Jeff O'Bryant
Despite confirmation of what many suspected to begin with, there is nevertheless no satisfaction in seeing the wreckage of Obama's administration belching choking clouds of despair across the political and social landscape. The smart money was on an Obama failure from the beginning (no experience, no ideas, no plan, and no clue) but when a failed presidency of this magnitude occurs there is so much collateral damage that even those who abhor the president's degenerate philosophy of spreading other people's hard-earned wealth around, forcing socialized medicine down our throats, and spending ourselves into oblivion are tempted to feel a bit sorry for him.
But it is a feeling that quickly passes as one realizes that Jimmy Carter is no longer, and by a long shot, the worst president in living memory. Part of the disgust I personally feel - and this, sadly, isn't restricted to one political party - is the obscene amounts of money politicians collect from fundraising. Far be it from me to descend to the arrogant certainty of liberals by thinking I know better how one should use their money than they do. You will excuse me, though, if I feel that dropping $35,000 a plate at a special birthday/fundraiser so you can have dinner with the president is a poor use of your resources. I hasten to add that politicians from both sides are guilty of such opulence. But it is especially galling that Obama, who wants you to believe that he cares so much about "the poor" and that the wealthy should be forced to pay even more taxes than they already do, would be the focus at an event where people spent more than what equates to two years worth of working in a minimum wage job for the dubious privilege of dining with him. Anything to stay in power, though, right? Because to help the poor we have to serve $35,000 dinners.
Staying in power is certainly what it is all about. "We've still got a long way to go to get to where we need to be (translation: please reelect me). We didn't get into this mess overnight (translation: blame Bush, not me), and it's going to take time to get out of it, (translation: hopefully, I won't make it any worse than I already have)" Obama said (meant) in a recent address. At least he is right about one thing. It will take until the 2012 elections, when fed-up Americans hopefully elect enough Tea Party candidates to capture a majority in the Senate, strengthen their majorities in the House, and sweep the Community Organizer in Chief from office.
It won't be easy. Despite the fact that conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one, there were clearly a majority of voters in 2008 fooled into thinking "hope and change" somehow trumps the hard realities of what the White House and both houses of Congress under the control of Democrats could do to the country. But since Obama's approval ratings are not yet where they belong - zero - there isn't yet enough indication that this collective problem of perceiving reality has been rectified. Perhaps many still feel it is all Bush's fault and that Obama just needs four more years and no opposition to complete his "fundamental transformation" of America, to repair the nation after that crazy Texan left the Oval Office.
But if you think Bush was bad due to his deficit spending of just over $1 billion per day, then consider this: on average, Obama's deficit spending is very nearly $4 billion per day. Washington is spending more but the overall economy is producing less. What is that a recipe for?
What about unemployment? Under Bush, the private sector had a net gain of almost 150,000 jobs. The net gain under Obama? None. On the contrary, under "hope and change" the economy has lost over two and a half million net private sector jobs.
Didn't like Bush's cocky self-assurance? It's better than Obama's obvious bumbling ineptitude. Indeed, there are already rumblings about Hillary Clinton challenging Obama. While it isn't unheard of, it isn't good news for a sitting president when he is challenged for his own party's nomination. It reveals an inkling within the ranks of what those outside the party already clearly see: Obama is unfit for command.
But this obvious fact won't deter the president. Already fundraising, Obama actually seems to believe he deserves four more years. His recent bus tour (taken in a behemoth $1.1 million armored bus that taxpayers paid for) followed the tried and true Obama strategy of whipping up class envy. And his minions recently started their attack on the Republican nominees. Of note, I find the broadside launched at Republican hopeful Rick Perry by David Axelrod particularly interesting. Perry's state, according to Axelrod, is doing so well thanks not to the governor but rather due to the oil industry and military spending. Is that the same oil industry that Axelrod's boss, Obama, has attacked and obstructed? The same oil industry that a federal judge recently overturned Obama's attempt to slow down expedited environmental review of oil and gas drilling on federal land, reinstating Bush-era guidelines that expedites the process?
After the Gulf oil spill, Perry said he hoped "we don't see a knee-jerk reaction across this country that says we're going to shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, because the cost to this country will be staggering." Too bad Obama didn't realize that. Thanks in part to the Obama attack on new drilling we have higher prices at the pump. In April of last year, when the Deep Water Horizon exploded, gas prices were about $2.90 per gallon. Now, the price is about $3.60 per gallon, after a spike earlier this year of up to around $4 per gallon. Obviously, there are several factors that play into the price of gas (the high tax on it being one of those factors). But that doesn't mean you can ignore the reality of supply and demand. Perry understood the situation. Obama, on the other hand, merely used the situation to further the liberal agenda of increasing our dependence on foreign oil. Not their true goal? Perhaps, but as with most of what they do, it isn't the intent of what liberals do to our country but rather on the results that they should be judged. After all, we certainly don't want Big Oil to earn profits that could instead be sent to the Middle East, right?
But back to Texas for just a moment. Ever since 1995, the state has been led by Republican governors. Ever since 2003 they have also controlled the Texas House of Representatives. They have held the Texas Senate since 1997. Republicans control all statewide Texas offices and they even have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. Texas is, in fact, one of the most Republican states in the country. So it is no coincidence that it is also one of the most successful. Contrast that with, say, California. As one of the most liberal states, it has some of the biggest economic problems in the nation. Compared to the other states, as of 2010 it ranked 31st for standard of living and is nearly last at 49th for cost of living. California is also among the states with the highest debt.
Next week we'll explore how Obama ignores such realities while making the claim that it is Republicans who want to crush our hopes and dreams.
Jeff O’Bryant is the author of “Up into the Hills – A Brief History of Catoosa County” and holds two degrees: a bachelor’s in education and a bachelor’s with honors in history. He can be contacted at jeffobryant@catt.com.
Liberals can push all the lies they wish; it won't change the fact that the war on poverty is a failure, that Obama is a failure, and that their economic policies in general are a failure. There is a reason the Tea Party has had so much influence recently. We're sick of liberal failure after liberal failure and since enough of us have realized that you will, sadly, NEVER understand this fact we're taking matters into our own hands. We're going to cut spending and we're going to shove those cuts down your throats. We did it in Wisconson (oh, happy day), we've made a little progress in Washington, and we're going to make a lot more once the 2012 elections come around.
I will say you seem a bit late on your Jimmy Carter revelation, JO'B - perhaps it did try to get through your thick skull around 2004 but you were too busy helping Shrub stay the course. Bush was indeed bad with deficit spending and would have been worse had the costs of his double wars been put on the books.
It's no surprise that here in a state at least as red as Texas that we get four fawning comments, three mentioning the TP. It's interesting that while JO'B and his ilk rave on about liberals and the dread pirate Obama destroying our country, we are offered choice quotes from Prez No. 3, certainly one of the most liberal statesman to ever lead our nation. The quoting of Jefferson on the acquisition of wealth is but a piece of the whole. Following the passage posted is this line:
"If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it."
So the other side of the nickel shows TJ's belief that - get those defibrillators ready TPers - wealth unchecked could become dangerous to the state, and it seems he would be a proponent for both the Fair Tax (not a horrible compromise but still not as "fair" in a true mixed economy as most who support it would acknowledge) and an even "fairer" Death Tax. CLEAR !
I'm mildly encouraged by the examination of Jeffersonian public policy, even if still pretty one-sided. There is a ray of hope that TPers, who I believe love their country and want to see change for the better, can themselves better see both sides of an issue, which is what's going to be needed to turn the tide of what has been correctly identified here as a long and highly determined campaign to demonize the term "liberal" in order to discredit progressive reasoning and its overwhelming support among Americans. A vocal minority makes it seem otherwise, but the sand castle of their American Dream will eventually collapse and fall into the widening income gap and hopefully be buried forever as we work to repair that breach. I hope they turn from the course of refusing to acknowledge that liberals like Jefferson have been accepted and held in high regard by the majority of citizens (dare I say the proletariat?) since our country was founded.
And speaking of founders, I'm looking forward to pt. 2, JO'B, where I hope you will get to some point implied by the title of this article.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275415/free-enterprise-system-has-lifted-more-people-out-poverty-all-government-anti-poverty-#
It puts into focus some of what we face as a nation. While he didn't spell it out, I thought the link was clear between how some people felt about Communism (that it could not be stopped) and Liberalism (how it seems to be drowning our country in an ocean of self-destructive programs and policies). I, too, hope the Tea Party can light the way to a responsible America.
Great piece. Have you heard of seasteading? While the concept is still really in its infancy, it may one day offer a viable way escaping from the stifling laws of our government and avoiding the hostility it projects towards the hardworking and thrifty among us. They are essentially cities roaming the sea or stationary on something like a oil platform and are outside the laws of any nation. Sounds like your cup of tea- and would be for me, too - if the Tea Party itself can't stem the tide of government overreach, overs spending, and over taxing.
Thanks for the column,
Wil
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'”
-Thomas Jefferson
I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
-Thomas Jefferson
But perhaps best of all, that explains a lot of what our government does these days, is the fear that lives in so many hearts:
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Ultimately, the Tea Party is right- cut taxes, cut spending, and be responsible. May they take over in 2012 completely.
Even if it did require the emergence of a Democrat who could do the sort of big fundraising Republicans have always done to finally make you disgusted by that process, the disgust is still progress. Maybe a baby-step (because, contrary to your mild protestations, it is a partisan outrage), but progress, nonetheless.
You don't realize it--and here, we get to that innocence--but the fact that Obama CAN do this makes nonsense of your class warfare-based whining about Obama's rhetoric of taxing the rich. The opulent turn up and cough up $35,000/plate to eat with the Obama because they know a) that's all just a lot of talk, and b) even if their taxes do go up, they're more than capable of paying it without even noticing the loss. Obama talks this way because such sentiment is popular with the overwhelming majority of the public, but when it comes to those with the fortunes who are in the know, they're the ones coughing up the long green for din-din with the chief.
Staying in power is not what it's all about. That's the way a politician looks at it. For those handing over all that money, though--the ones who actually run things--what they're looking to buy is a piece of power. And that's what they get.
While you innocently rant about "socialized medicine" (a comment that demonstrates your complete ignorance of what actually happened during the health care debate), the actual corporate welfare bill signed into law, as "health care reform," by the Obama was a conservative Republican bill authored by a right-wing insurance lobbyist, and based on the health care law of the 2012 Republican presidential front-runner. Big money to the congress and to the Obama bought that. The Obama suggested only one major progressive reform as part of the package--the public option. Public support for it was overwhelming, but--surprise, surprise--the Obama negotiated it away at the beginning of the health care debate in a back-room deal with industry lobbyists. He continued to give lip-service to it, but privately helped kill it.
That's how things work in our politics. It's not about the kind of pro-wrestling-level morality fables you peddle. It's not about ideology (except insofar as right-wing ideology is pro-money). It's ALL about the money.
You don't see this, and it's funny that you bash Obama by saying he "ignores the reality of supply and demand" when it comes to oil, where supply and demand is not even a factor, but ignore it yourself when it comes to politics, where it is everything. You don't see it because you have a much larger problem seeing reality at all whenever it conflicts with your politics, and this column gives a lot of examples of that, as well.
Your claim that Obama's alleged (mostly imaginary) attack on the oil industry contributed to higher prices at the pump, for example. It's very popular on Fox News and with the Media Research Center and other industry-financed outlets, but it has no basis in reality. None. It's a--forgive me--crude lie, advanced to serve the profit-margin of the industry that pays to spread it. When David Axelrod points out the only real growth in high-paying jobs in Texas is in the oil industry, you retort, "Is that the same oil industry that Axelrod's boss, Obama, has attacked and obstructed?" No, Jeff, that's the oil industry whose profiteering has allowed it to turn in record or near-record profits every quarter while utterly strangling economic growth in the U.S. It's an industry that has done quite well under the Obama (or it has, at least, since Republicans captured the House, allowing it to resume its Bush-era profiteering).
Another example:
"Texas is, in fact, one of the most Republican states in the country. So it is no coincidence that it is also one of the most successful."
In the real world, Texas has the 4th-highest poverty rate of any state in the U.S.; 3 of the top 5 poorest U.S. counties are in Texas. The state tied Mississippi last year for the largest percentage of its population working for minimum wage. It's near the bottom in education spending per pupil (and Rick Perry has just slashed this spending even further), and the state already has, on the one hand, the highest percentage of adults without a high-school diploma in the U.S., and, on the other, holds a rank of 40th in the U.S. for the percentage of its population with a college associate degree or higher. It leads the nation in lack of health insurance--26% of Texans have none. That, it turns out, is probably just as well, because "malpractice tort reform," aimed at making it virtually impossible for regular people to sue rich doctors who kill and maim them, has resulted in an influx of doctors to Texas, but they're doctors with an extraordinarily disproportionate number of malpractice rulings against them--get sick in TX, and it's probably safer just to stay at home and hope for the best. You insist on comparing the state to "liberal" California, which, you say, "has some of the biggest economic problems in the nation," and, indeed, California has the 4th worst deficit of any state in the U.S. Why doesn't this support your analysis? Texas is even worse, at #3. Only Nevada and New Jersey, both run by Republicans, are worse than Texas.
So, while you can, indeed, call Texas "one of the most Republican states in the country," you seem to be using a very strange standard, indeed, in labeling it "one of the most successful."
A third example, before I'm through: Your assertion that "conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one" in the U.S. This is based on self-identification polls of the kind Gallup regularly conducts. We begin to see the fatal flaw in such polls in the fact that they show cons vastly outnumber libs in even the bluest, most liberal states in the U.S. The only thing such polls are reflecting is a) widespread misunderstanding of such labels, and b) the effects of the long conservative campaign to demonize the word "liberal." The U.S. is the most polled country in the world, and this conservative dominance is nowhere to be found in the issue polling. In fact, Americans adopt a liberal view--and do so overwhelmingly--on practically every major issue. I've written about this often. Here's one article:
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/conservative-america.html
As a body, Americans are well to the left of ANYTHING that is allowed, by our money-is-power politics, to be offered in government (certainly well to the left of the Obama, who would uncontroversially have been regarded as a conservative Republican only a few years ago).
You don't get any of this. You let your politics dictate your reality, instead of vice-versa. That is why you fail.