There are some on the right who believe that Barack Obama is intentionally steering the United States into disaster — that he privately rejoices in the dismal economy because it partially fulfills his objective to bring the country down.
This strikes me as, at the very least, overwrought. One would have to accept the idea that Gene Sperling, Timothy Geithner, and the president clapped one another on the back when the latest GDP figures arrived: “Four hundredths of a percent growth in the first quarter, 1.3 percent last quarter. Way to go! We’ll be in recession again in no time.”
Advertisement
Not likely. The president and his team were no doubt surprised and dismayed by the economy’s poor performance in the last six months. The president, after all, has announced his reelection campaign. The country was supposed to be well into the Obama recovery by now. Actually, the summer of last year was going to be, the Obama administration promised, the “recovery summer.”
The president’s team has taken to offering ever more creative explanations for the economy’s weakness. It was George Bush’s fault, or a “bump in the road,” or a response to the Eurozone crisis, or a consequence of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, or a result of the drought in the southwest. It’s reminiscent of the old Soviet Union’s explanation that for the 69th, 70th, and 71st consecutive year, poor weather had caused a bad harvest.
The president and his economic advisers should not be surprised, though, because this administration has not been about growth — it has been about “fairness.” And in the name of fairness, it has created the most anti-business climate since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration. As Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, recently complained:
I’m saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it, and I could spend the next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health-care costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right.
It’s not that the president wants to hurt the country, it’s that he believes the government accomplished the best things this country has ever done. “We do big things,” he said in his State of the Union address in January. But when enumerating those things, he focused on the things government has done — building the interstate highway system, setting up the Internet, funding education (oh, do we ever fund education!). And that’s what he wants more of:
Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble these efforts. We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what’s best for the economy, not politicians. Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car.
The president is dazzled by the vision of those shiny high-speed trains — and by solar panels, electric cars, and other pet projects that have caught his imagination. What he has been unwilling to do is permit the vast private sector to make its own decisions — to follow its own ideas.
Instead, the administration has been saddling the private sector with a stifling load of regulations. The burden of Obamacare, most of which does not take effect until 2014, is mostly in the realm of fear and uncertainty. Employers do not know how much each new hire will cost under the new health-care regime. Nor can they estimate how the 129 new boards, commissions, and agencies will affect the business world. Meanwhile, the EPA is regulating carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. The National Labor Relations Board is attempting to prevent the Boeing Corporation from opening a new plant in South Carolina. The FCC is seeking to exert control over Internet commerce through the deceptively named “net neutrality” policy. The Department of Labor is strictly enforcing racial and gender quotas. And the Federal Reserve, along with the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created by the Dodd-Frank law) is practically freezing small-business lending.
This president has spun fantasies about the industries of tomorrow, while punishing the industries of today. His fulminations against “millionaires and billionaires” and his wrath about “corporate jets” betray a fundamentally childish urge to punish success. Under his economic stewardship, there is less and less of that around.
"One would have to accept the idea that Gene Sperling, Timothy Geithner, and the president clapped one another on the back when the latest GDP figures arrived..."
That's not necessarily the case. It is entirely possible that one in that troika, Obama, is a true believer in, and pursuer of, the Cloward-Piven model, while the others are merely dupes. Happens all the time in Leftist circles. Why do you think they created the term "useful idiots"?
Not just this Admin.
Every Republican who voted/s for this ceiling deal, has voted for the stimulus and ObamaCare regardless of thei rhetoric or previous stance!
I see a lot of primary challenges.
I do not believe Obama is intentionally trying to bring the country down. However, there is plenty of daily evidence that his plan is to "change" the USA from free market capitalism to a far left form of socialism so he is in charge of redistributing wealth. The "evidence" being his daily actions, his early experiences and the type of people he surrounds himself with. The only way to stop his version of economic terrorism is to vote him out along with every liberal in the Senate.
The tax rate on interest is going up. The deductibles on charitable contributions are going down. FICA insured rates are due to revert back to 100K in 2013 if not sooner. Capital gains taxes are due for an increase. Inheritance taxes are increasing. Bush tax cuts expire in 2013. Obamacare has already kicked in. We have already reduced the spending power of the dollar through monetization of the debt and QE's and because of that we are still probably going to get a lower credit rating. Diablo was already in the details before this farce began. Raising the ceiling and cutting expenses at the same time is water finding its way back to the old level again. Then a deadlocked commitee automatically cuts DoD expenses by half. What happens to the best laid plans of mice and men if we have another catastrophic Hurricane, earthquake or massive oil leak or one H of a new World War courtesy of Chinese WMDs fired by Iranians? Enemies of America pay attention to the fools across the pond. When politicans have that smug self satisfied look on their faces like the cat that just swallowed the canary you know you've just been had. What's next? Congress votes themselves a raise because they manouvered a crisis and had to work over 1/3 of a year to "resolve" it?
I would not so readily dismiss as absurd the notion that obama would like to see the US taken down a notch or two. Anyone who embraces the 'thinking' of Saul Alinsky would be apt to adopt that view of this country. If you truly believe that a major source of the world's problems comes from the US, as he believes, then the only alternative would be to reduce its influence in the world.
We have never elected someone so unqualified, yet such a narcissisticly arrogant person as Obama. He simply lacks the ability to critique himself and reflexively blames any untoward outcome on someone or something. Thin skinned as a grape and confidnet in ignoance is not a winning combo in a president.
I think we should consider the possibility the president is not nearly as smart as he's been sold to be. He really thinks all that nonsense he says is true - despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. And so - the problem is never really his fault.
"Bush did it." "We woulda won but the other side cheated." "The dog ate my homework."
This "Obama is evil" meme is central to the conservative narrative.
Serious conservatives don't like to talk about it a lot; they just laugh it off as a bit of harmless hyperbole. Here, Ms. Charen is actually acknowledging it -- a rare thing for a serious conservative to lead a story with.
But watch the comments to this string and others. And listen to talk radio.
I would love to see Ms. Charen delve into the utility and rationale for this meme. To describe what it would mean for conservative political philosophy if it were not leaned on as an explanation for everything conservatives find objectionable about liberal politics. If, on an individual level, it were considered as a working out on others of one's feelings about oneself the way, say, a Ted Haggard might feel compelled to preach against homosexuality or a Larry Craig might feel driven to legislate against gay civil rights.
MikeB, Ms. Charen describes the "Obama is evil" meme as "overwrought". What she has presented in her column is that he has made many decisions that are unfriendly to business. She has implied he is not thinking rationally, when she describes him as mesmerized by visions of high speed rail, etc. That is not "evil", per se.
So for all these decisions that have not turned out as Obama hoped, leading to more fairness and also greater prosperity, I can think of only two possibilities: stupidity and foolishness. But I'll grant that the economy is extremely complicated, and I think more so than any individual can understand. So I am not saying that, in terms of economics, anyone else would have done better. We don't know what the best solution was, but we can say that what Obama called for and the Congress gave us was both ineffective and extremely expensive, which has made us worse off. It wasn't even particularly fair, as minorities have suffered worse than WASPs.
I think the government would benefit from the application of some engineering process. Define the goals and the system forces you are trying to deal with, see if there are any design patterns that promote the kind of effect you want, and then apply them. I get the feeling that politicians choose their solutions based on who screams the loudest.
@ Mike B.: have you ever heard Obama's Chicago radio interview from 2003, wherein he professes his belief that the U.S. Constitution is in error, and needs to be interpreted, instead of as a series of limitations on government power over individuals, as a document that requires government power over individuals? He really believes this stuff. Don't talk to me about any "meme"; his positions are out there for all to see. The man is an anti-Constitutionalist.
This "Bush is evil" meme is central to the conservative narrative.
Serious liberals don't like to talk about it a lot; they just laugh it off as a bit of harmless hyperbole. Here, MikeB is actually acknowledging it -- a rare thing for a serious conservative to lead a story with.
But watch the comments to this string and others. And listen to MSNBC, NPR, and current and former DEMOCRATIC OFFICE HOLDERS.
Gee, Mike, isn't it easy to just claim your opponents are idiots/evil/bad intended? You know, like a Bush/evil leader contraction the filter won't allow.
For anyone on the left to complain about "your leader is evil" memes after the Bush era is the height of cheesy humor.
There is no Hank Rearden. The business leaders of today did not succeed only by hard work and intellect. Exploiting tax loop holes is not the same as success, it's cheating and it should stop. Also, I don't understand this fundamental hatred of "regulation." What if a nuclear power plant started dumping waste just outside of your back yard? I know that's extreme, but so is fundamentally disagreeing with all regulation.
There is no John Galt. No business leader of today succeeded through hard work and intellect alone. Exploiting loopholes is not the same as success, it's cheating and it should stop.
Also, I really don't understand this fundamental hatred of regulation. Shouldn't a nuclear power plant be prevented from dumping waste just outside your backyard? I know that's a bit extreme, but so is a fundamental hatred of all regulation. Or is it just regulation you don't agree with?
I don't think Obama is evil. Certainly not the evil liberals believed in GWB. There really is no comparison.
When Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate, he was promoted one notch beyond his competency level.
Going to the Presidency? Well, see for yourself. He then compounded the mess by surrounding himself with ideologues, academics, and a few Chicago pitbulls.
Add into this that Obama is an arrogant, narccisstic dilettante. Add to that that organizations tend to adopt the personality of their leader. Like "Vinegar Joe Stillwell" in the China-Burma theater, his staff became as despised as he was.
Any one else notice that we seem to have “seminar posters” here?
Namely, snidemonkey @9:36 and Leo @9:22 are essentially the same post. They need to change the wording so it’s not so obvious, but they both seem to have been told what talking-points to make and were likely given an example of what to say. I suppose that if the DNC got what they paid for, the DNC needs to pay their posters better.
The Democrats are all about the "big lie." This irrationality, from the perspective of what is good for the country as a whole versus what is good for a fractious few, is the foundation for the lack of economic success of their model. Add to this the inability to find executive department heads willing to pay their own taxes and the abysmal dearth of real life business experience in the chief "executive" and it is no wonder that the administration of this empty suit is surprised by every unexpected failure of their philosophy.
I can get easily to a meme that explains conservative political philosophy. (I mean the real stuff, not garbage spewed by the ignorant.) You can't do the same for liberals.
Go ahead. Explain how really smart liberals can do stuff you so profoundly disagree with. What's motivating them? You?
Follow
