Obama and the useless stimulus

Another blog on the disasters of the Obama Presidency, thanks to Hugh Hewitt’s book The Brief Against Obama. This time we’ll consider his failed stimulus program.

It was Obama’s first priority when he was sworn in. The cost was estimated at $767 billion, but (surprise!) it rose to $862 billion before it died. Where’s the money come from? Was it just lying around? Oh no . . . it was borrowed. Over the last three years the interest cost alone has been over $80 billion with no end in sight.

What was the purpose of the stimulus? It was going to deliver millions of jobs, remember? But the reality was this—nothing was “shovel ready,” nothing lasting was built, no lasting jobs were created, nothing helped slow our country’s downward economic spiral.

In a cynical attempt to throw the blame upon the G.O.P., Obama proposed Stimulus 2.0 that could not and would not be passed even through a Democratic-controlled Senate. It was sold as a magic pill that would have cured all problems if only the mean G.O.P. would get on board.

Obamacare--another reason to vote out our current President

I covered some of Obama’s failings in foreign affairs last time as I reviewed a book by Hugh Hewitt—The Brief Against Obama. I want to turn to domestic issues now. Let’s start with the biggie—Obamacare.

The big picture, according to Hewitt, is that Obamacare is ruining employment and health care at the same time. It will push our country to an era of scarcity and rationing in health care, huge government bureaucracies, and unresponsive hospitals and clinics.

Notice how it got started. It was passed over the loud protests of the American people. Now a few earlier laws have also been passed this way, but they soon won over the public. Not so in this case. Obamacare remains hugely unpopular. Just wait until the costs start kicking in.

Other problems abound in this bill. It was passed on a straight part-line basis in a disgusting manner. All sorts of sweetheart deals had to be arranged with various senators. Remember the Cornhusker kickback? In addition, many see this law as unconstitutional despite the Supreme Court decision. It was passed on false premises with impossible-to-keep claims. In addition, employers are dropping hundreds of thousands from coverage because it’s cheaper under the law to take a federal fine than to insure their employees. Add to this the fact that it opens an assault on every Catholic institution by requiring them to pay for sterilization and the “morning after” pill.

Probably the worst thing about Obamacare is its rationing powers. Beginning this year, fifteen unelected bureaucrats will actually be the ones who decide the health-care futures of all Americans. It’s a pure and simple rationing board.

The promise made by Obama was so encouraging. If we liked our doctors, we could keep them, and if we liked our insurance, we could keep it. But the reality is different. Already hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost either the doctors or the health insurance they had and wanted to keep. Just another reason Obama has to go this November.  

The Brief Against Obama

I want to start a series on the Obama presidency, based on The Brief Against Obama, a wonderful book by Hugh Hewitt, a lawyer who clearly lays out the failures of the last four years.

He starts with a reminder of the famous promises Obama made as a candidate. Of course, the biggest was the “Hope and Change” theme. He said the seas would cease their rise. He promised to revive our economy and keep the unemployment below 8 percent. How have these worked out? Easy answer, right?

Hewitt says there are key arguments against Obama. Obamacare was a disaster (and still hated by many Americans), unemployment is far too high, the 2009 stimulus was a total failure, our foreign policy is in shambles, and he has abused the powers of the presidency. Each of these is huge, but Hewitt manages to clarify them in short, punchy chapters.

Let’s start with the foreign mess we now have, thanks to Obama. He snubbed our friends (think of his disgraceful treatment of Israel’s Netanyahu), ignored the Iranian resistance movement, waited for months before calling for Syria’s leader to depart, led from behind in Libya, cut and ran from Iraq, bowed to the Saudi king/Japanese emperor/Chinese president, tried to “reset” relations with the Russians only to be surprised at that country’s nasty behavior (shades of Jimmy Carter), ignored the brutalities and aggressive actions of North Korea, allowed hard-line Islamic fundamentalists to take over in several Arab countries. Each of these deserves a separate essay, but time is short. Obama’s overall problem has been his idea that the United States will gain in world opinion if we look weak, if we appear ashamed of our past policies, if we seem hesitant to defend our values. The result is what anyone would expect—aggressors of the world no longer fear us and are quite willing to go on the offensive against us and our allies.

More next time as we look at domestic failures of Obama. Oh so many of them . . .

General Motors and Obama

The Democrats and President Obama are touting the success of General Motors, saying that they brought it back from the dead. Is this true?

A little background is useful here. The Bush administration decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. But it was President Obama who really shook things up by nationalizing the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. Gee, who would have thought . . . The Dems would want to protect unions over the interests of the public at large?

How did Obama’s people do this? It forced GM’s bondholders into losing a bundle in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW, unlike what would have happened if Mitt Romney had been in charge. Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have involved the federal government too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. So, here we go again—Obama has set up another group dependent on the government.

But wait, the Dems say. We saved tons of jobs by doing this. Isn’t that good? Well, they base this claim on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Does that seem realistic? Nope. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. From what I’ve read, it’s unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem for Democrats — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

So how’s it turned out for GM? The company has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down. GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election. I guess Obama can resurrect the company once again. This would all be funny except American jobs are on the line, and the American taxpayer is on the hook since we own 60% of the company.

This is the bottom line:  it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program, something the Dems really like. More dependency.

The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. This is just one example of what we have to look forward to if Obama is reelected.

"Choice" and its limits to liberals

It was great today. Someone at Reason magazine took a mic to the floor of the Democratic convention and asked delegates to comment on their view of "choice." Of course, they all chanted the mantra of "I'm for a woman's choice."

But it got interesting when the concept of "choice" was extended to other things. One woman was asked if people should have choice  when it comes to light bulbs. No, she said because the traditional incandescent bulbs hurt the environment. Oh, so choice is OK to kill a baby, but not so good to pick light bulbs.

Another question had to do with fast foods. Several delegates said it was bad to let people eat fatty foods, so no choice should be given there. The reason, not surprising, was harm to the human body. Never mind the harm to the child and mother (both physical and psychological) that abortion does.

One other question was asked regarding school choice. Can you guess where this went? Yep, people opposed school choice because they feared the profit motive in some charter schools. Hey, we all know how bad free enterprise is, right? Obama and his minions have drilled that into us for four years now.

So the hypocrisy was dripping off the walls at the Dems' convention. But that's nothing new. These people have such screwed up priorities . . .

Obama and Medicare

I'm going to make this a simple blog. Considering all the heat brought out by the debate on Medicare, there hasn't been much light. Here goes.

The system is broke. Nobody denies this. The Democrats, who controlled all three branches of the government from 2009 to 2011, failed to do anything about this fact. The Democratic Senate has failed to even come up with a budget for the past three years. Wow, talk about a failure to lead.

So Romney and Ryan have a plan. If you are over 55, Medicare stays the same. If you are under 55, you can keep the current system or take a voucher from the government and shop it for insurance from private companies. Since companies will compete, the price will drop.

Democrats talk choice a great deal. Well, this time it's the Republicans who offer choice.