“Targeted” in the SOTU?
“Targeting Investments” in SOTU? Oh, the violent imagery!
I got this from Yahoo News this very morning:
WASHINGTON – Senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett says the Obama administration believes it can make “targeted investments” [my bold] for job creation while simultaneously supporting cuts in the budget.
Jarrett tells CBS’s “The Early Show” investments are necessary in education and infrastructure to encourage business formation and hiring. She says President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night will focus on “winning in America.”
Oh my, the violent visions I get from that! Wasn’t there just days ago a big outpouring of grief over the use of this very word? And lamentations directed at a fine woman for targeting stuff too? Sure there was! “Targeting” was out – bad, bad word — bringing violent rages by crazed lunatics. Meanwhile, www.iowntheworld.com is part of or the cause of or a promoter of “February is Palin Month” — dedicated to mention her everyday for 28 days. Frankly, I think it should be March, for the full 31, if you ask me. Or maybe both. Or everyday until her swearing in in January 2012. But I’m just a hopeful dude. Odd though, that the media already pretty much already mentions Palin everyday, and it seems to make no difference whether the coverage is positive or negative, she’s still the point-lady for the nation. Why, she’s sort of a shadow president. Obama speaks, Palin comments, Palin speaks, Obama comments. Very symbiotic.
Still, I’m out to put a bullseye on every investment I can think of – by recommending a drastic cut in spending and rule eliminating and tax trouncing. I’d start with the Department of Commerce – we don’t need that, we’re very good at commerce. Though I doubt this will be a presidential recommendation, no. Instead, the president is going to call for more spending on “education” eh? To boost business formation, I think. Or hiring. Or something. I’m sure there’s a plan. However, there’s so much education now some complain the people are over educated as it is. What with so many unemployed people with divers skills and college degrees, or underemployed at least. I don’t think we need to spend more on education, I think we need to get rid of the Department of Education and return that $80 Billion back in taxes so people spend it on stuff or save it so that it leads to hiring. But then again, I’m a tax radical – cut ’em by 50% — watch the economy go boom! Like a champagne cork!
And didn’t Obama just a few weeks ago say that infrastructure spending was not shovel ready and all the stimulus spending on it didn’t do a lick of good? Sure he did. I certainly see no more construction than was ever around here. Maybe Louisiana is not blessed enough to get some stimulatory spending. Maybe they’ll target us this time. Maybe we’ll get a money bomb! And boom, hiring galore of college educated mass communications and community organizing majors, the effete and elite young men and women of our times, who will pick up pick and shovel and drive big yellow machines around so that the highways to no real jobs can be built. For after every road and bridge is built and repair what will those people do? I don’t know.
But what’s missing from the consideration, as always when politicians get a hold of the job picture, is that the president cannot create jobs. He can’t make anyone hire anyone. Or maybe he can – one wonders why the Democrats didn’t pass a requirement that every American have a job with health insurance, and in this way they could kill two birds with one stone – the unemployed and the uninsured. After all, if uninsured status can be cured by simply saying “Buy Insurance Or Else” than surely unemployment can be cured by saying “Get a Job or Else.” But no, once again, they didn’t think things through.
Yet, in the real world — he can’t create jobs at all. All he can do is move money from one group of people who would have created X number of jobs to another group of people, (more favored buddies of his, of course, as is also always the case, as can be seen by targeting investments at anything by government,) who will create X-minus-1 jobs. One less, even two, because some of the money that’s shifted around goes to paying the bureaucrats who will decide the targets in which to invest. This federal government operating charge is the real problem.
And what makes Palin sound good is her attitude of – “dismantle it and return the money and the power to the people.” Not quite what she says yet, nor do I think she has a plan on how to do it, but either she or someone else had better do it. For there are two clear propositions to consider:
- Concentrated power and wealth in the hands of government always leads to stagnation and decline.
- Diffuse power and wealth in the hands of the people and small groups always leads to a more equal wealth and growth for all.
Both propositions have been proven every time they’ve been tried. Obama likes the first one, and Palin the second. That’s the choice, and it’s simple. Implementing it is the hard part. So let’s target our investment of time at ending targeted investments by government.
It’s like, we don’t need to tax $80,000,000,000 + salaries and benefits & buildings out of the people for bureaucrats to direct the commerce of the nation – we’d do fine with commerce if we only kept our $80,000,000,000 in the first place. Nor do we need to take $130 Billion and take it from people who think the price of food is too high, aka consumers, and give it to a few bold corporations to keep the price of food high so that they can be taxed to provide food stamps to those who are taxed too much to pay for the price supports. It’s all to naught.
But still, he’ll speak, the president will, and say not much good or enduring. And I’m sure if the teleprompter works well he’ll make no mistakes. And then, disturbingly, for the next week, people will pick apart each and every word, gesture, nuance, phrase and tone and even where his finger points, like he’s the Delphic Oracle divining our futures. It’s what happens when one man gets way too much power. And our American President, makes no difference if Obama, Bush, Clinton, the next one, too, has way too much power over the economy. So much so that no one makes decisions anymore unless they first get the lowdown on what the president or any of his many, way too many advisers, might say or feel. If they get up cranky and decide that your business is something they don’t like, well, then, there’s enough presidential power to still the raging beast of commerce and direct it in more socially acceptable ways.
It’s royalty without the ermine, that’s what we set up. And until that mindset fades away, I’m afraid it wouldn’t make much of a difference who will speak or what they’ll say – the State of the Union will be imperiled by imperial impetuosity.
- Posted in: Uncategorized