"Borderline Unimplementable"
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Barack Obama | Economic Nationalism | Economy | Increasing The Size Of The Regulatory State — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Barack Obama has an economic plan. It is as follows: Give tax breaks to companies that do not ship jobs overseas, keep their corporate headquarters in the United States, maintain or increase the number of domestic jobs in relation to an overseas workforce, don't get involved in working against union drives and provide "decent" health care to their employees.
Sound good? It shouldn't. Here's why:
Mr Obama's plan met instant scepticism from otherwise sympathetic Democratic economists who said it would require a large regulatory apparatus to put into practice. They also said that companies could "game the system" by spinning off overseas subsidiaries in order to reduce the offshore-onshore workforce ratio.
They questioned whether it was necessary to provide incentives for employers to provide health insurance since Mr Obama's healthcare plan would already mandate them to do so. Finally, Mr Obama has already tied up the estimated $10bn (€6.8bn, £5.1bn) in revenues that would be saved from abolishing tax incentives for multinational companies that retain their profits overseas.
"I would say that this plan is borderline unimplementable," said a Democratic economist in Washington. "It is also puzzling. Normally presidential candidates only come up with plans that are unrealistic when they are losing. But Obama is now the favourite."
Imagine what he would promise if Hillary Clinton was ahead.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Just What The Clinton Campaign Wanted — Comments (4) »
"Borderline Unimplementable" 2 Comments (0 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Shows more and more when forced to come up with policy specifics. He's a bright guy, but experience counts and he simply doesn't appear to understand basic economics.
Cheers,
Scott in Indy
..and it's not just a campaign shot to be quickly forgotten, it shows that he just doesn't get it.
America's not going to get richer by trying to stop companies from making rational business decisions. Hell, American firms have been investing overseas for years and likewise many non-American companies have invested huge sums and created vast employment in the USA. A lot of the time off-shoring is to do with timezone coverage and/or a shortage of skills locally.
Protectionism, in all it's forms has consistently been shown to be a sure-fire way of making you poorer, sooner or later. There's nothing patriotic about a company going to the wall because the government told it who and where there employees should be.