I never felt so simpatico with Joe Biden as I did after President Obama’s Great Deficit Speech. Ol’ lunch-bucket Joe seemed to doze off during the president’s oration. Perhaps he only appeared to be snoozing. But I can report that your faithful correspondent, despite the best intentions, did actually nod off a few times in the course of the address herself.
The first time I found my eyelids drooping was around paragraph four, when the president rhapsodized about the greatness of government: “We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefited from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.”
Advertisement
Who would not, at this point, yawn and grumble, “I’ve seen this movie before”? President Obama never tires of invoking the interstate-highway system as the model of government activism (though we do tire of hearing about it). He’s mentioned it in all three of his State of the Union addresses; when proclaiming the glories of the stimulus bill (“We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s”); and in defense of his “investment” in high-speed rail.
It’s a truism that, as the president said, some tasks can be performed only by government (national defense, courts of law, etc.). But Obama’s frequent invocation of government’s greatest hits, along with his tendency to attribute economic growth to government action, is part of his utterly conventional, myopic, Great Society–liberal worldview. Snore.
What startled me out of my slumber was this nugget in paragraph 11: “America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers. But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed.”
This “It all started with George W. Bush” trope is more than tiresome — it’s shallow, pandering, and dishonest. The entitlement crisis was the most predictable (and predicted) fiscal train wreck in history. The math about entitlement spending has been evident for decades. In 1994, to cite just one warning that predated the Bush bogeyman presidency, President Clinton’s bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform reported that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and civilian and military pensions would exceed total federal revenues by 2030. We know today that things are worse. The American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew Biggs reminds us that “the joke among entitlement analysts is that the government will eventually turn into a pension plan with an army.” Or maybe without an army . . .
Remember, the pre-speech buzz suggested that President Obama was going to debut a new seriousness about America’s looming debt. We were led to expect, if not a full embrace of entitlement reform, at least an honest grapple with the scope of the problem. Instead, he stooped to full “Mediscare” scurrilousness. Under the Republican plan, Obama warned darkly, the elderly would have their Medicare withdrawn, to be replaced with “a voucher.” Kids with autism and other debilitating diseases would be told “to fend for themselves.” Obama basically accused Republicans of sponsoring death panels. And “50 million Americans would have to lose their health care in order for us to reduce the deficit.”
The president didn’t identify those 50 million — except to suggest to his college audience that it might be “someone’s grandmother” — but he may have been referring to the “uninsured” who would be covered by Obamacare. If so, that’s a figure that’s been through more changes than Hillary Clinton’s hairstyle. In July 2009, the president said there were “47 million uninsured Americans.” The following month, he used the figure of 46 million. And in September, he and his administration began to speak of “30 million” uninsured. Is the president now boosting the estimate to 50? None of the numbers, incidentally, was correct. But that wouldn’t trouble someone bent not on leading but on misleading.
Last week, Rep. Paul Ryan was asked whether he and the Republicans were making themselves vulnerable to demagogic attacks by taking on entitlement spending directly. “We are,” he replied. “They are going to demagogue us, and — and it’s that demagoguery that has always prevented political leaders in the past from actually trying to fix the problem.”
This speech was excellent. The great centrist mass that Obama represents, understands that government is the only thing protecting the common people from the rapacious titans of capitalism. Government is by nature unwieldy and bloated, however, the services that government provides are unique and have the support of the mass middle. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will be retained and tinkered with. The only answer to deficits are tax increases and to slash defense spending. Ending the wars and closing all foreign bases would be a good start.
Why would the "common people" need to be "protected" from capitalism? Capitalists want to make money, money is made when the "common people" choose to spend their money on your products freely. Therefore, logic dictates that capitalism would be foolish to harm the "common people" because it would harm their interests.
Government only protects itself at the expense of the "common people."
(I wish I had the free time that MikeB and SmithersJones have... I'd go to The Nation's website and make negative comments on ALL the articles! Oh well, I can only dream...)
SmithersJones, thanks for the laugh! "rapacious titans of capitalism", indeed! These would be the people who hire the "common people" to work, for which the hirees are paid money that the hirer does not dictate what it can be spent on. As opposed to government, which may "give" them "free" money (taken from wage earners as well as "titans") but also wants to tell them what kind of light bulbs to buy and what kind of food they can eat.
This unwieldy bloated government provides Medicare etc. not to protect anyone, but to extend their control over more people. If you are accustomed to government financial handouts, then you become vested in having them continue. It's the same as if you become accustomed to wages, you want those to continue. But if you get fired from a job, there are lots of other companies to apply for jobs at. If the government is the source of your financial wherewithal, there isn't an alternative government to go to (assuming you want to stay in the USA). And if they control your access to medical care (not just insurance), then they decide whether you can get treatment than might prolong your life. Sounds pretty controlling to me.
It is no wonder the "mass middle" supports the entitlements, same as workers support the source of their wages. But companies can go out of business, and governments can find themselves headed for bankruptcy. The "titans of capitalism" in general do not control the government, though they obviously pour money into lobbying. GE has the President's ear, as do auto manufacturers (or at least the UAW). But it isn't as if there is a house of Congress to represent the interests of businesses. They have to pay taxes and yet they get no voting privileges. The owners vote, and pay taxes, but the companies do not get to vote. And the interests of the company have to be protected in order for it to thrive.
Without corporations and small businesses, there would be no jobs but government jobs, and no wealth to redistribute through progressive taxation. The people who build companies, at risk of their own capital, could take a safer route and put their money into CDs and passbook savings accounts (might need a lot of accounts). They take risks. If they lose their money, the government doesn't replace it. If they profit, the government takes a huge cut and people like you decry their success as if it indicates inherent character deficiency.
If you have a job, thank a "rapacious titan of capitalism."
Selected comments from President Present’s speech today:
"Under their vision, we can't invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail," Obama told a select group of the Democratic faithful at the second of three fundraising events in his hometown of Chicago.
"I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."
Republicans plans to shrink the reach of government is "not a vision that's impelled by the numbers" but a "choice" to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the rich rather than ask those who've been "blessed" to "give a little more."
Pathetic, just pathetic. What’s even worse is that some people (hopefully not too many likely voters) will believe this drivel.
Capitalism is intrinsically exploitative. Its good as long as you are not the one on the bottom of the capitalist pyramid.
Business is only interested in profit, not for the interests of society. Government exists to keep the excesses of capitalism in check through regulation and taxation. More government is better for those most exploited by capitalism. The rich will take care of themselves.
SmithersJones--I notice you also constantly recommend we "slash defense spending". Wrong.
That's actually one of the responsibilities of the government laid out in the Consitution, as opposed to 98% of what the Federal Beast is doing today.
You may not like it, but the world is filled w/ those that hate us and want what we have. Remember--you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. Trotsky.
If we lay down our arms on the world stage the globe will go up in flames, again, and this time we may not be able to step in and stop it. Then our 2 big oceans, our greatest defense, won't help us.
How about we slash NPB, disband the Dept of Education, make sure that no one pays zero taxes, and privatize medicare and social security?
I know those are Capitalist ideas, but they really would work better.
Thanks for posting though--it's always good to see how the other side is thinking.
Your isolationist, peace at all costs, slash defense spending thinking (I use the term loosely) leads me to 3 questions.
1) Have you ever read the constitution? Virtually everything you think important is either not mandated or specifically prohibited by the constitution. What you do not want (Defense) is specifically mandated as being a function of the Federal Government.
2) How long do you think you will keep your precious entitlements from the Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, and Radical Islamists with no defense department.
3) How long do you think you takers will keep your precious entitlements from us (the makers) with no defense department.
SmithersJones, really ... "Business is only interested in profit, not for the interests of society. Government exists to keep the excesses of capitalism in check through regulation and taxation. More government is better for those most exploited by capitalism."
1) Which business interests are served in the absence of a society? Can't have large businesses without a workforce, which tends to mean a society. To this extent, business interests are the interests of a society. What kind of society do you have when there are no businesses? Hunter-gatherer.
2) Insofar as there are non-capitalist societies with governments, there are non-capitalism-related reasons to have a government. One of these is to enforce the kind of law and order that give people the confidence to leave home and go to work, knowing they have a pretty good chance of finding their loved ones and belongings safe and sound when they return.
3) "More government is better for those most exploited by capitalism." "Better" how? Does more government make people happier? Do centrally-planned economies do a demonstrably better job of producing the things that modern people want, or even necessities like food, clothing, and shelter? Who is "most exploited"? If you mean the workers, they have the option to quit an unpleasant job. They can even start their own businesses using a business model that does not exploit anyone, and workers will flock to their employ.
What kind of society do you want, one where everyone is responsible for creating whatever they specifically need? Maybe you want one where the government attempts to predict how many people will need how many of which things and produce them accordingly? The government is notorious at being incompetent to predict the future (as are most people), so why would you want to entrust them with the lives of millions of people? There are businessmen who miscall the future (a la Bill Gates thinking no one would ever need more than 32 MB of storage on a computer), but at worst they harm only their companies and employees. If the government takes this authority on, it will potentially cause millions to starve.
Now for the kicker: most people are only interested in personal profit, not the interests of society. Will you try to create a new people of better character?
Smither-Jones: There once was a lush wheat growing area exploited by mean, small-business capitalists until the wonderful enlightened progressives came along, and said, this won't do. No, we can do it better; after all, it takes a village, and we are the village. And so, they took away the lush wheat fields from the exploiters and had great big, state backed non-profit companies grow wheat. Oh, but the weather refused to cooperate, and for sixty years they had nothing but crop failures. Dang the weather. Those darn capitalists, they just never had to face such adverse weather conditions.
Interpretation: The lush wheat fields were in the Ukraine, the mean, exploitive capitalists were the landowners, and the non-profit companies were the giant collectives; the progressives were the Commies and the village was the Soviet Union, while the bad weather was an excuse to cover their incompetence (and I won't mention all the people they killed to achieve that grand failure). Earth to Smither-Jone: If you don't like capitalism, there are a whole lot of other places to which you can relocate. The funny thing about those places is the lack of freedom and the scarcity of goods and services.
One of the odd things about Obama's frequent references to the Interstate Highway System is that it's actually a federal activity that's authorized by the Constitution. (Art. I, Sect. 8)
Hey, what can I say, for better or worse (probably worse)capitalism is what makes the world go 'round. All the more reason to vote Democrat so that we have leaders with at least a modicum of sense toward protecting the environment, worker safety, unsafe products, etc. The free market won't solve health-care so I'm all for a National Health Service that provides care for all even if it is at the cost of innovation.
I don't suggest eliminating defense entirely, just ending this fallacious thought that we are the world'd police.
"The free market won't solve health-care so I'm all for a National Health Service that provides care for all even if it is at the cost of innovation."
Fast forward an indeterminate number of years. Smithers-Jones is waiting for his doctor:
S-J: Doctor can you save me?
Doc: I have good news and bad news. First the bad news, there is no cure. You are going to die. The ironic thing is that Pfizer had poured millions into a promising cure for your condition. However, it involved the use of a special type of mud from the Little Tennessee River and its use endangered the threatened snail darter. So the government shut that research down. So sorry.
S-J: Oh no. I’m going to die.
Doc: Yes you are, but don’t you want to hear the good news?
S-J: What could possibly be good after hearing that I’m going to die?
Doc: Why several things. First of all, the snail darter is doing very well. Second Pfizer went out of business so they won’t be ripping off the American people anymore. And finally, everyone who has your condition is going to die so we have equality of results. Now if you excuse me, SEIU has called a strike against the government. All of us doctors and nurses are striking for earlier retirement, bigger pensions and free trips to India so we can get the best health care available. So I have to go walk the picket line. Have a good day.
There you have it, Smithers-Jones. The condition you suffer from is hopeless.
Smither-Jones - That's right - keep voting Democrat because they're "liberals" and they'll take care of the underdog. (One of the things they're liberal with is other people's money.) The only problem with helping the underdog is that the whole country can become the underdog. That is because you cannot escape the iron of law of economics: Tax something, and you get less of it; subsidize something, and you get more of it. Eventually, we will tax profits and wealth right out of existence, and we will have the perfect distribution of income: everyone will be equally impoverished (cf. Zimbabwe).
Right now, the top 1.5% report income of $400 billion. The deficit is $1.6 trillion. So if we tax that 1.5% at 100% we still will cover only 25% of the deficit. (Of course, it you do tax them at 100%, they may find another countrt to which to relocate; it's like the Montgomery County, Maryland millionaires, who relocated to Virginia to escape Maryland's taxes on the wealthy; and now Montgomery County is in a deep budget hole.) Well, if the wealthy can't cover the deficit, we start defining down wealthy. It could get to the point that if you work, you're wealthy, and it will get to the point that if you breathe you'll be taxed and if your dead, you'll be subsidized. That's what voting Democrat can get you.
Follow
