Hit Piece Misses

The day after Scott Walker demonstrated the sheer might of the conservative vote over the power of public unions, media outlets are doing everything they can to find something else to talk about.  For example, Ross Tucker at The Exchange writes “Republicans Bungle the Battle Over Light Bulbs”.  His article is all about how Republicans are preventing Americans from saving money by preventing Democrats from making incandescent light bulbs illegal.  Apparently, the only way Americans know how to buy economically is if the government eliminates all non-economical options as determined by bureaucrats in DC.

In other news, MSNBC tried to say that the Walker win was a great thing for Obama because the exit polls that showed Walker barely surviving also showed Obama winning in Wisconsin.  Of course, Walker didn’t barely survive, but instead creamed his opponent by a 7 point margin.  If you adjust exit polling by the actual results of the election, Romney will have the distinction of being the first Republican President to win Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan.

AP highlighted Elizabeth Warren tweeting about Scott Brown’s no vote the Democrat equal pay bill that would unintentionally make more women unemployable.  I’m not sure why Warren needs an equal pay bill for women; she already got her affirmative action benefits for being a “Cherokee”.

But the best hit piece was a headline from Rick Newman at US News & World Report stating that Mitt Romney’s desire to sell the government owned GM stock would cost taxpayers $15 billion.  Or as his headline put it, “Mitt Romney’s Stance on GM Sale Would Cost Taxpayers Dearly”.  What a headline.

Newman himself reviews the reason we have GM stock in the first place, but can’t seem to make the connection that the losses to taxpayers from GM might actually be Obama’s fault.  When GM was faltering and heading into bankruptcy, instead of selling GM to Italy like he did with Chrysler or allowing them to go through the legal bankruptcy protection process, Obama funneled about $25 billion dollars into GM making the US taxpayer a Wall Street shareholder.  He did the same thing with AIG and Citigroup.

When it comes to playing Wall Street fund manager with our tax dollars, Obama sucks. I wonder what Occupy Wall Street thinks about our Wall Street fund manager-in-chief?

When GM re-emerged on the market at $35 a share, Obama did not cut our losses and sell.  Instead he held on to GM with our tax dollars.  GM has now dropped to $21 a share according to Newman’s article.  Newman admits that GM would have to reach $52 a share in order for taxpayers to recover the original money Obama invested in GM.

The premise of Newman’s article is that we don’t need any of our money back and can wait to see if GM makes it back to $52 a share.  Of course, at this point GM would have to more than double in value.  Newman thinks this could happen by the end of 2013.  I’d like to know what he is smoking and where I can get some.

Large cap stocks rarely double in a year.  Large cap stocks freshly out of bankruptcy with 60% of their common stock shares owned by a government who is just itching to sell may never double in price. Romney is wise to cut our losses.

By Newman’s own math, Obama cost taxpayers $8.7 billion by not selling when GM peaked at $39.

Newman was trying to use fuzzy math to make Romney the bad guy for cleaning up the President’s taxpayer funded investment.  Instead, he unintentionally presents a clear indictment of one more foolish Wall Street fund manager: Barack Obama.

Obama: For Tax And Spend…Before He Was Against It

Obama the penny pincher?

Obama has been exposed in yet another blatant campaign lie.  This one wasn’t even really his fault.  Rex Nutting, a writer for the mainstream/yet left leaning Marketwatch prepared a chart that shows Obama hasn’t really grown spending all that much.  The administration quickly ran with it, putting the chart on their facebook page, and announcing that Obama was a model of fiscal restraint.

So how does this economist at Marketwatch, and now Obama and media reporters who can barely add two and two, come to figure out that Obama is so thrifty?  Simple.  Their percentages make one major assumption that makes the percentages meaningless.  Every dollar of spending in the first year of a President’s term is directly a result of the budget the previous President wrote.

To put it simply, the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill that Obama ran on, lobbied for, pushed through the Democrat super majorities in the House and Senate, and signed was actually spending that should be attributed to Bush.  Of course once you do that you have majorly inflated Bush’s spending and deflated Obama’s spending so that percentages make Obama look like a champ.  I’m not making this up.  This is actually what Rex Nutter did.  He also included 2013 in Obama’s figures even though Obama’s budget lost in the Senate something like 99-0.

The footnote is misleading. Nutter means only $140 billion of the Stimulus (the portion passed in October) is attributed to Obama.

Nutter should be fired, but who is going to fire him?  Journalists rely on people like Nutter to be the “experts”.  That way they don’t have to actually do any work.

“I was for tax and spend, before I was against it!”

Obama’s budget cuts the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years.  Of course, like Clinton’s last budget in office, it is simply words on a page that have absolutely no bearing on reality.  But nevermind the fact that $4 trillion over the next ten years wouldn’t cover Obama’s deficits for his first four years or that his numbers are probably about as accurate as the CBOs estimate of the costs of Obamacare.  Since when did Obama decide he was against tax and spend??

Obama, on the one year anniversary of what Nutter seems to think was Bush’s stimulus, praised the stimulus package as having saved us from another great depression.  So shouldn’t we be thanking Bush?  While Obama has been running as a tax cutting President who pinches pennies on his facebook page, just a couple weeks ago he re-affirmed his tax and spend stance in the upcoming debt ceiling debate.  Obama went from tax and spend, to proud tax cutting President when he was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts, to tax and spend when the debt ceiling debate rolled around again, and back to tax cutting for the 2012 election.  Even John Kerry was more consistent.

Biting the hand that feeds them

It is not coming up all roses for the Obama propaganda machine.  Obama is betting the farm on a populist attack against Bain Capital where Romney used to work.  But the Left has been heavily funded by private equity, and most private equity companies didn’t get the memo about Obama just saying whatever it takes to get elected.  Some of them are actually getting offended by the attacks.

Democrats are getting nervous too.  Apparently not every Democrat feels comfortable biting the hand that feeds them.  But what else does Obama have to attack Romney on other than the fact that he is successful and the “independent” liberal voting base is anti-success?

The attack on Bain is dubious anyway.  As a venture capital company, they may have had lots of layoffs on their watch in order to fix businesses, but Obama has seen 2.5 million net jobs lost on his watch.  Actually, let me borrow some Obama math and accuracy and adjust that number to 6.7 million jobs lost.  After all, if the net loss is 2.5 million, but Obama claims he added 4.2 million, then shouldn’t we be using the total jobs lost figure instead of the net?  Just trying to be consistent, Mr. President.

Obama is running as a conservative while acting like a liberal.  When conservatives force his hand, he is happy to take credit for the results.  When liberalism fails, he is happy to pass the buck to Congress or the previous administration.  He will say or do whatever it takes to win re-election and cannot be trusted.

%d bloggers like this: