President Obama has told us the solution to the devastated urban areas in Baltimore and other major cities.  It is more spending on more programs and more money tossed into the educational systems.  The country, you see, has not been willing to do what is necessary to bring these areas back and give the people there a fair chance.

Does he have a point?

Well, here are excerpts from the latest column written by Michelle Malkin – one of the most important writers in this country, therefore one of the least quoted by mainstream media or asked to participate on TV shows either as a guest or panelist.  Please read them and see if you think they more or less sense that President Obama\’s solution:

In 2009, Obama and the Democrats rammed the $840 billion federal stimulus package through Capitol Hill under the guise of immediate job creation and economic recovery. An estimated $64 billion went to public school districts; another nearly $50 billion went for other education spending. This included $13 billion for low-income public school kids; $4.1 billion for Head Start and childcare services; $650 million for educational technology; $200 million for working college students; and $70 million for homeless children.

How\’s that all working out? Last week, economists from the St. Louis Federal Reserve surveyed more than 6,700 education stimulus recipients and concluded that for every $1 million of stimulus grants to a district, a measly 1.5 jobs were created. “Moreover, all of this increase came in the form of nonteaching staff,” the report found, and the “jobs effect was also not statistically different from zero.”

More than three-quarters of the jobs “created or saved” in the first year of the stimulus were government jobs, while roughly 1 million private sector jobs were forestalled or destroyed, according to Ohio State University. President Obama later admitted “there was no such thing” as “shovel-ready projects.” But there were plenty of pork-ready recipients, from green energy billionaires to union bosses to Democratic campaign finance bundlers. About $230 billion in porkulus funds was set aside for infrastructure projects, yet less than a year later, Obama was back asking for another $50 billion to pour down the infrastructure black hole.

Asking again:  Does President Obama have a point?  Is his solution – admonishing us over how stingy we have been with money for these areas and telling us how much more we have to pump into them – workable? 

Not if you read those data it isn\’t.

Decades of one-party rule, where the “answer” was giving more and more things to people who, accordingly became more and more dependent, without worrying about personal responsibility for their actions, is the problem.  President Obama can order the mint to print all the money it can, day and night, for the rest of his presidency, and there won\’t be enough to overcome that.

The answers lie elsewhere.  No matter how many politicians lie about what they really are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *