Just finished reading a few of the news stories regarding the little man-child's campaign speech/State of the Union. In an earlier blog I mentioned to be on the lookout for the frequent use of the word "investment," as it is the new liberal-speak term for "spending." Obama didn't disappoint.
Obama identified government "investment" many times as though the future of America depends upon on it. As the Heritage Foundation pointed out on 1/26/11: "If centrally planned government spending is the key to America's future success, then we are in big trouble, because China will beat us in raw bureaucratic efficiency every time.The source of American exceptionalism is not an expansive and powerful central government."
Obama glanced over the fact that reducing the deficit can only be done by stopping runaway spending (or should I say "investing?"). Obama wants to put a freeze on non-security spending. All fine and good, but that will not reduce the deficit. And as for "investing," the federal government hasn't gotten great returns on any of it's "investments." Look at the dire straits our public educational system is in, yet education spending has increased 219 percent faster than inflation in ten years. Look at the "investment" in the failed stimulus bills. There are many other examples of failed "investments" by the federal government, too numerous to mention in a short post.
Representative Paul Ryan made some excellent points in giving the Republican response to Obama's campaign speech. First, Ryan pointed out that Obama, while he came into office "facing a severe fiscal and economic situation," Obama only made things worse with his response - going on a "stimulus spending spree" that failed to create jobs and "plunged us even deeper into debt." And Obama still doesn't get it or know what to do. More government spending (oops - I mean "investing") is NOT the answer. When a family is up to it's neck in credit card bills, is the solution to go out and spend even more in hopes of getting out of debt? No. That is simply stupid. Yet, why does the government think it can spend its way back to prosperity? The answer lies in stopping the madness - stop the spending sprees. Stop the newest "entitlement program" - Obamacare - that will be unsustainable and unaffordable.
Government programs do not save money, make money, or keep the economy going. Most lose money. Private sector jobs, on the other hand, keep the economy going and growing. Sure, some fail, yet many succeed. And until our government stands back, shrinks in size, and lets private businesses work - unheeded by overblown government rules and regulations and other garbage that hinders economic growth or opportunities, we will continue to sink into the economic hole Obama & Co. have dug for us.
In closing, Representative Ryan stated what many of us agree with: "We believe, as our founders did, that "the pursuit of happiness" depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government. The president and the Democratic leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase it's size and its reach, it's price tag, and it's power."
Ryan concluded by stating that government as usual is not the way to go - that the Republicans will "do things differently" and "cut spending." In addition, he repeated the ideology of many conservatives - that limited government is best. I agree. Representative Ryan did Wisconsin and the Republican party proud. Obama, on the other hand, needs a wake-up call if he hopes to be re-elected in 2012.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (133)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts