We expect
inauguration speeches to be filled with platitudes, exhortations to
rise above our personal problems, revel in our national strength and
character, remember the sacrifice of our forebears and gird our loins
for the future struggle, convinced of our success. Obama's second
inaugural speech was no exception. Unfortunately he used the
occasion to signal his commitment to an agenda of the political Left
which he wrapped in the criticism proof verbiage of our historical
founding documents. Although he only won the election by a 51.4%
majority, he claimed to speak for all American with his refrain of
“We the people”. “Equality”, “freedom”, “collective
action”; who could disparage such goals? But “collective action”
in Obama's mind is just a transparent emphasis on government
spending. And in setting out an agenda for the next four years, no
matter how general, what he left out is as important as what he
included.
On
January 20, 2013 the nation faced the slow but seemingly permanent
slide into financial crisis brought about by government debt of
$16.432 trillion, a number so large it is virtually impossible to
conceptualize. With annual deficits raising the level of debt by an
additional $1 trillion each fiscal year, Barack Obama's message to
the people offered
this plan for dealing with the economic crisis:
“ We
must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the
size of our deficit.”
That's
it. That's his plan; no mention of the national debt which consumed
close to $360 billion of our national wealth in interest payments in
2012 even with interest rates at historic lows. Revenues do not exist
sufficient to pay this interest so it is borrowed and becomes part of
the total debt each month. There was no goal of eliminating annual
deficits, just “reduce” their size as they were just some minor
nuisance.
Obama
is averse to making the “hard choices” which he briefly mentioned
and he is ideologically committed to remaking society in the model of
a European advanced welfare state. Economic “equality” is his
mantra but is an impossible goal although extreme concentrations of
national wealth in the hands of a few is clearly a danger to the
economic health of the nation. But progress towards a wider
distribution of wealth cannot be achieved through government
“redistribution” plans. Wealth can be reduced through taxation
on those at the top up to a point before it has a negative impact on
investment but it disappears into the black hole of government
programs i.e. spending, which don't increase the personal wealth of
others. Progress towards financial equality must come from economic
growth on a national level which provides jobs and social mobility.
Obama's
outline of a leftist path for the nation (euphemistically labeled
“progressive” now that “liberal” is out of favor) contains
dire consequences in both the domestic and international contexts.
The political response needed by conservatives will be very
difficult. While Republicans still control the House of
Representatives, they have a huge problem to overcome in the negative
perception of many voters which could produce additional negative
results in the 2014 congressional elections. Moderation in the
promotion of common sense conservative principles is made difficult
when extremists within the Republican party are successfully labeled
by the Democrats as the face of the party. Stridency, out dated
intolerance and unworkable positions on social issues i.e. abortion,
immigration, and gay marriage were used so successfully against the
party that they blocked out the drastic economic conditions that
usually dictate national elections outcomes. Republicans not only
lost the presidential race, they also lost seats in the House and
Senate. Remaining Republicans in the House now are the only fire
wall between Obama's planned government expansion and a genuine
economic recovery. As Louisiana's Republican governor, Bobby Jindal
has recently said in a speech before the Republican National
Committee;
““We’ve
got a lot of work between now and the next midterm elections. …
We’ve got to get the Republican Party back on track.” “We must
stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican party
that talks like adults. It’s time for us to articulate our plans
and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans
damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. We’ve
had enough of that.”
House
Republicans showed some hope in this respect by recently passing a
three month extension of the debt limit. As onerous as the growing
federal debt is, they recognized this year, unlike last year, that
the limit had to be raised to accommodate obligations which had
already been made, including interest on existing debt. Refusing to
pay those existing obligations would cause great damage to the
credibility of the dollar and be politically poisonous. Obama wasted
no time in exploiting the possibility by raising the threat that
payments to members of the military and social security recipients
would be in danger.
Republicans
need to make the case for a responsible future debt limit and the
common sense spending reductions that would make that possible. The
tendency to avoid the “tough decisions” on spending cuts by
hiding behind “across the board” cuts of the type that created
the “fiscal cliff” need to be avoided. All government spending
programs are not equal in importance. Mitt Romney tried, however
clumsily, to make that point by bringing up federal subsidies to “Big
Bird” i.e. National Public Television. Big Bird is nice but
hardly critical. There are lots of Big Birds in the federal budget
and each has a constituency backed by sympathetic members of
Congress, but now is the time to set priorities and Republicans need
to fill the leadership void created by Obama and the Democrats in the
Senate, but the decisions will have to be explained to voters in
terms of non-ideological common sense.
Obama's
new “progressive” path also wanders into America's role as the
stabilizing force in international relations. Now free from the need
to be reelected he has the “flexibility” he described to former
Russian President Medvedev. Where he will lead the country with
this new freedom is an important question. His inauguration speech
offered little assurance in this regard:
“America
will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the
globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity
to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful
world than its most powerful nation.”
There
are plenty of crises to be managed and Obama's preference for
“institutions” in place of American leadership is reflective of
his community organizer background. The Middle East continues to
slide into chaos and now the Islamic militant contagion has spread
even further into Sub-Saharan Africa. Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Egypt,
are all struggling with sectarian conflict with a heavy dose of
Islamic extremism and organized terrorist involvement. Syria is an
ongoing disaster with enormous implications for future regional
stability. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict continues to fester.
The
Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons continues unabated. American
leadership in this confrontation has been handed off to the European
Union and the United Nations and as the endless “dialogue”
continues Iran's goal of becoming a nuclear power is close to
becoming a “fait accompli”.
While
doctrinaire liberals celebrate Obama's new path of governance
Republicans must resist any attempt at wholesale reductions of U.S.
military strength while at the same time cooperating in military
restructuring to reduce budgets.
Obama's
platitudes and laundry list of “We must . . .” items are no
substitute for leadership in making the difficult choices to bring
about fiscal recovery. His State of the Union address before
Congress on February 12, 2013 will undoubtedly offer more of the
same. He will proclaim the success of his economic stimulus, which
contributed to the enormous growth of debt while having only a
moderate impact on job growth; his government buy out of General
Motors which stuck American taxpayers with billions of dollars of GM
stock worth only a fraction of what was paid for it; and his health
care plan which is already forcing insurance premiums higher. He
will propose an immigration reform plan in general terms but not
explain how to stop the continuing influx of illegals which the plan
will encourage. And he will tell America that the economy is
recovering along with the usual “our best days are ahead”
platitudes. He will ignore the continuing high unemployment
numbers, the debt and deficit crisis except to make the “rich”
pay even higher taxes.
Fifty-two
years ago on January 20, 1961 newly elected President John F. Kennedy
in his inauguration speech uttered these famous words:
“ .
. . ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for
your country. “
From
that same podium Obama has reversed Kennedy's vision for America's
future.
His
ideologically based plan for an ever growing welfare state financed
by ever growing debt and its concomitant intervention in the free
markets and individual lives of American citizens as part of his
“collective” strategy will offer a challenge to moderate and
conservative participants in government if a dangerous and permanent
restructuring of American society is to be avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment