When is a "Liberal" not a liberal?

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal ("The Obama Democrats"--9/13/12), Daniel Henninger said the following:

     "They've (Barack Obama and the modern Democratic Party) got goals, and what they want from the people---is compliance."

     "The Obama Democrats are no longer the party of FDR, Truman, JFK or Clinton. All were combative partisans, but their view of the American system was fundamentally positive."

     "An Obama victory wouldn't be just a defeat for the GOP. It would be a defeat of the post-World War II Democratic Party. And they know it. The progressive left has wanted to push Democratic liberalism over the cliff for decades. This is their best shot to get it done."

     "FDR's Social Security and LBJ's Medicare asked all to buy in to supporting it. Obama-Care doesn't; Mr. Obama revels in explaining how 'they' will pay for 'you'. Left unanswered, demagoguery can win elections. And take a generation to undo."


Liberalism is defined as: "tolerant; not narrow in one's ideas and views; broad minded." (World Book Dictionary).  The Democratic leaders mentioned in Mr. Henninger's article generally had those defined attributes.  But should President Obama be considered a "Liberal Democrat"?

Before responding, we should consider not only the above article but also the President's record over the last three plus years. President Obama has:

     *Advised companies that they need not comply with a law that requires notification to employees 60 days prior to an impending layoff.

     *Indicated that he would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

     *Not effectively enforced the immigration laws and nullified certain provisions by executive edict.

     *Issued regulations forcing religious organizations to provide their employees health care coverage for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs.

     *Provided waivers for work requirements contrary to the provisions of the welfare reform act passed in the Clinton administration.

     *Supported and signed the "Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare) which was essentially negotiated in secret with little public discussion contrary to promises of open government.

     *Conducted foreign affairs and defense policies in a partisan and unilateral manner, negating the overall bipartisan record of both Republican and Democratic administrations of past years.

In summary, President Obama has shown an arrogant intolerance for views not his own, in issuing unconstitutional decrees negating duly passed Congressional legislation, in his policies of divisiveness, not inclusion and in his conduct of foreign affairs and the national defense.

               He is not in the liberal Democratic tradition of FDR, Truman, JFK and Clinton.

Economic Lessons From the Past

At the Democrat Convention last week, former President Clinton defended President Obama's proposal to impose higher taxes on the rich. Mr. Clinton stated that during his term of office, economic growth was good and the rich were paying higher marginal tax rates.

In an article entitled "What Obama Didn't Learn From the 1990s" (Wall Street Journal. Aug. 3, 2012) written by Edward Conard, a former managing director of Bain Capital, states: "The economic growth of the 1950s, the 60s and the Clinton years had many causes. But one of them wasn't high marginal tax rates".

According to the author, the causes of economic growth are "successful investment and rising equity values." Furthermore: "The notion that the robust economy of the 1950s, 60s and 90s proves that historically high government spending and taxes have little, if any effect on growth is naive-----today's endless increases in government spending with no discernible improvement in our infrastructure or educational outcomes makes it painfully obvious that politics and special interests have undercut its benefits".

During the last four years, we have seen the results of Obama's economic policies:

     *Unemployment of over 8% for the last 43 months.

     *63.5% of the civilian labor force working, the worst outcome in 31 years.

     *Anemic economic growth averaging just above 2%.

     *A $16 trillion debt and still growing.

     *Continuing low numbers of jobs added (96000 in August).

     *Just over half the total number of jobs added in this "recovery"than in each of the last nine recoveries since WWII.

President Obama's campaign calls for a continuation of his presidency and for the country to stay on the same track. His call cannot be taken seriously given his track record.

We have a better choice. Mitt Romney has a proven record and experience in the private sector, in running the Winter Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts. Granted he does not speak in flowery terms, but he is the candidate best suited to fix our ailing economy and the candidate that I will vote for.

We Should Let President Obama Go.

Despite the fact that President Obama continues to deny his record by talking about anything but, we know what the last four years have given us:

     *An economy that is barely growing and failing to generate enough jobs.

     *A stimulus bill that did not work wasting tax money as in the Solyndra experience.

     *Health care legislation pushed through Congress in secrecy and with special deals.

     *The implementation of health care regulations that threaten religious liberty.

     *Growing debt and out of control spending.

     *A tendency to govern by executive order rather than working with Congress and using the "bully pulpit" to lead and persuade the American electorate.

     *Continued attempts to divide us by stressing what divides, not what unites us.

     *A campaign that uses acrimonious tactics and questionable facts when criticizing opponents.

President Clinton was able to work with a Republican Congress. Why can't Obama?

The fact that the President has continued his divisive ways does does not bode well if he is reelected. We would see more of the same: economic stagnation, divisive politics, deadlock, a disunited country, government by fiat and less freedom.

President Obama may be an  OK guy and a good family man but he is a bad president. Quoting Clint Eastwood, we should "let him go".

"We the People of the United States---"

At a time when some of our states are threatened by a tropical storm and possibly a hurricane, we hope for the best for all those who are in its path.

The opening words of the Constitution, "We the People of the United States---",  remind us of who we are and what we have in common. In the current economic and political storm our country faces, we Americans would do well to remember those values we hold dear and are embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--".  (Declaration of Independence)

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble to the Constitution)

No one should deny that our current problems need to be resolved; too many of our fellow Americans are hurting. In the coming weeks, we will hear many arguments on which road we should take. We may sometimes question the principles and even the motives of those with which we disagree. We hold however, that it is their right to speak their opinions as we have the right to speak our own.

In the end, each of us will decide on what we think is best for the country. It is of course important that we resolve the crises before us. But it is also important to resolve it in such a way that our most cherished values and freedoms are not impaired or threatened.

The President's Record is a Failure

Remember "hope and change" and the promise of an "open" administration? By President Obama's own standards he has not served the country well. His record is a failure.

On the Economy: The economy should have been the President's first priority. Instead he seemed fixated on other issues most notably health care. When he did address the economy, it was in terms of government solutions and expenditures such as the stimulus program. He seemed indifferent to the rapid growth of our national debt and the impact of increased government involvement in the private sector, an important economic driver. As of this date, 3.5 years into his presidency, the state of the economy and the unemployment rate continues to be unacceptable.

On Health Care: The President's program to remedy problems in the health care system again revealed his predisposition for government solutions. With his support, the Democrat leadership in Congress rammed through the "Affordable Care Act" in virtual secrecy. This 3000 page document was passed without the participation of many members of Congress and lacked public support. We to this day do not have a full understanding of what is authorized by the Act. The passage of this legislation left an unfavorable impression on the public not only for its perceived government interference in personal health care decisions but also for the manner in which it was passed.

On Religious Freedom: As part of the "Affordable Care Act", President Obama has sought to force religious institutions, contrary to their beliefs, to provide contraceptives and abortifacient drugs to their employees. This is a direct attack on freedom of religion as provided for in the very first amendment to the Constitution. The attempt was heavy handed and raises concern on the vulnerability of our most cherished freedoms. (For a related article, see "A Nation Adrift From the Rule of Law" by David Skeel in today's Wall Street Journal").

On Foreign Affairs: President Obama, by his words and deeds, apparently wants to see America less involved in world affairs. In trouble spots such as Syria, Libya and others, his leadership can best be categorized as not fully engaged. The result of a lack of clear leadership and policy is a power vacuum where countries such as Iran, China and Russia are exerting more power and influence.
After World War II, when the Soviet threat became manifest, President Truman took the lead in forging the NATO Alliance. That is the sort of responsible leadership that the president, as head of the world's preeminent democracy, should exercise. If we don't lead, who will?

In conclusion: President Obama's current campaign slogan is "Forward.". The slogan sends a message that we should stay on the same path, even if it's one we don't understand or accept and without a clear destination. We should change path to one that we recognize, know how to navigate and with a clearly identifiable goal. That is the choice we face this November.

No Matter Who Wins in November, Change is Inevitable

Whoever wins the presidential election, the path our country is currently on cannot be sustained. Whether we are heading towards a diminished or renewed America depends on the choice we make.

The Democrats would have us believe that the safe choice is to re-elect the President. Given his policies, that will mean continuing deterioration of the economy and ultimate crises. Unless we establish control of the federal government's spending and take steps to reduce our debt, the results will be comparable to those we see in Europe with one significant difference.  The magnitude of our problem is so large that no one entity could possibly bail us out. This is our problem to fix.

Neither can we depend on an increase in taxes. When taxes are uncompetitive with other nations (as they are already) some investment dollars will eventually move to those countries. The entrepreneurs who remain here will find less incentive to take risks. The ultimate result will be a lower gross national product, less jobs and a decrease in tax revenue, not more. It will also mean an increase in debt thereby compounding our problems. No one will benefit and the poor will suffer the most.

We must change direction to get out of our current spiral of debt. It requires bold action now, not later. We need to control spending and find ways to restructure entitlements so that they are sustainable into the future. That includes Medicare which is a significant part of the problem but not the only one. In the final analysis, the choice before us is deciding what the size and scope of the federal government should be, what role it should have in our daily lives and in the economy.

Republicans hold that these the answers to these questions can be determined by relying on our nation's fundamental principles established at the time of its beginnings. We have always cherished the principles of individual freedom and rights. Historically we have found that with initiative and hard work, individuals can improve their circumstances as well as contributing to the national welfare.

A rudimentary understanding of economics shows that no one can spend beyond their means indefinitely. That includes government. That inconvenient fact is more compelling when we already have large debt, anemic growth and high unemployment.

We have experienced the results of the Democrats' policies over their current tenure. Their continuation will mean more of the same results: more debt, slow growth and high unemployment. The President has it backwards. Government spending does not create wealth. Rather it is the private sector that produces the wealth that makes it possible for government to function.

The Republican plan offers a path to greater individual opportunity and economic growth. It is based on our core values as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To insure this result, we must control spending, reform entitlements, keep taxes competitive in a global economy and reduce the size of government. The Republican plan is the alternative that should give us hope, not despair, about our future.

In Defense of the Constitution

As stated in the Constitution, the Federal Government was established with specific enumerated powers granted separately to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches. The founding fathers were clear that these powers were limited. Alexander Hamilton, a strong advocate for the Constitution, argued against the inclusion of the "Bill of Rights" since "---why declare that things should not be done when there is no power to do so?". (The Federalist Papers, page 513 (No. 84) Edited by Clinton Rossiter).

To emphasize the point, Amendment X of the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Obama Administration has taken actions that may be expedient to attain its goals but are constitutionally suspect. To cite some examples, it has:

     *Advised companies that they need not comply with a law that requires notification to employees 60 days prior to an impending layoff,

     *Indicated that it would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act,

     *Not effectively enforced the immigration laws and nullified certain provisions by executive edict,

     *Written regulations forcing religious organizations to provide their employees health care coverage for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs and

     *Has provided work requirement waivers for those on welfare contrary to the welfare reform legislation passed during the Clinton Administration.

No President can decide under the Constitution which laws he will enforce and those that he will not enforce. Nor can he issue executive orders contrary to the powers granted to him in the Constitution or by Congress under its constitutional authority to legislate.

If the President believes that the Federal Government requires more power in the national interest, he ought to make his case to the American people and seek a constitutional amendment to do so.

The Constitution is not a document that we should honor only when it suits our purposes. It is the basic law of the land, duly ratified and accepted by the people. Some of its provisions did not come easily. The country fought a Revolution that made it possible and a Civil War to insure its benefits to all citizens.

These are the ties that hold us together. We are a nation of laws, not of a discretionary and arbitrary authority. The Constitution needs to be "preserved, protected and defended" for us to remain a free and united country.