Tag Archive: economy
Obama's fiscal responsibility in a nutshell. Source: USDebtClock.org
Last night, the White House officially released President Obama’s budget proposal for the year. Sadly, under this plan, excessive spending will continue, and the wealthy will be forced to bear the costs of our government’s voracious appetite for tax dollars. Despite his pledge to soak the rich, President Obama has failed to cut the deficit and has thus broken his promise with the American people. Back in 2009, our leader promised to “halve the deficit” by the end of his presidency. However, under the president’s proposal, the deficit will actually grow from that of the 2011 budget.
President Obama has failed in two main ways. Firstly, he has proven utterly incapable at cutting spending. The president’s proposal cuts $360 billion from entitlements but does so over the course of ten years. Once President Obama is reelected, he could easily pass a second budget that eliminates or reverses these cuts altogether, as a one-year budget plan has no real authority over an entire decade of spending. Beyond this, however, no real cuts exist in his plan. More government subsidies and massive “shovel-ready” infrastructure programs eat up the savings from crippling defense cuts and the end of the Afghanistan War.
President Obama has also failed to create jobs. In spite of his growth of government entitlements and infrastructure projects, the number of people not participating in the labor force has skyrocketed, and officially measured unemployment numbers have only slightly decreased. To top this off, Obama’s stimulus programs and government bailouts have only made the situation worse for the industries they were intended to save. The economy is now sicker than ever, yet President Obama keeps prescribing the wrong drug.
I think that President Obama should try a new approach. He should slash entitlement spending and preserve the integrity of our nation’s defense by keeping defense cuts to a minimum. Along with reiterating his promise to halve the deficit, President Obama should promise to cut taxes across the board and to support a balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, our liberally-minded president will never do any of this, but we always have 2012 to look forward to.
Now that Rick Santorum has proven himself as a viable candidate, he needs to weather the increased scrutiny that comes with his new front-runner status. Pictured: Santorum addressing a crowd in Missouri Tuesday.
On Tuesday night, presidential contender Rick Santorum pulled off three stunning victories in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. Although these are all non-binding caucuses, Santorum’s startling wins have given him fresh cash and momentum, both of which will allow Santorum to present a challenge to Mitt Romney in the upcoming Michigan primary (Feb. 28). Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich’s abysmal performances in these three states have revealed some serious difficulties in his candidacy, while Ron Paul’s continued losses are precluding his ability to become a major player in this race.
Rick Santorum is well-positioned to accumulate a significant windfall of cash between now and Michigan’s primary, which will serve as a test of his ability to challenge Mr. Romney on his home turf. Romney was born and raised in Michigan, and his father served as governor for the state for three terms. However, Santorum’s pro-manufacturing initiatives such as a 0% tax on manufacturing plants and equipment will be received with open arms by Michigan, which is the historical heartland of American manufacturing. Additionally, Rick Santorum has received the backing of the Red White and Blue Fund, a well-funded super PAC that has produced several advertisements in support of the former US senator.
Newt Gingrich’s awful performances in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri for now has relegated him to the bottom tier of candidates. Gingrich’s campaign will have to run on fumes until the next debate, which is later this month. By then, however, it could be too late for Newt to revive his candidacy anyway. Voters are concerned about the baggage Newt carries, particularly regarding his relationship to Freddie Mac, the government mortgage giant. Santorum appears to be a less flawed candidate with a much better chance of succeeding against Romney in Michigan, so it is unlikely that voters will split the vote and give Romney an easy win and Gingrich a second chance.
Santorum is shaping up to be an excellent candidate who has largely been gaffe-free. Hopefully, Mr. Santorum will survive his trip through the media meat grinder and will make it to the Republican National Convention as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.
Liberals hate the Constitution because it specifically guards against the construction of an entitlement society. Art by Jon McNaughton.
In a New York Times article yesterday, columnist Adam Liptak proclaims that the influence of the US Constitution is waning. He claims that amending the Constitution is too difficult and that the document itself is too old. Mr. Liptak also bemoans the fact that the Constitution does not defend “rights” such as the right to travel and the entitlements of health care and education. He even cites Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said that she would “not look to the United States Constitution” if she were drafting a constitution this year. However, it seems to me that both Mr. Liptak and Judge Ginsburg are completely missing the point of having a national constitution in the first place. In their view, constitutions are meant to govern the people of a nation, while in reality, these documents are meant to prevent governments from suppressing their people.
The reason that the Constitution is difficult to amend is to protect the people of the United States from aggressive government suppression. By providing a nearly immobile set of concrete guidelines for government officials, the Constitution effectively bars the usurpation of the rights of Americans by the government. It is only through a significant majority of the states that the US Constitution can be amended, and thus the average American is well-protected from radical policies and people.
Something I noticed while reading the NYT article was the harshness with which our US Constitution was described. Mr. Liptak referred to the Constitution as “terse and old,” and even had the audacity to proclaim that the document “guarantees relatively few rights,” citing the fact that healthcare and food entitlements are not protected under the Constitution.
Contrary to Mr. Liptak, I agree with the Founding Fathers that the role of government is limited to governing. Government was never intended by our Framers to become a massive entitlement society that scalps the well-off in order to foster the dependency of the masses. Rather, the Founders wanted a government that would ensure that every citizen has an equal opportunity to personally create their own wealth and seek out success. Liberals, on the other hand, want a government that ensures “social justice” by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, the liberal vision of equality never manifests itself in a positive manner. In the Soviet Union, for example, socialist policies equalized the wealth of most Russians, but did so by dramatically reducing the quality of life for all. Meanwhile, the government officials that dictated these social engineering schemes profited enormously. America’s Founders wisely foresaw the devastating crises that accompany entitlement societies, and – consequentially – the Founding Fathers did their utmost to defend the freedom of the individual when they wrote the Constitution.
The Constitution is a timeless document that should not be replaced. By defending the freedom of the individual from the oppressive grip of government, it enables the continued success of the United States and perpetuates the values of freedom that made this country great.
Where does social engineering fit into the UN's principal goal of maintaining "international peace and security?" Pictured: the UN General Assembly
Over the past twenty years, the United Nations has become increasingly devoted to social and economic goals rather than the political ones that characterized the organization’s founding. Continuing this trend, the United Nations’ latest move toward supposed social well-being oversteps its bounds as a peacekeeper and a humanitarian organization. The UN Commission on Social Development, which began this week in New York, has demanded a worldwide tax to pay for a “social protection floor,” which would provide free healthcare, education, housing, and even free income for “needy people.” In other words, the UN would like to force the implementation of a socialist economic model around the globe.
My first major complaint with this proposal lies in the tax itself. The United Nations has consistently attempted to centralize its authority by forcing western nations to bankroll a massive UN slush fund. For example, at a recent UN Climate Summit, the UN proposed a mandate that would require western nations to pay their “climate debt[s]” and pay homage to the “rights of Mother Earth.” Notably missing from these climate talks, however, were calls on China to limit their massive carbon emissions, which certainly overshadow any of the environmental sins of the United States and Europe. Of course, what makes the UN’s fight against global warming even more ridiculous is the fact that man-made global warming is based upon pseudo-science and well-tweaked computer climate models, not actual historical and scientific fact. Clearly, this tax is only the UN’s latest effort to extend its own authority in the hopes of becoming a hegemonic world authority that even overshadows the United States and China.
However, more concerning than the tax itself is what it will supposedly be used for. This world tax is essentially funding a global entitlement program that will take from wealthy, developed countries and nations and give to poor, “needy” nations and people. As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, the best economic strategy to lift populations out of poverty is capitalism. When combined with a democratic government, lower classes make more money and the volume of individuals in the middle class increases dramatically. Utopian socialism has never worked for any significant length of time and is lucky to not be plagued with problems from its initiation. Russia is a fine example of this; while the socialism of the Soviet era contributed to the economic destruction and the breakup of the USSR, Russia today is economically powerful thanks to its recent emphasis upon free-market policies. China, a nation dependent upon communism, has lifted millions out of poverty through the enacting of capitalist-oriented policies. Another aspect to consider is that the money provided by this world tax will probably not get far enough to even do much good. Both corruption and needless self-enrichment are rampant in the UN; of the $732 million that was devoted to the Haitian earthquake relief efforts in 2010, only a third was spent on the broken Haitian people. The other two-thirds was devoted to the “salary, perks and upkeep” of UN personnel.
This world tax amounts to a massive social engineering push by the United Nations. Let us hope that developed nations around the globe can stand up against this radical and counterproductive proposal and offer common-sense solutions that are based upon the free market.
President Obama says that without his leadership, the economy and the state of our country could be worse. However, it is an argument that won't fly.
President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night was more of a preview of his new campaign strategy than an actual review of our current situation as a nation. Our growing deficit and our debt crisis, the two elephants in the room, were barely mentioned by President Obama, who preferred to spend his time bemoaning the success of wealthy Americans and pitting rich against poor. Fortunately, if these items are any indication of President Obama’s reelection strategy, Republicans should defeat him easily.
President Obama’s new strategy seems to depend on two central tactics: the first being to wage war against the rich in America and the second being to marginalize the problems that his administration has perpetrated. Pitting the rich against the poor and demonizing the successful in America will allow President Obama to essentially shift the blame for our current economic crisis onto the wealthiest Americans, who represent a minority in the United States. Castigating the rich can indeed win some voters, as some Americans are jealous of the wealth and prosperity of others. Fortunately, however, scapegoating the successful is not an effective strategy in the long term because it invites criticism from those on the right. Republican leaders have already decried President Obama numerous times for his divisiveness and for his pursuit of class warfare.
The more dangerous campaign strategy of the president is one that diminishes the real magnitude of the problems to which he has greatly contributed. Our national debt has increased by several trillion dollars since President Obama’s election back in 2009, and things are getting worse by the day. The United States debt currently sits at an alarmingly high $15.2 trillion, and Obama’s attempts to control spending have been quite literally non-existent. In fact, Mr. Obama has been more dedicated to increasing spending over his first term than he has been dedicated to decreasing it, as evidenced by Obamacare and the infamously wasteful stimulus programs that he championed. The economy continues to be driven into a ditch as disappointed, dispirited Americans continue to leave the workforce in droves and artificially suppress the unemployment rate, and the wanton waste of taxpayer dollars on government-funded messes like Solyndra shows an utter lack of stewardship of the hard-earned money of Americans by the Obama administration. All of these issues present major shortfalls for Obama’s reelection campaign, so the president’s new strategy is to simply minimize these topics. For example, the president has been attempting to diminish his failure at managing the American economy by saying that things could have been worse. However, be assured that whomever the Republican Party nominates to face the president this year will definitely focus on these topics and will make the president account for his failures. It is up to voters to listen to the truth and to realize that President Obama’s shortcomings far outweigh any of his supposed virtues.
President Obama believes in an economy of equal results. I believe in an economy of equal opportunity. Pictured: President Obama's January 2011 State of the Union address.
“We can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.” -President Obama in a video to supporters
As the election nears, President Obama has been greatly increasing the volume of his populist appeals. His calls for tax hikes on the top 1% of Americans and for economic “fairness” have become commonplace in his public appearances. However, while President Obama believes that his policies are the solution to income inequality and our current economic crisis, I believe that these same policies will cripple the foundations of our country’s values and principles and will only perpetuate the very problems that these policies attempt to solve.
In the Declaration of Independence, the founders of the United States of America declared that every person shall be entitled to the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” When Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wrote this line, they did so to emphasize that the members of a free society do not by any means achieve outright happiness from their government. It is the personal pursuit of that happiness that is most important in a free society, and this is where President Obama and I differ. President Obama wishes to extend the size of government to provide for the happiness and security of American citizens. Obamacare, the stimulus programs, and the takeover of General Motors all are clear examples of President Obama’s government-cures-all philosophy. Meanwhile, contrary to the president, I believe that market-based reforms are needed to truly conform with the basic values of our country’s founding. The utilization of private health insurance programs in Chile has led to the commercialization of hospitals and health care, which has in turn lowered costs and raised care quality for consumers. Contrary to the government handouts that have characterized President Obama’s presidency (read Solyndra), across-the-board tax cuts offer significant financial relief to all businesses and job-creating innovators, not just big businesses with billion-dollar lobbying forces or political campaign donors.
The past few years have shown that Barack Obama’s economic philosophy has failed miserably. Under President Obama’s policies, record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamps and other forms of government welfare, and more Americans are unemployed than under the Bush administration. Still more Americans have given up looking for work all together and have resigned themselves to a life of dependence on government. Obviously and unfortunately, the equal result promised by President Obama’s philosophy has worked, but it has made life worse for Americans across the board. This November, Americans will decide between this failed policy and the tried and tested solutions offered by the philosophy of equal opportunity. Let’s hope that we make the right decision.
Ronald Reagan put it nicely.
<object width=”420″ height=”315″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/6ixNPplo-SU?version=3&hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param></object>
A South Carolina win would leave Newt Gingrich in a favorable position to be the next anti-Romney.
Now that the field of GOP candidates had winnowed down significantly, the CNN South Carolina debate is crucial. A poor performance by Mitt Romney could provide an opportunity for one of the remaining candidates to achieve a crucial victory in South Carolina.
However, the debate has just ended, and it seems that Romney has had an average performance. He has done an excellent job focusing on Barack Obama instead of his fellow candidates. When asked if he had any regrets about his campaign, Romney said that he wished that he had not wasted time attacking other candidates; instead, Romney said that he should have focused upon Barack Obama’s failed presidency. However, on the other hand, Romney had great difficulty fending off attacks from his opponents effectively. The former Massachusetts governor had great difficulty on both abortion and his tax returns, which he has not yet released. Overall, Romney’s performance was average, if not poor.
Rick Santorum is in a tenuous position in the polls, and his decent performance tonight will not improve his chances in the South Carolina primary. Santorum’s emphasis on social issues gives him an opportunity to differentiate himself from the other candidates, which is a big positive in a primary race. However, the narrowing field causes voters to weigh Santorum’s focus on social values against his debating skills. Given that Newt Gingrich is pro-life and is an extraordinarily skilled debater, swing voters will likely fall behind Newt as the next not-Romney and will disregard Santorum’s increased emphasis upon social issues.
Ron Paul had a decent performance tonight as well. His comments regarding the Federal Reserve and our economy were sound and intelligent, but as usual, his radical foreign policy positions will cause Reagan conservatives to shy away from him in the South Carolina primary.
Newt Gingrich did an excellent job at the debate, even in the face of intense controversy surrounding him and his ex-wife. Gingrich was crisp, coherent, and articulate throughout the debate, and he did an excellent job deflecting John King’s inappropriate, probing question regarding the controversy with his ex-wife. His answer brought the crowd to their feet, but more importantly, it showed Gingrich’s ability to avoid sensitive issues. Gingrich was purposeful and direct in his response to John King, which highly contrasted Romney’s halting and inarticulate responses regarding his own personal controversies.
Based on this debate, I would say that Gingrich is well-positioned to win South Carolina and move on to be the next not-Romney. However, unless Santorum drops out after South Carolina, Gingrich’s chances of becoming the GOP nominee for the general election will dim significantly.
If unemployment begins to rise again, President Obama's already lacking economic platform will disappear completely. Pictured: An unemployment line.
President Obama has long held that the gradual decrease in unemployment is the direct result of his stimulus spending programs and other big government economic policies. However, in a speech two days ago in Indiana, Charles Evans – the president of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank – expressed his concern that this decrease in unemployment is only “transitory.” Moreover, Evans warned of the possibility of an increase in unemployment by the end of the year. If Mr. Evans is correct, could President Obama’s reelection bid this year be doomed?
Firstly, President Obama’s reelection chances depend heavily upon the economy. In a CBS News poll conducted from Jan. 4-8, 55% of respondents said that the biggest problem facing the United States today is the economy and job creation. Discounting those who answered “other” (22%), the nearest runner-up answer of any remote specificity was “politicians and government,” polling at a minuscule 5%. Economic concerns have also been reflected in President Obama’s approval rating. According to Gallup polling data, President Obama’s approval numbers have improved by six percentage points from September 2011 to January 2012. Interestingly, this improvement corresponds with a .6% decrease in measured unemployment. Thus, if unemployment continues to trend downward, President Obama will be viewed more favorably by voters this November.
On the other hand, however, an increase in unemployment would severely cripple President Obama’s reelection bid. His economic argument centers on two main points: the first being that his policies have reduced the duration of the recession, and the second being that increased regulation protects consumers and encourages job growth. An increase in unemployment would greatly reduce the effectiveness of these arguments because such an increase would indicate both the continuation of the recession and the negative impact of Obama’s regulations on the economy. Thus, President Obama would have an abysmal record of job creation in an election season where the economy is the most important issue. Doomed? I’d certainly say so.
Gingrich's attacks on Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital amount to an attack on the long held conservative principle of economic freedom.
Particularly in the past few days, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney has been taking heavy fire over his work at Bain Capital, a private equity firm. These attacks have largely focused upon the so-called “creative destruction” of jobs that is perpetrated by private equity firms in their attempts to rescue flailing companies from the brink of collapse. However, upon analysis, these attacks on Romney’s record are utterly unfounded, and they reveal a frightening willingness on the part of struggling candidates to betray their values in order to win the nomination.
Romney’s time at Bain Capital was enormously successful for both Bain and the companies it assisted. During Romney’s tenure at Bain, a certain office supply store received investment funds and guidance from Bain Capital. Over 1,500 US stores and 90,000 jobs later, Staples Incorporated is one of the world’s most successful office supply outlets in existence. Sports Authority, a sports equipment store, gained over ten thousand jobs thanks to Bain Capital’s financial and consultative interventions in the business.
Of course, some of Bain’s ventures were not all that successful. Sometimes, after cutting jobs and performing restructuring, the private equity firm could not keep their client companies afloat. However, this is simply the nature of a freedom-based economic system. Bad decisions, poor ideas, changing markets, and just plain bad luck can cause otherwise promising enterprises to implode. In an economic system of choice and freedom, this is a fact of life, but over the long term, job losses caused by capitalism are recouped and reversed by the innovative, dynamic nature of a freedom-based economy.
The idea that economic freedom is the best means of creating jobs is a crucial cornerstone of conservative political thought. Despite this, Republican candidates have been distancing themselves from this critical principle in order to improve their chances in the nomination race. Newt Gingrich, who has likened himself to Ronald Reagan in his efforts to further the values of economic freedom, has been Romney’s most vocal critic regarding Bain Capital. In fact, Newt’s super PAC released a 27-minute hit piece on Romney’s time at Bain Capital that featured numerous stories of disgruntled employees who lost their jobs when Bain Capital restructured their employers’ companies. Another presidential contender, Rick Perry, has called Romney a “vulture capitalist,” yet is a self-proclaimed supporter of economic freedom and capitalism. Given these remarkably liberal stances, I am concerned that both Gingrich and Perry are giving up their conservative values in favor of attacking Mitt Romney, the front-runner of the GOP race. This is very worrisome yet ironic; both Perry and Gingrich have attacked Romney for flip-flopping, and now they are doing so themselves!
Economic freedom sometimes means making tough choices that lead to the loss of jobs, and unfortunately, Mr. Romney has had to make a lot of these hard decisions. However, it is important to remember that over the long term, a freedom-based economy creates an abundance of innovation and jobs. Romney’s competitors need to put aside their petty attacks and give Mitt his due for his positive work in the private sector as a partner at Bain Capital.
By the way, be sure to check out my first YouTube video!
