Hilary Rosen, Oxymoron: Obama is fixing GOP's economic mess | CNN.com

I have yet to figure this one out. On CNN’s “Opinion” page, Special to CNN’s Hilary Rosen expresses her opinion… right? But she couches her essay as if it were fact. To quote:

Consider a few facts that the Republicans keep missing. As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

She then launches into her own opinions:

The fact is that this White House and the Democrats in Congress have been focusing on jobs.

I presume it’s their own jobs that we’re talking about here, because the unemployment trend, in spite of this supposed focus, has risen dramatically. Even Ben Bernanke’s not convinced they’ve been effective.

To focus on jobs, you have to fix the economy first, which the Democrats did.

Is that a fact? Really? “Did,” as in, already done? And I wonder what definition of “fix” she’s using—it certainly isn’t the one that means repair, mend.

And as important, Democrats have tried to focus on those who have been hurt from eight years of neglect. What does that mean?

If by “neglect” she means “did not overburden with legislation,” then, yes, conservatives are guilty of neglect in stark contrast to the liberal mantra All things can be made better with legislation. If Congress had to deal with the burden of its own legislation, it would give each new bill a second thought before introducing it.

It means 16 different tax breaks and supports for small business owners, who were neglected by the Republicans for eight years.

Small business owners enjoy this kind of neglect. It’s easier to run their businesses when they don’t have to deal with mounds of reporting (support isn’t paperwork-free) and tax paperwork (and neither are tax breaks).

It means making student loans more affordable by cutting middleman subsidies, which had been growing for eight years.

But, all the while, missing the basic point: investing in your education should be 100% tax deductible, just like investing in a piece of capital equipment is. Instead, the people whose student loans are most onerous are the ones least likely to be able to take any kind of advantage of any tax breaks on the student loan interest (of all things), the only deductible amount.

It means passing a patient’s bill of rights to control insurance costs, which have been growing for eight years.

Can’t argue with that—much—because they have been, right along with everything else. But I am willing to bet a nickel on its failure because controlling insurance costs is like driving the bus from the rear, facing backwards, instead of attempting to steer from the front, facing forwards. Simply, you can’t control insurance costs because the insurance costs are based on other, uncontrolled/not-yet-addressed costs, such as pharmaceutical costs, malpractice insurance costs, etc.

It means investing in solar and electric cars and alternative energy, which has been neglected for eight years.

You know, funny thing: There are more electric cars on the road now than ever before, and since these cars weren’t just introduced in the last two years, I’d have to say that… Wait, weren’t we discussing people who had been hurt in the last eight years? How’s this relevant?

Then, it means curtailing deceptive banking practices, which have been getting worse and screwing consumers for eight years.

Ah, yes, more regulation. Good for the economy, that regulation stuff. The more the better. It’s certainly keeping the postal service in business as they deliver all of these new notices from the credit card companies, and yet I’m still unaware that my life has been made any better by any of this new regulation. Guess I hadn’t been hurt badly enough to notice that it’s somehow getting better.

And it means providing tax breaks for middle-class Americans, who have been squeezed for eight years.

I’m in that middle class, you know. And yet my taxes are going up. Huh?

Oh, and here’s a doozy:

In 2010, corporate profits will be as high as they have been since 1997. We will see whether the cash that industry is sitting on will be used to invest and grow and create jobs here at home or whether it will pay bonuses to senior executives while shipping jobs overseas.

If Republicans are in charge, they will choose the latter, because they will suffer no consequences for their actions. If Democrats are in charge, they will likely choose the former. We know that because that is what they said they would do at the start of the Obama administration.

To summarize: Republicans will choose to pay bonuses to senior executives because it won’t hurt, and Democrats will choose to invest and grow to create jobs because that’s what they said they’d do. Trust us!

If I assume they’re not liars, these Democrats, then they and the Republicans will somehow magically take corporate dollars (huge profits!) and dispose of them in their own ways. I’m not aware of any way that either party can do that short of turning American corporations’ profits into their own private slush fund. Socialism, here we come!

Now, the rest of the article, which does indeed smack of opinion:

This administration didn’t demonize business. There are countless examples of the White House partnering with business to promote investments that will grow this country’s workforce and restore economic health. They came to the table. But once Republicans started offering businesses the actual store if they helped them get back in power, business pulled back from that table.

The timing was not a coincidence. In fact, Rep. John Boehner said it best on the day the Financial Regulatory Reform billl was on the Senate floor. “The Republicans are the only ones standing between you and reform.” But they had to get in power.

Now, Wall Street and the big banks are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, waiting to see if the Republicans will help them line their pockets instead of lending that money into the system to invest in the economy and grow jobs.

I have only two words: [citation needed]. And I doubt she can offer us anything other than a gut feeling based on anecdotal evidence. I’d like for someone to count those countless examples, for example.

I’m not so sure that her motivation in writing this article—which is, I’m certain, to attempt to help Democrats retain power—is any more noble than any other party’s motivation to regain power.

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Hilary Rosen.

Thank goodness for that.

By the way, note to DNC: Your political strategist, Ms. Rosen, is known for leading an association whose legal strategy and tactics are shady at best and whose salary has been paid by BP, among others. You might want to reconsider your choice…