State of the Union?

No one asked for it, but here it is anyway - my take on the president's state of his re-election speech disguised as the State of the Union address.

The president said he wanted to address America's growing income gap. Doesn't everybody? The problem is that the gap effecting most Americans exists primarily between the private sector and government employees. The secret is now out that public sector employees have higher incomes, significantly better benefits and more job security than those who work in private enterprise. Personally, I don't think the president plans on closing the gap by cutting or even restraining the growth in government employees compensation packages.

The president said he wants to restore an economy where everyone enjoys prosperity, not just a few. Really! What a concept! I guess he thinks he is the only person in America with that objective. Be that as it may, he unfortunately believes socialism, income redistribution and placing shackles on free enterprise is the way to do that. Apparently he has little knowledge of history. He additionally said he wants an economic system where everyone plays by the same rules, again as if that is a singular desire on his part alone. He then proceeds to announce new programs and subsidized benefits available only to targeted interest groups. So much for everyone playing by the same rules.

In America we have always envied those who have more than we do. We haven't hated them. Until now. For generations immigrants came to America because they knew capitalism and free markets offered them the opportunity to build better lives for themselves and their families through hard work. Until now. That has been the change produced by our current president and his political party.

An American making $343,000 a year qualifies to be in the top one percent of earners, and $36,000 a year to qualify as a member of the middle class. Globally those numbers are $34,000 and $1,225 a year, respectively, as reported by CNN. This staggering difference in relative affluence was not created by socialist economic and political policies. It was created by capitalism and free enterprise.

The president always says he is willing to compromise and work with Republicans. Unfortunately, his idea of compromise is for Republicans to bend over while he shoves his agenda up their ass. But of course claiming this false willingness to compromise certainly goes down well with the fawning 'words speak louder than actions' crowd who worship every cliche he reads off his teleprompter.

Regarding specific issues, the president wants to eliminate all oil and gas subsidies. That prompts the question, what oil and gas subsidies? Does he mean the depreciation and amortization allowances on capital expenditures and intangible assets available to every business in America? Wouldn't denying those allowances to oil and gas companies be a contradiction of his equal playing field objectives? Or is he talking about depletion allowances for natural resources, without which there would be little incentive to spend money exploring for new reserves? Wouldn't that contradict and impede his stated goals of achieving energy independence for America? Gee, I don't know, maybe he doesn't let those kind of details bother him. After all, they don't seem to bother the folks who vote for him.

Another subject is national security, which he claims to be in favor of. That is good to know. The president announced he will cut the number of troops in the Army and focus on drones and small special operations units to defend against our adversaries. That is a good idea given the nature of the immediate threats we face today. In fact, that strategy is what my book "The Paladin Principle" is all about. But cutting vital next generation weapons systems is a very bad idea. Potential opponents are always improving their capabilities, so it is imperative that we always stay a step or two ahead. Over his three years in office Obama has cancelled vital programs such as the F-22 Air Superiority Strealth Fighter, and made substantial cuts in others such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, our ballistic missile defense shield, and the CGX Next Generation Cruiser - all programs geared towards protecting the country from the more sophisticated threats we may encounter in the future.

Yes, high tech weapons do reduce the need for ground troops. But today's weapons of mass destruction can destroy whole cities and eliminate massive numbers of military personnel in an instant. In order to prevent that from happening to our cities and our soldiers our super weapons must be better than our opponents super weapons. We do not get to choose where our next threat will come from. If it comes from non-government sponsored terrorist organizations or Middle Eastern nations who are not as strong as they think they are we will most likely prevail. But if it comes from an increasingly belligerent world power, then we will be the ones who are defenseless. Perhaps the president thinks we can just whip advanced weapons systems out whenever we might need them in response to aggressive moves by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians or the North Koreans. But that is not a plan to provide for the common defense. That is a plan for extinction.

And then of course there are taxes. He wants everybody to pay their fair share. Again he appears to believe that is a concept no one else has thought of. Or maybe his inspiration is that he gets to decide what is fair. Contrary to his rhetoric, there is a majority of people on both sides of the ideological spectrum that agree America needs serious tax reform. But the president is not advocating tax reform. He just wants to raise tax rates on his definition of the wealthy. Not that I object to that, but it is kind of like using a child's sand shovel to dig the Panama Canal. There aren't enough rich people to make a dent in bringing down the nuclear bomb of a budget deficit he has created over the last three years. Furthermore, is it really fair for 50% of Americans to pay no income taxes at all while 10% bear 70% of the load?

It is past time to blow up the current tax system and start all over. There are lots of good ideas floating around about a tax system that truly is more fair for every American, and doesn't rely on just raising income tax rates on the rich and, if the Democrats were honest, the middle class. A flat tax, a value added tax, maybe even a wealth tax should be considered. For starters there should be the elimination of all tax preferences, which are nothing more than unfair subsidies benefitting special interest groups. Real fairness will be difficult to achieve without upsetting a lot of folks who have grown accustomed to their cherished credits and deductions. But if we are talking about real reform, that is the place to start.

The president continues to blame all of America's woes on George Bush and the Republicans in Congress, conveniently ignoring the fact his party controlled both houses of Congress his first two years and the Senate last year. He is trying to convince the nation that our economic sluggishness couldn't possibly be due to his enlightened vision of progressive leadership. Fortunately for him, capitalism has an inherent propensity to generate growth even when shackled with the burdens of unnecessary regulations and restraints. But too many of those restraints keep the economy from growing at a rate strong enough to maintain a society's standard of living. That is where this president's leadership now has us trapped. But of course he will never admit his ideology does not work.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems we face today as a nation is that the majority of voters do not understand economics. They seem to believe left wing politicians' bullshit that the government will provide for them by taking money from those who have more of it, as if that is fair. Another major problem is that elections are nothing more than popularity contests, not a rational process of learning about and electing qualified, knowledgeable, capable leaders. That is why every so often we end up with unqualified, dishonest egomaniacs who promise unattainable, fantasyland Utopias. A government run by deceitful, corrupt socialists and their like-minded supporters results in a self-righteous aristocracy dominating a moribund society that cannot produce enough to sustain itself.

It is almost expected these days that politicians are dishonest, devious and corrupt. Our president takes these undesirable attributes to new levels. He has been president for more than three years, but everything bad is always someone else's fault. He tries to tell us our problems couldn't possibly be caused by the discredited anti-growth Keynesian economic and illogical socialist policies he resurrected from the trash dump of history. But the fact is that no country's economic and social problems have ever been solved by printing money, redistributing income and adding to already bloated government bureaucracies.

If Republicans were smart they would agree with Obama's stated objectives, and then strongly argue why their solutions would provide more success in meeting those objectives. All the rational arguments are in their favor. But they probably won't. Republicans have never been good at public relations. In fact they are currently engaging in exercises that may achieve nothing but self-destruction. Sometimes you almost think they want to lose. It would almost be humorous if the stakes weren't so critical to the future of our country.