posted September 03, 2011 10:40 AM            

Memo to Dems: Dump Obama before it’s too late
09/02/2011
James Poulos

This summer has cemented it: Barack Obama is a lame duck. His administration is a failure. Democrats know it. And they only have months to act.

Their president has lost the support of Wall Street donors. He has driven high-powered Democrats to go public with humiliating criticism. One in four Democrats have told CNN they want a different nominee.

What’s the problem? In a hugely influential New York Times editorial, psychologist Drew Westen lamented that Obama’s problem is himself. “Like most Americans,” he wrote, “at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue.”

There is still time for Democrats to fix this — but only if they force their leader not to seek a second term. As a president, Barack Obama is doomed. He is doomed now, doomed on Election Day and doomed even if he wins, until the day he leaves the White House.

Where to begin? For starters, Obama has no true constituency. Stephen Moore, writing in The Wall Street Journal, claimed last week that “the increasingly frustrated left” concedes the president has “a virtual lock on the crucial black vote.” But top black leaders feel ignored at best and betrayed at worst — and they’ve said so at their own town hall series.

No one wants to admit that the president’s white and African heritage — non-African-American, that is — matters. It mattered when he parlayed it as a candidate into a successful-feeling act of racial transcendence and healing. It matters now as we strain to understand his inability to connect at a gut political level with black America.

Obama is not really a product of the black experience. He is not really a product of the white experience. An optimist would say he is a product of the American experience, but the emotionally neutral judgment is that — politically, at a minimum — he is a man from nowhere.

And as often happens with presidents at momentous times, his character has colored his country. Increasingly, America seems like it is going nowhere. Increasingly, America seems like nowhere. Much of this is a consequence of the brittleness, drift and rot of our most powerful institutions. But the significant part that matters to Obama is the result of Obama himself — his attitude, his words and the style and substance of his response as a president to this protracted crisis.

Democrats are now nervously, angrily asking themselves what Obama can do to seize anew the imagination of his country before his fate is sealed some point between now and Election Day. E.J. Dionne begs for something “imaginative.” Eugene Robinson cries that the president’s “promised jobs plan needs to be unrealistic and unreasonable, at the very least. If he can crank it all the way up to unimaginable, that would be even better.”

Alas, it is unimaginable that this, or anything like it, will ever happen — before the election or afterward, and whether or not Obama wins.

Here is a president who has dragged his party through a tormented health care reform process, only to land it in the courts. He has paid lip service to unions, and cozied up to corporate interests while taking cheap shots at their most trivial political advantages. He has dribbled out a thin gruel of socialistic remarks about who needs their own money and who doesn’t — while repeatedly and publicly conflating the likes of himself and Warren Buffet with Americans laboring to build both wealth and families.

No, the only truly bold and inspirational thing that Barack Obama has ever done is run for president. It is a trick he has already proven himself incapable of repeating. Even a re-elected Obama will be a cipher and an albatross, just as George W. Bush dragged the Republican Party deeper into discredit the greater the pile of “political capital” he had to spend.

Only, with Obama, the disillusion will run far deeper than anything to wrack the embittered right. Republicans have their cherished fantasies, but conservatives do not run on dreams the way liberals do. The failure of Obama to realize even the 99-cent-store version of his campaign’s promise is agonizing enough to a left primed to lash out in despair. The failure of Obama to do this in the immediate wake of Bush’s own textbook disaster is unforgivable.

It’s not just that Barack Obama seems willing to diminish every liberal’s dreams but his own. It’s that he’s tarnishing his party’s reputation just at the moment of its once-assured triumph. Having owned up to their disappointment, Democrats must now decide whether to go to the mat to reelect the president anyway. Without their total support, he’s sunk. This, more than any mumbo-jumbo, is why Rick Perry is striking fear into the hearts of Democrats.

In The Daily Beast last month, Leslie Bennetts spoke for all Democrats when she warned that “[h]owever unlikely a Democratic challenger might seem at present, Obama would be foolish not to heed the deep dissatisfaction represented by such speculation […]. Given the abundance of devastating economic news lately, he would also do well to remember the Clintons’ rallying cry from the 1992 election.”

But like many, Bennetts cannot say how Obama can heed that dissatisfaction. Fire Jeffrey Immelt? Hire Warren Buffett? Perhaps he can float an infrastructure bank, or bribe businesses to hire veterans. Obamacare has no second act. Americans have no stomach for the full Obama. And his competence to govern is incommensurate both with the reality of our crisis and his own vision of justice.

posted September 03, 2011 03:35 PM            

perhaps we really have enough bonkers religious righters that perry can be elected? only if america, like texas, sits on its arse at election time. perhaps perry is banking on being elected by 18% of the possible voting population (as he has been in texas where about 33% of voters bother) but i think it is highly unlikely that MOST americans will vote for another "god is my chief advisor" prez in this era.

but as usual, the right like to think rick perry is scary...he is but only in the speculative possiblity arena...

and their ONLY chance at beating obama with someone like perry is to convince enough people that obama really is the anti-christ or worse. since most of us do not believe in an anti-christ, vociferous as the literal bible thumpers may be they are a small minority. thank god and rofl.

in other words the repubs got nuthin but a record of FURTHERING the crumbling of the economy and whatever disdain and fear and loathing they can dump on obama.

posted September 05, 2011 07:51 PM            

as we tolerate ANNUAL quran burning ceremonies and candidates whose "chief advisor is god" the literal interpreters of the bible grow louder and louder. they are tolerated because their vote is easily bought with lip service to jesus.

i have pointed out to AA here that the bible like the quran exhorts followers of christ to battle against the infidel. where do YOU think this is leading? say iran gets its nukes in a row...the euphemism of "democracy" for all will be alternated with "jesus" for all.

posted September 09, 2011 05:18 AM            

Well, O'Bomber gave his big, urgent jobs speech last night. After diddling around with the US economy for almost 3 years while losing almost 3 million jobs; suddenly, it's urgent.

I suspect O'Bomber is incapable of learning anything at all.

Let's see, O'Bomber spent $787B on a previous so called stimulus...about $1 trillion with interest on the borrowed money.

Result? Fewer Americans are working now than before O'BomberStimulus.

So, what's been the O'Bomber prescription for the economy from the beginning?

INCREASE TAXES, SPEND, BORROW!

So, what did O'Bomber lay out as his jobs program last night?

INCREASE TAXES, SPEND, BORROW!

Which only proves you can't teach an old Marxist new tricks.

posted September 10, 2011 08:14 AM            

So that was it? That was President Barack Obama’s really big jobs speech? The one that required a joint session of Congress to be both window dressing and whipping boy? The one that after his nearly three years in office is going to set things right? Honestly?

“There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation,” Obama said last night in announcing his American Jobs Act. “Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here tonight.”

Which is just another way of saying there is nothing new here.

The one honest thing he said was, “Those of us here tonight cannot solve all of our nation’s woes. Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers.”

He should have stopped there.

Back in February 2009 the newly minted president with the hopes of a worried nation on his shoulders told a joint session of Congress, “Now is the time to jump start job creation.” The unemployment rate at the time was 7.6 percent. That was before the last great jobs stimulus package that cost some $825 billion.

Now it’s 9.1 percent — the 28th month it has been at or over 9 percent and 14 million Americans remain out of work.

Isn’t the very definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Should we allow workers to keep more of their paycheck by extending the payroll tax cut? Sure, why not. But throw more of our hard-earned tax dollars at “infrastructure” and “public works” projects like schools, or to the public employee unions, including the teachers unions, who remain at the core of his political support? How many times are we going to try that?

A tax credit for businesses that hire the unemployed? Sounds good on the surface, but does it really make the difference for a company thinking of expanding? And what if that same business owner is hit by Obama’s continued insistence on an income tax hike? Isn’t that a wash?

And Obama promises, “Everything in this bill will be paid for.” If you like new taxes.

posted September 10, 2011 08:57 AM            

I know, I know, this latest candidate for the Captain Louis Renault Award isn’t intrinsically newsworthy. After all, sleight-of-hand accounting combined with a healthy dose of smoke and mirrors has been a staple of every proposal to come out of this White House, from Porkulus I to Obamacare and everything before, after, and in between. But what I find truly extraordinary is that it’s the AP pointing this out, and only one day after last night’s spectacle before Congress. Let’s go to the highlights:

"President Barack Obama’s promise Thursday that everything in his jobs plan will be paid for rests on highly iffy propositions.

It will only be paid for if a committee he can’t control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future – the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals – don’t roll it back.

Underscoring the gravity of the nation’s high employment rate, Obama chose a joint session of Congress, normally reserved for a State of the Union speech, to lay out his proposals. But if the moment was extraordinary, the plan he presented was conventional Washington rhetoric in one respect: It employs sleight-of-hand accounting."

In other words Obama, as is his custom, is having his cake now and saving the peas for a future President and Congress. Nothing like leading from behind. But the AP is just getting warmed up. They actually cite specific instances where Obama’s rhetoric is, shall we say, at odds with the facts. First they “refudiate” Obama’s laughable claim that his nearly half trillion dollar boondoggle — call it Porkulus II — is paid for:

"OBAMA: “Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.”

THE FACTS: Obama did not spell out exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act but said he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional supercommittee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides suggested that new deficit spending in the near term to try to promote job creation would be paid for in the future – the “out years,” in legislative jargon – but they did not specify what would be cut or what revenues they would use.

Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today’s Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it."

The AP then destroys Obama’s ludicrous claim that “everything” in his proposal has ”been supported by both Democrats and Republicans”. Governor Palin also put the kibosh on this nonsense today in her interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox News:

Palin disputed the characterization of the bill as bipartisan, saying Republicans believed that they could not afford the measures, considering the current deficit.

“The president was disingenuous when he insisted over and over again that everything in this package had been endorsed by all,” Palin said.

Next, the AP confronts Obama on his equally ludicrous claim that Porkulus II won’t add to the deficit:

OBAMA: “It will not add to the deficit.”

THE FACTS: It’s hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery. Deficits are calculated for individual years. The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion."

The AP also takes issue with Obama’s claim that his latest Porkulus plan will “create jobs right away”. Their conclusion: It won’t. If Porkulus I, which was twice as big, didn’t create jobs, why will Porkulus II which is essentially a smaller version of the same thing? (I realize the absurdity of characterizing a $450 billion spending bill as “smaller”, but when we have a President who racks up more than $4 trillion in debt in less than three years, one gets desensitized to these enormous numbers.)

That Obama’s latest Porkulus won’t work isn’t surprising, or even noteworthy, to anyone with a modicum of economic literacy, of course. But that the AP has finally begun doing their job rather than propagandizing for Obama is significant. If only the AP and their fellow travelers in the mainstream media had done their jobs back in 2007 and 2008 instead of focusing on the “really important” issues like what newspapers Governor Palin reads or who Trig Palin’s parents are. Who knows, maybe the country would have thought twice about electing a thin-skinned machine pol from the streets of Chicago with an appalling paucity of accomplishment and executive experience, and we all could have been spared the national nightmare that is the Obama Presidency. If only…

In any event, kudos to Calvin Woodward and Tom Raum of the AP for actually doing their jobs. Better late than never, I guess.

posted September 13, 2011 08:26 AM            

Obama's Pathetic, Pedestrian Speech
By Michael Barone
September 12, 2011

What is there to say about Barack Obama's speech to Congress Thursday night and the so-called American Jobs Act he said Congress must pass? Several thoughts occur, all starting with P.

Projection. That's psychologist-speak term for projecting your own faults on others. "This isn't political grandstanding," Obama told members of Congress, as Republicans snickered (but thankfully resisted the temptation to shout, "You lie!"). "This isn't class warfare."

These sentences came four paragraphs after Obama insisted that "the most affluent citizens and corporations" should pay more taxes (which spurs job creation how?) and not long before he promised to "take that message to every corner of the country."

Lest there be an doubt about Obama's real intentions, consider that his speech was obviously modeled on Harry Truman's call for a special session of the Republican Congress in the summer of 1948 so he could campaign against it. And consider that Obama pointedly refused to rebuke Jim Hoffa's "let's take these sons of bitches out" -- meaning Republicans -- when he introduced him last Monday in Detroit.

Pragmatism. Perceptive writers like David Brooks of The New York Times told us in 2008 that Obama was basically a pragmatist, a slave to no ideology but simply a student of what works. Brooks was apparently impressed by Obama's mention of Edmund Burke and the sharp crease in his pants.

But a pragmatist would probably not choose to call for more of the policies that plainly haven't worked. Infrastructure spending (shovel ready, anyone?), subsidies of teachers' salaries, fixing roofs and windows on schools -- these were all in the 2009 stimulus package, which has led to the stagnant economy we have today.

A pragmatist doesn't keep pressing the same garage door button when the garage door doesn't open. He gets out of the car and tries to identify what's wrong.

Paid for. "Everything in this bill," Obama said in his eighth paragraph, "will be paid for. Everything."

By whom? Well, in the 24th paragraph he tells us that he is asking the 12-member super-committee Congress set up under the debt ceiling bill to add another $450,000,000,000 or so to the $1,500,000,000,000 in savings it is charged to come up with. The roving camera showed the ordinarily hardy super-committee member Sen. Jon Kyl looking queasy.

Obama is like the guy in the bar who says, "I'll stand drinks for everyone in the house," and then adds, "Those guys over there are going to pay for them."

What's fascinating here is that once again the supposedly pragmatic and sometimes professorial president is not making use of the first class professionals in the Office of Management and Budget to come up with specifics, but is leaving that to members of Congress, maybe in a midnight marathon session with deadlines pending. Same as on the stimulus package and Obamacare.

Pathetic promises. Perhaps he hoped people wouldn't notice, but Obama did put in two words -- "faster trains" -- as a plug for his pet project of high-speed rail. Liberal blogger Kevin Drum calls California's HSR project, the largest in the nation, "a fantastic boondoggle," likely to cost three or four times estimates and with ridership estimates that are "fantasies." "We have way better uses for this dough," Drum concludes.

Political payoffs. Nearly one-quarter of this latest stimulus package -- sorry, American Jobs Act -- is aid to state and local government, to keep teachers and other public employee union members on the job and paying dues to the unions. Altogether unions gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. Pretty good return on their "investment," eh?

Pettifoggery. Obama impressed many conservative writers in 2008 with his ability to state their positions in fair terms -- which led some to think that surely he must agree with them. But he seems to have lost this knack.

Conservatives, according to this speech, want to "wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades" and "simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations."

"Most" means more than 50 percent. Does the White House have documentation for the claim that Republicans want to cut government spending by more than 50 percent? And what "basic protections" do they want to "wipe out"?

Barack Obama seemed like an unhappy warrior Thursday night, still unreconciled to the results of the 2010 elections, "seeming desperate and condescending at the same time," in the words of maverick liberal blogger Mickey Kaus. That darn garage door just won't open!

posted September 13, 2011 09:17 AM            

Those who are impressed by words seem to think that President Barack Obama​ made a great speech to Congress last week. But, when you look beyond the rhetoric, what did he say that was fundamentally different from what he has been saying and doing all along?

Are we to continue doing the same kinds of things that have failed again and again, just because Obama delivers clever words with style and energy?

Once we get past the glowing rhetoric, what is the president proposing? More spending! Only the words have changed -- from "stimulus" to "jobs" and from "shovel-ready projects" to "jobs for construction workers."

If government spending were the answer, we would by now have a booming economy with plenty of jobs, after all the record trillions of dollars that have been poured down a bottomless pit. Are we to keep on doing the same things, just because those things have been repackaged in different words?

Or just because Obama now assures us that "everything in this bill will be paid for"? This is the same man who told us that he could provide health insurance to millions more people without increasing the cost.

When it comes to specific proposals, President Obama repeats the same kinds of things that have marked his past policies -- more government spending for the benefit of his political allies, the construction unions and the teachers' unions, and "thousands of transportation projects."

The fundamental fallacy in all of this is the notion that politicians can "grow the economy" by taking money out of the private sector and spending it wherever it is politically expedient to spend it -- so long as they call spending "investment."

Has Obama ever grown even a potted plant, much less a business, a bank, a hospital or any of the numerous other institutions whose decisions he wants to control and override? But he can talk glibly about growing the economy.

Arrogance is no substitute for experience. That is why the country is in the mess it is in now.

Obama says he wants "federal housing agencies" to "help more people refinance their mortgages." What does that amount to in practice, except having the taxpayers be forced to bail out people who bought homes they could not afford?

No doubt that is good politics, but it is lousy economics. When people pay the price of their own mistakes, that is when there is the greatest pressure to correct those mistakes. But when taxpayers who had nothing to do with those mistakes are forced to pay the costs, that is when those and other mistakes can continue to flourish -- and to mess up the economy.

Whatever his deficiencies in economics, Barack Obama is a master of politics -- including the great political game of "Heads I win and tails you lose."

Any policy that shows any sign of achieving its goals will of course be trumpeted across the land as a success. But, in the far more frequent cases where the policy fails or turns out to be counterproductive, the political response is: "Things would have been even worse without this policy."

It's heads I win and tails you lose.

Thus, when unemployment went up after the massive spending that was supposed to bring it down, we were told that unemployment would have been far worse if it had not been for that spending.

Are we really supposed to fall for ploys like this? The answer is clearly "yes," as far as Obama and his allies in the media are concerned.

Our intelligence was insulted even further in President Obama's speech to Congress, when he set up this straw man as what his critics believe -- that "the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody's money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they're on their own."

Have you heard anybody in any part of the political spectrum advocate that? If not, then why was the President of the United States​ saying such things, unless he thought we were fools enough to buy it -- and that the media would never call him on it?

posted September 13, 2011 09:20 AM            

Some people are hoping that President Obama's plan will get the economy out of the doldrums and start providing jobs for the unemployed. Others are hoping that the Republicans' plan will do the trick.

Those who are truly optimistic hope that Democrats and Republicans will both put aside their partisanship and do what is best for the country.

Almost nobody seems to be hoping that the government will leave the economy alone to recover on its own. Indeed, almost nobody seems at all interested in looking at the hard facts about what happens when the government leaves the economy alone, compared to what happens when politicians intervene.

The grand myth that has been taught to whole generations is that the government is "forced" to intervene in the economy when there is a downturn that leaves millions of people suffering. The classic example is the Great Depression​ of the 1930s.

What most people are unaware of is that there was no Great Depression until AFTER politicians started intervening in the economy.

There was a stock market crash in October 1929 and unemployment shot up to 9 percent -- for one month. Then unemployment started drifting back down until it was 6.3 percent in June 1930, when the first major federal intervention took place.

That was the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, which more than a thousand economists across the country pleaded with Congress and President Hoover​ not to enact. But then, as now, politicians decided that they had to "do something."

Within 6 months, unemployment hit double digits. Then, as now, when "doing something" made things worse, many felt that the answer was to do something more.

Both President Hoover and President Roosevelt did more -- and more, and more. Unemployment remained in double digits for the entire remainder of the decade. Indeed, unemployment topped 20 percent and remained there for 35 months, stretching from the Hoover administration into the Roosevelt administration.

That is how the government was "forced" to intervene during the Great Depression. Intervention in the economy is like eating potato chips: You can't stop with just one.

What about the track record of doing nothing? For more than the first century and a half of this nation, that was essentially what the federal government did -- nothing. None of the downturns in all that time ever lasted as long as the Great Depression.

An economic downturn in 1920-21 sent unemployment up to 12 percent. President Warren Harding did nothing, except for cutting government spending. The economy quickly rebounded on its own.

In 1987, when the stock market declined more in one day than it had in any day in 1929, Ronald Reagan​ did nothing. There were outcries and outrage in the media. But Reagan still did nothing.

That downturn not only rebounded, it was followed by 20 years of economic growth, marked by low inflation and low unemployment.

The Obama administration's policies are very much like the policies of the Roosevelt administration during the 1930s. FDR not only smothered business with an unending stream of new regulations, he spent unprecedented sums of money, running up record deficits, despite raising taxes on high income earners to levels that confiscated well over half their earnings.

Like Obama today, FDR blamed the country's economic problems on his predecessor, making Hoover a pariah. Yet, 6 years after Hoover was gone, and nearly a decade after the stock market crash, unemployment hit 20 percent again in the spring of 1939.

Doing nothing may have a better track record in the economy but government intervention has a better political record in getting presidents re-elected.

People who say that Barack Obama​ cannot be re-elected with unemployment at its current level should take note that Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected a record four times, despite two consecutive terms in which unemployment was never as low as it is today.

Economic reality is one thing. But political impressions are something very different -- and all too often it is the political impressions which determine the fate of an administration and the fate of a nation.

posted September 13, 2011 09:23 AM            

Ninety years ago -- in 1921 -- federal income tax policies reached an absurdity that many people today seem to want to repeat. Those who believe in high taxes on "the rich" got their way. The tax rate on people in the top income bracket was 73 percent in 1921. On the other hand, the rich also got their way: They didn't actually pay those taxes.

The number of people with taxable incomes of $300,000 a year and up -- equivalent to far more than a million dollars in today's money -- declined from more than a thousand people in 1916 to less than three hundred in 1921. Were the rich all going broke?

It might look that way. More than four-fifths of the total taxable income earned by people making $300,000 a year and up vanished into thin air. So did the tax revenues that the government hoped to collect with high tax rates on the top incomes.

What happened was no mystery to Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He pointed out that vast amounts of money that might have been invested in the economy were instead being invested in tax-exempt securities, such as municipal bonds.

Secretary Mellon estimated that the amount of money invested in tax-exempt securities had nearly tripled in a decade. The amount of this money that the tax collector couldn't touch was larger than the federal government's annual budget and nearly half as large as the national debt. Big bucks went into hiding.

Mellon pointed out the absurdity of this situation: "It is incredible that a system of taxation which permits a man with an income of $1,000,000 a year to pay not one cent to the support of his Government should remain unaltered."

One of Mellon's first acts as Secretary of the Treasury was to ask Congress to end tax exemptions for municipal bonds and other securities. But Congress was not about to set off a political firestorm by doing that.

Mellon's Plan B was to cut the top income tax rate, in order to lure money out of tax-exempt securities and back into the economy, where increased economic activity would generate more tax revenue for the government. Congress also resisted this, using arguments that are virtually unchanged to this day, that these would just be "tax cuts for the rich."

What makes all this history so relevant today is that the same economic assumptions and political arguments which produced the absurdities of 1921 are still going strong in 2011.

If anything, "the rich" have far more options for putting their money beyond the reach of the tax collectors today than they had back in 1921. In addition to being able to put their money into tax-exempt securities, the rich today can easily send millions -- or billions -- of dollars to foreign countries, with the ease of electronic transfers in a globalized economy.

In other words, the genuinely rich are likely to be the least harmed by high tax rates in the top brackets. People who are looking for jobs are likely to be the most harmed, because they cannot equally easily transfer themselves overseas to take the jobs that are being created there by American investments that are fleeing from high tax rates at home.

Small businesses -- hardware stores, gas stations or restaurants for example -- are likewise unable to transfer themselves overseas. So they are far more likely to be unable to escape the higher tax rates that are supposedly being imposed on "millionaires and billionaires," as President Obama puts it. Moreover, small businesses are what create most of the new jobs.

Why then are so many politicians, journalists and others so gung-ho to raise tax rates in the upper brackets?

Aside from sheer ignorance of history and economics, class warfare politics pays off in votes for politicians who can depict their opponents as defenders of the rich and themselves as looking out for working people. It is a great political game that has paid off repeatedly in state, local and federal elections.

As for the 1920s, Mellon eventually got his way, getting Congress to bring the top tax rate down from 73 percent to 24 percent. Vast sums of money that had seemingly vanished into thin air suddenly reappeared in the economy, creating far more jobs and far more tax revenue for the government.

Sometimes sanity eventually prevails. But not always.

posted September 15, 2011 09:36 AM            

The seat of "Little Anthony"..Weiner in NY was won by a Republican. Demoscats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 in that district, yet a Republican...businessman Turner was elected with an 8 point margin.

Turner told voters he was going to put a stop to O'Bomber's nonsense which is making hash out of the US economy. Notice, Turner wasn't going to Washington to compromise and get along with demoscats. He was going to go to Washington to oppose their big government policies. Second, Turner was incensed over O'Bomber's "in your face hostility" to Israel.

Turner cast his candidacy as a "repudiation" of Barack Hussein O'Bomber...and won.

"Little Anthony" Weiner's NY seat has been held continuously by demoscats since 1923.

The Nevada special election was expected to go to the Republican...but not by the vote margin recorded.

posted October 12, 2011 11:41 AM            

So, O'Bomber has been screeching, whining and shrieking..."Pass my jobs bill now!"

For weeks, this has been the shriek coming out of O'Bomber all over America...as he campaigns for reelection...using the taxpayers jets, taxpayers fuel, taxpayers protection services and taxpayers surface cars.

Politicians are required to use their own resources to campaign for elections...NOT the taxpayers!

So, how's it going after all the screeching whining and shrieking by O'Bomber?

Obama's Jobs Bill Fails Critical Senate Vote
by Audrey Hudson
10/12/2011

President Obama’s $447 billion jobs bill failed in a crucial vote in the Senate on Tuesday night despite weeks of his begging lawmakers to “pass this bill now.”.....

The procedural vote required 60 yeas to pass but failed mostly along party lines, with two Democrats, Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana, siding with Republicans 50 to 49....

And although Senators Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.), Jim Webb​ (D.-Va.) and Joe Manchin (D.-W.Va.) sided with Obama in Tuesday night’s cloture vote to cut off the filibuster, all stated they would not vote in favor of final passage for Obama’s bill in the future.....

Republicans labeled Obama’s bill a permanent tax hike for a temporary spending bill, while Democrats have delayed voting on the measure for weeks knowing that they didn’t have enough support to pass it and that it would embarrass the White House....

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) called the package another failed stimulus bill, and said defeating it “is the only way we can get Democrats in Washington to finally abandon this failed approach to job creation.”

That stimulus bill cost taxpayers $825 billion, and yet three years later, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs, McConnell said. “That’s the clearest proof it was a monstrous failure."

“By proposing a second stimulus, Democrats are showing the American people that they have no new ideas for dealing with our jobs crisis,” McConnell said. “Today’s vote is conclusive proof that Democrats’ sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn’t worked—along with a massive tax hike that we know won’t create jobs.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46806