Different Presidents have different approaches to apportioning credit, inspiring the troops, and engendering loyalty when speaking at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
President Obama has taken criticism in some sectors for his use of the personal pronoun in describing, and applauding, the nation’s success in covert operations. So I’ve spent my Saturday morning at the outstanding website of The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara to find out what happens when Presidents speak to the CIA.
I PICKED TWELVE NOTABLE ADDRESSES FROM PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES AT THE CIA’S LANGLEY HEADQUARTERS OVER THE PAST 52 YEARS AND RUN THE NUMBERS.
Here’s a chart showing the number of times a President used ‘I’ in speaking at the CIA…
…. Obama, May 20, 2011: “AFTER I DIRECTED THAT GETTING BIN LADEN BE THE PRIORITY, YOU HUNKERED DOWN EVEN MORE, BUILDING ON YEARS OF PAINSTAKING WORK; pulling together, in some cases, the slenderest of intelligence streams, running those threads to ground until you found that courier and you tracked him to that compound.” [Indeed, of all the speeches I reviewed, Obama's is the first to take first-person credit for specific outcomes.….
I'm not sure if it is narcisism or Obama is that insecure.
Obama’s College Graduates problem
Leaving aside the salaries (not so surprising that engineering majors make more than education or humanities majors) it’s importantly to look pretty seriously at those light green bars. That represents people who went to college and are now employed in jobs that don’t require them to have gone to college. THAT’S 22 PERCENT OF EMPLOYED PEOPLE UNDER AGE 25. THEY’RE EARNING LESS THAN $16,000 A YEAR ON AVERAGE. That’s depressing. Those are people who have jobs. There are a lot of college graduates out there who don’t have jobs and are not included in this chart
We went to a party for a recent college graduate who was planning on going on in school (3 more years). In talking with her friends it was depressing to hear about the lack of jobs and what they were having to settle for.
Keynes is dead
Several factors, no doubt, contribute to our present misfortune. BUT ONE CANNOT IGNORE OBAMA'S EGREGIOUS AND UNPARALLELED STIMULUS SPENDING. GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS PRETTY MUCH INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO JOB GROWTH. This is partly because a great deal of stimulus cash was funneled to Democratic constituencies or immediately circulated into government coffers to pay off state debts, rather than being applied to private contracts which might have "stimulated" the economy. However, the overarching explanation is that KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IS BUNK AND UNCONTROLLED GOVERNMENT SPENDING RUINS ECONOMIES.
While true believers will argue ad infinitum that external factor explains Obamanomic's failure to launch, the experiment cannot be said to have failed for lack of trying. OBAMA HAS SPENT WITH RECKLESS ABANDON AND PROMISED TO KEEP THE TAP FLOWING. IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE ANYONE SERIOUSLY ARGUING THAT WE SHOULD (OR COULD) HAVE SPENT MORE MONEY THAN WE HAVE. And the result it evident.
Albert Einstein's famous quote seems to apply. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." An Obama victory in 2012 would reveal either that American's have no knowledge of the facts or that they meet the criteria of Einstein's definition.
Another reason Obama will be unemployed in 2013.
Mitch Daniels won’t run
After months of stewing and despite widespread encouragement from many within his party, Indiana GOV. MITCH DANIELS SENT OUT AN E-MAIL TO SUPPORTERS EARLY SUNDAY
SAYING HE HAD DECIDED AGAINST JUMPING INTO THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL RACE…..
Playing the system
“I USED TO BE A DRUNK, BUT NOW I’M BIPOLAR.” A GUY WHO WAS APPLYING FOR SOCIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS ONCE SAID THESE WORDS, WHICH SUM UP THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM….
…. In 1984 President Reagan (yes, Reagan) signed a law that further liberalized reviews of mental disorders for SSDI and SSI benefits. Earlier in his administration (at the behest of David Stockman), SSA ramped up its audits on people receiving disability benefits — but the resulting blowback in the press was so harsh that Reagan accepted the 1984 changes as a way to end the negative publicity. Thus in 1984 about 64,000 people were awarded SSDI benefits due to “mental disorders”; by 1986 it had jumped to about 124,000. In 2009, it was over 216,000, resulting in an unsurprising cumulative effect of over 2.4 million people receiving SSDI benefits for “mental disorders other than retardation.” (SSA has oodles of SSDI stats here, but, oddly, not so much for SSI.)
Now you know why that guy was claiming to be bipolar — because being an alcoholic wouldn’t qualify him for benefits.
In case you are wondering why government programs always seem to grow much larger than the estimates when it is proposed, it’s human nature. SSI was intended to help those who had debilitating disabilities. Along the way alcoholics, drug addict, and others learned how to scam the system.