The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic (32 page)

Read The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic Online

Authors: David Limbaugh

BOOK: The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic
9.39Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
These remarks reiterated Obama’s economically illiterate belief that businesses can make expansion and hiring decisions in a vacuum, irrespective of demand or a company’s financial situation. To him, the profit motive is actually counterproductive to job creation because it increases overhead. He wholly discounts the economic reality that businesses cannot succeed if they make their hiring and expansion decisions for purely altruistic motives. As if anticipating his Osawatomie speech, he declared, “The benefits can’t just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They should be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line. We cannot go back to the kind of economy—and culture—we saw in the years leading up to the recession, where growth and gains in productivity just didn’t translate into rising incomes and opportunity for the middle class.”
102
In other words, “quit being so selfish and spread the wealth around, unlike you did during the Bush years.”
Further betraying his ignorance of economics, he told the group, “I want to encourage you to get in the game…. And as you hire, you know that more Americans working means more sales, greater demand, and higher profits for your companies. We can create a virtuous cycle”
103
—as if by just hiring people regardless of the demand for them,
presto chango
, these companies can automatically make more sales and increase profits. Presumably, it’s only their lack of virtue and compassion that keeps them from hiring now.
That was not a mere throwaway argument for Obama. In Maryland a month earlier, he had given another pep talk to businesses, sharing his belief that a business’s decision to hire more workers and expand was purely a function of its own wishes, irrespective of external factors. “Now is the time to act,” he instructed his audience at a window manufacturer. “If you are planning or thinking about making investments sometime in the future, make those investments now, and you’re going to save money. And that will help us grow the economy. It will help you grow your business.”
104
HE STILL RECEIVES A FAILING GRADE IN BUSINESS
Obama’s many half-hearted overtures to business didn’t yield much fruit. When he was stumping for his stimulus, he made a speech at Caterpillar boasting that the bill would directly prevent the company from having to lay off employees. Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens famously contradicted Obama as soon as he’d left the event. As to whether the bill would prevent layoffs, he said, “I think realistically no. The truth is we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again.”
106
More than two years later, Obama hadn’t done much to improve his reputation with that company. Its new CEO, Doug Oberhelman, maintains that Obama’s relations with business have improved, but he still receives a failing grade—a 5 or 6 out of 10.
107
“WE CANNOT ALLOW THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF OUR DEMOCRACY”
In his weekly radio and internet address of August 21, 2010, Obama couldn’t contain his frustration at his perceived business opponents who, along with the Supreme Court, reject his insistence on curtailing free speech through campaign finance reform legislation. He railed against “a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.” He blamed this situation on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the
Citizens United
case—“a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections… .” He further proclaimed, “We cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy.”
In fact, the Disclose Act, ostensibly designed to force most organizations to disclose their funding sources for political ads, was not about promoting transparency but, in the words of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of November.” While masquerading as practitioners of transparency, the Democratic leadership brought the bill directly to the Senate floor “without hearings, without testimony, without studies, [and] without a [committee] markup.”
109
The following month, Obama ratcheted up his anti-corporate rhetoric at a Democratic fundraiser in Connecticut. Complaining again about
Citizens United
and Republican opposition to his Disclose Act, he declared, “We tried to fix this, but the leaders of the other party wouldn’t even allow it to come up for a vote. We are not about to allow a corporate takeover of our democracy.” Democrats admitted Obama’s rhetoric was aimed at picking up congressional seats in the November elections.
110
But as the election results showed, Americans didn’t buy his assault on business.
PROVING A NEGATIVE
Amping up his attack, Obama suggested that in light of
Citizens United
, Republicans might even be receiving money via the Chamber of Commerce from “foreign-controlled” corporations.
111
Enraging Republicans as well as the Chamber, Obama’s charge was utterly misleading because the Supreme Court expressly indicated that its
Citizens United
ruling did not address foreign political contributions. As the Chamber’s top lobbyist, Bruce Josten, noted, “Federal law bans all foreign nationals from contributing either directly or indirectly to any candidate or political party ‘in connection with a federal, state, or local election.’”
112
The Chamber’s intransigence only seemed to embolden Obama’s community organizing team. When CBS’s Bob Schieffer on
Face the Nation
pressed White House senior adviser David Axelrod for proof of the administration’s allegation that the Chamber was funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns, Axelrod doubled down on the accusation, even while essentially admitting he had no evidence. “Do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Axelrod demanded. “The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem.” Schieffer dismissively replied that the charge about foreign money “appears to be peanuts.” When Axelrod still refused to back off the allegation, Schieffer commented, “If the only charge three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?”
113
Clearly, this administration feels it can lodge scandalous charges without producing a scintilla of evidence, and unless the accused can prove a negative, it is presumed guilty. In fact, the Democratic National Committee produced a new ad accusing the Chamber of “benefitting from secret foreign money” and, along with the Republican Party, of “stealing our democracy.” Former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie, one of those singled out in the DNC ad, said the Democrats’ claim represented “an unbelievable mentality.”
But it wasn’t so much a “mentality” as a coordinated effort to accuse the Chamber and the GOP of undermining democracy with foreign assistance. Axelrod made this clear in his
Face the Nation
interview. “It’s never happened before that organizations are spending this kind of money,” he alleged. “And the American people need to ask, ‘Why is the oil industry, Wall Street and others spending this kind of money to defeat candidates and elect others in this sort of secretive way?’ You know, that is a threat to our democracy.”
114
Obama repeated the allegations in two campaign speeches that same week. In Chicago he claimed to have a specific example. “Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations,” he announced. “So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.”
115
Amazingly, even the liberal press refused to play along this time. “A closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents,” wrote the
New York Times
.
116
But that smack-down did not stop Vice President Joe Biden from joining the charade. “I challenge the Chamber of Commerce to tell us how much of the money they’re investing is from foreign sources,” he declared. “I challenge them. If I’m wrong, I will stand corrected.” The Chamber responded in a press release, “We accept the vice president’s challenge here and now, and are happy to provide our answer…. Zero. As in, ‘Not a single cent.’”
117
Of course, as they were hurling baseless charges at Republicans, the Democrats were silent on the copious amounts of foreign money funneled into their own campaigns over the years. In her blog, Michelle Malkin cited numerous examples, including convicted criminals and top Democratic fundraisers Norman Hsu and Hasan Nemazee, both connected with the Clintons; Obama’s commerce secretary and Buddhist temple cash collector Gary Locke; the Senate Democrats’ fundraising activities in Canada; and the Obama presidential campaign’s overt solicitation of foreign contributions on its website. The Associated Press concluded that Obama had raised at least $2 million abroad, dwarfing the $229,000 raised by John McCain’s campaign.
118
In December 2010, the
Los Angeles Times
revealed a new element in the administration’s offensive against the Chamber of Commerce. Throughout 2010, the White House hosted business leaders, ostensibly to discuss policy, but in a number of those meetings urged the executives to lobby the Chamber to cancel TV spots targeted against ObamaCare. One business lobbyist accused Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett of urging executives to withdraw from the Chamber. Jarrett denied the charge, though an Apple spokeswoman, suspiciously, would neither confirm nor deny that the White House had asked it to leave the Chamber. And notably, when some major companies quit the Chamber over disagreements on its positions on global warming, Energy Secretary Steven Chu responded, “I think it’s wonderful.”
119
TARGETING THE PRIVATE JET INDUSTRY: “WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES”
For a time, Obama’s crusade against business focused on scapegoating private jet owners. At a press conference in late June 2011, Obama mentioned “corporate jets” six times, as if they were a satanic emblem. “I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys,” he proclaimed, with his typical dash of class warfare.
With this attack, Obama deliberately conflated two tax issues and the groups of people they affect: recipients of the Bush tax “cuts” for those making $250,000 or more a year on the one hand, and recipients of the tax deduction for corporate jet purchases on the other. A person typically has to make far more than $250,000 a year to afford to buy and maintain a private jet, yet Obama falsely implied that those earning $250,000 were part of the same group who travel in private jets. His singling out private jet owners was also disingenuous considering that the tax break they enjoy is not much different in principle from the one extended to the wealthy buyers of certain luxury electric cars. Purchasers of $100,000 electric-powered Tesla sports cars, for example, were entitled to a $7,500 tax credit, yet they were spared Obama’s censure, as their credit is motivated by Obama’s pet green project.
120
Obama also failed to mention that the corporate jet tax break, “accelerated depreciation,” was reauthorized by his own stimulus package and in the Small Business Lending Fund Act, which he signed. Its purpose wasn’t to give the rich a gift, but to encourage purchases of expensive planes (and other large manufacturing products) to revitalize the ailing aviation industry and to boost the general economy. The tax incentive was first introduced to help the industry recover from the effects of the 9/11 attacks. An industry study found that the incentive contributed to a 43 percent increase in sales and another $2 billion in sales when it was implemented again in 2003.
121
Obama’s rhetoric infuriated the jet industry. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association President Craig Fuller said that Obama’s remarks had cast a pall over the entire aviation industry, deterring many potential buyers from acquiring planes. “The industry has suffered terribly in the last two and a half years and it has just started to recover,” said Fuller. “Most of the signs were starting to look good. We are so angry as an industry and we have all come together to try to bring a more fair and balanced description to the debate.” Similarly, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) sent the president an outraged letter. “Words have consequences and, in this industry, a few misguided words can put at risk even the ever-so-modest recovery we have experienced,” said IAMAW International President Tom Buffenbarger. “What this industry and its workforce requires is more time to recover, a chance to book more orders and the opportunity to recall more workers.”
122

Other books

A Lion to Guard Us by Clyde Robert Bulla
Calvin M. Knox by The Plot Against Earth
Kisses in the Rain by Pamela Browning
Deadly Lies by Cynthia Eden
Surrender To Me by Sophie Jordan
The Gathering by William X. Kienzle
Wedded in Scandal by Jade Lee