How Can You Teach What You Don't Know?

Saturday, August 14, 2010

It's a pretty easy question. I ask this because of Christina Romer, (head of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers), and her recent announcement that she's resigning as of September 3. She's going to return to teaching economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

It's not surprising that California is doing so poorly. Imagine walking into economics class on your first day and seeing Mrs. Romer as the teacher. My first question would have to be:

"Excuse me Professor Romer, but while you served as the presidents chief economic advisor we lost millions of jobs and massively increased the federal debt. How can you teach us about responsible economic policies when your advice proved to be such a failure when put to the test in the real world?"

I'm sure her answer would be the typical blame Bush or the Republicans type answer we're all used to hearing by now. If that's not her answer then I'd love to hear what it would be. Meanwhile Obama says:

"Christy Romer has provided extraordinary service to me and our country during a time of economic crisis and recovery." - President Obama

You mean during a time of economic crisis period. More and more Americans are seeing that there is no "recovery summer". Try selling that point to these people.

You see those signs? I know it's hard for progressives to understand: "I want to work". Notice the signs didn't say, "I want more government handouts and welfare". We've had enough of your recovery BS. We're tired of seeing $10,000 signs saying how this project funded by the Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

If job growth was actually happening at the local, (instead of just the federal), level then revenue in the towns and states would increase. More workers means more taxpayers, more taxpayers means more revenue, more revenue means more funding for roads, schools, and police. It is done with less government, not more, it's pretty simple.

This brings me to the problem with unemployment benefits. I don't disagree with giving unemployment benefits to people in the short term to help with job loss. However, despite the lefts claims that they are caring for the people while the evil Republicans just want to throw people out into the streets to starve, the case surrounding unemployment benefits is quite different, and in fact simpler.

It's no big surprise that Obama Inc. is either not interested in creating jobs, or honestly doesn't have the slightest idea on how to actually do it. I contend it's a combination of the two.

The future extension of unemployment benefits, if it happens again, should be called the Pacifier Act. It's like the unemployed are a bunch of babies who are hungry and crying, big nanny government comes along and puts a pacifier (unemployment benefits) into the babies mouth. However, after that big nanny government doesn't feed the baby, nanny just keeps popping the pacifier in when it falls out.

The problem isn't being addressed, baby needs food, or in other words, the unemployed need jobs. Increasing unemployment benefits again and again to the point where people are spending well over a year collecting off the nanny government and not paying any revenue to the government, (in the form of payroll taxes), is an excuse for the economically ignorant politicians to try and continue to get away with not creating any jobs. As long as you have your pacifier they can get away with blaming others, rather than leading the way and getting you back to work.

This has been Obama's economy for over a year and a half. His economic advisers are stepping down and running for dear life back to progressive safe havens, (leftist colleges). The typical political excuse keeps being used by advisers and politicians alike. Usually something like this:

"I'd like to spend more time with my family" blah, blah, blah. It's got nothing to do with my 10% approval rating and my lack of any chance of being reelected after 50 years in office. As if we're supposed to believe that Christina Romer didn't realize that Obama would be in office for 4 years. After only a year and a half your supposed to be dumb enough to think that she longs to return home?

As for President Obama he can keep talking about his "Recovery Summer" all he wants but all I see is a recovery bummer.


  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP