Obama’s Domestic Policy: Central Planning And Debt As Far As The Eye Can See
Obama’s Domestic Policy: Central Planning And Debt As Far As The Eye Can See
By
Ken Eliasberg
Obama’s domestic policy is, ostensibly, to “bail out”the country via a seemingly unending series of “bail outs,” most of which appear to reflect the Obama hope-and-change philosophy expressed while he was in campaign mode (which, judging from the multitude of proposals he has offered up, plus his almost constant speech-making in support thereof, he seems never to have left). Frankly, if you detect a note of envy, you’re on to something. Dems are always marketing — typically quite effectively, even when theiy’re peddling garbage — while Republicans don’t seem to even know what the word means. I once wrote Bush 43 a letter in which I posed the question — how come Dems do a better job of marketing lies than we do of telling the truth. Needless to say, I didn’t get a response. But it’s perfectly true, Dems seem to understand public relations, and they are possessed of considerable determination in pressing their will on the public. Republicans seem almost disinterested in explaining their positions to the electorate. It also helps to have a messenger who can communicate a message. Here, the Dems have completely dominated the field for the last 7 or 8 decades, i.e. FDR, JFK, Slick Willie, and the current White House occupant, all of whom were charming and articulate. With the exception of Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have put forth a field of slugs, culminating in John McCain. As I have previously noted, watching a McCain speech was somewhere between terminally boring and downright painful. Bush 43 rarely used the bully pulpit (to his great detriment as well as that of his Party), and on those rare occasions when he did, it frequently sounded as if English was a second language. Dole was too old and didn’t play too well outside of Russell, Kansas. Bush 41 was just flat out dull, and neither he nor Dole were a debating match for Slick Willie. So there you have it — Republicans have been, for the most part, dull, duller, and dullest, while Dems have been quite charming (vacuous, but charming).
What does this have to do with Obama’s domestic policy? Everything! Why? Because, for all we know, it is all smoke and mirrors being peddled to us by one of the better political snake-oil salesman of all time. And, in all fairness, it may not be. What am I getting at? Simply this, the economic problem which, to be fair, he inherited from Bush (who, to be perfectly fair, inherited part of the problem from his predecessors, e.g. the Community Investment Act (Carter), which was pushed even further by Clinton and members of the Congress, e.g. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd), is of such magnitude that no one seems able to get his arms around it. So we are left with no clear path to a quick solution — a magic bullet, if you will — and are thus reduced in our efforts to find a solution to what FDR would call “bold experimentation” efforts. Bold experimentation being a euphemism for - we don’t know what the hell we’re doing, but we know we’ve got to do something, so we’re just going to throw a whole lot of stuff up against the wall and hope that some of it sticks (which, as we know in FDR’s case, much of it did not).
But it made no difference, because Hoover got all the blame, some of which he admittedly deserved. That said, with the exception of FDR’s first 100 days, during which he seemed to proceed with some caution, he doubled down on everything that Hoover did. However, the media and historians being the liberals that they are, placed the entire blame on Hoover, making him the goat, and were absurdly generous when it came to FDR, elevating him in the pantheon of our presidents to a position he does not deserve.
What does this have to do with our current mess? The current situation is similar to that which existed when the depression took shape, only now Bush 43 will, in the eyes of historians, be Hoover, and Obama, barring an economic catastrophe that can be laid directly at his doorstep, will emerge as a hero — particularly, if things get better. Things will have to get better on their own because, unlike FDR, who was bailed out by WWII (which, by the way, using the standard by which Bush 41 was evalutated with respect to Iraq, FDR also screwed up) I don’t think Obama is going to have the luxury of a war (particularly since he has downgraded the War on Terror to an Overseas Contingency Operation).
The point of all this is that we are running up debt to an almost unimaginable degree, justifying it with the oft-used phrase that something or other is just too big to let fail. And I’m going to believe that this is particularly true in the case of Obama himself. That is the left, particularly the mainstream media, has too big an investment in Obama to either let him fail, or admit that he has failed even if facts clearly demonstrate that that is the case. A small illustration of their commitment to his image can be gleaned from his recent “bowing” episode. Despite clear visual evidence of his having bowed to Saudi royalty — King Abdullah — the N.Y. Times bought into White House denial of Obama’s having humbled himself in this manner. This is a variation on Bill Clinton’s form of denial, i.e. are you going to believe me or your lying eyes.
In addition, Obama is proposing:
Card check protection — a catastrophic payback (pay off) to organized labor,
Cap and Trade — another catastrophic pay off — this time to environmentalists — you know, the Al Gore global warming crazies,
Cutting Back on the charitable deduction — to make more people dependent on government (and, consequently, diminishing the
power of the private sector),
Immigration reform — a la the Bush, McCain/Kennedy proposal
to swell the ranks of Democratic voters while making cheap
labor available to Republican employers (and thereby assure a
generation of Democratic officeholders.
And several other similar proposals, all designed to swell the ranks of government by increasing the number of Democratic voters, while strangling business with crippling regulatory measures.
Back to the substance — no one on either side of the aisle has any clear idea of what will work. All that they seem to offer is either (1) we have to do this (Obama supporters) or (2) we don’t think it will (can?) work (Obama critics). In this regard, permit me several observations:
1. We are building up a staggering amount of debt which, if
some economic miracle doesn’t happen, will place an
impossible burden on our grandchildren,
2. The Democrats are using these troubled times to engage in
a series of social engineering steps that pose an incredible
threat to our capitalistic system.
If we see daylight, Obama will get credit, whether he deserves it
or not. If we don’t see daylight, Bush 41 will be blamed for
marching us down this road of “bail outs” and take overs (which, to some extent, he did).
In the mean time, all that can be assured is that we are drowning in a sea of debt.