Obama's anti-jobs, anti-growth agenda
Even with average wages, adjusted for inflation, dropping for 21 of the last 23 months, higher rates of poverty, 23 million Americans unable to find regular work, ongoing $1 trillion deficits, ObamaCare pushing employers to cut full-time workers and hire part-timers and the gross domestic product falling during the last quarter, there wasn't much in President Obama's second inaugural address about job creation, debt reduction or economic growth.
Instead, it took only a few minutes into the speech before the rich became the target.
Tying the ideals of the American Revolution to his goals of economic leveling and income redistribution, Mr. Obama declared that “the patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few.”
It took Obama only a few additional minutes to deliver another slam at those with “privileges,” using the concept of a fixed pie in which someone can get a bigger slice only by reducing the slice sizes of everyone else. “For we, the people,” he declared, “understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.”
It took only a few more minutes for the “shrinking few” with “privileges,” those with supposedly unfair advantages, to yet again become the villains. “We do not believe,” Obama proclaimed, “that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky or happiness for the few.”
The “few” with “privileges” — in short, a “shrinking” overclass with a disproportionate share of “happiness” and “freedom” — are portrayed as “lucky,” not as hardworking, innovative or productive and not as job creators.
It was the same at the Democratic National Convention last September, with Obama linking his redistributionist agenda to the ideals of the American Revolution. “A freedom which asks only what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism,” he declared, “is unworthy of our founding ideals and those who died in their defense.”
Shifting to climate change in his inaugural address, Obama said that some may “deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”
True, fires and storms can be devastating, but there's been no increase in fires, droughts or storms.
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he proclaimed.
He didn't say that we'll respond to the threat of adding $1 trillion a year in red ink to the $16 trillion federal debt, “knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”
What also went unmentioned is that income data from the Census Bureau show that median household income in the United States, adjusted for inflation, dropped by $4,019 during the first 3 1⁄2 years of the Obama administration.
On reversing this decline, Obama said nothing about the positive correlation between increases in private sector investment/productivity and increases in household income — and nothing was said about how these income increases are derailed by expanded government regulations, new federal mandates and tax hikes on dividends, high earners and capital gains.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics and a local restaurateur. His email: email@example.com
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Starkey: Chryst a miserable failure at Pitt
- Ex-Penguins defenseman Niskanen still miffed by coaches’ firings
- Police investigate alleged institutional sexual assault
- Steelers’ Bell, Chiefs’ Charles elevating running back position in NFL
- Pouliot scores in NHL debut as Penguins tame Panthers
- Pitt players support Rudolph for job
- Pitt football fights to overcome steppingstone status
- Warning about cop-killer came moments too late
- South Fayette football team distributes Steelers tickets to Carlynton, Wilkinsburg
- Pittsburgh police break up customer fights over Air Jordan 11 shoes
- Steelers notebook: Bell says he’s prepared to test Chiefs defense