By Gary P Jackson
All I can say is when I hear Sarah Palin speak like this, I get quite sad that she isn’t the Republican nominee for President. This is what powerful leadership looks and sounds like:
Video courtesy SarahNet.
By Gary P Jackson
All I can say is when I hear Sarah Palin speak like this, I get quite sad that she isn’t the Republican nominee for President. This is what powerful leadership looks and sounds like:
Video courtesy SarahNet.
By Sarah Palin
In his press conference on Monday, President Obama responded to critics of the Federal Reserve’s decision to start a new round of quantitative easing – a fancy term for printing money out of thin air. He claimed this move would drive up U.S. growth rates. He also warned that “the worst thing that could happen to the world economy, not just ours but the entire world’s economy is if we end up being stuck with no growth or very limited growth.”
The latter is certainly true. It would be a global disaster if the U.S. economy remained permanently stuck in the mud. But the same cannot be said of his claim that the Fed’s experiment in pump priming would automatically lead to increased economic growth. By the time this experiment is over, QE will make us queasy.
Will driving the dollar down in this way do anything to boost U.S. exports? The short answer is not really. A weaker dollar will temporarily boost exports by making our goods cheaper to sell; but inevitably other countries will respond in kind, triggering the kind of currency wars economists are warning us about. It’s precisely to prevent this scenario that World Bank President Robert Zoellick recently came out in favor of some new type of gold standard or “international reference point.”
Will QE2 then at least boost domestic investment? No, again. As I explained in my speech in Phoenix, the reason banks aren’t lending and businesses aren’t investing isn’t because of insufficient access to credit. There’s plenty of money around, it’s just that no one’s willing to spend it. Big businesses especially have been hoarding cash. They’re not expanding or adding to their workforce because there’s just too much uncertainty created by a lot of big government experiments that aren’t working. It’s the President’s own policies that are creating this uncertainty.
The President is an educated man. I would hope that he knows these things as well as you and I do. So why then, if he knows it won’t really boost our exports or our domestic investments, would he still come out in defense of this dangerous experiment? I think the most plausible answer has to do with the debt. As liberal economist Paul Krugman has explained, a little inflation goes a long way towards driving down the value of the enormous national debt Obama has run up. And the higher the inflation, the greater the likelihood he won’t have to take any of the tough decisions needed to bring the deficit back down. In other words, pushing inflation upwards means you can have your cake and eat it too. You can spend all you like and then make the bill disappear by driving down the value of the dollar – buying with one hand the debt your reckless spending is issuing with the other. No need to cut spending, folks, just run the printing presses. It’s a win-win scenario.
Or maybe not. Because I fear there will be plenty of losers if this really happens, not least the millions of Americans who’ll see the value of their incomes and savings eroded. As the chair of the President’s own Debt Reduction Task Force, former CBO director Alice Rivlin explained, this sort of policy is no good. Sooner or later – probably sooner rather than later – it will come back to bite us in the behind. Rivlin warned: “As our debt mounts, the risk grows that our creditors, especially foreign creditors who own half our debt, will lose confidence in our ability to get our house in order and will demand dramatically higher interest rates.” Obviously, that’s even more likely to happen when they figure out that the Fed is deliberately driving down the value of the dollars they already hold. When they do lose confidence, Rivlin explained, that will spell disaster for our economy, “derailing the economic recovery and ballooning the cost of servicing the federal debt.”
If the President was serious about getting the economy moving again, he’d stop supporting the Fed’s dangerous experiments with our currency and focus instead on what actually works: reducing government spending and boosting business investment through good old fashioned supply side reforms (cutting taxes and reducing overly burdensome regulations). Simply running the printing presses in order to avoid paying off your debts is no way for a great nation to behave.
By Gary P Jackson
The United States hit a milestone today, one that should scare the hell out of every American.
We crossed the $15 TRILLION mark, 15,033,607,255,920.32, and counting. Our entire yearly GDP is only a taste over $14 trillion. No nation has ever survived this kind of debt load. None.
Something else to ponder, as of this writing, $10,314,468,105,168.02 [$10.3 trillion] is debt held by the public. That includes debt held by countries like China. $4,719,139,150,752.30 [$4.7 trillion] is “intragovernmental holdings.” Money the government borrows from places like the the Social Security Trust Fund.
The debt has grown under the control of both parties. But the democrats have run wild.
From the time President George W Bush took office in 2001 to January of 2007, when democrats took control of Congress, the debt went from $5,724,315,917,828.49 [$5.7 trillion] to $8,680,224,380,086.18 [$8.6 trillion] roughly $2.9 trillion
Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and the debt was $8,673,367,073,665.76 [$8.6 trillion] when Republicans took back control of the House of Representatives in 2011, that debt had grown to a staggering $14,014,345,009,018.63 [$14 trillion] that’s roughly $5.4 trillion, almost double the debit increase, in half the time, compared to Bush era congressional spending!
All thanks to the democrats.
Now, we sit at $15 trillion.
Part of the problem is Congress hasn’t passed a budget in over 925 days. House Republicans have passed several, but the democrat controlled Senate refuses to even consider them. Creating a budget is one of the constitutional duties Congress is required to perform, as opposed to the hundreds of things Congress does that is never spoken to in the Constitution.
This is a dangerous situation, and it threatens our nation’s very survival. And yet, no one is doing anything to really stop the pending disaster. It’s politics as usual, and some members of Congress are lining their pockets while it all goes down.
We need massive and relentless reform. We must hold our elected leaders, in BOTH parties accountable for the mess we are in. We need constitutional amendments that will set certain rules in stone, including ethics laws and term limits.
The career politicians, who have sat in Washington for decades, must go.
All of them must go.
Washington has the ability to corrupt the very best of men. There’s no way we should allow anyone to stay in office long enough for that to happen.
We must hold every politician accountable for this mess, and continue to hold all politicians responsible. They work for us, not the other way around.
It’s essential that we defeat the democrats in 2012. We must take back the Senate in a big way, and add numbers to the House, but we must make sure those we elect are of good moral character, and have the common sense to know the difference between right and wrong.
If we can’t get control of our elected officials, and stop them from destroying our nation, we’re done.
All figures used come from Treasury Direct.
By Gary P Jackson
This powerful video from Citizens Against Government Waste forecasts a bleak future for America, thanks to the insane spending spree our government has been on for years.
Donate to help end wasteful deficit spending at www.cagw.org. This new ad is part of an ongoing communications program in CAGW’s decades-long fight against wasteful government spending, increased taxes, out-of-control deficit spending, and a crippling national debt that threatens the future and survival of our country.
We must reign in this unsustainable debt, or our nation will collapse.
The best ways to stop all of this is to show up and vote on the first Tuesday in November, and check out the CAGW website for more information on government waste: www.cagw.org
Perhaps it was a pocket edition of the US Constitution for him to read.
~ Charles Cherry, Springfield, Illinois, 11/10/2010
By Gary P Jackson
It seems the bloom, as the say, is off the rose.
File this under news the lamestream media will give little or no coverage to.
From the U.K.’s Daily Mail Online:
This is the astonishing moment a book was apparently hurled at the head of U.S. President Barack Obama during a campaign rally in Philadelphia.
The flying missile narrowly missed hitting the President yesterday.
It is not clear what the book was, where it came from in the crowd, or why it was thrown at Mr Obama – who did not appear to notice the danger.
But it is expected that there will be fallout from the security breach as the Secret Service investigates how close the President came to danger.
The rally was clearly an eventful one – other images showed a naked man being led away in handcuffs by police.
It is not clear if the man was involved in the book-throwing incident – or why he was not wearing any clothes.
You can read the rest of the Mail’s coverage here.
Here’s video of the incident courtesy of Gateway Pundit, where you can read more here.
You can see the “flying missile” about 24 seconds into the short video. The Daily Caller has more video, and commentary here.
I know it would be easy to insert a joke right about now, much like our friends on the left did when a shoe was thrown at George W. Bush in Iraq. But this is actually a serious incident, and points to some failing by security.
Glenn Beck, and many others are absolutely convinced that Barack Obama’s life is in danger, not from someone on the right, but from a radical left winger, not satisfied with Obama’s slowness in implementing the full on Communist Utopia these freaks dream of.
Knowing the type of sixties radicals, and their protégés, who circle within and around the Obama regime, Obama’s safety, is indeed in question.
These are the same sort, who as Stacy Drake reported, threatened the life of Sarah Palin in San Diego, California at an event honoring combat veterans on Saturday, which you can read more about here.
I was young during the 1960s, but many of the same violent radicals who wanted America destroyed back then, grew up, bathed, put on suits, and became part of the very establishment they wanted destroyed.
Many like murdering domestic terrorist William Ayers, and his cop killing wife, Bernardine Dohrn, became “respected members of academia” as well as close personal friends of Barack Obama.
Ayers, who founded the ultra-violent Weather Underground, has managed to place various members of that terror group around this president. Many of these terrorists are now working with groups funded by George Soros.
The 1960s were a turbulent time. Many great leaders were assassinated, all by radicals on the left. JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist.
Dr Martin Luther King, a Republican civil rights icon, was shot by James Earl Ray, a democrat who the FBI thought was paid a $100,000 bounty by the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a domestic terror organization founded by the democrat party after the Civil War.
John Kennedy’s brother, Bobby, who was running for the democrat party nomination for President, was gunned down by Sirhan Sirhan a Palestinian radical. Oddly enough, the modern day democrat party has supported Palestine and it’s terrorists over Israel, since the Carter years.
If you’ve read about the flotillas that have tried to break through the Israeli security blockades, you may, or may not know that Ayers and Dohrn are up to their necks in this deal, and are said to be readying a new boat named …. wait for it …. “The Audacity of Hope” to further the attacks.
I bring all of this up to remind folks that retiring “professor” William Ayers was recently denied the emeritus honor by the University of Illinois because in his manifesto Prairie Fire, which is the blue print for the systematic destruction of America, Ayers dedicated his work to Sirhan Sirhan, among other radicals.
Birds of a feather, and all.
That came back to haunt Ayers when the University of Illinois board, now chaired by Kennedy’s son, considered his request for emeritus status. It was denied in a unanimous vote.
Before the vote, an emotional Chris Kennedy spoke out against granting the status to Ayers.
Pajamas Media has much more, which is a must read, here.
Never forget, Barack Obama launched his political career at a fund raiser in Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn’s living room.
I hate to be a downer here, as frankly, I would rather be making fun of the nekkid dude at this same rally, but that will have to wait for a few more paragraphs.
Obama has surrounded himself with radicals, true believers. Combined with the radically left Congress that has been in place for the last four years, these people know this was going to be what they, and their predecessors had hoped for, and worked towards, for the last one hundred years.
With the radical Marxist, Obama, in the White House, and his fellow travelers in complete control and total of Congress, they saw this as the time their vision of a strong command and control central government could be imposed on unsuspecting Americans, thus creating the Communist Utopia they have always dreamed of.
Thankfully, Obama turned out to be one of the most inept and unskilled buffoons one could ever imagine. Having zero experience, or ability, he squandered the radical left’s only opportunity for success. Now the American People are awake. Wide awake. They know exactly what Communism, Marxism is, and they ain’t interested in seeing it in this country in any way, shape or form.
These radicals won’t be amused as November rolls around, and the Republicans take both houses of Congress in a big way, and their see all of their hopes and dreams evaporate, hopefully forever. They will become very dangerous after the elections, and as 2012 approaches, down right violent.
As a nation we must pray for Obama’s safety, as he is in danger from his own people. We must pray for safety of our own great leaders, like Sarah Palin as well. The corrupt media has stirred up an enormous amount of hatred in this nation, much of it directed at her, simply because she represents common sense, and is a direct threat to the left’s insane agenda.
That’s why it’s hard for me personally to joke much about this book throwing deal, even though it would normally be my first instinct. However, if you check out this hashtag on Twitter: #BookThrownAtObama, you might find some funny suggestions of what the title might happen to be.
In the south there’s a difference between ‘Naked’ and ‘Nekkid.’ ‘Naked’ means you don’t have any clothes on. Nekkid’ means you don’t have any clothes on … and you’re up to somethin!
~ Lewis Grizzard, Humorist 1946-1994
Evidently some nimrod decided it would be awesome to streak for the President. Even better, this idiot seems to be doing it in response to a $1 million dare thrown out there by billionaire Alki David, which was reported in the British papers a few months back.
The Blaze has more than you even want to know about Juan James Rodriquez, the streaker, as well as the rest of the story, and sadly, with photos, here.
Why is it always ugly, fat people who do this sort of thing?
By Gary P Jackson
As most know, the current unconstitutional mess all Americans are about to face, known as ObamaCare, got it’s inspiration from the disastrous health care plan promoted and signed into law by then Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. Indeed, RomneyCare was the blue print for the onerous legislation.
By any and every measure RomneyCare has been an epic failure. Not only has RomneyCare failed to meet one single goal intended, it has only increased and amplified every problem, and has the Bay State on the verge of insolvency
RomneyCare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket, insurance premiums to skyrocket, and is pushing insurance providers toward bankruptcy.
FORTUNE — The best guide to how President Obama’s historic health-care legislation will reshape the nation’s medical marketplace and fiscal future is the pioneering model in Massachusetts. The Bay State’s reform program started in late 2006, and it shares virtually all the major features of the new federal plan.
Both programs greatly expand Medicaid coverage for low-earners, and provide heavily subsidized policies for a broad swath of the middle class. They tightly restrict the range of premiums for customers of different ages and medical conditions; they bar insurers from charging older patients, or even couch potatoes who abuse their health, anywhere near their actual cost. Both plans impose a long list of expensive benefits insurers must provide whether patients want to pay for them or not, ranging in Massachusetts from in-vitro fertilization to chiropractic services.
At the same time the plans offer lavish subsidies that swell the demand for health care, they do nothing to increase the supply of medical services in a market suffering from shortages of everything from family doctors to nurses to hospital beds. Two years after enacting health-care reform to rein in costs, Massachusetts strengthened “certificate of need laws” that prevent hospitals and other providers from competing with high-cost, entrenched suppliers. The state now requires that ambulatory surgical centers and outpatient treatment facilities get permission from regulators before they can enter the market. Their rivals invariably lobby the regulators to block competition, and usually win.
Thirty-six states, from Florida to Georgia to Washington, have similar price-inflating laws on the books. The Obama bill does nothing to eliminate regulations that effectively cartelize the market.
The combination of heavily subsidized demand and tight, over-regulated supply is a textbook formula for perpetuating the big, chronic price increases that bedevil today’s health-care system.
Instead of attacking the real causes of the explosion in costs — the combination of overly generous state aid and a dearth of competition among hospitals and physician groups — Massachusetts is vilifying prestigious, non-profit insurers, and punishing them, believe it nor not, with price controls. In April, Governor Deval Patrick refused the request of carriers such as Harvard Pilgrim, the top-rated plan in the country, for premium increases of 8% to 32%. Instead, his administration is refusing all rate hikes over 7.7%; any rate requests the administration rejects are automatically held at 2009 levels.
In explosive emails released last week, Robert Dynan, chief of the financial analysis unit at the Division of Insurance, told Commissioner Joseph Murphy that the price caps would cause a “potential train wreck” and threatened “catastrophic consequences for the non-profit industry.” Dynan warned that the non-profits, unlike national giants such as WellPoint, operate on such slim margins that the controls could drive them into bankruptcy. Even now, four of the biggest insurers are threatening to stop taking new patients at rates so low they lose money on each new enrollee.
The battle in Massachusetts may foreshadow the results of the new federal law. It threatens to mirror precisely the cycle we’re witnessing in the Bay State: spiraling costs that make coverage unaffordable for both patients and businesses, followed by price controls that drive private providers from the market. “This could repeat itself on the national level, and become the beginning of government-run health care,” says Lora Pellegrini, chief of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans.
That disaster scenario may sound far-fetched. But an examination of the Massachusetts plan yields five important lessons that show the dangers ahead for the Obama health-care blueprint.
Lesson 1: The Massachusetts plan does not control costs.
When Massachusetts launched its reform program in 2006, it already had the highest medical costs in the nation. Today, the burden is still rising far faster than wages or inflation, from those already lofty levels. A report from that state attorney general in March — remember, this is a Democratic administration — asked rhetorically “Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?” The report concluded, “To date, the answer is an unequivocal ‘no.‘”
Costs are rising relentlessly for both families and for the state government. The median annual premium for family plans jumped 10% from 2007 to 2009 to $14,300 — again, that’s a substantial rise on top of an already enormous number. For small businesses, the increase was 12%. In 2006, the state spent around $1 billion on Medicaid, subsidies for medium-to-lower earners, and other health-care programs. Today, the figure is $1.75 billion. The federal government absorbed half of the increase.
Hence reform’s proponents boast that expenses have risen only $354 million or around 6% a year. But the real increase is double that, including the federal share. And it’s highly possible that given the current budget pressures, the U.S. will reduce the contribution that has encouraged the state to spend so lavishly.
Lesson 2: Community rating, guaranteed issue and mandated benefits swell costs.
How did costs in Massachusetts get so big to begin with? A major reason is the adoption of guaranteed issue and community rating in the mid-1990s. The new federal bill would expand those rules to the entire nation. Under guaranteed issue, insurers must accept all enrollees regardless of their medical condition; under community rating, they must charge all customers similar premiums, even if their costs are far different. The result is that prices rise steeply for young, healthy customers, who must pay far more than their actual costs. It also give them a strong incentive to drop insurance; then they can “game the system” by signing up any time they need surgery or get diabetes.
Hence the pool of insured people gets older and sicker as the healthy drop out. That’s what happened in Massachusetts, and it contributed to soaring premiums. The 2006 reform plan was supposed to solve the problem by requiring that everyone buy coverage or pay a fine of around $1,000. It worked, but only in part: Of the 600,000 uninsured in 2005, around 450,000 are now covered. But a large share of 150,000 who still lack coverage are young residents who choose to pay the fine instead of high premiums. Insurers are also getting socked by people who sign up for insurance to get expensive care mandated under state law, including hospitalization for childbirth or hip replacements, and then depart once the procedure is completed.
In the federal bill, the fines for going uninsured are even lower than in Massachusetts — and anyone who can’t find an inexpensive plan is exempted from all penalties. Hence the “adverse selection” problem could prove far worse.
Lesson 3: Huge subsidies for low-to-medium earners could prove extremely expensive.
One of the most fascinating features of the Massachusetts plan is that it introduced a system of subsidized policies, sold through an insurance “exchange” that’s extremely similar to the one in the new federal plan. Under Commonwealth Care, the state subsidizes plans — offered by private carriers — for residents who earn up to $66,150 who are not covered by employers. The aid is extremely generous. At $44,000, families pay around $1,000 a year in premiums. At the $66,150 maximum, they contribute around $3,000.
The problem is that the actual annual cost of these plans is around $10,000, so the subsides are enormous — that’s 90% for families earning $44,000. And while the costs keep going up, the share paid by the enrollee barely budges. Says Michael Tanner, an economist at the conservative Cato Institute: “It’s a situation where the entire escalation in costs is paid by the government, not the people receiving the care.”
The federal plan also subsidizes care provided through state-run exchanges. The patients’ contributions are bigger than in the Mass. plan: A family earning $66,000 would pay $6,300 a year. But the federal plan offers subsidies far higher along the income scale, aiding families of four making up to $88,200. And surprisingly, the federal plans would probably prove a lot more costly than the ones in Massachusetts, where the state prides itself on restraining what they pay by squeezing providers, who then shift the added costs to private customers.
The big problem arises if far more people sign up for these exchange-offered plans than anticipated. That’s been the case in Massachusetts. And as we’ll see in a moment, it could still get a lot worse there. A potential disaster threatens the federal plan if employers staring dropping coverage, since a flood of newcomers would rush into the state-funded pools.
Lesson 4: The exchanges reward people for working less and earning less.
Data is lacking on how damaging these perverse incentives are in practice. But it’s clear in Massachusetts that low-to-medium earning families often suffer financially if they get a raise, work overtime, move to a higher paying job — or if a spouse rejoins the workforce. For example, a family earning $33,000 pays no premium at all under Commonwealth Care. But if their pay goes to $46,000, they’re obligated to contribute about $2,400. That’s an effective tax rate of 18.5% on that $13,000 raise. A pay increase of $44,000 to $46,000 is mostly erased by higher premiums alone.
The federal bill is plagued by the same weakness. For example, a $55,000 earner contributes $4,400 a year towards insurance. At $65,000, the bill is $6300; so the family is paying a “tax” of $1,900 or 19% on that $10,000 raise. After payroll taxes, those Americans would face a marginal rate of around 35%, a number that’s heretofore been the territory strictly for high-earners.
Lesson 5: The generous plans and added mandates give employers an incentive to drop health insurance.
In charting the future of health-care costs, the biggest danger by far is that companies will drop their coverage. It’s also the one that’s the most difficult to handicap, both for Massachusetts and the entire nation. The problem is simple: If employers stop paying for health care, employees will flood into the government-subsidized programs, enormously raising the cost to already fragile budgets.
Surprisingly, health reform in Massachusetts has actually increased the number of workers covered by employers. Over 100,000 more employees are covered by corporate plans today than when the program debuted in 2006. The main reason is that the plan imposed a $1,000 fine on employees who refused their employers’ plans. Then, families were paying around $3,600 a year towards their company policies. Many decided that, when faced with a fine, the better choice was paying the extra $2,600 for full coverage.
The Massachusetts plan also bans any employee from getting coverage from Commonwealth Care if his or her company offers coverage. Hence it would appear that corporate coverage is solidly entrenched. But that’s by no means certain, either in Massachusetts or under the Obama plan. The reason is the fast escalation in costs, for both companies and employees. From 2007 to 2009, the employee contribution for family policies rose a steep 17%, or $624 a year, to $4,200.
Employees can only move into Commonwealth Care if their employers drop their plans. The danger is that the incentives are tilting in that direction as the costs of coverage for employer, and the price of premiums to employees, keep climbing. The point is rapidly approaching where both will pocket big savings if employers drop their plans and workers buy their policies through the heavily subsidized exchanges.
In Massachusetts, the state government is pushing toward that tilt point by adding heavy mandates to a list of more than 40 already on the books. In 2009, it required insurers to cover prescription drugs. An expensive autism mandate is now being debated in the state legislature. The list of mandates under the federal plan is bound to mirror the ones in Massachusetts, and once again, the added expense severely weakens companies’ incentive for providing coverage.
Cracks are already starting to appear. Part-time workers can get coverage under Commonwealth Care for a fraction of what they’d pay as full-timers. So they “game the system” by working ten or fifteen hours a week for two or three companies. Or they find that it pays to switch from full- to part-time work. PHI, an organization that represents home health-care workers, states that one-fourth of the home care agencies in Massachusetts are reducing workers’ hours so they’re eligible for state-subsidized care.
The federal plan will encounter the same problem — perhaps a more acute one since its penalties are lower and its subsidies go much higher on the income scale.
Starting in 2017, the states will have the option of allowing companies that drop their plans to shift workers into the subsidized, state-run exchanges. That choice doesn’t exist now in Massachusetts. It’s not that employers are likely to dump their plans en masse. What’s far more probable is a progressive erosion that relentlessly and systematically raises government spending.
The incentives are there, both in the federal plan, and its prototype in the Bay State. And when the incentives are that big — and when subsidies inevitably get bigger, not smaller — no amount of regulatory tinkering can stop America’s employers and employees from taking the government’s money, and saving their own.
While this entire system is a failure, at every level, reading “Lesson 5” is a study in the theory of unintended consequences of the Nanny State. If you notice, under this plan, it actually encourages people to “game” the system, and even work less, in order to get the government assistance.
This is the same folly as one finds with those who are chronically on welfare. It’s a sad existence, but the subsidies are just strong enough that it doesn’t pay to work harder and better oneself. It’s truly the ultimate form of modern day slavery.
Socialism always fails, because this is what happens. It enslaves the people caught up in it. It oppresses them. It kills the human spirit.
Mitt was pretty full of himself when he sighed RomneyCare into law, but as the wheels have began to come off the wagon, he has tried to claim that RomneyCare and ObamaCare are not much alike. When called on this, and proven wrong, he runs to the “states rights” argument, and claims that because it’s a state plan, and not a federal plan, it’s both conservative, and kosher. Now when those two arguments fail, he claims it a conservative thing, because it’s all about personal responsibility.
The truth is, Mitt Romney is the typical Big Government Nanny State politician that put this nation on the path of destruction. Forcing people to buy health insurance, strong arming employers, health care providers, and insurance providers isn’t conservative, it’s totalitarian.
Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz and Director of Health Policy Studies Michael F. Cannon discuss the politics and policy of RomneyCare and Obamacare.
This is just more proof that Mitt Romney is the kind of politician we are trying to rid ourselves of. This guy will do and say anything to further his own career, and has absolutely no core principles.
Romney is the Republican establishment’s show pony, and they will be pushing him at us pretty hard between now and 2012. I suspect you will see all sorts of puff pieces on the guy start popping up here and there. They’ll be touting Romney’s business experience, his solid management skills, and so on.
If RomneyCare isn’t enough to dispel any notion that Romney is a good businessman, manager or a conservative, this little piece from Market Watch’s Brent Arends from February of this year should do the trick:
Mitt Romney plays the jobs card
Looking at his record, it’s a losing argument
By Brett Arends , WSJ.com and MarketWatch
BOSTON (MarketWatch) — Is Mitt Romney for real?
Romney, who may well be President Barack Obama’s opponent in 2012, he had great time last week blaming the president for the current jobs shortage.
Speaking to the CPAC right-wing conference in Washington, D.C., Romney said that the dismal employment situation, a year after Obama took office, showed the president was a “failure” who was “going downhill faster than… Lindsey Vonn.”
OK, let’s take him at his word. Then what does that say about Romney?
The Republican contender was the governor of Massachusetts from January 2003 to January 2007. And during that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.
The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.
The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9%, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7%), California (4.7%) and North Carolina (7.6%).
The national average: More than 5%.
This was after four years. So far Obama has been in office for just one year. How was Romney’s performance by his first anniversary?
Fiftieth out of fifty.
That’s right. In Romney’s first year in charge, Massachusetts ranked dead last in America in jobs growth.
What makes this worse for Romney is that he actually ran on a jobs platform. Romney — who made his fortune building Bain Capital into one of the biggest venture capital firms in the world — promised the voters of Massachusetts that as governor he’d use his business savvy and connections to bring new jobs to the state.
“I don’t have to wait in the lobby to see middle management,” he pointedly said during one campaign event. It was a shot at his opponent, state politico Shannon O’Brien.
Romney went on: “There’s virtually not a chief executive officer in the country that won’t let me in to sit down with them in their office to pitch Massachusetts. And that is what I’ll do, inside Massachusetts, outside Massachusetts, outside of our country, to encourage businesses to come grow and thrive in the most robust portion of the economy, Massachusetts.”
Net result: 50th out of 50 after one year, 47th after four.
Someone tell me again why this guy is thought of as a presidential contender?
Romney may indeed do well in the private business world, but all I see from his time in the public sector is a lot of FAIL.
At this point is there really any question who the actual leader of the free world is? Time and time again we see Obama do something really stupid, and dangerous, only to have Sarah Palin call him on it. This is usually followed by a war of words, with Obama’s media partners coming to his aid, but it always ends the same way. Obama is forced to capitulate, publicly.
We are all familiar with the latest dangerous idea from our rookie President. Out of the blue Obama decided to tell the world using our nuclear weapons, even if attacked, was off the table. He went on to say that even if we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction, we would not respond in kind.
Obviously, this didn’t set well with the American people.
For her part, Sarah Palin noted how ridiculously naive and dangerous this ludicrous action by Obama was. Sarah compared Obama’s plan to that of a kid out in the school yard telling the bully to go ahead and hit him, and he wouldn’t do anything about it.
Of course, Obama, with the aid of his media partner George Stephanopoulos, had some smart ass comment regarding Sarah’s nuclear experience, and it was on!
Once again, Obama comes up short!
Here Sarah comments on the vast nuclear experience Obama must have obtained as a “part time Senator” and a “community organizer”
As Stacy Drake reminded readers, Sarah Palin does have experience in dealing with these sort of issues, and in fact, was chosen to be John McCain’s running mate, in part, because of her strong answers to questions posed to her on national security, including the use of nuclear weapons. You can read more here.
Today Gateway Pundit reports that the Obama regime has done a 180 on their position on the use of nuclear weapons after their public flogging by Sarah Palin:
Moose Hunter Bags Community Organizer… Obama Retreats on Nuke Plan
On Wednesday, Sarah Palin said Barack Obama’s new nuclear policy was like, “A kid on the playground saying punch me in the face and I’m not going to retaliate.” This upset the the president who later lashed out at the former Alaska Governor on her nuclear experience on Thursday.
Which led to this–
Sarah Palin clobbered Barack Obama Friday in her speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. The former Alaska Governor responded to the “community organizer’s” attack on her nuclear experience.
She questioned what in Obama’s community organizing background led him to believe he was an expert on nuclear policy.
Today, the Obama Administration retreated from their previous nuclear plan.
Hillary Clinton told CBS that “all bets are off” when it comes to biological weapons.
The Obama administration’s nuclear posture review may have removed some of the intentional ambiguity from U.S. nuclear policy, but it does not leave the country any less safe, President Obama’s top national security advisers said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
In fact, they said, it gives a clear warning to other state actors that the U.S. will not ignore any growing threats.
“This is putting everybody on notice,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer in an interview conducted Friday at the Pentagon. “We don’t want more countries to go down the path that North Korea and Iran are.”
The revised nuclear policy says that the United States will not use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack from a non-nuclear country. The policy, however, leaves significant contingencies, said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Countries which are non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (such as North Korea) or have been found to be non-compliant (such as Iran) are not exempt from nuclear retaliation under the Obama policy.
“We were concerned about the biological weapons,” Gates said, “and that’s why the president was very clear … if we see states developing biological weapons that we begin to think endanger us or create serious concerns, that he reserves the right to revise this policy.”
Clinton added, “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.”
Apparently, the former governor knows more about nuclear deterrence than the community organizer after all.
This round goes to Palin.
Now if you noticed, Sarah also hammered Obama for his epic failure concerning North Korea. It just so happens Josh Painter is reporting the DPRK has restarted it’s nuclear program:
North Korea has restarted its nuclear facilities to harvest weapons-grade plutonium, an official said Saturday, in an escalation of the communist state’s standoff with the international community over its nuclear and missile programs.
Josh goes on to describe the situation with North Korea as a complete disaster. He also reminds us that Sarah Palin has been incredibly outspoken against Obama’s policies toward the communist state:
“I am deeply concerned with North Korea’s development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead,” Governor Palin said. “I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation.”
We are reminded of the fact Ft Greely, Alaska is the site of our nation’s only ground based missile defense complex and the fact Sarah Palin has bi-partisan concern for Obama’s reckless attempt to cut funding for the facility by $1.4 billion:
“Our early opposition to reduced funding for the Missile Defense Agency is proving to be well-founded during this turbulent time,” Governor Palin said. “I continue to support the development and implementation of a defensive missile shield based in Alaska. We are strategically placed to defend the critical assets of the United States and our allies in the Pacific Theater.”
You can read Josh’s must see report here.
Let’s not fool ourselves, while Obama is a dangerous Marxist who has a definite plan to destroy the nation from within, to tear down the Constitutional Republic, and replace it with his version of a communist utopia, he is completely and totally clueless on foreign affairs.
Obama has insulted and alienated every single ally we have, while at the same time emboldening all of the world’s bad actors. This is the worst kind of situation to be in. Thanks to Obama, and his total ineptness, the world is in more peril than at anytime in history.
Thankfully Sarah Palin is out there keeping the pressure on Obama like no one else can.
America needs strong leadership and time and time again Sarah Palin is proving to be the one with the courage to provide it.
Is it me, or has Obama finally started talking in the authentic dialect that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was missing? I guess he has to do something to cover for all of the shuck and jive that has been going on in the most corrupt Congress in our nation’s 233 year history!
Anyhow, Sarah Palin seems to be as perplexed as the rest of us that our epic failure of a President still doesn’t get it. Better to just let her tell it, as frankly, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry anymore when discussing this administration!
Obamacare = Stray Dog, So Says President
What am I missing, folks? We’re called obstructionists and made to feel uninformed in the Obamacare debate as we point out this is not a patient-driven, market-oriented approach to health care cost challenges. We’ve been saying for months that this is government takeover of our personal choices of insurers and doctors. We’re called liars when claiming that this is all about government mandates and control of up to a sixth of our economy.
And yet, shockingly, the president admitted yesterday exactly what we’ve been saying: that his Democrats and lobbyists have crafted bills that in fact will prevent us from keeping our current insurance and/or choosing our own doctor. He said:
The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge. [emphasis added]
Thanks to Tom Bevan at RCP for spotting this. The president’s statement is shocking, enlightening, and in an odd and unfortunate way also encouraging. Folks, this admission tells us we’re not off-base and we need to stay vigilant so we’re not missing anything else in this scheme. This trillion-dollar government takeover of our health care system is full of “stray dogs and cats” (the president’s words, not mine), and that’s what we’ve been saying all along.
Commonsense conservatives have better ideas on how to start tackling rising health care costs. Reps. Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and others have offered solutions. I commend their efforts to counter the White House’s attempt to ram Obamacare through as these Congressmen seek bipartisan, sensible solutions. I implore them to speak louder because we’re listening, and we’re counting on them!
– Sarah Palin
The Republicans have had solid solutions from the get go, but as we all know, the democrat/communists aren’t so much interested in health care reform as they are about seizing control of one sixth of the U.S. economy, and more menacingly, taking away more of your freedom and liberty.
It’s time the communists get a grip and realize we simply do not want what they are selling. Time for them to throw ObamaCare, in all of it’s various configurations, onto the trash heap of total failure, and start over.
Republicans have, and have had, a real plan for the successful reform of health care issues. Time honored, market based solutions. It’s time to take a look at making them law, because Obama’s dogs just don’t hunt!
We kind of figured Sarah would have something more to say about President Obama’s State of the Union speech. As you will read, she doesn’t disappoint.
Sarah was pulling no punches last night when she appeared on the Sean Hannity Show:
She was spot on. It was like Obama was lecturing America. This was the most disjointed, rambling, and frankly..hateful State of the Union speech we have ever witnessed. It was all about Obama attacking those he thought weren’t on board with his lunacy.
But why waste time. Let Sarah give us her take. This is simply delicious:
The Credibility Gap
Today at 4:17pm
While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.
Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.
He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”
He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.
He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.
Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.
He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.
He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.
He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.
He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill“?
He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants“? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.
He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?
Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?
In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.
Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.
Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.
He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.
Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.
– Sarah Palin
Say it with me children! BOOM!
That’s a hard act to follow right there. Nothing more one can add except spot on Sarah, spot on.
No wonder the latest poll places Sarah Palin at the top of the 2012 presidential sweepstakes.
Video courtesy of Palin TV.