Obama’s Plan (finally)

With only controlled and largely favorable interviews remaining before election day, President Obama released his so-called jobs plan. While he spent the last several weeks hammering Mitt Romney for a lack of specifics on his economic proposals, the President chose not to release his “plan” until after the final debate. The document is well crafted and reads as if Obama is the challenger, not the incumbent. His ideas for big government solutions to our current economic problems are largely unchanged from his rhetoric four years ago, leaving us to wonder why we continue to have the same set of problems.

While Obama’s plan is seriously flawed, most of the issues have already been addressed herein. Nonetheless, his entire plan can be debunked by reading the title page:


First, there is nothing NEW about this proposal. Virtually every issue it covers—from education to job growth to energy—is linked to a new or expanded government program. History is replete with philosophers, politicians, and economists whose solutions to social problems always seem to reside with government intervention and wealth redistribution, not individual initiative and innovation. Obama is simply repackaging the same collectivist ideas of the past.

Second, there is nothing PATRIOTIC about this proposal. The President seems to argue that our economic and social problems could be solved if only “the rich” would sacrifice a little more of their wealth. Patriotism used to be associated with individualism—enjoying life and caring for yourself so that you won’t become a burden to society. In Obama’s world, patriotism is associated with the collective—a transfer of wealth from those who earned it to those who did not by way of government bureaucrats, all in the name of the “common good.”

Finally, government cannot create both JOBS and SECURITY. Jobs are created in the private sector when individuals and firms are free to develop new ideas, products, and services. Economic development creates both opportunities and insecurity as some companies fail or restructure as part of the process. A government committed to “middle-class security,” by definition, must seek to slow down economic activity. This approach assumes that free enterprise is flawed and must be managed by central planners. We’ve tried this for the last four years and the economy is not moving forward.

A good example of the jobs-security problem is the GM bailout. The President’s claim to have saved a million jobs is preposterous because it assumes that GM would have ceased to exist if it had entered a normal bankruptcy without government favors. But even if GM dissolved, its customers would look to other manufacturers to fill the void, and they would need to employ workers just like GM. Instead, Obama chose security and stability. The taxpayers have lost billions, GM remains an inefficient carmaker with a precarious future, and consumers have been denied the improvements in products and services that occur when the government doesn’t pick winners and losers.

There’s a lot more to critique in Obama’s plan, but I think it’s best to focus on the big picture. This election is about the roles, responsibilities and powers of the individual versus the state. The President has clearly staked out his position on the side of the state.

16 thoughts on “Obama’s Plan (finally)

  1. Obama’s plan is the same as four years ago. He had the congress and senate for two years after he was elected in 2008. Why didn’t he solve everything then?


  3. Often overlooked is that Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy won’t happen if the Republicans control the House after the election. It didn’t even happen when he had a majority in the first two years. This is all spin and he knows it. The real question is, if elected, will he let all the Bush tax cuts expire. I can see him picking a fight with the House, refusing to budge and then blaming them for increasing taxes on the middle class, thereby hoping to get them out in the mid-term election.

  4. Indeed, this election is about the roles, responsibilities and powers of individual VS. the state. This election, if Romney is elected, the powers of individual women VS. the state will be significantly diminished in contraception and abortion issues.

  5. Aliza, I was not aware that Romney planned to make contraceptives illegal. But I watch mostly Fox News so I could have missed it. Perhaps you could do us a service and provide us with your source.

  6. Romney opposes forcing religious institutions to provide something that violates their conscience. What about the power of the state which forces an institution to do something against its conscience? I think you have it backward Aliza. Contraception is fairly easily and cheaply available to anyone who wants it.

    But we are off topic. The Obama record is sustained high unemployment, high poverty levels, reduced hoursehold incomes, record number of people on food stamps, grid-locked Congress and massive deficits each year. It is time for another approach.

  7. Oh I see. I thought you were saying he was opposed to the use of contraceptives. This is about who pays for them, or rather about the government being able to force insurance companies and employers to foot the bill. In other words, the 53% who pay taxes would pay for them. Do I have it right now?

  8. Back to the economy, growth rates and such. This from Fox News Special Report today quoting the NY Times editorial page.
    This is an editorial from October 29, 1992 — quote — “President Bush smiled when he learned this week that economic growth during the third quarter reached a surprising 2.7 percent, almost twice the previous rate. But his smile shouldn’t be broad. The new figure almost certainly exaggerates the health of the economy, which continues to creep along at a painfully slow pace. Even the 2.7 figure is half the normal rate of recovery and not enough to bring down unemployment.”

    And then there was this from three days ago — this past Saturday, October 27 — quote — “The slow pace of the nation’s economic recovery has picked up a bit lately. In the third quarter, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2 percent, beating expectations and the 1.3 percent growth in the second quarter. Over the past year, the growth rate has been 2.3 percent. At that pace there’s enough momentum to keep unemployment — currently 7.8 percent — from getting much worse.”

  9. Jeff, Romney’s opposition to force religious institutes to provide something they don’t believe in will affect thousands of women; students at religious universities, employees at church-related hospitals and organizations. I do not see why a student at Georgetown, who pays about $50,000 per year, do not deserve a full health coverage. I assume that the majority of the student there, unless they are divinity school students, came to study there because it is an excellent school and not because it is a religious school. In addition, Romney said he will defund Planned Parenthood, which is not a religious organization, that provides affordable women’s healthcare.
    BTW, the cost of contraceptives, according to Planned Parenthood , is between $15-$50 per month, which can sum up to $600 per year. Other sources I saw talks about even much higher costs. This is not so cheap, when you pay out of the pocket for it. Imagine you to pay extra $600 or more in taxes per year, would you say that it is negligible?

  10. hey aliza, we’re 16 trillion dollars in debt. We’d all like the government to pay for more of our stuff but we can’t afford it!

  11. A late addition to Obama’s plan – he would create a new Cabinet position. It would be called Business and would oversee departments such as Commerce, Trade, Labor, etc. So we would have a Department of Business. Tell you what. Elect Romney and he will be the head of the Business Department. The first businessman to run for President in any of our lifetimes. This man is all business. That is why you don’t see him getting sidetracked and defensive over issues such as women’s contraceptives.

  12. A Department of Business? Seriously? This kind of thinking is the problem. Obama doesn’t need a cabinet member to tell him how government can help business. Government can only get in the way. He does not understand.

  13. “getting sidetracked and defensive over isuues such as women’s contraceptives”??Women’s vote will determine this election. Both candidates know that and try to appeal to them. Actually, Romney really cares for women. He will be flexible with working women and let them go back home at 5 to cook dinner for the family. Ha-ha-ha. Back to the 1950’. Did anyone say “binders full of women”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *