Pages: 1 2
On Monday, President Obama once again resorted to the age-old progressive tactic of dividing American by class, advocating an extension of the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 — and a tax hike on everyone above that threshold. “We don’t need more top-down economics,” Obama said. “We need policies that grow and strengthen the middle class.” Critics were quick to see through the subterfuge. “This is more of the same, with different packaging,” said Chris Whitcombe, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). “It won’t pass, and we will hear this rhetoric up until Election Day.”
The reasons are obvious. The president is desperate to turn the conversation away from last week’s dismal jobs numbers. 80,000 new jobs were added in June, well below anything resembling a genuine recovery, and far less than the 125,000-150,000 jobs that must be created simply to keep pace with the growth of the working-age population. By aiming the increase at the so-called rich, Obama hopes to once again paint the Republican Party as “obstructionist” and their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, as an out-of-touch, job-outsourcing elitist with little concern for the average American.
The Romney campaign was quick to respond, with spokesperson Andrea Saul sending out an email prior to the president’s announcement:
President Obama’s response to even more bad economic news is a massive tax increase. It just proves again that the President doesn’t have a clue how to get America working again and help the middle class. The President’s latest bad idea is to raise taxes on families, job creators, and small businesses. Almost half a million fewer Americans are working today than the day Barack Obama took office, and we’ve just come through the worst job creation quarter in two years[.]
There are several other problems with the president’s approach. First, painting Romney as an out-of-touch elitist may be red meat for Obama’s hard-left base, but it may not be resonating with the general public. This may explain why Romney raised $106.1 million in June, setting a GOP fundraising record, and eclipsing the president’s take by $30 million. Ominously for Democrats, 94 percent of the contributions were $250 dollars or less, generating $22.3 million of the total number. Donations were garnered from all 50 states and Washington DC.
As for outsourcing, Breitbart.com reveals Obama’s two biggest fundraisers, John Rogers, CEO of investment giant Ariel Capital Management, and DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, are dedicated outsourcers. Ariel Capital Management owns a $48.6 million stake in Accenture, the nation’s number one outsourcer, according to the International Association of Outsourcing Professionals. Katzenburg is trying to outsource jobs to China. Moreover, Obama Jobs Czar and GE CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, has also sent 25,000 jobs overseas while cutting 34,000 domestically. In return for a $50 billion taxpayer bailout from the Obama administration, a “grateful” General Motors has started building cars in China and Mexico to save on labor costs. Throw in three taxpayer-guaranteed loans to Spanish clean energy conglomerate Abengoa, totaling $2.78 billion, and a $529 million loan guarantee to Finnish car maker Fisker Automotive, and the overt hypocrisy of painting Romney as the outsourcer in this race becomes painfully apparent.
Respecting the president’s disdain for “top-down economics,” one would presume we need the opposite, which Obama referred to as “some middle class-out economics, some bottom-up economics” at a campaign stop in Florida last month. Last Friday in Ohio, Vice President Joe Biden revealed what such rhetoric actually means. He told a National Education Association conference that government spending, not the private sector, strengthens the economy. “We believe that the way to build this country is the way we always have, from the middle out…invest in things that have always made our economy grow: innovation, research, development, infrastructure and education,” he said. Yet if that were truly the case, America would be swimming in jobs, considering this administration has added $5 trillion to the national debt in less than four years attempting to do precisely that.
Painting the Republican Party as obstructionist is problematic as well. The 2010 election in which Republicans took over the House, gained seats in the Senate, and made tremendous advances in state legislatures and governorships across the nation, reflected the electorate’s overwhelming desire to blunt such irresponsible spending. In fact, 17 states that elected fiscally conservative Republican governors in 2010 have brought down their unemployment rates at a far faster rate than their eight Democrat counterparts. And the most accurate definition of obstructionist by far belongs to the Democrat-controlled Senate that has tabled every budget presented to them by the House, and made no effort to produce one of their own in more than three years, despite being compelled by the law to do so.
Pages: 1 2