Tuesday, June 10, 2008


At every chance, Barack Obama makes sure that he tells his loyal crowds the story that John McCain said "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should..." Of course, the partisan crowds go crazy on this rhetoric.

But, this is just a diversion. It is a diversion because you have to really question Mr. Obama's own credentials on economics. Did he somehow study economics at Harvard Law School? Was economics a part of the curriculum on "constitutional law"? Before Harvard, was "economics" part of the "political science" studies he took at Columbia University? I doubt it!

The reality is that Barack Obama is as naive as anyone when it comes to economics. At least John McCain admits it. McCain has one leg up in that he had some exposure to economic issues with his years of membership in the Senate Commerce Committee. It should be pointed out that most "truthful" economists would tell you that economics is an evolving science. Often, more art than science.

Both these candidates never built a business on their own and neither really understand all of the complexities that are involved in operating a business. Generally speaking, their "economic" positions are based on the "economists" that they have on their campaign staffs. And, sadly, economists (generally) never created a business on their or never even created a single job in their whole lives. They are usually top-down, theorists who, at the very best, try to formulate an opinion about a rather complex business society in this country or in the world.

McCain's position is simply a repeat of the tax levels we see today and a repeat of the Bush position on taxes. There is a difference, however, in that McCain would force more discipline into the spending side of government. He is avid spending cutter who detests political earmarks.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a typical tax and spend guy. Many bloggers and media writers have labeled his economic policies as "Obama-Nomics". And, by no means, is this an endearing term. Generally, Obama-Nomics is the belief in social economics. In other words, pour money into "big" government social programs and the economy will prosper. While it is true that good education policies "can be" a building block to a good economy, it is not sure that funding "special interest" programs through increased government spending and taxation will benefit anything. For example, Europe, the former king of social programs, social economics, and high taxation has decided to reverse its positions on taxes and some programs. That's because their tax "base" was leaving. Both companies and wealthy individuals were exiting the tax burdens by going elsewhere. Obama-Nomics could create a similar situation in this country. Windfall taxes on the the oil companies might just force them to leave this country to some less tax burdened locations like the Bahamas. What then? Mr. Obama! Then we could be real socialists and seize all the remaining oil company assets in this country? How about nationalizing all the oil? Then, we could add all the "efficiencies" of the federal government to the oil industry!

Now, I maybe completely wrong but my guess is that if Obama gets to be the Prez and we have a Congress that is completely controlled by a very left-leaning bunch of Democrats, we could be in serious trouble. High taxation at a time of a weak economy is just the opposite of what should be done but expect the Democrats to press forward. Big social programs like nationalized health care will be a "shock" to the economy and without tort reform will only feed the demand side of health care problem and cause rates to rise at even a faster rate than they have done in the past. Carbon taxes to save the planet from global warming will just cause higher and higher energy prices. The so-called monies that to be spent for "green collar" jobs will result in less jobs than expected; typical government overspending and lack of control; boondoggling and corruption; and won't do a damn thing to solve the world-wide energy crises. Tax incentives (and "not" taxation or political patronage and "not" special interest payback to the labor unions) should be used to solve this problem.

My prediction is that the poor are going to suffer immensely in the world according to Obama. They always do in "misplaced" socialist societies and in a world that is driven by Obama-Nomics.

No comments: