Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Obama's One-Term Presidency

My friend Chris McClure, blogging at the home page of U.S. Senator John Cornyn, makes an interesting point on the conflict between sound fiscal policies and demands for large domestic spending increases:

When social engineering agendas drive the legislative process, we see an imbalance enter into fiscal policy. Such imbalances can overload the ability of monetary policy to make corrections and keep the economy functioning properly. Over time, continued pressure for sustained economic growth while creating an overburden of debt, creates a situation in which significant corrections must occur. When such corrections are further influenced by corrupt practices and insufficient oversight, significant economic turmoil will be the result ....

The social agenda espoused by the Democratic Party, coupled with the re-distributive schemes of their nominee for the Presidency [now President-Elect], would cause dire consequences to our economy if enacted. The solution to our current woes is to shift spending away from an inefficient government and into the hands of the people who earned it. Government should return to the role of oversight and policy rather than attempting to nationalize our financial institutions.
Taking this further, James Pethokoukis argues that the economic crisis is so severe that Americans may not see much improvement in their finances over the next four years. Thus, it's quite possible that voters will grow tired of the "Obama malaise," and return the GOP to power:

That's right, the "O" in "Obama" may stand for "One Term." For starters, there's a strong chance that when voters head to the polls on Nov. 2, 2010, they likely will still think the economy is awful. Not much debate about that. (Good chance the Democrats' two-election winning streak comes to an end.) And while voters may be somewhat patient for two years, patient for four years? Really unlikely. If history is any guide at all, voters may still be terribly cranky about the economy when they cast their ballots on Nov. 6, 2012 and thus likely choose the 45th president of the United States -- be it Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal or some other Republican without "Bush" for a last name. Once again a "change" election for an impatient America. The same bad economy that doomed John McCain in 2008 will have sunk Obama, as well.

Here's the political and economic math: Let's assume the current downturn turns out to be as painful as the 1990-91 recession. It's an apt comparison. As Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Gary Stern said earlier this year," The situation we confront today is reminiscent, in several salient ways, of the headwinds environment that prevailed in the aftermath of the 1990-91 recession."

Among those "headwinds" Stern referred to: an imploding real estate bubble, a construction bust, a banking crisis, and a credit crunch. Sound familiar? The nation's gross domestic product fell 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 1990 and 2.0 percent in the first quarter of 1991. But even after the economy started expanding again, the unemployment rate kept rising until it hit 7.8 percent in June of 1992 vs. a low of 5.2 percent in June 1990. Recall that in January of 1992, President Bush, running for reelection, told New Hampshire voters that the economy was in "free fall" even though the economy was later shown to have grown at a robust 4.2 percent during the first quarter of that year.

See, it takes a while for people to really perceive that an economy has turned around, especially if unemployment is high.
Bill Clinton won the 1992 election on the economy ("it's the economy, stupid") even though GDP had been growing for six full quarters. According to Gallup, 88 percent of Americans thought the economy was "fair" or "poor" in October 1992 with some 60 percent saying the economy was "getting worse." Two years later, it was the Democrats turn to feel the brunt of widespread economic anxiety as the Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Even though the economy had then been growing for 14 straight quarters and the unemployment rate was down to 5.8 percent, 72 percent of Americans still thought the economy was "fair" or "poor" and 66 percent though the nation was headed in the wrong direction.

That's right 3 1/2 years after the 1990-91 recession ended, the economy was still weighing negatively on voters and hurting the incumbent political party. Is it so hard to imagine, then, that three or four years from now voters will also be unhappy about the state of the economy and blame the party in power, the Obamacrats?

Paul Krugman proposed a range of New-New Deal economic and spending policies in yesterday's New York Times.

Name your Democratic Party big-government spending boondoggle, and it's there. Recall, of course, that by May 1939, Franklin Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, was complaining, "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Likewise, this year's fiscal stimulus tax rebate checks did nothing to slow the economy's slide toward recession.

Government can reform current regulatory institutions to eliminate corruption, and put a floor under collapsing credit markets; and government can keep taxes low to allow families to keep more of their own earnings and stimulate small-business expansion. But what we're seeing from
the radical leftosphere, progressive party activists, and liberal media pundits is a gargantuan push for massive spending entitlements that will put both the New Deal and the Great Society to shame.

12 comments:

  1. Taking this further, James Pethokoukis argues that the economic crisis is so severe that Americans may not see much improvement in their finances over the next four years. Thus, it's quite possible that voters will grow tired of the "Obama malaise," and return the GOP to power

    So, let me follow the logic: the Republicans have screwed up the economy to such an extent that the Democrats will not be able to straighten it out in 4 years. The American voters will be disgusted and return the party to power that screwed up things so badly in the first place. And, you are hoping for the economy to be in the crapper for the next 4 years so that this will occur.

    ReplyDelete
  2. DLB: The incumbent party gets blamed for the economy. In four years Obama gets the blame, not the GOP.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Voting by current economics is like voting according to the weather. The cycle of prosperity /decline /recession /recovery / prosperity/ etc is as inevitable as the seasons. Politicians know this and try to use it to their advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, I can tell from how the first week of his election victory has gone that he won't even make it to January. The electorate will be clambering for McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In four years Obama gets the blame

    DD: Of course, that's presuming there is something to be blamed for (i.e. a horrible economy). And that is what you seem to be hoping for, so that a Republican is elected in 2012. So, you're wishing ill upon our country for political gain. You certainly don't seem to be wishing for success in any case.

    Obama could be very lucky in that he will come into office with the economy in recession and get it out of the way early. Very Reaganesgue!

    And Blues Papa: Obama has a 70% approval now. Most Americans are wishing and hoping for the best. McCain was defeated. It was in all the papers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. dlb ... it is not hope for a GOP comeback that leads both the Professor and I to similar conclusions regarding the success -- or lack thereof -- of the Obama Administration.

    Instead, it is the history of the application of Leftist ideology to actual governance.

    What success Mr. Obama will achieve, will result from engaging common sense to override Leftist ideology, operating from a clear understanding of the principles of human interaction, instead of from a basis of wealthist prejudice ...

    ... and ticking off the likes of you and your fellow-travelers.

    I'm not holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not hoping for anything, except an Obama defeat, DLB. You're imputing something to me that's not in the post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rich, I don't accept your contention that Obama is a Leftist. I realize that was the prevailing propaganda spread during the campaign, but I believe him to be more of a pragmatist. And, as the holder of many increasingly worthless shares of common stock, I hope this to be true. And I hope that he is enough of a pragmatist to embrace policies that will not only renew the value of my investments, but will gain him re-election in 2012 to torque off the right in this country.

    I'm not hoping for anything, except an Obama defeat, DLB.

    That's my point. I am hoping that under an Obama administration the economics of all Americans will improve, our image in the world will be restored and foreign policy will be again based on realism. It has been customary for presidents to be given a 100 day honeymoon after they take office. Obama has 70 days to go before he even assumes the office and you are already writing off his term in office as a failure. That seems bitter and divisive to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. dlb ... foreign-policy "realism" led to the proxy warfare and propping up of dictators that added to the messes we are now cleaning up.

    As for our image in the world, all the last eight years did is bring the pre-existing lack of respect for America and her founding principles out in the open.

    I want no part of world "respect" if that means diminishing our support for those "self-evident" truths this nation was founded upon ... and that includes the idea that those rights were endowed to ALL MEN, not just Americans ... because the respect for those truths vs. the lack thereof, on the part of nations, has been shown by history to be THE difference between the peace-sustaining, and the warmongers/terror incubators.

    And history also shows us that the economic health of all Americans -- in fact, ALL MEN -- improve only when leaders eschew the Leftist principles our President-elect operated under during his entire career ...

    ... including the ends-justify-the-means relativism that led him to deals with Tony Rezko ...

    ... led him to sit in GDA Wright's "church" for 20 years ...

    ... led him to lead and work with Bill Ayers' brainchild to radicalize education ...

    ... and led his state-senate and U.S. Senate campaigns to go out of their way to amplify (to the point of heavy-metal distortion?) personal problems of their opponents into campaign-killing scandals that left Mr. Obama effectively unopposed. The Presidental election is the first one he has faced where his original opponent lasted all the way up to Election day.

    If he surprises me and acts with principled pragmatism that respects the founding principles of this nation as our founders understood them ... not as revised by 20th-century secular progressives ... he will earn respect from me.

    But I'm not holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  10. DLB: The honeymoon's a myth, and whether the economy's strong or not, an Obama administration will still be failure from the perspective of traditional conservative values. No apologies. It's called partisanship.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete