The other night, President Obama
continued the modern tradition whereby the current White House denizen
annually assaults the airwaves with a stream of teleprompter words that rival Lunesta in their ability to induce drowsiness. I’m referring, of course, to the State of the Union Address.
It was a long, boring, and
typically dangerous speech. It was a speech boasting of spending cuts
promised in the future balanced against spending increases delivered in
the past and intended for the future. One side of the ledger is pure
fantasy, an empty promise designed to present an air of responsibility
to an utterly irresponsible
institution. The one truth that threads its way throughout the oration
is power, power wielded by and concentrated in the federal government
generally and the presidency specifically. Whether one views this as
good or bad, Obama promised much more of the same.
To sell his power schemes, he
begins by lauding the military. “At a time when too many of our
institutions have let us down, [America’s Armed Forces] exceed all
expectations.” Sounds inspiring, but the praiseworthiness depends on
what is expected of them. For me, having been a Marine, I think I‘d set the bar a bit higher than President Obama apparently has. Ten
years and multiple conflicts have brought out the worst in some of the
troops. He continues: “Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed
their example.” Yes, imagine the war crimes accomplishments.
Next, he goes for the easy layup by
recounting how his grandparents “shared the optimism of a Nation [sic]
that had triumphed over a depression and fascism.” Yet, the rhetorical
ball bounced off the rim. The nation triumphed over fascism? Really? Considering
that his speech is overflowing with fascistic proposals that are poorly
veiled dictates to the Union, it’s probably premature to do a victory
dance.
These setups led into his real aim,
which is to lay the foundation for further control over the
economy. “Long before the recession,” he said, “jobs and manufacturing
began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but
also made some jobs obsolete.” He hopes no one will connect the
regulations and taxes--his specialties--that are contributing factors in
the outsourcing of manufacturing, however let’s focus on the second
statement regarding job obsolescence. This is what happens in
capitalism. Improvements in productivity eliminate the need for some
workers. Increased productivity means fewer workers are required to
produce an equivalent or greater amount of goods and services. Besides
boosting standards of living, this should be celebrated because, under
capitalism, displaced workers then are freed to transfer into new or
other sectors where labor is more in demand. The process isn’t painless
for those involved, but the pain is minimized and quickly corrected. We,
however, suffer under a mixed economy (fascism), where government is
always present and never so unobtrusive as to avoid hampering economic
adjustments. Under this system the pain is maximized. When jobs become
obsolete, workers struggle to find new endeavors and grow frustrated
because the fault of their plight (government) is safely hidden behind
the scenes, leaving only globalism, greed, and corporations to take its
blame.
A mixed economy also leads to the
class warfare that is not-so-subtly stoked in Obama’s next
sentence: “Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before,
but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing,
paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.” When
growing costs affect wide swaths of the economy, it’s a safe bet
something besides supply and demand is the culprit. The fault here can
be laid at the feet of our shiny-headed maestro of malaise, Ben
Bernanke. He meant well perhaps, but he created too many crisp new
dollars that were then left searching for something of value to
corrupt. Growing costs and interest rates that encouraged increasing
levels of personal debt are the result of Bernanke’s efforts. The “folks
at the top” who benefited aren’t indiscriminately the wealthy. Wealthy
individuals can also be victims. The beneficiaries are those who get the
money first; and the biggest one of them all is our very own federal
government, with Obama there at the helm.
Demonstrating how much of an utter
capitulation we’ve made to fascism, Obama cited the auto industry
bailouts as an example of how to proceed in the future. Managers of
failing companies, if the companies are big enough and politically
connected enough, need not concern themselves with the rigors of
competition. When troubles arise, Uncle Sam is only a photo-op away,
ready to ride in and save the day with almost unlimited cash. This, as
Bastiat said, is what is seen
-- politicians smiling and congratulating themselves on their wonderful
beneficence, which saved many, many jobs. The unseen is the jobs that
were lost or will now never be created because the government had to
first abscond with wealth from other areas of the economy before it
could bequeath it to its auto buddies. Focusing on only one side of the
equation is misleading at best. It also further strengthens the idea
that government-private partnerships, i.e., fascism, are a model for
prosperity. Mussolini smiled.
Not all was bad in the
speech. Obama was right to point at high tax rates as an impediment to
business. According to him, “[A high tax rate] makes no sense, and
everyone knows it.” Though his diagnosis was correct, his prescription
wasn’t. Instead of simply lowering or eliminating taxes across the
board, which would leave little room for him to ensure winners and
losers, he wants to use the tax code to punish companies severely and
not-so-severely according to the degree they conform to his
wishes. (Since taxation is theft, it makes no sense to speak of
punishment and reward. It all falls on the punishment side.) He also
intends to impede further against free trade by creating a Trade
Enforcement Unit to interfere with commercial transactions that happen
to cross political borders. This too will concentrate power in the
president to pick favorites among business and countries.
These weren’t the only examples of
power lust lurking between the lines of the speech. But they do provide a
representative sample. Jefferson rightly took a dim view
of these spectacles. There is no need for such staged oratory, for the
constitutional task of reporting to Congress can be accomplished with a
brief letter. Policy proposals and sloganeering do nothing to further
convey how things are. Instead, these overtaxing monologues are more
akin to a carnival barker promising anything and everything to swell the
ranks of sadly insensate suckers who pass for customers, or, in the
case of the State of Union Show, the suckers who pass for voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment