Huh? I Say, Huh?

Reported in the media last week: President Obama's stimulus package created or saved about 600,000 jobs and they said that half of that number were 'saved' teacher's jobs. Similar numbers came from our state's (Oregon's) leadership ... thousands of jobs saved, half of which were teacher positions. I have a couple of questions about those claims.

That means they're saying that without the stimulus package, America WOULD HAVE fired 300,000 teachers. Think about that for a minute ... 300,000 teaching positions that are filled today would have been gone now were it not for the stimulus package. 300,000! Are you kidding me? Do these numbskulls actually expect us to believe that?

In fact, any reasonable person knows that without the stimulus money states would not have cut back teaching positions anywhere near that much. They would have cut back in other areas of state/local government so they could keep most teachers employed. They would NOT have discarded anywhere near 300,000 teaching positions. Probably would have eliminated some ... I'm guessing it would be closer to 10,000. (I may be off but my number is a LOT more rational than theirs!) It's nonsense to justify the stimulus after the fact by falacious and nonsensical jobs saved claims. C'mon folks! We're not stupid, although they apparently think we are.

By the way, how exactly does steering HALF of the stimulus money into education spending help create jobs that stimulate the economy? Said another way, how exactly does keeping government big in a time of economic crisis help the economy? The ONLY sector of the economy that didn't decline this year is ... drum roll ... government. How exactly does more government contribute to the gross national product? Answer: ZERO!

On a different front, if you were to hear that one American has been an official visitor to the White House at least 22 times since Obama took office, of which 7 were one-on-one visits with the president, whose name would come to mind? Would you believe it was Andy Stern, president of SEIU? Well, believe it! If we're to believe President Obama's PROMISE to bring a new era of bipartisanship to the executive office, how come Stern gets 7 one-on-one's with him and people like Republican House and Senate minority leaders get ZERO? Where is the slightest hint of bipartisanship in that? Seriously, how exactly is that better than under Bush?

Also, Democratic leadership, including President Obama, rags incessantly on Republicans in general and Bush in particular for catering to special interests. They also said they do not do that and will not do that. It's a new day with Democrats in charge, right? Wrong! The leadership of BOTH parties gives too much access and, therefore, influence to special interests. The only thing different about Democrats is their special interests are different from Republicans' special interests. They both corrupt the democratic process in this respect ... arguably equally.