- Primary season brings frustration (04/27/16)
- The problem of silence (04/20/16)
- Unanswered questions about the presidential campaign (04/13/16)
- President refuses to face problems (04/06/16)
- Few reasons to vote for Trump or Clinton (03/30/16)
- Trump and the immigration issue (03/23/16)
- Addressing the real gun problem (03/16/16)
President reframes popular election question
Every four years during the presidential election cycle, we're urged to ask the question, "Are you better off today than four years ago?"
The catchy line made famous by President Ronald Reagan during a 1980 debate with President Jimmy Carter has already surfaced this year. You'll likely hear it often.
Interestingly, President Obama posed the question during a stump speech recently but modified the question from four years to 12 years, thus conveniently including the Bush administration.
That obviously allows the President the opportunity to take the spotlight away from the past four dismal years and continue his policy of pushing blame onto someone else.
But the question is a fair one and simple enough to understand.
So are you better off today than four years ago?
Well if you're among the 29 million Americans who are unemployed or who have abandoned the job market, the answer is probably no.
If you've calculated your share of the federal debt, the answer is probably no.
If you've had to adjust your lifestyle to account for higher gas prices, the answer is probably no.
If you saved for retirement only to see your investment plummet, the answer is probably no.
If you actually believed that this president could usher in a post-racial America, the answer is probably no.
If you believed that a president with a unique life story could help stabilize relations in the Middle East, the answer is probably no.
If you cringe when you watch our president constantly apologize for the history of this great nation, the answer is probably no.
And finally -- perhaps more importantly -- if you believe that the vast income gap in this country is not a product of illegal greed but instead is a reflection between sacrifice and hard work vs. acceptance of government support, the answer is probably no.
But if you support a bigger government, union-supported, free-spending social agenda that taxes achievement and rewards dependency, then the answer is probably yes.
If a 12 million force of illegal residents doesn't concern you, the answer is probably yes.
If the constant erosion of fundamental values that helped found this nation gives you little concern, the answer is probably yes.
If you want a group of faceless unelected czars to dictate your eating habits, your farms, your power plants, your medical care, the type of vehicle you drive and so much more, the answer is probably yes.
If I were the incumbent president, believe me, I too would want to expand the question to include a longer time frame on this key question and avoid a full discussion of the past four years.
Who in their right mind would want to run on that record?