Every four years, pundits and politicians tout the presidential election as the most important of their lifetimes. The hype is compelling and fires up the political bases. Yet, there have only been a few elections that lived up to the excitement: Lincoln, FDR and Reagan.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter offered starkly contrasting visions for the direction of America. Reagan believed in the American people; Carter believed in government.
On November 6, 2012, Americans will go to the polls to cast their votes in another presidential election that lives up to the hype.
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama offer contrasting visions for the direction of America. Like Reagan, Romney’s policies would begin to lay the foundation to empower American citizens. Obama would continue his scheme to transfer power from the people to the government.
As Obama expands government, low-income families become more entrenched in government dependency. The unintended consequences of another four years of Obama’s vision will hurt the poor.
Obama's alternative energy programs intentionally increase energy prices, which has a disparate impact on low-income households. As Obama subsidizes failing solar companies and wages his war on coal, low-income families struggle to pay their increasing heating and electric bills. Obama has also failed to act on the Keystone pipeline and done little to exploit domestic oil production. That adds up to higher prices at the pump for low-income households.
Another four years of Obama will ensure that Obamacare taxes hit low-income households. Embedded in Obamacare are taxes like the medical device tax, which taxes medical device manufacturers. As with any tax, the manufacturers will pass the cost of the tax on to consumers.
Obamanomics has been dreadful for the economy and limits opportunities for low-income and unskilled workers. After almost four years of Obamanomics, the unemployment rate of 7.8 percent matches the rate during Obama’s first month in office. Yet, labor force participation is at a 30-year low. So many people have given up hope of finding a job that they have removed themselves from the labor market.
Many of the people who left the labor market are unskilled workers and recent college graduates. While they watch from the sidelines, these potential workers are missing valuable experiences to develop their skills and become more employable.
Further, Obama’s anti-business rhetoric and policies compel corporations to sit on their money. And, expanding bank regulations force banks to limit loans. Obama has not been supportive of the private sector, so employers and banks hold money that could be used to expand operations, hire new employees, and expand the economy.
In short, Obamanomics has stifled economic growth and slammed the door on low-income and unskilled workers.
Finally, pundits on the Left would argue that Obama’s big government programs provide housing, food and medical care for the poor. Obama’s government dependency programs, however, can sustain the poor only as long as the government can borrow money to finance them. Obama’s annual deficits have added over $5 trillion to the national debt, which has climbed to over $16 trillion. The debt will take generations to pay off and limit opportunities for low-income and unskilled workers for decades.
The choice for low-income families that don’t want to depend on taxpayers should be clear. Obama’s policies perpetuate government dependency. Romney’s policies would begin to encourage low-income families to leave taxpayer dependency traps.
The policies Romney has advocated during his campaign would be the first steps in the right direction for low-income parents and children. Parents hope to transfer some level of wealth to their children. Under Obama’s policies, low-income parents will only be able to transfer poverty.
Comments