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

Should Congress make English the official language of the U.S.?

View results

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.”

The economy grew a modest 2.8 percent in 2012 and averaged a more modest 2.6 percent annual growth rate in the first three quarters last year, he said. “There is no dispute: In terms of overall growth rates, 2013 was a more-of-the-same kind of year,” he concluded.

If that is what’s in store for Americans this year, then Mr. Obama has his work cut out for him if he is to prevent a Republican takeover of the Senate and a stronger hold of the House. Sadly, he and his advisers are treating this as a political problem, when it’s an economic one that he’s incapable of solving.

In Congress this week, the focus is on legislation that would provide funds for extended unemployment benefits. Instead, the debate should be about growing the economy to produce jobs and higher incomes. Right now, the government is taxing every nook and cranny of our economy, and Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes even higher so he can spend more.

In his second term, after carrying 49 states by ending a deep recession in two years, Reagan signed a bipartisan bill to cleanse the tax code of corporate welfare and other loopholes. He used the increased tax revenue to lower income-tax rates and further boost economic growth.

Notably, the tax reforms were actively supported by prominent Democratic leaders, such as then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and then-Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, who saw lower tax rates as the key to stronger business expansion and job growth.

In 1997, Mr. Clinton signed a GOP bill to cut the capital-gains tax rate while Democrats said the move would swell the deficit. In fact, capital-gains tax revenues nearly doubled, venture-capital investment quintupled, and the economy soared.

Instead of playing midterm election politics as Mr. Obama is doing, we need to move the debate toward reforms like these, which will unlock capital investment, spur business growth, create new jobs and boost incomes.

This isn’t rocket science. It’s doing what has succeeded in the past and can work again for all Americans.

Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and contributor to The Washington Times.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts