Democrats Return to Remain in Spender-land
I’m imagining a clever video where an actress portraying Nancy Pelosi goes in to see her psychiatrist, complaining about the trials and tribulations of being the legislative leader of the majority party in Washington. She would say that while she felt elated after her party’s electoral victories, winning back in the majority in 2006 and increasing it two years later, she now finds herself becoming increasingly testy, lashing out at friends and enemies alike. She just can’t contain her rage against Republicans.
She had assumed victory would have exorcized her animus, but instead it’s increased it. So, the good shrink, stroking his beard, asks her in a thick German accent to do a word association test to help get at the issues tormenting her. He’ll say a word or expression and ask her to blurt out the first thing that comes to mind. And for each problem he identifies, Pelosi would reply “tax,” “government program” or “spend.”
Like the Queen in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland who had one way of “settling all difficulties, great or small,” Democrats have one way of addressing all problems: increase government spending. In panic over rising unemployment, with 64 percent naming jobs as one of the “one or two most important problems facing the country,” the president hastily arrange a jobs summit at the White House. Meanwhile, his fellow Democrats in Congress “hope to move early next year” a news jobs bill which when all it costs are tallied up “runs to nearly $300 billion” (H/t: Gateway Pundit).
Why don’t they just considering cutting some government regulations and laying off the federal employees who enforce them? The short term loss in government jobs will yield a long-term gain in private sector employment while decreasing the cost of the federal government (albeit slightly in the grand scheme of things).
But, that wouldn’t involve an expenditure of taxpayers’ money which Democrats seek to spend much like an addict looking for a fix.
5 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
They could give that $300 B plus the liberal slush fund porkulus to the people and businesses and we could create tons of jobs.
No, Chairman Obama’s keen on destroying more jobs and doesn’t give a damn about creating any. That’s why the half-assed and useless “jobs summit”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 3, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - December 3, 2009
so your solution to the present unemployment problem is to fire even more people? wouldn’t your “solution” increase unemployment, as well as undermine the tax base (thereby increasing the deficit) and put even more stress on state budgets because of rising unemployment claims?
Comment by Chad — December 4, 2009 @ 11:42 am - December 4, 2009
hmm, chad-o-nomics is amusing.
chad, the government regulators produce nothing, they just consume. They are paid by the money taken by taxes (wel to be technical, they are paid by debt) if you remove them from the payroll, then the payroll shrinks, then the debt shrinks, releasing more income to people who will produce something.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 5, 2009 @ 7:12 am - December 5, 2009
[...] too bad Democrats remain in Spenderland, believing that government spending is the solution to all social problems. If he really wants to [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » What Happened to Obama’s Concern About the Deficit? — December 8, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - December 8, 2009
[...] they don’t immediately seek to increase spending in response to every social problem. It seems the 12/12 Democrats have a different kind of reaction every time, they or the nation [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Cost of “Stimulus” Increases; Democrats Blame Canada — January 26, 2010 @ 6:21 pm - January 26, 2010