Column - Obama prescribes wrong medicine for America’s ills

Tuesday night, President Obama presented to Congress his third State of the Union address. Nominally, the speech is a constitutional responsibility of the president, who must "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

It seems sensible enough, but over the years the event has devolved into a near-sickening display of political pandering and empty rhetoric.

Tuesday's affair was no exception.

In a speech that felt better suited for a campaign rally than for the congressional floor, the president laid out his "blueprint for an economy that's built to last."

In doing so, he made it clear that we Americans cannot be trusted to manage our own affairs without his guidance. From green energy to corporate hiring, from education to health care, the president envisions a role for the government in nearly every aspect of the American economy. A few key proposals are worth mentioning.

One major tenet of the president's speech was supporting renewable energy. Speaking loudly over widespread applause, he at one point proclaimed, "It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry (oil) that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits."

In other words, it's time to shower taxpayer giveaways on expensive, inefficient, unreliable energy sources the president happens to support.

True, oil subsidies make no economic sense, and Congress should scrap them. But by proposing similar subsidies for his preferred industry, the president has shown he's motivated by political calculation rather than economic sensibility. If investors are unwilling to put their own money into green technology, why would it make sense for the government to do it for them?

Education was another key part of the president's address. Amid the standard rhetoric praising teachers and lamenting the high cost of college, President Obama called on every state to require all students to stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.

Ignoring the fact that neither he nor Congress has any constitutional authority to act on it, this proposal would do more harm than good for both students and teachers.

Underperforming students cannot be legislated into educational success. States may as well pass laws requiring kids to study five hours every evening, or to get eight hours of sleep each night.

By simply forcing potential dropouts to stay in school longer, the states ensure that the most disinterested students continue to draw on scarce educational resources, including funding, class space and teachers' time.

These students require far more tailored service, and often a whole different style of education, than traditional government-run high schools provide.

Finally, President Obama turned his attention to personal income tax.

Arguing that wealthy Americans ought to pay their "fair share" in taxes (in reality he means higher taxes), the president pointed out that billionaire investor Warren Buffet pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary.

This claim has become one of the left wing's favorite talking points in recent months, but it's highly misleading. Even if the claim is true, it's an unusual case.

In 2009, for instance, Americans with an income more than $500,000 paid an average income tax rate of about 25 percent. By contrast, those making between $30,000 and $100,000 that year paid an average rate of 7.25 percent. Individuals with lower incomes paid lower rates still.

Furthermore, although the richest 1 percent of Americans owned around 17 percent of the country's wealth in 2007, they paid 39.5 percent of individual income taxes according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Though it may pain President Obama to admit it, the rich are already paying far more than their "fair share" in taxes.

Still, if he's truly interested in equalizing Buffet's tax rate with his secretary's, he might want to consider lowering the latter rate instead of raising the former.

To conclude his address, the president claimed that America is great because "we get each others' backs," and he's partly right.

One of this country's finest characteristics is the strong sense of community Americans develop in exercising their right to associate freely with others – a right that government interference effectively destroys.

What truly makes America great, though, is the personal freedom due to us by virtue of our humanity and guaranteed us by our Constitution.

This freedom – not bailouts, subsidy programs or redistributive tax schemes – has been the fundamental source of American exceptionalism since this country's founding.

Only by embracing this fact, and by unshackling the innovative forces of the American economy, can we hope to hold onto that greatness.

If the president's speech is any indication, we will continue sprinting in the opposite direction for the foreseeable future.