Government “investment” in Democratic party building?
President Barack Obama has yet to adopt a slogan for his 2012 reelection bid, but he does seem to be warming up to a theme, or at least a formula: Spending equals greatness.
That’s not to say the president does not realize spending restraint is necessary to avoid a fiscal crisis. Rather — at least based on a reemerging theme — Obama seems to think American greatness is directly tied to government spending.
Most recently, on April 28 in New York, Obama told his base at a fundraising event of the Democratic National Committee, “I’m not going to reduce our deficit by sacrificing the things that always made up great as a people.”
Those would be what? He continued, “I’m not going to sacrifice investments in education. I’m not going to make scholarships harder to get and more expensive for young people. I’m not going to sacrifice the safety of our highways or our airports. I’m not going to sacrifice clean air and clean water. I’m not going to sacrifice clean energy at a time when we need to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and folks are getting killed at the pump.”
“Investments” are another name for spending. But the federal government did not “always” spend money on those things that have “always made America great.”
“There’s more than one way to mortgage America’s future,” Obama continued at the New York event. “We mortgage that future if we don’t get a handle on our deficit and debt, but we also mortgage it if we’re not investing in those things that will assure the promise of the American Dream for the next generation.”
Thus, the American Dream cannot be accomplished without government spending?
This was an extension of what Obama said when he delivered his alternative fiscal plan to Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal, talking specifically about Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.
“We are a better country because of these commitments,” Obama told a crowd on April 13 at George Washington University. “I’ll go further — we would not be a great country without those commitments.”
An audacious statement considering two of those programs — Medicare and Medicaid — did not exist before 1965. Social Security and unemployment insurance were products of the New Deal. So what of the United States from 1776 to 1935? It was OK, but then really became great after the Great Society?
To be clear, in the GWU speech, and the several others at DNC events, he acknowledged American individualism and entrepreneurship as a factor in America’s greatness.
“The America we know is great not because of our skyscrapers or the size of our GDP,” Obama told a DNC gathering on April 21 in San Francisco. “It’s because we’ve been able to keep two ideas together at the same time. The first idea is that we are all individuals endowed with certain inalienable rights and liberties; that we are self-reliant; we are entrepreneurs. We don’t expect others to do for us what we can do for ourselves, and we don’t really like people telling us what to do. But the second idea, just as important is that we’re all in this together; that we look out for one another; that I am my brother’s keeper; that I am my sister’s keeper.”
That is a fair and even moral point that most Americans should agree with, aside from the debate on what role the federal government has in achieving being our brother’s keeper. But the president has effectively said America would not be great without New Deal or Great Society programs that are less than a century old. Such thinking sounds almost like a conservative parody of liberalism.
The next day in Culver City, Calif., Obama pushed the message that America could not be prosperous without government spending.
“But let me tell you something. I will not reduce our deficit by sacrificing the things that have always made America great, the things that have made Americans prosper,” the president said, before talking again of “investments” in education, scientific research, green energy and highway safety.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?