Obama’s Financial Logic Gap—Does He Want A Recovery?

Google defines “Logic” as “Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.” Google defines “Valid” as “Actually supporting the intended point or claim; acceptable as cogent.”

So, acting in a logical way would mean that one reasons about a subject, and comes to a cogent conclusion, supported by facts or logic. One could argue that a logical way to deal with our financial collapse would be to examine the crux of the problem. The crux—in this case—is several things, that combined, have created a financial crisis the likes of which has not been seen in decades.

One of the main problems we face—for all intents and purposes—is the morbid obesity of our national debt. Our debt, continually growing, has lead to a first in history credit downgrade; an unprecedented level of obligation to China; and a sluggish economy.

To solve this debt problem, Obama has ideas. Rather than reduce spending in any meaningful way, he would rather the “rich” pay “their fair share.” This, he concludes, will help balance our budget. He also claims that he wants to take a balanced approach—which to him means putting off spending cuts indefinitely.

According to ABC News:

“President Obama rejected calls to balance the federal budget in the next ten years and instead argued that his primary economic concern was not balancing the budget, but rather growing the economy…’My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that, we are going to be bringing in more revenue.'”

There is a gap in President Obama’s reasoning. First, he claims that he doesn’t want to balance the budget just to balance the budget, but that growing the economy will balance it for us. But then, he goes on about taxing the top 2% to help balance the budget.

What he doesn’t realize is that the debt is partially responsible for the lack of growth. Zealous over-spending has damaged our economy, and it needs to be cut back before we can even think about growth.

It’s as if a family that is deeply in credit card debt decides to keep over-spending. The father is out of work, but they continue to spend. The solution, says the father, is that they must continue to spend as much, or more, than before, while he tries to find a job. That situation is ludicrous. If a father (or mother) lost their job, spending would be cut back immensely and immediately to compensate. Yet Obama and the Democrats are unwilling to see this.

On top of all of this, raising taxes on the top 2% will do nearly nothing to balance our budget; it will only serve to hamper investment. The top 2%—aside from paying most of our nation’s taxes as it is–are the ones who invest in the economy and create jobs. Taxing them more will lead to economic regression, not growth.

Not only is Obama’s logic flawed, it is entirely backwards. We need to deeply cut spending first, then lower capital gains taxes so that investment can flourish. Obama doesn’t want a balanced budget, or a growing economy; he wants power, and the Democrats want votes. So long as they can keep the economy sluggish, they can continue to promise gifts in return for votes. As long as the economy is trashed, the Democrats can promise a rebound.

No politician could be foolish enough to think with this little logic; which leaves only one option: malice. This “foolishness” is intentional, and extraordinarily dangerous. The hubris of this administration will lead to its downfall.