0

O'REILLY: The future can be won with less spending

Finally, an issue all Americans can rally behind: Winning the future! Surely most of us would like to be victorious down the road. The alternative is losing the future, and that doesn’t sound very good, does it? If the future is lost, then what will become of us?

Thus, President Obama’s new mantra, ‘‘winning the future,’’ got immediate traction. His State of the Union speech was full of optimistic ways that we can win. Most of those ways involve ‘‘investing’’ in stuff like education, infrastructure jobs and alternative fuels. ‘‘Investing,’’ of course, is the new word for government spending. The president doesn’t want to spend anymore; he wants to ‘‘invest.’’

So Obama’s speech was uplifting to say the least. We are going to beat those Chinese people in the marketplace, and our kids will be smarter than those Korean kids. Yes, we can! And the federal government’s checkbook will lead the way.

In response, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan essentially said ‘‘no, we can’t.’’ We’re broke. How uplifting is that?

Obama is a liberal man who is convinced that a large federal government can, indeed, improve the lives of most Americans. With a $14 trillion debt, however, Obama can no longer trumpet expanding the federal apparatus, but that doesn’t mean he’s against it. Let’s take the high-speed train deal as an example.

The president loves the idea of these trains, and they do work well in places like Japan. But over the past 10 years, the government-run Amtrak outfit has lost an astonishing $13 billion. So what makes Obama believe that pumping even more tax money into high-speed rail will be good for the country? Talk about losing the past.

And then there’s ethanol. Tons of federal money spent, little to show for it. T. Boone Pickens, a very savvy guy, tried wind power. He got blown away. The complexity of wind-driven energy makes it almost impossible to market.

As some of you know, I am a simple guy. My questions are not complicated. So here’s another one regarding the winning thing: Didn’t the Soviet Union want to win the future? I think they did. The pinheads in Moscow spent gazillions of dollars trying to dominate the world. And exactly how did that giant central government-run operation turn out? I believe it evaporated, did it not? Huge bureaucracies are not set up for winning the future. They exist to tell folks what to do and to take their money.

But the president and I do have some common ground on this ‘‘winning the future’’ theme. We are both for it. I, however, believe the folks are the key component to future success because they have repeatedly won in the past.

So let’s stop the massive government spending, Mr. President, and unleash the American people by lowering taxes and encouraging private enterprise. Yes, we can.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show ‘‘The O’Reilly Factor.’’ Visit his website at www.billoreilly.com. For archived columns, go to www.gwinnettdailypost.com/billoreilly.