- Obama not worried about Ebola at upcoming African summit in D.C.
- Obama: ‘We tortured some folks’ after 9/11
- Obama administration asked whole D.C. Circuit to take on major Obamacare case
- Mark Levin: Topple GOP leadership or country will ‘unravel’
- Massachusetts to let police chief deny gun buys to those deemed unfit
- John Kerry condemns attack on Israeli soldiers, kidnapping
- U.S. starts to evacuate American Ebola patients from West Africa: Report
- Geraldo slammed as ‘dummy’ for backing Clinton’s bin Laden claim
- Israeli spokesman: No need to debate who broke the cease-fire
- 35 Palestinians killed; Israeli officer missing
LAMBRO: ‘Economic fairness’ didn’t work for Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot
Why are Democrats embracing it? Are empty promises of ‘income inequality’ the best Obama’s party can do?
Question of the Day
President Obama and the Democrats desperately need a political issue to distract struggling, jobless Americans from their economic misery. They think “income inequality” and raising the minimum wage is the answer to their problems.
However, the yawning income gap between the wealthy and the middle class is not the cause of our lingering economic troubles. It is a symptom of the president’s failed economic policies. Raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour won’t help, either. It will only make things worse, as employers find ways to cut their payroll costs.
The United States needs stronger economic growth, in the 5 percent a year range, that leads to increased job-creating capital investment. These terms are not in Mr. Obama’s vocabulary, though, let alone in his policies.
Battered by a so-so economy, in which 11 million people remain unemployed, and by a botched health care reform plan, the president is said to be retooling his class-warfare rhetoric to pump up his disappointed and dispirited political base.
The issue of “economic fairness” worked for him in the 2012 election, and Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders think it can work for them again in this year’s midterm elections.
It can’t, and it won’t. This time around, the polls show a growing number of voters aren’t buying his class-warfare demagoguery any longer. Take a look at his declining job-approval scores, and you’ll see why.
Throughout 2013, the Gallup Poll’s surveys showed a steady decline in his job-approval numbers — falling from 52 percent in January to 41 percent in December. A closer look at the numbers shows that most of his shrinking job approval was a result of a 14-point decline among independent voters and, most notably, a 15-point loss among Democrats.
“The dip among Democrats explains why Mr. Obama has of late focused on economic inequality,” writes Chris Cillizza, a political analyst for The Washington Post. “Those moves are aimed at rallying the party’s base and, with it, Obama’s approval numbers.”
That seems unlikely at this juncture. At this same point in Ronald Reagan’s and Bill Clinton’s second terms, Reagan had a 62 percent approval rate, and Mr. Clinton’s score was 58 percent. Both presided over very strong economies.
The Democrats’ political troubles are also worsening because Mr. Obama’s economy remains mediocre five years after he came into office, saying he would fix it by throwing $800 billion at the problem. That didn’t work.
You don’t hear much about the nation’s unemployment rate now, except once a month when the Department of Labor issues its “seasonally adjusted” numbers. The news media tends to overlook the painful reality behind the cold, hard numbers that are a daily survival nightmare in much of the country.
Consider this all-too-common story from Hagerstown, Md., where Shenandoah Family Farms had three dozen or so job openings recently, but received 1,600 applicants.
A year ago, Neil Irwin, The Washington Post’s chief economic analyst, wrote a New Year’s article that asked, “Will this be the year that the economy finally breaks out of its pattern of sluggish growth that has held since the recession ended in 2009?”
His answer last week was “a resounding no.”
“On jobs, for example, the nation added an average of 183,000 a month in 2012 — and 189,000 a month through the first 11 months of 2013.”
TWT Video Picks
By Orrin G. Hatch
Procedural changes impede the chamber's traditional deliberative function
Get Breaking Alerts
- House GOP resurrects border bill, predicts successful Friday vote
- Border agents cleared of civil rights complaints from illegal immigrant children
- Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
- U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with Hamas
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Porn-surfing feds blame boredom, lack of work for misbehavior
- Feds raid S.C. home to seize Land Rover in EPA emission-control crackdown
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Ted Nugent slams 'lying freaks' at liberal media: I'm 'doing God's work'
- ON THE RUN: Competition for Redskins backup running back is heating up