An AP story laments that our President does not have many “tools” to stimulate the economy. We all know that this simply means that our President cannot  spend as he wishes any more. Why?  Because the American people decided not to offer him complete control any longer precisely because they distrusted his spending spree strategy to ignite the economy. It remains a baffling reality that so many in the Media cannot get the basics of economics and remain loyal to Keynesian errors sending them to lament what we should be celebrating. We had two years of total control by the Administration and they spent like no one ever before. What did we get? A stagnated economy. What is there to lament?

What exactly are we to expect if he is given the “tools” to keep doing the same thing? Are we going to magically see a different result? Those supporters of the Administration, however, continue to be shocked when they see things are not working and the word “unexpected” is used again and again every time there are bad economic news. Unexpected by whom exactly? Well, “the experts” they say. Who are these? Keynesians, of course. Ideology motivates their befuddled state.

In the end, what is most lamented is that in an election year Obama may not get to spend more and more. The end result would be disaster but he could count on his Media pals to support him as he “bats for us” and does “whatever he can” to fix an economy that “unexpectedly” does not respond. But he feels our pain and is doing his best and deserves re-election as he is “working so hard.” If he is given a free hand to keep spending, and do not distrust the ability of Republicans in Congress to let him do exactly that, his reelection prospects lie not on actual results but on “effort.” Change, after all, is tough business and it is taking us long to “change Washington.”  Sure…

The contrary is true. We need Obama to stay on permanent vacation. I truly do not understand Conservatives upset that he goes golfing a lot or plays basketball with his buddies. I say, “keep doing it!” The less government intervenes to fix our economy, the faster it will fix itself. The more the government cares the worse we fare. Why bring him back to try to extend unemployment benefits that incentivizes laziness?  Why bring him back to print more monopoly money? Why bring him back to spend more and call it “investment”?  Why bring him back at all?