Posts Tagged ‘partisanship’

History Recording The Obvious: ‘We Have Come To See A Littleness, Not A Greatness, In Barack Obama’

August 24, 2011

I don’t have to say that “History will record that Barack Obama was a tiny, little man when we needed greatness.”  Because it’s already a fact of history right now.

Barack Obama: He’s come undone
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Pittsburgh Tribune

The wheels are off the Obama bus. It’s up on the cinder blocks on some rental property in Martha’s Vineyard this weekend. It is the end of the summer of discontent for a president who’s clearly in over his head and whose wallowing is most unbecoming.

Mr. Obama’s economic policy prescriptions, textbook Keynesian mumbo jumbo, have failed. History would have been instructive had only he been learned in the discipline. Obviously, he’s not. Next month, he’ll return with yet another chapter of the novella best titled “Hocus Pocus.”

Policy failures aside, we can only wonder if America also should be worried about the mental state of this president.  Just prior to his Midwestern bus tour, at a private New York fundraiser, Obama’s reported to have likened opposition to his presidency to the persecution of Martin Luther King. Then, on tour, his maudliness plunged deeper as he compared his plight to the sufferings of Abraham Lincoln.

As Gettysburg College history professor Allen C. Guelzo reminded in National Review Online, Mr. Lincoln rose to the challenge and exhibited greatness in his leadership. But, “In our current national agony … we have come to see a littleness, not a greatness, in Barack Obama.  And it is not for him that we feel sorry, but for ourselves.”

For it is a tragedy of our own making.

In 2008 America foolishly elected a Marxist community organizer who had never led anything important in his entire life.  We literally voted for “God damn America.”

Three years later, we find that this candidate of “hope and change” whose core promise was that he could rise above partisanship and unite America  was never anything more than the very worst kind of fearmongering demagogue.  We now know that his “promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years” amounts to pointing a finger at half of the country and demonizing them while he does every single thing he possibly can to further divide the nation.

Obama promised that if his massive $3.27 trillion stimulus was passed – the most massive stimulus in the history of the entire human race – that he would solve our economic and unemployment problems.  He promised again and again “shovel-ready jobs.”  We now know as a fact that it was all a lie.  And Obama’s response was to joke that “Shovel-ready was not quite as, uh, shovel-ready as we expected.”

Obama promised his purging of fossil fuels and his pursuit of a “green economy” would create jobs.  Now even the überüberleftist New York Times is admitting that “Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show.”

Obama claimed that the problem was lack of regulations and set up the most massive regulatory burden for business in American history.  And now even his own chief of staff is saying, “Sometimes it is hard to defend the indefensible.”  Because it IS indefensible to anyone but a rabid true-believer in statist socialism.  ObamaCare gave us 159 new bureaucracies and thousands of pages of new regulations.  The financial regulatory bill known as Dodd-Frank has so far generated 447 new regulations all by itself – and it’s STILL being written!!!

Obama promised he would be in the pocket of the hard-core union agenda and the SEIU.  We now know that even Obama’s OWN JOBS CZAR is saying that what Obama is doing is stupid.

Barack Obama is a little, little man.  When we needed a giant.

When Bill Clinton’s policies wildly failed in 1994 – leading to a historic election in which Republicans swept both the House (for the first time in decades) and the Senate – Bill Clinton admitted that “The era of big government is over” and steered a course with Republicans that led to prosperity.  Obama is far to petty to make such an admission and such a course-correction.  Instead all he can do is double-down on already failed policies and demonize his opponents in diametric opposition to his bogus campaign rhetoric.

Democrat Senator Bayh Puts Kibosh On Two Giant Liberal Lies

February 17, 2010

Senator Evan Bayh apparently finally had a bellyfull of the Democrats steering the ship of state full speed ahead straight into a giant iceberg.

Bayh described a scenario of brain-dead politics and hyper-partisanship.

I remembered what the New York Times describes as the promise at the core of Senator Obama’s presidential campaign:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

And I remembered pointing out that Obama’s promise to transcend ideology and partisanship was his signature lie.

And I remembered that Obama is now recognized to be the most polarizing president in history.

The most liberal Senator in Congress had this message for Republicans who tried to share their objections to his massive stimulus program: “I won.”

And what followed from that point was a far leftwing agenda being shoved down Republicans’ throats without any attempt to win their votes via compromise.  The reasoning was that Democrats had total control of the House to go along with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.   Republicans were shut out of crucial negotiations.  And they were shut out as a general rule.  They did not get to have anything to do with writing the bills that they were told they had to vote for in order to be “bipartisan.”  They didn’t even get to READ bills with enormous ramifications before the votes.

The Democrats constantly did their business behind closed doors.

Even their meetings on “transparency” were done behind closed doors.

It wasn’t just Republicans.  The liberal Democrats were so partisan and so secretive that even the moderate blue dog Democrats found themselves shut out of ObamaCare negotiations.

The constant secrecy and continual backroom wheeling and dealing surrounding ObamaCare got so bad that senior Democrat Senator Dick Durbin was forced to make this admission to John McCain’s complaint that Republicans were kept completely in the dark:

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is. And I’m in the leadership,” Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Obama would flood the airwaves with message after message about transparency and about reaching out to Republicans with a bipartisan spirit of cooperation.  But what he says has a bad habit of not jiving with what he does.

Recently, another top Democrat Senator, Jay Rockefeller, pointed out regarding Obama’s promises that he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Barack Obama and many Democrats have falsely demagogued the Republicans as “the party of no.” But that demonization is now exposed for the lie it always was:

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

The Republicans had been submitting bills to Obama all along.  Which means that every single time he characterized them as “the party of no” who weren’t contributing their own ideas to the debate, he was knowingly cravenly and despicably lying.

The only thing that is “bipartisan” now is that Democrat and Republican alike have no reason to trust Obama.

Obama promised again and again that he would transcend the political divide.  That was HIS promise, not the Republican minorities’ promise.  It was Obama who broke his word.  And it is Obama who should be held accountable to his broken promise.

Now disgusted former Obama supporter Mortimer Zuckerman put it this way:

“In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.”

All that garbage wasn’t the Republicans’ fault.  It was Obama’s and the Democrat leaderships’ fault.

So that’s one giant liberal lie put to bed.  Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t have been more hyperpartisan or more ideological.

The Republicans were right to oppose their agenda.  And the polls of American voters that have radically swung in their favor prove it.

The second giant liberal lie that Evan Bayh put the kibosh on is the myth that the stimulus has somehow been a giant success in spite of the fact that it was a giant failure even by the Obama administration’s own standard.  Obama’s key economic advisers assured us that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.

Even the leftist Huffington Post had this to say back in June of last year:

“The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today’s unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.”

Unemployment has soared past that 8% figure – and according to Obama’s own projections joblessness will be well over 8% until at least 2012.

Obama and his minions have repeatedly made spectacular claims about the “success” of the stimulus that fly in the face of reality.  According to Obama’s own Recovery.gov website, by the White House’s own numbers, Obama only claim 595,263 jobs that were at a cost of $272 billion.  That comes out to an astronomical $456,941 per job.

And at that rate, we can’t AFFORD for Obama to “create” any more jobs.

Democrat Senator Evan Bayh, a former governor who presumably knows something about job creation, absolutely destroyed the myth of any kind of stimulus success.

[Youtube link]

Quote:

“[I]f I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

Obama and his supporters are falsely claiming over and over again that the stimulus created 2 million jobs.  And a prominent Democrat is essentially saying, “Show me just ONE.”

The number of lies that have been told about the Obama stimulus have been utterly breathtaking.

And the American people who’ve clearly heard at least one too many lies from Obama agree with Evan Bayh.

According to a New York Times/CBS poll, a whopping 94% of the American people agree with Bayh. Only 6% of Americans believe Obama’s massive porkulus has created jobs a full year after going into effect.

Only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe that Obama’s porkulus has created any jobs at all.  That means more Americans believe that space aliens have anally probed them than believe in the stimulus.  It also means that 94% think Obama and his entire administration and the entire Democrat congressional leadership are completely full of crap.

And 48% of Americans polled don’t think porkulus will EVER create jobs.

All that nothingness for the low, low price tag of only $862 billion.

As we head into the future, we find that the Democrats are still playing games rather than dealing fairly and squarely with legislation.

Democrats are still demagoguing, misrepresenting, and lying.

And until they quit – or until they are voted out – Republicans would be wise to avoid them and refuse to play around with them.


For First Time, Plurality Of Americans Think Stimulus Hurt The Economy

December 30, 2009

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s the picture:

For what it’s worth, the $787 billion stimulus which Americans are increasingly agreeing was a dismal failure was in reality a $3.27 trillion porkulus package.  Which is to say, this was a FAR bigger and a FAR more dangerous waste of money which will do FAR more harm to our economic futures than most Americans understand.

Here’s what Rasmussen said under the title, “For First Time, Plurality Believes Stimulus Plan Hurt The Economy“:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 30% of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion economic stimulus plan has helped the economy. However, 38% believe that the stimulus plan has hurt the economy. This is the first time since the legislation passed that a plurality has held a negative view of its impact.

The number who believe that the stimulus plan has hurt the economy rose from 28% in September, to 31% in October, and 34% in November before jumping to 38% this month. The week after the president signed the bill, 34% said it would help the economy, while 32% said it would hurt.

The Political Class has a much different view than the rest of the county. Ninety percent (90%) of the Political Class believes the stimulus plan helped the economy and not a single Political Class respondent says it has hurt. (See more on the Political Class).

The underlying reason for skepticism about the stimulus plan is that 50% of voters believe increasing government spending is bad for the economy. Just 28% believe that increased government spending helps the economy.

Men, by a 42% to 27% margin, believe the stimulus effort has hurt the economy. Women are evenly divided.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Democrats believe the stimulus plan has helped the economy while 47% of Republicans believe it has hurt. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 52% believe the stimulus plan has had a negative impact.

Concerns about federal budget deficits also play a role in evaluating the stimulus spending. Voters continue to think that the president’s top budget priority should be cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. But they see it as the goal the president is least likely to achieve.

Health care reform is second on the list of priorities for voters, but most oppose the health care plan working its way through Congress.

Not surprisingly, most Americans are opposed to a second stimulus plan. In fact, 51% of voters say more jobs would be created if the remaining ending planned in the first stimulus plan was cancelled right away.

Only 14% of American workers say their firms are hiring and 29% say their employers are laying people off. As a result, 67% expect that unemployment will be at 10% or higher a year from now.

Please allow me to supplement the above Rasmussen article describing the fact that a solid plurality of Americans now believe the stimulus was harmful with another article detailing what a whopping load of partisan corruption the stimulus has turned out to be:

Report: Democratic districts received nearly twice the amount of stimulus funds as GOP districts
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
December 16, 2009

A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.

“You would think that if the stimulus money was actually spent to create jobs, there would be more stimulus money spent in high unemployment states,” said Veronique de Rugy, a scholar at the Mercatus Center who produced the analysis. “But we don’t find any correlation.”

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia is one of the nation’s most respected economic and regulatory think tanks and has a Nobel prize-winning economist on staff. The econometric analysis was done using data provided by Recovery.gov — the government website devoted to tracking the stimulus data — as well as a host of other government databases.

Additionally, Mercatus found that stimulus funds were not disbursed geographically with any special regard for low-income Americans. “We find no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no statistically significant effect of unemployment, median income or mean income on stimulus funds allocation,” said the report.

The Mercatus Center analysis also found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.

“We found that there is a correlation [relating to the partisanship of congressional districts],” de Rugy said. Her regression analysis found that stimulus funds are expected to decrease by 24.19 percent if a district is represented by a Republican.

“During the appropriations process, you’re not surprised to see the Democrats are getting more money, but in this case a lot of the money we’re looking at is going through HUD [Department of Housing and Urban Development], or Department of Education, Department of Transportation etc. and they’re following a formula,” she said. “But the correlation exists, and not only does it exist — when you look at how much money we’re talking about, it’s a pretty big deal.”

The analysis found that neither congressional leadership positions of local members nor presidential preference in 2008 were factors in stimulus allocation by congressional district.

Finally, the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities — nearly $88 billion to $69 billion. While some of the money given to public entities may eventually filter down to the private sector, it’s much less transparent how money given to public entities is spurring economic growth and job creation.

So, to repeat, the stimulus money isn’t being given out to low-income Americans or struggling geographic regions.  It is being given out to Democrats to use as political slush funds.

The Democrat Party is the party of corruption, partisanship, socialism, and big-government-as-God-substitute ideology.

And more and more Americans are coming to realize how dangerous they are to the American way of life.

Another way to look at this is that – from the very beginning of the Obama administration – the Republican Party has demonstrated that they were completely right and Democrats were completely wrong.  Whether you look at the stimulus, cap-and-trade, garbage climate change claims, health care, or terrorism, Americans now solidly agree that Republicans were right; Democrats were wrong.

What’s Wrong With The Baucus Healthcare Plan?

September 17, 2009

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus unveiled his latest swing at healthcare legislation yesterday.  Let’s take a look at it.

First of all, according to Bloomberg:

In a bid to get Republican support, he’s offering a lower price tag compared with bills approved on party-line votes by the Senate health committee and three House panels, each of which would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years.

Well, that’s a nice goal and all, but his plan still costs $856 billion.  Which is 85.6% of a trillion.  And these estimates are invariably massively low (take Medicare as the closest analogy: it was estimated to cost $12 billion by 1990; it actually cost $107 billion by 1990 — a 791% increase over the projection).  Why on earth would the Democrats new plan now be better estimated than the Democrats old plan?

Thanks, Max, but I’ll keep shopping around, if you don’t mind.

Second, there’s this:

“Without support from a single Senate Republican…”

Now see, I remember this promise from the campaign:

In 2008, candidate Obama … assured us that we would transcend petty partisan bickering that has dominated Washington as long as anyone can remember. “In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people, Obama declared.Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”

Didn’t resist that temptation too well, did you, Barry?  No, instead, the most liberal senator in the nation prior to his newfound “post-partisanship” lived up to predicted rather than advertised form.  He rammed through a massive $3.27 trillion partisan stimulus plan that only 2 out of 218 Republicans voted for (counting Arlen Specter as a Democrat).  He sold his porkulus on the lie that he would be able to keep unemployment under 8% if it passed.  In similar form, Obama rammed through his Omnibus bill filled with nearly 9,000 earmarks in blatant violation of his pledge.

He is the most aggressively partisan “post partisan” who ever lived.  And that is a fact.

Did the man who won the White House with 52.9% of the vote win the right to unilaterally fundamentally transform 16% of the entire US economy?  Seriously???

Are Republicans seriously supposed to support a system that was shoved down their throats against their wills?

Third, there’s this:

Baucus dropped a plan to set up a government insurance program — the so-called public option — to compete with private insurers, steering clear of one of the most divisive issues in the debate. Instead, he proposed giving $6 billion in seed money to nonprofit cooperatives that could compete with companies such as Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna Inc.

Imagine if you were selling widgets at your widget shop and a competitor moved in next door who got his funding from your tax dollars.  That would suck for you.  And, of course, as needed, you could count on your own government to undermine you by writing the laws in a way that benefited your competitor while punishing you, and you could count on selective enforcement of the regulations just to make sure you knew who was wanted and who wasn’t.

Besides being unAmerican, there are a few other things wrong with this plan.

A pro-liberal, pro-single-payer proponent argues the following:

But this is not “change.” Nonprofit organizations have always had an important role in the financing and delivery of health care services in the United States. Nonprofit health care organizations are part of the U.S. economy’s “third sector,” the other two sectors are government and for-profit businesses. In the early 1900s the first health care prepayment/insurance plan was founded as a nonprofit organization—Blue Cross—by a nonprofit hospital in Texas.  Today, nearly 50 percent of people with private health insurance coverage are enrolled in nonprofit health plans.

Unfortunately, the strong and persistent presence of private nonprofit health insurance companies has not prevented any of the structural problems leading to our current health care crisis.

In other words, at the heart of the Baucus plan is the belief that you are simply too ignorant and too damn stupid to know the basic facts.  Non-profits and co-ops are nothing new.  And in fact, according to the Democrats who have repeatedly demonized health insurers, they represent HALF the damn problem.

This is rather like the Democrats whining about the lack of competition when there are actually 1,300 health insurers in the country and the only reason they can’t all compete for your business is because Democrats have prevented them from being able to compete for your business.

Dr. Mary Bufwack writes an article that concludes:

So history tells us that starting up co-ops would be a great challenge, and small state co-ops are likely to fail.  Should they be successful, there is little evidence that they act in ways that are different than private insurance companies.

So this is a bogus boondoggle bound to fail.  And we can know that before it starts, given the government’s ability to screw up nearly everything it touches.

For what it’s worth, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were essentially “co-ops” as well.  And they have been catastrophic boondoggles.

Then there are the individual mandates requiring every American to have a health insurance plan or pay up to $3,800 in penalties.  I wonder how many of the young people who voted for Obama are going to support having to buy health insurance or pay fines?  It’s always easier to require things when it’s someone ELSE’S money that’s getting spent.

When Obama promised you fifty thousand times that no one making less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up by one penny, he didn’t point out that the fine print is a bitch.

And while there’s no official employer mandate, businesses with over 50 workers will be hit with a $400 per worker tax penalty if they don’t provide – and keep providing – health insurance.  Sounds like a pretty solid reason for a lot of small business owners who are are already struggling to make ends meet to downsize.  You DO know what they say about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, right?

If you lose your job because of the cost of the health care mandates, and you voted for Obama, just remember that you voted for “change.”

The bill is considerably scaled down from the worst of the infamous House Bill H.R. 3200.  But it’s still bad.  Other than the fact that it is less heinous than previous Democrat-dominated bills, it is still heinous.  There is no reason for Republicans to support it beyond the reasoning of “having one eye gouged out of my head is better than having both eyes gouged out.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 495 other followers