"Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste"

It has been said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" (1). Certainly past Presidents of the United States have believed in this statement, and have used serious problems to advance their political agendas. I am not necessarily against this. Ambition drives all of us, and certainly a newly elected president has ambition to achieve his own political agenda. The problem is this: When a president uses a crisis to advance an agenda that only some would like to see, he is no longer serving the interests of the American people, the people who elected him to office. He is simply doing what he wants to do.

Senator Obama campaigned as a moderate, promising change, transparency, and bipartisan reform. Since taking office, President Obama has brought none of those things to the American people. In fact, he has brought just the opposite. He has abandoned the image of a moderate liberal and has proved himself to be much farther left by his vision of redistribution of wealth, cap-and-trade, nationalizing private institutions (banks, auto industry), and universal health care. Unfortunately, this is not what the American people want, and this is not what they voted for.

President Obama has deceived the American people in a brilliant manner. He used the economic crisis to ram through a stimulus package, promising more jobs, immediate recovery, and prosperity. In fact, the $787 billion stimulus package has brought skyrocketing unemployment, government takeover of banks and the auto industry, even deeper economic recession, and massive government debt with the long-term cost of the stimulus being estimated at $23.7 TRILLION (2). President Obama continues to blame President Bush for the economic status and the debt he accumulated (and rightly so), but in only 6 months, Obama himself has racked up more government debt than all previous U.S. Presidents combined!

President Obama used the nonexistent threat of global warming, telling the American people that the survival of our planet was at stake (never mind the fact that last June was the 8th coolest on record), in order to pass the largest tax increase we have ever seen (3). Even after promising his voters that no family making less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up, the new cap and trade legislation will cost each household in America more than $4,000 per year. Cap and trade will result in unemployment over 15 percent and massive government debt, as it has in Spain, and cripple the economy beyond belief. And how will it save the globe from imaginary climate change? Best case scenario, cap and trade will result in a global temperature reduction of nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit ...by 2050. That's two thousandths of a degree per year.

Then there's the issue of health care in the United States.... President Obama recently said, "This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. It is about a health care system that is breaking American families" (4). For a health care system that is breaking American families, we sure seem to be happy with it the way it is. Studies show that the majority of Americans are overwhelmingly satisfied with their health care coverage, and that only 4.5 percent of Americans are uninsured (5 and 6). Nevertheless, President Obama is using the supposed health care "crisis" to pursue his agenda. Despite the reform that may be necessary, Americans don't want the government in charge of their health care and don't trust Obama to take care of it (7 and 8). Personally, I wouldn't trust him either, since he doesn't even know what's in the 1,000 page bill (9).

President Obama is turning the problems our country faces into emergencies, and using the smokescreen of a crisis to pursue a political agenda that is not what he promised to the American people. "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" is a phrase he is clearly committed to. However, the policies that President Obama is trying to implement with the help of current crises are what he wants for the country, not what "We the people" want for our country. Until Barack Obama realizes that the job of a United States President is to serve interests of the people, not his own, he will continue to see America fall apart and his support disappear.

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/20/watchdog-financial-bailout-support-reach-trillion/
3. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/02/25/25climatewire-emissions-bill-needed-to-save-our-planet--oba-9849.html
4. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-20-health-care-debate_N.htm
5. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/obama-pushes-national-health-care-americans-happy-coverage/
6. http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority-americans-satisfied-their-own-healthcare.aspx
7. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/50_oppose_government_health_insurance_company
8. http://www.gallup.com/poll/121814/More-Disapprove-Than-Approve-Obama-Healthcare.aspx
9. http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/

ARC

My take on: Cap-and-Trade (Waxman-Markey) Global Warming Bill, Part #2

I'm not even going to entertain the idea that cap and trade is going to help the environment, or that it's not a tax from the government disguised as a bill from energy providers. So, from now on, the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill is simply going to be called "Cap and Tax" instead.

In Part #1 of the cap and tax bill, the meaning of the bill's name was explained. The government will use this bill to regulate carbon emissions and supposedly help the environment and global warming (even though recent studies show that global warming isn't as inconvenient as Al Gore says it is). The implementation of cap and tax in Europe was also investigated, where it has resulted in massive unemployment in Spain and even higher levels of carbon emissions in Germany. Now let's take a look at the consequences that will come with cap and tax in America, if it passes in the Senate.

Here's why cap and trade is really just cap and tax. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would raise taxes an additional $845.6 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That represents an increase of approximately $4,000 per American household over the same 10-year period (1). Unfortunately, the CBO research is seriously inaccurate, according to the Heritage Foundation (2). Taxes would, in fact, increase by over $4,600 annually for a family of four by 2035. This is due to energy prices that will undoubtedly go through the roof. Even President Obama himself stated that "under [his] plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket" (3). But it wouldn't just be electricity prices that would "skyrocket," but almost every kind of energy source. Electricity costs go up 90 percent, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. "The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000" (4). None of this takes into account decreased GDP, but I'll save that for later.

While Barack Obama was on the campaign trail, he promised the American people that no family making less that $250,000 a year would see any form of tax increase (5 and 6). Well, he already broke that promise with the implementation of a new smoking tax, but he would take lying to a whole new level with a new bill that is essentially 1,500 pages of new taxes. Some may say, "It's not a tax... The energy companies are the ones increasing prices." As I've said before, the real story is that cap and tax is simply disguised as a bill from your energy company. Any universal cap on emissions would clearly cause increased cost to energy companies. This cost will simply be passed on to the consumer in order to maintain profitability, resulting in massive price (tax) hikes.

Cap and tax is exactly what it sounds like. A tax on every single American that breathes. The 1,500 page Waxman-Markey bill will do absolutely nothing to help the nonexistent issue of global warming. (Even under ideal circumstances, the bill would lower the global temperature by nine-hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit by 2050.) The bill is riddled with new taxes, all proving President Obama's campaign promise of no new taxes to be a lie just as serious as George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips, no new taxes." Except, in this case, the media is completely ignoring the statement. The bill would cause countless other problems, including a dramatic increase in unemployment in the midst of a serious economic recession. I think the New York Times put it best when they said cap and trade is "almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific congressional districts" (7). Sounds to me like cap and trade will bring anything and everything but the supposedly needed help for the environment.

Sources:
1. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/markets-mainmenu-45/1308
2. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2503.cfm
3. http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/16/obama-%E2%80%9Cunder-my-plan-electricity-costs-will-necessarily-skyrocket%E2%80%9D/
4. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm
5. http://www.barackobama.com/2008/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_112.php
6. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1
7. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17cap.html
http://masterresource.org/?p=2355
http://www.rnc.org/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=4d93503a-873d-4a0b-a18d-9984ba58cdc7
http://www.westernroundtable.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100037119.124182.44&gen=1

ARC

My take on: Unemployment and $787B Economic "Stimulus" Bill, Part #3

'Celebrating his first 100 days in office, President Barack Obama told the American people: “One hundred days ago, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in half a century, we passed the most sweeping economic recovery act in history…One hundred days later, we are already seeing results.” And he’s right, we are. Unemployment has risen to 9.5%, stocks fell to their lowest level in 10 weeks on Tuesday, and consumer credit delinquencies have hit a record high. Responding to the obvious failure of the Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus package, some liberals in the House and Senate are calling for a second (really the third when you count President Bush’s 2008 effort)' (1 and 2).

Yes, that's right, some democrats in the House are already calling for ANOTHER "stimulus" package (3). Yes, believe it or not, at a time when 9 out of 10 Americans are worried about Obama's spending, the Democrats and Obama’s administration are actually thinking about another stimulus package (4).

Now, I'm not an economist, but it would seem to me that there too many problems to count with the first stimulus, and another one would be even more catastrophic.

Let's assume for a moment that passing a $787 billion stimulus bill was the right thing to do. It is a simple matter to determine that anytime the government is involved in something as big as a $787 billion bill, it is going to take time for the money and "help" to make an impact on the economy. With that understood, there should never have been promises made that the Obama Administration knew they could not keep. President Obama promised that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% because of the immediate effect that the stimulus package would have on the economy. Unemployment is at 9.5% and shows no signs of slowing down. Besides, the jobs that the stimulus bill is creating by building bridges to nowhere, tunnels for turtles, and spending $18 million for a website (that Vice President Biden can't even name) are only temporary (5 and 6). Once they are finished, there is no need for the workers anymore. So, don't expect that unemployment rate to start dropping anytime soon.

Currently, Obama claims that 150,000 jobs have been created or saved... Well that's great, but how much money has it required to save or create those 150,000 jobs? So far, about about 6-9% of the money in the bill has been spent. That's 47-70 billion dollars. I'm not a mathematician either, but I think that my math is correct. Divide the $70 billion of the stimulus which has been spent by 150,000 jobs, and that's $466,667 per job! Even that number mocks the supposedly outrageous estimate by the Heritage Foundation that figured $223,000 of taxpayer money would be spent on every single job created (7). The worst part is that we, the American people, are paying the bill for all of this. And we don't even know where it's going or what is being done with all the money, because I'm guessing that they aren't actually paying $466,667 to those people with new jobs...

So where is the money really going (besides the turtle tunnels, of course)? Well, apparently most of it is going to the states that voted for Obama in 2008. As USA Today reports, "Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain" (8 and 9). And another report says that states aren't even using the money as intended (though I wouldn't object to spending it on something other than turtles).

Here's the deal. The 787 BILLION dollar "stimulus" bill should never have been allowed to pass. Unfortunately, it was shoved through before anyone even had a chance to see where the money was going. This has resulted in billions of wasted taxpayer money and rewards for the people who voted Obama's ridiculous spending policies into office. All the while, unemployment has continued to skyrocket. America and its taxpayers are now buried under a massive amount of debt, and there is no way out. Until the people running this country realize that they can't spend their way out of a recession, there is no end in sight to the trouble they have gotten us into.

Sources:
1. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/morning-bell-the-obama-economy-is-failing
2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Marks-100th-Day-of-Recovery-Act-with-Release-of-100-Days-100-Projects-Report/
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124680904844296383.html
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202000.html?hpid=topnews
5. http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=59af3ebd-7bf9-4933-8279-8091b533464f
6. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html
7. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/13/sanford.economy/index.html
8. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-08-redblue_N.htm
9. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-07-stimulus_N.htm

ARC

My take on: Unemployment and $787B Economic "Stimulus" Bill, Part #2

Continuing the discussion about President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package, it should be noted that we didn't and don’t even have the money to pass an almost 1 trillion dollar bill, and that the estimated long-term cost of the stimulus bill rounds out at $3.3 trillion (1).

But don't let those numbers scare you. Here are some more figures to digest...

Our federal budget deficit has already skyrocketed to over $1 trillion for the first time ever, and is expected to rise over $8 trillion by 2017 (2 and 3). We now have $99 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities such as medicare, social security, and other entitlement programs (4). And, our national debt is now over $10 trillion, and is expected to top $12 trillion by 2013, which end up being about 70% of the ENTIRE United States' GDP (5). Let me rephrase that... In the first 5 months of President Obama's term, his out-of-control spending has caused our country to accumulate more debt than every previous president's debt COMBINED.

Don't get me wrong, President Bush spent quite a bit too. In fact, his budget deficits in the first 3 years were a staggering $948 billion, but guess what? The 1 trillion dollar cost of the interest to be paid on the stimulus alone has already surpassed that number (6). Under Obama’s budget, the national debt will increase by more in two years than it did under Bush in eight years.

I know the numbers can seem a little incomprehensible, but maybe this will help. If you were to receive $25 million a day, from the day you were born until you lived to be 100, you'd still come $90 BILLION short of $1 trillion. Let's try breaking it down another way. The average American family had about $90,000 in debt of their own in 2008 (7). While calling himself a conservative Republican, President Bush tacked 25,000 dollars of debt onto that 90,000 with his spending (8). With the spending that President Obama has already piled on ($48,000 per household), the debt of the average family will jump to a total of 168,000 dollars! I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that the "average" American family doesn't have that kind of money floating around.

Here's the real issue. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, these numbers are hard to swallow. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats either, because, as I have pointed out, President Bush spent quite a bit for a "conservative." This is about a new President who promised to end the games of politics and change Washington. Against the will of the people, our government is spending money so fast that there is no way all the debt incurred can possibly be paid off. Our children who aren't even born yet are already bearing the weight of the government's massive debt. Our country, along with the principles and values of our constitution are being destroyed from within faster than an enemy could plot to destroy them. The hole of debt that has been dug by our government in the last 30 years is already inconceivably deep, and if it gets any deeper, the United States of America will cease to be the great country it should be. No more time can pass before "we the people" stand up and speak out for what we believe. For if we wait any longer, it will surely be too late.

Sources:
1. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/federal-budget-deficit-tops-trillion-time
3. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/11/president-obama-set-to-exceed-president-bush%E2%80%99s-deficits
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5379285/China-warns-Federal-Reserve-over-printing-money.html
5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
6. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/11/president-obama-set-to-exceed-president-bush%E2%80%99s-deficits
7. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1295423
8. http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032409e.cfm

ARC

My take on: President Obama's "Public" Town Hall

What the media won't report about President Obama...

On July 1st, President Obama held a town hall meeting with an audience in Annandale, VA to discuss his proposed health care reform. What he didn't discuss, and what the media won't tell you, is that the whole thing was choreographed. Whether it is because Obama can't handle tough questions, or because he knows how utterly ridiculous his proposal for a new health care system is, he had each member of the audience screened before they were allowed to attend. Additionally, every single question asked was hand-picked by the White House. The AP reported: “Some of Obama’s questioners Wednesday were from friendly sources, including a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care for America Now, which organized a Capitol Hill rally last week calling for an overhaul" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_forum).

Unfortunately for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, some members of the media finally decided to pay attention. Even some of the most liberal correspondents grilled Gibbs about the incredible lack of transparency that has become a serious (though not publicized) problem for the Obama administration. Helen Thomas, not known as a "conservative sympathizer," said this to Gibbs: "It’s blatant ... They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.” She added: “What the h-ll do they think we are, puppets?” (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50445)

The amount of control our government has over the media has never been seen before, and it is despicable that more people aren't speaking out against it. In "An Inconvenient Book," by Glenn Beck, it says, "Some people consider the media to be our fourth branch of government." But what happens when the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government aren't using their checks and balances appropriately, and the so-called "fourth branch of government" just falls in line with the rest? This results in a seriously misinformed public and can lead to a massive unchecked growth of government, as America is undoubtedly seeing right now. President Obama promised to "change" the lack of transparency in Washington, and he did. He made it worse than ever. His honesty, along with his administration's opaqueness is shocking, and the liberal media is doing nothing to stop it.

I have bad news for you, Mr. President: We are not all puppets. The American people can still use common sense to see what you are doing, even when you're controlling the media with strings. Get all the adoration of the media while you still can... Because you can bet, that in about three years, the only thing people will remember about you is how you almost destroyed capitalism, not to mention the greatest country in the world.

Sources:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-will-filter-questions-for-Virginia-town-hall-7906507-49550207.html
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/02/morning-bell-obamas-choreographed-town-hall/

ARC

My take on: Unemployment and $787B Economic "Stimulus" Bill, Part #1

Let me start out by stating that former President Bush is not the source of every single problem that our country is currently facing. Most importantly, Bush is not responsible (at least completely) for the economic recession that we are in the midst of. President Bush even tried the liberal idea of a "stimulus" package when in early 2008, he signed a bill of $152 billion in an attempt to avoid any depression. In reality, it was the lowering of housing regulations by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (pressured by representative Barney Frank, D-Mass) that caused the housing market to crash and push our unstable economy over the edge. Indeed, Frank said this about the housing market just prior to the crash: "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing" (http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46378). Therefore, it can be understood that Bush, who opposed Frank in lowering the regulations, is not solely responsible for the "inherited" debt and economic problems that President Obama blames him for.

Calling the need to recover the economy an emergency, Obama and the Democrats shoved through a massive 787 billion dollar stimulus bill. (In fact, not a single Republican in the House voted for the bill.) This omnibus spending bill supposedly included hundreds of "shovel-ready" projects that simply needed funding before they could create jobs. I won't even get into the fact that many of the projects were ones that should have been funded and organized by the local and state governments, rather than the federal. 'Obama also pledged to "slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels" of 1,318. Then he signed an omnibus spending bill with 9,287 earmarks -- the second most in American history' (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032409e.cfm).


President Obama promised that with the stimulus package in place, the economy would immediately begin to turn around and unemployment would decrease. Oh, really? Well, unfortunately for the Obama administration, that didn't happen. Unemployment has now reached 9.5 percent, the highest it has been in almost 26 years. In all fairness, Obama should not be blamed for the soaring unemployment rates, but then again, he should have never made the ridiculous promise that with the stimulus bill in place, unemployment would not rise about 9 percent. Needless to say, "the promised benefits from the $800 billion in additional federal spending and debt remain invisible" (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/02/unemployment-spike-defies-%E2%80%98stimulus%E2%80%99-claims/).

Fortunately, the American people are starting to figure out that Obama's plan for turning the economy around was a bad idea, and it is starting to reflect in the polls. (Not to mention the fact that he isn't coming close to keeping his promises.) In a poll conducted by Gallup, Obama's job approval rating is now at 56 percent, down almost 8 points in less than one month. (By the way, President Bush was still holding out at 58 percent at this point in his first term.) Looks like your honeymoon is over, Mr. President. Speaking of which, more on the outrageous love-fest between Obama and the media will be coming soon.

If you'd like to read the 1,200 page bill, including all 9,287 earmarks...here's the link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1105

Sources:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/28/news/economy/house_vote_wednesday/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

ARC

My take on: Cap-and-Trade (Waxman-Markey) Global Warming Bill, Part #1

A new study conducted by a scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency shows that global warming might not be as serious as Al Gore has made it out to be. It just so happens that this senior analyst's 98-page study was suppressed by the EPA, right after President Obama had promised more transparency from government agencies (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html). Another study shows that this last June is the 8th COOLEST on record since the late 1800s. However, for the benefit of the Obama Administration, let's all assume that global warming is actually as serious as he says it is, and that the attempt to pass the Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill isn't simply a huge power grab by the government. So if global warming were serious enough to implement a giant 1,500-page bill, would the bill actually help the situation? And would it encourage countries such as China and India to control their emissions, and thus make a difference on the global climate?

Well, first, the meaning of "Cap-and-Trade" should be explained. "Cap" means to put a government-imposed limit on carbon emissions. "Trade" means a government created market to buy and sell greenhouse gas credits (http://www.anjec.org). Basically, government will be given more power to regulate private business than ever, and this new legislation (if it passes in the Senate) will be a gateway bill to even more government control in our lives... And if it goes much further, we will easily be named among the socialist nations of the world.

It should also be noted that most of Europe has already tried the whole cap and trade thing, and so has Australia. At the same time that the Democrats and our President are trying to pass this massive bill, Australia is completely scrapping theirs. In Spain, cap and trade has resulted in an unemployment rate of 18.1% and a loss of 2.2 jobs for every single "green" job that is created (http://www.westernroundtable.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100037119.124182.44&gen=1). Not to mention the fact that Spain's annual carbon emissions have increased 50 percent since the subsidized "green jobs" program was launched. In Germany, instead of permitting large energy companies to emit 3 percent less carbon than they had the year before, cap and trade allowed some companies to buy permits allowing them to emit 3 percent more. They then traded the excess capacity on the open market, earning billions. The power companies then claimed that the permits were costing them money, so prices went up 5 percent in a year. Finally, the entire system ended up doing more harm than good for the environment. In particular, one power company ended up emitting 38 million tons over the first two years; an increase of 32 percent! (Beck) There are countless other serious problems with the progressive ideas contained in the Waxman-Markey bill... But I'll save those inconvenient truths for another day.

By the way, if you'd like to read all 1,500 pages of the bill, here you go: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/hr2454-text.pdf or http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454

Sources:
Glenn Beck, "An Inconvenient Book"
The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/News/Cap-and-Trade-Global-Warming-Bill.cfm)

ARC