Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Video: Chuck Woolery on Assault Weapons | Main | Report: Hearing Loss Accelerates Brain Function Decline in Older Adults »

January 22, 2013

Victor Davis Hanson on the meaning of Obama's inaugural address


Victor Davis Hanson writes at The Corner:

Prune away the usual soaring rhetoric and purple passages, and there were no serious outlines in today's speech to restore the economy or deal with the fiscal implosion on the horizon -- or even hints to be fleshed out in the State of the Union to come.

Instead, the president believes that record near-zero interest rates will allow him to borrow $10-12 trillion dollars over his eight-year tenure, and that the dangers of running up such a resulting gargantuan $20 trillion aggregate debt are well worth the risks.

He apparently believes that, in a postindustrial world, government, or government-owned industries from now on will have to create the majority of jobs, and that such jobs should largely go to those whom he sees as having been traditionally shortchanged.

In addition, in just four years, record numbers are now on food stamps, unemployment, and disability, and exempt from federal income taxes, and those percentages will only grow in the next term. Part of the remaking of America is the forging of a new constituency who feel that government employment and entitlements are a birth right and that those who in Washington ensure it deserve unquestioned political fealty.

By the same token, the astronomical borrowing will endlessly accelerate pressures to raise taxes on the "rich," whether through income-tax rates, or the elimination of deductions, or both. The "pay their fair share" and "you didn't build that" rhetoric will only sharpen, as the public is prepped to expect that "fat cats" can pay an aggregate 60-70 percent of their income in local, payroll, state, Obamacare, and federal income taxes. The only mystery is whether these unsustainable debts are designed primarily to redistribute income through forced higher taxes, or to marry the livelihoods of loyal millions to big government ...

Continue reading here.

Seems to me that reason, logic, and math make it hard to find fault with Hanson's assessment. As for what could possibly go wrong ... unfortunately we're all doomed to finding out in the next four years.

Related: Missing from Obama's great liberal address: jobs

Posted by Hyscience at January 22, 2013 8:41 AM

Articles Related to :