Posts Tagged ‘Obamanomics’

As a libertarian, I sometimes make the moral argument for small government. If it’s wrong to steal other people’s income or property, then shouldn’t it also be wrong to use the coercive power of government to take their income or property?

Defenders of the welfare state respond by saying it’s “the will of the people,” but the libertarian counter-response is to point out that 51 percent of the people shouldn’t be allowed to pillage 49 percent of the people.

Indeed, as Walter Williams has cogently explained, that’s why America’s Founding Fathers were such strong opponents of what they viewed as “untrammeled majoritarianism.”

But since I realize that some people aren’t persuaded by philosophical arguments, much of my work focuses on the practical or utilitarian case for small government.

That’s why I repeatedly show how market-oriented jurisdictions out-perform statist nations.

I’ve even challenged my left-wing friends to come up with a single example of a successful big-government economy.

Needless to say, the only response is the sound of chirping crickets.

Now let’s add one more piece of evidence to our arsenal. I’ve already shared lots of data and information when making the case that Obama’s big-government policies have not worked, but, in the spirit of Mae West, there’s no such thing as too much proof that statism doesn’t work.

Especially when the evidence comes from the Obama Administration!

Here are two damning charts from a just-released Census Bureau report on income and poverty in the United States.

The first chart shows that median household income, adjusted for inflation, is nearly $1300 lower today than it was when Obama took office.

That’s a horrible outcome, particularly since the recession ended back in the summer of 2009.

By the way, I agree with critics who say that the household income data is a less-than-ideal measure of prosperity. That being said, it’s still a benchmark that allows us to see how well the economy does in some periods compared to others.

And if you look at the above chart, you clearly can see that households obviously did comparatively well during the market-oriented Reagan and Clinton eras.

Now let’s look at some data that should be very compelling for leftists who claim to be especially concerned about the less fortunate. Here are the latest Census Bureau numbers on the number of people living in poverty as well as the overall poverty rate.

As you can see, there’s been no progress during the Obama years, even if you absolve him of any blame for the deteriorating numbers caused by the recession.

By the way, I can’t resist pointing out that this chart shows how the poverty rate was declining until the so-called War on Poverty started in the mid-1960s.

And if you can click here to learn more about how bad government policies have trapped people in poverty. And if you’re interested in several hundred years of data on poverty and government policy, click here.

Read Full Post »

Way back in 2010, I shared two very depressing numbers to illustrate how Obama’s policies were creating “regime uncertainty.”

I shared data on the cash reserves of companies and suggested it was bad news that those firms thought it made more sense to sit on money rather than invest it.

I also shared numbers on the excess reserves that banks were keeping at the Federal Reserve and speculated that this was because of a similarly dismal perspective about economic prospects.

At the time, I figured that those numbers eventually would get better. But I was wrong.

Companies are still sitting on the same about of cash and banks have actually increased the amount of money they have parked at the Federal Reserve.

Now let’s look at some more data that doesn’t reflect well on Obamanomics.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland has some very discouraging analysis about worker compensation.

…real wages have barely risen—real compensation per hour has risen only by 0.5 percent, much less than at this point in past recoveries. The lack of strong wage growth has been one factor that has held down the growth of income, consumer spending, and the recovery. …Some longer-term changes in the economy have likely played a larger role in depressing real wage growth. …Productivity growth in the nonfarm business sector has averaged only 1.46 percent since 2004 and 0.85 percent since 2010. As the growth of labor productivity is a key determinant of real wage growth in the long run, the slowdown of productivity has probably helped to depress wage growth.

And here’s a chart from the article.

The brown line at the bottom is what’s been happening under Obamanomics. As you can see, compensation has basically been unchanged for the past five years. In other words, living standards have stagnated.

The Cleveland Fed data shows dismal earnings and productivity data for all Americans. And it’s important to understand how those numbers are related.

Some folks in Washington think that companies should act like charities and give workers lots of money simply because that’s a nice way to behave.

In the real world, though, workers get paid on the basis of how much they produce. So when productivity numbers are weak, as the Cleveland Fed points out, you also get weak data for worker compensation.

But now let’s dig even deeper and ask what determines productivity numbers. There are many factors, of course, but saving and investment are very important. In other words, capital formation. Simply stated, you need people to set aside some of today’s income to finance tomorrow’s growth.

And growth, as measured by inflation-adjusted changes in output, is entirely a function of population growth and productivity growth.

So the bottom line is that workers will only earn more if they produce more. But they’ll only produce more if there’s more saving and investment.

And this is why Obama’s policies are so poisonous. His tax policy is very anti-saving and anti-investment. And the increases in the regulatory burden also make it less attractive for investors and entrepreneurs to put money at risk.

Obama thinks he’s punishing the “rich,” but the rest of us are paying the price.

Now let’s look specifically at American blacks.

Deroy Murdock explains in National Review that they should feel especially angry at the gap between Obama’s rhetoric and performance.

Republicans should ask black Americans for their votes from now through November 2016. They should do so by challenging blacks to ask themselves an honest question: “What, exactly, have you gained by handing Obama 95 percent of your votes in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012?”

Deroy then lists a bunch of depressing statistics on what’s happened since 2009.

Here are the numbers that I think are most persuasive.

U.S. labor force participation has declined during that same period, from 65.7 to 62.7 percent. For blacks in general, …dipping from 63.2 to 61.0 percent of available employees in the work pool. For black teenagers, however, this number deteriorated — from 29.6 to 25.7 percent. The percentage of Americans below the poverty line inched up, the latest available Census Bureau data found, from 14.3 to 14.5 percent overall — between 2009 and 2013. For black Americans, that climb was steeper: The 25.8 percent in poverty rose to 27.2 percent. Real median household incomes across America retreated across those years, from $54,059 to $51,939. …such finances also reversed for black Americans, from $35,387 to $34,598. …Home ownership slipped from 67.3 percent of Americans in the first quarter of 2009 to 64.0 in the fourth quarter of 2014. For blacks, that figure slid from 46.1 to 42.1 percent.

Here’s Deroy’s bottom line.

Obama has betrayed blacks as a community, failed Americans as a people, and enfeebled the United States as a nation.

To be sure, it’s not as if Obama wanted to hurt blacks. He just doesn’t understand or doesn’t care that statist policies undermine economic performance.

And when you hurt economic growth, the folks at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder generally suffer the most, and that’s why there are so many grim statistics about the economic health of black America.

The good news is that we know how to solve the problem. The bad news is that Obama is in the White House until January 2017.

Read Full Post »

What does World War I have to do with Obamanomics?

There’s no real connection, of course, but it did give me an opportunity to present a good analogy. At a conference in London last week, I was discussing with some folks the state of the American economy and the role of public policy.

I was trying to explain what’s happened in the past few years, describing the avalanche of bad policy last decade, culminating with the faux stimulus in 2009 and the enactment of Obamacare in 2010.

I then said that Obama’s efforts to impose further statism have been largely stymied, particularly after the Tea Party election of 2010. There have been lots of skirmishes in recent years, to be sure, with Obama winning a few (such as the recent imposition of “net neutrality” regulations on the Internet) but also losing a few (such as spending restraint caused by policies like the sequester).

But the fact that Obama hasn’t been able to make additional “progress” is not really a victory. It’s simply a stalemate.

And that’s where the World War I analogy fits. As I was trying to get across my point, it occurred to me that it’s vaguely like World War I.

When the war started, the Germans gained considerable ground, overrunning much of Belgium and a lot of territory in northwestern France. That’s akin to Obama’s victories in 2009-2010.

But then the period of trench warfare began and neither side made much progress. And that’s a good description of what’s been happening in recent years in Washington.

This is a good news-bad news situation. To continue with my analogy, the good news is that Obama isn’t conquering more territory. The bad news is that we aren’t pushing Obama back into Germany and reclaiming territory.

And so long as we’re in this stalemate, it’s unlikely that we’ll enjoy robust economic growth. And that’s our topic for today.

In my actual speech, I dusted off my charts based on Minneapolis Fed data, and updated them to compare today’s weak recovery with what’s happened during previous business cycles. And I specifically focused on a comparison of the very strong growth of the Reagan years with the lackluster growth of the Obama years.

But it’s a pity that my speech wasn’t one week later, because I’ve just seen some really good contributions on the same topic from economists Robert Higgs and John Taylor.

Writing for the Independent Institute, Higgs looks at what’s been happening with a key measure of our prosperity.

Arguably the best single, currently available measure of the entire public’s payoff from economic activity is real disposable income per capita. This is the average amount per annum that Americans receive in exchange for the use of their labor and other input services, after taxes, corrected for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar. …this measure of economic well-being has scarcely increased at all since 2007.

Higgs also prepared a table to make it easier to compare performance of this important variable during various business cycles.

As you can see, the current “recovery” has been dismal compared to previous periods.

And here’s his analysis of why we’re suffering from sub-par growth.

These figures demonstrate that even though the rate of increase has varied substantially in the past, it has never remained so low as it has been in recent years. Even during the decade of so-called stagflation from the early 1970s to the early 1980s, real disposable income per capita grew more than twice as fast as it has grown in the past seven years. In the past, recessions were always followed by relatively brisk growth during the first several years of the ensuing recovery. Such has not been the case this time. Nor do forecasters anticipate any such surge of growth in the future. Might it be that the state’s burdens loaded onto the private producers of wealth—taxes, regulations, uncertainties, intrusions of all sorts, including demands for elaborate reports, asset seizures, and threats of felony prosecution for completely innocent and harmless actions—have finally become the “last straw” for these long-suffering camels? …the current situation is clear enough. The U.S. economy, though not yet completely stagnant, has made little headway for more than seven years, and there is little reason to foresee any great change in this regard.

Returning to my analogy, Higgs is basically saying that we’ll be mired in trench warfare for the foreseeable future.

Not exactly a rosy projection.

Now let’s look at the analysis of Professor John Taylor of Stanford University. He starts by walking through a timeline of the current “recovery.”

At the time of the first anniversary of current recovery in 2010, it showed clear signs of weakness compared to the recovery from the recessions in the early 1980s and from all other deep recessions in American history.  …By the recovery’s second anniversary in 2011, it was weak for long enough that I called it “a recovery in name only, so weak as to be nonexistent.” …By the recovery’s third anniversary in 2012, it was now the worst recovery from a deep recession in American history. …By the recovery’s fourth anniversary in 2013, few disputed any more that it was unusually weak and disappointing.  …By the recovery’s fifth anniversary, we were so far away from the recession that linking the terrible performance to the recession became increasing far-fetched.

Professor Taylor has a couple of charts of his own that bolster his argument.

Here’s a comparison of quarterly growth during the Obama recovery and Reagan recovery.

If you’re keeping score, Reagan’s economy out-performed Obama’s economy (often by a very wide margin) in 19 out of 22 quarters.

If this was a boxing match, it would have been stopped long ago.

Taylor also looks at the performance of the labor market during the Obama recovery and Reagan recovery.

Once again, there’s no comparison. During the Reagan years more people were working and adding to the productive capacity of the nation.

During the Obama years, by contrast, the most optimistic assessment is that we’re treading water.

Here’s more of his analysis about the ongoing stagnation.

With the recovery now approaching its sixth anniversary, there is more optimism that we are finally coming out the excruciating slow growth. There is also some wishful thinking that the drop of people out of the labor force—which has made the unemployment rate come down—is due to demographic factors not the slow growth itself. And we are not as bad as Europe. But as these charts show there is still not much in this recovery to write home about. Growth over the four quarters of 2014 looks to average only 2.2% compared with 4.4% in the corresponding quarters of the 1980s recovery. And as of January 2015 the employment-to-population ratio is still lower than at the start of the recovery.

So what’s the bottom line?

To be blunt, you can’t make America more like Europe and then be surprised that our economy isn’t firing on all cylinders.

Returning to our analogy, we need to defeat the enemy of statism and reclaim our lost territory.

But that won’t happen until 2017 at the earliest. And it’s possible it will never happen, particularly if we don’t implement genuine entitlement reform.

P.S. The bad news is that we’re becoming more like Europe. The good news is that we’re not there yet. Our overall burden of government has expanded, but we still have considerably more economic liberty than the average European nation. And that helps to explain why our recovery (even though anemic by American standards) is far more impressive than what’s been happening across the Atlantic.

P.P.S. Based on insightful analysis from Thomas Sowell, John Mackey, and Ronald Reagan, it may have been more accurate (albeit snarky and inappropriate) to have used a World War II example, with Obama’s first two years being akin to the Nazi blitzkrieg and the conquest of France, and recent years being akin to the period between the Battle of Britain and D-Day.

Read Full Post »

Some of my left-wing friends have groused that Democrats didn’t do well in the mid-term elections because they failed to highlight America’s strong economic performance.

I’m tempted to ask “what strong economic performance?!?” After all, median household income is lower than it was when Obama took office. And labor force participation rates have plummeted.

However, my leftist buddies have a point. America’s economy does look good when compared to Europe.

But why should that be the benchmark for success?

If you look at today’s growth numbers compared to data on historical growth in the United States, you get a much different picture. Here’s some of what Doug Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, wrote as part of a study for the National Chamber Foundation.

Over the entire postwar period from 1947 to 2013, the trend for economic growth in America was 3.3%. Unfortunately, looking at the period as a whole masks a marked deterioration in U.S. growth performance. Since 2007, the rate has downshifted to a mere 1.5%, which translates into a meager 0.7% in growth per capita in the United States. …At the current pace of growth, it will take 99 years for incomes to double. The poor U.S. growth performance is a threat to American families and their futures.

Here’s a chart from the report showing the 10-year rolling average of inflation-adjusted growth in the United States. As you can see, there was plenty of variation, but America usually enjoyed growth average a bit above 3 percent. But then, beginning about 2007/2008, that average dropped below 2 percent.

If you look at projections until 2024, you’ll notice that growth is projected to improve.

But you have to wonder if those projections will materialize.

And, even if they do, growth will only be about 2.5 percent annually, so we’ll still be enduring sub-par economic performance.

Moreover, it appears that those projections may be unrealistic. Here’s another chart from the National Chamber Foundation. It wasn’t in the study, but it’s worth including since it shows how the American economy has been routinely under-performing in recent years.

With this track record of anemic economic performance, it’s hard to have much sympathy for Democrats who thought they should be rewarded on election day. Doing better than France and Italy is not exactly a message that will resonate with voters, particularly when many people have been alive long enough to remember the good growth that America enjoyed during the Reagan and Clinton years, when policy was much more focused on small government and free markets.

But let’s set aside politics and consider the impact of growth on regular Americans rather than politicians. Holtz-Eakin explores some of the ramifications if the economy grows faster over the next decade.

Imagine that growth averages instead 3.3%—just one percentage point higher—for the next 10 years. …A full percentage point would eliminate $3 trillion in debt and slow the growth of the national debt. …Growing at a 3% rate means 1.2 million more jobs, and 1.3 million more if growth escalated to 3.5% for the next 10 years. …Three percent growth would mean another $4,200 in average incomes, while 3.5% growth would boost this an additional $4,500 to nearly $9,000. …faster economic growth would improve the future for the poor, the middle class, and the affluent alike.

By the way, it’s worth noting that faster growth leads to less debt mostly because the government collects a lot more tax revenue when people have higher incomes. And even a knee-jerk anti-taxer like me won’t complain if the IRS gets more money simply because people are more prosperous (though I reserve the right to then argue for lower tax rates).

Now let’s look at the most important question, which is to ask what policies will restore traditional American growth rates.

Doug has several suggestions, starting with entitlement reform.

The policy problem facing the United States is that spending rises above any reasonable metric of taxation for the indefinite future. ….Over the long term, the budget problem is primarily a spending problem, and correcting it requires reductions in the growth of large mandatory spending programs—entitlements like Social Security and federal health programs.

I certainly agree. Assuming, of course, that he wants good entitlement reform rather than gimmicks.

He also suggests tax reform.

The tax code is in need of dramatic improvements, including a modern international tax system, a lower corporation income tax rate, correspondingly lower rates on business income tax via so-called pass-thru entities, and broad elimination of tax preferences to preserve efficient allocation of investment… At the same time, one could improve work incentives by simplifying individual income tax rate brackets (recent proposals have suggested two brackets of 10% and 25%) and exclude a substantial portion of dividends and capital gains from taxation.

Once again, I agree. Though I reserve the right to change my mind and become a vociferous opponent if advocates decide that they wanted to finance these reforms with a value-added tax.

The study also includes suggestions for regulatory reform and other policy changes, but this post is too long already, so let’s now return to the central theme of economic growth.

Or, to be more accurate, the absence of economic growth. Because that’s the legacy of Obamanomics. We’re adopting European-style economic policies, so is it any surprise that our growth rates are declining in the direction of European-style stagnation?

And, to be fair, I’ll be the first to state that this bad trend began under Bush. Big government hinders prosperity, regardless of whether the policies are imposed by Republicans or Democrats.

Just as you get faster growth with good policy, even if those policies are implemented with a Democrat in the White House.

Simply stated, if you want better economic performance, there’s no substitute for free markets and small government.

Read Full Post »

Have you ever wondered why, in a hypothetical match-up, the American people would elect Ronald Reagan over Barack Obama in a landslide?

And have you ever wondered why Americans rate Reagan as the best post-WWII President and put Obama in last place?

There are probably a couple of reasons for these polling numbers, but I suspect one reason for the gap is that Reaganomics generated much better results than Obamanomics.

I’ve already made this point using data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, but today we’re going to look at some updated information from Tom Blumer, who put together a strong indictment of Obama’s record for PJ Media.

He points out that both Reagan and Obama inherited very weak economies. But that’s where the similarity ends. Reagan pushed an agenda of free markets and small government while Obama doubled down on Bush’s statism.

The results, he explains, confirm that big government is the problem rather than solution.

Obama’s economic policy, with the help of a pliant Federal Reserve, has been built on the notion that massive deficit spending and easy money would bring the economy roaring back and “stimulate” job growth.  The former strategy was tried during the 1930s. It only succeeded in lengthening the Great Depression, as the nation’s unemployment rate never fell below 12 percent. The fact that Team Obama insisted on making the same mistakes, while at the same time unleashing the federal government’s regulatory apparatus to harass the economy’s productive participants, is enough to make reasonable people question whether this president and his administration have ever truly wanted to see a genuine recovery occur. On the other hand, five years of strong, solid and uninterrupted economic performance following a serious recession is how you create a positive economic legacy. Ronald Reagan’s post-recession economy — an economy which faced arguably greater challenges when he took office, particularly double-digit inflation and a prime interest rate of 20 percent — did just that.

Those are strong words, but I think the accompanying graphics are even more persuasive.

Here’s a chart comparing post-recession growth for both Presidents.

And here’s the data on jobs, including breakdown of private-sector employment gains.

And here are the numbers for median household income. Once again, Obama is presiding over dismal numbers, particularly when compared to the Gipper.

What’s especially ironic, as I explained back in March, is that rich people are the only ones who have experienced income gains during the Obama years.

So Obama claims that his class-warfare policy is designed to hurt the wealthy, but the rest of us are the ones actually paying the price.

Let’s look at one final chart.

These poverty numbers weren’t included in the article, but I think they’re worth sharing because you can see that both the poverty rate and the number of Americans in poverty fell once Reagan’s policies took effect in the early 1980s. Under Obama, by contrast, the best we can say is that the numbers aren’t getting worse.

One final point, I imagine that some leftists will argue that Mr. Blumer is being unfair by looking only at Reagan’s post-1982-recession numbers.

That’s a fair point…but only if you think that the recession was caused by Reagan’s policies. Like most economists, I disagree with that accusation. The recession almost certainly was an unavoidable consequences of inflationary monetary policy in the 1970s.

Indeed, Reagan deserves special praise for his willingness to endure short-term pain in order to address that problem and set the stage for future prosperity. Obama, by contrast, wants continued money printing by the Fed in hopes that easy money can cure problems caused by easy money.

As you might imagine, I’m skeptical about that approach.

P.S. Here’s some snarky humor comparing the Gipper with Obama. And if you liked the story of what happens when you try socialism in the classroom, you’ll also enjoy this video of Reagan schooling Obama.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

I’ve been a big critic of Obama’s policies on taxes, spending, regulation, and intervention, so you won’t be surprised that I argued on CNBC that his policies have made the economy worse.

Here are two graphs, which I posted earlier this month, that make my point. The red lines show the economy is finally – and slowly – moving in the right direction, but the blue lines show how the economy boomed under Reaganomics.

The gap between the two lines in the charts is a measure of how Obama’s policies have undermined the economy, as I mentioned on the program. However, I also said that this may not matter much this November if Republicans are incapable of making coherent economic arguments.

One last thing to emphasize is that Jared resorted to dishonest Washington math when discussing Obama’s make-believe budget cuts. When you use honest numbers, as i did when analyzing the President’s new budget, you find that the burden of government spending is going to climb by $2 trillion between 2012 and 2022.

Read Full Post »

On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website.

Those two charts showed that the current recovery was very weak compared to the boom of the early 1980s.

But perhaps that was an unfair comparison. Maybe the Reagan recovery started strong and then hit a wall. Or maybe the Obama recovery was the economic equivalent of a late bloomer.

So let’s look at the same charts, but add an extra year of data. Does it make a difference?

Meh…not so much.

Let’s start with the GDP data. The comparison is striking. Under Reagan’s policies, the economy skyrocketed.  Heck, the chart prepared by the Minneapolis Fed doesn’t even go high enough to show how well the economy performed during the 1980s.

Under Obama’s policies, by contrast, we’ve just barely gotten back to where we were when the recession began. Unlike past recessions, we haven’t enjoyed a strong bounce. And this means we haven’t recovered the output that was lost during the downturn.

This is a damning indictment of Obamanomics

Indeed, I made this point several months ago when analyzing some work by Nobel laureate Robert Lucas. And it’s been highlighted more recently by James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute and the news pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, the jobs chart is probably even more discouraging. As you can see, employment is still far below where it started.

This is in stark contrast to the jobs boom during the Reagan years.

So what does this mean? How do we measure the human cost of the foregone growth and jobs that haven’t been created?

Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, former Senator Phil Gramm and budgetary expert Mike Solon compare the current recovery to the post-war average as well as to what happened under Reagan.

If in this “recovery” our economy had grown and generated jobs at the average rate achieved following the 10 previous postwar recessions, GDP per person would be $4,528 higher and 13.7 million more Americans would be working today. …President Ronald Reagan’s policies ignited a recovery so powerful that if it were being repeated today, real per capita GDP would be $5,694 higher than it is now—an extra $22,776 for a family of four. Some 16.9 million more Americans would have jobs.

By the way, the Gramm-Solon column also addresses the argument that this recovery is anemic because the downturn was caused by a financial crisis. That’s certainly a reasonable argument, but they point out that Reagan had to deal with the damage caused by high inflation, which certainly wreaked havoc with parts of the financial system. They also compare today’s weak recovery to the boom that followed the financial crisis of 1907.

But I want to make a different point. As I’ve written before, Obama is not responsible for the current downturn. Yes, he was a Senator and he was part of the bipartisan consensus for easy money, Fannie/Freddie subsidies, bailout-fueled moral hazard, and a playing field tilted in favor of debt, but his share of the blame wouldn’t even merit an asterisk.

My problem with Obama is that he hasn’t fixed any of the problems. Instead, he has kept in place all of the bad policies – and in some cases made them worse. Indeed, I challenge anyone to identify a meaningful difference between the economic policy of Obama and the economic policy of Bush.

  • Bush increased government spending. Obama has been increasing government spending.
  • Bush adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies. Obama adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies.
  • Bush bailed out politically connected companies. Obama has been bailing out politically connected companies.
  • Bush supported the Fed’s easy-money policy. Obama has been supporting the Fed’s easy-money policy.
  • Bush created a new healthcare entitlement. Obama created a new healthcare entitlement.
  • Bush imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector. Obama imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector.

I could continue, but you probably get the  point. On economic issues, the only real difference is that Bush cut taxes and Obama is in favor of higher taxes. Though even that difference is somewhat overblown since Obama’s tax policies – up to this point – haven’t had a big impact on the overall tax burden (though that could change if his plans for higher tax rates ever go into effect).

This is why I always tell people not to pay attention to party labels. Bigger government doesn’t work, regardless of whether a politician is a Republican or Democrat. The problem isn’t Obamanomics, it’s Bushobamanomics. But since that’s a bit awkward, let’s just call it statism.

Read Full Post »

People keep emailing and complaining that I must be an Obama supporter since I periodically post critical information about Romney and Gingrich.

In response, I say that it’s my role to simply tell the truth and dispassionately analyze public policy.

But being disappointed in the leading Republicans doesn’t mean I’m deluded about Obama and his agenda. This cartoon nicely captures my view of the President’s track record.

And if you want something more substantive, this data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve shows how Obamanomics is grossly inferior to Reaganomics.

Read Full Post »

I’ve commented on the failure of Obamanomics, with special focus on how both banks and corporations are sitting on money because the investment climate is so grim. Not exactly flattering to the White House.

Using Minneapolis Federal Reserve data, I’ve compared the current recovery with the expansion of the early 1980s. Once again, not good news for the Obama Administration.

And I’ve shared a couple of cartoons – here and here – that use humor to show the impact of bad public policy.

But here’s a Bloomberg story that provides what may be the most damning evidence that the President’s big government agenda is a failure.

U.S. regulators have asked some banks to take more deposits from large investors even if it’s unprofitable, and lenders in return are seeking relief on insurance premiums and leverage ratios, according to six people with knowledge of the talks. Deposits are flooding into the biggest U.S. banks as customers seek shelter from Europe’s debt crisis and falling stock prices. That forces lenders to raise capital for a growing balance sheet and saddles them with the higher deposit insurance payments. With short-term interest rates so low, it’s hard for financial firms to reinvest the new money profitably. …At least one firm, Bank of New York Mellon Corp., tried to recoup some of the costs by charging depositors 13 basis points, or 0.13 percent, for holding unusually high balances.

Let’s think about what this article is really saying. Banks normally make money by attracting deposits and then lending that money to people and businesses that have productive uses for the funds.

Yet the economy is so weak that banks are leery of taking more money. The story is complicated by other factors, including flight capital from Europe, taxes (or premiums) imposed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and various regulatory issues.

But even with these caveats, it’s still remarkable that banks want to turn down money – or charge people for making deposits.

Sort of like McDonald’s turning away customers because they lose money by selling Big Macs and french fries. Or, better yet, like McDonald’s turning away free goods from suppliers because not enough people want to buy the final product.


Welcome Instapundit readers. Some of you are asking what should be done instead of Obamanomics.

The honest answer is that there’s no silver bullet. Lower tax rates would help, as would a reduction in the burden of government spending. Free trade agreements also would be good, and let’s not forget the importance of reducing red tape and counterproductive regulations.

There are lots of such reforms that would boost economic performance and help make the economy more efficient. Any one of them might not make a big difference right away, but the cumulative impact would restore normal growth. And the most damning indictment of Obamanomics is not that we suffered a downturn, but that we haven’t bounced back.

This video, based on data from the Economic Freedom of the World Index, was released more than two years ago to show that there was an alternative to Obama’s failed stimulus. It’s still 100-percent relevant today.

Read Full Post »

I could write a lengthy post about why Obamanomics has been a failure, but this cartoon says it perfectly.

It has the same basic message as this classic cartoon – people are less likely to produce when government is too much of a burden.

If you want some empirical evidence about the impact of Obama’s statism, check out this picture of how much money companies are keeping on the sidelines and this one about loanable funds that banks have deposited at the Fed. Both are compelling signs that investors and entrepreneurs don’t trust the nonsense coming from Washington.

Read Full Post »

The Labor Department released its latest job numbers today and they remind me of Clint Eastwood’s 1966 classic, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”

The good news is that the economy created 244,000 new jobs, the biggest gain in almost one year. And the jobs were in the productive sector of the economy rather than government, so the added employment means more taxpayers rather than more tax-consumers.

The bad news is that the jobless rate increased to 9.0 percent, up from 8.8 percent last month. This means that the number of people looking for work is increasing at a faster rate than the number of jobs being created.

The ugly news, at least from the perspective of the Obama Administration, is that the latest data is yet another piece of evidence showing that the White House was grossly mistaken when it claimed that bigger government would translate into better economic performance.

The blue line in this chart shows the Administration’s prediction of what would happen to unemployment if the so-called stimulus was enacted. The dots represent the actual unemployment rate.

As you can see, the unemployment rate is easily more than two percentage points higher than the White House said it would be at this time.

Administration apologists respond by moving the goal posts, asserting that the original prediction underestimated the economy’s weakness and the unemployment data would have been even worse in the absence of more wasteful spending.

Since economists are lousy at predicting the future, that’s a legitimate argument.

But is it an accurate argument? Since there’s no parallel universe where we can conduct policy experiments, there’s no way of proving which side is wrong. Nonetheless, this chart from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank is rather revealing. It compares employment numbers after the deep recession of the early 1980s with the employment numbers from the recent deep recession.

Perhaps I’m biased and reading this chart incorrectly, but it certainly seems as if Reaganomics generated better results than Obamanomics. Maybe it’s time to realize that government is the problem, not the solution?

Read Full Post »

Both President Reagan and President Obama had to deal with serious economic dislocation upon taking office.

But they used radically different approaches to deal with the problems they inherited. Reagan sought to reduce the burden of government, whereas Obama viewed government as an engine of growth.

So who had the right approach? This image, taken from an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal,  shows  quarterly economic growth (adjusted for inflation) for the seven quarters after the recession ended.

At the risk of sounding unscientific, Reagan mops the floor with Obama. Growth was much more robust under Reaganomics. The policy of Obamanomics, by contrast, is associated with sluggish economic performance. (Indeed, see this post, based on Minneapolis Fed data, for an even starker comparison.)

Most worrisome, the weak growth over the past seven quarters means the economy has not recovered the lost output caused by the recession. This is in contrast to past downturns, where a temporary fall in output was offset by a period of rapid growth when the recession ended. And since there’s no reason to expect a sudden boom now, this means a permanent loss of income for the American people.

To be sure, we have no idea what would have happened in the early 1980s without Reaganomics, just like we have no idea what would have happened the past few years if America had taken a different approach.

But when theory and evidence both point in a certain direction, perhaps it’s a good idea to at least consider the possibility that small government is better for prosperity than big government.

Read Full Post »

Ronald Reagan would have been 100 years old on February 6, so let’s celebrate his life by comparing the success of his pro-market policies with the failure of Barack Obama’s policies (which are basically a continuation of George W. Bush’s policies, so this is not a partisan jab).

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has a fascinating (at least for economic geeks) interactive webpage that allows readers to compare economic downturns and recoveries, both on the basis of output and employment.

The results are remarkable. Reagan focused on reducing the burden of government and the economy responded. Obama (and Bush) tried the opposite approach, but spending, bailouts, and intervention have not worked. This first chart shows economic output.

The employment chart below provides an equally stark comparison. If anything, this second chart is even more damning since employment has not bounced back from the trough. But that shouldn’t be too surprising. Why create jobs when government is subsidizing unemployment and penalizing production? And we already know the so-called stimulus has been a flop.

None of this should be interpreted to mean Reagan is ready for sainthood. He made plenty of compromises during his eight years in office, and some of them were detours in the wrong direction. But the general direction was positive, which is why he’s the best President of my lifetime.*

*Though he may not be the best President of the 20th Century.

Read Full Post »

Michael Fleischer is a brave man. He exposed himself and his company to retribution and attack by explaining how Obama’s policies are discouraging job creation in a column for the Wall Street Journal. Let’s hope he doesn’t mysteriously get audited, because he provides valuable real-world insight into how taxes and other forms of government intervention hinder job creation (and reduce take-home pay for those lucky enough to still have jobs).

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally. Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers’ comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally’s Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security. When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year. Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too. Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare. Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%. To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this “summer of recovery.” We can’t pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we’d lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences. And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company’s vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment. A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government’s message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: