What do you do if you canât run on your record â on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no? Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasnât noticed that youâve been in charge of it for nearly three years. But above all: Find villains. President Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming Americaâs dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt and various acts of God. Didnât work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Obamaâs base lusts for above all. Hence Obamaâs new strategy: Donât whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich â and their Republican protectors â for wrecking America. In Obamaâs telling, itâs the refusal of the rich to âpay their fair shareâ that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires donât pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research. Itâs crude. Itâs Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, itâs ridiculous. Obamaâs most coveted tax hike â an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making more than $200,000) â would have reduced last yearâs deficit (at the very most) from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a dayâs federal spending. You could collect Obamaâs favorite tax loophole â depreciation for corporate jets â for 100 years and it wouldnât cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system. After three years, Obamaâs self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country, and I shall rescue you from them. Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. Itâs dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandoraâs box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nationâs leader. Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over Chinaâs currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war â a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign. Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5-a-month debit card fee. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees â except that this $5 fee is not hidden. Itâs perfectly transparent. Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank â after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs. Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Leviâs-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over. These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching â to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause. Except that the real Tea Party actually had a program â less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. Whatâs the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich. And then what? Havenât gotten that far. No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles â and its failures â on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few. From the Senate to the streets, itâs working. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at reelection, he shows no sign of caring. letters@charleskrauthammer.com
But, as we've heard, they're nuts, right? So this piece's first premise is wrong. Good thing you didn't have to type it!
"PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. registered voters, by 46% to 38%, continue to say they are more likely to vote for the Republican presidential candidate than for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election." http://www.gallup.com/poll/150116/Generic-Republican-Continues-Lead-Obama-Vote.aspx When you can't even score better than a proverbial lump of undefined clay, well...you got problems.
NO, Jobs supported. New Obama metric: âJobs supportedâ POSTED AT 2:45 PM ON OCTOBER 13, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY Old and busted: Jobs âsaved or created.â New hotness: Jobs âsupported.â In attempting to advance the argument for Barack Obamaâs new jobs stimulus plan, the White House has decided to create a new term that has, er, even less meaning than their previous measure: How exactly did the White House come up with its new metric? Chuck Blahous gives us a detailed analysis of exactly how they crafted this measure to be, well, unmeasurable: Does this give readers a sense of deja vu? The block grants in Porkulus also assumed that states would simply lay off teachers and first responders as a result of large-scale budget deficits in the throes of the Great Recession. Thatâs where jobs âsaved and createdâ originated; Obama and his team meant public-sector employees in states and local governments. Only those organizations employ a lot more people than just teachers, police officers, and fire fighters; most states have vast bureaucracies that ended up getting âsavedâ thanks to the infusion of cash that allowed legislatures to put off tough decisions on the size and nature of government during the economic crisis. Well, the acute economic crisis is over. Whatâs the excuse for procrastination now? Instead of having the states take responsibility for tough budget decisions, Obama wants to let states like Illinois and California off the hook by forcing other states to subsidize their bad budgeting decisions. Why? Take a look at the recent history of the Electoral College for one reason, and the fact that most of these bureaucrats belong to public-employee unions like SEIU and AFCSME for another reason. Thatâs what Obama is âsupporting.â Letâs recall the extensive reporting in 2009 that showed that jobs âsaved or createdâ were a myth, even in the public sector:
I've always known myself that the "stimulus didn't work" claim was not entirely true, since my company made a $8-million sale thanks to it. That sale saved, for a time, around 400 FTEs. "Instead of having the states take responsibility for tough budget decisions, Obama wants to let states like Illinois and California off the hook by..." There's a reason we call ourselves the United States of America.