Now, those are a couple of famous sentences, don‘t you think? Spoken by President Ronald Reagan at his first inauguration in January of 1981, they, along with much of the rest of the inaugural address, spoke to a new direction for the U.S. economy.

And it’s dumb-founding how, today, presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama can completely ignore the “direction” in which our economy has been moving for over a quarter-century, and seriously propose policies and ideals that move in the opposite direction.

Think about it.. When Reagan spoke those words of confidence about the free market, America’s economy was not nearly the fertile ground for entrepreneurship and business ownership that it is today. In 1981, the U.S. economy was dominated by “big business” (large corporations employed a huge percentage of American workers back then); “big labor” (union membership and its promises of “protection” were highly influential); and “big government” (the U.S. government is still a large employer today, but proportionately it was bigger back then).

Today, while the three “B’s” obviously still exist, one cannot begin to describe the U.S. economy without plenty of references to “small businesses,” entrepreneurship,” and “private business ownership.” And a majority of American workers are employed by a “small business.”

And what do Hillary and Obama have to say about the small business-oriented, highly entrepreneurial environment that defines today‘s economy? Well, for starters, they have both successfully defined the idea of “market competition” as being evil.

As the all-important Ohio primary election fast approaches, the dynamic duo have been coddling union organizers there who are trying to “get out the vote,” by convincing their members that the North American Free Trade Agreement is the cause of their economic anxiety today.

Obama can authentically oppose N.A.F.T.A., but this is a challenge for Mrs. Clinton. For one thing, she was “right there” in the White House when her husband signed the agreement into law (she likes to remind us that she was “right there” in the White House, but only when it is politically beneficial to do so). Further, according to NEWSWEEK magazine Mrs. Clinton allegedly expressed exuberance back in 2006 for N.A.F.T.A.’s impact on our economy, something she denies today. Continued...