The favorite media storyline on the stimulus bill is not how much money will be wasted, how ill-prepared we are to spend it, how non-stimulative much of it is, or even what its impact is on the country’s future budgetary train wreck. No, it is the Republican governors who are “embroiled” in a fight about whether to use the stimulus money in their states. That mantra is repeated endlessly — the GOP governors are “at odds” or “in conflict.” This is rubbish, even for the MSM.
There is no “conflict” if Minnesota uses every dime and South Carolina chooses not to increase the sums available for unemployment insurance. It’s no skin off the noses of Mississippi voters if Californians want to use all the funds. It’s called federalism — each state determines what is appropriate, how funds are to be used, and whether they wish to embark on an expansion of programs which lack future funding.
Yes, the feds did make a sly attempt to force the state legislatures to spend the money (via a measure inserted by Rep. James Clyburn) even if the governor of a certain state rejects part of the money. That’s a nasty bit of unconstitutional meddling in states’ internal operations by the federal government. If the congressmen and president demand the money be spent, let them spend it. But they do not have the right to order states to do what they won’t do themselves.
Which returns us to the faux controversy kicked up by the media. I suppose any resistance to implementing the will of the Obama administration is fodder for their ire. And it’s always fun for them to stir the pot among Republicans. But this is a stretch. Governors have every right and obligation to make decisions for their states. Governors — unlike the media, Congress, and the president – are now taking time to examine what’s in the massive spending measure and figure out what makes sense for their states.
That’s certainly a departure from the last few weeks, and likely a story the Obama-cheering media would rather not examine. People, after all, might start wondering why politicians now are only beginning to read this monstrous bit of legislation.
definately disagree on the earlier figures, but the drop since he began serving is his and his alone.
and his defenders need to stop with “he inherited a recession” come on guys, you know where we’ve heard that before
Obama may have done nothing to cause the drop but he sure as hell as done absolutely nothing to ameliorate it either. Not that I believed it, but this is the guy who campaigned as the One who had the answer to all our problems. Maybe not, eh?
romney would have been better. clearly. hillary or mcCain, possibly but romney definately.
on this. too bad republicans insist on the neoconservatives big government foreign policy or there would be alot more repubilcans in power.
He inherited it with his eyes wide open. He now owns it, and blaming Bush will only continue to work with his Kool-Aid crowd. Meanwhile, everyone else is seeing their jobs and retirement funds disintegrate.
BHO now has a “real” job, with consequences. To paraphrase Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, “we’re not community organizing any more, Toto”.
“Obama may have done nothing to cause the drop but he sure as hell as done absolutely nothing to ameliorate it either.” Yep, and meanwhile, aside from conservative outlets like this one, only the business media (Bloomberg, CNBC, Cramer, etc.) are talking about it. The response from the Left has been two-fold: first, create bread and circuses. Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP! Thanks to Michael Steele’s idiotic bait-taking, that was the biggest political story of the week. Second, frenetically attack any of the business media, like Cramer, who dare to criticize The One. (Jon Stewart sure got the memo from Headquarters.)
But I think these distractions are about played out. Soon enough, the MSM is going to have to report the truth, which is that right now, in responding (or rather, not responding) to the collapse, Obama looks like a dumbstruck chicken standing out in a rainstorm, staring up at the sky with its mouth thrown open while it tries to figure out where the raindrops are coming from.
It will take the main media quite some time before they turn in earnest against the mesiah.
Everybody needs to recall that he is a creature of their contrivance, and absent their support, absent their sponsorship, he never would have had a prayer of overturning Hillary’s candidacy. That being the case, ——————- their credibility is on the line in a way that the credibility of the financial media is not.
That’s why we’re seeing the financial guys turning on him. Another thing, markets do go up and down, and most of the financial commentators hail from the business sector, which means they understand error, they understand an economic misread, and probably they’ve all made such misreads in the past. They lack the ego that prevents the major media, and guys like Stewart too, from seeing what we’re all seeing.
Stewart’s ego is before his eyes, which prevents him seeing the Tolkien like tragedy playing itself out. The financial guys have a hard won caution against allowing anything other than the data dictating their decisions. It’s not a coincidence then that the financial guys, the guys who look at data and ignore personalities, should be the first to start noticing that the emperor has absolutely no clothes.
Good God what have we done electing this devotee of Wright!
KEJDA GJERMANI:
Do you try to choose a different CoD every day? This entry is actually just fine. But it reminded me that I haven’t seen any CoD’s from some of the stalwarts like J. E. Dyer. I think the point should be to find the best commentary, not necessarily to “spread it around.” Some of us work awful hard to get ideas out there, but can’t get chosen as CoD because we were chosen for it earlier.
The best that can be said is that this is part of the natural process that happens when clueless liberals get elected. Clinton had to go through something somewhat similar, when the bond market forced him to drop his health care plans.
The problem, though, is that Obama seems to lack the humility and intelligence to change course as he steers us into complete ruin.
Basically both the dems and the reps are up to their eyeballs in effluent on the economy. This greater recession is basically a continuation of the beginning of the decade recession which was in its turn a continuation of the early 90s recession. The mother load of all this was the bursting of the Tokyo bubble in 89, which in itself was rooted in Volcker’s capitulation in ’83. Obama is going to be savaged but just for that reason conservatives should, if not defend him, at least insistently clarify that the he is after all completely conventional in his understanding of the responsibilities of the government in dealing with a financial collapse. There are certainly very very few reps who are really against the financial bailouts. And listening to Steve Forbes, for example, rail against mark to market accounting is really just embarrassing. This is a civilizational crisis. The twilight of brights if you will. The fear of systemic financial failure is a fear of systemic bankruptcy which includes intellectual capital. Behind this is a fear of the old revolutionary slogan: “Off with their heads”. And certainly no one will assert they have a right to life. Drums keep apounding a rythm to the base.
Q: What’s a toxic asset?
A: Obama in the White House
An example of Argument Ad Hominidumm
Th emelt down is exactly what B. Hussein Obama wants this early in his presidency.
Since when did the Leftists care about the middle class. He hopes to break their backs and make them as dependent on big government as the Negroes are.
Editorial control, anyone?
Steven from Indiana