Archive for category Obama Administration
There’s been a fun bit of leftist propaganda floating about the internets in the form of a website that purports to outline the wonders of just what Obama has done to save the world. Brian Doherty at Reason Magazine has caught sight of this fun little site and commented upon it: Read the rest of this entry »
I haven’t been on top of the blog for a bit, and hence have not gotten around to commenting about the 2010 elections yet. So, here goes.
The election results have been out for a while, so I’ll give them little attention. The Republicans won fairly big, and by a decent margin. The GOP now controls the House and has a good standing of the Senate. The big win was over 600 state legislature seats around the country, meaning that conservatives have had major successes in local campaigns and offices. Since this is where most of the governance should be coming from, this is a good thing.
But what I am interested in is not the office numbers or even conservative/ Tea Party reactions to the elections, but the reactions from the left. I am interested in them because they confirm the hubristic attitude that has been the primary complaint of the Tea Party, and show that the aristocratic elites on the left have opted to continue their pathologically narcissistic politics and ignore just why the people have rejected them. Read the rest of this entry »
Reason TV Presents this brief video that asks a simple question: If Obama’s economic policies are so great, and he’s fixed the recession, then where are all the jobs at? An interesting comparison between the policies of today and those that ended prolonged the Great Depression.
Today many Americans credit FDR with rescuing our nation from the Great Depression, but there’s plenty wrong with that view, says Lee Ohanian, a UCLA economics professor who specializes in economic crisis. “What’s wrong with that view is that private-sector job growth did not come back under Roosevelt,” says Ohanian, who notes that Americans often forget how long the Great Depression lasted. Unemployment stood at 17 percent in 1939, a decade after the infamous stock market crash, and, although times were much worse back then, Ohanian sees troubling parallels between the Great Depression and the Great Recession. In both instances our nation emerged from a severe downturn with strong productivity growth and the banking system largely restored. We were poised for a recovery, but didn’t get one. “So the key puzzle for both today and the 1930s is why aren’t private-sector jobs being created at a much more rapid rate?” Read the rest of this entry »
Peter Ferrara at the American Spectator presents this excellent analysis of President Obama’s economic policies, and his eagerness to dismiss successful economic policies, such as tax cuts and reduced government regulation, as “failed policies of the past,” whiel embracing Keynesian economic policies that have been shown to fail time and time again.
This pitiful economic performance is the plainly foreseeable result of an economic program based on the fundamental misconception that economic growth results from more government spending, surging welfare, and record shattering deficits and national debt, which are the foundational principles of the long discredited Keynesianism at the core of Obamanomics. What President Obama is treating us to is effectively a historical reenactment of the 1970s, if not the 1930s, so we can all see first hand how those economic tragedies happened. All the more so now that Bernanke has embraced the monetary policy fallacies of the 1970s in trying to use inflation to stimulate economic recovery. The resulting declining dollar means we are all getting poorer, as everything we buy from overseas will be more expensive as a result, meaning a declining standard of living for America.
Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy covers the recent dismissal of a lawsuit against the Obamacare mandate by a California District, on the basis of lack of standing:
This decision is at odds with rulings by district courts in Virginia, Michigan, and Florida, all of which concluded that a variety of plaintiffs challenging the mandate — state governments, individuals, employers, and the National Federation of Independent Business — do indeed have standing. Read the rest of this entry »
Even hard leftists are getting annoyed by Obama’s ineptness in office.
Andrew B. Wilson at the American Spectator presents a rather scathing critique of Obama’s economic policies, and how they are spun as doing things that they don’t do:
For spendthrift Democrats to go around claiming that they have “cut taxes” is to engage in the most deliberate and outrageous obfuscation — throwing dirt in the eyes of an American public. What Obama and the Democrats have done, in the course of running up $2.7 trillion in federal deficits and spending nearly 25% of GDP over the past two years, is to put checks in the mail to people who, for the most part, pay no income tax — meaning that these payments from the federal government out of borrowed money are indistinguishable from welfare checks. The Obama administration has not cut tax rates for real taxpayers and has no intention of doing so (with huge tax increases soon to take effect with the expiration of the earlier round of George W. Bush tax cuts).
But none of this stops Democratic Party stalwarts from playacting the part of favoring tax cuts. On CNN, California Senator Boxer made the laughable claim that she had supported “$1.2 trillion in tax cuts” through the stimulus bill — which would suggest that the entire stimulus bill, and more, was devoted to tax cuts. In fact, she began her interview with Wolf Blitzer in claiming she had supported $2.2 trillion in tax cuts.
Since Obama came to office in January 2009, the unemployment has risen from just under 8% to close to 10% — where it has stayed for the past year. There has been a net loss of about 2.5 million jobs. Even so, the Obama administration continues to claim that it has “created or saved” about 3 million jobs. That is a meaningless metric, which is not based on any evidence. It comes from plugging data on government spending into a Keynesian computer model and assuming (against a great weight of contrary evidence) that every dollar spent would provide $1.50 in economic growth and job creation. It is merely a restatement of what the target was at the outset of the stimulus program, as opposed to an objective measure of what the program has actually achieved.