Very low marks for Obama on economy, zero on bipartisanship
The runaway spending of Congress very very obviously cannot be counted on to responsibly spend. They have run up a $10,000,000,000,000.00 debt. They spend without accountability and tax us for even special interest and constituency that will get them elected.
“Fairness” is about giving each their due. But Congess is not oriented towards giving each their due. Its oriented towards staying elected. That’s the way the system is set up. If we do not fight for lower taxes, and demand leaders, particularly a President who will cap spending, take a hatchet and a scalpel to runaway spending, then we all get screwed.
Taxing the crap out of everybody is not the answer. Taxing the crap out of businesses and driving jobs overseas is not the answer either. Obama’s position on this reflects a failure of understanding of this point. Obama’s vote on the farm bill shows his lack of understanding on this point. Obama’s failure to stand up to the leadership of his own party shows he is not up to the job.
Obama’s failure to state any programs he would cut during the debate reflect this. Instead of naming programs, he did three things. One, he gave the usual, quadrennial b.s. about going line by line through the budget. You know what he will find when he goes line by line? He’ll find a lot of bloated programs that he’s promised not to cut because he’s so beholden to all the special interest groups and constituencies he’s made promises toward. And, what makes anyone think he’ll have the guts to stand up to the special interests behind the spending he “discovers”. He has no history of standing up to these interests.
Two, each time he was asked in the debates what he’d cut, he took the opportunity to segue into a laundry list, a Christmas list of what he’d “prioritize” and not cut. Not really answering the question.
Third, he talked about the cost of the Iraq war. Well, the sunk costs of the past, and his irresponsible foreign policies make it sound as if he would spend more, not less, both in American money and more importantly in American blood.
He’s got $700,000,000,000.00 in new spending on top of the huge deficit we’ve already got. Unlike McCain’s new spending, (which is estimated at $200 billion), most of Obama’s is perennial.
Obama’s energy plan, unlike McCain’s, fails to provide and centerpiece offshore drilling, nuclear power, and increased domestic drilling. While both support wind, solar, wave, alternative fuels, and coal, Obama only supports “clean coal” which is a far more limited source. Obama’s reliance on biofuels is more politically motivated than scientifically justified, and besides giving lip service to 5 million energy jobs, he has not provided any details on how those jobs will be created.
Obama’s support of Pelosi and Reid’s sham energy bill and his support of “use it or lose it” to force energy companies to drill where they’ve leased will further decrease our energy supply. Why? Because a lot of times there is a very good reason oil companies are not drilling there. You see, they already have all the motive they need to drill, the profit motive. But when an environmentalist group holds up drilling for one reason or another, why should the oil company lose their lease? If they choose to explore a more promising venue first, why should they lose their lease? If we merely take away their land where they’ve leased, then the government is doing something illegal in vitiating those contracts and, more likely, decreasing our energy supply by forcing us to devote drilling resources to less promising locations and taking away locations the oil companies would eventually drill in. Does he think someone else will come along and drill in those spots instead? That’s a pipe dream. The most promising drilling places are ANWR, and offshore drilling sites. We have more than enough oil than everything we import if we drilled enough at home.
The consequence?? While McCain will cut quickly into the $700 billion per year we send overseas, Obama will not, and may even increase that number. The deficit grows, and our taxes go up.
And another Obama tax secret is the FICA taxes. Those ultra regressive taxes that screw over lower income Americans will continue to rise, but because they are not technically “income tax” Obama does not count those. Obama has not even given lip service to entitlement reform, predicatably steering clear of the social security and medicare/medicaid third rails of politicis.
So, when you say “fair share”, a lot goes through my mind coming back to the same basic problem. Every American is due, in basic fairness, to have responsible leaders, watchdogs if you will, ensuring their leaders are not running amok as tax and spenders. A tax and spend liberal has no place telling people what their fair share is because he is not that responsible leader. He has failed every test of responsibility along the way.
Obama was challenged by McCain to name an example of when he stood up to his own party’s leadership. The best Obama could come up with was tort reform, support for charter schools and pay for performance, and clean coal technology. The groups he allegedly upset with these votes (trial lawyers, the teachers’ union, and environmentalists) have all endorsed him in overwhelming numbers. Why? Because he is misrepresenting his stance as having taken on these special interests and going against his own party.
The tort reform vote was bipartisan, and as McCain noted, overwhelmingly so. This was not standing up to his own party, who voted for tort reform as well.
The charter school and pay for performance vote did not go against his own party either. Why? Because in addition to supporting these additional conservative education approaches, he also supported all the liberal ones. He did not vote against any liberal interest spending measure on education. Not one. So McCain is right in saying that this was “not very convincing.” When a politician thinks standing up to his own party means voting for all their spending proposals on the topic and more besides, look out. He also opposes school vouchers, a litmus test for teacher union support. Even members of his own party in cities who are committed to education have seen the proven beneficial effects on education through the competition engendered by school choice. The benefits of the programs can be debated. But what is crystal clear is that Obama is a disciple of teacher union platforms, not standing up to them.
Last, he says support for clean coal technology does not make him popular with environmentalists. Hmm. Focus on “clean coal” instead of allowing the normal coal mine industry to flourish is the environmentalists pipe dream. Development of clean coal technology has wide bipartisan support. In addition, he has sided with the environmentalists against expanded use of nuclear power, (though saying “safe nuclear” power was okay, as if McCain favored “dangerous nuclear” power, and not at all explaining what he meant, except we know he opposes McCain’s plan to build more nuclear power plants (which would create millions of American jobs) across the country to lower energy costs and utility costs - a known safe use of nuclear power), he has opposed offshore drilling which is estimated to have huge untapped oil reserves, has centerpieces unproven wind energy and solar energy, which though somewhat beneficial will do little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, being utterly unproven though the lovechild of environmentalists’ energy platforms, and has stated he will mandate energy efficient vehicles, which will increase the price of automobiles for all of us by perhaps $10,000 or more per new vehicle. Standing up to the environmentalists? I don’t think so.
Not one of these issues has the Democratic whip asked him to vote differently on. Not one.
