Day: January 27, 2010

My own State of the Union

Generally I don’t watch the State of the Union address because, quite frankly, I have better things to do for an hour than watch self-platitudes. To me, it’s normally a laundry list of things the President wants to do to increase the size and scope of the federal government. These speeches always remind me of Reagan’s famous line about the role of government: “The nine most frightening words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

No one really wants to be honest about what truly needs to be done. If I were to enact a legislative wish list, it would start by going through the Constitution and defining what the true role of the federal government is. The chances are pretty good that before long a number of bureaucrats would be out of work, most likely beginning with those at the absolutely useless Department of Education. I’ll bet I could run the government well on half the budget.

Naturally having such a platform would mean a lot of oxen would be gored. Awhile back, I did a series of posts on what I considered the 50 year plan and for the most part I still stand by what I said back then. I even wrote a rough draft manuscript based on these, so if anyone knows a good literary agent who wants to publish a book I’m sure I can update it and have it ready fairly soon. After reading Mark Levin’s tome Liberty and Tyranny I believe I have just about the same length as he does, although my subject matter is somewhat different.

I think the state of the union is such that we’re ready for change, just not the change President Obama was hoping to make. It’s interesting that suddenly he’s becoming a budget hawk and wants to give more tax breaks to the middle class. Personally, though, I detest the idea of targeting tax cuts (or increases) because I think the tax burden should be fairer and flatter. (Ideally, I’d prefer a consumption-based tax, but that’s well down the line if ever because we’d also have to simultaneously repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.)

While we’re talking taxes, I’m not sure where I read or heard it today, but a proposal drew my interest. We would have just two brackets – 10% for those making $100,000 and less and 25% for those making more. It’s not perfect but better than what we have now. I seem to recall whoever came up with it also wanted to eliminate the death tax and capital gains taxes.

Rates really don’t matter so much to me, though, as does the concept of using the tax code to regulate or encourage behavior. Yes, I’m quite aware that many thousands of people were talked into buying a home in part because of the deductability of mortgage interest, but wouldn’t it be advantageous to own a home even without the break? Just try to remove it and watch the realtor lobby scream bloody murder, though. Many of the energy conservation programs are sold the same way, as if they didn’t have enough merit on their own. Wait, I guess they don’t because if they did everyone would be doing it, right?

I guess what it comes down to is these things all offend my sense of fairness. We preach equality in all things, but obviously God didn’t make us that way. I never had the ability for putting a 95 mph fastball knee-high on the inside corner, but I could put together lines, symbols, and text to make a set of building plans make sense to the contractor. Ask me to have a caring bedside manner for a terminally ill cancer patient and I probably couldn’t pull it off properly, but ask me to have a 600-word op-ed or some other writing assignment ready by a deadline and that comes relatively easily to me.

We all should play by the same rules, not work to game the system we all live under in order to gain wealth, power, or advantage over others who would be placed at a disadvantage. As I see it, the Constitution is perhaps the best example of having rules of the road that increase individual liberty at the expense of oppressive tyranny.

Yet I’m certain Barack Obama will talk about how he can make things more fair for some while punishing others for their achievement. Sure, he won’t use those terms but the practical effect of his actions will accomplish this for him.

Lord knows we don’t have the “more perfect Union” our Founders strove for. But it is up to us to push things in the proper direction.

So some will have fun watching the SOTU by making it into bingo or a drinking game. But the items being discussed are deadly serious and come tomorrow it will be the agenda President Obama tries to enact. My guess is that it will lead to neither fairness nor a more perfect union.

Jobs? What jobs?

I haven’t heard a lot from new GOP state Chair Audrey Scott compared to her predecessor, but the party weighed in on the loss of jobs in Maryland. As Scott notes:

Over the past three years the O’Malley Administration has implemented policies that have killed jobs in Maryland. Rather than working to improve and grow the economy in Maryland , Governor O’Malley and the Democrat leadership in the General Assembly have pursued measures that have made Maryland hostile to business and alienated those who create economic opportunity.

Now, in an election year amid the highest unemployment in decades, the Governor is claiming to be all about ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.’ The people of Maryland can see through this pandering. They deserve better and in November the voters will have the opportunity to elect fiscally responsible leaders who will put Maryland back on track.”

Trying to overcome sagging poll numbers and a drove of broken promises Governor Martin O’Malley is attempting to reinvent himself as the jobs governor to get through the election year.  He seems to believe that if he keeps chanting “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” the voters of Maryland will forget that under his leadership Maryland has become one of the most hostile environments in the nation to do business.

While it’s true that Maryland’s unemployment rate remains lower than the national average and comes nowhere close to the rate for economic basket cases like Michigan and California, there are parts of our state which are hurting more than others. It belies the “One Maryland” message the current administration tries to play up, and makes the case that the “one-size-fits-all” solutions generally proposed by Annapolis don’t work for many parts of the state.

Martin O’Malley ratcheted up the tax burden on businesses and producers over his three years in office, and those chickens are coming home to roost. (They’re just not roosting in any new chicken houses because of oppressive environmental regulations.) We’ve tried things his way since 2007, and while O’Malley can blame the national economy and certainly tries to blame his predecessor as much as he can, the hard truth is that Maryland has lost ground in the aspect of being a good place to start a business or be a producer.

Just putting things back the way they were before the 2007 Special Session would send a signal that Annapolis can learn from its mistakes. Would that be difficult on the state budget? Not necessarily. Bringing back business and employment would lift the tide and bring fresh revenue to state coffers – we might be all surprised that we didn’t have to cut spending nearly as much as we thought we would. Then again, the state budget could use some trimming anyway, so perhaps we don’t want to root for too much success unless the money goes directly to the rainy day fund, or better yet right back to taxpayers. (Ohio did this in the 1990’s – I was always pleasantly surprised to find the tax tables adjusted downward to return surpluses to the taxpayers.)

It’s safe to say that the job creation record of the O’Malley adminstration leaves a lot to be desired, particularly if you’re counting on re-election.