State of the Union: More Lies, Fewer Facts
After President Obama finished delivering his State of the Union speech in the House chamber last night, it was evident that the Democratic loss in Massachusetts on January 19 had taught him nothing. He still attacked the free market, talked of raising taxes, pushed for the passage of ObamaCare, and continued blaming President George W. Bush for every economic woe that couldn’t be pinned on a sitting Republican.
In fact, Obama did everything but the one thing citizens wish he would do: take the will of the people into account somewhere in the midst of his decision-making process.
Early in the speech, Obama broached the subject of his pending “fee on ... [big] banks.” While this “fee” is nothing less than a bank tax, Obama disguised it as a way “to pay back the taxpayers who rescued [banks] in their time of need.”
Does this mean that those of us who pay taxes in this country will be getting a refund check in the mail? No. Rather, it means Obama plans to take “$30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid,” as well as the money he’ll get from his new “fee,” and give that money to “community banks” so “small businesses [can get] the credit they need to stay afloat.”
In other words, Obama is going to spread the wealth by taking money from successful banks with whom the wealthy invest, and giving it to small banks and credit unions where the poorer people who bought his “hope and change” mantra hook, line, and sinker, can get a loan, or at least feel like they're sticking it to the rich folks.
Besides going after banks that are solvent, Obama also pledged to raise taxes on oil companies, the money managers who handle investment accounts, and individuals who make more than $250,000 a year. (To be fair, he didn’t come right out and say he was going to raise taxes; he said he would “not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year.”)
Regardless of how it’s worded, these pledges mean higher fuel costs and less return on our investments, as oil companies and fund managers charge more to cover their taxes. This also means taking money from productive Americans so it can be redistributed to the frequently nonproductive Americans who voted for Obama.
And in blatant opposition to the will of the American people, the president again asked the House to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare. He tried to overcome the fact that his plan is unpopular by promising those who elected him that the passage of ObamaCare “would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry.”
Does anybody but me wonder who’s going to protect the insurance industry, and the thousands of people employed in it, from our government?
Of course, Obama had to bring up the insurance industry because he’s always in need of a scapegoat. This is why he continued to point the finger at George W. Bush throughout the speech, accusing him of causing our current economic malaise by “not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and [the] expensive prescription drug program” he signed into law on December 8, 2003.
While only a fool would argue that Bush doesn’t deserve some criticism for spending money like a Democrat while in office, there’s absolutely no way to blame him for the approximately $12 trillion deficit Obama has racked up in just one year’s time.
That’s right, twelve trillion dollars.
In addition to these varied attacks and attempts to blame someone other than himself for the mess he has caused, Obama also took a jab at the Supreme Court justices seated in the chamber. As a result of the court’s decision to protect the First Amendment by striking down aspects of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law, Obama said he believed the court opened the door for future elections to “be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”
As Justice Samuel Alito listened to Obama make these allegations, the normally reserved jurist “mouthed the words ‘not true.’” (It will be interesting to see if Obama’s sudden concern over powerful and/or foreign interests will keep him from taking money from George Soros or Moveon.org as the 2012 election draws near.)
On Monday, January 25, Rush Limbaugh predicted Obama would say these very things during his speech. According to Limbaugh, although various Democrats had given Obama somewhat different advice as to what he should say, they all seemed to agree that he should “show [his] anger, ... bash Wall Street, ... [and] keep blaming Republicans.”
All I know is that this is the same approach Obama and other Democrats took toward the Massachusetts special election when they blamed “George Bush and his cronies” for the problems citizens of Massachusetts (and of America) were facing on January 17. Yet two days later, the people rejected Obama’s tactics and Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Marcia Coakley handily.
I don’t see any reason why the American people should do any less than reject Obama’s plans as outlined in his State of the Union speech either. All they amounted to were more lies, fewer facts.
Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com/
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/state-of-the-union-more-lies-less-facts