Finding A Backbone

This is a moment in our nation’s history that will determine the kind of nation our children and grandchildren inherit. The choices couldn’t be more apparent; America can either continue to be the land of the free, or we will become the land of the kept. We like to blame our elected officials for the mess our country is in, but the reality is that they are a result of the choices we have made. The truth is, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The Tea Party movement is, in large part, a result of the fact that people are recognizing just how bad of a mess our country is in, and they finally understand that the country doesn’t run very well on auto pilot. It doesn’t stop there however, because all across America people are beginning to pay more attention to the issues that affect us, and they are increasing their level of understanding of those issues.

In November of last year, we saw the first fruits of this awakening that has come over us. Washington is filled with new faces and fresh ideas. The same can be said, to an even greater degree in fact, for many of our state capitols. A new way of thinking has emerged, and the impact is significant. The work has only just begun however, for our elected officials and for those of us who sent them there.

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin is only one of many state Governors tackling huge budget shortfalls and having to make tough decisions on spending. In Washington, Congress is struggling with similar issues. Republicans are trying to cut spending and reduce the deficit, while congressional Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to maintain spending at record levels. Meanwhile, back at home, many of us are wondering how long the fiscal responsibility bug will last before everything reverts to business as usual.

Very few people realize how difficult budget cutting can be for politicians. Most of us think an elected official should be able to sit down with the budget and go to work with a red pencil. In reality, the process is much more difficult. Naturally, there are the special interests and lobbyists who have to be dealt with; but there are other, more real world issues to consider. For instance, it is easy to say a program is ineffective and needs to be done away with, but that affects people who are trying to feed their families just like the rest of us. The cuts certainly need to be made, but the consequences of those cuts must be considered as well.

In the very near future, some really tough choices will have to be made. Already, we can see the effect that some of those tough choices are having. Demonstrations are spreading across the country, and Democrat lawmakers seem to be adopting the motto: “If you can’t beat them, run and hide”. Unfortunately this is just the beginning, and I believe there will be much worse to come.

If budget cutting is to be successful, our elected officials at both the state and federal level are going to have to have a backbone. The wailing and gnashing of teeth that is surely to come will be intense, and those who dare to cut spending are going to be accused of killing old people and children on a daily basis. Withstanding the onslaught from the left will be a difficult task, and that is where you and I must step up to the plate.

We are the backbone that our elected officials are going to need. During the last election, many of us spoke up and voiced our opinions about the issues, but now that our representatives have taken office, we fall silent as they struggle to do the job we sent them to do. If we do not speak up and continue to let them know what we expect, the only voices they will hear will be those who oppose their efforts.

Make your voice one that is familiar to your elected officials. Put their phone numbers in your cell phone, add their e-mail addresses to your contact list, and use them frequently. When a contentious issue is being debated, let them know your thoughts and encourage their efforts. Reinforce your position as important bills are coming up for a vote. Praise them when they stand firm, and criticize as needed when they do not. Another way to support your legislators is to express your support with letters to your local paper, speaking out at public forums and town hall meetings, and etc.

It is vitally important to the future of our republic that we become informed about and engaged in the political processes. The days are gone when it was fashionable to boast of not paying attention to politics. If we have a genuine desire to leave to our children a nation that is as free and prosperous as that which was given to us, we must care about what goes on and take part in the process. As Horace Mann observed, “A different world cannot be built by indifferent people”.

This Could Get Ugly

Until a couple of weeks ago, if someone mentioned Wisconsin, most people would think of dairy products or the Green Bay Packers. Things have certainly changed. The once mild-mannered state has suddenly become the center of a political debate and protests that could very well shape the future of our nation.

When Barak Obama became President, he went into office under the impression that the American people had given him a mandate to seize control of our healthcare system. Even after it became clear that the majority of Americans were opposed to the plan the Democrats eventually created, they responded with “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”

When Scott Walker ran for Governor of Wisconsin, he spelled out his plan for bringing the state’s fiscal situation under control. Voters responded by handing him the Governor’s office and by turning over control of both the Assembly and the Senate to the GOP. Now that Governor Walker has set out to keep his campaign promises, the Democrats are demanding that he renege on them despite the fact that he still has the support of the majority of the state’s voters.

Now that the Democrats have become Wisconsin’s minority party, they are going through withdrawals from that ever so popular opiate called ‘power’. Rather than standing firm and debating the merits of their position, they have chosen to flee the state and engage in political trickery to avoid a vote on the issue.

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. When the Democrats still held a majority in the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House, they found themselves having to pass Obamacare over the loud objections of the American people because they were unable to make a convincing case for the bill, and subsequently paid a huge political price for doing so. Following that debacle, the Democrats were forced to extend the Bush tax rates they had railed against for so long. A similar tale can be told for extending the Patriot Act, the troop surge in Afghanistan, civilian trials for terrorists, and for keeping open the much despised prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Repeatedly, Democrats have failed to make a convincing case for their positions on important issues. Americans are becoming more engaged in the political process, and are gaining more access to unfiltered information, which will make it increasingly more difficult for the Democrats to find a sympathetic audience.

One thing that can be said for Democrats is that they are a determined bunch, and they have demonstrated a distinct lack of concern for the will of the voters. As can be seen from the recent cases of AWOL legislators, they seem to have no genuine respect for the democratic process. Their only concern is for achieving their goals and furthering their political agendas, even if that means thumbing their noses at the people who pay their salaries.

The 2010 elections resulted in Democrats all across the country having to kick the power habit cold turkey. What we are seeing now is just the beginning of what may well prove to be a difficult and possibly even dangerous process. If, as I expect, the 2012 elections strip the DNC of its last tenuous grip on power in this country, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but you can be sure there will be no surrender on the part of the Democrats. As we have already seen, they will resort to any means necessary to achieve their goals.

For over a century, the Democrats have catered to a variety of special interests that saw the DNC as their best hope. With the election of Barak Obama in 2008, it seemed likely that all their dreams were about to come true. They held the White House and both houses of Congress, surely nothing would stand in their way. All of that is about to change, and many of these groups are watching their dreams slip away. Don’t be surprised if they fail to accept their loss of power with grace and civility.

The Coming Storm

Most of us remember the panic many people had in 1999 regarding the “millennium bug” that was supposed to cripple computers world-wide and shut down the power grid. I am happy to be able to say that I was not one of those people who rushed out to buy a generator (of course, I already had one), nor did I have any expectation of a global calamity. Just as I expected, January 1, 2000 was just like every other New Years Day.

I am saying this because I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I am the kind of person to get overly worked up about prophecies of doom that seem to crop up every other year or so. I am convinced that 2012 will be immediately followed by 2013, and chances are 2014 will be just a year away. It is possible that an asteroid will take out a large chunk of the world’s population, but that isn’t scheduled for more than a decade. I will have to admit however, that as I watch certain events unfold around the world, I am growing uneasy about what the future holds.

It has long been my belief that worry is simply our way of butting into God’s business, and therefore I gave up that habit and have no intention of taking it up again. I do believe in preparing for the future, and that involves trying to foresee what the future might hold.

Obviously, our economy is on shaky ground, and those who are in a position to rectify that situation either have no clue what they are doing, or they are doing their best to exacerbate the problem for their own purposes. I am certainly not an economist, but I firmly believe the situation will grow much worse before it gets any better.

The Middle East is a powder keg ready to explode, and there are a number of shady characters tossing lit matches at the keg hoping to set it off. Already, oil prices are starting to climb rapidly, as uncertainty about the supply is growing. Unrest is spreading throughout the region, and it could easily be escalated into an all out regional war.

We all watched the riots in Europe a few months ago, and many of us wonderiedhow long it would take for the same thing to happen in the U.S. We no longer have to wonder, as demonstrations have begun in Wisconsin, and are beginning to spread to other states. As further measures are taken to cut programs that we can no longer afford, those who feed at the public trough are likely to add their voices to the protests. It remains to be seen how our government will respond.

I never watched “The Perfect Storm”, but I certainly understand the concept. As I look around me, I can see ominous clouds gathering on the horizon. A convergence of events combining to create havoc on a massive scale certainly seems possible, if not probable.

Let me be clear, I am not predicting the End of the World, but I am willing to say that in the near future, the world could be a much different place than it is right now. As tensions rise, and our political systems are tested, almost anything could be the spark that sets it all off. A terrorist attack, a military skirmish, or even a natural disaster could be the trigger.

I have never been in the business of fear mongering, and I am not trying to tell anyone what they should do in response to what is going on. I do believe it is time for everyone to make an honest assessment of their own situation, and ask themselves some very important questions.

For instance, if tomorrow there was no electricity, how would it affect you? If food were scarce, how would you feed your family? If it were no longer safe to be out on the streets, could you defend your home? If you depend on prescription medication, how long would your supply last?

I certainly hope nothing of the sort will happen, and most likely we will ride out this eventful time in our history and go on about our lives just as we have always expected. These types of questions are those you would need to ask if a dire situation were to present itself. Books have been written, and movies made about such situations, and they are certainly entertaining, but real life happens too, and we must at least consider the possibility that our world might change in ways we never imagined.

Key Words and Tricky Phrases

When I was just a young pup serving in the U.S. Navy, one of the old salts I worked for was fond of saying it was important to pay attention to the “key words and tricky phrases”. After many years of observing the world of politics I have found this to be very true. As we review the President’s budget proposal, those “key words and tricky phrases” are key to understanding his goals.

One of the “key words” the President is in the habit of using is “investing”. In common terms, investing (in this context) is defined as a verb meaning: to spend money on something in the hope of a future return or benefit. Investing is good, at least when it is done in such a way as to have a reasonable expectation of achieving the “future return or benefit”. On a personal level, we often have to evaluate whether our investments are giving us the expected return because we have to work hard for our money and those investment dollars are few and far between. The government however, believes it has an unlimited supply of money to work with, so it seems to “invest” without a care for those future returns.

A case in point would be federal spending on education. Rather than asking the obvious question about why the federal government spends any money on education, let’s instead look at the effectiveness of that spending. According to this chart from the CATO Institute, federal spending has increased by 100 percent since 2001, and since 1970 that spending has nearly tripled. According to the Department of Education website, its mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. To evaluate the effectiveness of federal spending on education, we can look at students scores, which are the three lines way down at the bottom of the chart. As can be readily observed reading, math and science scores have remained flat while spending is skyrocketing. Would you want an ‘investment’ such as this in your portfolio?

Federal spending compared to GDP continues to grow at an unsustainable rate. One of the reasons being that government programs are created with the best of intentions, but no thought is ever given to evaluating those programs to determine their effectiveness. As Ronald Reagan observed, “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!"

Spending without regard to an expected return or benefit is waste, rather than investment. If Congress were to take an honest look at every federal program and immediately defund any that are not effective in their stated goals, most of us would be shocked the extent to which our federal budget would shrink, and angered by the amount of our money that has been thrown away.

Let’s not forget the “tricky phrases” part of this equation; President Obama certainly has not. In his recent comments about his budget proposal, there are two “tricky phrases” that I want to use as examples.

The first example is President Obama’s proposed “spending freeze”. Normally, a spending freeze would be at least a start in the right direction, so the term sounds good on the surface. When you consider the fact that during Obama’s term of office spending has been at unprecedented and totally unsustainable levels, a spending freeze would be wholly unacceptable. In normal language, what the President is proposing is maintain the current irresponsible spending levels for the next three years, after which he is happy to allow spending to rise once again.

The second and perhaps the most egregious use of a “tricky phrase” is when the President says he wants to eliminate wasteful spending built into the tax code. What he is talking about of course, is raising taxes. His view that the “rich” are getting unwarranted tax breaks drives his determination to find or create an excuse for tax increases, and his budget proposal reflects that desire. This notion that the government ‘spends’ by giving tax breaks only works if you first buy into the assumption that all money belongs to the government until it decides to let you have some of it. Socialists, or Progressives as they like to be called, firmly believe this which is why they are so eager to have the government confiscate money they want to spend. If we accept this idea, we then have no option but to hand over all that we earn without complaint and be satisfied with what meager amounts our government masters allow us to keep for our own sustenance.

As we go forward in the process of trying to rein in federal spending, listen carefully to each and every word our politicians say. They are quite adept at using the key words and tricky phrases that have kept them in power all this time.

Thinking Out of the Box

Newly elected Republicans in Congress are beginning the process of paring down the federal budget, and in the process I am sure they are getting quite the education on the way Washington works. Let’s just hope they are slow learners.

Most of us look at the size of the federal budget and wonder why it is so hard to find places to cut. The current budget is set at $3,830,000,000,000.00. It would take very little imagination to find a way to trim 1% out of any budget, let alone one this large and bloated. In fact, it would take a great deal of imagination to come up with an excuse for not being able to find 1% in cuts. Unfortunately up until now, our Congressional representatives can’t seem to find a way to cut the budget at all. The best they could seem to do was to slow the rate of growth, which is the approach the President wants to take.

If we are ever going to get federal spending under control, our elected representatives are going to have to use more than just a little imagination. This is a job that is going to require them to think outside the box.

They can begin by changing their perspective. Rather than looking for areas to cut, they should start with a clean page and look for items that must be included. As a guide, they should each have a copy of the U.S. Constitution available for a quick reference. Article 1, Section 8 gives them strict instruction on what they are authorized to spend federal dollars. Unless an item of the budget can be justified using that standard, it is immoral for them to authorize that expenditure. In the words of Calvin Coolidge, “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery”.

Naturally, such severe cost cutting will be traumatic for the country, and I am willing to concede that it will take several years to cut the budget to where it should be. The federal government has grown much too large and far too many people and businesses are dependent on federal dollars. Although the temptation is there to simply say cut it to the bone no matter what, these cuts are going to have real, profound effects on the lives of many honest hard working Americans, and cutting them off all at once would simply be impossible to do. We cannot cut the budget to where we need it to be in one motion, but that does not mean we cannot immediately take large steps in that direction.

We are going to have to get used to the fact that we cannot afford to make every good idea a federal program. There are many good, worthwhile projects that are great ideas that simply are not allowed under the U.S. Constitution. That is not to say they can’t be done, they just can’t be done by the federal government.

Our founding fathers placed limits on the authority of the federal government for a reason. They believed that the most responsive government is that which is closest to the people. There are functions of government that, by their very nature, can only be accomplished on the federal level; most things however, can be done more effectively and efficiently at the state or local level. Our federal government has gotten this large and bloated because it has taken on many of the functions that should have been left to the states. In order to finance these programs, it has raised taxes and incurred debt that simply cannot be justified. We cannot achieve long term fiscal responsibility unless we return to the limited form of government our founding fathers created.

Entitlement programs are by far the largest portion of our federal budget, and there is no escaping the fact that these programs will have to be on the table. Looking at the limits placed on federal spending by our founding fathers, the case could be made that the federal government should never write a check to any individual unless that person is a government employee or is owed a debt by the government.

It is true that as a civilized society, we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens who are unable to adequately provide for themselves; however, as I stated earlier, we cannot make every good idea a federal program. There is a limited place for government involvement in taking care of the poor, but that involvement should be at the lowest level of government possible, and it should exist when all other sources of assistance have been exhausted.

Social Security is one of the more problematic areas of the budget to address. If there was ever an example of why the role of the federal government should be limited, this is one of them. The basic premise behind the Social Security program was noble, and helping Americans provide for their retirement years is a good idea, but it is not the proper role of the federal government. What began as a modest program of limited scope has now grown to be one of the single most troublesome aspects of the federal budget, So many people are dependent on Social Security that it is viewed as political suicide for anyone who dares suggest changes to the program. As it stands the system cannot sustain itself, but no one is willing to risk their political careers to make the hard choices.

Sooner or later, something is going to have to change. The longer we wait the more drastic and hurtful those changes are going to be. Some have proposed raising the retirement age, while others have proposed changes to the FICA tax. These types of changes are only patches that will get us through until another generation is faced with even greater problems. This is clearly an area where imagination is needed. Instead of searching for ways to tweak the program, perhaps it is time to ask if this should even be a federal program at all. Is it possible to gradually phase out the existing federal program and replace it with either state run programs or even privately owned programs?

Federal spending can be brought under control, but only with the courage and creativity that have long been absent from Washington. Our newly elected freshman congressmen may still possess enough of those traits to make a real difference, but only if they can resist learning how Washington works.

The Voluntary Additional Tax

President Obama has just unveiled his 2012 budget. His proposal would cut the deficit by $1.1 Trillion over the next ten years, through spending cuts and tax increases.

Republicans of course, have said that his cuts aren’t deep enough, his spending increases aren’t acceptable, and his tax increases aren’t going to happen. Let’s just hope they stick to those positions. We cannot afford to freeze spending, as the President has suggested, at levels that are too high. Deep, permanent cuts are needed to get spending under control, and the only way to cut that deep is to reduce the size of the government we are trying to support. Spending increases, needless to say, are simply not possible for those who are serious about reducing the deficit.

That leaves us with the President’s proposed tax increases, which we all knew were coming. Some would argue that the runaway spending was intended to create an excuse to raise taxes. Judging by the effectiveness of those spending initiatives, I would have to agree. The only thing we have to show for all that red ink is… well, red ink.

Democrats, of course, are fine with raising taxes to support Obama’s habit. Many will cite polls designed to show that the American people are willing to pay higher taxes to get the budget under control. A recent ABC News article quoted a group called Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength calling on President Obama to raise their taxes. Let’s take that idea and examine it. It is true that, if you ask the question “Would you pay higher taxes to reduce the deficit?” many people would say ‘Yes’. The next question you should ask then, is “How high would taxes have to be raised to reduce the deficit?”. That is a question no one could accurately answer, because Congress has shown an amazing ability to spend more than we take in regardless of how much that might be. The real answer is that tax increases will not reduce the deficit.

If however, Democrats want to claim that the American people are willing to pay higher taxes, I have a plan which should suit them just fine. On IRS publication Form 1040, one with which most of us are very familiar, line 44 (Tax) is where filers enter the amount of taxes due on their income. Line 45 is where some filers enter the Alternative Minimum Tax. I propose adding one additional line just below Line 45, which would be the Voluntary Additional Tax (using the acronym VAT should give all the socialists a thrill running up their legs). On this line, the taxpayer can add any additional taxes they are willing to pay just because they think they should. If the American people are willing to pay higher taxes, here is their opportunity. If higher taxes are actually popular with people, we should generate huge amounts of additional revenue.

Absolutely no changes to the tax code would be necessary to put this plan into place, other than to change the wording on the tax forms. It may come as a surprise to some average taxpayers, but the 89 millionaires who make up the group cited in the ABC News report know full well that citizens can pay in as much as they want to the federal treasury. These millionaires know this, because they pay accountants to figure their taxes and to take all of their allowable deduction.

My plan would be fairly simple to enact, but it should end the annual debates in Congress on tax increases. Since members of Congress are elected to reflect the will of the people, they can be relieved of that responsibility on this issue because the will of the people will be carried out on their tax forms. Congress will never have to raise tax rates again. It would be interesting to see if Congress has the political courage to put this idea into place. The next step of course, would be to add a line just below that which would allow Americans to reduce their tax liability using the same method. I wonder which line on Form 1040 would get more use?

Senator Joe Arpaio?

With the news of Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) retirement from the Senate, a lot of speculation has emerged as to who might be in the running to replace him. A number of names have been mentioned, but there is one name that will certainly catch some attention.

Roll Call is reporting that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio may be considering tossing his hat into the ring. Although Sheriff Arpaio has not yet made an announcement regarding his intentions, it is known that he has considered seeking a national office. Given his name recognition and strong support among conservatives, coupled with the growing anti-illegal immigration sentiment in the state, I would have to say that he a strong contender for the position.

On the Democrat side, the most prominent name mentioned is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. According to Roll Call, she has been making phone calls to gauge her support for the Senate run. I have no idea how seriously she is considering the move, but I can see two advantages to her doing so. First, with her resignation, there is a slim chance that we will finally have someone competent at the head of Homeland Security. Obviously, the choice for her replacement would again be made by President Obama, so the chances are slim, but it could happen.

The second advantage is that a race between Janet Napolitano and Joe Arpaio will certainly be interesting and informative. Given Joe Arpaio’s propensity to speak his mind and Janet Napolitano’s record in Washington, the Arizona Senate race will spend a lot of time in the news, and we will certainly have some interesting sound bites from any head-to-head debates.

The 2012 election cycle is just beginning to take shape, and naturally all eyes will be on the Presidential hopefuls, but the Senate races will be very interesting as well. With their majority at stake in the Senate, the Democrats will have to call on heavy hitters. Republicans are on a roll following their 2010 victories, and are counting on having majorities in both the Senate and the House to support a Republican President to roll back the damage done by four years of Obama. 2012 is definitely shaping up to be a banner year for electoral politics.

The Dangers of Democratic Elections

Events in Egypt have taken place at a rapid pace. Now that President Mubarek has made an exit, there is some hope that the military can maintain control of the country long enough to hold a peaceful democratic election. Naturally, we all hope for a good outcome, and that will depend somewhat on the amount of influence the Muslim Brotherhood has on the resulting government; but even without the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, we cannot be sure of a good outcome.

Here in America, we tend to believe that given the opportunity for free and fair elections, people will seize the chance at freedom and then all will be good. Unfortunately, Americans are pretty isolated from other parts of the world and our expectations of other cultures are somewhat unrealistic. America has a relatively short history and a unique culture with influences from all over the world, whereas Egypt has a very long history and a strong cultural identity. We cannot be so naïve as to believe that people from other cultures with a different history will behave in the same way we would. The events of your past are a large part of who you are today. This is true for individuals and for societies.

It is entirely possible that even with the benefit of free elections, the people of Egypt will choose a government that is not to our liking. While this is obviously not something we want to see, we must realize that in free elections people are free to make choices we don’t like. It is quite likely that the new, freely elected Egyptian government will have a decidedly anti-American and cannot be counted on to honor the peace treaty with Israel. If and when that happens, a lot will depend on the Obama administration’s ability to react to and deal with the situation. Judging by their response to the situation thus far, I’m not holding out hope for a good outcome.

We don’t have to look far to find other instances where this has happened. Afghanistan and Iraq are two prime examples. Although we were there to monitor their elections and do our best to ensure those elections were fair, the outcomes were far from ideal. While neither of the two governments are outright hostile to the United States, the best we could say about them is that they tolerate us because they have no other choice. There are of course, many other such examples I could point to.

The prospect of democratic elections in countries where hostility towards the U.S. is likely brings up an interesting but uncomfortable prospect. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood have publicly stated that the people of Egypt should prepare for war with Israel; and given the current instability in the Middle East, we could very easily be drawn into a broad conflict with Egypt and other radical countries.

When we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, in both cases we made it clear that we were not at war with the general population, just the dictatorial governments that ruled over the people. Naturally, we would not hold a people responsible for the actions of a totalitarian dictator. If however, a country such as Egypt holds free and fair elections and votes for a leader who promises to destroy Israel, we can no longer excuse the general population for the actions of a leader they willingly support. Rather than being unwilling victims of a dictator, the citizens of the country are willing participants in the actions of their government and are therefore liable for those actions. We would not be in a position to simply invade the country and depose the leader and expect the population to be overjoyed at their sudden freedom. Instead, we would find ourselves at war with a nation who’s citizens are just as hostile as their government.

Not since World War II have we found ourselves in such a position. We have come to think of ourselves as liberators when we go to war rather than conquerors, yet the time may soon come that we must learn to think of ourselves in those terms. As the world evolves, so must our attitudes. I have to wonder if we are ready to do that.

Presidential Shell Game

On Monday, President Obama stood before the United States Chamber of Commerce and schooled them on the best way to run their businesses, and gave them clear instructions on the way he wants them to distribute their profits, despite the fact that Obama never ran a business other than General Motors. Reports indicate the President’s speech was met with great enthusiasm, being interrupted by applause TWICE during the 40 minute address. Apparently, the lengthy applause made it necessary for the President to cut his speech short, because he never had a chance to outline his plans to double the unemployment taxes those businessmen pay. I wonder if that would have any impact on their decision about hiring new employees for the next couple of years.

As soon as the reverberations from the President’s voice ended, members of the fawning liberal media began to recite the party line about how Kennedyesque (is that even a word?) Obama sounded. This is quite a feat for a President who, just a few weeks ago, was trying his hardest to sound Reaganesque. What talent! During the 2008 campaign, Obama ran with a slogan of “Hope and Change”, but little did we know that once elected, Obama would change personalities every other week. Of course, given the events of the past couple of years, that shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Given the fact that every good decision Barak Obama has made in the past two years has involved an extension of a George W. Bush policy, we shouldn’t be too surprised by Obama’s penchant for assuming the personalities of his predecessors. It is worth noting however, that the only President’s whose identity his supporters are willing to acknowledge are those who are no longer here to defend themselves. Probably the only past President in recent memory that Barak Obama genuinely emulates is Jimmy Carter, but I suspect even Jimmy would be offended by the comparison. Perhaps it would be easier if Obama would just come clean and lay claim to the legacy of FDR.

For all of Obama’s attempts to assume the identity of dead presidents, it is a shame that the best he has been able to do is to take on a simple façade of what those great men really were. In his attempts to co-opt their greatness, all he has been able to manage is to is a simulation; one with absolutely no substance. There is much that Obama could learn from both Reagan and Kennedy, but their ability to deliver a speech is the very least of it.

We seem to be watching a Presidential shell game, one in which an empty suit is moved around while we are supposed to try to find some substance. As in any shell game, all we are likely to find is an empty shell

Happy Birthday Mr. President

Today marks former President Ronald Reagan’s 100^th birthday. Many of us will wax nostalgic today, yearning for the days when our President was someone who gave us a reason to believe in America, confidence in ourselves, and hope of a better day.

Reagan’s detractors were many, and like the left is wont to do with anyone who disagrees with them, they tried to paint him as being an uneducated, uncultured cowboy. As Reagan once commented, “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so”, and that would be the case with Reagan.

Ronald Wilson Reagan was a simple man to be sure, but there is no disputing the fact that he was also a simple genius. When he spoke, we felt his confidence and liked it. His ideas were sound, and he was able to make them make sense to us. His words were able to express his belief in American exceptionalism and the innate goodness of the American people.

As President Obama prepared for his latest State of the Union address, he studied the communicative style of Reagan, and employed what he learned in the delivery of that speech. While elements of Reagan’s style were clearly visible, it was obvious that President Obama fell far short of what he had hoped to achieve. What Obama, and so many others like him, fail to recognize is that Reagan’s greatness was not in his style, it was in his substance.

Reagan was an actor to be sure, but he never had to pretend to be the man he was. His courage (literally, ‘under fire’) was obvious. He wasn’t afraid of criticism, nor was he hesitant to face the big challenges or to take big risks. He demonstrated that when he stood before the Brandenburg Gate and said, against the advice of those in his inner circle, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

President Reagan was the kind of man that had respect for common sense rather than disdain. He understood that complexity was not necessary for effectiveness. As he often said, “There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” He understood that America was great because of the American people, not because of the American government. He recognized the value and importance of freedom, and knew instinctively that “… man is not free unless government is limited.” Instead of excusing failure by telling people they were victims, he encouraged them to look within themselves for answers. “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions” he said, reminding us of something we should have known all along.  

At a time when America was struggling with an economic crisis, foreign policy failures that resulted in fifty-two of our citizens being held hostage in Iran, and our own President (Carter) being held hostage in the White House, Reagan came along with a message of hope, an air of confidence, and reminded us that the strength and goodness of a free people could overcome any of the problems we faced. His belief in America roused us from the malaise that had gripped us during the Carter presidency, and helped us to get back on our feet. The renewed spirit that brought us was summed up in the words, “It’s morning in America again.”

Reagan was not perfect, but he didn’t let that imperfection deter him from greatness. We can learn a lot by his example. America isn’t perfect, but rather than continually apologizing for it, we should instead recognize the fact that we have a leadership role to fulfill in the world and that it’s time to step up to the plate. Rather than humble ourselves before every dictator we can find, we should live up to the standard Reagan set when he said “I am totally unwilling to see this country fail in its obligation to itself and to the other free peoples of the world.”

Reagan, the man, is no longer with us. We can however, draw from the strength and wisdom that he shared with us during his years of public service. We can face the world and all its problems by keeping these words in our hearts: “America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead.”

Barak Obama: Backstabber in Chief

We have all become more familiar with the term “thrown under the bus” since the beginning of Barak Obama’s campaign for President. Many have discovered how dangerous it is to get between Obama and his goals, so none of us should be surprised when we find that one of our most loyal allies finds herself face down on the pavement with a set of dual tire tracks on her back. Britain, welcome to the club; our Israeli friends will show you around.

According to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph, information released by Wikileaks shows that President Barak Obama agreed to give sensitive information about the UK’s nuclear arsenal to Russia to entice them to sign the new START treaty. According to the report, the US has agreed to supply Russia with information about every new Trident missile we supply to the UK. This information will undermine strategic secrets the UK maintains regarding their nuclear arsenal.

At a press conference in November of 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had this to say:

“The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems.”

Of course, Mrs. Clinton was talking about the release of classified information she wanted kept secret.

Is it any wonder that our influence on world affairs is declining? Many American citizens feel that our freedom is threatened more by our President than by terrorists. Is it any wonder that many of our allies are feeling the same sense of unease?

The actions of the Obama administration have done immeasurable harm to our standing in the world. Throughout our history, the United States has championed freedom and democracy around the globe, and has been that “Shining City on a hill” that President Reagan spoke about. That line was borrowed from John Winthrop, and in this situation I think it wise to become familiar with the original quote:

"For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses.”

It is our responsibility to hold our leaders accountable for the actions they take in our name. Certainly we must recognize the incompetence of Obama’s foreign policy, but we also have to wonder if that is all there is to it. There seems to be a pattern emerging in his incompetence, and such a pattern would lead one to wonder if something more than incompetence is at work.

For instance, let’s consider the recent uprisings in both Iran and Egypt. During the 2009 unrest in Iran, in which the citizens of the country were trying to overthrow a totalitarian Islamic regime, Obama chose to avoid meddling in the affairs of another country that was in the process of murdering and imprisoning the protesters.

Contrast that approach to the one Obama has now employed in Egypt, a country in which the population is trying to overthrow a totalitarian secular regime while under heavy influence from the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization bent on establishing a totalitarian Islamic regime. Obama is now more than happy to be seen as meddling in the affairs of another country, openly in support of those protestors and uncomfortably friendly to the Muslim Brotherhood.

While it is laudable for our government to support the move for democracy in Egypt, the situation would be less troubling if we could have confidence that the Obama administration was capable of helping to ensure a safe and peaceful transition to a democratic form of government. As it stands, we can’t even be reasonably sure the Obama administration is even interested in doing so.

As we explore the motivations behind Obama’s foreign policy, there is one pattern of behavior that should be of concern to more than one of our allies. As we draw the contrast between the Iranian and Egyptian uprisings, we cannot ignore the fact that Iran is one of Israel’s most vocal enemies, while Egypt is one of Israel’s few friends in the Middle East.

There is little we can say to our allies that suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of Obama’s betrayal except that we share their pain, and we will do our best to replace him in 2012 with someone who can hopefully begin to undo the damage he has done.

So You Want To Be President? (Pt. 2)

In my last post, I discussed the go / no-go issues that I use when making a choice regarding my vote for President. Today, I’ll discuss the other issues that I consider, and what positions my perfect candidate. These are issues that are important to me, with room for flexibility.

Spending:

Fiscally, I am looking for a candidate who is talking more about the spending cuts he plans rather than new spending he wants to implement. I am looking for someone who understands that our treasury is empty, and more spending is simply not acceptable. My perfect candidate would specify two dollars in spending cuts for every dollar he proposes to spend. There are those politicians who seek only modest cuts and want to carry the name of being fiscally responsible, but I am looking for someone who is bound and determined to not only reduce spending by tightening the belt of the government, but by totally eliminating entire programs, agencies, and departments up to and including those at cabinet level.

Taxes:

My candidate must be someone who recognizes that taxes and tax rates are not the same, and that, when properly done, tax cuts can and will increase tax revenue. Although tax increases might occasionally be necessary, at this time in our history, there is absolutely no justification for a tax increase of any kind. No candidate will get my vote that thinks otherwise.

I am also looking for a candidate who understands the burden that is placed on our citizens and our economy by our present tax system, and who is willing and committed to making profound and permanent changes in our tax code. My perfect candidate would be a champion of the Fair Tax, but I do understand the political reality of running on such a platform. All I ask is that the candidate be committed to real reform of the tax code, and to be willing to put all ideas on the table.

Defense:

Our military exists solely to provide for the defense of this country and to protect our vital national interests. It is not a vocational school, nor is it a vehicle for social engineering. I expect my candidate to understand this simple fact, and to recognize the importance of a strong national defense. I am more than ready for a candidate who is willing to cut the defense budget, but only if he is capable of understanding how and where to make those cuts.

The world is a rapidly changing place, and our military is expected to deal with situations that only a few years ago were unimaginable. Our Defense Department should be ready to quickly respond to any and all challenges, and to do so in a decisive manner. As  George Washington said, “"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."

Foreign Policy:

The United States is in serious need of a President who can restore credibility to our foreign policy, and who can reassure our longtime allies that America can be relied upon once again. We need a foreign policy that makes it beneficial to be our ally, uncomfortable to be our enemy, and encourages freedom around the world.

Energy:

An immediate reversal of President Obama’s energy policies would be a good place for my candidate to start. Resume drilling in the Gulf, and eliminate the rules and regulations that prevent domestic energy exploration and production. We have the expertise and technology to do so while protecting the environment, and there is no excuse for not doing so. Clean coal and nuclear power should be promoted, and unnecessary restrictions on those energy sources should be removed. Obama’s Cap and Tax plan should be immediately and permanently placed in the round file.

Healthcare:

If Obamacare is still on the books, my candidate will be prepared to immediately halt implementation of the provisions of the law, and to enthusiastically sign a repeal bill when it reaches his desk. There are some common sense reforms that could be enacted that will improve the quality of healthcare in our country, and my candidate should be ready to look at those changes and put them into action. I do however, expect my candidate to understand that the best reforms are market based, and that the best thing the federal government can do for healthcare is to stop interfering in the market.

We currently have a large field of candidates from which to choose, and indications are that there are more to come. Although I have rejected several potential candidates, I will wait for the others to make their case before I make a decision on who to support. Over the coming months, I will take a closer look at those candidates that come closest to the positions I have outlined above, and at some who do not.