Obama compares the economy to a hurricane

The Washington Free Beacon quotes a revealing response from President Obama, when a New Orleans reporter asks him about the horrible unemployment rates typical of his administration:

“Well,” the President explains, “if you look at what’s happened, not just in Louisiana, but across the country, most of those job losses initially came in the first six months of me being in office, right as we were hitting the worst part of the crisis.  And we’ve been doing clean-up ever sense.  I mean, this is essentially like… it was a financial hurricane that hit, and we’ve been cleaning up ever since.”

It’s rather crass for the President to drag out a hurricane metaphor in New Orleans, but his campaign is hardly noted for its high-minded refinement.  More troubling, and completely unsurprising, is this failed President’s continued attempts to portray the economy as some kind of rampaging natural disaster, completely beyond Washington’s influence.

That’s not even remotely true in the case of the original subprime crisis, which was created by government policies.  Barack Obama knows all about it – he was deeply involved.  The creators of those ideologically-driven mortgage loans for fiscally unqualified applicants were very much convinced they could control a vast financial system, and their belief was not at all shaken by the fiery crash of their efforts.  They just blamed everything on their private sector “partners,” and wrote more legislation to micro-manage the financial system.

But Obamanomics is entirely premised on the notion that central planning by Washington is the best way to manage the economy on a continuing basis.  Obama’s big spending programs are not, for the most part, temporary emergency measures.  He’s establishing permanent control over huge sectors of the same economy he portrays as a “rampaging natural disaster” when his plans fail, which is always.  Either the economy is a machine, whose motions can be predicted and fine-tuned by government regulators, or it’s a hurricane.  It cannot be both.

How about the General Motors bankruptcy?  Was that a “hurricane” too?  Because Obama boasts constantly of his ability to manage and control it, even though taxpayers lost $25 to $30 billion on the bailouts, depending on how GM stock is priced on any given day.  Further, triumphant claims of rising GM sales conveniently ignore the fact that a great deal of this growth comes from increased government fleet purchases, which “rose a whopping 79 percent in June,” according to the National Legal and Policy Center.

The President is happy to take plenty of credit for the relatively placid weather in his taxpayer-financed Potemkin villages, but everywhere else, it’s a raging hurricane, and he can’t be held responsible for the laughably inaccurate promises he made in 2009 about “cleaning up the damage.”