A new poll and Obama’s recent statements leave a huge opening for Republicans to expand a debate that is long overdue, and place President Obama’s governing philosophy under scrutiny and expose its illogical conclusions. The Gallup poll, released Monday, reported that 64 percent of respondents considered big government the biggest threat to the nation, with only 26 percent that viewed big business as a bigger threat. In addition, 8 percent considered big labor the top threat to the nation. So it could be said, since Obama has been a stalwart ally of big labor, that 72 percent of the nation opposes Obama’s governing philosophy.
In a CBS 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, Obama once again revealed that his view of the government is at odds with the desires of the governed, here is what he said: “And it requires everybody to have a fair chance, everybody to do their fair share, and rules of the road that create fair play for everybody.
And what people have been frustrated about, especially since the financial crisis, is the sense that the rules are rigged against middle-class families and those aspiring to get in the middle class. So, if we’re willing to make investments in education so that everybody gets a fair chance and kids aren’t coming out with $100,000 worth of debt to go to [sic] college.”
The question is, who is it that doesn’t have a “fair chance”?
If you are poor in this country you get free meals and a free education from age zero all the way through a bachelor’s degree — and in many cases, free graduate school. We are constantly told about the high number of hungry children in this country, yet the high school dropout rate is the highest in the poor schools where students get a free breakfast and a free lunch. How hungry can these children really be if they won’t even show up to school to get the free meals? And Obama claims that the taxpayers who are picking up the tab for all of this have an unfair advantage?
If you are the average top ten percent wage-earner, your taxes are paying for someone else to get a better education than you are able to provide for your own children. That is called “social justice” in Obama’s world. If Americans believe the “rules are rigged against the middle-class,” they are right. But it is Obama now, and those who share his ideology, that have been rigging the rules for decades. If you are in the middle-class, for example, you would not have enough money to contribute to Obama’s campaign in order to get the deal Obama gave Solyndra.
And that is just one example of how the left’s system of government-run economics has created the very disparity that Obama claims to care about. In its most cynical form it is a protection racket that the political class in general, but mostly Democrats, have created that requires big business to pony up donations to the politicians that will be making the laws that can cost them immense sums of money.
So, yes, the deck is stacked in favor of big business, but it is Obama now, and in the past mostly Democrats, that made it that way. With threats of punitive laws, the Democrats are able to extort political support from the big businesses that they claim to be against. All the bluster about needing more regulation of Wall Street is just an announcement from Democrats that big business needs to line up and pay their alms to escape the regulatory burden contained in the next round of legislation. And if you are not big enough or don’t contribute to the right politician, then you pay the price that government regulation costs you (but not your competitors who did play the corrupt political game).
In his speech at Osawatomie, Kansas last week, Obama leveled the following charge against an unspecified “they”: “In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”
This is Obama’s perverted view of our constitutional right to self government — “everybody is left to fend for themselves.” This distortion is evidence of Obama’s deviancy. But the line “play by their own rules” is astounding for its hubris. It is Obama and his fellow travelers who have always maintained that the Constitution is a document left open for them to interpret any way they please. In other words, Obama believes the law of the land can mean whatever he wants it to mean at any given time, while accusing others of wanting to play by their own rules. Obama also made this interesting observation, but failed to understand its significance:
“You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class.”
Of course, Obama blames this on people getting wealthier instead of the most obvious explanation — the exponential growth of government. During the time period Obama cited, government growth has far outpaced the expansion of wealth in the US, paradoxically with substantial sectors of government growth devoted to ending poverty. Ordinary logic prefaces the conclusion that bureaucratic strangulation of small business opportunities is by far the most likely reason fewer people are in the middle-class, as opposed to Obama’s claim that some people’s ability to succeed caused others to be left behind. Obama’s unpopular philosophy requires his use of deception and to make rhetorical points that are substantially false. In his self-serving and brutal assault on logic, his words and actions have forced us to suspect the worst about his motives.