In his snoozefest of an interview by Chris Matthews of MSNBC, president Obama said that Republicans are to blame for gridlock in DC and should be embarrassed by their low "productivity" since taking control of the House in 2010. Never has a more revealing statement been made by this president.
First, you have the typical false argument and mischaracterization by Obama. Think of it this way: Josh and his wife Sue try to agree on buying a new home. It is an important purchase, so they want to get it right. Josh says that he does not like the style of the house and would be unhappy living there while Sue says the garden in the back yard is just like the one she has wanted for years. Since they can't agree, they don't buy the house. Who is to blame? The simple answer is no one. If two people or two groups of people try to reach agreement but cannot, no one is to blame unless one person or one side actively tries to avoid agreement. That is not what is happening in Washington, so assigning blame here is silly. Even worse, however, Obama's method for attempting to reach agreement has always been to insist that the other side accept his view. There is no give and take. Look at the debate in late September and early October when the GOP wanted to delay Obamacare for a year. By the end of September, the Republicans had passed a bill that would have fully funded the government like Obama wanted but which would also have put off the roll out of Obamacare for a year. It was the third bill passed by the Republicans with each one moving closer to the Obama/Democrat position. Obama and his party, however, never once changed their position. The nation was told that Obamacare was the law of the land and could not be changed or delayed. (Just imagine how much heartache for millions could have been avoided if there was a one year delay to get the web site right.) Obama told us that the Republicans were terrorists, extortionists and criminals for suggesting that Obamacare be delayed. There was no negotiation, just a Democrat stonewall.
Second, Obama's statement reveals his view that government is only productive if it does something. People across America cannot be left to live their lives as they please; the government has to step in to direct them or there is low "productivity" by the Congress as a result. Each month, indeed each day, Congress has to regulate something new or face charges of declining productivity. It is totally crazy. Right now, there are probably 100 laws and regulations on the books which cause major harm to the USA and which would be easy to find. Just imagine Obama's reaction if the Congress were to repeal all of them. What a loss of productivity!
Congress and even the president are supposed to exercise good judgment in determining what, IF ANYTHING, needs to be done in Washington. With a president and his party who believe as a principle that more government is always better than less government, there is no chance for good judgment to enter the picture.
First, you have the typical false argument and mischaracterization by Obama. Think of it this way: Josh and his wife Sue try to agree on buying a new home. It is an important purchase, so they want to get it right. Josh says that he does not like the style of the house and would be unhappy living there while Sue says the garden in the back yard is just like the one she has wanted for years. Since they can't agree, they don't buy the house. Who is to blame? The simple answer is no one. If two people or two groups of people try to reach agreement but cannot, no one is to blame unless one person or one side actively tries to avoid agreement. That is not what is happening in Washington, so assigning blame here is silly. Even worse, however, Obama's method for attempting to reach agreement has always been to insist that the other side accept his view. There is no give and take. Look at the debate in late September and early October when the GOP wanted to delay Obamacare for a year. By the end of September, the Republicans had passed a bill that would have fully funded the government like Obama wanted but which would also have put off the roll out of Obamacare for a year. It was the third bill passed by the Republicans with each one moving closer to the Obama/Democrat position. Obama and his party, however, never once changed their position. The nation was told that Obamacare was the law of the land and could not be changed or delayed. (Just imagine how much heartache for millions could have been avoided if there was a one year delay to get the web site right.) Obama told us that the Republicans were terrorists, extortionists and criminals for suggesting that Obamacare be delayed. There was no negotiation, just a Democrat stonewall.
Second, Obama's statement reveals his view that government is only productive if it does something. People across America cannot be left to live their lives as they please; the government has to step in to direct them or there is low "productivity" by the Congress as a result. Each month, indeed each day, Congress has to regulate something new or face charges of declining productivity. It is totally crazy. Right now, there are probably 100 laws and regulations on the books which cause major harm to the USA and which would be easy to find. Just imagine Obama's reaction if the Congress were to repeal all of them. What a loss of productivity!
Congress and even the president are supposed to exercise good judgment in determining what, IF ANYTHING, needs to be done in Washington. With a president and his party who believe as a principle that more government is always better than less government, there is no chance for good judgment to enter the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment