Pres. Obama “Divider-in-Chief”

Today, President Obama held a press conference to talk about the economy and his jobs plan. Of course, this meant blaming everyone but himself for the poor economy, especially conservatives in the House, even though Democrats in the Senate are the ones keeping the bill from being voted on – but fat chance the President would admit that. Anyway, as always, his speech, and answers, were filled with misleading and flat-out false statements.

“Our economy really needs a jolt right now. This is not a game. This is not the time for the usual political gridlock. The problems Europe is having today could have a very real effect on our economy at a time when it’s already fragile. But this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn if the situation in Europe get any worse. It’ll boost economic growth. It’ll put people back to work.”

Not a game? He knows this bill can’t pass either House and that even Democrats have spoken out against the bill, so how is this not a political game of his creation?

Then, of course, he blames Europe for our problems, and claims that more massive government spending is the answer – even though that’s exactly what’s caused the problems in Europe. The first stimulus was supposed to rescue the economy, now the President and the left say it halted the collapse. So another one of these bills is supposed to prevent another downturn? If that’s his sole goal, then we’re in more trouble than we know.

“And by the way, this is not just my belief. This is what independent economists have said — not politicians, not just people in my administration.”

“Independent” economists who agree with him? There’s not one “independent” economist that disagrees? They don’t sound so “independent” to me.

“So as we look towards next week, any senator out there who’s thinking about voting against this jobs bill when it comes up for a vote needs to explain exactly why they would oppose something that we know would improve our economic situation at such an urgent time for our families and for our businesses.”

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin – a Democrat at 8% on Heritage Action’s scorecard – already has.  He summed it up by saying, “The ugly part of that act is $450 billion of spending, after we’ve spent, spent, spent.”

“This jobs bill would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in America. If you’re a small-business owner that hires someone or raises wages, you would get another tax cut. If you hire a veteran, you get a tax cut.”

All tax cuts are not equal in terms of long-term job creation. It cut’s the payroll tax even further, which pays for social security, which is going bankrupt. The other tax cuts will only help businesses that are already planning to hire, no business would decide to hire someone just because they would receive a temporary credit. If they don’t need the person they won’t hire them.

“Hundreds of thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers have been laid off because of state budget cuts. This jobs bill has funding to put a lot of those men and women back to work. It has funding to prevent a lot more from losing their job.”

As we’ve said over and over again, once this money runs out, the jobs will be gone and we’ll be right back where we are now. If the first stimulus had worked as planned, then those teachers and firefighters who were given jobs would have spent money and stimulated the economy to the point where we wouldn’t need this second stimulus. Obviously, that didn’t happen, why would it happen this time?

“…in Maine, there is a bridge that is in such bad shape that pieces of it were literally falling off the other day. And meanwhile we’ve got millions of laid-off construction workers who could right now be busy rebuilding roads, rebuilding bridges, rebuilding schools. This jobs bill gives them a chance to get back to work rebuilding America. Why wouldn’t we want that to happen? Why would you vote against that?”

It’s really a bad thing for the President of the United States to essentially tell people they’re driving on bridges that could collapse beneath them. Then again, we heard this with the first stimulus, but the bridges went unfixed. Why would that change this time?

“The proposals in this bill are not just random investments to create make-work jobs. They are steps we have to take if we want to build an economy that lasts.”

No, that’s exactly what they are. Because they are the same proposals from the first stimulus and those jobs are gone now because the money ran out. Clearly they didn’t build an economic recovery that lasted.

“Now, what’s true is we’ve also got to rein in our deficits and live within our means, which is why this jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. And some see this as class warfare. I see it as a simple choice: We can either keep taxes as — exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates in some cases than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.”

Sure, the bill is fully paid for in theory, but history shows tax increases don’t bring in as much revenue as predicted and even President Obama acknowledged – back in 2008 – that raising taxes in a bad economy is, well, bad for the economy.

He continues to claim that millionaires and billionaires pay less than working Americans, even though this has been disproven over and over again. President Obama is essentially telling the American people to give him their money because he thinks he can spend it better. Solyndra?

“There are too many people hurting in this country for us to do nothing, and the economy is just too fragile for us to let politics get in the way of action.”

Because of the tax hikes included in the President’s deficit “reduction” plan, it would actually be more beneficial to do nothing than to pass this bill. If the government truly wanted to act, then removing loopholes, lowering tax rates and regulations would be the way to go about it.

“…each time what we’ve seen is games-playing, a preference to try to score political points, rather than actually get something done, on the part of the other side. And that has been true not just over the last six months. That’s been true over the last two and a half years.”

Yes, of course, his entire Presidency has been hampered by those darn Republicans, despite the fact that his party had control of Congress for the first two years and a filibuster-proof Senate for much of that time.

And about that games-playing, is he seriously claiming that liberals never do that? What about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filling the amendment tree with a China currency bill so he can avoid voting for the President’s jobs bill? Is that not a game?

“You know, my understanding is that for the last decade they’ve been saying we need to lower taxes for folks. Well, why wouldn’t we want to do that through this jobs bill?

We know that we’ve got roads and bridges and schools that need to be rebuilt, and historically Republicans haven’t been opposed to rebuilding roads and bridges. Why would you be opposed now?”

President Obama came to Washington claiming he would change things. Now every time someone opposes him he claims he’s only doing what’s been done before. The reason conservatives are opposing this spending is because they’ve seen how it hasn’t worked and has only damaged the economy further.

“If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they’re opposed, and what would they do.”

Republicans have been telling him why they oppose this bill. It’s getting really aggravating to keep hearing our President claim they have no plan or haven’t done this or that, but in reality, he’s just ignoring what they’re saying and then telling people they have no plan. And of course the liberal media has graciously played along.

“We know that this jobs bill, based on independent analysis, could grow the economy almost an additional 2 percent. That could mean an additional 1.9 million jobs. Do they have a plan that would have a similar impact, because if they do, I’m happy to hear it. But I haven’t heard them offer alternatives that would have that same kind of impact, and that’s what we need right now.”

Rolling back regulations and lowering the tax rates to make them more fair and competitive would do the trick. And it would create lasting demand, not temporary demand, like the President’s plan does.

“The payroll tax cut that we passed is set to expire. The jobs plan includes an extension of the payroll tax cut. Now, if that is not extended, then that is over a thousand dollars out of the pockets of the average American family, at a time when they’re already feeling a severe pinch.”

Allowing Americans to keep more of their own money is great, but as we’ve said over and over again it is not a long-term job creation strategy.  It adds so little to each paycheck that it’s not noticed, spending isn’t increased because of an extra eighty bucks each month.

“…the approach that the Senate is taking I’m comfortable with”

This was in response to the millionaire’s tax proposed in the Senate. President Obama is completely comfortable taking $447 billion more from Americans to pay for his jobs plan.

“I think maybe even higher than 70 percent agreed with the approach that I talked about, which was we should have a balanced approach to deficit reduction.”

70%+ also want a balanced budget amendment, but the President never acknowledged that.

“And what the American people saw is that the Congress didn’t care — not just what I thought, they didn’t care about what the American people thought. They had their own agenda.”

It’s not that conservatives didn’t care, it’s that sometimes it takes more than a sound bite to explain the insidious nature and consequences of big-government policies. The first two years of President Obama’s term was spent trying to sell policies to the American people in glowing, poll-tested language.

“But what I’ve also said is that for us to have a healthy financial system, that requires that banks and other financial institutions compete on the basis of the best service and the best products and the best price, and it can’t be competing on the basis of hidden fees, deceptive practices or, you know, derivative cocktails that nobody understands and that expose the entire economy to enormous risks.”

Notice how he mentioned exposing “the entire economy to enormous risks.” Yes, banks make risky investments. Remember this for later, because the President talks about risks when mentioning Solyndra. Somehow, it’s not okay for these banks to take calculated risks (with money we the people voluntarily give to them) but it’s perfectly okay for the federal government to do that (with money taken from us?)

“And what we’ve seen over the last year is not only did the financial sector, with the Republican Party in Congress, fight us every inch of the way, but now you’ve got these same folks suggesting that we should roll back all those reforms and go back to the way it was before the crisis.”

The President claims that Dodd-Frank solved all the problems of the financial sector’s past. This is commonplace in Washington: claim a bill does something and say that anyone who opposes the bill is against [insert whatever]. He claims that Dodd-Frank ensures there will never be another financial crisis, so anyone who opposes it must want another collapse. However this is not true, Dodd-Frank basically solidifies the “too big to fail” status of banks and prevents smaller banks from ever growing. Also, the rule requiring banks to charge no more than 24 cents for debit card swipes for businesses has led to banks, like Bank of America, now charging fees for checking, when they used to be free.

Did President Obama seriously believe that banks would just eat $6.9 billion a year in losses? Even if all the executives took big pay cuts I suspect they would not add up to that amount.

“And that’s why it was important for us to put in place financial rules that protect the American people from reckless decision-making and irresponsible behavior.”

Like your “green” energy loans that have gone sour? The President was warned repeatedly that Solyndra was a bad investment but he forged ahead anyway – recklessly and irresponsibly. And the President would like you to believe that Solyndra is the only failure, when in face Evergreen Solar, and SpectraWatt have also gone out of business after receiving stimulus funds. The non-profit National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado has also just announced it would shed 10% of its workforce – even though it received $200 million in stimulus funds.

“Now, we knew from the start that the loan guarantee program was going to entail some risk, by definition. If it was a risk-free proposition, then we wouldn’t have to worry about it.”

There you go, it’s okay for him and his administration to take risks with taxpayer dollars but it’s not okay for Wall Street to do the same.

The bottom line is this: the President’s second stimulus contains the same policies that failed to stimulate the economy the last time around and include more of the same risky loans that are failing.

Please Share Your Thoughts