In Fine Form

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama was in fine form. The president proudly listed his achievements. The war in Iraq is over. The war in Afghanistan soon will be. Osama bin Laden is dead. The housing market has shown improvement. The economy, though still weak, at least for the time being is no longer moribund. Justice and fairness have been advanced on all fronts. Homophobia is on the run. Yes, there have been missteps and failures, but the president cannot be blamed for those. If he erred, it was in wanting to do too much and help too many. Given the stubborn opposition to his policies by the GOP and the magnitude of the task he assumed, naturally he would fall short, who wouldn't?

The president admitted that the task of getting the economy up and running is, after four years, trillions of dollars, numerous policies, and countless speeches, an unfinished one. Nevertheless, he states that progress has been made, even if it has only been in "clearing the rubble" Presumably, he meant the rubble of the auto industry crisis and the Wall Street bailout. He did not mention that after four years in office unemployment in the U.S. is three points higher than when he took office or that the median household income in the U.S. has fallen over $4,000 from when he was sworn in in 2008. Neither did he mention the fact that the U.S. has added $4.8 trillion to the national debt under his first administration and is poised to add another $1.5 trillion this year other than to offer some vague words about getting it under control. All he offered were hope and bromides regarding America's greatness, endurance, and the ability to rise to any challenge. Some of the rubble left by President Bush may have been cleared but in its stead all we have are vacant lots.

The president has spoken regularly of "raising revenue", and the need for more government "investment". He can call it whatever he likes but taxes and spending by any other name taste just as bitter. Plans are regularly floated to trim the deficit but all Obama and the democrats have had to offer on the matter is a little pruning. Even if Washington is able to trim deficits, the crisis will continue to get worse until Washington can produce some black ink, and not just for a year or two, but for decades. Every drop of red ink adds to the debt and it is the debt that threatens to ruin us, not deficits. Every dollar paid in interest on the debt is money taken out of the economy and put in the hands of our lenders.

What abets Obama in this endeavor is that a great many people voted for him in disregard for the economy and the "state of the nation". They ignored the growing debt and the stagnant economy.  For most Americans, at least the 65.9 million that voted for Obama, the struggle over the debt is little more than a distraction being used by Obama's opponents to undermine his presidency.They have not yet grasped the implications of adding trillions more to the national debt. They have not yet felt its weight. They have not yet been asked to pay more and accept less. They have not yet been asked to prioritize their needs and identify what they can live without. They have not yet been asked to choose between a clean environment and safe food. They have not yet experienced the nightmare of an insolvent government and the economic calamity that would ensue.We have only record borrowing to thank for that.

In his speech, Obama was willing to accede to the fact that the government cannot continue to run deficits as it has been doing over the last four years, but he was unwilling to put forward any meaningful steps to address the problem other than proposing to increase revenue by raising taxes on the usual suspects and trimming unidentified waste. Naturally, the revenue would be generated by raising taxes on the "rich" and closing "loopholes" in the tax code. Even if he gets the increases he seeks, he will not get the $1.5 trillion he needs to balance the budget. He could take every dime from every billionaire and not scratch the debt. The tax increases required to cover the deficit would devastate the economy and likely spawn a rebellion. Neither will he find $1.5 trillion in waste to cut. Every dollar spent by Washington has a constituency that will fight to keep it. Despite his impressive oratory, all the president could offer were bromides to America's "greatness" and confidence in its ability to meet adversity and rise to challenge. We won WWII and put a man on the moon. Surely we will find a way out of this mess.

The reason it is so difficult for progressives to cut taxes and reduce spending is because either would undermine the power of Washington. Taxes are the lifeblood of government. Without money, the power of government to control society is hobbled. The agencies, bureaus, and departments that oversee almost all activity in this nation would be impaired by reduced budgets. The ability to enforce their regulations and preside over their respective domains would decrease in proportion to loss of funding. Workers would have to be laid off. Enforcement would have to be cut back and prioritized. The funds distributed by those agencies would have to be reduced. That would result in less leverage in ensuring compliance with federal programs where funds are usually tethered to adherence to federal edicts. Without the threat of curtailing federal funding many state and local governments would be loosed from the need to comply. They might be hamstrung, but they would be free to conduct their affairs according to their own political circumstances.

The debt is a regular feature in the news, indeed it is the elephant in the room. The public might be distracted by social issues and calamitous events but the lingering issue in Washington at the moment is the budget. As grinding as budget negotiations are, there must be relief in the White House when a hurricane or blizzard hits for it gives the administration a respite from the struggle and gives it the opportunity to put aside politics and demonstrate why government is necessary and that it can help. But, let's assume Obama does get the money needed to keep our lenders at bay, would we be better for it? Would an additional $100 billion taken out of the economy to pay interest on the debt serve to improve it? Would $100 billion less in the hands of businesses and consumers stimulate the economy? Will simply paying interest on the debt get us out of our bind?

A key difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals do not trust the people of this nation to act in a manner that will advance society in its march to the future. Left to themselves, people will fritter away their money on things that they want rather than in a manner that will move society forward. They will buy new cars, new televisions, and new clothes. They will take trips and go to restaurants. They will stagnate in their ignorance and prejudices. They will turn a cold shoulder to the needy and the suffering. Without government prodding and guidance, society will slip backwards into ignorance, hate, and greed. That is what progressives seek to prevent through active government and social policy.

A great many people voted for Obama in disregard for the economy and the "state of the nation". They ignored the growing debt and the stagnant economy.  They were told that they had a choice of what kind of nation they want to live in. Many voters were enchanted by what another four years under Obama might bring. They voted for the chimeras of "social justice" "progress", and "fairness". Other voters were frightened by the prospect of being thrown to the wolves of Wall Street. They were convinced that only Washington could offer them protection against the vicissitudes of fate and then only if Democrats controlled it. They believe that, no matter how bad things get, democrats will never let them be mistreated, disrespected, or cast out in the street.

The reality is that there are too many people in this country dependent on government spending in one way or another and too many people stubborn in their belief that government can cure the ills that have been plaguing our nation since its founding for government to be cut in any meaningful way. Indeed, even after four years of record spending and a near historical expansion of government power and the meager results achieved by it, many are persuaded that what the nation needs is even more spending and more government. It is akin to believing that you fail to fix something with a hammer, the solution is to get a bigger hammer.

Obama won in in 2008 by running on hope. He won in 2012 by running on fear. While hope and fear are powerful rhetorical tools on the campaign trail, as a method of governance, they are a recipe for disaster. Emotion will not resolve the issues facing the nation. It certainly will not balance the budget. An emotional electorate is an irrational one. But then, only an irrational electorate would reelect a man who threatens to spend the U.S. into poverty.

It is reckless and irresponsible for politicians to continually put off making hard decisions in favor of temporary measures that fail to address the budget in favor of stop gap measures and financial expedients. By putting off tax increases and spending cuts we only buy a little time and, in the process, make matters worse as the debt mounts. Any politician that says that adding another trillion or two to the national debt will make things any easier in the future is either lying to you or woefully naive. Borrowing only makes good sense if it is believed that it will result in more earnings or if there is a reasonable expectation that you can pay it back in the future without exposing yourself to privation. Simply borrowing money without making any effort to change the circumstances that led you into trouble is reckless.

There are no plans in Washington to start paying down on the debt that are not based on speculation and assumption. The very best it can offer are plans to decrease the rate of its growth. Against the disturbing economic numbers we are offered only optimism and promises. It is predicted that the economy will recover sufficiently so that the government will once again have a surplus. It is promised that when that surplus arises, it will be applied to paying down the debt and lightening the burden being placed on tax payers. History tells us that neither scenario is likely.

By nature, government is preoccupied with expanding its control and increasing the resources at its disposal. Money is essential to both endeavors. Money and power are never willingly given up by government. They are only pried out of its hands. Progressives live by government. They will never willingly surrender power or the money needed to exercise it. That is why the debate in Washington is so contentious. It might seem that the struggle is over money, but it really isn't. It is about power.

Democrats consistently try to paint the GOP as a party of hard hearted men willing to sacrifice the poor to advance the interests of the wealthy while casting themselves as the party trying to help the common man. Republicans want to reduce spending and cut government programs in adherence to cold blooded economics well aware that the brunt of the cuts will be at the expense of those who rely on government.for their well being. Democrats assert that all they want is to want to help and protect those in need by expanding the power and reach of government, and the only way to do that is to spend money. If they succeed in casting themselves as the party that wants to give and republicans as the party that wants to take, they can't lose.