State of the disunion.

• Author: Emord, Jonathan W.
• Position: Political Landscape - Column

PRES. BARACK OBAMA'S State of the Union address lacked any clear explanation of how his Administration will eliminate the national debt, reduce unemployment, and promote economic growth and prosperity. In typical Chicago-style political fashion, he presented a patchwork quilt of promises aimed at specific constituencies needed for him to achieve reelection (veterans, small business owners, taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year, and public employees), and included a gross omission: not one word on how he would balance the budget and save the nation from economic collapse.

More fundamentally, Obama's speech revealed that this president completely is out of touch with the very problems he promised to overcome in 2008. He remains hopelessly wedded to government planned economies replete with government selected winners and losers. As be spoke in superficial platitudes with no specifics, the numbers flew by on the national debt clock and the country, in a very real sense, fell deeper into a sea of red tape, taxation, and debt.

The President's address included several inherently contradictory statements and certain assertions that show his lack of appreciation for the Constitution, basic elements of a free market economy, and enormity of the debt crisis facing the country. Obama's State of the Union described more a state of disunion under his leaderless presidency. His address leaves Americans with no essential answers to our most pressing problems of debt, unemployment, and a weak economy.

He missed yet another opportunity to galvanize public support by avoiding any explanation as to how he will lead Congress in eliminating the national debt and weaning the nation from the financial black hole that comes in the form of Federal entitlements. As for making the hard choices, Obama makes none, fearing political repercussions. He refuses to lead.

The President presents a series of false dichotomies, claiming we either can "settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by" or we can depend on government policies that will ensure "everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules." All ambiguities aside, there is no factual foundation to support these descriptions of the U.S. or to support the notion that we either must have one circumstance or the other.

Truth be told, we can settle for a country where taxation and regulation block upward mobility and decrease market entry and employment, or we can insist on a nation which is the exact opposite of that grim picture. Moreover, a society of opportunity is not a society where government replaces consumer choice and free market...