Once upon a time, small ball was not Barack Obama’s game. Tuesday, it was the essence of his State of the Union address. The visionary of 2008 — purveyor of hope and change, healer of the earth, tamer of the rising seas — offered an hour of little things: tax-code tweaks to encourage this or that kind of behavior (manufacturing being the flavor of the day), little watchdog agencies to round up Wall Street miscreants and Chinese DVD pirates, even a presidential demand “that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.” Under penalty of what? Jail? The self-proclaimed transformer of America is now playing truant officer?
It sounded like the Clinton years with their presidentially proclaimed initiatives on midnight basketball and school uniforms. These are the marks of a shrunken presidency, thoroughly flummoxed by high unemployment, economic stagnation, crushing debt — and a glaring absence of ideas.
Advertisement
Of course, this being Obama, there was a reach for grandeur. Hope and change are long gone. It’s now equality and fairness.
That certainly is a large idea. Lenin and Mao went pretty far with it. As did Clement Attlee and his social-democratic counterparts in post-war Europe. Where does Obama take it? Back to the decade-old Democratic obsession with the Bush tax cuts, the crusade for a tax hike of all of 4.6 points for 2 percent of households — ten years of which wouldn’t cover the cost of Obama’s 2009 stimulus alone.
Which is why Obama introduced a shiny new twist — the Buffett Rule, a minimum 30 percent rate for millionaires. Sounds novel. But it’s a tired replay of the alternative minimum tax, originally created in 1969 to bring to heel all of 155 underpaying fat cats. Following the fate of other such do-goodism, the AMT then metastasized into a $40 billion monster that today entraps millions of middle-class taxpayers.
There isn’t even a pretense that the Buffett Rule will do anything for economic growth or job creation (other than provide lucrative work for the sharp tax lawyers who will be gaming the new system for the very same rich). Which should not surprise. Back in 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support raising the capital-gains-tax rate (the intended effect of the Buffett Rule) if this would decrease government revenues.
Obama said yes. In the name of fairness.
This is redistribution for its own sake — the cost be damned. It took Indiana governor Mitch Daniels about 30 seconds of his State of the Union rebuttal to demolish that idea. To get the rich to contribute more, explained Daniels, you don’t raise tax rates. This ultimately retards economic growth for all. You (a) eliminate loopholes from which the rich benefit disproportionately (tax reform) and (b) means-test entitlements so that the benefits go to those most in need.
Tax reform and entitlement reform are the really big ideas. The first produces social equity plus economic efficiency; the second produces social equity plus debt reduction. And yet these are precisely what Obama has for three years steadfastly refused to address. He prefers the easy demagoguery of “tax the rich.”
After all, what’s he got? Can’t run on his record. Barely even mentioned Obamacare or the stimulus, his major legislative achievements, on Tuesday night. Too unpopular. His platform is fairness, wrapped around a plethora of little things, one mini-industrial policy after another — the conceit nicely encapsulated by his proclamation that “I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or to Germany.” As if he can command these industries into existence. As if Washington funding a thousand Solyndras will make solar economically viable.
Soviet central planners mandated quotas for steel production, regardless of demand. Obama’s industrial policy is a bit more subtle. Tax breaks for manufacturing — but double tax breaks for high-tech manufacturing, which for some reason is considered more virtuous, despite the fact that high tech is less likely to create blue-collar jobs. Its main job creation will be for legions of lawyers and linguists testifying before some new adjudicating bureaucracy that the Acme Umbrella Factory meets their exquisitely drawn criteria for “high tech.”
What Obama offered the nation Tuesday night was a pudding without a theme: a jumble of disconnected initiatives, a gaggle of intrusive new agencies, and a whole new generation of loopholes to further corrupt a tax code that screams out for reform.
If the Republicans can’t beat that in November, they should try another line of work.
It has gone far beyond poor SOTU's and slipped phrases for this President. He is the manifestation of the most egregious assault on American freedom and liberty in over 100 years. His usurping of power from a complacent and weak Congress is / should be cause enough for concern. But his Administration's intentional use and abuse of power to undercut religious freedom, to eliminate the primacy of private voting (union), the illicit appointment of federal positions, the corruption of energy loans, the disengagement from America's history in foreign affairs, and his assault on personal freedom and liberty as well as his sycophants assault on freedom of thought and association SHOULD< and I would suggest is getting to the point that it MUST begin consideration of Articles of Impeachment being drafted.
It is my belief that between now and the election, Obama will hibernate like a bear, not wanting to do anything or deferring it until after the election so as to not aggravate the American voter. But, inherent in that very act is an admission that the actions he seeks to take are contrary to what Americans want and need. If they weren't why would he defer them? He and his gang will seek to undercut every political enemy they can find, they will use voter fraud and coercion to attempt every effort to steal the election in key states - stealing 10,000 - 20,000 here and there - just enough to win. He will use police powers to subvert the courts, and, if behind in the polls by late August, will use the situation as the political basis to launch a war or military confrontation with Iran solely with the purpose of forcing Americans to draw unto and support their President.
Were a foreign power attempting to subvert the country in the manner Obama is, we'd of sent Seal Team 1, 2, 3, 4 5, AND 6 to halt the threat. Obama is reaching that point where impeachment may be the only prudent course of action to preserve the union.
I couldn't agree more with you comments. Not only should we begin the impeachment process regarding Obama immediately we also need to replace Bohner.. He should have been doing more to stand up to Obama and his illegal use of power. He is weak and we need someone strong to not let things "slip" by. I think it is time for a vote of no confidence in Bohner and an election of Michelle Bachman!!! She will hold Obama accountable, fight for conservative principals and impeach this president. (In her first week as Speaker) the second week - look out!!!!
I couldn't agree more with you comments. Not only should we begin the impeachment process regarding Obama immediately we also need to replace Bohner.. He should have been doing more to stand up to Obama and his illegal use of power. He is weak and we need someone strong to not let things "slip" by. I think it is time for a vote of no confidence in Bohner and an election of Michelle Bachman!!! She will hold Obama accountable, fight for conservative principals and impeach this president. (In her first week as Speaker) the second week - look out!!!!
usurping of power from a complacent and weak Congress is / should be cause enough for concern. But his Administration's intentional use and abuse of power to undercut religious freedom, to eliminate the primacy of private voting (union)...
Intentional use and abuse of power to undercut religious freedom...Link?
To eliminate the primacy of private voting (union)...Link? This brings me to another point. I live in a mid-western, conservative state and while I was in my adolescent years my mother was a union steward for our county's mental health service agency. I attended many of the meetings and never once did I see the harrowing visages of "thugs" so often described by so many of a certain lean. My father was also union member at a manufacturing plant in town...same scenario..never a thug that I had to cower in fear of my life for. Simply hard working, mid-western, people with similar values.
My father also VOLUNTEERED to fight in the infantry in Vietnam (25th Infantry Division) '67-'68. All of the war historians on this sight know that this was not a particularly auspicious time to be in country. He returned with PTSD and a couple of observations that I thought for a 19 year old high school drop out were quite sentient. First, he told me that when on patrol, villagers would look at him as if to ask (in his words) "Why are you here? Go home." Secondly, after 9/11, he has asked me many times "You know what terrorism is..a B-52!!" An American soldier being afraid of his own country's weaponry made me think what others around the world thought of our actions. But I digress!
I gave you this background to shed a little light on my thinking. I am 40 years old, and for 17 of those years I was a concrete finisher/foreman. I know the meaning of hard work to the degree most of the posters on this site cannot imagine. If you do not believe me try it sometime! I require no lectures on hard work. I am now a special education teacher in the public school system.
I am a critical and free thinker and indoctrinated by no one. I have read Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Russell, Sartre,etc, etc. and have come to form my own opinion about life and its meaning or lack thereof. I do not know all of the answers to the troubling questions of these times, unlike many on this site who seem to claim to know the remedies to what ails everyone...conservative principles.
I find almost every conservative principle to be an honorable endeavor to strive for, yet we must consider reality. Not everyone can has the character, means, or ability to rise above their circumstances. The school I work at has above a 50% poverty rate. I know some of the environments these children grow up in, and in my opinion it would take a super-human level of character to succeed in life. I have asked myself many times "Would I have had the strength to overcome my environment and succeed?" I often wonder.
Hobbes and others talked of the social contract, many of us know the drill...nasty,brutish, etc. I believe Hobbes and many of today's conservatives meant the contract mainly to be a protection (i.e. defense) alone. I ask if Hobbes would reserve only protection as THE main part of the of the contract if confronted with the complexities of a nation of over 300,000,000? I highly doubt that would be the case.
In my opinion, poverty, social safety nets, free education, progressive taxation, and many other tenants of so-called '"liberal" thinking are essential to providing a decent, safe society. Look at any example in history of countries where all the power is concentrated in the hands of a few (this includes politicians). What is the outcome? Ponder the answer.
Hume wrote much on deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning implies predicting a result from previous experience, such as the last time I put my hand on a stove burner my hand got burnt, if I put my hand on the burner again it will get burned again. Why do many conservatives decry regulating financial institutions...do we want our hand to be burnt again? Why the fanatical rail about the EPA? Do none of you remember what southern California and many other parts of the country used to look like? If you cannot recall, watch any reporter standing in front of a major Chinese city that one cannot even see!! I smell burnt hand.
What about the Pauls' rants about private property and the civil rights movement? Would Locke have approved of defending one's right to private property viewing scenes of the civil rights movement? Old,angry white men beating blacks because they wanted to sit at a lunch counter. My better judgment says no. Watch those scenes with the sound off, no commentary, no supposed liberal bias...just watch. It is horrifying. The emotion demonstrated by those opposed to racial equality is plain to see..hate and fear. I see the same emotions in the written word on this site. I thought emotion reigned supreme in the domain of those unstable liberals-who knew? Again, have we not deduced that racism is a pox on humanity, or should we roll back the clock in favor of conservative ideologies concerning outdated modes of thought on private property?
One more example: I read much on this site about how man is a fallen creature and cannot possibly be saved, but through God's salvation. Is this where all of the posters pride in reason flies out the window? Where is Hume's deductive reasoning and empirical evidence? Are conservatives falling back on stories told while reared on the proverbial mother's knee? Is it not a paradox that most conservatives believe to comfort their fears while casually tossing aside reason? Do conservatives believe, like Plato, in the Noble Lie, in order to control the masses? I would think that conservatives would have more respect for the power of human thought based on how often I see philosophers (most of whom doubted God's existence) quoted on NR. Religion as a dogma is a questionable benefit at best.
Before I read the responses of the millions killed based on man-made dogmas, consider this: If, during all the conflicts related to religion, those involved had access to modern weaponry, what kind of casualties have been?
As I stated before I think for myself. Liberals have had many horrible ideas and can be just as stupid and corrupt as anyone. now is the time for critical thought. As Voltaire's Candide mused "Is this the best of all possible worlds?"
I imagine this LONG diatribe springs from the months of reading many articles and comments at NR.
Typical Lib.: America is wrong, too many religious nuts, private property (horrors!), etc. Solution: tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, spend; tax and spend into national meltdown, which usually leads to totalitarian slavery.
Obama's SOTU speech is right out of the Progressive Bible of "Fairness" and the Communist Manifesto. Socialism and redistribution of income is his goal. It's hidden in plain sight.
I have a little problem with the idea of means testing. If it were set to some low level that would correspond to the idea of “safety net” then it would be OK. But that’s not the way it turns out these days. Generally it means if you are irresponsible, lazy, don’t save, etc. then you get money from the government. If you pay everything they ask – taxes, social security, etc. but also set a little aside to take care of yourself in your old age – then you get nothing by means testing. As a middle class guy, if I had put 14% of my income (current Social Security requirement) for 40 years of work into almost any kind of retirement program, I would be sitting pretty. But means testers come along and want to tell me that I should get nothing because I also put money into 401Ks, IRAs, etc. Figure out how to get things down to a real “means test” that implies actual need and I’m all for it. But leave it up to the politicians and they will say need should ignore stuff like cell phones, cable TV, beer, iPODs, big screen TVs, and then society should supply the food and housing to support these. So I say you had better be sure what detailed tests you can implement with your means testing.
I completely agree with the last post about the troublesome nature of means testing. It seems that they will claim it is their own version of the "Buffet rule" where only the extremely rich will not collect the money. But in time with that much power to determine who gets the money, certain voting groups will get advantage and most will gradually get smaller amounts. I have already seen folks jockeying for position on this issue with labors saying that since they die at an earlier age, that they should get some sort of advantage.
Krauthammer makes a slew of valid points regarding Obama. The President's ideological immaturity is stunning -- history is rife with example's of socialism's failures, from communist regimes to the more subtly structured socialism of European states. And, yet, despite this evidence, Obama forges forward with class warfare policies designed to punish the wealthy and successful people in American society with misleading demagoguery that would be more at home in Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China. Never mind that said policies are antithetical to the notion that America is a place where hardworking, ambitious, and frugal entrepreneurs (of varying means) may prosper according to their own ambitions and work ethic, or that said policies will stifle economic growth and prosperity for all classes. Krauthammer hits the nail on the head -- when a demonstrably discredited economic ideology trumps fact and reason (as demonstrated by Obama stating he would raise capital gains rates even if doing so brought in less revenue) you KNOW you're dealing with the most unreasonable and inflexible of zealots.
In spite of this, Obama will likely be re-elected. Why? Because, in addition to having the benefits of incumbency and a weak GOP field, he is a master rhetorician and his relentless rhetoric (however misleading and inaccurate) about the "rich" not paying their "fair share" in taxes or blood has mass appeal to a wide segment of American society, playing as it does upon the natural jealousies that most people feel towards people who have greater wealth or possessions than they do. It's simple psychology, and Obama and the Dems understand how effective it is. Emotion will trump reason in politics, every time. Embrace the revolution, comrades...the proletariat is rising to seize the ill-gotten gains of the landed gentry...even as our nation drowns in a sea of debt at all levels...
It's gotten to the point with the GOP that I almost don't even care any more. Just give me 62 GOP Senate members (Collins/ Snowe are Dems in disguise and I question Brown's commitment given his MA base) and status quo in the House. Then let Congress resume control. Shut down some Federal agencies. De-fund EPA, Planned Parenthood, and others. Dismantle ObamaCare through Senate committee. Work up tax reform, reinforce DOMA, and begin to conduct judicial review trials and impeach some out of bounds Federal judges - regain control of the Constitutional basis of this country. Then, if in 12 mos. or so, the Big O gets too far off, impeach him! Let "both feet in mouth", Biden take over for a few years, and then face 2016 with Ryan, Rubio, perhaps Flake (if he wins Sen seat) and other Governors who are just now making their impacts felt.
But truly, one has to wonder about the GOP if they can't assemble an effor to unseat Obama, then exactly who could they beat? I mean Carter is gone. They couldnt' beat Clinton - not with a guy like Dole??? I mean, is the GOP so lacking in talent that that's all there is?
You gloss over the fact that the Congressional GOP leadership is moderately liberal and would never carry out the program you propose.
The GOP has some exceptional Conservative talent, but not in its leadership.
Our side has never seriously challenged the left's language distortion before. We haven't taken the trouble to examine it or believed it mattered. Now it's starting to wear thin, and it's time to pounce with some really well-thought-out and appealing rhetorical psychology of our own.
Don't worry,Charles. The Republicans WILL find a way to lose. Already Mitt, Newt, and company are doing the work of David Axelrod, MoveOn.org, George Soros, and the rest by exposing and eviscerating each other in the campaign. The Democrats have to be laughing like they inhaled a wopping gulp of nitrous oxide. Now, all the Democrats have to do is sift through the diamond mine collection of negative soundbites, video, and articles and run with select quotes to victory. Most of America, which is either clueless with their Jersey Shore/Kardashian obsession or hopelessly in the pocket of Obama, will never question the content and,naturally, vote Obama back in office. THANK YOU GOP. We are the special olympians of politics!
Sincerely, Isadore (Izzy) Alvino Scheisskopf, Esq.
If this were the first hotly contested primary campaign anyone had ever witnessed, your comments would resonate more deeply.
Rest assured, this primary contest is tame by comparison to those which eventually produced a winning general election candidate.
You may wish to revisit the 1980 primary. George HW Bush and Reagan hated each other with a passion. The former became the latter's vice president for eight years, after the Obama-like Carter was defeated.
Such is the nature of things with a president whose agenda is this unpopular and who is this damaging to the nation's economy. It tends to produce a bitter struggle to win the nomination for the honor to replace him.
Madisonian, I understand what you are saying and I have witnessed nastier or equally nasty campaigns. However, I must admit that I have my doubts about the current American population. With this modern population's seeming infinate lack of wisdom and profound, government sponsored public school ignorance, I wonder if this bunch can see through the fog and haze of political war to see reality or will they continue to believe the hope and change fantasy that they fell for in 2008? Will they have their eyes on the prize or their eyes on Snooki and continued food stamps and other "freebies?" I have my doubts about the outcome. I hope I am wrong, but I have my doubts. Cheers!
So, your pessimism has nothing to do with the tenor of the contest, but with the aptitude of the public. Rhetorically, I'll declare an itty bitty victory, and espouse.
Here is where I part company with most conservatives -- on the topic of the intellect of the ordinary person.
On that score, I side with Rush and Newt.
There are ways to make rational sense of what happened in 2008, even if only noting the rational disengagement of people from a system and process that doesn't ever seem to solve anything. So, what you and I knew about Obama was not apparent to the less-trained eyes and ears. Throw in the dynamics between the parties at the time, and it makes even more sense.
But, your reply to me suggests that these disengaged voters are watching the GOP primary very intently. Those two ideas don't jibe. And it would disprove the possibility of what we've seen before, a hotly contested primary produces a winner.
I hear people asking all the time if Obama is gonna win Illinois. And I'm surrounded by liberals. Surrounded! Literally. Some of them are not even voting for him. But I doubt that will hold once the "generic Republican" has a name.
I even heard one liberal exclaim, as I rounded the corner from the lavatory: "I'll vote for any of 'em but Romney!"
Emmis!
(If you don't know what that word means, ask the slightly naive MikeB!)
Don't despair. The English language can just as readily be used to convey truth as lies. In the hands of people who know what they're doing, we can meet the modern mal-educated bunch more than halfway. One serious fulcrum is their wish to rebel, to not be told what to do, to question authority, to go their own way, to get out from under this weight. The scales could fall from their eyes. Remember, the MSM will never notice this happening, let alone tell anyone about it.
If only the GOP had messengers who truly believed their party's platform.
Or believed that anyone would listen to them explain conservatism.
But the GOP operates on the starting premise that their belief system is odious, unpopular and rude to the average person.
That is why they repeat the same mistakes which have led to all of their defeats. They enjoy losing, because they think of themselves as nothing but perpetual losers, politically.
They're supposed to lose. It's the polite thing to do.
So, they'll pick the next WASP in succession to lose to the boorish socialist, and congratulate themselves at Winged Foot for their good manners at watching the nation they love get destroyed.
"Was it not fun, though, Muffy?"
"Oh, Biff! Shux, of course! And now we shall have more time for Mahjahn."
"No, Muffy. YOU'LL have more time to play with tiles!"
[from the peanut gallery of Biff's friends: Ahahahahahahahhahahahahah]
Follow
