View Mobile Site

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos


Just one question for Barack Obama

Posted: October 11, 2008 9:23 p.m.
Updated: December 13, 2008 5:00 a.m.

Be it his chicken-in-every-pot oration at the DNC or his refusal at the Ole Miss debate to be fiscally responsible by amending his 21st century "Great Society" to-do list - despite the $700 billion drain on the treasury that he may inherit - I have only one question for Barack Obama: How in the free world will he be able to fund the infinite throng of assurances that he has asked America to bank on?

From doubling foreign aid to health care, energy, Social Security, climate change, AIDS, homelessness, out-sourcing, the auto industry, teenage pregnancy and so forth, you would have to be The Almighty Himself to accomplish all that Barack Obama has pledged in his $130 billion-a-year spending frenzy.

The cost
With our nation wallowing in deficit hell, how will Barack Obama obtain the bottomless funding to pay for his wide-eyed salesmanship?

I understand that it is the nature of political theater to spew forth pie-in-the-sky promises as if you are Moses just come down from the mountain - but come on! This is ridiculous!

First off, the founders made it painstakingly clear that the federal government was never to be the benevolent dictator that Sen. Obama's assurances are attempting to morph it into.

The wholesale abandonment of Article 6 Section 6 of the Constitution and Oval Office hegemony not threatened since before Nixon boarded the helicopter are among the costs of Obama's salesmanship.

What rationality?
Secondly, what rationality allows Barack Obama to claim that rescinding the Bush tax cuts - a deathly un-constitutional windfall profits tax on oil companies - and "going through the budget line by line" and "eliminating" ineffective programs (which pols' rarely, if ever, do) will actually deliver the funds to pay for his assurances?

Calculating (if even possible) the alleged revenue from those proposals would furnish a shockingly low bottom line, especially when compared to the needed financing for Sen. Obama's government-knows-best timetable.

The Tax Policy Center's calculations say that an Obama presidency may add $3.3 trillion to the deficit. Bottom line: Our deficit plus the senator's assurances resemble the irrationality of trying to squeeze water from a dry rag.

Also, how often has Obama waxed eloquent about balancing the budget? Any sane person would assume that Obama's economic agenda of broad middle-class tax cuts and significant increases in federal manipulation and spending would necessarily involve balancing Washington's checkbook so that we would not be further sunk into the red.

It's a sinking that would heighten inflation and further drop the dollar, among other detriments.
But suffice it to say that Sen. Obama has never given due diligence to explaining how his ambitious scheme would not do what the Tax Policy Center has calculated.

That lack of even lip service makes me question the senator's economic capacity and grip on real-world economic concerns. Not that a president needs to have an economist's background, but some economic realism and rationality is needed.

If numbers and ideas have any relevance, then Barack Obama's economic intentions will do even more harm than these last eight years have. Obama's fiscal policy of satisfying all of the people all of the time (show me a spending proposal that he has disliked, except the war) is dangerous because of its shortsightedness and irrationality.

Like John McCain, Barack Obama deeply loves his country. Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama may not have verbally professed his ignorance of economics, but a study of his economic plans would certainly reveal that ignorance.

Andre Hollings is a Santa Clarita resident. His column reflects his own views, not necessarily those of The Signal.


Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.


Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...