Will Obama’s Ambitious Agenda “Kill” the Economy?
I was trying to come up with a clever analogy to build on my post earlier this month faulting the President for focusing on enacting regulatory schemes rather than promoting econmic recovery, when I (via Glenn) chanced on Ben Stein’s recent op-ed in the New York Times.
Stein whose father was the late economist Herbert Stein, a graduate of America’s finest liberal arts college, believes “we should just concentrate on ending the recession and talk about the other plans later,” contending that the President’s efforts have been “too diffuse”:
When I think about the economy I think about a plump man who has just been hit by a truck while crossing a street and is in severely critical condition with internal bleeding. Instead of just stabilizing his hemorrhaging, the doctor decides that while the patient is unconscious, he might as well also do a face lift, some coronary bypasses and a stomach-stapling to keep him from gaining weight while he is recovering (if he does recover). After all, a crisis is not to be wasted.
The problem is that all these ambitious operations create too much of a burden for the human body to bear.
Exactly.
And let’s hope that should the President focus on the economy, he turn away from plans similar to those which prolonged the Great Depression and adopt instead plans which led to a near quarter-century of economic growth.
OF INTEREST: Ben Stein Republicans.
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The Obama Economic Plan — High taxes + heavy regulation + high rates public spending has failed everywhere it’s been tried. Even Europe is turning away from it.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2009 @ 9:50 am - July 15, 2009
Yes, but some people will still blame conservatives and capitalists for it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2009 @ 10:21 am - July 15, 2009
Yesterday we learned the deficit for the first time is projected to exceed $1TRILLION. Furthermore, that number is projected to climb to $1.5 Trillion in 2010.
These are frightening numbers. Although an economic recovery should somewhat reduce these numbers, the very size of the deficits will negatively impact the strength of any recovery.
Comment by Man — July 15, 2009 @ 2:14 pm - July 15, 2009
In the current economic climate, even if my practice volume expanded I’d be reluctant to hire any additional employees due to the insurance and mandated regulatory and benefits costs. And on top of that I’m facing now an escalating health insurance burden not because I need more coverage, but because some Federal bureaucrat backed by the US Penal Code and the IRS decides that I NEED to pay more all for the Common Good ?
This is the ‘Change’ the sheep of America voted-for?
If the Federal Government controls the financial, health insuarance and auto-sectors of the economy, how can it not be National Socialism?
<>
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — July 15, 2009 @ 3:24 pm - July 15, 2009
I agree- the more that Democrat Governor Granholm does in Michigan, the worse Michigan’s economy gets. She just does more, and it gets worse, so she does more, and it gets worse, and so on. In fact, the Democrats here in Michigan are going to run on a platform that it is getting worse because they haven’t done everything to regulate and tax it yet- they can still beat up on our economy even more. Hopefully voters will realize that sometimes more is less.
Comment by A Conservative Teacher — July 16, 2009 @ 4:36 pm - July 16, 2009