Home > conservative politics, Politcal economics, Uncategorized > OBAMA SUPPORTERS SAY HIS APPROVAL RATINGS WILL IMPROVE IF THE ECONOMY IMPROVES; HOW THAT BELIEF REFLECTS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEIR PERSPECTIVE

OBAMA SUPPORTERS SAY HIS APPROVAL RATINGS WILL IMPROVE IF THE ECONOMY IMPROVES; HOW THAT BELIEF REFLECTS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEIR PERSPECTIVE

For the last two or three months, Obama supporters are saying that if the economy improves next year, then his approval rating will improve as well.  They often speak of him “pivoting” to jobs and the economy.  Conservative commentators have tended to the approach of pointing out that the economy is continuing to struggle even after the stimulus, and that his jobs created or saved figure is untenable.  This has been highly effective in exposing Obama.  However, without a more comprehensive explanation on the subject, it runs the risk of seeming like the conservatives are rooting for  the economy to get worse, or that we are glad things are not going well now.

It is imperative that if the unemployment rate does drop rapidly, or if there is a true increase in relevant GDP, that we be able to show that it is the people, not Obama, that is responsible. 

First, we must address the A B fallacy that the Statists are using to advocate his policy.  Thomas Sewell refers to this as “confusing causation with correlation”.  Proponents of Obamanomics insist that if we go down to, for example,  7.8% unemployment, a first quarter GDP of +5.5%, and a stock market at 12,500,  that it is definitely because of the TARP, Stimulus, and tax increases on the rich. 

But conservatives must be prepared to debunk this logical absurdity.  Unless they can show the specific impact these measures as producing the growth, then this claim cannot be proven.   As of last month, $593 billion of the stimulus had not been spent yet, and most of the money given to the banks was issued under the Bush Administration TARP plan. 

Also, their attempt to attribute 1.6 million jobs “created or saved” has already been refuted.  Joe Biden finally admitted that they “miscalculated” on the employment figure.  But the administration and it’s adherents still hold that Obama saved the nation from financial collapse.

Based on what projections?  So far this crowd has been wrong on:

Projected unemployment

The projected 10 year deficit

The number of jobs created, and even creating non-existent the districts that the money went to

The cost of the health care reform

The promise that taxes will not increase on anyone making less than $250,000 a year (smoking tax, tanning tax, taxes on those who don’t buy insurance, small business tax increase, taxes on medical equipment)

So their credibility is already shot.  They must be forced to prove that those firms hiring are directly being helped  to do so by the Obama spending.  Then, that spending must be determined to be the necessary ingredient for the firms capacity to hire.  Based on Barbra Boxers unsuccessful and embarrassing attempt to coerce the chairman of the Black Chamber of Commerce, we must also know that the administration and the Democratic leadership is not intimidating them into agreeing. 

The next step would be to weigh those benefits with the negative impact of those policies.  These include the crowding out of private sector lending, higher fuel prices due to weakening dollar,  and reduced investment due to anticipated tax increases.  The uncertainty caused by Obama has been the most harmful result.  Employers of all types have stated that they are unwilling to hire more employees because of their concerns over the impact of health care reform, higher taxes, and the general hostile nature that this cabal has toward business.

Michelle Moore, host of “Moore from the Right”, sums it up with “It’s the uncertainty, stupid!”  Moore, a business owner herself, doesn’t see how the economy can thrive with everything this government is doing to get in the way.  And her fifteen years in the technology field gives her more business experience than most of Obama’s cabinet and czar gang combined.

During the Republican primaries, the candidates overstated their admiration for Reagan. (We love him too, but come on fellas, that was excessive). Now, it is Obama’s political partners that are overdoing the  comparisons.  On The O’Reilly Factor, a professor from Occidental College remarked “there is someone else who had low polls numbers at this time as well, Ronald Reagan.  But he was able to turn things around.  If the economy improves, Obama’s poll numbers will improve as well.”‘

Now the university community is saying good things about the Gipper!

MAN, THEY ARE REALLY DESPERATE.

There are several problems with this.  Many conservative pundits say that Ronald Reagan created 21 million jobs, but he would be the first to tell you that was not the case.  What created those jobs were changes in business practices and quality assessment, as well as a renewed emphasis on innovation.  Much of boom we saw in the early to mid eighties came from investment, research and development that occurred in the previous decade.  IBM accounted for nearly ten percent of private sector research spending leading up to this phenomenon. 

Reagan did not create these jobs, the American people did.

What Reagan did was get the government out of the way.  He signed the Kemp-Roth tax cut (previously defeated during the Carter Administration), which reduced the marginal tax rate from 70 to 50%.  He also insisted the tax code protect the taxpayers from bracket creep, where inflation pushes them into a higher tax bracket.    Also, Reagan ended the price controls on oil, which actually contributed in decreasing it’s price world wide.  That greatly aided the American economic recovery.

Those who were creating wealth through their improved production methods certainly knew they would be able  to keep more of their money, allowing them to hire more  talented people.  Our economy went into 1985 with a 25.8% increase in private investment.

If this were football, the private sector would have been the offensive unit, and Reagan would have been the defense, keeping the government off the field, and giving the ball back to the American people.

And it looks like Team Obama’s defense is going to be on the field for a long, long time.

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: