I expected this to be depressing, and I wasn't disappointed. Sure, he painted a very bleak picture, but that had nothing to do with my disposition. It was the remedies he was proposing that sunk my disposition lower than the Mariana Trench.
First of all, this speech was designed to make sure that Bush gets the blame, and I understand and accept that. Comes with the territory. And Bush is not totally blameless. If he would have vetoed everything coming out of the 110th congress, plus seen to it that the CRA was repealed, then none of this (including the election of a socialist president) would have happened. So be it. Obama is within his rights to set everything up as a Bush induced problem. I'll leave the sorting out of that to the historians. Bush failed to defend the constitution. Fine. Now what is Obama going to do differently?
Your first clue would be the constant and incessant jumping up and cheering by (spender in chief) Pelosi whenever Obama mentioned another mind bogglingly huge spending proposition.
Another clue was his singling out little Ty'Sheoma for writing a letter to Congress about education. She looked like someone who was being congratulated in front of class for doing a homework assignment. What's the big deal? She just did what she was told to do. Never mind that the education system is not legally connected to nor should it be dependent on the federal government,; and a truly well educated schoolchild would know that. If she would have sent the letter to her school corporation, that would get an "A". This paper gets a "C". So, it appears Obama's education goals are for "C" level work even ahead of "A" and "B".
Obama talks about making sure the top 2% of wage earners send their money to Timothy Geithner instead of using it to create private sector jobs. Without even the slightest hint of irony in his voice. How exactly does he propose to classify "the wealthy"? If it really is families who make over $250,000 / year, we will have fewer families producing that amount. What's good or useful about that? The so called wealthy are smart enough not to make $250,001. They are smart enough to place their money into hard assets. What then? Tax revenue will drop significantly. So, not only will the economy continue to fall, tax revenue will fall, as well. And with all this spending going on, it doesn't take Geithner's accountant to know what happens next.
And then there's 95% of working households that will receive a tax cut. Note that tax cut as used here is actually a transfer payment, so it really means free money, at least to those who have zero net taxes. It seems like that detail is often lost on pundits. Regardless of how our collective wealth is redistributed I always find it helpful to calculate my share of the expenses, and compare it to my budget. 750 Billion dollars is about ten grand per family. So, if you are going to spend 10 grand of my money, it better be on something worthwhile. I don't think charitable redistribution would be on my short list. In fact, it just makes my dollars worth less, and the companies that use my dollars require more of them to provide the same service. Sorry to boil it down and ruin the president's fun.
Tax credits for college? $2500? Artificially subsidizing college will just raise college costs. Probably by $2600. Net result is less, but the teachers will sure like it.
Finally, the nationalization of banks. What to say about that? Well, I'm as good at running banks as I am at running the post office. Now as long as I'm a shareholder in the banks, I just have to vote for bankers to watch out for my interests. Steve Forbes, anyone?
I'm going to let others tally up all the cash register rings in this speech. I'm too depressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment