Archive for the ‘Obama’s Heritage’ Category

By Howard J. Warner
In 2009, as the health care reform legislation made its way through the Congress, many on both sides argued for their respective positions. (I wrote an article discussing some of the issues which appeared in the American Thinker in November 2009.) The legislation eventually was passed and signed by President Obama in March 2010. As of this writing, the Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation. Again, both sides are arguing the eventual outcome. But what does this fight say about the American society and Constitution established over 200 years ago?
Proponents of the federal law feel that the health care system is broken because it does not guarantee equal care to all residents. They see this legislation as helping to ensure a more equitable distribution of health care, an extension of fairness in the greater society. This is the daily cry of the president and his supporters. Whether one agrees with this aim or not, it is commendable. The question for the Court is whether the legislation meets the requirements under the Constitution. Clearly, the opposition feel that it does not; they also oppose the remedy that emerged on philosophical grounds.
The media continues to point to the question of a mandate underlying the legislation. Some point to the mandate embedded within the health care reform passed in Massachusetts while Mitt Romney was governor. This issue underlies the argument about his worthiness to become the Republican nominee for president. The president promised the American people better-quality health care for more residents at a lower cost when he was a candidate in 2008. Unfortunately, the result has not materialized. Premiums are rising faster because of the cost to provide coverage for previously uninsured people. The Congressional Budget Office has recently announced that its estimates for the federal cost have doubled from over $900 billion over ten years to $1.7 trillion. Undoubtedly, the costs will continue to rise. But will we be able to maintain the level of care that our privately financed system has provided?
Clearly, it is important to understand the issues related to the Court case. However, there are other issues not mentioned publicly. Did the process used to pass the legislation violate the Constitution or congressional procedures? The Constitution requires bills of revenue to arise in the House before they can proceed. The procedure of reconciliation, which does not allow for filibusters in the Senate, is used to pass budget bills. This legislation may have had budget impact, but it was beyond this in scope. In the end, the Senate bill was used as the basis for the final bill without any conference compromise. Final approval required some slight corrections through the reconciliation process. This is troubling, as was the often repeated quotation by Speaker Pelosi that we would know what is in the bill after it was passed. So much for openness and transparency so often promised to the American people by the president.
The issue mentioned by opponents of Mitt Romney concerns another constitutional question. We may disagree on whether a mandate is acceptable. However, we should not confuse the federal government imposing this mandate with a state under the Tenth Amendment exercising this right. The so-called “RomneyCare,” which is only 70 pages long, should not be equated with the 2,500-page “ObamaCare,” which imposes many other requirements over the entire populace. Massachusetts as a liberal state desired this legislation. Clearly, the costs have soared, and one can question the value of the law, but the issues are not identical. At the time, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization, had supported an individual mandate as way to cover more uninsured people. They have since changed their position. At the time, liberals did not like this approach, favoring a single-federal-payer approach. Of course, now liberals have accepted this method; it may get the country to a single-payer eventually.
In 1936, the Court was given the issue of Social Security to rule on its constitutionality. They decided that it did not violate the Constitution, as the legislation was structured as a tax following the authority under the 16th Amendment. Although the public thought they were getting a pension plan, the Court did not rule in this manner. President Obama spoke of a penalty for not having insurance to avoid the impression that he was raising taxes during a severe recession in 2009 and 2010. However, it is hard to avoid the fact that the penalty occurs only if one has not purchased insurance — a fact which Justice Breyer tried to elucidate during Monday’s oral arguments. Finally on the issue of mandates, how does the commerce clause allow regulation of a product or service if it has not been purchased? Where is commerce without a purchase? Or to put it a different way, does the Constitution allow the Congress to force anyone to buy anything? (Will the government tell me which toothpaste to buy?) Would the Founders recognize this requirement or ever support it under limited government?
Health care throughout the world is subject to scarcity. In countries with socialized care, services may be limited by government panels, the cost of delivery, and availability of equipment and services, with age restrictions on certain procedures, and increasing use of private health insurance, as a solution to this scarcity. Health care in the USA is highly specialized, uses high technology, and is plentiful. This is expensive, results in shorter waiting times for services, and has resulted in higher costs than in other industrialized nations. Already, some are questioning whether former Vice President Cheney should have received a heart transplant since he is 71 years old. Scarcity in America is more often related to cost for the individual. Some argue that that it is not fair, but should all care be equal? Do persons living in smaller communities have fewer choices?
There is some concern about financing the health care system. In the reform legislation, changes are made to Medicare reimbursement rates to save money. As more cost pressure upon the system mounts, further cuts in services will be required. As the federal requirements increase through regulatory decree from the Health and Human Services secretary, as part of the bill, more private employers will choose to eliminate their plans and pay the penalty. This will put pressure on private insurance companies to increase rates, further eroding participant numbers. The recent decision to force religiously affiliated institution to offer contraceptive services is a clear example that threatens private-sector participation. This issue also threatens the privileges under the First Amendment.
The Court will also have to decide whether the mandate or the entire bill must be eliminated. In their zeal to pass the legislation when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate, they did not bother to insert a severability clause. However, the death of Senator Kennedy resulted in the election of Senator Brown (R) in Massachusetts, who campaigned against the reform bill. This was the cause of the procedural gimmicks employed as previously mentioned. Severability clauses allow the remaining legislation to survive if any portion is found unconstitutional.
This case is quite unusual. The Court has allowed five and a half hours for oral arguments. They expedited the review process — a rare occurrence. They heard arguments concerning the standing of the case since the penalty (tax) has not kicked in yet (which is an issue due to previous legislation). In the end, this may be a seminal decision affecting the growth of governmental power or its restriction. Stay tuned for the results.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/health_care_reform_legislation_revisited.html#ixzz1qnFyyOox

Source

Stay Tuned…..More to come…..

In 114 BC, Rome was a democratic Republic.  Representatives elected by popular vote filled the Senate, and the Senate ran Rome.  The Empire was conquered in the name of the Senate and the People of Rome, symbolized by the ever present SPQR seen on every Roman standard in every gladiator movie you have ever watched.

At the beginning of the first century BC sovereignty in Rome resided in the People, which may have inspired the most famous attribution of sovereignty in American History, “We the People” as the proclaimed authors of the Constitution.  The power in republicanRomeresided in the people.  In a revolution that was by then legendary, they had banished their kings and established themselves as a free republic where the people assembled together to elect the Senators, the magistrates, and made all major decisions such as whether or not to go to war.  And far beyond mere words much of what was earlyRomewas the target the Founding Fathers shot at when they established our later day republic.

And yet, by 14 AD, when Augustus died, popular elections were but a memory.  Power was no longer located in the people, or in their assemblies, or their representatives in the Senate, instead power was concentrated in anImperialPalace which was guarded, unapproachable, and foreboding.

How did this revolution occur? What led the freedom loving Romans to lay down their liberty and put on the yoke of oppression?  Later Romans who longed for the freedom their ancestors had discarded pointed to 133 BC when a rich young man named Tiberius Gracchus bought his way into the office of Tribune, an executive position one step below magistrate that was meant to protect the interests of the poor.  Gracchus used his office to curry personal power by giving bread and circuses to the people paid for by the public treasury.  Eventually he hit on a very popular plan.  He proposed to seize the lands of the rich and give them to the poor and he imposed this under his own authority, an authority he lacked under the Roman constitution.  Later when he put himself forward for a second term in opposition to custom and law he was assassinated by a group of Senators.

Several generations of corrupt politicians using the same formula sought to buy personal power and popular adoration by looting the public treasury to give the people ever increasing benefits.  Finally another rich young ruler arose by the name of Julius Caesar.  He rose through various public offices eventually gaining the office of Proconsul or Governor of Gaul (France).  He knew that to be a true Roman hero and paramount leader he needed to be a successful conqueror, so that is what he spent the next nine years doing.  He conquered not only all of Gaul but much of central Europe even leading the first Roman expedition to Britain.  While he accomplishing this he sent back well written dispatches toRome which were published and widely distributed recounting his bravery and skill as a general.

All of this was too much for his political rivals in Rome.  They gained enough votes to have him branded a traitor which meant little in Gaulwhere he had absolute power thanks to his well trained and veteran army.  His rivals promised his arrest and conviction if and when he returned to the capitol.  However Caesar was not to be denied so he compounded the accusations of his treason with a treasonable act leading his army across the Rubicon River toRome. 

With his troops behind him Caesar secured all power and after many adventures to suppress the forces loyal to the old order he had a compliant Senate elect him dictator for life.  As his grasp of power solidified it became clear his rule would be the end of the republic.  Breaking completely with tradition he began to wear purple, the color of royalty in public.   Finally when his chief Lieutenant, Anthony, publicly offered him a crown it was too much and just as with Gracchus one hundred years before, Caesar was assassinated by a group of senators.

Caesar was followed by Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome who was never called Emperor.  He was instead known by the republican sounding title of princeps, or first citizen.  Kings were hated in Rome.  The traditions of the Republic ran deep.  Both Gracchus and Caesar had been killed because people thought they would make themselves king.  The genius of Caesar’s nephew and successor was that Augustus made himself king in all but name while keeping the outward forms of the Republic.  The elections were rigged, the Senate only did what they were told, and the people were kept happy by giveaways from the public treasury and kept in line by a smothering blanket of laws and regulations.

Fast forward to the 20^th century and two other would be kings include Mussolini who decreed that calendars in Italy should begin again with October 29, 1922 the date he assumed power as the first day of year one.  He proclaimed the Fascist Era was the dawn of a new age.  And Hitler who said his National Socialist Nazis would reign for a thousand years.

In Americatoday we have a leader who campaigned on a platform of cutting taxes and regulations.  A man who when the economy melted down said if he didn’t solve the problem in three years he wasn’t worthy of a second term.  In a classic example of bait and switch he walked over his promises to restore American greatness and suddenly announced five days before the election that he would instead transform America.

Presidents are elected to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.  Nowhere in the job description does it mention anything about transforming America.  He was elected to do one job and decided instead to do another.  TARP was passed to clear the toxic assets out of the banks and restart the system but instead was used to seize controlling interests in AIG, GM and Chrysler and in general assert government ownership over a significant portion of the American economy.  The stimulus was passed to re-energize the economy but instead it became a gift bag for the President’s supporters and a slush fund for his re-election. 

Mr. Obama, with the corporations once known as the major media clearing his way and covering his tracks, compares himself to Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Reagan and God, ridicules those who cling to the old ways, and decrees that he can rule without Congress because he can’t wait.  His spending has impoverished future generations and will eventually sink the ship of state.  His foreign policy ignores our allies and empowers our enemies.  Instead of uniting our country to get out of the hole dug by generations of failed Progressive boondoggles and giveaways he incites class warfare while the welfare rolls expand daily.

Whether we are dealing with one man devoted to personal aggrandizement or merely a teleprompter reading front man for a well-oiled CABAL we are face to face with someone who has been positioned by the generosity of American voters to do irreparable damage to our nation.  We have one last chance to save the republic as we have known it.  The Republicans who operate as the other half of the party of power seek to nominate another big government operator who promises little more than driving us to the poor house a little slower with new wars along the way.

What we need is a man who will work as president to re-impose the limits of the constitution. We need a man who will educate Americans as to what a constitutional government is and what it should do and not do.  We need a leader who will reverse course and take us back to the days of individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic liberty. We need a leader who isn’t afraid to jettison the empire to save the republic.  Now is the time for such a leader. If only enough Americans will recognize the signs of the times and rally round the flag they will still call itAmerica. 

Just as the Rome of Caligula and Nero still called itself a republic so too in the coming era of Progressive centralization and control will our beloved country still be America.  The Constitution will remain on display in Washington.  However, in the world turned upside down liberty will be circumscribed by political correctness and freedom will be defined by government regulations.  Our schools and media will assure us that we are the most free and prosperous nation on earth while other countries that have gained their freedom pass us by.  History as it is taught in America today tries to tell us that socialism works.  It doesn’t.  It leads to a stunted, shabby future where everyone sinks to the level of the lowest common denominator.  What we need is a rebirth of republicanism with a small “r” and a big dream.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the Historian of the Future and the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

MADELEINE MORGENSTERN

Samuel L. Jackson only voted for President Barack Obama because of the color of his skin, the Hollywood actor revealed in a profanity-laced interview in the March issue of Ebony magazine.

“I voted for Barack because he was black. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them,” Jackson said. “That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama’s] message didn’t mean sh-t to me. In the end, he’s a politician. I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do.

According to the New York Post, the “Pulp Fiction” legend repeatedly dropped the N-word during his cover story interview.

“When it comes down to it, they wouldn’t have elected a [bleep],” Jackson said. “Because, what’s a [bleep]? A [bleep] is scary. Obama ain’t scary at all. [Bleeps] don’t have beers at the White House. [Bleeps] don’t let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call [him] a liar” — an apparent reference to Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during Obama’s health care address to a joint session of Congress in 2009.

Jackson continued, “A [bleep] would have stopped the meeting right there and said, ‘Who the [bleep] said that?’ I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, ’cuz he ain’t gotta worry about getting re-elected.”

Defending his repeated use of the racial epithet, Jackson said it “became a part of my vocabulary when I was born.”

“Because it was used on me in my house, often . . . I know the word [bleep] as an admonishment, an endearment, a criticism and an invective. So I use it; I don’t run from it. I don’t have an issue with it or who says it. I always put it in the context of how it was used on me,” he said.

Jackson previously made political headlines in October, when he agreed with fellow actor Morgan Freeman’s assessment that the Tea Party was “racist.”

“It’s pretty obvious what they are,” Jackson said in an interview with New York Magazine. “The division of the country is not about the government having too much power. I think everything right now is geared toward getting that guy out of office, whatever that means.”

Jackson continued, “It’s not politics. It is not economics. It all boils down to pretty much to race. It is a shame.”

President Barack Obama denied a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline and will let the company file a revised route that avoids an environmentally sensitive area in Nebraska.

The decision by the State Department today was praised by environmentalists, who said the pipeline would add to U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, and was decried by the U.S. oil and gas industry and Republican lawmakers, who had pushed President Barack Obama to approve the project as a way create jobs.Obama acted before a Feb. 21 deadline Congress set after Obama in November postponed a decision while a revised Nebraska route is reviewed. TransCanada said the 1,661-mile (2,673- kilometer) project would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil to refineries on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast, crossing six U.S. states and create 20,000 jobs.

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy,” Obama said today in a statement. “We will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security.”

TransCanada fell 47 cents to $41.27 at 3:24 p.m. in New York, and earlier today touched $39.74.

Canada Backs Pipeline

Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp.’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States.

“The Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest,” according to an e-mailed statement. “The president concurred.”

The denial of the permit application doesn’t preclude any subsequent permit applications for similar projects, according to the State Department’s statement.

Environmentalists said the pipeline will add to greenhouse- gas emissions tied to climate change and endanger drinking water supplies in Nebraska. They have staged demonstrations outside the White House and vowed to withhold financial support to Obama’s presidential campaign if he approves the pipeline.

The entire purpose of the pipeline is to move Canadian oil to the crude refineries in the Gulf so that it can be shipped overseas,” Jeremy Symons, a National Wildlife Federation vice president, said today in a phone interview. “If the pipeline is built, Canada gets the jobs, China gets the oil and American families get the oil spills.”

Protests in Nebraska and at the White House focused on the risks of a spill tainting the Ogallala aquifer in the state’s Sand Hills region. TransCanada has discussed alternate routes with state officials that would pose less risk to drinking-water supplies.

“We’re glad Keystone hasn’t been approved, but we’d like to see the pipeline rejected outright,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, in a phone interview. He said producing petroleum from oil sands releases more greenhouse gases and requires more water than conventional oil production.

Harper to Obama: I’ve got plenty of buyers for our oil

Canada has patiently waited for Americans to help themselves improve our energy policy by installing a pipeline from Canada’s oil sands to our refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, but this week Prime Minister Stephen Harper signaled that their patience has limits.  Speaking to CTV, Harper reminded the US that they have a very thirsty China as a potential customer, too:

Canada could sell its oil to China and other overseas markets with or without approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in the United States, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In a year-end television interview, Harper indicated he had doubts the $7-billion pipeline would receive political approval from U.S. President Barack Obama, and that Canada should be looking outside the United States for markets.

“I am very serious about selling our oil off this continent, selling our energy products off to Asia. I think we have to do that,” Harper said in the Monday interview with CTV National News.

Harper’s comments were released a day after the White House sent signals it might kill TransCanada’s oil sands pipeline if it is forced to make a decision on the project in 60 days, saying there wasn’t sufficient time to complete a new environmental review.

Clearly, Harper isn’t enamored with Barack Obama’s stalling on the Keystone XL pipeline.  Kelly McParland got the same impression, and writes at the National Post that Harper kept it friendly but made no mistake about playing political and economic hardball if Obama continues to stall:

Stephen Harper sent a none-too-subtle shot across the bow of  our American friends and allies Monday when he indicated he’s dead keen on selling Canadian oil to buyers in Asia. He didn’t put it in so many words, but  he was telling Washington this: “You don’t want our oil, no problem. We’ve got lots of markets across the Pacific where we don’t have to beg to get a sale.”

It was a timely message and a good one for the Prime Minister to send. There is no need to be rude to the U.S., which is and always will be Canada’s best market. But there’s also no need to sit around and wait for the political circus in Washington to pause long enough to recognize the attractiveness of the opportunity Canada is offering. Given the state of absurdity that has the U.S. capital in its grip, there’s no telling how long that could take.

Of course, the compromise in the Senate over the payroll tax “holiday” would have solved the Keystone XL issue, or at least forced Obama to bite the bullet and make a decision on it.  Unfortunately, the House GOP has thrown that solution into doubt with its rebuke of their GOP colleagues in the Senate this week.  McParland aces the description of the standoff:

The ins and outs are too complex to get into, but it comes down to this: President Barack Obama wants to extend a tax break he introduced to offset the effects of the recession. Despite supporting tax cuts, Republicans don’t want him to get credit for this one. So they’re opposing the extension, even though they support it. In search of a compromise, the Senate voted on the weekend to extend the break for just two months, meaning everyone could go home for Christmas and renew the battle later. But Republicans in the House couldn’t bring themselves to accept the deal approved by Republicans in the Senate, insisting the extension should be for a full year, not just two months. But rather than vote down the deal — which would let Obama blame Republicans for refusing a tax cut, they simply refused to vote at all. The just cancelled a vote scheduled for Monday, and did nothing at all. Nice work, guys. Another vote was held Tuesday, which led to a House demand for negotiations, but the Senate has already left town.

Meanwhile, China is growing thirstier, and Canada grows impatient to sell its bountiful oil to someone who really wants it.  Maybe everyone should concentrate on the real economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline instead of the illusory differences between a 2- and 12-month extension of a tax holiday that produced no economic stimulus at all over the past year.

Posted on August 18, 2011 by Cowboy Byte

The Obama regime wants to change the way farmers farm. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, part of the Department of Transportation, has proposed reclassifying all farm vehicles as Commercial Motor Vehicles. Farmers would be required to obtain Commercial Drivers Licenses” for their tractors and their combines out in the fields, not on public property. “If the rule goes into effect, anybody who operates any motorized farm equipment will have to pass the same rigorous tests that semi drivers do. They’ll have to fill out the same, highly detailed forms and daily logs. American farmers would have to keep track of how many hours they work and sleep, how many miles their vehicles travel.

They’d have to display Department of Transportation numbers — and, of course, they’d have to pay the government fees for all these new burdens. In one fell swoop, the regime would have more regulatory control over farmers and their 800,000 vehicles.

A union election is a decisive event in an employee’s life, and new rules limit the information employees get before voting.

The Wall street Journal      August 9, 2011

Reagan inherited economic problems and fixed them. Obama’s strategy is to blame Bush and Standard & Poor’s.

The Wall Street Journal     August 8, 2011 

‘He becomes visibly agitated. . . . He does not like to be challenged on policy grounds,’ says the House majority leader of the president.

The Wall Street Journal August 6, 2011

By Nile Gardiner World 

The decision by credit agency Standard and Poor’s to downgrade America’s AAA credit rating for the first time in 70 years is a massive blow to the credibility of the Obama administration, and a damning indictment of its handling of the economy. No doubt the White House will pathetically try to blame the Bush Administration, Republicans in Congress, and of course its favourite target, the Tea Party, for the move by S&P. But without a shadow of a doubt, responsibility for the country’s financial mess and staggering levels of debt lie with the current US president and his administration. They have been in charge of running the economy for over 30 months, during which time the United States has witnessed an unprecedented increase in government spending and borrowing.

As the Congressional Budget Office revealed In January, the deficits generated under the Obama administration are the largest since the end of World War Two:

The deficits of $1.4 trillion in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010 are, when measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP), the largest since 1945—representing 10.0 percent and 8.9 percent of the nation’s output, respectively… Just two years ago, debt held by the public was less than $6 trillion, or about 40 percent of GDP; at the end of fiscal year 2010, such debt was roughly $9 trillion, or 62 percent of GDP.

The implications of this debt downgrade are extremely serious, not least with 46 percent of US Treasuries owned by foreigners. As The Wall Street Journal notes, the United States now has a score that ranks “below Liechtenstein and on par with Belgium and New Zealand”:

the move by S&P could serve as a psychological haymaker for an American economic recovery that can’t find much traction, and could do more damage to investors’ increasing lack of faith in a political system that is struggling to reach consensus on even everyday policy items. It could lead to the prompt downgrades of numerous companies and states, driving up their costs for borrowing. Policy makers are also anxious about the hidden icebergs the move could suddenly reveal. …. Lessons from other countries, such as Canada and Australia, suggest it can take years for a country to win back its AAA rating.

Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the United States has embarked on the most ambitious failed experiment in Washington meddling in US history. Huge increases in government spending, massive federal bailouts, growing regulations on businesses, thinly veiled protectionism, and the launch of a vastly expensive and deeply unpopular health care reform plan, have all combined to instill fear and uncertainty in the markets. Free enterprise has taken a backseat to continental European-style interventionism, as an intensely ideological left wing administration has sought to dramatically increase the role of the state in shaping the US economy. The end result has been a dramatic fall in economic freedom, sluggish growth, poor consumer confidence, high unemployment, a collapsing housing market, and an overall decline in US prosperity, with more than 45 million Americans now reliant on food stamps – that’s over one seventh of the entire country.

These are increasingly dangerous times, with American leadership being challenged across the globe. Only an historic reduction in government spending combined with pro-growth measures including lower business tax rates to stimulate job creation and attract investment can turn the US economy around. Unfortunately, as Standard and Poor’s decision has shown, this is a presidency in extreme denial over America’s towering debts, leading a nation on a precipice while blindfolded to reality. The United States badly needs another Reagan-style revolution to stave off further economic disaster, preserve American leadership on the world stage, and secure the future of a superpower. Ultimately, greater liberty and freedom, not the deathly hand of Big Government, are needed to turn this great nation around.

A welfare state that led to permanent austerity would betray the principles that have made American culture exceptional.

The Wall Street Journal         July 25, 2011 

By ARTHUR C. BROOKS

The battle over the debt ceiling is only the latest skirmish in what promises to be an ongoing, exhausting war over budget issues. Americans can be forgiven for seeing the whole business as petty, selfish and tiresome. Conservatives in particular are beginning to worry that public patience will wear thin over their insistence that our nation’s government-spending problem must be remedied through spending cuts, not by raising more revenues.But before they succumb to too much caution, budget reformers need to remember three things. First, this is not a political fight between Republicans and Democrats; it is a fight against 50-year trends toward statism. Second, it is a moral fight, not an economic one. Third, this is not a fight that anyone can win in the 15 months from now to the presidential election. It will take hard work for at least a decade.Consider a few facts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis tells us that total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of gross domestic product today from 27% in 1960—and is set to reach 50% by 2038. The Tax Foundation reports that between 1986 and 2008, the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 5% of earners has risen to 59% from 43%. Between 1986 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who pay zero or negative federal income taxes has increased to 51% from 18.5%. And all this is accompanied by an increase in our national debt to 100% of GDP today from 42% in 1980.

Nicole Gelinas of City Journal and Jerry Kremer of the Huffington Post on the possibilities for a debt deal.

Where will it all lead? Some despairing souls have concluded there are really only two scenarios. In one, we finally hit a tipping point where so few people actually pay for their share of the growing government that a majority become completely invested in the social welfare state, which stabilizes at some very high level of taxation and government social spending. (Think Sweden.)

In the other scenario, our welfare state slowly collapses under its weight, and we get some kind of permanent austerity after the rest of the world finally comprehends the depth of our national spending disorder and stops lending us money at low interest rates. (Think Greece.)

In other words: Heads, the statists win; tails, we all lose.

Anyone who seeks to provide serious national political leadership today—those elected in 2010 or who seek national office in 2012—owe Americans a plan to escape having to make this choice. We need tectonic changes, not minor fiddling.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R., Wis.) budget plan is the kind of model necessary. But structural change will only succeed if it’s accompanied by a moral argument—an unabashed cultural defense of the free enterprise system that helps Americans remember why they love their country and its exceptional culture.

America’s Founders knew the importance of moral language, which is why they asserted our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, not to the possession of property. Similarly, Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, had a philosophy that transcended the mere wealth of nations. His greatest book was “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” a defense of a culture that could support true freedom and provide the greatest life satisfaction.

Yet today, it is progressives, not free marketeers, who use the language of morality. President Obama was not elected because of his plans about the taxation of repatriated profits, or even his ambition to reform health care. He was elected largely on the basis of language about hope and change, and a “fairer” America.

 

Alberto Ruggieri

 

The irony is that statists have a more materialistic philosophy than free-enterprise advocates. Progressive solutions to cultural problems always involve the tools of income redistribution, and call it “social justice.”

Free-enterprise advocates, on the other hand, speak privately about freedom and opportunity for everybody—including the poor. Most support a limited safety net, but also believe that succeeding on our merits, doing something meaningful, and having responsibility for our own affairs are what give us the best life. Sadly, in public, they always seem stuck in the language of economic efficiency.

The result is that year after year we slip further down the redistributionist road, dissatisfied with the growing welfare state, but with no morally satisfying arguments to make a change that entails any personal sacrifice.

Examples are all around us. It is hard to find anyone who likes our nation’s current health-care policies. But do you seriously expect grandma to sit idly by and let Republicans experiment with her Medicare coverage so her great-grandchildren can get better treatment for carried interest? Not a chance.

If reformers want Americans to embrace real change, every policy proposal must be framed in terms of self-realization, meritocratic fairness and the promise of a better future. Why do we want to lower taxes for entrepreneurs? Because we believe in earned success. Why do we care about economic growth? To make individual opportunity possible, not simply to increase wealth. Why do we need entitlement reform? Because it is wrong to steal from our children.

History shows that big moral struggles can be won, but only when they are seen as decade-long fights and not just as a way to prevail in the next election. Welfare reform was first proposed in 1984 and regarded popularly as a nonstarter. Twelve years of hard work by scholars at my own institution and others helped make it a mainstream idea (signed into law by a Democratic president) and perhaps the best policy for helping the poor to escape poverty in our nation’s history. Political consultants would have abandoned welfare reform as unworkably audacious and politically suicidal. Real leaders understood that its moral importance transcended short-term politics.

No one deserves our political support today unless he or she is willing to work for as long as it takes to win the moral fight to steer our nation back toward enterprise and self-governance. This fight will not be easy or politically safe. But it will be a happy one: to share the values that make us proud to be Americans.

Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of “The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future” (Basic Books, 2010).

 

The Patroit Update

http://patriotupdate.com/

July 19, 2011

In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service— Michelle Obama.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

This unprecedented number of attendants is more than any First Lady in U.S. History.

Retired USAF MSgt says:

July 19, 2011 at 8:02 am

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Servant List and Pay Scale

The First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants (that’s 22 attendants to be exact)

1. $172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special-2Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady) (This is community organizing at it’s finest.)

There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe.

FRIENDS…..THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE????? AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION????? WELL…..MOST OF US ARE.

I GUESS IT’S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT’S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY?????