Mitt Romney's pick of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate has demonstrated, once again, that the GOP Candidate is a contemplative, serious, intelligent executive and statesman who is committed to the outcome of his presidency and not merely to the task of getting elected. Would that the same could be said of his opponent.
The Mittster could have, and I'm sure many thought, should have sought a more strategic demographic expander. Marco Rubio might have delivered more of the Latino vote and could have made Florida a lock. Condie Rice would have sent a positive message to blacks and women. Governor Christie's dynamic, confrontative style might have further energized the base. Others may have been "safer" and less prone to criticism than Paul Ryan whose economic reform plan, aimed at steering America away from the approaching financial abyss, has been at the center of Washington debate and the butt of brutal, often disingenuous criticism by the rabid left.
But Mitt Romney is apparently committed to one mission: turning the nation around by reinvigorating the private economy through responsible fiscal and sound regulatory policies including debt reduction, energy independence, healthcare reform, and tax reform.
In picking Ryan, Romney has gone all-in with this vision giving Americans a clear, distinct, choice between the failed Obamanomics of class envy, central command and control, entitlement, deficit spending, and wealth redistribution; and the empowering economics of expansion, job creation, entrepreneurship, and private capital investment coupled with limited government and fiscal restraint. More importantly, by this choice Mitt has demonstrated his integrity in being willing to lose; to accept the will of the American people on this critical, state-changing matter. I've heard Mitt say it on a number of occasions (and I paraphrase), "If you want more big government, deficit spending, debt, and entitlements, I'm not your guy. But if you want to turn this economy around to create more jobs, opportunity, and less debt for your children and grandchildren, I know how to do that."
Unlike his adversary, Romney won't say 'anything' to get elected. He will not pander to special interest groups, whether black, female, Latino, gay, Brit, or Palestinian. He won't change his accent or syntax whether he's talking to city slickers or southern red-necks. Mitt believes his plan for economic expansion will benefit all together. It won't discriminate. It won't pick favorites. It will empower capital without favoring the rich. It will lift all boats together. It will be fair, transparent, and effective. It will not expand the power and reach of government; rather it will unleash the power and reach of American ingenuity, self-interest, and drive.
Perhaps most impressive of all, in choosing Paul Ryan, Mitt has simultaneously reaffirmed his commitment to bi-partisanship and invested his Presidency more deeply in solid conservative ideology. Ryan's conservative values have won him the undying support of the Tea Party patriots. But his genuine commitment to creating a better, stronger America, and his command of policy issues and principles of good government have also earned him the 7-term support of Democrats in one of the most left-leaning states in America. Even Ryan's political adversaries agree that this is a man of sound understanding, bold initiative, uncompromising integrity, and genuine personal appeal. Romney is cut from the same cloth. He successfully governed conservatively in a Democrat stronghold with an 85% liberal legislature. His personal and business reputations are impeccable. In every context, Romney is a demonstrated problem-solver, an effective leader, and one dedicated to making life better for all he serves.
As America's come-back team, Romney and Ryan are the principled antithesis of Obama-Biden. The former believe in the power of the individual; the latter in the power of the state. The former in freedom; the latter in bureaucratic control. The former in private investment; the latter in public stimulus. The former in personal charity; the latter in collective largesse. The former in American exceptionalism; the latter in managed decline. Yes, the choice is really quite clear. Hopefully, the American people can see through the smoke created by the media fog machine to make the only rational choice: Romney-Ryan 2012!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Romney's Global Gravitas
I've been more than a little amused at the media coverage of Mitt Romney's overseas exploits recently. Everything from the hollow harangues over the Mittster's so-called Olympic gaffe, to his politically incorrect Israeli/Palestinian positioning, to the outcry over Mrs. Romney's participation in Equestrian elitism.
Ironically, the trip reveals far more about a leftist media's desperation to find anything Romney to hate than it does about the Presidential hopeful's agility on the world stage. So let's put Romney's performance in some rational perspective.
The Great British Gaffe: This is perhaps the most ado about nothing we've seen since the broo-ha-ha over Ann Romney's $900 blouse. Although it can fairly be said that the former Olympic Executive said a little too much, you'd think, based on the liberal media coverage, that Romney had personally hand-slapped the Queen and started a second revolution!
The reality: In an interview with ABC News, Mitt echoed security concerns that were being noised abroad in the British press that very day. He also questioned Britain's unity over the games--an open question in the media as well! His fault, ironically, is that he answered the question candidly rather than blowing diplomatic smoke up the collective posterior of the body politic. Something we say we want in our politicians. Even liberal British-American entertainment Apprentice, Piers Morgan defended Mitt's comments in a rare moment of fair-minded punditry.
But the real story here is in the press' underwhelming over-reaction. The sniping from the far left British press in a classic case of "we can say it, but you can't," was then amplified a thousand times by the lefty loud-mouths in the American media who are all too happy to pile on. Make no mistake about it: ideology is the issue in this shameless display, not Romney's diplomatic acumen. I give Romney a C+ on his Olympic diplomacy--he could have been more generous, though his candor is refreshing--but, honestly, who besides the convicted anti-Romneys really cares? The press, on the other hand, gets yet another F.
The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: Once again, the weaselly whiners from the American left find offense in Romney's unabashed solidarity with the Israeli state when they prefer pandering to Palestinian terrorists. In a context of Barack Obama's on-again, off-again Israel "policy" Romney's forthright support of our first, best, Middle Eastern ally must be comforting to her politicians as well as her people; a sentiment reflected in Prime Minister Netanyahu's all-but-endorsement of the candidate. The Palestinians may be a little P.O.'d in wake of Obama's apology tours, but this was a solid home-run for Romney and will undoubtedly strengthen his support at home and abroad.
Remember, the same political pundits that are castigating Romney for his "politically incorrect" observations about Palestine, were equally outraged at Reagan's "Evil Empire" comments, were hysterical when he refused to compromise with Gorby over the issue of missile defense, and were apoplectic at the Gipper's call to "tear down this wall!" Romney's diplomacy may not yet be Reaganesque, as may be expected from, primarily, a private sector businessman, and he would benefit from the addition of a quorum of foreign policy experts among his chief advisers, but it's already a helluva lot more coherent than Obama's. And the clarity of policy that is likely to emerge in a Romney administration will undoubtedly more resemble Reagan's and offer a breath of fresh air to US allies around the globe.
Props from Poland: Even the liberal media has had a hard time denigrating Mitt's triumphant visit to Poland and the enthusiastic endorsement he received from the internationally popular liberty and labor champion and former head of the Polish state, Lech Walesa. Romney was warmly received by the Polish people as he promised strengthened ties with the American ally under a Romney Presidency and a restored focus on limited government and economic freedom in the post-communist state.
In short, with the possible exception of the Olympic "gaffe," (a matter so trivial as to be laughable) Romney demonstrated deft statesmanship, a command of the issues, and a commitment to America's traditional and proven allies, the like of which they have not seen in 43 months of Obama dis-plomacy. For a little more substantive analysis, I recommend Charles Krauthammer's syndicated column on the subject.
Ironically, the trip reveals far more about a leftist media's desperation to find anything Romney to hate than it does about the Presidential hopeful's agility on the world stage. So let's put Romney's performance in some rational perspective.
The Great British Gaffe: This is perhaps the most ado about nothing we've seen since the broo-ha-ha over Ann Romney's $900 blouse. Although it can fairly be said that the former Olympic Executive said a little too much, you'd think, based on the liberal media coverage, that Romney had personally hand-slapped the Queen and started a second revolution!
The reality: In an interview with ABC News, Mitt echoed security concerns that were being noised abroad in the British press that very day. He also questioned Britain's unity over the games--an open question in the media as well! His fault, ironically, is that he answered the question candidly rather than blowing diplomatic smoke up the collective posterior of the body politic. Something we say we want in our politicians. Even liberal British-American entertainment Apprentice, Piers Morgan defended Mitt's comments in a rare moment of fair-minded punditry.
But the real story here is in the press' underwhelming over-reaction. The sniping from the far left British press in a classic case of "we can say it, but you can't," was then amplified a thousand times by the lefty loud-mouths in the American media who are all too happy to pile on. Make no mistake about it: ideology is the issue in this shameless display, not Romney's diplomatic acumen. I give Romney a C+ on his Olympic diplomacy--he could have been more generous, though his candor is refreshing--but, honestly, who besides the convicted anti-Romneys really cares? The press, on the other hand, gets yet another F.
The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict: Once again, the weaselly whiners from the American left find offense in Romney's unabashed solidarity with the Israeli state when they prefer pandering to Palestinian terrorists. In a context of Barack Obama's on-again, off-again Israel "policy" Romney's forthright support of our first, best, Middle Eastern ally must be comforting to her politicians as well as her people; a sentiment reflected in Prime Minister Netanyahu's all-but-endorsement of the candidate. The Palestinians may be a little P.O.'d in wake of Obama's apology tours, but this was a solid home-run for Romney and will undoubtedly strengthen his support at home and abroad.
Remember, the same political pundits that are castigating Romney for his "politically incorrect" observations about Palestine, were equally outraged at Reagan's "Evil Empire" comments, were hysterical when he refused to compromise with Gorby over the issue of missile defense, and were apoplectic at the Gipper's call to "tear down this wall!" Romney's diplomacy may not yet be Reaganesque, as may be expected from, primarily, a private sector businessman, and he would benefit from the addition of a quorum of foreign policy experts among his chief advisers, but it's already a helluva lot more coherent than Obama's. And the clarity of policy that is likely to emerge in a Romney administration will undoubtedly more resemble Reagan's and offer a breath of fresh air to US allies around the globe.
Props from Poland: Even the liberal media has had a hard time denigrating Mitt's triumphant visit to Poland and the enthusiastic endorsement he received from the internationally popular liberty and labor champion and former head of the Polish state, Lech Walesa. Romney was warmly received by the Polish people as he promised strengthened ties with the American ally under a Romney Presidency and a restored focus on limited government and economic freedom in the post-communist state.
In short, with the possible exception of the Olympic "gaffe," (a matter so trivial as to be laughable) Romney demonstrated deft statesmanship, a command of the issues, and a commitment to America's traditional and proven allies, the like of which they have not seen in 43 months of Obama dis-plomacy. For a little more substantive analysis, I recommend Charles Krauthammer's syndicated column on the subject.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Nothing Good Happens 'Til Something Gets Sold
In his marketing seminars, my big brother Jim, the Marketing Wizard, often finds himself buttressing the much maligned industry of sales and the noble professionals who engage in that challenging occupation by saying, "Nothing good happens 'til something gets sold." Mr. Obama should attend one of Jim's seminars!
Last week, the President of the United States of America; the elected leader of the greatest, most productive, most powerful nation on earth and by extension, the leader of the free world, said that if you're successful in America, you have your government to thank. You owe your success, your standing, your prosperity to bureaucrats in Washington DC and elsewhere who provided for you, the context, the structure, and the resources to make happen whatever success you've achieved.
It's an engaging viewpoint, and at first blush, it sounds reasonable enough. Government provides the infrastructure and support for your prosperity by virtue of the public education system, roads, a monetary system, police protection, and other services upon which we all rely for a well-ordered, civil society.
But think just a little deeper and you'll quickly see that the President is wrong. Dead wrong! And it's actually rather shocking that a US president would be so utterly devoid of understanding of the design and genius of the nation he leads. Stunning that he would characterize the unique American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people in terms so imperialistic.
In fact, Obama is 180 degrees out of phase. He has it exactly backwards. He could not be more incorrect (or more disingenuous). And therefore, he and those who think like him could not be more dangerous to the America we have been blessed to know.
In the United States, government is not the source of power, of wealth, or even of the social order. Government is not the master. It is neither the conveyor of rights nor the purveyor of goods! In America, by divine Constitutional design, the only power the government has comes from the consent of the governed. It is not the bureaucracy that provides for the industry of the people, it is the industry of we, the people, that provides for the government we require. And when we turn that equation on it's ear as the President has done, we say 'AMEN' to the freedom given us by our Maker, and secured to us by our sacred Constitution.
No, it is NOT the government that builds roads or schools, pays police, or manages natural resources. It is you and me. We, the people. OUR industry produces the wealth that pays the bureaucrats that organize the resources to build the schools, roads, and bridges and to pay the teachers, police, and firemen. It is they that do our bidding and that serve at our pleasure; not the other way around. They very much owe their existence to us. Not we to them!
The government produces NOTHING on it's own; not one thin dime of wealth--whether schools, roads, firehouses, or the EPA. Every penny of wealth that it has, it must first receive from us--either by consent or by constraint. All of the wealth of a free society comes from the industry of the people creating vibrant markets of goods and services by pursuing their individual dreams and by fulfilling each others' wants and needs.
Does the businessman or woman benefit from the public infrastructure and services? Of course! But do they owe their living or their success to any government? HELL NO! In fact, the success of most enterprises in America comes in spite of, not because of government. We all stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before us. In that sense, and to the degree that we value and build upon that foundation, we all should be thankful. And it is part of the reason we're willing to "pay our fair share."
But let's keep first things first. Nothing good happens 'til something gets sold. No teacher enters a classroom, no fireman climbs a ladder, and no cop walks a beat. No public road, bridge or buttress gets built, and no politician authors another unnecessary bill. All these things happen because someone took a risk to build the very first mousetrap or a better one to follow; someone spotted a need or desire and figured out a way to fill it. Only then was wealth created. Only then did a job begin. And only when that activity became PROFITABLE was there something in it for the risk-taker or entrepreneur--despite the fact that the taxman had already taken his toll!
No, Mr. President! While the entrepreneur, investor, tycoon and even the common laborer acknowledge the value of the social order and the government that keeps it intact, none owes obeisance to it. For it is WE that created IT--not the other way around!
Last week, the President of the United States of America; the elected leader of the greatest, most productive, most powerful nation on earth and by extension, the leader of the free world, said that if you're successful in America, you have your government to thank. You owe your success, your standing, your prosperity to bureaucrats in Washington DC and elsewhere who provided for you, the context, the structure, and the resources to make happen whatever success you've achieved.
It's an engaging viewpoint, and at first blush, it sounds reasonable enough. Government provides the infrastructure and support for your prosperity by virtue of the public education system, roads, a monetary system, police protection, and other services upon which we all rely for a well-ordered, civil society.
But think just a little deeper and you'll quickly see that the President is wrong. Dead wrong! And it's actually rather shocking that a US president would be so utterly devoid of understanding of the design and genius of the nation he leads. Stunning that he would characterize the unique American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people in terms so imperialistic.
In fact, Obama is 180 degrees out of phase. He has it exactly backwards. He could not be more incorrect (or more disingenuous). And therefore, he and those who think like him could not be more dangerous to the America we have been blessed to know.
In the United States, government is not the source of power, of wealth, or even of the social order. Government is not the master. It is neither the conveyor of rights nor the purveyor of goods! In America, by divine Constitutional design, the only power the government has comes from the consent of the governed. It is not the bureaucracy that provides for the industry of the people, it is the industry of we, the people, that provides for the government we require. And when we turn that equation on it's ear as the President has done, we say 'AMEN' to the freedom given us by our Maker, and secured to us by our sacred Constitution.
No, it is NOT the government that builds roads or schools, pays police, or manages natural resources. It is you and me. We, the people. OUR industry produces the wealth that pays the bureaucrats that organize the resources to build the schools, roads, and bridges and to pay the teachers, police, and firemen. It is they that do our bidding and that serve at our pleasure; not the other way around. They very much owe their existence to us. Not we to them!
The government produces NOTHING on it's own; not one thin dime of wealth--whether schools, roads, firehouses, or the EPA. Every penny of wealth that it has, it must first receive from us--either by consent or by constraint. All of the wealth of a free society comes from the industry of the people creating vibrant markets of goods and services by pursuing their individual dreams and by fulfilling each others' wants and needs.
Does the businessman or woman benefit from the public infrastructure and services? Of course! But do they owe their living or their success to any government? HELL NO! In fact, the success of most enterprises in America comes in spite of, not because of government. We all stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before us. In that sense, and to the degree that we value and build upon that foundation, we all should be thankful. And it is part of the reason we're willing to "pay our fair share."
But let's keep first things first. Nothing good happens 'til something gets sold. No teacher enters a classroom, no fireman climbs a ladder, and no cop walks a beat. No public road, bridge or buttress gets built, and no politician authors another unnecessary bill. All these things happen because someone took a risk to build the very first mousetrap or a better one to follow; someone spotted a need or desire and figured out a way to fill it. Only then was wealth created. Only then did a job begin. And only when that activity became PROFITABLE was there something in it for the risk-taker or entrepreneur--despite the fact that the taxman had already taken his toll!
No, Mr. President! While the entrepreneur, investor, tycoon and even the common laborer acknowledge the value of the social order and the government that keeps it intact, none owes obeisance to it. For it is WE that created IT--not the other way around!
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Where is the Racism in Presidential Politics?
After Mitt Romney's forthright speech (I'm not willing to call it remarkably bold or courageous--it was politically expedient) before the NAACP on Wednesday, where the Presidential hopeful was booed discourteously by his mostly-black audience, Nancy Pelosi had the audacity to suggest that Romney strategized to incite the reaction in order to energize his racist base. If the charge itself isn't preposterous enough, I wonder what "intelligence" (and I use the term loosely) the former Speaker had to make it. Is she now clairvoyant? Can she read Romney's mind? Or does she have operatives inside the Romney campaign who can substantiate the outrageous claim. Because if she can't we are left to no other conclusion than that it is Pelosi, not Romney, who is race baiting here. What other explanation can there be? Produce your evidence Ms. Pelosi...or apologize for your insane, offensive, inflammatory remark!
I'm continuously amazed and disgusted by the never-ending parade of leftists seeking to turn Tea Party patriots and other conservatives into racists despite the conspicuous lack of evidence to support their ridiculous charges.
I'm continuously amazed and disgusted by the never-ending parade of leftists seeking to turn Tea Party patriots and other conservatives into racists despite the conspicuous lack of evidence to support their ridiculous charges.
For my part and that of every conservative I know (and I know a few!) race is an absolute non-issue. I would be every bit as happy to see a black Constitutional Conservative in the White House or any other political office, as I would a similarly principled white one--male or female, by the way. And although I can't prove that they don't exist, I don't personally know of a single conservative soul that doesn't feel the same--despite the unending, unsubstantiated accusations to the contrary from the left.
In fact, the liberal establishment is the only constituency in America that has anything to gain by race baiting. The Democrat establishment needs to keep black Americans in tow. Hence, they continue to use this disingenuous, divisive, and destructive tactic to preserve their power. Because if Obama loses even a few percentage points of support among this group, it's AMEN to his Presidency and to the liberal takeover of America. And isn't it ironic that this would be the story in the day of Barack Obama--the first non-white President to be elected by the predominantly Caucasian American electorate.
All that said, don't you find the almost-universal support of the President among blacks to be a bit peculiar? Fully 96% of African-Americans say they support President Obama over the GOP challenger. Really?! Who gets 96% support of anything among anybody in a pluralistic, secular society?
Are 96% of blacks as liberal as President Obama? Do 96% of them support Obamacare--the now 2.6 TRILLION dollar millstone hanging around the neck of the American economy? Do 96% of blacks really believe the President has improved their economic lot? On what grounds?! Are black Americans really sold on the virtues of welfare, unemployment, foodstamps, Medicaid, and disability insurance over a robust economy and expanding opportunity? Is that honestly the lifestyle to which this vast, united majority of them aspire? I simply don't believe it!
Do 96% of blacks agree with Obama's imperial edict adding 1.2 million illegal immigrants to the workforce to compete directly with the most disadvantaged in their own community? I don't think so. Are only 4% of blacks opposed to same sex marriage, or supportive of the compulsory infringement of religious rights, or the ever-increasing, if well-hidden taxes on the middle class? And do 96% of these Americans really agree that choice in education is a bad idea? Do almost all blacks support Mr. Obama's "right war" in Afghanistan? Do they, like Obama, see no threat in the Muslim Brotherhood? Do they wish to see more open borders with Mexico and favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in America today? I'd be amazed if that were true.
So, if among this 96% are many whose views Mr. Obama clearly does not represent, why do they continue to support him? Is it merely because of the color of his skin? If so, that's racism and that's NOT rational.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Obama Strategy: Divide To Conquer
Barack Obama has but one arrow in his quiver, one double edged blade in his sheath; divide and conquer. In the complete absence of any meaningful positive policy achievements, the President has only one course to victory: Divide the nation more sharply than it already is and frighten the populace into believing that his political adversaries will make matters even worse. We see evidence of this on every front:
Class Envy - the 1% against the 99%
War on Women - The great contraception scare of 2012
War on Religion - the faithful vs. the secular and specters of theocracy - forced contraception
Black vs. White - The weigh-in on Treyvon Martin and more
Education Envy - The new right to a free college education
War on Wall Street - The takeover of the greedy capitalists
Big Oil vs. Alternative Energy - If you support fossil fuels you hate the environment
Welfare vs. Jobs - Perpetuating the dependent class instead of moving people to work
Union collectivists against "BIG" business - the nationalized Wisconsin recall election
GLBT vs. Christian Conservatives - Obama's "evolved-again" view on marriage
Illegal Immigrants vs. Border Security Advocates (aka Latino vs. White) Undocumented Youth Amnesty
Obama's strategy involves a wide variety of scares like Republicans throwing granny off a cliff, and ending an array of government benefits including care for mentally handicapped children, food for the poor, contraception for college co-eds, and healthcare for the financially disadvantaged.
Ironically, it's Obama and the Democrats' policies that will seal the fate of those benefits if the course remains unchanged, where Republicans' plans are devised to rein them in and restore them to solvency--along with the rest of the national government.
Obama is unquestionably the most divisive partisan President in my lifetime--bar none! That could be forgivable if his policies weren't so disastrous for the country. Here are the facts:
Unemployment has remained above 8% for over 3 years and is arguably higher since the number of workers in the workforce has shrunken to record lows. When those who have given up or withdrawn from the workforce are counted, the rate is upwards of 15%.
Budget deficits have exploded placing the nation in financial peril. With TRILLION dollar deficits 4 years in a row and a national debt approaching 16 TRILLION the nation is facing insolvency. These harrowing calculations ignore another $50 TRILLION or more in "unfunded liabilities" such as pensions and other retirement bene's for government workers--which the President is content to ignore. And, as a direct result of the endless TRILLION dollar deficits under Obama's budgetless fiscal "management" the nation's credit status has been downgraded once with the potential of further falls to come.
Speaking of divisiveness, the GOP controlled House of Representatives has passed numerous budgets and jobs bills that the Democrats under the President's and Harry Reid's leadership have refused to take up in the Senate. Who are the obstructionists?!
Dependency programs have continued to expand to unprecedented levels under Obama. The "food stamp president" now has almost 46 million Americans dependent on the federal government for their very survival. But that's just the beginning. Tens of millions more rely on extended unemployment benefits to compensate for the fact that the Obama regime's economic policies are prolonging the recession and portend a sluggish recovery, if not a double dip recession, in coming months and years.
But even this, is just the tip of the iceberg. With Obama's takeover of almost all of education funding another loan bubble is threatening to burst. The loose money policy of the United States Government in collusion with the Federal Reserve sees the dollar falling in value on world markets and the threat of inflation looms.
While Obama seeks to take credit for gains in the energy sector, those gains have taken place in spite of his Administration, not because of it. In addition to the President's disastrous over-reaction to the BP oil spill shutting down US oil production in the Gulf (most of those jobs have still not been recovered), he rejected the Keystone pipeline that would have created tens of thousands of jobs and put downward pressure on global prices. Obama continues to keep a lock on domestic production by approving drilling on federal lands and waterways at the slowest rate in decades.
The energy sector alone has the potential to go a long, long way towards pulling the nation out of the slow recovery without endangering the planet, by the way, but for political reasons he refuses to take the brakes off this powerful engine of jobs, economic growth, energy independence, and national security.
Class Envy - the 1% against the 99%
War on Women - The great contraception scare of 2012
War on Religion - the faithful vs. the secular and specters of theocracy - forced contraception
Black vs. White - The weigh-in on Treyvon Martin and more
Education Envy - The new right to a free college education
War on Wall Street - The takeover of the greedy capitalists
Big Oil vs. Alternative Energy - If you support fossil fuels you hate the environment
Welfare vs. Jobs - Perpetuating the dependent class instead of moving people to work
Union collectivists against "BIG" business - the nationalized Wisconsin recall election
GLBT vs. Christian Conservatives - Obama's "evolved-again" view on marriage
Illegal Immigrants vs. Border Security Advocates (aka Latino vs. White) Undocumented Youth Amnesty
Obama's strategy involves a wide variety of scares like Republicans throwing granny off a cliff, and ending an array of government benefits including care for mentally handicapped children, food for the poor, contraception for college co-eds, and healthcare for the financially disadvantaged.
Ironically, it's Obama and the Democrats' policies that will seal the fate of those benefits if the course remains unchanged, where Republicans' plans are devised to rein them in and restore them to solvency--along with the rest of the national government.
Obama is unquestionably the most divisive partisan President in my lifetime--bar none! That could be forgivable if his policies weren't so disastrous for the country. Here are the facts:
Unemployment has remained above 8% for over 3 years and is arguably higher since the number of workers in the workforce has shrunken to record lows. When those who have given up or withdrawn from the workforce are counted, the rate is upwards of 15%.
Budget deficits have exploded placing the nation in financial peril. With TRILLION dollar deficits 4 years in a row and a national debt approaching 16 TRILLION the nation is facing insolvency. These harrowing calculations ignore another $50 TRILLION or more in "unfunded liabilities" such as pensions and other retirement bene's for government workers--which the President is content to ignore. And, as a direct result of the endless TRILLION dollar deficits under Obama's budgetless fiscal "management" the nation's credit status has been downgraded once with the potential of further falls to come.
Speaking of divisiveness, the GOP controlled House of Representatives has passed numerous budgets and jobs bills that the Democrats under the President's and Harry Reid's leadership have refused to take up in the Senate. Who are the obstructionists?!
Dependency programs have continued to expand to unprecedented levels under Obama. The "food stamp president" now has almost 46 million Americans dependent on the federal government for their very survival. But that's just the beginning. Tens of millions more rely on extended unemployment benefits to compensate for the fact that the Obama regime's economic policies are prolonging the recession and portend a sluggish recovery, if not a double dip recession, in coming months and years.
But even this, is just the tip of the iceberg. With Obama's takeover of almost all of education funding another loan bubble is threatening to burst. The loose money policy of the United States Government in collusion with the Federal Reserve sees the dollar falling in value on world markets and the threat of inflation looms.
While Obama seeks to take credit for gains in the energy sector, those gains have taken place in spite of his Administration, not because of it. In addition to the President's disastrous over-reaction to the BP oil spill shutting down US oil production in the Gulf (most of those jobs have still not been recovered), he rejected the Keystone pipeline that would have created tens of thousands of jobs and put downward pressure on global prices. Obama continues to keep a lock on domestic production by approving drilling on federal lands and waterways at the slowest rate in decades.
The energy sector alone has the potential to go a long, long way towards pulling the nation out of the slow recovery without endangering the planet, by the way, but for political reasons he refuses to take the brakes off this powerful engine of jobs, economic growth, energy independence, and national security.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Ackerman on Obamacare
First, I have to chuckle at the name of this behemoth legislative juggernaut. Affordable for who, exactly? The Act, which Obama and his surrogates "sold" (or force-fed) to America with a $900 BILLION price tag is now projected to cost over $1.7 TRILLION over 10 years--more than 10% of today's "funded" national debt--for ONE program alone! We have no comprehension of that kind of a number. But it's really big! And who gets to pick up the tab? Everyone under the American sun, believe you, me!
Obamacare will be paid for on the back of no less than 21 new taxes--all of which ultimately come out of the pockets of the middle class--the very souls Mr. Obama swore to protect. Why do these costs come from the middle class primarily? Because we have the lion's share of the money. No matter how much you tax the rich, it won't cover the cost of this federal government. But the money has to come from somewhere.
If you tax corporations, they'll raise prices to consumers--the middle class--to protect their margins and their shareholders--or move elsewhere. (That's both good business and self-preservation. They have little choice.) If you try to suppress their market pricing, you'll reduce choice, value, quality, or supply--which of course, has its costs, as well--to us, the middle class consumers. If you tax the rich even more (they already pay MOST of the income taxes received by the Treasury) they'll invest less in business growth resulting in fewer jobs and less opportunity...for who? The middle class! You simply can't kill the goose and still expect to harvest the golden eggs.
But wait! There IS one way out...just print the money! Pay off the debt with worthless dollars! Sounds good, but it's the cruelest tax of all--inflation, the hidden tax--robbing the people of their buying power to pay the bills of an excessive and overreaching government; to pay for the illusory "FREE LUNCH." And, of course, those to whom we are indebted will resist this option with all the means at their disposal.
So you see, there are no winners in this game (except perhaps the ruling elite). We all lose together--the middle class most of all.
But there is yet another option. Scrap this 2700 page "comprehensive" Federal takeover that attempts to micro-manage virtually every aspect of healthcare, inserting the government between the provider and the patient; and replace it with a series of common sense, market reforms that address important issues like the role of insurance, portability of coverage, pre-existing conditions, cost, competition, liability and tort reform, availability and access. There are numerous solid and workable proposals on the table to address these issues and expand both access and quality of care for individuals while lowering costs, without a federal takeover of 1/6 of the nation's economy. That's the best, most efficient, effective, and Constitutional way to address the needs of the roughly 10% of Americans who lack access to affordable care. And that's rational!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)