A while after Obama took office, according to his words and deeds at the time (such as keeping the Bush administration's defense minister and refusal to raise taxes in times of economic recession and so on), I wrote an article claiming that Obama needs centrists’ support to accomplish his ambition, which is to get re-elected, and that’s why he should take a middle route and not completely rule in accordance with his own leftist beliefs. But now I want to take back my wrong judgment, given that Obama has already bypassed the centrists just after one month in office, revealing his true extreme leftist face.
David Brooks is a columnist at the New York Times and a moderate conservative. He expressed appreciation for Obama during the election process. He believed that Obama was not a far leftist and had high expectations for Obama’s administration. Brooks stated recently in his column that like many moderate conservatives and moderate liberals, he supports a lot of proposals made by Obama, such as investing in education and new energy, as well as reforming the American medical insurance system under the condition of reducing the costs. Nevertheless, according to the budget plan Obama has recently issued for the 2010 fiscal year, which counted 3.6 trillion dollars, the investment is not focused on those issues, but on the redistribution of wealth, and Obama has also massively expanded government functions and will generate an enormous government deficit of 1.75 trillion dollars, representing 12.3 percent of the U.S. GDP. That would create a deficit level that is larger than any since the end of World War II.
Jim Cramer presides over a stock program on the financial cable channel CNBC in the U.S. He was a socialist when he was young and later transformed into a liberal, now a key democrat. Cramer has stated a very harsh critique of the Bush administration in the past few years, and he certainly does not expect that Obama will be able to turn the tide right after taking office. Yet, he never expected that the Dow Jones would drastically drop 2500 points immediately following Obama’s presidency. Cramer understands that this is Wall Street’s expression towards Obama's economic policy stance; Wall Street has no confidence in Obama's economic policies. Cramer voiced great indignation in his program afterward with regard to Obama’s government.
Cramer said during a NBC interview that Obama’s deficit-oriented economic policy is ultra-leftist, and the Obama government is the greatest destructor of wealth that he has ever seen in his life. Today, the American stock market has accumulated most American’s wealth and destroying the stock market means destroying the majority of U.S. wealth. Cramer's remarks caused much noise; White House spokesman Robert Gibbs immediately responded by calling what Cramer said unfounded. Cramer then made a strong counterattack on his own program and his blog. He said Obama wants, under the present economic recession, to raise everyone's tax rate (including the income tax and energy consumption tax) and nationalize the medical insurance system (700 billion dollars worth of expenses, eliminating the current lucrative medical profession), and if this happens, the U.S. will no doubt annihilate the foundation of wealth creation by increasing government expenses by such a great amount. Cramer agrees with increasing the tax rate of the rich, but he believes that applies only under satisfying economic circumstances, not during an economic recession. On the contrary, taxes should be reduced at this time.
So, why did Obama go back on his promise by ruling completely in accordance with leftist ideas just one month after assuming office? The answer is that the falling of the stock index would give a bigger blow to investors in the U.S. In other words, that part of the Republican Party’s voting bloc would be damaged in order to help build the Democratic Party's power monopoly, and the current economic crisis provided Obama a unique opportunity. Thinking back, Roosevelt laid a power foundation for decades for the Democratic Party through a severe recession and implementation of new policies.
U.S News & World Report magazine columnist James Pethokoukis pointed out in an article entitled “Why the Democratic Party Cracked Down on Investors” that there are two things which will probably turn American voters to the Republican Party: firstly, marry and have children and secondly, invest in the stock market. He is reasonable, according to the opinion polls conducted after the election, in that the majority of single mothers and the unmarried voted for the Democratic Party while stock investors mainly voted for the Republican Party. It was interrelated that Bush won the presidential election twice with the support of U.S. investors in 2000 and 2004. At that time, American stock investors had greatly increased and there is no doubt it was extremely beneficial to the Republican Party and Bush.
A strategy of the Democratic Party is to prevent the increase of stock investors. Given that the stock market could crash today, more and more people are fleeing because of fear in the stock market, which undoubtedly creates a good opportunity for the Democratic Party. By cracking down on investors, more people will rely on the government, thus increasing the Democratic Party’s opportunity to be re-elected, and at the same time achieving facets of left-wing philosophy, such as the redistribution of wealth. Furthermore, that would also help the Democratic Party to consolidate their own power foundation, and how can the witty Obama let go of such an opportunity! He would become the biggest wealth destructor.
A black scholar of Stanford University's Hoover Institution, Mr. Steele, said something like this: Americans have built history by voting for a black president, but they will have to pay a heavy price. Steele put it right. If we estimate rationally how heavy the cost is, it would be at least five to ten trillion U.S. dollars, or perhaps even 15 trillion U.S. dollars, plus five or even ten difficult years ahead.