Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of Obama's $787 billion Recovery Act, and to mark the occasion, our prevaricator-in-chief made the following remarks (my comments are interspersed):
"I want to begin by recalling where we were one year ago. Millions of jobs had already been lost to the recession before I was sworn into office. Another 800,000 would be lost in the month of January. We'd later learn that our economy had shrunk by an astounding 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2009. And economists from across the political spectrum warned that if dramatic action was not taken to break the back of the recession, the United States could spiral into another depression."In other words,
"Hey, this isn't my fault." With promises that swift passage of the Recovery Act would ensure unemployment would remain below 8% (after which it reached just over 10% this past month), our blameless president is still harping on the prior administration's supposed misfeasance (by comparison, the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth following the Bush tax reforms of 2003 [the longest run on record]; the annual unemployment rate never exceeded 6% under Bush; and the economy experienced 24 consecutive quarters of growth - all this on the heels of the 9/11 attacks, no less).
Let us also remember that it is Congress that controls the purse strings, regardless of what any President desires. Let us recall, too, that by the end of 2007 our budget deficit stood at $160 billion; by the end of 2008 the figure had risen to $458 billion; and by the end of 2009 it had skyrocketed to $1.4
trillion - a staggering 9-fold increase in two years!
So which party controlled the congressional spending during these years? The Democrats. It was they who assumed control of both congressional chambers in January 2007. And which two senators voted 'aye' for every spending measure? Obama and Biden. So where's the outrage over this outright hypocrisy? I guess it's best summed up in the words of Leslie Nielsen's
Naked Gun character, Sgt. Frank Drebin,
"Please move on, there's nothing to be seen here..."Obama continued:
"One year later, it is largely thanks to the Recovery Act that a second depression is no longer a possibility...So far, the Recovery Act is responsible for the jobs of about 2 million Americans who would otherwise be unemployed. These aren't just our numbers; these are the estimates of independent, nonpartisan economists across the spectrum."Balderdash! How can anyone calculate with any accuracy a figure so abstract? I suppose that the very economists to whom Obama refers must have devised a new math - after all, aren't they the experts who are continually surprised when their economic forecasts fall flat upon the release of monthly economic figures? (i.e.- experts had predicted 'X', but the figures unexpectedly came in at 'Y'...)
And he continued:
"...millions of Americans are still without jobs. Millions more are struggling to make ends meet. So it doesn't yet feel like much of a recovery. And I understand that. It's why we're going to continue to do everything in our power to turn this economy around."It doesn't yet feel like a recovery because there is no recovery! The answer to our economic dilemma is exactly the opposite of what Obama insists on doing; and that is, for government to get out of the way, and let the free market do its time-proven job of creating wealth domestically, and as a result, globally.
Obama again:
"Now, just to review: One-third of the money in this bill - one-third - was made up of tax cuts. I talked about this at the State of the Union. Tax cuts for 95 percent of working Americans."To quote Rep. Joe Wilson,
"You lie!" There's a big difference between a tax cut and a tax credit. The former is something that is lasting and about which you need no longer worry (unless a tax hike is proposed), while the latter is a one-time government payment to a private citizen or business that may or may not have to be repaid. Considering this, then, which one would lend more security? And as far as Obama's promises that a typical family's taxes will not rise by a single dime, just wait until January 2011 when the Bush tax cuts are
allowed to expire, which means that
everyone's taxes will go up (but not in the eyes of this administration!)...
And on he labored:
"Now, the last third of the Recovery Act is what I want to talk a little bit about more today...That third is about rebuilding our economy on a new and stronger foundation for growth over the long term."Maybe in
Fantasyland, but not in the real world. Appearing on Neil Cavuto's show today, economist Art Laffer (a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board) summarized the reasons why our country will not experience a return to prosperity under this administration, and they are:
- Overspending.
- Hiking tax rates.
- Printing too much money.
- Over-regulating.
- Restricting the flow of goods & services across national boundaries.
However, do not fear - we should prosper again in 2014 (yippee!), but a presidential election must be won by a candidate who has the wherewithal and conviction to roll back the profligacy of the Obama era.
Let us hope, too, that a Republican landslide in November will stymie most of the Obama agenda, and foster the aforementioned roll-back.
, Friedrich Hayek discusses how an individual's freedom erodes as greater economic control is assumed by the government. Usurping this control in the name of 'fairness,' the devolution to statism "would control what we consume almost as effectively as if it directly told us how to spend our income." Using the Germany of his time, Hayek outlines how the promises of socialism inevitably led to totalitarianism.
Posts
