In the wake of the Democratic National Convention, much has been made about comparing President Obama to former President Clinton. Why Clinton has allowed his name to be diminished by standing next to Obama is beyond me, there is much proof that Obama has failed, and by his own standards has been “incomplete” when it comes to his job. Is this a veiled attempt to say, “Give me one more chance; let me have another fresh start?” Or is it the truth? Well, if the Dems want to call on the ghosts of President’s past, then the Republicans should squarely point at the analysis of apples to apples. Well, sort of, remember there are many families of apples, so let’s say a golden delicious (Ronald Reagan) and a pink lady (Barack Obama), sweet but tart.
Before I get to that though, when is it appropriate to call a spade a spade? Let’s look at a quote by noted Keynesian “socialist” economics expert Paul Krugman for the answer. By most accounts the new Democratic theme or message is, no one President, who faced a crisis such as this, could have brought the country back in this span; therefore Obama deserves more time. However, let’s look at a Krugman quote that criticized the Reagan policies.
The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the recession in U.S. economy was deeply depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the economy returned to anything like full employment.)
This quote was pulled from a Wikipedia article trying to be objective about Reagan’s presidency, but obviously leaned more toward discrediting all the credit Reagan gets for his two terms. By the way, Obama did inherit some bad news and economic pressures, but let’s look at what Reagan inherited and turned around in about 3 years and eventually leading to a 49-1 state landslide re-election. Here is an article that points out that Reagan faced a similar or more dire economy in 1981. Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/the-experiment/print/.
• Double digit inflation: From a high of 13.5% in 1980 to 6.2% by 1982, and 3.2% by 1983.
• Skyrocketing gas prices, yet for Obama the reverse 2008: $1.79, this week: $3.59 and that’s from a struggling economy where demand has to be lower than in 2008 when the economy was stronger than it is today.
• Nearly double digit unemployment: although it increased in Reagan’s first 2 years from 7.2% in 1980 to 9.7% in 1982, by 1984 the rate had dropped to 7.5%, and as low as 5.8% in 1988. Obama did inherit unemployment of 7.3% at the end of 2008 which nearly reached double digits by 2010; the rate is still 8.3% which is 1.0% higher than what he inherited. Economists say the unemployment rate looks to remain at or above 8% through 2013, so what does that say about the President’s jobs policy?
• There are more, but this is good enough to prove my point.
For a more in depth comparison between Reagan versus Obama, you can also refer to this article written by Harvard economics professor Robert Barro: www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/11_0808_AAA_WSJ.pdf
Here is a quick analysis from noted economist Stephen Moore who stated, "No act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the U.S. economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the U.S. government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround.”
Hmm, I don’t see the economy growing or having the potential to grow under this President. Any growth is the natural determination and drive of private companies and “survival” mode. Other than the auto bailout and so called stimulus, name one Obama policy that helped to create 4.5 million private sector jobs? Good luck finding one. Recent polls have indicated overwhelmingly that people do not feel we are moving in the right direction, so what is a second Obama term going to offer?
In his first two years, Obama and the Democrats took advantage of their majority to pass their social agenda and to put those topics out front; all the while allowing the economy, which I strongly feel they took for granted, to meander and underperform. Their attempts to correct the foreclosure miasma was limited and targeted too narrowly. Their social agenda, to some may seem justified and necessary, was things like Obamacare, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the attempt to close Guantanamo, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair pay act, and LGBT issues. Don’t get me wrong, some of these are noteworthy causes and issues, but to put these at the top of the priorities list is somewhat suspicious given the nature of our economy at that (and still this) time.
Back in 2010, Ivan G. Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said that Democrats in Washington are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S." He went on to add, "In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore," Seidenberg said in a lunchtime speech to the Economic Club of Washington. "By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062205279.html.
Does that not sum up the malaise and insipid economy these last few years? Although the President speaks of the private sector, his policies seem to constrict the private sector’s ability to expand. One big question, why?
Here is an other article from the San Francisco Chronicle as well: http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Intel-CEO-Blasts-Obama-Administration-Says-2535346.php.
One more reinforcement: http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/obama-voter-and-speech-writer-mort-zuckerman-claims-obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina/.
Finally, what is this paying their “fair share” deal? Who are they talking about? The poor don’t pay taxes, so they surely don’t mean them. The 47 million on food stamps, surely not them, the 23 million out of work, surely not them, the millions of students who are tens of thousands in debt, surely not them, the retired, surely not them. Illegal (cause that’s what they are) immigrants, surely not them. If not them, then who? If the top 5% pay more than 50% of federal taxes, then who are they talking about? And who said that everyone had to be equal? If so then there would be no truck drivers, janitors, mechanics, everyone would wear a suit and tie, or do they want the suit and tie to now drive a truck or ask if you want ketchup with your waffle fries? Not real sure I get their point, and has anyone from the big media asked them this question? Doubt it.
Don’t get me wrong, the Republicans are not the end all to be all, nor do they have all the answers, and trust me, should they wield the majority again, we should hold them completely accountable. But they are significantly more realistic than the idealistic Democrats. The last time I checked we live in reality, not an alternate universe of idealism. And it is true the gap between rich and poor is greater these days. I don’t have an answer for that situation other than to say that every country has poor people; there are classes within every society which begs the whole question of the “fair share” theme being pushed by the DNC. I wrote an article called The 5% Solution: How the Top 10% Can Do More, just check my archive of articles.
One thing seems to be clear, our economic problems seem to be structural, and to deal with the new challenges of the 21st century economy, which party at this point seems most credible or capable of righting the economic ship? That question begs the answer on November 6th.
As for this article, it is not intended for Republicans who are for ABO (anybody but Obama) or hard core Democrats who would vote for a six legged kangaroo if it was a democrat. No, this article is designed for those still straddling the fence on who is the better choice. I put it simply. It’s not about are you better off now than you were four years ago. I ask, do you like the policies of Obama, one that is more government centered, thereby creating less wealth and more dependency, or one that offers opportunity and potential. Even though the left will claim the rich are richer and the poor are poorer, that is all relative. The poor are not as poor as the poor in the 60’s or 70’s and that’s a fact. The poorest in America is ten times wealthier than the wealthiest in third world countries. Much of politics and conditions in America are relative, but one thing is not and that is a party’s agenda. There are stark differences that have emerged given the social networking and information available in the 21st century. There is the idea of America hanging in the balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment