Has anyone noticed that the Party of “No” is accomplishing more than the Obama?

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The media and Democrats might want to stop labeling the Republican Party as the “Party of No.” One the surface, the label “Party of No” seems like good political strategy. It is a creative attempt to define and brand the opposition party negatively as the party opposed to all progressive ideas of hope and change. So what’s the problem with a little strategic branding? The problem is that saying “No” to Obama policies as a platform is starting to prove successful in producing tangible benefits for Americans.

Here are just a few successes we’ve seen by simply saying “No” to the Obama agenda:

The Republican Party strongly opposed Obama’s Cap and Tax legislation in July and is currently working to hold the bill up in the Senate. Democrats contend that by holding up the bill, Republicans are harming the world’s efforts to abate global warming. However, a newly released report by NOAA regarding October’s temperatures is telling us a different story. According to the report, October 2009 was the third coldest month on record. The average temperatures in October were 4 degrees Fahrenheit below average for the last century. Of course global warming scientists cannot reasonably explain the shocking drop, but one thing is evident, not passing Cap and Tax into law seems to be having a powerful effect on lowering average temperatures at a dramatic rate.

Republican opposition held up health care legislation in August. Despite claims from Democrats that the Republicans are intentionally killing off the sick as a result of their opposition, Obama touted a dramatic decrease in the number of uninsured from 47 million to 30 million. The drop occurred in less than of month after just saying “No” was congressional drumbeat. Saying no proved cheaper for Americans and dramatically effective.

Let’s also take a look at Obama’s stimulus. Sadly in this case, the “Yes” votes prevailed in February. However, if you look at Obama’s projections below, you will see that following the call of “No” would have put us at 9% unemployment. A dramatic improvement over the 10.2% unemployment we currently have under the stimulus. Only a fool would overlook the obvious wisdom of the “No” strategy.

All kidding aside, (I love writing about paradoxes) it is unfortunate that most liberal media and politicians push the idea that something is better than nothing. The truth is that there are good ideas and bad ideas. We can actually come out of legislation worse then when we came in. Many of Obama’s policies fall under the category of bad ideas. Nearly all of the current administrations big agenda items are crafted and rooted in accomplishing political goals as opposed to solving problems.

For example via The American Spectator:

Liberal John Cassidy explains of the progressive agenda:

"[W]e will be dealing with its consequences for decades to come, and I think it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to," Cassidy wrote. He goes on to confess that, "The future cost savings that the Administration and its congressional allies are promising to deliver are based on wishful thinking and sleight of hand. Over time, the reform, as proposed, would almost certainly add substantially to the budget deficit, thereby worsening the long-term fiscal crisis that the country faces."

After explaining many of the accounting tricks the Democrats have used to obtain a passing grade from the Congressional Budget Office, which I have detailed on numerous occasions, Cassidy concludes:

So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.

The reason “No” has been so successful to date is that the “Yes” solutions aren’t intended to address any particular problem. It's easy to say "No" to solutions that don't fix problems. The health care bill will cut the spiraling costs of health care, the answer is no so just say "No." Cap and trade will reduce global temperatures, the answer is no so just say "No." The stimulus is jolting the economy back to life, the answer is no so just say "No" more spending. When the leaders in congress and the White House are not bringing viable options to the table, the productive response is "No."


We can actually come out of legislation worse then when we came in...true my friend and frightening!

November 11, 2009 at 11:53 PM
RightKlik said...

When the party in power has nothing but bad ideas, a "party of NO" is exactly what you need.

November 11, 2009 at 11:57 PM
CJ said...

You can't relate one month's temperature to a decades-long climate trend. That's like saying winter's not coming this year because it was mild yesterday. If you think this way, next time we have a warm month or year, you'll have to wrongly blame it all on human activities.

The rate of health insurance did not change. Obama started using the number of people who supposedly cannot buy health insurance instead of the number of people who don't have it. This is not a GOP accomplishment.

Regarding the stimulus, I thought that was an idea that Republicans supported. (I honestly can't remember.) Your argument about it is that it should have effectively kept unemployment down, but it didn't work. How do we know unemployment wouldn't have been higher w/o the stimulus? I believe the stimulus is helping the short-term economy, but we still shouldn't have done it: controlling short-term fluctuations in employment is not that important, except to politicians' campaigns. In a few years no one will remember what the unemployment rate was in Q4 of 2009.

November 12, 2009 at 7:31 AM

WHT - It seems to be the norm of the day

Klik - We are on the same page

CJ - I believe you missed the part of the post "all kidding aside."

I agree with your thoughts on temperature, however we are also drawing conclusions about 100 years on 150 years of questionably reliable temperature data and only 30-40 of accurate data. I was joking, but then hey "the science" is effectively doing the same thing.

Obama's stimulus was unannimously opposed by Republicans. In the most generalist of terms, I myself do not oppose a stimulus given the plan and the situation. When I say generally, I'm saying that it would really depend on a lot of factors. For example, if we had a budget surplus...I would have no reason for opposition if it was an intelligent plan. Of course, this plan was not. I digress to your main point...

This stimulus is not having real positive effects on the economy. As I've pointed out and it was glaring on the last GDP report. $3 billion in cash for clunkers outshined $1 trillion in stimulus and still clunkers is going to crash GDP next quarter. That is how ineffective the stimulus has been. When you look at the spending, it has been wasted. It's either being saved via transfer payments (biggest portion) or it is going to local government as a one time wasteful plug on budget gaps (the next biggest portion) or infrastructure programs with little future revenue generation. It is quite the failure.

November 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Great post! Partially posted with a link back here at LCR.

November 12, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Post a Comment