Darth Obama’s Debt Star
Big government is too expensive and those who have to pay for it never get their money’s worth.
When the new unemployment figures from the supposedly non-partisan Bureau of Labor Statistics came out earlier this month it was widely pointed out that the 8.6% number was only made possible by not counting the shrinkage in the labor market since Obama took office, and that the U-3 unemployment rate, which takes that into account, was 11%. See my previous post, from December 2nd, 8.6% Unemployment? Only If You Don’t Count The Shrinkage in the Labor Force.
Now it appears Obama intends to Politicize the Bureau of Labor Statistics in preparation for the 2012 election.
On the eve of the 2012 election, the White House is pushing to politicize the impartial U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The administration is also trying to bypass the congressional oversight that protects the independence of the neutral agency.
The BLS is the nation’s premier nonpartisan statistical agency reporting on the state of the American labor market. For more than a century, both political parties have considered BLS to be independent and politically untouchable.
The BLS monthly unemployment data is a key factor contributing to the president’s unpopularity.
Over the last year, the administration has refused to fill the two top BLS positions. They have yet to nominate anyone to replace outgoing BLS Commissioner Keith Hall, whose term expires in January, and the number two post previously held by Deputy Commissioner Philip Rones has been vacant since last summer. Rones had been the bureau’s deputy since 2003, and made it widely known ahead of time that he would be retiring by the middle of 2010.
BLS career professional and Associate Commissioner John Galvin has been given limited responsibilities to cover some of the deputy duties on an acting basis, but the White House has indicated it has no interest in promoting Galvin to the post of commissioner.
The Senate could get involved by exercising its Senate confirmation process for a new commissioner — but the administration has circumvented the process by not nominating anyone. Nominations usually are announced as early as six months before the expiration of a term, but with a few weeks left before Hall leaves office, it is clear no commissioner will be running the bureau through much of 2012.
This has led to speculation that the White House is trying to circumvent the Senate so as to appoint a deputy whose position does not need Senate confirmation, and who would defer to the White House and to politically aggressive Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
One source told PJ Media the president would like to install Betsey Stevenson as the deputy commissioner. Stevenson is a Princeton academic and loyal political ally who worked as chief economist for Solis. Stevenson would be rejected by many in the Senate, which has regarded political allies as inappropriate for running the nonpartisan BLS.
Is anyone surprised that Obama plans to try to influence the employment numbers in 2012 in order to improve his chances of reelection? And that he will do that circumventing the Senate confirmation process to put one of his cronies in that slot with a recess appointment to get around the Senate confirmation process?
Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi is on the case and has written a letter to Obama stooge and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis warning her that efforts to politicize the non-partisan Bureau of U.S. Labor Statistics would be counterproductive, and has also written to Obama’s chief of staff William Daley wanting to know when Obama plans to nominate a new commissioner.
Republicans need to make sure the public is aware of this and in doing so they must understand that the mainstream media are just stenographers for the Obama Administration and aren’t going to be interested in the story. Senator Enzi must get it because he’s talking to PJ Media.
If you plan to vote in 2012, you really need to read all of the story at PJ Media.
Keynesian economics is popular with politicians because it espouses all sorts of things that politicians can and should do to fix a stalled economy.
Hayek’s Austrian economics holds that politicians will be creating more harm than good by doing the things Keynesianism approves of, and that there are only a few things that government should do. Those few things are generally loathsome to politicians because they offer little opportunity for political gain, as least not in the short term. Often the best course of action for economic improvement is for politicians to do nothing.
Examples of good economic times resulting from politicians following Hayek (of course, they had never heard of Hayek or his mentor Ludwig von Mises at the time) are the 1920’s the 1950’s. Harding did little about the panic of 1921 and within 18 months things were back to normal. Coolidge presided over good times in the 1920’s by doing basically nothing.
Examples of good times ushered in by Keynesian policies are ….well, there aren’t any. The Great Depression was caused by government overreaction to the stock market crash on Black Friday in 1929. If government had not restricted the money supply, enacted the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and raised taxes dramatically (all done by or under Herbert Hoover), the market crash would not have led to a recession that resulted in a run on banks that lasted until Roosevelt took office in 1933. But the recession would still not have turned into the Great Depression if Roosevelt had not inflicted the New Deal on America. The only thing that ended the Depression was events beyond the control of the politicians. WW II ended the New Deal and then the Depression ended.
Another example of good times when politicians restrained themselves was the 1950’s. Eisenhower decided he would rather play golf than meddle with the economy, and the country prospered as a result. He’s not remembered as a great golfer, he is remembered as a good president. There is political gain to be had by a politician for following Hayek’s advice, it just doesn’t come in time for the next election.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe raising tax rates at the highest margin will have little or no effect on production, and will enable them to effect greater re-distribution of wealth. Conservatives believe that raising taxes will change the rate of return on investment which will in turn change investment behavior leading to a reduction in production of good and services in the economy as the private sector retreats and government grows, resulting in less wealth creation and less wealth to be re-distributed by liberals.
Conservatives are right; liberals are wrong.
Excepting former Georgia governor and senator Zell Miller, all Democrats are liberals. Not all Republicans are conservatives, however. Some are liberals but differ in important respects from their Democrat counterparts. Republican liberals don’t generally believe much of the nonsense that true liberals believe but they think they will gain politically be adopting some of the liberal jargon and policies, or at least pretending to. Even though they aren’t firmly committed to the liberal ideology they like being in charge of government for the opportunity to control the finances of the country. They know how money talks and they want to have that power. They don’t much care for conservatives and they don’t have any more commitment to conservative principles than for liberal ideology. Seen in this way, liberal Republicans can be more harmful to the country in terms of achieving good government and wise economic policies because they will join forces with liberal Democrats whenever they think it will help them maintain and increase their personal political power. One party pushing liberalism but being held in check by a conservative party is less dangerous to liberty and prosperity than one liberal party running amuck and half the other party going along for the ride, with the conservative wing being forced to operate at half strength while being betrayed by those who should be helping them stop the Democrats.
Examples of such opportunistic liberal Republicans include the obvious such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Snowe and Collins of Maine; sadly, Scott Brown of Massachusetts appears to have joined them. Less obvious and less avowed but still dangerous to limited government and individual liberty are George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. These Republicans are not flaming liberals but they are not conservatives either. They are nevertheless quite worthless to the conservative cause of preserving the sort of government the founders created.
The choice between another four years of Obama with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress (as seems probable), or 4 years of a Romney presidency with Republicans controlling both houses, appears to be Hobson’s Choice. That usually means that while there are two choices apparent, the choices are a matter of form only. The substance is only one choice, and it’s a bad one. The lesser evil would be, in my opinion, to keep Obama with Republicans in control of Congress. Even the liberal Republicans in Congress will understand they have nothing to gain politically in helping Obama impose socialism on the country. The upshot is the country would be better off with an Obama/Republican Congress than a Romney/Republican Congress because four years of Romney pushing liberal policies and Republicans going along because they don’t want to oppose their president will destroy conservatism for good, as the 8 years of George W. Bush so weakened it that we got Obama and a solid Democrat Congress from 2008-2010. In just 2 years that combination so wrecked the economy it will take years to fix it. If the patient is left in the trauma center waiting room for 4 more years because of liberal Republicanism without any counter balance, we’re toast.
Well, I looks like they do. Consider this headline from the Washington Post:
Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations
Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.
I wonder if they are showering him with money because they love him…or because they’re afraid of him. Machiavelli said it is better to be feared than loved.
Considering how Obama is trashing Wall Street and the things he’s trying to do to them, maybe they’re just dumb. Or trying to buy their way out of the jam he wants to put them in. Nah, they know he’s just playing the class warfare card because he can’t run on his miserable record and he’s desperate to get reelected.
It’s not wonderful that Obama is raising more money from Wall Street than Republicans. Frosty relations? That’s BS. There are no Republicans on Wall Street. Main street is where Republicans are found. The plutocrats on Wall Street are very liberal Democrats. They give there money to Democrats, and then Democrats demonize Wall Street. It’s just a political ploy, and it’s effective.
“Long-term unemployment is becoming the defining feature of the Great Recession. As of September, the average time out of work stands at 40.5 weeks. Of the 14 million unemployed, about 45 percent have been jobless for more than six months, and over 70 percent of those have not worked in a year or more. No other business cycle since the 1930s has come close to matching the current experience.”
The longer one is unemployed the closer one etches toward becoming unemployable. Employers would rather hire someone who is currently employed or who has been only recently unemployed. This is nothing new, it’s always been that way. I’ve known it since I was 15 and so always would take any job just to remain employed, because it’s easier to find a job if you already have a job.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I’ve known the hopelessness of not being able to find a job, any job. I once drove a beat-up old car to Portland, Oregon hoping to re-connect with a young lady friend, find gainful employment and start a life of adventure on the West coast. I can’t think about it now without chuckling.
The Portland economy was in a slump in the mid-1960’s, the young lady was busy with other things, and the job search was a bust. I kept lowering my sights knowing that even an employed dishwasher had a better chance of finding a good job that an unemployed, uneducated kid with plenty of drive but no skills. But even the fast food joints weren’t hiring. So I tried getting piece work in the Oregon bean fields. Stoop labor picking beans would at least bring in a little cash, albeit very little. I was told I was of the wrong heritage. Only Mexicans, I was told, had the stamina for that work. A white guy like me would be out of place, and I’d probably drop in the hot sun. Even my protestations that there is no such thing as hot sun in Western Oregon didn’t work. I was at rock bottom, I couldn’t even get a job picking beans at 25 cents a bushel.
That was a nasty experience, but was quickly remedied by moving on to other places where jobs were more plentiful and much easier to get, i.e., The U.S. Navy. Slip of the lip and a trip.
The fortunate part of that experience for me was that I learned firsthand just how dispiriting it is to be unemployed with little hope of coming out of it. That feeling is the absolute worst that one can experience. The sense of self-worthlessness is so overwhelming it can emotionally cripple a person as much as any physical injury.
There must be a few million of the current 14.5 million long-term unemployed that are now experiencing something much worse than what I went through in Portland those many years ago. They might have families and responsibilities they can no longer shoulder. In my case, it was temporary and I had no one but myself to support. I was only in Oregon for two and one-half months. I was young and found an escape by joining the Navy where I was quickly put on a Fletcher class (WW II era) destroyer and kept way too busy to emote on personal matters. Many of today’s unemployed are not young and are aging toward the point of no return. Hope and change? Yes, there has been change for them, a really bad sort of change, and they are looking at a hopeless future.
That will be the legacy of the Obama presidency. This is the result he and his minions intended, in my view. A permanently unemployed dependent class of people to keep the Democrat party in power forever. Hope? Yes, we can hope this diabolical scheme fails. That is what Rush Limbaugh meant and was misunderstood when he said he hopes Obama fails, because if Obama succeeds the people will be saddled with failure. Obama appears to be succeeding, and millions of Americans are living in failure as a result.
Many of these unfortunate are not going to make it out of the hole they are currently in. They are not going to be able to look back on this experience knowing that it’s over and they’re the wiser for it. This life is going to follow them to their graves.
One man, Barack Obama, is responsible for this. May he never be forgiven.
UPDATE: There was once a different sort of president who, unlike Obama, believed in American Exceptionalism. He believed that America uniquely in the world offered opportunity for all men. He praised the American system of economic opportunity of which, he said “the man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him.”
I don’t need say the name of that president. We all know. None of us were alive at that time, but we remember that spirit and that man.
Ann Coulter on Fox and Friends discusses the #Occupy Wall Street Movement and contrasts it to the Tea Party Movement. She explains how they are different [Oh, so different!]. The Tea Party is exactly what good citizens are supposed to do in a democratic representative republic that respects the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [verbatim from the First Amendment]. Perversely, The Tea Party Movement has been accused by Democrats of being a racist mob, but now with #Occupy Wall Street we see what a real mob looks like, with no criticism from Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid. It’s tempting to think this mob was organized by the Obama Administration to win back his fruitcake base of supporters.
Coulter explodes the myth that Wall Street is Republican when the fact-based absolute undeniable truth is that Wall Street supports the Democrats at every turn with their money and morals and never ever Republicans. Wall Street is very much a street in Manhattan, not Dallas.
The other GOP primary candidates are spending their money and political capital making TV ads against each other. Rick Perry is the only one using his resources where it counts — taking the case directly to Obama. Donald Trump did that also and shot up in the polls during his brief dalliance with the GOP nomination. The key to winning the GOP nomination is run against Obama first, and the other GOP candidates second. Perry gets it.
Here is Perry’s new TV ad. It’s highly effective, especially the tornado siren.
“Yawn. It that it? Is that all you got left? Another freaking tax on rich people? Do you have any idea just how pathetic you’ve become? This sort of crap won’t even motivate your base any more.”
— Bill Quick, Daily Pundit, in response to Obama’s announcement that tomorrow (Monday) he will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers.
Of course, if such a plan were passed the unintended consequences would be enormous and not entirely predictable. A market selloff by those with built-in capital gains would be one that is predictable.
In his increasingly desperate attempts to pander to a population that has by now entirely given up on the hope, and barely has any change left, Obama is going for broke (or technically the reverse) by setting the class warfare bar just that little bit higher.
“Millionaire” in Obama’s lexicon is anyone making $200,000 a year. Small business owners, those who would create most new jobs if Obama would take his boot off their necks, are the targets of Obama’s class warfare. For much more on this point, go here.
The coyotes in my back yard have weighed in Obama’s latest proposal:
James Taranto summarizes Obama’s speech in Detroit yesterday…
Obama joined Jimmy Hoffa Jr. in declaring war on “those Tea Party sons-of-bitches,” [Hoffa’s words but Obama seemed to approve wholeheartedly] Jimmy Hoffa thinks the Tea Party Movement is a “war on workers.”
A lady named Mary Miller, in the comments at Powerline Blog, responds to Hoffa:
He’s right- this IS a war on WORKERS. But HE is the one declaring war. The Tea Party is made up of people who WORK. They just want to keep more of what they worked hard for! Also- the Tea Party is a movement- NOT A PARTY- so they are declaring war on AMERICANS, not politicians. If politicians DO side with the movement, it is because they side with the American people who are sick and freaking tired of union a-holes sitting around draining our tax dollars for more and more money for doing less and less work while the ones footing the bill are being squeezed to death to pay for it. Furthermore, his words are certainly NOT metaphorical, they are a DIRECT THREAT. The pResident thinks his words are simply swell though- or he would have decried them otherwise. ANY violence from ANY union member that is in ANY way tied to Hoffa will leave not only Hoffa, but Obama complicit in said violence. Period.
Hoffa’s viciousness came through, to a degree that makes you wonder how he has managed to stay out of the penitentiary all these years.
In the mid-1960’s I had a wonderful job as a Rainbo Bread route salesman. The pay was strictly commission. I made fabulous money for a youngster of 23 in that time and place and loved the work. I worked hard, probably 12 hours a day schmoozing grocery store managers to let me stock tons of my bread in their stores. I took care of my customers, in the evening after returning my truck to the plant I made the rounds of my stores to shelve more bread those managers had allowed me to store in their back rooms, and I pulled up the bread the competition had shoved to the back of the shelf. Consequently, I sold lots of bread and every other Friday my efforts were rewarded with a check for lots of bread.
But one evening a gruff old guy grabbed me by the shoulder and shoved a badge in my face. He was not a cop, he was the “master at arms” of the local Teamsters Union which I was forced to belong by Union Shop rules. Apparently I was breaking some sacred union rule by being out in my stores in the evening working while my competition was drinking beer on their lazy boys in front of the tube. For that infraction I got a butt chewing and a union fine of $100 deducted from my next paycheck. My supervisor at the company apologized for the paycheck deduction and explained that it was in the union contract so there was nothing he could do about it. He went on to say that I was just the sort of person they would like to promote to a supervisory position some day. Then I’d make even more money and I wouldn’t have to belong to the Teamster’s Union.
That was all I needed to hear and I worked even harder to get that promotion. [alas, I went away to college before that promotion]. Like a speeder avoiding traffic cops, I learned how to predict when and where the union goon would be so I could evade capture. This in itself added pleasure to my evening work. Evasion of union fines was pretty easy since the goon was about as lazy as the rest of his union brothers. From this experience in my formative years I’ve had no use for unions or anyone named Hoffa.
I agree with John Hinderaker, it’s a wonder Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. has managed to stay out of prison all these years. It’s also a wonder he’s managed to stay out of a concrete suit.
“Green jobs” is a bust.
There was never a “business” there. From ABC News:
Peter Lynch, a longtime solar industry analyst, told ABC News the company’s fate should have been obvious from the start.
“Here’s the bottom line,” Lynch said. “It costs them $6 to make a unit. They’re selling it for $3. In order to be competitive today, they have to sell it for between $1.5 and $2. That is not a viable business plan.”
The half billion dollar Solyndra fiasco is just the tip of the financial disaster that is being wrought on American taxpayers to fund the mythical dream of “Green jobs” by Obama and his minions. There have been and will be many more since the money the American people produce with their hard work and devotion to duty is just play money to the Obama wastrels. The trouble with “spreading the wealth around” is that the wealth is destroyed in the process and the sum total of it is diminished.
Nice going, Barry. Can’t wait to hear your “major” jobs speech No. 847 next Thursday. We’re sure it’ll be different this time. How much is it going to cost us?
The drive-by state-run media (if those terms are unfamiliar they are explained here) is asking what government can do the create jobs as a way of defending Obama on the theory that politicians in Washington don’t really have much control over whether the economy is good or bad. The Atlantic magazine’s website has one such example: Can Washington Do Anything About Jobs? The conclusion is not much but does offer some examples of a few things Obama and Congress could do.
The Atlantic is right on two out of six proposals offered, and dead wrong on the other four. They leave out several other things that Obama and the Congress could do that would have an immediate and positive effect on employment. Here is my evaluation of the six steps The Atlantic proposes:
First, the Atlantic counsels that pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia be immediately approved. Kudos for that one. It should be done right away and would be positive; free trade is always positive. I give them a grade of “A” for that one.
The next one is to stabilize the housing market but the Atlantic’s proposal involves more government spending that would run up the debt even more and not be as effective as the Atlantic thinks. In fact, it wouldn’t be effective one bit. The best way to stabilize the housing market is for government to leave it alone for once, and allow it to work out all the impending foreclosures. Throwing money at it is more of the same old, same old and would be nuts. Atlantic gets an “F” on that one.
The next one is to allow more oil and gas drilling. I’ll give the Atlantic an “A” on that one.
Now we get to a really stupid idea for creating jobs — stimulate consumer demand by welcoming a new wave of immigrants. Nothing against immigrants, it’s the Keynesian notions the underlie the Atlantic’s reasoning that is wrong. Consumer demand is not the problem. In fact, consumer demand is never the problem. Consumer demand is a function of consumer wealth. The less wealth consumers have the lower their demand for consumer goods. I’ll never understand why this simple concept is so hard for liberals to grasp. A job and a paycheck is needed before most consumers can effectively make their demand for consumer goods into a reality. Consumer demand does not create jobs. It’s the other way around. The Atlantic goes to the back of the class for that one. Big red “F’”
Atlantic’s number 5 comes straight out of the bag of stupid dog tricks. They advocate a mandate that a certain percentage of each utility’s power generation come from low-carbon-emission sources as a way to unleash energy companies spending power. That one is not just nonsense, it’s nonsense on stilts because it will engage utility companies spending their resources on wasteful and ineffective attempts to supply energy. The whole “green jobs” idea is a boondoggle of a false promise.
Finally, they say “explore other deals.” You don’t have to read very far to know this one is not worth a bucket of warm spit. The American people have suffered enough from the “deals” politicians make in their own interest and not in ours. Double “FF” on that one.
The Atlantic gets two A’s and four F’s which equals a GPA of 1.3. Not good enough to get into college, or even to pass to the next grade.
In fact, I’d take away even that low score from the Atlantic for failing to mention the one thing that Obama and Congress could do right now that really would stimulate business investment and job growth almost immediately. Lower tax rates, especially the corporate tax rate, and broaden the tax base. Get rid of all the job-killing regulations that are stifling the economy. Repeal Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Law, Sarbanes Oxley, the light bulb ban, the sugar tariff that has destroyed jobs in the candy industry, and probably about two dozen other stupid laws and regulatory schemes that do little good but hamper economic growth. Another would be eliminate the double taxation of corporate earnings abroad so that Billions of dollars corporations like Apple have sitting offshore, on which they have already paid taxes in the country where the earnings occurred, so those funds could be repatriated to the United States.
A really big thing Obama and Congress could do is to actually take the debt crisis seriously, and actually cut government spending. This would mean real, actual “cuts” not just reductions in the rate of growth of government spending.
Why does the Atlantic leave all of these out of its job creation prescription? Because they’re liberals and cutting taxes, lowering spending, and reducing regulations are all concepts that are never allowed to creep into their thoughts.
Finally, there is one big thing that would have the greatest effect of all on new job creation. Obama could announce that he is not running for reelection in 2012.
Want to see a microcosm of everything that’s been wrong with American economic policy over the last couple of years? Watch this exchange between Ezra Klein and Rick Santelli from earlier today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Santelli, whose February 2009 on-air rant over fiscal and economic mismanagement inspired the start of the Tea Party, gets exasperated with Klein after the Washington Post columnist talks about money moving around “unfairly”:
Ezra Klein is supposed to the new liberal whiz kid at the Washington Post. They’re hurting if he’s the best they’ve got. Money moving “unfairly?” If it’s your money and you move it the way you want, … well, it makes no sense but it’s the sort of nonsense liberals think is cool.
Obama could fix all the country’s growth and unemployment situation very quickly and easily, if only he would. He could cut unemployment in half, stimulate a frenzy of growth and investment leading to economic prosperity with one simple act. All he need do is announce that he is not running for reelection in 2012. The party would be a blowout, the economy would rebound overnight, jobs would become plentiful, and waters would part. He has tremendous power to do good right now, if only he will use it.
Michael Barone says:
“I’m confident that any comparison of economic coverage in the Bush years and the coverage now would show far fewer variants of the word “unexpectedly” in stories suggesting economic doldrums.
“It’s obviously going to be hard to achieve the unacknowledged goal of many mainstream journalists — the president’s re-election — if the economic slump continues. So they characterize economic setbacks as unexpected, with the implication that there’s still every reason to believe that, in Herbert Hoover’s phrase, prosperity is just around the corner.”
Note on the link above: This link takes you to Michael Barone’s column at the Washington Examiner. This website contains obnoxious video ads that autoplay (with audio) when you go to the site. I’ve tried to provide a link that avoids this, but if it doesn’t work just hit the mute button on your computer to get rid of the dreadful audio so you can read the column in peaceful quiet. Barone’s column is worth reading in its entirety, but you have to outsmart the webmaster at the Washington Examiner site trying to spoil it for you.
That’s what Obama said, repeatedly. Ayers, he was just some guy in the neighborhood, hardly knew him. But it’s becoming pretty well documented that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father.
Donald Trump is one of those guys who says things we might like to say but don’t because we aren’t quite sure about it and we don’t want to make fools of ourselves. Trump is going after Obama on his refusal to release his actual birth certificate and put the whole “birther” thing to rest. And tonight he told Sean Hannity that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book.
Pretty soon that one will be established as fact, then we won’t be afraid to say it. I’ll say it. Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book. Of course, to believe that you’d have to believe that Obama told a bald-faced lie when he said Ayers was just a guy down the block and he hardly knew him. Well shucks, that’s easy to believe.
UPDATE 10/17/2011: Interesting video showing Obama’s ability to use time distortion to deflect attention from his association with Bill Ayers at The NLP Technology. You may remember him saying “40 years ago when I was 8 years old Mr. Ayers did despicable acts while associated with a radical domestic group…” Of course, 40 years ago when Obama was 8 years old is not the issue, the issue is Obama’s relationship with Ayers now and in the recent past. John McCain was too dense to point that out, of course. Maybe he was afraid of appearing racist.
The video at the link also shows how Ayers misdirects attention from the real issue in response to a question about his relationship with Obama and makes it appear to be no more than knowing who Obama was, as did thousand of other people. This is similar to him referring to himself in his latest book as “an anti-war activist” when he was making bombs and blowing things up, getting people killed, destroying buildings, and becoming a fugitive from the law. Most of us were “anti-war activists” during the sixties, defined by writing letters to the editor of our student newspaper and arguing with our friends over pizza and beer. Ayers’ activities made him a domestic terrorist and a dangerous criminal.
Rasmussen reports that a new poll of 1,000 likely voters taken on May 22-24 shows 63% favor repeal, the highest level ever. Just 32% oppose repeal. Of those who favor repeal 46% strongly favor repeal and of those opposed 25% strongly oppose. 67% of mainstream voters think Obamacare will be bad for the country while 77% of the political class [I guess that means politicians] think it will be good for
the country them.
Sergeant Joe Friday and Officer Bill Gannon are in favor of repeal, I think.
I suspect that a reason, perhaps the main reason, more and more people are in favor of repealing Obamacare is because more and more people are coming to the realization that Obama, Reid and Pelosi lowballed the cost, i.e., lied, in order to get the bill passed. Americans are sensible enough to know that Obamacare will deliver less health care with lower quality while costing more, probably much more. Obamacare will only do one thing well and that is to help move the United States closer to the Greek model of public bankruptcy, unemployment and stagnant economic growth.
In the next post just below I ask the question whether the push to jam Obamacare through Congress has turned into a giant ego trip for Obama, and Nancy Pelosi as well. This slightly over 1-minute video starkly shows what happens when you prick pins into the ego of a malignant narcissist manchild:
In this video from a hearing in the Florida Legislature on August 28, 2009 Carol Plato, an executive director of Martin Memorial Medical Center in Florida, gives a briefing on the specific costs and liabilities the hospital has incurred while treating illegal immigrants.
It is quite odd that America is hated around the world. American should be the most loved country in the world. Only in America can someone sneak into the country illegally and get the best health care in the world and pay no price either in money or law enforcement action. Other countries forcibly deport, imprison, and generally make the lives miserable of illegal immigrants, while we roll out the red carpet and subsidize their lifestyles.
Obamacare would only make this situation even worse. The Democrats continually dodge the question of whether illegals would get free treatment in hospitals under Obamacare. That means they will. After all, illegals constitute a vast block of Democrat voters. But wait, you say. Illegals can’t vote. It’s against the law for illegals to vote. Heh. That’s what ACORN is for.