September '10 Issue Debrief

8/7/2019 September '10 Issue Debrief

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/september-10-issue-debrief 1/63

CRNC Research CompendiumSeptember 2010

Editor: Brandon Greife, Political Director

College Republican National Committee 600 Pennsylvania Ave, SE Ste. 215 Washington, DC 20003 T 202-608-1411 F 202-608-1429

www.collegerepublicans.org

http://www.collegerepublicans.org/

http://www.collegerepublicans.org/



Table of Contents

Obama’s Proposed Hike on Investment Taxes Will Slow Recovery ! 4

Voter Shift Towards Conservatism Has Enormous Electoral Implications! 5

The President Should Follow His Own Advice and “Wake Up”! 6

GOP’s Young Guns: Not Your Father’s Republican Party ! 7

CEOs: Obama’s Anti-Business Rhetoric Dampening Job Growth! 9

Down Big Before Election Day – Democrats Tossing Up Hail Mary’s ! 10

Republicans’ Pledge Shows Return to Common Sense May be the Greatest Reform of All! 13

Obama’s Campus Tour Finding College Conservatism on the Rise! 15

In Tax Cut Debate Democrats Put Self-Preservation Over Public Good! 17

Republicans’ Healthcare “Pledge” Shows Understanding of Obamacare’s Flaws! 18

Republican’s Pledge Accomplishes More By Doing Less! 20

Poll Finds Republicans Better Represent Voter’s Values! 21

Obamacare’s Six Month Anniversary Passes With Little Fanfare ! 23

Special message to the College Republican from Congressman Jeff Miller! 24

The Recession is Over – But Under Obama’s Policies High Unemployment is Not! 26

100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America (For the Worse)! 28

Krugman’s Baseless Attack On Wealth Highlights Liberals’ Flaw! 30

College Republican National Committee

September Research Compendium ! 1



Obama’s Big Spending Agenda Ruined Relationship With Young Adults ! 31

Economists Agree – Extend the Tax Cuts. So Why Aren’t Dems Listening? ! 32

All Politics is Local, But for Democrats Debt Problems Exist Nationwide! 33

A Debt That Threatens Our Future! 35

Lessons from Fidel? Cuba Looks to Private Sector to Escape Recession! 36

Greece or the U.K. – How Will the U.S. Respond to Austerity? ! 37

Intel CEO Has Harsh Words for Obama’s Economic Plans ! 39

Obama Declares Combat Missions Have Ended But Danger Remains! 40

Dems Stifle Criticism, Promote False Picture of Obamacare! 41

Democratic Candidates Saying Whatever The Voters Want to hear! 42

United States Falls in Annual Global Competitiveness Report! 43

More Democrats Fighting Obama Administration’s Planned Tax Increase ! 45

New Report Finds Obamacare Raises Premiums and Adds to Deficit! 47

Obama’s Attempt to Cast John Boehner as the Villain Fall Flat! 48

Japan and US: Two Innovators Bound to Same Fate! 49

Obama Denies Bipartisan Compromise on Tax Cuts ! 50

Michigan’s Conservative Leaders Speak Out to College Republicans! 52

In Face of Dismal Polls, Democrats Running Away From Washington! 52

Trying the Same Thing But Expecting Different Results! 53

Florida’s Conservative Leaders Praise Youth Involvement ! 55

Obama Peddling More Failed Stimulus ! 55

Obama’s New Tax Write-Off A Step in the Right Direction ! 56





Democrats’ Breach of Trust Could Lead to Big November Losses! 57

Obama’s Economic Speech Heavy on Rhetoric, Light on Solutions ! 59

New Poll Finds Obamacare Popularity in Tailspin – Taking Dems November Chances With It !60





Obama’s Proposed Hike on Investment Taxes Will Slow Recovery

Obama & Co. are seeking to let the investment tax cuts expire. As a method for paying for theirunsustainable government spending they are proposing to raise the tax on capital gains from 15% to20% and see the dividend income tax jump to between 36% and 39.6%. If Obama has his way, oureconomy will be turned into the Hindenburg – clumsy, slow, and likely to explode at a moment’s notice.

Fortunately for Americans, 47 House Democrats have embraced sound fiscal policy over party ties andcalled on their party leaders to continue the Bush-era tax cuts on investment income.

If Obama’s proposed concoction of tax cuts and tax hikes gets passed Americans will face a $3.4 trilliontax increase over the next 10 years. Obama wants the US tax system to regress to the point where everydollar of investment income is hit by a 35% corporate tax rate (the second highest in the world) and a20% capital gains tax. Given the double taxation is there really an incentive to be a shareholder? Betterquestion: without shareholders how will companies get the capital they need to grow and hire? Evenbetter question: if business growth stagnates how will we ever escape the recession? Well, if you takethe Congressional Budget Office’s word for it (we do) then the tax increase will “leave most people lesswell off.” Just what we need right about now…to be less well off.

This is leading to a number of problems. First, to avoid being penalized for their productivity,

corporations are allocating their capital to less productive areas. A stagnating and inefficient economy isnot exactly the road to success. Second, it will reduce the size of the American economic pie. As theWall Street Journal explains,

Think of the economy as a pie split among workers, savers and the government, with thegovernment’s slice fixed. The savers’ slice will equal the after-tax return on each unit of thecapital stock, and what’s left goes to workers as after-tax wages. The fairness advocates ineffect claim that low tax rates on dividends and capital gains increase the share of the pie thatgoes to high-income savers. But the low tax rates increase the absolute size of the workers ̓ slice by making the entire pie bigger. That’s because low tax rates encourage capital accumulation,productivity and wage growth.

In 2003 Bush allowed a 50 percent write off of capital expenditures One year later, business spending onequipment had risen 30 percent, to $1.06 trillion compared to the 2002 levels. Employment grew for 46

straight months, creating 8 million new jobs. At the very least this shows that if we permanently rescindmany of our taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations economic growth will follow.

Forty-seven percent of all interest income, 60 percent of all dividends, and 84 percent of all net capitalgains are reported by the households that earn more than $200,000. That is because these are thehouseholds that are heavily investing into new ventures and helping corporations raise new capital.These are the people carrying America. Not only does growth in the private sector rely on them, thegovernment could not be supported without them. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans pays 40% ofall income taxes collected, while 40 percent of income earners are exempt from paying the federalincome tax.

If the US keeps stigmatizing these people and businesses and keep placing more and more taxes onthem the US economy will never fully recover from the current recession. Obama is pro middle class tax

cuts but anti- investment and upper class tax cuts. Americans must see this hypocrisy. If Obama wastruly for the middle class he would extend Bush’s investment tax cuts to everybody. There is an inherenthypocrisy in claiming to be for the middle class then targeting the investments and incomes of thewealthy. The businesses and the individuals who are targeted in Obama’s tax plan keep Americagrowing and prosperous that by default benefits the middle class.

Just as Herbert Morrison lamented “Oh, the humanity,” as he witnessed the violent demise of theHindenburg, Americans must exclaim: “Oh, the hypocrisy,” to prevent our economy from becoming thenext preventable heap of smoking wreckage.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703700904575391463715177240.html?KEYWORDS=obama+capital+gains+tax+cut

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/30/obamas-proposed-hike-on-investment-taxes-will-slow-recovery/








Voter Shift Towards Conservatism Has Enormous Electoral

Implications

Conservatism has always been the dominant ideology of the United States. Take 2008 for instance.President Obama was riding a progressive wave into office, dominating the competition, whileDemocrats coasted comfortably into Washington on his coattails. But even then, 37 percent ofAmericans identified themselves as conservative versus 22 percent who identified themselves as liberal.

Fast-forward to 2010 where conservatism is making a “comeback,” if you can call expanding on a 15percent lead a comeback. Regardless of what you call it, the percentage of people calling themselvesconservative has jumped 5 percent since 2008, while the liberal brand has fallen by 2 percent.

This leads to some very interesting electoral consequences. Lydia Saad of Gallup and Anne Kim andJon Cowan of Third Way crunched the numbers to see what the electoral consequences of thisideological shift would be. Washington Post columnist David Broder explained their findings in a recentarticle:

Suppose Democratic candidates run as well as Obama did nationally in 2008, taking 20

percent of the conservatives, 60 percent of the moderates and 89 percent of the liberals.And suppose, too, that turnout rates are the same for all three groups.

With the updated Gallup figures, a 2010 Democratic candidate who matched Obama’snational percentages would still win Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon andWashington. But, with more conservatives and fewer liberals in the mix, the Democratwould come up short in 13 other competitive states and barely break even in California,Illinois and New Hampshire. Among the big states where the numbers now breakagainst the Democrats are Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/30/the_middle_has_swung_against_dems.html

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/30/voter-shift-towards-conservatism-has-enormous-electoral-implications/











This should come as disastrous news for Democrats. The shrinking pool of liberal votes means thatDemocratic candidates will have to be even more effective than President Obama at capturing liberalvoters to have a chance in November. But with Democratic voter enthusiasm well below 2008 levels anda large number of liberal voters disenchanted by the performance of the White House this seems next toimpossible.

This is a problem of Democrats own making. In 2008 they were granted an almost unprecedentedchance to build the liberal brand by capturing moderate voters. Instead, their unpopular agenda droveaway independents and left liberals unsatisfied. People are once again demanding a change ofdirection from Washington, and if these Gallup numbers show anything, it’s that they are likely to get it.

The President Should Follow His Own Advice and “Wake Up”

HOT OFF THE PRESS!!! Sen. John Kerry is a sore loser. Oh! We already knew this? He said he “couldn’tbelieve he [was] losing to this idiot” when he was losing to President Bush? This is alarming news. Iguess it shouldn’t be all that surprising when he recently described American voters as being politically

dumb and blind.“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so peopleare influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.”

Hmm. Sounds a lot like how President Obama won. “Yes we can” or “hope and change” anyone? Or howabout a cool Shepard Fairey painting and an Oprah endorsement? Ya know, rather than facts or truth.The fact is, President Obama wasn’t just a candidate; he was an omnipresent pop culture icon. Everyoneknew he was all about change, but not very many voters knew what exactly this meant.

So is the party who cruised into office on the backs of people “influenced by a simple slogan” reallyready to throw stones at those same people? In short, yes.

Want proof? President Obama and Vice President Biden have been parroting similar criticisms of the

electorate in recent days.

Biden recently told Democrats to “stop whining.” When asked to clarify what this meant he said, “Thosewho…didn’t get everything they wanted, it’s time to just buck up here, understand that we can makethings better but not yield the playing field to those folks who are against everything we stand for.”

In other words, when the voters swung to the Democrats’ following their disillusionment withRepublicans, that was all well and good. But now that Democrats face the same pressure from asimilarly disillusioned base, it’s time to “buck up.”

President Obama had similar feelings of his own. In a recent Rolling Stone interview President Obamaresponded to a comment about the growing frustration among his supporters by saying, “I’ll tell them,‘Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances

imaginable.”To which, I would say. YOU buck up. YOU wake up. We were promised fundamental change, not halfmeasures. We understand that you were able to pass two historic pieces of legislation – the stimulus andhealthcare reform – but neither of those is proving effective. The economy, for which he is mainly beingjudged, continues to trend the wrong way. The unemployment rate is forecasted to rise above 10percent, consumer confidence is down, and the economy is growing at a measly 1.6 percent. Thisdespite a $787 billion stimulus package that must inevitably be paid for by job killing tax increases. Ifthis is the change that you were promising, you can have it back.



http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1284069

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/29/the-president-should-follow-his-own-advice-and-wake-up/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=1

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=1







But instead of following his own advice and “bucking up” to the challenges our nation faces, we aregetting excuses. Instead of rousing campaign promises we are left with these quotes from PresidentObama:

• “Getting something passed through Congress with 535 members is hard”• “This isn’t single payer which some people wanted, this is a middle of the road bill”•

“Each of these issues is huge complicated issues”• “Now you’ve got a financial system that is stable, it’s still not as strong as it was in 2006”• “It’s not for lack of trying, it’s because the politics of it are difficult”

Why aren’t we telling him to “quit whining”? It seems to me that he, more-so than any voter, is the oneproviding more excuses than action. We understand that the politics are difficult. But do wanna knowwhat is even more difficult? Trying to find a job. Attempting to pay off student loans. Keeping food on thetable. And maintaining faith in Washington. We didn’t elect you to present us with excuses, we put youinto office because you came out swinging with big promises.

Or maybe I’m just one of the dumb lemmings that John Kerry spoke of. Perhaps I’m just too ignorant tosee all the great change that President Obama is bringing to America. Perhaps I just need to believe thatultimately he’ll fulfill his slogan of “hope and change.” Perhaps he just needs more time. Nah, I’d rather

just look at the “facts” and “the truth” and “what’s happening.” And the fact is, President Obama hasn’tlived up to his promise.

GOP’s Young Guns: Not Your Father’s Republican Party

This isn’t your father’s Republican party.” So said Joe Biden at a rally in State College, Pennsylvania thispast week. He’s exactly right. A party often lambasted for being a bunch of old dudes has gotten a face-lift. The GOP’s Young Guns (and no we’re not talking about the Emilio Estevez movie) are a group ofRepublicans set on breaking with the past and ushering in a new, rejuvenated era of conservatism.The Young Guns, led by Representatives Eric Cantor of Virginia, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and KevinMcCarthy of California, are the new face of the GOP. And it’s giving Democrats fits. Rather than account

for their own shortcomings, Democrats have taken to blaming President Bush for many of the nation’sills. Looking to the past has also become their go-to campaign narrative, warning Americans that theymay not like where things are, but think how much worse it would be if we go back to the Republicanpolicies of the past.



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/29/gops-young-guns-not-your-fathers-republican-party/







In a surprising, and quite frankly, refreshing, move the Young Guns are happy to concede the point.Rather than argue the merits of past actions, they fully agree that we can’t go back. As Cantor, Ryan,and McCarthy wrote in a recent USA Today article,

“By the fall of 2006, it had become abundantly clear that Republicans had severely lost

our way. Members who had previously won election promising to safeguard the bestinterest of the taxpayers grew consumed with self-preservation. A party that fancieditself as ethical champions of limited government became overwhelmed by corruptioncharges and the reality that we had significantly increased federal spending. Weatrophied, lost our moorings, and lost our way. In hindsight, you can’t blame the votersfor firing us.”

Say what? The public isn’t used to hearing honesty from their Representatives, especially when thathonesty involves lamenting the direction of your own party. A new strategy for new leaders. Theyrecognize the party’s mistakes, fully own up to and admit them, and are now ready to promise a betterfuture.

This infusion of new conservative blood isn’t solely a top-down movement, it is also bubbling up across

the nation. Groups such as the Tea Party are frankly fed up with both parties in Washington. They don’twant a Republican or a Democrat; they look beyond labels to the essence of the candidate.

The results are visible. Take a look at the conservative candidate in your district and he’s likely not alifetime politician, he’s not going to Washington to bide his time for a plush committee job, and hedoesn’t have any idea of using politics as a career. No, most likely you’ll find that the candidate is justlike you – angry at the ridiculous spending that is going on in Washington. The reason he or she isrunning is because they know, with the help of their convictions, that they can fix it.

The personal commitment to fiscal responsibility and true change is embodied in the face of themovement – the Young Guns. As they wrote for the USA Today,

What unites the Young Guns movement is a conviction that the answer to our daunting

economic problems does not lie in more government. The answer lies in innovation,economic growth, entrepreneurship, and individual opportunity and freedom. . .

America is a nation at a crossroads, and the choices that we make today will determinethe quality of the country we leave our children tomorrow. We believe that it’s time forgovernment to again start working for the people who pay for it. We believe that we mustnot leave our children a country more in debt and worse off than we found it. And webelieve that elected officials need to start living up to the promises that they have made.

Young adults in particular should feel heartened by the emergence of this new Republican brand. Overthe past several election cycles young adults have been consistently left out in the cold. We great wearyof the Bush years which seemed closed off, insular, and stale. In 2008 we thought we would finally getthe change we were looking for. Barack Obama was well spoken, energetic, and relatively young. Hecame promising to shake up Washington and bring real change to a nation in dire need of it. That too

proved to be nothing more than a mirage. The Obama administration has only added to, not changed,Washington, frittering away our future with historic levels of spending.

Where were young adults, or the enormous number of disaffected independent voters, to turn next? TheYoung Guns seem to have given us an answer. They are a reunification of the conservative andRepublican brands and a stark contrast from both prior administrations.

Their commitment to change is not evidenced by mere words, they have the records to back it up. PaulRyan’s Roadmap for America’s Future is an honest and ambitious plan to reform government and get this



http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-09-28-column28_ST2_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip


http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/







nation’s finances back on track. Eric Cantor’s YouCut initiative is an innovative program that seeks tochange the spending culture of Washington by allowing citizens input on ways to eliminate wastefulgovernment spending. Finally, Kevin McCarthy took the lead on the America Speaking Out, aninteractive tool that allows concerned voters input on how Washington should be run.

Together, these Young Guns are taking the lead on bringing true change to Washington. After all, this

isn’t your father’s Republican Party and nothing could make us more hopeful.

CEOs: Obama’s Anti-Business Rhetoric Dampening Job Growth

The recent defamation of big businesses by the Obama administration is nothing new. Since theIndustrial Revolution, politicians have sought to attack and ostracize the industrious. And let’s face it, it isan easy sell. Whether it be David against Goliath, the Minutemen fighting the Red Coats, or Butler versusDuke, America is predisposed to want the little man to stand victorious against the oppression of Titans.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this either. To rely on nothing but your own hands and your ownintellect to create something new, something that is yours, that goes against the naysayers, the

establishment that wrongly claims you can’t, is heroic. What is wrong is automatically penalizing David ifhe becomes Goliath. In the American mind there is an inaccurate correlation between “big” and “bad.”Politicians and pundits exacerbate this idea. They do this because that if ‘’Goliath” is interchangeablewith “bad”, then they, as leaders of government, have an authority, awarded to them by voters, to goafter the Goliath's of the world. Restrictions and regulations are then created to limit big businesses, theGoliath's of modern America. These rules give the government more power and more authority, whichalways somehow seems to be a good thing.

Immediate and direct power for politicians and government is not the only beneficial thing that comesfrom targeting big businesses. When big businesses stumble or fail, as they often do when they areshackled by illogical regulations and arbitrary rules, the politician can swoop in and decry the evils ofthe businesses’ greed and self-interest. This is helped by the immediate reaction by most people toblame the business. After all, it is the business’ goals, policies, and decisions that ultimately and solely

affect the company’s bottom line. Except, when the company is not the only one making decisions thataffect both the day to day operations and long term outlook of the company. The government’s visiblehand is often guiding and controlling variables, but that is a fact often swept away by politicians. Whenbig businesses fail, politicians can claim that these regulations were designed to protect people and thatthe business executives were greedily seeking ways to circumvent these controls, and that a vote forthem is a vote against these corrupt business that fail.

Americans must dispel these myths. Private enterprise is not evil, but is the realization of the AmericanDream. The private sector is what drives the American economy, it is what fuels innovation, and it is whatcreates sustainable employment. Higher taxes against big businesses and increased rules andregulations of these businesses stifle economic growth and ultimately lead to higher unemployment.Under the tyranny of excess rules, regulations and taxes, IPOs, capital investments, and stock valuesplummet. The competitiveness of companies is severely limited. Despite that, the Obama administration

has recently expanded their attacks on big businesses to now include foreign businesses. The Obamaadministration believes that government intervention is what will save America.To be blunt, America is desperate for jobs. The government plan to rescue employment has failed.Democrats predicted by the end of this summer, the same summer they touted as the “Summer ofRecovery,” unemployment would drop to around 7%. It is currently at 9.6%, or 11% if you count all thepeople who were searching for jobs but have given up, and is expected to remain at that way until 2012.

Instead of creating 3.7 million jobs by summer’s end 2.5 million jobs have been lost with the privatesector losing 2.4 million of those jobs. Almost as a testament to the futility of government interventionist



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/28/ceos-obamas-anti-business-rhetoric-dampening-job-growth/



http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/



http://www.americaspeakingout.com/

http://www.americaspeakingout.com/





policies, two Los Angeles departments that received $111 million to in stimulus money created/saved awhopping 55 jobs with the money.

Rather than fight the dire employment situation by extolling the virtues of businesses, the Obamaadministration has painted them as villains. He has derided them as “fat cat bankers” who have thrivedby using only “reckless practices” who send “battalions of financial industry lobbyists” to “descend on

Capitol Hill.” Such words left media and real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman to feel that this White Househas “done something here that affects everybody’s confidence in the attitudes of this administration tothe business community and to the economy. They have demonized the business world.”

Beyond hostile words, many job creators are lamenting the unfriendly business environment that isresulting from Democrats’ policies. As Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said, Obama is nurturing “anincreasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.” Steve Forbes added that “not even theFranklin Roosevelt administration was as hostile to and ignorant about free enterprise as thisadministration is.” Intel CEO Paul Otellini feels similarly. As he explained at the Technology PolicyInstitute’s Aspen Forum, “The U.S. political environment has become so hostile to business that there islikely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth.” But the underlying problem as Otellini sees it isthat “this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by theirexperiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

The business bashing has not stopped with domestic firms. As Politico reported today, representativesof many multi-national firms are coming to Washington on Tuesday for a series of quiet meetings at theWhite House and on Capitol Hill to offer a counterargument — that the combination of tough presidentialrhetoric and draconian administration policy could drive their firms away and, with them, thousands ofjobs that the economy desperately needs.” Nancy McLernon, president of the Organization forInternational Investment, told Politico, “Over the last year, there has been some anti-foreign rhetoric thathas painted these companies that employ millions of Americans with a foreign brush.”

The results could be terrible for a limping economy. A survey of these multinational firms found that 49percent plan to increase employment in the next 18 months. Such exciting news is tempered by the factthat 72 percent of the firms said that the environment for their companies is worsening because of“proposed tax and trade policies.”Americans must realize that anti-business rhetoric and regulation are crushing the American Dream, notprotecting the average American. We must look past the rhetoric against big business and realize theObama administration is asking us to essentially put limitations on how much we as creators, innovators,and entrepreneurs can achieve. Not only does it impede the growth of our economy, but it judgespersonal achievement as morally wrong. This is not the path to recovery. America needs all the businessit can get. Whether businesses are foreign or domestic, they all lead to the same thing: jobs.

Down Big Before Election Day – Democrats Tossing Up Hail Mary’s

Just before halftime of the Green Bay and Chicago football game last night, Aaron Rodgers, quarterbackof the Packers, heaved a Hail Mary pass into the end zone. The strategy of such a play is simple. You

toss the football as long and as high as you can. It gives both the receiver and the cornerback ampletime to get under the ball. If the receiver catches it, it is an easy 7 points. If the cornerback intercepts it,there is very little chance that he will return it for a touchdown, and the half will be over. High reward withvery low risk.

As Election Day nears I see more and more liberal pundits tossing up Hail Mary’s in the hopes thatsomething, anything sticks. If one of the partisan jabs lands, it could mean serious trouble forRepublican momentum. If it misses, who cares, you’re in the exact same position you were already in –losing.



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/28/down-big-before-election-day-democrats-tossing-up-hail-marys/



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42801.html







The latest desperate lob towards the election end zone was hurled by former Secretary of Labor RobertReich. In an article penned for the Huffington Post Reich attempts to argue that Republicans’ agenda isan “every man for himself” proposal in which the strong will survive and the weak will suffer. If only hehad the facts to support his thesis.

His article gets off to an inauspicious start. He uses a quote from House Minority Leader John Boehnerand his solution to the economic crisis – “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidatereal estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life.”

The trouble is Boehner never said those words. They were said by industrialist Andrew Mellon in 1929. Infact Boehner has said nothing of the sort. The only “purge” Boehner has even hinted at is squeezing thecorruption and back-room dealing out of Washington.

But even then, would it have been so bad if Boehner had said it? There is a significant amount of“rottenness” in the system. The government is keeping housing prices artificially high. Enormousgovernment debt is squeezing private investment out of the economy. Federal injections of syntheticmoney into the economy is perpetuating favored businesses at the expense of the efficient. And aredundant government bureaucracy is placing undue strain on the backs of taxpayers.

Seems to me there is a lot of rottenness that could be, should be, squeezed out of the system.

But none of those true-conservative laments are discussed in Reich’s article. Instead he conjures up thetypical election year boogeymen – privatizing Social Security, evil “big business,” and destroying thesocial safety net. A series of Hail Mary attempts which he likely knows will fail but throws up in the hopesone will catch on.

Let’s address them one by one.

Social Security

Reich’s Claim: “Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935.”The Truth: This one is easy. As nonpartisan Factcheck.org recently wrote:

“Few if any Republicans now in Congress have ever pushed for total “privatization” ofSocial Security. What President Bush proposed in 2005 was to allow workers under theage of 55 to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. Most oftheir taxes would have continued to go into traditional Social Security. . . There was solittle support for Bush’s plan, even among members of his own party, that it died withoutever being introduced as a formal piece of legislation. Furthermore, we’ve seen noevidence that Republicans are any more enthusiastic about the idea now than they werethe last time they had control of Congress.”

Then again, Republicans, unlike Democrats, are at least willing to admit that there is a problem with theprogram. The program ran a deficit for the first time in its history this year. Moreover, the Social SecurityTrustees’ Report found that the program’s Trust Fund will begin to run a deficit by 2016.

Health Care:Reich’s Claim: “Repealing the new health-care legislation would cause health-care costs to rise evenfaster. . . The new law could help control rising health costs.”

The Truth: Not even Democrats support Reich’s claim. A leaked memo to Democratic candidates urgedthem to abandon claims that it will reduce costs and instead focus on promises to “improve it.” In fact,listed under a section entitled “Do Nots” the memo includes “say the law will reduce costs and deficit.”Apparently Reich didn’t get the memo.



http://m.factcheck.org/2010/08/obamas-latest-social-security-whopper/

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_pp.html

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_pp.html





Perhaps that is not enough for Reich. Okay well how about a report issues by the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office which states that ““In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enactedearlier this year does not substantially diminish [the] pressure of [rising health costs].” Such anassessment is backed by a separate investigation done by the Center for Medicaid and MedicareServices which found that “for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures] would

increase by $311 billion, or 0.9 percent, over the baseline projection.”

In other words, the Democrats’ healthcare bill does exactly the opposite of what Reich says – it doesn’thelp control costs, it actually accelerates them.

Unemployment Insurance:

Reich’s Claim: “Republicans also hate unemployment insurance. They’ve voted against every extensionbecause, they say, it coddles the unemployed.”

The Truth: This should really get your blood boiling because it is not simply a case of misinformation, it isa boldfaced lie. Republicans never vote against an extension because it “coddled” the unemployed.Rather, Republicans (and some Democrats for that matter) voted against the extension becauseDemocratic leadership refused to pay for the bill. Don’t take my word for it. Take Ben Nelson (D-NE) who

explained why he voted no by saying,

“So, Congress should provide additional unemployment benefits but not as a bailout tothe states that worsens the deficit and passes the bills onto our children.”

Or Democrat Betsy Markey (D-CO) who said that, “the [unemployment insurance] extension wasn’t paidfor. The bill spent money without cutting somewhere else.” She was of course referring to the previouslypassed “pay as you go” legislation that requires spending bills be met with equal spending cutselsewhere.Quite the contrary to Reich’s “hate” narrative, Republicans were eager to pass unemployment extensionsat the time. In fact Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “We’ve offered ways of paying for theseprograms, and we’ve been eager to approve them.”History also doesn’t support Reich’s claim that Republicans hate unemployment insurance. AsPolitifact.com recently found,

Bush signed two general extensions in 2003 for 13 weeks each, with significantRepublican support. He also signed extensions in 2008 with Republican support.

We were unable to find any instances when Bush asked for an extension ofunemployment benefits and Congress refused him.

The Deficit:

Reich’s Claim: “Republicans want to cut the deficit and balance the budget at a time when a largeportion of the workforce is idle.”

The Truth: Hey, he actually got one right! Republicans do want to cut the deficit. The problem comeswhen he begins explaining what will happen if federal spending is curtailed. “Cutting the deficit and

balancing the budget any time soon will subject tens of millions of American families to unnecessaryhardship and throw even more into poverty,” Reich claims.

This of course is one of the fundamental fallacies of Keynesian philosophy. As Nobel Prize winner wrotein “Economics in One Lesson,”

“There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith ingovernment spending. Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea forall our economic ills. Is private industry partially stagnant? We can fix it all bygovernment spending. Is there unemployment? That is obviously due to “insufficient



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/13/david-axelrod/republicans-supported-unemployment-under-bush/





private spending power.” The remedy is just as obvious. All that is necessary is for thegovernment to spend enough to make up the ‘deficiency.’”

Of course, what stimulus peddlers fail to remember is that everything must eventually be paid forthrough taxes. To be sure, spending will create some jobs. However, to understand the devastatingimpact of spending you must look beyond immediate consequences and beyond those who are directlybenefited. For instance, if $1 billion is spent on a green energy windmill today, taxpayers must eventually

pay an additional $1 billion in taxes. That $1 billion taken away can no longer be spent on the things theywanted or needed most. Moreover, the jobs that would be devoted to building those things we wantedwould be lost. As Hazlitt wrote,

“All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of theproject.”

Running enormous deficits doesn’t actually benefit society in the long term. It only allows thegovernment to choose who wins while hiding away the losers. But the losers are clear – it is the youngadults, the next generations, who will be responsible for paying for today’s irresponsibility. It will be theywho Reich suggests will suffer “unnecessary hardship” and “poverty.”

That is the sum total of Reich’s article. A series of political footballs tossed up in the hopes of scaringsome unsuspecting reader into voting for a Democrat. Some of these footballs are misinformation, someare lies, but they all are nothing more than an election year ploy for votes. It is sad to see someone soaccomplished reduced to such tricks.

Republicans’ Pledge Shows Return to Common Sense May be the

Greatest Reform of All

This is the third part in a series analyzing the Republicans’ “Pledge to America”.

This election season there is no lack of voting cues. America is upset for a number of reasons – thepersistently sluggish economy, profligate government spending, and an overreaching healthcare billamong them. But when you strip away the voter anger the uniting thread seems to be that people nolonger trust Washington.

When it comes to the economy they see money being funneled to pet projects and friendly labor unionsrather than toward true job creators. When it comes to government spending they see their lawmakersspending tons of money in hopes of buying votes, regardless of its long-term consequences. When itcomes to the healthcare bill they see an administration that promises them one thing, but myriad reportsthat show them the law will do another.They sit and wonder what happen to the promise that this would be the most open and transparentadministration in history.

This is all reflected in a Gallup poll released this week which finds that a record low 36 percent of

Americans trust the legislative branch of government. This is 9 percent lower than the previous recordlow set last year. Of course the other branches haven’t fared much better. Each has seen a downwardtrend in the past 7 years.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/143225/Trust-Legislative-Branch-Falls-Record-Low.aspx

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/28/republicans-pledge-shows-return-to-common-sense-may-be-the-greatest-reform-of-all/










Republicans’ sense such restlessness and have made reforming Congress and restoring trust a key, andin my estimation most important, part of their Pledge to America.

I can hear the catcalls coming in from the back – “the Republicans are just as untrustworthy” and “whyshould we believe them.” That Republicans lost their way is even included in the Pledge which says, “theHouse of Representatives must operate differently – differently from the way Democrats do now, and

differently from the way Republicans did in the past .”

Nevertheless, the answers to these questions are frightening because they require a degree of faith thathasn’t been rewarded in the past. Nevertheless, we’re seeing a new dawn of conservatism. In the pastfew years there has been an unnecessary rift between conservatism and the Republican brand.

In some sense, the landslide election of President Obama and Congressional Democrats in 2007, was afortunate experience for Republicans. They were purified by their losses and reinvigorated by thedisastrous consequences of Democratic control. Republicans, or should I say conservatives, are back.They are filled with fresh faces, emboldened with new ideas, and united behind a commitment tochanging the course we are on.

But does their governing document live up to the promise of their movement?

In many ways, yes. And the power of their ideas lie in their simplicity.

Read the Bill – Obvious enough. But Americans would be shocked at how rarely it is done. Take forinstance Max Baucus (D-MT), one of the authors of the healthcare bill, who said during the debate, “Idon’t think you want me to waste my time to read every passage of the healthcare bill.” Or SenatorThomas Carper (D-DE) who said, “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because [it] isamong the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life.”



http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/02/democrat-sen-tom-carper-read-the-bill-are-you-kidding-me/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/02/democrat-sen-tom-carper-read-the-bill-are-you-kidding-me/

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill



Bills are notoriously difficult to read and are growing in length. Nevertheless, Congress should at least begiven the time to comprehend the legislation before they are forced to vote on it. That is whyRepublicans proposal to publish the text of bills for three days before voting is a simple, yet necessary,procedure.

Adhere to the Constitution – Another “do we really have to do this” proposal. Yes, adhering to the

Constitution is not only utter common sense, it is actually mandated by the Constitution. Nevertheless,our foundational document is growing faster than our national deficit. Washington has become prone tostretching the meaning of the Constitution in clever, if disingenuous, ways to allow them to do what theywant. That is why Republicans’ Pledge forces authors to cite the Constitutional authority for theirlegislation.

If they’re going to expand the meaning of the Constitution let them at least explain it so as to inform thepeople how much we are diluting its meaning. As famed Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said,“sunlight is the best disinfectant.” By forcing transparency in our legislation we may find that we soonreturn to the proper bounds of Constitutional law.

Make it Easier to Cut Spending – Lowering spending will be necessary if we want to remain a viableeconomic power. Sadly, our legislative process makes cutting spending next to impossible. By allowing

amendments on spending bills, the Republican Pledge provides the opportunity to slash wastefulgovernment expenditures and programs.

Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time – The legislative process has become a joke. And a badone at that. Just last week the Senate voted on a defense authorizations bill that contained animmigration provision that would grant citizenship to aliens that would graduate from college. Regardlessof whether it was a good idea, it had very little to do with the underlying purpose of the legislation – toprovide a budget for the Department of Defense.

This is the norm for Washington. In an attempt to gain votes for passage they tack questionableamendments onto popular bills in hopes of gaining support. Republicans’ Pledge promises to end this“packaging” and advance issues one at a time. This ensures that ideas actually enjoy wide support

among legislators and allows citizens to better track where their Congressmen stand.

Admittedly some of these proposals are a play toward theatrics. Some of the proposals are morecommon sense than reform. Then again, a return to common sense may be the greatest reformmovement this country has seen in a long time. And that is exactly what Republicans’ Pledge to restoretrust is all about.

Obama’s Campus Tour Finding College Conservatism on the Rise

As college students, it is often taken for granted that we will be liberal. You’ve probably heard the oldpolitical saw (often misattributed to Winston Churchill), “”If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you haveno heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” There are numeroustheories as to why. Democrats have a more optimistic, open-hearted vision for America. Young adultstend to be socially liberal. They saw a lot of themselves in Barack Obama. Liberal indoctrination bycollege professors. The list could stretch for miles. But today’s young adults may not be pigeonholed thesame way. This year Democrats’ cannot take their votes for granted.

That doesn’t mean Democrats aren’t trying. President Obama is kicking off a series of rallies on collegecampuses, designed to reinvigorate the young adults who carried him into the White House two yearsearlier.



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/27/obamas-campus-tour-finding-college-conservatism-on-the-rise/






But the message has drastically changed. Rather than ignite young adults with his hopeful brand ofpolitics, the President is reduced to groveling. As the Washington Post reported today,

When Obama steps onto a grass quad at the University of Wisconsin on Tuesday, he willdeliver a newly tailored, more personalized campaign appeal aimed at ginning upenthusiasm, according to White House and senior Democratic officials. Plouffe said

Obama will remind students of the work they put into his 2008 campaign and warn themthat if they don’t reengage now, “all that could be jeopardized.”

In 2008 he advocated for change. In 2010 he’s advocating for things to stay the same? Not exactly awinning message.

But it is made even more unpalatable given the general lack of change we have actually seen fromObama. It is easy to promise change, it is much more difficult to actually deliver it. And this has beenObama’s failing. As one previous Obama supporter said in a town hall recently,

“I’m one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I’m exhausted. Exhausted of

defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that Ivoted for. And deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that Ivoted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for themiddle class. I’m one of those people and I’m waiting sir.

Substitute “middle class” for “young adults” and you’ll understand the frustration that is being seen onmany college campuses. We wanted something different. We were promised something different. We gotmore of the same.More politics. More backdoor dealings. More big government. More spending. More wars. For youngadults there really wasn’t much difference between the Obama administration and the Bushadministration from which they were so disenchanted.

All told, Democrats have a much tougher sell this time around if they want to recapture magic with youngpeople. Meanwhile, Republicans are beginning to find traction on college campuses. Take collegesophomore Edward Dooley, who told ABC News that just two years ago he was a “Kennedy-worshipping, stereotypical Massachusetts liberal.” But now Dooley, like so many other young adults,finds that his political ideology has shifted to the right after being turned off by Obama’s “glossy ideals”and “lack of concrete policies.”

Beyond a failure to live up to promises, Obama’s support among the youth vote has been eroded by hisfailed attempts to jump start the economy. The recession has been especially hard on young people.According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics youth unemployment was at 19.1 percent in July – thehighest July rate since statistics were first kept in 1948.

Unfortunately for the unemployed the Democrats’ stimulus policies have done little to budge the

unemployment needle. In fact, the only thing they have really accomplished is trillions of dollars ofadditional government debt, money that younger generations will be responsible for paying back.

As College Republican Chair Bob Kosek told ABC News for their story Republicans Rising on College Campuses ,

“Hope and change doesn’t put money in your bank account to buy textbooks or pay offyour student loans. It doesn’t help you get a job after you graduate either, and I think alot of students are realizing that now.”



http://ht.ly/2Kxbj

http://ht.ly/2Kxbj

http://ht.ly/2Kxbj

http://ht.ly/2Kxbj

http://ht.ly/2Kxbj

http://ht.ly/2Kxbj



The rampant unemployment and dismal economy that is the Democrats’ legacy of the past two years isperhaps no clearer than on the University of Wisconsin campus where Obama is beginning his collegetour. As the Washington Post reports,

The students on this leafy, generally liberal campus once constituted one of the strongest battalions in

Obama’s grass-roots army. Two years later, the political dynamic has changed. Across campus, stickers,signs or chalkings for any politician are scarce. The laundromat where Obama’s young volunteers oncestaged late-night phone banks and planned bus trips to neighboring Iowa has gone out of business .”

A one-time hub for pro-Obama students now out of business. What a fitting, if sad metaphor for thisadministration.

In Tax Cut Debate Democrats Put Self-Preservation Over Public Good

In case you hadn’t heard, Democrats are facing an uphill battle this November. But as Election Daylooms they are scrounging for ways to make Republicans look bad and Democrats look good. It makes

for great politics. It may even help their November chances. But great politics often leads to bad policy,and what’s good for Democratic candidates is often bad news for average Americans.

To see how politics is trumping principle look no further than the debate over whether to extend the Bushtax cuts. Agreement between the parties has been rare over the past year. Fortunately, the saggingeconomy has brought bipartisan agreement on one issue – avoiding tax hikes at all cost. The economicrealities of today have led to a growing number of Democrats who have come out in support of tax cutsfor all Americans. For instance, Gerry Connolly (D-VA) has said that “I think there is a certain logic toleaving well-enough alone for now, given the fragility of the economy.” He is far from alone. Givenunanimous Republican support, there is a majority of the House who favors extending the Bush-era taxcuts for all Americans, at least in the short term.

Unfortunately for Americans, Nancy Pelosi wants nothing to do with it. She has discussed the possibility

of using the suspension process, which supplants the usual majority vote for a two-third voterequirement, to vote for the tax cuts. Talking Points Memo explains her strategy,

If Pelosi offered one bill to only extend the middle class cuts, Republicans could useprocedural maneuvers to force a separate vote on extending tax cuts for the rich — avote Pelosi might well lose.

Likewise, if she brought two bills to the floor — one to extend the middle-income cutsand, one to extend the cuts for the wealthy — both might pass. That’s an outcome shewants to avoid.

Fortunately for her, there’s a way out. The House rules allow the Speaker to offerlegislation under what’s known as suspension of the rules. Under suspension, time for

debate is limited and no procedural hijinks are allowed — but a two-thirds majority ofmembers on hand is required for passage.

The goal of such a maneuver is to force Republicans into a corner and make it appear as if they areagainst extending tax cuts for the middle class. But don’t let Democrats’ procedural tricks fool you –Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone. During a recession, in which the top 2 percent ofearners represent more than 33 percent of consumer spending, it doesn’t make economic sense to raisetaxes on anyone. In the face of depressed wages and a lackluster hiring market we need to keep as



http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/how-nancy-pelosi-might-win-the-fight-over-bush-tax-cuts.php?ref=fpb

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/27/in-tax-cuts-democrats-put-self-preservation-over-public-good/








much money as we can in the pockets of citizens. It is the government who must make the move totighten their belt in response to declining revenues.

Sadly the economic realities of the recession haven’t put a dent in Democrats’ strategy. Right now,priority number one for Democrats is winning in November, even if that means Americans lose. Andsadly, part and parcel of increasing their November chances is making Republicans look bad on tax

cuts.

Even if Democrats do not attempt the procedural ploy there is mounting evidence that they will punt onthe tax cut vote. As the Washington Post wrote today, “many vulnerable Democrats are uneasy about theeconomic impact, and political consequences, of letting anyone’s taxes go up right now.” This may beeven more intellectually dishonest than Pelosi’s earlier plan. At least then they were showing their truecolors, namely that the leadership supports raising taxes on the upper classes regardless of theeconomic impact. But punting the vote until after the midterm elections is another base political move,designed to avoid “tough” votes for their struggling members.

Once again, such a strategy could be disastrous for average Americans. First, citizens and investorsneed to know what the tax rates will be before making certain economic decisions. Economists and mostnotably CEO’s have been urging the Obama administration to provide some economic certainty. Sadly,

Democrats agenda has done anything but. Between our growing budget deficit, enormous increases inregulations and red tape, and looming tax cuts, the amount of variables that an investor has to consideris dramatically impeding economic activity. Extending the tax cuts could provide at least some smallmeasure of assurance to investors that they can begin to reenter the market.Second, delaying the tax cut vote could lead to higher taxes for all Americans, not just the upperclasses. As The Hill reported today, “If Democratic leaders fail to determine the tax rates by Dec. 10, itcould be too late for payroll administrators to withhold the right amount of tax from workers’ paychecks,according to industry officials.” This only leaves about a two-week working window during whichWashington can vote on the cuts before the IRS deadline for releasing withholding tax tables. In otherwords, unless Democrats set aside their egos and allow a bipartisan extension to pass soon, workerscould be paying much more in taxes this April.

The politics of extending the tax cuts is trumping what is good for the country. As Joseph Lieberman hassaid about the Democratic stalemate, “[T]he politics ultimately triumphed. We didn’t get much ofanything done. And that’s why I think, ultimately, members of the Senate have decided the best thing todo is go home, particularly those who are running.” That may be what is best for them . But is that is whatis best for Americans?

Republicans’ Healthcare “Pledge” Shows Understanding of

Obamacare’s Flaws

This is Part II in a series, to see our analysis on the GOP’s Pledge to create jobs.

Republicans are looking ahead to one of the most promising election years in over a decade. There are

many reasons for our rosy prospects, but they are encapsulated by a common theme – a perception thatgovernment has overstepped its bounds. This term has been marked by unprecedented growth in ourgovernment. Unsurprisingly then, it has also been marked by historic levels of spending that threaten toliterally bankrupt our future.

Perhaps the single largest symbol in government’s growth is the Democrats’ healthcare plan. Although itis a significant retreat from their favored plan, a government run single-payor system, it neverthelessrepresents the growth of government in a traditionally private sector.



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/27/republicans%e2%80%99-healthcare-%e2%80%9cpledge%e2%80%9d-shows-understanding-of-obamacare%e2%80%99s-flaws/




http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/120981-payroll-departments-brace-for-verdict-on-bush-tax-cuts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/26/AR2010092603394.html?hpid=topnews











Facing steeply rising premium prices the public was, and remains, open to fundamental healthcarereform. Sadly, the Democrats’ plan focused on the wrong problem. Rather than enact changes thatwould address the growing cost of healthcare, the government turned its focus toward forced increasesin coverage. They hoped that by mandating that people join government approved healthcare plans,healthy people would be able to subsidize the larger number of insured.

This strategy has been an utter failure. Studies conducted by the federal government have found that theDemocrats healthcare plan will increase costs, government spending, and ultimately make it harder tobalance the budget. In June 2009 the CBO said that “enacting the proposal would result in a netincrease in federal budget deficit of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. In April 2010 theCenter for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that “we estimate the for calendar years 2010 through2019, [national health expenditures] would increase by $311 billion, or 0.9 percent, over the updatedbaseline projection.” And on June 2010 CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf found that, “In CBO’sjudgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish [the] pressure of[rising health costs].”

Given the numbers, it is unsurprising that a majority of Americans (61 percent) now favor repealing thehealthcare law while a mere 33 percent say it will be good for the country.

Based on that feedback Republicans have made repealing and replacing Obamacare a key componentof their governing agenda. Realistically, repealing the healthcare law would be politically impossible.Even if the GOP retakes the House and/or the Senate, they would likely face a presidential veto whichwould then require support from 2/3 of both chambers to override. But this isn’t about politics, or evenpossibility, so much as a reflection of the voters’ values.

The plan shows that Republicans’ understand and embrace the need for reform, but accomplish it byfocusing on lowering costs rather than mandating coverage. Among the Republican promises as part oftheir reform are:

• Enact medical liability reform• Introduce free market competition by allowing people to purchase health care across state lines• Expand health savings accounts• Strengthen doctor-patient relationship• Ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions• Permanently prohibit taxpayer abortions

To be fair, Democrats and Republicans agree on quite a bit. They both focus on creating insuranceexchanges that make it easy to comparison shop. They also focus on prevention rather than treatment,understand the importance of access for preexisting conditions, and have a goal of lowering costs. Thetrue difference lies in what Republicans want to leave out. They want to reduce the government’spresence in the healthcare law by simplifying the law and eliminating the need for the 3,833 pages offederal regulations that have already been written and the hundreds of new departments and agenciestasked with carrying out the law.

Rather than focus on what the government can do, Republicans rely on the power of free markets andindividuals to get costs under control. The nexus of their plan is removing the current (but dying) systemof employer and government provided coverage. One of the main problems that insurers have beenable to drive costs skyward is that the consumer has no idea what healthcare actually costs. With noconcept of what they are paying for, consumers’ incentive to shop for lower costs is reduced to nearnothing. By allowing individuals, supplemented by an advanceable tax credit, to purchase theirhealthcare they will be forced to spend wisely.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2010/61_favor_repeal_of_health_care_law









Even more telling, by a 56 percent to 49 percent margin, voters now say that Republicans are the partybetter aligned with their overall values. Since 1999 Democrats image among voters has been in a steadydecline, hastened dramatically following Democrats taking control of Congress in 2006.

Is it that American values have changed? No, the more likely answer is that the Democrats changed.America still believes in hard work, individual freedom, and personal responsibility. But now thatDemocrats are fully in the spotlight America is left wondering if they uphold the same principles.

America is ready for a REPRESENTATIVE government. A party that really understands and representsthe voice of the people. We don’t want the government watching over us every step of the way from thecradle to the grave. We want them there to pick us up when we fall, not carry us when we want to walk.





America is not going to change. Our values are deeply engrained by our hard fought independence.Whichever party wants to win had better awaken to this fact. But I can’t help but notice in these graphsthat it is looking an awful like 1994.

Obamacare’s Six Month Anniversary Passes With Little Fanfare

Yesterday marked the six-month anniversary for the Obamacare bill. Did you remember to get it apresent? What do you get a bill that already has everything? It already has all our money. I guess theonly thing it could have that it doesn’t already – our support.

In a recent poll done by the AP, only 30 percent said that they favor the new bill while 40 percent remainopposed. The 10 percent approval ratings gap generally reflect the average of recent polls. Accordingto Pollster.com, a site that aggregates and averages poll results, 49 percent of the public disapprove ofthe law while 41 percent favor it.Perhaps more interesting is the 30 percent who remained neutral in the AP poll. In this debate, which haslargely defined the last 18 month, how could anyone have possibly remained neutral? The results of thepoll seem to indicate that it isn’t because they don’t care, it is because they do not understand.

It seems Nancy Pelosi’s now infamous prediction, that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find outwhat is in it,” hasn’t come true. Quite the contrary, millions of Americans are still left wondering what theheck is in this behemoth piece of legislation. As Diann Kelley told the Associated Press , “I’m insecureabout a document that was as big as the health care bill and wonder if anybody understand exactlywhat’s in it.”

The public are not the only ones left confused about the new law. Federal regulators, insurancecompanies, and doctors are just as clueless. And how could they not be? Through July 31st, 3,833pages of federal regulations have been issued regarding the new law. Moreover, the new law providesfor the creation of more than 160 boards, bureaus, and commissions that must be navigated tounderstand the full impact of the legislation.

I don’t understand everything that is in the bill. I don’t trust the man who says he does. But I know that

healthcare has not been what the Democrats promised it would. For instance, since the bill was passedwe’ve found out that a number of the benefits we were promised aren’t going to come into fruition.

The chief actuary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a report showing thatnational healthcare spending will increase under the new law relative to baseline levels. So much forbending the cost-curve down. The CMS report found that spending will grow an average of 6.3 percenteach year, compared to pre-reform projections showing growth around 6.0 percent. The law also is thedirect result of a number premium increases. Many national carriers have said that premium increasesranging from 1 percent to 9 percent will be put into effect to be able to pay for extra benefits requiredunder the law. Finally, it appears that the famous “if you like your plan, you can keep it” was nothing buta myth. According to Investor’s Business Daily, “Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51percent of employers may have to relinquish their current healthcare coverage because of Obamacare.”

The path to the six-month anniversary has been littered with broken promise. Is it any surprise then thatDemocratic candidates are running as far away? As the Los Angeles Times reported,

“Democrats aren’t seeing the political benefit Obama promised them when he told themthey’d be proud to campaign on the measure. In the House, 219 Democrats voted forthe health bill, but the party’s only House members highlighting their votes in adcampaigns are a few of the 34 who opposed the measure and can now boast of theirindependence.”



http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-obama-health-overhaul,0,4240739.story

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gSXIViw_RWvU3uweKkhKfhAVGgqgD9ICHR1O2


http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/23/obamacares-six-month-anniversary-passes-with-little-fanfare/













The low approval ratings of the bill fly in the face of Bill Clinton’s prediction that “I don’t care how low theydrive support for this with misinformation. The minute the president signs the healthcare reform bill,approval will go up, because Americans are inherently optimistic.” We’re optimists, but only when thereis something to be optimistic about. And it’s tough to feel hopeful when we have no clue what is in the billand the few bits that have come out are less than wonderful. Higher costs? Higher premiums? Lesschoice? What exactly is there to like about that?

Sorry that after six months we continue to remain unimpressed by Obamacare. Oh, and I wouldn’texpect the numbers to change, not unless the bill begins to live up to the promises made before itspassage. Happy-freakin’-anniversary! And good riddance.

Special message to the College Republican from Congressman Jeff

Miller

Since becoming a U.S. Congressman Jeff Miller (R-FL) has established himself as one of the staunchestconservatives. In addition to being a Republican leader on the House Armed Services Committee he is atireless advocate for less government, less taxes and more personal freedoms.

Having taken the oath of office in 2001, he has witnessed the harmful impact that Democratic control ofWashington has had on future generations. Unless something is done this November to help our nationchange course, the burden of their reckless spending will soon be felt by young Americans.

That is why he has taken the time to explain the importance of College Republicans’ Operation RedNovember. As Miller explains, “things that are going on in Washington and around this country areunsustainable. Those costs are being put on the back of young Americans just like each of you. . . Soyou as College Republicans need to do your part as part of Operation Red November.” Check out moreof what Congressman Miller had to say below:

!"#$#%&'(')*+%,-.).$/-%0'-.1*%#2%3.4)%5#66

Well Obama is at it again. Relying on fancy words, soaring rhetoric, and an emotional tone rather thanactual substance to win the approval of the public. His latest attempt to sell the Democratic brand priorto the crucial 2010 midterm elections came at an CNBC town-hall forum.

Once again Obama proved to be poised and eloquent as he addressed the state of the economy. But ifyou have learned anything in the past two years it is that you must be careful to remember what Obamais doing while you are listening to what he is saying. For instance, President Obama said during thetown-hall,

“We had to make sure that we didn’t slip into a Great Depression. Now, we’ve done that.

Those programs that we put in place worked. . . And so the question then becomeswhat can we now put in place to make sure that the trend lines continue in a positivedirection.”

I think the better question would be whether we are headed in a positive direction at all. The New York

Times reported yesterday that the United States economy has lost more jobs than it has added since therecovery began. Read that carefully. Not since the recession began. We’ve lost more jobs since the so-called recovery began!



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/business/economy/21econ.html?_r=2&ref=business

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/23/special-message-to-the-college-republican-from-congressman-jeff-miller/












It shouldn’t be surprising then that a new report by the Labor Department found that 27 states reportedhigher unemployment rates in August. That is up from the 14 who saw an increase in July. What was thatabout maintaining the trend lines? Thirteen states continue to have jobless rates above 10 percent.Worse, many economists are predicting that the national unemployment rate will once again creepabove 10 percent this year.Then came a time for Q-and-A. Unsurprisingly most of the questions given by everyone from average

Joes to Wall Street insiders, focused on an overall disappointment in how the economy was beingmanaged. But one question especially struck a chord.

It was from an African-American woman who was a chief financial officer and a middle class American.She said,

“I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle ofchange that I voted for. I’ve been told that I voted for a man who was going to changethings in a meaningful way for the middle class, and I’m waiting sir, I’m waiting. I stilldon’t feel it yet. And I thought that – while it wouldn’t be in great measure – I would feel itin some small measure.”

How many others feel exhausted? Exhausted from searching for a non-existent job all day while we havethe Vice President parading around declaring it the “Recovery Summer?” Exhausted from trying to findways to feel hopeful about the direction of our economy while President Obama presents no clear visionon how we are going to improve it.

John Harwood, host of the forum, made the comment that a good leader makes changes if necessary.He directed the comment to the President and asked if he, Obama, was willing to make changes. In thisopportunity to either stand strong in his policies or to openly share his willingness to try a new angle,Obama responded by saying his economic team has been doing an “outstanding job”. Outstanding job?With a nation that is still floating around a 9% unemployment rate, I would say he is using the word“outstanding” very loosely.

Others in the audience also seemed tired. Among the questions were, “[H]onestly, is this my new

reality?” and “Is the American dream dead for me?” What a tragic fall from the utter euphoria from 2008when millions joined in a chant of “yes we can.”

So what is President Obama prepared to do to reverse course and get this economy back on its feet?Better yet, what is he prepared to do to restore faith among Americans?

One of the direct questions pertaining to change was whether the President would be willing to makechanges among his economic advisers – namely Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. SurprisinglyPresident Obama subtly suggested they may be on their way out.

“But the bottom line is, is that we’re constantly thinking, is what we’re doing working aswell as it could? Do we have other options and other alternatives that we can explore?”

If he answered those questions truthfully then the clear response should be no. Things are not workingas well as they could. The stimulus was a colossal flop that has done little but dug future generations intoa debt hole they will spend their lives trying to escape from. Their policy agenda, especially a massivenew healthcare bill, has so unsettled the hiring market that employers are unwilling to commit to newemployees. And looming uncertainty in the form of tax hikes and burdensome regulations is stiflingbusiness growth. These are not the ingredients of a successful economic policy capable of leading usout of the recession.





But if Obama is hinting at some departures amongst his economic team one has to wonder whether ornot he truly believes in the success of his policies. If he truly believed what he said, that the “programsthat we put in place worked” then why do you suggest that a staff shakeup may be necessary.

Perhaps he’s coming around to the idea that maybe the economy continues to lag for a reason, namely,intrusion by an activist government. Maybe he’s figuring out that the economy won’t respond to his

sophisticated diction or inflection. Then again, so long as the public remains enrapt, I wouldn’t hold mybreath.

The Recession is Over – But Under Obama’s Policies High

Unemployment is Not

Ladies and Gentleman of the United States: WE HAVE DONE IT! We have officially made it through theGreat Recession. Cue the confetti drop. Hip Hip Hooray! Hip Hip Hooray! Hip…wait why am I the onlyone cheering? Didn’t everyone see the National Bureau of Economic Research report that showed thatthe recession officially ended in the summer of 2009? That’s something to cheer about right? Oh…so youstill don’t have a job huh? Your company still isn’t making any money? Your home price continues to fallthrough the floor? Seems to me that a country that has been out of a recession for over a year nowshould be doing a little better than this.

Sure, the NBER declared the recession over, but that likely won’t make much difference to the 14.9million without jobs. But now that the recession has been given a starting and an end point it does allowus to do one thing – judge the recovery. As John Merline of AOL News writes,

The bigger problem for Obama, though, is that now that we have an official end date for the recession,we can compare the current recovery to previous economic recoveries. And that picture is notparticularly flattering at all.Looking at the history of past recessions, the deeper the fall in GDP, the larger the post recessionrebound. Take this chart put together by TD Financial Group:



http://www.actionforex.com/analysis/long-term-forecasts/u.s.-recovery-is-tracking-traditional-experience-after-financial-crisis-induced-recessions-20100827121082/



http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-a-tale-of-two-economic-recoveries/19641455


http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/22/the-recession-is-over-but-under-obamas-policies-high-unemployment-is-not/






As you can see, in general, past recession follow the general trend. The deeper the fall the faster the jobgrowth on our march back to full employment. But notice where the 2008-2009 recession lies on alongthe trend line. That’s right, we’re an outlier. A lonely little dot that shows the deepest drop in peak-to-trough decline in GDP and yet comparatively weak growth in the four quarters after the recession wasover.

The failure of our recovery is seen in other ways. Typically, around the 15th month of a recession, webegin to see an uptick in nonfarm employment numbers. We are currently into the 30th month followingthe beginning of the recession and the economy continues to shed jobs. The following chart allows us tocompare the overall employment trends from this recession as compared to others dating back to WorldWar II.

Not exactly promising. While other recessions began to see job growth, our nation continues to sufferfrom high unemployment. Far from getting better, many economists are now predicting that theunemployment percentage will once again reach 10 percent by the end of this year.

We’ve examined history in the aggregate, so now let’s compare the recovery following this recession withits closest kin – the 1980s recession. During that time our nation was facing similar problems.Unemployment reached 10.8 percent, which is actually about .7 percent higher than the worst of ourcurrent downturn. Given past history, that should indicate a steeper recovery. Unfortunately, we’re seeingjust the opposite. In the first four quarters following the worst of the recession, the recovery is growingmore than twice as slow under Obama than it did under Reagan. Even if we look at the declared end of

the recessions, rather than the bottoming out, the picture does not improve. Fourteen months after theend of the 1980s recession the unemployment rate had dropped 8 percent and the economy wasgrowing at a 7.7 percent rate. In today’s recovery the unemployment rate continues an upward creepwhile economic growth has averaged less than 3 percent.





As Merline’s chart shows:

That this recovery has been drastically slower than Reagan’s is clear, but why? Reagan chose todrastically cut individual and corporate tax rates while slowing the growth in government spending.Barack Obama has done the exact opposite. Our corporate tax rate remains the second highest in theworld, capital gains taxes are scheduled to increase, and government spending has risen to historiclevels.

The cumulative result has been mass uncertainty in the very job creators we need to pull us out of therecession. Government intervention has only managed to prolong the recession, not stimulate our wayout of it. Until the government gets out of the way, by showing a commitment to addressing its deficits,eliminating the regulatory uncertainty of massive legislation, and providing a certain direction on taxpolicy, then our recovery will continue to suffer.

Time and time again we hear that we must learn from our past mistakes so that we are not doomed torepeat them. President Obama would have been wise to study the history of recessions in the UnitedStates. He would have found that the path toward a quick recovery lies in smart, targeted, supply sidestrategies, not desperate stabs at Keynesian stimulation. How sad that we’ve learned from neither ourmistakes nor our successes. Until we do, I’ll hold off on celebrating the end of the recession.

100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America (For the

Worse)

Taxpayers of America rejoice! Tired of the nearly endless stream of reports showing the mind-numbinglydumb ways in which their stimulus project was spending taxpayer money, the Obama administrationdecided to fight back. Their report, entitled, 100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America, wasintended as a direct response to several reports issues by Sens. John McCain and Tom Coburnhighlighting the 100 Most Wasteful Stimulus Projects.

So does the Obama report allow taxpayers to rest easy knowing that their tax money was spent onworthwhile projects? No.




http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/17/vice-president-biden-releases-new-report-100-recovery-act-projects-chang

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/17/vice-president-biden-releases-new-report-100-recovery-act-projects-chang

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/21/100-recovery-act-projects-that-are-changing-america-for-the-worse/








Just take a look at some of the projects that the report, supposedly the best-of-the best, highlights:

• A $299 million grant to build a battery manufacturing facility in Michigan for a company that wasconsidering Asian locations. The project created or saved at least 100 jobs.

• $8.3 million in grants to Toledo to allow them to re-hire 31 police officers.

• $114 million for ECOtality, a manufacturer of electric vehicles, to help them produce 8,500

electric drive vehicles. The company reported the stimulus helped support 50 jobs.• $3 million for the Malden Redevelopment Authority to help remove lead paint and other safety

hazards. They company reports it was able to retain 5 employees that would otherwise be laidoff.

There are two distinct problems with even these cream-of-the-crop proposals. First, none of theseprojects deliver a respectable cost-to-jobs ratio. Second, they artificially diverts capital away from otherworthwhile projects.

The government is notoriously inefficient. Or to take Reagan’s preferred metaphor, “Government is like ababy: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” Inthis case the taxpayers were forced to feed the giant baby a whopping $862 billion to fund the economicstimulus plan. Coming out the other end it looks a lot like what you would expect.

Even after having passed the largest stimulus in our nation’s history the unemployment rate continues totick upwards. Moreover, things are not on track to improve anytime soon. Recently economists predictedthat over the next year the unemployment rate will rise above 10 percent before finally starting to fall.Why didn’t the stimulus stimulate? One big reason is that the money was not used efficiently. It wenttowards things like seeing how monkeys react under the influence of cocaine, improving the freezingprocess of rat sperm, and improving African genital hygiene.

You may argue that these projects are cherry-picked and not indicative of the whole. But even when youlook at the administration picked as its best projects you see a whole lot of money spent and very fewjobs created.! For instance, their #1 project used $100 million stimulus dollars and has created 230 jobsso far. That’s approximately $430,000 per job. The second and third projects don’t get much better –$153 million to save 150 research positions and $49 million to create 100 jobs. Each of these projectsarguably does worthwhile things, providing housing for wounded soldiers or cancer research, but we

weren’t sold on the plan because it was worthwhile. We were sold on the plan because it was supposedto create jobs. And judging by that metric, the only one that matters, the stimulus is a miserable failure.

Second, the stimulus projects are being championed by the administration using a myopic train ofthought. Nobel Prize winning economist Henry Hazlitt wrote in his seminal book, Economics in OneLesson, that,

The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also look beyond.The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looksat the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economists sees only what the effect of a given policyhas been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of thepolicy will be on all groups.

Using this definition we can tell that the White House is chock full of bad economists. The short-term,long-term dichotomy has become thoroughly engrained in today’s politics. Democrats cried that we

needed an enormous injection of funds to get the economy going, Republicans countered that thenational debt that would be created would be a long term drag on the economy that it would actuallyhinder growth.

But the argument, or as Hazlitt would say “fallacy,” that I want to discuss is that Democrat’s are toofocused on the good of one particular group without looking at the broader picture. We know that everydollar of government spending must eventually be pad for through future taxes. So when a governmentcreates a stimulus project with the idea of increasing employment it is not a free bridge, future taxpayersmust pay for it. But, you may say, it created jobs. Yes, it created jobs for the construction workersnecessary to build the bridge. But it is also true that the cost of the bridge, say $5,000,000, is directly





taken from money that would have been spread around to other jobs. That $5 million would have beenspread around the economy purchasing things like televisions, computers, and cars, each of which takepeople to build. So the stimulus project didn’t so much create jobs as it did divert jobs.

The problem is that we can see the construction worker get hired. We can mark him on our tally of “jobssaved or created.” On the contrary the “other” jobs are spread throughout the economy and thusimminently less visible, and thus, less politically valuable. And political value is the name of the game in

Washington where creating jobs is only a means to an end, namely, reelection.

President Obama is hyping the success of the stimulus in his new report 100 Stimulus Projects That areChanging America. But is this clear waste and redistribution really the kind of change they should betouting?

Krugman’s Baseless Attack On Wealth Highlights Liberals’ Flaw

He is at it again. Paul Krugman took a few moment away from polishing his Nobel medal to write hiscolumn for the New York Times. Unwilling to look into the reasons for the crisis, disinclined fromproviding solutions on how to get our way out of it, Krugman instead relies on vitriol for readership.

In an attempt to overshadow his own flaming contempt for all things conservative, he attempts tochannel other people’s anger at some amorphous thing. “Anger is sweeping America,” Krugman writes.“[T]he angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitledare being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.”

The “they” Krugman is referring to is the “rich” people in America. He argues (wrongly) that they areangry that President Obama is considering allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for top earners.

To be fair to Krugman, rich people are very upset with the way President Obama is running this country.But I have come across no instance in which they have openly complained about the tax cuts. Forinstance, Steve Forbes, whom Krugman mentions pointedly in his article, ran a cover story arguing that“Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in history.” The story goes on to lament many of thePresident’s policies, everything from questionable offshore drilling decisions to his foolish reliance on

stimulus, but nowhere does it mention the Bush-era tax cuts.There are other wealthy individuals, many of them previous Barack Obama donors, who are beginning tocome down hard on the President. Daniel S. Loeb is perhaps chief among them. Loeb, a registeredDemocrat, penned a letter to his investors saying that, “So long as our leaders tell us that we must trustthem to regulate and redistribute our way back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economicquagmire.”

Or Paul Ottelini, CEO of Intel, who has criticized Obama because he “does not understand what it takesto create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

These are the kinds of people Krugman is referring to when he says “craziness has gone mainstream. . .When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational)discourse no longer apply.” None of the critiques he mentions even so much as skirts the boundary of“crazy.” These are smart, rational, and yes, wealthy, people who are laying out the economic caseagainst President Obama’s policies.

They argue many things. They argue that the burdensome regulations found in many bills arediminishing their profit margins. They argue that having the second highest corporate tax rates in theworld are driving down our ability to compete globally. They argue that enormous policy shifts likehealthcare reform and uncertainty over capital gains taxes are driving up uncertainty while depressinghiring. But nowhere, nowhere, have I seen any of the rich businessmen complain that Obama is killingAmerica because he wants to let tax cuts for the upper classes expire.



http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/21/krugmans-baseless-attack-on-wealth-highlights-liberals-flaw/










Instead, the people I hear complaining are economists. A new poll from CNN Money found that 60percent argued that the best thing to do to help the economy would be to extend cut for all taxpayers.Only 10 percent said that we should extend tax cuts for only the middle class. As one of the surveyedeconomists said, “extend tax cuts for all income levels and do nothing else. More of the samepiecemeal, patchwork policies put forth by this administration will undermine confidence and do little to

change the path the economy is on.” The rich people aren’t the ones complaining, if for no other reasonthan they don’t have to, economists and politicians (including a good number of Democrats) are makingthe case for them – that it simply make no economic sense.

Nevertheless, Krugman sticks to his straw man argument – that rich people are bristling at the notion atpaying higher taxes because of some “belligerent sense of entitlement.” He then goes on to lament the“spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity.”

That statement is the encapsulation of everything that is wrong with Krugman’s post. Nevemind that hewrongly imputes a position onto the rich that they themselves have not taken, the fact that he calls them“the world’s luckiest people” explains everything. This belies the growing liberal notion that the rich arethe oppressive class. That they were only able to amass such wealth by plundering the poor and rippingoff the rest of society. Moreover, they achieved this, not because of some unique skill or hard work, no,

their only claim to success is luck. And it is because of this luck that America should not feel bad whenwe take what they have been given away. They didn’t earn it, they simply lucked into it, so there is nomoral injustice is seizing it.

But in this free market society that we call America successful people make their own luck. Their hardwork and skills put them at the right place at the right time to succeed. That isn’t to say that many peoplearen’t suffering, it’s to say that the wealthy are a scapegoat from the larger problems.

Krugman had it right – anger is sweeping America. But if the wealthy are furious, it is because theeconomic policies of Barack Obama are killing their businesses’ income, not because they have to paymore income taxes.

Obama’s Big Spending Agenda Ruined Relationship With Young

Adults

“It’s not me, it’s you.” Those are normally the words that cement the failure of a relationship that has goneawry. Across the country, Democratic candidates are hearing this sentiment, and they can’t understandwhy. They can’t understand why they have fallen out of favor with the population in general, but moreimportantly, they haven’t realized that they have lost the allegiance of today’s college students.

The fact is simple, while Democrats have spent at a record rate ($4.71 trillion added to the national debt)America has seen unemployment increase! No generation is being burdened more by Washington’srecent spending orgy than mine, and this article will explain why young people don’t like it, and what

College Republicans plan to present as an alternative.Did you know that nearly 20% of young adults are unemployed? That is twice the national average,which in itself is unacceptable. A 54.3% increase to the national debt has frightened job creators to thepoint where one in five young people can’t find a paying job. This clearly shows that the more government wastefully spends, the less ability people will have to find work.! Don’t think the stimulus wasloaded with wasteful spending? Take a look at “Stupid Spending” on www.ourtab.org to see where ourhard-earned money went. My personal favorite is the $677,000 that the Georgia State Universityreceived to study “how monkeys respond to inequity and unfairness.” I think it’s unfair that we arepsychoanalyzing monkeys while millions of Americans can’t find work.



http://www.ourtab.org/

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/21/obamas-big-spending-agenda-ruined-relationship-with-young-adults/













What terrifies young students the most is the amount of money they will be forced to pay to the debt.Today, every child’s share of the national debt is $118,000, money that will have to be paid off throughhigher taxes or reduced government services. But how can we be expected to pay this off if 20 percentof our generation doesn’t even have a job? With so much bad policy in such a short amount of time, it’sworth asking: has the statist agenda won out?

The answer is no. There is a reason why Obama has seen an 18% drop in his approval rating amongst

18-29 year old voters according to a February Pew Poll.! His plans are detrimental to young people. Hesaid he had our best interests in mind, but he lied! He cheated on our generation, but we’ve caught himin the act. Let’s just say that come November, young adults will say to Democrats, “It’s not me, it’s yourpolicies that have ruined our relationship.”

Economists Agree – Extend the Tax Cuts. So Why Aren’t Dems

Listening?

We agree. Those two words are about as rare in Washington as a dodo bird. That is to say, they areextinct.

In fact, disagreement is the name of the game. The stimulus worked! The stimulus was an utter failure!Healthcare reform is necessary to bend the cost curve! Yea, upwards. We need to spend our way out ofthis! No, all this debt is keeping businesses out of the game!

Previously it seems that the two sides could only agree about one thing – the need to yell to get theirpoint across. But now we’ve got something else! A new CNNMoney poll of leaning economists foundthat tax cuts are the way to go if we want to get the economy back on track. When asked what Congressshould do to help the economy 60 percent said we should extend tax cuts for all taxpayers. The nextclosest answer was “other” at 16 percent.

As CNN wrote of the results, “[E]conomists surveyed were in broad agreement that the recovery is stilltoo fragile to allow taxes to go up for the 97 percent of taxpayers not in the top brackets.”

As we’ve chronicled before many House Democrats are also lining up in favor of extending the tax cutsfor all Americans. The reason, as many of them explained in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi andMajority Leader Steny Hoyer, is that, “in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain



http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/20/economists-agree-extend-the-tax-cuts-so-why-arent-dems-listening/






things as they are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required to plan andmake sound budget decisions.”

Economists from across the spectrum are on board, many House Democrats are on board, andRepublicans have been the one steering the ship from Jump Street. Now, for the first time in thisAdministration, a majority of us agree on something. Surely this is progress. So let’s get this party started

and extend some tax cuts!

Wrong. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi have turned the debate into politics,saying that the Republicans are holding the middle class “hostage” by demanding that they all bepassed.

Why they can’t understand that this logic works equally well the other way is beyond me. Democratscould be said to have taken the middle class “hostage” by refusing to agree to pass them for everyone.

It’s the exact same situation, except for the fact that Republicans seem to have the majority on their side.Economists agree it would be beneficial to extend them for everyone, Democrats agree that raisingtaxes on a recession seems like a bad idea, and Republicans think it is the best way to spur theeconomy. So with everyone on the side of extending them, isn’t it Democrats who are the hostage

takers? The tax-terrorists, if you will (and if you can take a joke).

For once, a majority of us agree on something. What a shame it would be if we let this historicopportunity go to waste.

All Politics is Local, But for Democrats Debt Problems Exist

Nationwide

All politics is local. That is the phrase Democrats have been bandying about as their savior for themidterm elections. They know most of the country doesn’t like Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Democrats,or even Barack Obama, but if you can just keep the issues local then they have a chance to win some

seats and retain the majority. The problem with this theory is that the crushing burden of debt extendswell beyond the federal government; it reaches deep into the wallets of our cities and municipalities.Though we’ve made a point to talk about Greece and the Spain, about California and Illinois, and aboutall things Washington, but left out of the discussion so far have been places like Harrisburg, Virginia orLos Angeles. But these places, though certainly less flashy to talk are also on the verge of bankruptcy.

The problem stems from the same spending addiction that plagues Washington. Cities and states arefacing an enormous money crunch. With so many people out of a job, tax revenues have fallen throughthe floor. Adding insult to injury, cash-strapped people have been unable to afford their homes, forcingproperty values, along with property taxes to drop. Unfortunately, you would never be able to tell thatmunicipalities faced a revenue problem if all you saw was the amount of money they have beenspending. An report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that despite some deep program cuts,total spending by state and local governments actually increased by .1 percent in 2009.

It should come as no surprise then that as of the first quarter of 2010, state and local governments had$2.8 trillion in outstanding debt. Even worse, this astounding figure doesn’t include the number oneproblem facing states – their unfunded pension liabilities that may be as much as $2 trillion in and ofitself.

A significant amount of the debt comes from long-term municipal bonds. These bonds are popularbecause of their perceived low risk, short-term yields, and tax-free returns. Unfortunately, the idea of alow risk investment is flying out the window.



http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/01/07/dont_ignore_public_pensions_97578.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-31-state-spend_N.htm

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/20/6819/












Although only eight municipalities have declared bankruptcy in the last five years, the writing on the wallappears to signal a looming problem. Take the 1930s as an example. In those days total municipal debtwas around $250 billion in today’s dollars, less than 10 percent of the debt currently held by our stateand local governments. Then the Great Depression hit, drying up tax revenues and highlighting thereckless spending of previous generations. By the time the dust had settled, 4,500 municipalities had

defaulted.

We now face a similar problem. Cities and states, like the federal government, haven’t been greatstewards of our money. Many have used the funds to finance everything from low cost housing tostadium projects. They then borrowed even more money in an attempt to cover up the huge deficits suchspending caused.

Harrisburg, PA is the first domino to fall. The city’s 2010 budget completely omitted debt payments,signaling that they may intentionally default on the debt obligations. The immediate cause will be amissed interest payment on an incinerator, but the long-term problem is structural deficits. Beyond thelosses to the Harrisburg citizens who invested in their city, the major weight of the default will lie on thirdparty investors. To politicians this seems like an almost too good to be true scenario. Few citizens willlose money, their debts get taken off the books, and they accomplished it all without having to raise

taxes or reduce spending.

Of course, this too, has its problems. Cities rely on outside parties, including large corporations, topurchase their debt. Strategic defaults such as this one in Harrisburg may send a signal thatmunicipalities are willing to default rather than do the politically risky thing of raising taxes. As DaveAnderson wrote,

Default is attractive when the options are firing half the police force, closing all the poolsand not paving any streets for the next three years to pay off a large debt, or keepingmost public services and public employment working while screwing those SOBs onWall Street.

But as cities default their credit ratings will face downgrade. This in turn will make capital much moredifficult to come by now, and especially in the future as banks return to being more liquid. Defaultingnow may mean that cities will no longer be able to afford necessary infrastructure projects down theroad.

A possibly larger problem is the worried investors holding billions of dollars in short term municipal debtwho are now scared to death that their investment will be worth nothing. Companies, small businesses,retirees, and anyone else with an investment portfolio that includes these typically safe bonds may faceenormous losses. Such a loss of wealth will only hinder recovery as job creators attempt to get theirbalance sheets back in alignment by cutting costs and consumers buying power is reduced.

All politics may be local, but as our municipalities’ balance sheets show, the spending problem exists far

beyond Washington.



http://www.ianwelsh.net/deciding-to-default/





A Debt That Threatens Our Future

We’re making history for all the wrong reasons. Under President Obama’s leadership our national debthas reached it’s highest level in history. Even more worrisome, it is not going away anytime so

According to the budget issued earlier this year by the Obama administration, our national spending will

increase from a 50 year average of 20.5 percent of GDP to 28 percent in 2020, to 42 percent in 2040.Such an incredible jump in spending will have long lasting negative consequences that threaten the veryeconomic foundation of our generation.

The enormous spending increases is the primary cause of the debt crisis we face. The debt isscheduled to explode, jumping from 60 percent of GDP in the year 2000 to 110 percent of GDP by 2020.For a dose of comparison, the federal debt has only surpassed 100 percent of GDP one other time in ournations history – in the period just after World War II. As soon as the war was over, our debt fell.Unfortunately, if current spending trends remain constant, we shouldn’t look towards the same rebound.Under the Congressional Budget Office’s predictions, by 2035 our national debt could reach 185percent of GDP and would continue to spiral upwards.

The majority of the spending is the result of an unsustainable entitlement system that produces an

inexorable growth in costs. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are funded under a pay-as-you-go approach that promise benefits today that will only be paid for out of taxes tomorrow. Take SocialSecurity for instance. If you take a look at your paycheck, a substantial portion is being taken out inpayroll taxes to pay for the program. The money being taken out of your salary is not being stashedaway so that it can supplement your retirement; no, it’s being used now to pay for today’s retirees.

The problem with this system is that the federal government can promise a generous benefit withoutregard to whether or not it can actually afford it in the future. As Andrew Biggs explained in his articleWhy Does Government Grow and Grow and Grow , “Once today’s taxpayers reach retirement they feelfully entitled to their benefits, even if the taxes they paid were nowhere near enough to fund the benefitsthey will receive.” In other words, we’re creating an “entitlement society” who is made to feel theydeserve a certain level of government benefits, regardless of the impact this will have on the deficit.Sadly, the culture of Washington, which rewards extravagant promises with reelection, has nurtured this

“entitlement society.”

The results are breathtaking. In 1970, 38 percent of total spending was mandatory entitlement programs.By 2010, that number had jumped to 62 percent of total spending and by 2040 it will by 82 percent. Asthe proportion of our spending is increasingly devoted to ensuring stable benefits for our growingentitlement programs, some things which we currently take for granted will be forced to fall by thewayside. Education? National defense? Infrastructure? If we continue down the current entitlement path,there will be nothing left over for these once core government functions.

Yet, if you believed President Obama, we shouldn’t be focusing on our unsustainable spending habits,instead our eyes should be firmly affixed on finding ways to increase revenue. Enter, the Democrats planto appeal to the deficit-hawks – eliminate some of the Bush era tax cuts. Even if we set aside theconservative principle that the government should, to the extent that they are able, stay out of thepockets of its citizens, there are economic reasons to support extending the tax cuts. The CBO has saidthat extending the tax cuts put in place under President Bush would provide a “considerable” economicboost where “economic growth would be stronger next year; unemployment would be lower next year.”Harvard researcher Alberto Alesina agrees. His study of over 200 fiscal policies following recessionsfinds that a combination of tax cuts and spending discipline is the best way to spur economic growth –not government stimulus.

The Obama administration would be wise to change its focus. A review of our nation’s balance sheetreveals that spending, not revenues, is the major problem we face in returning to a sustainable financial



http://www.american.com/archive/2010/september/why-does-government-grow-and-grow-and-grow

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/17/a-debt-that-threatens-our-future/








balance. Even as our nation recovers from this deep recession, our national debt will remain a drag onour economic success. This November we, as a country, must vote for change. We must vote forcandidates who understand that before the government can ask us to reach deeper into our wallets, itmust first make necessary changes to its spending habits.

Lessons from Fidel? Cuba Looks to Private Sector to EscapeRecession

“I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating…because it causes war, hypocrisy, andcompetition.” – Fidel Castro

The most recent economic downturn has apparently made Castro think twice about his commitment toSocialism. The global recession has caused many countries to turn away from big-government policies.The social welfare states of Western Europe which are now raising retirement ages, slashing the size ofgovernment, and cutting some government provided benefits have been the poster child for themovement to smaller government. But, Cuba, which is making similar moves, may now take the cake.

Fidel Castro was a revolutionary. After taking control of the government he set about creating a Socialistoasis. He seized private property with minimal compensation, nationalized the utilities, and all but shutdown the private sector. In today’s Cuba, 84 percent of all workers are employed in the public sector.This can span any number of generally private tasks including taxicab drivers, barbers, and doctors.

This is all changing. In a move to escape its crushing debt, Cuba is planning on laying off hundreds ofthousands of public sector employees. “Our state cannot and should not continue maintainingcompanies, productive entities, services and budgeted sectors with bloated payrolls [and] losses thathurt the economy,” the nation’s trade Union Federation said.Cuba’s President Raul Castro was even more blunt, “we have to erase forever the nation that Cuba is theonly country in the world where on can live without working.” That is exactly the problem that hasundermined the Socialist model – there is no incentive for productivity gains, no competition for lower

prices, and no desire for innovation for better products. With state owned businesses stagnating itbecomes impossible to keep the already fragile house of cards from collapsing completely. Therecession was the final blow, encouraging even the most ardent Socialists to see the long-term failure oftheir beloved model.

Cuba cannot just slash the size of government and expect the nation to heal. That is why Castro’s isformulating a new plan to actively encourage and foster growth in the private sector in the hopes theywill absorb all of the public sector employees. This new support of the private sector will come withreformed policies including things such as liberalizing regulation on land use to encourage real estatedevelopment, issuing hundreds of thousands of new licenses to those interested in starting a smallbusiness, and loosening government rules to ease the firing of less productive workers.

Cuba has already began to enact these new policies, it began with a pilot program with taxicab drivers.

In a taxicab garage in Havana, the drivers now lease the cars from the garage, they pay for their owngas, and their take-home pay is what they make after overhead costs. Essentially, the drivers are theirown private business. The result: productivity is up 55 times the level of last year. Last year the per-taxiincome was $580, this year it is $18,360. Capitalism has, yet again, payed off. Of course the change willtake some getting used to by the workers. “No one hangs around here anymore doing nothing for a fewdollars,” the company bookkeeper said.

Not all Cubans, however, are disappointed with the shift towards privatization. Last year alone there were93,000 people who applied for a private workers license. Only 23,000 were approved. This was



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/117775

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/17/lessons-from-fidel-cuba-looks-to-private-sector-to-escape-recession/














because, as Fidel Castro had always said, “[private businesses] are a necessary and temporary evil.”With these new policies, a much greater portion of those 93,000 to enter into their own business,providing them with a sense of ownership that was lost in the Socialist model. Although the next fewyears will be tough, as demand and investment catch up with the glut of supply, there is at least a hopefor something more than the $20 a month today’s Cubans earn.

Fidel may still find capitalism repugnant. But by his own admission, in a recent interview with TheAtlantic, “the Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore.” As Cuba of all places makes moves toslash the size of its government should the United States be going in the opposite direction? America,with its rich history of capitalism, should be wary of placing its faith in government to escape from thiseconomic crisis. As crazy as it is to say this, perhaps we should look to Cuba for answers to ourproblem, at least they are coming to grips with the importance that the private sector has in getting theeconomy back on its feet.

Greece or the U.K. – How Will the U.S. Respond to Austerity?

In the wake of WWI, the world was thrown into a global depression. This was far worse than any

recession that has followed. The dominant powers of the day, US, Germany, England, Spain, Italy,Russia, who controlled the global market, were experiencing massive debt, unemployment, andgovernmental instability. Each nation responded in a similar way – big activist governments typified bynationalism and socialism – that centered around the centralization of government power for the good ofthe people.

Centralization was the answer du jour for stronger, more fiscally responsible nations. Unsurprisingly thisexperiment with big government proceeded to fail, actually slowing the healing process and leavingbehind bankrupt nations strapped with debt.

Somehow, the United States must be suffering a bout of amnesia, as we responding to our currenteconomic crisis in much the same way as before. Whereas we are mired in the policies of the past,much of the rest of the world has been falling away from centralized government in an attempt to

stabilize their limping economies.

The transition hasn’t always been a smooth one. Take Greece. The idyllic Mediterranean nation was oneof the nations most harshly affected by their irresponsible spending. Their deficit was 12.7 percent ofGDP while the standards of the European Union encourage nothing higher than 2 percent. This causedtheir national debt to skyrocket to 120 percent of GDP – the result of a bloated public sector andunsustainable pensions. Their nation is now in survival mode, doing everything they can to avoiddefaulting on their debt.

Austerity has been their answer. In order to cleanse themselves of their past, they have instituted publicsector salary cuts, issued hiring and pension freezes, raised the retirement age, and yes, instituted tax-hikes.

The Greeks haven’t taken it so well. The extreme cutbacks have resulted in riots. Tens of thousands ofstriking workers have clashed with police in an attempt to convince the government to ease itsrestrictions. In the most serious of the riots an estimated 50,000 government workers, masked youths,and civil servants forced police to respond with tear gas and stun grenades. The people, spoiled byyears of government subsidies, were simply unwilling to give up their luxuries, regardless of whether thegovernment could actually pay for them.

Regardless of the violence the harsh austerity package is something that had to be done. Governmentspending was a drug that the Greek had become addicted to. But weaning them of this dependence is



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/16/greece-or-the-u-k-how-will-the-u-s-respond-to-austerity/









The question then becomes, how will the United States respond? Will we take the streets in protest likethe Greek or will we hunker down, pinch pennies, and save our way toward success a la the British?

Are we willing to make budget cuts, even if it means some popular government programs will be scaledback? Are we willing to accept that America cannot afford its entitlements? Will we save more for our

own retirements? Will we take ownership over our own healthcare? Basically, are we willing to makesacrifices? These are questions we must ask ourselves.

We must be the ones to ask because the current leadership in Washington sure isn’t. In the yearsfollowing the recession the federal government has grown in size, along with our debt and deficits. Weare witnessing a centralization of government unseen since the days of FDR.While nations like Greece are placing their bets on the free-market principles we once upheld, the UnitedStates is flocking towards the failed model of Greece. We are creating a society dependent ongovernment welfare, in doing so we should expect a backlash when Washington can no longer affordsuch spending. Let’s make the small, yet painful, changes now, before we have to make drastic anddevastating changes later.

Intel CEO Has Harsh Words for Obama’s Economic Plans

Intel has a history of innovation and job creation. Most famously they created the first microprocessor,leading them to become the primary hardware supplier to the burgeoning PC industry. They now haveapproximately 84,000, employing significant numbers of people in nine states. This is a company whoknows a lot about what it takes to be successful. That makes it all the more troubling when CEO PaulOtellini speak out against the economic policies of the Obama administration.

One of his main concerns is that the United States is doing little to nurture people like himself andfledgling companies like Intel was in its infancy. As Otellini explained at the Technology Politicy Institute’sAspen Forum, “unless government policies are altered…the next big thing will not be invented here.

Jobs will not be created here.”

The reason for the decline? The U.S. political environment has become so hostile to business that thereis likely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth,” Otellini said. But the underlying problem asOtellini sees it is that “this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’reflummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”This has led to two distinct problems. First, the policy environment has created a level of uncertainty thatis hindering business growth. “Every business in America has a list of more variables than I’ve ever seenin my career.” If politicians make the correct decision on things like capital gains tax and pro-businesstax credits then jobs will stay, but if Washington goes “the wrong way, people will not invest in the UnitedStates. They’ll invest elsewhere.”

This is ominous news given Democrats announced plans. Last February President Obama announced

that he plans on raising the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent – up from the current15 percent level. This is one of many revenue streams that President Obama is pursuing in an effort topay for his big government initiatives.

Second, our high corporate tax rate is deterring businesses from starting up and investing in the UnitedStates. As Otellini explains, “If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations wouldhave an incentive to invest here.” Instead, “Our corporate taxes are twice what they are in the rest of theworld,” causing the U.S. to be a less appealing destination for job creators and investors compared toplaces in Asia which are “clamoring” for Intel’s business. The results have been disastrous. In the not so



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/15/intel-ceo-has-harsh-words-for-obamas-economic-plans/






distant past “our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for startupcapital…We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply isno longer the case.”

Sadly, in Democrats mind, business dampening tax burdens are necessary to pay off our record deficit.Of course that view ignores the mistakes that gave us the historic deficits of the past few years. In a

separate interview with CNNMoney.com Otellini said that the stimulus “doesn’t seem to be working theway it is. Swimming pools in Mississippi are not going to create lasting jobs.“ What is needed in Otellini’smind is a fundamental change of direction. “The decisions so far have not resulted in either job growth orincreased confidence. When what you’re doing isn’t working you rethink it and I think we need to rethinksome plans.”

Or at least that is what they would do in the private sector. Sadly the Obama administration, where costefficiency is apparently of no concern, takes a different view. Rather than try something new, say makingour taxation levels competitive with the rest of the world, we try more of the same failed Keynesianmeasures that have failed to get us out of this crisis. “I really think they’re trying,” Otellini said. But giventhe enormity of the problems we face, we literally can’t afford to try Democrats’ way for very much longer.

Obama Declares Combat Missions Have Ended But Danger Remains

As “combat missions” have ended in Iraq, many of the troops are feeling disgruntled. Despite the ever-dangerous job they continue to perform they have been declared “non combat soldiers,” a designationthat many servicemen view as a slap in the face.

The worst part is it appears the designation is the result of President Obama doing his best to live up toa campaign promise. As Reuters reported yesterday,

The hype around the change of mission, which allowed President Barack Obama to say

he was fulfilling a pledge to start ending the unpopular war, set off complaints amongsome soldiers left behind who were no longer viewed as combat troops.

The mission, once Operation Iraqi Freedom is now known as Operation New Dawn, a clear message thatthe worst is over, and a new day in Iraq is beginning. Yet our troops are still waking up to the same typesof violence. Apparently the Iraqi insurgency didn’t get the memo that our troops our now “non-combat.”

It all started as a promise made by Obama over a year ago to end non-combat missions led by UStroops. At the time he said,

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq willend. . . As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security

of our troop and civilians in Iraq.”

Apparently troop morale was not one of his priorities. Obama fulfilled his promise to end combatmissions and withdraw all but 50,000 troops to “advise and assist” the Iraqi soldiers. But what is less wellknown is that the remaining troops will continue to engage in counter terror raids, high risk missions, anddangerous security patrols. In other words, very little has changed but their title. And it is that, which ismaking them bristle. As U.S. Staff Sergeant Kendrick Manuel told Reuters ,



http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE68C1XU20100913

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29371588/

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/15/obama-declares-combat-missions-have-ended-but-danger-remains/









“To us it was like a slap in the face, because we are still here … we are still going inharm’s way every time we leave out of the gate. . . If a life is gone, it is gone. As long aswe are going in harm’s way, it is not over for us.”

So why make these supposed “big changes” if very little has really changed? Troops are still fighting.Troops are still dying. But the name changed, a slight, but symbolically important change that has left

troops feeling slighted. President Obama can now say mission completed. Operation Iraqi Freedom isover and the troop drawdown is complete. But for the soldiers on the ground the mission, and thedanger, remains. The President would be wise to remember that.

Dems Stifle Criticism, Promote False Picture of Obamacare

With elections just weeks away, the Administration is doing everything it can to finesse Obamacare intolooking as good as possible. But, like the old saying goes, you can’t put lipstick on a pig.

Recent calculations as to the health plan’s cost have been less than rosy. Both the CBO and the Centerfor Medicaid and Medicare Services have shown that the Democrats’ healthcare bill will do little to keepfederal costs down.

The latest report, compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows that not only has thebill failed to live up to promises. The promises themselves are misleading. Even worse, the governmentis using taxpayer money to pay for their misleading information campaign.In order to convince the American people what a great piece of legislation Obamacare really was, theAdministration sent a mailer to seniors. Among the promises the mailer contained were:

• “The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress…will provide you and your family greater savingsand increased quality of care.”

• “Your Medicare benefits won’t change”• “Your choice of doctors will be preserved”

But after examining the pamphlet the GAO states that “the brochure overstates some of [the Democrats’health overhaul’s] benefits.”

“In our view, the brochure presents a picture of [the healthcare bill] that is not universallyshared. For example, two government analyses have determined that [the Democrats’legislation] reductions in funding for Medicare Advantage may decrease enrollment andresult in less generous benefit packages,” and “significant increases in premiums forsome beneficiaries may be necessary.”

The fact that such misinformation was spread using taxpayer dollars is absurd in and of itself. What’sworse, while promoting their own views, Democrats are snuffing out any who disagree.

The latest assault comes from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who wrote toKaren Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, demanding insurers stop using“misinformation and scare tactics.” There will be “zero tolerance for this type of misinformation” shecontinues.

Sebelius is responding to a number of health insurers who have asked for rate increases between 1percent and 9 percent for 2011. What she fails to grasp is that the increase is required to pay for extrabenefits required under the Democrats’ healthcare plan.



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/14/dems-stifle-criticism-promote-false-picture-of-obamacare/






So why does she threaten the insurers attempt to break even? Because, as she says, “according to ouranalysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact…will beminimal.” The troubling word there is “some.” Some industry experts believe that the costs of compliancewill be small. This implies that others believe there will be substantial compliance costs that would thenbe passed on to the consumer. After all it doesn’t take a genius to realize that increased benefits lead toadditional costs which would drive up the cost of plans.

That word, “some,” has frightening implications. As Eugene Volokh, UCLA professor of law, wrote on hisblog,

If the Administration is threatening to use its considerable regulatory power to retaliateagainst insurance companies that, in the Administration’s view, are conveying“misinformation” — for instance, because their financial analyses disagree with theAdministration’s financial analyses — that strikes me as quite troubling. . .

[E]ven if such action would be constitutionally permissible, it would be quite troubling,as would threats that seem to hint as such action: It would involve the Administration’sdeliberately trying to suppress criticism of its policies, under a “misinformation” standardthat sounds highly subjective and politically contestable.

What it sounds like Sebelius is trying to say is that there will be “zero tolerance” for dissent. I understandwhy Democrats would be afraid of differing views. We were all led to believe that our premiums and thefederal government’s total outlays would be lowered by the Democrats’ plan. Sadly, those realities arenot going to come true. Rather than own up to the law’s failings, Democrats are stifling criticism andusing taxpayer money to promote a rosier picture of the bill. That is something that I, and voters, shouldhave zero tolerance for.

Democratic Candidates Saying Whatever The Voters Want to hear

They say that history is written by the winners.

Just imagine what would have happened had the British won the Revolutionary War. Would it have beencalled the War of Colonial Aggression? Would Benedict Arnold have been revered as a national hero?Would our forefathers be considered nothing more than a society of menacing rebels? Or, best questionyet, what would today’s Tea Partiers be called?

But it is too late for Democrats to rewrite the history they’ve spent the past two years writing. Theeconomy is not on the road to recovery. Healthcare costs are going up, not down. Homes are beingforeclosed at record numbers. And the national debt will be a drag on future generations. Nobody wantsto be on the losing side of history. So as Democratic candidates are rapidly losing ground in pre-electionpolls, they are attempting to align themselves with a different team. Rather than tie themselves to themast of the sinking Obama, Pelosi and Reid ship they are cutting anchor and setting course for less

choppy waters.

Obama, attempting to become a martyr for his own cause, recently said,

“We’re in a political season where every candidate out there has their own district, theirown makeup, their own plan, their own message. And in an environment where we’vestill got 9.5 percent unemployment, people are going to make the best argument theycan right now. And they’re going to be taking polls of what their particular constituentsare saying, and trying to align with that .”



http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/Congressional/constituent/

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/14/democratic-candidates-saying-whatever-the-voters-want-to-hear/







http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091103878.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091103878.html



http://volokh.com/2010/09/10/administration-criticizes-tells-regulated-industry-that-there-will-be-zero-tolerance-for-alleged-misinformation-in-industrys-statements-about-government-policy/

http://volokh.com/2010/09/10/administration-criticizes-tells-regulated-industry-that-there-will-be-zero-tolerance-for-alleged-misinformation-in-industrys-statements-about-government-policy/



Has President Obama come around to how unpopular his failed policies are amongst the electorate?Just last year President Obama urged his party members to embrace him and his policies regardless ofthe electoral consequences. Republicans “won’t go any easier on you,” he said. So what accounts forthe 180-degree shift in the President’s rhetoric?

It appears as if he, like many Democrats this cycle, have abandoned principle when facing defeat. Theyare content to simply stick a finger in the wind, see which way the wind is pointing, and align their sails inthat direction. The unspoken mantra of “win at all costs” has replaced the more principled, if incrediblyvague, “hope and change” as the Democrats election year strategy. Is this really what we want from ourelected officials? We want someone who listens to us. But we want someone to listen not just when itmatters for their reelection. This is a representative democracy after all, but Americans views should berepresented more often than once-every two years and in more ways than just an election talking point.

As Democrats will soon find out, the electorate is smart enough to figure out their attempt at revisionisthistory. You can’t vote for the stimulus package, vote for the healthcare bill, and vote for cap-and-tradeand only then “try to align” with your constituents. That is not how history is written.

American voters can look beyond “the best arguments” Democratic candidates can make. They can see

when a candidate is simply parroting what he learned from “polls of what their particular constituents aresaying.” We can see because none of that changes the fundamental damage that has been done to thecountry. Government is bigger, the private sector is smaller. Our debt is larger, our chances for aprosperous future are smaller. Taxes are going up, wages are going down.Unsurprisingly though Democratic candidates are happily accepting Obama’s offer to throw himoverboard if it means a chance at reelection. I’ve found tons of examples which can be found here, butTom White a Democratic House candidate from Nebraska is perhaps the best example yet. In a newcampaign advertisement White actually criticizes the Republican incumbent because “every day, everychild in America grows deep and deeper in debt, thanks to Washington politicians.” But does Whitepoint out that his was the party that sat behind the wheel as the nation sank? No. In fact, he doesn’t sayanything about being the Democratic candidate, instead he brands himself as the “NebraskaIndependence for Congress.”

History is written by the winners. But if Democrats win, what story will they tell. Will they tell the story oftheir valiant success in passing healthcare reform and how they saved the economy with their stimulusplan? Or will they tell the story they’re crafting now – that they are fighting against the Washingtonmachine and are really fiscally conservative, against spending, and anti-tax? Either one would be a fairytale.

United States Falls in Annual Global Competitiveness Report

The World Economic Forum’s latest Global Competitiveness Report is out and the U.S. is falling fasterthan the Virginia Tech football team. Having been first for a number of years the United States has begun

to stumble under Obama’s stewardship. Last year we fell one spot to #2 overall; this year we fell twomore spots and reside at #4. Being fourth on a list of 139 nations isn’t exactly awful, but the recent fall isan indictment of the policies of the current Democratic administration.

The report takes into account numerous variables in an attempt to show the “ability of countries toprovide high levels of prosperity to their citizens.” These rankings are based on many factors like:macroeconomic stability, innovation, government trust, and labor market efficiency. These criterion areintentionally general, and very difficult to change over a short period of time. So when the US dropped



http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/13/united-states-falls-in-annual-global-competitiveness-report/







two spots, putting it behind Switzerland, Sweden, and Singapore, it proves there have been seriouschanges in economic policy.

So why is the US falling? The report shows two clear reasons. First, our federal government is standing inthe way of American business growth. When asked what the most problematic factors are for doingbusiness, respondents said that inefficient government bureaucracy, tax rates, and tax regulations were

three of the top four. All of those are the directly tied to big government stifling private sector growth.Rather than admit their failures and let businesses flourish under a free market system, the currentadministration has taken steps in the opposite direction. Enormous increases in spending and the size ofgovernment under President Obama show his fundamental belief that government rather than the privatesector will be the key to economic recovery.

Second, our national debt is spiraling out of control.

“Continued budget deficits and high public debt are likely to have a negative impact onproductivity for a number of reasons. First, they reduce fiscal flexibility. Because ofhigher interest payment on debt, the government will have fewer funds available toinvest in areas that are necessary to maintain future growth.”

Of course, this is merely a strand in the interconnected web of problems. Higher debt also raises interestrates which make the cost of capital higher. It leads to higher taxes to repay the debt which leads toinvesting less and saving more. And eventually it leads to smaller growth, making it even harder to payback debt, ultimately spiraling downwards toward default, much like we saw in Greece.

Although this year hasn’t exactly been a banner year for growth worldwide, the United States and its

poor economic policy choices, were hit especially hard. As Irene Mia, senior economist for the WEFexplained, “the US has very important strengths, but macroeconomic stability was a problembeforehand and the crisis exacerbated it.” Sadly, if President Obama’s budget is an accurate forecast,our stability will be a problem long after the economic crisis has passed. As the nonpartisan CBOrecently said,

“Further increases in federal debt relative to the nation’s output (gross domestic product,or GDP) almost certainly lie ahead if current policies remain in place. Unlesspolicymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf





of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficitswill cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels”.

Basically, we cannot continue to support our spending habits. Failure to change current fiscal policiesinevitably will result in a less-competitive America. As we continue to become less competitive, ournations GDP will swiftly decline. Republican or Democrat, we all want to have a competitive economy.

Without such, we cannot afford to help our nation excel in anything but poverty. NOW is the time to makethe changes. We need to cut back on spending or raise taxes significantly. Since the later of these ispolitical suicide, we indeed need to make cut backs, if only temporary. We need to do this now. Thelonger we put off the needed reform, the more difficult it will become to resuscitate our crashingeconomy.

More Democrats Fighting Obama Administration’s Planned Tax

Increase

We’ve done it. We’ve finally achieved a measure of bipartisan agreement on something. More and more

Democrats are embracing the idea that the Bush era tax cuts should be extended for all Americans.Does this mean something will actually get done to prevent the tax increase? No. At least not if partyleaders like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have anything to say about it.

As Politico reported today, House Democrats have sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority LeaderStendy Hoyer encouraging them to reconsider their opposition to the planned tax hikes.






http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/13/more-democrats-fighting-adminisrations-planned-tax-increase/






“We believe in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain things asthey are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required toplan and make sound budget decisions.”

The letter isn’t the only sign of wavering support from Democrats on the issue of taxes. Last weekDemocrat Representative Gary Peters said that extending the tax cuts “is the right thing to do, as

anything less jeopardizes economic recovery. Other Democrats who have clearly come out againstPresident Obama’s plan for ending tax breaks include:

• Jim Himes (D-CT): “The economy has by no means fully recovered, so my bias is that thosehigh-end tax cuts should be extended”

• Bobby Bright: “Party leaders are not my directors or my boss. My boss is my constituents, andI’ve heard from a vast majority of my constituents that they don’t believe in tax increases onanybody at this point in time.”

• Ron Klein (D-FL): “As we work to rebuild the economy, I support a one-year extension of the so-called Bush tax cuts”

• Gerry Connolly (D-VA) “I think the recovery is sufficiently fragile that we ought to leave tax rateswhere they are

• Kent Conrad (D-ND) “My reaction would be don’t cut spending, don’t raise taxes and that wouldmean on anyone”

• Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) “I strongly believe that this is the wrong time to let key tax cuts expire. Weneed to encourage investment, not discourage it by letting these cuts expire”

• Zack Space (D-VA) equated raising taxes on the wealthy during the current economy to “addinggasoline to a raging fire.” “We need to keep cutting taxes to spur our economy,

Undeterred by the arguments against raising taxes in a recession, Nancy Pelosi is doing the best shecan to make sure the tax cuts do not get extended. And she’s calling in the big guns to attempt to winsome votes. Pelosi invited well known pollster Stan Greenberg to explain how raising taxes on the upperclass and many small businesses is actually a winning position as they head into the campaign stretch.

This desperate move just goes to show how clueless top Democrats are about the realities of our

economic situation. Republicans and moderate Democrats aren’t fighting against the hikes solely toappeal to votes in the short term. They are doing it because it makes long term sense to get oureconomy back on track. And getting the economy humming will be a bullet point on their resume for restof their political career.

They are exactly right. Raising taxes on anyone doesn’t make sense given the economic realities oftoday. As moderate Democrats letter to Speaker Pelosi explains,

“While those in the highest income brackets comprise only two to three percent ofAmerican taxpayers, economists estimate that they are responsible for 25 percent ofnational consumer spending. As 70 percent of our economy is driven by consumerspending, this is not the time to jeopardize further growth.”

But. But. But. It won’t hurt you in the elections. Whooosh! That was the sound of the point flying right overNancy Pelosi’s head. This issue isn’t about winning elections, it’s about ensuring that we do everythingnecessary to get the economy going. Something Nancy Pelosi and President Obama



http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20100913/NEWS01/9120302

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2010/09/arizona_democrats_counter_obama_on_bush_tax_cuts_economy.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/110251-tax-hikes-may-wait


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100902/ap_on_re_us/us_tax_cuts


http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7565/taxcutfight









http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/09/obama-some-dems-at-odds-over-extending-bush-tax-cuts/

http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/09/obama-some-dems-at-odds-over-extending-bush-tax-cuts/









New Report Finds Obamacare Raises Premiums and Adds to Deficit

Obamacare was passed with very specific promises from Democrats. President Obama said “We[Senate Democrats and the Administration] agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of healthcare. Families will save on their premiums.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added,

“We can reduce the costs of premiums for Nevadans and all Americans. This is one more reason why weneed to pass health insurance now, protecting patients and making health care affordable.”

None of that has turned out to be true. Two new reports out from the Wall Street Journal this week findthat both Americans and the federal government will be spending more on healthcare for theforeseeable future.

Remembering back to the campaign trail the impact of rising costs of healthcare premiums on familieswas the primary reason for reform. We were told that Americans, and America for that matter, could notafford the path we were on. We were promised change. Turns out that it wasn’t quite the change we werelooking for. Aetna, BlueCross BlueShield, and other insurance carriers are planning on raising premiums1 to 9 percent. But the rate change isn’t result of the evil corporations trying to screw over Main Street –

it’s the expected costs these companies will bear because of new extra benefits required under theDemocrats’ health care law.

This should not be all that surprising. Less than one month ago a leaked Democratic memo showed thatthe party was drastically shifting their attempts to defend their healthcare bill. The memo encouragedthem to abandon the claim that it would reduce costs and instead encouraged Democrats to stress thatthey will work to “improve it.” So much for Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, claimthat “for all Americans – all Americans – premiums will be lower.”

As it turns out Democrats are about as good at predicting the results of their healthcare bill as they wereat predicting the success of the stimulus. That is to say…not very good.

Individuals aren’t the only ones likely to see a rate increase. A new report from the Center for Medicare

and Medicaid Services finds that the federal share of healthcare costs will continue to soar upward.According to the report, by 2019 the United States will spend $4.6 trillion on healthcare, up from the $2.6trillion we spent this year. That is much faster than the expected growth of inflation and faster than if thelaw had not been passed.

That is a huge expenditure growth that Washington must find a way to pay for amidst declining taxrevenues and a budget already awash in red ink. As Vice President Joe Biden said at the Health CareSummit last February, “unless we bend that cost curve, we’re in trouble.” He’s exactly right. Sadly, hisparty’s healthcare reform package bent it the wrong way creating costly regulations and adding millionsof people to Medicaid’s rolls.

With all the bad news rolling in it is no surprise that Democrats have gone quiet on healthcare. What wasonce supposed to be their clarion call for the November elections has since turned into a dirty word. Asthe Wall Street Journal ̓ s opinion page said today,

‘They’re betting that between now and November, you’re going to come down withamnesia,” President Obama told a Milwaukee crowd on Monday, vilifying theRepublicans who “helped devastate our middle class.” But it seems as if the real case ofamnesia—or maybe post-traumatic stress disorder—has struck the Democrats, who arenow doing everything they can to help voters forget ObamaCare.”



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575477683320736458.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLETopStories

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/10/new-report-finds-obamacare-raises-premiums-and-adds-to-deficit/











Gone are the days when Democrats thought they could use healthcare reform as a lever to retain themomentum in 2010. Gone are the days when President Obama had the guts to say that if we don’t passhealthcare reform “Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. MoreAmericans will lose their coverage…And more will die as a result.”No, that big-talk has turned into mere whispers. It turns out all those harsh realities exist and possibly

made worse by the passage of healthcare.

I’m not sure whether it was ignorance or ego that led them to believe that the flawed healthcare bill theypassed would actually be a help come November. Regardless, as members of their own party aretripping over themselves in their attempts to distance themselves from the bill and the administrationwho passed it, it has become clear it isn’t. Instead, it has become yet another symbol in the inability ofWashington to match their rhetoric with reality

I doubt any of this news is what Nancy Pelosi had in mind when she said “we have to pass the bill sothat you can find out what is in it.”

Obama’s Attempt to Cast John Boehner as the Villain Fall Flat

Every self-respecting hero has a villain. Someone to provide some contrast; to show just how good theyreally are.

Americans have already crafted their villain – the national debt. They are literally terrified by its powers.To be fair, they have a right to be afraid. The national debt is growing out of control, and worse, growingbeyond our ability to pay for it.

Much to their chagrin, Democrats have become the embodiment of that evil. Under their watch theannual deficit, the difference between the amount of money our government pays out versus the amountit takes in, has reached historic levels. As the CBO wrote in their latest Budget and Economic Outlook,“relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in thepast 65 years.” The largest of course being last year. These deficits are beginning to pile up, causing ournational debt to double in five years and triple in 10. Sadly, that is not even the most terrifying projection.According to CBO projections under its “alternative fiscal scenario,” which makes bottom-lineadjustments for likely policy choice, our debt will reach 180 percent of GDP in just 25 years.

Interestingly, President Obama seems to relish the role of villain. Despite bipartisan calls to stop thespending, he proposed yet another round of government stimulus totaling $50 billion.Sensing that they are losing the deficit debate (and their hope of maintaining the majority along with it)Democrats have been scrambling to come up with their own villain. Over the past few weeks it seemsthey have conjured one up – House Minority Leader John Boehner.

The recent line of attack began two weeks ago after Boehner gave an speech on the economy in

Cleveland. Democrats immediately leaped into attack mode, believing they could use Boehner as aweapon against Republicans. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said after the speech,

“We will be using it to encourage our candidates to draw a clear distinction betweencontinuing on the road to recovery or turning back the clock to the failed Bush economicagenda.”



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/van_hollen_boehner_speech_was.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/10/obamas-attempt-to-cast-john-boehner-as-the-villain-fall-flat/








Attempting to establish the theme, President Obama continued painting the villainous picture in hisLabor Day speech. Speaking in Milwaukee, Obama referred to “the Republican who thinks he’s going totake over as speaker. I’m just saying, that’s his opinion.” Then it got a little more personal, saying “pay noattention to the man with the fake tan.” Apparently, Boehner is akin to Lord Voldemort, or “he who mustnot be named.”

But in a speech yesterday Obama became a little more bold, continuing the Boehner-bashing in a muchmore direct manner. In the speech Obama explicitly references the Minority Leader eight times, tossingin a few more thinly veiled references for good measure. “There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner,”Obama said, “there were no new ideas.”

Ironically, in arguing that Boehner has nothing but recycled ideas, Obama attempted to pitch one of hisown – another round of stimulus. But the irony was lost on our President who seemed taken aback by thefact that Boehner “said no to these projects.”

Beyond the substance of the speeches it is clear that Democrats are doing their best to cultivate a villainthat is not them. It is a smart political play. The concept of good versus evil is well ingrained in thesubconscious of every voter. We view politics through a narrative lens, carefully crafting a storyline bydeciding whether candidates are heroes or villains. Democrats are doing their best to exploit this frame

of reference. To which I wish them the best of luck. With unemployment trending the wrong way,government stimulus a proven failure, and government deficits reaching historic heights, it will be toughto beat out the national debt as the villain of choice in voter’s minds.

But I don’t expect them to stop trying. Watch carefully in President Obama’s press conference today tosee how many times he invokes the name John Boehner. Will he break his previous record of eight?

Japan and US: Two Innovators Bound to Same Fate

Japan is known for placing a high value on education and technological innovation. They are the home

of such worldwide brands as Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, and Nintendojust to name a few. Yet despite an incredible corporate history their nation is struggling. If we continuedown the same policy path the United States will follow a similarly stagnant path.

Japan’s problems began in 1990s which came to be known as “The Lost Decade.” The 80s were a timeof incredible prosperity. Interest rates were low, research and development was booming, and real estateprices were zooming skyward. Then the bubble burst. Stock prices crumbled and real estate fell throughthe floor, spraying banks’ ledgers with red ink. Credit dried up, investment plummeted, and publicconsumption of goods shriveled.

The problem should sound very similar, but how about the responses?

Japan’s response was an utter disaster. A series of governmental missteps that perpetuated rather than

solved the crisis. First, they attempted three major fiscal stimulus packages totaling 6 percent of GDP(by comparison ours was around 5.7%). They were remarkably unsuccessful, with economic growthbarely topping 1 percent following the government stimulus.

Why were they so unsuccessful? As the American Enterprise Institute explains, “the packages werepoorly directed–largely toward unproductive public works projects and credits to small businesses thatwere no longer economically viable.” The government also bailed out many large companies in anattempt to keep the economy liquid. But many of these companies were only surviving because of theconstant drip of government funds. When the fresh funds stopped the firms collapsed. But their largest



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/09/japan-and-us-two-innovators-bound-to-same-fate/





policy mistake was raising taxes in an attempt to make up for the enormous government debt caused bytheir earlier trials with stimulus. The higher taxes, especially the increase in the consumption tax (VAT),led to a further reduction in available investment capital and worsened their economic downturn.

Nevertheless, here we stand, our government having followed almost step-by-step the failedJapanese model.

Poorly targeted stimulus heavily reliant on public sector projects? Check.

Disregarding free markets and creating a moral hazard with “too big to fail” policies? Check.

Enormous government stimulus package followed by looming tax increases? Check.Pointing out the failures of government policy doesn’t do much good, so what could we have donedifferently? Although I don’t dare attempt to create an entire policy prescription, here are some lessons Ilearned from studying Japan’s Lost Decade.

First, the government should extricate itself from the folly of stimulus. Federal governments have provedinept at accurately targeted where money needs to be injected into the economy. Instead, stimuluscreates unnatural disruptions in the economy, the result of money not going where it is needed most. Our

huge monetary investment left us with very little to show for it other than enormous debt.

Second, despite the increased deficit, the government must resist the temptation to raise taxes. Thereckless spending has led to historic levels of debt and deficit which has naturally spooked manyconsumers and businesses. They are rightly afraid that the government will eventually be forced tocourse-correct, but rather than do so with spending cuts, will increase taxes. Such uncertaintycompounds the economic problems we face. To avoid the same contraction in investment as JapanPresident Obama should immediately renounce his plan to raise tax rates on business profits, dividendsand capital gains. These will act as marginal tax increases on the very capital the Federal Reserve hasbeen struggling to make liquid over the last two years.

Third, avoid deflation at all costs. Japan fell into a deflationary spiral in which consumers had a continualincentive to delay purchases as real prices continued to fall. In a deflationary economy businesses alsohave little reason to invest since simply sitting on cash becomes a great investment. So as consumerdemand and private investment falls, so to does economic growth, thus exacerbating the deflationarycrisis. To avoid this the federal government should rescind any unspent stimulus funds towards a policyof quantitative easing. This is a process in which the Federal Reserve increases the supply of money bybuying up financial assets – the most helpful in our case being money-backed securities and corporatebonds. Such a process fights the threat of deflation with the benefit of increasing banks ability to lendrather than mire itself in underperforming stimulus projects.

History is about learning lessons. Japan and the United States share a heritage of innovation, hard work,and entrepreneurship. How sad it would be if we also share in their economic woes as a result ofWashington’s stubbornness.

Obama Denies Bipartisan Compromise on Tax Cuts

“Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that thequality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal,whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority …negotiate in good faith.”



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/09/obama-playing-partisan-games-with-tax-cuts-despite-advice-from-orszag/





Sounds fair enough, right? This is actually an excerpt from President Obama’s book, “The Audacity ofHope”. While campaigning for office, Obama led many to believe that he was going to “unite” America.We were a country that was more partisan than ever, and it was his prerogative to change that.According to his book, proof in the excerpt above, he believes that compromise and give-and-take arethe hallmarks of this change. I like that. It makes sense. Well said Mr. President! Which then bears the

question, where is this cooperation that you so eloquently spoke of?

Now, to be quite fair, Republicans haven’t been all that enthused about working with Democrats either.Not, mind you, because they are Democrats, but because the ideas that they have put forth violate theconservative principles Republican believe is the correct course to get us back on the path to growth

Nevertheless, it appears we have finally, finally found some common ground. Republicans have beenfighting for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone . President Obama, in a too little toolate attempt to appear fiscally responsible (or is it really just a continuation of social engineering?)decided that he is going to draw the line on continuing tax cuts for the top earners.So John Boehner conceded. He backed down from demands of permanence and agreed to extend thetax cuts for only two years. Long enough to help propel us out of the crisis but short enough that itwouldn’t have the long-term negative budgetary effects that the President decries.

Peter Orszag, former White House budget director and one of President Obama’s top advisers, was thefirst to float the idea of a two-year extension. In a column for the New York Times Orszag wrote that

This month, the Senate will be debating an issue with significant implications for both —what to do about the Bush-era tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the taxcuts for two years and then end them altogether

Compromise. There’s that word again. But the former budget director had reasons for allowing the cutsto remain beyond bipartisanship. He argued that “no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs

market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire asplanned.” Orszag explained that higher taxes “now would crimp consumer spending, further depressingthe already inadequate demand” for goods.

A reasoned response from a liberal thinker. Tax cuts aren’t usually his cup of tea, but given the diresituation of our economy he is willing to concede to a temporary extension of the pro-growth tax cuts.

Sadly the day after Orszag’s column, the New York Times posted a story entitled “Obama is Against aCompromise on Bush Tax Cuts.” Our president expressed his unwillingness to follow John Boehner totake a step toward the middle. Rather than shed his partisan pride and give an inch, President Obamahas decided, even in the face of arguments by one of his former top economic advisers, to stick to hisguns. He argues that the nation can no longer afford the cuts (ironically enough on the same day heformally announced $50 billion in new stimulus). Sadly he is wrong. As Orszag and conservative

economists argue, the economy can’t afford not to extend the tax cuts.

Apparently Orszag was wrong when he said “no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs marketworse.” In his decision to never compromise, Obama does.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html?ref=opinion



http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/01/1802856/democrats-unlikely-to-repeal-tax.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/01/1802856/democrats-unlikely-to-repeal-tax.html





Michigan’s Conservative Leaders Speak Out to College Republicans

It is amazing how far we have come. Four years ago Democrat Jennifer Granholm won the Michigangovernor’s race by 14 percent over her Republican challenger. But after years of economicmismanagement that has destroyed the state economy, Michigan, like so many other states, is looking

for a change of direction.

The Republican ticket, headlined by Rick Snyder and Brian Calley, is the embodiment of that change.Snyder is a man who knows a lot about creating jobs. He was one of the principal founders of computer-giant Gateway. Not one to be content with success Snyder then went out to found Avalon Investments,which has invested in 24 technology start-up companies, and Ardesta, which has eight companies in itsportfolio. Between these two companies alone Snyder has created more than 400 jobs in Michigan andmore than 1,000 nationwide.

Beyond job creation he also knows a lot about the importance of young adults becoming involved inpolitics. In Snyder’s words, our generation’s involvement is the “once chance” to “reinvent Michigan.” It’sa big responsibility, but if we’ve learned nothing else from the past two years, it’s that we have to be theone’s to fight for a better future because you can bet the current leadership in Washington won’t.

In Face of Dismal Polls, Democrats Running Away From Washington

President Obama’s carefully crafted cult of personality seems to be crumbling. It seems people havefinally stopped drinking the Kool-Aid.

A new ABC poll out this week finds that for the first time that a majority of people disapprove of the wayPresident Obama is handling his job. With their figurehead falling, Congressional Democrats are in theweeds. The same poll finds that likely voters now favor the Republican candidate over the Democraticcandidate in a generic ballot poll by a 53 to 40 percent margin. That is the largest GOP lead since ABC

first began asking the question in 1981.

The result it that Democrats, who once did everything they could to align themselves with the President,are now doing everything they can to distance themselves from him.

Take his $50 billion infrastructure plan, the latest in a series of big-spending initiatives designed to kickstart hiring. Surprise, surprise the plan was met with big cheers amongst the labor-union filled crowd inMilwaukee. But it is receiving much more tepid support among Democratic incumbents in Washington.As Scott Conroy of RealClearPolitics reported, a top campaign aide to a Democratic candidate said ofObama’s plan,

“Nothing translates better to jobs than projects on infrastructure, but that being said,

when we have only eight weeks until the election, this is just not what people want tohear,” the aide said. “And I don’t think anybody who’s up for reelection really wants to tryto sell this.”

The reason? Because voters have made clear again and again that they are tired of Washington’saddiction to spending. Now, campaigning Democrats are trying to make clear that they have heard themessage. Take a recent TV ad for incumbent Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL) which highlights how he “votedagainst the bailouts, against stimulus spending, against the massive government healthcare,” and the



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/08/in-face-of-dismal-polls-democrats-running-away-from-washington/


http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/09/michigans-conservative-leaders-speak-out-to-college-republicans/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/08/dem_house_candidates_tepid_on_obama_transit_plan_107056.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/08/dem_house_candidates_tepid_on_obama_transit_plan_107056.html







“trillion dollar federal budget.” Or Jason Altmire (D-PA) who heralds his independence from Washingtonwith an ad saying “I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the President…And Nancy Pelosi.”

These are but a few voices in the growing chorus against Washington spending. But spending is not theonly place Democrats are changing their tune. Not too long ago Democratic leaders in Washington weretouting their historic healthcare reform, believing it to be a major accomplishment that they could sell to

voters in November.

Turns out voters want a refund. But what is more surprising is how quick Democratic candidates havebeen to offer them one. It seems former President Clinton’s advice to wavering Democrats that, “I think itis good politics to pass this and to pass it as soon as they can…The worst thing to do is nothing,” wasn’texactly true. Now, the few Democrats who didn’t fall for the Clinton-Obama tag-team sales pitch aredoing everything they can to highlight their “no” votes. As Politico reported,

“[P]arty officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running anad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favorof final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an addnow.”

Quite the contrary Democrats are running ads specifically highlighting how they have been againstObamacare the whole time. Virginia Democrat Glen Nye touting the fact that he “vot[ed] against thehealthcare bill because it cost too much.”

This batch of Democrats doesn’t stop there. If they are against the notion of the any new stimulus fundsand don’t like their party’s signature piece of legislation might as well disassociate from being aDemocrat completely, right? Frank Kratovil (D-MD) uses an add to plug the fact that he is “one of themost independent members of Congress” and Bobby Bright (D-AL) calls himself an “independentconservative.”

Democrats are running from everything. One-time party savior Barack Obama? Nope, want nothing to dowith him. Government stimulus in a down economy? Are you nuts, more spending? Historic healthcarereform bill? Ha, we would have never voted for that budget busting Obamacare. Are you a Democrat?No, no. Disregard that (D) by our name, we’re really independently moderate Blue Dogs who just listento our constituents.

But attempts to shed the Democrat label isn’t the path to winning elections. America needs people inWashington who stand for conservative values regardless of whether the poll numbers tell them that isthe way to win this year. Big-government, big-spending policies didn’t succeed at anything beyondburying us beneath a mountain of debt. So voters, don’t be fooled as you watch Democrats flee from aburning building – they are still the one’s who set the fire.

Trying the Same Thing But Expecting Different Results

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again andexpecting different results.” By that definition President Obama has gone insane. Or perhaps he’s not somuch insane as he is just suffering from a bout of memory loss. Does he not remember how badly hisprevious effort at pumping money into the economy went? Nevertheless, here we are, a year and a halflater and creeping unemployment remains undeterred by the federal government’s intervention and thePresident is pitching another stimulus.



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/08/trying-the-same-thing-but-expecting-different-results/


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41777_Page2.html



http://www.glennnye.com/news/our-first-tv-ad-air

http://www.glennnye.com/news/our-first-tv-ad-air





By politically necessity this one is much smaller. He’s decided to take a piecemeal approach, breakingthe approach into three prongs: (1) $50 billion in infrastructure improvements, (2) a R&D tax creditextension, and (3) an investment tax rebate. Nevermind that President Obama attempted to sell his $800billion stimulus plan last February by listing previous “failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis”including “that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures.” Sounds to me

like he’s embraced the piecemeal approach. Must be that memory loss.

The worst of the plan is President Obama’s decision to throw $50 billion at infrastructure improvements.After all, what happened to all those “shovel-ready” infrastructure jobs that the first stimulus wassupposed to contain? An even better question was posed in this Investor ̓ s Business Daily editorial,

But why in the world do we need another stimulus when we’re not even close toexhausting the funds allocated for the last one?

This when $275 billion of the original $838 billion has still yet to be doled out. More specifically, less thana third of the $230 billion allocated to infrastructure projects has been spent. So with literally hundreds ofbillions of dollars worth of infrastructure investment still pending, why are we tacking on an additional$50 billion?

Well, because it sounds good. 150,000 miles of roads will be rebuilt. 4,000 miles of rail will beconstructed or maintained. 150 miles of runways will be rehabilitated.

But while Obama was clear about how many miles of pavement or tracks would be laid, there was nevera hint of how many jobs would be created. Apparently, the government is finally getting out of the “jobscreated or saved” business. What it should be getting out of is the stimulus business altogether. The firstone was an utter failure. In the last quarter the economy grew at 1.6 percent – not even fast enough tokeep unemployment stable, much less than the speed necessary to actually create jobs. In fact theeconomy shed 54,000 jobs in August, a depressing finale to what was billed as the “Recovery Summer.”

The only true history made by the stimulus bill was the record levels of debt and deficits it has wroughtupon America’s balance sheet. As the CBO wrote in their latest Budget and Economic Outlook, “relativeto the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65years.” I’m betting you could guess what year had the largest. Things are not projected to get muchbetter. As the CBO explains, “Beyond the 10-year budget window, the nation will face daunting long-term fiscal challenges . . . Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt over timewould reduce long-term economic growth.”$50 billion is not the cure to our problems, it only adds to them. The economic multiplier effect ofKeynesian economics only works in theory. In the harsh reality we live in businesses care little foreconomic theory. They care about their bottom lines. They care about an uncertain policy environmentclouded by an activist government. They care about how much taxes they are going to have to pay now,and in the future, as we are forced to pay for this unprecedented spending binge.

Democrats have already gone “all in” on their original stimulus package. They gambled with taxpayermoney and lost. Now they want to ante up another $50 billion. But they’ve tried spending us out of thisrecession over and over again. Can we really expect different results this time around? A sane questionlikely to be ignored by an out-of-touch Washington.



http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/09/08/obamas_new_stimulus_wont_stimulate_98659.html

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/09/08/obamas_new_stimulus_wont_stimulate_98659.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html?hpid=opinionsbox1



Florida’s Conservative Leaders Praise Youth Involvement

Young adults have often been overlooked in politics. Historically, we haven’t voted in as great ofnumbers as older Americans which has often led to our interests being ignored when it comes time todraft legislation. This is changing. Young adults are waking up to the fact that today’s deficit spending is

really just taking money away from our future.

That is why College Republicans are more active than ever, providing an outlet for young adults toexpress their frustration with the short-sighted politicians who are running (and ruining) Washington. Aswe set out on our grassroots field campaign Operation Red November we’ve had the chance to speak tosome of the future leaders of our party.

Obama Peddling More Failed Stimulus

If, like me, you spent the majority of your Labor Day weekend watching college football and cooking outthen you likely missed President Obama’s enormous announcement. We’re going to stimulate the

economy. I know, I know, it’s an absolutely shocking plan, the likes of which have never been seen ortried before. Here’s the deal, we’re going to pump billions of government money into the economy, sitback, and let the economy roll. It’s a surefire plan. Guaranteed results.

Or should I say, guaranteed to fail. There is simply nothing new about President Obama’s latestKeynesian stimulus package. In 2008, President Bush and Nancy Pelosi teamed up (weird right) andpassed $168 billion in stimulus – a combination of federal spending and tax rebates – that was going toact as a “booster shot” for the economy. Oops, unemployment continued to skyrocket.

Undeterred, Congressional Democrats, now with President Obama in office, passed an $814 billion plan.The mother of all stimulus. The largest stimulus package ever attempted. Considering the hype this wasmuch more than just a “booster shot,” this was the freakin’ cure for cancer. Turns out it wasn’t evenenough to cure our economic woes. The package was famously predicted to keep the unemployment

rate below 8 percent and get the economy back on track to growth. Oops, unemployment remainsabove 9.5 percent and new predictions show it rising as high as 10.1 percent next year. Even the mostoptimistic of assessments reveal that the stimulus reduced unemployment by 0.7 to 1.8 percentagepoints not exactly bang for our buck.Then we get cash-for-clunkers, the homebuyers tax credit, mortgage relief, and jobless benefitextensions, none of which was enough to nudge the economy out of the recession.

So after three years and $3 trillion in new federal debt what exactly do we have to show for it? Theeconomy lost 54,000 jobs in August and the economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent in the secondquarter. Neither of these numbers is encouraging. The private sector isn’t even hiring fast enough tokeep up with everyone entering the workforce much less make a dent in the unemployment rate.Economic growth is well below the 2.5% needed to keep unemployment at its current rate, nevermindwhat we actually need to promote job creation.

But here we stand, forced to do something to get this economy on track. Down one path lay morestimulus. Keynes is beckoning us to follow him down this path. It’s a road we’ve travelled before. It was adark economic path, littered with the bodies of failed economies. We ran into a dead-end. Not only that,we were mugged on the way back, our money ripped from our pockets. Down the second path layrecovery. The path is overgrown, having not been travelled in quite some time, and its contours areunclear. It involved less government spending, a dedication to reducing the uncertainty businesses face,and allowing individuals and businesses to keep more of their money. We can see Great Britain and



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-09-07/unemployment-in-u-s-may-rise-toward-10-on-feeble-growth.html

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/08/floridas-conservative-leaders-praise-youth-involvement/







Germany starting the journey down this road apparently encouraged by what they’ve found.Nevertheless, we’ve been standing at this intersection for months, debating the merits of each road.

Finally, we’ve taken our first step. And which way did we decide to go? President Obama has led usdown the dark and dreary path of government stimulus. Surely, things will be different this time! Thatdead-end will have surely relocated.

Obama’s latest bone-headed stimulus step is $50 billion in new infrastructure spending. Even moreominous, it was described as the first installment of a six-year transportation strategy. My natural firstresponse, what happened to the original $105.3 in the original stimulus bill that was designated forinfrastructure investment?

At the time the stimulus was passed President Obama even made a point to say,

“We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in ournational infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s.”

What is he going to say to sell us this new bill? It’s the single largest new investment in nationalinfrastructure since about 16 months ago? Doesn’t quite have the same historical ring. So if $105 billionin infrastructure investment didn’t create the jobs promised or even put us on the path to, as PresidentObama said in a recent speech, having “the best infrastructure in the world,” then is another $50 billionreally going to do much? Seems unlikely.

In his attempts to sell the new stimulus bill President Obama mocked Republicans by saying “We’vetried what they’re peddling.” But who is the “they” President Obama is referring to. Because we’ve triedthe stimulus Democrats are currently peddling. We’ve tried it more times than I care to count and all wehave is record levels of debt and deficits to show for it. And frankly, we’re not buying it anymore.

Obama’s New Tax Write-Off A Step in the Right Direction

I don’t get the chance to say this very often, but good work Mr. Obama. After nearly two years and $3trillion in failed stimulus bills, President Obama’s economic team finally stumbled across something thatcould actually help the economy. The President’s proposal, which will be laid out Wednesday inCleveland, will allow companies to write off 100 percent of their new investments immediately.

Let’s explain what this is, and what this isn’t. This isn’t a sea change. This is progress. Companies canalready deduct new investment expenses, but current law forces them to spread the tax deduction overa number of years. The change would allow companies to take the full deduction upfront and thus keepmore of their money now. A good idea, but don’t expect full employment over night. As reported by theWall Street Journal ,

“N. Gregory Mankiw, of Harvard University, and another former CEA chairman underPresident Bush, questioned whether the Obama proposal would have a big impact.Businesses can already take out a bank loan at extremely low interest rates to pay fornew investments in plants and equipment, but they are not doing so, he said. It’s unclearwhy they would make those investments for a tax break.”

Almost regardless of the effectiveness the move signals that President Obama is ready to deviate fromthe Keynesian playbook. They aren’t ready to abandon it. Just look at the boneheaded $50 billion new



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/07/obamas-new-tax-write-off-a-step-in-the-right-direction/


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?em









infrastructure stimulus he’s proposing as evidence of that. But they are at least open to new ideas. Isn’t itamazing what the threat of devastating November losses will do to Democrats once-tightly held ideals.

This should be considered a step forward because it is a plan designed to unleash business investment,not government investment. The government is notoriously ineffective at picking effective uses for ourmoney. Given the opportunity they’ll spend $150,000 to see how monkeys react to cocaine (No, I’m not

exaggerating). Fortunately, tax write-offs such as this keep the government’s grubby little hands out ofthe equation. Businesses, whose bottom lines are dependent on good investment decisions, are theones who get to decide how to spend the cash. This is a much more natural flow of money into theeconomy that creates far fewer market distortions and unintended consequences.

The benefits are all speculation. The details of the President’s plan won’t be released until tomorrow. Ifyou’ve learned anything about the past few years – Obama is extremely talented at making things soundgood, but Democrat lawmakers are equally as talented as screwing it up. As we’ve seen before the devilwill be in the details.

There should also be questions about the timing. Conservative economists have been asking for thistype of credit long before President Obama took office. Economic growth has been stagnant for too long.Unemployment has been persistently high. So why now? The cynic in me (live long enough in D.C. and

you’ll become one too) wonders if it doesn’t have something to do with the elections.

Democrats’ November fortunes are dimming by the hour. They’re only going to be in Washington for acouple weeks before returning home to fight for reelection, likely not enough time to pass this legislationgiven recent trends. So could it be that this last minute economic push is nothing but a PR move? Amorsel for Democratic lawmakers to take home to their constituents to show that they are doingeverything they can to fix the economy? The timing of the bill is suspect, appearing to be calculatedmore on the needs of struggling Democratic constituents than struggling businessmen.

Nevertheless, hopefully this is a positive step forward. A step away from government-centric spendingbills that have done little to kick-start our economy yet have done a lot to mortgage our future. But this isonly a fraction of what needs to be done to unshackle the private sector. If President Obama is trulyserious about saving the economy, and not just the Democratic majority, he’ll focus on eliminating theeconomic uncertainty his prior bills have caused.

Democrats’ Breach of Trust Could Lead to Big November Losses

We’re heading into the home stretch. We’ve rounded the final corner and are now speeding towards theNovember finish line. If you haven’t figured it out I’m talking about the upcoming elections whereDemocrats are trying their best to stay ahead of the Republicans in the race for Congressional control.But Democrats appear to be running out of fuel, the result of a failed “Recovery Summer” and theconsistent lack of results from their tax-and-spend policies. Republican’s on the other hand have filled uptheir gas tank, fueled by voter response to their vision of change.

Voter’s desire for a new perspective in Washington is most clear when there is money on the line. In this

cash-strapped, job-hunting society, the only thing we care about more than money is what diet Kim andKhloe Kardashian are on this week (or, if you’re a guy, the fact that the NFL starts next week). But still,money is king. It is what gives us the roof over our heads, puts food on the table, and puts the kidsthrough college. Without Mr. Franklin and Mr. Grant backing up our country (for me its more like Mr.Washington and Mr. Lincoln) it will be impossible for us to remain an economic superpower.

This importance is evidence in the polls. According to Gallup, 93 percent of those polled believe that theeconomy is at least “very important” in determining their vote in the fall. That is trailed only slightly by job(92 percent) and federal spending (81 percent). That means three of the top four voting cues all have



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/02/democrats-breach-of-trust-could-lead-to-big-november-losses/


http://www.scribd.com/doc/35327297/Summertime-Blues-100-Stimulus-Projects-That-Give-Taxpayers-the-Blues










one thing in common – money – either the ability to earn it or the concern that Congress is mishandlingit.

Saying an issue is important doesn’t necessarily tell you very much, so let’s dig a little deeper into thenumbers. Now that we know everyone is anxious to have a few more greenback’s in their pockets, thekey question is which party do you believe can help you do that?

Of those polled by Gallup, 49 percent believe that Republicans would do a better job at fixing the

economy while 38 percent believed Democrats would do a better job. That’s a +11 for the GOP.Americans also said they trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issue of jobs, albeit by aslimmer 5 percent margin. But rather than analyze issue by issue, there is a greater trend at play here.Of the nine issues asked about in the polls Americans trusted Republicans more than Democrats onseven of them (and healthcare was essentially a tie).

Democrats have squandered our trust. In October of 2006, just prior to Democrats’ making major gainsfollowing George Bush’s reelection, Democrats led on all eight issues polled at the time. Americansreward trust and punish any breach of it. We were given reason to hope that the “Washington way“would be changed. Promise after promise was thrown at us. Everything from a promise to “drain theswamp,” to a promise to pay for “every dime” of their plans, to a promise that if the stimulus passedunemployment would fall below 8 percent. But none of it came true. Promises of change were dashed

against the rocks of the same old Washington. Nothing is different, except for now things are worse.

The economy is comatose, largely the result of uncertainty caused by overregulation and the necessityof tax hikes to pay off our crushing debts. Unemployment remains high because no companies arewilling to make the commitment to hire unless the government makes a commitment to back off. Andfederal spending has soared with years of historic deficits still ahead. For better or worse Americanscare a lot about money, and the government hasn’t given us much reason to trust what they are doingwith it. Their seeming addiction to the “spend, spend, and spend some more” mindset is leading us into





serious trouble. They spend on stimulus, they spend on bailouts, they spend for healthcare reform. Ican’t even list all their spending bills because I just don’t have the room.

Americans live within a budget. We are forced to balance our checkbooks, keep our accounts in thepositive, and make regular payments on any debts we have. Why should we trust a Democratic Partywho thinks they play by different rules? We shouldn’t. Or given the recent poll results perhaps it would be

more appropriate to say – we don’t. Fortunately, with November right around the corner we’ll soon havean opportunity to show them just how much we appreciate their breach of trust.

Obama’s Economic Speech Heavy on Rhetoric, Light on Solutions

It must be getting really boring to be one of the President’s speechwriters. How many different ways canyou say the same thing? For over a year now, as employment has remained stagnant despite thePresident’s stimulus plan we’ve heard the same thing: “I didn’t get us into this mess, but now that we’rehere I’ve met with some people and we’re working on it.”

So count me as shocked, literally shocked, by Obama’s completely different speech yesterday in which

he clearly laid out answers and a plan to fix this problem. Ah, who are we kidding? It was the same old,same old speech we’ve heard a thousand times before.

He kicked off the speech by saying, “What we did know is that it took nearly a decade to dig the holethat we are in, and that it would take longer than any of us would like to climb our way out.” That’s thepassive-aggressive Bush attack. Lamenting how hard he’s been fighting to extricate our nation from thismassive mess and yet the hole is so deep that it is almost fruitless. Nevertheless, ever the valiant leader,President Obama will continue to give it his absolute best.To that end, he says “My administration remains focused, every single day, on pushing this economyforward, repairing the damage that has been done to the middle class over the past decade, andpromoting the growth we need to get people to get people back to work…”

Sadly, whether or not he has been focused, doesn’t change the fact that we’ve seen no solutions.

President Obama is an academic, more comfortable in talking about and debating hypotheticals, thanimplementing actual plans. We’ve had a jobs summit, a healthcare summit, and a deficit panel and to myknowledge nothing has come of any of them. We don’t need talks or lectures, we need jobs.

Moreover, businesses have been clear on how to accomplish that task – get out of our way. Daniel Loeb,ultra-successful hedge fund manager and one of Obama’s largest campaign backers, has been thelatest in the chorus of criticism. In a letter to investors he wrote that,

“So long as our leaders tell us that we must trust them to regulate and redistribute ourway back to prosperity, we will not break out of this economic quagmire.

Perhaps our leaders will awaken to the fact that free market capitalism is the bestsystem to allocate resources and create innovation, growth and jobs. Perhaps too, acloven-hoofed, bristly haired mammal will become airborne and the rosette-likemarking of a certain breed of ferocious feline will become altered. In other words, weare not holding our breath.”

Loeb’s not exactly known for holding back.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/08/30/president-economy-pushing-economy-forward-vs-blockade



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/01/obamas-economic-speech-heavy-on-rhetoric-light-on-solutions/

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/01/obamas-economic-speech-heavy-on-rhetoric-light-on-solutions/



By this we should all know what comes next in the prototypical Obama speech. If you said “small vaguesolutions” congratulations, you’re correct, and you’re likely watching too many Obama speeches. Righton cue Obama spit out the line, “my economic team is hard at work at identifying additional measuresthat could make a difference.”

This sounds an awful lot like super-hyped Oval Office speech after the Gulf oil spill in which he

announced that he established a “commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offerrecommendations.” Does any of this really pass for solutions? Obama is great at creating commissions,setting up task forces, and “working hard” to identify things. But do any solutions really ever getidentified or is this just an attempt to look like your doing something when you’re really not doinganything. If, after two years and very little economic improvement, the only solution you have is thatyou’re going to look for solutions, you really don’t have squat.

Then, and this is the genius of the man, he uses whatever crisis he is talking about to push for his pre-existing policy agenda. President Obama walked into office with a game plan. In the two years since,he’s been attempting to fit his problems to the solution and not his solutions to the problems. That isexactly the reason every bill that Democrats’ pass somehow gets labeled a jobs bill. Nevertheless,Obama, or Mr. Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste, was at it again, saying:

“Steps like extending the tax cuts for the middle class that are set to expire this year.Redoubling our investment in clean energy and R&D. Rebuilding more of ourinfrastructure for the future.

None of that is new. It’s stuff he’s been talking about since he got elected. If these are the ideas that hiseconomic team is hard at work creating, then it simply shows they are out of ideas. It’s all well and goodto have an agenda and stick to it, but save us from the sales pitch. We’ve heard it before…many times.

And finally, because no Obama speech would be complete without it, comes the shot at CongressionalRepublicans. He argues that there is a jobs bill before Congress but it’s being “held up by a partisanminority that won’t allow it to go to a vote . . . So I ask Republicans to drop the blockade.” I’ll save you

the spiel on why that’s a distortion of the facts, for that read this. The larger point is that excuses arereally the only solution that the President has perfected. Whether it be Bush, banks, Wall Street, bigbusiness, or Congress, the President has placed the blame for our dire economic state just abouteverywhere but with himself. Let’s set aside the petty finger pointing and channel that energy intocrafting some policies that actually encourage our economy to grow. With November elections rightaround the corner, count me as skepticalSo there you have it the Obama speech recipe: 2 parts blame, 1 part “we’re trying really hard,” and apinch of rehashed solutions, mix until fully blended. Despite the pretty packaging it tastes like what you’dexpect – BS.

New Poll Finds Obamacare Popularity in Tailspin – Taking Dems

November Chances With It

Remember that one health care bill that used to be the center topic of debate amongst political mindedAmericans both conservative and liberal? Seems like almost a decade ago we were arguing whether ornot this bill was going to be the demise of American capitalism. It was almost a war-zone with NancyPelosi and John Boehner leading their respective parties, banging the war-drums, armed with theirideals and ready to battle to the death. For many Americans, when the Democrats passed the bill andObama gave his blessing, this seemed to be a terrifying shift towards a welfare state system.



http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/09/01/new-poll-finds-obamacare-popularity-in-tailspin-taking-dems-november-chances-with-it/







http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/08/09/democrats-take-money-from-job-creating-tax-credit-to-funnel-money-toward-pet-constituencies/

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/08/09/democrats-take-money-from-job-creating-tax-credit-to-funnel-money-toward-pet-constituencies/



It is now nearly six months later, and although much of the mudslinging has died down, the issue stillstands in the forefront of America’s collective mind. What was once supposed to be the cornerstone ofthe Democratic agenda, the stunning achievement of a historic Presidency, has seemed to fizzle.

But why it fizzled is unclear. It wasn’t popular when it was passed, it has become even less so afterpassage. So what happened? A lack of patience? It’s admitted failure at cost containment in a fragile

economy? A scapegoat for generic voter anger about the state of the country?

Regardless of the reason, a new Kaiser Health poll finds that opposition to the bill has soared over thepast month – rising 10 points to 45 percent. Support for the bill also saw a drop – falling 7 percent to 43percent – its weakest showing since May.

So much for White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ assertion that “I don’t think it’s going to costDemocrats the House. I think this will be an accomplishment that members can be proud of — not just inthis election, George, but for decades to come.” Decades to come? Democrats aren’t even proud of itsix months after it passed! Take Democratic Senator Ron Wyden who is attempting to exempt his state,Oregon, from the individual mandate of the health care bill. As Wyden said in a letter to constituents,

Oregonians have demonstrated again and again that a one size fits all approach from Washington is notthe best approach for the Northwest, and they have come up with innovative solutions that the Federal

government has never had the flexibility or will to implement.

More generally, Democrats have switched their campaign message from defending health care tostressing a promise to “improve it.”

What a terrible fall from what was supposed to be their signature piece of legislation. On the day that itwas passed Democrats breathed a sigh of relief, believing that they had just made history and passedan accomplishment that they would be able to fall back on for many election cycles. They realized it wasa hard fought battle and the poll results reflected this fact. But, with a gleam of hope in their eye, they



http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8093.cfm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/wyden-pushing-for-oregon-_n_701785.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/01/wyden-pushing-for-oregon-_n_701785.html





assumed that people were simply so fed up with the process that healthcare’s dismal approval ratingswere just a mirage. Once people begin to see the wonderful benefits people’s cold reception wouldbegin to thaw.

None of that happened. Very few tangible benefits have taken effect. The CBO and other cost-scoringagencies have undercut Democrats’ claims that the bill would reduce costs for patients and the federal

government. And the bill’s hefty price tag could not have come in a worse year.

So in a crazy twist of fate Republicans are now the ones trying desperately to keep healthcare on thefront burner leading up to the midterm elections. Democrats are doing their best to, in essence, kill thebill. Don’t let them hide from their failures. They sold us a bottle of snake oil. The only reason the publicclamored for healthcare reform in 2008 was to address the spiraling costs they were facing, and yet thebill actually exacerbated this problem. Don’t let these broken promises slide. We deserve better, so let’svote for better. Study the Congressional candidates in your district, see how they voted on healthcarereform, and vote accordingly. We don’t need more of the same. We need real change.


September '10 Issue Debrief

Documents