Carter's Second Coming?

Voters need to remember their history so they don't repeat it.

By Richard H Collins Posted in | | | | Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Barack Obama may be the political equivalent of a rock star with his huge crowds and his celebrity endorsements, but his economic policies are simply the warmed over liberalism of the sixties and seventies.

Stale liberalism doesn’t have a history of success in America and doesn’t match his image of Hope and Change. This same old big government tax and spend liberalism is a far cry from a “New Politics.” So Obama has been forced into some creative marketing to sell his leftist ideology as post-partisan solutions to the country’s problems.

If you can cut through the hype and the rhetoric, his worldview is clear. Look at the way he talks about money. Tax cuts are “giveaways” and “wasteful spending.” Forget for a moment whether specific tax cuts enhance revenue or stimulate the economy. Instead, remember that tax cuts are fundamentally different from government spending because the money isn’t the governments to begin with.

This captures the liberal view perfectly; the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. Wanting to keep your own money is selfish and wasteful. Obama even made the ludicrous claim that it is only with his nomination that America can began to heal the sick and find jobs for the jobless. It is only increased government spending that can solve problems and only Obama who can lead the way.

Read on . . .

Obama is counting on the fact that many Americans have a poor grasp of history. He is counting on the fact that high gas prices and a slowing economy might tempt them to return to a philosophy that has failed repeatedly in the past. Have we forgotten the legacy of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter?

It was Lyndon Johnson who waged the War on Poverty and initiated “urban renewal.” These crusades resulted in a system of dependency and family dysfunction based on the warped incentives of government welfare; in rising crime rates and destroyed neighborhoods; in bloated government bureaucracies and higher taxes.

Jimmy Carter brought this same attitude to Washington. His solution to America’s problems was more federal government control and spending. Is American education better off since Carter created the Department of Education? Is America more energy independent and secure since the creation of the Department of Energy? Did Carter’s policies jump start the US economy?

Obviously, the answer to all these questions is no. The Carter administration was a time of long gas lines and rationing, stagflation and rising unemployment. A general malaise fell over the country. Facing this crisis Carter famously called on Americans to sacrifice in the name of energy conservation. Rejecting the dynamism and innovation of America, Carter proposed that we simply learn to live with less.

Despite all of his charisma, Obama brings the same attitude. He too castigates Americans for selfishly driving the car they want or for using air conditioning too often. He too believes that the answer to our energy challenges is more federal spending. He too believes that domestic sources of energy must be off limits; that the desires of the environmental lobby trump our national interest and the pocketbooks of average Americans. He too opposes free trade and favors big unions over small businesses.

Obama’s record matches his attitude, if not always his seemingly centrist campaign rhetoric. Obama and his allies in Congress have tried to resuscitate the windfall profits tax strategy that failed during the Carter administration. In his first three years in the Senate Obama voted for increasing taxes 94 times (including taxes on coal, natural gas, payroll, and income).

Obama talks at length about only raising taxes on the rich but he voted in favor of increasing the 25 percent federal tax rate to 28 percent (this bracket covers income from $32,550 to $78,850 for individuals and between $65,100 and $131,450 for married couples). And his plans to end the cap on Social Security taxes means an increase for anyone making more than $100,000.

In order to get elected Obama is sure to campaign with centrist rhetoric. He will try to play on the weariness of voters tired of Washington. His fresh face and rhetorical skills will be used to convince voters he is different.

In reality, Obama is a traditional liberal who favors more government and less freedom. These policies have been tried and failed. Dressing them up with fancier words and bigger crowds won’t change the outcome.

Let’s hope voters remember their history.

Richard H. Collins is the founder of Stop-Him-Now.com, a website dedicated to educating the public about Barack Obama's radical agenda.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Hey, Senator Obama! I got a couple more candidates for that party trick you do.Comments (14) »
Carter's Second Coming? 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Carter inherited a mess from Nixon and Ford. Nixon put price controls on oil which caused the gas crisis and lines of 1973-74. He instituted a 90 day wage/price freeze to try to control inflation, which just meant everyone hiked up their prices more than normal afterwards for fear another freeze might come later. Ford did little to fight inflation except feel-good slogans like WIN (Whip Inflation Now).

Carter at least began a process of removing price controls that Nixon instituted, which had the effect of making the price of crude more than double, but also encouraged greater domestic oil production. Reagan completed the process by completely deregulating oil. The effect again was a continued increase in energy costs while the free market recovered, but later it adjusted down to a normal market level.

Mucking with the free market is never a good idea. In the zest to blame Democrats for everything, we should not forget that there have been Republicans who have done stupid things as well and make sure we don't forget that so we don't repeat the same mistakes.

OK, fine. Obama is the next Nixon. Happy? :-)

Doesn't have quite the partisan symmetry but I get your point.

----------------
Kevin Holtsberry
www.shnblog.com

Here's why.

The last time Carter was on the ballot was 1980. Twenty-eight years ago. There's a large swath of people who weren't alive during the Carter presidency (myself included), and nobody under the age of 46 will have had the opportunity to cast a ballot for them. Considering that Obama isn't particularly relying on people twenty-plus years older than myself for support, I don't see this resonating in any meaningful sense.

Blame our short-minded society, the public school system, whatever... doesn't change the fact that American society at large seems to have forgotten the Carter years, and the lessons that we needed to learn from them.

"Once within the maw of Leviathan, degree of digestion is irrelevant." - Michael Fisk

If you can cut through the hype and the rhetoric,
Ironic.

It was Lyndon Johnson who waged the War on Poverty and initiated “urban renewal.” These crusades resulted in rising crime rates and destroyed neighborhoods; in bloated government bureaucracies and higher taxes.

Destroyed neighborhoods? How so?
It couldn't be from the 34% reduction in poverty, which was double the reduction 5 years prior.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
Crime rates spiked before Lyndon Johnson or even John Kennedy entered office, thanks for misleading and lying but try again.
http://www.jrsainfo.org/programs/Historical.pdf

Many people would be pissed of Obama pulled a Nixon and decided to stay in Iraq for years even after running on a campaign to get us out.

I'm curious what are the lessons of the Carter years?
Because it doesn't look like we learned from them.
Still dependent on Oil, foreign oil to be exact.

"Still dependent on Oil, foreign oil to be exact."

And this surely can't be the fault of all the loons not allowing us to drill on our land and instead using government money to fund projects that raise the price of our food and give us nothing in return.

Crime rates spiked before Lyndon Johnson or even John Kennedy entered office, thanks for misleading and lying but try again.
http://www.jrsainfo.org/programs/Historical.pdf

I take your calling someone misleading and raise you. Cause between the time Kennedy entered office to the time Johnsome left Murders went, according to your charts, from 4 in every 100,000 to around 11 in every 100,000.

Also you say crime spiked before Kennedy, but it went from 1,000 in everyone 100K to 2,000 in every 100K beforehand, and then during this grouping Kennedy and Johnson it went from 2K to 4K. Crime also peaked during a Jimmy Carter watch.

Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012

Local Talk Radio guy yesterday read an email about how every major problem in the United States is the fault of a few hundred people: The President, Congress, SCOTUS, etc.

One of the points was oil. Congress rants about our dependence on foreign oil, but never does anything to actually remove that dependence.

The email suggested that, perhaps, Congress WANTS it this way so that they have something to argue about to get elected.

BOTH sides oppose dependence on foreign oil, and they're the ones that can do something about it... yet the don't.

heh.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

there's no reason to expect any more sincerity with energy policy.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Do you think cities like Detroit and Chicago were better off Johnson's urban renewal or worse? Do you think tearing down neighborhoods to build highrise public housing and highways helped? Or do think perhaps this federal program played a role in the ghettoization of the inner city?

How about Carter. Did the Depts. of Energy and Education improve those areas or waste billons of dollars? Is Obama right that we just need even more federal money to solve these problems?

The lessons of the Johnson/Nixon/Carter years is that government regulation and controls and spending don't solve problems but have lots of unintended consequences.

----------------
Kevin Holtsberry
www.shnblog.com

it is remarkably Marxian.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service