Where America is economically 1,000 days into the Obama Administration

Today marks 1,000 days of President Obama’s administration and the race for the GOP nomination is in full flight with the American economy facing perhaps its biggest challenges since the great depression.

As U.S. Vice President Joe Biden recently told a Florida radio station, ”The U.S. election in November 2012 will be a “referendum” on the Obama administration’s handling of the economy.”

So what is the economic report card for the Obama Administration’s first 1,000 days.

  • Since President Obama took office, the National debt has increased by $4.3 trillion with America now borrowing $4.2 billion each day, to keep the country going. The total National Debt now stands at $14.9 trillion dollars.
  • 6.5 million jobs have been lost in the private sector and 290,00 in the Public sector, in last three years.
  • Four million bankruptcies have occurred during this period.
  • The unemployment rate has been above nine percent for 840 of the 1000 days, and the average unemployed worker has been without a job for more than 9 months.
  • 2.4 Million Homes have been foreclosed on.
  • Health Insurance premiums have increased by on average 13%.
  • 1 in 6 American’s are now officially classified as poor largely due to rising unemployment and 49.9 million American’s are uninsured, the biggest in more than two decades.

In fairness, the President has done some good work by extending the Bush era tax cuts and unemployment benefits. He also saved the automobile industry which regardless of your political view, is a hard fact to deny.

What we have seen from the Obama Administration though is bigger government, more regulations, and massive amounts of government spending in the hope of stimulating the economy. The trouble is that it simply hasn’t worked, as the numbers have shown. President Obama Promised that his $787 billion stimulus would save or create 3.3 million jobs by the end of 2010.  It simply hasn’t, in fact, his stimulus bill has caused nothing but problems with states now seeking more money to keep teachers and other public sector workers on the payroll, President Obama calling for an additional $35 billion funding bill today for the states. There has also been the wasted billions on green energy projects and the no so ready, shovel ready job projects.

The President has been touring the country over the last month, trying to sell his $447 billion jobs package or as most people call it, Stimulus II. It was defeated in the Senate last week on a bi-partisan basis. I actually don’t blame the president entirely for the state of the economy. I blame those academic advisors and special advisors he brought into his administration in the early days. They applied their theories without really having the practical experience of working in the economy ironically, a lot of the criticism’s which people are labelling against Herman Cain and Mitt Romney at present is based on their having real life experience. Where are President Obama economic experts 1,000 days down the road, they’ve abandoned the sinking ship.

The two big strategic mistakes President Obama did make in his first 1,000 days are as follows; firstly, he should’ve waited until his second term to pursue and implement his signature piece healthcare legislation “Obamacare”. The first mistake he made is what President Bush Snr (41) made, if you don’t look after the domestic economy, you can have all the success in the world on every other front however, people want jobs and want to know they are better off now, then they were four years ago. President Obama should’ve focussing on getting the economy right in his first term and leaving Obamacare until his second term.

The second mistake President Obama has made strategically in his first 1,000 days is not moving to the center and working with the Republican Congress after the mid-term election defeat. In 1994 when the Republicans won control of Congress under the Contract of America with Speaker Newt Gingrich, then President Bill Clinton knew in order to get re-elected, he had to work with the Republicans and move to the center. President Clinton did and worked effectively and in fact, gained the upper hand winning over independent voter by the time the next presidential election came around in 1996. It is Independent voters that decide the outcome of elections not the respective party faithful.

President Obama with all respect may be the only person who believes he has done a good job on the economy. Beyond that, he may be the only person who believes his current rhetoric and embracing of protests against entrepreneurs and successful and hardworking people, will get him re-elected next year and win over independent minded voters although I sincerely doubt it.

The eventual GOP nominee needs to emphasise the best of American traditions and empower the private sector, liberalise the markets and stimulate the education system to restore America’s economic engine. It will require strong leadership, collaboration and the involvement of expertise from both the public and private sectors until the economy is back in good health. It will require sacrifice in the short term and there will be no short term fixes.

Above all, it is clear that the rhetoric going into next years election is going to be based on class warfare and aimed at dividing people something President Obama promised he wouldn’t do. It is a very sad day when a president resorts to that tactic in order to win an election.

I would hope that any GOP nominee has the courage and conviction to refrain from engaging in such low level politics and be a president for all the people regardless of creed, colour or religion.

Electing Democrats in 2012 Will Be Really Difficult with Leaders Like Wasserman-Schultz

Bookmark and Share   This morning on Fox News, Democrat Party Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an under-liberal congresswoman from Florida went out of her way to articulate that people do not elect leaders to create jobs.

Debbie is partially right.

Republicans understand that politicians and governments do not create jobs, at least jobs that are sustainable and produce the type of profits  that lead to creating more sustainable jobs. Meanwhile Democrats like Wasserman Schultz and President Obama believe that government is the entity that needs to create jobs. This ignores the fact that more government jobs simply create more government spending, and requires more funding through additional taxation.

However, this morning, Schultz defied both actual logic and liberal logic.

When Fox News host Gretchen Carlson punctuated a point by stating that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believes that with a Republican President, the nation can create jobs, Wasserman Schultz laughed and stated, “that’s not why people elected leaders though”.

That should come as news to her liberal colleagues and it sure as heck contradicts everything she claimed in her years of liberal service prior
to today. As shown in the video below, Wasserman Schultz is on record claiming that creating jobs is the only thing people want from their leaders.

But liberal hypocrisy aside, Wasserman Schultz is right, but for all the wrong reasons.

People should not elect their political leaders to create jobs.  However, one of the reasons they should elect a political leader is for their
ability to allow government to create an atmosphere that allow the American people to create jobs through the free market. That is a point which Democrats and President Obama have not been able to comprehend. It is also why the unemployment rate is stuck at an historically long sustained high of 9.1%, why our economic growth has slow to stagnant, and part of the reason why our debt is at a record 70% of our GDP and growing higher every day.

Meanwhile, Debbie Wasserman Schultz keeps proving that she is probably one of the G.O.P.’s best friends in the world.

While she is a veritable fount of stupidity and contradiction, she is an accurate representation of liberal thinking and therefore a perfect
representative her Party, which as its national chair, Wasserman Schultz certainly is. I’m hoping that in an attempt to at least keep a portion of the women vote, President Obama dumps ol’ Joe Biden and puts Debbie on the Democrat ticket as his vice presidential running mate. Such a move would help expedite what is already a precipitous demise of the left and their Party as we approach 2012.


Bookmark and Share

Even the “Average Joe” Knows President Obama Can’t Win in the Obama Economy

Bookmark and Share  Vice President Joe Biden is probably one of the G.O.P.’s best friends.  He has a real propensity for always saying the right thing ………..for Republicans.  His latest statements to verify that came Thursday at the Washington Ideas Forum, an invitation only, two day forum for leading newsmakers at the Newseum in Washington, DC. The event is sponsored by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute.

During an appearance at the forum, Biden stated that  the shaky economy has left many Americans in “real trouble“, and made clear that the Republican Party is strong enough to beat President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.  Note how he said “President Obama” and not “us“.  Joe may be dumb but he is not without an ego that would prohibit him from sharing the blame for the economy that he said will be responsible for the defeat.

According to Joe, a significant majority of the American people don’t believe the country is moving in the right direction. You think?  He adds that such a public perception is never a good place to be going into re-election (no kidding), regardless of whether it is the current administration’s fault or not.

Biden defended the Administration though when he suggested that the economy has still greatly improved under President Obama.  He states that he is  counting on voters recognizing how deep the recession was and how much the economy has improved under the Obama Administration.

To be fair, credit must be given when it is deserved.  Joe is right about the strength of the Republican Party going in to the 2012 presidential election.  However, honesty is not always welcome in politics, especially if you are a liberal trying to promote the benefits of unsustainable spending, increased taxation, and socialist policies.  For that reason, the Vice President is not likely to get a pat on the back and hear a sincere thank you from the President for his honesty.  Instead he might hear something more along the lines of “Way to go, Joe.  Thanks for the encouraging words”.

The episode does demonstrate one thing though.  It shows us that the Administration sees the writing on the wall.  So much so that even the “average Joe” can read it.  That means that the Obama re-election team is surely preparing a campaign based on desperate attempts to run an extremely negative campaign against the Republican ticket, regardless of whose names are on it.  If they understand that voters will have very little reason to support the Obama-Biden ticket for reelection, there only chance will be to make the opposition look worse.  That means that while the President will try to resort to discussing issues with little detail and great flowery, rhetoric, His surrogates and ad men will be attacking attacking the Republican ticket with verbal assaults that are based on personal matters, and far-fledged distortions of records.

This conclusion is only verified by Joe Biden.

His comments on the 2012 election at the Washington Ideas Forum offer us a glimpse of the Administration’s mindset.  They know that they can’t win on the one issue that is likely to dominate the election…… the economy.  Oh they will try to wage class warfare, they will incite the anger of their big union base and take advantage of the underprivileged.  They will even play the blame it on Bush card and try to morph the Republican presidential nominee into Bush.  But in the end, the American people understand that saying that sat upon President Truman’s desk and read, “The buck stops here”.   And the fact that no bucks are flowing in to the economy, will only make most voters more aware of who is responsible for that.
Bookmark and Share

Is Cain Trying in Iowa?

No, if you believe his now former Iowa director Tina Goff and Kevin Hall who was in charge of coordinating for the Iowa straw poll in just over a month.  Jim Zeiler has also left the Iowa staff and Cain lost his New Hampshire director earlier this week.  When it comes to managing a campaign, things are not looking good for Cain.

On the other hand, Cain is looking good in the Iowa polls.  Most recently he came in second only to perpetual front runner Mitt Romney and remade Michelle Bachmann.

Will the Guiliani gamble work for Cain?

The problem is that Cain has not done or said anything to differentiate himself from Michelle Bachmann.  Going into this race he had perhaps set himself apart as a more “serious” candidate, and certainly took on early momentum from the TEA Party.  But Bachmann easily out-shined him in the debate and continues to make the right steps even in the face of extreme character assassination.  Bachmann’s successes have made her detractors appear to be less “serious”.

In the meantime, Cain is reducing himself to soundbite worthy quips and small government platitudes while his substance seems to be a foggy mirror of the clarity Bachmann has produced.  The result is that Cain is quietly slipping into the shadows where other candidate copies, like Gary Johnson (generic brand Ron Paul) and Jon Huntsman (Mitt Romney clone only the media is excited about) reside.  Bachmann is quickly taking the TEA Party energy.

In some ways, Cain brought this on himself.  His radio host style speeches leave little substance to hang one’s hat on and his brief handling of gay marriage in the debate has alienated him from the religious section of the TEA Party.  In addition, at times he has seemed clueless on some of the more detailed issues such as right of return for a Palestinian state.  This still puts him miles ahead in knowledge from someone like Joe Biden who wanted a three state solution for Iraq.

Cain does have one demographic that still turns out strongly in support of him, and that is the African American conservatives, moderates, and independents.  Many of these who helped turn Florida blue for Barack Obama and are now disenchanted with his policies are indicating strong support for Cain.  Whereas Iowa is turning out to be a fiscal versus social conservative battle between Romney and Bachmann, all important Florida may end up being a fiscal versus social conservative battle between Romney and Cain. Real Clear Politics shows Cain in second place to Romney in Florida out of current candidates, but large percentages going to Huckabee and Palin.  It will be interesting to see how those Palin and Huckabee supporters break by the time we reach Florida.  It won’t be for Mitt Romney.

If Cain can survive until Florida and then capitalize on it, losing Iowa might not be that big a deal.  Then again, perhaps he should talk to Rudy Guiliani about that strategy.

Mr. President, Are You A Flake?

As Michelle Bachmann approaches the top of the Republican field, she is facing even more intense scrutiny.  In the same week as Obama’s medal of honor gaffe, an unlikely interviewer has proven among the most unfair to Bachmann.  Chris Wallace of Fox News asked her directly: “Are you a flake?”

Is Bachmann a serious candidate? Iowa seems to think so.

Wallace was giving credibility to those who seem to hold this bias against Bachmann, whether he realizes it or not.  But an even more serious question is if Wallace would ask any other candidate that?

Joe Biden could have been living in a cave for the last two and a half years and no one would have known it.  There is a good reason for that.  Biden had more gaffes per month in his campaign than Bachmann has had in a lifetime.  And Obama, the great orator, is not immune either.  From following his teleprompter off a metaphorical cliff on more than one occasion to making his appearances before the British royalty look like something out of a comedy movie, Obama has embarrassed himself over and over again on both national and international stages.

I don’t recall Bush ever having to sit down to have a beer with a cop because he put his foot in his mouth.

Bachmann’s answer was brilliant, giving Chris Wallace her history as a tax attorney, state senator and House representative, her education history and her family history.  Remember the good old days when we got to compare Bush and Kerry’s college transcripts to see who got more Ds?  And Obama, for being a Harvard constitutional law professor really doesn’t seem to know anything about the constitution.

So what is it about conservative women that seems to earn them “flake” status in the media, even as an acknowledged and valid perception?  Is this sexism pure and simple?  Palin and Bachmann seem to be treated interchangeably in the media, especially on the conservative side.  Remember George Will saying Palin was unpresidential because she watched her daughter in Dancing with the Stars?  Funny how Obama is amazingly Presidential when he not only kisses babies, but rocks them to sleep on the campaign trail.

 

Seven Versus One

The debate is over and there is a clear loser.  Whether by pact or we just got candidates this good, Obama was the only one with a target on his back last night.  Even Pawlenty wouldn’t take the obvious bait to attack front runner Mitt Romney.  The result was a debate of seven on one, and the One wasn’t there to defend himself.

The other loser in last night’s debate was CNN’s John King who amidst annoying grunts failed to turn the candidates on one another.  Even when he tossed Palin’s name out as an easy target for Republicans seeking to moderate, the response came from Tim Pawlenty and it was perfect.  Joe Biden has failed in every aspect as a Vice President, his views on Iraq were completely wrong, and Sarah Palin would be a better president than Biden or Obama.

Can Bachmann break through media created stereotypes?

The candidates handled tough hot button issues amazingly well also.  The shining example here was Michelle Bachmann who deflected an easy gotcha by making it clear that the role of the President and the role of the states in determining the fate of gay marriage is not equal.  She provided a balanced states rights view, while promising to protect the states from the courts if it came to that.  The other good answers on gay marriage were Ron Paul, leave it to the church and get government out, and actually Rick Santorum who explained that a constitutional amendment would require the approval of 75% of the states, something opponents rarely mention.  Cain appeared to struggle the most on the muslim staff question.

While there were no clear winners, I believe this debate showed two classes of candidates.  Michelle Bachmann led her class of fired up TEA Party approved candidates fighting for principled social and fiscal conservatism with unmeasured attacks against Obama and willingness to take heat for their views if deemed controversial.  Cain is included with this group, although he appears now more as a TEA Party candidate who jumped in feet first and now is searching for substance beyond catchphrases and buzz words.  He did not find that moment last night.  Ron Paul’s anti-establishment libertarianism may catch up to him this year when all the Revolution liberals realize that he does not support any federal entitlement programs.  Santorum failed to set himself apart as anything but a sacrificial lamb for 1st term George W. Bush style conservatism.  While they all performed well, Bachmann outshined this group.  Given the TEA Party’s success in 2010 and their conservative appeal, I would not write this group off.

The other group becoming apparent are the “intellectual”, restrained conservatives in Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty.  Their answers would not pass a soundbite test, but they were clear, well thought out, and flawless.  At the same time, these three touted socially conservative views and credentials which should make each one palatable for any Republican voter.  Newt was in a tough place and would need to be the only shining candidate last night to pull his campaign out of the rubble.  His performance was near flawless and enough to start the rebuilding process, but not good enough to bring him in from the dog house.  And while he may be right about ensuring that America is on board with the Paul Ryan plan, he is sure to take more heat for some of his comments last night.

Tim Pawlenty was perhaps the closest thing to a winner last night.  He made a great case for his pro-life record, perhaps settled some social conservatives with his call for his stance on homosexuality, connected with union and blue collar America, and magnanimously skipped a golden opportunity to play John King’s game and trash the front runner.  While the left-wing media rakes Pawlenty over the coals for his choice, conservatives should take a much closer look at a candidate who knows the enemy.

Mitt Romney will remain the front runner after last night.  The campaign has been nearly effortless for him sofar, and he made no mistakes that would cause him to lose his front runner status last night.  But he shouldn’t get too comfortable.  With Huntsman entering the race and with Rick Perry and Rudy Guiliani mulling Presidential runs of their own, the space Romney and Pawlenty occupy could get real crowded real quick.

In the end, the field last night did what they had to do.  They stayed focused on the economy and Obama.  They did not bite on questions obviously designed to turn them against each other and other Republicans.  They agreed with one another publicly and showed that any one of them is better than and can beat Barack Obama in 2012.

%d bloggers like this: