The Most Anti-Business President Ever – David Limbaugh –

The Most Anti-Business President Ever – David Limbaugh –

If I didn’t know better, I might conclude that President Obama is trying to validate my book. His personal attacks on Mitt Romney have been so harsh that Romney called them “beneath the dignity of the presidency.”

Not only did I devote several chapters to documenting Obama’s practice of bullying and attacking his political opponents but my final chapter, uncannily, details Obama’s “War on the Dignity of His Office.”

Having presided over 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent and possessing no arrows in his economic quiver besides deficit spending and raising taxes, it’s not surprising Obama continues to resort to these gutter tactics.

What finally drew Romney’s ire was Obama’s accusing Romney of committing a felony and then Obama’s refusing to apologize. This is simply Chicago Thug Politics 101. President Obama’s favorite whipping boy, President George W. Bush, would have never stooped to this level. Even in the face of brutal, scurrilous attacks, Bush refused to diminish the dignity of the office.

In recent days, Obama also provided supplemental material for my chapter detailing his “War on Business” by revealing, yet again, his attitude toward the private sector, entrepreneurship and business. He told a crowd in Roanoke, Va., “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

His apologists will say his remarks were taken out of context, but I’m afraid that’s not the case. Though no one can deny Obama’s assertion that all successful people have benefited from others — teachers and other mentors — the thrust of his remarks was directed at crediting government with having an indispensible role in the success of businesses.

Watch the video. He referred wistfully to the Clinton years as a period of unbridled economic growth — and he attributed that growth to tax increases on the “wealthy.” He said that during those years, “we created a lot of millionaires.” We? Created? In other words, government created a lot of millionaires; it wasn’t their ingenuity, and it certainly wasn’t their “hard work” — a point he made emphatically clear. The government’s infrastructure, its roads and bridges, said Obama, created the climate for businesses to thrive. Oh, boy.

This is Obama’s orientation. This is his mindset. He believes that government is the granddaddy of business and not the other way around. He was very explicit in his Osawatomie, Kan., speech that capitalism can’t work without extensive government regulations and that businesses don’t flourish on their own. They can only succeed when jump-started by infusions of government money and wisdom. Does it ever occur to him that there would be no government if businesses and individuals weren’t pouring their revenues into the federal coffers?

Despite Obama’s insistence that he is a fierce advocate of the free market and his fanfare about streamlining government regulations, he has amassed regulations at an unprecedented rate, dwarfing all previous presidents, including George W. Bush. Indeed, his burdensome regulatory and tax policies have businesses paralyzed in an anxiety-shaped straightjacket and scared to death to expand because of the stifling atmosphere of uncertainty.

During his term, employment at federal agencies has increased, while it has been abysmal in the private sector. He has demonized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and savaged the private jet industry, causing major damage to that industry and costing thousands of jobs. He has inspired an adversarial, even hostile, climate between labor unions and management, exemplified by his National Labor Relations Board‘s trying to prevent Boeing from opening up a new manufacturing plant in another state.

Obama has few people with business experience in his administration. He has no former CEOs in his Cabinet, and there is almost no top-level private-sector experience among his inner circle of advisers. Time magazine’s Fareed Zakaria, a liberal and a big fan of Obama’s, admits that even the business leaders who voted for Obama believe he is, “at his core, anti-business.”

George Buckley, CEO of 3M, said: “We know what his instincts are. … He is anti-business.” Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, said: “This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it. … Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.”

Even Obama’s attacks against Romney are mostly grounded in Obama’s antipathy toward Romney’s success in business and Obama’s innate hostility toward the private sector.

Obama’s punitively anti-business policies have made it very difficult for businesses to flourish and for job growth to occur. His anti-business attitude and rhetoric have poisoned the market that much more.

If and when Obama is defeated in November, we should anticipate an explosion in business and entrepreneurial activity among ordinary Americans who realize they’re about to be liberated from the most anti-business president in our history.


Obama’s Ludicrous Self- Portrait as a Budget Hawk – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross de...

Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obama’s Ludicrous Self- Portrait as a Budget Hawk – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

I saw it with my own eyes on a video clip that Sean Hannity played. At a speech in Baltimore, President Obama laughingly dismissed the notion that he is responsible for our nation’s current spending orgy. Seriously.

Sporting a wide grin, Obama said, “I love listening to these guys give us lectures about debt and deficits.” He must think this subject is a real knee-slapper. He continued: “I inherited a trillion-dollar deficit. We had a surplus; they turned it into a deficit, built in a structural deficit that extends for decades. … We signed $2 trillion in spending cuts into law. I laid out a detailed plan for a total of $4 trillion in deficit reduction. … But even when you account for the steps we took to prevent a depression and jump-start the economy … spending under my administration has grown more slowly than under any president in 60 years.”

A fascinating question is whether Obama actually believes this fantasy or he and his disciples are laughing at us, as well.

Yes, he’s had some delusional enablers who have argued that he has been fiscally frugal, having actually slowed the rate of government spending. Yes, you read that correctly.

But how do these enablers make such a claim — in print, no less? Well, the best I can figure is that they say that the deficit for Bush’s final fiscal year was above $1 trillion and that hence Obama’s $1 trillion deficits thereafter constitute continuing the status quo; he’s not increasing the level of the deficits.

Wow. That’s creative, but it’s completely disingenuous. We must first understand that presidential term years don’t coincide with budget years. There is overlap, and the final Bush year was partially Obama’s.

Also, the final Bush budget year was extraordinary because the housing crisis had unfolded and there were TARP expenditures, many of which were later repaid. It’s also worth remembering that the primary cause of the housing crisis was the affordable housing policies that were mostly pushed by liberal lawmakers. President Bush might have been on board for some of this early on, but he strongly appealed to Democrats in Congress to curtail this program well before it had reached crisis levels, and scoffers such as Rep. Barney Frank dismissed him out of hand and assured the nation there was nothing to fear from these reckless policies.

In addition, in running for re-election, President Bush promised to cut the budget deficit in half, and he did so. By 2007, his budget deficit was $161 billion, a mere fraction of every one of Obama’s trillion-dollar-plus deficits. In that year, by the way, we were still at war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the tax cuts had been fully implemented years before, conclusively putting the lie to Obama’s claim that Bush handed him astronomical deficits as a result of his tax cuts and two wars. Utter nonsense. Shameless propaganda.

President Bush did spend too much, though Obama’s deficits have dwarfed his. But for the sake of argument, let’s take Obama at his word that he inherited enormous deficits from President Bush. Wouldn’t the reaction of a responsible presidential successor have been to say, “We have racked up bankrupting spending, so we must reverse course and get our spending under control; we owe it to our kids not to squander their future and saddle them with mountains of debt”?

Instead, Obama cynically used the extraordinary deficit in that final year as a license to re-establish the base line for future deficits so that he could embark on his extravagant spending spree while pretending he was not increasing the deficit. He has piled on deficits of more than $1 trillion during each of his four years. Unintentionally, you say?

Nice try, but the Congressional Budget Office says that his most recent 10-year budget also gives us annual deficits averaging almost $1 trillion per year. He does not even aspire to bring the budget into balance. Add to this that he is steadfastly obstructing entitlement reform — so that our $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities will continue to grow apace — and we will soon be out of time to avoid going the way of Greece.

Obama has not cut trillions in spending. At most, he has been forced to agree to reductions in the level of spending increases. But even here, he has gone back on his word and broken his agreements. He offers us nothing but more spending proposals — claiming it’s the only way to stimulate the economy and pretending we are too stupid to realize we’ve already been there and done that.

Obama’s claim that he is not a big spender is preposterous, but if he insists on insulting the intelligence of the American people in sticking to his story, that’s fine with me because it will make our task of defeating him in November that much easier.

Time for Republicans To Take the Offensive – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Time for Republicans To Take the Offensive – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

Two very important things happened in politics this week. First, the elections underscored just how fed up mainstream America is with extreme liberalism. Second, President Obama, with his formal endorsement of same-sex marriage, is openly casting his lot with his extremist base.

The question is: How will putative GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney interpret and respond to these events? Will he fall into the usual Republican trap of thinking he has to follow his Democratic opponent leftward to appear more moderate? Or will he show his confidence in the reasonableness of conservatism and in the American people to embrace him if he clearly articulates it?

To some extent, we are all products of our environments. We get our sense of what is “normal” from those with whom we most frequently associate, which at least partially explains liberal media figures believing that their minority views are mainstream.

They uniformly ridicule traditional American values on national TV as if they are held only by flyover throwbacks who haven’t yet been exposed to the enlightened wisdom of the coasts. How else do you explain Chris Matthews‘ brazen characterization of the GOP as the “grand wizard” party and as flat-earthers and those who don’t believe in science? Or candidate Obama’s derisive portrayal of small-town Americans as bitter clingers, apparently clueless that the statement would reveal him, not those he described, as extreme?

There are countless other examples, including liberals and ex-liberals who’ve said that until they reached a certain age, they’d never met a Republican or conservative in their lives. And we’ve all seen the statistics on the staggeringly high percentage of atheism among Beltway journalists and media figures compared with the rest of the American people.

Yet with their megaphones, these liberals have been preaching that their worldview is the majority position and that those not subscribing to it are wrongheaded, immoral and standing athwart the progress of history.

On top of these pressures, Romney has doubtlessly been conditioned by Massachusetts voters to some degree to think that center-left is center and that mainstream right is extreme right. I just hope he realizes the significance of polling data showing that for decades, twice as many Americans have identified themselves as conservatives, as well as the significance of state elections consistently rejecting same-sex marriage despite enormous media and leftist cultural pressure to shame states into legalizing it.

Romney is not alone. Even many center-right pundits seem vulnerable to mainstream media, Hollywood and other cultural propaganda bombarding us with the message that liberalism is morally superior. Is it not amazing that during the budget ceiling debates between President Obama and House Republicans, it was the Republicans — you know, the ones who merely wanted to reduce the rate of increase in federal spending — who were painted as the extremists? Couldn’t you feel the palpable fear — even among many a right-wing pundit — that if House Republicans held their ground, they would make Obama look like the reasonable party and increase his chances for re-election?

What I’m saying is that Romney and other Republicans need to show a little more confidence in the reasonableness of conservative policies and in the American people to support them when they are plainly explained. Romney does not need to apologize for his monetary success; he doesn’t need to strip high-income earners of legitimate tax deductions; he doesn’t need to throw bones to the global warming zealots; and he doesn’t need to pander to Democrats on student loan extensions.

If Republican candidates insist on allowing Democrats to make this election a contest over which party cares more about the American people, then perhaps they ought to make the case that compassion means we quit spending the nation and our children into bankruptcy and that we should re-establish economic policies that history has proved lead to economic growth.

But they mustn’t stop there. They must also take the offensive and show that it is the Democratic Party and its left-wing media echo chamber that have been taken over not merely by liberals but by extremist liberals, most notably typified by President Barack Obama. They no longer have to rely on his past radical associations. They can point to his record of extremism in office across the board.

Obama’s record is as radical as it gets (given the center-right beliefs of the electorate), and his policies have manifestly failed — unarguably. It’s imperative that Republicans make that case aggressively and unapologetically. If they do so, they’ll have to spend much less time agonizing over whether they look extreme themselves.

Stop the navel gazing and read the tea leaves, GOP. Shine the spotlight on Obama and his unacceptable extremism.

Liberal Opposition to Ryan Plan Is Delusional Demagoguery – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Liberal Opposition to Ryan Plan Is Delusional Demagoguery – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

It’s one thing for good-faith conservative Republicans to challenge the Ryan plan from the right if they believe its cuts are too small and too slow, but these liberal attacks are something else again.

How catastrophic would the nation’s fiscal condition have to be before liberals recognized its urgency? Is there any scenario under which they’d consider setting aside their partisan populism to come to the nation’s rescue? Are they capable of even temporarily setting aside their redistributionist myopia long enough meaningfully to address the main drivers of the national debt?

As we know, President Obama hasn’t addressed and won’t address our financial problems. He has never presented a budget plan that even pretends to rein in entitlement spending or comes anywhere close to reducing our annual deficits to less than shocking numbers, much less reversing the debt picture.

When Paul Ryan presented his plan in April 2011, Obama mocked, ridiculed and demonized him and Republicans as wanting to inflict pain on the elderly and autistic, among other sympathetic groups. Yet when Obama’s treasury secretary appeared before the House and the Senate, he admitted the administration’s plan wholly fails to address the long-term debt issue and said only that the administration doesn’t like the way Ryan’s plan approaches it.

We are witnessing the end results of liberal policies on a wide variety of issues — from health care to the economy to the national debt — yet liberals can’t give them up. Instead of acknowledging that their utopian dreams haven’t delivered, they are shaking their fists at Republicans and conservatives, as if it were our fault that reality doesn’t conform to their fantasies. They’d be much better off reading Mark Levin‘s “Ameritopia,” but I won’t hold my breath.

In The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn rails against “the stunning immorality of Paul Ryan’s budget.” The Washington Post’s editorial board denounces “Paul Ryan’s dangerous, and intentionally vague, budget plan.”

Cohn, obviously not given to hyperbole, suggests that no politician would ever boast about a plan that would rob health insurance from tens of millions and “effectively eliminate the federal government except for entitlements and defense spending” — “except Paul Ryan just did.”

It’s not as though “tens of millions” have anything desirable with Obamacare, and whatever they do have costs multiples of what it was advertised and will also wreck the quality of our health care and greatly diminish our freedoms. So how about instead of the cherry-picking we get a little more of the whole picture?

Cohn obviously resents any proposals that would deprive liberals of the Monopoly money they use to effectuate their social planning schemes, even though extending the status quo would guarantee national insolvency and the disastrous consequences it would bring. How do they figure government dependents would fare if that were to occur?

Instead of contributing something — anything — toward long-term solutions to the problems they largely caused, Cohn and his fellow liberal finger-pointers are scapegoating Ryan and Republicans for offering a reasonable plan to navigate us out of this mess.

The Washington Post’s editors are no better. They lead with what they pretend is a self-evident truth but what is no more accurate than their Keynesian maxim that deficit spending stimulates the economy. “There is no credible path to deficit reduction,” they write, “without a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.”

Sorry, but after a certain point, tax rate increases yield diminishing marginal returns for the revenue ledger, which we’ve seen throughout our history at both the macro (entire economy) and micro (luxury tax) levels. No matter how high they jack up the tax rates, they’re not going to produce a significant fraction of the additional revenue needed to balance the budget, let alone begin to reduce the national debt.

Try a simple exercise: Compare the Bush budgets with the Obama budgets, and see the startling amount of difference economic growth makes on the generation of revenue. We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars.

I don’t believe that Ryan is proposing tax cuts primarily because he believes we pay too much in taxes. I think he did so because of the practical reality that we can’t ultimately balance the budget — even with substantial spending cuts — unless we have a growing economy that yields a bigger pie to generate sufficient revenue.

The painful truth is that Ryan’s plan is modest and moderate, not grandiose and extreme. If you want to criticize it, do so on the basis that the country could use an even bigger fiscal diet, not that it is too severe.

Democrats and their liberal helpmates are stoking the flames of the fire that threatens the republic; Ryan and others are driving the firetrucks and are merely debating over how big the hoses should be.

In a saner and less polarized nation, Obama would be ousted in a historic landslide in November. He very well may be.

They Call These Accomplishments? – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists

They Call These Accomplishments? – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

They Call These Accomplishments? - David Limbaugh - Townhall Conservative ColumnistsIf you read through the Washington Monthly‘s list of Obama‘s top 50 accomplishments, you’ll quickly understand why my brother, Rush, properly wanted him to fail.

When Rush said he wanted Obama to fail, everyone knew he was talking about his policies, and for those few who pretended otherwise, he explained it a thousand times: He wanted his policies to fail because his policies are disastrous for America.

Obama has certainly failed to exhibit leadership at very important points, such as his taking a pass during budget negotiations and his legendary vacillation at key foreign policy junctures. But in terms of the general, statist direction of the country, he is captain of the sinking ship.

Obama wasn’t kidding when he promised to fundamentally transform America, and he has succeeded in doing so, to the everlasting detriment of the country. Four more years of this and it’s hard to imagine what kind of shape we’ll be in.

Paul Glastris, Ryan Cooper and Siyu Hu co-wrote the piece for the Washington Monthly. If you want to see just how far apart red America and blue America are, you must examine their list, recognizing that they are actually bragging about these “accomplishments.”

Let’s take a quick look at just a small fraction of these items:

–He passed Obamacare. As we’ve elsewhere noted, he represented that he would bend the cost curve down and make health care more accessible. Already we’ve discovered that the costs are double Obama’s projections, and people are losing their own plans in droves, contrary to his promises. Further calamity awaits as the law goes into effect.

–He passed the stimulus. Can you believe that Glastris, Cooper and Hu are bragging about Obama’s having spent almost a trillion dollars when America is on the financial precipice? Much of it was squandered in political payoffs and waste and dedicated to failed green projects. There were no shovel-ready jobs. Precious little was spent on infrastructure, despite Obama’s promises, and the overall result was that the American economy lost millions of jobs — even after you factor in the jobs that were allegedly “saved or created.” Obama can move the goal posts until the cows come home, but the one he set himself — that unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8 percent — has been as demonstrably wrong as any in the annals of presidential pledge breaking.

–He improved America’s image abroad. Are the authors serious? He has repeatedly offended our allies and pandered to our enemies, with the net result of alienating both groups. Professional pollsters say he is less popular on the Arab street than was President George W. Bush.

–He “kicked banks out of the federal student loan program.” And this is a good thing? He originally muscled out private banks through an abuse of federal authority in order to steal this money from the private sector to count toward Obamacare scoring when he needed to pretend it would be deficit-neutral. What did he do with this $60 billion in illusory savings? He pledged $40 billion of it to inflate student loans and used the other $20 billion to deceive the Congressional Budget Office in its scoring. Worse still, by increasing these student loans, Obama will create the opposite effect of what he’s advertising; the middle class will have to pay more for education because these increased subsidies to universities will cause more tuition inflation. The middle class will also bear the brunt of the increased number of failed loans Obama’s executive orders make inevitable, as taxpayers will subsidize the increased shortfall.

–He boosted fuel efficiency standards. Keep in mind that his Environmental Protection Agency did this through an administrative ruling when Congress would not pass his Draconian cap-and-trade bill because it would have had a crushing economic impact on the economy.

–He protected two liberal seats on the Supreme Court, which speaks for itself.

–He achieved the New START, by which he granted Russia major concessions for little in return, making us more vulnerable to other threats by unilaterally reducing our nuclear capabilities when other nations are expanding their capabilities and terrorists are in hot pursuit of these weapons.

–He trimmed our missile defense. This is just frighteningly irresponsible.

–He invested heavily in renewable technology. Solyndra, anyone?

–He killed the F-22 when China and Russia are developing their next-generation fighters. Under what sane rationale?

What has he done about the most egregious problems facing America, discretionary and entitlement spending? Absolutely nothing. And we’re headed for a colossal train wreck. I can’t quit obsessing over this, and I’m frankly shocked that everyone else isn’t obsessing over it 24/7 when our national survival hangs in the balance.

Are the Bush-hating liberals correct; are there now two Americas? Remember that these are being touted as accomplishments, not failures.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at

Big Lies on Big Oil – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists

English: Undiscovered technically recoverable ...

Image via Wikipedia

Big Lies on Big Oil – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

How much truth is there in President Obama’s latest favorite mantra that we consume a disproportionate share of the world’s oil, especially considering how little of the world’s reserves we have?

Recently, Obama said: “But here’s the thing about oil. We have about 2, maybe 3, percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. We use 25 percent of the world’s oil. So think about it. Even if we doubled the amount of oil that we produce, we’d still be short by a factor of five.”

First, let’s look at the raw numbers and then examine Obama’s misleading framing of the issue. This is important because he uses these statistics to justify his reckless expenditure of federal funds to pursue alternative “green” energy sources, such as the disgraceful and scandalous Solyndra project.

The United States has some 20 billion barrels of oil in reserves. By “reserves” we’re talking “proven” reserves, meaning those that are certain to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. That is, we have 20 billion barrels of oil that is recoverable at current prices and under lands currently available for development.

That definition excludes many oil reserves that Obama has declared off-limits. According to the Institute for Energy Research, we have more than 1.4 trillion barrels of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States with existing technology. The largest deposits are located offshore, in portions of Alaska and in shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states. So the United States has more recoverable oil than the rest of the non-North American world combined. The Heritage Foundation says this is enough to fuel every passenger car in the nation for 430 years. Therefore, “it is merely semantics — not a scientific assessment of what America has the capacity to produce — that allows critics to claim repeatedly that America is running out of energy.”

When you add in recoverable resources from Canada and Mexico, the total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. “To put this in context, Saudi Arabia has about 260 billion barrels of oil in proved reserves.”

Another critical point: Even using the restrictive definition of reserves Obama is using, the 20-billion barrel figure is misleading, because Obama is clearly implying it is a fixed, or static, number — as though with every barrel of oil we consume, we are pushing the oil energy doomsday clock another second toward the apocalypse. But in fact, that number is not static, but constantly in flux.

The institute tells us that in 1980, for example, the United States had 30 billion barrels of oil in reserves. But over the next 30 years — through 2010 — we produced 77 billion barrels. Now, how can it be that we produced almost 2 1/2 times more oil than we had available, consumed a great deal and still ended up with plenty left over?

Obama’s own Energy Information Administration is predicting a steady increase in reserves on land currently available for exploration. Heritage’s David Kreutzer says, “It projects that improvements in technology and the economics of extraction, production, and sales actually will lead to a 23.7 percent increase in U.S. reserves — even after extracting billions of barrels of oil in the interim.”

There’s more. Obama’s formulation conflates two different measures. True, we might have only between 2 and 3 percent of the world’s recoverable reserves — as narrowly and misleadingly defined — but we don’t consume 25 percent of the world’s oil reserves, which is what Obama wants you to believe. We consume closer to 22 percent — but it’s not of reserves; it’s of the world’s oil production. But, as Heritage notes, “we consume about 22 percent of the world’s production of everything,” not just oil. Consumption is determined by income, not by available resources — and for those who are always knocking the United States, we also produce about 22 percent of the world’s total output of all goods and services.

Admittedly, we don’t produce 22 percent of the world’s total oil output; it’s more like 6 to 10 percent. But experts say this number will increase even if we don’t access the other abundant sources that Obama has declared off-limits.

For overblown and in some cases completely fabricated environmental concerns, Obama is preventing us from greatly expanding the pie of our oil reserves, from offshore drilling to Alaska to Keystone to fracking, and at the same time throwing government money down the ratholes of projects that aren’t sound and economically prudent enough to warrant substantial private investment dollars.

He’s told us he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, get us out of gas-driven cars and into electrical clunkers and onto bike paths, and increase the price of gas.

Why don’t we believe him?

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks.

What Is It About ‘No Free Lunch’ That Obama Doesn’t Understand? – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative

What Is It About ‘No Free Lunch’ That Obama Doesn’t Understand? – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative.

Obama’s latest homeowner mortgage relief plan is perfect for him: It both is consistent with his ideology — duh — and allows him to buy more votes with someone else’s money, all the while pretending there is in fact such a thing as a free lunch.

The painfully superficial liberal approach to poverty gets old, as does its corollary tenet that conservatives who reject liberals’ failed ideas lack compassion. Indeed, Obama seemed to devote half the words in his prayer breakfast speech to proving that Scripture compels liberal policies.

Obama’s latest proof that he cares more than we do is his proposal to “give every responsible homeowner in America a chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage by refinancing at historically low rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks.”

This has all the elements. He frames the program as applying only to responsible mortgagors; he personally gets credit for handing out this money from his legendary “stash”; government, not the market, dictates what the interest rate will be; government will wave its magic wand forbidding “red tape” and bureaucratic obstacles; and banks, one of his favorite targets, are demonized and lined up to be punished.

But haven’t we had enough of this man’s top-down manipulation of the market in the guise of helping people? Is he ever to be held accountable for similar failed programs he’s already tried? How about that $75 billion mortgage relief plan he implemented in 2009? You know, the one he said would “give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild”? The one he said would save 7 million to 9 million mortgages.

Well, The New York Times reported in January 2010 that the plan had “been widely pronounced a disappointment.” And “some economists and real estate experts,” the Times went on, “now contend it has done more harm than good.” By June 2010, more than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who had enrolled in the mortgage bailout program had already dropped out. Nevertheless, the administration pressed forward, in complete denial that the program was failing and that the administration should be accountable. It cared, after all.

But if you buy your kid a car or give him a sweetheart loan to help him purchase one and he gets drunk and wrecks it, do you immediately buy him a new, more expensive one?

Moreover, is Obama ever to be held accountable for his entire range of economic policies that have grossly exacerbated our economic malaise and suppressed any chance of a real recovery?

If he would just get his Keynesian boot off the accelerator, quit spending money as if he were a perpetual lottery winner, stop enacting regulations to punish businesses, get behind capital gains and corporate income tax relief, stop showering recklessly wasteful “renewable and clean” energy projects with money as if he were a bitter spouse trying to bankrupt her cheating husband, and end his crusade against tried-and-tested domestic sources of energy, the economy would recover and we wouldn’t have so many homeowners with upside-down mortgages to worry about. But why do all that when you can still blame Bush?

Did Obama accept responsibility for his 2009 mortgage relief plan? Of course not. He brags about it. He fails to mention his promise to save 7 million to 9 million mortgages and boasts that he’s helped nearly 1 million of them, itself a dubious figure. There’s no “I’m sorry it was a miserable failure,” but rather “trust me to throw something else against the wall” — reminiscent of his high-speed rail mantra.

His new plan is terribly flawed. It’ll probably win him votes, but it wouldn’t do anything for the ailing housing market or the overall economy and would probably hurt them. The Cato Institute‘s Mark Calabria debunks the idea that reducing homeowners’ mortgage payments would be “a no-cost stimulus.” It might give homeowners more money to spend, but it would drive down payments on mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, so mortgage investors would reduce their spending, making the net effect a wash. It would also redistribute money, regressively, from some taxpayers to homeowners and from retirees to younger homeowners. Nor would the arbitrary fee to be imposed on the evil banks be without consequences because it would reduce bank equity and thus new lending, hurting potential borrowers by reducing available credit. The plan could also reduce future home prices.

So we have a cavalier president proposing, again (remember the GM and Chrysler restructurings), to alter the terms of existing contracts to the detriment of one of the contracting parties, illegally and unconstitutionally, as if lawmakers’ allegedly good intentions exempt them.

This plan moves beyond class warfare rhetoric into class warfare policy. The administration is not teaching people to fish but is stealing fish from others and giving it to them. It will not work, and it will further damage our hopes for a sustained recovery.

Everything Is At Stake, All Right – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative

Everything Is At Stake, All Right – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative.

On this we can agree with President Obama: Everything he stands for is at stake in 2012.

Obama told 500 fawning sycophants in Chicago that he is unrepentant about his policy agenda and intends to treat us to more of the same, much more, in a second term.

Obama said, “Everything that we fought for is now at stake in this election.” Lest there be no mistake, he repeated the message in the smaller settings of private homes.

We can endlessly debate whether he is such a devoted ideologue that he’s blind to his policy failures, whether he’s willing to sacrifice the economy and the fiscal integrity of the United States for his perceived higher good of radical redistribution, or whether he really intends to do harm, but these are moot questions anymore. Under any of these possibilities, the fact remains that he is hellbent on accelerating his present course, not reversing it, on dictating, not working within his constitutional constraints, much less building a bipartisan consensus.

Hubris and defiance are his trademarks, not humility. He said, “If you’re willing to work even harder in this election than you did in the last election, I promise you, change will come.”

This should send cold chills up our spines. By “change,” he means more of his unpopular, failed agenda. He has repeatedly indicated that he is frustrated with the process of republican government and that he would be much more comfortable as a dictator.

He has also said many times that he believes his goals are so important that he intends to implement them with or without Congress, through executive or administrative usurpations. He has done more than talk; he has acted in contravention of the Constitution and intends to continue in that vein.

What he might do in a second term is frightening to those who believe in freedom and equality of opportunity, that our current pattern of discretionary and entitlement spending is not just unsustainable but also guaranteed to destroy the country, and that we cannot preserve our freedom if we persist on a course of unilateral disarmament.

Just consider how brazenly Obama has pursued his unpopular agenda even while facing re-election. Think how he joked about having made a hollow promise of shovel-ready jobs when there is no such thing and how he is unchastened by the colossal waste of Solyndra and pursuing more of the same. Consider how he cavalierly refuses to account for his promise to keep unemployment capped at 8 percent and how he assured us, on his honor, that his designated stimulus cop, Vice President Joe Biden, wouldn’t allow a dollar of waste to go unpunished in his stimulus plan. Chew on his refusal to listen to the public when it resoundingly rejected Obamacare, rebuffing his agenda in the U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts and again in the 2010 congressional elections. Ponder his petty partisanship, bullying, demonizing and class warfare and his frequent invocation of the race card. Can you conceive of how he’d act as a four-year lame duck?

You all surely heard Obama, thinking he was speaking only to friends, boast that he was for a single-payer plan but that it might take 15 years to implement it. Remember this when his supporters tell you Obamacare won’t degenerate into socialized medicine. Those waivers he unilaterally issued to buy off companies now won’t be available next time around when the full force of Obamacare rains down its dark waters.

Think about his Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will have 15 bureaucrats once Obamacare is up and running, when he won’t have to worry about 2016. Before you pooh-pooh this, you’d better do your research on his health care mentors’ (e.g., Tom Daschle, Donald Berwick) philosophy about the macabre rationing of health care for the aged.

So, call me an alarmist if you will, but I think it’s almost irrational not to be very concerned about an Obama second term. Even if you don’t subscribe to some of the horror scenarios of death panels and the like, how about his intention to continue to press forward with his radical green agenda despite the fact that it won’t work to reduce global temperatures and despite the public’s opposition to it?

More importantly, how about his absolute refusal to restructure entitlements or his refusal to lead his party’s Senate to pass a budget after 1,000 days? Or his insistence on another stimulus package when unemployment — even using the distorted metrics the administration is now using — is still at 8.5 percent and it would add another half-trillion dollars to the national debt?

By rights, Obama shouldn’t get 10 percent of the vote in November. Even those who want to punish the “wealthy” should understand that once you completely gnaw off the hand that feeds you, you will starve, too.

Obama’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview Gives Grading on a Curve New Meaning – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative


English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

Image via Wikipedia

Obama’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview Gives Grading on a Curve New Meaning – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative.

The most disturbing aspect of President Obama’s “60 Minutes” interview is how sincere he sounded when misrepresenting his record. I’m not sure whether I would prefer that he be lying or self-deluded, but there’s plenty of each to go around.

Obama is a left-wing ideologue, a true believer, who is convinced that his agenda is mandated by a superior moral imperative (from who knows where) and that it must be advanced irrespective of the consequences, because no matter how bad they might be, they would have been worse without his agenda.

Indeed, such is his blind faith that his policy failures reinforce rather than shatter his belief system, and he becomes more delusional the more he fails and has to rationalize those failures.

The upshot of his message to his interviewer, Steve Kroft, was that he deserves the highest marks for all “things that don’t have to do with the economy and don’t have to do with Congress.”

So despite his muddled, ad hoc approach to foreign policy: his mistreatment of Israel, his pattern of insulting foreign leaders, his fair-weather support for some democratic movements and betrayal of others (Iran, Honduras), his manifest unpopularity in the Muslim world, and his gutting of our military defenses (F-22, our missile defenses and Europe’s, and our nuclear arsenal) while China, Russia, Iran and others augment theirs, he claims that we are now respected again around the world and that we are stronger.

How about the economy? Well, he thinks that the people will come to see he’s turned things around and saved us from a depression but that it’s going to take a long time for a complete recovery because it took so long to get “us into this mess.” So he believes he’s even performed well on the economy, except a) he would have done even better had it not been for congressional Republicans, b) the people don’t realize how well he’s done because too many are still hurting, c) even if things are bad, it’s Bush’s fault or, if you prefer, it’s because we’re going through an economic disruption that occurs every 75 years, and d) whatever economic problems remain could be solved by pouring yet more money into education, green technology and the infrastructure. (I realize “d” makes less sense than any of them, but that’s what his programmed mind always spits out, no matter the evidence.)

He insists he didn’t overpromise, never mind his promises to find “good jobs for the jobless,” to lower the oceans and keep unemployment at less than 8 percent. He takes credit for bending our health care cost curve down when it is now indisputable already — even before the bulk of it has been implemented — that Obamacare is greatly increasing health care costs.

He said he has offered a “very specific” and “very detailed” deficit reduction plan when everyone paying attention knows he offered generalities, with no real, concrete proposals for actually reducing spending, especially entitlement spending.

He said we could balance the budget by increasing taxes on the wealthy alone. Actually, his statement was more ludicrous than that. He said: “We ended up asking the wealthiest Americans to do a little bit more in terms of taxes. Going back to rates that would still be lower than they were under Ronald Reagan, our deficit problems would be solved.” What? How is it possible we ended up with a chief executive who can make such preposterous assertions? Apart from the Reagan comparison, letting the Bush cuts for the highest income bracket expire would generate only about $70 billion a year (assuming a static economy), which is less than 5 percent of the deficit.

Amazingly, Obama admitted that his party and his base opposed entitlement reforms but that in his magnanimity, he agreed to work on them anyway. Well, that’s big of him, but the truth is that he has steadfastly obstructed such reforms, which means he has steadfastly obstructed any possibility of balancing the budget and getting the national debt under control.

But there’s an explanation for that, which is even more alarming. He doesn’t think the deficit (or debt) is a major problem. He said, “The truth is that compared to other countries around the world, our deficit problems are completely manageable.” That’s why he wants another half-trillion-dollar stimulus.

Lest we think these anomalies are solely because of Obama’s being a true believer rather than a hyper-partisan purveyor of falsehoods, note that he also told Kroft that Republicans are for “rolling back clean air and clean water laws,” want to kill entitlements for seniors, and are focused on scoring political points rather than helping him solve problems; that only a handful of people are succeeding in this “you’re-on-your-own economy”; that he is for broadening the tax base; and that he fully intends to proceed with his agenda through executive and administrative orders in contravention of Congress and the Constitution.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

In Kansas, Obama Emulates Dorothy: ‘Lions and Tigers and Capitalists! Oh, My!’ – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative

In Kansas, Obama Emulates Dorothy: ‘Lions and Tigers and Capitalists! Oh, My!’ – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative.

President Obama’s much-ballyhooed speech in Osawatomie, Kan., was his best effort to put a happy face on class warfare. Though some were elated, fantasizing that he might be getting his messianic mojo back, even his reliable cheerleaders recognize there’s no substance beneath the hot air rising.

Liberals get all dewy-eyed when Obama reverts to idealistic tones, as they are saps for perfect-world scenarios that never materialize. They love it when he co-opts history in service to their cause. So he traveled to Kansas seeking to identify with Teddy Roosevelt, the icon of rugged individualism, to lambast the evils of rugged individualism.

Obama misdiagnosed the problems facing America, distorted the historical record, set up straw men to excoriate, and conflated history and principles, all to demonize his opponents, divert scrutiny from his record, and build support for his cause. He offered no concrete solutions, only low-minded platitudes, because everything he’s tried has failed and he has nothing left to try.

He views the national economy as a zero-sum game in which the success of some means the misery of others. He sees unequal distribution of income and wealth as a pervasive evil — an evil caused by the most sinister of boogeymen: unregulated capitalism.

Before unpacking these themes, shouldn’t we ask what they have to do with the economic stagnation we’re currently experiencing? It’s one thing to lament societal disparities in income and wealth, as liberals hostage to a materialistic worldview always do. But the problems are that the economy has stalled, an alarming number of people are out of work, an increasing number of able-bodied citizens are dependent on government assistance, and people, mired in malaise and uncertainty and the turmoil of a divisive president, aren’t saving, investing or consuming.

Our economic problems are not caused by Obama’s boogeyman — which doesn’t exist in reality — and they won’t be fixed by shooting a dematerializer at that conjured apparition. Even if income and asset inequality were the greatest problems, Obama’s policies have not alleviated them, but made them worse.

In his speech, Obama implied that the free market system, responsible for the most economically successful society in world history, didn’t work until it was tweaked by progressives, who jacked up tax rates for the wealthy. That not only defies the historical record but also suggests that but for liberals, we’d have a lawless, brutal, survival-of-the-fittest economic anarchy. In fact, conservatives don’t promote a market untempered by the rule of law or regulated by fair business practices and antitrust laws.

Besides, the problem isn’t unregulated capitalism; it’s overregulation by unaccountable command-control administrative bureaucrats, unleashed by do-gooder elected officials who have delegated their dirty work to them. The problem isn’t unfettered robber baron capitalists; it’s an overreaching, overbearing, over-intrusive government that won’t let the market work or breathe.

How can Obama fairly blame capitalism, which he pretends to love, when CEOs all over the country are complaining that the government won’t leave them alone to do their work? How can an economy thrive when the government keeps its major drivers, small businesses, bogged down with unproductive rules and regulations and bullies and sues companies to prevent them from locating in the state of their choice?

If unequal distribution is the primary problem and its main causes are unbridled capitalism and an inequitable tax code, why haven’t the ever-expanding socialist solutions and progressive tax system solved those problems?

No one with an ounce of intellectual integrity can deny we’ve been on a steady path toward socialism for the past three-quarters of a century, and even less can anyone deny we’ve seen that pattern accelerate into hyper-speed these past three years. Indeed, our problems, under the most statist president ever, have grown much worse.

Moreover, his representations about the tax code are simply untrue. Look at Internal Revenue Service data, as I have, and tell me with a straight face that people earning $1 million or more aren’t paying almost twice the tax rate of those earning a secretarial salary. If some billionaires are avoiding income taxes, it’s because their income is primarily capital gains (or dividends) — which represent taxes on sales of assets they’ve purchased with income that has already been taxed — or is offset by legal deductions.

None of these facts matters to Obama. He wants you to believe that we have unregulated capitalism (we don’t), that it is causing our economic problems (the opposite is true) and that we need to further redistribute income and wealth (when our tax system is already progressive on paper and in practice and when we’ve never experienced more radical redistributionist policies than we have under Obama).

He wants to keep us preoccupied with greed and hating each other so that we won’t have the time to focus on the real cause of our economic nightmare: President Barack Obama.