The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
President Barack Obama makes a point. AP Photo. President Barack Obama makes a point. AP Photo.  

BEDFORD: The top 10 stupidest points in the State of the Union

It’s Wednesday morning, and thanks to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union, the country is now give-or-take 6,439 words stupider.

Now, some folks may not have caught it, but don’t worry. Here at The Daily Caller, we’ve boiled down an hour of crowing into its ten stupidest points, and we condensed those ten points into 64 simple words, presented in three simple sentences:

“Instead of cuts, let’s raise taxes to pay for more spending on projects that are shovel-ready — unless they actually are shovel-ready. Let us also get people who can’t afford houses into houses; create disincentives for immigration; and create disincentives for hiring. Finally, let us come together to pass laws that already exist, and to re-define words to cancel out laws that once existed.”

Because it turns out the president’s speech wasn’t just long-winded, it was simplistic. And here — right here at TheDC — we’re going to lay out all ten, point by point, starting with the president’s speech, and ending with it really means for Americans.

Stupid point #1) Instead of cuts…

The president’s speech went like this:

In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year. These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness. They’d devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as “the sequester,” are a really bad idea.

Now, some in this Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training; Medicare and Social Security benefits. That idea is even worse.

Well now we know a whole lot, don’t we? We know that the president thinks the sequester he signed into law is “a really bad idea” because it is “harsh, arbitrary,” and would hurt “our military readiness”; and we know that he doesn’t like it because it would cut government involvement in his “priorities,” including “hundreds of thousands of [government] jobs.”

Then we find out that Mr. Obama thinks the idea of shifting disproportionate cuts in military preparedness to entitlement and stimulus spending “is even worse.”

So if not “job training” or “Medicare” or “military readiness,” then what?

2) Instead of cuts, let’s raise taxes…

The president’s speech went like this:

Most Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents — understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share …

To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? Why is that deficit reduction is a big emergency justifying cuts in Social Security benefits, but not closing some loopholes? How does that promote growth?

Because “revenue” (read: taxation) is what the president really wants. Never mind that government taxation for 2013 is projected to bring in more money than any other year in U.S. history; never mind that Mr. Obama and his allies have never defined what tax rate they think is a “fair share”; never mind that the president repeatedly calls for tax loopholes and handouts for “the well-off and well-connected” when they are unions, green energy firms and other Democratic donors; and never mind that confiscating the entire $15.7 trillion 2012 GDP of the United States wouldn’t cover the $16 trillion we owed that year. Tax hikes are what Mr. Obama wants, and any combination of military or other cuts simply aren’t “fair.”

So why does Mr. Obama want more money? Well, that’s easy.