My liberal friends like to point to a State with a sluggish
economy and blame the Republican governor; conservative friends point to the
sluggish economy of the country in general and blame our Democratic President. These people are all oversimplifying a very
complex situation. The state of an
economy does not operate on consistent four year cycles, nor does it respond to
all outside forces immediately. Some
forces have effects that are felt quickly; others take many years to have full
effect, so it’s not always fair to judge the economic effects of a Presidency
by comparing the economic situation at the end of an administration to that at
the beginning. The effects of the actions and policies of any Presidency are
both short term and very long term; we still suffer from precedents set by
Washington’s administration and virtually every administration since.
The “economic
meltdown” of 2008 was caused by bad decisions by several administrations and Congresses,
it’s not fair to lay the entire blame on Presidents Bush, or Clinton, or the
Congresses that sat during those years; nor is it fair to lay the entire blame
of current unemployment, sluggish recovery, and high gasoline prices on
President Obama.
If voters are concerned with economic issues, and we all
should be, they should be less concerned with the economic snapshot of the
moment than with the general economic philosophy of the candidates or political
parties. We should each ask ourselves if
the philosophy expounded by a candidate or party is one that will have a long
term positive effect on the economy or a negative one, the stated philosophy,
policies, and agenda of each party and every candidate should be subjected to
an economic common sense litmus test.
It’s difficult if unemployed or facing foreclosure on a home
for one to take a long term view of the economy; it’s more likely that people
in such situations would look for a person or party to blame or a quick panacea
to support, but the party we find to blame is not likely to be completely at
fault, and quick panaceas are very likely to be the primary cause of the next
recession and in some cases can have negative effects for perpetuity. So if we
care not only for our own well being but also for that of our descendents, we
must think long term.
Those that believe that the current economic trend in the
United States is not sustainable - that the exploding national debt will have
very negative effects in the future, and that Social Security, Medicare and
other so called “entitlements” will sooner or later become insolvent if changes
are not made - must ask ourselves which party, which candidate, which economic
philosophy is most likely to lead to the changes needed. These problems are not
the fault of any one President, Congress, or political party, so while we may
debate about which party is the most to blame, it’s more productive to look
forward and ask which party has the better solutions. While too many politicians think no further ahead than the next election, most give at least lip service agreement that the debt and deficit are too high; the differences in philosophy boil down to what appears to be a simple question: Do we tax too little or spend too much? Then, if we tax too little, who should be taxed more; if we spend too much, where should we cut? The philosophies of the two major parties are well known on these questions, so the exercise left to each of us is to examine those philosophies and ask ourselves which one makes sense; which fits our own set of values; which leads to long term solutions and sustainability?
Having established that no President is completely responsible for the economic situation at the end of his tenure, it’s nevertheless worth noting that some Presidential policies have immediate effects, with negative effects more likely to take effect quickly than positive ones (arsenic acts very quickly on a patient; medicine generally takes time.) Examples of fast acting negative acts by the current administration include Obamacare, the skyrocketing deficit, the moratorium on offshore drilling, failure to immediately push forward on the Keystone Pipeline, and reams of new regulations that hinder business - especially small business. Another glaring example would have been Cap-n-Trade had it passed, as will be its sneaky backdoor equivalent if enacted by the EPA. But are there offsetting positive effects that will take place in the future that result from actions of this administration? Will Obamacare bend the healthcare cost curve? Will green energy finally eliminate our dependence on foreign oil? Would taxing the rich really help bring down the national debt?
My purpose here is not to convince
anyone of any particular opinion on these questions, but rather to encourage everyone to ask them and many others with honesty instead of habitually voting for one party
or the other. The stakes are too high, surely the highest in memory, because
the current economic trend is truly unsustainable and the consequences of
continuing on the current path will have to be paid soon.
