Discussing the vacuity of Barack Obama’s rhetoric, I find myself taken to task for ignoring the substance allegedly underlying it. Far from it. My initial post merely pointed out that Obama’s speeches convey essentially none of that substance. But don’t take my word for it; Hillary Clinton, too, laments the utter absence of specifics in her adversary’s public pronouncements. (She disagrees only incrementally with the policies Obama endorses) "I could make a big, ol’ speech …" she mocks.
But give the devil his due: check out the candidate’s website, and investigate the substance of his proposals. Many of those mirror the vagueness of his speeches, but he presents enough specifics to get a good sense of the direction in which he wishes to take the country. Read.
And go running – screaming – into the night at the thought that a man proposing such nutty policies might actually be the President.
Start with trade. New Jersey exports more than $30 billion every year. But much of that would come to a screeching halt if Obama is serious about his protectionist trade policies. (The recent dust up with the Canadians, of all people, indicates he’s more cynical than sincere. Should he be elected, we should sincerely hope that he doesn’t actually believe the nonsense he spouts on the campaign trail.)
No serious economist doubts the benefits – to all parties – of free and open markets, but for New Jersey, which depends upon the vitality of its port, them threats to free trade are fightin’ words. Protectionist trade policies inevitably produce retaliation; Smoot-Hawley helped turn a relatively minor local economic burp into a world wide depression. Not only would Obama’s protectionist trade policies devastate New Jersey, they would threaten worldwide economic catastrophe.
Similarly, consider Obama’s co-sponsorship of the deliciously named "Patriot Employer Act". To qualify as a "patriot", such an employer must pay at least 60% of its employees health care costs, hire at least as many domestic employees as it does foreign, welcome union organizing efforts, provide a pension plan, and offer salaries not less than the poverty level (a cute trick, since said level is defined by family size). To finance a paltry 1% credit for such "patriotic" employers, Obama would levy a massive tax upon foreign subsidiaries of US companies.
Couple this demonstration of economic illiteracy with Obama’s thoughts on taxes (massively increase them, but don’t specify which ones or how much) and one wonders: apparently, our prospective President believes that the American government can keep capital domestic by imposing confiscatory taxes. Makes perfect sense. If you’re Lewis Carroll.
Obama displays a puppy-like faith in the beneficence of government; his website reads like a candy-store, liberal wish-list of governmental spending programs. $1000 for every working family (paid for … how?) Double spending on basic research; double energy research spending; "invest $150 billion in "clean energy’; make "investments" (aka massive governmental spending) on "education, training, and workplace skills", so as to create "high-wage jobs".
OK, let’s get this straight: the secret to creating "high wage jobs" lies in massively bloating governmental programs and imposing crushing taxes on the people and entities who will allegedly create said positions. Yup. That’ll work.
And the last time we had a "comprehensive national energy policy", the result was gas lines, natural gas shortages, and a multibillion dollar synfuels boondoggle.
Besides, one cannot take seriously an "energy policy" in which the word "nuclear" does not appear.
Or take this gem:
"The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers."
And here you were thinking that his speeches were models of studied ambiguity.
If so-called "green technologies" will be in high demand throughout the world, the correct governmental policy is to get its fat tuchus out of the way; the private sector will be happy to make the investments necessary to make money. And what does "provide assistance" mean? Just what we need; a farm subsidy analog for the auto industry.
Remember Japan, Inc.? Government picked economic winners and directed investment accordingly. Oh, the media paeans resounded: such public-private partnerships would eat America’s comparative laissez faire lunch.
It’s taken the Japanese decades to recover from that foolishness. Obama would lead us down precisely the same dead end road.
Estimates of the costs of Obama’s promises run as high as $800 BILLION. He’s conspicuously vague about how to pay for it, except by taxing "the rich" – aka people who live in New Jersey – and corporations.
America’s corporate tax rate is already among the highest in the world, at 35%. Contrary to Obama’s proposals, American policy should be to move in precisely the opposite direction.
Ireland, for example and by comparison, imposes a paltry 12.5% rate on general corporate taxes. (25% on passive income) Unsurprisingly, the Irish economy booms along – about 5% per annum, or double the rate for the continent. Instead of emulating the Swedes, or the failed Japanese industrial policy model, we should follow the Irish example, and cut corporate tax rates substantially.
On the merits, then, Obama’s economic policies – to the extent he’s serious about them – would be disastrous for NJ. Indeed, having referred to his website and considered his proposals, his vacuous speeches look better all the time.
While it remains unclear whom the Democrats will nominate, Obama’s campaign has already achieved something historic, a seemingly impossible feat: it makes Hillary look like a sober, responsible adult by comparison.
