January 21st and Beyond
If the election unfolds the way it currently appears, I will be rooting for President Obama starting January 21st. Although I agree with few of his specific policies, I do concur with what I hope are their underlying honorable intentions. I, too, fully believe that the best path to a stronger America for all is through a substantial improvement in the condition of those on the lower rung of the economic ladder. Obama and I simply have different philosophies on how to get there. Obama sees the government in a lead role; I see it as a supporting player. Obama believes the government is a primary problem solver; I believe problems are best solved by the private sector. Obama sees the government dictating; I see the government catalyzing, enabling, and facilitating. The government should help to lay the foundation, not build the building. Obama sees an expansive, activist government; I see a government that is more narrowly focused—one that is primarily interested in finding and funding ways to increase the size of the pie, rather than determine how to portion out a finite pie.
These are legitimate policy differences. Each have merit and can be argued intelligently. The distinguishing factor, in my view, is the long-term effects of each approach. While Obama's methodology may have some short-term stimulative benefit, and certainly scores high on the compassion meter, it falls down when one considers the longer term. What are we left with when the government merely hands out money that is not linked to any structural improvement in our economic system (e.g. better educated, competitive workers; a robust, job-creating industries; etc.)? The short answer is a larger deficit and often a permanently bigger government that leads to even bigger deficits in subsequent years. That's a very non-virtuous cycle of government largess.
On the other hand, when the government champions policies that drive structural economic improvement, they give the gift that keeps on giving—an ever-expanding economic base with opportunity that's ripe for all to benefit from. Let's increase business and worker competitiveness, not their dependency on the government.
What has history taught us about such dependency? Every formerly great empire ultimately failed for one of two reasons: It couldn't defend itself, or it collapsed under the weight of its own excess. For a contemporary example, just look to Europe and its economic demise over the past 30 years or so. It is no secret that Europe cannot support the layers upon layers of social welfare programs and disproportionately worker-centric legislation that's become an albatross around its neck. Now, they are electing new leadership and struggling to unwind this culture of entitlement in order to recapture their once competitive spirit and return to the days of economic expansion and prosperity. No easy task.
So, as I said, I'll be rooting for Obama come January 21. I just hope he acquires an appreciation for the destructive powers of government overindulgence. If he doesn't, get ready for "The Contract with America, Part 2" in 2012.
These are legitimate policy differences. Each have merit and can be argued intelligently. The distinguishing factor, in my view, is the long-term effects of each approach. While Obama's methodology may have some short-term stimulative benefit, and certainly scores high on the compassion meter, it falls down when one considers the longer term. What are we left with when the government merely hands out money that is not linked to any structural improvement in our economic system (e.g. better educated, competitive workers; a robust, job-creating industries; etc.)? The short answer is a larger deficit and often a permanently bigger government that leads to even bigger deficits in subsequent years. That's a very non-virtuous cycle of government largess.
On the other hand, when the government champions policies that drive structural economic improvement, they give the gift that keeps on giving—an ever-expanding economic base with opportunity that's ripe for all to benefit from. Let's increase business and worker competitiveness, not their dependency on the government.
What has history taught us about such dependency? Every formerly great empire ultimately failed for one of two reasons: It couldn't defend itself, or it collapsed under the weight of its own excess. For a contemporary example, just look to Europe and its economic demise over the past 30 years or so. It is no secret that Europe cannot support the layers upon layers of social welfare programs and disproportionately worker-centric legislation that's become an albatross around its neck. Now, they are electing new leadership and struggling to unwind this culture of entitlement in order to recapture their once competitive spirit and return to the days of economic expansion and prosperity. No easy task.
So, as I said, I'll be rooting for Obama come January 21. I just hope he acquires an appreciation for the destructive powers of government overindulgence. If he doesn't, get ready for "The Contract with America, Part 2" in 2012.
Comments