53% say Obama’s “stimulus” hurts economy

According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 53% of Americans believe increasing government spending has an anti-stimulus effect on the economy, hurting instead of helping it.  The poll of 1000 likely voters conducted June 7-8, is more evidence of the trend in recent polls that the American people are beginning to recognize that Obama’s change isn’t what they believed they were voting for last November.  Only 27% remain dedicated, die-hard fans of the President’s stimulus strategy, still clinging to the fallacy that drastic spending, quadrupling the deficit, and enslaving future generations of Americans with debt will somehow revitalize the economy.

The number of Americans who correctly believe tax cuts stimulate the economy continues to grow.  A full 58% accept the evidence history provides and stand on the opposite sides of the fence.  Last month only 55% believed this irrefutable fact.  So in less than a month, Obama’s radical changes to our American way have led 3% to lose faith in his approach to saving the economy and embrace that of his predecessor, the Left’s nemesis President George W. Bush.

Obama recently realized his plan isn’t working, but mistakenly believes it’s because he hasn’t spent enough of the money, or spent it fast enough.  So, he announced he’ll be accelerating the pace of his spending spree–blowing more money faster.  But another recent Rasmussen poll shows Americans don’t think this is such a wise idea.  When asked if the government should cancel the rest of the new government spending in the President’s monstrous $787 billion “stimulus” package, 45% said the administration should stop this madness now vs. only 36% who thought the President should go ahead and waste $787 billion.

When asked in this poll if the tax cuts included in the “stimulus” package should be canceled, only 20% believe the government doesn’t take enough of our money, while a full 55% believe the tax cuts should stay in place.  So again, in this second poll we see a majority of Americans who apparently believe tax cuts stimulate the economy.

These two polls substantiate our report on the developing trend of more people finding Obama’s policies less and less attractive.  Though the President continues on his march toward the Socialization of the US economy, legislators who face re-election next year are sure to be watching these polls and should begin to resist more and more of the President’s “change” as we go forward.  If the GOP plays their cards right and can manage to convince voters they’ve turned the corner and returned to their principle of sound fiscal policy, we just might see an encore of the ’94 voter revolt against the party that has long been (and has now demonstrated that, in spite of their promises, it remains) the tax and spend party.

Efficient Nationalized Healthcare? Not So Fast

by Michael Reagan on Townhall.com

President Barack Obama has undertaken the expansion of health care to the roughly 45 million Americans who do not currently have health insurance. Having about one American in seven with no health insurance is undeniably an undesirable situation which deserves our attention and concern.

This is not just a matter of compassion either, but also of practicality. About the most expensive way imaginable to deal with routine illness is to provide it in hospital emergency rooms, yet this is the only alternative for millions of people. In addition, the uninsured commonly defer getting needed treatment, and with the looming threat of infectious diseases to all our families, we are all at risk when millions go without needed treatment.

Our problem, however, lies in the dwindling supply of health care providers. Most doctors are overworked, many are underpaid. The number of doctors is increasing at a woeful 1 percent a year, and the number of available nurses has been flat for years. With an increasing population — and one that is aging as baby boomers move into their 60s — who is going to provide health care to 45 million more Americans, even if we make the wildly optimistic assumption that we could afford to pay for it?

…More

Missing in Action: American Mainstream Media

by Larry Elder on Townhall.com

Back when our military failed to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, The New York Times apologized to its readers.

Why?

Before the war, the paper wrote article after article — relying on both government and non-government sources — that assumed the presence of stockpiles. Three of its reporters even wrote a book called “Germs,” in which they discussed Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological programs.

But when the stockpiles failed to appear, the paper felt used, manipulated by the “devious” Bush administration. It promised its readers greater skepticism, more scrutiny, and no more at-face-value acceptance of assertions by the Bush administration. “The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter,” wrote the Times in 2004, “but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on ‘regime change’ in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. … Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.” Quoth the Times, “Nevermore”!

But with hard-left Democratic President Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities running both the House and the Senate, the mainstream media — the ones that felt used and manipulated by the Bush administration — now purr like a contented kitten after a hearty meal.

…More

“I don’t know anything about cars.”

So said President Obama’s new Chairman of the Board of Uncle Sam’s newest acquisition, GM.  Edward E. Whitacre, Jr went on to say “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars.”  Under that premise, a successful hot dog vendor on the streets of New York could lead the board for the bankrupt money pit American taxpayers just invested in.

Whitacre retired from AT & T in 2007 after 44 years with the company.  Though the last 17 years he served as CEO and Chairman of the Board at the telecom company,  his first job at what was then Southwestern Bell was setting fence posts.  Without a doubt, he started at the bottom and worked his way to the top. But telecom analyst Victor Schnee calls his appointment to lead GM “bizarre.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained, “What was required was somebody with savvy, big-business experience that could take a company, change its management culture, make some of those tough decisions to put it on that path toward viability.”  But how does Whitacre’s experience at AT & T compare to that required to turn around the new Government Motors?

At AT & T, he started with the smallest of the “Baby Bells” and gobbled up its competition in mergers to create the largest US telecom company.  Along the way, competitors cried foul, accusing the ever-growing AT & T of using its might to price them out of business and ignoring regulations smaller companies had to abide by.  In reference to a 2001 complaint filed by the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLEC) Association of Michigan, then CLEC-MI president Brad Kruse said “Companies are limited in the service they can provide in Michigan because of SBC/Ameritech’s (now AT & T) actions, and the pace of competition is slowing.  SBC/Ameritech is unilaterally setting telecommunications policy in Michigan, disregarding the rulings of regulators and the policies set by legislators alike, while blocking competition.”

Could this be exactly what the administration seeks for GM?  A go-for-the-jugular Government Motors bent on crushing competition.  Might we see the taxpayer-bought-and-paid-for bankrupt company buy out the smaller Chrysler then use its government backing to try and drive Ford Motor Co. (Which by the way is the only American auto company that didn’t take a taxpayer bailout.) out of business?  If so, and if successful, Obama will have accomplished the nationalizing of the entire American auto industry!  Why else would he choose a Chairman of the Board who, in his own words, doesn’t know anything about cars?

Could the administration’s motivation have been political?  Mr. Whitacre made a lot of political contributions in the ’08 election cycle, mostly to Republicans.  But one donation, in February of 2007, might raise an eyebrow when one’s asking how Whitacre was chosen for his new job–$1000 to Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s current Chief of Staff.  The natural question is, what would cause a Texas Republican to donate to the campaign of a Democratic Congressman in Illinois?  On the same day Whitacre made his suspicious donation, AT & T’s COO Randall Stephenson also contributed $1000 to Emanuel’s campaign.  Coincidence?  Maybe.

On May 1 of this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Emanuel has taken a lead role at the Treasury Department and if “Rahm wants it” it’s almost certain to happen.  Just a couple of days ago Kevin Hasset, in a piece on Bloomberg, opined that he believes Obama’s plan is to put policies in place that drive every American business to need a bailout, and then “Rahm Emanuel can stack the boards of all of our companies with his political cronies.”  Perhaps the idea that Whitacre’s appointment, who knows nothing about the auto business by his own admission, to head the new Government Motors is political payback by Rahmbo isn’t so far-fetched.

In either case, if Obama’s seeking to completely nationalize the entire auto industry with the “Kingpin” of the telecom industry or if Rahmbo made the call to pay off a favor, the fact that Whitacre steps into the limelight announcing he knows nothing of the business doesn’t allay my fear that this “investment” is going to be one big boondoggle.

But maybe every GM car will come with a new AT & T phone.