Editorial
Endorsing an Obama Second Term
On the other hand, while the President has had many negative elements during his term of office – including failure to effectively negotiate with the Republicans, failing to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay and especially not dealing with environmental issues – one also needs to look at what his opponent has to offer. Most economists do not doubt that a Romney presidency will be a redo of the Bush presidency as his economic policy is based on Reagan’s ‘supply side economics’ and encased in Republican folklore that tax cuts for the rich will lead to employment and economic progress. Besides, there’s a chance that the one who wins the election on November 6, 2012 will benefit from the long term policies that have been put in place by Obama.
While they follow Adam Smith’s elements of capitalism, one cannot run a modern economy without adopting their inner Keynesian. There’s a role for government in the lives of all Americans, despite what the Republicans say. Even when they accuse the Democrats of breeding dependents on the government teat, the Republicans themselves benefit the most from the federal government.
Although federal spending is less than 25 percent of the economy, that small percentage has been able to make billionaires out of a smaller section of the American population. Obama’s most unpopular policy proposal speaks about rebalancing the equation by ‘redistributing’ the wealth from the wealthier – through progressive taxation – to the middle class and the poorer. For this, Obama is called a socialist and a ‘tax and spend’ liberal; one who is ruining the financial lives of America’s future even when over US$ 300 billion of his US$ 878 billion stimulus funds of 2009 went to offset tax cuts. Republicans aren’t ashamed to say that government does not create jobs and yet they blame the president for not creating enough jobs. They also say that the stimulus package did not create jobs yet many of their representatives in Congress asked for stimulus funds to try and create jobs in their districts and states. This is not just a quandary or oxymoron. It is either plain hypocrisy or the biggest canard.
Recent studies have showed that Obama’s liberal policies have worked just like they did in the past for Bill Clinton and the fiery 1990s. The U.S. Government has not only done what it is supposed to do by regulating and propping up those who need help. There is now plausible evidence that the stimulus package worked: The U.S. economy is growing while many of its competitors – China, Japan, the United Kingdom and the European Union are struggling for various reasons. And also, projections show that whoever wins the election on November 6, 2012 will benefit from the long term policies that have been put in place by Obama.
From Obama’s standpoint, why should Romney’s converse views and policies take advantage of the foundation he, Obama, put in place? And here, we could not agree more!
Many Americans have already made up their minds about who they will vote for next Tuesday. Again, in spite of what the polls say, this election will come down to a photo finish. Yes – Obama is favored to win but John McCain won the largest number of votes on Election Day 2008, and Obama was only able to become president because his supporters had voted earlier.
Thus far, about 20 million Americans have already cast their vote and Obama is in the lead. However, this is not why we endorse the President for a second term. It just seems as though we still have hope that somewhere, deep inside the Obama we see today, is that man we saw a few years ago. We saw his potential, we saw his endeavors, his trials and tribulations and still expect him to stop the oceans from rising and even give the people what they want. We cannot say the same for his opponent. Much as we may have tried to make the case for Mitt Romney, he is simply not to be trusted.
Dennis Matanda
Editor – [email protected]
