As Ronald Reagan said, ""Republican's favorite day is July 4th, liberals favorite day is April 15th." In the spirit of April 15, Obama unveiled his master plan to solve the deficit, which is not simply poor, but actually harmful.
The plan would supposedly save $4 trillion within 12 years. That includes tax increases. In other words, Paul Ryan's budget plan would save more money ($6 trillion) in less time (10 years) all the while reducing taxes by 10% or more.
Moreover, Obama has refused to touch the entitlement programs he holds so dear. This is even after he acknowledged that they were a major source of pressure on the budget. Obama even refuses to increase the Medicare retirement age. On the other hand, the Ryan plan fundamentally changes the way in which Medicare and Medicaid operate. Under his plan money would be given to states in block grants to subsidize the costs of private insurance.
With the cost of entitlement programs ever increasing, tax hikes must eventually stop being the answer. Ryan realizes this. Obama doesn't.
The Laffer Curve proves that increases in taxation (taking money out of the private sector) will lead to reduced government revenue. Raising taxes is a corrupt solution both morally and economically. The sooner the country realizes that, the better. Unfortunately, no epiphany can come with Obama in the White House.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
What to do about Libya
Obama's policy in regards to Libya has been a mess from Day 1. Originally, he failed to comment on the issue at all: saying anything would have been more comfortable than the prolonged silence.
When he finally did decide to take a stand, it was an extreme one: use the United States' military to help the rebels fight Gaddafi. Now, if Libya had been integral to our foreign policy or national defense, then this would have been the appropriate action. However, Obama himself referred to our reason for entering Libya to be averting a humanitarian crisis. Remember, this was the same politicians who criticized Bush for invading Iraq, a country that Obama said had no effect on our defense. Ironically, Libya has even less bearing on that than Iraq did.
So as of now, we are aiding the rebels even if Obama has yet to go as far as to supply them. To make matters worse, the rebels appear to have deep connections to al-Qaeda, something Gaddafi was not accused of. In fact, as of 2003 reports said that he was "getting milder" and could even become an ally of the west.
There certainly is some sense in what Donald Trump said. If the other Arab states were encouraging us to take action against Libya, we should send them the bill. We simply cannot afford to police the world. Trump, for better or worse, seems to be one of the few who can recognize that.
None of us actually know what the CIA knows about Libya. But if taking Gaddafi out of power was necessary for our defense, Obama should have said so. Because right now, it looks like the tax payers of the United States are paying for a war they have no interest in that has no bearing on them whatsoever.
I wish that Obama was still in his "candidate" shoes, afraid to do or say anything "unpopular." Maybe this mess could have been averted.
When he finally did decide to take a stand, it was an extreme one: use the United States' military to help the rebels fight Gaddafi. Now, if Libya had been integral to our foreign policy or national defense, then this would have been the appropriate action. However, Obama himself referred to our reason for entering Libya to be averting a humanitarian crisis. Remember, this was the same politicians who criticized Bush for invading Iraq, a country that Obama said had no effect on our defense. Ironically, Libya has even less bearing on that than Iraq did.
So as of now, we are aiding the rebels even if Obama has yet to go as far as to supply them. To make matters worse, the rebels appear to have deep connections to al-Qaeda, something Gaddafi was not accused of. In fact, as of 2003 reports said that he was "getting milder" and could even become an ally of the west.
There certainly is some sense in what Donald Trump said. If the other Arab states were encouraging us to take action against Libya, we should send them the bill. We simply cannot afford to police the world. Trump, for better or worse, seems to be one of the few who can recognize that.
None of us actually know what the CIA knows about Libya. But if taking Gaddafi out of power was necessary for our defense, Obama should have said so. Because right now, it looks like the tax payers of the United States are paying for a war they have no interest in that has no bearing on them whatsoever.
I wish that Obama was still in his "candidate" shoes, afraid to do or say anything "unpopular." Maybe this mess could have been averted.
Romneycare
"Obamacare" may be one of the greatest attacks on Objectivism in recent memory. Not only does it force other taxpayers to pay the bills for other people, but the individual mandate, forcing you to have health insurance or pay a fine, is a frightening attack on personal freedom as many courts are now agreeing.
Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, who seemed to be the front-runner in the next primary after 2008, the bill he had passed in Massachusetts as Governor, unaffectionately called "Romneycare" is in the same spirit as what was passed on a national level.
To date, I have heard two excuses: one is that what worked for Massachusetts on the state-level is not necessarily best to be used on a national-level; the other that the Democratic legislature hijacked the bill and morphed it into what they wanted.
To me, the state vs. national issue is a moot point. The plan forces taxpayers to sacrifice their money for a cause they do not like. That is equally wrong no matter what level you look at. As for the second point, it seems meaningless since at the end of the day it was Romney who signed the bill himself. (Especially so when you hear some of the things he said in a debate: "I like mandates. The mandate works.")
Maybe Romney could have gotten around this issue if Obama had never brought attention to health care or fewer trustworthy fiscal conservatives, some appearing to be adherents of at least the fiscal side of Objectivism, were running, but this sure seems to be his Achilles' Heel. And one that should rightfully take the nomination away from him, should he not come up with a convincing "excuse."
Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, who seemed to be the front-runner in the next primary after 2008, the bill he had passed in Massachusetts as Governor, unaffectionately called "Romneycare" is in the same spirit as what was passed on a national level.
To date, I have heard two excuses: one is that what worked for Massachusetts on the state-level is not necessarily best to be used on a national-level; the other that the Democratic legislature hijacked the bill and morphed it into what they wanted.
To me, the state vs. national issue is a moot point. The plan forces taxpayers to sacrifice their money for a cause they do not like. That is equally wrong no matter what level you look at. As for the second point, it seems meaningless since at the end of the day it was Romney who signed the bill himself. (Especially so when you hear some of the things he said in a debate: "I like mandates. The mandate works.")
Maybe Romney could have gotten around this issue if Obama had never brought attention to health care or fewer trustworthy fiscal conservatives, some appearing to be adherents of at least the fiscal side of Objectivism, were running, but this sure seems to be his Achilles' Heel. And one that should rightfully take the nomination away from him, should he not come up with a convincing "excuse."
Friday, April 15, 2011
Recent Budget Compromise
One of the videos circulating the internet as part of, I believe, the Atlas Shrugged Video Contest is called "A Sharply Unreasonable Compromise." It is very worth-watching: not very long at all, but quite poingant. The basic premise is that there are some issues on which people must not be willing to compromise- because those issues are so essential to maintaining a free society. I immediately thought of this video in terms of the recent Republican budget compromise to avert a government shutdown. When the United States has such a severe budget crisis, a deficit that cannot be fixed simply by cutting discretionary spending, a compromise that only ended up cutting about $40 billion should not have been on the table whatsoever. Rasmussen polls showed that the nation would have been willing to accept a government shutdown in return for greater spending cuts. The election this last November has proven that popular opinion is clearly leaning in the direction of fiscal conservatism. Because Republicans were fighting on behalf of the desires of the American people, it is hard to believe that a government shutdown would have been blamed on anyone except for the Democratic Senate and President Obama, both of whom failed to pass a 2011 budget and take a leadership role. My overall point is that Republicans may have done more damage to their cause by failing to fight for their promises outlined in their "Pledge for America" than if they had taken a stand and caused a government shutdown. Now, the momentum is on Obama's hands, and no matter to what degree Obama seems to have alienated many Americans, we have no idea of what the Obama political machine will be able to accomplish in 2012. Hopefully, we can expect more determined leadership from Speaker Boehner when it comes to the 2012 budget, a process that Republicans can take a greater role in from the start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)