Confirmed: Obama's Favorite "Independent" Economist is a Democrat

Posted: Oct 17, 2011 6:54 PM

President Obama resumed his totally-not-political-at-all-so-taxpayers-can-pick-up-the-tab "jobs" bus tour in North Carolina today.  Here are a few, ahem, "highlights" of his remarks.  Remember, the White House insists this is not a campaign event, which is why it's okay that you paid for it.  (Please ignore the "four more years" chants):

Earlier this morning, Politico's Mike Allen flagged a classified ad seeking talented digital story-tellers to join Team Obama:

BEHIND THE CURTAIN: “Obama for America is looking for talented social media strategists to join our digital team at our Chicago headquarters. We're going to run the most effective, creative, and innovative digital campaign in the history of politics, and our digital team will be core to achieving the communications, fundraising, and organizing goals of the cause.Our social media team will help tell the story of the campaign and move people to take action over Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks. We're looking for strategists who can tell stories in 140 characters or less

Based on his performance in Asheville today, it seems we already have a Story-teller-in-chief.  If you only listened to Obama -- and had no other independent information -- you'd probably develop a few flawed takeaways: (1) Republicans are solely responsible for killing Obama's jobs plan.  Wrong.  (2) Republicans have no ideas or proposals of their own.  Wrong.  (3) Obama's jobs bill is innovative, common-sensical, and foolproof -- and couldn't possibly mirror a previous failed, wildly expensive big government misadventure.  Wrong again.  (4) The consensus of "independent" economists supports the president's plan.  On this last point, a newly-crowned Nobel Prize winning economist recently made perfectly clear that he's not a party to this alleged "consensus."  We've also now learned something rather interesting about Obama's favorite "independent" economist, Mark Zandi of Moody's -- who claims the jobs bill would create 1.9 million jobs (at a cost of a cool quarter-million per).  The White House quotes and cites Zandi's rosy predictions every chance they get.  Surprise:

In an e-mail [to the Washington Post], Zandi confirmed that he is a registered Democrat and said the Obama campaign was mischaracterizing his role for McCain.

Mr. Keynesian Stimulus isn't a rock-ribbed Republican? Color me shocked.  Oh, and just as a reminder, other independent economists estimate that Obama's unpaid-for, $450 Billion Stimulus 2.0 bill would end up costing $1.6 Million per job, um, "supported."  What a deal!  Meanwhile, Harry Reid -- who repeatedly blocked votes on Obama's original jobs legislation in the Senate -- has undertaken a piecemeal approach to passing the president's spendthrift priorities.  He's introduced a bill that would send $35 billion in bailout money to states, ostensibly to save teachers' jobs.  It's paid for by tax hikes, natch.  You know, I must say the whole plan sounds vaguely familiar:

President Obama approved a final spurt of spending Tuesday to shore up the sluggish recovery, signing into law a $26 billion plan to save the jobs of thousands of teachers and other government workers. The measure brings total direct federal spending on the economy to nearly $1.2 trillion since the nation descended into recession in late 2007.

That report is from last August, when Democrats did almost exactly what they're demanding we do again today.  And don't confuse that failed gambit with the giant Stimulus 1.0 gorilla, which was also sold as a government sector job-saving endeavor.  Did the last two federal bailouts not work, Harry?  Or were they really just temporary bandaids covering up the real problem: Unsustainable spending at every level of government?  I'm going to go with option B.  Democrats look at that reality and say, "let's spend more money we don't have." 

Good luck selling that story, Obama "social media strategists."