Saturday, March 9, 2013

Rock On, Economy!

What a dilemma the President finds himself in.  Only a week ago he droned (no pun intended) on about how America would suffer as a direct result of the evil Republicans' sequestration policy.  Mr. Obama forgot (and a compliant media failed to remind him) that sequestration was his idea in the first place.  I know I posted this video clip a week ago, but it's important to remember the President's words; especially since he himself can't seem to.  A couple of minutes into his whine, Mr Obama blames all of America's future woes on the sequester.  At least he's no longer blaming Bush.  But I digress.

There is good news here that the President fails to mention.  The economy appears to be rocking.  Jobs are beginning to look better; at least for those Americans still willing to actually work for a living.  Also, the stock market recorded near record highs this week.  The irony for the President is that he can't take credit for all this good news because he and his minions shamelessly predicted nothing but instantaneous doom and gloom for weeks before the sequester hit.

If we actually realistically look at the events of the past few weeks, the irony of the President's dilemma becomes clear.  The sequestration process dictated that Congress and the President cooperatively act to deliver a balanced approach to cutting the American deficit.  This "balance" was to be achieved through increased taxes and budgetary entitlement cuts.  In January of this year, the President increased taxes on the American people to the tune of 650 billion dollars.  Despite his promise that middle and low income Americans would not see their paychecks diminished, every single American who works for above the table pay got taxed and brought home less money beginning with their first paycheck in January.  This is a fact.  Half of the balanced approach had been achieved.  The President succeeded in raising taxes on everyone in the country.  The other half of the balanced approach would come from budget cuts.

It would, except it didn't.  The President refused to hold up his end of the bargain when he refused to even propose, much less make any budgetary cuts.  Congress gave him unprecedented authority to pick and choose where to make cuts that would cause the least amount of pain to the American people and to the economy.  Any true leader would jump at the chance.  But, America elected a Marxist community organizer who has never held a real job and unfortunately, leadership requires a more qualified resume.  Again I digress.  Obama chose an anti-leadership role and simply refused to take action and hold up his end of the bargain.  The President refused to lead. The reason is simple; accountability.  The President does not want to be on the hook for cutting programs and entitlements, no matter how frivolous they may be.  The result?  The President's lack of action might have actually caused a spike in the economy.  When Obama kept his hands out of things, things got better.  Many (especially in the media) will disagree and float a plethora of other reasons, all of which give credit to the President's policies.  Why wouldn't they?  I mean after all, why face facts?