Mountain Views News          Saturday, February 16, 2013

14

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, January 12, 2013 

GREG Welborn

THE STATE OF THE UNION WAS 
CLARIFYING

 State of the Unions are meant to be grand in their scope, used by the best 
of leaders to speak about the state of the nation and the direction in which 
a president wants to lead. But to truly achieve the level of significance, 
relevance and value that they are meant to attain, Presidents have to 
base their assessments and aspirations in reality, not pie crust, political 
promises. President Obama’s State of The Union address this week missed 
its target. It was not grand, it was not relevant, and it offered little of value, 
save for helping to clarify the important decision which still lies ahead of 
us.

 Last November, the American electorate essentially punted on the issue 
of where our country needs to head. They split governance in almost exactly the same manner as 
had existed before the election. The President won his re-election, but so did the House Republican 
majority. The President and the Congress stand on opposite sides of the same great issue – the size 
and scope of the federal government – and neither side obtained the mandate to change the status 
quo or really deal with the issue.

 Into this comes the President on Tuesday night. He could easily have taken the opportunity 
to level with Americans as to the severity of our fiscal problem and to forge a true bipartisan 
approach to fix this problem. He didn’t do that. He used the occasion to ramp up the campaign 
for the next elections, counting on our naiveté and fuzzy recollections of the past. 

 When the President claims he really understands that “the American people don’t expect 
government to solve every problem”, he hopes that we don’t remember what has been said and done 
in his past and don’t understand what he proceeded to promise in his State of the Union address. 
This is the same president who witheringly criticized Mitt Romney for tax evasive investments in 
the Cayman Islands, but then nominated Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury, ignoring the fact 
that Mr. Lew oversaw several Cayman Island funds investments while he worked for Citigroup. 
This is the same president who claims that his Cabinet nominations deserve an up-or-down vote in 
the Senate, but who also worked against giving President Bush’s nominees up-or-down votes. This 
is the same president who offered House Republicans a compromise on tax rates during the fiscal 
cliff negotiations, withdrew the compromise when Republicans accepted it, and then proceeded to 
blame Republicans for their intransigence. 

 Un-phased by any of this, President Obama told us that the government isn’t going to try to 
solve every problem, while then proceeding to tell us that he wants the federal government to:

 Finance pre-school for “every child in America” even though a recent government study shows 
the benefit of such programs wears off by third grade.

 Create a new Energy Security Trust fund even though we haven’t yet digested the astounding 
losses from the government’s last efforts to subsidize wind and solar (remember solyndra??)

 Raise the minimum wage during a recession when every study (from either the right or the 
left) has shown that increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment, especially among 
minorities.

 Increase spending on a “Fix-It-First” plan to employ the millions of unemployed in this country 
who were supposed to be employed by the last government infrastructure spending program.

 Pass a Cap-And-Trade tax plan to emulate China which is “going all in on clean energy” when 
the truth is that China has now become the world’s largest polluter and doesn’t have a plan to cap 
any energy source.

 Push forward on Obamacare because it has already slowed the growth in healthcare costs when 
in fact premiums spiked after its passage and a government study shows it will increase medical 
costs by another 7% when fully implemented.

 Nothing new or substantive here. But clarity and distinction was provided by Senator Marco 
Rubio’s Republican response to the President. As he pointed out, President Obama believes that 
“the economic downturn happened because the government didn’t tax enough, spend enough 
and control enough”, and that the President’s solution is therefore to “tax more, borrow more and 
spend more”. On the impact that a greater government presence would have in our lives, Rubio 
told us “more government isn’t going to help [us] out. It’s going to hold [us] back.” It isn’t going to 
“create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.” “More government isn’t going to inspire new 
ideas and new businesses… it’s going to create uncertainty” and result in complicated rules and 
regulations which small businesses will be unable to follow. 

 Senator Rubio’s conclusion put succinctly into focus the choice Americans need to make – the 
very unfinished business of the 2012 elections. He said, “the tax increase and the deficit spending 
[President Obama] proposes will hurt middle class families. It will cost them their raises. It will 
cost them their benefits. It may even cost some their jobs. And it will hurt seniors because it does 
nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.”

 All in all, the speeches of February 12th were of great value to the nation in defining, clarifying 
and contrasting the two visions for this country. America is a great and powerful nation, and we 
have an economy that can withstand much. But there is a limit to what even the strongest of men, 
or nations, can bear before wilting under the weight. President Obama did not offer us a grand 
plan for our country; he re-served the same tired policies that have us moribund, and he missed 
an opportunity to seek bipartisan solutions. It was left to Senator Rubio to elevate the nation with 
a vision and strategy to reclaim what has been lost. All in all, not bad for a night’s work; not bad 
for the junior Senator from Florida.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance writer and has spoken to several civic and religious 
organizations on cultural and moral issues. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 children and 
is active in the community. He can be reached at gregwelborn@earthlink.net.

HOWARD Hays As I See It

 
“Why not? What’s the big deal?”

- Martha MacCallum of Fox News on 102-year-old Desiline Victor’s waiting in line 
three hours to vote

 I love my DVR, but some events I have to watch live – lest someone give something 
away before I’ve had a chance to see it. I try shielding myself before watching a 
recorded game, but a friend will inevitably blurt out to me beforehand, “how ‘bout 
those fourteen unanswered points in overtime?”

 I approach candidate debates the same way – wanting to form my own opinion 
before hearing the consensus media declaration of winner / loser. It’s the same with 
the State of the Union Address. I want to offer my own observations – rather than 
repeating the consensus re-cap, whether from Fox News or MSNBC. Accordingly, although I wasn’t 
able to catch the speech live and instead had to watch it off my DVR, I jotted down the following notes 
prior to exposing myself to post-address commentary:

 My first impression was there was little surprising in content, but a renewed resolve in emphasis 
and delivery. President Obama’s speech could’ve begun, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” 
It consisted of consensus views of Americans, which made the discomfort of Republicans in the 
chamber- especially Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), all the more apparent.

 In early remarks, the president identified “The true engine of America’s economic growth – a rising, 
thriving middle class”, and reminded that constituents “expect us to put the nation’s interest before 
party”, Republicans eventually rose to join the ovation, but slowly – as if unsure whether they were 
supposed to agree or not.

 Politicians avoid arguing for defense cuts, aware it translates as undermining our military. 
Republicans never worried about the “sequester” calling for deep cuts in both social programs and 
military spending, confident the military cuts would never happen. President Obama agreed it was a 
bad idea, but for the notion of preserving defense spending by cutting only Social Security, Medicare, 
education, etc., “That idea is even worse.” Republicans seemed nervous, realizing Americans agree 
with the president. Speaker Boehner seemed especially glum when the president declared, “By the 
end of next year our war in Afghanistan will be over.”

 Republicans remained dour as the president himself advocated cuts, as in: “Our medical bills 
shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital. They should be based 
on the quality of care our seniors receive”. These weren’t the right kind of cuts, as they’d be absorbed 
by the hospital, insurance and pharmaceutical industries – not by beneficiaries.

 “Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep. But we must keep 

the promises we’ve already made . . . The greatest nation on earth cannot keep conducting its business 
by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next . . . The American people have worked too hard, 
for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another . . . Deficit reduction 
alone is not an economic plan”.

 This was another bummer. Republicans had planned on a repeat of the hold-my-breath-until-
I-turn-blue refusal to adjust the debt ceiling allowing our nation to pay its bills. President Obama 
exposed this “strategy” as a childish tantrum – albeit one with potentially disastrous consequences.

 Of the “self-evident” truths the president listed, the ones Republicans seemed most troubled by 
were those concerning science. “For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to 
combat climate change . . . we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science, and act 
before it is too late . . . If congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will”. 

 Disconcerting as well was the president’s taking up the cause of business: “What businesses need 
most – modern ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm, modern schools 
worthy of our children . . . “. President Obama explained businesses’ need of an educated, capable 
workforce – and how today a student graduates from high school in Germany with the equivalence of 
a two-year technical degree from an American community college. 

 Republicans become apprehensive whenever discussion of “family values” moves beyond evocations 
of Ward and June Cleaver, and into real-world measures to save and protect real-world families. The 
president brought up the Violence Against Women Act and the Paycheck Protection Act. For the 
military he advocated “Equal benefits for their families – gay and straight.”

 This was bad enough for Speaker Boehner. It only made things worse, for him and fellow party-
members, when the president added, “Let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth, no one who 
works full time should have to live in poverty”. 

 President Obama chose not to emphasize his, or the American people’s, support of background 
checks for firearms purchases, making it harder to sell guns to criminals, and backing “police 
chiefs who want to get weapons of war off our streets”. Instead, he repeatedly stressed an even less-
controversial notion: “Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress.”

 Although the president didn’t mention it, I’m sure he considered the irony of Republicans blustering 
in defense of the “right” of a charged domestic abuser to pick up an AR-15 no-questions-asked at a 
local gun show, while being dismissive of any “right” to vote – a right Americans treasure much 
more, as exemplified by the experience of 102-year-old Desiline Victor, there in attendance being 
acknowledged by her president.

 The nervousness and discomfort among Republicans is understandable, as they realize that, beyond 
the halls of Congress, the president’s speech was not one of controversy, but of consensus. They’re 
already looking ahead to what the State of the Union might be a year from now, and the effect on next 
year’s mid-term elections. Those elections are still twenty months away, but I already know I won’t 
be setting my DVR. When those returns come in, I’ll be watching live – and watching to make sure 
Desiline Victor doesn’t have to wait as long to vote.