A Simple Infographic to Understand the Choice in 2016... More Barack Obama or a Return to Reagan

One of the most difficult games to play in politics is the notion of what might have been… How might things have been different had JFK not been shot? How might have things have been different had Al Gore won in 2000? How might things have been different had Mitt Romney or John McCain not run inept campaigns against Barack Obama?

We’ll never know what the outcomes might have been because there really is no way to objectively measure that when it comes to policy. Would JFK have scaled up Vietnam the way LBJ did or, if he did, would the Camelot mystique have protected him from the vilification that LBJ endured? Had Al Gore been in office on September 11th would we have invaded Iraq as he was on record believing Saddam had WMDs? We can speculate, but we can’t know.

We can however play the game that compares real data between presidents. And now might be a good time for that given we’ve got a presidential election coming.  On the one side are candidates seeking to maintain and further the liberal "successes" of Barack Obama, while on the other are a plethora of candidates seeking to harness the spirit of Ronald Reagan, inspired by his less is more approach to government.

And of course the press provides little actionable information when it comes to whose policies really were / are superior.  Witness their crowing about the unemployment rate hitting a seven year low without explaining (or understanding for that matter) the cause, which is certainly not a strong economy, but rather because people are exiting the workforce at a rate not seen since the 1970's.

Given that, I've created a simple infographic that just might help. (Click here for a larger image and here to download a high res version)  It looks eight measures that shed light on whether a future that furthers the ideas of Obama or Reagan might a better choice.  Unlike notions of what might have been, it compares actual outcomes on those eight measures during the first six years of each administration.  From inflation to the LFPR to food stamps, hopefully this handy infographic will help make the decision as to who to pull the lever for in 2016 just a little bit easier.

A dab of Communism and a dash of Fascism, Barack Obama's economic philosophy in practice

The primary reason Communism doesn’t work is that it goes against the very nature of man. In Communism there is simply no motivation for anyone to work hard. When there is a zero correlation between the amount or quality of work you do and the compensation you receive, your motivation to work hard, or maybe work at all, simply evaporates. This is particularly true given that the compensation for the slacker at the next desk is equally without correlation as he continues to get the same salary regardless of whether he actually gets anything done or not. And while Communism as we know it has only been around since 1848, the ideas behind it have been around for much longer… and not surprisingly it was a failed ideology long before Marx and Engels gave it a brand name.

I’m not going to suggest that Barack Obama is exactly a Communist… even if he was, apparently he’s smart enough to lie about it if he knew it would harm his image… I do however think he’s a fan of one of the basic mantras of Communism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” with him deciding who needs what. At the same time he’s very much a fan of the Fascist economic model where private property exists but government mandates much if not all of its activity. For him everything else is to simply be manipulated in order to achieve those two tenets of his philosophy.

For six years Barack Obama has been doing everything in his considerable power to bring that philosophy into effect in the United States. In all fairness, many of the things he has pursued had their genesis in previous administrations, but under Barack Obama they found an unabashed champion who was willing to turbo charge them as he sought to “fundamentally transformed America”.

The scorecard of Obama’s accomplishments is breathtaking:

• The percentage of Americans working to support the nation is at a record low. 44% 
• The number of Americans on food stamps has exceeded 46 million for an unprecedented 3 years. 
•  The number and percentage of Americans on "disability" are at record highs: 8.9 million & 6.4% 
• The federal income tax is at its most progressive point in modern times with the top 20% paying 94% of all income taxes while the bottom 40% actually get money from the government. 
• With Obamacare the government has taken direct control of almost 20% of the American economy, while the EPA has a death grip on a vast expanse of industries from autos to energy to dry cleaning. Regulations are accumulating at an unprecedented rate and their scope seems boundless. 
•  And finally, as a result of all of this, more businesses are failing than are starting and the country is experiencing the slowest economic recovery in over half a century. 

If the words Communist or Fascist are too strong for delicate sensibilities, let me paint the picture in a slightly different way. Imagine the United States is a wagon with a combination of passengers and people pulling it. Where the wagon goes to find food and sustenance and to build prosperity is determined by the people pulling it. As long as there are enough people on the ground pulling the wagon, and those people are willing and able to put forth the effort to figure out where they should go and how best to get there, everything works out fine. Over time however if enough people stop pulling and jump into the wagon such that the ratio of passengers to pullers becomes too great, the wagon will eventually stop, as will the pursuit of sustenance, prosperity and everything else and stagnation and collapse will begin. But wait! It gets worse! Not only are there too many passengers in the wagon, but they have put chains on the ankles of those pulling it, have decided they know better how to pull the wagon – despite the fact that they are not pulling anything – and they have decreed that they get to decide how everything is distributed. Welcome to Barack Obama’s world. To put things in explicit terms, in Barack Obama’s America 140 million people are working to support a population of 320 million, which includes a record 100 million adults not working. That is the lowest rate in history.

So, while the Communist Party USA may not be celebrating their party’s ascendance into the White House, they are no doubt cheered by the fact that the country is being “transformed” in their direction. That does not bode well for anybody associated with the American wagon, whether pulling it or passenger…

What six years of Barack Obama's economic incompetence has wrought

Now that Barack Obama’s first six years are over it might be nice to see what he has wrought, and compare him to another iconic president, Ronald Reagan.

When Barack Obama took office in 2009 65.7% of Americans were participating in the laborforce. (This is called the Labor Force Participation Rate – LFPR – which includes those working and those looking for work.) Six years later that number was down to 62.8. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 63.9% of Americans were participating in the workforce and six years later that number had grown to 65.6%.

Unemployment is the measure of those in the laborforce looking for work but can’t find it. At first blush Obama seems to be doing well using that measure. In February 2009 unemployment sat at 8.3% and by November 2014 it had dropped to 5.8%. In February 1981 Ronald Reagan took office with an unemployment rate of 7.4%, which by November 1986 had only dropped to 6.9%. Using the unemployment measure seems to suggest Obama’s policies trump those of Reagan.

Upon closer inspection however… not so much. The LFPR tells the story – or really its inverse does. That is the number of those not working who must be supported by workers, unless they were independently wealthy. A 65% LFPR indicates that 35% of the population would be supported by workers. In the case of both Obama and Reagan the US population grew by approximately 11 million people over their first six years in office. Under Reagan, because job growth was so strong – 11 million new jobs – the total number of people who needed to be supported by those working (unemployed + those not in the workforce) remained steady at 93 million throughout those six years. Under Obama however, because job growth was so anemic – 3 million total new jobs – the number of people who needed to be supported by those working actually jumped 8 million from 121 million to 129 million. That means that under Reagan the number of workers in the US grew by 11 million while the number of non workers remained steady. Under Obama the number of workers grew by 3 million while the number not working grew by 8 million.

But some might argue that Obama faced a tougher economic situation than did Reagan. Not really.

When Ronald Reagan took office inflation was 10.1% and six years later it was 1.9% while under Barack Obama inflation started out near zero and has remained there throughout his terms. What’s ironic about this tame inflation is that it has much to do with dropping prices for things like big screen TV’s, mobile phones and oil, – the latter despite Obama’s best efforts – while core items that the poor spend most heavily on such as meats, poultry, fish, eggs and electricity, are hitting all time record highs.

When Reagan took office interest rates were 19.5% and by his sixth year they were down to 7.5%. When Barack Obama took office interest rates were at 3.25% and have essentially stayed in that area since. That extraordinarily low rate is in large part due to the Fed’s pumping of $4.5 trillion into the American economy since 2008, allowing the federal government to borrow like a drunken sailor.

Of course that pumping also has the impact of juicing the GDP numbers as there is more borrowing and investment going on than the fundamentals would otherwise support. And it’s in this easy money environment that Barack Obama’s biggest failure can be seen. In the six years he’s been president GDP grew by a total of 22%. Compare that to the same period under Reagan, where GDP grew by a whopping 42%. Of course Reagan did add substantially to the national debt, growing it by 6% of GDP during each of his first six years. But Obama borrowed even more, growing the national debt by 8% of GDP each of his first six years. Add to that the 5% the Fed kicked in each year with its Quantative Easing and it’s almost impossible understand how GDP could grow as slowly as it has under Obama.

The key however is hiding right in plain sight. Q4 GDP numbers give it away. The administration crows that the economy grew at a 5% clip in the last quarter of 2014. Not bad. What they don’t tell you is that fully half that uptick came specifically as a result of coerced Obamacare spending. Obamacare is a microcosm of what’s wrong with Obama and his administration. On the one hand it kills jobs, increases prices, eliminates choices and puts private practice doctors out of business. On the other hand, those very same regulations force Americans and companies to spend more on its mandates, which has the result of juicing GDP. So by regulatory fiat the government can remake the economy and claim Americans are better off in the process by juicing GDP numbers. Now imagine the same thing with hundreds of thousands of regulations over the last six years and you understand just how it’s the case that GDP seems to keep growing but Americans seem poorer.

To put the cherry on top of this indictment of Barack Obama’s economic incompetence is a quote from Ronald Reagan: “Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence”. Barack Obama likely disagrees. When he took office there were 32 million Americans on food stamps. Today that number stands at 46 million. In six years Barack Obama’s economic policies have so damaged the country that 5% of Americans have been added to the food stamp rolls while fully one third of the country receives some form of welfare. All of this while the rich are paying more in taxes than ever and half the country pays no income taxes at all and the middle class try to keep their heads above water.  That's what happens when your policies bring about the slowest economic recovery in the last half century. 

Too bad no one saw this coming…

The Cult of Barack Obama - Eight Questions to Help Identify Members

I’ve never quite gotten the cult of Che Guevara. Colleges across the country are crisscrossed with students wearing Che tee shirts and dorm rooms are decorated with Che posters. Sometimes if you ask the student wearing a Che shirt about him you’ll get a leftist screed worthy of Matt Damon’s bar scene in Good Will Hunting. They’ll talk about his “affinity for the poor”, that he was a doctor, and the fact that he fought against the American Imperialists and “Capitalist octopuses” who were abusing and exploiting the population of South America. Most of the time however they will simply say nonsensical things like “he fought for the oppressed” or he was a “man of the people”.

What you’ll rarely hear them tell you about, though, is Che the Communist, Che the murderer, Che the narcisist, or Che the sadist. You won’t hear them tell you about the thousands of innocent Cubans who were killed arbitrarily at Che’s direction, or by Che’s own hand. They won’t tell you about the economic morass his revolution brought to Cuba. They won’t tell you about the chaos he left in his wake.

Most people wearing Che shirts or sleeping under Che posters know nothing about Che Guevara but they know that he was larger than life and somehow being associated with him makes them cool.

Such is the nature of a cult. Cherry picking facts and ignoring those that damage the image of their idol. In the case of the cult of Che, it’s a pretty innocuous cult. Other than facilitating a hookup that one might regret in the morning or inciting a fisticuff on the student union, there’s not much of an impact on the wider world.

If only we could say the same about the cult of Barack Obama. His cult shares many of the characteristics of the Che cult: The posters. The tee shirts. The celebrity. Mostly though, the cult of Barack Obama shares the characteristic of its adherents knowing practically nothing about their deity. Ask Obama supporters why they like Obama and you’ll get things like “He is for the people” “He supports women’s rights”, “He fixed the healthcare system” or maybe “He got Bin Laden”. All of those points, like most about Obama, are either meaningless or simply wrong.

Being for the people or supporting women’s rights may make for a good sound bite, but they mean nothing in the debate over public policy. Does lowering taxes so that all citizens can take more of their money home count as being for the people? Does promoting a woman’s right to protect herself with a weapon count as supporting women’s rights? And as for Obama getting Bin Laden, a Facebook post recently summed that up nicely: Crediting Obama with killing Bin Laden is like crediting Nixon with landing on the moon.

And even those things they get right on the surface, they get wrong. They will say that unemployment is lower under Barack Obama, which it is, 6.2% today vs. 7.6%. That is true on the surface, but only because 11 million Americans have given up looking for work since Obama became president. Those people are not counted in the unemployment rate. Had they been counted the unemployment rate would be over 10% rather than 6.2%. They say he implemented Obamacare. This too is true on its face, but it’s a fundamental lie. Obamacare as it was signed into law has never been implemented. Obama has unlawfully given subsidies to tens of millions of people in conflict with the explicit language of the law. He has unconstitutionally given waivers and delays to tens of thousands of employers employing tens of millions of people so that the pain the law imposes won’t be felt until it’s politically expedient… for him. So, in reality, Obamacare as written has not been implemented, but Americans are nonetheless saddled with a dysfunctional system that has cost jobs and caused many people to lose their doctors, face higher costs and in some cases lose their insurance altogether. 

And the list goes on… The disconnect between reality and the fantasyland members of the cult live in is stark. But how do you know if a friend or loved one is a member of the Cult of Barack Obama? Well, like a mirror used to uncover a vampire, here are eight questions that might help you find out. (And remember, all of this is after Obama borrowed $5 trillion and the FED pumped almost $4 trillion into the economy.)

1) Is American household income higher today than it was when Barack Obama took office? No. Lower, by $2,500.

2) Are more Americans working today than there were when Barack Obama took office? Nominally yes. 146 million vs. 142 million, but as the population has grown by 13 million, a lower percentage of the population is actually working, 45.6% vs. 46.3%

3) Are there fewer Americans living in poverty today than there were when Barack Obama took office? No.  More are. 44 million in 2009 – 14.3% of the population vs. 48 million today, 15% of the population.

4) Are there more or fewer Americans on food stamps today than there were when Barack Obama took office? More. 47 million vs. 34 million.

5) Has the percentage of Americans with health insurance increased since Obamacare passed? No. 83.4% vs. 84.0%.

6) How does Barack Obama’s progressive recovery compare to Ronald Reagan’s free market recovery? Not well: 5.8% total growth over his first 5 years vs. 17.7% for Reagan’s.

7) Is Iraq better off or worse off today than it was when Barack Obama took office? Far worse.

8) Is the world a more stable or friendly place today than it was when Barack Obama took office? Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Ukraine, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Venezuela, Honduras…  Not so much.

If, after going through these questions and answers your friend still supports Barack Obama, they are likely part of the cult. Just to be sure however, ask them why they still support him. If they give you logical, cogent reasons for doing so then maybe they’re just confused and there may be some hope for recovery after all. For the rest it might be time Google "intervention".

Unfortunately, while today Che’s cult is largely harmless, Barack’s has wrought a disaster on the American people and the world beyond. Like the objects in the mirror that are larger than they appear, we can only hope that the cult of Obama fizzles soon after he leaves office as the magnitude of his ineptness and his failures becomes clear.

Barack Obama... A man of our time

Writer John Naisbitt once said “Leadership involves finding a parade and getting in front of it.” I’m not sure that’s quite the right definition of leadership, but it certainly applies to Barack Obama. Just before his election in 2008 he said “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What he might have more accurately said was “America is fundamentally changing and I’m here to speed up the process…”

America is indeed changing, and not in a good way. How far has it changed? One need only look to the President’s response to last week’s CBO report about ObamaCare eliminating 2.5 million jobs, most of them being those of low skilled and low wage workers.  White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: “Individuals will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods,” and that they “would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams.”

Fantastic! So now, according to the President, because of Obamacare Americans are now free to follow their dreams without having to worry about the minor issue of financial consequences. Get ready for lots more rock bands and philosophers and actors and artists. Of course this is not exactly new. American college students have been moving away from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Math) courses and into soft categories such as humanities, liberal arts and education for years. In those core areas, where American companies have tens of thousands of high paying jobs they cannot fill because American are simply not qualified, half the students receiving graduate degrees are international students. Add to that the 1/4 of the American students in STEM classes who are foreign born and you can see that Americans have been “pursuing their dreams” for decades. While following your dreams has its benefits – such as more time for partying and fewer late nights of studying – it has downsides too such as higher unemployment and or lower salaries that often come with humanities and social science degrees.

There is of course much more below the surface of the President’s new appreciation for pursuing dreams. Destroying another 2.5 million jobs (or full time equivalents) is exactly what the country needs with a Workforce Participation Rate that is at its lowest point since 1976, and which has been in a precipitous decline since he took office. Then there is the number of people who are claiming disability. It has skyrocketed in recent years – including under Obama. Since 1972 the number of Americans working has increased by 82% but the number of people claiming disability has increased by almost 500%. What’s worse is that America’s service economy of 2014 is a far safer place to work than our manufacturing economy was 40 years ago. And of course one can’t ignore the intersecting paths of food stamps and income tax. Today there are a record 47 Million Americans on food stamps while 47% of Americans pay no income taxes at all.

The parade Barack Obama has decided to jump in front of and lead is the shift from a society where the vast majority of people worked hard and supported themselves and their families to one where a significant number of Americans, if not quite yet a majority, are simply interested in what the government can take from others to give to them. At what point does the system become unsustainable? One doesn’t need a STEM degree to recognize that eventually the number of taxpayers paying into the system can’t support the rapidly growing number of people taking from it. An upside down pyramid can’t stand for long.

So Barack Obama hasn’t really transformed America. He’s simply made it chic to be a socialist. He's made redistribution cool. He's made paying taxes a fool’s errand. Like schools that award medals for participation or little leagues that ban keeping score, Barack Obama has sought to make Americans forget that success and prosperity are forged in the crucibles of hard work, investment and ingenuity and not in the halls of government. He has sought to make being on the dole just another form of pursuing one’s passion. He has sought to replace individual responsibility with government largesse as the symbol that defines our nation. Unfortunately Barack Obama is very much a man of our time. We can only hope that by the time he leaves office Americans will have recognized him for the pied piper he is, seeking to lead the nation over a cliff. 

Can A Nation Built By Giants Survive Nanny State Paternalism? The Numbers Don't Look Good...

While US Constitution and free market capitalism set the the foundations for American prosperity, it took a rugged, passionate, free people to build it. From George Washington to George Washington Carver to millions of other Americans, the United States was carved out a continent of forests that seemed to go on forever, fertile plains, vast mountain ranges and scorching hot deserts.  Over time American frontiersmen and settlers forged a country that seemed to have all of God’s blessings in abundance.

Conditions were rarely easy for most Americans throughout most of our history. Coal miners spent 12 – 16 hour shifts in dangerous coal mines in which they sometimes couldn’t even stand. Frontiersmen built a homestead and a farm out of a thick Appalachian forest while fighting brutal winters and a tenacious Indian population. Slaves toiled for years at backbreaking work during freezing winters and boiling summers. At the end of the 19th century over 50% of Americans still lived and worked as farmers, a far more dangerous job than most people understand. The industrial revolution brought sweatshops and drove a thirst for steel, trains and petroleum.

One sometimes has to marvel that America survived long enough to challenge the British for independence and then go on to grow and prosper (mostly) for over 200 years as it changed the world. Were the Americans who carved a nation out of a continent somehow so different than Americans today? Were the Americans who crisscrossed a continent with railroads, telephone lines and highways so different than Americans today? Were the Americans who won two world wars and sent a man to the moon so different than Americans today? Were the Americans who invented the mechanical reaper, air conditioning, vulcanized rubber and the microchip any different than Americans today? Not based on DNA they weren’t. But that doesn’t mean they were the same. While the DNA of the American people today is no different than that of the people who invented the elevator or the light bulb, the American people writ large certainly appear to be.

Go back a little more than one generation ago and it seems like Americans were something of another species. They appear to be relative supermen. In 1970 there were 78 million people working in the United States. At the same time there were 1.5 million people on Disability Insurance. That means that one person out of every 53 workers was on Disability. Fast forward 4 decades and it seems as if the world has turned on its side. By 2012 the number of Americans working had risen by 82% to 143 million people. During that same period however, workers receiving disability insurance skyrocketed up 491% to 8.8 million. Today, instead of one out of every 53 workers being on disability, it’s one in sixteen! That number is particularly interesting because the United States of 1970 was a far grittier place than the United States of 2013.

First off, the United States in 2012 is a much different workplace than the one that existed in 1970. In 1970 fully 25% of the American workforce worked in manufacturing while only 30% of employees worked in the service industry. Today, less than 10% of the American workforce works in manufacturing while over 50% of workers work in the service industry. Given that designing a website, taking an order at Red Lobster or greeting a guest at the front desk of a Marriott is generally less dangerous than welding together various pieces of a Lincoln Town Car or operating a blast furnace at a USX steel plant, America should be a safer place to work. And indeed it is. The death rate for American workers in 1970 was 18 per every 100,000 workers. By 2010 that rate had dropped to 3.6 deaths per every 100,000 workers, a decline of 80%.

But of course work is not the only place where one gets hurt. Today, virtually everywhere Americans go everything seems safer. Cars have seatbelts, antilock breaking systems and a plethora of airbag options. Houses have GFCI circuit breakers in bathrooms and kitchens and smoke detectors in almost every room. Lawn darts are but a distant memory and towns across the country require helmets for bicycle riding and virtually every appliance and medicine comes plastered with book length warning label. At the end of the day, America has become a far safer place to live and work than it has been at any time in its history.

Somehow, however, despite that much safer America, the number and percentage of people listed as disabled and receiving disability payments has skyrocketed.

“ Since the economy began its slow, slow recovery in late 2009, we’ve been averaging about 150,000 jobs created per month… In that same period every month, almost 250,000 people have been applying for disability.” So the world has changed so much that Americans are now seeking disability benefits at a 60% faster rate than they are getting new jobs! That is a staggering statistic.

How is that even possible? Have Americans become weaklings, unable to stay healthy. Has some unknown affliction made us incapable of working? No. There is an affliction, but it’s not biological. It’s called the nanny state. From judges who rubberstamp virtually every claim they ever see to 34% of applicants who have musculoskeletal injuries, which conveniently enough cannot be detected by doctors, to outright fraud (more)(more)(more) and states seeking to shift costs to the federal government, the program is a symbol of much of what is wrong in America in 2013. Indeed, in some places 1 out of 4 workers (or former as the case might be) is on disability.  The worst thing about this dysfunctional program is that the fraud keeps people who are in real need of help waiting in line, sometimes to die.

When government decides to play the role of caretaker and redistribute wealth from workers to everyone else, it should come as no surprise that many people will choose to jump from the working pool to the everyone else pool. For more proof just look at the food stamp program over the same 40 year period. While the population increased by about 30%, workers by 82% and disability by 491%, food stamp recipients grew by 1,000%!

The economics of the welfare state, including the “disability industrial complex” cannot be sustained. If the record of the last 40 years were to be repeated over the next 40, in 2050 the country would have 260 million workers supporting 43 million people on disability and 450 million people on food stamps. Those numbers are simply not sustainable, but you wouldn’t know it by the administration’s push to get more people to apply for benefits.

American workers and entrepreneurs have together created the greatest wealth and prosperity the world has ever seen. At some point the spirit that helped forge a nation out of a continent and dot it with jewels like the Empire State Building, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge will reemerge and shout “I’ve had it and I’m not going to take it anymore!” American shoulders may indeed be broad, but the head which sits above them is not suicidal. At some point Atlas will shrug, the question is will it be in time to save the country…

Barack Obama finally embraces Supply Side Economics - but adds just a wee hint of redistribution

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a report that said that the labor force participation rate (LFPR) dropped to 63.6%, the lowest rate since Jimmy Carter was in office. Essentially that means that of the population of 16 year and older, 37.4% of them decided not to work or not to seek work. That’s 88.8 million people! To put that in perspective, when George Bush took office the LFPR was 67.2% and eight years later it was 1.5% lower at 65.7%. It has dropped 2.1% in Barack Obama’s first four years, the most precipitous drop in workforce participation since they started keeping records in 1948. But percentages only tell you so much. Each of those percentage points represents approximately 2.5 million people. Since Barack Obama became president over 5 million people have simply stopped trying to find a job. If just half of those 5 million people were still looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would actually be 9.4% rather than the official 7.8%. Now some of those are students who chose to go to college because they couldn’t find a job and others are senior citizens who’ve retired from the workforce, but the overwhelming majority of those 5 million are people who have simply given up hope.

And that’s the point, and the problem… Not since the 1970’s have the American people felt so discouraged about the prospects for the nation in general and their individual economic circumstances in particular. For most of American history the notion of having a job, doing something productive for your family and your community was the norm. Barack Obama is seeking to rapidly change that, and he got a good head start during his first term. The President has doubled the number of people on food stamps and he gutted Bill Clinton’s (grudging) welfare reform. That’s his version of Supply Side Economics, he supplies the benefits and people will be happy to give him four more years. Add to this the regulatory nightmare he has unleashed on businesses and four years of demagoguing those who drive American productivity and you have an ever increasing number of Americans who believe they either can’t or don’t have to find jobs.

For much of the 20th century the United States was looked at as the place to come to seek your fortune, to make or do something with your life, basically where anything was possible. Although Hollywood and Coke and Levis brought the American Dream to the rest of the world, far more importantly, most Americans were pursuing it here at home, if not living it. Today something all together different is occurring. As the Gallop poll demonstrated, much diminished is that "Can do" feeling that most Americans had for most of our history, the feeling that prosperity and success were just around the corner and anyone could achieve it if they worked hard enough.  America has become a state of dependence, where half the population pays no income taxes and where 40% of the population suckles at the public tit, either in the form of government handouts or as employees of a bloated bureaucracy.

How long can a population survive when fewer and fewer people are supporting an ever increasing population of non producers? Not long. Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward posited in 1966 that you could overload the welfare system in an effort to bring about a redistribution of wealth. If you read their manifesto, you can’t help but recognize their methods in Barack Obama’s policies.

While it’s impossible to know what the future holds, it’s not difficult to wonder what the situation of the country might be in 4 years if the same policies that brought us to where we are today were implemented during the president’s second term.

If Food Stamp growth were to decline to 25% (vs. 50% over the President's first term) there will be 60 million Americans on the program. If Social Security Disability (which is at its highest level on record) increases by another 25% as it did in the last four years, a total of 13 million Americans will be on disability. (What’s most heart breaking about this programs is that the rampant fraud and bureaucratic incompetence are keeping benefits out of the hands of the truly needy.) Those measures alone would bring the total of people receiving government checks (i.e. money taken from taxpayers or borrowed that will have to be paid back by taxpayers) from 18% of our population today to almost 23%. Add in the 8 million or so people receiving unemployment benefits and the 4.4 million on welfare and you have over a quarter of the population on the receiving end of some wealth redistribution program. On the workforce side, if the LFPR declines another two percent it will sit at 61.6%, a level not seen since 1977. With a LFPR of 61.6% and an unemployment rate that stayed at today’s 7.9%, we would have only 141 million workers supporting a population of 323 million people verses today’s 144 million supporting a population of 313… That’s 3 million fewer workers supporting a population that would have grown by 10 million! Inverted pyramids like that don’t last for long.

At the end of the day, one has to wonder what exactly were those 65 million voters hoping for when they voted for Barack Obama? If it was more of the same they just might be in luck… at least in the short run. It appears that the President plans on doubling down on his policies. He appears to be executing the socialist Cloward Piven Strategy perfectly. While his devotees may be happy with his rhetoric today, they will likely not be happy when his grand strategy succeeds tomorrow. The problem with socialism in America is that it assumes a static nature of the citizenry, i.e. that government can impose whatever requirements on workers and producers and they will have no choice but to comply. Nothing could be farther from the truth. With countries from Australia to Canada to Singapore to Estonia to Denmark offering greater levels of economic freedom, those who fund what the government redistributes have many options available to them. Money, like water, flows to the areas of least resistance and the resistance is increasing in the United States. Eduardo Saverin, Tina Turner and a record number of other American citizens are making it clear that do indeed have options. Lots of companies do too. When all of the producers have finally left the country, all that will be left of Barack Obama’s redistributive state will be those who no longer know how to fend for themselves. Somehow I can’t imagine that being the Nirvana that Obama voters were thinking of.