Throughout the years Democrat presidencies in America have been two-fers: Franklin and Eleanor, Bill and Hillary and now Barack and Nancy.
Don't you just love the consistency?
It has become clear to everyone that Nancy Pelosi has become the power behind the man, as Hillary was for Bill. I only hope that is the reason Obama, who presented himself as a moderate, would pursue the agenda set forth. He was dragged kicking and screaming into the process.
The $787 billion stimulus law, combined with a proposed $3.6 trillion budget, on top of a $1.75 trillion deficit, could only be pursued by a liberal who could care less about our economy. Our economy needs fiscal responsibility, not wasteful social spending. Does anyone in their right mind think we need to pass cap-and-trade programs and government-run health care at the cost of trillions in the middle of the worse recession of modern times?
So wanting to believe the best in our new president, I am going to assume these policies are not what Obama deems necessary but what Pelosi demands. Pelosi has always allowed partisanship and her liberal policies to override what is best for the nation. Obama is an educated man. I am told he is thoughtful and intellectual – characteristics that are non-existent in Nancy. She is a radical.
If I am wrong and this is Obama's plan, it is no wonder he pays little attention to the stock market. He is obviously far too busy rearranging the social structure of America by redistributing the wealth and making all 300 million Americans totally dependent upon government. Apparently, the economy is not his No. 1 priority, even though his supporters thought the economy would get his full attention.
Fixing this economy is not rocket science, and I have pointed out in past columns what needs to be implemented. Most Americans know we need to immediately stop spending money on anything that is not a major necessity. Yet Obama views an opportunity within this crisis to ignite massive increases in the size and scope of government.
Caterpillar, General Motors and Microsoft, just to name a few, have laid off tens of thousands of workers. How many layoffs has the federal government announced? Corporations, small businesses, individual states and American citizens have all cut back on all non-essential expenses. How much has the government cut back?
You and I both know the answer. The federal government has increased the number of federal employees. It has tripled spending in the name of "stimulus" with far too little actually directed at creating jobs. There are more welfare workers, more IRS agents and plenty of new wasteful spending, but not one cutback. Not one.
So I repeat my plan for repairing our very fragile economy:
1. Reduce the size and spending of government by 15 percent in the next four years. Redirect every penny of current proposed spending to job-creating projects. This will send a signal to future lenders and investors that America is serious about getting its fiscal house in order.
2. Reduce business taxes (the highest in the world) to 22 percent for the next four years or until we reach 3 percent GDP or higher for three consecutive quarters. Then start incremental increases of 2 percent every year up to 28 percent. This will spur small businesses, the biggest generators of jobs, to hire and invest in their companies.
3. Suspend all payroll taxes for earners of $75,000 or below for 12 months. This would put money in people's pockets this week without any bureaucratic red tape. Freeze taxes on all incomes above $75,000 at their current levels allowing for proper budgeting and tax planning.
4. Reduce capital gains tax to 15 percent. Permanently encouraging massive portions of private capital, hiding on the sidelines for fear of taxation, to re-enter the market.
5. Offer tax credits for all health care expenses for both individuals and businesses.
6. Remove or alter mark-to-market accounting
rules mandated in Sarbanes/Oxley allowing an immediate benefit to every bank balance sheet in the country. Mark to market was designed to avoid more Enrons and Worldcoms. It's safe to say it isn't very effective at accomplishing that.
7. Immediately reinstate the "uptick" rule on the stock market greatly reducing the short selling of perfectly solid companies.
While I know many will take issue with my suggestions, none require any additional government spending, any new taxes and most importantly no new borrowing. If we as a people need to learn how to live within our means, the government needs to do the same.
The White House is allowing too much time to be focused on Rush Limbaugh and not enough on the economy. Democrats had no problem wishing for the failure of the Bush policy in Iraq. Why are they so upset with Rush wishing for Obama's social engineering to fail? Maybe Obama should direct the brain trust of Emanuel, Carville and Begala be focused on the economy. That much spin should get the economy revolving rather quickly.
We are facing some very serious issues – issues that if handled properly will actually make us stronger. Less government, not more, is the future. Lower taxes, not higher taxes, have worked for all economies.
Putting money and trust into the hands of hard-working Americans, not the government, is the answer.
Former President Bill Clinton and his co-president were dragged kicking and screaming in 1994 to reduce government spending, reform welfare and reduce capital gains taxes. The Republican Congress with the Contract with America made sure he did the right thing. Then, and only then, Clinton raised certain taxes and, much to his credit, presided over a very robust economy. Most, whether they like it or not, have to give him credit for that.
So what do you say Obama? How about pursuing what JFK, Ronald Reagan and even Bill Clinton embraced to get us back on track.
Or do you have to get permission from your co-president?
Back To Commentary Archives | More Commentary @ WND.com Archives