The New York Post posted an editorial yesterday on the President’s proposals to deal with the debt ceiling.  The Post quoted some of the language used at the President’s press conference:

“”The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of” — that is, the tax hikes he wants to impose — “are for millionaires and billionaires . . . oil companies and hedge-fund companies and corporate-jet owners,” Obama said.

Choosing “to keep those tax breaks” — that is, to avoid hikes — “means we got to cut kids off from getting a college scholarship” and “stop funding certain grants for medical research.”

“Not only that: “Food safety may be compromised,” he warned. “Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden . . . ”

“Why not just predict the end of all life as we know it, absent tax hikes?”

 

This is ridiculous.  Does anyone actually believe that every dollar spent by the federal government is so critical that a spending cut will endanger lives?

On July 11, 2010, the Washington Examiner reported:

“…The story for public sector employment, however, is quite the opposite. At 4.4 percent, the unemployment rate among government workers is almost exactly half that of the private sector. But the insulation of government workers from the market realities that private sector workers face is far from the whole story. The federal work force is expanding, not contracting, thanks to Obama initiatives like a health care program that adds 16,000 new Internal Revenue Service enforcers to ensure compliance with the individual mandate. Between December 2008 and December 2009, the federal government added nearly 100,000 new positions.”

Somehow I don’t think not having enough money for the government is the problem.  As the government grows, the private sector shrinks.  The President might want to keep that in mind as he continues he quest to lower unemployment.