Picking winners and losers is one thing. Picking winners and losers if you are President of the United States is another, as Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) suggested in his response to President Obama‘s State of the Union speech on Tuesday night.
But so far in his presidency, Obama has banked on certain business interests over others and ensured that campaign donors are well taken care of. For example, after Obama selected General Electric chief Jeffrey Immelt to head his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Tabitha Hale wrote on FreedomWorks, “This could not have been a more clear product of a crony corporatist relationship, and it is one that has no place in government that professes to value the free market.” Others in the conservative blogosphere have pointed out that GE was among the top corporate donors to Obama’s presidential campaign, and that it has interests – especially when it comes to renewable energy and China – that are clearly aligned with those of the White House.
This is exactly the kind of favoritism and pay-to-play politics that Obama promised would be over when he swept into the White House. And though every presidency singles out its friends for largess, no one before has promised so earnestly to end Washington‘s “culture” – only to cozy up to it so quickly and completely.
From the financial bailout to the economic stimulus, the Obama administration funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to the industries it valued the most and banks that it thought could not fail, while simply letting others collapse (remember Lehman Brothers‘ demise?).
It was necessary to bail out the automotive industry, so “Government Motors” was showered with a $49.5 billion rescue package.
But as always, such socialized central planning is inefficient and wasteful, not to mention dishonest. Ford wisely refused a bailout and, after some corporate soul-searching, is back in the black. GM, federal crutches and all, continues to struggle.
The economic stimulus was no different. The White House (and yes, this started with George W. Bush, though it accelerated under Obama) took federal money, with little oversight, and handed a large portion of it to specific entities deemed “too big to fail.” Or, more likely, too important to Washington’s top dogs, who – regardless of party affiliation – need bankers as their friends whenever reelection rolls around.
Even in Tuesday night’s State of the Union, the President was still playing favorites. Not only did he say he was going to reward alternative sources of energy, he selected the actual energy sources (wind, solar, even nuclear – all things supposedly “clean”). But he especially went out of his way to pick a loser: the oil companies that still provide most of our energy, green dreams notwithstanding. The President scoffed at their profit margins and pledged to take away their tax breaks.
Perhaps the most glaring instance of the President playing favorites is the new health care law. Obamacare was supposed to fix our ailing health care system, making it more efficient and removing burdens on both individuals and businesses. However, he has handed out 222 waivers exempting organizations from the new law’s onerous rules, and more than 40 of these exemptions have gone to unions – like the notorious Service Employees International Union – that have long supported Obama politically.
Put aside, for now, Obama’s highly problematic relationship to big labor, which essentially guarantees that no serious progress will be made (at least under this administration) in curbing public spending. The more obvious issue is this: If Obamacare is a cure-all for our health care system, then why is Obama handing out exemptions to the law of the land left and right? The far more reasonable thing to do would be to admit that the law is a failure and come up with a better one, with input from the likes of Paul Ryan this time around.
However, as with energy and the economy, Obama’s commitment here is that of the Socialist central planner, who must hew to his rigid goal even when it’s clearly time for a sharp U-turn in policy.
But central planning didn’t work in Europe, and it won’t work here. For decades, those on the left with Socialist tendencies have used government to choose whom they want to succeed and whom they want to fail based on their ideological agenda – not on market forces or sound evidence. With this President, the tendency is magnified by his aggressive agenda and unapologetic belief in rewarding those who fall in line with his big government ideals.
All of this federal gambling – “investment,” as the White House likes to call it – is putting us in an enormous federal budget hole. Investments should yield returns, not oceans of red ink. The nation’s growing debt burden – to which Obama alluded, but has little ability to actually tackle – will ultimately lead to higher taxes, higher interest rates and the possibility of inflation, which will drive up the cost of everything from food to gasoline.
As a general rule of fairness, it should not be up to Washington to decide who wins and who loses. Politicians aren’t very good at it, anyway. The private sector can pick winners better than Obama can – and with less corruption. You can bet on that.
Andrea Tantaros, whose column appears on Thursdays on NYDailyNews.com and often in the print edition of the newspaper, is a political commentator as well as a corporate communications executive. She previously served as a senior adviser on a number of political campaigns and as communications director for former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld and Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-Buffalo), and on Capitol Hill as press secretary for the Republican leadership. Tantaros lives in New York City.
