The
transcript of Bill Clinton's convention speech is now published, and I respond to some of its major points.
We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."Clinton describes a false and simplistic alternative from which to choose. Clinton gives no specifics, so it is hard to respond to the charge, but it is safe to say that Republicans do not oppose social programs created and run by the individual states, as it is in their constitutional purview to do so. We do oppose the federal fovernment from exceeding its Constitutional authority, imposing its will on the states in such matters as medical care.
Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!
It is a fallacy to say that jobs are created by the federal government. The government can, however, enhance the conditions under which business can flourish, where jobs are created through increased prosperity. If the above statistics are correct, how many of those 28 Republican years were presided over by a Democrat run congress? How many of the 24 Democrat years had a Republican majority in Congress? Clinton doesn't say. What other economic factors were in play during the 52 years, which are even more important than who was president. The president's ability to effect prosperity is limited by the amount of congressional support that he enjoys. Clinton's statistics (if true) prove little or nothing.
Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats.
Clinton may accurately describe his own attitude, but not of Democrats in general. During the Bush years (and even now), the Democrat rank and file expressed deep hatred for Republicans, expressing a desire for their assassination or death by other means. Just this week various Democrats have compared Republicans to Nazis. When it comes to partisan hatred, the Democrats exceed all comers.
One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation.
Not true. In deliberating laws governing health care, Obama did not consider or allow a single Republican proposal on the problem. He has sought to use administrative procedures to bypass the will of Congress. Obama is the prisoner of a rigid leftist ideology that makes him uncooperative in discussing alternatives to his vision.
the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work.
Putting Obama out of work is synonymous with "putting Americans back to work." A president who believes the American founding was badly flawed, believes in keeping energy costs as high as possible, and in crippling business with high taxes and regulation, is himself a major detriment to greater employment.
I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.
Obama contributed to damaging the economy by supporting the subprime mortgage fiasco that caused the meltdown in the first place. He did not put a floor under the crash, and his incurring substantial new debt will inhibit, not advance, the recovery. What foundation did Obama lay for a "modern, well-balanced economy"? Clinton doesn't say, because his statement is nothing but a glittering generality, pie-in-the-sky, big promises like those Obama made when he ran for office in 2008 -- and subsequently failed to keep.
Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama two hundred and fifty thousand, Romney, zero.
The auto industry has suffered severe economic disadvantage due to the high pay and benefits extorted by the Democrat-supported auto workers union. GM finally became insolvent due to Democrat policies and the aftermath of the Democrat constructed meltdown. Now that the federal government owns General Motors, how many of those new jobs are really government jobs in disguise, i.e. paid for by taxpayers? Mitt Romney, on the other hand, created thousands of real jobs in the private sector through his activities in Bain Capital.
President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan is helping too – the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.
Barack Obama has publicly stated that he favors an increase in gas prices, and his now abandoned plan to create a carbon swapping scheme would, by his own words, "cause energy prices to skyrocket." He has opposed new oil exploration in ANWR, vetoed the Keystone pipeline that would have added thousands of real jobs to the economy and helped to lower energy costs. If oil imports are at a 20 year low, no doubt the decreased economic activity is a factor in that. When it comes to energy independence, the Democratic Party is a hindrance, not a help, in achieving that goal.
Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.
No cuts in benefits only means that the program will continue operating in the red, thus hastening the day when it becomes insolvent. Obama took the 716 billion "savings" to fund Obamacare, not Medicare. To say that this makes Medicare more solvent and stronger is a bald-faced lie.
Space and patience prohibits me from dissecting more of Clinton's long-winded speech, but it is safe to say that it was spin and propaganda, and not to be taken seriously as an objective description of the economy and the issues.
