Obama on Auto Jobs: Bragging, Denigrating GOP and Omitting Important Facts

There are a few things President Obama never fails to do. One, praise himself. Two, attack Republicans. Three, void as much of reality as necessary to accomplish One and Two.

For example, in his visit to Chrysler's auto plant in Detroit today, President Obama said:

So here's the bottom line. We've got a long way to go. But we're beginning to see some of these tough decisions pay off. We are moving foward.

I want you to remember, though, if some folks had their way, none of this would have been happening. Just want to point that out.

So, he praises himself and attempts to deride Republicans in one breath. I think we can pretty much all see through this one.

But Obama ignores the bigger part of the story. And so do liberals who praise him.

The problem is that Republicans weren't wrong to deride the auto bailouts as unnecessary and potentially harmful to the economy. Yes, Chrysler is going to keep its plant open for two more years and add 900 jobs. Great.

But, of all American auto companies, which is flourishing during this time?

Hint, it's the one that refused the government bailout.

Yes, Ford is doing great right now. It is the true success story. And if private industry was running GM and Chrysler, instead of the government, those companies might be doing better too.

How much taxpayer money was needed to save those 900 Chrysler jobs? Was it worth it? Wouldn't we be in better shape if they had gone the way of Ford instead of the way of government?

What Judge Bolton Got Wrong

Arizona District Court Judge Susan Bolton ordered a preliminary injunction against the enactment of several provisions of Arizona's immigration law known as SB 1070.

In doing so, the Judge determined that the United States had shown a likelihood of success on the merits that the law (or at least the best provisions of it) was preempted by federal law.

However, the Judge's decision is based mostly on Hines v. Davidowitz, a 69-year old case in which the Supreme Court found that Pennsylvania's alien registration law was preempted by the Federal Alien Registration Act. There, the state law conflicted with federal law, and the Federal government is granted the authority to regulate the registration of aliens by the U.S. Constitution.

But the law in Arizona does not deal with the registration of aliens. They only deal with determining the immigration status of people. As such, the Supreme Court case from 1941 is not directly on point.

In fact, the court in that case stated that it was "expressly leaving open all of appellees' other contentions, including the argument that the federal power in this field, whether exercised or unexercised, is exclusive." Instead, the Court was merely answering the question "of the respective powers of state and national governments in the regulation of aliens as such, and a determination of whether Congress has, by its action, foreclosed enforcement of Pennsylvania's registration law."

While the District court in the case of SB 1070 quoted only a portion of the following passage, reading it in whole connotes the very specific situation for which it was written:

Having the constitutional authority so to do, [Congress] has provided a standard for alien registration in a single integrated and all-embracing system in order to obtain the information deemed to be desirable in connection with aliens. When it made this addition to its uniform naturalization and immigration laws, it plainly manifested a purpose to do so in such a way as to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national registration system, and to leave them free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance that might not only affect our international relations, but might also generate the very disloyalty which the law has intended guarding against. Under these circumstances, the Pennsylvania Act cannot be enforced.

Saying that Congress preempts state registration laws by creating its own registration law is a completely different thing than saying that states are preempted from regulating people within their borders.

In addition, the Supreme Court has held in such cases as Grahama v. Richardson and Bernal v. Fainter that states can create laws that discriminate against even legal aliens, so long as those laws meet the "strict scrutiny" test of constitutionality. As such, where Judge Bolton cautions against "imposing burdens on lawfully-present aliens," as she claims SB 1070 will do, she fails to engage in the type of analysis required to determine the constitutionality of such a law.

The biggest problem for Arizona is that the case will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal of all circuits. But all is not last, as the Ninth Circuit upheld an Arizona law in 2008 that required all businesses to determine the immigration status of employees.

As Governor Brewer stated, the battle is far from over. Judge Bolton's reliance on a 69-year-old law that is not directly on point raises serious questions as to whether her ruling will stand.

What a Relief - 2010 Deficit will be ONLY $1.47 Trillion

1,470,000,000,000 will be added to the national debt THIS YEAR.

And amazingly, that's less than what was originally projected.

Remember when Bush was criticized for his out of control spending? Nancy Pelosi called it dangerous and unpatriotic back in 2006 (when the deficit was about $200 billion). But with two straight years of $1.4 trillion deficits (7 times larger than the "dangerous" deficit and nearly 4 times larger than Bush's largest deficit), Pelosi seems as happy as a pig in mud.

The shocking thing is that the deficits aren't just records, they dwarf anything that has ever happened before. How can ANYONE believe that this is sustainable?

Not All Good News Today - Dems Reiterate Plans to Let Bush Tax Cuts Expire

RealClearPolitics - Video - Pelosi: Bush Tax Cuts "Did Not Create Jobs" And Should Be "Repealed"

Despite growing opposition the Democratic ranks, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Nancy Pelosi went on the offensive against the Bush tax cuts today.

Interestingly, Pelosi had the chutzpah to say that the tax cuts should expire because they added to the defecit and did not create jobs.

First, when the tax cuts went into effect, federal revenues went up. So, that actually lowered the deficit.

Second, if adding to the deficit and not creating jobs is the benchmark, shouldn't we repeal everything that Obama has passed during his term?

This comes as Senators Kent Conrad and Joe Lieberman argue for extending the cuts in light of the fragile state of the economy.

Democrats have mentioned the possibility of extending the tax cuts for the middle class. Of course they should do that. But as Democrat Congressman Gerry Connolly says, "The top 5% of earners generate 30% of consumer spending." Tax increases for "the wealthy" will significantly impair that, which is the worst thing to do for the economy.

Cap and Tax Dead (for now)

Senate Democrats have pulled the massive climate reform bill off the table, admitting that they don't have enough votes to get the measure passed.

This is obviously great news, as the measure would have created huge new energy taxes on Americans and businesses. And since the evidence continues to mount against the existence of man-caused global warming, one has to wonder what the bill would have accomplished.

Laughably (and predictably), Senator Harry Reid blamed Republicans for blocking the bill. That line has gotten so old, you have to wonder why the Democrats keep trotting it out. Here, the Democrats were themselves divided over the bill.

But, Obama's second-biggest policy goal behind healthcare is not totally dead. As Charles Krauthammer warns, beware a lame-duck Congress if Republicans do take control in November. With nothing to lose for many of thos voted out of office, the time may come to go out in a blaze of liberal glory, passing cap and tax and a host of other far-left goals.

But, that is far down the road. And for the moment, we can appreciate the fact that Obama's political capital is so low, he cannot pass one of his signature initiatives.