President Obama "Amused" Over Spending During His Visit To RichmondOct 05, 2010
As a native Richmonder, I think it's great when a sitting president visits, no matter which party he represents or, frankly, how bad a job he's doing. After all, sometimes the bigger the trouble he's in, the greater the media attention — and this city can use all the publicity it can stand. So, it was great to see the anointed one here last week, although it was puzzling since we have no hotly contested campaign. On the other hand, maybe that's why he was here, given how toxic he's become to Democrat candidates, who lack no excuse to outrun Air Force One when they see it descending into their states. But it was especially pleasing to see Mr. Obama's motorcade route lined with "Cut Spending" yard signs, courtesy of Americans For Prosperity (I have relatives who live in one of the houses that agreed to plant the signs). Mr. Obama didn't see it the same way, although he said he was "amused" by the signs. But he was really out of touch. He alluded to Virginia 7th District Congressman Eric Cantor, in whose district he was, and the GOP call to cut spending and tax rates, when he said, "the numbers don't add up."
While the leader of the regime may or may not have been "amused" he certainly was hypocritical: the numbers don't add up? As if his numbers — trillions and trillions of dollars of debt that resemble a banana republic — add up? Actually, "adding" is the wrong word. His policies are subtracting — subtracting the prosperity of countless Americans — and he's lecturing us on keeping our more of our wages? The fact is, every major tax cut in American history (including those under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and George W. Bush) has created millions of jobs and increased federal revenue through a thriving economy. The simple message of the yard signs is correct. When revenue goes up and deficits linger, it's a spending problem, not a tax problem.
What's really amusing is that the president thinks extending the 2001 and 2003 tax rate reductions will "cost $700 billion over 10 years," as if keeping your hard earned money is an expense to the government, while he spent nearly $800 billion in one day in February 2009 when he signed the "stimulus" bill. Lots of money for no jobs. Sorry. That is nowhere near amusing. It's downright sad and an abysmal waste. Hypocrite, indeed.
He may have been amused, but his record is nothing but sad.