The above link is to a well written essay in the WSJ, drawing a sharp contrast between Barack Obama [BO] and Ronald Reagan [RR]. The main thrust of this piece is that:
(1) RR inherited a worse economy from Jimmy Carter [JC] than BO did from GWB
(2) RR's policies - in the four main areas listed below - are credited with the largest economic expansion in recent memory
(3) BO's policies (to date) are ideologically in the opposite direction
* Spending - Reagan [less]; Obama [more]
* Regulation - Reagan [less]; Obama [more]
* Taxes - Reagan [less]; Obama [more]
* Monetary policy - Reagan [strict]; Obama [lax]
BO (and his supporters) claim that we are in 'uncharted territory' with respect to today's economic problems. The above WSJ article proves otherwise. But we are in uncharted territory when it comes to the ideological tilt to the Left. A significant percentage of our population is convinced that Capitalism is dead. Each generation (and we can thank our Public Schools for this) produces more Leftists, who have been indoctrinated into the belief system that Govt-provided Lifeboats are our only salvation.
BO (and his supporters') claims - that
they have
new ideas - would be comical, if they weren't so serious. Let's ignore the sinister possibility that the Dems are using this opportunity to scare us into spending on Liberal nirvana. But, if one presumes that BO and the Dems are well-intentioned, then their naivete is alarming. In the recent press conference, when BO brought up the 'Lost Decade' in Japan
in support of the Stimulus package there should've been a howl of protest from those assembled. After all, Japan spent US$ 6.3 Trillion (those are dollars, folks, not yen) in the 1990s with
anemic results.
With this Stimulus package and with TARP I and TARP II, we are deliberately
choosing a model that is known to have failed (in the 1990s). At the same time, we are
ignoring a model which is known to have worked in the 1980s, bringing unprecedented prosperity to our country. And, in the strange, parallel universe, of the NYTimes,
Liberal columnists are criticizing BO's administration for
not doing enough.
Conclusion: we needed a RR to deal with the economic mess, but we elected a FDR (or, worse, a JC). The only difference, is that RR inherited his mess from JC (a big-Govt Democrat) - but BO inherits his mess from GWB (a big-Govt Republican with a bad spending habit).
Prediction: BO's policies will lead to considerable 'malaise', a JC-era term, which will last even after the 'natural' recovery in the economy.
There will be lasting damage that will make this a long, slow recovery. It will take a RR to come along in 4 -or- 8 yrs before there is any economic expansion. Unfortunately, elections have consequences. When we make choices based on Populism, the results may not be very popular!