Tag Archives: Bush

Calling Ceasefire on the Boehner Bashing

120712_boehner_crying_reu_328_605After the deal on the fiscal crisis passed, disappointed Republicans began a rallying cry resembling those of medieval times yelling, “Off with his head!”. Except instead of Boehner’s head, Republicans want his gavel. Historically, the problem isn’t Boehner, it’s tired Republican strategy.

Republicans, for decades, have been sucked in by the Democrat Party’s last-minute engineered emergencies like the “fiscal cliff”. This crisis is manufactured under the transparent drive to increase taxes. Republicans walk into negotiations demanding spending cuts and come out with tails between their legs and higher taxes. Frankly, it’s as ancient a story as The Three Little Pigs.

Almost everyone knows the story of Ronald Reagan. He thought he went for a deal that raised one dollar in taxes for every three dollars in spending cuts. Unfortunately, the majority of those cuts never came. While the Washington Post refutes the claim, there is still strong evidence to suggest that this is what Reagan believed when signing the deal.

Continuing on, let’s not forget President George H.W. Bush who, in 1990, was promised two dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar in tax hikes. Sadly the story ended with a 137 billion dollar tax increase and an additional 22 billion dollars in spending.

Following suit yet again, Boehner and a host of Republicans believed that they could negotiate their way to a compromise with a party who simply wasn’t interested in a win-win scenario.

These examples aren’t meant to make Republicans out as martyrs. We are all big boys and girls with our own separate philosophies and motivations. The Democrat’s strategy works every time because Republicans refuse to learn their lesson every time.

But here is where the ball game changes: After all these years of misled Republicans, Speaker Boehner has made it clear that he will no longer negotiate with President Obama. Boehner has learned the lesson Republicans should have learned decades ago: Negotiating reasonably with Democrats is the way one loses to Democrats. Which is exactly why, moving forward, we need John Boehner as Speaker.

 

Michelle Stansbury

Michelle Stansbury

Michelle Stansbury has nearly a decade of experience in political strategy and has recently opened a consulting firm targeted at helping businesses and campaigns flip their marketing and public relations strategies through new media. Michelle is also a weekly commentator on the Hayden Collins Radio Program and a national speaker. To book Michelle for an event or inquire about her professional consulting services click here. To get more updates, follow Michelle on Twitter or Subscribe on Facebook

 

Obama’s Budget- Better than 4 Years Ago?

For all the accreditations given to Ronald Reagan, perhaps the greatest contribution he made to the political arena was a simple appeal to the logical minds of voters- Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? During the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan’s strategy was simple. Let people look at the facts, the result of Carter’s policies, and see if they were really benefiting them.

Many people have compared Obama to Carter, and draw parallels between this election and the 1980 election. So, what could be more apt than to look at the Obama economy and ask, are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

The simple answer, based on Obama’s own economic numbers, is no.

Obama once promised that by the middle of this decade annual spending would match annual revenue and the government would not be adding to the federal deficit.

Yet, under his own budget, the Obama Plan for America, his best and smallest month of spending would add 608 billion dollars to the debt. That projection stays the same even if Obama serves a second term. That’s 33% worse than Bush’s worst month, where he added 458 billion dollars to the deficit.

And after 2015, Obama’s stated end of increases to the federal debt, the debt continues to grow. It continues to increase until 2021 when projections stop, to an estimated deficit of over 700 billion. Again, these numbers are according to Obama’s budget.

These numbers don’t even include the Congressional Budget Office’s projections for Obamacare. Obama claimed the cost of his healthcare plan would be 900 billion dollars over ten years. But the CBO estimates that the first full decade of implementation for Obamacare will cost 2.6 trillion dollars, nearly 3 times as much as Obama stated.

So, according to Obama’s own projected deficit numbers, the American people are not better off than they were 4 years ago, and based on the CBO’s projected cost of Obamacare and Obama’s own projected spending levels, it’s unlikely they’ll be better off in another 4 years.

 

WashPost Front-Pager on Collapsing Net Worth Missing One Word: ‘Obama’

A new economic report from the Federal Reserve doesn’t offer much hope. On the front page of The Washington Post,  Ylan Q. Mui underlined “the Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992.”  

Furthermore, “the data represent[s] one of the most detailed looks at how the economic downturn altered the landscape of family finance. Over a span of three years, Americans watched progress that took almost a generation to accumulate evaporate. The promise of retirement built on the inevitable rise of the stock market proved illusory for most. Homeownership, once heralded as a pathway to wealth, became an albatross.”  What’s more interesting is that Mui’s article doesn’t mention Obama once  — in a front page piece during an election year — right after he told reporters the private sector is “doing fine.”

Mui quotes Mark Zandi, economist for Moody’s, saying “It’s hard to overstate how serious the collapse in the economy was…we were in free fall.” However, some have taken this to be another indictment of Bush administration policies.

Steve Kornacki at Salon.com noted that despite this terrible news, Obama may still succeed at blaming Bush.  He cites an Obama 50% approval rating andin  “an upcoming book, political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck used data stretching back 60 years to create a model that predicts presidential approval based on economic conditions. As of the end of 2011, Obama was racking up scores significantly better than the model suggested he should be.”

Furthermore, “Sides and Vavreck suggest that, among other things, Obama may be benefitting from the public’s lingering memory of George W. Bush’s presidency and, more specifically, the imploding economy he passed off to Obama in January 2009. The new Fed figures may support this idea, in that they illustrate how steep, and pervasive and enduring the decline in family income has been since the final year of Bush’s tenure.”

After four years, a failed stimulus, high unemployment, three consecutive trillion dollar deficits, and an unconstitutional trillion dollar new health care entitlement program, it’s still somehow Bush’ s fault.

This default setting liberals have displaying their animosity towards Bush is both amusing and painfully insufferable.  When will they criticize the president for failing to take responsibility on the economy?

Kornacki states that “Obama won’t be able to run a Morning in America campaign, but he’s counting on context winning out, with a crucial chunk of voters remembering what he inherited (and, perhaps, understanding the obstruction he’s faced from Republicans in Congress) and giving him the benefit of the doubt, even if they’re not enthusiastic about it. For now, his poll numbers suggest Obama might actually pull this off. But the election is still five months away, and it’s an open question whether his support can withstand more discouraging unemployment reports and all of the Republican attacks to come.”

Alex Wagner and Co. Wrong About Bush Record

NOW with Alex Wagner

The panel on NOW with Alex Wagner reverted back to the same bash Bush tactics the Obama administration, and that of the Democratic Party, have used to provide a buffer between the president and the criticism throughout this anemic recovery.  It’s been three years and Obama’s big government policies have only exacerbated our economic woes.  He has added trillions more to the debt, failed to reduce unemployment, and failed to curb our annual deficits.  Yet, in the panel discussion on June 8, 2o12, they touted Obama as having positive signs of economic growth, while Romney’s plan is “bushier than Bush’s” plan that got us into this mess.

The person who made these fatuous claims on the NOW panel was Princeton University Professor Justin Wolfers who stated “what we’re going to see—we’re going to see Romney talking about levels. So he’s going to talk about the level of the economy. The level of the unemployment rate. It’s at 8.2%. That is a bad economy. It’s a slump. We’re going to see on the other side, Democrats talking about changes. The unemployment rate is down two percentage points. And so every single talking point between now and November  I guarantee you  you’ll hear levels, changes, levels, changes.”  Where it gets hazy is when Wolfers claims that “the good news for Democrats is if you look at political science literature ,trying to predict election winners, changes predict who wins elections.  So the fact that he’s [Obama] brought the unemployment rate down, the fact the stock market is rising, the fact that employment growth is positive, all very strongly positive for the president.”

The stock market is rising, but as we’ve all learned, a high index on the Dow Jones does not translate into economic stability or signs of a recovery.  Hence, the correlation between the market and the unemployment rate.  Unemployment, until last August, was over 9% for 26 months.  It’s been over 8% for over 38 months. In addition, Mr. Wolfers seemed to have forgotten the fact that no American president, except FDR, has been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2%.

Catherine Crier tried to create the dichotomy between the Obama and Bush economies by stating “in a dead economy–in a dead economy Obama has, I hate to say it the president has created jobs, as we avoid congress, but more jobs created—3 ½ plus million in the three years, than in the entire Bush Administration. Quoting in the Wall Street Journal the lowest ra—we dropped taxes, we cut taxes– Everybody’s doing great. No. Job creation went down the toilet–The housing crisis–go through all this and yet Republicans are proposing the same economic platform that got us into this mess. I’m not hearing the Democrats make that argument.”

Well, the reason the Republicans want this platform is because it worked. The Bush economy, via tax cuts,spurred 50 months of uninterrupted economic growth and created 8.1 million jobs.  In fact:

The CBO incorrectly calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Revenues for 2006 came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline. Here’s what else happened after the 2003 tax cuts lowered the rates on income, capital gains and dividend taxes: GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1%.The S&P 500 dropped 18% in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32% over the next six quarters. The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

Perhaps that’s why Democrats, leaving ineptitude out of the equation, are not making the argument against the “platform” that grew the economy. However, liberals remain unfazed.  Wolfers actually stated that  “I think on the economic side what he [Obama] needs to do is force Romney to actually define a plan. And right now if you actually read Romney’s documents, it really is like bush, but bushier.”  Therefore, Romney’s economic plan is the blueprint for destruction and the left should tie that in with the Bush record and run on it.  After all, according  Joshua Green of Bloomberg Business Week, the plan has “fewer details how it will be paid for and what he’s going to actually cut, which is he politically difficult thing to have to do.”  Professor Wolfers wholeheartedly agreed that “absolutely run against the Bush record. And the Bush record, was really a dreadful record to the economy. Average jobs growth under Bush. 11,000 a month. We’re talking about a slowing economy right now when we got 69,000 and call it disappointing today so.

So, the bar on economic growth has been lowered dramatically in the disappointing, some would say disastrous, performance of this president.  To change the narrative, it appears some on the left are trying to spin job creation that doesn’t keep up with population growth as a net positive for Obama.

Getting Political with Kids

As my kids and I pulled into the local community center parking lot this morning, ready to cast a vote in the GOP primary, the past 10 years of voting sort of flashed before my eyes. I had visions of all the times my children have accompanied me to the ballot box, all the campaign events they’d already been to in their short years of life, and I was overcome with pride.

When my daughter was two, she rode alongside me to South Carolina and Florida, campaigning for the Bush-Cheney re-election. She had adopted cute little catch phrases along the way, which she recited daily, charming everyone from the Publix cashier to her preschool teachers: “Laura Bush is a cwassy wady!”; “John Kerry is a flip-flopper” (which made her giggle every time she said it); and “Vote for George ‘n Cheney!” Campaigning in Jacksonville on that warm November day in 2008, I feel sure that my daughter helped President George W. Bush bring it home in Florida.

Over the years, we’ve traveled to surrounding states to attend FairTax rallies, and worked on other campaigns – some not so successful – but what my kids are learning along the way is that it takes active citizenship to make a difference. They see other people sitting around complaining about their status in life, but I’m proud to say that my children know that action is the only solution to a problem.

This morning, I talked them through the entire voting experience yet again, explaining why we show our ID and voter’s registration card, why it’s necessary to still complete the form, why the “ballot” looks like a credit card, how to cast an electronic vote and so forth. At one point, my oldest looked up at me in that tween way and said, “Moooom, we know.” And I was rewarded.

We voted and were out of there, peach-covered “I’m a Georgia Voter” sticker on each of us, in less than 15 minutes. Much to their chagrin, I made them stop outside the precinct and pose for a picture next to the “Vote Here” sign. When I looked through the lens, though, I felt my eyes well up with tears. My kids were actually excited to be there with me. Like me, they see voting as an honor, not an obligation (though one day I’ll teach them that it is a little of both).

I know it will only be a few more years – just two more presidential elections – until my daughter will be voting for the very first time. Regardless of which way she ends up voting, I feel sure I have instilled in her the importance of active citizenship. I hope she takes me to the polls with her.

The “Tolerant” Left Tweets About President George W. Bush

Last night, a curious thing happened.  Our 43rd president was the number one trending topic on Twitter (globally), and I wondered why.  I mean, he has been out of office for over three years, and he hasn’t released a book (not lately, anyway).  He hadn’t been on television (to my knowledge).  So how could we have the entire world tweet about President George W. Bush in the middle of the night, no less?  Well, it turns out that this tweet sparked it:

Okay.  Fair enough, a tweet claiming that the former president was once a cheerleader doesn’t sound so bad.  I’m sure the other tweeters would just snicker at it and move a long, right?  Watch the following video to find out.

Lou Dobbs: Obama Is A Hypocrite Socialist

This weekend, Lou Dobbs was asked how he felt about our president’s huuuuuuuuge flip flop when it comes to dealing with congress.  When Barack Obama was the jr. senator from Illinois, he seemed to think the president (Bush) should not try to override congress.  Then he became president, himself, and decided he “can’t wait” to deal with congress, so he’ll just enact policies on his own. (without congress)  Lou Dobbs talked about this hypocrisy, and then he worked in a mention of “socialism” somehow. (gotta love Uncle Lou)

What do you guys think?  Is the president a hypocrite?  Is this all Bush’s fault?  Was Lou right to discuss socialism in this context?  And how much money should the Koch brothers being paying me, because I think they’re ripping me off.