There are 1.9 million fewer jobs today than when President Obama took office. Obama will lose in 2012 if the election is about jobs. He has to change the subject to something, anything, else.
Hence Obama’s Osawatomie speech, where he made it clear Democrats plan to make income inequality, not Obama’s economic record, the issue of 2012.
But as the above clip from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s last House of Commons Speech shows, liberals have a long history of changing the subject to income inequality when they are losing an economic argument argument. Republicans should take note how Thatcher responds. From the transcript:
Simon Hughes: There is no doubt that the Prime Minister, in many ways, has achieved substantial success. There is one statistic, however, that I understand is not challenged, and that is that, during her 11 years as Prime Minister, the gap between the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent. in this country has widened substantially. At the end of her chapter of British politics, how can she say that she can justify the fact that many people in a constituency such as mine are relatively much poorer, much less well housed and much less well provided for than they were in 1979? Surely she accepts that that is not a record that she or any Prime Minister can be proud of.
Margaret Thatcher: People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The Hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.
…
Jim Sillars: The Prime Minister is aware that I detest every single one of her domestic policies, and I have never hidden that fact. … Can I take the Prime Minister back to the question of the poor getting poorer? Does she not realize—even at this point, five minutes after midnight for her—that, because of the transfer of resources from the poor to the wealthy, the poll tax was unacceptable, and that it was because of the poll tax that she has fallen?
Margaret Thatcher: I think that the Hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe, who have experienced them, have for theirs. I think that I must have hit the right nail on the head when I pointed out that the logic of those policies is that they would rather the poor were poorer. … So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. One does not create wealth and opportunity that way. One does not create a property-owning democracy that way.
Margaret Thatcher: People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The Hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.
…
Jim Sillars: The Prime Minister is aware that I detest every single one of her domestic policies, and I have never hidden that fact. … Can I take the Prime Minister back to the question of the poor getting poorer? Does she not realize—even at this point, five minutes after midnight for her—that, because of the transfer of resources from the poor to the wealthy, the poll tax was unacceptable, and that it was because of the poll tax that she has fallen?
Margaret Thatcher: I think that the Hon. Gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of east Europe, who have experienced them, have for theirs. I think that I must have hit the right nail on the head when I pointed out that the logic of those policies is that they would rather the poor were poorer. … So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. One does not create wealth and opportunity that way. One does not create a property-owning democracy that way.
