Inequality fight: Let’s start with Obama’s policies

posted at 2:31 pm on January 30, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

One of the few surprises in Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech this week was the relatively small amount of time given to “income inequality,” especially after the White House public-relations effort took pains to emphasize that as a major theme of the speech. Instead, we got the usual laundry list of proposals that Obama floats every year at this time, with a few passing references to inequality — and even those turned out to be utter nonsense. CNN noticed it shortly after the speech came to an end:

President Obama’s State of the Union speech was billed as focusing on income inequality, an issue he’s promised to devote himself to addressing in 2014.

And, true, he topped it with some emphatic observations about the widening income and opportunity gap in America.

But it was short on rhetoric and heavy on wonk. He used the bulk of his speech to list a bevy of policies, many of which he has already started or proposed before.

In fact, as CNN also points out, Obama never once actually uttered the phrase “income inequality”; according to the NPR transcript of the speech as given, the word “equal” never got mentioned, either. The only appearance of the word “fair” was in relation to science fairs. What happened? Perhaps Obama and his team realized that being in Year 6 of a presidency makes a reform platform a wee bit difficult.

If Obama and his administration really wants to solve income inequality, Avik Roy argues today, they need to look at their own policies as the real problem:

The president likes to think of himself as an empiricist, a nonideological believer in what works. So why is it that his policy approach is the opposite of the one that has worked in Texas and elsewhere?

Obama noted in his address that “stock prices have rarely been higher,” benefiting wealthy investors, big banks and corporations. That is because the Federal Reserve, through a monetary policy committed to ultra-low interest rates, has recklessly and artificially inflated the value of equities, bonds and real estate. This has been great for the wealthy, but it has done nothing for the poor or the unemployed. The president strongly endorses the Fed’s approach, doubling down on it by appointing one of its leading exponents, Janet Yellen, as its new chairman.

The president wants to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. That is great for the children of wealthy parents in the suburbs who want to earn extra money in their spare time. But it is not good for those trying to work for small businesses in inner cities, where the difference between employing 12 people at $7 an hour and 10 people at $10 an hour is two lost jobs. …

The president has dramatically expanded the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to hassle businesses and drive up their costs. In his address Tuesday night, he sought to do more of the same. A certain amount of environmental regulation is appropriate. But money that businesses spend on satisfying needless bureaucratic demands is money they do not spend on hiring new workers.

Avik then goes on to discuss ObamaCare as one of the worst policies for job creation and economic growth, so be sure to read more. In my column at The Fiscal Times, I argue that the White House is too busy trying to spin failure as success to see that staying the course is a losing argument, politically and economically:

Even in the first two difficult years of the Reagan presidency, unemployment spiked but people stayed in the workforce. The participation rate in Reagan’s first term started at 63.9 percent, dipped to 63.5 percent, and ended up at 64.5 percent by the 1984 election before the massive growth of the workforce in his second term. Obama, who ironically ran on “hope and change,” has produced more hopelessness in five years than Reagan or even George W. Bush managed to generate.

It’s this dogged refusal to acknowledge failure that produces Obama’s well-worn litany of short-term gimmicks as his economic policies. What exactly were his job-creation proposals? Well, his leading proposals to “expand opportunity for more American families” was the First Lady’s Let’s Move effort on childhood obesity, a committee to urge people to hire more veterans, and a conference to address “inequality in access to higher education.”

Obama offered a vague endorsement of tax reform to incentivize business investment and “insourcing” of jobs from overseas. Ironically, Obama made this pitch after the White House convinced retiring Senate Democrat Max Baucus to abandon his effort to find bipartisan tax reform to become the next Ambassador to China. The same day Obama paid lip service to that tax reform, Baucus told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he was “no real expert on China” when he couldn’t answer basic questions on acute diplomatic issues in the region.

Obama did mention energy as one opportunity, calling natural gas a “bridge fuel,” but insisting that he would block carbon emissions in the future. On top of that, Obama proposed spending more money on infrastructure –- the very same “shovel-ready jobs” policy that the stimulus funded. Its failure, in light of the lack of job creation and declining participation in the workforce, could hardly be more emphatic.

Obama and his team still have no Plan B after Obamanomics. And the retreat from “income inequality” and the retreaded, “small bore” policy proposals belie the befuddled state of this administration.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Deaf Ears?

Bmore on January 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM

They do have a plan and its working just the way they want it to, make everyone poorer. just look at their energy policy, healthcare, jobs just to name a few. What have they done to improve income quality?

phatfawzi on January 30, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Living in a bubble

cmsinaz on January 30, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Rescind all the DeathCare waivers, let everyone share equally in the joyfulness.

Bishop on January 30, 2014 at 2:41 PM

obama is the goon and thug of all goons/thugs.

It’s all you need to know.

Goebbels really loves the guy.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2014 at 2:42 PM

The oaf, who’s chief, is a 1%r, sustains and enriches 1%rs and preaches populism to the sheepledom.

He is a furtherer of looters who fool the moochers.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Now that’s odd, the Blame Bush meme doesn’t work anymore.

Who would have thought that maybe, just maybe, starting his 6th year, Obama might have worn that card out.

Johnnyreb on January 30, 2014 at 2:44 PM

The land should extradite him, and hand its collective head low, in shame.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Results for #Inequality

canopfor on January 30, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Left you something. Be quick. ; )

Bmore on January 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM

and hand hang its collective head low, in shame

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Ya know,

ever since Hopey hit the WH, he has found so-called
faults within America, and has hand his hands in every
corner and aspect of American Life!!

Community Crock-Stirring Agitational Organizational

And the kicker is,…..HE LOVES IT!!

canopfor on January 30, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Just saw – yikes, good for dieting…losing weight.

For those who wonder, here it is, if you’re quick.

Bmore on January 30, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2014 at 2:51 PM

DeseretNews National [email protected] 14m

.@BarackObama soft peddles #inequality in State of the Union #SOTU …

canopfor on January 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Not quick enough me thinks. Lolz!

Bmore on January 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Every single person that claimed the Keynesian, big government, debt exploding stimulus 1 and 2 and 3 etc, etc, have been PROVEN, without any doubt AT ALL to have been horribly, 180 degrees WRONG.

And yet, for some reason we still listen to these same “experts”? Why? Stop following the “advice” of people who obviously have no clue what they’re talking about!

Where do you think “income inequality” ranks in the priority list for the 92 Million people NOT WORKING? Not real high I bet.

Meople on January 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

and has hand his hands,


canopfor on January 30, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Another day of pffft. More please.

22044 on January 30, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Not quick enough me thinks. Lolz!

Bmore on January 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

I saw the scumhag, in all her ‘glory’. Gave you a tip.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2014 at 3:02 PM

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”

The same Biden principle applies to inequality. If we ramp up the importation of more inequality via so-called immigration reform it will reduce inequality.

Wigglesworth on January 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM

He always looks like the child of Mussolini/Lenin.

Schadenfreude on January 30, 2014 at 3:17 PM

But my energy costs have necessarily skyrocketed.

So there. He accomplished that.

Tsar of Earth on January 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM

I saw no scumhag.

Lanceman on January 30, 2014 at 3:25 PM

A Plan B would assume a Plan A exists.

Bad assumption.

BobMbx on January 30, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Lying and hypocrisy, the left’s best traits.

rlwo2008 on January 30, 2014 at 6:24 PM

Surrrrpriiiiiiise, narrowing the gap of income inequality doesn’t mean making poor people richer.

antipc on January 30, 2014 at 6:32 PM

the difference between employing 12 people at $7 an hour and 10 people at $10 an hour is two lost jobs

Which is why, each of the last three times that Democrat majorities raised the minimum wage (7/2007, 7/2008, 7/2009) the Employment-Population Ratio went down.

ITguy on January 30, 2014 at 8:51 PM