|
 |
Fuzzy Math is Alive
& Well
That’s My Opinion
By Bob Robinson
I was watching a talk/interview show on Fox last weekend. My schedule
permits about a half hour at night, and about a half hour early in the
morning when I wake up. Weekday choices are usually WHIO. Weekend
choices are usually the Fox channel.
I was astonished to hear a Dem strategist tout Obama’s creation of
millions of jobs during his time in office while the Bush
administration devastated millions of jobs during his eight-year tenure.
Huh?
Bush assumed office in January 2001. That year, unemployment was 4.7
percent. Following the attack in September, unemployment shot up to 5.8
percent in 2002, then 6.0 percent in 2003. The devastation of that
terrorist event not only resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, it
meant economic disaster to millions of others.
Finally, his team’s efforts started getting the economy back under
control. America enjoyed increasing economic prosperity for the next
four years (2004 – 5.5, 2005 – 5.1, 2006 – 4.6, and 2007 – 4.6).
Not the 4.0 he inherited before Sept. 11, but I’ll take it.
Then our nation, in its questionable wisdom, elected a Dem Congress.
Bush had to do what Pres. Bill Clinton had to do in 1994… work with the
other side. Clinton had to work with an elected Republican House that
ran on a “Contract with America.”
That year, unemployment dropped from 6.9 percent to 6.1 percent and
continued to slowly decline for the next six years, wrapping up in 2000
at 4.0 percent.
The difference in 2007 was that Bush had to work with politicians who
wanted bigger government because, in their opinion, bigger was better.
There were still problems out there, they said (statement of fact,
folks: there will ALWAYS still be problems out there… it’s the human
condition). The spending spree began, disappointingly supported by G.W.
The following year unemployment jumped to 5.8 percent and a nation
starting to feel the effects of an (almost) economic slow-down, and
swayed by one of the great orators of his time, chose Barack Obama over
a definitely NOT conservative John McCain.
The Reps, running scared, tried to keep control with a more
middle-of-the-road candidate and got slaughtered.
During President Obama’s first year in office, starting in January
2009, unemployment jumped to 9.3 percent. It climbed to 9.6 percent in
2010, then dropped to 8.9 percent in 2011.
This year we’ll be lucky if it gets below 8.0 percent. I’m not holding
my breath.
The Dems haven’t mentioned the national debt, so I will. Under Bush the
National Debt increased from 5.8 trillion 2001 to 10 trillion in 2008.
Mostly because of two wars. A $4 trillion bump in eight years. Not
good, G.W. Sorry.
Oops… Under Obama, the National Debt just passed the 16 trillion mark.
A $6 trillion bump in three years… and military spending had nothing to
do with it!
No wonder the Dems aren’t talking about it.
One of the campaign lies (both sides are guilty) that is plastering the
TV screen is Obama taking credit for the fact that Ohio is a full
unemployment percentage point better than the rest of the country. He
touts his government bailout of the auto industry as the sole reason.
He picked Ohio because Ohio will likely pick the next president.
In the first place, the president’s job is not to worry about an
individual state with its own elected state government and its own
fiscal policies. He is supposed to be concerned about a national
economy that could keep that state from doing even better on the home
front.
Seventeen states voted in Republican governors in 2010. Since January
2011, those states have seen a decrease in unemployment ranging from
7.5 percent to 22.6 percent. Ohio’s rate dropped from 9.0 to 7.3
percent (a decrease of 18.9 percent).
Nearly all 17 currently stand below the national average.
Since few states, like Kansas, Maine, Wyoming, Iowa and so on have a
significant automotive presence, his “bragging” point seems a little
empty.
There are two other campaign lies that I’m having difficulty addressing
simply because I have no clue where they are coming from.
Obama says Romney will raise taxes on the middle class as much as
$2,000 a year. The Rep plan is to reduce taxes and remove many of the
“perks” from the IRS code that rich people have been taking advantage
of for decades. Sounds to me more like a tax increase on the rich. The
really rich. Not Obama’s fantasy rich.
Obama wants to raise taxes on the “wealthy”… starting at $200k a year.
If you are a small business owner or farmer finding yourself in that
bracket while trying to build a business, do you really feel rich?
No, I didn’t think so.
The other one is the bald statement that the Reps will destroy Medicare
and seniors could end up paying $6,000 more a year for their medical
expenses. I have no clue where that comes from. As I understand it,
there will be an “option” to go with vouchers in a competitive
environment. Competition usually leads to lower costs, not higher.
Obama plans to “save” Medicare by decreasing payments to service
providers. Many members of the profession already choose not to accept
Medicare or Medicaid because they simply can’t afford to. Any guesses
regarding the increased exodus of qualified medical services if
government payments drop even more?
Obamacare? That’s a monstrosity in itself. Suffice it to say it will
only help half the people it promised to help at a huge increase in
cost (read: new taxes per the United States Supreme Court and the GAO)
and inject millions of newly insured into a system with fewer available
services.
When I was in California, the Progressives (read: Liberals) running the
state developed a new method of math education that was typically
referred to as “Fuzzy Math.” It was later dropped as ludicrous.
I really had thought it had gone away. It did in California.
The Obama campaign has proven without a doubt that “Fuzzy Math” is
still alive and well. In Washington, D.C.
That’s My Opinion. What’s Yours?
Unemployment source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Republican governors unemployment source: Breitbart
Source national debt: U.S. Treasury
|
|
|
|
