Government spending, congressional taxing, Treasury borrowing, Fed printing? Stephen Moore explains here how they are all non-starters for stimulating the economy. The Left counters that we should have borrowed even more money to get the economy fired up. But as Mr. Moore points out, this stretches the realm of credibility. Just how much would have been enough? $8 trillion? $10 trillion?
Five years into a recovery, the economy has grown by about 12 percent. That may not sound too bad, but over the first five years of the Reagan recovery, the economy grew 24 percent. Why does this matter? Because if the economy had grown as fast under Obama as it did under Reagan, according to Congress’s bipartisan Joint Economic Committee, the economy would be more than $2 trillion larger today. If that extra $2 trillion were divided evenly among all households, the economy would be about $17,000 bigger per family. Meanwhile, the average family has lost nearly $2,000 in income over this “recovery.”
The Left howls in protest over this comparison. Obama, they claim, inherited a financial crisis that was deeper than anything Reagan ever saw. Obama, by his own admission, saved us from a “second Great Depression,” blah, blah, blah. Of course, the economy really was flat on its back in 2009 when Obama walked into the Oval Office.
But how was that different from 1981? I would say the wreckage that Reagan inherited from Nixon-Ford-Carter might well have been worse: Obama didn’t have to deal with 14 percent inflation, 20 percent mortgage interest rates, an America that was rapidly deindustrializing, and a twelve-year bear market in stocks.
Let’s just accept the proposition that both presidents inherited terrible economic crises. What was different was the policy remedies. Reagan cut tax rates, slashed regulations, trimmed excess money supply (with the help of Fed chairman Paul Volcker), and let the private businesses — the supply side — grow their operations less hindered by government interference.
Obama did, well, pretty much the opposite. At the time of the mighty economic recovery of 2003–09, liberals explained the ferocious burst of growth and employment by saying it was a “classic Keynesian recovery” financed by debt spending. Except if that was the case, why is it that after Obama borrowed twice as much money, this Keynesian recovery has proceeded at half that pace? I’ve never heard an answer to that one. Never.
I’m not saying that the economy would be growing twice as fast and be $2 trillion bigger if Obama had gotten it right. But even if we had had just an averagerecovery, the economy would be $1.4 trillion larger today. These kinds of counterfactuals are impossible to prove. But it’s a pretty fair bet that things would be a lot better today for middle-class families if we had done Reaganomics, not Obamanomics.
The problem for the Democrats is that the American public doesn’t buy their story and their spin anymore. A majority of voters now say they want a Republican Congress that will block Obama initiatives rather than a Democratic Congress that will rubber-stamp them. It turns out there really is a statute of limitations on blaming Bush for today’s flatlined economy. And the far Left’s counterfactual line is that we should have borrowed even more money to get the economy firing on all cylinders stretches the realm of credibility. How much should we have borrowed? $8 trillion? $10 trillion?
What good that has come from Obamanomics is this: We have hopefully all relearned a painful lesson that government spending, congressional taxing, Treasury borrowing, and Fed printing don’t stimulate the economy. The ideas should be laid to rest and we should all make a solemn pledge to future generations: Never again.
Latest posts by Debbie Young (see all)
- Lester Holt and the Liberal Media’s Bias - September 29, 2016
- Unions or Children–Which Way Will Massachusetts Vote? - September 27, 2016
- Greetings from a Car-Free Day in Paris - September 26, 2016