Freedom Line Blog

How much longer will Obama’s escalating deficits still be blamed on Bush?

This week, the Treasury Department reported a $221 billion monthly deficit for February 2010, the largest ever.  This compares to a $194 billion deficit for February 2009, and the year-to-date 2010 deficit has now reached $652 billion, also an all-time high.  Consequently, the projected 2010 annual deficit now appears likely to exceed last year’s $1.4 trillion dollar record.

Obama continues to blame his budgetary irresponsibility on Bush, but at least when Bush was President we counted the deficit in billions, not trillions.  Further, the Treasury Department data points to the true culprit:  spending for February 2010 increased some 17% over February 2009 spending, to $328 billion.  That’s certainly not Bush’s spending.

To paraphrase the increasingly-popular bumper sticker, please don’t tell Obama what comes after “trillion.”

Many political pundits immediately labeled yesterday’s healthcare summit a failure simply because it failed to result in some misplaced compromise.  But that is too narrow a perspective.  For conservatives and libertarians, the conference actually served a positive purpose.

Pardon our cynicism, but Barack Obama’s purpose in convening the conference was not to consider opponents’ legitimate points or data.  Despite Democrats’ baseless “party of ‘no'” broadsides, multiple Republican alternatives to ObamaCare have been readily available for months for all to see.  Rather, Obama’s goal was to once again ascend the stage and provide yet another “last and final” lecture to Americans on the wisdom of ObamaCare.  After all, he revealed his opinion on why his efforts had failed so far when he absurdly stated in his State of the Union address that, “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.”

Thus, as liberals almost invariably do, Obama mischaracterized his failure as one of tactics or communication to the plodding American electorate, rather than one of defective policy.

Obama remains under the strange impression that all he needs to do is take the stage once again to cast his magical spell, and the fawning media reflexively praises him every time.  His September healthcare speech to a joint session of Congress, his State of the Union address and his recent appearance before a Republican Congressional gathering are the latest examples.  But if he is such an effective persuader and communicator, why does he keep having to repeat the same tired points?

That brings us to the reason why yesterday’s summit was a success for opponents of the ObamaCare takeover.  Namely, that Obama not only failed to dazzle the assembled opposition, but actually got schooled.  As just one example, Obama attempted to scold Senator Lamar Alexander (R – Tennessee) by saying, “this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.”  A short time later, Obama was forced to admit that ~he~ was the one whose “facts weren’t straight.”  Moreover, Obama clearly appeared petulant and flustered, and avoided even attempting to battle rising Republican Congressional superstar Paul Ryan (R – Wisconsin) on Ryan’s substantive data and argument.

Meanwhile, the American people were able to witness the avalanche of reasons why ObamaCare is a toxic proposal.  For that reason, yesterday was a victory for conservatives and libertarians who oppose Obama’s healthcare boondoggle, and a loss for those seeking to impose it.

With five Republicans voting for cloture in the Senate– Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Kit Bond, George Voinovich, and (surprise!) Scott Brown — we should expect the Congress to pass its new “jobs bill” this week (in reality, this is like a 100-calorie pack version of the stimulus).

It’s not surprising that some Republicans are feeling the pressure to get behind this legislation. The perennial temptation in times of economic crisis is to get behind anything that seems like it could make a difference. This is not that piece of legislation.

Let’s start with the basics: At $15 billion, this package could be financed with what’s between the cushions of the sofas in the Oval Office. But that’s still $15 billion in new debt that can’t be justified without a commensurate kick to the economy. This package can’t deliver that kick.

The big hooks for Republicans are going to be the exemption from payroll taxes for new employees through the rest of the year and the $1,000 tax credit for new employees who are retained for a year. These provisions will have positive economic effects, but they will be very subtle. Because this bill only aims to jumpstart the employment side of the market without addressing broader economic conditions, it will make it slightly cheaper to hire new employees, but won’t create enough economic activity to justify employers adding many new hires to their payrolls. As with the similar plan that was tried during the Carter years, this most likely means that the majority of the benefits will go to hires that would have been made with or without the package. Given the limited time horizon of the bill, we should also expect its net effects to be similar to “Cash for Clunkers” — that is, just moving up hiring decisions instead of changing the fundamentals behind them.

The other provisions are no more impressive. This package will subsidize further borrowing by local and state governments, which only continues the sugar-high spending that simply can’t be sustained even in the best of economic times. And while infrastructure spending is certainly a legitimate function of government, it’s hard to sell as a strategy for increasing employment. After all, the mark of good infrastructure development — quick, efficient construction — is fundamentally at odds with the idea of creating jobs that are meant to endure for the long-term.

This certainly isn’t the worst piece of legislation to come out of the Age of Obama, but it also isn’t much more than a placebo. Until Washington begins to focus on shrinking the size of government, however, we shouldn’t expect the prescription to change much.

In April 2009, Senator Arlen Specter (D – Pennsylvania) announced that he was leaving the Republican Party and hitching his political fortunes to Barack Obama, just as Obama began his decline toward political radioactivity.

Obama’s approval has since plummeted worse than any elected President in the history of scientific polling, and Specter became the equivalent of someone abandoning a lifeboat to climb aboard the Titanic just before it hit the iceberg. Yesterday, however, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did Specter one better, moving him down to second place on the list of most foolish Republicans to join Team Obama.

In an appearance on ABC’s This Week, the Governor who has presided over California’s decline to basket-case status heaped endless praise upon Obama, applauded Obama’s failed “stimulus” bill and missed no opportunity to attack his own Republican Party.  In fact, Schwarzenegger failed to substantively defend his own party (whose political fortunes are skyrocketing) even a single time even while Democrat Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell sat beside him and launched his own litany of predictable anti-Republican attacks.

Among other things, Schwarzenegger – we’re not making this up – offered the following advice for an Obama Administration whose policies and tactics have turned American voters decisively against it in just one year:  “I think the key thing for the Obama Administration is just to keep staying on track.”  The same track that brought it to this point, Governor?

Schwarzenegger also advised fellow Republicans that their primary concern should be to ask themselves, “how do we support the President, how do we support him,” and attacked them for criticizing the Obama-Pelosi-Reid “stimulus.”  He continued by labeling his own GOP “the party of ‘no,'” and added “the Tea Party is not going to go anywhere.”

Earth to Schwarzenegger:  the Tea Party already has “gone somewhere.”

So the man who is quite possibly the most failed governor in America advises Obama to stay the course that has brought him political ruin, labels his own Republican Party “the party of no,” proclaims that the Tea Party that has transformed American politics at the grassroots level “is not going to go anywhere” and claims that the smart course is for Republicans to ask not what they can do for their country, but what they can do to “support the President.”

Great timing, Governor Schwarzenegger.   Got any hot tips on Enron stock while you’re at it?

In January 2007, President Bush announced a surge of approximately 20,000 troops to win the war in Iraq.  In this convenient and brief video clip, then-Senators Joe Biden and Barack Obama insisted that the surge was a terrible idea destined to failure.  Biden even slurred General David Petraeus as the only person who believed the surge would work, and Obama actually predicted that the surge would make things worse, not better.

Fast forward to last week.  In one of the most distasteful and brazen illustrations of chutzpah in modern politics, Vice President Biden now claims in this video clip that success in Iraq, following the surge that both he and Obama opposed so unequivocally, may stand as “one of the great achievements of the Obama Administration.”

On second thought, however, perhaps Biden is correct.  In light of the utter catastrophes inflicted to date by the Obama Administration, perhaps not managing to bungle the successful Iraq surge that the Bush Administration ordered is indeed its greatest success.  Either way, former Vice President Cheney is also correct that Obama and Biden owe Bush a belated “thank you” on Iraq.

The fraudulently-labeled Employee “Free Choice” Act (EFCA) is one of the most dangerous legislative proposals since Barack Obama assumed office.

EFCA would literally eliminate the sacred democratic secret ballot during union elections, which has caused overwhelming majorities of Americans to oppose this scheme.  It would also do such things as allow federal arbitrators to dictate wages and work rules upon employers and organized employees for the first time.  During this period of economic difficulty, with Big Labor already causing American jobs to disappear or move overseas, now is hardly the time to make employment even more difficult in this country.

Fortunately, EFCA appears temporarily stalled in Congress.  But that isn’t preventing the Obama Administration, Harry Reid, Big Labor and liberal activists from seeking alternative ways of imposing EFCA and its toxic job-killing provisions upon the American economy.

Namely, Obama has nominated radical union activist Craig Becker to serve on the five-member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to achieve their goal.  As Stewart Acuff of the Utility Workers Union of America has baldly stated, “if we aren’t able to to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice-President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing formation of a union through administrative action.”

And you thought ObamaCare was the only thing liberals were going to try to force down America’s throat against our will?

Please contact your Senators immediately (locate your Senators’ contact information here) and demand that they support the Senate filibuster against Craig Becker.  Otherwise, EFCA may soon become a reality despite our successful efforts so far to stop it in Congress.   The American economy and everyday workers will otherwise pay the price.

Do a quick Google search of the terms “Obama,” “corpsman” and “Washington Post.”

Not a whole lot jumps to the forefront, at least from The Washington Post itself.  Notably, it provides a transcript of the very speech in which Obama’s teleprompter failed to phonetically spell out the military term “corpsman,” leading the supposed intellectual Obama to mispronounce it “corpse-man.”

The same Google search results in an avalanche of separate commentaries on the matter, of course, as well as readers’ follow-up comments to the Post transcript pointing out Obama’s embarrassing (and revealing) error.  But the Post itself apparently considers it unworthy of substantive note.  Evidence undermining the Obama Myth is unwelcome there, apparently.

But Sarah Palin?  Toward her, the Post can’t seem to relent in its obsession over her use of hand notes during a speech.  Who knows, perhaps Palin just didn’t want to waste the untold thousands of dollars necessary to secure a teleprompter and an entire staff of speechwriters as Obama does.  But even with all the King’s horses, all the King’s men and all the King’s teleprompters, Obama still couldn’t manage to pronounce “corpsman” correctly.

Imagine for a moment the Post’s hysterics if George W. Bush had committed an error that revealing.  Or if Sarah Palin had.

Fresh off his famous catastrophes on the healthcare and deficit reduction fronts, Barack Obama momentarily shifted his bumbling gaze yesterday to Net Neutrality.

What exactly is Net Neutrality, you ask?

Well, think of it as ObamaCare for the Internet, and you get the essential idea.  Net Neutrality would federally bureaucratize Internet service by dictating rigid price controls and traffic surge management to providers, among other toxic provisions.  The Internet seemed to be doing just fine so far, what with the ongoing explosion of content delivery and devices like the iPhone.  But why should that stop Obama from “fixing” something that isn’t broken?

In an unintentionally amusing commentary entitled “President Obama Hearts Net Neutrality,” Stacey Higginbotham praises Obama, who appears to be shifting his Midas-in-reverse focus to this dangerous campaign.  When asked about Net Neutrality, Obama responded:

I’m a big believer in Net Neutrality.  I campaigned on this.  I continue to be a strong supporter of it.  My FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has indicated that he shares the view that we’ve got to keep the Internet open, that we don’t want to create a bunch of gateways that prevent somebody who doesn’t have a lot of money but has a good idea from being able to start their next YouTube or their next Google on the Internet.  So this is something we’re committed to.

Consider the absurdity of Obama’s comment.  He curiously demands that we “keep the Internet open,” even though it has somehow managed to remain open all this time without the need for crippling Net Neutrality regulations.  And he suggests that Net Neutrality is necessary to allow innovators to “start their next YouTube or their next Google,” leaving one to wonder how anyone ever managed to start YouTube or Google in the first place without Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality advocates dishonestly concoct the bogeyman of sinister Internet service providers blocking web content, but the reality is that America faces a continuing exponential increase in Internet traffic.  This rapid growth will require innovations and investment by Internet service providers to carry it, just as they have done to date.  Obama wrongly alleges that Net Neutrality is somehow necessary to allow the next YouTube or Google, but the truth is that the next YouTube or Google will be impossible if network providers are prohibited by bureaucratic Net Neutrality regulations from managing the surge in data traffic.

The need for freedom and flexibility of network providers to innovate will become even more critical as Americans increasingly shift to smart phones.

As noted by a report in today’s Wall Street Journal, “carriers are already running at over 80% capacity,” and “are scrambling to build out next-generation networks that promise higher bandwidth and faster speeds.”  If Obama and his FCC succeed in imposing suffocating Net Neutrality regulations that they recently proposed, however, service providers’ difficulties will only increase as Obama bureaucratizes the Internet in the same way that he attempted to bureaucratize healthcare.

Americans concerned about the future of Internet growth and innovation must therefore act quickly to stop Obama’s reverse-Midas Net Neutrality scheme.  Please contact your Senators and Representative immediately and demand a stop to this destructive scheme before it’s too late.

Today’s Wall Street Journal features an op-ed by Daniel Henninger that traces the rising stranglehold of public employee unions on the Democratic Party. Prior to 1962, federal workers were not unionized. That changed with a JFK executive order. Many states soon followed suit.

Looking back, the change in policy continued the Democrats’ long association with unions, but for the first time there were substantial numbers of union members that worked in jobs uncoupled from business realities like profit and loss. Instead, their budgets were the product of taxing and spending.

The results, as we all know, have been catastrophic for government budget writers at all levels. Public sector unions claim members from the ranks of teachers, cops, fire fighters, DMV personnel, and a myriad of other support workers. As membership increases, so do demands for higher wages, bigger pensions, and greater emphasis on seniority rather than performance. Since governments themselves aren’t measured on the taxpayers’ return on investment, it’s been easy for Democrats to champion public employee unions, trading money for votes, and vice versa.

That may be coming to an end. Henninger notes that Republicans have a unique – and short – window to align themselves as the party of spending restraint by vowing to take on the public employee unions and their entitlements. It won’t be easy because taking on these groups can actually be worse than attacking another politician. Organized labor is the Democratic Party’s grassroots, so challenging them is a request to have millions raised in opposition while thousands of government employees work phone banks, neighborhoods, and break rooms lobbying for support. As California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger learned in 2005, all it takes to create a union’s war chest is a few dollars increase in each member’s dues.

But it’s worth it, especially in a campaign year when most of the people out of work are from the private sector. Because of the stimulus money, most state and local governments were able to “create or save” jobs. Of course, the federal government has been on a hiring spree to keep pace with President Obama’s rapid expansion of the public sector. If this is truly the year when fiscal conservatives taste victory in coastal bastions of liberalism, it will be because GOP nominees take the time to educate and persuade voters that public employee unions are some of the greatest threats to our economic recovery.

On year ago tomorrow, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.  Where exactly are we as a nation one year later?

The Associated Press has put together an interesting compilation of numbers to help answer that question.  Highlights of the AP piece, which is titled “A By-the-Numbers Look at Obama’s First Year,” include:

– 13 million—Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of January 2009.
– 14.7 million—Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of December 2009.
– 7.7 percent—Unemployment rate January 2009
– 10.0 percent—Unemployment rate December 2009
– $787 billion—Cost of economic stimulus approved by Congress.
– $10.6 trillion—Outstanding public debt Jan. 20, 2009
– $12.3 trillion—Outstanding public debt Jan. 14, 2009.

Read the entire piece via Breitbart.com here.

For a man of such supposed intellectual prowess, Barack Obama certainly seems oblivious to any sense of irony.

Attempting to stanch his hemhorraging public aproval numbers, Obama yesterday retreated to phony populism by proposing $90 billion in new taxes upon American banks. It must be noted that many of these banks have already repaid the questionable bailout funds that they received, and are now staring at a form of double jeopardy.

Obama’s misguided proposal contradicts his own stated goal of encouraging bank lending in this choppy economy, because the new tax will undercut banks’ ability to create new loans.  Further, the tax will merely be passed on to strapped American consumers, as all corporate taxes ultimately are.  It’s such a terrible idea that even Democrat Senator Kristen Gillibrand voiced opposition, saying it “could disproportionately affect New York City’s economic recovery, which relies on a growing financial services industry.”

Disregarding this reality, Obama was undeterred, sanctimoniously thundering, “we want our money back, and we’re going to get it.”

We feel the same way, Mr. President.  In just the first year of your administration, we have seen you squander our hard-earned dollars on failed “stimulus” behemoths and bureaucratic boondoggles on behalf of labor unions and other favored special interests.  We have seen you triple the budget deficit after telling us duirng your campaign that you were going to reduce it by scouring the budget “line by line.”

Yes, Mr. President, we also want our money back.

The Labor Department this morning reported that nonfarm payrolls fell by a seasonally adjusted 85,000 in December, bringing the total number of jobs lost in 2009 to a whopping 4.2 million.

As Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs Timothy Lee wrote this week in a commentary posted on CFIF’s website, “the latest economic data continue to suggest that our recovery is weaker than it otherwise should be, due to malignant federal policies.”

Lee points to a recently released survey  by the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), which makes his point:

According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), a tiny 7% of small businesses (which account for approximately 2/3 of new jobs) expect near-term expansion and the type of risk-taking necessary for sustained prosperity.  Further, only 8% of NFIB respondents expect near-term employment opportunities.  The same NFIB report also states that capital investment and expenditures have dropped to a 35-year low.”

The reason?  Lee writes:

According to the NFIB survey, businesses report that the current political climate stands high among the reasons for tepid recovery, even ahead of the ability to secure loans.  The survey goes on to cite ‘the level of uncertainty being created by government, the usual source of uncertainty for the economy.  The ‘turbulence’ created when Congress is in session is often debilitating, this year being one of the worst.’ …

“…The continuing onslaught of more government spending, borrowing and regulation will not bring the type of recovery that we should expect, but rather perpetuate an inhospitable economic climate.  When we return to time-tested policies that encourage private investment, risk-taking and hiring – less confiscation of wealth, greater protection of property rights and fewer oxygen-depleting regulations – is when sustainable, long-term growth will return.”

In other words, when it comes to job losses and the slow economic recovery, It’s Washington, Stupid!

Read Lee’s full commentary piece here.

In response to the attempted terrorist attack aboard a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, President Obama is set to release a new wave of airport security measures.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has responded somewhat by giving pat-downs to travelers from Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and 11 other countries that are havens for terrorist activity.

Of course, the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, was already in a U.S. database of 550,000 suspected terrorists, but that did not subject him to additional scrutiny under current law.  No word yet on whether the President’s new proposals will change this practice.

Read more of CFIF on Homeland Security and Terrorism.

Remember back in 2006 when then soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised that Democrats would “lead the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history?” What about the repeated promises by then Candidate Obama to “broadcast [all health care] negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are?”

Of course, when it came time to “debate” health care, neither Pelosi nor Obama kept their promises.  Instead, both leaders have steered a process that has resulted in all variations of “reform” thus far being written behind closed doors, out of sight from the American people and with virtually no input from Congressional Republicans. 

As the Associated Press pointed out:

The House passed its version of the bill on a Saturday night. The Senate held its key procedural vote at 1 in the morning, and then provided a lump of coal in our stockings by forcing full passage of its bill on Christmas Eve. The House leadership banned consideration of all but one amendment not offered by leadership itself – forbidding debate on more than 150 of them – then provided just 24 hours for members to study the bill’s final text. The Senate leadership inserted so many tawdry last-minute items that analysts are still finding jokers in the deck 11 days later.

All these shenanigans have driven approval for the government health care bills even lower in public polls than the strong majorities that already opposed them a month ago.

Well, C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb is now daring Congressional Democrats to put their money where their mouths are. 

FoxNews.com reports:

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.

C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open ‘all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings,’ to televised coverage on his network.

‘The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety,’ he wrote.

There’s only one problem.  Holding true to their back-room strategy, Congressional Democrats are reportedly going to shut Republicans and the American people out of the process again as they seek to combine the House and Senate versions of “reform.”  Maggie Haberman and Charles Hurt of the New York Post reported today:

Congressional Democrats plan to take final negotiations on the massive health-care overhaul behind closed doors — far from the prying eyes of the public and most lawmakers.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have decided not to impanel a bipartisan ‘conference committee’ because it would give Republicans an opportunity to stonewall certain procedural votes.

Instead, they will do it themselves informally out of their offices without formal public meetings.

And they wonder why the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose their plan … whatever that final plan may be.

If the Senate’s hyperpartisan Christmas Eve healthcare vote and the Copenhagen climate summit “agreement” constitute “victories” for Barack Obama, one would fear to see anything he’d acknowledge a “failure.” 

At every opportunity, the White House, liberal pundits and media apologists herald both as victories for a foundering presidency.  But just as Obama’s performance has failed to remotely match his lofty campaign rhetoric, neither one comes anywhere close to his professed goals. 

After all, remember the government-run, single-payer system that Obama said was his goal prior to his presidency?  No sign of it in the Senate healthcare bill.  In fact, the bill doesn’t even contain the “robust public option” that Obama sought after he realized single-payer was a bridge too far.  And remember how he demanded them before the August Congressional recess?  Some “victory.” 

And the same goes for the silly Copenhagen climate summit.  Obama arrogantly trumpeted a historic “agreement,” but the only agreement was an agreement-to-agree-to-something-to-be-agreed-upon-at-some-future-climate-summit.  There were none of the economically-crippling carbon limits demanded by environmental extremists, and none of the billions (trillions?) of largess demanded by developing nations. 

The reality is that Obama needes something – anything – to create the mirage of accomplishment for a White House that has failed so miserably that his approval is lower than any President in history at this stage.   His minions and media chorus may label these things “victories,” but that doesn’t make it so.

Less than one year into the Obama Administration, unequivocal public opinion polls are saying a lot about his leadership ability, and may be providing an early clue into what might come to be his legacy.

Namely, unlike leaders such as Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt, he is turning the public away from his worldview, rather than persuading it to join him.

By now we’re well-familiar with Obama’s steady decline in public opinion polls.  In fact, he stands lower than any President at this point in his tenure.  But the latest Rasmussen poll shows something broader, which is good news for those of us who advocate individual freedom, but bad news for Obama.

By an enormous 66% to 22% margin, Americans state that they prefer less government and lower taxes to stronger government with higher taxes.  Amazingly, the tone-deaf White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress continue to advance bigger government (ObamaCare, carbon cap-and-tax, new regulations over the struggling economy,etc.) and higher taxes (increase of the death tax, higher income taxes, healthcare penalties, etc.) despite these unequivocal results.

By a 62% to 21% margin, respondents also say that lowering taxes is a better way to create jobs than more federal “stimulus” is.  This is remarkable, considering the degree to which Obama, Pelosi, Reid and liberal pundits scapegoat lower taxes and less regulation as the alleged cause of our economic difficulties.  They’re obviously not making the case, and are losing the battle of ideas.

Furthermore, 62% believe that it would be better for the rest of the world and our allies to follow America’s lead, an all-time high.  In contrast, a tiny 8% report that America should increasingly follow our allies’ lead.  This again contrasts with Obama’s apologetic international demeanor and submission to new global constraints upon the U.S., especially on the heels of his Nobel Prize and Copenhagen boondoggle.

But more broadly, these striking results show that Obama is failing miserably at the task of persuading and leading Americans toward his point of view and policy agenda.  He presumably has several years to reverse this reality, but we may already be witnessing the early elements of the eventual Obama legacy.

The Obma White House has long followed the idea that there’s no problem that the federal government shouldn’t fix.

Now, it’s telling us that there’s no improvement that the federal government shouldn’t fix, either.

That appeared to be the message from White House Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Christina Romer and National Economic Council Chairman Lawrence Summers, both of whom made the rounds on yesterday’s Sunday talk shows.  In his comments to George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, Mr. Summers said that, “most professional forecasters are now looking for a return to job growth by spring.”  And appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Ms. Romer predicted “positive job growth sometime in the first quarter.”

But as noted by The Wall Street Journal today, we must ignore federal deficits in favor of more “stimulus” spending.  According to both Summers and Romer, shifting focus to the deficit instead of spending even more during a period of record deficits would be “suicide.”

So let’s get this straight:  Obama’s first “stimulus” was supposed to cap unemployment at 8%.  It’s now at 10%.  But despite the fact that the White House expects job growth to return in the next quarter, it wants to spend even more to “stimulate?”

One is left to wonder whether the Obama Era more closely resembles a work of Orwell or merely an issue of The Onion.

Barack Obama has done little, if anything, right during his year in office, but he’s obviously perfecting the art of shameless hypocrisy.

Appearing on CBS’s 60 Minutes yesterday, Barack Obama said with a straight face that “the people on Wall Street still don’t get it.  They don’t get it.” For good measure, he also broadly labeled bankers “fat cats” who have behaved in an “irresponsible” manner and not shown “a lot of shame.”

Let’s see.  This is the same Barack Obama who promised to address the $0.4 trillion deficit, only to add a trillion to make it $1.4 trillion in just his first year.  In other words, he is addressing the deficit by…  tripling it.  Lest one reflexively attribute that to his inheritance, this year’s deficit is on an even worse trajectory.  He is also the man who proposes adding an endless array of new entitlements and highly-paid new federal employees to an already-unsustainable budget trajectory.  He is also the man who seeks to reward the same federal bureaucracies that failed to recognize the financial bubble, and even abetted it, by granting them nearly plenary powers over the entire struggling economy.  He is also the man who aims to compound the nation’s economic woes by imposing catastrophic healthcare costs and carbon taxes upon it.  He is also the man who seeks to increase taxes on broad swaths of struggling individuals and small businesses by allowing rates to increase next year. He is also the man who promised to usher in a new era of international diplomacy and peace, only to see rogue regimes such as Iran increase their menace since his inauguration.

Yet he says that others “don’t get it?”

Laughably, he mocked bankers for being “puzzled” why the public is “mad” at them.  Perhaps he was merely projecting his own puzzlement at his record-low poll numbers, which similarly reveal a public “mad” at him?

Was Chicago-style political thuggery the type of “hope and change” for which Americans voted in 2008?

Either way, that’s the White House’s emerging modus operandi.

Intially, the Obama Administration at least paid lip service to bipartisanship, even if the reality behind closed doors was quite different.  But with the EPA’s recent determination that everyday carbon dioxide constitutes a “dangerous pollutant,” Obama has abandoned even that pretense.  According to an anonymous White House source quoted by Fox News, the EPA’s absurd ruling is a bald political tactic to bludgeon the Senate and the business community into accepting carbon cap-and-tax legislation:

If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area.  And it’s not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

The House of Representatives passed a cap-and-tax bill by razor-thin margins, but its prospects in the Senate appeared slim.  Meanwhile, many business coalitions have refused to play ball in the White House’s game of global warming hysteria.  Enter the team of Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, with their ugly form of Chicago politics.

As Obama’s popularity falls to record lows for a President at this stage, and with his extremist agenda in increasing jeopardy, we should prepare for more.

What do Obamanomics and global warming hysteria have in common?

A numbers hoax.

As anyone outside the deepest redoubts of the Daily Kos and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann knows, the foundation underlying the global warming agenda is crumbling.  This is the result of revelations of politically-correct climate scientists explicitly attempting to distort data, blacklist opposing viewpoints and redefine what constitutes scholarly publication on the subject.  Even the shameless Al Gore has been embarrassed enough to avoid the climate change summit taking place in Copenhagen this month.

In a similar manner, the data trumpeted by the Obama White House to justify its “stimulus” efforts has been exposed.  Last week, the chief of the board tracking stimulus spending announced that inspectors will review the data underlying Obama’s claim that he “saved or created” approximately 650,000 jobs.  This number was announced in October of this year, only to be quickly refuted.  Among other things, the estimate included non-existent Congressional districts, and dozens of jobs purportedly created by grants of less than $1,000.

Although these two news items have received well-deserved attention, few people have connected them.  The simple fact is that two of the greatest icons of liberal thought – global warming and government spending – have been exposed as reliant upon fraudulent data.  When the White House wonders why its poll numbers continue to plummet to unprecedented lows and voters begin to smell the coffee, perhaps they merely need to read the news.