May 21, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for United States

Spending, not guns, on our minds

April 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

barack_obama_gun_control_ap_328A funny thing happened to President Obama on his way to increasing federal regulation of firearms. Members of Congress noticed that gun control wasn’t a top priority for their constituents and handed the President his first major legislative loss.

Instead, Americans are still more concerned about the economy and the state of our fiscal house. From the “Editor-in-chief” over at Gallup:

Only 4% of Americans say that gun violence or gun issues constitute the most important problem facing the country today, based on our April 4-7 monthly update of the “most important problem” measure. This puts guns in the same 4% category as immigration issues, education, and the situation with North Korea.

To be clear, the 4% of Americans for whom gun violence is a top issue were no where to be found before Newport, Connecticut happened. Prior to the Sandy Hook massacre, gun violence didn’t register on the scale.

At all.

Instead, Americans’ top five issues are, in order:

  1. The economy (in general)
  2. Unemployment/jobs
  3. Dissatisfaction with government  (whatever this means)
  4. Federal budget deficit/federal debt, and
  5. Healthcare (which is declining in importance over the last three months)

You can’t see gun violence appear in the list for another four rows, and then it’s tied with worry about threats from North Korea, a country that is begging Mongolia to provide food aid for its starving people. The drug lords of Juarez, Mexico pose a greater threat to the United States.  (See the full chart below.)Gallup Issues

With worries about the economy, our ability to maintain a standard of living, provide for ourselves, and so on, weighing on us, why should anyone, let alone Obama who also has these polling numbers, be surprised that Congress, with lower approval ratings than the President, has no fear about thumbing their collective noses at his push to require universal background checks?

It’s still the economy, stupid. And it will be until we change how we’ve been doing things.

Not that I want to rely upon Hollywood for an example, or anything, but I’m going to do just that. I’ve been watching Andrew Sorkin’s West Wing lately, set in the bright years of the 1990s (or so). Repeatedly I hear the same talking points and arguments that are being made–today–by liberals and Democrats in favor of their pet programs and policies.  Whether it’s for gun control, expansion of governments role in healthcare, fiscal and tax policy, or the first amendment, the arguments have not changed.

The difference is that elected officials, all too often, act like our collective memory is too short to remember what they are doing now has been done before, has been said before, and, well, got us into the mess we’re in now. But does anyone remember? Are we going to keep doing the same thing and expect different results?

I can’t claim to understand the arcane workings of federal programs, but I do know the pinch on my pocketbook, on my family, when I look at my pay stub and the withholdings there. I do see the taxes I pay at the fuel pump when I look at my receipt. I do recognize how much cheaper and easier it is to buy a book online from Amazon compared to Barnes and Nobles’ brick and mortar and what will happen if the government starts taxing that purchase. I do see how difficult it is to buy a home, still, five years after the housing market collapsed, largely because of governmental meddling in the housing market. And I know that I am not in the minority–Americans think about the price of a home, of a car (remember what “cash for clunkers” did to all those perfectly fine used cars that we could still be driving?), of a meal, of a vacation…or the lack thereof.

And that’s on my mind more than is gun violence. Stop being so surprised and peeved that you didn’t get your way, Mr. President. It’s government for, by and of the people–and the people are concerned about the economy.

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 S, as in Spending.

 Related articles

Filed Under: Second Amendment, The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Sequester: a trip down the rabbit hole to Wonderland [Contributor]

March 1, 2013 by 1 Comment

white-rabbit-with-watch-3

Rhett Wilkinson is a senior at Utah State University. He is studying journalism and political science. The opinions expressed are his own.

 

The feds ought to follow the lead of a certain rabbit from Alice in Wonderland, who famously said “I’m late! I’m late! For a very important date!”

The first problem with this whole sequester mess is when President Obama and Congressional leaders have arranged to meet about the issue. The first sit-down? Scheduled for Friday—after sequestration already strikes earlier that day.

That being perhaps the finest example yet of a divided federal government, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised.

With the extreme political polarization existing in contemporary America, isn’t the national bureaucracy working exactly as the Founders intended—representative of their constituents?

Aside from the prophetic inevitability perhaps evident in that governmental design, a lack of astonishment perhaps primarily comes most, however, from the ‘we’ve seen this before’ category.

English: U.S. President is greeted by Speaker ...

English: U.S. President is greeted by Speaker of the House before delivering the . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Less than two months ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was speed-dialing Vice President Joe Biden about a deal on the fiscal cliff, after becoming exasperated trying to negotiate with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, perhaps Utah’s least-favorite prominent adopted son. And only several weeks ago was House Speaker John Boehner emphasizing the need for making no long-term increase in the debt limit until a long-term plan to deal with the nation’s fiscal crisis is in place, Reid responding by talking about “gimmicks” from the tea party in negotiations.

This time, McConnell may have consummated the embarrassment by testifying on the House floor much like the nation feels in their cry for help—alone, saying that Republicans “can’t do it alone.”

This sure feels abandoning: $1.2 trillion in cuts will be made this year. We will lose $492 billion from our defense capabilities, making some aspects of the U.S. military its’ weakest since the World War I era. It includes $40 million from Utah. The state’s governor, Gary Herbert, described the disagreement between sides as a “bad marriage,” with “not a lot of good communications going on.”

Certainly not, when nothing of the type may be substantial until after the automatic cuts occur.

The governor’s specification of a need for spending cuts couldn’t have been more right. In 2011, the federal government spent roughly $668 billion on 126 welfare programs. That includes an increase of more than $193 billion since the presidential incumbency took office—roughly two-and-a-half times greater than any increase over a similar time frame in U.S. history!

Yet, the poverty rate has still remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising welfare spending. In fact, the only significant decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of state experimentation with tightening wel­fare eligibility. Since 2006, poverty rates have ris­en despite a massive increase in spending, yet only 2.6 percent of full-time workers are poor. The “working poor” are a small minor­ity of the poor population.

Even part-time work makes a significant difference. Only 15 percent of part-time workers are poor, com­pared with 24 percent of adults who do not work.

Young Americans for Liberty’s Adam Fowler opined that Republicans aren’t to blame, “despite what Obama may say.” And “not Obama, despite what Republicans may say,” he continued. “The people who vote for this stuff are the ones to blame. Yes, that means us.”

No, it’s not really on constituencies, if a slow and divided Congress is a product of exactly what the government the Framers sought to establish. Sixty-seven percent of those asked in a new Washington Post-ABC poll disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are handling federal spending—15 percent higher than Obama. Even more liberal Democrats (87 percent) approve of how Obama has handled federal spending generally, compared with 44 percent of self-identified Republicans about those in their party during the same time frame.

With the sequester taking place, the federal budget will actually still grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. So it’s fine if both sides stab each other in the ribs on Friday.

Given the effectiveness of welfare hearkening back to the last major progressive era in U.S. history, however, it’s not difficult to look in one direction towards those who have primarily advocated for such spending increases. Here’s hoping they receive the harder jab of the rhetorical sword, with a scar as a reminder that literal harm will be inflicted to some who may be paid for 22 days.

Public servants should abandon their tortoise-like negotiating pace (don’t self-described progressives pride themselves on being ahead of the curve?), and run faster than a hare to those hard-working individuals.

Related articles
Filed Under: Entitlement Reform, Fiscal Reform, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers, Tax Policy Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

For Lincoln’s birthday, a book recommendation: Crisis of the House Divided by Harry Jaffa

February 12, 2013 by 1 Comment
English: Abraham Lincoln - Photo taken in Feb....

English: Abraham Lincoln – Photo taken in Feb. 1860 by Mathew Brady. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today is Lincoln’s birthday. Might I suggest a book on the man who may have been our greatest president?

It might be said of Abraham Lincoln, born on this day in 1809, that if he had not existed, we would have needed to invent him. With very rare exception, no person in American political history has had such a lasting and permanent effect on the American psyche, revered with an awe usually reserved for the founding generation.

Whether it was his ability to turn a phrase, tell a story, or move men (and the nation) with the power of his words, Lincoln stands unique among American presidents. He stood astride one of the most tumultuous times of our nation’s history, perhaps as more than just the coincidental president when the crisis of the question of slavery divided our nation.

In his monograph on the Lincoln-Douglas debates–Crisis of the House Divided–Harry Jaffa analyzes Lincoln’s political principles from his reentry into politics in 1854 to his Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas in 1858. His theory is intriguing: “had not Lincoln challenged Douglas in 1858, there would probably have been no subsequent crisis, or at least none of the same nature.” 

Cover of "Crisis of the House Divided: An...

Cover via Amazon

In other words, by taking on Douglas, and destroying him as the leader of a national political coalition, “dividing him from Republicans and the South,”  Lincoln consciously set the nation on a course that would constitutionally commit it to his view of national political responsibility, a view at odds with the South’s interest in maintaining slavery.

At the relatively young age of “fourscore” years, our nation still allowed the institution of slavery a place, leaving as yet unfulfilled the promises of the Declaration of Independence:

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[...]

What happened next was the deadliest conflict in American history, killing between 620,000 and 851,000 men in battle, to say nothing of civilian deaths. When it ended, the South lay in ruins, Lincoln was dead by an assassin’s bullet, and despite constitutional amendments ending slavery, decades more would pass before the children of slaves would begin to see the equality under the law that Lincoln believed was embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

What was it about the debates, and Lincoln’s political philosophy, that had the power to move the nation in such a dramatic, and violent, way?

The book is Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates by Harry Jaffa, and though it is over fifty years old, it remains a classic on the topic.  As you celebrate President’s Day, take a moment to learn a little more about how Lincoln steered our country and cemented his place in history, starting before he ever took on the mantle of the Presidency.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Book Reviews, Books and Reading, History and People, Leaders Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The fiscal cliff of 2013 is the debt ceiling of 2011

December 7, 2012 by 3 Comments

Agents J and K use a neuralizer to make someone forget strange and alien occurrences.With Congress and the White House renegotiating the same things they negotiated last summer…with predictably the same crisis-like language and terms, it’s hard not to wonder how we’ve already forgotten how all that turned out.

If it feels like we’ve been here before, it’s because we have.

The headlines sound familiar:

“John Boehner rejects Obama’s Grand Bargain” says one. “No Deal: Debt Ceiling Talks Between Obama, Boehner Break Down” says another.

They sound like something you read this week.  They’re actually from the summer of 2011.

Now, while President Obama and Speaker Boehner negotiate plans to avert the fiscal cliff next year,  the scene has begun to look not unlike one we’ve seen before.

During the summer of 2011, the White House and Congress took the nation to the very edge of financial crisis over raising the federal debt ceiling.  The spending obligations of the federal government were at unprecedented levels (and they have only grown since). Tax revenues were hit hard by the recession. With only 60% of the government’s spending covered by tax revenues, Obama and Boehner dueled until  finally coming to a last minute deal that raised the debt ceiling and punted any spending cuts down the road. As part of the deal, the debt ceiling was raised $2.1 trillion and a Congressional “supercommittee” would find $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years.

Four days later, as a measure of “faith” in the deal, as well as in President Obama and the Congress, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States for the first time in our history.

Not surprisingly, no spending cuts have been found, to say nothing of the $1.2 trillion that were promised.

This month, a year and a bit later, we find ourselves in an eerily similar situation. Americans will wake up on January 2, 2013 to face a host of mandatory tax hikes and spending cuts. According to one source, national security spending could be cut 9.4%, while domestic spending, including Medicare and Headstart programs, could be cut 8.2%. According to the White House, a middle income family of four would see income taxes increase $2,000 a year.

I could use $2,000 more a year…but that doesn’t mean I think we should borrow from China so that my children can pay the extra taxes later.

English: President Barack Obama makes a statem...

English: President Barack Obama makes a statement in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House announcing a deal in the ongoing efforts to find a balanced approach to the debt limit and deficit reduction, July 31, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In essence, this is the plan that the President is proposing, that and raising taxes on the wealthy. Contrary to the Democratic fantasy of tax hikes to levels circa 1958, when the highest income brackets’ were a confiscatory 91%, raising taxes on the wealthy will not bring in substantially more tax revenues, avert growing federal deficits, or reinvigorate an economy still struggling along.

Yes, says Peter Schiff in the Wall Street Journal:  the top tax rates in the 1950s required much more than today’s top tax rate at 35%. But top taxpayers in 1958 provided only 27% of all taxes paid, while today’s top 3% of taxpayers are responsible for almost double that at 51% of tax revenues.

If that’s just not high enough, what tax rate will be? It’s always easier to raise taxes on “them” to pay for an entitlement “for you” than it is to reform spending practices for everyone.

And that reflects the modern reality, where fewer and fewer taxpayers are supporting the expanding responsibilities, and costs, of the federal government. In 1958, the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers  paid 29.9% of all taxes, but today pay a far less load at only 6.7% of all taxes collected.

Boehner Discusses GOP Jobs Plans

Boehner Discusses GOP Jobs Plans (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

Without figuring out a way to spend less to prevent the federal debt from growing, raising the debt ceiling only puts off the inevitable: a debt load that will someday have to be paid off by higher taxes on everyone. Like a revolving credit card debt, whether you pay it off this month or next, the amount you owe does not decrease, but the interest will continue to accrue. And it has to be paid off eventually.

But this is what the White House plan does. It punts the problem of growing debt down the road, calls for an additional $1.6 trillion in taxes,  and does not significantly cut back on spending.

Tax hikes and increased debt. Does it sound familiar? It should, because higher taxes and a higher debt ceiling is what Obama wanted in 2011, and it is the same thing that he’s demanding now.

It’s déjà vu all over again.

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

First brush at the foreign policy debate winners

October 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

First off, I don’t think many people watched the debate. The Bears were playing the Lions, and the Cards were playing the Giants. If Twitter, Facebook, and my Better Half were any indication, foreign policy is just too boring for most Americans.

But…I like foreign policy.  A lot.  Here’s my take:

The commentators and spin-doctors are going to come up with some way for Obama to win this debate like “on points” or something like that, but let’s be honest: he had to make headway for this debate to matter, and he made no headway. He looked miffed, angry, and irritated most of the time, and he spent the duration making excuses, debating himself, and attacking Mitt Romney, not laying out a plan for the future.  It’s clear, if nothing else, that he dislikes Mitt Romney.

That won’t get you reelected, though.

On the other hand, while Mitt Romney did nothing to set off the kind of fireworks that he did in the first debate, he did what he needed to do, and that was to prove that he has a sufficient grasp of the issues that undecided voters–who ARE voting on the economy–can trust him on foreign policy, too. He reiterated that he has a plan for the future, that he has experience in the real economy creating jobs, and that a strong economy will create a strong America.

Advantage Romney…but just.

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Foreign Policy Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Two take-aways from the Biden and Ryan debate

October 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

If you watched the VP debate on Thursday night, you saw a contentious and heated, policy heavy discussion.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a draw, with neither candidate successfully walking away with the win, and by next week’s presidential debate, it will have already been forgotten.

When we look back, though, I think two things will stick out:

  1. Joe Biden righted the ship for the Obama campaign. In last weeks  debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, voters for the first time were able to make a side-by-side comparison of the candidates, resulting in a slide in the polls for the Democratic ticket. Where Obama was almost prosaic, Biden  was energetic and combative, disagreeing with Ryan on almost every point, drawing distinctions, and interrupting almost constantly (while reports vary, counters noted at least 82 times Biden interrupted Paul Ryan, while some counted more).  The confrontational and occasionally condescending attitude won’t win him a lot of undecided votes, but it will play well with the base, firing up supporters, and bringing in some fundraising dollars.  Expectations for Biden weren’t  high, but he avoided any gaffes and held his ground against Ryan.  As a result, it’ll be enough for Democratic partisans to claim they are satisfied.
  2. Paul Ryan presented a more clear and more attractive vision for America. While Ryan could be said to have effectively held his ground against the more experienced Biden, managed to work in a few zingers and bring more laughs from the audience, his performance will be more notable for the vision he presented to America, especially as encapsulated in his closing statement.

The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues, and we will not blame others for the next four years. We will take responsibility. And we will not try to replace our founding principles. We will reapply our founding principles.

The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you. And we ask you for your vote. Thank you.

Delivered while looking directly into the camera and in the calm, measured voice–in contrast to the often sarcastic, rude, and condescending tone adopted by Biden throughout the night–Ryan’s invitation to vote for the Romney/Ryan vision spoke of hope, not just as a campaign slogan, but with measurable effect,  and it captured what elections are about: the future.  In contrast, Biden’s combative nature only revealed the Democratic campaign to be mired in negative attacks, not a vision of the future that Americans can trust.

At the end of the day, the debate won’t have a significant impact on the race. Ryan reassured voters, provided vision, and demonstrated command of the issues. Biden provided the image of a fighter for his running mate and for his party. Neither moved a lot of votes, but neither did any harm, either. When you’re the VP, whose sole constitutional responsibility is to replace the President if, heaven forbid, he should die in office, that’s about the best you can expect.

Random observation. CNN shows a meter on the screen as the candidates are speaking that shows how a test group of undecided voters are responding to what is happening at the moment. Almost every time Ryan started to speak, the line representing women spiked, regardless of the topic. The next day, the “hey, girl” meme adopted Paul Ryan, making Ryan, essentially, the “new Ryan Gosling.”

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Is this a new Mitt Romney? [video]

October 9, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Today, Politico reported that a shift in the Romney camp is leading to a “let Mitt be Mitt” shift in the Romney campaign. Then, we saw this (click here if you can’t see the video):

 

What do you think? Is this “new” Mitt Romney (which is actually the “old” Mitt Romney) the Mitt Romney we’ve all been looking for?

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections, Leaders Tagged With: , , , , , ,
«Older Posts