“Government doesn’t create jobs.”—Governor Romney
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”—Obama’s energy secretary Stephen Chu
In the second debate, Governor Romney made another good case for how he would improve the country on many levels. He cited his very successful business career, the Olympics he turned around, and balanced budgets in his state of Massachusetts as evidence that he knows how to do this. President Obama was not as incompetent as he was in the first debate, but that is saying very little. Many of his claims turn out to be false (what a surprise), and “Obama barely attempted to defend a brutal exposition by Romney on four years of broken promises and failed economic results.” Also not a surprise was the moderator, Candy Crowley, being a shill for Obama.
The first question came from Jeremy, a 20-year-old university student concerned about whether he will find a job when he graduates. Romney commiserated, since under Obama’s economy, half of all graduates can’t find work. Indeed, there are 12.1 million unemployed in the USA, more than when Obama took office. Even the leftist Huffington Post admitted:
“Romney’s correct: There are fewer people working. There were 133.561 million jobs in January 2009, when Obama took office, but just 133.5 million in September, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
While Obama is bragging about unemployment finally dropping below 8%, Romney argued that the true rate is more like 10.7% (a balanced WSJ article puts the real figure at 9.3%). Official figures don’t include those who have stopped looking for work.
Obama’s response was more of the same old stuff: more government “investment” (code word for politically motivated borrowing and spending), and gouging the “rich”. He also demagogued Romney about outsourcing, with a repeat of the same lie: “you can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it.” Never mind that his beloved General Motors shipped 2/3 of its jobs overseas, making Obama the Outsourcer-in-Chief.
Romney pointed out the real reason for “outsourcing”—Obama’s high taxing and regulation has made America less attractive for businesses. Romney argued that the key to bringing back jobs is not punishing businesses, but making America more attractive. He pointed out that Canada has cut its corporate tax rate to 15%, while America has the highest rate in the world of 35%. So it’s a no-brainer which country businesses would prefer—the one that doesn’t gouge over a third of its profits. And if businesses find America more attractive, this will create real jobs meaning more revenue. Romney also emphasized a key point: “government doesn’t create jobs”, only the private sector does.
“Philip” said that Obama’s chosen energy secretary Stephen Chu has no policy to lower gas prices. Actually, it’s far worse—as documented in a previous column Rising fuel prices: blame the Dems, Chu said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” i.e. over $10/gallon.”
Obama claimed that oil and gas production in this country is the highest in years. But Romney showed that this is true in spite of Obama—the increase is due to private land in states like North Dakota, Alaska and Texas, out of Obama’s reach. Indeed, the Obama administration brought criminal charges against ND’s oil businesses because a few birds were killed. When it comes to federal land affected by Obama’s anti-energy policies, Romney pointed out that oil production is down 14%, and natural gas down by 9%—and the facts are on Romney’s side.
Also, Romney said that coal workers begged him to save their jobs, because Obama wanted coal plants to go bankrupt.
Romney also reminded viewers that Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline that would bring in more oil from a friendly country (Canada), costing thousands of jobs. But the real proof is simply that gasoline prices have increased from $1.86/gallon to $4. Obama made the absurd excuse that the economy was so weak that there was little demand back then. However, by that “reasoning”, fuel should be even cheaper now.
“Catherine” echoed a highly misleading statistic from Obama’s website, that women earn only 72% of what men earn (Obama said 77%). This makes not a microgram of sense even at face value: why would any employer hire men if they could save over 25% of their wage bill by hiring women? No, the figures dishonestly compare dolphins and sharks: when comparing like with like, there is no wage disparity. The difference is that many more men choose dangerous jobs (far more workplace deaths are men); and longer hours, while more women choose to trade financial rewards for other rewards, such as raising families. Also, there is more rank hypocrisy from Obama, because Women are paid significantly less in the Obama White House than their male counterparts.
Obama bragged and misled about the Lilly Ledbetter bill, making it easier for women to sue employers for pay discrimination. But such laws are more likely to hurt women, since potential employers are more likely to regard them as potential lawsuits. Tea party favourite Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) defended Romney:
“In fact, much of this legislation is in many respects nothing but an effort to help trial lawyers collect their fees and file lawsuits, which may not contribute at all whatsoever to increasing pay equity in the workplace.”
We saw the same thing with the well-intentioned Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which President George H.W. Bush signed in 1990. But then, as Libertarian TV host and columnist John Stossel asks, “How could employment among the disabled have declined?” He answers, “Because the law turns ‘protected’ people into potential lawsuits. Most ADA litigation occurs when an employee is fired, so the safest way to avoid those costs is not to hire the disabled in the first place.”
Romney pointed out that under Obama, many thousands of women have lost jobs. Conversely, his policies to grow the economy would provide jobs for women because employers will want good employees. He also related that as MS governor, the only qualified applicants were men, so he instructed his staff to find qualified women, and worked with women’s groups. And, he said, they brought him “binders full of women”.
Since Romney had demonstrated real examples of how he had helped women, the brain-dead leftists—including the Obama campaign—could only latch on this last innocent phrase to rant about Romney’s “condescending views towards women.” Of course, anyone with half a brain would know he meant women’s resumés. If liberals had received a proper education—i.e. not from the government schools—they might have recognized the figure of speech called metonymy. That is, referring to something indirectly by something closely associated with it, for example, “Washington” referring to the federal government, “Wall Street” meaning business, “the White House said” meaning “the Presidential administration said”, or “$20 per head”, where “head” means the person with the head.
Obama also expressed his great love for the abortion and sex-trafficking business Planned Parenthood, misleading voters by falsely claiming mammograms are done. (I also suppose that the 150,000 girl babies that PP butchered last year are saved from ever getting breast cancer.)
“Susan” asked how Romney is different from Bush. Romney used this opportunity to point out that Bush had overspent, and Obama called the Bush deficits “disgraceful” and rightly so (actually, it was “It’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”)
So Romney pointed out that Obama had doubled the deficit instead of halving it as he had promised.
“Kerry” asked about the (true) statement that the state dept refused extra security before attacks that killed 4 Americans.
Romney pointed out that the Obama administration delayed admitting that it was a terrorist attack for five days, claiming instead that it was just a demonstration caused by a silly video. Instead of acting presidential, Obama skipped an intelligence meeting and instead went to a fund-raiser in Las Vegas. Further, under Obama, Iran is closer to nukes, Syria is under a murderous despot, and the President began with a grovelling apology tour.
But Obama resorted to feigned offense, and the moderator disgracefully inserted herself into the debate. She said that right away, Obama declared the Libya terrorist attacks to be “terror.” But in reality, Obama was referring to generic “acts of terror”, with no connection to the Benghazi attack. Crowley herself had to admit the next day that Romney was actually “Right in the main” on Libya. This delay was critical. Labeling the attack as “terrorist” would have enabled Obama invoke the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists resolution (2001) and use military action, including drones, against the thugs. Instead, his dithering left the FBI hamstrung and unable to investigate seriously.
Much as with the Ryan vs. Biden debate, while the Democrats’ tactics may have produced some short term gains, in the long run, they will backfire. Just as Biden is now remembered for his moronic hyena impersonations, this debate puts Obama’s abortive Libya policies into the spotlight for