money. When the investors make money, they spend it or further invest it and the economy grows. Let’s contrast that with how the Obama Administration has invested taxpayer money in various companies.

The article points out:

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures:

The article lists some of the Obama Administrations investments:

Raser Technologies–The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.

ECOtality–According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.”

Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP)–its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’ ”

There are more examples in the article, but you get the picture. This reminds me of a story from my youth. During the time my family lived in North Carolina, we went to Florida for a vacation. During that vacation, my parents went to a dog race. As the dogs were marching around the track before the race, my father spotted one he was convinced was a winner. He placed a small bet on the dog. Not only did the dog not win–he refused to leave the starting gate. My father always said that it was because the dog was simply too smart to chase a mechanical rabbit. The moral of the story is, “Don’t place a bet unless you have some idea of what you are doing.” The Obama Administration has a record of placing bets with taxpayer and stimulus money on companies that are not capable of leaving the starting gate. Is this an appropriate role for government, and if it is, shouldn’t they be doing it better?

The article does not mention the jobs lost in the government takeover of General Motors–the dealerships put out of business, the mechanics and other workers in those dealerships.

Considering their track record, do you want the government to continue to make investments with your money?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes I Just Don’t Like Hearing The Facts

I am ready to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. If the government doesn’t want us there, why should we stay? I suspect that right now most Americans would agree. But–there are inconvenient things called facts. Marc Thiessen points out a lot of very inconvenient consequences of leaving Afghanistan in a Washington Post article he posted yesterday.

Mr. Thiessen points out five problems with leaving Afghanistan:

1. We cannot conduct the drone war against Al Qaeda in Pakistan without bases in Afghanistan.

2. When American pressure on Al Qaeda in Pakistan is lessened, Al Qaeda can step up its efforts to destabilize Pakistan and gain control of the country’s nuclear weapons.

3. Afghanistan will again become a sanctuary for Al Qaeda.

4. Al Qaeda would claim a victory in Afghanistan and be encouraged to plan further terrorism attacks on America.

5. Iran would be made stronger by our withdrawal.

Please follow the link to the Washington Post to read the entire article. I still don’t like the idea of remaining in Afghanistan, but I don’t like the consequences of leaving either.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta