If this country had a dollar for every “new” financial plan President Obama has proposed, we’d be talking about the national debt in the past tense. The latest and greatest messianic initiative, announced today by the President, will somehow lower American mortgage costs and get America’s credit juices flowing again, blah, blah, blah.
There is, however, one little problem with it.
It doesn’t exist yet.
There was no actual plan released today … just a plan to announce the official plan sometime soon.
At least that’s the plan.
Said the President in today’s weekly radio address:
Soon my Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will announce a new strategy for reviving our financial system that gets credit flowing to businesses and families. We’ll help lower mortgage costs and extend loans to small businesses so they can create jobs.
There is no official timetable for the plan’s release, but according to a Reuters story, “His chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said on Friday that the White House would hold meetings next week about financial industry regulation.”
Who’d have guessed. More government intrusion.
The President also made this remarkable statement:
“Americans know that our economic recovery will take years — not months, but they will have little patience if we allow politics to get in the way of action, and our economy continues to slide.”
That the recovery will take time is no surprise to anyone. That it will take longer – far longer than it needs to – because of government meddling is something nugatory to Obamacrats across the board.
But to possess the chutzpah to suggest that his administration is not going to allow politics to get in the way of action is like saying the United States is committed to winning the War on Terror, as long as we don’t make the enemy too mad and don’t use too many guns and bombs and stuff (because they’re destructive).
Who exactly is the President kidding?
Was it not President Obama who said “I Won” as a response to Republican Jon Kyl who questioned the contents of the Obama-Nation Abomination stimulus package?
Was it not Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who said “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.”
And exactly how is telling American citizens that they need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh a non-partisan act?
And as long as I’m there, what, pray tell, is this rabid obsession with doing away with partisanship? (Perhaps the better question is: Am I surprised that Democrats want to do away with anti-Obama dissention?) Why exactly is standing up for core principals a negative thing? When, on matters of finance, foreign policy and social programs has “divisiveness” not existed? Why is it so difficult for Dems to admit that they, like their Republican counterparts, politicize?
I expect nothing less from politicians.
Remember, that when anyone, on any side of the aisle, speaks of fostering unity, it simply means that they wish for everyone to think as they do.
Again, so what?
I am a firm, unabashed conservative. I’d love it if more people thought as I do. I admit it.
Being one doesn’t render me – or anyone else – incapable of thinking clearly or ascertaining the “other side” of any argument.
To the contrary, conservatives in America are bombarded constantly with liberal positions and viewpoints far more than liberals are made to face and confront conservative positions. We are exposed to far more liberal ideas and concepts on an everyday basis then the other way around. Indeed, it is almost reflexive – inborn, if you will – for today’s conservative to have to develop the ability to define and debate their positions on demand. Liberals, after all, believe their positions are in the American mainstream.
As soon as conservatives get any kind of foothold in academia, motion pictures, popular music, television, newspapers and advertising, drop me a line. We’ll talk about it.