The Time for Speeches is Over

One wants facts, not fiction from our leaders. So after the first ten minutes of Pres. Obama's address to Congress tonight I realized I was getting more the latter and less of the former.

It is difficult to ignore the evidence that the President is still on the campaign trail. He is a marvelous campaigner, a beautiful speaker and an eloquent debater. None of which is particularly relevant to the troubles facing our economy. It is pretty apparent that this administration is long on style and short on substance. As proof look no further than Treasury Sec. Geithner's recent flub which sent the stock market into a tailspin. Mr. Obama's latest attempt to look presidential, his Tuesday night ersatz State-of-the-Union speech, is another examnple. Once again, the President was long on style and short on substance, heavy on inspiration, but short on perspiration, and most troubling of all, heavy on fiction but light on fact.

Take a look at just one paragraph from the speech:

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for. And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

Again, the President seemed more interested in giving a good speech and less interested in speaking honestly to the American people. Here are just a few places where the President gets it wrong:

"We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy." True dat. Which is why for years conservatives have pounded on Democrats to allow more domestic drilling, rather than buying oil from those who would destroy us. Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast. ANWR. But the Democrats for ideological reasons refused a common sense solution even as gasoline passed $4.00 a gallon.
"Yet we import more oil today than ever before." The implication is that we import a lot of oil because we stupidly ignore expensive, unproven, uneconomical energy sources like wind and solar. The real fact is that over the last 8 years we've imported a lot of oil to drive our economic engine as we became the most productive nation on earth, creating record job growth along the way.
"Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for." Again, true, but unfortunately, the real story here is that the teachers unions, which turned out the vote for Obama and are a major shareholder in the Democrat party, have been the biggest obstacle to meaningful school reform. The only way you really reform our schools is by putting pressure on the education establishment to perform. And the simplest way to do this is by giving parents other options besides socialist education. This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that the Democrats won't confront. The good news is that the Obama children will probably have a good education that will prepare them for global competition. This is because their parents have the means to opt-out of socialized education and send their kids to the University of Chicago Laboratory School (where I first taught many years ago) and the Sidwell Friends School in Washington. But what about the millions of minority and low income students trapped in failing schools by a socialist education lobby resistant to change? When poor kids have the chance to go to better schools like you did, Mr. President, and your kids do, then come and talk to me about school reform.
"Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed..." Well, actually, Mr. President, they did. And your supporters were the root cause of the problem. As early as 2002 conservatives were complaining about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Democrat-inspired policies of cramming bad loans down the throats of banks in the name of "community reinvestment." Banks did what banks are paid to do--they lent money and offloaded risk in whatever creative way they could. It wasn't irresponsibility on their part. It was irresponsible behavior by Congress trying to use banking laws for social engineering.

This is part of a continuing pattern on the part of the President. He makes a good speech, but if we're really in the catastrophe as he says we are, he's wasted a lot of time on left-wing platitudes and lost a lot of opportunity to address the real facts of the matter.

Just thought you might like to know.