(Editor's Note: This was published in the Washington Examiner, but makes for interesting reading.)
By Conn Carroll, Senior Editorial Writer
The Washington Examiner.
If the 2012 election is decided by how Americans currently feel about
their country, President Obama will lose by a landslide this November.
According CBS News, 61 percent of Americans believe America has
seriously gotten off on the wrong track. ABC News pegs that same metric
at 64 percent.
It is not a mystery why. When Obama was sworn into office,
unemployment was 7.8 percent. Now it's 8.2 percent. More than 7 million
Americans have given up looking for work since Obama became president.
And over all this time, our national debt has risen almost 50 percent,
from $10.6 trillion to $15.6 trillion.
Obama knows he has no positive record to run on. He knows the
only way he can survive this November is if voters blame someone else
for the current state of the nation.
Here is how he told Rolling Stone
magazine he plans to frame the election:
"Their vision is that if there's a sliver of folks doing well at
the top who are unencumbered by any regulatory restraints whatsoever,
that the nation will grow and prosperity will trickle down. The
challenge that they're going to have is: We tried it. From 2000 to 2008,
that was the agenda. It wasn't like we have to engage in some
theoretical debate — we've got evidence of how it worked out. It did
not work out well, and I think the American people understand that."
Obama's 2000-to-2008 window is no accident. He wants to avoid all
responsibility for his own record by blaming Bush for our current
economic woes. There are many problems with this strategy, its cynicism
and mendacity for starters. But it is also just plain false.
Love him or hate him, Bush did not preside over some great era of
deregulation. Quite the opposite, in fact. During Bush's term, money
spent by regulatory agencies increased 44 percent, from $27 billion in
2001 to $44.9 billion in 2007. The number of people employed by federal
regulatory agencies rose by 41 percent from 172,000 in 2001 to 244,000.
And the Code of Federal Regulations grew by more than 4,500 pages.
According to the Small Business Administration, in 2000, the
regulatory burden inflicted on businesses was $4,463 per employee. By
2008, that number had almost doubled to $8,086. Whatever caused the
financial crisis, it wasn't Bush-era deregulation.
Mitt Romney can't let Obama escape accountability for his record
by blaming Bush. That means he must offer his own narrative of what
caused the 2008 financial crisis -- a narrative that puts government
intervention at the heart of the problem.
Romney needs to explain how, by leveraging their status as
quasigovernmental entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to
monopolize the mortgage securitization market by the early 1990s. He
needs to point out that Countrywide Financial was a tiny regional
mortgage broker when it first formed a partnership with Fannie Mae in
1992. He needs to use his business background to explain that
Countrywide would never have become the nation's largest mortgage lender
without this government help. He needs to tell Americans that not only
did Fannie Mae know that Countrywide was shredding industry lending
standards, but that Fannie actually gave Countrywide awards specifically
for that practice.
Romney needs to note that it is no accident that former Sen.
Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the author of Obama's signature financial reform
bill, was caught receiving preferential loans from Countrywide CEO
Angelo Mozilo. Romney needs to explain that crony capitalism fueled the
last crisis, and it has only gotten worse under Obama.
As President Reagan said in his Inaugural Address, "In this
present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem;
government is the problem." Unlike the straw-man vision Obama fed
Rolling Stone, we did actually try Reagan's policies. We've got evidence
of how they worked out, too. American's can judge for themselves whose
economic record they prefer.
Conn Carroll can be reached at ccarroll@washingtonexaminer.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment