Debt Crisis Portends Liberalism’s End

December 16th, 2009 Carter Clews

From the Washington Examiner:

With its most vigorous advocate in memory presiding in the White House and commanding Democratic majorities in Congress, it’s difficult to believe that the end of liberalism may be within sight. We base this suggestion not on a hunch or on wishful thinking, but on mathematics. The Petersen-Pew Commission on Budget Reform has produced a new report warning that “[o]ver the past year alone, the public debt of the United States rose sharply from 41 to 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Under reasonable assumptions, the debt is projected to grow steadily, reaching 85 percent of GDP by 2018, 100 percent by 2022, and 200 percent in 2038.”

Long before the debt reaches such stratospheric levels, the commission warns, “Fears of inflation and a prospective decline in the value of the dollar would cause investors to demand higher interest rates and shift out of U.S. Treasury securities. The excessive debt would also affect citizens in their everyday lives by harming the American standard of living through slower economic growth and dampening wages, and shrinking the government’s ability to reduce taxes, invest, or provide a safety net.”

In other words, within the lifetimes of the vast majority of living Americans, government as we have known it since the New Deal will become paralyzed, unable to deliver even basic services, let alone the myriad of entitlements that politicians had promised would last forever. Liberalism will owe its undoing to its blind faith that government could forever be the inexhaustible provider of ever more spending, more benefits and more prosperity, with nary a day of reckoning.

Read the original post from NetRightNation…

Rating: 3.2/5 (15 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

“Fix The Docs” Without Driving Up The Deficit

November 13th, 2009 Bob Moffit

Congress and the Administration are breaking records. They just piled up a deficit of over $1.4 trillion in 2009 alone. Needless to say moderates and fiscal conservatives in both political parties have cause for very bad night’s sleep.

The Doc Mess. The latest chapter in this crazy drama is to be played out next week when the House deals with the Medicare Doc Fix. At issue is the congressionally created formula for annually updating Medicare physician payment. The congressional formula ties physician payment to general economic growth: if physician payment increases faster than economic growth, payment is proportionally reduced. Of course, the basic concept is bizarre: there is no rational relationship between the supply and demand for medical services and the performance of the general economy, any more then there is a relationship in the demand for tonsillectomies and the phases of the Moon. But this official stupidity is the law; expect similar stupidities if Congress is successful in creating another government-run health plan made in the image and likeness of Medicare.

So, to avoid its own prescribed draconian cuts in Medicare doctors’ payments, Congress goes through an annual Chinese fire drill to prevent its goofy formula from being implemented each year. As a budgetary matter, the accumulated cuts now amount to an automatic reduction in physician payment of 21 percent effective next year. That prospect has the professional medical organizations in a tizzy, and they are willing to do anything – anything, mind you- to avoid that fate worse than death, even to the point of formally embracing H.R. 3962, the gargantuan 2032 page House health care bill.

Bigger Deficits. To lure the desperate doctors into bed with the liberals, their big ugly “public option” and all (analogously, a longer prison sentence, but better food and more yard time), the Congressional leadership included a “permanent fix” to Medicare physician payment in the original version of the 1018 page House bill, small increases, no cuts. But they carved it out because its cost made the House health care bill appear too expensive. So, to keep that version “looking cheaper”, they created another vehicle (H.R 3961), a companion bill, that would provide for a permanent Medicare “doc fix” at a ten year cost of $210 billion. Under the rule for debate in the House, however, as Byron York points out in November 13, The Washington Examiner, this $210 billion “fix” is not “paid for”; like a similar (but unsuccessful) Senate attempt, it would simply add hugely to the deficit. In fact, a former Medicare Trustee says that it will also add trillions to the already crushing unfunded obligations of the Medicare program.

Paying for the Spending. As President Obama warned, Congress should not add one dime to the deficit. If it is going to increase Medicare payment by over $200 billion over the next ten years, it should offset those increases with cuts elsewhere, preferably within the Medicare or other government health care programs.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration has surfaced a potential solution: the introduction of competitive bidding in Medicare Advantage. The Administration projected an estimated $177 billion in savings over ten years. But Obama’s Medicare savings were not earmarked for Medicare, but rather would finance his health care agenda. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) proposed a variant on Medicare competitive bidding that would benchmark government payment to Medicare Advantage plans to actual plan costs rather than Medicare’s administrative pricing for Medicare Part A and B services. CBO estimated a $117 billion savings from that change.

This is a start. Congress could build on the Baucus proposal and secure the projected savings, while creating a “robust” Medicare competitive bidding system. Government payment to health plans in Medicare would based on the weighted average costs of actual health plans, as Baucus has proposed, but the competition would be extended to traditional Medicare fee for service program itself. As former Senator John Breaux (D-LA) has suggested, traditional Medicare should be granted managerial flexibility. This would enable the traditional Medicare program to compete effectively with private health plans, guaranteeing a level playing field, and thus keep the rest of the private health plans “honest”, as they say.

Not only would such an approach guarantee payment for the “doc fix”, but it might even reduce the deficit and ease the pressure on long-term Medicare costs. Such an approach should have direct appeal, not only to moderates and fiscal conservatives in both political parties, but also to the many members of Congress who identify themselves as champions of a “public option” that would compete fairly against private health plans; it would provide an excellent test of such public-private health plan competition, as well as the sincerity of its advocates. All options would compete fairly on a level playing field and guarantee real Medicare savings and rational physician reimbursement in the process.

More from the Heritage Foundation

Rating: 2.5/5 (10 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Is Anita Done?

November 11th, 2009 Cheeky Redhead

Anita Dunn once proved to be one of Obama’s greatest assets; now, she is one of his greatest missteps. As a campaign consultant she boasted boldly during a Jamaican interview that “Obama’s camp controlled the media, ALL the media” and still does today…well, perhaps, aside from FOX News.

As a Democratic strategist, communications consultant, and a partner of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington-based consulting firm, Anita Dunn has most recently been Obama/the White House’s communications chief.

Recently she quietly stepped down from her post and is attempting to tip-toe out of the administration.  No doubt, her past revelations will haunt her career in the future.

What is her future? She is no longer the White House Communications Chief; however she is still on staff as a “consultant.” How many of you are wondering if this has affected her financial status? You may also be wondering how I can say that her past “revelations” will continue to haunt her and I will happily explain by using her own words against her.

In an interview titled “The Buying of the Presidency” Anita Dunn stated the following about “who” actually makes money during presidential campaigns:

“Let’s be honest: The money goes to TV stations. The people who make a lot of money off of presidential campaigns are the television stations in targeted states. I’ll give you an example: Alaska Senate race 2004. At the beginning of the Senate race, it cost $25 a gross rating point to be on the air in Anchorage, Alaska. By October of 2004, it cost $500 a gross rating point, which is more, or comparable to the city of Philadelphia.”

So, when Anita Dunn bragged about “controlling ALL the media” during the election she also was well aware that manipulating the media was really about manipulating funds. Where does money for campaigns come from? I will let her tell you:

“A $2,300 check is a lot of money to me, but it is a drop in the bucket for a statewide competitive race. The amount of people in this country who can afford to write checks like that and who do write checks like that is relatively small, and they tend to be very wealthy. So the amount of time the candidates and elected officials have to spend talking to rich people — calling them to ask them to hold an event, calling them to ask them to raise money, to share their Rolodex, getting on the phone with 50 of their friends, calling them to ask them for money — skews their perspective. The amount of time it takes is so significant that: a) They have less time to go out and actually campaign with people who don’t have that kind of money, and b) they tend to get a skewed sense of what the issue concerns are.”

Wow. There is no confusion here about why a “consultant” is so valuable to a campaign or a candidate. They obviously need someone to remind them “why” they are actually running for office aside from begging for money. Just how much impact does a consultant have on a candidate’s platform? I will let her tell you herself:

“In terms of the role of the consultant theme, there are small races and there are big races. Most of them, at the end of the day, present you with the same fundamental challenges that I believe that any consultant in this business faces, which is working with a candidate and trying to get out of them what they want to do, why they want to hold an office, and then presenting that. And it is frustrating, as a consultant, when a candidate doesn’t know and expects that to be my job to tell them. … And I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who say, “What’s my message?”

Now I pose this question about how much our legislators, leaders, and basically all politicians really know or are able to communicate what they have determined as “their views” when they so readily pay others to build that “view or platform” for them. As voters we listen to candidates and seem to have the idea that what they say they are representing is genuine. We are being led down the proverbial path largely constructed by the ideals, agendas and special interests of those often faceless minions.

Who organizes and focuses these views for those in office? Largely it is those consultants who so recently have been named as “czars” who have very specific agendas and the ears of our leaders.

Anita Dunn has stepped down as the Communications Officer for the White House but is still on the payroll as a “consultant”. She still has the ear of our president and leaders, but without the accountability publicly demanded in an official capacity. During such financially difficult times in America you’d think that our president would be cutting excess out of the payroll instead of simply changing titles.

As Anita Dunn stepped down from her official capacity many of us thought “Good, we aren’t paying her to continue doing such a poor job of hiding the ineptness within political agendas, but that is simply a mirage. She is now a consultant again with an ear of our president so that he can continue to get his much-needed guidance.  Just how much does a consultant make? Let us look to Anita Dunn for an explanation:

“I’ll tell you, the people who by and large overpay for consultants are Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns in expensive media markets that do percentage-of-the-buy [typically, a 15 percent commission of the total advertising buy]. I mean, I can totally justify percentage-of-the-buy at a pretty high rate in a cheap state, where I’m going to end up producing 35 or 40 ads, have 18 debates I’ve got to be prepared [for], and just work a huge amount of time for a relatively small amount of money because TV is inexpensive. On the other hand, if you’re doing a New Jersey Senate race, you’re going to produce five ads for a $15 million media buy; you’re not working that hard.”

Okay, so those who overpay consultants are those in the top positions in our government. I can’t help but wonder how much she is now getting paid. She is creating the platform for candidates and then making money on how well her agenda is being pushed. This is not what American voters voted for; nor what they believe their money is actually being spent on.

Ultimately we have to consider if anyone in any political office is actually genuine. It sure explains why so many seem to falter when it comes to actually representing their constituents. Suddenly, we realize why so many did not bother to read the Obamacare initiative when it was presented. They were waiting for a consultant to explain it to them and let’s face it—based upon the expertise and demonstrated acumen of Anita Dunn, they are all in a pickle.

While Dunn bragged about controlling the media, the internet, and her candidates, Americans were looking for truth that no longer could be controlled by the media minions of Obama’s truth squad. No wonder the Obama camp was so ticked off at FOX and the internet.

Since the presidential campaign, I have had my personal email address barraged with requests to donate to Obama and the truth squad. It is astounding to what extent these people will go to in order to get you to fork over some cash for their cause. It is also shocking the lies they perpetuate for their own agenda. How do they get away with asking for money while not being actually connected to a candidate? Let’s ask Anita:

“There are a lot of people who feel that the amount of money that can be raised on the Internet, which is primarily ideological money, is also problematic because of what they see as the left-wing push. Bill Bradley was the first candidate to raise over a million dollars on the Internet. He was actually the candidate who went to the FEC [Federal Election Commission] in 1999 and said, “Can Internet donations be qualified for matching funds?… “What generally happens for presidential campaigns, because you have multiple firms coming in. So, you create a separate corporation that has only one client, which is the campaign. But it’s a way to make sure that the money is made by that. Everything gets distributed. But what the Republicans do, which is more interesting, because they are much more aggressive under the law, is they actually in the past have set up for-profit companies that don’t make any money. They’re not 527s. But the Republicans take a very different attitude toward election law, because they actually don’t believe in it. By and large, our clients believe in this law.”

So you are propably thinking, “What?” Essentially all those emails from groups that are officially not connected to a candidate are raising money for who and for what? Where exactly is that money going to and what is it being spent on? Are their laws in place to somehow govern these funds or at least make them abide by any set of rules which represent any form of truth in spending? Nope. That is what we pay consultants for and we had no idea.

Are we to believe that the Democrats are not working as diligently as Anita Dunn leads us to believe that the Republicans are in that virtual gold mine of the internet? Are we to think Democrats are not as internet savvy and legally bound by law as Anita Dunn asserts merely by stating they “believe in this law” and so they are not benefiting from internet donations nearly as much as the Republicans? Well, I have yet to receive any emails from any Republican requesting a donation. I also haven’t gotten one from a Republican demanding I ignore and boycott FOX News. As a registered Independent I have gotten nothing from the Republicans in my email.

I am thinking perhaps the Democrats are as aggressive and controlling as FOX news asserts. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in American and our needs. They are listening to the consultants whispering into their ear, “You know, I should really be paid more for doing your job.”


Rating: 3.0/5 (8 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Urban Conservative Officially Relaunches

October 29th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Hello, America!  I am extremely excited to be writing to you this evening, as I officially begin my journey as editor-in-chief of  My name is Billy Hallowell and I am honored to introduce myself to you all.  

I have been a contributor to this site for the past two years.  I am a journalist and commentator who has been working in media for nearly 11 years (I’m 26, so I started fairly young).  In 2003, I founded Pathufind Media and I am currently the host of RENEWtv, a web show devoted to renewing American conservatism.  And now, I’m officially a member of the Urban Conservative family!

But enough about me.  You can surely read more on my Web site, but I’m guessing you’re most interested in what will be happening here on!  Tomorrow, we will become a daily publication.  Many of you have been actively reading UC for years.  This new change will afford you even more access to valuable news and information!

You’ll notice we’ve launched a plethora of new topics.  While these subjects are of great importance to American politics, please be patient as we build our content around them (i.e. there may be a lag before all topics have streaming content).  But, we will be branching into new and uncharted news categories, as you can see.

Also, in November, my show — RENEWtv - will officially join forces with Urban Conservative.  

These are just some of the changes in store as we move forward!  Please be patient as we transition, add new blogs to the CONLIST and forge our path moving forward.  I thank you for your support and readership and I look forward to serving you!

- Billy Hallowell, Editor-in-Chief

Rating: 3.0/5 (22 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Black Female Obama Voter will not vote for him again

July 29th, 2009 Ryan Christy

It seems that President Obama will have to invite another cop – this time a black, female cop – to the White House for some adult beverages with Gates and Crowley on Thursday. Heck, perhaps he even want to appoint her as one of his czars. The woman who voted for Obama and now saying never again is Kelly King, also a Cambridge police officer. Here’s the black woman cop, saying never again to Obama, on CNN:

CNN’s Don Lemon: When you heard about what happened with this sergeant, what did you think?

Kelly King: I was appalled. I know Jimmy. I have known him for more than 11 years with the Cambridge police. I knew him when he worked for Harvard. I know him to be a good police officer, a good man with character, and I knew these charges were bogus. There has been a tremendous rush to judgment. And I think the thing to be learned first and foremost from this is to look at all of the evidence, to consider all, to weigh all. I think Professor Gates has done a very good job of filling up a very effective smoke screen calling race into this. It had nothing to do with it.

LEMON: Well, what about the president?

KING: It’s unfortunate. I supported him; I voted for him; I will not again. I agree that I think it’s admirable that he would speak on behalf of his friend, but he should have recused himself. He should have stepped back and he should have said, “I support my friend but I don’t have all the facts. I won’t weigh in yet.”

LEMON: The governor?

KING: I would apply the same to him.

LEMON: What do you want the people around the country to know who may have already made up their minds about Sergeant Crowley?

KING: Keep their minds open and realize that we would not support someone that we felt wronged someone else. We took this job to do the right thing. We all took this job to do the right thing. We would not support anyone in blue doing the wrong thing.

Here is the video. Watch for yourself.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Rating: 2.8/5 (17 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Profiling is fine when Biden’s doing it

July 29th, 2009 Aliy N

A July 28, 2023 Article on the CNN website covers the new Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) bill, mysteriously introduced by Joe Biden Tuesday which will contribute $1 Billion dollars from the stimulus to putting more police on the streets in the most needed areas.

This is a great, necessary program, if this was part of the stimulus why are we only hearing about it now? Like, now that there’s a controversy between a black man and a white police officer?

In the article Philadelphia ALONE is getting 20 million. Do you know where those forces are going to be (for lack of a better word) deployed? They will be in Point Breeze, North Central, and other poverty stricken, high crime areas. We all know there is more crime in a poverty stricken area, however, the demographics of these particular areas are black, Puerto Rican, and Dominican. Is THIS profiling? Isn’t this what Obama, Gates the NAACP and Colin Powell (yes, he’s making comments about how the police should have acted better too!!!) went nutty about last week?

They think this is a bandaid. Mr. Biden was just used as a pawn in the presidents game. The president can fund profiling without coming out and saying he’s funding profiling, I can see it now..”No, I didn’t do that JOE did” Obama saves face with the NAACP and the high crime profiled areas get extra police. Sounds like a win-win to me, until you realize all he did was throw money at a problem with hopes that make it go away.

Rating: 2.3/5 (16 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Obama’s Greatest Challenge Yet to Come: Replacing Ben Bernanke

May 27th, 2009 Jr Accountant

Perhaps you haven’t noticed this important little bit as you have been too distracted with digging your way out of debt, busting your ass at work just to keep up and grateful for your job regardless, or this nonsense about Obama’s choice for Supreme Court Justice. All of this noise is important, of course, because it further exposes Obama’s weaknesses; the poor cabinet choices (unless a crack team of tax cheats was the intended goal), the recklessly destructive attempts at economic repair thanks to his incredibly blind “advisers,” and the tendency to take on far more than “The State” was ever meant to handle.

Obama himself has insisted that though it may appear the opposite, he would prefer that the United States stay out of corporate affairs. Let us keep in mind that he said this just as GM was being led to the lethal injection chamber by Obama’s own team. Let’s face it, being owned by the United States government at this point is akin to a death sentence - just one more tumor devouring the host. What next? We’ve taken on the banks (who are still wandering aimlessly down Wall Street growling for braaaaaiiinnns), the automakers, the auto PARTS makers, the insurance companies; we have, at this point, even taken on ourselves. You did understand that this is what the Federal Reserve decision to buy Treasury bills on a massive scale equates to, right? Just making sure we are on the same page here.

How is that working out, by the way? Badly. The consensus amongst the armchair economists is that the bond market has begun its not-so-delicate unraveling and will shortly implode. Without this, one of the last “safe” investments remaining in a tumultuous and almost hallucinatory global financial market, Obama will have few options left to fund his promises, like the $787 billion Stimulus (no, it hasn’t been paid for).

But let us set aside the financial crisis momentarily and ignore the dollar’s red flags. Obama’s true challenge, disregarding the rest of the noise, is still ahead. Soon, he will have to start considering who he would like to replace Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Fed.

Bernanke’s term expires on January 31, 2023 and Obama’s people have certainly made it clear that the President does not intend to keep him in his post beyond that date. The first sign Obama wasn’t too keen on another term for Helicopter Ben? Sticking Timmy the Two Bit Tax Cheat Geithner in the Treasury, leaving ex Harvard President Larry Summers’ calendar free for “Take Over the Federal Reserve” on February 1st, 2010.

So, you say?

So, Larry Summers is, as one blogger put it, “a walking, talking conflict of interest.” Summers has collected millions in speaking fees from firms like Citigroup (multiple bailouts ring a bell?), Goldman Sachs (NY Fed/Goldman scandal sound familiar?), and Bank of America (CEO Ken Lewis working with ex Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke to possibly mislead investors, anyone?).

The New York Times paints a lovely picture of Summers saying “Mr. Summers, who will be 54 on Nov. 30, is universally described as brilliant, but is also renowned for being arrogant, occasionally rude and sometimes difficult to work with.” The article goes on to discuss Summers’ infamous reputation as a sexist after “girls don’t do economics” comments were, according to him, taken out of context some years ago.

All of this being said, please do not misconstrue my feelings for Ben Bernanke. Though a declared Republican, he does not subscribe to the exuberant idealism his predecessor Alan Greenspan brought to the Fed Chairman position. Someone described Bernanke’s politicism as being “asexually Republican” - the Ken doll with a bump of plastic under his suit and no expressed or obvious political affiliation to be found. Printing the United States into bankruptcy is certainly not a Republican trait I am familiar with.

So it cannot be Ben Bernanke’s politics which would motive President Obama to let his term expire. And even when we get rid of Bernanke, he’ll still stay on at the Fed board through 2020. 2020 until we can get rid of this money-printing manic depressive!

The Fed is failing and hard (see Treasury bills above). Whether or not this burden should rest entirely on Bernanke’s shoulders has not yet been decided. From the eyes of the funny-money-hungry Obama administration, it appears as though that doesn’t matter. Perhaps Bernanke doesn’t print quickly enough to keep up with President Obama’s promises and Summers will be better equipped to implode what remains of the dollar?

This will be interesting to watch. I sincerely hope Mr Obama manages to find a Fed Chairman who at least knows how to pay his taxes; if he picks a 7th tax cheat, and to head the Fed none the less!, I will have officially lost my faith in any chance this administration has at digging us out of this total economic disaster.

Rating: 3.2/5 (37 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Republicans surpass democrats on twitter

February 17th, 2009 Urban Conservative

Interesting story in the Washington Times about how Republicans are jumping on the technology bandwagon by joining in on the fun with twitter; and they are even beating out the democrats on Capitol Hill  Ha!  This is a moot story and I will tell you why.  Current Republicans in the Senate and Congress aren’t going to win us any future elections.  I will tell you what it is – it’s the thousands upon thousands of conservatives who are using twitter to converse, build relationships, and spread the conservative message; specifically the Top Conservatives on Twitter — #tcot.

Granted, twitter only has about 14 million registered users but that number is growing exponentially month over month and I believe it will be mainstream in the next couple of years. Mark my words folks … the conservative movement has just begun!

If you enjoyed this post, plese follow me on Twitter.

Rating: 2.6/5 (38 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Obama, Democrats Refuse to Listen to the American People

February 4th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Talk about failing to learn life lessons.  After battling for governmental control, Obama is making lofty decisions that stand firmly against the will of the American people.  While he has experienced extremely high approval ratings for his performance these past three weeks, digging somewhat deeper into the polls showcases a substantive shift in public opinion.  From climate change to corruption — to funding for overseas abortions — Obama and the Democrats are paving the way for future electoral defeat.

In an era when millions of Americans are suffering job losses and struggling to meet their most basic needs due to corruption and greed, Obama has pursued individuals who have defaulted on their taxes and evaded general responsibilities to serve in his cabinet.  In no particular order there was Tom Daschle (”was” because he has now officially bowed out of consideration as a nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary), who failed to pay over $130,000 in taxes.  Obama had this to say in response to the outcry surrounding the potential cabinetee (as per FOX News):

“Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I,” Obama said. He added that the “mistake” should not diminish the “many contributions” Daschle has made to the country.

Then comes Nancy Killefer, who also withdrew her name for consideration for the position of “chief performance officer.”  Killefer would have been the first to take this position, but tax problems also hampered her ability to accept it.  And then there is Bill Richardson, who — according to FOX News — withdrew his name over an alleged kickback investigation:

“Obama’s first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.”

The confusing part of the nomination conundrum centers upon Obama’s promise to root out corruption.  So far the only rooting that’s been done is for earmarks and fiscal irresponsibility (i.e. a stimulus plan that calls for $600 million for government vehicles and funding for overseas abortions).

Aside from these shining examples of hypocrisy stands America’s new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes.  The irony behind this clearly centers upon the fact that Geithner, a man who did not pay his own taxes in a timely manner, is going to advise President Obama on all things economy: government fiscal policy, and domestic tax policy, amongst other responsibilities.  And I thought Gregory B. Craig’s (Obama’s White House counsel) defense of a presidential assassin was an embarrassment to the Obama Administration.  Talk about one-upping one’s self.

Clearly, the American people should have some concerns.  One could argue that the aforementioned examples simply result from human error.  But, upon examination there is a pattern building here that is disturbing at best.  Even when one looks beyond the drama surrounding nominees and confirmations, the Democrats are making decisions that rail against the will of the people.

Unfortunately, Democrats have a habit of complaining about Republicans so fervently that they eventually convince the people, through the liberal media, that Republicans are ill-equipped to lead (and some are, but it’s nowhere near the proportion of Democrats).  Then, when they finally convince their way into office, they spend the majority of their time undoing every conservative regulation they can get their hands on, while failing to take the time to formulate their own policies. It’s the ultimate na-na-na-na-boo-boo, only the Democrats are willing to throw money at any problem that their undoing of well-meaning conservative policies doesn’t immediately solve.

Just look at Obama’s major decisions thus far.  According to polls released this week, the majority of Americans stand against Obama’s first two executive orders.  As for the first of these orders — the president’s decision to provide funding to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortions -58% of Americans disagree with Obama; only 35% support the decision.

And when it comes to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, 50% of the American public opposes, with 44% supporting his decision to close Guantanamo’s doors within a year.  While his approval rating is currently high, the American people are already making it known that they disagree with his far-left agenda (these two orders are precipitating facets of his worldview).

Understanding ultraliberals is a daunting task.  They will protest in the streets when Americans go overseas to defend inherent freedoms, but when it comes to international infanticide, they sit on the sidelines and stand idle.  At the least, you’d think they’d at least spout off about the need to support the domestic abortions they support so fervently before shipping funding off to other countries.  Apparently funding clinics that provide abortions in Zimbabwe is more important than funding our crumbling educational system.

Obama needs to get with the program.  Instead of holding press conferences to tell us how he’d never have a lobbyist serve in his administration right before backtracking and hiring a lobbyist, he should spend his time making meaningful and well-planned policy.  We need him to succeed, but with uncollected decision-making at the helm, success isn’t on the horizon.

Read more from journalist and commentator Billy Hallowell at

Rating: 2.8/5 (46 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

The Good, the Bad, and the Stimulus

January 28th, 2009 Jr Accountant

Obama’s planned “economic stimulus” passed in the House today by a 244-188 vote. There is, as with all political and economic news these days, a good and a bad to this announcement.

Above all else, if you have not reviewed the actual appropriations of Obama’s plan, I absolutely recommend doing so. After all, this set of economic shock treatments will likely cost each American taxpayer around $6700 in the long run - this number is, of course, in 2009 money, which will shortly be devalued if Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have their say, running the presses non-stop to cover endless government and private bailouts.

Full disclosure of the stimulus in actual dollar figures suggested by the committee may be found here and here. Warning: the contents of this bill are not pretty. Reading of this bill may cause nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, and vertigo. The pork is overwhelming and feels an awful lot like a giant government bailout. We have been down this road before (Citigroup, anyone?) and the scenery is certainly not entirely unfamiliar.

It is disgusting that this bill passed at all. Beyond that, it is sickening that our new President and Congress chose this as the hallmark of the new administration. Way to kick things off with this bloated joke of a bill, passing a government makeover at the taxpayers’ expense off as a stimulus to rebuild the broken economy which has damaged so many of those selfsame taxpayers.

The good? Not a single Republican in the House voted yea. It shows a strength and unity that the party has been desperate to formulate in recent years; could it be that Conservatives have once and for all learned that we are greater than the sum of our parts?

The bad? The Democrats still got their way.

It is a frightening reflection of the divide we now have to fight against; even when every single one of our conservative representatives in D.C. stand against a self-indulgent joke of a bill such as Obama’s stimulus, we are still defeated by the Spendmores on the other side of the aisle. That is a more frightening realization than the bill itself.

There is a healthy way to stimulate our floundering economy. This, my friends, is not it.

Rating: 2.9/5 (61 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!