These Numbers Do Not Lie

In each of the States that elected Republican governors during the Tea Party dominated 2010 midterm elections, unemployment rates have gone down. According to an Examiner.com analysis, since Tea Party Republicans took over in January 2011, the average reduction in unemployment for those 17 States has been 1.35%.  When compared nationally, job creation in those States has been 50% better than the rest of the country.

The unemployment rate in States that elected “progressive” Democrats in 2010 saw a drop in rates matching the .9% national rate of decline.  In one of these “progressive” run States the unemployment rate actually went up, not down: New York – 8.2% to 8.6% = an increase of 0.4%.

• Witness how unemployment rates have been reduced in the 17 States that elected fiscally Conservative governors back in 2010: Michigan -2.4%, Florida -2.3%, Nevada -2.2%, Alabama -1.9%, Ohio -1.7%, Tennessee -1.6%, South Carolina -1.5%, Georgia -1.2%, Wyoming -1.1%, Iowa -1.0%, New Mexico -1.0%, Wisconsin -0.9%, Kansas -0.8%, South Dakota -0.7%, Maine -0.6%, Pennsylvania -0.6%.

This is another substantiated example of how, when compared to fiscally Conservative Tea Party solutions, “progressive” economic policies fall short.  It also blows a gigantic hole in the “we’re making progress but can’t go back to policies that caused our economic problems” talking point “progressives” insist on repeating ad nauseam.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-republican-governors-rapidly-bringing-down-unemployment-their-states

What this also indicates is that the real problem in America is “progressive” ideas, which have been being imported into the United States from Europe since the early 20^th century.  Since then, America hostile “progressive” ideas have managed to infiltrate and infest both of America’s major political Parties.

The Republican vs. Democrat political paradigm is obsolete.  This is especially true where economic policies and government power are concerned. To more accurately describe the philosophical divide in today’s political landscape, think Americans vs. “progressives”.

It should be noted, “progressives” easily occupy a space within the “globalist” category.  Globalism is a clear and present danger to the very concept of national sovereignty; any nation’s national sovereignty.  Be assured that United States sovereignty is definitely being targeted.  “progressives” are eagerly playing a large part in this.

http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/global-governance/program.htm

Americans want the United States to follow the Constitution, which limits the size, scope, reach and power of the central government to that prescribed by the Constitution.  “progressives” wish to “evolve” beyond America’s foundation document, favoring a central government that usurps the maximum amount of power possible from the States and from the people.

Although many Americans supported the invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush’s strong backing of the U.S. military, a careful examination of his Presidency shows that Bush increased the size and cost of the federal government.  He created the DHS, a large, expensive and essentially unnecessary Cabinet level bureaucracy.  If the underlying cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was the FBI and the CIA not sharing information, that could have been rectified with the proper use of an Executive Order directing the two intelligence agencies to share pertinent data.  Bush also greatly expanded the size, cost and presence of the TSA.  Remember that the next time your 87 year old grandmother or 4 year old niece is being openly groped by an overly-controlling faux uniformed union member who will be practically impossible to fire.  Bush worked with a Republican majority Legislature to enact Medicare part D, which imposed the financial burden onto the States.  Near the end of his Presidency he and his Goldman Sachs Treasurer promoted TARP, which put taxpayers on the hook to the tune of $700 billion.  He then used some of that money when the Feds bailed out GM and Chrysler.  While it can be argued that GMAC was a financial institute and therefore qualified for funds, there was no such justification for bailing out Chrysler. Not to mention adding $5 trillion to the national debt and nominating the current Supreme Court Chief Justice, who recently sided with “progressives” in preserving the biggest farthest reaching government power grab in U.S. history: the obama”care”tax.

Like it or not, it is a defensible position to say that the results of George W. Bush’s presidency indicate that in many instances he acted as a “progressive” Republican.

The chief discernible distinction between “progressive” Democrats and “progressive” Republicans is the rate at which government grows.

The government of the United States needs to shrink, not grow.  Europe has been growing their governments for decades.  That is one of the major reasons why their economies are failing.   “progressives” are trying to make America more and more like Europe.  Increasing government spending while expanding the size and scope of government bureaucracies and increasing the people’s dependency on government is not the way to fix a problem caused by big government spending, bloated bureaucracies and government dependency.

The last time America had an anything like an American president was when Ronald Reagan presided over the Oval Office.  Under the influence of the anti-American “progressive” economic policies of barrack obama, America’s GDP growth is currently 1.9%.  At this point in his first term, under the influence of Reagan’s pro-American economic policies, America’s GDP growth was 7.2%.

Unlike the passionately emotional “pay their fair share” argument used by “progressives”, the more dispassionate American view of looking at the numbers works.  Numbers do not lie.

For the America envisioned by its founders to survive, “progressives” must be stopped. Forget the (R) and the (D).  These political Party designations are growing increasingly meaningless.  Voters need to realign their thinking and begin voting for Americans and against “progressives”, regardless of Party affiliation.

If “progressives” currently living in America want to live in a European country doomed to economic failure, they can move to Europe.  They would be doing America a great favor.  An even bigger favor would be if they sent disenfranchised Europeans who want to live the American way to the United States.  America would definitely benefit from that exchange.

Read more at MJ Fell Writes (Westwood Tea Party blog)