14 February 2013 –
In the last few days, I have been told by someone whose
opinion I respect that my blogs have been far too harsh. In some instances, my words have painted too
broad a stroke of criticism and have stained the efforts and good names of
honorable and honest people. Upon
reflection, I admit that I indeed have been blunt in the expression of my
views. And, because outcomes and
events—other than what we call Acts of God—are always the results of men’s
choices and subsequent policies, the target of my bludgeon almost always has
been some body instead of some policy or design. No matter.
Taking this sound advice, I will try to resist the temptation to be deliciously
cutting in my attacks. Before the
electronic ink dries and I push send, I will edit my words more carefully, especially
by being far more spare in my use of adjectives. I hope that by doing so, I can better invite
good people to reflect on my words, yet continue to accurately reveal the evil
works of the dirty, filthy, pinko, commie, bed-wetting, thumb-sucking liberal spawn
from hell that infest our world (OK, that was the last time).
I have reread several times the President’s 12 January
State of the Union address. Ah, so much
fertile ground to plow! So many weeds to
turn under! I could spend a month on
this classic tome of misdirection, straw man constructions, and misapplication
of a patriotic lexicon.
1. His
beginning was less than unified. We all
know Osama Bin Laden is dead; talking about him in front of millions only makes
him more of a martyr. Contrary to the
administration’s declarations, he was only the titular expression of a decentralized
jihadist movement whose violence continues throughout the Moslem world. The attacks in Benghazi, the riots in Egypt,
and the war in Mali confirm the fact that Jihadism is festering throughout the
world, with or without Bin Laden’s face in the press. As well, the President’s subsequent statement
that the Taliban momentum in Afghanistan has been broken shows a
misunderstanding or convenient ignorance of the proven principles of insurgency
and counterinsurgency warfare. The
Taliban has neither been broken nor defeated in Afghanistan. Citing the 1994 U.S. Army’s Field Manual 100-5 list of basic
principles of warfare, we must admit
that the Taliban still controls the offensive, still dictates the battle rhythm,
of the conflict. Their objective, the #1
principle of warfare, has never changed.
The U.S. objective changed from the destruction of terrorists’ ability
to export terrorism from Afghanistan to attack U.S. interest anywhere—successfully
accomplished within the first few months of the conflict—to the interminable
and unobtainable objective of nation-building unto a stable democracy. Whose objectives have been broken? We are leaving, the Taliban remains. We won the first war, then failed in the second
one—the war the President inherited and wanted so much to be his war.
2. The
President’s choice of words to describe the housing crisis of 2008 was disingenuous
at best. “We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford
or understand them.” We learned?
The President may have learned
of it in 2008, but anybody who had shown up for work in the Senate and in the
regulatory agencies in the years before 2008 already knew that a disaster was looming and that it was of the government’s
making. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were
obligated by Congress and the President as the loaners of last resort. As such, they had to buy the bad paper that
was being generated by the banks. Thank
you, Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi. The
banks, by Congressional design, had to loan to people who simply couldn’t
afford to own a house. Otherwise, they
would face fines because they would be violating laws designed to help
minorities and poor people to get ahead.
No wonder the lending institutions exploited the situation by designing packages
of loans so they could resell the paper as fast as they could. When the corrupt merry-go-round stopped,
whoever got stuck holding the bad paper lost big-time. Especially the American people. Well, the real lesson of the debacle is a
simple one: You can’t legislate
prosperity. Congress and the President
were trying to pick winners and losers in the market. They failed.
3. The
President’s use of the government bailout of the U.S. auto industry as a success
story did not contain the effects of his profligate (OK, I used an adjective) largesse.
He set up his explanation of events by saying that “some even said we should
let it [Chrysler and GM] die.” In fact, structured
bankruptcy, the other option, would not have killed the companies. It would have allowed them to continue, but
with new investors and management deciding how monies should be dispensed and
how the company should continue to operate.
The President, with no facts to indicate that this would have happened, said
that the real issue was a million jobs at stake and that he “refused to let
that happen.” Therefore, by government fiat, Chrysler and
General Motors could not restructure and allow investors and new private
management to continue to operate the companies, to restore profitability, and to
maintain jobs based on a business model.
Instead, the federal government effectively took over both companies, paid
billions of dollars money directly to the United Auto Workers’ pension funds
and then made the union, effectively, an investment partner in the companies. The President’s refusal to let proven and
equitable market forces adjust the situation enabled him to be the arbiter in
who wins and who loses in the car market.
The President effectively paid his political allies in the labor unions with
government money. The labor unions
won. Investors, Americans trying to
better themselves with their own money, lost.
The President decided. I would
not use that example as a success story if I were trying to win friends from
the other side of the political spectrum. But, then, the President may think he
doesn’t have to win any friends in his second term of office.
4. Finally
for today, the President’s transition from the auto industry to the current
trend toward manufacturing jobs returning to the U.S. fell apart.
“What is happening in Detroit can happen in other industries.” Those words ought to chill the hearts and
balance sheets of every business owner in America. The President again wants to tinker with the
tax code to encourage an international trend that is happening anyway, without
government intervention. But, he wants
to exploit that trend so he can tinker for political purposes. The President wants to use the tax code to
decide who wins and who loses in the market.
His campaign-style rhetoric reveals his intent: “…no American company
should be able to avoid paying its fair
share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.” Tax and spend. Tax and spend. Control the economy for his own
purposes.
More tomorrow as we continue to mine the President’s rich
lode of progressive, liberal ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment