The State of the Union

The speech last night was positively Orwellian. Judging by the phrases the President used, I would caution anyone from taking mainstream neo-conservative evaluations at face value. Last year we had Bill Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and David Frum all out talking about what a great speech it was only to find out they had written it. So let's deconstruct it a bit.

I think most people will focus on Iraq, but I think the second part of the speech, the part dealing with the economy, is most in need of clarification.

George II said, "Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy."

What he means by 'protectionists' is 'people who oppose free trade and free markets.' I guarantee this was insterted into the speech by someone from K Street, maybe AEI or Cato. Why am I so sure? One of the first economic actions Bush took was to institute a protectionist tariff to protect the steel industry. He's done this for several industries since he's been in office. I find it highly unusual that a President would flat out concede in the State of the Union that his early economic policies were fundamentally wrong.

What he's really saying here is that outsourcing is good. By exporting jobs we can consume the same goods cheaper - as imports. So when he says we want people to buy American, he means 'out of whatever we're still making after we're done hemorraging production jobs.'

The progressive approach to the economy is openly protectionist. We want to PROTECT America first. We will defend our standard of living by not giving up jobs, by making sure people aren't laid off and expected to comfort themselves in the knowledge that if they had an income they could buy cheaper food for their kids. We reject fully the idea that the free market will allocate resources morally. The free market naturally serves to reach equilibirum - because our standard of living is higher than everyone else's, free trade can only serve to decrease it while increases other nations' standards. If you aren't protectionist then you are leaving the economy open to attack.

Rosalind wants us to unabashedly do our duty to protect American families from cheap foreign labor and multinational corporations that have no loyalties save to money.

George II said, "Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing. And our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest…. Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent."

I love the Orwellian 'tax relief.' Taxes are burdens, you shouldn't have to pull your weight or contribute to the pot. If you do, it's a burden. The President wants to relieve you of that burden - he doesn't want any of us to have a stake in each other. This is an easy way of telegraphing, 'we should all be isolated individuals pursuing our own selfish ends, then everything would work out fine - the people who starve would be the selfless liberals who deserve what they get.'

Ridiculous.

First, taxes are not burdens, they are investments - tangible commitments to the greater good of America. And they are not lost contributions, the government has made very wise decisions with our investments overall. We have roads, the Internet, less crime, new drugs, more access to education, a better work force, more safety in participating in the economy, less AIDS cases in the world, and on and on, ad nauseum. Not doing your part, wanting to get out of supporting other Americans so that you can work for your own ends is greedy, selfish, and even treasonous.

Second, keeping more of your own money can increase your consumption but it does not increase aggregate consumption in the economy - whether the goverment is spending your money or you are, the money is already getting spent. Fiscal policy worked in Keynes' day but nowadays we have to rely on monetary policy to stimulate the economy. We'd all like to keep as much of our money as we can so we can have more control, but that doesn't make it an economic stimulus.

Rosalind understands that people want lower taxes so they can maximize control over their own wealth, and she also understands that people want America to remain great and for the disadvantaged to be helped. She is devoted to striking a balance between government and private interests as well as business versus individual interests.

George II said, "We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements."

'Entitlements' are 'challenges.' The message here is that social support inherently creates a culture of dependence and are challenging because we therefore need to get rid of them. People who get assistance don't deserve it because they are immoral and selfless (which is why they are needy - otherwise the free market would have made them billionaires), which means it punishes the people who are acting morally and selfishly (and have therefore been rewarded by the free market with cash).

This is an incorrect understanding of the world and of morality. Leftists see that people can be poor because of the system and other people in it (think Edwards' Two Americas). And we see that we are our brothers' keepers - we have a commitment to others to help support one another. Sometimes that necessarily means supporting someone before they can or will support you.

When we talk about social supports, the challenge is how to deliver them more efficiently and use them to help recipients become givers as well as receivers in our system. It is a challenge of how we will pay for them. It is not a challenge of whether we will pay for them. Those who would contend that it is would do well to read any high school American History text that covers Hoover and FDR.

Geroge II said, "Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars."

Remember in 2000 when our biggest election issue was how to use our budget surplus? Hmmm....

President Bush and ALL Republican congresses are the worst stewards of tax dollars I've ever seen. This is intentional. Someone who can become a multi-millionaire by driving two separate companies into the ground understands that you can't spend more than you make. They are starving the government - the old Reagan strategy of 'starving the beast.' They chalk up massive deficits knowing that a future democrat will be forced to take responsibility by either raising taxes or cutting spending.

Being a good steward of tax dollars means not asking for a blank check for an unpopular war. It means not robbing from the poor to give to the rich. It means not running us into the biggest debt and deficits in the history of the nation. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is basic common sense and decency.

Senator Kurita is committed to working toward a balanced budget and reduced deficit, to making sure our tax dollars are stewarded with integrity.

Last night the President waxed poetic and stepped all over his own toes. It's becoming increasing clear to me that the people who are actually running the show, the puppeteers, will not be satisfied until we are all selfish and isolated. I hope to God the drunkards in control don't get us into a position from which we cannnot save ourselves. And I hope in 2008 we'll put up a sober candidate.

For now, your choice is easy - vote for Rosalind Kurita.