The Conservative Edge

In some of my previous posts, I have likely mentioned the word “malaise” and the name “Jimmy Carter” in the same sentence. I have also been of the opinion that America is heading toward an economic freeze that will mirror that of the late 1970s. The reason for our stagnant economy is simple: we are led by the same sort of failed economic policies instituted by then-President Jimmy Carter and other Democrats.

I’m not the only one noticing the similarities. Former hedge fund manager and now talk show host Jim Cramer has written an excellent piece about a 21st-century malaise that is gripping American society. Cramer asserts that Carter’s infamous “malaise” speech sounds like something Barack Obama could have crafted. That’s not surprising. Both the former and the current President share decidedly anti-business, high-tax, big-bureaucracy ideals.

Here are some of Cramer’s remarks, as posted on Yahoo! Finance: “Malaise. The recognition that things are out of control and there is no getting better. The recognition that the president and Congress can’t create jobs and that we can’t stop the spill. The recognition that things are out of our hands. One true presidential historian/arbitrageur invoked the “pitiful helpless giant” speech, a true throwback, a miserable speech by Richard Nixon green-lighting the disastrous Cambodian incursion in order to defeat the indefatigable and ultimately undefeated North Vietnamese. Given our inability to subdue the Taliban, though, maybe the analogy’s not that off-base. It sure feels like we are stuck in a malaise and have been reduced to a pitiful helpless giant, hobbled this time by high debt, huge taxes, an anti-business agenda that is freezing job growth and an intractable economy.

To me, the coincidences are leading to what you see on your screen — a collective sense of ennui and ‘it isn’t worth it’ because things aren’t getting better, they are getting worse.”

Cramer further states: “This malaise, like the Carter malaise, starts from the top, although Carter’s speech was a thinly disguised attempt to blame the American people for the malaise and their unwillingness to sacrifice. I think it has to end at the top with a recognition from the president that jobs have to be created, uncertainty removed, the agenda shelved. He obviously has no intention WHATSOEVER of doing that. And I am not saying this as someone who favors or is opposed to Obama, I am saying it from the litmus I always use: Is something or someone good for stocks or bad? Obama’s bad.”

Cramer’s words are powerful, yet true. Americans were promised that the economy would be a priority. But the priority became, instead, the passage of liberal/leftist/socialist legislation, and subsequent growth of the federal bureaucracy. Financial reform, for instance, sounds great, but means absolutely nothing if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escape federal scrutiny. Health care reform sounds good too, but has caused uncertainty for many employers who fear the rising costs for providing employee health care plans.

So, the Democrats, led by Barack Obama, can continue to tax and regulate American businesses into submission, but there is one word that describes the result: malaise.

Apparently, the road to economic recovery runs through Washington, D.C. The federal government seems to be the only recipient of the “quick jolt” promised by Barack Obama and the leading Democrats in Congress. According to the Associated Press, the latest employment figures show that 390,000 government jobs were added in May, aided by temporary Census-related positions. This number far exceeds the 41,000 private sector jobs added during the same period. Furthermore, there were 35,000 jobs lost in the construction industry, 12,000 jobs lost in financial services, and 6,600 jobs lost in retail trade.

Is this what economic recovery is all about? The White House can try to take credit for some uptick in job creation, but the fact remains that the government is adding jobs at the expense of most other industries. It is also true that both the percentage increase in unemployment, and the length of time from peak employment, surpass those from every recessionary period since World War 2.

McClatchy Newspapers reports that the full-time federal civilian work force (except postal workers) is expected to top 2.1 million in fiscal year 2010. More than 560,000 new workers will be hired in the next four years. Moreover, average compensation for federal civilian workers increased nearly twice as much as for the private sector from 2000 to 2008. Their average annual compensation is $119,982, including earnings and benefits. This ranks federal civilian workers seventh among 72 occupation categories, behind only high finance, energy and company management professions.

The problem is, 98 percent of working Americans are not federal employees. While many people keep losing their jobs—incidentally, another manufacturer here in southwest Ohio closed, putting 57 folks out of work—there is a growing number of people who wonder why the government isn’t cutting back like every other employer.

The answer is relatively simple. The government keeps expanding because it keeps adding layer upon layer of services and programs, with commensurate increases in federal bureaucracy. It will soon get to the point at which our economy will grind to a halt under all of the new taxes, laws, and regulations. Companies trying to conduct business here at home will soon find an economic climate favoring government oversight instead of productivity. We may, by the end of Obama’s first (and hopefully only) term, revisit the economic malaise brought on by the Carter administration: double digit unemployment, high inflation, and escalating interest rates. Even if inflation and interest rates never reach those levels, economists aren’t expecting the job market to reach pre-recession hiring levels until 2015.

It comes down to this: if you want to prosper, get a job working for Uncle Sam. Otherwise, get ready for an extended rough ride.

There I was a couple of days ago, sitting in front of the computer, reading some columns featured on the Dayton Daily News website. I try to respond to one or two columns a week, just so I can feel good about contributing to a liberal newspaper from a conservative perspective. I noticed an article written by Thomas Friedman, a well-known columnist who writes for the New York Times. He states that America is losing ground in technological development and innovation. Part of this decline is due to the high cost of doing business in the U.S. Businesses here face extremely high corporate tax rates, and the federal government is reluctant to use subsidies or other financial incentives to keep corporations planted in American soil.

So, I felt the need to respond to Friedman’s column. I wrote that Friedman is actually correct in theory. There is no good reason that American companies should not prosper by operating here in the States. Furthermore, as companies grow, they usually provide cheaper goods and services, and employ larger numbers of people. This employment includes not just production workers, but research and development teams as well.

However, the Obama administration, and all Democratic leadership, consider corporate profits to be evil. Carter wanted to tax the oil companies, Clinton harassed Bill Gates and Microsoft, and now Obama has taken swings at the car companies, Wall Street, and the big banks. It seems impossible that Obama and his cohorts in the House and Senate could even think of reducing unemployment without stimulating business growth. They think they can increase taxes, pile on stricter financial and environmental regulations, and yet somehow realize positive growth of America’s GDP. I closed my remarks on the Dayton Daily News website with the statement “capitalism needs capital.”

Honestly, at the time I posted my comments, I had no idea that Jack Kemp had made that exact statement years ago. I didn’t read of his observation until today (March 6). He was right. Capitalism is the only economic engine that has allowed the rise of America’s middle class, and given so many individuals the chance to obtain real wealth. Capitalism also fueled the fantastic technological advances of the late 1800s and early 1900s. The capitalist system allowed the development of steam engines and railroads, and later the telegraph, electricity, motion pictures, radio and television, not to mention the automobile and the production line. None of these things would have progressed the same way under another economic system.

But we have a President, and a liberal Congress, that views capitalism as an evil institution. No wonder we are losing technological ground to China and Korea. No wonder that real unemployment hovers at 16 percent. No wonder that this country isn’t producing enough scientists and engineers. The only people prospering now are government administrators. Jack Kemp was right. Capitalism needs capital; and America needs capitalism.

Jonah Goldberg wrote a column that was recently featured in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. Goldberg wrote about the statement made by Obama that he is not an “ideologue.” Goldberg countered that Obama is indeed an adherent to an ideology. Most politicians are, I suppose, but the liberals seem to be more radically aligned with an idea or set of ideals.

One of the editors from the Dayton Daily News claimed that Obama wasn’t an ideologue, but more of a pragmatist. That doesn’t explain why Obama took an entire year to realize he’d better do something about the economy. Anyway, I decided to respond to the editor on the newspaper’s website. I thought the response might make a good blog post, as follows:

“The liberals’ actions clearly reveal a consistent adherence to an ideology. Generally speaking, the principle components of liberal ideology are that corporate profits and individual wealth are both evil; wealth, in fact, must be redistributed; growth of government is necessary and good; and the rights of the individual are subordinate to the greater society. These ideas have caused every president since Jimmy Carter to punish the very businesses that provide goods and services. Carter had his obsession with “windfall profit taxes” against oil companies; and one of the first acts of the Obama administration was to levy outrageous taxes on tobacco, another industry hated by liberals.

“The liberals seek to create a dependency on government. That is why they want to reduce our wealth by way of taxes and redistribution; eliminate our right to self-defense; and restrict our right to pursue happiness, especially if that happiness comes from enjoying a cigar (just ask Michael Jordan), driving a fast car, or building a profitable business. Jimmy Carter tried to accuse the American people of harboring a “malaise.” He never stopped to think, as liberals seldom do, that the liberal ideology created,and still creates, a despair among free Americans.”

You can view the editorial opinion page of the Dayton Daily News here. Feel free to tell the editors what you think about the liberal ideology.