Tag Archive: income inequality


President Obama says that without his leadership, the economy and the state of our country could be worse. However, it is an argument that won't fly.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night was more of a preview of his new campaign strategy than an actual review of our current situation as a nation. Our growing deficit and our debt crisis, the two elephants in the room, were barely mentioned by President Obama, who preferred to spend his time bemoaning the success of wealthy Americans and pitting rich against poor. Fortunately, if these items are any indication of President Obama’s reelection strategy, Republicans should defeat him easily.

President Obama’s new strategy seems to depend on two central tactics: the first being to wage war against the rich in America and the second being to marginalize the problems that his administration has perpetrated. Pitting the rich against the poor and demonizing the successful in America will allow President Obama to essentially shift the blame for our current economic crisis onto the wealthiest Americans, who represent a minority in the United States. Castigating the rich can indeed win some voters, as some Americans are jealous of the wealth and prosperity of others. Fortunately, however, scapegoating the successful is not an effective strategy in the long term because it invites criticism from those on the right. Republican leaders have already decried President Obama numerous times for his divisiveness and for his pursuit of class warfare.

The more dangerous campaign strategy of the president is one that diminishes the real magnitude of the problems to which he has greatly contributed. Our national debt has increased by several trillion dollars since President Obama’s election back in 2009, and things are getting worse by the day. The United States debt currently sits at an alarmingly high $15.2 trillion, and Obama’s attempts to control spending have been quite literally non-existent. In fact, Mr. Obama has been more dedicated to increasing spending over his first term than he has been dedicated to decreasing it, as evidenced by Obamacare and the infamously wasteful stimulus programs that he championed. The economy continues to be driven into a ditch as disappointed, dispirited Americans continue to leave the workforce in droves and artificially suppress the unemployment rate, and the wanton waste of taxpayer dollars on government-funded messes like Solyndra shows an utter lack of stewardship of the hard-earned money of Americans by the Obama administration. All of these issues present major shortfalls for Obama’s reelection campaign, so the president’s new strategy is to simply minimize these topics. For example, the president has been attempting to diminish his failure at managing the American economy by saying that things could have been worse. However, be assured that whomever the Republican Party nominates to face the president this year will definitely focus on these topics and will make the president account for his failures. It is up to voters to listen to the truth and to realize that President Obama’s shortcomings far outweigh any of his supposed virtues.

Obama and the fairness doctrine

President Obama believes in an economy of equal results. I believe in an economy of equal opportunity. Pictured: President Obama's January 2011 State of the Union address.

“We can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.” -President Obama in a video to supporters

As the election nears, President Obama has been greatly increasing the volume of his populist appeals. His calls for tax hikes on the top 1% of Americans and for economic “fairness” have become commonplace in his public appearances. However, while President Obama believes that his policies are the solution to income inequality and our current economic crisis, I believe that these same policies will cripple the foundations of our country’s values and principles and will only perpetuate the very problems that these policies attempt to solve.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the United States of America declared that every person shall be entitled to the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” When Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wrote this line, they did so to emphasize that the members of a free society do not by any means achieve outright happiness from their government. It is the personal pursuit of that happiness that is most important in a free society, and this is where President Obama and I differ. President Obama wishes to extend the size of government to provide for the happiness and security of American citizens. Obamacare, the stimulus programs, and the takeover of General Motors all are clear examples of President Obama’s government-cures-all philosophy. Meanwhile, contrary to the president, I believe that market-based reforms are needed to truly conform with the basic values of our country’s founding. The utilization of private health insurance programs in Chile has led to the commercialization of hospitals and health care, which has in turn lowered costs and raised care quality for consumers. Contrary to the government handouts that have characterized President Obama’s presidency (read Solyndra), across-the-board tax cuts offer significant financial relief to all businesses and job-creating innovators, not just big businesses with billion-dollar lobbying forces or political campaign donors.

The past few years have shown that Barack Obama’s economic philosophy has failed miserably. Under President Obama’s policies, record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamps and other forms of government welfare, and more Americans are unemployed than under the Bush administration. Still more Americans have given up looking for work all together and have resigned themselves to a life of dependence on government. Obviously and unfortunately, the equal result promised by President Obama’s philosophy has worked, but it has made life worse for Americans across the board. This November, Americans will decide between this failed policy and the tried and tested solutions offered by the philosophy of equal opportunity. Let’s hope that we make the right decision.

Ronald Reagan put it nicely.

<object width=”420″ height=”315″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/6ixNPplo-SU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param></object>

Obama cannot placate the millions of Americans who want real change by offloading blame.

In Kansas last week, President Obama spoke at Osawatomie High School and laid out what seems to be a blueprint for his 2012 election run. He decried capitalism as a system that has “never worked”, used the “gaping” wealth inequality in the United States as an example of the failure of free enterprise, and railed against corporate greed and excess. If this speech is any indication of a new Obama campaign slogan, I would say that the phrase “It’s not my fault” would sum up his message quite nicely.

To his credit, Mr. Obama has chosen the only campaign strategy that could get him reelected. No one is particularly pleased with the income inequality that currently pervades our nation; by attacking this inequality, President Obama could come out on top in 2012. However, the success of Mr. Obama’s strategy hinges entirely upon the knowledge of the average American voter.

History makes it clear that free-market capitalism is truly the best economic system in the world for all involved. In a previous blog post, I outlined the history of capitalism and its positive impacts, namely the ability of capitalism to lift even the poorest people out of their poverty and into great riches. An excellent example of such an individual is Andrew Carnegie, of whom you can read about here.

How about other economic systems? Socialism is a system in which everyone’s money is taken by a central authority and redistributed as that authority sees fit, or in other words, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.”  Firstly, socialism is inherently corruptible. Those with wealth can very easily escape the net of the government through connections with government officials and bribes, while in capitalism, government is not in the business of equalizing wealth or providing special benefits to certain individuals or groups, and – in a sense – this makes a government that fosters capitalism incorruptible. Secondly, socialism operates as a highly subjective institution of social justice. Who should be able to decide who is contributing to society and who is not? Those who are entrusted with the power of making this decision will simply make their best effort to enrich themselves, even if their contribution to society is minimal. And if the distribution of income under socialism were not subjective, it would be purely based upon financial contribution to society, and therefore the wealthy would gain the greatest benefit of such a system! Communism is a system that aims to establish a classless society that collectively owns everything, but under communism, government is required to keep order and to provide a center of authority. Thus, the true owner of everything under communism is the government, and in order to maintain power, communist governments often take drastic steps. In the Soviet Union, communist leader Joseph Stalin exterminated millions of “counter-revolutionary” leaders to consolidate his authority over the country. Historians believe that during the rule of the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong, tens of millions of people died directly or indirectly from his massacres of political enemies and his communist policies.

President Obama believes that the best way to solve income inequality is to take from the wealthy and give to the poor. He has endorsed the Democrats’  proposed millionaire surtax and has constantly demanded that the wealthy “pay their fair share”, echoing the words of Karl Marx (“from each according to his ability…”). However, even a cursory glance at history shows that the alternatives to capitalism are not that good after all. Despite this, the “capitalism” of America is deeply flawed. Overbearing government regulations and special tax benefits give big companies that can lobby for special benefits and waivers a massive advantage over smaller competitors. By removing regulations and tax loopholes and dramatically reducing tax rates, President Obama can bring our economy closer to the free-market capitalism that has made our country great and can get America working again.

If the average American looks at Obama’s policies and sees them for what they are (a drag on the economy), our president’s latest campaign strategy will get him nowhere. However, it is the responsibility of all American voters to educate themselves before the ballot box so that we aren’t stuck with another four years of the doldrums.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers