For those of you who claim to still be undecided, and therefore may not know this, it is a fact that only twice since World War II has the U.S. unemployment rate actually reached the 10% mark: The first time was when it hit 10.8% back in 1982 and the second, of course was much more recent, when it hit 10% in 2009. And the methods chosen regarding how best to actually deal with such a disastrous statistic are as different as the two men who were in the position of putting those methods into practice. And of course those two men were President Ronald Reagan and Barry "Almighty." What President Reagan did was to cut marginal tax rates, whereas Barry "Almighty" has chosen to hit the American people with all manner of concealed taxes. President Reagan brooked no nonsense from striking air traffic controllers, while Barry has only served to strengthen the positions of federal and state employee unions and staged what can only be described as a spectacular takeover of two auto makers which did nothing more than to preserve the very union contracts that had crippled the industry in the first place.
President Reagan also worked to reduce the regulatory burden, freeing up businesses to recover much more quickly than they would have otherwise been able to do. Barry, on the other hand, has done the complete opposite, taking the opportunity afforded to him by the recession to increase the burdens on U.S. businesses. President Reagan lightened the federal government’s grip on state governments by reducing it's place in their budgets. Barry "Almighty has worked feverishly to control state expenditures from Washington. One president freed the American people to drive their economy forward and make up for lost ground. The other has essentially shackled them with more government and even more debt. So why there shouldn't be any surprise when it comes to judging the results which are as starkly different as were the approaches used to 'achieve' them? Policy does matter. If Barry matched Ronald Reagan’s post-recession recovery rate, 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs today. Sadly, the generation that benefited from Reagan’s leadership is not leaving its children the same bequest.
Fifty-five months after the recession started in July 1981, the Reagan recovery had created 7.8 million more jobs than when the recession started, and real per capita gross domestic product was up by a whopping $3,091. Now fast forward 26 years, and we see that fifty-five months after the recession that began in December 2007, there were four million fewer Americans working than when the recession started, and real per capita GDP was down $803. The trajectory of household income is even more telling. According to Sentier Research analysis of monthly U.S. Census data, during the current 'recovery' American households have lost more income than they lost during the recession. In December 2007, real median household income was $54,916. It had fallen to $53,508 when the recession ended 18 months later. But by June 2012, real median family income had fallen even further to $50,964. During the Reagan recovery from 1981 to 1986, real median household income on an annualized basis rose by $3,380 or 7.7%. So, isn't it rather obvious that Barry has no interest, whatsoever, in getting our economy going again?.
Also, my dear undecideds, there are other, and much more troubling differences between the Reagan and Barry "Almighty" recoveries. In July, most Americans, I think, were shocked to discover that 246,000 new people had qualified for disability benefits during the previous three months, while only 225,000 people had found new jobs. A total of 471,000 Americans left the unemployment rolls, choosing to no longer even look for work, but the difference between qualifying for disability benefits and getting a job is profound for the economy and for the people involved. Fifty-five months after the 1981 recession began, the number of Americans drawing disability benefits had actually dropped by 655,000—or 14.3%. The explosion of disability payments is only the tip of the iceberg. Also fifty-five months after the 1981 recession began, the number of people on food stamps had fallen by three million, or 13.4%. The number of food-stamp recipients since the recession that began in December 2007 has now grown to more than 46 million, from 26 million—a mind-boggling 71% increase.
While part of this growth can be said to be attributable to the failed recovery, a significant amount has been created by the administration's effort to actually expand the food-stamp rolls. The number of beneficiaries of the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program had declined by 1%, or 42,000 people, 55 months after the Reagan recession began. During the supposed Barry "Almighty" 'recovery', the number of beneficiaries in AFDC's successor program, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, has increased by 467,000, or 12%. And again, fifty-five months into the Reagan recovery, the number of Americans drawing unemployment insurance had dropped by 357,000, or 11.9%. Today there are over 500,000 more Americans drawing unemployment insurance than when the 2007 recession started, an increase of 19.2%. Historical data and Congressional Budget Office projections for 2012 also indicate that in the Reagan recovery, Medicaid enrollment grew by 535,000, or 2.4%. In the Barry 'recovery', Medicaid enrollment has grown by more than 11 million, or 19.7%.
In summary, dear undecideds, Barry has not only failed to bring back the American economy, he has ushered in a frightening growth in dependence. A review of the data from the 126 programs that today make up America's $1 Trillion welfare system shows the same basic pattern over and over again. Expenditures on welfare programs have grown 2.5 times faster during Barry's administration than in any similar time period in American history. In those welfare programs that existed during the Reagan era, the recovery resulted in either a decline in beneficiaries or a slower rate of growth. These same programs have ballooned during this administration. Now I can only assume that when Americans voted for Barry in 2008, they knew, or they should have, that they were voting for a bigger federal government, higher taxes and an expansion in the role that government would play in their lives and businesses. They voted for it and they got it. But Americans also got economic stagnation, an explosion of entitlements and a doubling of the national debt. Unfortunately these things go hand-in-hand.
Many of Barry's energetic apologists still stubbornly insist upon blaming Bush, and have been very busy suggesting that the current recovery is so weak because the 'Bush' recession was so deep. But the totality of our experience in the postwar period is exactly the opposite—the bigger the bust, the bigger the boom that follows. No matter how strenuously Barry defenders may claim otherwise, it is a fact that had we matched the 1982 recovery rate, today annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession, that’s an extra $16,600 for a family of four, and some 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs. I think it safe to say that a very compelling case can be made that Reagan’s tax cuts, Social Security reforms, regulatory reforms, and limits on the growth and power of the federal government not only helped the economy shake off the malaise of the Carter years, but also generated an economic growth premium that bore dividends for Americans up until 2007. Under Barry policies, however, federal spending has exploded like never before and we are now reaping the 'benefits' that result from such policies.
I think we all are very well aware of hoe government control of both the health-care system and the financial system has been greatly expanded under Barry. He also supported last year’s failed "card check" legislation, an attempt at the most dramatic expansion of the power of organized labor since the Great Depression; has launched numerous diatribes against wealth accumulation; undertook a massive expansion in the regulatory power of the federal government; and proposed the largest tax increases in American history. Those tax increases were aimed almost exclusively at America’s entrepreneurs, risk takers and small businesses. Apparently, Barry failed to notice that "BJ" Clinton saw his strongest period of economic growth only after his health-care takeover and stimulus bills were defeated, welfare rolls were pared, the capital gains tax was cut, and the budget was balanced. The recovery is being stifled by the unprecedented policy changes undertaken by Barry. Big government costs more than just higher taxes. It is paid for with diminished freedom and less opportunity. You can’t have unlimited opportunity and an unlimited government, it just doesn't work that way.
No comments:
Post a Comment