The Left has frequently salivated over Obama’s post-partisan mojo. This post-partisan rhetoric has been so much hot-air, all show and no stay. Remember the president’s speech shortly after the unspeakable tragedy in Tucson wherein he said, “But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” How quickly those words were forgotten by the man who uttered them.

Hope of civility and bipartisan cooperation soon evaporated. President Obama wasted no time blaming Republicans for wanting dirty air and dirty water and not caring about the middle class who have suffered the most under his failed policies. He has prioritized his support for his friends in the labor unions while ignoring the failure of Senate Democrats to pass a budget in nearly 1000 days. He has done nothing since his Tucson speech to indicate he is post-partisan; indeed he has simply heated up his rhetoric against Republicans. His decision to reject the Keystone pipeline is just the latest far-Left pandering by his administration; in fact here is what Senate Democrats had to say about the Keystone Pipeline project,

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “Landrieu says she’d support Keystone in payroll/ui/doc fix bill. Says ‘good deal’of D & R support for it.” (Trish Turner, Twitter, 12/15/11)

Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK): “Another sticking point is that Republicans inserted in their bill language that would fast-track the proposed Keystone X-L oil pipeline extension from Canada down to the Lower 48.  …Senator Begich is supportive of moving the project forward and his office says that’s not a problem.” (Alaska Public Radio, 12/14/11)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): “I personally think the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest.  It’ll help us reduce our dependence on foreign energy, at least foreign sources that are hostile to our interests… I, for one, on this side would hope that this could be part of a final package…” (Floor remarks, 12/14/11)

(more…)

The fact that Paul Krugman received the Nobel Prize in economics makes sense given that both Al Gore and Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize. But that is the only way that it makes sense.

In his December 29^th column in the New York Times, Keynes Was Right, he continues to make the case that the only reason we haven’t come roaring out of the Great Recession is because we spent too little.

Krugman cites the downturn of 1937 when FDR’s government programs were curtailed and unemployment rose. He says that unlike in that fateful year we should instead redouble our efforts and spend more to prime the economic pump. Austerity is insanity he says. We must spend more as Keynes would have advised, deficits (and inflation) be damned.

Build pyramids as Keynes said we should. So what if the they do not contribute, and probably detract, from the quality of the economy. It is the quantity of economic activity that we are interested in not quality. Get people employed doing whatever. This is the road to prosperity!

(more…)

Today, the Obama Administration sent legislation to Congress, detailing its latest plan to spur job creation. It relies on half-a-trillion dollars in new spending with an almost equivalent amount of tax increases. Very little of the proposed spending would actually spur new investment or hiring, while most of the tax hikes would work directly against them. The man is simply out of tricks. (Full text below.)

American Jobs Act — final

Who would have really expected a 300-point stock market plunge on the day after President Obama’s so-called jobs speech?

Yes, worries over new fears of a Greek default ripped through the markets on Friday. As did fears of an al-Qaeda bombing plot on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. But you can’t help but think that at least some of the stock plunge is a signal of no economic confidence in Obama’s plan.

And for that matter, who really expected an unbelievably large $450 billion plan? That’s way more than 50 percent of the original $800 stimulus package in 2009 — which did not work.

Leaked reports leading up to the speech suggested a $300 billion plan — already way too big. But $450 billion? At a time of massive deficits and debt? And a downgrade? How is this going to be paid for? That’s what many folks want to know. Obama didn’t tell us.

In very round numbers, the package comes to $250 billion of temporary payroll tax cuts of one kind or another, with another $200 billion in new spending on infrastructure, unemployment benefits, and direct aid to state and local governments. But didn’t we learn from Obama Stimulus One that more government spending doesn’t grow the economy or reduce unemployment?

And while more than half of the president’s new package is called “tax cuts,” the reality is that these are temporary tax cuts. Even though tax rates are reduced for both employers and employees, it’s just for one year.

That blunts the true incentive impact of the tax cuts. Businesses like to look ahead at least three to five years for their employment planning. And they’re already worried about the tax and regulatory mandate costs of Obamacare, which has become a great deterrent to job creation. But nobody makes clear business decisions based on temporary one-year tax cuts. That’s not the way business works.

(more…)

Michael Barone in The Examiner:

Barack Obama looked and sounded angry in his speech to the joint session of Congress. He bitterly assailed one straw man after another and made reference to a grab bag of proposals which would cost something on the order of $450 billion—assuring us on the one hand that they all had been supported by Republicans as well as Democrats in the past and suggesting that somehow they are going to turn the economy around. He called for further cuts in the payroll tax (which if continued indefinitely would undermine the case of Social Security as something people have earned rather than a form of welfare) and for a further extension of unemployment insurance (perhaps justifiable on humanitarian grounds, but sure to at least marginally raise the unemployment rate over what it would otherwise be).

He called for a tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed (unfortunately, these things can be gamed). He gave a veiled plug for his pet project of high-speed rail (a real dud) and for infrastructure spending generally (but didn’t he learn that there aren’t really any shovel-ready projects?). He called for a school modernization program (will it result in more jobs than the Seattle weatherization program that cost $22 million and produced 14 jobs?) and for funding more teacher jobs (a political payoff to the teacher unions which together with other unions gave Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle). “We’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the country.”

Yeah, sure. Like the screening process that produced that $535,000,000 loan guarantee to now-bankrupt Solyndra. And Congress should pass the free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Except that Congress can’t, because Obama hasn’t sent them up there yet in his 961 days as president.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

:

The economy weak and the public seething, President Barack Obama is expected to propose $300 billion in tax cuts and federal spending Thursday night to get Americans working again. Republicans offered Tuesday to compromise with him on jobs—but also assailed his plans in advance of his prime-time speech.

In effect, Obama will be hitting cleanup on a shortened holiday week, with Republican White House contender Mitt Romney releasing his jobs proposals on Tuesday and front-running Texas Gov. Rick Perry hoping to join his presidential rivals Wednesday evening on a nationally televised debate stage for the first time.

(more…)

With Texas Governor Rick Perry now leading the race for the Republican nomination for President, only days after jumping into contest (according to Rasmussen Reports – full disclosure, I have endorsed Perry) – we can expect a withering response from President Obama and his allies on the left.  As John Podhoretz noted in Commentary, comparing Perry to Ronald Reagan, “The conservative boogeyman is back.”

Since the Republican Party’s natural constituency is conservative, more so in this tumultuous Tea Party era, most attacks on Perry will be from the right – the attacks from the left will come after Perry wins the nomination.  That the machinery of the left will aid in the early attacks from the right is a given; it’s all part of winning for them.
The Trans-Texas Corridor is one such emerging line of criticism against Gov. Perry.  First proposed by Perry in 2002, the north-south running road would have also included a railway, petroleum pipeline, power lines, and communications cables.

Some conservatives have linked the planned Texas road with the feared, but as yet theoretical, North American Union or NAU and NAFTA, dubbing it the NAFTA Super Highway.  That Perry would have proposed such a thing is yet more proof to them that Perry is somehow the “Establishment” candidate (never mind his comments about the Fed, the Tenth Amendment, and the fact that the same “Establishment” ran Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison against him for governor last year).

So, what’s the deal with Perry’s proposed superhighway and should conservatives be worried?

(more…)

There he goes again. Out on the campaign trail, President Obama is proposing more federal spending as his answer to sluggish growth and jobs. That won’t do it, Mr. President.

He wants more infrastructure spending, undoubtedly in the form of an infrastructure bank. That’s a terrible idea. It’s borrowed from Latin America, where bloated and corrupt bureaucratic construction agencies have helped bankrupt any number of countries in the past.

He wants to lengthen 99-week unemployment insurance, although numerous studies have shown that continuous unemployment benefits are associated with higher unemployment.

And he wants to extend the temporary payroll tax credit, which is not a permanent reduction in marginal tax rates, has no incentive effect, has not worked so far, and is really a form of federal spending — not real tax relief.

Earlier this week, when he signed the debt-ceiling bill, the president ranted on about the need to raise tax rates on successful earners, investors, and small businesses. He’s trying to bring back tax hikes as part of the phase-two special committee seeking additional deficit reduction, even though his own party rebuffed him on this in the late stages of the debt talks. All this is a prescription to grow government, not the economy.

(more…)

A funny thing happened on the way to the voting booth: Americans discovered that most federal “stimulus” funds were being used to stimulate government, not the economy.

I was on the road recently, driving from my home in southeast Louisiana through a long stretch of Mississippi to Tuscaloosa, Ala., then to the outskirts of Birmingham and on to Auburn, Ala., and finally back to my home by way of Montgomery and Mobile. Along the way I was slowed from time to time as I passed by road and bridge repair projects marked with prominent signs indicating they were funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, President Obama’s so-called stimulus bill.

Naturally I was thrilled to see my tax dollars at work, although honesty compels me to report that not much actual work seemed to be going on at any of the sites. Most of the visible workers were just standing around. Of course, such standing around is typical of public construction projects, so I don’t suppose that what I saw was in any way owing to the stimulus funding in particular.

This huge legislative enactment provides for a great variety of increased spending and some reduction in taxes over a period of 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office computed that the net amount of money to be injected into, or not removed from, the economy as a result of the stimulus bill totals about $787 billion.

At the time the bill was being debated and discussed, a common plea in its defense had to do with funding so-called shovel-ready projects to repair or replace public roads, bridges and other structures widely taken to be in a state of decay or disrepair. This plea made an appealing talking point, since most Americans place at least some value on such infrastructure.

Alas, only a tiny proportion of the funds expended so far has been directed to this well-advertised objective.

(more…)

Federal stimulus plan’s spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on unemployment, research finds; “Spend a lot or spend nothing at all, it didn’t matter,” the analysis showed as “local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation”

· “It beats being at work!” Federal Aviation Administration spent $5 million to send 3, 600 managers to a conference in Atlanta that some say was little more than an excuse to throw a three-week-long party

· Congress spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to send politicians and staff on a junket to the global warming summit that failed to reach a climate agreement

· “Stealth” company whose address appears to be an empty office to receive $9.2 million federal grant

· The Postal Service’s top marketing executive directed more than $1.3 million in sole-source contracts to former business associates; As a result, some postal employees are sitting idle because the consultants are doing what previously were their jobs

(more…)