The President’s speech misses the point
A shortened version was published in The Tennessean,
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The President’s speech misses the point
by Richard J. Grant
Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama delivered a televised speech that had been billed as a major policy statement on the budget. What listeners actually received was a campaign speech that played fast and loose with anything resembling fact but did reveal much about the Obama vision of America.
The president attempted to contrast two different visions of America, his own versus one “championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives.” The latter was a reference to the Republican budget plan for Fiscal Year 2012 as presented the week before by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the Budget Committee.
The Ryan plan would cut about $6 trillion (over 10 years) from the spending increases projected in the budget previously offered by the president. Even with $6 trillion of cuts, the Ryan plan would not achieve a balanced budget in 10 years. But it is the only serious plan likely to be offered by either party.
Before offering his own watery and less-detailed policy vision, the president set up a Republican strawman. The president approves of deficit reductions and addressing “the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid” in the future, but he can't seem to agree with any of the particular cuts or changes.
The president complained about cuts: “A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell grants to grow to more than $1000 per year.” He then asserted, “These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America we believe in.”
It is telling that the president offers no defense of the federal government's involvement in these areas of spending in the first place. He seems to see them is self-evident truths.
Then he launches into hyperbole: “It's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't afford to fix them.” After a string of such wild accusations that include Medicare, Medicaid, and children with disabilities, he decries that “we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.” Never mind that the $1 trillion figure is a guess, it all misses the point.
When the president claims to offer two different visions, he is really offering only one. The vision that he claims for himself is only the beginning, and the one he ascribes to the Republicans is really just one version of the inevitable endgame of his own vision. This is how progressivism and its policies end: in deficit, distortion, and conflict.
For some, it all begins with good intentions. For others, complicity with big government is a way to get a leg up on the competition. For the rest of us, it is a loss of freedom and personal responsibility – a world where generosity is replaced by mandates and progressive taxation.
It is also a world where truth must be sacrificed for the cause. It is a world where all government spending is called “investment” and all such investment is assumed to “create jobs.”
It is also a world where the roles of government and citizen are reversed. The progressive sees potential tax revenue that is lost to tax deductions as “spending,” as if the government really owns the money and is being generous when it allows a citizen to keep some.
And the president wants to call that “America.”
Richard J. Grant is a professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University and a senior fellow at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His column appears on Sundays. E-mail: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Copyright © Richard J Grant 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The President’s speech misses the point
by Richard J. Grant
Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama delivered a televised speech that had been billed as a major policy statement on the budget. What listeners actually received was a campaign speech that played fast and loose with anything resembling fact but did reveal much about the Obama vision of America.
The president attempted to contrast two different visions of America, his own versus one “championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives.” The latter was a reference to the Republican budget plan for Fiscal Year 2012 as presented the week before by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the Budget Committee.
The Ryan plan would cut about $6 trillion (over 10 years) from the spending increases projected in the budget previously offered by the president. Even with $6 trillion of cuts, the Ryan plan would not achieve a balanced budget in 10 years. But it is the only serious plan likely to be offered by either party.
Before offering his own watery and less-detailed policy vision, the president set up a Republican strawman. The president approves of deficit reductions and addressing “the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid” in the future, but he can't seem to agree with any of the particular cuts or changes.
The president complained about cuts: “A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell grants to grow to more than $1000 per year.” He then asserted, “These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America we believe in.”
It is telling that the president offers no defense of the federal government's involvement in these areas of spending in the first place. He seems to see them is self-evident truths.
Then he launches into hyperbole: “It's a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can't afford to fix them.” After a string of such wild accusations that include Medicare, Medicaid, and children with disabilities, he decries that “we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.” Never mind that the $1 trillion figure is a guess, it all misses the point.
When the president claims to offer two different visions, he is really offering only one. The vision that he claims for himself is only the beginning, and the one he ascribes to the Republicans is really just one version of the inevitable endgame of his own vision. This is how progressivism and its policies end: in deficit, distortion, and conflict.
For some, it all begins with good intentions. For others, complicity with big government is a way to get a leg up on the competition. For the rest of us, it is a loss of freedom and personal responsibility – a world where generosity is replaced by mandates and progressive taxation.
It is also a world where truth must be sacrificed for the cause. It is a world where all government spending is called “investment” and all such investment is assumed to “create jobs.”
It is also a world where the roles of government and citizen are reversed. The progressive sees potential tax revenue that is lost to tax deductions as “spending,” as if the government really owns the money and is being generous when it allows a citizen to keep some.
And the president wants to call that “America.”
Richard J. Grant is a professor of finance and economics at Lipscomb University and a senior fellow at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His column appears on Sundays. E-mail: rjg@richardjgrant.com
Copyright © Richard J Grant 2011