An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Obama Enabler of the Irresponsible (Guest Voice)

Obama: Enabler of the Irresponsible

by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

In his inaugural address, President Obama heralded the arrival of a “new era of responsibility.” Apparently, this was a slip of the tongue, really meaning an “era of irresponsibility.”

By his actions, Obama is pushing irresponsibility by picking winners and losers, punishing those who have worked hard and saved, while rewarding those who bought houses they could not afford and made bad business decisions. In other words, President Obama is an enabler.

An enabler is a person who makes it easier for people to continue their bad behavior by rescuing them. He protects other from their responsibilities. “The term codependency,” says Darlene Albury, LMSW, “refers to a relationship where one or both parties enable the other to act in certain maladaptive ways.” They make excuses for the other person’s destructive behavior. The enabler allows the other person’s wrong behavior to continue and to worsen.

Power and the need to be in control go hand-in-hand with the nurturing of dependency. This is what Obama is trying to do with his huge government programs which help those who have been irresponsible.

It’s a fact: people respond to incentives and disincentives. We work because we get paid, or don’t speed because we fear a ticket. People will act either responsibly or irresponsibly depending on the consequences. Obama’s bailout plans remove negative consequences to bad decisions.

Our capitalistic system is based on the concept of risk and rewards.
People take risks in making investments and acquiring capital and then are free to reap the rewards and bear the burdens of their choices. In this manner successful businesses — and individuals — are rewarded, and they profit and reinvest that profit and grow. Ineffective businesses, which are taking up capital, go out of business or are bought up by the more successful companies, and scarce capital is used most effectively.

Now this equation is being thrown off kilter by government intervention.

First we had the bank bailouts, and the government choosing to allow Lehman Brothers to go broke while bailing out AIG. This is the era of irresponsibility. Once risk becomes unhinged from failure, and the government will bail out anyone who takes a risk and fails, there is no responsibility. The American system is then fundamentally altered.

When government attempts to redistribute wealth, this incentive structure is thrown on its head. In the Auto and Bank Bailout the government gave money to those who were failing, effectively propping up the losers and allowing them to stay in business to the detriment of those institutions that were wiser stewards of resources.

The same thing happened in the economic stimulus.

The tax cuts predominantly went to those who weren’t paying taxes in the first place. The real middle class gets $8 a week while the bulk of the $787 billion goes to pet pork projects of congressional leaders, or to those who are already receiving assistance from the government. Our incentive structure is out of whack.

Rather than rewarding those who are working hard just barely staying afloat, we pass over them and help those who are already being helped.

This exactly what is happening in Obama’s new mortgage plan that is expected to cost around $275 billion, and to which CNBC host Rick Santelli succinctly asked, “Why should the 92 percent of responsible people bear the burden of the 8 percent that were irresponsible?”

Essentially the Obama administration is spending our money to bail out and assist the roughly 9 million Americans who are currently facing foreclosure. They are trying to artificially prop up the housing bubble and reward people who acted irresponsibly.

While some people were working hard and scraping by, the question is if this actually serves to help those people. For the vast majority of them, the answer is no. This bill takes from those who made wise decisions and worked hard, and gives to those who lived behind their means. It punishes responsibility while pushing irresponsibility.

Our market economy rewards those who work hard and make good decisions. And as John F. Kennedy believed, “A rising tide lifts all ships.” Meaning, when people are free to be productive and prosper, the pie is growing and we are all better off.

The liberal view, and Obama’s view, is that the economic pie is fixed and we need to rob Peter to pay for Paul’s mortgage. This is simply not the case.

America was founded and has become the most prosperous nation on earth based on the principles of free enterprise and capitalism, allowing people to bear the fruits of their labor.

Obama is simply an enabler to those who made poor, irresponsible decisions. One reason Obama is doing this is for power and control, the other is because he wants people to like him and be dependant on him.

If Obama is allowed to continue to push his socialistic agenda, our wealth and prosperity will disappear. It is time for a taxpayer revolt.

As Rick Santelli said, it is time for a “new tea party.”

©2009 Floyd and Mary Beth Brown. The Browns are bestselling authors and speakers. Their column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.
Floyd’s latest book (with Lee Troxler) is “Obama Unmasked,” from Merril Press. Mary Beth’s latest book is featured at www.condibook.com. Time magazine wrote of Floyd: “Brown has stature among devoted conservatives that almost matches his physical heft (6 ft. 6 in. and 240 lbs.)” See more at Floyd’s blog at www.2minuteview.com. To comment on this column, e-mail browns@caglecartoons.com.

  • For those who don't know our "guest voice" today, he's the architect of the hateful racist slur "Willie Horton" ad campaign. So, for what it's worth, "Hateful Racist Guest Voice." Gee, wonder why they hate Obama.

    So, conservatives continue to offer up this as an exemplary voice of conservative thought. It is indeed, apparently, what conservatives proudly support. Keep reminding us of what your thought leaders are all about. Congratulations and goodbye to a dying party.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    So glad you are doing so well, Mr. and Mrs. Brown. So glad you have had your risks and rewards. Yes, I know you have worked very hard. But so have many of those who are facing dire financial problems now. Those who have lost their jobs and homes, through no fault of their own. Those who have gone broke, bankrupt to pay the medical bills of their loved ones. Those who have truly tried, worked hard, like you have, but unlike you, sadly did not make it.

    As a "FOOTNOTE" at the end of a post preceding yours said it so well:

    " Yesterday I drove 5 hours and listened to several conservative talk radio shows. It’s interesting to hear big talk show radio hosts talk about how people who are unemployed due to the recession are really lazy and just want to sit around and get government help and how they just need to get up and get a job and make something of themselves.

    Such statements are usually delivered by people who get fat salaries, generally aren’t thin, in many cases will be impacted by changes in taxes that will tax people in higher brackets — and who found jobs doing radio shows where they demonize another political party, the unemployed, or homeowners for three hours a day and then pick up a big paycheck. Nice work if you can get it. Which most can’t."


    Someone who did make it, but doesn't hold it against those who didn't
  • futzinfarb
    Yes, indeed, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” But what is one to do with those who can’t distinguish between tides and tsunamis?

    Before I go further, a long aside. My bonafides on this issue include: I worked and scholarshipped my way through an advanced degree without incurring a penny of debt. I chose a somewhat low paying career that is more buffered from economic whims than most. I saved a sizable down-payment and then shopped carefully for and purchased a home that cost much less than what the mortgagers encouraged me to borrow, took a fixed rate mortgage for a much shorter term than usual, paid dear points for an even lower interest rate, and pay additional principal at every opportunity. I refused to engage in the flip-fever that seemed to possess most of my friends. I carry no credit card debt. I saved for retirement aggressively in a 401K, and for other purposes in a diversified fashion. I regularly wrote to my representatives expressing grave concerns about fiscal and regulatory policies that appeared to have run amok. So, I suspect, most would rank me as one of the economically responsible.

    To continue my point: I am, like the Browns, outraged at the myriad forms of economic irresponsibility we are now being asked to underwrite, post hoc. But, that the Browns tellingly comment on the current economic climate with the metaphor of gentle and regular tides, suggests either that they don’t believe the loud economic alarms, or that their ideology blinds them to the vast differences between their middle-school social studies economic platitudes and current reality. Their piece does seem to recognize exigency, so ideology seems more likely.

    Do I think some other people were reckless idiots with their economic behavior over the past generation? Of course, I’ve been thinking it for a long time, and I have the bonafides. I looked out at the empty beach from which the tide had receded in a way no one has ever seen before and had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach as I saw reckless idiots seeking their treasures where the water was meters deep only a few moments ago. After warning them, after enduring their ridicule for my warnings, I ran to safety. Now, after the tsunami, do I help the victims who did not help themselves or do I smugly turn my back on them? What would the Browns do? Tides and tsunamis.
  • StockBoySF
    The authors did mention being against the original bank bailout (and auto-bailout)...

    However they did not mention that these were Republican ideas.... The rest of the article attacks Obama.... so the authors' appear to be using the pre-Obama bailouts as examples of what Obama has done that is wrong. The whole purpose of their piece is to attack Obama. They should not bring in plans that they disagree with that are pre-Obama and were proposed and backed by Republicans.
  • Here's a CBS news piece on Floyd Brown. So far I see no defense of this character by TMV readers, for which I commend them. TMV staff and editors? Are you ignorant of the background of this "guest voice"? (better check yourself for fleas)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PnfpefgI5c
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Brown
  • rfyork
    A rising tide can drown those who are stuck in the shallows.
  • greenschemes
    Actually I think the right is doing a poor job of framing their resistance to this.

    I think the sheer magnitude of this actions has caught them so off guard that we are all fumbling around in shock. Many of us wanted to believe that the claim that he was going to govern in a centrist manner might actually be true. That he was really not a far left liberal etc....etc....etc.

    The real debate should not be about socialism or Captialism. It should not be about those hurting or those in financial distress.

    It should be about how the hell are we going to pay for this?? Its never more clear to me now why Clinton has been in China and what she is trying to do. The Furor over Tibet that the left was furious about should now be forgotten so that Obama can get the money to spend like a wild drunken sailor.

    This is the debate. It will be narrowed down once the Right recovers from their bewildering shock over this budget.

    The epitaph for America will forever be written down in history as "When Clinton Visited China."
  • greenschemes
    "Those liberals, they start to foam at the mouth when they hear my name."

    Thank you Green..........that was priceless.
  • yetanothermoderatevoice
    The problem is right here:

    "It’s a fact: people respond to incentives and disincentives. We work because we get paid, or don’t speed because we fear a ticket. People will act either responsibly or irresponsibly depending on the consequences. Obama’s bailout plans remove negative consequences to bad decisions."

    1. It is, to a certain degree, self-referential that people respond to incentives. The problem is that we don't have very good models of what incentives people are perceiving or how they respond to them. Even John Cochrane doesn't know what's happening here - he refers to investors "pathologically" sitting on cash right now. (http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/r...)
    2. It is a *value judgment*, not a scientific pronouncement, to say that people act responsibly or irresponsibly depending on the consequences, because you have to define what constitutes responsible. For example, portfolio managers who operate ERISA pension plans are *required* to invest for the sole benefit of plan participants. While avoiding investment in, for example "sin" stocks like tobacco or alcohol might appear to be "responsible" from one perspective, it is "irresponsible" from another.
    3. Actions that appear individually responsible may be irresponsible in the aggregate. It might be responsible for each fisherman to catch as many fish as possible to best feed their family, but if everyone does this, fish stocks may be irreparably damaged so that everyone starves.
  • Jcavhs
    What happens if we don't help these people? Do we let the economy get even worse because some people made bad decisions? There are an awful lot of people who were responsible but lost their jobs because bank executives were idiots. There are a lot of people who bought houses they could afford but are underwater now because of foreclosures in their area. If GM or Chrysler goes out of business that will negatively affect the suppliers of auto parts - companies that supply all car makers. That will hurt other car makers - including ones that had been doing well because we lose the advantages of economies of scale. The economy is very interdependent between sectors and right now we have multiple sectors that are close to failing and this will hurt a lot of people who were responsible.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC