Response to Michael Tomasky: Obama's speech to Congress

Obama should cut the pretence that he is offering change. He is not. For two years, he has criticised the FAILED economic policies of George W Bush. George W Bush was the most profligate President in recent times. He was also not representative of true Republican ideology. He increased the size of the state, and he gave himself the power to suspend the Constitution. Obama has closed Guantanamo Bay, but he has given permission for suspects to be taken to Morocco in the shadow CIA prisons, and they can still be tortured. So much for a change in foreign policy. America isn't using smart power. It's using brute power.
Obama is also gambling his entire Presidential legacy on a Keynesian theory that has never worked and isn't likely to work.

The New Deal was an economic failure, as it did nothing to ameliorate the effects of the depression. Indeed, the unemployment figures never fell below 14% of the population under FDR. These are the words of Henry Morgenthau, ''We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot." Mr Morgenthau was the Treasury Secretary under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. George Bush rapidly expanded the national debt and built up massive deficits. The Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibilty, yet George Bush abandoned all pretence to fiscal prudence, and he increased spending on health and education way above the rise in inflation. Yet Barack Obama, for all his criticism of ''the failed economic policies of the last eight years,'' is actually following the Bush doctrine of spend, spend, spend. This is a crisis partly caused by overborrowing and too much debt. You don't solve that sort of a crisis with even more borrowing and even more debt.


Unreconstructed Keynesians may think so, but it is deeply immoral to saddle future generations with huge debts just because the current generation has been far too profligate. We need a combination of a fiscal stimulus funded by spending cuts. Spending cuts should be made in the parts of the public sector and transferred to the private sector in the form of tax cuts. He should cut corporate tax at all levels, but because of Obama's secret socialism, he has actually surreptitiously passed a law that redistributes the wealth. He is proposing increased taxes on those earning $250,000 a year. This is mistaken on so many levels. Firstly, it is immoral. The government has absolutely no right to help itself to money earned from our own hard work, and those earning over $250,000 a year are generally very hard workers. Small and medium sized businesses typically generate that much a year, whereas big businesses and corporations typically turnover billions. That new tax is going to be used to fund tax credits for those on low incomes. However, those earning less than $50,000 don't pay tax on income. They do pay Social Security etc. So the government is taxing the rich to give to the poor. Socialism dosen't work. If he continues down this path, he will cause a brain drain.

Obama is abnormally arrogant. He was dismissive of the newly reignited Republican Party opposing his reckless American Recovery Act, and when asked about whether he was disappointed that he didn't achieve bipartisan support, he said, ''We won.'' He labours under the illusion that he is right and that anybody who disagrees with him must be a fascist gasbag who dosen't care for their country. That is typical with most self proclaimed ''progressives.'' They think they are the only ones who are ''progressive,'' and that conservatives are embarrasing and backwards, despite the conservative tradition being home to some of the best intellectuals in Britain, whether it be Roger Scruton, Professor Tim Congdon, Simon Heffer and Peter Hitchens. Who do the ''progressive'' left have? Polly Toynbee, who said in a recent column that it dosen't matter if 3,000,000 become unemployed because 90% of the population will still be in work. She also believes Gordon Brown is an economic heavyweight, despite him selling around half of our gold reserves at the bottom of the market, and building up the fourth largest budget deficit in the developed world, being Hungary, Egypt and Pakistan, despite 66 new taxes or tax rises, massive earnings from stamp duty after the housing boom and the increased corporate revenue from the expansion of the economy.

Obama is a hypocrite. It's about time people realise that the sun dosen't shine out of his rectum, and those who sycophantically dribble whenever he appears on the television would be advised to use independent intelligence, and not follow the crowd.

However, with his Recovery Act, Obama has now shouldered all of the responsibility for the outcome of the crisis. The deficit now belongs to him, as does the national debt, the unemployment figures. However, I doubt he will accept his responsibility. He fulls expects to be a two term President. He desperately wants to imitate Franklin D Roosevelt. So he wants to be a fascist corporatist. Well, he has Warren Buffett as an advisor. Anyway, expect to hear lots of blame for the crisis directed at the hapless George W Bush. One cannot deny the policies of George Bush, principally the massive expansion of the budget deficit and the national debt have exacerbated the crisis. However, this is a crisis whose origins were borne out of Democrat administrations. In 1977, Jimmy Carter passed the Communities & Reinvestment Act, which forced the two massive investment banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to lend to those with a bad credit rating, and therefore not typical recipients of mortgages. They also tended to be ethnic minorities. There you have it, social engineering has contributed to a new depression. Jimmy Carter attempted to distort the market in order to improve his minority opportunities record. Instead, he has saddled the black and Chinese minorities with huge debts, along with most of America. A lot of people mention the deficits run up during the Reagan years. These deficits were primarily caused by the arms race and massive military build up, especially the Star Wars programme. The previous 40 years of detente had done nothing to placate or reduce the power of the Soviet Union, and the exceptional courage of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher helped to free over 300,000,000 people from tyranny in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Anyway, as well as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton also deserves to shoulder some responsibility. He was a fiscally responsible President, turning the deficit into a surplus, and reducing the national debt. But he repealed the Glass-Steagall act, which legislated to separate investment banking from retail banking. He repealed it and positively encouraged financial irresponsbility. Barack Obama conveniently, perhaps naturally, dosen't mention these, but the Republicans need to hammer this message home, just like the Conservatives in Britain need to hammer home the the facts regarding the mess that Labour will bequeath to the next government. Obama will be seen as the most underwhelming and disappointing President in history. I hope I'm right, because I hate being wrong, but I desperately want to be wrong, because if the dollar crashes...