On the eve of President Obama’s second inauguration, let’s reflect on the outcomes Democrats predicted from their policies over the past four years vs. the actual results:
Obamacare: Contrary to everything Obama promised would ensue as a result of passage of his signature legislation, health care premiums are skyrocketing, employers are dropping coverage, and companies are slowing hiring in anticipation of having to provide insurance for “full-time” 30-hour-a-week employees. Medical device manufacturers are being battered with an onslaught of taxes, and policyholders are facing insidious coverage reductions. The CBO’s Obamacare cost estimates—which were always fraudulent, given the bogus assumptions Democrats fed them—keep going up, even as Democrats frantically drop unpopular provisions. And contrary to Obama’s assurance, the public has not warmed to Obamacare three years after its passage and still believes the law will worsen our health care system. Not one Obamacare result has turned out the way its boosters swore—except that everyone is approaching the same (diminished) standard of coverage.
Gun control: In the wake of the Newtown school shootings and liberals’ rush to implement harsh gun control laws, we see the results of Democrats’ failed prediction that imposing such laws will curb crime in violence-ridden cities such as Detroit and Chicago. These localities are not only among the most firearm-restrictive jurisdictions in the country, they are bucking the national trend of falling crime and homicide rates and reporting record highs in both categories.
Meanwhile, professional criminals are weighing in on the unintended effects of Democrats’ forcing gun owners to register their firearms and liberal news outlets’ publishing the names of owners while innocently claiming the information is already public. Such experts are astounded at the failure of government officials and journalists—who are supposed to be looking out for the public interest—to predict that their reckless actions would expose everyday citizens as sitting ducks.
Environmentalism: Last week E- The Environmental Magazine reported that Obama’s Cash for Clunkers program was, in addition to a huge economic failure that hurt the poor for the sake of boosting auto unions, an environmental disaster. It seems that pouring sodium silicate under the hoods of three-quarters of a million cars in order to destroy their engines, and eschewing resale of most of the automobiles’ parts for dumping them in landfills, isn’t good for Mother Earth. Who would have guessed?
And Reason.com recently noted that, contrary to liberals’ predictions, carbon dioxide emissions have declined every year since 2007, in large part due to growing implementation of the more efficient, cleaner, and thoroughly safe technology of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.” Fracking is ardently opposed by geological engineer Matt Damon and most environmentalists—not because it’s ineffective and won’t produce more energy, but because it will. And, if you care about such things, fracking is actually good for the environment, despite liberals’ hysterical prediction that the methane released in the process will erase the benefits of switching from coal to natural gas.
Then there’s global warming fanatic Al Gore, whose empire is based on the failed predictions a decade ago that (1) the earth was dangerously heating up and (2) carbon cap-and-trade taxation schemes and government-mandated clean energy technology were the profitable wave of the future. Not only has the Earth not demonstrated any warming since 1996, but anti-fossil fuel crusader Gore just sold his failed TV station to Al Jazeera, which is funded by one of the largest oil and gas exporters in the world.
Election 2008: Obama promised that his 2008 campaign’s shady practices—which continued right up through the 2012 election—were above-board, and predicted that time would prove him correct. The Federal Elections Commission happens to disagree: recently they imposed a $375,000 fine on the Obama campaign—one of the highest such fines ever levied—for incomplete reporting of millions of dollars in donations.
Government efficiency: The liberal group Demos filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts last year claiming that the state wasn’t doing enough to help welfare recipients register to vote. The lawsuit backfired when the state sent registration notices to everyone on its welfare rolls—and received 19,000 notices marked ‘Return to Sender.’ The state was either sending welfare checks to unintended recipients or hopelessly inept at managing its voter database. Though Obama ally Governor Deval Patrick acknowledged the state’s miserable failure to predict this outcome, his defense—that 19,000 people constituted only 4% of Massachusetts’ welfare rolls—no doubt led curious voters to do the math and cry, “Half a million people in a state of six million are on welfare?”
I predict that, now that campaign season is over, voters are going to be reminded of the appalling results that ensue whenever liberals attempt to govern.
- Video: Secret gun-rights provision in ObamaCare? (hotair.com)
- Obamacare Guarantees Higher Health Insurance Premiums — $3,000+ Higher (forbes.com)
- Another company reducing hours due to ObamaCare mandates (thebrennerbrief.com)
- Fracking Safe in NY State, Says Leaked Report (blogs.the-american-interest.com)
- Obama environmental picks seen focusing on oil boom (fuelfix.com)