|The sun also rises.|
Meanwhile, America is rich in oil, but we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil so we can avoid inconveniencing any cariboo on the North Slope who might possibly not wish to see a few drilling rigs on the distant horizon. (Though they have never really objected, nor would be likely to.)
What has the Obama Administration done to solve America's urgent problems? (Also, say, Iranian threats to nuke Israel?) For its first two years, with a solid Democratic majority in both houses, it concentrated on three agendas: (1) Pass Obamacare, by underestimating (lying?) how much it would cost by a trillion dollars or so, playing various financial shell games, and by drubbing a Republican senator out of the senate on false charges. (2) Pass a trillion-dollar "stimulus" package that would build practically nothing of value, further indebt our children, and foster a debilitating dependency and various forms of "crony capitalism" and "crony unionism;" (3) blame George W. Bush (or the rich, or the Greeks) for everything that goes wrong, or refused to go right. (Even though Democrats ran both houses of Congress when the crisis came upon us, and even though the root problem with Freddie Mae AND Greece -- overspending in the hope that vast riches will turn up, somewhere -- exactly describes their own economic policies.)
But no one can say Barack Obama has done nothing to solve the debt crisis. No, sir. Aside from almost doubling the federal debt itself (not counting his years in Congress, during which he also voted to spend extravagently), Obama also put together a commission to figure out how to solve the crisis. Since that commission issued its report, Obama steadfastly ignored it, demogoguing about evil Republicans (finding it much easier to dialogue with Iranian or Syrian tyrants, it seems), and the United States continued to slide down a heavily-Greeced trail towards insolvency.
Obama's first and (hopefully) only term has proven an unmitigated disaster. The only question is whether the problem lies more in his inability to lead more than a political campaign, or in his quasi-Keynesian policies themselves.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, has refused to pass a budget in three years, even though he is obligated to do so by law! At the same time, he has also rejected budgets sent him by, on the one hand, the Republican House, and on the other hand, his own Democratic president. Senate votes against Obama's budgets have been bipartisan and unanimous!
The Republicans are now offering an alternative: two ernest, experienced, and capable men, with proven track records. Mitt Romney successfully governed an important and usually Democratic state, created tens of thousands of jobs at Bain Capital, and turned the Salt Lake City Olympics into a success. Paul Ryan, his Vice Presidential choice, may be best described as one of the few adults in Washington, DC, despite his youthful looks. Ryan has attempted (though in what I would regard as too tentative a manner) to actually solve America's financial woes. He was the one who put together the past two House budgets, an accomplishment which Harry Reid illegally failed to match.
What has been the Democratic response to the proposals of these two manifestly capable and experienced leaders?
"Mitt Romney has bank accounts in Switzerland!"
"Ann Romney rides horses and wears nice clothes!"
"The Romneys put their dog on the roof of their car when they drove to Canada!"
"Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes!" (We know this because it hasn't been proven otherwise, just as we know Harry Reid, who made this allegation, must be a secret cannibal, because that also has not been proven to be untrue.)
"Republicans are waging 'war on women!'"
"Mitt Romney killed Ranae Soptic!"
"Paul Ryan wants to throw Grandma over a cliff in a wheelchair!" (Never mind the fact that his desperately-needed reforms would not affect anyone over 55.)
It sure will be nice to have adults back in the White House. Not a moment too soon.
I like America's prospects with an RR in charge, once again.