Barack Obama said, "I'm in this race to take those tax breaks away from companies that are moving jobs overseas and put them in the pockets of hard working Americans who deserve it. And I won't raise the minimum wage every ten years. I will raise it to keep pace so that workers don't fall behind. That is why I am in it. To protect the American worker. To fight for the American worker."
While certainly somewhat noble, Barack's statement fails to answer the tough questions. Why have companies left? What caused them to leave? Could one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world have anything to do with it? Could the litigious society that we live in carry some of the fault? Could the tens of thousands of pages of environmental and safety regulations be partially to blame? There is a point where reducing pollution and making a job safer costs more than it is worth. Is government taking too much of the pie without providing any good or service that the people want? Has government become the biggest corporation in America?
Demonizing businesses as the problem is not productive. It causes people to fail to look deeper for the root causes of the flight of businesses to foreign shores. Demonizing businesses serves one purpose. It allows politicians who love big government to convince the people they need more government.
Senator Obama seems to believe what most socialists and Marxists believe, that business is the problem and government is the solution. Faulty assumptions or beliefs often lead to the wrong diagnosis in the medical profession as well as the political spectrum. In a free country, any business has the right to leave if the conditions it operates under become too onerous or restrictive to operate. Government policies, legislation, and regulations have created a difficult environment for businesses to operate in. We can never eliminate enough pollution to satisfy the environmental zealots. We can never make the workplace safe enough for a government agency whose jobs depend on creating stricter regulations.
The government is responsible for jobs leaving America. They have created an environment that is hostile to business. The government listens disproportionately to the voices of consumer advocates, environmentalists, and other loud-mouthed groups who do not represent the voice of the people. When given the choice between a good economy and jobs or a pristine environment, most people would choose the former. Politicians who benefit from big government choose to listen to the voices of the few at the expense of the many.
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: Obama will encourage the deployment of the most modern communications infrastructure to reduce the costs of health care, help solve our energy crisis, create new jobs, and fuel our economic growth.
WHAT IT MEANS: I'm not quite sure what this means. It sounds good, but how does deploying a modern communication infrastructure create more jobs or solve the energy crisis. Last time I checked my phone company didn't produce energy for me. We already have a modern communication infrastructure. Why would we need to create another one? Statements like the one Obama made are designed to create emotionally positive reactions. Generally, people who hear phrases like this think, "Oh yeah, that's a great idea", but the statement means nothing. Let me see if I can create an "Oh yeah, that's a great idea" emotional statement for you. "I will solve the energy crisis by cleaning up our environment and forcing businesses and oil to pay for their pollution, deploying more policeman on the streets, and providing more access to health care." Now doesn't that just make you warm and fuzzy inside? It doesn't do anything to solve the energy crisis, or improve the economy, but that doesn't matter. At least you feel good. Maybe I should be a politician.
WHAT OBAMA SAYS: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.
WHAT HE FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE: The primary reason that the costs of basic necessities is rising is due to the inflation caused by the federal government via the Federal Reserve. Like a typical politician, Obama tends to blame business and other interests for problems primarily caused by a government that taxes too much, regulates too much, and generally tries to plan our economy even though we know, from history, that central planning does not work. Americans cannot save because they must support a bloated government that produces no goods and services, yet siphons off a growing amount of our income to support failed programs and earmark spending of our Congressmen. Think about it. Federal employees and government-funded jobs are generally very secure, paying more than the average American makes and they can retire with a full pension after 20 years of work. These benefits come at the expense of the private sector.
In summary, Obama's approach to the economy is more of the same old government intervention that has failed in the past. The government can never outdo business when it comes to figuring out where to invest money that will create jobs because the government does not listen to consumers. Businesses listen to consumers and produce products that consumers want. This is efficient and this creates jobs. Our focus on money instead of productivity has created a mess of our economy. The government can print all the money that you could ever want, but if jobs aren't created that produce goods and services that people consume then all you'll have is money. An economy with little money, but with tons of goods and services that people want is much better than an economy with lots of money and less goods and services. What we have today is an economy that is being increasingly controlled by a government that doesn't listen to consumers and so we have lots of money in the system, but we have less goods and services that we want. The proof of this is inflation and the increased difficulty in making ends meet.
Obama promises economic security, but he proposes to deliver this with more government control. This cannot mean security. It has never been so throughout history. The Communists in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, and other socialist nations all promised economic security which resulted in inferior economies and standards of living. Economic security comes from an abundance of wealth, or goods and services that people want and need to make their lives comfortable. Goods and services that people want come more abundantly under economic organizations whose foundation is economic freedom. Economic freedom can only exist where there is political freedom.
The government's role is to make sure that the participants in an economy play by agreed upon rules. But punishing someone for breaking the rules is different than preventing someone from making an economic choice because of regulations, which are arbitrary by nature.
Barack's plan limits political freedom by increasing the size of the government. Barack's economic proposals reveal a man, who at his core, does not believe in economic freedom. He consistently takes the side of labor and is an enemy to business. The government should be neutral in these matters. When government and labor gang up on people who are not part of government or labor, labor wins pay raises, concessions, and other increases only at the expense of those people who are not part of labor unions.
Finally, we all know this economy is sick. Look at how badly the federal government has bungled the economy in the past. It has rung up a $10 trillion dollar deficit as it has attempted to manage the economy. This is not a sign of health. It has created extreme economic bubbles by pumping too much money into the economy. Look at the Internet bubble and the housing bubble for evidence of complete mismanagement. It has created inflation never before seen in the American economy. It created the Great Depression. Ben Bernanke admitted that one in 2002. The truth is that federal government is not as good at managing the economy as people believe. The people would be far better off managing their own economy. The peaks would be shorter and the valleys would be less deep. There would be far less chicanery and manipulation created by politicians and bureaucrats who want to enact their reforms and their programs even if the people wouldn't vote for those programs and reforms. Obama promises a little bit to everyone.
It is a typical Marxist/Socialist ploy. Promise the regular folks some goodies in exchange for their support. When the government cripples the economy then it will be too hard for the regular folks to fight back. That is what happened in the Soviet Union in the early 1900s. That is what happened in China and North Korea. The Communists rose to power by promising the peasants land and goodies in exchange for their votes. Once in power and firmly in control of the police powers of the State, they built their empires on the backs and the blood of their supporters, killing millions and millions of poor people in the process. But hey, that is what committed socialists believe. The ends justify the means. After all, they are building heaven on earth.