The state of the union is troubling, to say the least. Last night Obama gave a speech full of promises and plans to bring America forward, one particular topic may bring America backwards and to its knees economically. The hint of another war in the Middle East should frighten anyone, but the economic implications of sending hundreds of thousands of troops back into Iran after leaving Iraq and Afghanistan would mean less domestic recovery and a deeper debt to other countries. Deeper government debt would be passed on to none other than you, the taxpayer. James Madison once wrote the following:

“Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded…War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. …No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Unfortunately the political winds seem to be pointing towards a war with Iran, perhaps because it makes the Republican candidates (excluding Ron Paul) and President Obama seem stronger – to me it makes them weak. Iran does not have nuclear capability, and if it were to become a nuclear power Israel has more than enough nuclear stockpiles to prevent Iran from ever using them.

I’ve had enough of this warmongering, it is not morally justified. I feel it is my duty to inform others that a war with Iran is not a war for America, and will not benefit America – It will further weaken America’s standing in the world and be another nail in our national deficit coffin.

There is only one candidate who has spoken for his opposition for this war, or what others call an “option on the table”, and that candidate is Ron Paul. Avoid war hawks, or risk paying $5.00 for gas and not being able to take a restroom break without being watched.

Barack Obama – Ron Paul
Barack Obama - Herman Cain
Barack Obama - Mitt Romney
Barack Obama – Jon Huntsman
Barack Obama - Newt Gingrich
Barack Obama - Michele Bachmann
Barack Obama - Rick Perry
Barack Obama - Rick Santorum

I’m not saying Obama is a beacon of light in terms of political honesty, but am pointing out that it is quite clear that at least two Republican contenders are trying to win regardless of moral cost. I think this will continue when they are elected, and what they said was the truth about their plan before the election will be different or have secret caveats when they do in fact become president. That is why I will not vote for either of these candidates in the primary, and I would suggest you think a moment about what kind of candidates would stand behind this type of strategy.

cash not accepted

“Those who buy or sell second hand goods are prohibited from using cash” – That’s the new law in Louisiana, House bill 195. This is outrageous since most people don’t carry checks around and shouldn’t need to be tracked on whatever they purchase. This is also a hit on retailers since all credit and debit cards come with a hefty fee that goes to the financial institutions which have been so vital in ruining our economy and way of life. States should not have the ability to place laws on the use of the official currency of the United States, and is usurping the rights of citizens in doing so.

If this type of law becomes prevalent, it would seem that living in other countries would afford more transactional freedoms then the United States. All of this of course is done under the guise of protection, similar to the other outrageous laws enacted in the past – the patriot act (I intentionally lower cased “patriot” because the as Benjamin Franklin put it: “Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither”). From the TSA stopping passengers for carrying silver on domestic flights, NYPD arresting people legitimately closing their bank accounts, to Presidential assassination without trial for American citizens, American freedom is becoming a ghost of the past and those who serve return home to a country less free.

In exchange for Russia’s help in securing Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama today formally called off former President George W. Bush’s plans to build a missile defense shield based in Eastern Europe, much to the dismay of Ukraine and much of NATO. Last night Obama gave personal calls to leaders of both the Czech Republic and Poland, informing them of his decision. According to former Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek: “This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence.”

What does the US have to gain by not building the system? Well, for one it improves US-Russia relations and opens up for more cooperation in securing Afghanistan and Iraq. It is extremely ironic that during the Cold War the United States helped the Taliban resist the soviets and now is encouraging the soviets to help defend against the Taliban.

According to top Republicans including Jon Kyl the number two Republican Senator the decision is dangerous and brash, and John McCain who ran against Obama in the 2008 elections calls the decision “disappointing” and may encourage a “resurgent Russia.”

According to McCain [1]:

“I am disappointed with the Administration’s decision to cancel plans to develop missile defenses in Eastern Europe.  This decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic, and has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe.  Given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the region’s nations since the end of the Cold War, we should not, I believe, take steps backward in strengthening these ties.  Yet I fear the Administration’s decision will do just that, and at a time when Eastern European nations are increasingly wary of renewed Russian adventurism.

“Given the serious and growing threats posed by Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, now is the time when we should look to strengthen our defenses, and those of our allies.  Missile defense in Europe has been a key component of this approach.  I believe the decision to abandon it unilaterally is seriously misguided.”

Ron Paul, the man popularly known as “Mr. No” in the House of Representatives, had the following to say about the US defense budget in December 2003 [3]:

“As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. For what the US will spend on Missile Defense in one year we could: put over a million children through Head Start OR provide healthcare for over 3.5 million children OR create over 100,000 units of affordable housing OR hire over 160,000 elementary school teachers.”

The decision is most likely putting many in Europe on the alert, and causing many of them to rethink their dependence on US military power for their safety. Is this another “please-all” stratagem of Obama or a well thought out strategic maneuver? Along with the announcement the White House released on their website a three phased plan of missile defense [2]:

The White House also released a fact sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy, outlining the President’s approach.  An excerpt:

• Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;
• Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;
• Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) –  After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and
• Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.

[1]http://www.johnmccain.com/news/Read.aspx?id=45

[2]http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Stronger_Smarter_and_Swifter_Defenses/

[3]http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

According to Obama’s website, the goal of his plan is to make sure that “every American has access to high quality health care.” To do the plan is to expand coverage, improve quality, lower costs, and holding insurance companies accountable. This sounds great, and may actually work. The problem is convincing people to follow through, after the considerable disasters that followed the socialization of British and Canadian healthcare. The information on the site is sparse, giving no specifics on how issues will be resolved or how to pay for these changes. An Associated Press article described the price of the program to me more than 1 trillion, and mentioned that large cuts would be taken from Medicare. In support of his plan, he said that soaring medical costs threaten the foundations of our economy.

Admittedly, government supported healthcare in the US is a much better use of money than wars for oil or unnecessary spending in other countries. So Obama has a valid point in making this a major issue. I just hope it’s better than the old system.

Obama’s Press secretary on Monday reiterated the notion that no new taxes will be levied upon those making less than $250,000 a year, as opposed to what two of Obama’s economic team have said. Geithner, who just a day before said that the possibility of taxing those under that threshold cannot be ruled out, as the historical steps to solve the riddles of our economy manually have ended up inflating the budget deficit to around 1.8 trillion (USD) this year.

Robert Gibbs said two things that weren’t exactly the same. First, he said “The president’s clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.” Secondly, he said “I hope you’ll take my reiteration of this clear commitment . . . in the clearest terms possible, that he is not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year.” The first was talking about a commitment, which aren’t always held. The second was more like a promise.

The press conference wasn’t completely assuring, however, as after being asked again whether there would be no tax increases for middle-income Americans making below the threshold Summers (president of Obama’s economic council) said “Oh, there’s a lot that could happen over time… It’s never a good idea to absolutely rule things, rule things out no matter what.”

If that’s what he meant, then I am inclined to believe Geithner more, as he was not so wishy washy and his job isn’t to please the press and maintain a pristine reputation as opposed to the press secretary’s.

But to use tax money to encourage people to spend more during one of the worst economic crises in most people’s lifetimes, is a bad thing. The propping up of the old ways, the banks such as AIG who after being saved by the government retorted by rewarding their executives with multimillion dollar bonuses; General Motors, who was destined for extinction over ten years ago, being injected with money only to declare bankruptcy and liquidate assets.

Giving people $4,500 to buy a new car, with requirements that dealers cripple the old cars beyond repair by dropping thermite-like substances on the engine, is detrimental to the environment in the long term because the energy put into making new cars makes it more environmentally friendly buy used.

What happened to the free market saying “it’s time to downsize production” or “stop investing into risky securities”. It is the very fear of government induced inflation that has driven the oil price sky high, although one can argue a high oil price is good for fueling green technologies and slowing down its consumption.

Now we just need to see how much our taxes will be increased, be it income, capital gains, etc. However it has never occurred to me that raising taxes can spur economic growth, especially at a time like this. Reducing the deficit is one thing, reducing consumer spending power is another. It is like the government cannot make up its mind, should we give people money like mana from heaven to buy a new car and help the lobbyists in Detroit, or should we take money from everyone left standing in the worst recession of most people’s lifetimes? Oh well, let’s do both!

Back to what Geithner was saying:

“We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will not be strong and sustained, unless we … can convince the American people that we’re going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on Sunday.

“Borrowing a trillion dollars from future generations of Americans and spreading it around the economy is going to have some catalytic effect in the economy in the short term, but again, it’s no substitute for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.,” he said.

When asked whether this means a increase in taxes, he said “You’re absolutely right.”

For those who did not take part in the program, congratulations, you effectively paid for other people’s cars. Good day!