Archive for the ‘Reagan’ Category
One of the things that’s becoming clear this year is that the political class doesn’t understand the United States. This weekend, I’ve read 2 articles that illustrate that perfectly. First, Scott Rasmussen’s article cuts through the clutter quickly:
2013 has been a tough year for the political class. The most recent evidence comes from Colorado.
Earlier in the year, the political elites in Washington were certain gun control would be enacted following the horrific massacre at a Connecticut elementary school. When nothing passed, they expected politicians who refused to support more gun restrictions would face consequences for their actions.
There were consequences. Just not the one’s the political class expected.
After Colorado passed its own version of gun control legislation, two state senators were targeted by a grassroots effort for removal through a recall vote. It was the first time in the state’s history that the recall process had even been attempted. Outside money poured in, and gun control advocates outspent the NRA and its allies by a 6-to-1 margin. Despite the tremendous financial advantage they enjoyed, both state senators were removed from office because of their support for gun control legislation.
Simply put, in state after state, gun control activists misunderestimated the people’s love of freedom. I don’t mistake this as a newfound love of the Constitution amongst the masses. It isn’t that. It’s that people want the ability to defend themselves.
An early sign of trouble for the elites came with public reaction to the so-called sequester. More precisely, the D.C. panic was caused by the lack of public reaction.
Politicians, mainstream media organizations, defense contractors and others did everything they could to scare the public. President Obama himself used his State of the Union address to say, “These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness.” To make sure voters understood his concern, he added, “They’d devastate priorities like education, energy and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs.”
But it didn’t work. People didn’t rise up in revolt and demand that Congress stop the sequester.
Instead, voters recognized that the politicians were crying wolf. The so-called cuts were not harsh and devastating. They were embarrassingly modest. In fact, all the sequester really did was reduce the growth of federal spending a bit. So, when the sequester went into effect, there was no revolt. Instead, hardly anybody noticed. Only those who work for the government really felt any impact.
For a week straight or more, the administration trotted out cabinet secretaries to tell the public that life would end if the sequester happened. The only thing missing from their presentations were illustrations of the Apocalypse as a backdrop.
Instead, we felt a pin prick.
The other article that illustrates how out of touch DC is is Salena Zito’s fantastic article titled Main Street wants action on jobs, not blunders on Syria:
CHAMPION, Pa. – Tracey loaded three large cardboard boxes with tomatoes, peaches, green beans, cucumbers and fleshy beets for a young couple about to embark on their first adventure in the art of canning. Rows of perfectly presented vegetables lined the shelves of her family’s farmers market, where State Route 31 meets the base of a mountain.
The young couple peppered her with questions about “putting up” their produce as they recalled watching their parents filling cellars with canned vegetables and fruits that lasted from autumn through spring.
They also chatted about jobs and ways to cut corners; all three expressed worry about an economy that has not improved for more than a half-decade.
Behind them in line, a group of young people discussed the possibility of war with Syria, all of them astonished that this is what the White House is focused on. “We keep waiting for the White House to talk about jobs in a meaningful, constructive way so that our families, communities and schools stop crumbling,” said one young woman as she contemplated buying fresh honey.
This administration hasn’t deviated from its original economic plan of dumping lots of money into the economy, first through the stimulus, then through the Fed’s quantitative easing. It isn’t that the plan failed totally. It hasn’t. Still, economic growth has been stagnant to the point that we went from the housing bubble collapse to the Great Recession to today’s Great Stagnation.
Coming out of one of the nastiest recessions in US history, President Reagan instituted massive tax cuts, including cuts in the capital gains rates. In September, 1983, the US economy created 1,100,000 jobs. In August, I cited some disturbing statistics from Zerohedge’s post in this post:
Of 953,000 Jobs Created In 2013, 77%, Or 731,000 Are Part-Time
Think about those statistics juxtaposed against Reagan’s jobs report for September, 1983. Reagan created more fulltime jobs in a single month than this president has created jobs, full- and part-time, in half a year.
Meanwhile, when people still trusted government, Reagan took down the Soviet Union. Fast forward to today, where President Obama and his Secretary of State can’t even get on the same page to deliver a pin prick attack against Syria.
President Reagan’s strength was his trusting the American people to do the right thing. President Obama’s weakness is his insistance that he’s always right. People have proposed plans for a stronger economy. President Obama has ignored those blueprints. People have proposed things to fix the biggest mistakes in the PPACA. President Obama has ignored those, too, because he thinks he’s right.
In his last speech from the Oval Office, President Reagan said something that I can’t forget. He said “it’s amazing what you can get accomplished when you don’t care who gets credit for things.” President Obama could mouth those words but he’d follow that up with a reminder that it’s his brilliance that saved the day.
The difference is that President Reagan never forgot that he was a man of the people while President Obama can’t hide the fact that he’s a creature of the DC Beltway.
Technorati: Political Class, Colorado Recall Elections, Gun Control, President Obama, John Kerry, Federal Reserve, Quantitative Easing, Syria, DC Beltway, Great Recession, Great Stagnation, Democrats, President Reagan, Job Growth, Capital Gains Tax Cuts, Soviet Union, National Security, GOP
When MSNBC’s Chuck Todd mocked President Obama for his latest pivot to jobs, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent took umbrage via Twitter:
Genuinely sad to see supposedly neutral news orgs mocking the idea of a “pivot” to jobs.
First, was MSNBC ever a “neutral news org?” Apparently, it is in Greg Sargent’s opinion. That should tell us everything we need to know about Sargent’s opinions. Thankfully, others pounced on Sargent’s tweets. Here’s one from DCDude1776:
LOL! You haven’t noticed the pattern? Poll #s sink—> pivots to economy E-V-E-R-Y T-I-M-E
Here’s something more from Richard Grenell:
It’s just that he’s pivoted all the way around
Is it just me or does it seem like President Obama has pivoted to jobs more often Anthony Weiner holds press conferences admitting he’s been sexting again? The thing about pivoting is that it causes people to go in circles, which is what the economy is doing. Growing at 1% (roughly) per year isn’t how to build the middle class.
Let’s focus on some economic realities. First, it’s impossible to strengthen the middle class when we’re turning into a part-time nation. Last month’s job report said businesses created 195,000 job. Then it said that 240,000 full-time jobs were lost and that 360,000 part-time jobs were created.
Economists attributed this to President Obama’s ACA. Employers aren’t hiring full-time workers because of the PPACA. Increasingly, they’re hiring part-time employees instead. If the PPACA continues to be the law of the land, we’ll continue to turn into a part-time nation.
President Obama can’t point to an impressive growth spurt on his watch. That’s because his economic plan isn’t geared toward growth. It’s geared towards creating a European stagnation economy.
In the 1992 debates, Bill Clinton said, rightly, that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. With a stagnant economy, lackluster job growth and an obvious culprit to blame for all this, you’d think President Obama would quit insisting that his plan is working. Unfortunately, he’s so arrogant that he won’t accept reality.
The nation is a mess. His policies have failed repeatedly. Part-time employment is increasing. Full-time employment is either shrinking or stagnating. That isn’t the recipe for success. It’s the pathway to failure. For altogether too many Americans, Obamanomics has led to chronic failure.
I’ll summarize things by citing Sen. Ted Cruz’s tweet comparing Reaganomics with Obamanomics:
Reaganomics: Start a business in your parents’ garage.
Obamanomics: Move into your parents’ garage.
Republicans, it’s time to tell this president that his economic policies are a total disaster and that it’s time to start with new, pro-growth policies before it’s too late.
When John Dickerson wrote that President Obama should crush Republicans, I’m betting he didn’t expect the firestorm he’s getting. I’m betting that’s why he wrote this defensive-sounding article. First, here’s what Dickerson wrote in his first Slate article:
Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.
This afternoon, he published this:
On the eve of the president’s inauguration, I wrote a piece about what President Obama needs to do to be a transformational rather than caretaker president. I was using a very specific definition of transformational presidencies based on my reading of a theory of political science and the president’s own words about transformational presidencies from the 2008 campaign. It was also based on these givens: the president is ambitious, has picked politically controversial goals, has little time to operate before he is dubbed a lame-duck president, and has written off working with Republicans. “Bloodier-minded when it comes to beating Republicans,” is how Jodi Kantor put it in the New York Times. Given these facts, there is only one logical conclusion for a president who wants to transform American politics: he must take on Republicans–aggressively.
It’s worth noting that Mr. Dickerson is CBS’s chief political correspondent. It’s also worth noting that Mr. Dickerson didn’t ask the right questions or give responsible advice to President.
It’s shameful that a network political director/correspondent would think only about gaining a political advantage instead of doing what’s right for America. It’s apparent that Mr. Dickerson hasn’t figured it out that truly transformative presidents make life better for the people they serve.
Crushing political opponents while pursuing a failed policy agenda might get an administration through a fight but that isn’t what transformative presidents do. That’s why history will record President Obama’s administration as a failure, especially economically.
At this point, the only thing that will make President Obama an historical figure is his being the first black president. Sadly, his signature political accomplishment has hurt the American economy while leading to many people losing hope.
That’s the definition of a failure. Mr. Dickerson would be well advised to note that failures aren’t transformative figures.
Liberals do not grasp the distinction between Ronald Reagan and (either) George Bush. This blind spot creates a massive confusion and hazard to their ambitions. Obama defeated neither the Reagan Narrative nor Team Reagan. Team Bush appropriated, and then marginalized, both. Obama beat Team Bush, not Team Reagan. The implications are huge.
This post isn’t about trashing Karl Rove or the Bush family. Frankly, that’s a waste of time when there’s important things to be done. Instead, it’s about identifying underlying principles undergirded President Reagan’s policies. Mr. Benko is spot on with this analysis:
Real conservatives saw Reaganomics as a way of creating broad-based opportunity, not as catering to the rich. It worked out exactly that way in America and throughout the world. The blossoming of free market principles, especially low tax rates and good money, brought billions of souls out of poverty, from subsistence to affluence.
Several things worked together to make America infinitely more prosperous during Reagan’s time than during President Obama’s time in office. First, the dollar was much stronger than during President Obama’s time in office. That’s partially because President Reagan’s domestic energy policy was infinitely more robust than President Obama’s. The less money we needlessly ship money overseas for oil, the stronger the dollar is. Our trade deficit shrunk, too.
The new conservative Republican leaders are strikingly formidable. The leaders of the new generation, like Reagan, and Kemp, before them (and Kennedy still earlier), all recognize the power of the “rising tide lifts all boats”.
It isn’t a stretch to think that conservatives like John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio will re-ignite the Reagan Revolution. Each of these men have spotless conservative credentials, which is why they fire up the base in ways Mitt Romney and John McCain couldn’t.
When President Bush won in 2004, he got 62,000,000 votes. McCain got fewer votes than President Bush. Mitt got fewer votes than Sen. McCain. Had Paul Ryan been at the top of the ticket, however, it isn’t a stretch to think he would’ve topped President Bush’s vote total.
That’s because he’s the spitting image of Reagan. The Reagan Revolution was fueled by a glut of great ideas. A Ryan Revolution would be powered by the same thing. Most importantly, he’d talk conservatism like his native language. This isn’t an attempt to trash Mitt. It’s simply stating the obvious. He just didn’t prosecute the case against President Obama the way Ryan would have.
President Bush’s spending turned conservatives off because he had a Republican House and Senate much of the time. President Reagan’s spending was done, in part, because he had to rebuild the military after President Carter gutted it, partly because Tip O’Neill controlled the House.
Everything President Reagan fought for was targeted towards creating prosperity. He didn’t back away from a fight, either. When PATCO went on strike, he fired them because they broke federal law. When Tip O’Neill accused him of not caring about the average working Joe, Reagan responded mightily. His temper flaring, he marched back to the podium, then said, essentially, that he’d made his money because he’d worked hard, then adding that it wasn’t given to him.
It’s a fight Mitt Romney backed away from too often in his attempt to win over women voters or independents. It’s a fight the next generation of conservatives will fight with vigor.
Tags: Reagan Revolution, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Prosperity, Pro-Growth Policies, Strong Dollar, Oil, Job Growth, GDP, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Conservatism, President Bush, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney, GOP Establishment
Hardline progressive columnist Michael Tomasky used his latest column to declare that last Tuesday’s election meant the death of Reaganomics. Like other progressive fools before him, he sounds silly. Reaganomics didn’t die last Tuesday night because it wasn’t on the ballot.
Along came Ronald Reagan to assure everyone that the rising tide would lift all boats. It’s never happened quite the way conservatives said it would. Even during the general prosperity of the second Reagan term, income inequality began to expand dramatically, wage stagnation became a permanent feature of American life, and the immiseration of the poor worsened.
That’s odd. I lived through the Reagan Revolution. My 401(k) grew exponentially during the 80s. Q3 of 1983 was particularly good, earning an astonishing 44.59% return that quarter. Yes, you read that right: 44.59% in Q3 of 1983. It isn’t coincidence that September, 1983 was when the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. It isn’t coincidence that GDP growth that quarter was 7.1%.
If Mr. Tomasky wants to argue against Reganomics’ GDP coming out of a recession, let’s have that fight. The GDP rate of Q3, 1982 was over 9%, followed by GDP rates of 8.1%, 8.5%, 7.9% in that order. If Mr. Tomasky wants to argue that this type of explosive economic growth, coupled with a strong dollar, explosive job growth and an abundant, inexpensive and stable domestic energy supply is a bad thing, let’s have that fight.
It isn’t that Reaganomics is a failure. It’s that we need the right person to cut through the progressives’ lies about the alleged failures of Reaganomics. It’s important we remember that progressives insist voter fraud doesn’t exist and that President Obama’s policies worked while cutting the deficit.
The plain, simple truth is that people like Mr. Tomasky and John van Hecke are liars. They peddle lies because arguing policies on the merits is how they’re defeated. They don’t think Reaganomics dies. They’re praying that people believe them so they don’t have to fight Reagan’s policies.
When hsi second term finally ends, President Obama will have created fewer jobs in 8 years in office than what President Reagan created in a single quarter of 1983. That’s before comparing economic growth, inflation and deficits.
Remember when then-Speaker Pelosi said that the ACA was a job creator? Later, she said we’d have to read the bill to know everything that’s in it. Then she brought the bill to a vote before anyone had time to read it. Kerry Picket’s reporting shows Pelosi didn’t tell the truth:
Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.
Dana Holding Corp.
As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing “$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses”. After laying off several white collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce – an estimated 1,170 positions.
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could “lead to significant job losses” for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas – to China.
In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.
Let’s be blunt about something. These layoffs will cause families’ incomes to drop. When President Bush left office, the average family income was just short of $55,000. Once these layoffs hit and other employees are reduced to part time status, we’ll be fortunate if average family income hits $48,000 a year.
That’s the economic reality of President Obama’s economic policies. Simply put, he’s a total disaster. His best job creation month hasn’t even hit 300,000. Reagan’s best month, job creation-wise, was in Sept., 1983. That month, the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. In other words, Reagan’s best month created slightly fewer jobs than were created in President Obama’s best year.
Thanks to President Obama’s disastrous policies, we’re now stuck with 4 more years of President Obama’s failed economic policies. None of President Obama’s policies is more disastrous than the ACA.
A frequent progressive commenter just asked if Republicans ever did anything for the public good. Considering the fact that President Obama’s policies were implemented via his my-way-or-the-highway tactics. More importantly, they’ve failed miserably.
I’ve said it before & I’ll repeat it again: there’s no virtue in agreeing with the left’s disastrous policies.
In 1979, Islamic extremists raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. They held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. In 1983, U.S. Marines were ordered out of Beirut after a massive attack killed 241 Marines. In 1993, the Clinton administration ordered U.S. troops out of Somalia after al-Qa’ida terrorists shot down a U.S. Blackhawk helicopter in Mogadishu.
UBL summarized the lesson al-Qa’ida learned from those experiences during an interview with ABC News’ John Miller:
Miller: You have said, “If the Americans are so brave they will come and arrest me.” Do you think that is something my country will try?
Bin Ladin: We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions, showing they can run in less than twenty-four hours. This was then repeated in Somalia.
It’s easy to understand why UBL reached that conclusion. His mistake isn’t that Americans haven’t fled hotspots. It isn’t just that Americans have looked impotent. It’s that American presidents have contributed to U.S. soldiers looking impotent by having them flee after terrorist attacks.
The lesson that President Bush learned from these lessons is that terrorists are terrified when U.S. soldiers don’t hide from adversity. Terrorists are most worried when U.S. soldiers run towards hotspots. Unfortunately, President Obama didn’t learn that lesson. He ‘learned’ that it’s best to be timid, to talk in civil tones to barbarians. That’s what he did here:
The president said the disputed election would not change his belief in greater diplomatic efforts with Iran.
“I have always felt that, as odious as I feel some of President Ahmadinejad ‘s statements (are), as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on core issues, the use of tough hard headed diplomacy, diplomacy without illusions, is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of national security interests,” the president said. “We will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries.”
That’s what ABC’s Kristina Wong wrote on June 15, 2009 during the Green Revolution. What the Iranian mullahs heard was that President Obama was giving them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. They essentially heard President Obama say he was ambivalent to the protests.
A short 39 months later, North Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia have erupted in anti-American violence. The people serving in the U.S. embassy in Pakistan are only safe because the embassy compound is surrounded with a wall of tear gas. The consulate and annex, aka the safehouse, in Benghazi, Libya are decimated, the ruins the product of a well-planned, coordinated terrorist attack.
This is a great political opportunity for Mitt Romney because it’s a great opportunity for him to explain his vision and strategy for the Middle East, Southwest Asia and North Africa. Simply saying that a Romney administration would a) have an open door relationship with Israel, b) use covert assets to prevent terrorist attacks and c) condition foreign aid on nations’ willingness to partner with the U.S. in preventing the security nightmares currently erupting around the Mediterranean.
That would dramatically differentiate Mitt’s foreign policy from President Obama’s failed foreign policy.
Tags: Paper Tiger, Blackhawk Down, Somalia, Bill Clinton, Beirut, President Reagan, Tehran, Hostage Crisis, Ayatollah Khomeini, Jimmy Carter, Benghazi, Pakistan, Terrorist Attacks, Embassies, President Obama, Israel, Covert Operations, Foreign Aid, National Security, Mitt Romney, GOP, Election 2012
Yesterday, I read a fascinating article by former Reagan administration member Jeffrey Lord, which he titled Why Ryan terrifies the Left. This was one of the first things that I noticed:
The admiration for Reagan has become such a part of American historical bedrock that even President Obama and likeminded professional leftists have essentially given up the ghost. When they mention Reagan at all, it is generally to play a sly game of casting Reagan as a moderate, pretending to salute him while taking a shot at some Republican for not being more like Reagan. Obama played this game four times in one speech back in April, effusively praising Reagan while casting Mitt Romney as some sort of wild-eyed extremist.
That’s a game Democrats love playing. Unfortunately for them, it’s another game they play poorly. They love arguing that President Reagan wouldn’t be welcome in today’s GOP.
That statement is so devoid of credibility, you’d think Joe Biden wrote it.
Reagan cut taxes, deregulated the oil industry, pushed a robust domestic energy production plan and frightened the former USSR into history’s dustbin of failed experiments.
More importantly, he championed the guy who started innovation. Bill Gates and Michael Dell got their starts during Reagan’s time in office, starting in humble settings before growing their businesses into the gigantic success stories that they are.
Most importantly, President Reagan trusted We The People with every fiber of his being.
What part of that agenda would this administration enact into law?
The simple answer is that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wouldn’t consider adopting anything from President Reagan’s agenda.
Militant environmentalists would shut off the campaign contribution spigot to the Democratic Party and their politicians if they voted for a robust domestic energy production program.
The OWS wing of the Democratic Party, the dominant part of the party, would throw a hissy fit if Democrats supported tax cuts for small businesses. Their heads would explode if they voted for capital gains tax cuts.
That’s the truth about the progressives’ alleged fondness for President Reagan. The truth is that President Obama’s administration has balked at these things in President Reagan’s agenda. In fact, he fundamentally disagrees with Reagan’s agenda:
“He is a decent man, he is a family man, he is an articulate spokesman for Governor Romney’s vision but it is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with,” said Obama.
There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Reagan’s vision for America and Paul Ryan’s vision. They’re fantastic advocates for maximum individual liberty, free market capitalism, free trade and American exceptionalism.
The Left hates Paul Ryan for the same reasons they hated President Reagan. It’s sad that American citizens don’t believe in the foundational principles of our Founding Documents.
Tags: Ronald Reagan, Paul Ryan, Optimism, Conservatism, Free Markets, Liberty, Capitalism, Deregulation, Oil, Tax Cuts, GOP, President Obama, Militant Environmentalists, Progressives, Socialism, Democrats, Election 2012
Last night on Piers Morgan’s show, Newt Gingrich utterly dismantled a) Piers Morgan’s chanting points and b) Democrats everywhere. This video summarizes it perfectly:
Here’s the transcript of their exchange:
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: I suppose the fundamental debate that’s going to be had, though, will come down to whether the Republicans can sell to the American people that they are really concerned about jobs, about people’s livelihoods, and all the rest of it. If they’re also scratching the backs of their rich and wealthy members, which is clearly I think the flaw in the Ryan plan is that it just does. I mean, if you’re very wealthy, you’re going to be doing a lot better out of Paul Ryan than you would out of Barack Obama who believes fundamentally the rich should pay more tax.
NEWT GINGRICH: You know, I don’t want to sound disrespectful, but I do wonder sometimes if you guys all get off in a little club and learn a brand new mantra and then all repeat it mindlessly. The fact is, these kinds of things were said about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan’s tax cut – which was developed by Jack Kemp who Paul Ryan worked for – Ronald Reagan’s tax cut raised more people to middle class status, took more people out of poverty, created more jobs.
You know, this is the core thing that liberals don’t get. If you want to have jobs, you have to encourage job creators. If you discourage job creators, if you engage in class warfare, if you do what Barack Obama’s been doing, you have what we currently have. This is the worst recovery in 75 years.
Now, nobody in the media seems to want to come to grips with the fact that the Obama economic policy is a disaster for the poor. Look at the unemployment rate for black teenagers. Look at the unemployment rate for Latino teenagers. At what point do we hold the president accountable for a policy which is crippling the poor in America by crushing the economy under big government?
Ryan and Romney represent a different approach. And I think there’s this mantra you guys almost sound like you’re an extension of the Obama campaign. The Ryan/Romney plan empowers middle class Americans to get a job. When they get a job, their income goes up. They pay more taxes. They are independent. They’re able to live their own lives.
Obama worries about student loans. None of those students are going to get any jobs under Obama. Ryan and Romney are worried about getting jobs for those students so they can pay off the Obama loans.
I think this is a fundamentally different model, and I know everybody in the media wants to rush down and narrow it down to one point. So I’m going to rush down and narrow it down to one point: how long are we going to tolerate a president who makes the poorest Americans more unemployed, who pushes more poor Americans on to food stamps, and who eliminates hope for minorities? And that’s the Barack Obama record after four years.
Most Republicans would’ve tried defending ‘tax cuts for the rich’. Newt didn’t have time for that. He attacked the underlying principle, essentially saying what Ronald Reagan said decades ago: You can’t be pro jobs and hate job creators.
President Obama has villified entrepreneurs all of his adult life. He’s even had to put out an ad saying that he loves small business:
That ad was hastily thrown together right after his infamous “You didn’t build that” speech from Roanoke, VA.
Newt’s message is refreshing because he doesn’t accept the progressives’ premise. After demolishing the progressives’ premise, Newt then proceeded to highlight this administration’s failures in helping the poor, especially minorities.
The end result is Newt making a brilliant case for capitalism being the best path to prosperity for minorities.
That’s what happens when you aren’t restricted to mindlessly repeating the progressives’ chanting points.
This presidential election is a choice between the failed policies of the Obama administration vs. the proven excellence of the Romney-Ryan plan. We don’t need 3 years in office to know that the Romney-Ryan plan will work because it’s based in large part on Reagan’s plan of streamlining taxes (1986 TEFRA), loosening regulations and applauding the achievements of America’s innovators.
The other choice is to keep the failed policies of the past 42 months in office. Does the nation want another 4 years of umnprecedented levels of strangling regulations, governance through executive orders, disdain for the rule of law, disgust with wealth creation, paltry job growth and anemic GDP growth?
Do we want to hear Jay Carney and other administration mouthpieces yapping about “29 consecutive months of private sector job growth”? Or do we prefer a labor secretary who steps to the podium and announces a third straight jobs report where America’s entrepreneurs created 300,000 jobs?
Not only are economists confident that President Obama’s economic policies won’t consistently create that type of job growth. They’re confident President Obama’s economic policies prevent that type of job growth.
Do We The People want another 4 years of hearing about an endless litany of excuses (President Obama blaming ATMs is my favorite) for why the economy isn’t growing? Or do we want an administration that gets America’s fiscal house in order?
Do people want to hear Ben Bernanke announce another round of quantitative easing? Would people prefer hearing about eliminating deficits, restoring longterm fiscal health and stabilizing, then strengthening, the dollar?
Those aren’t the subjects President Obama wants on this year’s political battlefield. President Obama hates those subjects on this year’s political battlefield as much as vampires hate wooden stakes.
This isn’t the choice debate President Obama and his minions prepared for. That’s why their first response to Romney picking Paul Ryan was utterly lame.
There’s no question that President Obama and his minions will do their best to continue the small, fear-inciting, campaign they’ve run thus far.
There’s another thing to consider. Paul Ryan utterly dismantled President Obama’s arguments for the ACA. President Obama vs. Paul Ryan isn’t a fair fight. In fact, if you watch the video of Ryan demolishing the ACA, you’ll see President Obama initially looking stunned. That quickly changed. It wasn’t long before President Obama looked upset, then irate.
That’s because President Obama thinks of himself as the smartest man in the room whereas Paul Ryan is the smartest man in the room on budget and economic policy.
Finally, Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech has the potential to set the stage for a wild fall campaign. Mitt Romney is energized. Paul Ryan is electrifying.
This isn’t the campaign President Obama wanted to fight. Don’t think that won’t become apparent.