Winning the Future in Obamastan

President Obama visited Intel's hi-tech semiconductor plant in Oregon last month, using the opportunity to brag shamelessly about his plans for us to “win the future” by “investing” more taxpayer dollars in science and education, so that, in his words, the U.S. can: “out innovate, out-compete, and out-hustle the rest of the world.”

Granted, this president loves to make his talking points metaphorically, and that’s fine, but it seems to me that his metaphors in this instance are divorced almost entirely from reality; they don’t make the slightest bit of sense.

You can win a bet, win the lottery, even win a pretty young girl’s heart, but winning the future is far beyond my humble comprehension. I suppose that if you die, in that sense you have lost the future. Maybe it’s possible then to win the future by managing to stay alive.

But, wait a second, there’s no such thing as “the future,” the future is entirely imaginary, so the prospect of America actually winning it is unimaginable. Most politicians though, are experts at winning the past, and they never seem to let the facts get in the way during the process. Why not use the same tactics for winning the future?

Can’t you just see a big map of the United States engaged animatedly in the process of battling for, and eventually winning, the future by out-innovating, out-competing, and out-hustling the rest of the globe like an ambitious Manhattan shoe-shine boy? I can’t either. No collective has ever innovated anything save the means to steal or destroy the property of honest individuals.

The president has spouted an awful lot of similar nonsense lately:

"We can’t sacrifice investments in our future."

You can make an investment in this or that, I know, but how does one sacrifice an investment without losing it? I suppose he means that we will sacrifice if we don’t make this investment; we’ll lose the investment if we don’t make it, which makes absolutely no sense. And I can’t stop thinking about a big fat unblemished future investment roasting and crackling in the fire on a sacred alter while the high priests whoop and chant in a circle all around.

“If we want to make sure Intel doesn't have to look overseas for skilled, trained workers, then we’ve got to invest in our people, in our schools, in our colleges, in our children."

You can spend your money, or invest your money; blow it, or save it, but blowing it is not the same as saving it, and saving it is not the same as blowing it. The real investors in America are the bond holders from all over the world who own the colossal $14 trillion in U.S. debt; debt which resulted from the out of control spending sprees of politicians like Obama, Bush, and the United States Congress. We had to borrow the money to make those “investments.” If all that spending was intended as an “investment,” I ask you: where is the return?

"If we want the next technological breakthrough that leads to the next Intel to happen here in the United States -- not in China or not in Germany -- then we have to invest in America’s research and technology, in the work of our scientists and our engineers."

I see. We can all of us contribute to the next big scientific breakthrough by throwing money at it. He’s talking about spending, not investing. The creditors of our nation are the ones doing the investing. They’re the ones collecting regular interest payments while retaining their principal for more investments. Politicians are the ones doing the spending. They’re the ones blowing the cash into the Twilight Zone, i.e., the pockets of political beneficiaries. Why should we care if some scientist in Germany scores the next Nobel Prize?

"In a world that is more competitive than ever before, it's our job to make sure that America is the best place on earth to do business."

How about that? All the nations on the planet are at perpetual war competing with each other like gladiators in the world market place, to win the future, of course, and our job is to invest huge sums of taxpayer money to make sure our Americans are more competitive so that the future will be ours. But how does a collective maintain a good place to do business, thereby insuring the prosperity of its citizens? By shutting up, and going away, that’s how. Cuba and North Korea aren’t coming up with many big breakthroughs these days in spite of all the government “investments.” 

 “Companies have a responsibility to invest in the nation's future by keeping jobs here, hiring American workers and paying decent wages.”

So companies aren’t so much in business to satisfy all our needs and desires, and make a sustainable profit for their shareholders and employees while doing it; no; companies are here to help us win the future in the big war of the cosmos to out-hustle the universe. Companies are just as much, if not more, the slaves of the collective as the rest of us sorry souls. The American company’s job is to keep decent paying jobs in America. That’s a new one on me.  

And now the White House, in the midst of a national necessity to cut spending, wants to “invest” $90 million for financing just the first year of an Advanced Research Projects Agency, a brand new federal agency under the Department of Education, which would give money to companies to come up with new high-tech gadgets for the classroom.

Obama calls it "educational technology." You know; like 3-D chalkboards, and video games “teaching you something other than just blowing something up," quipped the president. Our low tech gadgets (teachers) aren’t working so we’ve got to spend some cash on more high tech gear.

"We're working to make sure every school has a 21st century curriculum," Obama crowed. "Today, unfortunately, we greatly under-invest in R and D in education,” said Department of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, another government flunky. "Imagine if we could have a digital tutor that could allow a student to catch up two grade levels in a year."

If I were president Obama, I’d set my sights a little lower. Imagine winning the future by finding some government paid human beings – teachers – capable of teaching more than 30% of America’s eighth-graders to read.