Marxist-in-Chief Says He Will Appoint 'Secretary Of Business' In Second Term

Posted on November 2, 2012 by


Romney Campaign Response: Secretary of Business

View on YouTube

Apparently Obama thinks the problem with our economy is too few bureaucrats trying to control the private sector, and not enough centralized control in the hands of a few elite ruling class “intellectuals” like himself:

President Barack Obama signaled if he wins a second term he would appoint a Secretary of Business to oversee newly-consolidated government agencies, including the Small Business Administration, and predicted “a war” will break out within the Republican Party after the Nov. 6 election.

“We should have one Secretary of Business, instead of nine different departments that are dealing with things like giving loans to SBA or helping companies with exports,” Mr. Obama said in an interview that aired Monday on MSNBC. “There should be a one-stop shop.”

Mr. Obama blamed Congress for such consolidation not happening during his first term because lawmakers have been “very protective about not giving up their jurisdiction over various pieces of government.”

Read more at the Wall Street Journal

Mitt Romney was quick to respond:

“I know the president is trying to figure out some way to suggest he has new ideas,” said Romney, repeating as he often has on the trail that roughly 23 million Americans are out of work or underemployed. “He came up with the idea of creating a Department of Business. I don’t think adding a new chair in his cabinet will add more jobs on Main Street.”

The latest TV ad includes a similar message, asking “Why not have a president who actually understands business?”

Read more at Fox News

David Kreutzer observes at the Heritage Foundation:

If he truly understood what has been keeping businesses from creating more new jobs, he would task this new Secretary with eliminating red tape, cutting the most burdensome and useless regulations, opening access to the resources we already have, and stopping his own President from pushing for higher taxes.

Instead, the only problem the President came up with was that with nine departments, the process for distributing small business loans and export subsidies was too complex.

Got it? It’s too hard for the government to give money away with all these different departments. Why not just have one for doling out the cash to businesses?

Was it too hard for Solyndra to get the half-billion dollars it took from taxpayers—a half-billion the taxpayers will never get back? Was it too hard for A123 to qualify for a $250 million loan from the government—$130 million of which it used up before declaring bankruptcy? Was it too hard for Goldman Sachs to figure out Wall Street? Should there have been an easier way to get it the $90 million guaranteed loan for its subsidiary Cogentrix of Alamosa?

Read more at the Heritage Foundation

Erika Johnsen reacts at Hot Air:

No — a thousand times, no. As much as Democrats like to aggressively peddle the line that “Mitt Romney wants to take us back to the policies that got us here in the first place,” as if tax cuts and deregulation were somehow the prime movers of the financial crisis, the fact is that too much big government is what really got us here. Operating off of political motives, the feds creating adverse incentives and convoluting free-market signals were the recession’s greatest catalysts, and Obama’s biggest overstep into the business world so far with Dodd-Frank is already inducing mega-uncertainty and depressing private investment. But heck, by all means, let’s just keep right on piling up the bureaucracy and engendering even more mechanisms for the federal government to stick its nose into private business. What could go wrong?

Cross posted at