Statistically speaking, our vote — the college vote — went to Barack Obama in 2008. But this time, Republican Mitt Romney is closing in on the youth vote. In 2008, Obama took the youth vote by a 34-point margin, according to exit polls, but now the margin has shrunk to 16 points, according to the Pew Research Center.

Some, including writers at hotair.com, a conservative commentary website founded by Michelle Malkin, speculate that the decrease in support for Obama among the youth is a product of Obama’s failed economy policy. Currently, U-3 unemployment is at 7.8 percent; when Obama took office, U-3 unemployment was also 7.8 percent.

In other words, Obama has gotten us no farther than back to where we started, and doing so has cost the American people trillions. Moreover, the latest youth unemployment figure for ages 16 to 24 is 17.1 percent.

It feels like stagnation because it is stagnation. So, the notion that youth unemployment creates drag on Obama’s re-election bid is valid, assuming that youth voters want jobs and question the effectiveness of Obama’s economy policy.

Because young college students are incurring great cost to attend college, we can assume they all expect to see a return — that is to say, we can assume they expect to see their employability to increase upon graduation. In other words, college students want jobs. It is safe to assume that those who entered the workforce directly after high school have the same attitude.

Despite these expectations, approximately 53 percent of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 are unemployed or underemployed. This is an 11-year high.

Obama took office and promised economic results that — as the numbers now tell us — did not happen. Youth disenchantment and shifting support toward Romney is a reflection of this.

This shift in support is also a reflection of enthusiasm for Romney and Ryan’s radical departure from current economic policy. Namely, we have been told by the current administration that when we are unsure, the government should tell us what to do.

Legislation signed by Obama moved the federal government further into healthcare, banking, the energy sector and state government. The moniker “too big to fail,” often used to criticize large banks, is something that unavoidably applies to the federal government.

The people, including college-aged voters, realize nothing is free. On the current policy track, the government is issuing debt at levels that will bring us to an unsustainable state. In short, some young voters see a government that is making promises it cannot afford and cannot keep.

We see that when the government offers something “free” or compels businesses to do the same, the cost is distributed to all of us, and the choice of incurring that cost is taken away.

Government expansion under Obama will cost us directly through taxation or indirectly through debt, rising prices or diminished choice, and many understand we can only afford this extended government for a limited time.

By demanding large entitlements now, we are ending the possibility of even modest entitlements for future generations. So, some have stopped demanding and others have regained trust for the free market because they have seen government fail.

Our post-graduation employment depends greatly on a functioning market, and it is becoming clear: Obama seeks to save the free market by taking it away; Romney and Ryan seek to unchain the free market and give it back to the people.

Michael Stikkel is a junior computer engineering major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu.

Published on October 17, 2012 at 1:00 am