Tag Archive: Obama
It is unacceptable for our president to buy votes and campaign donations with taxpayer dollars.
First, it was Solyndra. Then, it was Lightsquared. Then after that, it was the vaccine that we didn’t need. Time and time again, President Obama has displayed his disturbing inclination to spend precious taxpayer dollars on the projects of his campaign’s financial supporters. In another example of outright corruption, our irresponsible leader has given billions of dollars to major campaign organizers through his various stimulus programs.
After pulling support for President Obama back in 2008 through his organization Clean Tech for Obama, Sanjay Wagle received a seat in the inner circle of the Obama administration just as the president embarked upon his massive energy stimulus plan. Interestingly enough, over the next three years, the Obama administration gave a whopping $2.4 billion of funding to companies in which Mr. Wagle’s former employer, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had also invested.
The Washington Post in a Tuesday article about this topic also points out that “$3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.” Of course, the Energy Department has insisted that none of these grants were political in nature, assuring that the money was given based upon merit. However, I personally put very little stock in this, as the Obama administration blew almost half a billion dollars on Solyndra, the business plan of which was questioned from the very beginning by pretty much everyone except the White House. There is no motive for such a poor investment besides political gain.
By the way, I will have my latest webcast up and running sometime this weekend. Be sure to subscribe to my YouTube channel to receive updates whenever a video is posted!
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.
This election prediction is based upon President Obama's current approval numbers. Clearly, there's a lot of red.
On the left is an election prediction based upon President Obama’s current state-by-state approval numbers. Clearly, as the sea of red indicates, our president will have some seriously difficulties when the election arrives this November.
In a new Gallup poll, state-by-state results show a dismal situation for President Obama. His approval number, averaged across all the states, is an abysmal 44%, and in swing states, things are similarly awful. In Pennsylvania and Florida – crucial swing states – the president’s approval numbers are 45% and 43% respectively. And it even gets worse for the president: in my notoriously-liberal home state of California, President Obama’s approval barely ekes out a majority, with 50.1% of poll respondents approving of Obama’s performance as leader of the free world. Ouch!
The Gallup poll also made comparisons between President Obama’s approval ratings last year and his ratings this year. Below is an excerpt from the Gallup’s poll analysis:
Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.
Even in home-front states like Hawaii, President Obama is having great difficulty holding on to his devoted followers, and only three states posted “marginal increases” from his approval numbers last year. Clearly, what Republicans are doing is working very well thus far. By revealing the utter failures of President Obama’s economic policies, conservatives have greatly increased the knowledge of concerned voters and have put President Obama in a very difficult position. Hopefully, the downward trend of Obama’s approval numbers will continue until he is ousted from office this coming November.
A free market solution to the tuition dilemma would be far more effective than a government program. Pictured: Obama speaking to students at the University of Michigan.
While campaigning in Michigan yesterday, President Obama announced a plan to curb student tuition costs in order to give everyone a chance to profit from a quality college education. Although well-meant, the president’s government-centered plan will ultimately be a big loser for college students across the United States.
Currently, the federal government subsidizes student loans heavily and appropriates $1 billion annually to underwrite these loans. President Obama’s proposal would octuple federal loan spending and bring it to a sizable $8 billion. Also, his plan would provide a merit-based awarding of loan funds to colleges. Schools that keep tuition rates down under the plan would receive more federal loan money than schools that fail to do so. Overall, this is a decent plan, but with a glaring flaw: it involves more government subsidies.
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul in particular has offered the most candid perspective on the failure of our student loan system. His bold plan eliminates the Department of Education altogether and gradually phases out student loans, putting pressure on colleges to lower their tuition costs and offer more sensible loan plans than their competitors. By letting the free market work, colleges that offer a quality education for a low price will be rewarded by a clamoring wave of applicants, while those that raise prices too much or lower their standards for educational excellence will suffer devastating decreases in student enrollment. Thus, prices would be reduced significantly across the board, giving even poorer Americans a chance to go to college and get a degree. By contrast, government subsidies encourage colleges to increase tuition by giving these colleges access to government funds for the distribution of student loans.
Obama’s plan could even be entirely appeasement. Handing out (borrowed) money to students from middle-class families could constitute an attempt to buy votes this upcoming November. However, if President Obama really cares about controlling costs, he should really take a closer look at a free-market approach to education.
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>
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.
Webcast: Rick Santorum’s electability and the food police