Home > Economy, Election, Government, Health Care, Politics > This is why Obama can’t run on his record

This is why Obama can’t run on his record

Obama never really quit campaigning after the 2008 election.  Undoubtedly he must have been thinking forward to all of the accomplishments he was going to usher through Congress as he stood under Greek columns in 2008 accepting the Democratic nomination for President.  Not many think he’ll make that mistake again — of festooning with such pomp again that is.

But life has a habit of not going the way we want it to.  And for someone who spent his entire life ducking responsibility — drug use, refusal to take stands on controversial legislation, minimal private sector work experience — he simply wasn’t prepared for the disappointments and tasks that would lay ahead of him.  Instead of walking into the White House and immediately getting to work setting the economy to right, he lacked executive experience and knowledge that he would need in order to do that.  Instead, he ushered through a $900 Billion Stimulus package which funneled millions to campaign donors and other connected individuals; instituted $100 Billion in highly questionable loans to companies that likely couldn’t have gotten them on their own through the private sector (Solyndra, and many others); and failed to create the jobs President Obama promised would come of borrowing nearly an additional $1 trillion dollars.

Jobs that were created through the stimulus legislation, however, ended up costing the country $300-500k to create per job.  Yes, you saw that figure right.  However, that figure is reflective of the administration’s claim of “saved” and created jobs.  A claim that is entirely unsupportable in that you can’t document jobs that weren’t lost, but were saved none-the-less.  The administration now counts jobs that are supposedly “funded” by stimulus dollars, instead.  Free money to pay my existing employees? Sure, I’ll take some! Hire new employees? Are you kidding? Demand drives hiring and we have none of that around here, thank you very much!  The actual figure is likely higher, though I haven’t seen a credible figure yet.

Instead President Obama ushered through Obamacare, which most expect to be tossed by the Supreme Court later this year despite considerable political capital expended by the President and Congressional Democrats to pass it.  Itself, a tremendously expensive drain on the nations budget!  Estimates now show that the initial 10 year cost will be $1.7 Trillion, though even that cost is gamed.  In order to get it passed, Congressional Democrats back loaded the costs while immediately instituting the taxes and fees.   The figure represents only 6 years of actual Obamacare related spending, but 10 years of taxes related to it.  The cost will balloon as time passes, though how much is impossible to determine.

Instead of fostering realistic economic growth President Obama has gone on a spending spree the likes of which the world has never seen before.  He’s drowned the United States in debt, having accumulated more current and projected debt than all of the previous Presidents before him combined.  In terms of real debt he accumulated more than President Bush did in 8 years, in less than 2 years.  Lacking in a business background, President Obama simply doesn’t understand how to create jobs.  Nor do his advisers, who like him  are similarly lacking in the knowledge and skills businesses tap to foster growth and economic demand.  Such a waste.  A waste that points to the President’s unrealistic ideology, which is grounded in the world of academia where there are no actual repercussions for being wrong.

President Obama promised he would create jobs, and hasn’t. President Obama promised to reign in the cost of healthcare, and hasn’t. President Obama promised to banish lobbyists from the White House, and didn’t.  President Obama promised he was post-racial, but throws the race card in every instance anyone disagrees with him. And the list goes on.  This is why President Obama can’t run on his record, and why his entire campaign will be negative.  That negativity has already begun and will only get worse as the 2012 campaign season kicks into high gear.

For those who want to see the facts about the Obama administration, here are a few charts to digest.  While they should be self explanatory, I’ll discuss them briefly for the liberals in the audience.  The data for each of the charts was obtained directly from the CBO, Dept. of Labor, and the Treasury. 

This first chart contains the official government figures for the federal budget from 1990 through 2011.  Marked are the years of the Bush administration, and those of the Obama administration.  Inlays are all the revenues the federal government collected throughout the course of that fiscal year.  Outlays are all the expenditures of the federal government throughout the course of that fiscal year.

The delta between inlays and outlays (expenditures) are the deficits for that fiscal year, which are more clearly articulated on the second chart.  The second chart shows only the years deficit, and as with the first chart has the years of the Bush and Obama administrations marked.

During the Bush administration the government averaged a deficit of $304.8 Billion, with it’s highest deficit occurring in its final year (2008), amounting to $458.6 Billion.  In total the Bush administration accrued a new debt of $2,133.9 Trillion over its 8 years.  In comparison, the Obama administration has accrued a total new debt of $4,001.6 Trillion in its first three years.  President Obama’s smallest deficit — $1,293.5 Trillion — is nearly three times larger than President Bush’s largest deficit (2008).  President Obama is averaging an annual deficit of $1,333.9 Trillion, incidentally.

This next chart shows the public debt, which is the accumulation of the annual deficits of President Obama’s administration, and all those before him.  Somewhat misleading because the data I pulled this from doesn’t include mandatory future outlays, nor which policies and laws those outlays would be attributable to.  Future Debt accumulation would be attributed to the President in office at the time, instead of more accurately attributed to the President who caused the mandatory spending.  Obamacare is an example of why that level of granularity is necessary.  Were it not to be thrown out entire, or dramatically changed by the Supreme Court, its cost would balloon in out years and would represent tremendous mandatory spending to future administrations.  And would almost certainly have to be subsidized by borrowing.

This chart begins to show why the previous charts are so important.  The Unemployment rate remains extremely high, at rates that haven’t been experienced since 1983.  This chart depicts the rate from 1990-2011, annually averaged but as with so many government figures is misleading.  The common calculation of unemployment, which is used and reported by the media, doesn’t count individuals who had previously been looking for employment but who have stopped looking and were unsuccessful in finding employment.  Those individuals are defined as “not in the work force” (obviously!).  It also doesn’t count those individuals who were previously fully employed, but are now working part time because they were unable to obtain full time employment.  The common unemployment rate  calculation counts those individuals as Employed.  You are either Employed, Unemployed, or Not in the Labor Force.

Why is this important?  Because if you look at the chart below it appears to indicate that unemployment is getting better.  That can only mean the economy is getting better, right?  Wrong.

What the chart above doesn’t indicate are those who have stopped looking for employment all together, and are no longer counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly unemployment rate (see the real rate here).  Normal folks — the ones out looking for jobs — know this implicitly, that the economy isn’t actually producing jobs nor is the unemployment rate actually decreasing.

This next chart shows the real story as it pertains to employment.  By the end of 2011 the employment participation rate is as bad as it has been since 1983.  The decrease from the end of the Bush administration through 2011 represents millions of Americans who lost their job and who are no longer even looking for one.

Its about taxes, or lack of them as it may be.  Unemployed Americans don’t pay taxes, don’t participate in the economy to any significant degree, nor do unemployed Americans stimulate economic growth in the private sector.  Meanwhile, the Federal budget doesn’t decrease.  Decreasing budget inlays (taxes) equate to increasing borrowing (deficit/debt) and an increase in the interest to service the increase in debt.

Taken together, all of this information is horrible and its unsurprising that President Obama doesn’t want to talk about it.   Real increase in unemployment, a very real threat of another recession with decreasing economic activity, massively increasing debt, and not even his signature legislative accomplishment to point to (one would assume).  How’d that hope and change work out for you?

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. June 2, 2012 at 9:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: