Obama Fails Geography And Economics:
Here's President Obama answering a question about budget cuts during a press conference in Honolulu, Hawaii last week:
"When I meet with world leaders, what's striking — whether it's in Europe or here in Asia — the kinds of fundamental reforms and changes, both on the revenue side and the public pension side, that other countries are having to make are so much more significant than what we need to do in order to get our books in order".
Three things. First - Hawaii, our 50th state (out of 57 or 58 states, according to Obama), is obviously not in Asia. You'd think Obama would know this, seeing as how he was born in Hawaii and lived there for about 13 years. Second - if Obama believes the needed U.S. budget changes to "get our books in order" are not so "significant"...then why can't we make them ? Third - how scary is it that we have a President who believes $1.3 trillion deficits and $15 trillion in national debt is not "significant" ? The federal government is borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar it spends. I'd sure call that significant.
I hope the Birthers don't start citing this as Obama admitting he was born in Asia. As Obama's grandmother has already stated, Obama was born in Kenya (which must be somewhere outside Honolulu). In related news, President George W. Bush, the famous Texan, was born in Connecticut. Senator John McCain, Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, was born in the Panama Canal zone, and was born again hard in Vietnam. Obama's prior military experience consisted of playing with a G.I. Joe doll as a child.
Obama's Head Start BS:
As part of his "we can't wait" initiative to bypass the "do-nothing" Republicans in Congress, Obama has taken the initiative to implement a Head Start program:
“The Republicans in Washington are trying to gut our investments in education. … We can’t wait to give our youngest children the same basic opportunities we give all children,” [Obama] told the assembled cameras and reporters.
White House officials billed the campaign event as another opportunity to highlight the 2012 campaign’s ‘We Can’t Wait” theme. That theme seeks to portray the president as actively helping Americans while partisan, self-interested Republicans block beneficial government action.
There's one teensy, weensy little problem with Obama's "it's the Republicans fault" narrative here. The Head Start program Obama is talking about was already made law...by the Republicans:
[Obama is] actually implementing a modest children’s education reform signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush in 2007.
The event “is a photo-op for the implementation of a law that has already passed,” said John Hood, director of the John Locke Foundation in North Carolina.
The Bush-signed reform is titled the “Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act.” The reform law was unanimously approved by the [Republican-controlled] Senate and overwhelmingly supported by the [Republican-controlled] House of Representatives 381 to 36, before it was signed by Bush in December 2007...The reform has been underway for more than three years, and the first changes to grant holders [they may be changed if they underperform] may be announced next month.
Oops. Another perfectly good Obama fiction goes out the window.
But at least the little children are going to be helped, right ?
Not according to a study conducted by the Obama administration:
“The advantages children gained during their Head Start and age four years yielded only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of 1st grade for the sample as a whole,” concluded a Health and Human Services study of almost 5,000 kids. The study, released by the Obama administration in January 2010, is titled the “Head Start Impact Study.”
The federal government has spent more than $100 billion on the program since 1965
A 2006 study by the Brookings Institute reached this conclusion:
"Head Start "has no demonstrable impact on [students'] academic, socio-emotional, or health status at the end of first grade. That's right. If you were a mother who lost the lottery, couldn't get your child into Head Start, and had to care for her at home, she was no worse off at the end of first grade than she would have been had she gotten into Head Start."
Nothing like wasting a $100 billion on a program that doesn't work.
But these are mere facts, and we don't need no stinking facts when Obama has an election to win and Americans to mislead.
Gabrielle Giffords' Great Idea:
A few days before Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was wounded in an attack by a crazed liberal anarchist metalhead druggie burnout (in other words, it was Sarah Palin's fault), Rep. Giffords proposed that Congress slash it's pay by 5%. Now, she is reminding the Super Committee of that proposal as the Committee discusses ways to trim $1.2 trillion from future spending increases. Cutting the pay of Congress would save $50 million over ten years.
In a letter to the debt-reduction supercommittee organized by Giffords’ Washington office, 25 lawmakers urged the supercommittee to cut lawmakers’ salaries to reduce the federal deficit.
The letter, sent Thursday and signed by 11 Republicans and 14 Democrats, said a paycut would be a “commonsense” way to cut the required $1.5 trillion from the federal budget, as well as “a powerful message to the American people that Congress should not be exempt from the sacrifices it will take to balance the budget.”
Kudos to Mrs. Gifford. I would go a bit further. As someone else said recently (can't remember who it was), if you want Congress to balance the budget, write a law that says Congress doesn't get paid UNLESS it balances the budget. That's the least we should expect from them. Let's put that referendum on the ballot in all 50 states and see what the voters have to say about it.
About This Blog