The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic (33 page)
Read The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic Online
Authors: David Limbaugh
BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
5.97Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
James K. Coyne, head of the National Air Transportation Association, blasted Obama just a day after he had expediently visited a major American aircraft manufacturing plant for a photo-op to promote job growth. “It is perplexing why the president continues to bash an industry that is responsible for thousands of manufacturing, maintenance and service jobs,” said Coyne. “The president’s comments before a national audience could weaken consumer confidence in general aviation utilization at a time when economic indicators are demonstrating that the community is finally starting to recover from the recession.”
123
123
Similarly, Hawker Beechcraft CEO Bill Boisture denounced the administration’s “irresponsible” targeting of the private aircraft industry, claiming the assault, both in terms of user fees and fiscal proposals, had damaged customer confidence and contributed to as much as 25 percent of the industry’s layoffs and workforce reductions.
124
124
Hypocritically, the president often avails himself of the full perk of flying in the most private of public jets—Air Force One. He has reportedly flown Air Force One more than any other president in a comparable time period and, if waste were his concern, why do his wife, their family, and their entourage often fly in separate jets, greatly increasing the cost to taxpayers? Indeed, just as he was in high dudgeon over this tax break, the first lady was jetting to Aspen to raise funds from the very fat cats her husband was demonizing.
125
125
Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns warned that the president’s attacks on jet owners and manufacturers could have a chilling effect on the aviation industry—which provides some 1.2 million jobs and pours $150 billion into the economy every year. Indeed, while Obama wanted to create the impression he was targeting the wealthy, he was obviously indifferent to the fact that repealing the tax deduction and singling out the aviation industry could have wider repercussions. “[Obama] demonizes general aviation users,” noted Congressman Mike Pompeo. “He calls them corporate fat cat jet owners at every turn. But it’s not impacting the folks who use those as business tools. It’s impacting the people who build these airplanes. His rhetoric kills sales of American manufactured goods, and with them the jobs that are created when those airplanes are built.”
126
126
But liberals either don’t know or don’t care as much about the economy and the workers they purport to champion as they do the “righteous” cause of demonizing the “wealthy.” When they imposed a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts and other high-priced items a generation ago, they derisively scoffed at the potential negative consequences. Well, yacht owners reacted by purchasing their recreational assets offshore, creating a devastating impact on the boating industry in Florida and other coastal states, and destroying the jobs of some 25,000 workers in the industry. Government expenses for unemployment benefits for these workers greatly exceeded any revenues generated by the tax,
127
without even factoring in the lost revenues from potential purchases sabotaged by the tax.
127
without even factoring in the lost revenues from potential purchases sabotaged by the tax.
And as Craig Fuller observed, “There are only 15,000 private jets in America. Even if they tax them all at $10 million apiece—of course his proposal does not come close—it wouldn’t make a dent in the deficit.”
128
This episode shows just how willing Obama is to harm the U.S. economy and U.S. business owners and workers for the sake of political gain and ideological fealty.
BANKS DON’T HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT TO PROFIT128
This episode shows just how willing Obama is to harm the U.S. economy and U.S. business owners and workers for the sake of political gain and ideological fealty.
When the Bank of America decided to impose a $5 monthly fee on its debit card customers, President Obama appeared outraged. Always willing to weigh in on matters outside the purview of his office, he retorted that banks “don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of profit.” This was reminiscent of a comment made by Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economic adviser, about the Bush tax cuts—that “the millionaires and billionaires, frankly don’t need the extra cash.”
129
It obviously didn’t occur to Obama that the market could better determine the wisdom of this decision than he could. To Obama, the bank simply had no right to defray its administrative costs with fees. Rather it was surely gouging consumers—an “abuse of Wall Street,” as he described it.
130
129
It obviously didn’t occur to Obama that the market could better determine the wisdom of this decision than he could. To Obama, the bank simply had no right to defray its administrative costs with fees. Rather it was surely gouging consumers—an “abuse of Wall Street,” as he described it.
130
Despite Obama’s demagoguery about evil “fat-cat” bankers and his full-throated endorsement of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory scheme, the largest banks are bigger than they were when he took office and are nearing the level of profits they were making before the financial crisis of 2008.
131
And speaking of fat-cat bankers and the executive bonuses they received that so incensed Obama, he was conspicuously silent about the enormous compensation packages paid to executives at the two largest bailout recipients—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
132
“NOT PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN BUSINESS”131
And speaking of fat-cat bankers and the executive bonuses they received that so incensed Obama, he was conspicuously silent about the enormous compensation packages paid to executives at the two largest bailout recipients—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
132
Obama’s steadfast denials of his anti-business inclination fall flat in the face of so much evidence and so much rhetoric. In a September 2010 town hall meeting where he was hoping to shore up his pro-business credentials before the midterm elections, he ran into a buzzsaw even from his own supporters.
The Hill
reported that the Business Cable Network had carefully selected the audience and that it was “largely deferential to Obama,” but questions from Obama voters “provided the most revealing glimpse yet into why the president and his Democratic allies are facing a potential disaster in November.” One disgruntled African-American woman exclaimed, “I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people. And I’m waiting, sir. I don’t feel it yet.”
133
The Hill
reported that the Business Cable Network had carefully selected the audience and that it was “largely deferential to Obama,” but questions from Obama voters “provided the most revealing glimpse yet into why the president and his Democratic allies are facing a potential disaster in November.” One disgruntled African-American woman exclaimed, “I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people. And I’m waiting, sir. I don’t feel it yet.”
133
Other questioners challenged Obama on his anti-business hostility. Instead of dealing with the specifics, he defensively argued that he had turned the economy around so that businesses that were in trouble when he took office “now are profitable; the financial markets are stabilized.” Incredibly, despite his rhetoric, his pro-union actions against employers, his increased regulations, his finance reform bill, and his proposals to increase business taxes, Obama said, “I think that if you look at what we’ve done over the last two years, it’s very hard to find evidence of anything that we’ve done that is designed to squash business as opposed to promote business.”
134
134
It wasn’t just Obama voters who acknowledged his lack of sympathy for business. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a liberal Republican and frequent Obama supporter, admitted that Obama was no close friend of business, and that anyone paying attention during the 2008 presidential campaign couldn’t have missed that. In urging support for Obama, Bloomberg ironically outed him as anti-business. “Obama never said he would be anything other than what he is now,” said Bloomberg. “He is a liberal guy, very pro-union, not particularly interested in business.” Somewhat incoherently, after noting that many Obama supporters had expected Obama to scale down his anti-business positions, Bloomberg said he had “more respect for him for not changing.”
135
STUNNING HYPOCRISY135
Timothy P. Carney, columnist for the
Washington Examiner
, argues that the anti-business charge leveled against Obama isn’t precisely accurate. A better description, says Carney, is that he’s anti-free market, because he is more than happy to join forces with Big Business when it suits him. “His idea of being friendly to business,” writes Carney, “means more government subsidies and corporate-government cooperation.”
136
Washington Examiner
, argues that the anti-business charge leveled against Obama isn’t precisely accurate. A better description, says Carney, is that he’s anti-free market, because he is more than happy to join forces with Big Business when it suits him. “His idea of being friendly to business,” writes Carney, “means more government subsidies and corporate-government cooperation.”
136
Obama indeed colludes with well-placed friends in Big Business. Take for example Jeff Immelt, head of General Electric. Despite all his populist bashing of big corporations, Obama appeared with Immelt in Schenectady to boast about GE’s imminent sale of a power plant in Samalkot, India. This was hardly a victory for the free market because, as Carney notes, “Obama’s Export-Import Bank is providing at least $400 million in subsidized financing to grease the skids.” Overall, Carney observes, GE “marches in sync with government, pocketing subsidies, profiting from regulation, and lobbying for more of both.”
137
137
Immelt, for his part, is just as committed to his government sugar-daddy. “The global economy, and capitalism, will be ‘reset’ in several important ways,” he wrote in a February 2009 letter to GE shareholders shortly after Obama’s inauguration. “The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator, and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”
138
138
Immelt further explained this emerging Big Government - Big Business dynamic in an op-ed accepting his appointment as an adviser for the Obama administration. “We need a coordinated commitment among business, labor and government to expand our manufacturing base and increase exports,” he wrote. “Government should incentivize this investment in innovation…. Government can help business invest in our shared future.” Immelt no doubt earned a pat on the head from Obama when he stumped for his benefactor’s energy agenda: “A sound and competitive tax system and a partnership between business and government on education and innovation in areas where American can lead, such as clean energy, are essential to sustainable growth.”
139
Voila
, business surrenders to the notion that business can’t succeed without government incentives, support, and cooperation.
139
Voila
, business surrenders to the notion that business can’t succeed without government incentives, support, and cooperation.
Of course, there’s another reason Obama wants Big Business “partners” like Immelt: in exchange for government subsidies, tax credits, bailouts, and regulations that hurt their smaller competitors, they help advance Obama’s policy goals—a dynamic reminiscent of the corporatist economic policies underlying fascism.
Thus, GE is integrally involved in a number of industries promoted by Obama’s so-called “industrial policy.” For example, Immelt marches in lockstep with Obama’s green agenda. This may not be particularly profitable, but it keeps Immelt and his company in Obama’s good graces, and besides, any losses can potentially be offset, in part or in full, by Immelt getting his cut of the $100 billion-plus subsidies and tax credits the government provides for green technology.
Consider GE’s solar power efforts. Obama obviously prioritizes solar power, as shown in chapter eight, and so it was no surprise when GE announced in April 2011 that it would open the largest solar panel production concern in the United States. This complements GE’s position as America’s largest producer of wind turbines, which just happens to be another Obama hobbyhorse.
140
140
The relationship, sadly, is even deeper. The Obama administration and GE both promote cap-and-trade; GE conveniently opened an embryonic stem-cell business after Obama provided subsidies for such research; and as Obama stumped for railway subsidies, GE hired Linda Daschle, wife of the former South Dakota senator and a strong ally of Obama as a rail lobbyist. “Look at any major Obama policy initiative—healthcare reform, climate-change regulation, embryonic stem-cell research, infrastructure stimulus, electrical transmission smart-grids—and you’ll find GE has set up shop, angling for a way to pocket government handouts, gain business through mandates, or profit from government regulation,” says the Cato Institute’s Daniel Ikenson.
141
141
Obama’s choice of Immelt as his business BFF is stunningly hypocritical. In 2010, 60 percent of GE’s $14.2 billion profits were derived from overseas operations and the remaining $5.1 billion from its business in the United States. Moreover, GE paid precisely zero corporate taxes that year.
142
Interestingly, we haven’t heard Obama complaining about GE or Immelt when he rails against millionaires and corporate greed. Nor did we hear Obama object to his buddy conducting so much of his business overseas, even though Obama often claims American jobs are his top priority.
“ANOTHER HEAD-FAKE IN THE DIRECTION OF CAPITALISM”142
Interestingly, we haven’t heard Obama complaining about GE or Immelt when he rails against millionaires and corporate greed. Nor did we hear Obama object to his buddy conducting so much of his business overseas, even though Obama often claims American jobs are his top priority.
To try to defuse growing criticism from business, on January 31, 2011 Obama announced the “Startup America” initiative. Again, Obama revealed his unwavering belief in business’s dependence on government to succeed, and his naivete about business and job creation, indicating that all that was required for new businesses to sprout was for him to give a rhetorical pep talk to America, telling prospective business creators to get off their duffs and jump into the market. The White House website reported, “Startup America is the White House initiative to celebrate, inspire, and accelerate high-growth entrepreneurship throughout the nation.”
143
143
With the White House calling for the government and private sector to work in partnership on the project, “leaders in the private sector” obediently launched a “Startup America Partnership” to join “together to fuel innovative, high-growth U.S. startups.”
144
On its website the group stated, “For an entrepreneurial ecosystem to be successful and drive job growth, several elements must either exist or be developed.” Unsurprisingly, it listed among those elements the importance of “government serving as convener, but not the leader. Government must make a deep, long-term commitment to focus on new, young companies.” Another element listed was a commitment to “engage with local, state and federal government representatives as partners and conveners.”
145
144
On its website the group stated, “For an entrepreneurial ecosystem to be successful and drive job growth, several elements must either exist or be developed.” Unsurprisingly, it listed among those elements the importance of “government serving as convener, but not the leader. Government must make a deep, long-term commitment to focus on new, young companies.” Another element listed was a commitment to “engage with local, state and federal government representatives as partners and conveners.”
145
Other books
Love Lessons by Nick Sharratt
Picture Me Dead by Heather Graham
Angel Baby by Leslie Kelly
Mansfield Ranch by Jenni James
Biggest Flirts by Jennifer Echols
Almost Infamous: A Supervillain Novel by Matt Carter
Reed: Bowen Boys by Kathi S. Barton
Seeking the Mythical Future by Trevor Hoyle
The Unveiling by Shyla Colt
A Murder of Crows by David Rotenberg