You don’t have to be a financial whiz to know that the economy isn’t good. Times are tough, and they’ve been tough for some time. The middle class has shrunk; wealth has diminished; poverty is up; and unemployment, especially for minorities, is nothing short of miserable.
But how bad is it, really?
Up until very recently, this was hard to quantify and thus became in large part a political argument. Today, however, enough time has passed that economists now have data points to scientifically put President Barack Obama’s economic policy in its proper place.
On the old legacy-o-meter, things aren’t looking good for Obama and his supporters, who so desperately wanted him to succeed.
I’m tempted to compare Obama’s performance on the economy to this year’s Phoenix Suns basketball team. But that might be too harsh — on the Suns.
The Suns were a crummy basketball team this season, for sure. They were pathetic from start to finish. But when things were not going well, they at least changed things up to get a better outcome. The Suns finished ahead of Cleveland and Charlotte. Had they suited up their old star, Connie Hawkins, they might have finished ahead of a few other teams, too.
President Obama, meanwhile, kept the same economic game plan and failed policies in place for 4½ years. Clear evidence is mounting to show that Obama’s stubbornness (or shall we call it ignorance) might earn him the title of Worst Economic President Ever.
An overreach, you say? Au contraire, mon ami. Ponder this: In what historians consider one of the most unsuccessful presidential terms in modern history, Jimmy Carter still produced four times as much economic growth as Barack Obama. If that doesn’t put it into perspective for you, nothing will.
For a definitive analysis of Obama’s economic failure, Peter Ferrara, the director of entitlement and budget policy for the Heartland Institute, writes in Forbes magazine this month that by all rights, Obama should be presiding over a robust recovery.
Read More: http://www.reviewjournal.com