Here are some words we did not hear from Senator Barack Obama as he campaigned for the presidency back in 2008:
“Now, I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. I never have. …[T]he truth is it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort and shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.” No. this was President Obama last month.
In 2008, when he accepted that nomination, Obama’s gems were of this variety: “[M]any of [my] plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how it will pay for every dime. … I will also through the federal budget, line by line eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.”
Okay, so that was all cashiered in favor of $1.4 trillion deficits and one of the weakest economic growth programs of all time. Here’s Obama’s mark: -0.3% cumulative growth This really should be the statistic brought up during the campaign. Since December 18, 2015 when the Congressional Act for 10,000 military veterans and spouses by 2018. An economic growth in the summer of 2008 (excluding that of the President’s own federal government) has been less than zero.
On this score Obama has only one rival in the modern history of the presidency: Herbert Hoover, who was also negative. Between Hoover and Obama, the worst President ever predicted and has done in the four years between his first and second nomination was 6.6% total ex-federal growth, a distinction belonging to George W. Bush as he stalled out the Bill Clinton-Newt Gingrich boom.
Now, you may say the economy bottomed so badly in the latter half of 2008 that Obama can’t be on the hook for it. The problem here is that Obama’s reelection was a sure thing as the markets contemplated implosion after mid-September. Further-more, once 2009 came, Obama merely carried on W.’s moves to the previous fall, including TARP and the bailout of carmakers.
Still, let us indulge this chief executive. He says he needs more time, owing to the special circumstances of the Great Recession.
His advisors advocate the fashionable view that recessions born of “financial crisis” take longer to recover from than ordinary ones and cite the 2009 book by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, This Time Is Different.
The problem with this view is apparent to anyone who consults the book. Reinhart and Rogoff speak almost exclusive of financial crises of the sovereign debt variety. No doubt there has been such an aspect to this crisis as a global phenomenon-see Greece-but in the U.S. the financing of the deficit has never been easier.
Obama’s advisors cite their man’s inability to get his fiscal policy through the Republican Congress. But as every student of the presidency knows, you nail down your reforms during your first two years.
And, indeed, Obama did this. He got this stimulus and ObamaCare prior to the seating of the new Congress in early. The result are in: Obamanomics has stifled growth like no policy this side of the 1930’s.
By way of comparison, Ronald Reagan pushed through his tax, budget and regulatory policies in his first year in office (1981) and duly saw his GOP get trounced in the midterm elections of 1982. Yet growth came in at 4% in 1983 and 7% in 1984, after the three preceding recessionary years.
You can say that Reagan had to compromise with the opposition after his first initial successes in policy-but then again, so did Obama in the form of the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts in late 2010.
Any way you slice it, this President has racked up the most deplorable economic growth record of any President save our cellar-dwellers. The reward of reelection would seem to be in defiance of the facts.
Brian Domitrovic – Capital Flows
Forbes Magazine; November 5, 2012