Insight into the success of the Obama administration.

November 6th, 2008 by Grant in: Economics, Politics
Sphere: Related Content

To be honest, I’m not at all happy with how the election turned out.  However, I’m not sure I would have been “happy” if John McCain would have won, either. But the people voted, and I accept that, and political affiliations aside, I think it’s pretty cool that we have an African American President.

Perhaps it’s not that I’m not happy with the results, maybe it’s that I’m uneasy.  Yeah, that’s a better term.

I find it troubling that we’ve elected to the office of the President of the United States a man that has unarguably affiliated himself with such questionable people.  The likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers; neither of these men reflect what I view as men with respectable character to be associated with at all.  One can argue about the extent in which Barack Obama was associated with either of these men, but the fact that he was associated with them at all speaks to his own character and morals, first and foremost.  After all, I believe your character is reflected upon by the company you keep.

As citizens, we’re asked to select the next leader of the free world, and John McCain and Barack Obama were the best our two political parties could come up with?  This year more than previous, I feel as though I had to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I digress.

Barack Obama’s success as President is at the mercy of the economy.  The majority of people leaving polling places indicated that the economy was the number one factor when making their decision to vote, and I believe Obama’s success as President will hinge on the same.

If the economy does not turn around within four years, and if unemployment is at levels higher than during the Bush administration, and if the stock market is at levels lower than highest-high during the Bush administration, Barack Obama will have a very difficult time getting re-elected.

Why? He promised change, and people are going to hold him to it (the Republicans specifically will too, for sure).  There were very few fine details of what Barack Obama would change, aside from broad and general overtones that he would raise taxes on the rich, redistribute wealth, raise capital gains and dividends taxes, bankrupt the coal industry allowing electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket”, give everyone the right to health care, etc.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, if he does any of these things before the economy rebounds, he’ll do nothing but stretch out the recession.  And if he stretches it out too far, he’ll only see a single term as President.

What do you mean by “too far”?

As I’ve mentioned numerous times on this blog, Americans have a severe short-term memory problem (after all, they forgot that it was actually the Clinton administration that started the housing problem). They view $3 gas as “cheap” compared to $4 gas they bought two months prior, even though just 8 months further back in time it was under $2.

They voted for change, but even more explicitly they want change now.  I’m reminded of the character “Violet” in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory… “I want the world, and I want it now!”

So, smart guy, what should he do?

If Barack Obama is smart, he’ll “change” very little in the first year of his administration.  The harder the government tries to “fix” our economic problems, the longer those problems will drag out.

Instead, he should cut federal spending until it hurts, and then cut some more.  Be smart about it, and leave the programs that provide a return on investment alone.  There are some obvious infrastructures within the federal government that may benefit from an increase in spending (spending money on the federal highway system always pays off in tough economic times), although those are few and far between.

He can also put a stop to all the needless pork stemming out of Washington too.  All he needs to do is hold a 10 minute press conference on national television and say the following words:  “Any bill that crosses my desk that has so much as one cent of pork or earmarks attached to it will be vetoed, no questions asked.”  Then, back that statement up with action.

Even if it’s a bill to cure cancer, with an additional million to fund a bacon museum, he vetoes it, and holds another 10 minute press conference on national television and explain to the American people why he had to veto a bill to cure cancer.  It’s a simple as that.

After that, show the people the results.  Show them what the budget was before he made his federal spending cuts, and then show the budget afterwords, and detail all the federal programs that were cut and what those cuts saved us.

If there is still a budget deficit, explain to the American people that he’s going to have to raise taxes, slowly, and for everyone, over the next 4 years (assuming he’s planning on running for re-election), and he’ll evaluate the budget every year to determine if he can halt the tax increases or even lower them.

Remember, all Americans should benefit from federal programs equally.  The rich typically don’t benefit from the federal highway system any more than the middle class, and they shouldn’t pay more for it either.  The postal system benefits everyone who has ever mailed a letter.  Just because you pay more taxes doesn’t mean your mail gets delivered any faster, or for any less money for a stamp.  The FAA benefits anyone who travels by air, or anyone who has received cargo or mailed anything via the federal airspace system.  Just because you pay more in taxes doesn’t mean your plane goes any faster or your ticket is any cheaper.  NASA benefits us all, just about equally.  Velcro, microwaves, Tang… all used and consumed by those who pay taxes and those who do.

So it’s all about the economy?

Yes, for the most part.  Barack Obama ran his campaign leveraging his ability to attract money as well as taking advantage of the weak economy.  Remember, it was just over 12 months ago that Barack Obama came out and said he was going to raise taxes… for everyone.  It was easier to get away with then because people still had funds in their 401(k).  As the economic downturn started pressing people financially, he realized that claiming to raise taxes on everyone would be political suicide.  So that’s when he started talking about raising taxes on anyone over a certain dollar amount.  After all, those people should be able to absorb higher taxes… right?

Barack Obama has to “change” things drastically and he has to give the people that voted for him a qualitative and quantitative return on their vote.

If the people that voted for him are no better off than they were at the end of George W. Bush’s term, he will not be re-elected.

I went to the polls to vote for the best man for President, only to find out he wasn’t running.

6 Comments

  1. Gavelect

    I think the rise in business electricity prices is having a terrible effect on all sorts of businesses “along with the credit crunch” but there is still some good deals out there but someone somewhere has to do something.

  2. MJ

    Okay I’ll bite, I see a lot here to straighten out the government deficit and improve federal spending but what do you suggest to make the economy healthy? Or is that to be in a new post.

    It sounds like you are suffering what doctor’s are referring to as the “Obama Hangover”. They say it commonly occurs on moderate conservatives who wander when the second comming of Teddy Roosevelt is actually going to come.

    All I can say about many of the Obama complaints you have could have just as easily applied to Mac C. Both of these guys had a lot of bark and not much bite, and Obama speaks so smooth he could convert a Southern Baptist to Atheism. No use beating a dead horse, but I will say the McCain in the concession speach is the McCain I liked. Where did that guy go for 12 months?

  3. Grant

    @MJ: That’s the beauty of a free market economy. As long as the government keeps their hands off things, the free market will take care of itself. Sure, there will be cycles in a free market, but the peaks and valleys will only become more extreme if the government tries to intervene.

    I suffer from no such problem.

    All politicians suffer from many of the same traits when they are pandering to get elected. However, McCain wasn’t the one who promised higher taxes on the “rich”, however that is defined, he also wasn’t the one who wanted to bankrupt the coal industry, he also wasn’t the one who promised that as a result of bankrupting the coal industry the cost of electricity would necessarily go up…

    And health care. Forcing companies to provide health care so that everyone can have the “right” to health care…

    Like I said, you can have socialism or you can have free market capitalism. You can’t have both.

    If Obama tries to implement socialism to any extent while the economy is on its ear, he’ll be a single term president for sure.

  4. Peter James

    I agree, Grant. Raising taxes and continuing these absurd “stimulus” packages is the kiss of death to the Obama administration, and he’s not even in office yet.

    Like the blog.

  5. stan

    …convert a southern baptist to atheism… love it!

  6. still american

    by far one of the best articles I’ve read since the election. I have a feeling that in 4 yrs the republicans will look back and be glad they didn’t win this one. It’s going to get nasty, and I think nobamas going to make it much worse.

Leave a Comment