Obama unbound
The first part of that agenda — clinging zealously to the increasingly obsolete structures of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — is the very definition of reactionary liberalism. Social Security was created when life expectancy was 62. Medicare was created when modern medical technology was in its infancy. Today’s radically different demographics and technology have rendered these programs, as structured, unsustainable. Everyone knows that, unless reformed, they will swallow up the rest of the budget.
As for the second part — enlargement — Obama had already begun that in his first term with Obamacare. Monday’s inaugural address reinstated yet another grand Obama project — healing the planet. It promised a state-created green-energy sector, massively subsidized (even as the state’s regulatory apparatus systematically squeezes fossil fuels, killing coal today, shale gas tomorrow). …
Monday’s address also served to disabuse the fantasists of any Obama interest in fiscal reform or debt reduction. This speech was spectacularly devoid of any acknowledgment of the central threat to the postindustrial democracies (as already seen in Europe) — the crisis of an increasingly insolvent entitlement state.
On the contrary. Obama is the apostle of the ever-expanding state. His speech was an ode to the collectivity. But by that he means only government, not the myriad of voluntary associations — religious, cultural, charitable, artistic, advocacy, ad infinitum that are the glory of the American system.











Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Well, we could have avoided this, we could have nominated, Perry or Gingrich. But instead we nominated Obama 0.5b carbon copy.
astonerii on January 25, 2013 at 8:06 PM
Hoisted On His Own Petard
M2RB: The Who
Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 8:08 PM
None of which will happen unless we lose the House in 2014. Rejoice in the Gridlock! Praise the Gridlock!
Who is John Galt on January 25, 2013 at 8:47 PM
Our government is of the government, for the government, and by the government.
The Rogue Tomato on January 25, 2013 at 9:09 PM
Are you done yet?
No, Perry or Gingrich could not have won. The election was determined by Obama’s faithful corralling non-voters to the polls, not by subtle differences between candidates.
Concentrate on the ground game for the future, because nothing else really matters.
Count to 10 on January 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM
Apparently you expect “Mr. Czar and Executive Order Lover” to reform himself now and start caring about the law?
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 25, 2013 at 9:21 PM
Utter hogwash.
fegerter on January 25, 2013 at 9:58 PM
Romney sucked but neither one of them would have done better.
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 11:30 PM