The moment I first heard my co-blogger Melissa Clouthier use the phrase "Party of Yes," I knew a column would eventually come out of it because that phrase so perfectly describes today's Democratic Party. No matter how bad the idea, the Democrats are willing to say, "yes, yes, yes" and throw a few billion dollars at it. That has already led to a series of disasters in the early days of the Obama Administration.
The Democrats have said "yes" to taking over the auto industry: Welcome to "Government Motors," where Barack Obama is the Super-CEO and the union now owns 51% of Chrysler. By the time it's over, the price tag for this debacle looks likely to reach into the hundreds of billions despite the fact that both companies will still go through bankruptcy, which is what critics of the bailout suggested as an alternative to government intervention last year. We have the government hiring and firing corporate execs, getting involved in the cars they're making, politicizing dealer closings -- and Barney Frank apparently even has veto power over which plants are shut down. In other words, if you thought GM and Chrysler had problems before, just wait until Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid get through tinkering with companies. My advice? Buy Ford.
The Democrats have said "yes" to taking over the banking industry: Granted, George Bush got the ball rolling and plenty of Republicans voted for TARP. So, the GOP's hands aren't clean on this one. But, we now have the government leaning on banks to take pennies on the dollar from the car companies, refusing to let banks pay taxpayer money back, and there's even still talk of completely nationalizing the banking industry. What is there in the history of this country, especially in the wake of a banking related housing crisis that was created by the government, that would make anyone think this is a good idea? The average Democrat in Congress probably couldn't properly handle the bank in a game of Monopoly, much less a real bank.
The Democrats are saying "yes" to socializing medicine: The most hilarious thing about the Democrats’ attempt to engulf the health care industry in the inky blackness of the federal government is their primary selling point: that a government takeover will actually lead to reduced costs. How's that plan working out with Medicare so far? Oh yeah, it's on track to bankrupt the entire country. So let's expand that -- what could go wrong? Well, besides all the features that usually come along with socialized medicine: reduced quality of care, long wait times for operations, and allowing old people to die in order to cut costs. Obamacare would lead to health care with the compassion of the IRS, the competence of FEMA, and the well staffed work force of our border patrol at a much higher cost, but on the upside, you won't live as long, so you'll have less time to complain about it.
The Democrats have said "yes" to a stimulus package that doesn't stimulate anything: Including the interest, the cost for the stimulus is going to be a colossal 1.2 trillion dollars. However, as of May 22, only 37 billion dollars of that money had been spent. Meanwhile, according to the latest data, which is for April, personal consumption for American consumers dropped 0.1%. So, why are we going 1.2 trillion dollars deeper in debt to the Chinese again -- particularly since the "Congressional Budget Office estimated that the recession would end in the 'second half of 2009' even if Obama did nothing?" A stimulus plan that doesn't actually stimulate the economy when it's doing poorly is like Viagra that Bob Dole can only use when...okay, I'm just going to stop right there. Feel free to thank me later.
The Democrats have said "yes" to appeasement:
The Democrats have said "yes" to decimating the economy to fight "global warming:" Ironically, the globe hasn't actually warmed since 1998, but the Democrats still want to impose the largest tax increase in history to fight this non-existent problem. How much will it cost the average family? Somewhere between $1600 to $4000 a year in higher costs. You have that much extra money lying around that you don't need, right? Isn't $4,000 a year a small price to pay, even if global warming doesn't exist, just to know that Al Gore will be able to sleep soundly at night?