The State of the State Knowing Best
by Michael McGruther
Like I always do, no matter who’s in office, I tuned to the President’s State of the Union address last night. I love the event and look forward to it. The SOTU is one of the President’s most important speeches, and I listen carefully to what he says because his words aren’t chosen lightly. The speech is written, re-written, scrutinized and re-written again until it has the right effect — and when President Obama told the story of Florida businessman Leonard Abess who retired after making millions and then proceeded to hand out most of a $60 million bonus to co-workers, even those long since retired — I knew this was unlike any SOTU that had come before and that President Obama and his team are likely to be looking for work in 4 years.
Here’s the exact quote:
I think about Leonard Abess, the bank president from Miami who reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who used to work for him. He didn’t tell anyone, but when the local newspaper found out, he simply said, ”I knew some of these people since I was 7 years old. I didn’t feel right getting the money myself.”
Never mind that Mr. Abess didn’t need government prodding to initiate his generosity or the fact that he was able to make all that money over a career dominated by conservative economic policies, what the President was really saying is that the government wants to emulate this generosity with your tax dollars. A clear call to socialism that shouldn’t be taken lightly. So far this administration has repeatedly made political passive-aggressive statements against capitalism like this, and it’s not going unnoticed by the silent majority.
Another part of the speech that stuck out was the President telling those American’s who annually make $250K or less, that they will not see a tax increase. I envisioned millions of couples turning to one another, “It’s a good thing you didn’t get that big promotion hon.” ”Don’t worry babe I’ll make just enough to keep us under the magic number.” The way President Obama said “quarter of a million dollars” sure made it sound like a lot of money, but in reality it’s not and this is an incentive is to not make money.
The message is clear: The State knows how much money is enough and is better at giving it away than you are. And this is the difference between American Socialists and the center-right. We are the most generous people on the planet and give more to charities worldwide than any other country. We have never needed government intervention in the charity department before, so why start now?
Here’s what I think is really going on, all summed up in a brilliant quote from Gilbert Keith Chesterton: “Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”
Indeed.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
69 Comments
I too listened to the speech. Seems like he was promising everything to everybody. How long will it take the general public to realize these are empty promises? No details on how he will accomplish these goals–just vague statements and hope the public doesn't ask questions. If you make under $250K no tax increase–yet paying for all of these proposed programs will certainly raise cost to the consumer from corporations to pay for these programs. Thus it is like saying "look in your right pocket and see how I am putting money in that pocket–yet don't look in your left pocket and see that I am taking money out of that pocket." Thank you for the Chesterton quote. How true.
Obama is working both the Kennedy and Roosevelt angles into his speeches and persona. But the actions of his administration betray the fact that it's just more of the same liberal democrat agenda; spend and tax, propose all manner of "nanny-state" programs, and go after the Second Amendment. Beware of the programs that are "for your own good" that would install GPS devices in your automobiles to "track mileage for tax purposes" but will really let Big Brother know exactly where you are at all times, and how fast you were going to get there. Beware registration schemes proposed as "health care reform" that make your medical records available digitally to anyone clever enough to hack into your records, or to unscrupulous officials.
He plans to use money collected from the top 5% of wage earners to pay for all these promises.. he's already said that. Glad I'm under the 250K. BTW, love it how the left loons are bashing Jindal because he balked at volcano monitoring money. Since when did volcano monitoring stimulate the economy? Probably worth spending money on, but to put it in the stimulus plan?
Conservative economic policies? You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot continuing to delude yourself Bush was a conservative. It makes people not want to be one. Bush's policies were more Soviet than socialist, if you absolutely INSIST on trying to make a distinction. Ginning up wars to enrich his buddies and advance world government. Hardly "conservative." Obama and Bush are members of the same club – CFR. That should tell you something.
It will save or create jobs for out-of-work/in danger of getting laid off vulcanologists.
It will save or create jobs for out-of-work/in-danger-of-getting-laid-off vulcanologists.
PBHO is not interested in fulfilling any promises to the public in general. His is a public demonstration of care and concern, no matter how vacuous it is in reality; an opiate to soothe the prolies as he brings them to heel, a team of animals under one Socialist whip.
Dare you not to care for yourself and your family without his consent, for only he and his criminal cronies know what you really need in life.
Just ask them, like Joe the Plumber did.
The government lovers Washington deficit will be, 1.75 trillion dollars, WOW!. Be certain all this"stimulus" is an effort to save government in general, not us. The best thing that could happen to this country is the collapse of the federal government, "bankruptcy! This would be a radical realignment of the state, and the end of the statist. The power vacuum would be immense. The only thing that would remain would be self-reliant, hard working, freedom loving, individuals, and that crazy old Uncle Sam, could chained to a bed in the attic.
Boo on Obama. So very difficult to listen to that man spout the most anti-capitalist pablum and realize that every little move he makes undoes the marvelous, freewheeling, free market network we have and can be bringing the whole thing to a screeching, crashing halt.
Man, doesn't PBHO read any economic and political history? Who or what will support our great standard of living when the people who would take the big risks for the grand returns of capitalism no longer bother to start companies etc. due to uncertainty about government intervention? Every time I hear a news article, an entertainment personality, and a regular guy spout off about corporate excess I realize that PBHO is getting his work done well and has successfully begun inoculating our society against the free market.
Point, Set, Match.
(well done Michael)
Obama is one slick POTUS. The most glaring and infuriating line was the 'no pork' equivication which elicited a muted but spontaneous groan from some in the Republican gallery. We are living through what is literally Shangri-La for Democrats. A world-wide economic crisis during a congressional majority helmed by a charismatic POTUS whose most outstanding leadership qualification is delivering a speech. The fact Michael has the intelligence and persistance to look up the reference – just as conservatives have when screaming about what passes for 'stimuli' by the majority – is cold comfort. Reid & Pelosi have delivered a ram-rod spending package in the name of recovery and Obama gets cover – as the crisis-manager in chief – making the mid-term elections in '10 a crucial litmus on whether socialism prevails.
*yawn*
If you conspiracy freaks even half-believed the nonsense you spew, then why haven't the dark suits from Halliburton killed you in your sleep by now?
Its OK to bash minorities if they are members of the GOP. Otherwise, verboten.
Get out your liberal handbook and look it up.
Bush was not a fiscal conservative. don't think anyone here said that.
The Big Moca is simply not up to this job. He contradicts himself at every turn. We have no money, we must spend money. We want free healthcare for the poor, we have to cut Medicare.
Who is confused by all this drivel?
This has allegory written all over it.
Absolutely. Liberals seem unable to tell the difference between people freely choosing to do something and people being forced to do something.
All the vulcans I know (namely Spock & Lt. Savik) are very smart and hard working. I'm sure they would be able to find a job with or without the stimulus money.
we talked yesterday- you gotta give the conspiracy stuff a rest, buddy. Bush was a conservative, more so than his dad but not as much as present company. He just wasn't a 'movement' conservative, and as such when things went south he let the Fed (now, THERE'S a bunch) roll him… he will be well regarded by history for remaking the middle east, which is happening in front of oue eyes…
Since Mr Obama cannot give a State of the Union address yet (he hasn't been in a year) let's call it a State of the Onion address instead. It smelled funny and we all cried afterward…
Just to be clear Rexter, Mr. Abess' career did not start and end during the Presidency of GWB.
I suggest the new federal agency be initiated: the FBBW (Federal Bureau of Butt Wiping)
There is a dingle berry crisis, I think we can all agree on this, and we need to push this thru immediately. Those citizens that can not reach around to wipe – help is coming!
You thought things were bad in DC under Bush, at least with that nasty partisanship nightmare, you had a little control, there was someone there to say no, to apply some brakes to stop the spending craze. That was, until GW went loony and signed the first TARP. Now all we have is a rubber stamp to pass the candy store agenda. I did not watch the spectacle, but I saw clips of Pelosi bouncing up-and-down like a jack-in-the-box, looking like she was going to wet herself – she was so excited at every word the "one" uttered. Economics is cyclical, and history shows that the more you try to fight it, the worse it usually gets, the more you throw money at it, the less the chance to correct the course. The sick must go, in order for the strong to thrive. They just can't stop themselves. It'd be nice to throw them into rehab and Dr. Drew work his magic.
You thought things were bad in DC under Bush, at least with that nasty partisanship nightmare, you had a little control, there was someone there to say no, to apply some brakes to stop the spending craze. That was, until GW went loony and signed the first TARP. Now all we have is a rubber stamp to pass the candy store agenda. I did not watch the spectacle, but I saw clips of Pelosi bouncing up-and-down like a jack-in-the-box, looking like she was going to wet herself – she was so excited at every word the "one" uttered. Economics is cyclical, and history shows that the more you try to fight it, the worse it usually gets, the more you throw money at it, the less the chance to correct the course. The sick must go, in order for the strong to thrive. They just can't stop themselves. It'd be nice to throw them into rehab and let Dr. Drew work his magic.
TESTAs a conservative I am sorry to say the GW went "loony" long before the TARP. Remember his trying to secretly sell off some of our sea ports to foreign interests? Now known as the "Dubai ports scandal". It's unknown why he was wanting to sell them. Perhaps to pay off some of the nations debt but the fact remains he was not "transparent".
You are right though. GW alone provided a fail safe against these very policies that are being pushed now. The public knew the democrats have the majority in congress and now they have a democrat president to pencil whip their agenda driven bills for the next four years. Just think. It hasn't even been 90 days and look at what they have wrought.
We would send checks to my mother-in-law from time to time because she lived on a limited income. Imagine my surprise when I heard that she was then sending money to her sisters to help them out. I guess it was her choice what to do with the money we sent, but it sort of ticked me off that she was coming off as the generous benefactor with our money.
The same is true of the Democrats. I am incredibly generous to the charities that I feel are deserving of support. I don't do it for a tickertape parade, but I do like the idea that the money I work hard to earn goes to a worthy cause in my name. The Democrats want to take the money out of my pocket and give it to a panhandler passing by to buy his/her vote. I wish they would learn from Davy Crockett–it's not their money to give away for charity, it's yours and mine!
One gets the feeling that the Dems know this to be a zero-sum affair… they know they will lose, and lose heavily in '10, and therefore must ram as much nonsense as they can through the system. Stuart Smalley still may lose, and 'Tombstone' Burris is in the process of being thrown out (Newsflash: Atty Gen Lisa Madigan (D.Chi) has said a special election can be called; Il House Rep Mark Kirk (R) could very well win that seat- so they have about 6-9 months to try to East Germanize the US as much as possible… at the end of the day, I don't believe they care much whether 'The One' is particularly popular, or even re-elected.
Any means to an end…
Vaughn, I'm in agreement with you… I got invited to a libertarian "social" yesterday, (after a few invites.. my wife is a member of the St. Louis Libertarian group, but I always turned down the offer)… I finally went yesterday.
And somehow we got into the "style over substance" debate.. and the two things we agreed on was that
1) President Bush domestically made some screwy choices, particularly in the finance area. (the ports, the medicare bill, NCLB, TARP) (I couldn't convince them that his foreign policy worked… they kept getting stuck on the "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq" issue.)
2) President Obama appears to be even WORSE on all fronts, and the SOTU address just proved it..
Tom, if that's true, then he's in trouble.
1. Afghanistan is not "winnable" in the short term because there is no real government to take over for our troops.
2. The question in Iraq is what happens when we leave. Right now, the public accepts that we've "won" Iraw and can move on. If things fall apart when we leave, he'll get the blame for that.
3. For the Dow to return to 10000 would require a 40% return, that's unlikely — especially since (1) we haven't hit the bottom of the recession yet and (2) his tax increases (and future rate increases to stem inflation from the stimulus) will harm the market. He'll be lucky if we don't get back close to 9000 before falling to 6500 and then spend the rest of his admin working back to 8000.
(cont)
I think what will make or break him is his attitude. Right now he appears to be highly inflexible. If he doesn't learn to be more flexible, he'll start breaking himself on issue after issue.
Not to mention, he's off to a pretty horrible start (and I'm not even talking philosophically), which doesn't bode well for his future. Good.
Why should Obama be flexible? he's already demonstrated what he thinks of flexibility in two words:
'I Won'.
"That's a pretty low bar. We all knew he was a utopian socialist before the election; who is going to care about that now?"
I was implying that once people taste real socialism in America that they will not like it and it will only take 4 years for that to occur unless the Democrats do everything possible to soothe us to sleep.
Oh those goofy socialist ideas about the public utility of science!
$250K = not a lot of money
I cannot wait until you people are paying for my healthcare.
Any true conservative knows that GWB was a "Compassionate Conservative" which is really just a fancy way of saying liberal Republican. He never met social spending he didn't like. Now I have no doubt that his heart was in the right place, but he certainly didn;t have any sense of how to limit the big spending that went on during his watch.
And of course, after the 2006 election when he had a Democrat controlled Congress larding up everything sent his way, it only got worse.
It's also pretty rich that Jindal thinks so little of his constituency's intelligence that he would preface the phrase "volcano monitoring" with "something called"
Perhaps a graph that demonstrates how high into space all of the active volcanoes on earth would reach when stacked on top of one another alongside a stack of $100 bills equivalent to the amount of money set aside in the stimulus for volcano monitoring. Whatever that is.
I don't think that's necessarily all true. A lot of people I know that voted for him did so because he made conservative noises (tax cuts and fiscal responsibility) in his suitably vague speeches and lots of people were primed to vote against any Republican no matter who they happened to be. Add that to McCain's crappy campaign, and he almost could have run on a platform of walking on his hands and won.
A lot of Obama voters out here almost seem ashamed of what they've done at the moment. I think a lot of those Obama voters really had no clue what they were voting on.
Dear Miles,
The cost of living is relative to where you live. For instance, a household where one adult is bringing in somewhere around 250K with let's say two kids and a costly commute into work, more expensive food/groceries/higher priced everything to be exact. That is what I meant. My idea of "a lot of money" in the broad term would mean you could afford to live very comfortably anywhere in America. And 250K is lower middle class in many big cities. But as the cost of goods and services come back down to their true values then that might change.
I live in Brooklyn and work in Manhattan and survive quite comfortably on less than 30K/year. I don't have a family, but I don't want one, either. I know plenty of people with children in this city making less than 250K/year and doing just fine. 250K is not "lower middle class" no matter where you go, it's freaking RICH. If you wanted to go compare your lifesytle to some heiress on the UES with three houses and a Rolls and cry about how you're lower middle class b/c you're only clocking 250K, I don't think anyone would have much sympathy for you. I certainly wouldn't.
I'm not saying I want him to be flexible, far from it. I'm saying that he's shown a total inability to be flexible and that flexibility is the thing all politicians need to succeed.
Spoke like a true communist, da Tavarish?
By the way, if we're going to start deciding what people can earn, what gives you the right to earn $30k per year? Seems a little higher than you need to me.
I was thinking the same thing. That and the fact that he has to by lying about living Brooklyn comfortably on 30K a year. I know a married couple that have one kid and both of them work and make slightly less than 250K combined and they struggle to make ends meet. They live in Brooklyn.
It is a little more than I need. 250K would be an unimaginably excessive amount. I think if you're living comfortably and still have oodles of extra cash you should expect to maybe pitch in more than the guy who's just barely getting by. For sure.
Know what I did to pitch in? I worked hard, made way more than you would have wanted me to have, saved my pennies, and started a business. I employed three other people at decent wages for years. If I didn't have that money, never could have done that.
Yes I'm totally lying about living in Williamsburg and taking the subway into the city for work every day. I share a studio apartment with my lady and thus pay a few hundred dollars less in rent than I otherwise would, but it's quite possible to live in this city on 30K a year. As I said, many people do it on much less.
Great minds…
I've visited NY a couple times and got the impression I couldn't park my car for $30k a year.
I've seen a lot of people on the coasts who earn huge RICH salaries, but they live in small homes and all their money goes to paying off student loan debts, paying for their kid's clothes, and buying food or making rent.
Great minds…
I've visited NY a couple times and got the impression I couldn't park my car for $30k a year.
I've seen a lot of people on the coasts who earn huge RICH salaries, but they live in small homes and all their money goes to paying off student loan debts, paying for their kid's clothes, and buying food or making rent.
By the way, nice article!
Maybe they should do the uniquely American thing and get two or three more jobs
So, it's possible to live in the outskirts of NYC on 30K a year… if you have a studio apartment (nothing more) that you share with your lady… If we take as given that you also split the utilities and food bills, then you are NOT living on 30K a year. You are living on your 30K a year PLUS whatever it is she makes.
I think if you're living comfortably and still have oodles of extra cash you should expect to maybe pitch in more than the guy who's just barely getting by. For sure.
Expect? No. One OUGHT to pitch in more, but it not the proper function of government to take that money by force and distribute it carelessly. It is one's own responsibility to contribute to charity, and to think of the most effective way to be the steward of one's own resources. Simply letting the government do it for you (and everyone else to boot) is inefficient and foolish, to say the least.
Once you cede to the propostion that the govt can determine your take home, you are kind of done for. Progressive is an interesting phrase for stealing. The criteria may differ but the effect is always the same. Mob rule.
So if no one feels like contributing, than those without the means, education, mental or physical ability to make a living wage should… what? Hope that people feel a little more charitable in the next fiscal?
Also dude I actually am living on 30K a year and paying down student debt to boot. We've got our own discrete finances, but we split the cost of rent because yes, it's pretty high here. That's why so many people have roommates. But believe it or not it is QUITE possible to survive in this city on 30K; as I've said, MANY people do it on even less.
And Williamsburg ain't the outskirts, thanks much.
Maybe you should have to work for me for free.
Nah. Wouldn't feel right if I weren't paying taxes.
Push this through? Better get the K-Y….
So if no one feels like contributing, than those without the means, education, mental or physical ability to make a living wage should… what?
Families are still the primary (and best) means of provision for those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work for themselves. If this fails there are a great variety of private organizations that do very well. This is no accident, because Americans are just about the most charitable people who ever lived. Maybe you seriously believe that hordes of faultless unfortunates throng the streets, crying for succor and being denied by heartless plutocrats, but the reality is far different. I'm sorry that your neighborhood apparently lacks examples to restore your faith in human kindness.
In any case we are sovereign here, not the government. Of the people, by the people, FOR the people – not the other way around. There's far more danger that the State will destroy charitable giving by making beggars of everyone than there is of everyone choosing on a whim that they can't spare anything for the destitute.
I appreciate the reasoned, articulate response, regardless of the fact that we don't see eye to eye.
I'm not saying that we should rely totally on gov't spending to assuage the needs of the destitute, just that private industry, individuals, and private charities cannot cover the whole nut. The political will OF the people can be exercised at the national level to do good things for those who cannot provide for themselves. Of course there's waste and corruption, but it's not like those problems are exclusive to the public sector; how many sham charities and snake oil salesmen came out of the woodwork in the wake of 9-11? Or the 2005 Tsunami? Private charities and churches and families can do a lot to help individuals, but systemic social problems sometimes need addressed from a systemic vantage, and with the kind of funding that generally isn't available in the private sector.
Fair enough, although I still think that private charity is far preferable. The government has a poor track record on society-wide reform efforts. Unfortunately a government tends to attract people whose goal is nothing other than a sinecure; the best way to do that is to ensure that one never runs out of poor people to help. The programs wind up perpetuating the problem. The well-meaning who actually want to help are exploited by shucksters whose only desire is to see their own authority over others expanded – controlling the proceeds of our labor is quite an effective way of doing it, and always under the guise of charity
Private groups have their share, as you point out, but there are a couple of built-in protections: first, if they don't produce results they lose their funding (and jobs!); second, the law can punish them. But if those same people control the funding (through the power to tax) and the law (through the legislative process) we lose those protections. Everyone suffers that way.
Thanks for the conversation, Miles. It's a relief to disagree politely for a change.
I've had to explain it over and over again. The difference between Obama's anecdotes and what he really wants to do is this: In every one of his anecdotes about being neghborly and sharing, the person in question makes the personal decision to share their stuff of their own volition. What Obama wants to do is have the government take everyone's stuff and share it for them whether they want it shared or not. In the case of his famous peanut butter sandwich lines, it's like his teacher took his sandwich from him to divide it between him and the kid who had none rather than BO making the personal choice to share.
I find it superhypocritical how the lefties are bashing Jindal for taking the name Bobby instead of using his given Indian name, and yet they jumped all over us for bringing up Hussein. There's even a string of them making fun of his given name on our local paper. It makes my blood boil.
LOL!! Nice comeback, I like that.
"Forcibly extracting money from producers and giving it to non-producers is not logical. Or moral. In fact, it blows." — Vulcan Ambassador Soval
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." — Thomas Jefferson"
As to the idea that "President Obama and his team are likely to be looking for work in 4 years."
There are only three things that matter in that regard, and Obama's speechmaking isn't one of them.
1) If we're out of Iraq and Afganistan;
2) If the DOW creeps back above 10K;
3) If we can avoid another terrorist attack inside our borders;
Obama gets re-elected.
That's a pretty low bar. We all knew he was a utopian socialist before the election; who is going to care about that now?
Gary, that was a thing of beauty. Thanks for those words of wisdom.
Jefferson saw this coming over 200 years ago. Too bad history is no longer taught in the schools.
Hey, I am a big fan of volcanos. Now as a taxpayer, I would pay to move a very active volcano so that we can drop in dead center on Washington, DC. rathole that it is.
The Cheneys have long given the greater part of their income to charity. Of course it would be awkward for Obama to mention them, given that his team can´t compare in that regard and includes a tax cheat or two.
You must be logged in to post a comment.