May 19, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Politics / Questionable Laws and Lawmakers

Time for more government oversight of abortion practices

May 6, 2013 by 3 Comments

Because I believe that the scope of government should be limited, I believe that less governmental regulation is, generally better. It raises the cost of doing business and–when it isn’t saving lives–it just sucks money out of the economy.

Congress–and the Utah Legislature–should have a very good reason before creating a new regulations that will require government employees to regulate and inspect some private sector activity.  Sufficient numbers of, and adequately trained, police, educators, and food quality inspectors are one thing; the proliferation of the nanny state is quite another.

But what is one  government regulation I would quite gladly support? The regulation of abortion, especially those such as the abortions allegedly carried out by Kermit Gosnell over his thirty year practice as a “doctor.”

As was described in an op-ed for the Washington Post:

In what can only be described as a “house of horrors,” abortion provider Kermit Gosnell stands trial in Philadelphia, charged with the grotesque murder of at least seven infants, allegedly born alive after botched abortions only to be brutally killed moments later.

ap_abortion_clinic_investigation_39870873-4_3_r536_c534That’s right. I’m not just railing against abortion–which I wholeheartedly oppose on the grounds that a woman’s right to choose begins and ends with the choice to engage in consensual sexual relations (which does not include rape and incest)–but against the murder of babies born alive and killed just moments later, often in the most calloused of ways.

It’s not like Gosnell is recent news, either. Gosnell has been hurting women, and killing babies, since the early 1970s when he was involved in the “Mother’s Day Massacre.”

It was called the Mother’s Day Massacre—the brainchild of Harvey Karman, an eccentric California man without medical training who had served 2½ years in prison for performing illegal abortions in the 1950s. Karman teamed with a young Philadelphia doctor who offered to perform abortions on 15 impoverished women, each between four and six months pregnant, who were bused to the Philadelphia clinic from Chicago on Mother’s Day 1972.

What the women didn’t know was that they were guinea pigs for a device Karman had invented, which he called the “super coil.” He had tested it only on wartime rape victims in Bangladesh, where he had traveled under the sponsorship of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Complication rates were high, and little wonder. A colleague of Karman’s Philadelphia collaborator described the contraption as “basically plastic razors that were formed into a ball. . . . They were coated into a gel, so that they would remain closed. These would be inserted into the woman’s uterus. And after several hours of body temperature, . . . the gel would melt and these . . . things would spring open, supposedly cutting up the fetus.”

As in Bangladesh, the Philadelphia experiment was a failure. Nine of the 15 women suffered serious complications. One needed a hysterectomy.

It was this kind of back-alley danger that was supposed to be ended by Roe v. Wade, handed down by the Supreme Court in 1973.  And yet, here we are, thirty years later, and Gosnell is still killing babies and their mothers with his barbaric methods.

Which is why I support more regulation of abortions, including Senator Mike Lee‘s efforts today to move the Senate into action against the kind of horrific clinics Gosnell has run for almost three decades.

Official portrait of United States Senator Mik...

Official portrait of United States Senator Mike Lee. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a resolution supported by Senators. Toomey (PA), Rubio (FL), Cruz (TX), Inhofe (OK), Scott (SC), Blunt (MO), Burr (NC), Vitter (LA), Johanns (NE), and Boozman (AR) Senator Mike Lee is calling for the Senate to take the moral high ground. Said Senator Lee:

The Senate should formally recognize that this is a problem in our country and we have a responsibility to investigate the causes, review the effects of certain public policies, and determine what we can do to prevent any woman from being subjected to these reprehensible practices again.

Further, Lee’s press release says that

[t]he resolution also recognizes that “there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at 20 weeks after fertilization, or earlier,” and resolves that “there is a compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children beginning at least from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain.”

Occasionally, or maybe more than occasionally, I see politicians that take on causes that are either pandering to their political base or that have no more chance of success than Don Quixote tilting at windmills.  I know that there are those who will see Lee’s actions as just that.

In Gosnell, though, we face a very real monster, not a mere facade for fodder to the base. We see horrors that should disturb all Americans, whether they oppose or support abortion. Killing babies, not to mention hurting women and girls in clinics that are unsanitary and staffed by untrained employees, is both disgusting and disturbing. It should give all Americans pause, to say the least. More, though, it should make them angry: angry that a calloused and unfeeling creature like Gosnell has been hurting women for nearly thirty years, angry that our government has done so little to prevent it.

It’s taken too long, and too many have been hurt. It’s time for the United States Senate to take up the issue. One of the major justifications for Roe v. Wade was that it would bring abortions out of the back-alleys and make it safe. In Kermit Gosnell, though, we see that a generation has passed and, though sanctioned by the law, the practice is no more safe, moral, or justified.

It’s time for greater government oversight of abortion. It’s time for the US Senate to look into how abortion is conducted in this country.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Abortion Tagged With: , , , ,

The Center for Reproductive Rights makes Obama look conservative

May 1, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Irony.

One minute a federal judge is telling the Food and Drug Administration that it has to allow Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, to be sold over-the-counter to women as young as 15, and in the next, the Obama Administration is appealing the ruling, arguing the contraceptive is too untested to be allowed to teens without a prescription.

Again, this is Obama’s Justice Department were talking about here, not George W. Bush’s. It almost makes my head spin.

Predictably, it doesn’t score points with the far left. Quoting from the Washington Post:

“We are deeply disappointed that just days after President Obama proclaimed his commitment to women’s reproductive rights, his administration has decided once again to deprive women of their right to obtain emergency contraception without unjustified and burdensome restrictions,” Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup, [...], said in a statement.

Odd name, that: Center for Reproductive Rights. There’s not a lot on their site about the promotion of “reproductive” rights, actually. Most of it’s all about the “termination” of any kind of reproduction. In fact, in their list of issues, “Safe & Healthy Pregnancy” is the fifty of seven issues, and the only one that actually leads to anything “reproductive.” Even there, though, they argue that life begins at birth, spinning the abortion debate by claiming that there is a “emerging trend to extend a right to life before birth, and in particular from conception.” Never mind that science shows that babies in utero experience the whole range of emotions that while still in the womb…heck, I got that from Wikipedia. I don’t need “international human rights consensus” to define life for me.

These people should call themselves the Center for Abortion Rights. At least it would be accurate, even if no less malicious.

But I digress. The point is, these people and I disagree on the point when a woman’s right to choose to give birth begins and ends–and that point is when she chooses to engage in consensual sexual relations (as I have argued before). These people–cut from the same selfish cloth as the abortionists at Planned Parenthood who would be glad to allow the “termination” of the lives of babies that survive an abortion (and that’s on the record, folks. You can watch the video below)–want an unrestricted right to end any kind of “reproduction.”

And that includes allowing teens to get hands on insufficiently tested drugs without consulting a physician. You know it’s worth taking a look at when the most liberal administration in two decades is concerned about the potential effect the drug will have on teens.

Planned Parenthood on what should happen when a baby is born alive after a botched abortion.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

Related articles
Filed Under: Abortion, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , ,

Murder? The Gosnell trial and media silence

April 15, 2013 by 2 Comments
Kermit Gosnell photographed following his arrest

Kermit Gosnell photographed following his arrest (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you’ve not heard about Gosnell, I recommend you google it. According to Wikipedia (I know, the lazy man’s research tool):

Kermit Barron Gosnell is an American medical doctor who ran two women’s health clinics in Philadelphia between 1972 and 2011, and as of April 2013, is on trial for first and third degree murder, illegal prescribing of drugs, and related offenses.

It’s a very sterilized description. It gets more gruesome, though, as you start clicking links:

  • One woman died when an unlicensed employee in the clinic over-sedated her to keep her out until Gosnell, out of the clinic at the time, arrived. She was a healthy 41-year old. 
  • It’s reported that “Gosnell has been named in at least 46 malpractice suits, including one over the death of a 22-year-old mother who died of sepsis and a perforated uterus in 2000. Many others also involve perforated uteruses. Gosnell sometimes sewed up the injury without telling women their uteruses had been perforated,[.]“
  • According to page 87 of the Grand Jury report, Gosnell would charge up to $3,000 for abortions at 30 weeks, six weeks after the legal limit in Pennsylvania, when fetuses have become viable outside the womb. To give some context, a friend of our family’s recently gave birth at 20 weeks and while the child is in intensive care, it is alive and will be well.
  • According to page 23 of  the Presentment of the Grand Jury, “Gosnell’s staff testified that they often witnessed Gosnell killing large, late-term babies whom they had observed breathing and moving.”

And here is where it gets disturbing. What follows may make you squeamish and explains why Gosnell’s clinics have been given the infamous nickname “House of Horrors.” All are directly quoted from either the Presentment or the Grand Jury report:

  • According to an ultrasound, the 17-year old mother was 29.4 weeks pregnant. Gosnell induced labor and sedated the mother, who delivered a baby boy. Cross saw [the baby boy] breathe and move. Gosnell dismissed Cross’s observations, telling her, “it’s the baby’s reflexes. It’s not really moving.” Cross told us that the baby was 18 to 19 inches long and nearly the size of her own newborn daughter, who was six pounds, six ounces at birth. Even Gosnell commented on [the baby boy's] size, joking “this baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.” Cross testified that she saw “the doctor just slit the neck” and place the remains in a clear plastic shoe box for disposal.
  • The search team discovered red biohazard bags containing the remains of 47 fetuses, which were turned over to the medical examiner. One was ”Baby Boy B,” found frozen in a plastic spring-water jug [...]. The medical examiner determined that this baby had a gestational age of at least 28 weeks. Kareema Cross testified that she saw Williams [an employee of Gosnell] cut the neck of Baby C, who had been moving and breathing for approximately 20 minutes. Gosnell had delivered the baby and put it on a counter while he suctioned the placenta from the mother. Williams called Cross  [an employee of Gosnell] over to look at the baby because it was breathing and moving its arms when Williams pulled on them. After touching the baby, Williams slit its neck. When asked why Williams had killed the baby, Cross answered: Because the baby, I guess, because the baby was moving and breathing. And she see Dr. Gosnell do it so many times, I guess she felt, you know, she can do it. It’s okay.
  • Ashley Baldwin testified that she heard a baby crying in the large procedure room (the one used for later-term abortions) and saw it moving. She said Lynda Williams summoned Dr. Gosnell, who then went into the procedure room where the baby was. Ashley testified that Dr. Gosnell was the only person in the room with the baby, that he came out of the room and put the baby in the waste bin, and that she saw an incision. Kareema Cross testified that Ashley had called her over because she had heard the baby crying; Cross said that she heard this baby “whine” while Dr. Gosnell was alone in the procedure room with the baby. Based on the testimony of the neonatology expert, we believe this baby must have been at least 23 weeks of age and, because it cried more than once, probably older. This baby was born alive, and consistent with the medical guidelines and standards cited by the neonatology expert should have been resuscitated. Instead, it was killed.

A lot of issues are difficult.  Ask two Republicans or two Democrats for their take on immigration reform or gay marriage, and you’re likely to find they disagree. They are not clear cut issues.

Abortion, however,  is not and should not be one of those issues. A woman’s right to choose whether she has a baby should begin, and end, at the point when she may choose to engage in consensual sexual relations. Rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life aside, it’s difficult to find a gray area for abortion.

In fact, not only is it difficult to find, but the clarity of that distinction has been covered by advocates such as Planned Parenthood–which recently argued “against a state law that would protect babies born alive after a botched abortion from being left to die, or worse yet, killed. She[, the Planned Parent lobbyist] was asked about Planned Parenthood’s position on whether an infant born in this situation should receive medical care, she repeatedly testified, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

Lest we be confused, we’re talking a baby that is alive and breathing on the operating table and whether it should live is a decision “between patient and the health care provider” says Planned Parenthood. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood has revised their position in the wake of public outrage that they would advocate the death of infants that survive abortion.

Which  turns back to the question here: why are we drawing a distinction from a life in utero and the life delivered?

But the question remains: How can killing a newborn infant be illegal and shocking to the collective conscience, yet ending that same life moments, days or weeks before be perfectly legal and socially acceptable as long as the baby is still in the womb? There is no logical answer.

Aside from how a baby receives food and oxygen, what changes occur to make the baby human out of the womb but something other than human the second before? Does the baby’s brain magically begin activity; does his or her heartbeat suddenly begin; does the baby abruptly begin moving on his or her own after birth? No, of course not. A baby possesses all of these qualities of life in utero.

It’s a tragedy, but perhaps more tragic is the appalling lack of media coverage the trial has received.

A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.

The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial andThe New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial’s first day. They’ve been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.

As Kirstin Powers puts it, it only took Rush Limbaugh to attack Sandra Fluke for women’s groups and the media to work into a frenzy, but the late term abortions of viable infants has been met with media silence. “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.”

Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day (I know…I’ve missed a few days). Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter M, as in Murder.

 

 

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Abortion, Criminal Law Tagged With: , , , , , ,

H is for Hit Squads from the CIA

April 9, 2013 by 5 Comments

The Way of the Knife

A new book released today takes a look at the CIA’s shifting role from that of intelligence gathering (aka “spying”) to more direct action through targeted killings, through drone strikes, hit squads, or other clandestine action. The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth by journalist Mark Mazzetti reveals a world not unlike John le Carre‘s dark universe of “scalp hunters.”

From the Amazon summary:

The most momentous change in American warfare over the past decade has taken place away from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, in the corners of the world where large armies can’t go. The Way of the Knife is the untold story of that shadow war: a campaign that has blurred the lines between soldiers and spies and lowered the bar for waging war across the globe. America has pursued its enemies with killer drones and special operations troops; trained privateers for assassination missions and used them to set up clandestine spying networks; and relied on mercurial dictators, untrustworthy foreign intelligence services, and proxy armies.

This new approach to war has been embraced by Washington as a lower risk, lower cost alternative to the messy wars of occupation and has been championed as a clean and surgical way of conflict. But the knife has created enemies just as it has killed them. It has fomented resentments among allies, fueled instability, and created new weapons unbound by the normal rules of accountability during wartime.

If a government that has, and uses, the power to kill in secret doesn’t give you pause, it should. As citizens of a democratic republic, allowing too much secret activity, including against our enemies, sets a dangerous precedent, and the weapon we wield today can just as easily be put at our throat tomorrow.

In an interview with NPR, Mazzetti points out that authorization for targeted killings, originally begun under the Bush Administration, has expanded under the Obama Administration:

Seal of the C.I.A. - Central Intelligence Agen...

Seal of the C.I.A. – Central Intelligence Agency of the United States Government (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The CIA has become a machine for killing in many ways. The counterterrorism center has become, in many ways, the sort of beating heart of the agency that does manhunting. And the drone operations are something that two successive White Houses have embraced. You could argue that the current administration, the Obama administration, has embraced it even more than its predecessor. And these questions of ‘Should the CIA stay in the killing business? Should they be focused on drone strikes? Or should that be something that the military should do?’ It is something that is unresolved but is certainly being discussed.

Apropos:It was initiatives like this that the peace movement protested in the second term of the Bush Administration, but those same activists are almost no where to be found today.

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Books and Reading, National Security/Intelligence Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

C is for Comeback America by David Walker

April 3, 2013 by 3 Comments
unemployment-rate

The national unemployment rate.

Sometimes, I’m a cynic.

For example, I don’t trust that Democrats care as much about the Second Amendment and gun regulation, immigration reform, or gay marriage as they say (heck, I’m not even sure Republicans care as much as they say, either, but that’s another post). I think they’re, largely, cherry picking issues that they can use to pander to various demographic groups and distract from the relatively unexciting business of a slow economy which, by virtue of President Obama’s reelection, they own.  In spite of what political left may argue, little has improved in the economy since the election last year. Unemployment nationally still hovers between 7.9 and 7.7%, economic growth slowed at the end of last year, and personal income is down 2.2% this year.

So why aren’t we talking about economic growth and how to bring about an economic “comeback” for America?

A couple years back, I read an interesting book by David Walker, former Comptroller of the United States. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it, but I think it can add to the conversation on what needs to be addressed to move our country into a more competitive position than slow growth and stagnant personal incomes.

 

Comeback America

Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility by David M. Walker

As the former comptroller general of the United States, Walker knows a little about the fiscal workings of the modern federal government. For fifteen years, he served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, from Reagan to Clinton to the Bushes, and had a unique opportunity to call into question the decisions that have lead to our current fiscal woes. And in Comeback America, he doesn’t hold back.  We are a great country, but we are putting ourselves in a difficult position:

We live in a great and resilient nation. For all of our problems, the United States remains a global superpower and a beacon of liberty for people around the world. We have much to be proud of and thankful for. But I am here to tell you that if we don’t find a way to get spending under control, we will put our nation’s economy and international standing at risk and bequeath to our children a world of severely diminished opportunities.

It’s not too late. But we had better act soon.

After opening the book with describing our current fiscal problems–looking at the America of 2030 if we continue our current trajectory, examining principles from our history, and spelling out the challenges that President Obama faced as he came into office–Walker lays out his recommendations in each major area of federal spending in the succeeding chapters.

Walker skips right over earmarks and discretionary spending, which account for only a very small percentage of our federal budget, and goes right to the heart of  the problem: entitlements, insufficient tax revenues, spending deficits, Defense Department inefficiency, and systemic problems. Each gets a chapter that provides context, history, and recommendations.

Beyond easy accessibility, perhaps the most important reason you should read this book is the lack of partisan taint. His approach, and recommendations, are nonpartisan, pragmatic, and worthy of consideration.  He

David Walker

approaches the problems with one consideration–what is right for America and Americans?

Walker calls for not only the reform of entitlements, review and oversight of inefficiencies in several–large–areas of government, and the reform of the tax code, but also for changes in our very elective processes and to the constitution. It isn’t enough to just change policies–we also need to change the systemic problems with how we got here and make it difficult to get here again.

In the end, Walker makes a compelling case for, in his words, not a “small government or a big government[,]” but an effective government–one that is fiscally responsible, focuses on the future, and looks out for the collective best interest of America and Americans rather than the narrow agendas of various special interests.

As one friend of mine has been known to observe–both parties are glad to spend, as long as it on the program that benefits its constituency. The right will spend on national security, and the left will spend on social programs. Both are spending, just not on the same thing. Indeed, fiscal responsibility is a claim that neither elected major national party can claim–at least not in recent memory or with any measure of integrity.

Despite the current difficulties, exacerbated by the pop of the housing bubble and the subsequent recession, America can “comeback.” Walker’s book is full of great ideas and suggestions to see that that happens. I recommend you pick up a copy soon. You might find yourself asking different questions of your elected representatives than their position on immigration. 

Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month long quest to post every day. Each day should match a corresponding letter of the alphabet. Today is C.

Filed Under: Book Reviews, Books and Reading, Entitlement Reform, Fiscal Reform, healthcare reform Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

B is for Bankruptcy of Stockton, California

April 2, 2013 by 8 Comments

ca-small-business-routesIt’s a running joke around these parts (Utah) that a successful business plan for a California company starts with leaving California. The cost of living, rising taxes, and increased government regulation are all combining to make California less attractive, the beaches not withstanding.

Now comes this: Stockton, California, a city of around 300,000, has declared bankruptcy. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Christopher Klein signed off on the bankruptcy petition yesterday.  It’s the largest U.S. city yet to do so.

Faced with finances crippled by the housing crisis and recession, Stockton has already eliminated retiree healthcare benefits and at some point will need to negotiate with California’s pension system, the California Public Employees Retirement System or CALPERs, about how to deal with pension payments to retired city workers.  Not surprisingly, the city’s creditors opposed the bankruptcy.

During his comments, Klein noted that Stockton’s cost cutting had started years ago, and now 77% of the city budget was devoted to diminished police and fire services. (Ironically, last year saw a record number of murders in Stockton…has police protection has been diminished too much?)

Stockton BankruptcyWhich begs the question: if so much of the city’s budget is devoted to such basic services as police and fire, how did Stockton rack up so much debt that it exceed its ability to pay?  Has the tax base in Stockton been hit so hard?

Apparently so. Klein in his findings of facts said that the bankruptcy was precipitated by

over betting on sustained tax revenues from a real estate boom, bankrolled a downtown redevelopment and doled out generous employee benefits on top of a “multi-decade, largely invisible pattern of above-market compensation for public employees.”

The jokes about people and businesses leaving California for better opportunity may be funny, but the results of overspending are not. Let’s hope that Stockton is no more than a cautionary tale, rather than an omen of things to come.

Ironically, Obama cheer leader Paul Krugman’s column in yesterday’s New York Times, mocking conservatives for decrying “liberal big spending and overpaid public employees” as “bringing on collapse” in California, came out just hours before Klein issued his ruling. Apparently, reality failed to read Krugman, and, unfortunately, reality does not negotiate.

Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter B.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Entitlement Reform, Fiscal Reform Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

April Fools or About Face?

April 1, 2013 by 4 Comments

 

Obama Proclaims April the Month to Teach Young People ‘How to Budget Responsibly’ CNS News

Today is April first, commonly called April Fools day, so like my good friend Shannon warns, “Trust no one.”

Given the inclination of the press to play along, occasionally throwing out outlandish headlines that couldn’t possibly be true, there still comes this, that sounds like it should be a joke, but really, is more likely just bad timing: the White House proclaims that April is “National Financial Capability Month.”

Seriously. Here’s a link to it if you aren’t buying it. It’s neither an about-face of an administration that has shown more interest in raising taxes than in balancing its budgets or an April Fools’ joke.

Never mind that unemployment is hovering around 7.8% (as it has for the last few years), making “financial capability” difficult for many families (or at least 7.8% of the working population).

Never mind that reports seem to indicate that unemployment might be higher than we think because of the number of people on disability payments instead of welfare or unemployment assistance.

No, rather let’s focus on helping young people with what the White House terms ” learning how to budget responsibly to saving for college, starting a business, or opening a retirement account.” Never mind that the Obama Administration hasn’t submitted a budget to Congress on time in three years, that Obama Administration budgets have increased the national debt by $53,377 per household, and that the President has stated that he has no intention of submitting  a budget that balances any time soon.

Never mind all that.

It’s a classic case of ‘do what I say, not what I do.’ And it’s no April Fools joke.

I am sure the do-gooders in the White House mean well, but saying one thing and doing another hurts their credibility. You can’t ask to raise taxes and increase spending on one hand and tell Americans you are an authority on financial management on the other. If the Obama White House wants to make a difference in the national economy and provide for real “financial capability,” they will more seriously consider the heavy weight that out of control entitlement cost growth is having on the federal budget, as well as the very real tax, especially on the young, that the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) weighs on working Americans. You cannot provide for the poor by tearing down the working, but that’s exactly what the Obama Administration’s policies–especially Obamacare–will do.

This month, Publius Online is participating in Blogging from A to Z, a month long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Since today is the first day of April, that letter is A. Tomorrow will be B, and so on.

Related articles
Filed Under: Fiscal Reform, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , ,
«Older Posts