Big Words, Big Government

Obama's news conference last night, like his stop in Indiana, sounded like he was still campaigning. And when you think about it, it is what he does best and has done the longest.

Obama was completely disingenuous. Repeating that there were no "earmarks" and avoiding the word "pork" was clever, but dishonest. When you are funding the National Endowment of the Arts to the tune of $50 million, you aren't "creating jobs." You are paying back a close constituent. $300 million for grants to combat violence against women, while a worthy goal, doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy. $650 million for activities related to the switch from analog to digital TV may ensure no one miss the next "Dancing With The Stars," but it can be called nothing more than pork.

Obama kept referring to people that don't exist in Congress. People that believe in "doing nothing" as a response to the economic crisis. I don't know any Republican Congressman that wants us "to do nothing." Just because you believe this stimulus bill is too bloated and want it cut down to be a stimulus only, doesn't equate to "doing nothing." Obama also kept saying, "tax cuts alone can't solve our economic problems." No one I know of is proposing tax cuts alone. This is dishonest and certainly not fair to those who want honest debate.

Obama wants bigger government and he is going to get it. When Rahm Emanuel stated outright that this crisis gave Democrats an opportunity to pass big government programs, he wasn't kidding. He said back in November, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. They squandered their time to act like true conservatives, and it's taken losing big time for them to now grow a spine and say and do things they should have been doing all along.

It's going to take a while to get their conservative creds back. Meanwhile, big government wins and we all lose.

Creating more incentive and money for people to depend on the government for their livelihood is simply wrong. We will all look back on this with regret I fear.

Update: I really can't get over how dishonest Obama is being. I think he can state his case for the stimulus by not telling untruths.

From NRO:

The Obama administration has claimed that virtually all economists support their approach to "stimulus" spending. This is patently untrue. Nobel Laureates Ed Prescott, James Buchanan, and Vernon Smith recently joined 200 other economists signing a letter opposing the legislation. Other notable economists critical of the stimulus package include Nobel Laureate Gary Becker, as well as Robert Barro, Greg Mankiw, Arthur Laffer, and Larry Lindsey. Martin Feldstein, who had been the only notable conservative economist loudly supporting the stimulus, has since changed his mind.

More liberal economists such as Alice Rivlin and Alan Blinder have also strongly criticized certain aspects of the spending bill.

And just so we aren't distracted by the what many of you seem to see as measley hundreds of millions here or there, you might take a look at the big picture:

According to the Wall Street Journal, there is very little actual "stimulus" in the stimulus bill:

"In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make 'dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy.' Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus."