- Obama's "Fairness"

Let me say this about the downgrade risk. In my world, the credit agencies are considered a day late and a dollar short. If they are saying that a downgrade is imminent, and nothing meaningful has changed in our national balance sheet, then it’s already a done deal. We’re getting a downgrade. It’s only a matter of when. And with the President’s performance last night, it’s not hard to see why.

You remember that moment during the 2008 campaign when Obama said that he would raise the capital gains tax just to ensure ‘fairness’ even though it would hurt the economy overall, and would not raise revenue to the government? Well he’s still pulling for that kind of fairness. He thinks it would only be fair if the 10% of people who are paying 71% of all income taxes now, are forced to pay a little more.

He brought up his favorite whipping boys, big (evil) corporations, corporate jet owners, hedge fund managers; All the people who under a less combative administration would be willing to provide jobs for Americans that Obama believes are less evil. But Obama doesn’t like that idea. He thinks it would be better if he took the money away from those who would know how to create economic growth with it, and spent it himself on infrastructure, education, and new technology.

That too is a total sham. Obama can squander money on all the green energy boondoggles and unionized edu-crat giveaways he likes, but that’s not investing. Investing requires that you provide a meaningful return on the money you invest. All Obama is buying with other people’s money is goodwill from his union base and votes in the next election. There will be no future for America in government subsidized green projects, or community organizing.

But none of this is new, or secret. Obama has become the veritable one trick pony. He has only one song to sing and one key to sing it in. The lyrics are even the same every time. Blah blah blah, corporate jet owners, blah blah blah, shared sacrifice, blah blah blah, millionaires and billionaires, blah blah blah winning the future. I’d say he sounds like Bob Dylan except even Dylan is a conservative compared to Obama.

Rush Limbaugh had a great line the other day about Obama that reminded me how much this ‘feels’ like the Carter administration. To paraphrase, he said something like how “the media is certain that the leadership from Obama is absolutely superior; it’s only the followers that are giving us all so much trouble.” For me that conjured an image of Obama leading a parade of one, down a road where no one wants to go.

He’s standing there in his band leader’s uniform and holding his baton. But the crowd is standing by just looking at him. He wants social justice, and redistribution of wealth. He wants huge groups of client - citizens who vote the way their betters tell them to and cash the checks that the government gives them without troubling themselves with 'thinking'. He wants cheaper energy made costly by intense regulation, a windmill on every roof, and every neighborhood 'organized' on the Alinsky model. Most of all though, he wants to be in charge of every aspect of American life, even though no system based on merit would ever allow him to be. That’s exactly what it felt like with Carter in charge. No merit, just politics.

In the meantime, what the people want, is jobs. But you can't have what Obama wants and have a thriving private sector with full employment. Either the government makes everyone's decisions or everyone decides for themselves. Those are the only choices. And if government is running the show, then there is no point in taking the risk of hiring someone. In fact, there is even less reason to take the risk if you'll lose money when it doesn't work out, and be called 'evil' by the president and taxed more if it does. What's the point in that.

So with the government making everyone's decisions for them, unemployment will be higher. Period. It's not subject to debate, and it's not going to be 'different this time'. It's not a question of being fair, it's a question of who decides what 'fairness' actually is. It's a question of whether 'fairness' is defined by politics or based on merit.

Obama’s record as president is not the kind of flag you wave if you want to be reelected. He has record debt, record spending, skyrocketing consumer and energy prices, falling real estate prices, and a 9.2% unemployment rate. Even his golf handicap is a thoroughly unimpressive 16, and that’ something he’s really worked on. So bragging about his record is not the punch he's going to throw.

In this next election (and if that pathetic speech told us anything, it’s that we’re already beginning the next election) he’ll be betting the ranch on class warfare, and personal attack ads. He has no record to run on, and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend. His team will be sending gaggles of ultra-left journalists and bloggers to dig through the trash of his competitor. There will be entire NYTimes editorials (probably run on the front page) about the time they wore stripes with plaid. No stone will go unturned (or un-thrown by some ‘objective’ journalist.)

For my money, I think Obama looks weak and detached. He’ll have his high points over the next year – surely. And his competitor (when we pick one) will have numerous gaffes. But I think the cards have already been dealt for Obama’s legacy. And I think he’s going to be a one term President.