The 2012 election has made one thing perfectly clear. Americans who strongly identify themselves as individuals, who do not believe that it is better to, as Obama once put it, “spread the wealth around” through enforced government redistribution, and who believe our spending is out of control, are going to have to take matters into their own hands. It is no longer enough to plan for your future, to merely work towards your personal hopes and dreams. You must now start actively defending those hopes and dreams from 61,170,405 irresponsible people who think economic decline is a winning national strategy.
As Nov. 6, 2012 teaches us, over half the electorate are now willing to run roughshod over anyone and anything that is in their way to the “free” stuff. No other explanation of Obama’s election makes any sense at all. And I mean at all. Well, except perhaps one — that somehow Democrats were able to dig up enough dead people to vote for them in the battleground states to cheat their way to victory, which would not surprise me at all. But since it is pointless to pursue that as an option of removing Obama from power, let’s stick to the matter at hand.
First, gas prices. With fuel costs where they are and a president who said “no” to the Keystone pipeline — and who has made little effort to hide his hostility to American energy — Obama should not have had a chance. Unless you like paying from $3-$5 a gallon for gas with the very real specter of even higher prices in the not too distant future, that is. In Obama’s own words, “energy prices must skyrocket” because of his plans. Romney promised to open the Keystone pipeline and further develop America’s energy resources.
Unemployment is officially at 7.9 percent, but the real unemployment rate is really about 15 percent. This is a direct result of Obama's policies that have created uncertainty in the market and understandable caution in future planning by business owners. Romney’s plan (he has a successful record of turning around endeavors headed south) was to not only ease the regulatory burden of government upon business but, even more importantly, to reduce income taxes for all Americans. This action would boost consumer spending power and thus increase the demand for goods and services. In turn, this would create more jobs. If you don’t think this works, you’re ignoring history. And besides, isn’t this what America is based upon, after all? Free enterprise? What Obama calls the “failed” strategies of the past are no such thing; they are exactly what made America great in the first place.
But that greatness is no more. America as we once knew her is gone forever and will continue, unabated, her decline. While words cannot express how lamentable this fact is, history teaches us this shouldn’t be a surprise.
And even if “free” stuff isn’t the actual intent of many voters, it nevertheless is the resulting reality as they side with, for whatever their personal reasons may be, the Democratic Party. And for those who now want to throw roads, infrastructure, national defense, and the other legitimate functions of government up as an argument by lumping them into the "free stuff" category, let me cut you off right here. Those are actually legitimate functions of government. Redistributing what one person earns to another person who did not earn isn’t.
This redistribution, combined with completely out of control spending, has led us to this point. Sadly, the Republicans are little better on that score. Government grew under George W. Bush as well. But the difference is in the degrees. Republicans are irresponsible with taxpayer money like a marksmen chipping away at a target with a .22 rifle fire. They’ll eventually wear the target completely away. Democrats, however, forgo the rifle in favor of a rocket launcher.
As Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous French historian, political observer and classical liberal once observed:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
Right or wrong about the dictatorship, Tocqueville, at least in my opinion, is dead on about the majority of voters going for the candidate promising the most free stuff. Obama “gave” us Obamacare, promised free contraceptives and abortions to women, implemented cash for clunkers, gave large sums in corporate welfare schemes for bailouts, extended individual unemployment benefits, and, perhaps most successfully of all to his re-election, promised to “ask” millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. I do not know when “ask” became a euphemism for “government coercion” but Obama likes to use it. And I suppose it does sound better than saying, “I would like to force millionaires and billionaires to pay more.” Though how Obama can claim that they are not paying their fair share when the top 50 percent of earners pay 97.75 percent of all income taxes collected is a mystery to me.
It becomes even more mystifying to hear Obama claim that this will somehow help the deficit. According to the Wall Street Journal, if we confiscated all the taxable income of the millionaires and billionaires that Obama targets, it would collect “merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25 percent as a share of the economy.” Even expanding it out from the top one percent of taxpayers outlined above and including the whole top 10 percent (those earning $114,000 annually or more). “That’s five times Mr. Obama’s two percent promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10 percent already pay 69 percent of all total income taxes, while the top five percent pay more than all of the other 95 percent.”
Put simply, sticking it to the man, which was Obama’s re-election strategy and remains his philosophy, plan, and dream, just won’t work.
So I propose we turn the tables on him.
Next week, part two and what you, as an individual, can do to protect yourself and defend your future. I will outline specific strategies to protect your wealth and freedoms as much as possible in Obama’s America. And I welcome readers’ strategies as well. I can be e-mailed at the below address with your comments and your own ideas for surviving America’s decline.
Jeff O’Bryant is the author of “Up into the Hills – A Brief History of Catoosa County” and holds two degrees: a bachelor’s in education and a bachelor’s with honors in history. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.