Tag Archives: 100 days

‘100 days’ update: Will Obama’s ‘stimulus’ work?

27 Jun

It is no secret that the economy is in shambles, and to celebrate Obama’s 100th day in office today, it’s time to closely examine our new President’s economic policy. In early February, Obama signed his $787 billion dollar “stimulus” bill, loaded with bailouts, subsidies, and public works projects.

With this type of legislation, Obama boasts that he is revitalizing the legacy of FDR, who supposedly got us out of the Depression with his same “stimulus” mixture of government waving its magic wand over the economy.

Obama’s “stimulus” bill will likely work just as well as FDR’s, and that’s definitely a bad thing for the American economy. One of the biggest myths in American history is that FDR’s policies got us out of the Great Depression.

FDR did not get us out of the Depression, he made it worse. Much worse. Unemployment grew every year that he was in office until 1941 (when he “solved” the problem of 11-million-unemployment by shipping 12 million Americans overseas to Europe and Asia. Over 400,000 of them never came back). The New Deal failed as a matter of economic policy, but it was successful at buying FDR lots and lots of votes. FDR was reelected overwhelmingly in 1936 and again in 1940 in part due to the support of the big-city machines, organized labor, and other constituencies that benefited disproportionately from New Deal spending.

For example, the South and the Midwest were the two parts of the area hit hardest by the Depression, but they voted solidly Democrat. So a larger chunk of federal spending was sent to states where FDR had won by slim margins, on large industries, and on areas with large farms.

The idea that government spending can restore an ailing economy ignores the fact this spending at best only diverts precious capital and resources away from the infinitely more efficient private sector. It wasn’t until 1946, when government spending and taxes were simultaneously slashed, that the U.S. got out of the Depression. 1946, in fact, was and is still the most productive year in American economic history. The private sector was left (somewhat) to its own devices, and we stopped building dams and bombs and got back to making cars, tools, and appliances.

Obama’s “stimulus” makes FDR’s look modest in comparison, and its repercussions are likely to have an even worse result.

And where, as very few people ask, does this $787 billion dollars come from? How does a broke and debt-ridden empire pay for this?

To finance this spending, the government is simply printing up the money, Monopoly-money style. The Federal Reserve borrows money against itself, creates wealth out of thin air, and starts handing it out; in other words: massive inflation. Inflation decreases the value of our dollar, especially to the poor and middle class, whose incomes get hurt the most by this rip-off.

Obama’s “stimulus,” just like FDR’s (and Bush’s mini-“stimulus,” passed before he abdicated the throne) will do the exact opposite of what it intended to do. It will drive us further into debt, subsidize Wall Street at the expense of the average taxpayer, devalue our money, and will stifle healthy production.

Change? Hope? Don’t bet your (worthless) money on it.

Advertisements

Obama’s 100th day as two-face

27 Jun

President Obama is about to reach the end of this first 100 days in office when April 29th rolls around. Obama wants you to believe that he is keeping his campaign promises and that he has ignited an era of change and prosperity, but as fellow Examiner (and libertarian) Justin Clarke points out in a great article, Obama’s rhetoric can not hide his actions.

Days after being sworn-in, President Obama signed an executive order prohibiting lobbyists from holding administration jobs as part of his campaign promise to “close to the revolving door” between K Street and the government. Two days later, however, he granted himself a “waiver” from these new rules and hired Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn as the No. 2 man in the Pentagram Pentagon.

Obama as candidate promised Americans a “transparent administration” where they would be allowed to read proposed legislation five days before he signs it. Yet in his first month, the President signed three laws in less than five days: SCHIP, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the $787 billion dollar “stimulus” package. This is eerily reminiscent of the Bush Administration’s passing of the Patriot Act, which was written before 9/11 and jammed through Congress, whose members were apparently too busy to even read it.

Obama promised to end the wars in the Middle East, and ran as a peace candidate. But Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, is ordering the CIA to fire missiles from un-manned drones into Pakistan, and leaving 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq after we “leave” (we are currently building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. Does any one actually think we’re leaving?). He has recently said that he wants to cut $100 million dollars from the federal budget. Well, Mr. President, since your “surge”  in Afghanistan is costing $200 million dollars a day, if you end the occupation war for one day, you would double your goal.

Obama’ Two-Faced presidency is very beneficial to him, and he is reaping the rewards. Americans, understandably exhausted of Obama’s tongue-tied predecessor, are giving him the benefit of the doubt and finding political salvation in his faux-eloquence.

Barely three months after his “historic” election and inauguration, Obama’s policies are mirroring the worst of Bush’s failures, and his slick smile and fluffy, nonsensical poetry he calls “speeches” are allowing him to get away with it.

If Obama keeps this tightrope-walk up, Americans are bound to see through it, and maybe the time 2012 rolls around, we can elect a candidate that preaches and practices real change.