LOADING

Type to search

Opinion

Obama policies suppress economic growth

Brewer is a senior finance and accounting major with a concentration in insurance and can be contacted at theodore.brewer@drake.edu

Growing opposition to President Barack Obama’s economic policy is not due to his failure; rather, it should be attributed to his success. True, the Obama dream and the American dream both intend for the removal of inequality and both include the aim of abundant prosperity, but there is a world of difference in how each approach is supposed to reach that goal.

Obama has made clear his wish to create a risk-averse society through government intervention and dependence. He wants to ensure that “everyone has a chance at success,” and his means to achieve that goal is through the redistribution of wealth.

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone,” Obama said in a speech near the 2008 election.

Here lies a fundamental difference between many Americans and Obama.

By instilling a system that further takes from successful people and gives to unsuccessful people, two things are being done: the incentive to provide opportunity for society is being reduced and the incentive to remain dependent on others is being increased. Those two consequences are incredibly dangerous because they negatively affect individual drive and accountability.

“If I had known my reward was going to be diminished the way it has, I never would have taken the risk to bring new development to my community,” Kurt Brewer, an Iowa entrepreneur said. “I would have been better off staying in the conventional job mold and doing work that was going to be done anyway instead of creating new work.”

Tom Egli, another Iowa small business owner, agrees.

“Due to the uncertainty regarding future small business taxes, regulations and Obama health care expenses, it is too risky for me to invest in hiring any new employees,” he said. “In addition, consumer confidence is down. We also struggle to find replacement workers when we do need to hire. In the past 14 months, we have had six candidates turn down job offers to stay on unemployment – despite being $14-$18 per hour plus benefits jobs. It seems like a lot of people have figured it out. Why work when you can get a check from the government for not working? Too many individuals are becoming dependent on the government.”

Obama chooses to neglect the fact that he is taking money from people who would otherwise use their funds to grow businesses and create more jobs. He would rather redistribute an unprecedented amount of money himself and create a larger class of dependent people. That way he can boast about how he is “fighting for the working class,” and he can use his strong speaking skills to blame his opposition for hardships Americans are facing.

Obama’s plan to raise the American floor of success by lowering the ceiling could seem effective in the short term, but only if the country were in good financial standing. The problem is that excessive redistribution of wealth is not a sustainable long-term policy. Remember the proverb, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Obama continues to give out more and more fish, but America is running out of fishermen because they are wondering why they should work so hard. After all, Obama is taking their hard work while he demeans success by equating it with greed and unfulfilled societal responsibility.

Obama’s plummeting approval rating shows the realization that is becoming more apparent with time; the president’s approach to government is not commensurate with American success. Providing the best platform for people to pursue the American dream is what made this country the most capable nation in the history of the world. Obama should start working on that instead of trying to salvage his voting base through speeches full of buzzwords and blame.

Tags:

You Might also Like

3 Comments

  1. The Dude October 3, 2011
  2. hoosier bulldog October 7, 2011

    Sounds like the kid has it figured out.

  3. thesametiredarguement October 11, 2011

    If you want to talk about redistribution and inequality, I’d ask you refer to the actual distribution of income in the united states from 1970 onward. From a study by UC Berkley economist Emmanuel Saez: (The top 1 percent )”has gone through enormous fluctuations along the course of the twentieth century, …, to only about 9 percent during the 1960s-1970s, and back to almost 23.5 percent by 2007″ The other time income was skewed similarly was the 1920s. If you’re against redistribution, you should be against the policies (systematic dismantling of financial regulation from Reagan onward) that enabled THIS redistribution as well as against redistribution that benefits the poor, but for some reason I doubt this is the case.

Skip to content