The president can hold as many town halls as he wants. He can attack Republicans to his heart’s content. He may be, as his supporters insist, hyper-rational, the very model of the complex, nuanced thinker, perhaps even “the smartest guy ever to become president.” He can be charming on Oprah. He can do lots of things. BUT ONE THING HE CANNOT DO IS ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. AND IF THE ECONOMY REMAINS FLAT ON ITS BACK—IF THINGS DON’T PICK UP SIGNIFICANTLY BETWEEN NOW AND THE SUMMER OF 2012—THEN THE ODDS ARE QUITE HIGH THAT WE’RE LOOKING AT A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT.
Read it to get all the particulars that represent what his actions have gotten us. Obama is a disaster as a president.
Stagflation comes to Obamaland
Call it the "excuses recovery." President Obama and his administration have been warning for the last week that THE JUST ANNOUNCED FIRST QUARTER GDP GROWTH RATE OF 1.8 PERCENT WOULD BE WEAK, AND THEY HAVE BEEN QUICK TO BLAME IT ON THE RECENT SPIKE PRICES IN OIL. The problem is that this whole recovery has been anemic, not just one or two slow quarters of economic growth.
SEVEN QUARTERS INTO THE OBAMA RECOVERY, GDP GROWTH HAS AVERAGED AN ANNUAL RATE OF ONLY 2.8 PERCENT. IN CONTRAST, SINCE 1970, THE FIRST SEVEN QUARTERS OF PREVIOUS RECOVERIES AVERAGED 4.6 PERCENT. The poor growth rate is especially surprising since the preceding recession was so severe, there should have been ample room for high growth as the unemployed returned to work. For example, the REAGAN RECOVERY FOLLOWED A SIMILARLY HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND SAW THE ECONOMY GROW AT AN AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF 7 PERCENT.
The slight decrease in unemployment – currently at 8.8 percent -- has been touted as good news. Yet that slight drop has largely been the result of job-seekers giving up looking for work and leaving the labor force. ON TOP OF THAT, THE NEW JOBS THAT HAVE OPENED UP HAVE PRIMARILY BEEN TEMPORARY JOBS, THE NUMBER OF PERMANENT JOBS HAS ACTUALLY FALLEN.
I’ve seen liberal tout 3 quarters of growth,decreased unemployment, etc as reason Obama would win reelection. It just isn’t so.
Chris Christie Addresses Harvard on Education
Addressing the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Askwith Forum on Friday afternoon, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie chose two audience members from the front row, asked them their first names, and, casting them in the roles of two teachers being evaluated at the end of the year, as the school principal, addressed them something like this.
New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, April 28, 2011
“ROBERT, YOU HAVE BEEN ONE OF OUR BEST TEACHERS THIS YEAR. You are always here long before the morning bell and long after the afternoon bell. Your lesson plans are continually updated and innovative. Not only do your students love you, but by every measure we have your students are excelling. Parents call me and tell me how great you are at teaching their children and at communicating to them how their children are doing. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU A 4% RAISE.”
“NOW PAMELA, YOU ARE A LOST CAUSE. Pamela, we have all been disappointed again this year with your performance. You show up every day with the bell and you leave every day with the bell. Your lesson plans haven’t changed in years and your teaching shows it. Your students complain and the parents of your students complain all the time. Furthermore, the performance of your students is systematically well below average. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU A 4% RAISE.”
AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH EDUCATION IN NEW JERSEY.
Compounding that problem, Christie said, as he so often has, that the teachers unions in New Jersey are “a political thuggery operation” that PUTS THE INTERESTS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND THEMSELVES, THE UNION LEADERS, FAR ABOVE THE INTERESTS OF THE STUDENTS – if the students interests are ever considered at all.
Christie pointed out that 31 of New Jersey’s 500 plus school districts, THE WORST URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS, RECEIVE STATE AND FEDERAL SUPPORT TO THE TUNE OF $16,000 PER PUPIL PER YEAR, while the remaining 500 or so districts receive state and federal support of $2,900 per pupil per year. THE COST OF EDUCATING THESE URBAN SCHOOL STUDENTS COMES OUT TO SOMETHING OVER $33,000 PER PUPIL PER YEAR. (By comparison, the average cost of educating a pupil per year in Massachusetts is around $13,000).
Money isn’t the problem in failing schools and throwing more money at it isn't the solution.