January 17) screamed “Congress makes job creation top 2010 priority”!
The article starts with the knowledge that the President as well as the House and Senate Democrats understand the overwhelming demand from constituents are jobs:
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Members of the U.S. Congress begin 2010 scrambling to reduce the double-digit U.S. jobless rate, knowing their own jobs will be at stake in the November election if they fail to deliver.
With about one in 10 Americans out of work, the highest percentage in 25 years, President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats -- who control the Senate and House of Representatives -- are making job creation their top priority.”
According to the same article, last month a $155 billion “job stimulus” bill was passed. Job stimulus? The aim of this bill was described as such - “Last month, the House passed a $155 billion bill that aims to stimulate the job market through infrastructure projects and helping states pay the salaries of public employees.
Infrastructure and paying salaries of “union” public employees! How can paying salaries of union members create jobs (oh, I forgot that Obama promised to create OR save jobs and the jobs he intends to save are union ones).
In this same article, the author goes on to say the following:
“Among Democrats' most immediate concerns is melding a Senate healthcare bill with one passed by the House to give Obama a final bill to sign into law so Democrats can put their full focus on generating employment after the deep economic slump.”
If the “top priority” is jobs, then why is the “most immediate” concern before putting their full focus jobs melding health care? The answer is that jobs is not their top priority it is to get the unpopular health care bill rammed down our throats first.
The New Mandate
Now that the election in Massachusetts has replaced the Obama mandate with the constituents mandate, the Democrats say they heard it, understand it but it is still business as usual.
The Americans know what is wrong in this country, yet Obama and the Democrats ignore them.
Even the Germans know what is wrong as demonstrated in the recent article Spiegel Online –
“US President Barack Obama suffered a painful defeat in Massachusetts on Tuesday. With mid-term elections looming, it means that Obama will have to fundamentally re-think his political course. German commentators say it is the end of hope.
More than that, though, the vote shows just how quickly the political pendulum has swung back to the right following Obama's election. The seat Brown won had been in Democratic hands for all but six years since 1926. Now, its new occupant is a man who not only opposes the health care bill, but also favors water boarding as a method of interrogation for terrorism suspects and rejects carbon cap-and-trade as a means of limiting carbon emissions.
Here is what the German tabloids are saying:
Center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes on Thursday:
"Obama made a serious misjudgement. Right at the beginning of his first year in office, he saved the banks, rescued the automobile industry from collapse and passed a huge economic stimulus package. He had hoped that these enormous deeds would give him the space to address those issues which are dearest to him: health care reform, climate change and investment in education."
"Those issues, however, are clearly not priorities for people in the US at the moment. Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit. It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found. His reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country's future."
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
"For Obama, the election in Massachusetts means that he will have to re-evaluate his political style. He could now focus his concentration on his political base and push through his policy agenda. After all, he still has a majority in Congress -- he could back away from his strategy of bipartisanship ... which would mean giving up much of what he spent his first year in office creating."
"More likely, however, is that Obama will interpret the Massachusetts loss as a signal that he should move further toward the middle and make more concessions to the conservatives -- even if this alienates his base even further, a base which had high expectations from the 'yes we can' candidate."
"For everyone else in the world, this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with. Obama will be staying home after all."
The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:
"In addition to health care reform, Obama's reputation has primarily been harmed by the high unemployment rate and the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. It will become even more difficult in the future for the president to push projects through successfully. Not just because Republicans now have a means of preventing it, but also because the Democratic camp is deeply divided. Some would like to see the party shift toward the center -- wherever that may be -- whereas others want the party to position itself to the left. Such a battle is hardly a good sign for the mid-term elections in November. Massachusetts could prove to be an omen."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"Of course the president rejects the interpretation that the Massachusetts election was a referendum on his first year in the White House. But he cannot ignore the fact that his health care reform package is not popular, the situation of the country's finances is seen as threatening and many voters blame the high unemployment rate on the party in power -- on the Democrats, led by Obama. The result is a second year in office full of very different challenges than the first. To save what there is to be saved, Obama will have to be prepared to fashion a bipartisan compromise on health care -- a compromise with a Republican Party which has tasted blood and can now dream once again about a return to power."
Pelosi “Who cares what happens in Massachusetts”!
Before MA election:
“House speaker Nancy Pelosi promises reporters that no matter who wins the open Senate seat in Massachusetts, health care reform will still pass.” – Newsmax
Day after MA election:
"Heeding the particular concerns of the voters of Mass. last night -- We heard, we will heed, we will move forward with their considerations in mind," she said. "But we will move forward for health care."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in no uncertain terms today that the Senate health care bill does not have the support to pass in the House of Representatives.
"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters today.
"Unease would be a gentle word in terms of my colleagues' attitude toward certain provisions of the Senate bill," she said. "There are certain things members just cannot support."
Pelosi did not rule out, however, the possibility of passing the Senate bill at some point in the House.
"Everything is on the table," she said. She emphasized again, however, that the chances of passing the Senate bill are slim.”
Finally, today there were two news items that blared out to American’s while Nanci Pelosi and her socialist minions concentrate all of their time and effort on anything but job creation:
Unemployment numbers jump up “unexpectedly” and Congress to attempt to raise debt ceiling by $1.9 billion dollars.
All along the agenda of the socialists have been to tear down the “free market” system (which they are accomplishing at breakneck speed as shown by those two news items today) but further proof of the socialist agenda to destroy America by cramming this health care bill down our throats became much clearer today when the SEIU issued a press statement:
Andy Stern (most frequent guest at the WH) -
“The reason Ted Kennedy’s seat is no longer controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington’s inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure,” Stern said.
“During the past year, Republicans refused to do anything but stand in the way of change and Democratic Senators took too long to do too little. And tonight, the Senate bears the consequences for its failure to act decisively but the American people are the ones left paying the price…
“The Senate may have squandered the trust the American people gave to Washington in 2008. But now, every member of Congress and the Administration must act with a renewed sense of purpose to show working families whose side they are on and deliver meaningful change to every American. This is not the time for timidity. It starts by passing health insurance reform and giving Pat [DeJong] and millions of people like her the security and peace of mind they deserve.”
The final word on the legacy of Obama’s first year in office is that for the first time in reporting history, we are no long “a free economy” - Freedom took a hit in 2009. One year into the Obama presidency and America is no longer classified as having a “free” economy, according to the 16th annual Index of Economic Freedom, a joint report by the The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. The land of the free and the home of the brave is now only “mostly free” for the first time in the report’s history.