One of the most memorable passages in President Obama’s first State of the Union address was this stirring expression of the need for government to trust and respect its citizens:
In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so, in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions and empower them to improve their lives for their futures.
Wait, sorry, back up a second. That was from George Bush’s final State of the Union address. Obama used his address to complain about the lack of trust citizens are showing the government these days:
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a President who talked about trusting the ability of free people to make wise decisions? Instead, the current occupant frets about the “deficit of trust,” even as the federal budget deficit soars past a trillion dollars, and his third request to raise the ceiling of the national debt – after only a single year in office – has brought it past $14.3 trillion dollars.
Why shouldn’t the public have deep doubts about Obama’s government? He actually tried to pass off a $787 billion heist of public funds, laundered through his party’s loyal supporters or poured into imaginary congressional districts and zip codes, as a positive achievement in his State of the Union address. He insults their intelligence with ridiculous “jobs saved or created” metrics that would cause an embattled business executive to be escorted from the building by security. We don’t even know what happened to the million-dollar Nobel prize he was supposed to donate to charity. I wonder if the lucky charity will have a valid zip code.
Obama brags about going from a “bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change” – a boast about making America the biggest sucker to fall for the most expensive fraud in history. In fact, he diverted half a million dollars of that stimulus loot to Dr. Michael Mann, the con artist who created the ridiculous “hockey stick graph”… which would, in the hands of a truly trustworthy government, serve as evidence for the prosecution at Mann’s trial.
Which members of Obama’s corrupt party should the public trust? Chris Dodd? Charlie Rangel? Barney Frank? Should we trust the Speaker of the House more after the Freedom of Information Act revealed she’s using military aircraft to shuttle her royal family around in style, often at a cost of over $18,000 per hour of taxpayer money? Should we trust the people who expect us to ignore an orgy of backroom deals, vote-buying, and subsidies for special interests, and treat them as honest statesmen with the best interests of the entire country at heart, when they attempt their next parliamentary maneuver to ram their health-care takeover down our throats?
The sad state of our supremely untrustworthy government is not merely a question of individual personalities, or parties. The Republicans didn’t exactly conduct themselves as warrior-poets of frugal and open government during their last time at bat. We shouldn’t put naïve faith in the government, or in private industries either.
People pride themselves on being aggressively informed, skeptical consumers of goods and services. They look up reviews on the Internet, and ask probing questions of salespeople, before making a major purchase. We should be even more skeptical consumers of government. Businesses have the same incentives to offer fraudulent information, practice creative accounting, and saddle unsuspecting customers with inferior products… but they are much less likely to get away with it than government. The past year has proven that no one is watching the watchmen. The same media that eagerly rigs crash tests to attack auto companies will do what it can to protect organs of its favored political party.
Even beyond partisan politics, the media’s romance with the Big Government narrative will always lead it to focus more on intentions than results… and it’s long past time for the public to adopt a hard, cold focus on results. We should stop expecting accountability from a ruling class armored against consequence by politics, and quick to answer tough questions with a blizzard of reasons why we should hate each other, instead of questioning them.
There is no logic in trusting a massive government that is the primary source of information about itself. There’s no wisdom in accepting the “sale” of irrevocable, unaccountable government programs on faith. It’s foolish to accept lectures on investment or employment from a political party that believes itself immune to the laws of supply and demand. It’s humiliating to let the President tell you he can’t “afford” to give you a tax cut. It’s madness to entertain complaints about your lack of trust from someone who believes the citizens of America have too much control over their lives and fortunes. A just government respects the deficit of trust between free men and the politicians they grudgingly empower to maintain order.
Cross-posted at Hot Air.
Just imagine the chagrin of the elderly, who received the notice advising them there would be no cost of living increase in the Social Security benefits for 2010. Meanwhile, government expanded in size by dozens upon dozens of high paying jobs, with major benefits; folks like Nancy Pelosi got to fly her family and friends all over the world to the tune of $18,000 PER HOUR, and some clown who fudged the average temperature numbers got a half-million dollar bonus from President Obama for his “efforts”.
Whether they be Democrat, Republican or whatever, the government is totally out of control, and – even worse – out of touch with the people. In this case, the very people credited with winning “the war to end all wars”. The people credited with developing the IBMs and Microsofts and launching this country into the 21st century as leaders of the free world.
For their efforts? “Sorry, Charlie….everyone gets a 3% raise this year….except YOU”.
Not only a terrible inequity; a major disgrace from the government of the United States of America.
Sorry, Doc. I guess I got a little OT with my rant. From reading your post, my mind immediately turned to my elderly neighbor, who has more battle ribbons on his old Army uniform than I could ever hope to have on mine. He’s really up against it, financially and was depending on that COLA to help with his increased heating oil expenses this Winter.
Uncle Sam wouldn’t help him; but, I will. It’s the least I can do for a man who paved the way for me to enjoy my freedoms and to raise my family in a very secure country.
@Dell:
Actually, Social Security and Medicare are not affected by this freeze. As entitlements, they are not considered to be “discretionary” spending. What this means, of course, is that the amount of savings achieved by the freeze will be what George Will called “barely a rounding error” — around 3% of of projected deficits over the next decade.
loneloc, the action which resulted in no cost-of-living allowance for Social Security recipients really doesn’t have anything to do with the President’s announced faux freeze on non-discretionary spending. This was announced several weeks before the SOTU address and has/will affect senior citizens dramatically.
Three percent doesn’t sound like much, but every little bit helps. Having that increase eliminated, while the size of the federal government JUMPED is just plain wrong. Added to the slam is the fact that all federal employees received a pay raise this year….and it comes more or less at the expense of our senior citizens who got nothing.
Social Security isn’t welfare. These seniors have paid in for many years, going back to when the value of a dollar was actually worth something. Ever since Lydon B. Johnson opened the Social Security vault to federal borrowing, the account has been accumulating nothing but IOUs. Now, when the money they were forced to invest should be coming back to them, the government gives them a solid slap in the face.
@Dell:
You’re right, of course — I confused the two issues. This would be the issue wherein the COLA was adjusted to zero due to minuscule inflation. My bad . . .
[...] He Said - Wow. I just discovered Doctor Zero. Go there, and read this article. I agree with everything this man said, and he said it better than I [...]
Dell- I thought the last ‘budget’ bill represented a 12% increase, not 3%. But your point stands- if inflation was low enough to prevent a social security increase, then how can congress justify a large increase in spending, especially in bad times?
They can’t, so they need to go!
[...] might say it's a uniquely–American way of political organization. The People Are The Power. The Deficit of Trust "There is no logic in trusting a massive government that is the primary source of information about [...]
“Trusting the ability of free people to make wise decisions?” We saw how well that worked with sub-prime mortgages.
Doc, you’re missing the point here. Obama was addressing both houses at the time, telling Rs and Ds how the public doesn’t trust them. Which is true – we don’t. But how can you actually quote the phrase and not see it as a call for those sluggardly elected officials to get off their duffs and do something?
You’ve written some smart stuff here and there – I’d be interested in reading what solutions you have to health care and the banking system. Don’t try to back off about not being an expert in these areas. Don’t spout that same old tired free market drivel either. The free market brought us tobacco companies manipulating levels of addictive chemicals in cigarettes while their own customers died. The free market brought us banks too big to fail yet willing to suck up the money supplied to them by middle-class tax payers. The free market still needs rules. Freedom is good and precious and needs to be preserved but there is nothing inherently good in the market system that drives it towards the betterment of society.
If we logically extend your argument, why not trust everyone to drive whatever speed they want to on the roads? Why not let 18 year olds use their own wise judgement on whether or not to use drugs or alcohol?
@George of Cappadocia:
A few points:
1) Citing the subprime crisis as an example of the failure of the free market is absurd. Do you really think that banks spontaneously decided to start offering mortgages to subprime borrowers who could not afford them? The government demanded that banks start offering a certain percentage of their mortgages to subprime borrowers, then used its own lenders, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to exert quasi-competitive pressures to lower subprime interest rates. If anything, the subprime crisis was an indictment of government central planning, not the free market.
2) Nothing in the estimable Doctor’s post suggests that he misunderstood the “deficit of trust” trope as anything other than a call to action. Unfortunately, it was a call for the same type of action that aggravated the “deficit of trust” to begin with.
3) Nothing in any post that the Doctor has ever written indicates that he favors pure laissez-faire capitalism, a condition that has no more existed in the annals of human history than has pure communism. Even the supposed exemplar of laissez-faire, 19th century Britain, had the Elizabethan Poor Laws. On the contrary, he has expressly stated that one function of government is to exert just enough control to ensure a stable market, to include reasonable product safety laws. I hesitate to put words into his mouth, but I suspect that he would agree that the tobacco industry was inadequately regulated from a product safety standpoint. His only point on this matter has always been that every such proposed regulation be regarded with a healthy skepticism, and that it be proved to be necessary, minimally obstructive of individual liberty, and consonant with the Constitution. Likewise with the traffic and alcohol/drug laws that you cite; you’re unfairly trying to cast him as a Libertarian straw man.
4) Re “too big to fail” banks: I can’t recall the post in which the good Doctor supported the bank bailout, or the moral hazard implicit in the “too big to fail” condition. Again, you should try engaging the arguments that he has actually made, not the ones that you assume that he would make.
5) What makes the government more “inherently good” than the market? What makes the big decisions of one million politicians and bureaucrats more “inherently good” than the small decisions of 300 million citizens? Has government everywhere and always driven us “towards the betterment of society?” Of course the market isn’t perfect, because the people that comprise it aren’t perfect. Does government perfect them? The United States has become the most prosperous and free society in the history of the planet due to a tradition (fully supported by the Constitution and other founding documents of this country) of the government keeping a feather-light touch on the market. How sure are you that you want to fix what ain’t broke?
Doctor Z, there you go again. George of Cappadocia sounds like some relatives and xfriends that spit out that same trash, there isn’t any way of reaching them, I avoid them as much as possible, pray they will see the light. Your #1 fan Patti
@ George of Cappodocia:
Wow. I had to take off before I could properly warn you of your impending demise but I see that loneloc already got to you.
There are adults playing here George so run along now junior.
Man, you are the best thing about hotair.com, a site I depend on daily. Great, great, great posts every time.
@ Patti:
@ navtechie:
Exactly what I have often said about many conservatives: Patti won’t even entertain the other side, preferring not to listen, and navetechie will cast insults, hoping that the “troll” will just “run along” and not come back.
Political blogs and, especially the comments sections, are here, folks, to understand other people. Intelligent discourse demands at least listening to the other side before discrediting it. Loneloc handled discourse correctly by processing the information and rationally presenting counter-arguments, without getting emotional or insulting.
It is my hope that our politicians can one day be bigger and more open than they are currently; however, this does not appear it will ever be the case, since the plebeians demand that their politicians be as they are: stubborn and closed-minded.
@DOne:
Now, let’s not be hasty. I kinda liked navtechie’s insinuation that I was some sort of bloggy Jaws, where the unwary had to be warned to get out of the water before it was too late . . .
@ DOne:
Perhaps I could have formed my comment diffrerently but alas, I don’t suffer fools well these days and I don’t care too either.
The intent of my comment was to show that the typical “comment bomb” dropped by George will not suffice here.
I tire of them and as you can see it was exactly that….he has not been back to rebut any arguments made against his “bomb” of a comment.
@ loneloc:
I’m certain they heard the John Williams soundtrack in the background.
@ navtechie:
Not a problem, really … just kind of hit a nerve last night (it was 2 in the morning). I’ve seen your other responses in here and was a bit surprised, I guess, since they are almost always articulate and well-reasoned. It’s all good, and I do understand your position. I just hate cutting off discourse.
@ loneloc:
It’s more of a reductio ad absurdum in my book than a straw man argument. But I am willing to concede that is something of an “eye of the beholder” issue.
While I full well expect to get my head handed to me at times (college logic class was many years ago) I still look forward to the back and forth exchanges. It is possible to be firm in one’s beliefs yet still have an open mind. We should be talking out differences, not shouting down dissenters. That is what Doc and loneloc are doing and I salute them for that.
The others might want to look up the meaning of ad hominem.
@ navtechie:
Sorry I wasn’t back quickly enough for you. I have my own business and homeschool my son. As a result, posting to the internet isn’t at the top of my to-do list
@DOne
I seriously debated everything I knew about Obama before he was elected to people I knew were totally scammed by his hope and change routine, always vote for Dems, and are frankly, not too well informed. They didn’t want to hear it then, but now they’re saying, “hey, I’m seeing alot of things I don’t like.” Actually I will talk to anyone, anywhere about the issues, and I listen to what they think as well.
Dr. Zero,
Thanks for this post. Home run.
Conservatives should be picking up on this theme and using it to shine a light on Obama’s view of the role of government in the lives of people. I expect (or at least hope) that the ‘deficit of trust’ becomes a major theme of the 2010 election season.
@ George of Cappodocia:
‘The others might want to look up the meaning of ad hominem.”
“Sorry I wasn’t back quickly enough for you. I have my own business and homeschool my son. As a result, posting to the internet isn’t at the top of my to-do list”
Okie doke then.
@George of Cappadocia:
I suppose that both the straw man and the reductio might apply . . . or perhaps merely exaggeration for effect.
Thanks for the thumbs-up; I enjoy batting the ball around as well.