Obamanomics for Dummies

During the Presidential campaign, Mr. Obama spoke of adjusting the tax system in favor of fairness, even at the cost of lower government tax receipts.  He's gone to great lengths to explain that fairness means he'll tax the rich and give the money to the poor through negative income tax (welfare by another name) or by creating government make-work jobs for them, which is welfare by yet another name.

We see this being played out in Mr. Obama's home state.  Illinois horse racing is a dying industry; casinos are booming.  Two years ago, the Illinois legislature passed a law saying that 3% of the money made by casinos would be turned over the horse tracks.

Strictly speaking, this wasn't a tax because the money wouldn't go to the state, it was a direct transfer from successful businesses to unsuccessful businesses, from growing firms to declining firms.  The fact that any Illinois citizen who wanted horse tracks supported could go there and support them notwithstanding, the legislature decided to act like Robin Hood and rob the businesses who were creating jobs to help the businesses which were shedding jobs.

That's precisely what Mr. Obama is talking about when he speaks of "stimulus."  He does not want to stimulate business in general, in whatever form it happens to take.

Instead, he wants to take money from successful businesses and use it to pay for unneeded public works, to prop up failing businesses like GM or just to hand it out to people who aren't working.  Robbing the productive in favor of the unproductive is basic Obamanomics, but there's more.

Anyone who read the Robin Hood stories knows about their magnificent uniforms of "Lincoln green" and how they feasted sumptuously on the greensward.  When they stole from the rich, the poor didn't get all of it; Robbing Hood and his Merrie Men kept some of the swag for themselves.

Page 39 of the criminal complaint issued by the United States against Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich refers to "a law which involves directing a percentage of casino revenue to the horse racing industry" which the governor signed.  Reading the transcript of the conversations between the governor and "Fund raiser A" at the behest of "Contributor 1" suggests that the horse track people shared their loot with the governor who signed the law which made it possible.  Ironically enough, Governor Blago ran on a platform of "change," selling himself as a reformer who claimed to be much cleaner than his jailed predecessors.

People with long memories will recall that when President Clinton left office, he had racked up such huge legal bills that his friends were raising money to try to pay off his debts.  Now we find out that he's a multi-millionaire who can afford to lend millions to his wife's Presidential campaign.  Hm.  One wonders who paid him for what.

We also note that a good part of the reason Mrs. Pelosi became Speaker of the US House of Representatives was that people responded to her mantra about the Republican "culture of corruption."  Voters were justly irritated that the Republicans had stolen so much of our money; the Democrats ran on a platform of "change" and promised to clean up Congress.

We find, however, that the only thing the Democrats didn't like about Republicans stealing our money was that they weren't in on it.  Once they were in the majority and could send our money to their friends, ethics reform died and the good times rolled on.

That's Obamanomics in a nutshell.  Rob from the productive, dole the money out to the well-connected, skim some for yourself, and never mind the deficit.

The New York Times tells us that Mr. Obama plans to run trillion-dollar deficits for years to come.  The more money the government spends, the more they skim.

Culture of corruption?  We ain't seen nothin' yet.