Tag Archive: economy


Obama and the Supreme Court

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
April 5, 2012

Because the Supreme Court is obligated to follow the Constitution, striking down Obamacare would be an extremely radical move on the part of the Court.

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Much of the hubbub in the non-mainstream media over the past week has been about this questionable quotation from our very own President Obama regarding his much beloved (not) health care law. Some conservatives have argued that his comments convey a desire to abandon our country’s checks and balances system, while still others have called it a purely political calculation to attempt to turn Americans against the supposedly evil, unelected Supreme Court. However, I identify myself with neither position, as I believe President Obama’s comments simply reveal his complete and total disconnect with the reality of his much-maligned health care law.

I believe that President Obama firmly holds that his health care law is in fact constitutional. However, even a cursory glance at the law reveals that this is simply not the case. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase a commodity – in this case, health care – and punishes those who refuse with a hefty fine. Ask yourselves: how could our Founding Fathers, the writers of our nation’s Constitution, support such a bill? Our Founders were forced by the British Empire to purchase British goods and items prior to the Revolutionary War. In fact, one could argue that the reason America even exists is the overly controlling commercial policies of the British. Clearly, President Obama is out of touch with the reality of his own law as an unconstitutional, unprecedented overstep of his authority as the head of the US government.

President Obama is also out of touch with what Americans really think of their lawmakers. President Obama cites the “strong majority” of the “democratically elected” Congress as an indicator of the validity of his law and, henceforth, the constitutionality of it. However, according to RealClearPolitics, most Americans are utterly unsatisfied with their congressional representatives, with only 12% of respondents approving of the job Congress is doing. Putting aside Congress, Obamacare itself has little, if any, approval around the country. Recent national polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that a significant minority of respondents (34%) have a favorable view of President Obama’s health care law. Even so, American approval of Obamacare should have no bearing on the law’s constitutionality, and clearly, the law shatters the personal freedoms that the Constitution protects for Americans each and every day.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Obama can’t take credit for Wall Street success

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
March 31, 2012

Amid the gloom in our economy, the rising stock market is one promising indicator of success. But with his consistent bashing of the "rich Wall Street" bankers, President Obama will have great difficulty taking credit for this success. Pictured: A pair of NYSE traders.

The first quarter of 2012 is complete, and it appears that Wall Street has already embarked upon a significant comeback. The market has registered the largest 1st quarter gain in a whopping 14 years, according to the Chicago Tribune. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 8% and the S&P 500 rocketed up 12% just in the first quarter alone! And fortunately, it seems that things will continue on this path, as global economic problems – particularly those of the European debt crisis – have largely subsided.

I am certain that within the week, President Obama will hold a press conference and assure the American public that the success of Wall Street is a direct result of the policies of his administration. However, this is simply not the case.

President Obama has consistently blamed the “rich Wall Street bankers” for causing our fiscal and economic woes. However, Obama refuses to take any of the blame for himself, despite the fact that he has placed tremendous downward pressure upon the economy and upon the stock market through devastating regulations and legislation. Obamacare, for example, has caused many Americans to lose their health care and even their jobs as employers struggle to cope with the fines and requirements of the bill. Certainly, some of the Americans that would have been employed without the existence of Obamacare would have invested their money in the stock market, and this would have contributed to even greater gains in the first quarter. Companies that otherwise would have expanded into new markets and added fuel to the American economic engine have been suffocated by our unfriendly tax code and the aforementioned regulatory burden. Ironically, President Obama has plenty of authority to make positive changes to these items, yet he has refused to do so.

Yet, even under the stress of high taxes and massive amounts of red tape, the American economy has continued to trudge forward. America is the most productive and the most successful country that currently occupies this earth, and it is no surprise that the great citizens of this shining nation have banded together to release this country from the shackles of recession. However, as the principal contributor to economic woes in the US, President Obama is in no place to accept responsibility for the success of the American stock market, and consequently, the successes of the American economy in general. In light of this, I believe that the best option for Mr. Obama at this point in time is to go before the American people and congratulate them (not himself) on this promising first quarter news. He should drop all of the “we”s and “I”s from his speech and replace them with “you”s, because honestly, he has done absolutely nothing to bolster the US economy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Obama: “More flexibility” after the election?

Filed under: Posts — 1 Comment
March 26, 2012

At the end of his meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Seoul, South Korea today regarding US-Russian relations, President Obama made a private comment to his Russian counterpart regarding US missile defense plans. This comment was picked up by the microphones in the room and has ignited outrage among many conservatives, who view the president’s comment as a reflection of his desire to scrap missile defense and to dangerously shrink America’s global military and defensive presence. The video of the president’s comments, as well as a text transcript, are visible below:

OBAMA: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

MEDVEDEV: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

OBAMA: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

MEDVEDEV: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

These comments are extremely alarming for a few reasons. Firstly, they demonstrate that President Obama is afraid of executing his foreign policy plans for fear of being ousted in the November elections. This timidity, of course, brings up all sorts of issues. What if President Obama decides to completely scrap the plans for a US missile defense shield over Poland after his election? What if he begins a dangerous drawdown of American military power? All of these radical options could be on the table for Mr. Obama, but unfortunately, we will not really know what our president is planning to do until he retakes his office in November. Republican Michael R. Turner, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, has demanded answers from the Obama administration on this odd quote for this very reason. If President Obama is afraid of revealing his plans for US missile defense to the American public before his election, Turner reasons, the president must believe that his plans will hurt him with voters. If this is indeed the reasoning behind President Obama’s comments, we should be extremely concerned, to say the least.

President Obama’s comments illuminate a growing trend in his foreign policy. Instead of standing up for US allies and interests, our country’s leader backs down and gives ground to dangerous peoples and countries. Iran is a fine example of this, as President Obama’s dilly-dallying on a military strike has given Iran the golden opportunity it needs to complete its nuclear weapon and eventually to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Meanwhile, Israel grows increasingly nervous, waiting for US aid and approval for an strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities that would save millions of lives in the long run. Similarly, President Obama is indicating that he will abandon Poland, one of the primary beneficiaries of the proposed missile defense shield, by making dramatic concessions to the Russians regarding the existence of the shield itself and the armaments with which such a shield would be equipped. The Poles are understandably nervous, of course. A major Polish tabloid posed the question “were they trading Poland?” in large print on its front cover today.

President Obama’s comments reveal a startling flaw in his character as well. Instead of letting the American people know who he is and what he truly wants for our country, President Obama wishes to deceive the American people and put off his big (scary) plans for foreign policy until after his reelection. This frightens me immensely, and I sure hope that Americans are not fooled by this latest episode of deceit and deception by the Obama administration.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Give credit where it’s due, Mr. President

Filed under: Posts — 2 Comments
March 24, 2012

The American people deserve a leader who is virtuous enough to acknowledge his failures and to give credit where it's due.

Taking responsibility for one’s actions is a major part of being a good leader. People who refuse to acknowledge their mistakes are generally not concerned about correcting them, since they do not conceive of their mistake in the first place. If I were to select one man as the most egregious perpetrator of this sense of irresponsibility, I would definitely pick President Barack Obama, as his responses to the mistakes of his presidency have consisted of little more than blather and blame.

Let’s take Solyndra as an example. Through a federal assistance program, emerging solar company Solyndra received nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to subsidize its expensive solar panels and to help the business grow. President Obama visited Solyndra’s shiny new headquarters himself to announce to the world the extraordinary success of his green energy loan program and his wise investment of taxpayer dollars. But then, things went south. Solyndra went into bankruptcy, and their financial records revealed an absolute mess. The company was spending far more money than it was taking in, and was not in a position to repay its loan. However, thanks to the poorly-negotiated terms of the loan agreement, Solyndra was not obligated to pay its dues to the American taxpayer first. Instead, investors in the company covered their losses, and the American people were left hanging on an awful deal. What’s more, several major contributors to President Obama’s election campaign in 2008 had invested in the company prior to the introduction of federal funding to Solyndra’s coffers.

A good leader would have stood up and said that he had made a mistake. But not our president. Here’s what he had to say about Solyndra just recently (emphasis is mine):

We are doing the all of the above strategy right. Obviously we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt.  Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete.  But understand, this was not our program per se.  Congress, Democrats and Republicans, put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries, it’s easy to raise money for startups, but if you want to take them to scale, oftentimes there’s a lot of risk involved. And what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help startup companies get to scale.

I didn’t see a single “I” or “me” in that quote! Instead of taking responsibility for the actions of his administration regarding Solyndra (namely the utter disregard for the numerous red flags in Solyndra’s loan application and the company’s business plan), President Obama shifts the blame to China and to Congress for creating the loan program in the first place! Our president, of course, left out the fact that he himself championed this loan program and promised the American people that it would succeed. Thus, instead of taking responsibility for his actions, our president simply blames someone else.

President Obama is not shy about taking credit for good things that happen. A fine example of this is the killing of Osama bin-Laden, which had only been made possible by the lengthy and unpopular Afghanistan and Iraq Wars under President George W. Bush. Despite this, Obama still took credit for the killing of one of the most evil, violent people in the world. If President Obama wants to take credit for all the good things that happen, he should be similarly willing to take responsibility for the bad.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Latest GOP proposal too bold for Democrats?

Filed under: Posts — 1 Comment
March 20, 2012

If liberal Democrats tank this new budget, Republican leaders will win the PR battle by labeling their opponents as selfish Washington bureaucrats that are unwilling to make the changes necessary to rescue our nation from its current fiscal calamity.

The Path to Prosperity. Although this may sound like a title taken straight from a book by Milton Friedman, it is actually the Republicans’ latest attempt at ground-breaking reform and lasting fiscal solvency.

The poignantly-titled budget proposal features meaningful reductions in entitlement spending and also proposes a radical new taxation system. Authored by much-loved (or hated, depending on where you’re coming from) Republican Paul Ryan, the plan moves many entitlement programs to the state level and scales back many existing federal entitlement programs such as food stamps and Medicaid. Federally-granted college tuition aid is being scaled back as well, but is also going to be refocused upon poor students that need the aid the most. On the tax end, this new budget also throws out the existing federal tax code and institutes two new tax rates, 10% and 25%, for low-income and high-income earners respectively. To pay for these massive rate cuts, the Ryan plan eliminates tax deductions across the board for individuals and corporations alike. Also, to spur the creation of jobs domestically, the Ryan plan cuts the corporate tax rate to 25%, putting America more in line with its international competitors.

As usual, Democrats aren’t pleased. Fortunately, however, most of the attacks that I have seen from Democrats thus far have seemed almost trivial. Democratic Senator Patty Murray released a statement bemoaning the fact that the Ryan plan reduces interagency government spending a mere $19 billion more than the automatic cuts that Republicans and Democrats agreed upon in the event of the failure of the super-committee. In other words, Ms. Murray is upset that Republicans are cutting $19 billion (out of more than a trillion dollars) more than Democrats and Republicans agreed upon at that time. That ought to tell you something about the seriousness of Democrats regarding our cataclysmic fiscal situation.

House Republicans are expected to pass Ryan’s plan by an overwhelming margin. However, the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to do the same, and it is entirely possible that majority leader Harry Reid will not even allow the GOP budget to go up for a vote. However, even if the Democrats reject Ryan’s proposal, the GOP will have the opportunity to win a major PR battle. By portraying the Democratic rejection of the GOP plan as a demonstration of devotion to our currently unsustainable rates of spending, the Republicans can put Democrats in a corner. What’s more, Ryan’s proposal includes some significant compromises and concessions to Democrats. For example, one such compromise is that the plan allows seniors to choose classic, government-provided Medicare as an option instead of only private insurance policies. Ryan’s previous budget proposal did away with government-provided Medicare entirely! So, Democrats will have no excuse to reject this plan, as the Republicans are clearly doing everything they can to balance meaningful cuts with the Democratic desire to preserve costly entitlement programs. By making this point across all media outlets, Republicans can cause some serious damage to the Democrat Party that could persist until the November elections.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Obamacare and partisanship in the judiciary

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
March 18, 2012

If the judges of the Supreme Court uphold the individual mandate of Obamacare, they will have shirked their duty to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Even though it has not even been fully enacted, President Obama’s massive healthcare overhaul (nicknamed Obamacare) has begun to go the way of its European predecessors. Healthcare costs are exploding across the board, and millions of Americans have lost their doctors and their insurance policies as a result of the law. Fortunately, President Obama’s maligned health policy is beginning to crumble thanks to significant constitutional challenges.

The individual mandate in Obamacare is the juiciest target for those seeking to challenge the law on the grounds of constitutional violation. The individual mandate forces Americans to either purchase government insurance or pay a significant fine to the government. By not providing an option for Americans to simply opt out of Obamacare free of charge, President Obama is clearly overstepping his constitutional bounds.

Despite the fact that Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional, I am deeply concerned about the fate of this law as it moves to the Supreme Court. In my view, judges do far more legislating than actual judging, and the personal views of judges generally contribute far more to their decisions than the Constitution does. In fact, the Supreme Court itself is a purely partisan instrument of the political process. I can distinctly recall a presidential debate earlier this year in which one of the candidates accused Mitt Romney of not nominating enough conservative judges during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts. While Romney was quick to defend his credentials on this issue, I am curious as to why a conservative judge, rather than a constitutional one, was the prerequisite for an acceptable judge. Although the conservative philosophy adheres to the Constitution far more than the liberal philosophy does, I would much rather have a judge that will uphold his oath and adhere to the Constitution than a judge that simply expresses his political viewpoints from the bench.

My concern regarding Obamacare is simple. The liberal judges on the Supreme Court will uphold the law in spite of its unconstitutionality simply on the basis of their personal views of the law, while the conservatives on the bench will reject the law for the same reason. It is fairly obvious that Obamacare is unconstitutional, so a split vote on the law will certainly indicate that the liberals on the Supreme Court care little about the Constitution and instead make decisions in the context of their own personal views.

I believe that Obamacare will be struck down, but I believe it will be too close for comfort. Future presidents should focus intently upon nominating judges to the Supreme Court that are deeply devoted to the Constitution, not a political philosophy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

No love for the Obama administration

Filed under: Posts — 1 Comment
March 15, 2012

There are only so many wealthy Democrats. In mere months, President Obama will have great difficulty raising the money he needs from them.

As President Obama’s approval numbers continue to plummet, his fundraising is proving to be much less bombastic than that of last year. In his Wall Street Journal op-ed this morning, Karl Rove provided some heartening insight into President Obama’s fundraising.

Rove pointed out that President Obama is falling far short of his fundraising goal of a billion dollars. He attributed this to several factors, but he focused in particular upon the unwillingness of mainstream Democrats to donate to the Obama campaign. This is extremely evident when one takes a look at President Obama’s fundraising patterns. Our president has spent the majority of his fundraising time with wealthy Hollywood Democrats who have money to spend on $10,000 a plate dinners and such. However, the day will come when this source of easy money will dry up, and President Obama will be forced to turn his fundraising to everyday Americans (who are less than willing to donate to his campaign).

The fact that few Democrats are willing to donate to their incumbent president reveals the biggest problem for the Obama campaign thus far. Most Democrats that still support Obama feel that he is doomed to lose the November election. Because of this, few of these Democrats are willing to open their pocketbooks for the president for fear of losing their money in vain. This resignation on the part of Democrats could also play into voter turnout. If Democrats don’t even donate to their candidate for fear that he may lose, it is entirely possible that these Democrats might not even show up to the voting booths in November if they believe that their candidate cannot win.

President Obama has a massive enthusiasm gap to deal with, and I believe that this gap will lead to his downfall in November. While Republicans are itching to get to the voting booth in November to resoundingly crush President Obama, Democrats are resigning themselves to a Republican victory. Unless the Obama campaign can convince Democrats that Mr. Obama can in fact win his bid for a second term, our president will surely lose in November.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Are higher gas prices really Obama’s fault?

Filed under: Posts — 8 Comments
March 12, 2012

If President Obama really wanted to lower gas prices, he would have thrown his full weight behind the Keystone pipeline. Pictured: Mr. Obama speaking at a gas station in Indiana (AP/Jae Hong).

For the past several weeks, Republican leaders have placed the blame for higher gas prices upon President Obama. To support this assertion, these Republicans have cited President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and the crippling regulations that have been enacted by the Obama administration. However, our president and his supporters argue that gas prices are rising due to outside influences such as Middle Eastern tension and that, henceforth, President Obama is unable to make much of an impact on gas prices. These are both valid arguments, so who is really to blame for higher gas prices?

In his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning, Republican governor Bobby Jindal lays out a comprehensive rebuke of President Obama’s current energy policy. He argues that President Obama has been obstructing new oil drilling by reducing deep-water drilling permits by nearly 30%, by rejecting the Keystone pipeline, and by enacting stringent gasoline standards. These standards, which typically involve the mixing of regular gasoline and inferior (and more costly) ethanol, are currently being implemented at the state level here in California, and I can assure you that they are extremely costly. Besides Hawaii, California has the highest average gas prices in the entire United States, and the state’s average gas price is fifty-seven cents higher than the national average. Additionally, gas in California costs, on average, a whopping $1.05 more than that of Wyoming, the state with the least costly gas of all. Wyoming, of course, is one of the most conservative states in the United States, with more than 50% of its residents identifying themselves as conservatives. Clearly, government policy makes a big difference in gas prices, even at the state level.

There are certainly foreign influences contributing to rising gas prices here in the United States, but it is simply inaccurate when President Obama and his supporters paint these influences as the exclusive cause for rising gas prices. Mr. Jindal puts it this way (emphasis is mine):

Some estimates suggest that the U.S. could overtake Russia as the world’s top producer of oil and gas by 2020, and we should not be singling out [the oil industry] for tax increases that would inevitably lead to higher prices for American Consumers. Rather than punish[ing] one type of producer in favor of crony capitalism, [America] should adopt a flatter tax code with lower rates and no loopholes that allows different energy types to compete in the marketplace.

Gov. Jindal’s point is twofold. First, there is a wealth of oil here in the United States that is simply being ignored by the Obama administration in their attempt to protect a heavily-subsidized clean energy industry that has been a failure on all fronts. By taking advantage of the energy we have here at home, the US can reduce its dependence upon foreign oil and can provide a massive influx of oil supply into the marketplace, prompting rapid price declines. Secondly, Mr. Jindal advocates for a fairer tax code that allows oil companies to compete on the same playing field as solar, wind, and other heavily-supported energy industries. By allowing the free market to decide prices and products, such a tax code would force clean energy companies to create more advanced, innovative products in order to stay afloat and to stay competitive. Meanwhile, oil and gas companies would have to find more efficient ways to refine and extract oil and gas to meet public demand for lower prices and better fuel.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Geithner: Rich should pay more taxes to earn “privilege” of being American

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
February 26, 2012

Timothy Geithner, President Obama's treasury secretary.

The Obama administration has long pushed the idea that the wealthy must bear the majority of the American tax burden. However, until now, the primary line of reasoning behind this ideological push is that the rich must contribute their “fair share” for the good of all Americans. However, a recent comment by Timothy Geithner, President Obama’s treasury secretary, has indicated a significant shift from the typical populist reasoning.

“Because if you don’t try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to — the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security.”

Referring to taxation as a means of essentially purchasing the “privilege” of being American is utterly ridiculous, as it counters the bedrock principles of our country’s founding. America has always been about working hard and producing your own success. This is clear when we read the Declaration of Independence, which promises the “pursuit” of happiness and of personal achievement to all Americans. However, in Timothy Geithner’s view, being American is about paying for your success, not the production of that success itself.

Being American is so much more than being successful, however. In fact, financial success contributes very little to being a good American. Someone who is active in his community and who loves his countrymen and his country but makes very little money should not be seen as anything less than a wealthy man who does the same. However, in the minds of Timothy Geithner and President Obama, wealth – not the lack thereof – reduces one’s status as an American.

It seems that the Obama administration is having great difficulty finding a good reason behind its continuous push to scalp wealthy and middle-class Americans. Portraying tax payment as a prerequisite to being American is just another example of this scrambling effort to justify failed policy and ideology with faulty reasoning.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Webcast: Iran, Obama’s budget, and contraception

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
February 17, 2012
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers