MaverickVoice.com

I began my analysis of this year’s State of the Union Address and made the statement that the Speech revealed three distinct Personalities of President Obama: The Entertainer, the Politician and the Dictator. Today, we’ll talk about the second of these Personalities and what he said really means.

But before I do, as always, I’m going to suggest that, if you didn’t watch the State of the Union Address on 1/24/2012, that you take the time to read the speech in its entirety. It is posted at WhiteHouse.gov and you can read it for yourself HERE. Don’t just take my word, or ANYBODY’S WORD, about what happened. Read it for yourself.

Now, before we get into it, keep in mind the REASONS that we have an Annual State of the Union Address. As I pointed out yesterday, the purpose of the State of the Union Address is defined in the CONSTITUTION, specifically to have the Executive Branch (ie: The President) advise the Legislative Branch (ie: Congress) about the issues that the Federal Government is facing in order to direct the Legislative Branch to determine how best to deal with it. This is the extent of the “Leadership” that our Founders intended for the President. Once the laws were written, it was then the President’s responsibility to execute his orders (ie: enforce the laws as written) until Congress convened again. Since serving in Congress was a PART TIME JOB, most of them were not in or near Washington for most of the year, so it was the President’s obligation to fill them in on what was going on, what challenges the Nation was facing, and to set them to task to address those issues.

Unfortunately, the LEADERSHIP that the President is supposed to provide to Congress is often muddied by the POLITICAL nature of the job. As an elected official, part of the President’s motivation is to try to get re-elected after four years, or, at the very least, to promote the positions of his Party, and this year’s State of the Union was most certainly a CAMPAIGN event. In fact, it isn’t hard to spot the parts of the speech that serve no purpose than campaigning. I am not going to be pointing out EVERYTHING in this speech, and I’m not necessarily going to be giving you examples IN ORDER from the speech. Instead, these are only HIGHLIGHTS (or “Low-Lights,” if you will) that make my point about this “Personality” of the President.

Let me say first and foremost that I HOPE that I’m wrong about this part, but I don’t think that I am. President Obama spent a lot of his speech referencing the Military, thanking them for their service and setting them as an example of how important it means for us to work together as Americans to accomplish “The Mission.” Of course, he also made a point of taking credit (once again) for the death of Osama Bin Laden and the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. While this is certainly a great accomplishment and worthy of praise, President Obama is not responsible for either of them. Bin Laden had been a known target since the Bush Administration first went after him, and the scheduled withdrawal from Iraq had been established since before Obama took office. He is, on the other hand, responsible for accomplishing a stated goal from before he took office, and that is reduce the size of our military. As these heroes return home from their current deployments, many will be receiving “Pink Slips” and being told that their services will no longer be necessary. So why would he spend so much time giving them praise and setting them out as an example for the rest of us to follow? I think it’s because it is such a popular sentiment. Moderates and Independents, the votes that President Obama does not have “sewn up,” are generally supportive of the troops. This, I believe, was nothing more than pandering to dispel the notion that he is “Anti-Military,” which he is, to get votes. It is the ultimate example of being a Politician. You can tell he’s lying because his lips are moving.

Now let’s talk about the economy. He starts off by “Blaming Bush,” a common thread throughout his term in office. “In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them.” As I’ve pointed out numerous times, this crisis was not a matter of Banks making bad loans because they wanted to, but because they were forced to. Regulators did not look the other way: they were STARING right at the industry and were FORCING private institutions to make bad loans based on a sense of “Fairness” through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, because of this, “mortgages were sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them.”  Of course, the fact that a majority of these programs were put into place under the auspices of the Community Redevelopment Act (CRA) and while under Democrat Control is completely ignored because, of course, it’s that exact kind of regulation that he is promoting later on in his speech. “That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.” The issue is the definition of “Responsible Homeowner.” Does he mean a homeowner who is up to date with their mortgage payments and able to afford them, or is he referring to the people who are behind on their mortgage payments because they had over-leveraged the property to begin with by taking out a 110% mortgage when the bought the thing? Is he referring to the people who are facing foreclosure because they stopped making payments when the value of their home fell below their outstanding loan balance, or the ones who have been struggling to make ends meet but have continued to meet the terms of their loans? Once again, he is shifting the blame, not on the Federal Agencies or programs that actually contributed to the problem or to the people who INTENTIONALLY bought properties that they couldn’t afford because they assumed they could “flip” it after a couple of years and make a tidy profit, but on the BANKS. They’ll charge a fee to the large institutions that make most home lending possible (yeah, that will motivate lending), but run the whole thing through a government-controlled program…like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the FHA. Oh, and those “historically low rates” have been about the same for the past 6 years, so it really isn’t such a great deal. In fact, keeping the rates “historically low” has been a significant component of the real inflation that we’re facing on our debt and daily living costs. He’s promising more Kool-Aid to those dying of thirst hoping that it will only make them more thirsty. That’s nothing more than being a Politician.

And while he’s pandering to the folks who are working and paying their bills, let’s not ignore the “shout out” to the “Occupy Everything” movement. “Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.” While I agree with the sentiment, let’s be honest about it. Everything that President Obama has ever proposed or promoted has been about giving PREFERENTIAL treatment to one group at the expense of another. That’s a bailout, that’s a handout, and that’s a COPOUT! But, he’s unintentionally right: “An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody,” and responsibility means accepting the consequences of your bad choices, including your investments. By not allowing loans to fail and for the market to reset, all he’s doing is delaying the inevitable, which will only make it worse in the long run.

Another theme that he’s repeated is the need for regulation reform. He states, “Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.” The fact that the FREE market is only regulated by the PARTICIPANTS in that market (as you will discover in my upcoming posts on Understanding Capitalism) is lost on him, but he goes on: “There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years.” OK, now, I don’t have the specific data to support this statement, but I’m going to make it anyway: “WHATCHOO TALKING ‘BOUT, WILLIS?!” Between the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform and “Obamacare” alone, there were THOUSANDS of pages of regulations put into place and approved of by President Obama. Furthermore, he had previously claimed that the collapse of the housing industry and the economy was the result of a lack of regulatory control. While the irony of the fact that Congress cannot REPEAL a law without PASSING a law is not lost on me, the idea that President Obama is somehow a “Reganesque” Regulatory Reformer is just laughable. Still, he’s pandering to the UNINFORMED by suggesting that he’s “Pro-Freedom,” but that “Some Regulations are necessary,” and while the second part IS true (some regulations really are necessary), everything that he has signed into law in the past three years has proven that he is not a “Free Market” or “Individual Liberty” proponent.

How about “Illegal Immigration?” That’s a hot-button issue with voters, especially in the Southern Border States, where Illegal Immigration has created an environment of fear or LEGAL Immigrants and Citizens, and has even allowed for the growth of cartel activity WITHIN the United States. “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.” Oh, so President Obama has taken a stand on illegal immigration. Who knew? Actually, he really has put more “boots on the ground” along the border…UNARMED “Boots” who are instructed NOT to intervene unless they see someone in distress, and, then, they are instructed to provide medical assistance. You know, because DESERTS are HOT! The US Border Patrol has been reduced in its size and made afraid to act in many instances for fear of being sent to prison for doing their jobs, so I believe fewer of these “illegal crossings” are being documented. In other words, there aren’t REALLY fewer crossings, but by not reporting them, the STATISTICAL DATA looks lower. It’s all about perception, and that’s all about politics. Oh, and while we’re talking about the border, let us not forget the ongoing issue of the “Fast & Furious” gun running scandal, which is still unresolved. Now, let’s try telling us that you’re taking border security seriously again, shall we?

Still, there’s more: “Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else. That doesn’t make sense.” Let’s go through that a little bit, shall we? First, should there be a “Statute of Limitation” on entering a country illegally, and, if so, how do they PROVE that they’ve been here LONGER than the statue provides? (In other words, at what point do they get a “get out of jail free card” for the crime, and how do they prove that the specified amount of time has passed?) The reason that Illegal Immigrants do and should face the threat of deportation is that they have ILLEGALLY INVADED our country. They DON’T pay income taxes. They DO STEAL from our public services (education, emergency medical treatment, etc). Many DO receive benefits through Government Welfare and/or Private Charitable Organizations. But the picture he’s painting is of a child who is brought here by their parents, raised in the public schools, and just don’t have the opportunity to get an even HIGHER education or reap the rewards of American Citizenship. Well, guess what, folks: THAT’S THE LAW! I happen to believe in the Rule of Law, and in its complete enforcement, so the fact that someone has ILLEGALLY entered the country makes them a CRIMINAL. Should we really be REWARDING people for being criminals? And while the plight of children who were brought here by their parents is certainly understandable, it doesn’t change the fact that their PARENTS are criminals, and these CHILDREN should not be used as an ANCHOR to keep them in this country.

Now, how about the students who came here later “to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.” Well…YEAH! That’s why they came here to study!!! It makes PERFECT sense! If they want to become US Citizens, having a VISA to come into this country to get that education is their path to become a citizen. Once here, they can APPLY to stay. The issue is that many of these students don’t want that. They come here to learn for the PURPOSE of going back to their own country to make THAT COUNTRY a better place. Maybe the bigger argument should be that maybe, if we don’t want to educate people to work in other countries, we shouldn’t let them in to study in the first place. That may sound cruel, but it is as logical as assuming that they should just AUTOMATICALLY be granted citizenship. Mohamed Atta was a foreign student who stayed beyond the term of his Visa, and he CLEARLY had no intention of become an American Citizen. (You do KNOW who Mohomed Atta was, right?) This is clearly nothing more than pandering to the “Immigrant” community of the United States, but not necessarily to those who are in this country LEGALLY. I’m not referring to the ones who have become citizens and already HAVE the right to vote. This is about giving that right to the ones who DID NOT come here legally in order to secure more support for Obama and his Party. That’s pure politics, folks.

Finally, let’s talk about the most important facet in any political contest, and that’s JOBS! Here’s a fact: When the economy is GOOD, the incumbent gets re-elected. When it is BAD, the incumbent can only get re-elected in one of two ways: Start a War or convince people that things are getting better. If President Obama were to start a war, say, with Iran, there’s a pretty good chance he’ll get re-elected, for the simple reason that people don’t like to “change horses midstream” during a crisis, but he can’t CAMPAIGN on that possibility at this time, so since the economy STILL SUCKS, he’s got to make the argument that things are getting better. So he paints us a picture: “In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect. Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs.” Translation: we lost 8 Million Jobs before my policies took effect, and we’ve added 3 million since. Economists generally agree that our economy must add between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs EVERY MONTH just to keep pace with population growth. Let’s do the math: 3 Million jobs divided by 22 months is equal to about 136,400 jobs per month, which is generally in line with population growth. That means that things aren’t ACTUALLY getting better, they just might not be getting any worse. But there’s more to question about this statement. If BUSINESSES have created more than three million jobs, how many of those jobs are permanent, and how many are the direct result of unsustainable Government Spending? Remember Solyndra? The Government funded a half a BILLION dollars to this company, and, when it went under, all 1,100 of those jobs CREATED within the past 22 months were lost. Were those jobs included or excluded in the “3 Million” jobs created? And how many of these jobs are related to construction projects being funded in their entirety through Government spending? The “3 Million Job” illusion is that they are all true sustainable PRIVATE SECTOR jobs, but they really aren’t. If we’re talking about places like Apple, or Microsoft, or Ford (which did not receive a Federal Bailout, by the way), or even the local Wal-Mart, then fine, but if we’re counting jobs at GM, Florida Power & Light or some other Federally Subsidized entity, then “Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!” And, while the President says that BUSINESSES have created these jobs, is he really also including Government Agencies? How many jobs have been added at the IRS, or the Department of Justice, or any of the myriad Government Offices around the country? Is he including THOSE jobs as well? And is he considering the impact of the THOUSANDS of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who will be receiving their “Pink Slips” as he reduces the size of our military to cut the defense budget? Of course not: but they will ADD to the number of unemployed Americans upon their return. That’s why he’s promoting “Tax Credits” for companies that will hire Veterans from these engagements. It’s not about “Supporting the Troops.” It’s about trying to maintain the illusion that we only have 8.5% Unemployment!

Here’s a fact: the REPORTED National Unemployment rate in the United States is currently 8.5% (Seasonally Adjusted). This does not include people who are no longer eligible for Unemployment Compensation after 99-weeks, and is modified by LOST jobs that the economy has not created to keep pace with the population growth. In other words, the numbers are misleading. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, while the U3 (Total Unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate) is 8.5%, the U6, which includes “All persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force,” is at 15.2%. That means that nearly as many people are UNDEREMPLOYED (6.7%) as there are COMPLETELY UNEMPLOYED. In other words, if the Part Time workers were still holding out for Full Time work, the unemployment rate being reported would be MUCH higher than it is today. And if you were to visit Shadowstats.com, you’ll see the “SGS Alternate” rate that includes the “Estimated Long-Term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994,” which was about 23% in the same time period. So, you tell me: how good is that “Jobs Picture” looking now?

So, now you’ve seen the ENTERTAINER and the POLITICIAN personalities of President Obama. Don’t misunderstand my point in all of this: EVERY President must be a Politician, and utilizes the State of the Union Address for that purpose. President George W. Bush did the EXACT SAME THING when he was President. He pandered, he played, he misled: he was every bit the politician that Barack Obama is, but there’s more to come. Next time, we’ll take a look at the most frightening and disturbing Personality revealed in President Obama’s State of the Union Address: the Dictator!

Check back soon for more!

Filed under: Miscellaneous, Politics by T. Edwin Perry