One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt.
American troops have started withdrawing from Iraq despite resurgent violence. The American surge in Afghanistan is insufficient, and the Taliban are poised to retake power.
It was the speculative, rather than the financial system which was about to collapse, and the government forced taxpayers to bail out their institutional oppressors. The government debt skyrocketed.

One in ten Americans still cannot find work.
The government must deport illegal immigrants, reduce welfare benefits to force spongers to take jobs, and abandon the minimum wage to create many more unskilled jobs.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades – the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
Without resorting to the use of statistical tricks, no one can imagine that Americans today are less affluent than decades ago. Everything from cars and home appliances to health care and universities has become better and more affordable. The lower savings rate reflects high consumer confidence rather than hardship, because people are certain they can find a job.

And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today.
That would not have been a bad deal. Say, 15 million more unemployed for three years instead of something like two trillion dollars spent—which is the Obama bailout will cost, including interest. That’s about $40,000 per worker per annum. Even granting the most far-fetched assumptions about unemployment, the bailout was too expensive, and certainly unjust.

More homes would have surely been lost.
True, but mortgages would have gone down, and many young or poor families would have been able to afford their houses.

To recover the rest [of bailout money], I’ve proposed a fee on the biggest banks.
Great. So the stable banks will subsidize the speculative banks. An appropriate fee is already levied on the banks through FDIC insurance. Now, as the government had effectively bailed out the FDIC, it is seeking a parallel insurance scheme, which will follow the same path.

We also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and to help Americans who had become unemployed.
Those are mutually exclusive objectives. Assistance to the unemployed beyond a bare minimum reduces economic growth and reduces the job market.

We extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans.
Why increase unemployment benefits during a crisis when people must be glad they are receiving any support at all?

We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.
Obama did not say that these cuts were minuscule.

Millions of Americans had more to spend on gas.
The administration lacked the guts to push its clients—Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia—to abandon the oil cartel that costs American hundreds of billions of dollars.

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed.
No one can calculate that number with any certainty.

Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders.
Obama contradicts himself: the alleged two million jobs are either saved in the private sector or, as he says here, were added in the public sector. Such policies are socialist rather than Keynesian. Keynes advocated temporary increases in public spending during crises, but increased hiring enlarges the state sector in perpetuity. No one is going to lay off those police offers or teachers once the crisis is over.

Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.
Can we get a phone number, please?

I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.
Community banks are generally more conservative than large banks. Why would they start financing small businesses when large banks see that as too risky? Obama will have to resort to government guarantees, thus effectively distributing the $30 billion as grants to minority businesses.

I’m also proposing a new small business tax credit, one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages.
The last thing you need to do during a crisis is to raise wages. The objectives of hiring more workers and increasing wages are contradictory.

Let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment.
The government is going to discriminate against businesses based on their size. That’s a trademark socialist policy—to tolerate small manufacturers, but not “exploitative” big corporations.

I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act.
If the railroad were feasible it would not lack for private investment. Revenues from high-speed railroads do not come from nowhere, but are chipped away from airlines and car manufacturers.

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities.
That means American goods will be more expensive than those manufactured in less eco-friendly countries.

And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas.
If the administration pushes clean energy, the remaining business will flee en masse. In the corporate legal structure, it is impossible to ascertain whether jobs have been “shipped overseas” or outsourced. Tax breaks make too small a difference for these companies to be willing to suffer Obama’s clean-energy regulation and pay higher wages in America than they would in China.

These steps won’t make up for the seven million jobs that we’ve lost over the last two years.
So why increase benefits for the 18 million who are unemployed? Most of those seven million Obama refers to have found new jobs, so the fallout from the crisis is perhaps two to three million jobs. A two-trillion-dollar bailout seems like too much to prevent that figure from doubling.

We can’t afford another so-called economic “expansion” like the one from the last decade… where the income of the average American household declined… where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.
Why then does Obama support that housing bubble instead of allowing it to burst? If the bubble is that bad—and indeed it is—then by all means allow the irresponsible homeowners to default, and bring housing prices down. Looking at the number of new cars and houses in the last decade, it is hard to believe that incomes have declined since then.

Germany is not waiting [to revamp its economy].
Germany would be a very bad example for the United States to follow. Its economy is crippled by trade unions, government regulation, and welfare, and is only supported by hordes of immigrant workers. The German economy is quickly losing its engineering edge as the younger generation opts for fashionable MBA specialities.

[China and India are] making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.
Not in my universe.

We can’t allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
Regulation won’t achieve that end. Financial institutions have long proved their ability to outsmart governments. The only solution is to set up separate currencies licensed for real markets and speculation. This way the real economy will be largely insulated from financial gambling.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need… [to build] a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.
Offshore oil development is the opposite of clean energy.

It means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
Clean energy, in Obama’s weasel words, can only become profitable if the government subsidizes it and institutes punitive taxation of traditional energy producers.

I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.
Like the evidence forged by East Anglia University.

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America.
In today’s technological economy, added value is concentrated in R&D. Manufacturing is outsourced to undeveloped countries precisely because it is not a feasible occupation for citizens of developed countries.

We will double our exports over the next five years.
That recalls the Soviet five-year economic plans.

We’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.
American farmers are heavily subsidized, so increasing their exports means increasing subsidies and constitutes a net loss to the economy. The part about export controls is very suspicious: what kind of technology does Obama seek to export without restrictions?

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are.
Obama the liberal has embraced mercantilism and is willing to apply political pressure in the interests of American corporations.

We will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.
Panama and Colombia are by no means America’s important trading partners.

And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years.
Students, accordingly, will be given a free pass for taking many of the economically worthless courses available in community colleges. They will be able to study just for the fun of it, without prospects of employment, on public account.

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums [on healthcare], bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.
Easy: end the AMA monopoly on licensing doctors, set limits on malpractice suits, and allow insurance companies to sell coverage for less-than-ideal treatment. Regulation drives costs (premiums) up rather than down. It is completely implausible that government expenditures would decrease while coverage increases.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.
Those are the largest part of the budget.

We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year.
On the background of the expected $8 trillion deficit over the ten years.

That’s why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions—sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That’s why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated.
This is important. Obama uses North Korea as a model for Iran. His idea is that Iran managing to build a nuclear bomb or two does not spell apocalypse. The Ayatollahs won’t be able to use their nuclear weapons, and in the meanwhile will face increasing sanctions that would eventually force them to dismantle those weapons. That strategy so far has not worked with North Korea, which keeps its nuclear stockpiles and exports nuclear technology. Iran’s case would be similar to India and Pakistan’s. The International community cannot afford to isolate politically and economically important countries, and will come to terms with Iran’s nuclear weapons.