Grappling with the economic question of 2012
The Clarion Call
It is abundantly clear that the case for removing President Obama on November 6th can (and should) be made on entirely economic grounds.
Frankly, any lengthy diatribe here about foreign policy would amount to a needless distraction for three reasons. (1) The recent presidential “debate” has exposed the striking degree to which both Obama and Romney essentially agree on critical foreign policy questions: stated commitments to staunchly support Israel, devotion to preventing the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran, and a pledge to limit military interventionism; (2) the prevailing sentiment, largely shared by foreign affairs analysts, that the greatest threat to national security is, in truth, the lethargic state of the economic recovery and the outstanding severity of the debt; (3) the acknowledgement among the vast majority of voters that pocketbook issues should obviously predominate over all other questions. For these reasons, we shall focus entirely on the economic case for removing Obama.
First, we are powerless to deny the glaring truth that the U.S economy desperately relies upon the optimism and confidence of its small businesses, the dynamism of its entrepreneurs, the rate of their start-ups, and the vitality of the markets which they are responsible for generating. Assuredly, the trajectory of the recovery cannot possibly improve if small-businesses and large companies feel under siege, or lack confidence in their future prospects, and are therefore unwilling to engage in robust economic activity. After all, they amount to the overwhelming majority of enterprises in the private sector (estimation: 95%), and employ some 52% of American private sector workers according to the Small Business Administration.
We are also powerless to deny that these very agents of economic growth have felt alienated by the policies of the Obama administration. The confusion and fear which has been induced by Obamacare, in particular, has reportedly rendered a paralyzing effect on an astounding number of small business owners. Its already mounting costs could very well prompt startled business owners, who simply cannot afford to bear its burdens, to accelerate the laying off of its workers. This fact is commonly recognized in most chambers of commerce and manufacturing associations across the nation. Beset with trepidation, their members are overcome by a sense of anxiety and uncertainty about their immediate prospects, especially if Obamacare survives.
Frankly, our president has utterly failed to instill confidence in much of the private sector, and has thus failed to prompt them to rapidly accelerate job creation. The consequences have never been so clear. Without certainty, businesses forego investing, forgo hiring (job creation), forgo increasing employee wages (which would yield higher take-home pay), forgo risk taking, and forgo market expansion.
A president who fails to successfully motivate small businesses to engage in these vital activities—investing, job creation, risk-taking, market expansion and the awarding higher take-home pay to its employees— can appropriately be labeled an enemy of small businesses, in both perception and reality. Moreover, Obama’s failure to remove a sufficient number of regulatory burdens in the form of excessive red-tape, which are known to obstruct start-ups, blemishes his record, and only suppresses economic optimism all the more. His promise to allow the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, though advertised as solely targeting the wealthy, will likely affect high in- come owners that are still struggling to keep their small businesses afloat.
In other words, many of those Obama promises to tax are at the forefront of small businesses job creation efforts. Imagine the costs!
The implications for middle-income families have been palpable. The rate at which job creation has occurred has remained staggeringly low for dozens of months. Meanwhile, the rising cost of healthcare, the persistent decrease in take-home pay, the increasing difficulty to cover the costs of utilities oil and gas are all exacerbating suffering. The 23 million unemployed or underemployed, for years, is most indicting. Obama’s inability to bring about even gradual reversals of these trends is a harrowing blight upon his record.
Given the severe human toll which the currently poor business climate is taking on American families, do we not have a moral imperative to vote for a viable alternative to the status quo?
The ushering of Romney into office itself will assuredly stimulate hope in the private sector, since the office would finally be occupied by a man who sympathizes with and relates to the struggles of small business people in an intimate fashion. He probably has a better sense for what they urgently need and could engage in dialogue more comfortably with them than Obama.
Thus, Romney’s mere presence in the White House would induce renewal of optimism in commercial spheres nationwide. With the gradual dismantling of the regulatory scheme burdening small businesses, and with the implementation of a more small- business friendly tax code, we can expect to see an acceleration of hiring, more risk taking, more investment and less hesitation to partake in innovation. Most importantly, take-home pay is likely to rise under his tenure given these robust conditions.
Second, we turn to debt. Can there be any greater embarrassment to a president who, pledging to cut the deficit in half, instead presided over massive increases of the debt by $1 trillion each year of his term? Should there be any limit to our outrage in the face of a $16 trillion debt? Can anyone conceive of the degree to which the upcoming generations will be burdened given this figure? Should we not wallow in grief when we hear the incumbent pledging to expansions of budgetary outlays? Are we to somehow ignore the likelihood that the deficit will reach $20 trillion by the end of a second Obama term unless drastic alterations to the social safety net are implemented soon? Was anyone else depressed and exasperated to see our president forgo responding to this devastating indictment of his policies? How many Americans realize that if the United States defaults on its debt, it would make the 2008 financial crisis seem like a few splashes of water at the beach compared to the deluge of economic pain that such a default would amount to?
This brings us to the third and final justification for voting against Obama. Given the incompatibility, venom and acrimony which has simmered – and will continue to persist – between the Obama Administration and the Tea Party Congress, it seems likely that gridlock, political stalemate and low legislative productivity will also persist. This would be unacceptable, since no coherent economic agenda for reviving small businesses or reducing the deficit would be engineered in such a situation.
When Romney takes office, he will find a Tea Party Congress that will be at least somewhat eager to work with him given the similarities between their worldviews. Romney will serve to reign in the legendary hardline positions taken by Tea Party members in Congress.
As for the Democrats in the Senate, who will likely maintain their majority in November, it seems likely that they would yield, however reluctantly, to the firm pressure of the electorate by agreeing to some gradual reforms to the social safety net by agreeing to a budget reduction settlement. Nor would they hesitate to agree to tax relief for small businesses (it would amount to political suicide for them to refuse). In exchange, they would be granted the credibility to act as the gatekeepers of legislation passed by the Tea Party House of Representatives.
Romney’s history and experience of negotiating with a legislative body dominated by Democrats should instill public confidence in his ability to engineer a bipartisan consensus. He’s a pragmatist.
After the litany of his failed promises (regarding the still- high unemployment rate, the deficit and healthcare costs), the case for reelecting Obama appears increasingly weak. Most indicting, he has largely refrained from describing a substantive narrative or coherent vision for the upcoming four years that is uniquely different from that of the past four years. He has failed to articulate a clearly defined set of policy prescriptions and solutions that would move a thinking person to support him again.
What change will come about if we reelect you Mr. President?
Since “nothing” appears to be the answer, our responsibility is clear. We have a moral obligation to support the alternative to the incumbent. We should settle for nothing less. The stakes are too high.
Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cor- nell.edu