They Call These Accomplishments?

Townhall.com ^ | March 20, 2012 | David Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

If you read through the Washington Monthly's list of Obama's top 50 accomplishments, you'll quickly understand why my brother, Rush, properly wanted him to fail.

When Rush said he wanted Obama to fail, everyone knew he was talking about his policies, and for those few who pretended otherwise, he explained it a thousand times: He wanted his policies to fail because his policies are disastrous for America.

Obama has certainly failed to exhibit leadership at very important points, such as his taking a pass during budget negotiations and his legendary vacillation at key foreign policy junctures. But in terms of the general, statist direction of the country, he is captain of the sinking ship.

Obama wasn't kidding when he promised to fundamentally transform America, and he has succeeded in doing so, to the everlasting detriment of the country. Four more years of this and it's hard to imagine what kind of shape we'll be in.

Paul Glastris, Ryan Cooper and Siyu Hu co-wrote the piece for the Washington Monthly. If you want to see just how far apart red America and blue America are, you must examine their list, recognizing that they are actually bragging about these "accomplishments."

Let's take a quick look at just a small fraction of these items:

--He passed Obamacare. As we've elsewhere noted, he represented that he would bend the cost curve down and make health care more accessible. Already we've discovered that the costs are double Obama's projections, and people are losing their own plans in droves, contrary to his promises. Further calamity awaits as the law goes into effect.

--He passed the stimulus. Can you believe that Glastris, Cooper and Hu are bragging about Obama's having spent almost a trillion dollars when America is on the financial precipice? Much of it was squandered in political payoffs and waste and dedicated to failed green projects. There were no shovel-ready jobs. Precious little was spent on infrastructure, despite Obama's promises, and the overall result was that the American economy lost millions of jobs -- even after you factor in the jobs that were allegedly "saved or created." Obama can move the goal posts until the cows come home, but the one he set himself -- that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8 percent -- has been as demonstrably wrong as any in the annals of presidential pledge breaking.

--He improved America's image abroad. Are the authors serious? He has repeatedly offended our allies and pandered to our enemies, with the net result of alienating both groups. Professional pollsters say he is less popular on the Arab street than was President George W. Bush.

--He "kicked banks out of the federal student loan program." And this is a good thing? He originally muscled out private banks through an abuse of federal authority in order to steal this money from the private sector to count toward Obamacare scoring when he needed to pretend it would be deficit-neutral. What did he do with this $60 billion in illusory savings? He pledged $40 billion of it to inflate student loans and used the other $20 billion to deceive the Congressional Budget Office in its scoring. Worse still, by increasing these student loans, Obama will create the opposite effect of what he's advertising; the middle class will have to pay more for education because these increased subsidies to universities will cause more tuition inflation. The middle class will also bear the brunt of the increased number of failed loans Obama's executive orders make inevitable, as taxpayers will subsidize the increased shortfall.

--He boosted fuel efficiency standards. Keep in mind that his Environmental Protection Agency did this through an administrative ruling when Congress would not pass his Draconian cap-and-trade bill because it would have had a crushing economic impact on the economy.

--He protected two liberal seats on the Supreme Court, which speaks for itself.

--He achieved the New START, by which he granted Russia major concessions for little in return, making us more vulnerable to other threats by unilaterally reducing our nuclear capabilities when other nations are expanding their capabilities and terrorists are in hot pursuit of these weapons.

--He trimmed our missile defense. This is just frighteningly irresponsible.

--He invested heavily in renewable technology. Solyndra, anyone?

--He killed the F-22 when China and Russia are developing their next-generation fighters. Under what sane rationale?

What has he done about the most egregious problems facing America, discretionary and entitlement spending? Absolutely nothing. And we're headed for a colossal train wreck. I can't quit obsessing over this, and I'm frankly shocked that everyone else isn't obsessing over it 24/7 when our national survival hangs in the balance.

Are the Bush-hating liberals correct; are there now two Americas? Remember that these are being touted as accomplishments, not failures.

[ClearCase_guy]

Two Americas: Ruling class and peasants.

[cincinnati65]

Isn’t it amazing that there is a Republican nominee that cannot substantively differentiate himself from these “accomplishments”? One would think that the candidate from the opposition party should be able to illustrate why at least 75% of these “accomplishments” are moving the United States in the wrong direction. Romney probably falls in the “he’s done good, but hasn’t gone far enough” camp on most of these.

[stayathomemom]

I remember exactly where I was when I heard him say, “I hope he fails.” I also knew exactly what he meant.