When President Obama lectures the nation about “fairness” and “middle-class values” in his State of the Union address this evening, Americans ought to consider how dismissive his policies have been of those values, and how unfair they have been to middle-class families.
Above all else, hardworking, middle-class Americans want to ensure a better life for their children. They want to know if they work hard, play by the rules, and live within their means, that those defining middle-class values will be rewarded.
For the last three years, those values have only been punished. Set aside the president’s words, and look at his actions.
President Obama has plunged American families $4 trillion deeper into debt. He has taken that money from the people who earned it — and their children — and given it to people whose mistakes created the economic crisis in the first place.
Three years into Obamanomics, with millions of jobs lost and businesses shuttered, who exactly has benefited?
The big banks that plunged the world into financial crisis are bigger than ever. Government-backed mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which spurred banks to make those reckless loans, went untouched in the Wall Street reform bill and instead received over $180 billion in taxpayer bailouts. Auto companies so poorly run that they lost money on every car they sold were seized by the federal government, given billions of taxpayer dollars, and handed over to political cronies in the bargain. Green-energy company Solyndra was given $500 million of taxpayer money before it went bankrupt, not due to its technological innovativeness, but because it was politically connected to the Obama campaign.
The hundreds of billions of dollars the president directed to his political cronies could have, if left in the real economy, launched new enterprises and created thousands of new jobs. As it is, though, the American economy, and the middle class families who sustain it, have nothing to show for the president’s so-called “investments.”
Then there’s Obamacare, which robbed $500 billion from the already failing Medicare program to force millions of middle class families from their insurance onto government-rationed care. Obama promised insurance premiums would go down, but the Kaiser Family Foundation found the average employer-based premium for a family increased 9 percent, or $1,303, in 2011. Rates are expected to double over the next 10 years.
Despite these repeated insults to working men and women who diligently send their taxes to Washington only to watch them be foolishly wasted away, Obama continues to insist that big government is good for the middle class. He says it’s not right and it’s not fair that the wealthy are making more money while the poor and middle class are having a harder time than ever climbing up the economic ladder.
But what is really holding them back?
Lousy schools. Exploding health-care costs. Rampant dependency and family breakdown. Companies that can no longer offer jobs in the United States because it’s become too expensive to operate here. Smothering regulations. Untapped energy resources and blocked shovel-ready projects like the Keystone Pipeline.
But what do all of those things — things that once worked and now do not — have in common? Government.
Over the last two generations, for the first time in our history, the federal government seized control of our education system, our health-care system, our financial system, our housing industry, our transportation system, our energy industry, our taxes, our welfare state, and our economic regulations.
Big government is what got us into this mess. The president believes only even bigger government can get us out. But the last three years have shown — once again — that it won’t.
Middle-class families know better. They know that Barack Obama’s Washington is at war with the values they live by, the values they instill in their children. They know that for three years under President Obama, middle class families who have worked, played by the rules, and lived within their means have only been forced to bail out the people who don’t.
The president wants us to believe that we need big government to protect the middle class. The truth is that we need to protect the middle class from big government.
There’s a simple question that middle-class families should ask themselves that reveals the true state of our union. Are you better off than you were $4 trillion ago?
Now if we can only get Mitt or Newt to start speaking like this . . .
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe obama administration did not bail out the auto industry. they bailed out the UAW.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyou do realize though that the bail out of the "uaw" as you call it worked right? i mean let's at least be honest here. tp://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
new polices under GWB: 5.7 trillion. New policies under Obama: 1.4 trillion. There's more to the story than that, and it actually gets WORSE, not better: most of Obama's debt-inducting policies are temporary with an end date already on them, whereas GWB's were indefinite (and are still ongoing).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyour link was broken. but anyone that attempts to use the oped page of the new york times (for CRYING out LOUD) to support their point is up to no good.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow - an incredible amount of lies and mis-statements all wrapped up into one piece.
Just as an example,
"Then there’s Obamacare, which robbed $500 billion from the already failing Medicare program"
That's a flat-out lie. What was cut was over-payments to Medicare Advantage providers. Nothing was 'robbed' from anyone at all.
I can't respect such a terrible piece of writing, it's a shame it was even posted here at the Corner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFish, are you sure you want to use this one?
While I don't doubt there is massive waste and fraud in Medicare (something Democrats never seriously try to address), would you please point the gentle readers here to the exact line items the budget that correspond to "over-payments" and the criteria for applying said "over-payment" label?
No can do? Didn't think so. Because it doesn't exist. Obamacare supports claimed the program would be sustainable based partially on cuts to Medicare that they knew very well they NEVER INTENDED TO MAKE.
So, got any other great examples?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only lie I see is calling the cuts "over-payments." That leaves the impression that Medicare was paying beyond market rates.
In fact these are simply cuts to reimbursement for medical services. They aren't "over-" anything. This, of course, will make it less likely that doctors accept Medicare patients and, for those that do, make it necessary for non-Medicare patients to subsidize the Medicare ones through their payments.
This increase in cost will make private insurance more expensive (as Medicare does today), drive some providers out of business, cause some employers to drop their plans altogether, etc. These consequences are, of course, all part of the plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI may have to change my vote for bet Corner post of all time.
Right on Senator!
Who can imagine Mitch McConnell ever writing these statements?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on target Jim. Wish you were running for President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhoever's giving the rebuttal should just read this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. DeMint, well said. I have admired you for a while now. Keep up the good work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseToo bad we don't hear more from the Republicans...any Republican...on these issues more often. There should be a vocal, loyal continuous opposition from them. Instead, we get patronized every few months by the GOP, inbetween idiotic fund raising surveys from the RNC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe all know Obama is running a pure class warfare / income inequality campaign, since he has nothing else to run on. But Sen. DeMint points to the GOP's jujitsu opportunity here. That is because cronyism and corruption are the flip side of the big government coin. Republicans should run against the insider deals, subsidies, bailouts, tax loopholes (flat tax is not only good policy, but eliminates the carried interest, cap gains tax issue) and other nonsense that only come from big government. Big government and corruption are symbiotic. The GOP should stand for the FAIRNESS that comes from limited government not interfering in our lives and not pressing its thumb on so many scales. We can tie fairness to liberty, and corruption to government, and thereby win the middle class.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere were you Sen. DeMint during the GWB years, when even pre-recession job creation lagged (and net job growth was negative for Bush's entire 8 years), median incomes declined and the national debt exploded (and the horrible bailouts began)? Not to mention that the debt and housing bubbles all took place during that time period, including the six years Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency. Oh, wait, you were right where you are now, in the Senate, yet somehow you failed to register the least big of outrage back then. Now, however, with a Democratic President, you are shocked! Hypocrisy Abounds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDrink the kool-aid... Drink it up..... Drink it all up!!! Muuuaaahhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst off how can anyone legitimately take an article written by a Republican about a Democratic President in an election season seriously? Anyone who takes this article seriously is truly gullible, and that disappoints me in this blatant ignorance of political games that politicians play during an election season.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse