Archive for the ‘Reagan’ Category
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.
This election is exceptionally straightforward. People can vote for this administration’s failed policies, their cronyism and negativity or they can vote for an agenda that restores America to prosperity, puts America on a path to repeated balanced budgets and that puts their faith in the American people, not in big government.
It didn’t take Team Obama long to put out their first negative ad against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan:
Team Obama has its work cut out for themselves, as Ed points out in this post:
Despite the attacks on Ryan over his budget plan, he’s easily the most liked of the short-listers among likely voters 65 years of age and over, with a 52/29 favorability rating. His “very favorable” rating of 31% in the 65+ group is more than 10 points better than the other shortlisters in the Rasmussen survey (again, save Rice). Jindal did well, too, with a 44/28, as did Pawlenty with a 40/30 and Portman at 37/26, but Ryan’s draw among seniors outpaced all of them. Ryan has plenty of room to be defined in either direction with 35% of voters overall not having an opinion, but that’s only true of 20% of seniors, and Ryan already has a majority of them on his side.
Despite the Democrats’ scare tactics, Chairman Ryan has a positive rating with seniors, women and independents. President Obama will have his hands full attempting to villainize Paul Ryan.
Idiots like Paul Begala are joining in the whining:
The elite love Ryan because he speaks for more cowardly members of their class; his stridently anti–middle class policies are music to their ears.
Conservatives must belittle idiots like howling dogs like Mr. Begala. Calling the guy who’s “a member of his local archery association, the Janesville Bowmen” an elitist is stupid. It’s typical Begala. He’s never let facts get in the way opportunities for looking like an idiot.
When it comes to looking reasonable, Mr. Begala never misses an opportunity to miss great opportunities.
Whenever President Obama goes negative personal, he’ll look like the petty, vindictive juvenile he is. That’s because Paul Ryan has President Reagan’s trait of optimism. Petty vindictiveness doesn’t play well against positivity.
TEA Party activists and other conservatives aren’t just energized. They’re ready to write checks and pound signs for the Romney-Ryan ticket. During FNC’s coverage of Mitt’s introduction aboard the USS Wisconsin, Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s former campaign strategist, said that there’s “no doubt that” tons of donations are flowing into the Romney-Ryan warchest via online donations.
I don’t doubt that a split-second. In fact, I predicted in this article that the Ryan-Romney ticket will raise $150,000,000 this month. That’d be $40,000,000-$50,000,000 more than he’s raised in either of the last 2 months.
Prior to Mitt picking Paul Ryan, conservatives were licking our chops at voting against President Obama and his failed policies. We’re still licking our proverbial chops to vote against President Obama’s failed policies. It’s just that we’re now also salivating at the opportunity to vote for the Ryan agenda.
During yesterday’s roundtable on ABC’s This Week, Donna Brazile tried spinning her way through a question about what President Obama has done for small business owners. Here’s what she said:
What we can do is talk about what the President is doing to help small businesses compete, what the President is doing to help small businesses grow and hire people. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not anti-small business. We’re trying to help small businesses compete.
Let’s have that discussion. When a small business files their taxes as an individual, the business’s earnings are counted as the individual’s income. President Obama wants these S-corps and LLCs to pay a marginal tax rate of almost 40%.
This money typically isn’t taken in salary by “the rich.” It’s frequently invested in their businesses. How will increasing their taxes at this time help small businesses or their employees? It won’t.
How has this administration’s EPA helped small businesses? It hasn’t. This administration’s EPA isn’t greenlighting the permits needed for switching vehicles from diesel fuel to liquified natural gas. That step alone would cut delivery expenses dramatically.
When President Obama delayed a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, he stopped small businesses from playing an important support role in building the pipeline.
These small businesses have been hurt by some of President Obama’s lesser known initiatives. That’s before talking about the 8,000 elephant in the room, aka the ACA.
That’s before talking about this administration’s disastrous energy policy, if it can be seriously considered policy. President Obama put a higher priority on campaign contributions than on strengthening America’s energy supply for a generation. The deal that the Chinese are on the verge of signing won’t stop global warming like militant environmentalists want. The Chinese deal will officially stop the Keystone XL pipeline, killing thousands of jobs.
If that’s this administration’s idea of helping small businesses, then I’m betting small businesses wish government got out of the business of helping small businesses.
This administration’s economic legacy is a disaster. Job growth is anemic. Economic growth dropped from 4.1% in Q4/2011 to a tiny 1.5% in Q2/2012. FYI- That 4.1% growth was the best of this administration. The Reagan recovery started in earnest in Q2/1983. The GDP that quarter was 10.9%. That quarter was followed by quarters of 6.5%, 7%, 7.4% and 5%.
In President Reagan’s third September in office, the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. After a strong start this year, it’s questionable whether the economy under this administration will create 1,100,000 jobs this year.
Finally, we know from corporations parking their money on the sidelines that their money will stay on the sidelines until regulations are reformed, the ACA is repealed and Dodd-Frank is just an awful memory. That means this is the best economic performance we can expect in an Obama administration.
That’s why we can’t afford 4 more years of this economic stagnation.