In a new video the RNC reminds us of how Obama’s failed promises impact Nevada. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country — 12.6%, the highest foreclosure filings in the country and more than 58% of properties with mortgages underwater:

Research proving Obama’s failed promises is provided below the fold courtesy of the RNC.

FAILED ON HOUSING

PROMISE: Obama Promised Nevadans That He Would “Act Quickly To Help People Stay In Their Homes” “I’ll also act quickly to help people stay in their homes, something that’s especially critical here in Nevada where foreclosure rates are five times the national average. I’ll help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages on affordable terms, and put in place a three-month moratorium on foreclosures to give folks the breathing room they need to get back on their feet. And I won’t let banks and lenders off the hook when it was their greed and irresponsibility that got us into this mess.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08) 

FAILURE: Obama’s “Mosaic” Of Housing Policies Is “Entering Its Fourth Year Of Weak Sales And High Foreclosures.” “The proposal, to be released in the coming weeks, is the latest addition to a mosaic of Obama administration programs aimed at boosting the housing market, which is entering its fourth year of weak sales and high foreclosures.” (Lorraine Woellert, “Obama Pushes Proposal To Streamline Refinancing For Homeowners,” Bloomberg, 1/25/12)

Under Obama’s Housing Programs “Fewer Than 1,000 Loans Have Refinanced.”  ”Haven’t similar programs been tried before? Yes. But those programs put in place a series of rules designed to ensure that government entities weren’t taking on more risk by allowing investors and banks to offload risky mortgages onto the government. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration rolled out a program to let underwater borrowers refinance through the FHA, but that program required banks to first write down loan balances so that borrowers could qualify under existing rules. Fewer than 1,000 loans have refinanced through the program. Congress approved a more complicated version of this idea in spring 2008 called Hope for Homeowners, but it also resulted in just a few hundred refinances.” (Nick Timiraos, “Six Questions On Obama’s Mortgage Refinance Proposal,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/25/12)

Four Years Later Housing Is Still “Especially Critical Here In Nevada” 

“For 60 Consecutive Months, Nevada Has Had The Highest Foreclosure Rate Of Any State. That’s Five Long, Painful Years.” (Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, “No Silver Lining In Housing Market As Nevada Votes,” CNN, 2/3/12) 

“More Than 6 Percent Of Nevada Housing Units (One In 16) Had At Least One Foreclosure Filing In 2011, Giving It The Nation’s Highest State Foreclosure Rate For The Fifth Consecutive Year” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,” Press Release, 1/12/12) 

• “[L]as Vegas Posted The Nation’s Top Foreclosure Rate For The Year Among Metropolitan Statistical Areas…” “With 7.38 percent of its housing units (one in 14) with at least one foreclosure filing in 2011, Las Vegas posted the nation’s top foreclosure rate for the year among metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 200,000 or more.” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,” Press Release, 1/12/12)

In Nevada, Nearly Two-Thirds Of Homeowners Are Underwater On Their Mortgages. ”Data earlier this year from CoreLogic.com showed that nearly two-in-three Nevada homeowners owed more on their property than their homes were worth – a situation also known as being ‘underwater.’ Nevada was followed by Arizona (51 percent), Florida (47 percent) and Michigan (36 percent) in terms of underwater loans.” (Aaron Blake, “Obama And The Politics Of The Housing Foreclosure Crisis,” The Washington Post ‘s “The Fix ,“ 10/24/11)

FAILED ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE

IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED NEVADANS THAT HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WOULD LOWER PREMIUMS

PROMISE: Obama Said That Under His Plan, Americans Would See “Lower Premiums.” “If you have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08)

FAILURE: Factcheck.org: ObamaCare Is Actually Making Health Care “Less Affordable.” “At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year’s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made – that the health care law would ‘lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.’” (D’Angelo Gore, “Promises, Promises,” Factcheck.org, 1/4/12) 

• The Washington Post ‘s The Fact Checker: “Insurance Premiums Have Gone Up . . .” “Moreover, at this point it is debatable whether the law has made health care more affordable. Insurance premiums have gone up, in part because of new benefits mandated by the law.” (Glenn Kessler, “The Fine Print In Obama’s ‘Promises Kept’ Ad,” The Washington Post’s ” The Fact Checker,” 1/6/12) 

Kaiser Study Found That Costs Of Family Coverage “Climbed” 9 Percent In 2011. “The average cost of a family policy climbed 9 percent in 2011 to $15,073, according to a poll of 2,088 private companies and state and local government agencies by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California, and the Chicago- based American Hospital Association’s Health Research and Educational Trust.” (Jeffrey Young, “Health-Benefit Costs Rise Most In Six Years,” Bloomberg, 9/27/11)

• Workers Paid An Average Of $132 More For Family Coverage In 2011 Than They Did In 2010. “Although premiums rose, employers kept the percentage of the premium workers pay about the same: An average of 18 percent for single coverage and 28 percent for family plans. Still, with rising costs, workers paid more, up an average of $132 a year for family coverage. Since 1999, the dollar amount workers contribute toward premiums nationally has grown 168 percent, while their wages have grown by 50 percent, according to the survey.” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11)

• The Cost Of Single Employee Coverage Grew 8 Percent According To The Kaiser Survey. “Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11) 

Nevada Received A Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization”

The Obama Administration Gave Nevada A Statewide Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization Of The Individual Market.” “The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, ‘may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.’” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,” Las Vegas Sun, 5/16/11)

• Nevada Received A Waiver Reducing The Requirement Of Revenue Spent On Medical Expenses From 80 Percent To 75 Percent Due To Fears It Would Drive Golden Rule And Aetna From The Insurance Market. “Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year. Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market. Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,” Las Vegas Sun, 5/16/11)

FAILED ON GREEN ENERGY JOBS

IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED TO CREATE GREEN ENERGY JOBS AND REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL

PROMISE: Obama Said He Would “Create Five Million” New Jobs And “End Our Dependence On Oil From Middle East Dictators.” “If I am President, I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new, green jobs over the next decade – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and fuel-efficient cars; jobs that will help us end our dependence on oil from Middle East dictators.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Reno, NV, 10/25/08) 

FAILURE: Obama Has Taken Credit For 2.7 Million Green Energy Jobs That He Did Not Create. “The Brookings Institution study refers to 2.7 million workers currently employed by the clean economy — not the number of jobs created by Obama, which a viewer might interpret from the ad. The report found that ‘clean economy establishments’ added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, comprising six years of the Bush administration.” (“AdWatch: Obama’s 1^st Campaign TV Ad Defends His Energy Record Without Feel-Good Images,” The Associated Press, 1/20/12)

Obama’s $38.6 Billion Green Loan Program Created Only 3,500 Jobs, But Obama Had Predicted It Would Save Or Create 65,000. “The Washington Post reported in September that Mr. Obama’s $38.6 billion green loan program had created a mere 3,500 jobs over two years. He had predicted it would ‘save or create’ 65,000.” (Editorial, “The Non-Green Job Boom,” The Wall Street Journal, 11/28/11)

• Obama’s $500 Million Program Designed To Train Workers For Green Jobs “Has Come Up Far Short Of Its Goals.” “The Labor Department’s inspector general says a $500 million program designed to train workers for green jobs has come up far short of its goals. A report finds that only about 8,000 people participating in the program have actually found work so far. That’s just 10 percent of the target goal of placing 80,000 workers in careers in energy efficiency or renewable energy by 2013.” (“Report Says Green Jobs Program Far Short Of Goals,” The Associated Press, 10/3/11)

It Is “Absolutely Not True” That Obama’s Policies Have Helped Wean The U.S. From Foreign Oil. “When asked, though, whether the Obama administration’s policies have helped wean the U.S. from foreign oil, [Oppenheimer & Co. energy analyst Fadel] Gheit was equally emphatic. ‘Absolutely not true,’ Gheit said. ‘It was all market driven and all through American ingenuity….It was no thanks to Washington, not thanks to lobbyists, not thanks to anybody.’” (Josh Gerstein, “What Obama’s First Ad Doesn’t Say,” Politico’s “Under The Radar”, 1/19/12)

The Obama Administration Denied A Permit To Build The Keystone Pipeline. “The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will deny a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, an important link between a U.S. market that’s thirsty for energy and a rich source of petroleum in nice, stable, neighborly Canada.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Politics: Misguided Obama Blocks Keystone Pipeline,” Chicago Tribune, 1/19/12)

• “The Oil From Canada Could Ultimately Supplant Much Of The Oil The United States Imports From The Middle East And Other Unstable Regions. It Could Give The Country A Measure Of Energy Security.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Delay An Insult To Jobless,” The Detroit News, 11/14/11)

Previous editions of Obama’s failed promises:

• Obama’s failed promises: Florida edition
• Obama’s failed promises: Iowa edition

Three years ago today, President Obama appeared on NBC’s “Today show and and made his infamous “one-term proposition” prediction:

“I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. … A year from now, I think people are gonna see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still gonna be some pain out there. If I don’t this done in three years, then there’s gonna be a one-term proposition.”

I feel the pain, but I don’t see any progress. How about you? Even Obama admits that we are not better off than we were four years ago — inviting comparisons to the malaise of Jimmy Carter’s failed presidency.

It’s time to revisit the devastating video put together by the good folks at Minnesota Majority. The video uses Obama’s own metrics to assess his presidency. You can watch “Obama Presidency by the numbers” here.

The more people are exposed to Reagan’s “are you better off” question to Carter, the more the belief that Obama will also be a one-term president is reinforced.

In Des Moines, Iowa, four years ago Obama promised that when “We’ve made the changes we believe in,” we’d be “Able to look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.”

“[Y]ears from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in, when more families can afford to see a doctor, when our children — when Malia and Sasha and your children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer, when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united, you’ll be able to look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08)

Four years later, a look back at Obama’s record reveals a litany of failure — not only to Iowa, but to the entire country:

FAILED ON JOBS

 Since President Obama Took Office The Nation Has Lost 1.9 Million Jobs And The Unemployment Rate Has Increased From 7.8 Percent To 8.6 Percent. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, BLS.gov, Accessed 12/7/11)

• The Unemployment Rate Has Remained Above Eight Percent For A Record 34 Straight Months. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, BLS.gov, Accessed 12/7/11)
• There Are Currently 13,303,000 Unemployed Workers. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, BLS.gov, Accessed 12/7/11)
• The Washington Post‘s Fact Checker Said “Obama Is On Track To Have The Worst Jobs Record Of Any President In The Modern Era.” “Unless the economy turns around in the next 18 months, Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. That would be an accurate statement.” (Glenn Kessler, “Rick Perry’s Claim That Obama Has ‘Killed More Jobs’ Than Any Other President,” The Washington Post‘s “The Fact Checker,” 8/22/11)

FAILED ON HOUSING

 “This Summer At The White House, Obama Offered A Rare Acknowledgment That His Response To The Housing Crisis Had Fallen Short.” (Zachary A. Goldfarb, “Obama’s Efforts To Aid Homeowners, Boost Housing Market Fall Far Short Of Goals,” The Washington Post, 10/23/11)

FAILED ON SPENDING AND DEFICITS

 President Obama Has Racked Up The Three Largest Deficits In U.S. History. “The U.S budget deficit for fiscal year 2011 is $1.299 trillion, the second largest shortfall in history. The nation only ran a larger deficit for the 2009 fiscal year, which included the dramatic collapse of financial markets and a huge bailout effort by the government.”(Erik Wasson, “Treasury Announces 2011 Deficit Is Second Highest In History,” The Hill‘s “On The Money,” 10/14/11)

• FY2009: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.413 Trillion, The Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
• FY2011: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.299 Trillion, The Second Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
• FY2010: The Federal Budget Deficit Was $1.294 Trillion, The Third Highest In U.S. History. (“Monthly Budget Review: November 2011,” Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)

FAILED ON DEBT – Politifact: “Obama Is The Undisputed Debt King Of The Last Five Presidents.” “So by this measurement — potentially a more important one — Obama is the undisputed debt king of the last five presidents, rather than the guy who added a piddling amount to the debt, as Pelosi’s chart suggested.” (“Nancy Pelosi Posts Questionable Chart On Debt Accumulation By Barack Obama, Predecessors,” Politifact, 5/19/11)

Since Obama Took Office, The National Debt Has Increased By Over $4.5 Trillion, An Increase Of Over 42 Percent. (Department Of The Treasury, “Debt To The Penny And Who Holds It,” Treasury Direct, Accessed 12/29/11)

• Obama Is Responsible For “The Most Rapid Increase In The Debt Under Any U.S. President.” “The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.” (Mark Knoller, “National Debt Has Increased $4 Trillion Under Obama,” CBS News, 8/22/11)

FAILED ON TONE

Four Years Ago In Iowa On Caucus Night, Obama Promised That His Presidency Would End Politics Of Divisiveness And Cynicism:

PROMISE – Obama Promised That His Iowa Victory Would Be The Moment That Ended The Politics “Where We Tear Each Other Down Instead Of Lifting This Country Up.” OBAMA: “This was the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism, the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up. This was the moment.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08)

Obama’s “Reelection Effort Will Be More Sharply Partisan In Tone Than The Idealistic-Sounding Campaign That Brought Him To Power.” “President Obama’s latest attacks on Republicans are another sign that his reelection effort will be more sharply partisan in tone than the idealistic-sounding campaign that brought him to power.” (Paul West, “Obama Campaign Gears Up To Pull In New Voters,” Los Angeles Times, 9/30/11)

Obama Will “Run A Much More Negative Campaign” To Combat A Jobless Rate That Has Not Allowed For A President’s Reelect “Since The Great Depression.” “The jobless rate will stand at levels that have not led to a president’s re-election since the Great Depression. Largely because of that, Obama will run a much more negative campaign, his aides acknowledge, even if it threatens to demoralize some supporters who were inspired by his 2008 message of hope.” (Charles Babington, “2012 Race Likely To Be Close, Tough, Maybe Brutal,” The Associated Press, 11/5/11)

“Forget Hope And Change,” Obama’s Campaign Is Based On “Fear And Loathing.” “Forget hope and change. President Obama’s reelection campaign is going to be based on fear and loathing: fear of what a Republican takeover would mean, and loathing of whomever the Republican nominee turns out to be. Of course the Obama campaign will attempt to present the affirmative case for his reelection, citing legislative achievements, foreign policy successes and the current flurry of executive actions. But his strategists have clearly concluded that selling the president will not be enough, and the contours of the ugly months ahead are becoming increasingly apparent.” (Ruth Marcus, “Campaign 2012: Welcome To The Slugfest,” The Washington Post, 11/2/11)

• “And As Much As Obama Presented Himself As Above The Regular Partisan Fray During The 2008 Campaign, He Was Not Averse To Taking The Lower Road When It Appeared The Advisable Route.” (Ruth Marcus, “Campaign 2012: Welcome To The Slugfest,” The Washington Post, 11/2/11)

Time’s Mark Halperin: “Barack Obama’s Campaign And Allies Will Run More Negative Ads Against This Republican Nominee In 2012 Than Have Ever Been Run In The History Of The World.” “Look we have a recent example of somebody who talked like this, Barack Obama, he got elected, but he also ran more negative tv ads than anyone has run in the history of the world against john McCain. Barack Obama’s campaign and allies will run more negative ads against this Republican nominee in 2012 than have ever been run in the history of the world.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 6/22/11)

FAILED ON INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS

Four Years Ago In Iowa On Caucus Night, Obama Promised To End The Influence Of Special Interests And Lobbyists:

Obama Promised To End The Influence Of Lobbyists. OBAMA: “You said the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government – we do. And we are here to take it back.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08) 

 Obama’s 2012 Bundler List “Features A Number Of People Involved In The Business Of Influencing Government.” “A list of Obama’s own top fundraisers features a number of people involved in the business of influencing government, including the head of a lobbying and public relations firm, the corporate executive who oversees Comcast’s lobbying efforts and the chairwoman of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s political action committee, among others.” (Michael Scherer, ‘No Registered Lobbyists Among Top Obama Fundraisers, But Influence Seekers Abound,” Time’s “Swampland,” 7/20/11)

Obama Is Ignoring His Pledge To Not Take Money From Lobbyists, Raising Millions From “Prominent Supporters Who Are Active In The Lobbying Industry.” “Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.” (Eric Lichtblau, “Obama Backers Tied To Lobbies Raise Millions,” The New York Times, 10/27/11)

• At Least 15 Of Obama’s Bundlers Are In The Lobbying Industry And Have Raised Over $5 Million For Obama’s Reelection Campaign. “At least 15 of Mr. Obama’s ‘bundlers’ — supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and solicit it from others — are involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies. They have raised more than $5 million so far for the campaign.” (Eric Lichtblau, “Obama Backers Tied To Lobbies Raise Millions,” The New York Times, 10/27/11)

The Obama Administration Meets With Lobbyists At “A Complex Just Off The White House Grounds.” “Caught between their boss’s anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama’s aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds – and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.” (Chris Frates, “Lobbyists: W.H. Hides Meetings Off-Site,” Politico, 2/24/11)

These Lobbyists Do Not Make It Into The Visitors Log Which Is Released To The Public. “It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view – and out of Secret Service logs collected on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.” (Chris Frates, “Lobbyists: W.H. Hides Meetings Off-Site,” Politico, 2/24/11)

Attendees Say The Meetings Are Being Kept “Off The Books – So Their Visits Wouldn’t Later Be Made Public.”  “The White House scoffs at the notion of an ulterior motive for scheduling meetings in what are, after all, meeting rooms. But at least four lobbyists who’ve been to the conference rooms just off Lafayette Square tell POLITICO they had the distinct impression they were being shunted off to Jackson Place – and off the books – so their visits wouldn’t later be made public.” (Chris Frates, “Lobbyists: W.H. Hides Meetings Off-Site,” Politico, 2/24/11)

FAILED ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE

Four Years Ago In Iowa On Caucus Night, Obama Promised To Make Health Care Affordable:

Obama Promised To Make Health Care Affordable. OBAMA: “I’ll be a president who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American, the same way I expanded health care in Illinois, by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 1/3/08)

 “The Cost Of Health Insurance Skyrocketed In 2011 After Several Years Of Relatively Small Increases.” (Jane M. Von Bergen, “Health Insurance Costs Skyrocketing,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/27/11) 

Workers Paid An Average Of $132 More For Family Coverage This Year. “Although premiums rose, employers kept the percentage of the premium workers pay about the same: An average of 18 percent for single coverage and 28 percent for family plans. Still, with rising costs, workers paid more, up an average of $132 a year for family coverage. Since 1999, the dollar amount workers contribute toward premiums nationally has grown 168 percent, while their wages have grown by 50 percent, according to the survey.” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11)

• Cost Of Single Employee Coverage Grew 8 Percent According To The Survey. “Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)” (Julie Appleby, “Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,” Kaiser Health News, 9/27/11)

Polls Show That Voters Don’t Support ObamaCare, One Of Obama’s “Signature Accomplishments.” “Heading into his re-election campaign, the president faces a conflicted public that does not support his steering of the economy, the most dominant issue for Americans, or his reforms to health care, one of his signature accomplishments.” (Ken Thomas and Jennifer Agiesta, “AP-GfK Poll: More Than Half Say Obama Should Lose,” The Associated Press, 12/16/11)

• Half Of Americans Oppose ObamaCare While Only 29 Percent Support It. “The poll found unpopularity for last year’s health care reform bill, one of Obama’s major accomplishments. About half of the respondents oppose the health care law and support for it dipped to 29 percent from 36 percent in June.” (Ken Thomas and Jennifer Agiesta, “AP-GfK Poll: More Than Half Say Obama Should Lose,” The Associated Press, 12/16/11)

Survey Found That Only 60 Percent Of Employers Offered Medical Coverage This Year, A 9 Percent Decrease From 2010. “Sixty percent of employers said they offered medical benefits this year, a decrease from 69 percent in 2010.” (Jeffrey Young, “Health-Benefit Costs Rise Most In Six Years,” Bloomberg, 9/27/11)

• GALLUP: “The Percentage Of American Adults Who Get Their Health Insurance From An Employer Continues To Decline, Falling To 44.5% In The Third Quarter Of This Year.” (Elizabeth Mendes, “Employer-Based Health Insurance Continues To Trend Down,” Gallup, 11/11/11)

Obama had implied that he would veto any bill that required that he make a decision before it was politically expedient for him to do so. During his December 7, 2011-presser with Canada’s Prime Minister Harper, Obama put everybody on notice:

First of all, any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut I will reject.  So everybody should be on notice.

If you can stomach it, you can watch Obama say it here.

Obama, putting politics before country, tried to kick his decision down the road until after the 2012 elections. The Republican-controlled House didn’t let Obama get away with that and passed a payroll tax cut extension bill despite Obama’s veto threat.

Thrown under the bus by Senate Democrats, Obama again caved. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer indicated Obama would sign the two-month extension measure.

They are neglecting to note that in order to get the Democrats’ nomination, presidential candidate Obama promised to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months:

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

As we reported in July 2008, Obama’s 16 month withdrawal plan was not realistic. To save face, President Obama redesignated the 7 remaining combat brigades still in Iraq after his artificial 16 month deadline as “Advise and Assist Brigades,” and declared his scheduled end to the war in Iraq on August 31, 2011

All U.S. troops, except for 159 uniformed troops and officers as well as a marine guard in the US embassy in Baghdad, will be out of Iraq before December 31, 2011, as required by the Status of Forces Agreement President Bush made with Iraq.

The Democrats can trumpet the Obama Iraq withdrawal all they want, but it was accomplished right on schedule — a schedule established by President Bush, not Obama.

America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing.

He did so with the Contract with America. He did it in bringing in the first Republican House in 40 years and by forging balanced budgets and even a surplus despite the political challenge of dealing with a Democratic President. A lot of candidates say they’re going to improve Washington. Newt Gingrich has actually done that, and in this race he offers the best shot of doing it again.

[. . .]

Truth be known, many in the liberal media are belittling the Republican candidates because they don’t want any of them to be taken as a serious challenger to their man, Obama.

Readers of the Union Leader and Sunday News know that we don’t back candidates based on popularity polls or big-shot backers. We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.

We don’t have to agree with them on every issue. We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.

Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times. He is worthy of your support on January 10.

The endorsement gives former House Speaker Gingrich additional momentum, or as the Gingrich Campaign calls it “Newt-mentum,” after he has climbed to the top of national GOP polls.

A Suffolk University/7News poll released last Tuesday found Romney leading with 41% of likely GOP voters surveyed. Gingrich was tied with Ron Paul for second with 14%.

Another poll by the American Research Group last week showed Gingrich closing the gap in New Hampshire but still trailing Romney by 11% — 33% t0 22%.

The University of New Hampshire WMUR Granite State Poll, also released last week found that among likely New Hampshire Republican Primary voters prefer Romney 42% with Gingrich in second place with 15%.

Gingrich surged 18% between American Research Groups September and November polls, but David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University’s Political Research Center, says a Romney loss in New Hampshire is unlikely:

“Every Republican candidate that surges in the national polls hits a firewall in New Hampshire. We’ve seen this with surges from Bachmann, Perry, Cain and now Gingrich. A Romney loss here is highly improbable, and Romney’s best insurance policy in New Hampshire is Ron Paul, whose fixed support takes 14 percent off the table.”

Mitt Romney’s failure to win the Union Leader editorial board’s endorsement is a setback for the former Massachusetts Governor, who continues to struggle with Conservative Republican voters.

In an interview on CNN, Union Leader editor page editor Andrew Cline said the paper picked Gingrich because he had the political experience to enact much of his platform:

“Romney’s a guy who wants to be liked,” Cline said. “He’s a politician who wants to be liked. Gingrich is a politician who wants to be respected, who wants to actually accomplish – he has an agenda that he wants to set in place.

I’m really not sure precisely what we get out of a President Romney who might very well be a good president, but we don’t really know,” Cline added. “So given the choice between the candidate who wants to be liked and the candidate who wants to be respected, we would rather have the guy who wants to be respected.”

I don’t put much stock in newspaper endorsements, but with six weeks left before New Hampshire voters cast their ballots, the Union Leader’s endorsement may give Gingrich an edge as Republicans ask which candidate is best positioned to defeat President Barack Obama.

When the Occupiers showed up they were met at the conference room door by dozens of cameras wielded by experienced bloggers.

The attempted failed occupation attempted after a brief and very one sided debate. The Occupiers were outnumbered, outclassed and totally incapable of articulating what was the point of their so-called protest. After about five minutes of chaos the Occupiers retreated from the conference facility with only one of their sorry group being arrested.

You can watch raw video of the chaos below:

You may remember that a couple of weeks ago Warren not only embraced the Occupier Party, but in Al Gore-like fashion, claimed credit for creating the “intellectual foundation” for the movement:

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do.“

Watch the ad, appropriately called “Foundation.”

Hopefully the Foundation ad will help inform Massachusetts voters about the the radical views of Elizabeth Warren.

As the Occupiers continue to devolve from simple aimless silliness to dangerous thuggery, mayhem and now disease, the Democrats will regret their shameless support of the Occupiers.

In the video, Governor Barbour, talks about what a second Obama term would mean for America:

“[Obama’s] policies aren’t fixing our problems, they’re making them worse. And a second Obama term means making this malaise permanent. … We’re the greatest country on earth, and we can get America right again. To do that we have to win in 2012. … So come on now, let’s get this done.”

Barbour also calls for lowering, simplifying and stabilizing tax rates; cutting spending and putting a moratorium on new regulations; and keeping America’s military strong.

Watch the “Let’s Get This Done” video:

The Governor has it exactly right about the epic fail of Obama’s stimulus.

The U.S. government says Mehanna, 28, provided “material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization,” and acted as a “media wing” for al-Qaeda.

It’s one thing not to know what you are protesting as some Wall Street occupiers told Reason TV and the organizer of the Sacramento “demonstration” put on by the Sacramento branch of the Occupy Party told CBS13 reporter Tony Lopez. It is something else all together to rally in support someone accused of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

I recognize and will defend the right of these sad souls to protest, but I certainly question their judgment and motives. To someone like me, who was around for the protests in the 60s and 70s, giving support to an accused terrorist is little better than “Hanoi” Jane Fonda propagandizing for the North Vietnamese in 1972. Especially when the occupiers are led by disgraced “green jobs czar,” “truther” and admitted communist Van Jones.

• By 51%-41%, respondents in October picked “someone new deserves a chance” over Obama “deserves to be re-elected.” Among independents, it was 54%-36%.
• Half of Americans give Obama poor or unacceptable marks in creating jobs and economic growth vs. 24% who say he’s doing well. Among independents, it’s 51%-18%.
• The Occupy Wall Street movement, while directed at fat cat bankers, also reflects broad dissatisfaction among Obama’s political base.

The poll was conducted from October 1-5, and has a margin  error of +/- 3.3 percent.

The IBD/TIPP poll reinforces the findings of the recent ABC News/Washington Post poll that found that  55% expect Obama to lose reelection.

Using Obama’s own metrics, even Obama says his presidency will be “a one-term proposition.” That is something Obama and I can agree on.

Democrats do expect Obama to win, but only by a 58% to 33% percent margin. Republicans, by a margin of 83% to 13%, expect their presidential nominee to win. And Independents, by a 54% to 36 margin expect the Republican nominee to win.

The poll was conducted September 29-October 2, 2011and has a margin of error of 4 percent.

President Obama was asked about the new poll results today during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

In his response Obama called himself the “underdog” and admitted Americans are “not better off” than they were four years ago. Watch the video:

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos: “There are so many people who simply don’t think they are better off than they were four years ago. How do you convince them that they are?”

President Barack Obama: “Well I don’t think they are better off than they were four years ago. They’re not better off than they were before Lehman’s collapse, before the financial crisis, before this extraordinary recession that we’re going through.”

Obama’s admission will remind everyone of the famous, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” question posed by Ronald Reagan at the end of his debate with Jimmy Carter on October 28, 1980. And that will only reinforce the belief that Obama will be a one-term president.

The Jones resignation was an attempt to stop the damage to Obama from the revelations that Jones signed the “9/11 truther” statement — which alleges government complicity in the 9/11 terror attacks, the fact that Jones was an admitted communist and video of Jones calling Republicans a**holes. You can watch a CNN video report concerning those issues at Right Side Politics.

In spite of, or perhaps because of, his extremist left-wing views America’s far left just cannot get enough of Van Jones.

In an appearance on MCNBC’s “The Last Word,” Jones told Lawrence O’Donnell that he is going to build astrotruf a Progressive Liberal “counterbalance to the TEA Party.” He calls this so-called anti-TEA Party movement an “American Autumn” and intends for it to be “just like the Arab Spring.” Jones warns us there is going to be an Autumn offensive to “take back the American dream” starting with a conference and rally in Washington, D.C. next week.

If you have the stomach for it, you can watch the video of Jones warning us about his anti-TEA Party movement here.

“We are going to build a progressive counterbalance to the tea party.

[...]

And you’re going to see an American fall, an American autumn, just like we saw the Arab spring. You can see it right now with these young people on Wall Street. Hold onto your hats. We’re going to have an October offensive to take back the American dream and to rescue America’s middle class.”

I am not surprised that a radical such as Jones would appear on MSNBC. I simply do not understand why such an extremist was given a position as a distinguished visiting fellow in both the Center for African American Studies and in the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. I really do not get it.

UPDATE: Discussing the Left’s American Autumn, one of my RedState colleagues pointed out that “American Autumn” is remarkably poor messaging on the part of Jones and his fellow extremists. Autumn does not conjure up images of renewal. To the contrary, Autumn has long been thought of as a time of decline or death. Days get shorter and colder, gardens wither, leaves fall off trees. Movie makers have often used an Autumn setting to show a declining civilization, much like Peter Jackson did with Rivendell in Lord of the Rings.

“American Autumn” is therefore a fitting image for the Obamaism we continue to suffer. Nearly three years into the Obama Regime the nation is in an Autumnal mood, some would say a Carter-like malaise. Even with the Obamacrats’ relentless deficit spending there is no hope of economic improvement. No, the only hope is for regime change.

It’s that simple.

Full transcript of the video:

Pro-growth Tax Reform -

America’s economy has been hit really hard. A lot of people have lost their jobs. More borrowing and spending and higher taxes are not going to bring jobs back to America. The last thing we need to be doing is to complicate job creation in America with this complicated tax code that we have today.

A tax code should be fair, competitive and simple, and the US tax code fails on all three counts.  Here are common-sense ideas we’ve advanced before…ideas that have bipartisan support.

First, we have to make our tax code fair.

It’s full of deductions, credits and special carve-outs – otherwise known as “loopholes” – that let politically-connected companies avoid paying taxes. Every dollar that businesses spend lobbying for a better tax deal, is a dollar they’re not spending on making a better product.

And, since every dollar hidden in a loophole doesn’t get taxed – politicians make up for this lost revenue by increasing overall tax rates. So we need to close these loopholes.

But if we just close loopholes, then our federal corporate tax rate is 35 percent, which is really high.

Add in state and local taxes, the rate climbs to 39.2 percent – the second highest tax rate among developed countries.

On top of sending almost 40 cents out of every dollar earned, straight to the government, businesses pay investment taxes, payroll taxes, and a handful of other taxes our government makes job creators pay.

In the 21st century global economy – and when American families need jobs – this approach just doesn’t make any sense.

We need to make our tax code competitive.

The budget we passed in the House of Representatives calls for closing the loopholes and lowering the rates.

The President’s bipartisan Fiscal Commission proposed something similar.

Its plan would reduce the corporate tax rate to as low as 26 percent, and to lower the top individual rate that many small businesses pay to as low as 23 percent.

So if we lower tax rates, does that mean the wealthy pay less in taxes? Not if we do it by closing loopholes. Because the people who use most of the loopholes are those in the top tax brackets. For all the money that’s parked in these tax loopholes, all that money’s taxed at zero. Take away the tax loophole; lower everybody’s tax rates – that money’s now taxed. But its taxed at a fair more simple, more competitive way so the small business men and women who are out there striving and competing have a better tax rate so they can compete in this global economy.

Third, let’s make the tax code simple.

All together, individuals and businesses spend over six billion hours and 160 billion dollars, every year, just trying to understand and comply with the tax code.

Let’s simplify the code, not just by closing loopholes, but also by decreasing the number of different tax brackets taxpayers fall in.

Fewer brackets, along with lower individual rates, will make the tax code less complicated, and let more people keep more of the money they earn.

There’s a reason this approach has attracted bipartisan support: It’s Fair, It’s Competitive, and It’s Simple.

America’s been knocked down before. We’ve had tough recessions before, and we know that the secret to growing jobs and prosperity in America are through the ingenuity and the hard work of our businesses – of our small businesses, of our large businesses, of job creators. We don’t want a tax system that rewards people for coming to Washington and getting special favors. We want a tax system that rewards Americans for hard work, risk taking, entrepreneurship , investment and innovation. These are the kinds of things that have made America great in the past. And these are the kinds of ideas the we’re going to need if want to grow our economy in the future and compete in the 21st century global economy.

But the big take away from the new poll is that  Perry is now perceived as the most electable, with 42% saying he has the best chance of beating Obama next year. Only 26% say Romney has the best chance of defeating the president.

Perry – 30%
Romney – 18%
Palin – 15%
Paul – 12%
Cain – 5%
Gingrich – 5%
Bachmann – 4%
Huntsman – 2%
Santorum – 2%

Other interesting findings from the CNN poll include:

• Perry’s support comes mostly from Republicans who support the TEA Party movement.

• With Palin excluded, the results are basically the same: Perry 32 percent, Romney 21 percent, Paul 13 percent and all the other candidates in single digits.

• Perry is seen as the strongest leader in the field by 36%, with Romney second at 21 percent.

• Perry is seen as the Republican candidate most likely to get the economy moving again by 35%, with Romney in second at 26 percent.

• Nearly three in ten say that Perry is the candidate who is most likely to fight for his beliefs, with Palin in second place at 23 percent and Romney in a distant tie for fourth at just 11 percent.

The poll was conducted September 9-11 and has an overall sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percent.

From Right Side Politics.

“The smoke seemed to have an odd bloom to it at the base of the column that was streaming south of the city. After reading one of the news articles we just received, I believe we were looking at NY around the time of, or shortly after, the collapse of the second tower. How horrible…”-Frank Culbertson

Frank Culbertson (Captain, USN Retired), the commander of Expedition 3 on the International Space Station, was the only American not on Earth at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

This was the view he had:

Image credit: NASA

As soon as Culbertson learned of the attacks, he began documenting the event in photographs because the station was flying over the New York City area. From his unique vantage point in space, he recorded his thoughts of the world changing beneath him.

In the video at the end of this post he reflects on what it was like being the only American not on Earth at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Culbertson posted a public letter that captured his initial thoughts of the events as they unfolded.

Astronaut Frank Culbertson Letter from September 11, 2001
09.11.01

September 12, 2001; 19:34 hours

I haven’t written very much about specifics of this mission during the month I’ve been here, mainly for two reasons: the first being that there has been very little time to do that kind of writing, and secondly because I’m not sure how comfortable I am sharing thoughts I share with family and friends with the rest of the world.

Well, obviously the world changed today. What I say or do is very minor compared to the significance of what happened to our country today when it was attacked by …. by whom? Terrorists is all we know, I guess. Hard to know at whom to direct our anger and fear…

I had just finished a number of tasks this morning, the most time-consuming being the physical exams of all crew members. In a private conversation following that, the flight surgeon told me they were having a very bad day on the ground. I had no idea…

He described the situation to me as best he knew it at ~0900 CDT. I was flabbergasted, then horrified. My first thought was that this wasn’t a real conversation, that I was still listening to one of my Tom Clancy tapes. It just didn’t seem possible on this scale in our country. I couldn’t even imagine the particulars, even before the news of further destruction began coming in.

Vladimir came over pretty quickly, sensing that something very serious was being discussed. I waved Michael into the module as well. They were also amazed and stunned. After we signed off, I tried to explain to Vladimir and Michael as best I could the potential magnitude of this act of terror in downtown Manhattan and at the Pentagon. They clearly understood and were very sympathetic.

I glanced at the World Map on the computer to see where over the world we were and noticed that we were coming southeast out of Canada and would be passing over New England in a few minutes. I zipped around the station until I found a window that would give me a view of NYC and grabbed the nearest camera. It happened to be a video camera, and I was looking south from the window of Michael’s cabin.

The smoke seemed to have an odd bloom to it at the base of the column that was streaming south of the city. After reading one of the news articles we just received, I believe we were looking at NY around the time of, or shortly after, the collapse of the second tower. How horrible…

I panned the camera all along the East Coast to the south to see if I could see any other smoke around Washington, or anywhere else, but nothing was visible.

It was pretty difficult to think about work after that, though we had some to do, but on the next orbit we crossed the US further south. All three of us were working one or two cameras to try to get views of New York or Washington. There was haze over Washington, but no specific source could be seen. It all looked incredible from two to three hundred miles away. I can’t imagine the tragic scenes on the ground.

Other than the emotional impact of our country being attacked and thousands of our citizens and maybe some friends being killed, the most overwhelming feeling being where I am is one of isolation.

Next day….

I guess the fatigue and emotional strain got the best of me. I couldn’t stay awake and continue to write. Today was still difficult, but we started getting more information, plus we had the honor of talking directly with the Center Director, Roy Estess, who assured us that the ground teams would continue to work and ensure our safety, as well as the safe operation of the Station. We also heard from our Administrator, Mr. Goldin, who added that the partners in the Program are all totally committed to continuing safe operations and support. These were never questions for me. I know all these people! The ground teams have been incredibly supportive, very understanding of the impact of the news, and have tried to be as helpful as possible. They have all been very professional and focused though I can’t imagine the distraction of this type of news coming in and the thought that government buildings might be at risk. They never skipped a beat, even when relocating control centers. And a group of senior personnel and friends gave us a pretty thorough briefing on what was known and what was being done in the government and at NASA on Tuesday afternoon, which was very helpful and kind of them to do in the midst of all the turmoil. The Russian TsUP has also been supportive and helpful, trying to uplink news articles when our own assets were inoperable, and saying kind words…

My crewmates have been great, too. They know it’s been a tough day for me and the folks on the ground, and they’ve tried to be as even keeled and helpful as possible. Michael even fixed me my favorite Borscht soup for dinner. And they give me plenty of room to think when I needed it. They are very sympathetic and of course outraged at whoever would do this.

I know so many people in Washington, so many people who travel to DC and NYC, so many who are pilots, that I felt sure I would receive at least a few pieces of bad news over the next few days. I got the first one today when I learned that the Captain of the American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon was Chic Burlingame, a classmate of mine. I met Chic during plebe summer when we were in the D&B together, and we had lots of classes together. I can’t imagine what he must of gone through, and now I hear that he may have risen further than we can even think of by possibly preventing his plane from being the one to attack the White House. What a terrible loss, but I’m sure Chic was fighting bravely to the end. And tears don’t flow the same in space…

It’s difficult to describe how it feels to be the only American completely off the planet at a time such as this. The feeling that I should be there with all of you, dealing with this, helping in some way, is overwhelming. I know that we are on the threshold (or beyond) of a terrible shift in the history of the world. Many things will never be the same again after September 11, 2001. Not just for the thousands and thousands of people directly affected by these horrendous acts of terrorism, but probably for all of us. We will find ourselves feeling differently about dozens of things, including probably space exploration, unfortunately.

It’s horrible to see smoke pouring from wounds in your own country from such a fantastic vantage point. The dichotomy of being on a spacecraft dedicated to improving life on the earth and watching life being destroyed by such willful, terrible acts is jolting to the psyche, no matter who you are. And the knowledge that everything will be different than when we launched by the time we land is a little disconcerting. I have confidence in our country and in our leadership that we will do everything possible to better defend her and our families, and to bring justice for what has been done. I have confidence that the good people at NASA will do everything necessary to continue our mission safely and return us safely at the right time. And I miss all of you very much. I can’t be there with you in person, and we have a long way to go to complete our mission, but be certain that my heart is with you, and know you are in my prayers.

Humbly,
Frank

In the following video, at about the 1.25 mark, Culbertson reflects on what it was like being the only American not on Earth at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:

After promising time and time again to pivot to jobs.

After promising time and time again to give a jobs plan speech right after his Martha’s Vineyard vacations.

After promising new fresh proposals, not a rehash of plans he has pitched previously.

After demanding time and time again before a joint session that Congress pass his [stimulus] bill.

After demanding time and again at a campaign rally in Richmond that Congress pass his [stimulus] bill.

President Obama hasn’t yet provided Congress the [stimulus] bill.

This inconvenient truth was made clear during the press gaggle, Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney, conducted yesterday on board Air Force One, while en route to Obama’s taxpayer-funded campaign rally in Richmond, Virginia:

Q    Jay, how does the President expect Congress to act on the bill now if the pay-fors aren’t going to be decided until late November, if at all?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you misunderstood, Julie.  The President will put a bill before Congress early next week — the American Jobs Act — and it will contain the pay-fors in it.

That right, President Obama doesn’t even plan to send the [stimulus] bill to Congress until next week.

Yeah right, pass this [stimulus] bill, pass it now.

It really was that repetitive. Obama used some version of “pass this bill” — 17 times in his stimulus speech.

Obama claimed this latest, now $447 billion spending bill would be paid for:

And everything in this bill will be paid for.  Everything.

[. . .]

And here’s the other thing I want the American people to know: The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. It will be paid for. And here’s how.

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act.

Even the fact checkers at the Associated Press called Obama out on that one:

THE FACTS: Obama did not spell out exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act but said he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional supercommittee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides suggested that new deficit spending in the near term to try to promote job creation would be paid for in the future – the “out years,” in legislative jargon – but they did not specify what would be cut or what revenues they would use.

Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today’s Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.

Currently, roughly all federal taxes and other revenues are consumed in spending on various federal benefit programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, food stamps, farm subsidies and other social-assistance programs and payments on the national debt. Pretty much everything else is done on credit with borrowed money.

So there is no guarantee that programs that clearly will increase annual deficits in the near term will be paid for in the long term.

As to Obama’s claim that this stimulus will not “add to the deficit,” the fact checkers disagree again:

THE FACTS: It’s hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery. Deficits are calculated for individual years. The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion. Perhaps Obama meant to say that, in the long run, his hoped-for programs would not further increase the national debt, not annual deficits.

Or as the Wall Street Journal put it:

It will only be paid for if a committee he can’t control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future – the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals – don’t roll it back. . . . [T]here is no guarantee that programs that clearly will increase annual deficits in the near term will be paid for in the long term.

It is important to note two things that Obama did not say in his speech. First, unlike the 2009 boondoggle, Obama did not tell us how may jobs the new stimulus would create. When Mitt Romney unveiled his jobs program, he told us it would create 11.5 million new jobs for Americans within four years.

Second, following the lead of Nancy Pelosi, Obama did not use the word “stimulus” once in 4,000-odd word speech. the Obamacrats’ 2009 stimulus was such an epic failure that now they can’t even use the “s word.”

Last night, after Obama’s “pass this bill” speech, 52 Senate Democrats voted not to consider the Resolution disapproving President Obama’s request to increase the national debt.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of the President’s exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as exercised pursuant to the certification under section 3101A(a) of title 31, United States Code.

One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), voted with the Republicans. Two Republicans, Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Scott Brown (Mass.), voted with the Democrats.

This was the vote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled to force GOP attendance.

If the resolution of disapproval had passed, Obama would have had to veto it to get the debt limit increased to $15.19 trillion.

A number of members of Congress let it be known that they did not intend to show up for Obama’s presentation. Concerned that empty seats would ruin the optics for the Obama reelection campaign videos, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled votes before and after Obama’s speech to force attendance of Republican Senators.

South Carolina’s Senator Jim DeMint, during his Sunday appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” explained that America needs Jobs, not speeches:

DEMINT: Well, I’m, frankly, very tired of speeches. I don’t want to be disrespectful to the president, but what I want to see is something in writing and that the Congressional Budget Office tells us what it’s going to cost so that we can not only read it ourselves, but the American people can read it.

Speeches, we’ve found, are not very similar to the actual legislation. So I’m pretty frustrated with the speech idea.

[. . .]

But if he’ll send a written proposal, I’ll give it every chance, in — but I’m not interested in his speech right now. And as the Congressional Budget Office said, we can’t score a speech. We can’t tell him what it’s going to cost or what it’s going to do.

DeMint even came up with the following video detailing the Obama failure to reduce unemployment:

In response to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz‘s outrageous assertion that the Obamacrat’s failed 2009 so-called stimulus actually “worked,” remember two things. First, nearly 100 prominent U.S. economists told President Obama that his economic stimulus failed. Second, the unemployment rate is now higher than the Obama regime promised it would be even without his stimulus plan.

Team Obama used scare tactics to get the Democrat-controlled Congress to give him the massive $800 billion spending bill dressed up as a stimulus. They told us that without Obama’s bailout the unemployment rate would reach 9%, but if Congress passed his boondoggle, unemployment would peak at 8%.

The unemployment rate scare tactic was contained in Obama’s “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.” How did those predictions turn out? Reuters Money & Politics columnist, James Pethokoukis, has plotted actual unemployment rates on Obama’s prediction chart.

The annotated chart confirms the failure of Obama’s stimulus.