Reader Greg Swinderski recommends giving President Obama another term so he can fix economic problems for which he has been wrongly blamed. Mr. Swinderski advises that by his understanding of economics, our economy suffers because of decisions made by businesses and corporations, and he asserts that presidents only have a minor influence on the economy.
My assessment of how the economy works is quite different. Presidents and their administrations have major influence, and, regrettably, President Obama's has been profoundly negative. He had complete control of Congress for the first two years of his administration and could have, and did do, anything he wanted. He shot all of the arrows from his quiver and they didn't hit the target: they didn't stop the recession, they didn't turn the economy around, and unemployment and home foreclosures have soared. Endless spending has jacked up the nation's debt to above $16 trillion. The bankruptcy laws were turned upside down when the UAW got equity positions in GM and Chrysler and the shaft was given to bondholders and creditors. Lehman Brothers was allowed to sink while Bear Stearns, AIG, and others were saved. The Keystone pipeline plan was squashed. The new, tax-laden Obamacare bill (which nobody read) nationalized one-sixth of the economy. Dodd-Frank is a nightmare.
Contact information ( * required )
Don't try to tell me that a president's influence on the economy is modest. Why on earth would the nation want (and how could it possibly survive) four more years of Mr. Obama's economic ineptitude? Business leaders are smart, and their decisions are driven by more than supply and demand. They have to guess what presidential/governmental idiocy will affect their businesses and then figure out how to work around it. Other than more grief for all, Mr. Obama has nothing left to offer.
Charles F. Falk