Let’s be frank. As I’ve said from the onset of the Intramuralist, no one need to agree with me. Really. I’m comfortable enough in my own skin to omit my opinions… and to admit that some of them may be wrong. I also may not know which ones are wrong. Guess what? Some of yours are wrong, too…. and you may or may not know it. That said, we must still trod through all discussion and debate respectfully; such is key to solution.
My right-or-wrong opinion shared this day concerns the upcoming policy push by Pres. Obama. You can expect it to be hammered home in this week’s State of the Union address. Friends, allow me to play most all my cards on the table… when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) ran for president in 2008, there was much about him and his charisma that excited me. He was/is no doubt brilliant and incredibly gifted. Privately, I admiringly called him “Barackstar.” But the chief concern I expressed when he initially ran for office was his lack of economic experience.
In all honesty, I care less about the party a person hails from than their background and experience. The fact that then Sen. Obama had little economic experience concerned me greatly. I desire a president who is first and foremost ethically above question — and then has proven experience working with diverse people groups and running a multi-million/billion dollar state/operation. The U.S. economy is a 16 plus trillion dollar operation; it’s important to me that our leader has some experience with such. Pres. Obama, oratorically attractive as he was, did not have such experience.
Economists can gather and respectfully debate how such has affected his policy advocacy thus far. That is not the point of today’s blog. The point is that in 2 days, on Tuesday, Pres. Obama is going to stress “income equality.” In his annual State of the Union address, he is going to make the point for all the world to see (or at least for the United States) that wealth among American households is unequally distributed — and that the federal government has the responsibility to redistribute that wealth, in a way for all intents and purposes, that’s arguably fairer to all.
Great. That makes many of us feel good. Here’s my question: feel good or not, does it make economic sense?
Please hear me on this. Feeling good about a specific policy means less than whether or not the policy makes sense. Say what you want. Say what you want to energize the people. But if the policy does not make sense, it matters not how we feel. If the policy is not economically logical, then the policy should not be advocated for — and cannot be economically sustained.
This is not a criticism of Pres. Obama. He is a fantastic politician who is oratorically gifted, but again, he has little economic experience. Liking the President, wanting to support him and his policy initiatives, speaks nothing to the credence of whether or not his initiatives are economically sustainable, good, and true.
Hence, it doesn’t matter how we feel. Economically, we cannot extract wealth from the wealthy, redistribute to the un-wealthy, and then make the un-wealthy somehow prosperous. It does not make economic sense.
Such then prompts me to investigate the President’s motives. I do not know what his motives are. I will say that again: I don’t know — we don’t know — none of us truly know — what the President’s motives are. But I do know that with Obamacare escalating in unpopularity, there is motive to remove the national focus off of that subject. Let’s get the focus onto something more popular… something the people can support… income equality… yes… it’s unfair! Let’s distribute wealth more fairly!
Great emotional argument, my friends. The wiser challenge is whether it makes sense.
Respectfully,
AR
I believe the president’s motives are clear, Ann. One need only look at Barack Obama’s past. Since his days as a community organizer, he has been in the business of dividing us. Obama was a student of Saul Alinsky–the king of all community organizers. Alinsky believed that virtually any means are acceptable when pursuing one’s goals.
Fostering divisions among us, then capitalizing on that division, has been this president’s modus operandi since he was first elected to the Illinois legislature. Black vs white, man vs woman, rich vs poor. Incidentally, income disparity under this president has reached record levels.
You’re well aware of my feeling about this president, Ann, and I will respect your wishes of a respectful dialogue. I assign NO good motives to this ‘policy shift’. It is simply a way to pit groups against one another in an attempt to motivate his voting base. As long as the public naively believes that this man truly has good intent, the damage he’s doing cannot be stopped.
I continue to be baffled by this reference to wealth being unequally distributed. That’s simply a statistic, with no inherent scheme or evil attached. As if some power magically gives the lions share to some, and little to none to others. Wealth is earned. Some are more successful than others, certainly, and I agree they have a moral responsibility to be generous and take care of others. But it isn’t a “zero sum game” and the success of one doesn’t require the failure of others. Regulations and oversight are necessary in order to ensure equality of opportunities, to restrict and punish corruption, but we are not all the same, in our talents or even our economic and financial goals. I agree with Rick, after years of failed economic policies, this is just another devisive ploy to change the subject.