Obama’s Term In Office Has Been A Success If You Measure Success By Government Dependency

There are 1.1 million fewer Americans on non-farm payrolls today than there were in 2009 when Obama took office. The unemployment rate has been above 8% for 42 consecutive months and despite the $842 billion “stimulus” spending spree being passed with the intent of keeping unemployment below 8%. Obama’s other forays into economic policy – remember “cash for clunkers?” – have been a farce, and Obamacare may well be one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation to ever pass Congress.

So by what measure could Obama’s term in office be characterized a success? The measure of government dependency, as Charles Kadlec wrote for Forbes/em>, Obama is responsible for…

An increase of 18 million people, to 46 million Americans now receiving food stamps;

A 122% increase in food stamp spending to an estimated $89 billion this year from $40 billion in 2008;

An increase of 3.6 million people receiving Social Security disability payments;

A 10 million person increase in the number of individuals receiving welfare, to 107 million, or more than one-third of the U.S. population;

A 34%, $683 billion reduction in the adjusted gross income of the top 1% to $1.3 trillion in 2009 (latest data) from its 2007 peak.

For most of us, the most fundamental measure of the success of particular raft of policies is government dependency, meaning how many people are self-sufficient and how many are dependents either on the charity of their neighbors or the government (which has been hard at work to drive private charities out, but I digress).

But under Obama and Democrat control, there seems to be a relentless push to make people more dependent and less self-sufficient. The Democrats are even proud of it, saying that Obama ought to wear the title “food stamps president” as a badge of honor.

A society that is dependent on the government is a society that is not free.