In previous posts, I’ve used data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank to show how Obamanomics is leading to very weak results, particularly compared to the economic boom triggered by Reaganomics.
So you can imagine how I was anxious to participate when U.S. News & World Report asked me to contribute my two cents to a debate panel on the question: “Is Obama Turning the Economy Around?”
Here’s part of what I wrote.
…we can hold the president at least partially responsible for an extraordinarily weak and slow recovery. It’s been nearly three years since the recession officially ended in June 2009, yet jobs are still well below their pre-recession levels. And overall economic output, or gross domestic product, has just now finally gotten back to where it was when the downturn began. This is an anemic record. Especially since an economy normally enjoys a strong bounce when coming out of a deep recession. The problem is that Obama has tried all the wrong policies. He tried a big-spending Keynesian package that was supposed to be a “stimulus,” but that’s the same failed approach that Bush tried in 2008, the same failed approach that Japan tried in the 1990s, and the same failed approach that Hoover and Roosevelt tried in the 1930s. Taking money out of the economy’s productive sector and letting politicians engage in a spending spree is the opposite of prudent policy. The president also has continuously expanded subsidies for unemployment, even though academic scholars (and even left-wing economists) all agree that such policies cause more joblessness. And now he’s demanding higher tax rates, holding a Sword of Damocles over entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners.
By the way, you can impact this debate by voting to approve or disapprove of the various submissions. Just click here.
I did come out ahead (at least in online voting) in previous U.S. News & World Report debates, one on the desirability of double taxation and the other on the fiscal crisis in Europe and the United States.
I’d hate for that winning streak to come to an end.
[…] work (after failing for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s, Japan in the 1990s, Bush in 2008, and Obama in 2009), the Estonians realized that they needed to cut […]
[…] P.S. You can vote for who had the best Debate Club argument, so please don’t hesitate to click the up arrow. Presumably thanks to readers of International Liberty, I’ve prevailed in previous debates on double taxation, European fiscal policy, flat tax, Internet taxation, and Obamanomics. […]
[…] on makers-v-takers, double taxation, European fiscal policy, flat tax, Internet taxation, and Obamanomics. With your support, I can keep that good streak […]
[…] on makers-v-takers, double taxation, European fiscal policy, flat tax, Internet taxation, and Obamanomics. With your support, I can keep that good streak […]
[…] in previous debates on double taxation, European fiscal policy, flat tax, Internet taxation, and Obamanomics. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] debates, coming in first place in debates on double taxation, European fiscal policy, flat tax, and Obamanomics, so I don’t want to break the […]
[…] by Daniel J. Mitchell (Also carried on his blog.) […]
[…] by Daniel J. Mitchell (Also carried on his blog.) […]
[…] by Daniel J. Mitchell (Also carried on his blog.) […]
[…] by Daniel J. Mitchell (Also carried on his blog.) […]
[…] work (after failing for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s, Japan in the 1990s, Bush in 2008, and Obama in 2009), the Estonians realized that they needed to cut […]
[…] work (after failing for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s, Japan in the 1990s, Bush in 2008, and Obama in 2009), the Estonians realized that they needed to cut […]
[…] failing for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s, Japan in the 1990s, Bush in 2008, and Obama in 2009), the Estonians realized that they needed to cut […]
[…] work (after failing for Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s, Japan in the 1990s, Bush in 2008, and Obama in 2009), the Estonians realized that they needed to cut […]
Are there more jobs? Is the national debt lowered? Is anything better than it was before he took office? Of course not. So why would you even ask such a stupid question?
Vote for Ron Paul, he actually wants to help and even knows how!
[…] folks have helped me prevail in some of my online debates for U.S. News and World Report (see here, here, here, and here), so don’t hesitate to cast a vote for Veronique and against cronyism. Rate […]
Mr. David Primo also has some good thoughts. He correctly states how entitlements will dwarf short term actions.
Yet Mr. Primo omits mentioning the elephant in the room: The fact that Obama not only did nothing to address existing entitlements, namely Social Security and Medicare, but essentially cemented decline by introducing the third pillar of Euro style flatter effort-reward curves: ObamaCare.
Does anyone seriously hope that ObamaCare will have a different politico-economic trajectory than the other two main entitlement programs ?
In many ways ObamaCare may turn out to be an even bigger anchor on competitiveness (and thus prosperity) than Medicare. ObamaCare will deal not only the direct blow of exploding costs but, perhaps even more importantly, the below the belt hit of enticing younger and active workers to not work or work less or, generally be more complacent, as the mediocre will be more shielded from the consequences of their mediocrity by tapping the wallets of the exceptional.
The fact that American voters still consider Obama as an option and the fact that all political debates fail to address the effects of Obama’s policies on motivation to work, tells me that the US is done. The Euro-movie is now unfolding in the new world.
In short he has shaved about 0.5 percentage points from the US growth trendline. This is a permanent and perpetual effect, which, in the longer term will dwarf all short term effects.
But more pivotally, Obama has set the US on the well travelled vicious cycle to decline.
Because how do you suppose voter lemmings will react to an American prosperity level that cannot keep its taken for granted six times multiple against the world average? With the distress and desperation of voting for more “care” packages in the future, of course! Just like millions of other voter lemmings have done throughout the world in similar circumstances. Just look at the French, they’re about to vote for socialism to forestall their unstoppable decline. Just look at Americans, they voted for HopNChange to correct Bush’s statism.
As I have said in the past many times, the once sleeping billions of this world, once left for dead by the west, have at least partially woken up, and are about to create a tsunami of competitive pressure. This is hardly the time for Americans to experiment with the flatter effort-reward curves of the welfare state.
But just like many others before, American voter lemmings will be bamboozled into hoping that transition to flatter euro style effort-reward curves will take half a century to bring America to decline. Not so. This is a fast and ever accelerating world. The changes will happen much sooner than most anticipate. It will not be your children’s and grand children’s problem to feed with their vitality the collectivism monster you created. It will happen soon enough that it will be your problem.
Left on Hope lane, continue on to Change terrace past the gates of Europe into decline. Not to worry. Someone smarter, someone more competent, or simply someone harder working, will work for you so that you can supplement your standard of living with redistribution and maintain a six times multiple compared to the world average. Vote for even more change — and prepare for the road to convergence towards the world average. It’s been nice to know you America.
I went and impacted. The point that seems to be missing is the uncertainty factor. Americans can deal with rule changes, but no one can deal with not knowing what the rules are altogether. Black letter case law tossed aside on a whim (Chrysler) and all the rest. What are the rules, and who is bound by them? No one knows any more.