For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
The Real State of the Union
Written By : John Stossel

Has Barack Obama learned nothing in three years? Last night, during his State of the Union address, he promised “a blueprint for an economy.” But economies are crushed by blueprints. An economy is really nothing more than people participating in an unfathomably complex spontaneous network of exchanges aimed at improving their material circumstances. It can’t even be diagrammed, much less planned. And any attempt at it will come to grief.

Politicians like Obama believe they are the best judges of how we should conduct our lives. Of course a word like “blueprint” would occur to the president. He, like most who want his job, aspires to be the architect of a new society.

But we who love our lives and our freedom say: No, thanks. We need no social architect. We need liberty under law. That’s it.

Obama — and most Republicans are no different — doesn’t understand the real liberal revolution that transformed civilization. The crux of that revolution is that law should define general visible rules of just conduct, applicable to all, with no eye to particular outcomes. In other words, as Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek taught, the only “purpose” of law is to enable us all to pursue our individual purposes in peace.

If Obama really wanted, as he says, a society in which “everybody gets a fair shot,” he would work to shrink government so that the sphere of freedom could expand. Instead, he expands government and raises taxes on wealthier people, as though giving politicians more money were a way to make society better. Instead, the interventionist state rigs the game on behalf of special interests.

What should Obama have said in his speech? Here’s what I wish he’d said:

Our debt has passed $15 trillion. It will reach Greek levels in just 10 years.

But if we make reasonable cuts to what government spends, our economy can grow us out of our debt. Cutting doesn’t just make economic sense, it is also the moral thing to do. Government is best which governs least.

We’ll start by closing the Department of Education, which saves $100 billion a year. It’s insane to take money from states only to launder it through Washington and then return it to states.

Next, we’ll close the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That saves $41 billion. We had plenty of housing in America before a department was created.

Then we eliminate the Commerce Department: $9 billion. A government that can’t count votes accurately should not try to negotiate trade. We will eliminate all corporate welfare and all subsidies. That means agriculture subsidies, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies and so on. None of it is needed.

I propose selling Amtrak. Why is government in the transportation business? Let private companies compete to run the trains.

And we must finally stop one of the biggest assaults on freedom and our pocketbook: the war on drugs. I used drugs. It’s immoral to imprison people who do what I did and now laugh about.

Still, all these cuts combined will only dent our deficit. We must cut Medicare, Social Security and the military.

I know. Medicare and Social Security are popular. But they are unsustainable. The only way to cut costs and still have medical innovation is to free the market. So I propose that we repeal Obamacare immediately. My proposal was a mistake. We should repeal all government interference in the medical and insurance industries, including licensing. It all impedes competition.

We must shrink the military’s mission to true national defense. That means pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, Italy and dozens of other countries. America cannot and should not try to police the world.

Those cuts will put America on the road to solvency. But that’s not enough. We also need economic growth.

Our growth has stalled because millions of pages of regulations make businesses too fearful to invest. Entrepreneurs don’t know what the rules — or taxes — will be tomorrow.

All destructive laws must go. I endorse the Stossel Rule: For every new law passed, we must repeal two old ones.

OK, Obama will never say that.

But I can dream, can’t I?

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

3
  • Anonymous

    Obama doesn’t want to cut a thing. His line of using the peace dividend in Iraq to pay down the debt and launch a whole host of new programs was pure fantasy. He made the case for putting the pedal to the metal in a race for a complete centralized economy, and hyperinflating the dollar into oblivion.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Stossel, I don’t suppose we could convince YOU to run for President?

    Thanks for a spot-on dissection of that dead-end speech.

    • Toastrider

      Stossel’s got far too much integrity to be a politician. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he is worth listening to.

  • JoeBritton

    We already have a free-market medical system, you ass, and it is costing us twice as much for the same services available in Europe and Asia, where single payer is the rule. Did I say “the same?” A mistake. Our medical system is actually rated 36th in the world.

    • NotJoeBrit

      If a third party pays the bill, you can’t call it a free market system. If we pay more for health care it is because of fear of being sued (i.e. malpractice lawyers) and not because it is a free market system. Take a look at which procedures got BETTER and CHEAPER under a free market system. they are the ones not covered by insurance. They are LASIK eye surgery and any kind of plastic surgeries! Also, if you are going to make a comparison, don’t compare us to the rest of the world because it is an apples to oranges comparisons. Compare people in the United States that have private health insurance vs people who have government health insurance. Guess which one is better?

    • Anonymous

      No we don’t.

      Go to McDonalds, announce that you want their product but can’t pay.

      Are they legally obligated to provide it to you?   No?  That is a free market system.

      We haven’t had anything like that in the healthcare system in years. 

      Anything, making cars, or radios, or selling houses, and so on if put under the same restrictions as our healthcare industry would be inefficient and expensive.  

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      We already have a free-market medical system

      Patently false, th governments intervention in the market, coupled with social welfare medical insurance of SCHIP and Medicare destroy that argument.

      it is costing us twice as much for the same services available in Europe and Asia

      Also patently false, there is no proof of such an assertion. Single payer systems never cost less per capita.

      Our medical system is actually rated 36th in the world.

      A poll created by socialists looking to support single payer/socilaist medical plans will never find our current sytem better. Our nation outranks every other nation in ease of access and survival rates in almost every catergory. The ONLY reason we don’t rank in at number one is the false premise that single payer is better.

      • NotJoeBrit

        We are 36th in the world? Someone forgot to tell that to all the Canadians who come to the United States to get procedures done! 

        • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

          Yeah it was rated that by the same idiots who think Cuba has the finest medical care on earth.  How do they know?  Castro told them and why would he lie??

          • NotJoeBrit

            If you can’t reliably compare health care systems around the world because each country measures different things differently!

    • NotJoeBrit
  • Bill Dalasio

    The crux of that revolution is that law should define general visible rules of just conduct, applicable to all, with no eye to particular outcomes.

    I’d say it’s something even more fundamental than that.  For most of human history, the operative model of government has been the tribal chieftain – the padron, the laird or the king.  He was “boss” and told everyone else what to do and he was in charge.  The government was the society, or at least deciders of what would happen in a society.  Then for a brief period by historical standards, starting in the late 17th centrury and extending into the 19th centrury, a new way of thinking about the government came on the stage, a way largely adopted by America’s founding fathers.  The notion of the chieftain was set aside.  It was recognized that the government could be a defined institution within a society with a defined, limited purpose and mandate.  The old chieftain would be replaced, not by a new one called “50%+1″, but with an executive managing but one institution within society, one with a limited and defined mission and scope.  It’s just a shame that that idea never caught on with the left, or all too much of the right.

  • Pingback: John Hawkins’ Columns | Right Wing News

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info