By James H. Shott
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-NV) last week insisted that "we are in a recovery," and blasted Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for disparaging the economy's performance. The
drop in GDP in the 4th quarter is the Republicans fault, he said, citing their
austerity and brinkmanship. “Growth went down in the fourth quarter because of
reduced government spending,” he said. “The economy was rejecting the austerity
and brinkmanship.”
Well, if Sen. Reid is correct and
the economy is recovering, things must be better than when President Barack
Obama took office prior to the recession ending. Let's take a look.
On the positive side, the Dow Jones
Industrial Average is bumping up against its all-time high mark of 14,164, and
has regained the losses from the financial crisis.
However, since January of 2009
until just before the election last November the number of long-term unemployed
had risen from 2.7 million to 4.8 million; the price of gasoline had more than
doubled; there were 40 states with high unemployment compared to 22 in 2009;
median household income was down 7 percent; mortgage delinquencies were up by
60 percent; the Misery Index was up 25 percent; and the National Debt had increased
by 53 percent.
Today there are 1.2 million fewer
jobs in America than there were then, and the number of Americans on food
stamps has increased from 32 million to 46 million. The amount of money that
the federal government gives directly to Americans has increased by 32 percent
since 2009.
And the most recent economic news
in addition to the news that for the first time since 2009 the U.S. GDP was in
negative territory in the 4th quarter is that consumer confidence plunged in
January to its lowest level in a year, and the unemployment rate rose to 7.9
percent for January.
Is this what Sen. Reid thinks a
recovery looks like?
Actually, this is what happened to
the economy because Barack Obama avoided dealing with the things that really
needed attention – the economy, jobs, energy independence, etc. – and instead wasted all of his four years
playing with less-critical issues like health care, killing the coal industry,
sending guns to Mexican drug dealers, wasting billions on a failed economic
stimulus, and flushing money down the green energy toilet.
As the president's second term
begins it is remarkable to observe the high degree of outright revolt among the
states and the people over government actions and proposed actions under Mr.
Obama's watch, highlighted by the feeling of a majority of Americans in a new
poll that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.
Fifty-three percent of 1,502 adults surveyed from January 9-13 by the Pew
Research Center for the People & the Press responded that government is now
a threat to their freedom.
Twenty-seven states are balking
over the Affordable Care Act on constitutionality and budgetary grounds, and
have sued the government. Provisions of the law threaten to blow states'
Medicaid expenses through the roof.
Forty-three Catholic groups have
sued the government on religious freedom grounds. The Affordable Care Act
forces them to provide services to their employees that violate their religious
tenets, in contravention of the 1st Amendment's protection of religious
freedom.
And perhaps worse, as the details
of what was in the bill that no one read before voting on it leak out, we are learning
of taxes and increased costs. The measure requires Americans to buy health
insurance or pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the IRS
tells us the cheapest plan will cost a family $20,000 a year.
“We found that about three quarters
of again, whatever you want to call them — taxes, fines, penalties — about
three quarters of those costs will fall on the backs of those who make less
than $120,000 a year. It’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class
families," economist Steven Moore of The
Wall Street Journal said. This is what passes for "affordable" to
Democrat leaders.
A more serious revolt against
federal initiatives results from talk of imposing a ban on assault weapons. A
number of county sheriffs are refusing to assist the feds on banned weapons
initiatives from the administration and Congress on constitutional grounds, should
a weapons ban be put into effect. Many law enforcement officials have written
letters expressing their positions on proposed bans, and one county sheriff
noted that not only does every sheriff takes an oath to "preserve, protect
and defend" the Constitution, but federal agents also take that oath, and
he believes they won't enforce the bans, either.
Despite the unintended consequences
of the Affordable Care Act that punishes those it was supposed to help, and the
brewing constitutional crisis over banning weapons instead of addressing the
root cause of mass killings, the Obama administration and Congressional
Democrats go merrily along, trampling on whoever and whatever gets in their
way.
We expect our government to be
responsive to our wishes, and the unprecedented level of opposition to these
two issues ought to command the attention of those in leadership positions, and
cause them to re-evaluate the unpopular course they are following.
Cross-posted from Observations
