In 1980 Ronald Reagan asked a question that struck a chord with many voters: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? (click on the youtube link for a classic Reagan delivery)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8
Mitt Romney is asking the same question today, but the Obama camp is putting a different spin on the answer. Insisting that the nation is better shape today than when he first took office is a tough sell, so the President is playing the class card. Rather than compare your situation today to four years ago, you are really being told to compare your change in situation to that of your wealthy neighbor. You might be struggling–the narrative goes–but the rich seem to be doing OK. Your vote for Obama might not help your actual predicament, but it will help your relative situation by redistributing your neighbor’s wealth. The conservatives who seem to notice this sleight-of-hand reject it as folly, but some truth is being overlooked. Could it be that many Americans believe they are better off today, and if so, why?
Class warfare appeals to a carnal instinct in all of us. We like to think that we deserve a little more than the next guy, so it’s tempting to blame our economic shortcomings on “the system,” better known as free enterprise or capitalism. Besides, the “rich” always seem to be doing OK, regardless of economic circumstances.
Strict socialists reject capitalism in its entirety, but neo-Marxists and fascists recognize some value in private markets. Rather than eliminate them altogether, they seek to resolve the alleged inefficiencies that emanate from capitalism through various types of regulation and control. Even if we assume a modicum of good intentions, this government intrusion inevitably creates unintended consequences that worsen the situation. The failed stimulus, the GM bailout, and Obamacare are examples of legislation purported to promote economic growth but have only resulted in greater debt, cronyism, and government dependency.
But could the case be made that the policies and political philosophy that fosters the current economic malaise has actually helped certain classes of Americans? Doesn’t wealth redistribution benefit the poor? The answer to both questions, unfortunately, is a qualified yes, at least in the short run. This is a challenge for those who wish to unseat the President, many of whom don’t recognize this reality. As Keynes chastised those who opposed him, “in the long run, we are all dead.”
Many Americans are caught up in the short run as well, putting vacations on a credit card and depending almost completely on programs like Social Security and Medicare in their senior years. Unlike those evaluating Reagan vs. Carter 32 years ago, many of today’s voters are more likely to reject sound economic arguments for reductions in the size and scope of government, and tax cuts for all income categories. They don’t see the coming crisis associated with $16 trillion of national debt and a society addicted to government programs. We won’t win over all of the detractors, but we must persuade some of them that liberty and free enterprise are the only long term solution to our economic stagnation. We only have 2 months to do it.
The “better off” response from the Democrats always goes back to the Bush recession. It assumes that since the financial cirsis happened on Bush’s watch, his policies caused it. End of story, no fact checking required. But the collapse was over subprime mortgages and ultimately borrowers failure to make monthly payments. So how did so many unqualified borrowers get loans in the first place? The government forced the banks to make loans. Not the government of George Bush, but the government of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank et al who muscled Freddie and Fannie into relaxing standards to make the American dream of owning a home come true. Never mind they couldn’t afford the payments. It goes back to the Clinton adminstration so it had been fomenting for years. One player in the 90’s was a young attorney named Barack Obama who through a class action suit won a case against CitiBank for redlining. See class action suit
The Republicans have not mounted a defense against the Bush recession charge. Maybe they think things are going well enough without it. Or they could be planning a “Swiftboat” attack on Obama between now and the election with the PACS. But it is really troubling that the role of the Federal government in the financial crisis is largely ignored.
No president can fix all the damages he inherited in just four years. The real question is “what kind of country do you want to live in?” Is it “a you’re- on-your own, winner takes all society” or “a we’re- all- in this- together society”. That’s a huge philosophical difference.
First, I prefer the “a you’re-on-your-own, winner takes all society”. This nation was not founded on the principal of “we’re in this together”. How are we in it together? Over 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes. What part are they doing to be in it together? Where did that notion come from? Liberal drivel for, “everyone should be equally wealthy (poor) and alike”. It was tried once in Babel and didn’t turn out so well. IT DOES NOT WORK. The problem with the concept of liberty for liberals is that not everyone will obtain equal levels of wealth. There will be winners and losers; not everyone gets a trophy, and not everyone gets a house and a Mercedes.
Second, Democrats are trying to push the notion that they concede that individuals are not better off than 4 years ago, but they are “better positioned”. More quibbling. What is better about my position when I pay 45 – 50% in taxes, $3.75 for gas, and get penalized for saving money?
Third, how could the President not get everything fixed in 4 years? For the first 2 years he could have passed anything he wanted. He could have raised the minimum wage to $15, taxes to 90% and death taxes to 100%. Only a Democrat could have the presidency, both houses of congress, veto and filibuster proof and still complain that they didn’t have the time or ability to “make change”.
Democrats made change; just not the ones that were promised.
By winner take all, I assume you refer to the Republicans. Those folks whose platform includes support for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, aid to education, military, highway, energy, school lunches and Israel. If you are referring to the Libertarians, they want less goverment and adherence to the constitution. But they aren’t running.
By “we’re all in this together”, I assume that is the Democrats Big Tent. They support unions at the expense of public education. We are already last in the developed world or we’re getting there fast. They support crony capitalism like the 16 energy companies they invested in that have failed. They cut the funding for Medicare and Social Security by reducing the payroll taxes for 2 years running and have in their platform for a third. They cut $700 billion out of Medicare to put it in Obamacare. Sorry Seniors, the Big Tent is closed. They stick it to future generations by failing to even recognize the deficit, much less attempt to balance it. Not even a budget, which they somehow manage to blame on the Republcans! Their idea of “lets all work together” is to blame Paul Ryan for the $16 trillion debt.
The Democrats stock in trade is promises. Promises made, not promises kept. All words, no action, long on rhetoric. They rehearse these sound bites all day long while staffers are writing new regulations. They make sure that all the big shot public officials get their pockets lined. They include some big name CEO campaigners and contributors, so they can claim a love for business. They make sure anybody with a vote gets some kind of handout. Their programs always fail, and then they employ their real talent, spinning the failures to their favor. They will blame the Republicans until there is not a one left standing, except maybe Lincoln. Or the progressive Teddy Roosevelt. Or a defector like Colin Powell.
Parnell’s got a point. Some people are actually better off, government workers, union workers who still have a job, and people on government support. I hope there aren’t too many of them and they aren’t motivated to vote or the rest of us will have to carry them for 4 more years.
And some people change voting procedures to demotivate some people from voting.
Seriously, Aliza? Requiring an ID is a demotivator? You need it to access all government benefits but not to vote? You don’t have a right to have your vote counted unless you can demonstrate that you have a right to vote in the first place.
Seriously Chester. A federal court struck down the Texas voter ID law, ruling that the law would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor”.
The voter ID plan is working well in PA. You can even vote provisionally if you don’t have your ID on voting day. After all of the democrat hoopla over Bush-Gore in Florida you’d think that they would welcome steps to ensure voter integrity. The more they complain about ID requirements disenfranchising voters the less sense they make.
I enjoy reading your blog Dr. Parnell. Thank you for your perspective. It does strike me as odd that you are so opposed to the redistribution of wealth, yet work in a tenured position at an institution that could not begin to exist without redistribution of wealth. Cut that if it is offensive; it is your blog. It is not intended to be.
It is understandable that Government debt should go up during a recession. It is reasonable that Congress spend during hard times and pay down the deficit during good times. It has worked in the past though nothing is perfect. When Congress chooses not to act reasonable bad things happen.
One example: George Bush was handed a balanced budget and a surplus but instead of paying down the deficit while the economy was thriving, he spent it, while raising the deficit. We all know where we were after eight years.
Example two: The ‘Laissez-faire’ attitude of the twenties presided over by Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, both Republicans, is generally accepted as one of the largest causes of the great depression. But what really sealed the deal was Hoover’s, also Republican, balanced budget in the thirties. By raising taxes and lowering spending he drove the economy deeper into a depression that lasted far longer than it should have.
I agree that the amount of debt is staggering. Incomprehensible to me, but reduced spending and taxes would have only lengthened and worsened the recession.
Sean–I didn’t cut the comment; all views are welcome provided they are presented appropriately as you did. I’ll make 2 brief points here: (1) State-supported education is not wealth redistribution unless you argue that some people pay more for it through taxation than others or some might benefit from it more than others. If you make one of these arguments, then the entire government can be categorized as wealth redistribution. My view is a little more narrow. I define wealth redistribution as the confiscation of one’s wealth with the explicit purpose of giving it to another. A clear example is the earned-income tax credit. (2) Employment in a particular organization doesn’t necessarily mean complete support for the system that created or supports that organization. I know postal carriers who favor privatizing the USPS, public school teachers in favor of vouchers, federal employees who want to see a leaner government workforce, and social security recipients who want to see the system reformed (including reductions in benefits). Many of us–myself included–would also like to see a major tax overhaul with lower rates and fewer deductions, but there’s nothing wrong with taking the deductions currently on the books to “offset” the current higher rates. All of us must live with the ups and downs of the current system while we try to change it.
Think about what you’re saying Sean. If a professor at a state university cannot defend liberty, then only Marxists and political agnostics will be left to teach the students there. Besides, isn’t this what academic freedom is all about? Shouldn’t all points of view be welcome at a university? Unlike some of the liberal professors I had in college, I haven’t heard Dr. Parnell call his intellectual opponents stupid or idiots. Thanks Dr. Parnell for being one of the few to stand up for liberty on our college campuses and for doing it in a professional way.