At least, since 2003, conservatives have been criticizing President Bush for failing to hold the line on domestic spending. He didn’t a veto a single bill until 2006, never challenging the spendthrift budgets Congress passed.
With Obama proposing trillions in new spending, those who are voting against the “last eight years” will be getting more, much more (much, much more) of the same in an Obama Administration. One of the great ironies of this campaign.
In his post on Obama’s lead in Pennsylvania, Michael Barone considers another intereseting irony of this campaign. Barone attribues that lead to the Democrat’s strength in the Philadelphia suburbs where affluent voters are turning away from the GOP because of the “recent decline in household wealth” due to tumbling house prices. “The irony here is that voters motivated by anger at the decline in their wealth seem about to elect a president who has promised to embark on wealth-destroying policies.”
Pennsylvanians are voting their anger not their economic interests.
As we enter the last week of this campaign, we’ll find whether voters come to understand Obama’s economic agenda. That’s why I still have hope that McCain can win.Â While Americans aren’t happy with the fiscal record of the past eight years, they don’t want it amplified.
We don’t want an ever larger, federal government and a more tightly regulated economy (as Obama has promised). We prefer free markets. And the Democrat, in Jennifer Rubin’s words, “certainly exhibits no affection for or understanding of the benefits of market capitalism.”
Will voters comes to understand that by November 4 or have they decided they want change, without realizing what that change entails?
The publication of Obama’s 2001 discussion of how to bring about redistributive change confirms that his comment to “Joe the Plumber” about spreading the wealth reflects his general economic philosophy. His proposed tax “cut” to 95% of households when 44% don’t pay any federal income tax is a manifestation of this philosophy.
Such policies are a surefire way to stifle economic growth.
In many ways, given that both Bush and Obama favor ever higher levels of domestic spending, the primary difference between the Democrat candidate’s economic policies and those of the much maligned Republican incumbent is that the Democrat plans to increase taxes on the most productive members of our society.
So we’d get Bush’s spending policies minus the incentives he provided for productivity.Â Kind of like providing a recipe for repeating the last eight years, but without the economic growth.