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.




     

The Conditions for a Free and Vibrant Economy.

After recent comments by President Obama (see my last post), there followed a debate about the individual's role in the economy and that of the government's.

We have numerous examples where individual initiative and hard work led to successful enterprises (Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Ray Kroc and Steve Jobs to name a few). What are the conditions for such individuals to succeed and what is government's proper role?

It is true that government at all levels can have a positive influence in promoting economic activity such as insuring the public safety, providing education and the building and maintenance of public roads. But what is the government's proper role in the regulation of business?

In an article in this weekend's edition of the Wall Street Journal (7/28 & 29) "Why Capitalism Has an Image Problem" by Charles Murray, the author states that any new government "intervention meet this burden of proof: It will accomplish something that tort law and enforcement of basic laws against force, fraud and collusion do not accomplish". He goes on to say that large enterprises can cope with regulatory burdens, such as the Dodd-Frank law, but those regulations can  crush small businesses and individuals trying to start small businesses.

In a separate article in the Journal on 7/23/12 ("Firms Pass Up Tax Breaks, Citing Complexity), John D. McKinnon cites numerous examples of tax breaks in the tax code that are so complex and costly to administer that many companies do not claim them. He states that "eligible businesses obtain as little as 5% of the main domestic tax breaks that they are entitled to claim".

Capitalism is defined as: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market". (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Any government that unduly intervenes in the free market system not only diminishes our freedom but threatens our prosperity as well. One could argue that we are well on the road to that conclusion and the results are evident for all to see.

The Choice is Clear: Stagnation or Prosperity

No doubt you have heard of President Obama's comment of Friday, July 13.  In part, he said:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. 

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create 

this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. 

Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business--you didn't build that. 

Somebody else made that happen". 

The problem with this argument is addressed in a blog written by James Pethokoukis writing for the American Enterprise Institute, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on July 17: "Few opponents of higher taxes are arguing that the most successful Americans should pay no taxes---" (in order to pay for public goods that the government provides). But Obama has added to this point  "---that there is no such thing as individual achievement or merit. All success is directly due to society's collective effort as manifested by government".

As a result of these recent comments by Obama (and past ones as well such as his comment of "spreading the wealth" in 2008), we now have a clearer understanding of his views. I  describe them as that of a community organizer applied to the national stage. That is a view that seeks to redistribute wealth by taking from the more successful and redistributing it to the less fortunate. It is a static view of the economy in which little or no growth can occur.

The opposing view relies on a system of free enterprise where individuals through their own initiative and ingenuity increase wealth through technological innovation and increases in productivity benefiting all. This view does not deny the government's role in providing the infrastructure and the ground rules necessary to insure fair competition. But beyond that, government should "get out of the way".

Any president's constituency should include everyone in the country, not just those to whom he would provide special favors or would benefit from his redistributive schemes (and vote for him). President Obama's views are divisive in that he attacks and demonizes those who are successful in growing the economy.

The choice in November is clear: To vote for an ideology that puts government at the center of our economy (and society) leading to economic stagnation or to vote for a idea that recognizes the right of a free people to pursue their own individual dreams and have the opportunity to succeed, leading to economic prosperity.

Some Random Thoughts on a Sunday Morning

1. The presidential campaign thus far has been described as lacking in excitement. Romney has been criticized as being non-inspirational; compared to President Reagan, he has been found wanting.
Obama is running scared and his campaign tactics show it; he is divisive and certainly not presidential.
I don't think that these criticisms will amount to much in Nov. The foremost problem we have is the economy, unemployment and a huge debt.  These are the issues that the public wants discussed and ultimately solved. Politically, style, excitement etc. may be desirable, but they are not enough. We had a candidate with plenty of style (and not much else) in 2008 and look where it got us. This time we want a president who is effective.

2.  Condoleezza Rice would be a worthy candidate for vice-president. She is smart, experienced and articulate. Her tenure as President's Bush national security advisor and Sec. of State would provide Romney with expertise in foreign affairs and the inner workings of government. But she has a couple of drawbacks: one, she is pro-choice which would be a problem for many Republicans and second, her role in the Bush administration would give the Democrats an opening to bring up the Iraq war and all that goes with it. In my opinion, Romney should choose someone that represents the future (such as Mark Rubio or Paul Ryan) and not the past.

3.  As I stated previously, Obamacare should be repealed and replaced. It will continue to be an issue in the campaign and rightly so. Consider:

     *It was approved by SCOTUS by rewriting the law and dismissing other facts that did not support its rationale. The Court's decision sets a very dangerous precedent and should be negated by repealing the law.
     *Obamacare will result in unprecedented government power and regulation. It gives government bureaucrats wide latitude in governing key aspects of health care that should be left to individuals and private organizations.
     *It threatens fundamental liberties by use of the individual mandate and by forcing religious institutions to participate in practices that they don't condone, such as abortion.
     *It increases our national debt to historical highs and risk the country's economic vitality for us and for future generations. One must ask what possible good Obamacare will do anyone if the underlying economy is bankrupt or near bankruptcy.
     *Finally, it increases taxes to areas and to levels that will adversely impact private initiative and our free economy.

4. The choice in Nov. is between two very different approaches to government. The liberal agenda relies on more government involvement and increases in public spending for infrastructure to stimulate the economy. The conservative view is to grow the economy by providing American businesses with the conditions to compete in a global economy. How we choose will determine what kind of country we have going forward.

I welcome yiur comments.

The Current Health Care Finance System is Broken and Should be Replaced

There have been numerous comments about the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) otherwise known as Obamacare.

Advocates of the ACA stress its goals of providing health care insurance coverage to more Americans and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions.  Those in opposition to the Act (as approved by the Court) point to its deficiencies primarily in the Act's mandates which limit individual freedom of choice, increased taxes (and the government's authority to impose them) and a rise in spending when we can least afford it.

Our current system for financing  health care is broken. Since it is based on reimbursement of fees charged and not a competitive price structure, it has grown in costs and inefficiencies. Efforts to fix it by top down bureaucratic micromanagement have only aggravated its problems. No amount of tinkering, including Obamacare, can fix it.  It should be replaced in its entirety.

The goals for a new financing system should be simplicity, efficient and sound health care administration, lower costs to the consumer and meet the constitutional criteria for individual rights of free choice.

Since our Republic's beginning, the system that has best met these criteria and been the engine of unprecedented prosperity has been that of free enterprise.  History has shown in this country and others that government run economies lead to a loss of individual freedom and economic stagnation.

The answer to the health care problem should be clear. As a start, Obamacare should be repealed and  replaced with a system of competitive private insurance able to compete in all states. Over time persons who become eligible for Medicare should have the option of choosing private coverage over the Medicare system.  In order to provide coverage to most persons, government could subsidize insurance premiums for a stipulated program for those in need. As to preexisting conditions, an assigned risk pool, preferably administered by the individual states, should meet the need.

Now is not the time for half-measures. On this Independence Day, we should strive for a health care financing system that respects the individual right to freedom and meets his/her health care needs.