Predictions for Obama's Recovery Speech

Tonight Obama plans to go before the nation and put forward his recovery plan version 2.  I'm going to put out my predictions as far as what I'm expecting to hear from him (note: this is far different then what I'd like to hear from him, read further down for details).

1) He'll continue the blame game.  I'm fully expecting he will bring up Bush, the tea party and/or the Republican lead congress and attempt to point fingers at them as the source of all that's wrong with the world today.

2) He'll push for more spending.

3) This goes hand in hand with #2 but he'll push for more government.  He'll use the terms either "shove ready jobs" again or claim we need to rebuild our infrastructure despite the fact we are spending more now on the federal level then ever before in US history.

4) He'll push to give more to states which isn't so much to help states as much as fund state level union jobs.  I'm expecting he'll bring up the fear of losing teachers, fire fighters and police as the examples used.

5) Acting as if the scandal with Evergreen Solar never happened he'll continue to push for more green spending.

6) There will be attacks on the rich who in the view of the left aren't paying their "fair share"

7) #6 will lead into the call for higher taxes on the wealthy and those who can afford it.

8) There will be a call to put more money in the hands of average Americans with extending the Social Security Payroll Tax cut or tax breaks for the lowest level of income earners (read as giving money to those who don't even pay taxes in the first place).

9) He'll call to extend unemployment benefits.

10) He'll call for bipartisan support for his plan and claim we should be working together.

In other words you will be able to pull up a replay of his last few interviews and speeches about his recovery plans version 1 and there wont be much different.  He's going to push for more of the same that isn't working.

If you look at recessions in recent US history and their following recoveries, Obama's so far has been the worst.

Of course that doesn't stop the left from spinning away anyway they can including claiming the chart supplied by the Romney camp claims its attempting to deceive in an attempt to take the focus off the lack of recovery and onto trival issues which require you to incorrectly read the above chart.

What I would like to hear tonight is for Obama to flat out admit his recovery plans have failed and that he needs to try something proven.  I would love to hear that he is going to look at what actually worked under Reagan and follow that guideline to turn this nation around.

Look at what Reagan did that WORKED...
1) Cut Marginal tax rates

2) Put his foot down to government Unions by firing all the air traffic controllers

3) Loosened regulations on the telecommunication industry which created the booming market we still benefit from today

4) Lessened the unfunded mandates the feds place on states

Obama by contrast has...
1) Continued leading a push for higher taxes
2) Bailed out unions and expanded unions on the federal government level
3) Expanded regulations in the health and financial sectors
4) Put even more mandates on state governments and through bail outs gave money with strings attached which lead to even higher demands for state spending.

Unless Obama has some radical new ideas that have never been tried, I'm expecting more of the same of his already failed ideas instead of looking back at history and using ideas that have actually worked.

One last prediction...

I am fully expecting that between tonight and Monday leftwing web sites like Blue Hampshire, Daily Kos and Think Progress will post frantically claiming that a) what Obama said this time is somehow different and new and b) that it is going to be the answer for all our problems.  You'll also see the regular posters on those sites and the regular lefties on sites like the Telegraph and union leader both blaming everyone right of center (and possibly even center too) and cheering Obama's every word.  By middle of next week the papers will have at least a couple letters to the editors doing both as well.  We may very well even get a letter from former congress woman Carol Shea-Porter once the words are given to her from another left wing source.

file://///hqektronapp1/c$/Inetpub/wwwstage/OBRedirect.aspx.cs

Update on Thursday, September 8, 2011 at 08:51PM by Rick Barnes

Let's see how I did:

1) He'll continue the blame game.  I'm fully expecting he will bring up Bush, the tea party and/or the Republican lead congress and attempt to point fingers at them as the source of all that's wrong with the world today.

Obama's comment: "They [Americans] have seen the deck too often stacked against them. And they know that Washington hasn't always put their interests first."

I consider that a correct prediction.

2) He'll push for more spending.

$450 Billion in new spending, correct again.  And as Yahoo points out HERE it's not paid for as he claimed it would be.

3) This goes hand in hand with #2 but he'll push for more government.  He'll use the terms either "shove ready jobs" again or claim we need to rebuild our infrastructure despite the fact we are spending more now on the federal level then ever before in US history.

Obama's statement "The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for the long-term unemployed."

ie more government

4) He'll push to give more to states which isn't so much to help states as much as fund state level union jobs.  I'm expecting he'll bring up the fear of losing teachers, fire fighters and police as the examples used.

See statement in response to #3

Also "Pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. These are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher. But while they're adding teachers in places like South Korea, we're laying them off in droves. It's unfair to our kids. It undermines their future and ours. And it has to stop. Pass this jobs bill, and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong."

Correct again

5) Acting as if the scandal with Evergreen Solar never happened he'll continue to push for more green spending.

Obama's statement "Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can't afford to do both."

Not quite what I expect so I'll say this one is half right.

6) There will be attacks on the rich who in the view of the left aren't paying their "fair share"

100% correct here's one of his statements "Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can't afford to do both."

Also "While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary - an outrage he has asked us to fix. We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share. And I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that, if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order."

7) #6 will lead into the call for higher taxes on the wealthy and those who can afford it.

See comments posted in response to #6.  100% correct on this

8) There will be a call to put more money in the hands of average Americans with extending the Social Security Payroll Tax cut or tax breaks for the lowest level of income earners (read as giving money to those who don't even pay taxes in the first place).

"It will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business."

"Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job."

"Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a fifteen hundred dollar tax cut next year."

100% correct on this one too.

9) He'll call to extend unemployment benefits.

"The plan also extends unemployment insurance for another year."

Bingo, correct again.

10) He'll call for bipartisan support for his plan and claim we should be working together.

In the speech he made 5 references to Democrats and Republicans working together. 

"Everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans - including many who sit here tonight."

"It's the kind of proposal that's been supported in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. You should pass it right away."

"Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber have supported unemployment insurance plenty of times in the past. At this time of prolonged hardship, you should pass it again — right away."

"This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year."

"Every proposal I've laid out tonight is the kind that's been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past."

I'd consider this one correct as well.

Looks like I nailed it.  Much of the same tired ideas that have been pushed out and have not yet worked.

Giving a company a $4,000 break if they spend tens of thousands they don't have on a new position isn't going to help create jobs.  Creating more temporary construction jobs isn't going to give the economy the boost it needs, hasn't with the prior stimulus plans and wont now either.

I really wish Obama had come up with something new and I could have come out and said I was dead wrong on my predictions but sadly I wasn't.

Carol says yes to spending

A recent commentary was posted on this site written by Carol Shea Porter, you can read it in full HERE.  In her piece she quote Ronald Reagan discussing defaulting on government loans.  She takes a quote from 1983 and another from 1987 in an attempt to link them to today's issues with the debt ceiling.

I find it interesting for two reasons.  The main being that Reagan's deficit and later Bush's deficit spending levels were railed upon by democrats for years.  Democrats have maintained that the deficit spending was one of the biggest failures on both their parts and now they are taking a complete opposite claiming this is necessary.

The other part that is interesting is how she manages to take quotes from Reagan completely out of context attempting to paint them as saying something other then what he meant.

Carol wrote:

As Ronald Reagan said in 1983, “the full consequences of a default, or even the serious prospect of default by the United States, are impossible and awesome to contemplate.” In 1987, Reagan called refusing to raise the debt ceiling “brinksmanship” that ”threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits.  Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.”

For starters Carol didn't even write these words herself despite taking credit as if this were her own writing.  She plagiarized "Think Progress" in an article found HERE.  They wrote (back in May):

For months, Republicans have been claiming that they will refuse to raise the debt ceiling — and thus risk the widespread economic consequences of the U.S. eventually defaulting on its debt — unless several conditions are met, including cuts to Medicare and Social Security. In fact, some Republicans have said that they think that default wouldn’t be so bad. “The case has not been made that this is an absolute necessity,” said Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI).

However, Republicans poo-pooing the necessity of raising the debt ceiling might want to look to conservative icon Ronald Reagan. In 1983, Reagan warned that the consequences of failing to raise the nation’s borrowing limit “are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate”:

The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.

In a 1987 radio address, Reagan also said, “Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.”

Sound familiar?  Go back and reread her letter again.  Hmmmmmm.

Another point worth discussing is how in both cases they take Reagan's talking points out of context of the full discussion he was having.  Here's a link to his full 1987 speech.

Reagan isn't saying spending is good, he is upset because Congress (at the time lead by Democrats) continued to push through budgets loaded with deficit spending and rather then address the real problems back Reagan into a corner of having to either default on obligations or increase the debt limit and playing politics, Democrats attempted to paint him the bad guy for wanting to increase the debt limits.

The difference is today Republicans are trying to curb the spending unlike the Democrats in the 80s and once again instead of taking on responsibility, Democrats are now the ones pushing for more of a spending limit.

I would have no problem with signing an extension of the debt limit. But the choice is for the United States to default on its debts for the first time in our 200-year history, or to accept a bill that has been cluttered up.

...

Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility -- two things that set us apart from much of the world.

Some in Congress will claim that if I reject this bill with its Gramm-Rudman-Hollings fix, then I'm against deficit reduction. But, of course, nothing is farther from the truth. Since 1980 when you first elected me to this office, I have led efforts to control Congress' appetite to spend in deficit. Over a 5-year period, while revenues went up 28 percent, congressional spending went up 46 percent. From 1982 to 1987, for every dollar Congress cut from our national defense, they added $2 for domestic spending. Now, that's not fiscal restraint.  Two years ago, Congress took a first step to curb spending with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and I agreed. Its purpose was to get on a track to lower deficits and eventually a balanced budget. Well, the ink was not even dry before Congress walked away from its own plan. Instead of facing the tough choices to reduce Federal spending, Congress attempted to shift the burden to our national security and to you, the American taxpayers, in the form of new taxes.

Read what's being said here.  Unlike today where we have Republicans in Congress trying to curb spending, Reagan had a government under him that refused to stop spending and put him in a position of either having to default on obligations because the money was wasted on other things or approve increased debt limits.

To quote Carol again "Sad, isn’t it?", what's said is that we have a former congress woman who does not understand the federal budget.

It's like this...

Lets say taxes coming into the government is your income.  Now as anyone with a paycheck knows there are taxes being taken each and every day from your check so the government doesn't just get money all at once on tax day, they have a steady flow all year long.

Next, just like we have rent/ house payments, insurance, food costs etc that are obligations we must meet the government too has obligations it committed too.  Salaries for federal employees and military, Social Security payments etc.  Also like us some of those costs can be partially controlled.  Food, while being a necessity comes in different types.  We can spend 99 cents on a box of Mac and Cheese or we can spend $20 for a really good cut of meat.  Likewise the government can hire a few people to run a needed department and get the requirements done or they can create an entire federal level bureaucracy with teams of people.

Next is discretionary spending.  This is money that is not required by any law to be spend and can be stopped at any time.  In 2010 it made up 38% of all federal spending.

Then there's debt, think of this similar to credit cards.  This gives you the ability to spend above and beyond what you take in but you have a minimum payment you must make to pay it back and eventually you hit a limit.

What our government has been doing for years now under both parties is spend more then they have and continually take out more new credit cards.  If we finally max out all the cards we have and the bank (Republicans in congress refusing to increase the debt ceiling) we don't stop getting an income and we don't instantly stop paying out our mandatory obligations or even stop making the minimum payment on our credit cards.  Carol and other tax and spenders however want to make us think that we would, that without giving more credit cards all government would stop.

Of course the biggest laugh I received from Carol's letter was her closing statement:

Although NH members vote with their party at least 95% of the time, I hope they will rise above politics and vote with Ronald Reagan rather than their current leadership.

This is coming from the woman who voted in line with her own party's leadership over 98% of the time and who's party's out of control spending since taking control of both houses in 2006 helped get us to the point we're at today.

Let me leave you with a parting thought, as we continue to hear the debate heat up on the debt limit Democrats like Carol are claiming that Obama and other Democrats are willing to cut spending and point to Obama's willingness to cut $1 Trillion in spending from the budget.

Here's the truth on that statement, he wants to cut it over a 10 year period.  That's only $100 Billion a year in cuts.

The one trillion dollars is then actually $100 billion per year, which breaks down to $273,972,603 cut per day. 

That nearly $274 million a day cut would be great if the administration wasn't averaging over $4.5 billion a day and the cut brings it down to $4.27 billion spent a day!

...

Under Clinton only about $527 million dollars was spent a day and under George W. Bush only $1.7 billion was spent a day.

Even with Obama's $1 Trillion cut he's still spending $2.57 Billion a day more then Bush spent on average.  That's not a cut.  A cut would bring spending down to LESS then it was before Obama took over.

If this sounds familiar it should.  Lynch and company pulled the same stunt here in NH increasing spending by double digits then pulling back 8% of that new spending alone and claiming it was a cut.

Then we wonder why spending continues to spiral out of control.

Carol's stupidity and another key statement made

The debate waging on about what Carol Shea Porter may or may not have said in a round table discussion on ABC is interesting but it's taking away from a key statement made that neither the left nor the right seem to want to discuss.

For starters let's settle the Carol debate once and for all, some are claiming that she made a statement that the Chinese are pumping in special interest money into elections and others such as our friends at Blue Hampshire are claiming she said no such thing.

It's easy enough to prove one way or the other if she said it or not since the video is hosted on the ABC news website HERE.  They also supply the direct quote:

Shea-Porter said watching the growing influence of special interest money had been her biggest disappointment, calling it "awful for democracy."

"I think it's strangling us," she said. "They're in the halls of Congress everywhere, and it means, for example, that you sit on a committee and you say something about concern about Chinese influence or something, you don't even know if in the next election, somehow or another, they manage to send some money to some group that now doesn't even have to say where they got it."

The word "They" underlined above refers back to someone or something, so who exactly would "They" be?  In this case she directly prefaces it with a statement about Chinese influence in elections so "They" would be the Chinese.  And since the video is hosted on ABC's site its fairly easy to watch about 9:40 into it and confirm she did in fact say that.

End of debate, she said it.

Now here's the real story...

In that same round table discussion there was another statement made:

"The Tea Party movement really is quite a bit different than the old Republican conservative movementl, " Castle said. "They're more than willing to take out Republicans, call us Republicans in name only, or whatever it may be. It was one thing when you were dealing with Democrats and Republicans. Now you're dealing with divisions within your own party."

Castle, a known centrist, also said that working with the other party -- the Democrats -- once seen as the cornerstone of a functioning democracy, has become a punishable offense.

Castle also goes on that he's sure democrats are concerned they will soon see division like that in their own party as well.

The question I have in return is, is that a bad thing?

I for one support mostly Republicans because more often then not they are the ones who support smaller government and lower taxes.  When Democrats are pushing to spend an extra $1,000 of my money I don't want a republican who will "work with them" and justify it by saying its at least being spent on my state.  No, I want someone who refuses to work with them and says NO you cannot spend that money!

One of the reasons McCain lost wasn't because he didn't work with Democrats, he did.  In fact it was his working with them that produced the unconstitutional McCain Fiengold bill that stripped away political free speech.  It was his working with the Democrats that cost him votes.

ObamaCare was another perfect example.  Parts of it are already being found unconstitutional.  I don't want republicans who will work with Democrats to produce unconstitutional bills, I want Republicans who will stand up against them and say NO!

And as more Democrats who supported Clinton because of the balanced budget (delivered with help from the Republican house and senate) and attacked Bush II (rightly so) for his out of control spending now see the party that for the past 10 plus years championed itself as the party of Clinton's balanced budget now is spending levels that make the Bush deficits look good in comparison they will see the same thing if Republicans fail to turn things around.

People are sick of both sides.  They are sick of seeing half their incomes taken by local, state and federal governments and they are sick of the fat cat politicians who shrug their shoulders saying there is nothing to be cut and turn to the old fear stand by of police, fire and schools being impacted any time spending cuts are suggested.

The fact that these four wind bags from both parties are sitting arguing that they fail to understand why its a sin to work together on the growing deficits, unconstitutional bills and of all things fear that the Chinese are influencing NH elections proves that the house cleaning this past fall was long over due and I for one don't think we're through yet.

Comeback Carol?

Blue Hampshire ran an article this week stating Carol Shea Porter is considering another bid to run again.

With her favorability rating in the toilet and considering how bad she was beaten in this last election are Democrats seriously that foolish that they'd back her again in 2012?

Winds of Change II

Last week I wrote about the winds of change evident by the increasing number of youth voters registering Republican instead of Democrat.

As I continued through this week's daily commutes to and from work this change is becoming more and more evident.  Nearly every night on my way home, team Guinta supporters have been standing outside the Merrimack library corner waving and holding signs.  There are high school and college age kids and younger women along with some of the local Merrimack Republican candidates running for state rep.  The younger kids and women are those you typically would think of as the Democratic base but yet here they were holding signs for the Republican for Congress.  One with a typical soccer mom with the minivan and everything.  Total shock for me because most of the time you see the mini vans plastered with the pro Democrat bumper stickers.

Wednesday on my way into work was the one exception.  In the morning as I went by the library I saw a few signs being held but I could tell right away there wasn't the same excitement as before.  As I got closer I could see the much smaller group of maybe 4 people were holding Carol Shea Porter signs.  The average age perhaps late 60s and as I came to the light I recognized the faces.  These were members of the local town Democrats who show up for everything pushing for larger government and higher spending.  You know the type, they run for any and every office they can then push to increase the amount of services government provides.

One member of the group served with me on the Merrimack Budget committee.  While he was a nice guy and someone I'd certainly grab a beer with, he was the very definition of a tax and spender.  Never meet a line item he didn't like or a suggested increase he wouldn't support.

I drove slow watching to see if there were waves or horn honks but there weren't any.  I saw one women yell hi because she knew them from town but unlike the Guinta team who were generating waves, honks and thumbs up from passer-byes, I didn't see any of that from Team Carol.