Monday, December 12, 2011

Why wasn't this what the Iowa debate was about?

Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post about how Obama's obnoxious Osawatomie speech was based on the President's typical fallacies and strawmen. And above all, Obama betrays yet one more time that he has absolutely no understanding of how the economy works or how jobs are created.
In essence Obama’s speech is a bald plea to restrict freedom: to seize more in tax to take away spending decisions from more individuals. To keep job creation tied up, held hostage to notions of “greed” or “unfairness,” because “the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can,” as though every great fortune hides a crime. He brags about all the regulations he is doing away with (a talking point that fools no one) even as he costs Kansas thousands of jobs by refusing to approve the Keystone XL fuel pipeline that is ready to be built in the state.

Even more alarming was Obama’s freedom-smothering suggestion that if businesses know what’s good for them, they had better start factoring in some nebulous overall consideration of the community’s needs, which look amazingly similar to the Obama campaign’s needs.

Rebuilding the economy, the president said, “will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders.” They don’t? Even after you’ve paid your local, state and federal income taxes; even after you’ve gotten everything up to code with every clipboard-wielding bureaucrat who wants to shut you down — you still have to worry about whether Washington approves of your overall vibe. Obama said companies should bring back jobs from China “because it’s good for business” (how about we let business decide that?) and “because it’s good for the country.”

In other words, businesses should do things as stupidly as Washington does them, to placate special interests and buy themselves popularity. If Apple stopped manufacturing in China and did everything in California, would anyone buy a $10,000 iPad? Would Apple be doing the community, much less its shareholders, any favors by going broke trying to sell things for more than customers will pay?
Instead of asking the questions that George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer to spark division among the candidates or to play into liberal beliefs that there is something morally redeeming about having been in economic difficulties at one time, why couldn't the debate have been about giving the candidates an opportunity to express how they would answer Obama's arguments?