Also interesting was President Obama’s claim that he wouldn’t support any bill that would raise our deficits by “one dime.” (Six trillion dimes is apparently another matter, just not “one.” To be fair, he didn’t say “even.”) Also, as a supporter of the House health bill, which the Congressional Budget Office says would put us on pace for additional deficit-spending in the amount of $608 billion over the ten-year period from 2015–24, President Obama simply relied on fuzzy math.
Also notable, and perhaps somewhat symbolic of the health-care debate writ large, was how the event was a bit raucous and that the president didn’t seem to have particularly good control over his surroundings.
But perhaps the single most interesting moment came toward the very end of his speech. There, the president actually admitted, if only implicitly, that the trade-off in embracing his big-government proposals is a loss of liberty. Here is the president in his own words:
[O]ur predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.
Of course, he quickly added the “But” — it was his next word. However, he still said it. He still said that the gains in security (he could have said “equality”) from government action, from having government attempt to solve every human problem, come at the cost of freedom. And that was a refreshingly rare moment of candor — from an administration that is anything but candid.
This blog post originally appeared on National Review’s Critical Condition.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
Interesting Moments from the President’s Speech
Jeffrey H. Anderson
Also interesting was President Obama’s claim that he wouldn’t support any bill that would raise our deficits by “one dime.” (Six trillion dimes is apparently another matter, just not “one.” To be fair, he didn’t say “even.”) Also, as a supporter of the House health bill, which the Congressional Budget Office says would put us on pace for additional deficit-spending in the amount of $608 billion over the ten-year period from 2015–24, President Obama simply relied on fuzzy math.
Also notable, and perhaps somewhat symbolic of the health-care debate writ large, was how the event was a bit raucous and that the president didn’t seem to have particularly good control over his surroundings.
But perhaps the single most interesting moment came toward the very end of his speech. There, the president actually admitted, if only implicitly, that the trade-off in embracing his big-government proposals is a loss of liberty. Here is the president in his own words:
[O]ur predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.
Of course, he quickly added the “But” — it was his next word. However, he still said it. He still said that the gains in security (he could have said “equality”) from government action, from having government attempt to solve every human problem, come at the cost of freedom. And that was a refreshingly rare moment of candor — from an administration that is anything but candid.
This blog post originally appeared on National Review’s Critical Condition.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.