Tonight as I write this, given that I don’t possess a television and find live-streaming an often frustrating experience on my lap-top computer, I chose to read a prepared text of President Obama’s first State of the Union address rather than listen to it live. Reading such a text can reveal more in some ways, as one isn’t influenced by the mellifluous tones of a well-polished politician’s voice.
My general observation is that Obama spent quite a bit of time in the speech describing symptoms as he spoke about the economy. After doing a fairly creditable job describing symptoms, he would then proceed to describe even more symptoms as substitute for addressing any of the underlying causes of the previously-described symptoms. Frequently he referred to the great expense of the programs he claims as necessary to prevent matters from getting even worse, but he failed to explain how the programs will be paid for. Indeed he neglected to mention that the money required to pay for them doesn’t exist at all. It will have to be created out of thin air by the central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve, resulting in the further devaluation of the dollar and bringing about a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the government-favored corporate and banking interests. He claimed the programs are needed to prevent the recession from lasting up to a decade, while in fact the programs will only ensure that the recession lasts at least a decade.
All the claims about fiscal responsibility were laughable, especially in light of his having signed the largest spending bill in U.S. history. The portion of the speech dealing with fiscal responsibility was filled with all the usual platitudes of what most politicians think people want to hear. It’s amazing that he actually believes that Vice President Biden and fellow “fiscal responsibility commissioners” are smart enough and even capable of accounting for every dollar spent by every governor, state legislature, and mayor. Accountability isn’t even really the main issue. The real issue is, where does the authority to spend all this money come from? Where does the authority come from for the federal government to direct how money gets spent by every state and local government? How will any of this money not be wasted? In another area affecting government spending, Obama made no proposal to change our foreign policy away from nation-building and maintaining an empire overseas to one of non-intervention, peace and friendly commerce among nations. With respect to drawing down the war in Iraq, whatever savings would come from that would be more than cancelled-out by his plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan (and likely expand it into Pakistan).
The speech was filled with so many examples of Orwellian double-speak that it is difficult to know where to begin. The best thing I can recommend is, read it for yourself, and be sure to read between the lines, so to speak. The whole thing was very crafty, very clever, and quite deceptive, filled with all kinds of fallacies and complete misunderstandings. Obviously the President has no clue about monetary policy, or how a true free market works, and he really believes the government is smart enough to know how resources ought to be allocated and which enterprises should be encouraged (or allowed) to flourish. All he is promising is more central planning, more welfarism, more corporatism, and more coercion. None of this has anything to do with the American traditions of ingenuity, individual initiative, and self-reliance. Nowhere in his speech did he make any mention of individual liberty, natural rights, or the Constitution. On the other hand, he did make occasional references to the “full force” of the federal government. Yes, the words “full force” are the key to understanding what is truly at work in the President’s blueprint for America.
I am left wishing it could have been Ron Paul delivering the State of the Union Address, telling us that it is time to start living within our means, paying off our debts and reclaiming our American traditions of individual liberty, the rule of law, friendship, peace and commerce among nations, and ridding ourselves of the notions of central planning, welfarism, empire maintenance and nation-building. We can only imagine how it might have been different had Dr. Paul been elected President. But those of us who believe in the great American traditions have our work cut out for us. There may be a silver lining in the rush towards more central planning, inflation, and top-down control as more people wake up to resist this madness and to insist upon a restoration of the American tradition of governing from the bottom-up (i.e., self-governance, maximum liberty and keeping government as local as possible).