In January of 2005, former House speaker and possible Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, published a book titled "Winning the Future." Who would have thought that a president, one whose ideology could not be more diametrically opposed to Gingrich's, would then use that title as the theme of his State of the Union address just six years later? Yet that is exactly what happened this past Tuesday. In a 61-minute speech, President Barack Obama talked about his plan and his vision for how the United States can "win the future" and firmly establish ourselves once again as the dominant world superpower.
Honestly, Obama sounded more as if he was delivering a campaign speech in preparation for the 2012 election. The tone of the speech was positive and uplifting, no question about it. But it was very vague and did not offer any specifics of the president's plan to get from point a to point b. It was also too cheery, almost as if the president was in denial over the current economic crisis and unacceptably high unemployment levels. The word many pundits chose to use in describing him was "disconnected," as if he was living in his own little world in the ivory tower of the White House.
Though on the surface he may have given the impression that he was moving closer to the center in an attempt to reach across the aisle, his speech was merely socialism cleverly disguised. If you view the text in its entirety, then you soon realize that its major theme had to do with big government. To President Obama, big government is the answer, the panacea that can cure all of our society's ills. He wants the government to lead the way on education, information technology, biomedical research, and spreading high-speed passenger rail across the United States. Huh? High speed rail? Did he really say that?
Let's look at how the government has fared in "leading the way" and showing the private sector how it's done. First, there's the U.S. Postal Service. They posted an $8.5 billion loss in fiscal year 2010, and will now be forced to close 2,000 post offices around the country this year. In the meantime, FedEx and UPS continue to generate profits. Amtrak has lost $13 billion over the past decade. And our president wants to focus on building more high-speed trains? This is beyond my comprehension. What about public schools? Do you see them out-performing the privates on standardized tests? Please. If this is how our government is going to lead the way, then I for one have no desire to follow.
Will our president ever realize that some things, in fact many things, are better left to the private sector? Microsoft and Google have done just fine with information technology. Why would the government come out and say that they can do it better? Companies like the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) have made many advances in this field over the past year. So why would you want the government to interfere? Oh, I know. I get it now. The federal government has shown over time what a wonderful job it does managing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, so now we should not only let them oversee healthcare, but information technology and biomedical research as well. Sure, go ahead. Makes perfect sense to me.
Throughout his speech, the president continually used the term "invest." We need to invest in education, high speed trains, etc., in order to get to where we need to be. Well, "invest" is just another word for "spend." Although he called for a spending freeze, he did not cease in advocating "investment" in these areas. So if I am to understand correctly, for every dollar we "invest," a dollar in another section of the budget will need to be cut. Fine. But the president did not give any specifics on where he would make cuts in order to "invest." Where's the plan, Mr. President? I'm not getting it. Moreover, is he not aware that throwing money at public schools will not improve the quality of education? We spend more per pupil in inner city schools than the suburbs, yet their performance consistently falls short. And no, it is not necessarily the result of the child's socioeconomic background. We have charter schools in inner cities that are performing very well and spending far less to educate their students than other public schools. It can be done, but increasing the amount of money you spend to educate public school children is not the answer.
Even worse is the fact that a spending freeze will accomplish almost nothing. Our national debt has grown to $14 trillion, and we are likely to meet the debt ceiling ($14.3 trillion) some time over the next month or two. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just announced yesterday that this year's projected budget deficit is $1.3 trillion. So how is a freeze on spending going to help? Did the American people not send a clear message last November that they want spending cuts across the board? Right now, the Republicans are intent on looking for ways to cut over $2 trillion from the budget. Obama took a dig at them in his address when he said that making such deep cuts was like removing the engine from an airplane. Really, Mr. President? So what you're saying is that if we leave the airplane alone, it will keep flying? Well someone needs to inform you that the plane is actually about to crash, and that removing trillions of dollars worth of dead weight is the only way to keep it from doing so.
There's no question that the president's speech will have an emotional effect on several Americans. It will give them a warm, fuzzy feeling and make them more optimistic about our country's future. But even many of Obama's supporters saw right through what he said. The lack of details surrounding the budget and how we're going to be able to do everything the president promised remained a sticking point for politicians and voters alike. There was actually less applause during this State of the Union address than any other one during the past two decades. Some Democrats later said that they were left scratching their heads, almost in disbelief of what they had just heard. A focus group consisting of 26 people (13 Republicans and 13 Democrats) rated the speech as poor, and only 6 of the 13 Democrats said that they would vote for Obama in 2012.
As we begin the second half of President Obama's term, one thing is crystal clear to me. He has no intention of stepping back from his socialist philosophy and will continue to push for more spending and bigger government. He is either in denial or living in another world altogether. Clearly, he did not hear the message of the people in the mid-term elections and he will not abandon his plan to transform the very fabric of our society. As long as he is in office, he will do his best to convince us that government is the answer to everything, every question and every problem that currently exists in America. That is never going to change.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this year's budget. Clearly, the President and Republican-controlled House are far apart in what they intend to do. There's a wide chasm between a spending freeze and cutting $2 trillion, so one has to wonder where the two will meet along the continuum. We also have to accept the possibility of a government shutdown, something we haven't seen since 1995.
I can only hope and pray that we get our finances in order and regain our fiscal health. It is imperative that we do so if we are to retain our status as the world's superpower. China is hot on our tail, and they'd be more than happy to seize that title from us. But clearly more spending and bigger government is not the way to go. One major advantage we've always had over the Chinese is innovation/entrepreneurship. This is better left to the private sector, and the less the government intrudes, the better. Though the president's goal is admirable, his plan for attaining it is flawed and misguided. More spending and bigger government is not the way to win the future. Instead, it will lead us down the road to perdition.
No comments:
Post a Comment