Swett Turns A Phrase

by Steve MacDonald

 

In a recent email to supporters Katrina Swett puts a new spin on the thousand pound gorilla in the room.  The gorilla is the economy and K-Swett appears to have looked to the east for inspiration.  She also spelled the word “lose” wrong.  Figure out where yourself I have a blog to write. 

The new turn of phrase, and we could be seeing this rebranding from all the debt-o-crats in the very near future because they to spin things, is to ‘rebalance the economy.’  “Rebalance the economy?”  (As in less government more freedom?)  Not exactly.  In Ms. Swett’s application she would like to rebalance the economy so that it works for us not just big corporations.  Oh, see it’s those big corporations again.    

Funny thing but this is exactly how the UK’s liberal democrats are using it.  They’ve had this plan to use the government to rebalance the relationship between the people and small and big business in the hope that quaint little shops will compete better and who knows, perhaps even sprout up like mushrooms on Britain’s debt ridden ass.  The means of such fairness appear to be to tax the big shops more.  Rebalancing ala Obama’s spread the wealth around a bit?

They also (The UK liberal democrats) …backed plans to rebalance the economyand create thousands of new green jobs.  And wouldn’t you know, K-Swett is running on a platform of clean energy.  Maybe Swett should look at Spain where every green job destroys at least two other jobs before she tries that particular rebalancing act.  But it would punish big oil–except where big oil and energy companies like Duke and BP have already started positioning themselves to take advantage of the governments generous rebalancing of income away from wage earners and cheap abundant energy and into green tech bail outs.

Another big fan of ‘rebalancing the economy’—and we have to look a wee bit farther east for this one—is Chin,a where one observe points out..  

..that attempts to rebalance the economy – in part by state spending on welfare, health and education to boost private consumption - are welcome but have come too late to save the economy from the financial crisis. 

(Sorry I lost the link:UK Telegraph)

Some in China are thinking these didn’t work, but that they would have had they done them sooner.  Newsflash to China; we did them sooner, and are still doing them and they still don’t work.  (Odd I can even say that to a communist controlled country with better emerging free market policies than ours). The UK Telegraph—no bastion of conservatism by any stretch of the imagination—pretends that there are no false positives when it mentions some economic improvements to justify ‘Obama-like’ that these things do work.  But the math is unsustainable and the improvements false—they are already in decline as I type–so we are left with the reality that government spending to “rebalance the economy” didn’t work anywhere at all and only delayed the inevitable with the not so “pleasing” side affect of adding trillions more in economy crushing public debt in the process.

Sure Mr. Obama.  You slowed job loss down but by doing what?  Tripling the budget and adding trillions in debt? By growing a government that this minimal shift can never hope to sustain?  That’s False Hope and Change.

Obama may well be the smartest ass in the room, but we’ll have to ask VP Joe Bite-Me to be certain, though I suspect he’ll have to plagiarize an answer from someone else.

So is Katrina looking to recycle the government spending business?  It’s hard to say.  Democrats are running away from Obama and towards the center, but she’s still a tax and spend liberal.  And Obama and most democrats did that in 2006 and 2008 and look what happened?   They lied or were deceived by their leadership.  And no one is likely to fall for that twice.  (Are they?) Any new democrat majority will probably opt for yet another economy killing rebalancing scheme—taxes.   

We clearly can’t trust her intentions, but then, most of the democrats in New Hampshire don’t either.  A quick look at Katrina Swett’s contributions reveals that 89% of her funding so far comes from outside the state.  And that works for the theme here because en one else seems to be using the somewhat more cosmopolitan phrase “rebalancing”—at least not yet.  I guess that separates her from the crowd.  But If K-Swett can’t rebalance her contributions she’ll have to bus in her own voters to even have a shot at this. 

And while I’m taking about a democrat in a district I don’t even live in, why is Katrina so obsessed with Charlie Bass?  Her Press page reads like she’s running against Bass.  I know he’s a bit of a squish, but is he also running in the democrat primary?  I think he’d have a shot at it with some rebalancing, if you get my drift. 

Of course the idea of choosing between K-Swett and C-Bass makes my skin crawl.  Wow, I just shivered.  Talk about holding your nose.  That might well be the best opportunity a write in candidate would ever have in the Wild West of New Hampshire.  They could run on rebalancing congress away from well funded political insiders…oh wait a minute.  CD-2 has a candidate like that already.  It’s Jennifer Horn.

I guess rebalancing the economy is some left wing salvo on loan from the european socialists and the communist Chinese in a "getting closer to the last ditch" effort to salvage a primary win.  No one else is using it yet but who knows.  It could catch on faster than Katrina has.

 

Cross posted at NHI

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: