How (and Why) Obama has Impeded Recovery – Tea Party Nation

How (and Why) Obama has Impeded Recovery – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

During and after his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama was hailed as the second coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt. History records that Roosevelt presided over the Great Depression, begun in the previous administration of Herbert Hoover who got most of the blame. Roosevelt’s policies extended it well beyond the normal recovery from a recession.

In his book, “Dupes”, historian Paul Kengor, wrote “Roosevelt won in a landslide in November 1932. To liberals and traditional Democrats everywhere, he was more than just a new face at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was a kind of political savior at the most desperate time in their lives.”

Roosevelt was immediately assailed by the Communist Party USA as he launched his New Deal stew of programs intended to reverse the effects of the economic crisis. As Kengor notes, “No president had ever moved so far to the left, and so quickly, but it was not enough for the comrades.” They portrayed Roosevelt “as a warmonger bent on wreaking havoc on the poor USSR (Soviet Russia)” because they feared the U.S. might go to war against it.

As we now know, some of Roosevelt’s closest advisors were either Communists or extremely sympathetic to Communism. Harry Hopkins was one of them and was later exposed as a likely Soviet agent. The Venona transcripts of secret communications between U.S. Communists and their Soviet handlers revealed this.

Obama came into office following the 2008 financial crisis which, as we know, he blamed entirely on George W. Bush. Triggered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored enterprises, the crisis reflected the many “subprime” mortgages they had pressured banks to make. Bush’s efforts to rein them had fallen on deaf ears.

Like Roosevelt, Obama initiated a number of policies and legislation, not the least of which was his “stimulus” package to turn around the economy, but which has left it with a higher level of unemployment today than in 2009-10. His other initiative, stimulating Green energy has cost taxpayers billions.

In “New Deal or Raw Deal?” historian Burton Folsom, Jr., wrote of Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NRA) documenting that it and other measures did nothing more than balloon the federal government while interfering with the normal action of capitalism to recover—as it had many times before—from financial crises.

Oklahoma Senator Thomas Gore, first elected in 1907, summed up Roosevelt’s efforts saying at the time, “No depression can be ended by gifts, gratuities, doles, and alms handed out by the Federal Treasury, and extorted from taxpayers that are bleeding from every pore.”

As Folsom put it, “Capitalism had failed in Roosevelt’s view of the world and that opened the door for new experiments in government ownership and government direction of the economy. Private enterprise would become public enterprise.”

Why anyone would think that Barack Obama, a “red diaper baby”, raised by leftists and mentored in his youth by a card-carrying Communist, Frank Marshall Davis, would act any differently than Roosevelt, repeating all his mistakes, is to be ignorant of history.

The Worst Recovery Ever

Writing in the April 3rd Wall Street Journal, Edward P. Lazear, 2006-2009 chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, wrote about “The Worst Economic Recovery in History.” Assessing Obama’s policies, Lazear said that “our current recovery pales in comparison with most other recoveries, including the one following the Great Depression.”

“The Great Depression started with major economic contractions in 1930, ’31, ’32 and ’33. In the three following years, the economy rebounded with growth rates of 11%, 9%, and 13% respectively…According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recovery began in the second half of 2009. Since that time, the economy has grown at 2.4%, below our long-term trend by either measure. At this point, the economy is 12% smaller than it would have been had we stayed on trend growth since 2007.”

“It would be difficult to argue,” wrote Lazear, “that government policies over the past three years have enhanced confidence in the U.S. business environment. Threats of higher taxes, the constantly increasing regulatory burden, the failure to pursue an aggressive trade policy that will open U.S. exports and the enormous increase in government spending all are growth impediments.”

Like Roosevelt, Obama has impeded a rebound in the growth of the economy and he has done it by applying all the wrong Socialist “solutions” that extended the Great Depression from 1929 to 1941.

For Obama, this has truly been a crisis that would not be allowed to go to waste. What he has done has been to impose Obamacare in the face of massive rejection, overseen the loss of two million jobs, and increased the national debt to levels that put the U.S. on a crash course to financial collapse.

It would be naïve to think he did not know what he was doing. If one wanted to bring the United States of America to its knees, he would pursue Obama’s policies of the past four years. His “open mike” gaff, speaking with Russia’s President, Dmitry Medvedev, confirms his intent to work closely with America’s longtime adversary if reelected.

© Alan Caruba, 2012


Book: Women in Obama White House felt excluded and ignored (via Pesky Emotional Republican)

Book: Women in Obama White House felt excluded and ignored By Nia-Malika Henderson and Peter Wallsten, Published: September 16 / Drudge Reports A new book claims that the Obama White House is a boys’ club marred by rampant infighting that has hindered the administration’s economic policy and left top female advisers feeling excluded from key conversations. “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind due out next Tuesday, details the rivalries amo … Read More

via Pesky Emotional Republican

Krueger’s economic nightmare – GHEI: Washington Times

Krueger’s economic nightmare – GHEI: Washington Times.

New economic czar promises more of the same: Malaise

Persistent high unemployment is the most pressing economic problem. The official jobless number has been stuck above the 9 percent level for most of this year. The news that President Obama has picked Alan Krueger, a labor economist, to head the three-man Council of Economic Advisers ought to be good news. It should be a sign that the president is finally taking the jobs situation seriously – if only Mr. Kreuger’s academic research and his policy work didn’t suggest otherwise.

Mr. Krueger is associated closely with the ill-conceived “Cash for Clunkers” scheme, which granted a credit of $3,500 to $4,500 to trade in an older vehicle toward a new car, after which the used models had to be crunched up. About 700,000 perfectly good used vehicles were destroyed as part of the program, but, according to, 575,000 of the new car sales that resulted would have taken place even in the absence of the government incentive. The automotive news website estimated that the misguided program cost taxpayers a whopping $24,000 per vehicle sold. Apart from this direct expense, it’s not clear that the clunker project achieved its ostensible environmental objective of removing polluting cars from the roads. There certainly is no doubt that by reducing the supply of old rides, the program drove up the cost of used cars – something that hits the poor the hardest.

Similarly, the Social Security payroll tax cut of 2 percent was part of Mr. Krueger’s agenda. While tax cuts are a good thing, this temporary reduction was made for all the wrong reasons. Employers do not make long-term hiring decisions based on short-term incentives. Jump-starting job creation is going to require more than gimmicks.

On the academic front, Mr. Krueger co-authored a 1993 article with David Card that suggested an increase in the minimum wage did not negatively impact employment in New Jersey. Other economists have looked at the data and concluded that the exact opposite was the case. The extra cost for employers resulted in a decline in jobs in the Garden State.

The Princeton economist has mused over such disastrous policy ideas as the imposition of a European-style value-added tax (VAT) in the United States. Mr. Krueger hedged his views on the idea, but it’s not something worthy of serious consideration. In almost every country where it has been levied, it has added to the net burden on consumers. We’re not undertaxed. No VAT has ever replaced an income tax – it’s just a new tax layered on top of an old tax. As a consumption tax, a VAT disproportionately hurts the poor. A VAT wouldn’t even help solve our current fiscal mess because the eurozone nations already have VATs and they are no closer to fiscal balance.

Mr. Krueger doesn’t represent much of a change from the failed Carter-Obama fiscal policies that have America teetering on the brink of economic collapse. The Obama administration remains fixated on wealth redistribution and searching for short-term fixes to long-term structural problems. Expect the unemployment lines to grow even longer in the weeks ahead.

Nita Ghei is a contributing Opinion writer for The Washington Times.