Obama proposes new rules banning profits, losses

In the wake of last week’s news that investment bank JP Morgan had lost a staggering $2 billion in hedge fund trading, President Obama today proposed a new “Dimon Rule” that would prohibit banks from investing in securities that lose money. The rule, named for JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon, would hold investment firms civilly and criminally liable if their investments decrease in value.

President Obama announced the initiative in a press conference at the White House this morning. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, President Obama praised Dimon and JP Morgan saying, “JP Morgan is one of the best-managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got, and they still lost $2 billion and counting."

Obama continued, “That is why I have directed the Securities and Exchange Commission to make it illegal to lose money in the markets. Jamie Dimon is a good and honorable man and if it was illegal to lose investment money, he would not have broken the law. Americans are hurting and making losing money illegal is one thing that the government can do to make their lives easier.”

The proposed Dimon Rule is the latest in a series of Obama Administration reforms of the financial industry. In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd – Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which protected against future financial crises by placing more power in the hands of the federal regulators who did nothing to prevent the 2008 financial crisis. The law also includes the Volcker Rule, which bans banks from using deposits for trading on the bank’s proprietary accounts. More recently, Obama proposed the Buffett Rule, a minimum tax for millionaires that would generate $36 billion annually as the solution to the nation’s $1.3 trillion annual federal deficit. The president’s signature legislation, Obamacare, was a remaking of the health insurance industry that made it illegal to not purchase health insurance policies.

In tandem, President Obama also attacked what he called excessive profits earned by the oil industry. “When oil companies are making huge profits and you’re struggling at the pump, and we’re scouring the federal budget for spending we can afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren’t right,” Obama said in the Washington Post. “They aren’t smart. And we need to end them.”

He continued, “That is why I am proposing that we return to the policies that worked in the past. By reinstituting the Excess Profits Tax that President Roosevelt used to help end the Great Depression, we can spread the wealth of these greedy corporations to where it is needed most, to the least among us.”

The proposed Exxon Rule actually goes a step farther that the New Deal-era Excess Profits Tax. Under the new law, companies would be taxed to exact value of any profits that they report to the IRS. Explains Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in the Huffington Post, “"Democrats won't agree to a one-sided solution that lets the super-wealthy off the hook while forcing the middle class, and those in greatest need, to bear all the hardship.” Reid said, “"Republicans refused to be reasonable. They refused to raise even a penny of new revenue, or ask millionaires to contribute their fair share to help reduce our deficit and our debt.”

Reid continued, “That is why Democrats have proposed that 100 percent of profits of wealthy corporations and their millionaire owners be shared by all Americans. These new revenues will go to help fund necessary and vital programs like Social Security, Medicare, deficit reduction, and the cowboy poetry festivals that so many Americans know and love.”

Apparent Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney blasted the two new proposed rules at a speech before the Hahira, Ga. Rotary Club’s annual pancake breakfast. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Romney told the gathered Peach State Rotarians, “President Obama and I have very different visions. Government is at the center of his vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it cannot take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy…. This President is putting us on a path where our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions and czars. He’s asking us to accept that Washington knows best – and can provide all.” At the conclusion of his speech, Romney noted, “Speaking of consuming, this maple syrup is really delicious. I would love to be provided with another short stack.”

Rep. Ron Paul, who recently stopped spending money on his campaign, also weighed in on the new rules. Paul told Marketwatch, “"My ultimate goal remains to repeal the 16th Amendment and end the tyranny of the IRS once and for all.” Rep. Paul concluded by urging his supporters to rally in Tampa at the Republican National Convention, where they would “have a hoe-down and then march on the Federal Reserve.”

Economists noted that the president’s new rules would prevent any transfer of wealth except through the government, turning banks into giant holding companies that were only allowed to return the exact amount that the customer deposited. Milton Bergman of the People for American Dollars pointed out that without the risk of loss or the possibility of profits, investments would cease and economic growth would stop. “How does the president plan to reduce unemployment without jobs associated with growing and profitable industries?” Bergman wondered.

White House press spokesman Jay Blarney responded, “All we are trying to do is get through the next six months until the election. After that, if we win, we’ve got another two years to worry about job creation. If we don’t, its Romney’s and the Republicans’ problem.”

In case you haven’t guessed, this is a work of satire. It is not real. Some real quotes were used. When a real quote was used, its source was cited with a hyperlink. Milton Bergman and Jay Blarney are entirely fictitious. Don’t believe everything you read.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-proposes-rules-banning-investment-losses-profits

Obama's Chance for Greatness

Barack Obama has a historic opportunity. I say this not because of his race. I believe that, as Martin Luther King said, a man should be judged, not by his color, but by the content of his character. Obama's opportunity is with the vast amounts of goodwill that he currently possesses.

Barack Obama has inherited the presidency during a rough time. We have entered a recession, we are fighting (and winning) two wars, and we still face the threat of radical Islam. Here is my short list of ways that Obama can be a successful, and perhaps great, president. If not, he may go down in history as a footnote.

First, keep America safe. We need to make sure that Iraq and Afghanistan continue to become stable states where the terrorists cannot regain a foothold. Even more importantly, we need to make sure that Iran will not be able to produce nuclear weapons, even if this requires military action.

To that end, we also need to enact sensible immigration reform. We cannot continue to let thousands of people simply walk across our borders. Aside from the fact that many illegals die in the desert while trying to cross, the fact is that it would be absurdly easy for terrorists to enter the country.

The second thing that Obama should do is to resist the temptation to run up a multi-trillion dollar deficit enacting New Deal style programs. FDR's New Deal turned a Hoover recession into the Great Depression (although it did lock in fifty years of Democratic rule, so on that score, he was probably happy with it). The type of programs that Bush and Paulsen have started and that Obama wants to expand also led directly to Japan's Lost Decade in the 1990s, economic upheaval and stagnation that Japan still has not fully recovered from.

Instead Obama should set aside his notions of "fairness" and reduce taxes. Our corporate tax rate is currently one of the highest in the world. If he drastically reduced corporate taxes, the capital gains tax, and eliminated the estate (death) tax, that would be real economic stimulus. Instead, in the campaign he announced plans to increase corporate and capital gains taxes, and the estate tax is set to increase in a few years automatically. If he wants to go further, implementing the FAIR Tax would ensure the US role as an economic powerhouse.

Finally, Obama should not restrict civil liberties. Many of his appointees are notoriously anti-second amendment. Restrictions on guns would not be popular with the American people and historically have not helped deter crime. Similarly, restrictions on the political content of talk radio could also backfire at the polls. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate secret ballots in union elections and, while popular with unions, is not very popular with voters.

To be great Obama must resist the pull of the radical left and govern from the center.He must reject class warfare and use proven solutions to heal the economy. He must realize that we simply can't afford a trillion dollars of new spending. He must realize, as President Reagan said, that government is the problem, not the solution. He must realize that when dealing with radical zealots, actions speak louder than words. If he can do this, he may be a great president, as judged by history, and not just by opinion polls. If he can do this, he may even get my vote in 2012.

Change Is Coming

Last night Barack Obama made history by becoming the first black man to be elected President of the United States. For better or for worse, it is a historic moment. Americans did not so much put aside racial differences as embrace them. According to Fox News coverage of exit polls, most voters who said that race played a role in their vote actually voted for Obama.

Obama won by promising change. This promise capitalized on the resentment that many hold for the Bush Administration and the sluggish economy. Many felt that things could not get any worse. To them, let me say that change is not inherently good.

Many of the policy proposals that Obama has laid forth would definitely result in change, but not the type of change that people would like to see. Obama’s plans to raise taxes and restrict free trade through a unilateral renegotiation of NAFTA are strikingly similar to steps taken by Herbert Hoover at the outset of the Great Depression.

In a recent interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama talked about his cap-and-trade plan, which amounts to a huge new tax on energy: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." (Chronicle Vol. 8, No. 45, Nov. 5 2008, www.patriotpost.com)

Obama’s capital gains and dividend tax increases would place further pressure on the already strained 401(k) and retirement plans that most Americans hold. Many of these plans have already taken losses of 40-50% due to the Wall St. crisis.

President Obama will also have to contend with congress. Even though the Democrats have majorities in both houses of congress, some parts of Obama’s platform might be difficult to pass. Obama’s tax plan is based on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, which will happen easily, and then adding tax credits for low- and middle-income taxpayers. Passing new tax credits might be more difficult, especially as congress looks at paying for the many proposed government programs that will cost trillions of dollars.

A lasting impact of the Obama Administration will be his appointment of federal judges. Obama has said that he will appoint judges who are “sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power and as a consequence can’t protect themselves from being — from being dealt with sometimes unfairly” (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-kind-of-justice-would-president-obama-mete-out/). All Americans should be concerned if Obama appoints judges who decide cases based on your social class rather than written law.

The world will not get any safer with President Obama in the White House. Recent reports from Israel indicate that Iran may have already tested two nuclear weapons (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128151). While this has not been verified, it is certain that nuclear proliferation in Iran, Syria, and North Korea will be an issue that the next president will face. Doubts about Obama’s support for Israel may convince Israel that the best course is a pre-emptive strike before Obama takes office in January 2009.

A convergence of Bible prophecies also points to the likelihood of another Middle East war. Joel C. Rosenberg, author of Epicenter: Why the Current Rumblings in the Middle East Will Change Your Future, says that Ezekiel 38-39 foretells of a coalition of nations led by Russia and Iran that oppose Israel. Rosenberg points out that Russia and Iran have an alliance now for the first time in history. Rosenberg further points out that two nations conspicuously absent from the coalition are Egypt, which signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, and Iraq, which is rebuilding its military and dealing with an insurgency. The attack is ultimately defeated by divine intervention. If Obama is secretly pro-Arab, as many of his backers believe, then the time could be ripe for a fulfillment of this prophecy, which may then usher in further end-time events.

It has been suggested that Obama’s election may be God’s will. That is possible. It is also possible that Obama’s election is a repudiation of God’s will. At this point, it is impossible to know. Those of us who are concerned by Obama’s record and associations can take comfort in two Bible verses. The first is that “all things work together for good to those that love God and are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). The second is “by their fruits you shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). God’s will soon be apparent.

Obama’s first actions as president will likely signal the priorities of his presidency. While there has been no indication from the Obama team as to what his first priorities will be, some other Democratic politicians have indicated what they would like to see. There has been much talk about the Employee Free Choice Act, or the Card Check bill. This misnamed bill would actually deprive employees of the right to a secret ballot election in choosing whether to unionize. Another commonly discussed piece of legislation is the Fairness Doctrine, which would curtail the freedom of speech of radio stations and talk show hosts in an attempt to muzzle conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. Enacting gun control legislation is another rumored priority of the new government. If any of these limitations to freedom are pushed by the new Obama Administration, Americans should be rightly worried.

America should rightfully be proud that a member of a once oppressed minority can rise to the highest office in the land. We should be less proud that in doing so we paid so little attention to the man himself, his record, and the people who surround him.

It has been suggested that Obama is the John F. Kennedy of our generation. Based on his policy proposals, I fear that he may be our generation’s Herbert Hoover, who tax and regulatory policies turned a recession into the Great Depression, or our Jimmy Carter, whose dictator-friendly administration saw a dramatic expansion of Soviet influence around the world. I pray that he is not our generation’s Lenin.

I will pay close attention to President Obama. I will give him a chance to prove that he is working for the good of the United States as a whole. I pray that he will be a wise and fair leader who stands by his oath to uphold the Constitution. If he doesn’t, I’ll work extra hard to find a replacement for him in 2012. I urge all Americans to do the same.

Obama vs. McCain: Whose Economic Plan is Best?

Currently the United States is undergoing one of the worst financial crises of the last hundred years. Since the crisis is occurring in the middle of a presidential election, it is undoubtedly helping the opposition party challenger, Barack Obama. Obama and McCain have both presented strikingly different plans for recovering from the crisis.

Obama’s plan is centered on a middle class tax cut with increased taxes for taxpayers earning more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for individuals (according to Americans for Tax Reform). This plan is the wrong prescription for the economy and is likely to make the problem worse.

In fact, Obama’s income tax hikes are only the starting point for his tax increases. He would increase the capital gains tax by 13%, which could affect people who own stocks in their 401(k) plans or who sell their homes. Obama would also increase the dividend tax on stocks, which also affect 401(k) owners. While McCain would phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which snares increasing numbers of middle class taxpayers, Obama would leave it intact. Obama would also reinstate the Death Tax, which under current law will be reduced to zero by 2010 and then jump to 55% in 2011. Obama also supports increasing Social Security taxes on higher income taxpayers. Obama would also leave the US corporate tax rate at 35%. This is one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world; only Japan and Germany are higher. Additionally, Obama has also proposed a cap-and-trade tax system on carbon emissions and a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Both would lead to higher energy prices for consumers.

While Obama does propose cuts for the middle class (many in the Democratic congress do not agree with this aspect of his plan), his tax increases would affect the segment of the population that drives the economy. The top 5% of taxpayers includes many small business owners. Over half of the nation’s workforce is employed by small businesses. If these companies have to pay more in taxes, they will have less money to pay employees. That will translate into fewer jobs. Additionally, the top 5% of taxpayers already pay 60% of all taxes. This figure is up from 56% before Bush’s tax cuts.

History shows us that low tax rates typically lead to economic growth. In the United States, there have been four cuts in tax rates over the past one hundred years. These cuts took places during the administrations of Coolidge and Harding, Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush. In each case, the economy grew, jobs were created, and tax revenues actually increased. This can also be seen around the world. When Ireland cut its corporate tax rate to 15%, it became one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. Eastern European nations such as Russia, Slovakia, Serbia, Ukraine, Romania, and Georgia have all used low flat taxes to stimulate their economies.

On the contrary, increasing taxes slows the economy and actually leads to a smaller Gross Domestic Product and fewer tax revenues. FDR’s tax increases and regulation in the 1930s made the Great Depression in the US last much longer than in many other countries. In 1920, a severe depression had lasted only a year due to President Harding’s cuts to federal taxes and spending. George W. Bush got similar results with tax cuts in 2001.

A more recent example of the folly of tax increases can be found in the state of Michigan. In 2007, Governor Jennifer Granholm enacted the state’s largest tax increase in generation in order to make up a budget shortfall. The taxes were planned to generate about $1.3 billion in new revenues. Instead, tax receipts are far below projections and Michigan entered a statewide recession two years before the rest of the country.

The other side of the coin is that Barack Obama has proposed numerous new spending programs. These costly programs include massive expenditures on healthcare, the environment, a national service plan, college tuition assistance, and many other programs. The total for Obama’s new spending is close to $300 billion per year according to the National Taxpayers Union. Such massive new spending programs would rapidly expand the deficit and increase the federal debt.

Obama and the Democrats are also unlikely to make serious reforms to the nation’s mortgage markets. Many of the problems that we face today can be traced to the Community Reinvestment Act of the Carter era, which required banks to loan money to low-income borrowers. The program was expanded under President Clinton, who directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their holdings of subprime loans.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made large campaign contributions to congressional Democrats in exchange for thwarting Republican attempts at oversight. The two top recipients were Senator Chris Dodd, now chairman of the senate committee that oversees banks, and Barack Obama, who received more money in four years than most members received in twenty. Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, former CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have worked extensively on Obama’s campaign.

In contrast, John McCain plans to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and reduce corporate tax rates. McCain wants to simplify the tax code so that both individuals and companies will save on accounting costs. John McCain also cosponsored legislation to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2005.

McCain also has a long record of opposing government waste and pork barrel spending. This makes him an ideal candidate to tackle the growing problems of Social Security and Medicare. Medicare is projected to be bankrupt by 2019 and Social Security by 2050. Changes must be made immediately to avoid massive new taxes or draconian benefit cuts to save both programs later.

Barack Obama’s economic policies take the United States in precisely the wrong direction. His numerous tax increases and expensive new spending programs have been proven to restrict economic growth in the past. To further restrict economic growth when the country is already in a recession would almost certainly prolong and deepen our current economic crisis.

Sources
http://atr.org/content/pdf/2008/August/082508pr-ObamaMcCain%20Matrix.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121192942396124327.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Should You Vote for Obama?

If you believe that the United States can tax itself into prosperity, vote for Obama.

If you believe that we can simultaneously create jobs while heavily taxing those who create jobs, vote for Obama.

If you believe that a person can associate with a seemingly endless stream of anti-American activists over the course of twenty to thirty years and not only not be affected by their viewpoint, but not even be aware of it, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the 40% of Americans who already do not pay taxes should get a tax cut (translation: a bigger tax refund), vote for Obama.

If you believe that banning the private use and ownership of firearms is a “reasonable restriction” on the second amendment, vote for Obama.

If you believe that abortion should be legal with no restrictions, vote for Obama.

If you believe that you don’t pay enough taxes, vote for Obama.

If you believe that a senator can take over $125,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (more than any other member of Congress save one, even though he has only served four years in the senate) and it will not affect his objectivity on reforming and overseeing these mortgage companies, vote for Obama.

If you believe that most traditional Americans are bitterly clinging to guns and religion, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government should force banks to loan money to people with poor credit, vote for Obama.

If you believe that opposing same-sex marriage is akin to racism, vote for Obama.

If you believe that we can solve the problem of international terrorism by opening a dialogue, vote for Obama.

If you believe that America wasn’t great until you decided to run for office, vote for Obama.

If you believe that gas will be cheaper if we tax oil companies more, vote for Obama.

If you believe that increasing oil supplies will have no effect of the price of gasoline, vote for Obama.

If you believe that taxing carbon will have no effect the economy, vote for Obama.

If you believe that experience and knowledge don’t matter as much as charisma and hope, vote for Obama.

If you believe that making students into political radicals (through programs such as the Annenberg Challenge) is more important than teaching them subjects such as math and science, then vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government can run the healthcare industry more cheaply and efficiently than doctors and insurance companies, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Jesus was a community organizer, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Iraq is not important in spite of what Osama bin Laden says, vote for Obama.

If you believed that the surge wouldn’t work in Iraq, but is needed in Afghanistan, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Al Qaeda or Iranian radicals wouldn’t fill a vacuum left by the US in Iraq, vote for Obama.

If you believe that healthcare is a constitutional right, vote for Obama.

If you believe that it is ethical to take money from other people to pay for your health insurance, vote for Obama.

If you believe that a trillion dollars worth of new spending is a good thing, vote for Obama.

If you believe that ACORN is a valuable resource in spreading political awareness, vote for Obama.

If you believe that banks should be pressured by community groups such as ACORN to loan money to people with poor credit, vote for Obama.

If you believe that ACORN should receive federal money even though they have perpetrated voter fraud on a massive scale in the last several elections, vote for Obama.

If you believe that more government regulations are the answer to most of our national problems, vote for Obama.

If you believe that our economic problems are caused by corporate greed and not government intrusions into the market or massive deficit spending, vote for Obama.

If you believe that social programs are more important than defense spending, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the US should borrow more money from nations like China to fund entitlement programs, vote for Obama.

If you are reassured by the phrase, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” vote for Obama.

If you believe that the Democratic Party can suspend the laws of economics, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the US can make socialism work where all others have failed, vote for Obama.

If you think that Truth Squads, which intimidate media outlets that present information unflattering to Obama, are a good idea, vote for Obama.

If you think that America needs a domestic national police agency with a budget similar to that of the military, then vote for Obama.

If you agree with the political views of most Hollywood celebrities, vote for Obama.

If you enjoyed the Carter years and would like to revisit them, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government’s plan to increase bio-fuels, which also increased food prices by 75%, worked well, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government should tell you what kind of light bulb to use, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government should force the auto companies to produce cars like the Prius, which are smaller and more expensive than comparable cars, vote for Obama.

If you believe the government, not private companies, creates jobs, vote for Obama.

If you believe that we should have judges who rule based on their personal beliefs rather than written law, vote for Obama.

If you believe that our judges should apply the laws of other countries to American courts, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the most leftist member of the US Senate is capable of forging bipartisan unity, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government can spend your money more wisely than you can, vote for Obama.

If you believe that next year, your income level won’t be considered “rich,” vote for Obama.

If you believe that character is not important, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the party of higher taxes can suddenly become champions of tax cuts, vote for Obama.

If you believe that allowing tax cuts to expire is not a tax increase, vote for Obama.

If you believe that giving tax refunds to those who don’t pay taxes is not welfare, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government should be involved in wealth sharing, vote for Obama.

If you believe that the government bureaucracy is more efficient than private enterprise, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Barack Obama is your new bicycle, vote for Obama.

If you believe that any change is good, vote for Obama.

If you believe that Iran armed with nuclear weapons is not a problem, vote for Obama.

If you believe that we should invade Pakistan, vote for Obama.

If you believe that liberal Democrat control of the presidency, along with filibuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress, is a good thing, vote for Obama.

If you believe that more government is the answer, vote for Obama.

If enough people vote for Obama, you’ll get the government that you deserve.

If, on the other hand, you believe that, as President Lincoln said, “America is the last, best hope of mankind,” and that the founders of our country were wiser than our current crop of politicians, don’t vote for Obama.

What Does Hillary Want?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been running virtually neck-in-neck through much of the Democratic primary season. I say “virtually” because, at this point, Barack Obama has enough of an edge to almost mathematically eliminate Hillary from contention. Because of the peculiar rules of the Democratic Party, neither candidate has been able to score a full victory over the other. The existence of superdelegates that can overrule the popular vote is Hillary’s only chance to win the nomination at this point.

So Hillary cannot be counted completely out, but her chances of winning the nomination are currently nestled somewhere between slim and none, with slim rapidly leaving town. The big question is why Ms. Clinton continues to stay in the race, and spend millions of dollars on the campaign, when the odds are so heavily against her. The most likely possibility is that Mrs. Clinton is positioning herself for an Independent Democratic campaign for the presidency.

An independent campaign is not without precedent. In 2006, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to radical leftist, Ned Lamont. Lieberman continued his re-election campaign as an Independent Democrat and eventually won the election with 50% of the vote.

Like Lieberman, Hillary Clinton is losing the Democratic primary to a much more radical leftist. Obama’s radical connections and far-left platform, which help him in the Democratic primary, are likely to make him unpopular with moderate American voters in the general election. His inexperience and foreign policy gaffes will make him vulnerable to Republican nominee John McCain, especially as the war in Iraq winds down toward an American victory.

Hillary began preparing for her presidential campaign as shortly after leaving the White House in 2001, if not before. Her successful Senate campaigns in 2000 and 2006 were dress rehearsals for her run for the presidency. She did not expect serious opposition in the primary, especially from a political unknown. Her lack of preparation is the reason for her early losses and Obama’s early momentum. Recent primaries have been closely contested as Hillary fights for political survival.

Hillary realizes that her time is now. She knows that if Barack Obama is elected, it will be eight years before she has another chance at the presidency. Obama would be certain to run for re-election in 2012 and it is unheard of for a sitting president to lose the nomination. She also realizes that after eight years of Obama’s neophyte foreign policy and economic socialism, the country would be unlikely to elect another Democrat. If Obama loses the nomination, she stands to take a large share of the blame from Democrats because of her persistence in the divisive primary campaign. Therefore, she would be an unlikely choice for the nomination in 2012.

Mrs. Clinton’s continued participation in the primary is an attempt to build justification for her attempt to mount an independent campaign. She is attempting to show that she, and not Obama, offers the Democratic Party the best opportunity to win the swing states that are necessary for a successful White House run. Any Democratic candidate will win states like California, Massachusetts, and New York, but Hillary’s point is that she is more likely to win states that might fall into either column, such as West Virginia, Florida, and Ohio.

On this point, Mrs. Clinton is correct, and not for racial reasons. Swing state voters like moderate candidates and Barack Obama is no moderate. Obama was ranked the most liberal member of the US Senate by National Journal. Mrs. Clinton ranked 16th on the list. In 2006, her rank was a very moderate 32, while Obama never got higher than 16th on the list.

Additionally, Obama has just started to feel the effects of his associates. His relationship with Jeremiah Wright, which had little effect in the primary, is likely to hurt him in the general election. Michelle Obama, Barack’s wife, has also made statements that many interpret to be, if not anti-American, definitely out of the American mainstream. His association with Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers, Weather Underground terrorists and bombers, has not been widely reported, but may become and issue later. Similarly, the fact that his mentor and father figure was Communist Party member, Frank Marshall Davis, has also not been widely discussed yet.

Finally, Obama has his own ideas and statements to overcome. His statements about “bitter” people clinging to guns and Bibles offended many of the voters that he needs to win the presidency. His comment that “I won’t wear that [American flag] pin on my chest” likewise offends many moderate Americans. Obama’s anti-war views may also be an increasing liability as an American victory draws nearer. His plans to talk directly with Iranian and North Korean leaders seem naïve to many in light of the continued work on nuclear weapons by both countries in spite of years of negotiations.

In spite of his success in the primary, Barack Obama faces an uphill battle in the general election. Hillary Clinton is a more moderate candidate who would be more likely to win the swing states so important in a close election. By running an Independent Democrat campaign, she would offer an alternative to moderate voters who are uncomfortable with Obama’s radicalism on the left and John McCain on the right. She would be able to draw a significant amount of Obama’s leftist base as well as moderates from the center. If her bid is successful, she would be able to position herself as the person who rescued the Democrats from another presidential defeat.

Remember: You heard it here first.

Captain Kudzu's Letter in USA Today

On May 16, I had a letter printed in USA Today. The printed version was edited by the newspaper. Here is the full, unedited version:

DeWayne Hickham underestimates white voters. The willingness of white voters to vote for a black candidate has been shown time and time again, both in this and other campaigns.

The problem that Obama faces is not the color of his skin, but his Marxist political philosophy and his radical associations. Obama is calling for a US surrender in Iraq, massive tax increases, new regulations on business and industry, and would roll back gains in civil liberties such as second amendment rights and the right to life. Most Americans will find these positions far out of the American mainstream. Obama is dogged by his record, not as a uniter, but as the most liberal senator in the entire US Senate.

The people with whom he chooses to associate are also out of the mainstream. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of twenty years, is virulently anti-American. William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Weather Underground terrorists from the 1970s, helped kick off Obama's political career. Communist Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's mentor as he grew up in Hawaii.

Equally disturbing is the Obamania from dictators around the world. Anti-American leaders from Hugo Chavez to Daniel Ortega and countries from Russia to North Korea have indicated that they prefer an Obama presidency. A Hamas representative said, "We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election."

There are myriad reasons for Americans of all colors not to vote for Barack Obama in November. To suggest that race is the dominant factor, either for or against any candidate, is itself a racist proposition. The American people, as Martin Luther King suggested, as judging Obama, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

The link to the letter is :
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/dont-underestim.html

Obamania Around the World

Barack Obama is proud to trumpet many of the endorsements that he receives in his campaign for president of the United States. Among his supporters are celebrities, soldiers, and politicians of all stripes. There are several prominent Obama supporters from around the world that Barack Obama would probably prefer the average American voter to remain unaware of.

Hamas has been classified as a terrorist group for years. The group was a prime force behind the Intifada against Israeli occupation of Gaza and Palestine. One of the main weapons in their struggle was the suicide bombing of civilian targets. Hamas’ political wing won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, and ultimately took control of Gaza after winning a civil war with Fatah in 2007. The Hamas charter states, “There is no solution to the Palestinian question except through jihad.”

Knowing what Hamas represents, Obama should cringe when Ahmed Yousef, a ranking Hamas official, released a statement that said, “We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle…” The response of the Obama campaign was that it was “flattering” to be compared to John Kennedy.

Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, gushed that Obama is “laying the foundations for revolutionary change” in the United States. Given the nature of the communist Sandinista revolution that Ortega led in Nicaragua, his excitement over a similar revolution coming to the US should alarm most Americans.

Gleb Pavlovsky is an advisor to Vladimir Putin, former president and current prime minister of Russia, as well as Putin’s successor, Dmitri Medvedev. Putin has led a resurgence of nationalism and nostalgia for the Soviet Empire in Russia. Under his leadership, the Russian military has rearmed and become leaner and more efficient. Putin formed a military and economic alliance with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran, a terrorist state. Putin’s Russia also has also strong-armed neighboring countries by threatening to shut off an oil pipeline. Pavlovsky said that John McCain is the worst choice for president and that Barack Obama, who is “less tied” to the Cold War, is the best.

President Ahmadinejad has not specifically endorsed Obama, but Iranian television featured a fictional John McCain in an animated television show. The fictional McCain meets with spies and dissidents to try to plan a regime change for Iran.

President Hugo Chavez has nationalized segments of Venezuelan industry and is attempting to consolidate more power for himself, including a failed referendum to remove presidential term limits. Chavez is known for referring to President Bush as “the devil.” Chavez has not specifically endorsed Obama, but has said that McCain is a “man of war” and that he hopes the next president “will be open to improving relations with Venezuela.”

North Korea’s government-controlled newspaper has accused John McCain of trying to mount “a base and ridiculous challenge” to North Korea in an attempt “to strangle it.” North Korea is in violation of a 1994 agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and allow inspections. They have also threatened to discontinue the armistice that ended the Korean War. The North Koreans have also been implicated in a project to build a nuclear reactor in Syria. This reactor was destroyed by the Israelis in 2007.

Why are so many world leaders, especially anti-American world leaders, friendly towards Obama and hostile to John McCain? The answer can be found in Barack Obama’s statement that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. His plan for removing US troops from Iraq without winning the war also plays into the hands of our enemies. He would also jeopardize the relationship with US allies, such as Pakistan, by initiating unilateral military action inside their borders.

These leaders recognize that Obama would be weak and ineffective on foreign policy. Obama would give our enemies in Iraq what they cannot win on the battlefield. These leaders realize that, while America would remain a powerful nation, President Obama would be unlikely to be willing to exercise that power. North Korea and Iran would engage in meaningless negotiations to buy time as they build their arsenals of WMDs.

Additionally, Obama’s economic policies of heavy taxation and income redistribution would hurt the American economy. This would, in the long run, make the US less likely to intervene against these rogue leaders in the future.

For Americans who believe that the United States is an “arsenal of democracy,” Obama’s support from anti-American leaders around the world should raise a red flag. While Barack Obama probably does not support these leaders, or want support from them, their statements reveal that they believe that an Obama administration would be beneficial to them and their nations. What is good for anti-American dictators around the world is not necessarily good for Americans.

Sources:
“Our Enemies and the Election,” Wall Street Journal, May 10-11, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121038058620282293.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/flattered_by_hamas_obama_campaign_is
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/14/america/LA-POL-Nicaragua-Ortega-Obama.php
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brandozilla/2008/mar/26/hugo_chavez_endorses_mccain_for_president
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/iran-accuses-john-mccain-of-us-spying-plot-2.html
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brandozilla/2008/mar/26/hugo_chavez_endorses_mccain_for_president
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080423/wl_afp/nkoreanuclearweaponsussyria_080423210123

Making Every Vote Count (But Some More Than Others)

Ever since the 2000 Presidential election, the Democratic Party has repeatedly emphasized election reform. We have heard calls to ensure that every vote counts as well as proposals to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a strict popular vote. The 2008 primary campaign season has shown the hypocrisy of some of these positions and the impracticality of others.

The Democrats commitment to making every vote count did not even survive until the beginning of the primaries. Prior to the start of the primaries, states began competing to have the earliest primary in order to capture national attention and prestige. When Michigan and Florida moved their state primaries beyond February 5, the date imposed by the Democratic National Committee, the Democrats decided to strip both states of their delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Through no fault of their own, Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan were denied representation in the Democratic convention.

Both states held elections anyway. Hillary Clinton won the primaries of both states. In Michigan, many of the other candidates were not even on the ballot. With the close race for the Democratic nomination, there is much discussion of having another election in both states, but problems with paying for and getting approval for second elections makes this unlikely.

A second problem with the Democratic primary system is that Democratic delegates are awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote that they won in each state. This means that, unlike the Republican winner-take-all system, neither candidate can score a complete victory. This means that the Democratic primary drags on, costing both candidates money and wearing down their supporters, while the Republican nominee can raise funds and consolidate his base of supporters.

The Democratic system of apportionment does have exceptions. In Nevada, Clinton won 51% to Obama’s 45%. Ordinarily, this would mean that Hillary Clinton would win more delegates, but in Nevada, Obama won thirteen delegates to Hillary’s twelve. This is because Nevada delegates are apportioned by congressional district and Obama won more districts.

A decidedly undemocratic policy of the Democratic Party is the use of superdelegates. Superdelegates are not elected by primary voters and are not bound by the results of the primary vote. Superdelegates are party leaders and elected officials and are free to vote for any candidate they choose. A superdelegate vote is equivalent to approximately 10,000 primary votes.

Superdelegates were introduced in 1984 to re-establish the role of party leaders in the primary process. Changes in the Democratic delegate selection process after 1968 had put more control in the hands of voters and less in the hands of party leaders. Superdelegates currently make up about 20% of delegates to the Democratic convention.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are openly courting superdelegates because they are free to vote for anyone and for any reason. Much like the 2000 presidential election, the winner of the Democratic primary popular vote may not necessarily become the Democratic nominee.

The situation is made even more confusing because some superdelegates can appoint other superdelegates. In many states, these super-duper-delegates, chairmen of state Democratic Parties, can appoint anyone they choose to be “unpledged add-ons.” The 76 unpledged add-ons are distributed based on population and Democratic strength. Each state gets at least one add-on.

The Democratic primary process does not instill me with confidence that Democrats would be capable of finding simple and workable solutions to the problems that America faces. Voters should carefully the Democratic primary mess before allowing the Democratic Party to tackle such important issues as healthcare, tax reform, and the War on Terror.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/jon_ralston_on_the_delegate_si.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_el_pr/super_sized_delegates

Barack Obama’s Radical Side

Over the past several months, numerous chain emails have circulated around the country. These emails make several misleading claims about Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. These emails made claims that Obama was a Muslim who took his oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible, that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the US flag, and that he was educated in radical Muslim schools. All of these claims were either totally false or exaggerated. The truth about Barack Obama would be almost as disturbing to most mainstream Americans.

Throughout his life, Barack Obama has kept company with leftist radicals and anti-Americans. Obama’s long association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright is now widely known and discussed in the media. Despite admitting to a personal friendship with Wright and attending his church for twenty years, Obama claims to never have heard any of the myriads of anti-American diatribes delivered by Rev. Wright.

Among the controversial comments of Rev. Wright are his claim that 9/11 represented “America’s chickens coming home to roost” as a result of US support of Israel and South Africa. He also claimed that the US government gave drugs to blacks in order to be able to imprison them and created the AIDS virus to kill black people. On at least one occasion, Wright claimed that blacks should sing “God damn America” rather than “God bless America.”

In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama discusses his association with a poet named “Frank.” Obama describes Frank as a person who was much like a father and who gave him advice on his career. Frank has been identified as black poet and Communist Party-USA member, Frank Marshal Davis.

Davis was identified as a communist by the Commission on Subversive Activities report to the Hawaiian legislature in 1951. The House Un-American Activities Commission also identified Davis as active in several communist front groups. During its heyday of the 1950s and 1960s, the CPUSA was received funding and support directly from the Soviet Union.

While campaigning for elected office in 1995, Obama became friends with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn were convicted members of the Weather Underground, a 1960s leftist terror group. The group was involved in a Brinks truck robbery in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed, as well as the bombings targeting US military officers. In 2001, Ayers told the NY Times, “I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.”

More recently, a key Obama fundraiser, Chicago businessman, Tony Rezko, was arrested in January 2008 on charges of hiding assets while on a bond. He was originally arrested several years earlier on corruption charges relating to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Rezko’s association with Barack Obama goes back to 1990 when a Rezko executive read an article by Obama in the Harvard Law Review. The executive introduced Obama to Rezko when he learned of Obama’s interest in politics. When Obama ran for office in 1995, Rezko became one of his first contributors.

When the Obamas shopped for a house in the Chicago area, they found a $1.65 million dollar mansion with four fireplaces, a wine cellar, and a wrought iron fence. The problem was that the house was owned by a doctor who also owned a vacant lot next door and wanted to sell both properties at the same time. The Obamas could not afford both properties. The Obamas closed on their house in June 2005 and, on the same day, Rezko’s wife bought the vacant lot for $625,000. The Rezkos later sold a portion of the property to Obama for $104,500 and paid $14,000 to build a fence on the property line.

Obama remained a friend of Rezko throughout Rezko’s criminal investigation. The friendship finally cooled after Rezko’s indictment. Obama reportedly may be called as a witness in Rezko’s corruption trial due to the fact that he engineered $10,000 in illegal contributions to Obama’s campaign.

When we view Obama’s past associations, it is easier to understand Michelle Obama’s comment that “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.” Based upon the people whom Obama chooses to associate with, and whom he courts as political allies, he may very well share his wife’s pessimistic views of the United States in spite of his denials.

It is also interesting to note who Barack Obama’s supporters are around the world. Daniel Ortega, communist President of Nicaragua, said that Obama lays “the foundation for revolutionary change” in the US. Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, called a hypothetical Obama-Hillary ticket “invincible.” Most Americans would probably prefer not to have the support of Communist dictators.

A closer look at Obama’s record as a public servant, both in Illinois and in the US Senate, would also disturb most Americans. National Journal named Obama as the most liberal senator in the entire US Senate in 2007. (Hillary Clinton was 16th.) He has ratings of 100% from the Planned Parenthood, NAACP, Illinois Environmental Council, and the National Organization for Women, as well as 92% from the AFL-CIO. Conversely, he was 0% by the National Right to Life Committee, Americans for Tax Reform, and Federation for Immigration Reform. He was also given 8% by the American Conservative Union and an ‘F’ by the NRA.

With respect to abortion, while in the Illinois state senate, Obama voted against a law that have guaranteed the right to life for any baby born alive. This law would not have affected legal abortions, but would have prevented the killing of any baby born living. Obama also said that he did not want his daughters “punished” with a baby for making “a mistake.”

On fiscal issues, Obama is a proponent of tax increases. Obama has floated plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts and to increase the Social Security payroll tax. Obama specifically plans to raise taxes on the “wealthiest Americans.” He also opposes ending the Death Tax, the Estate Tax, even though this tax causes many family businesses to fail. Obama voted to repeal the capital gains tax cut. The capital gains tax affects millions of Americans who sell homes or own retirement accounts. Tax increases have historically caused the economy shrink and reduced tax revenues.

Ironically, Obama used his influence as a senator to win tax breaks for companies in Illinois. His campaign stated that tax breaks "lower costs for customers and create jobs." This is correct, but it is not a policy that Obama seeks to implement beyond his home state.

Obama’s healthcare plan would reduce market forces in the health care industry and replace them with government mandates. His plan calls on government subsidies, which in turn require massive tax increases to provide funding. He also wants to define minimum benefits and place limits on deductibles and co-payments. These regulations would strangle innovation and efficiency. In spite of his claims, Obama’s healthcare plan is not truly universal coverage. It does retain some freedom to choose not to purchase coverage.

Obama’s energy policy is centered on cap-and-trade of carbon emissions and renewable energy. Cap-and-trade involves the buying and selling of pollution credits. Companies would be required to bid for a limited number of these pollution credits. In a growing economy, demand for these credits would send their prices skyrocketing. This would further increase the cost of consumer goods and drain the bank accounts of American families.

Renewable energy sources are inadequate and impractical with current technology. Biofuels require more energy to create and transport than they would supply. Creating enough biofuels to make a meaningful impact on oil imports would require that prohibitively large areas of the US be dedicated to crops for biofuel production. Diversion of crops to biofuels causes food prices to increase. Similarly, solar and wind power requires large areas of land dedicated to solar collection. There are also problems with storage of electricity from solar and wind power, as well as the changing nature of the winds and clouds. Nuclear energy, the most promising and cost effective renewable energy source, is seldom mentioned.

With respect to the War on Terror, Obama would remove all US combat troops from Iraq within sixteen months. This would create a power vacuum that would be filled by either Al Qaeda on Iranian-backed Shiite groups. The sacrifices of the US and Iraqi troops would be squandered. Thousands of Iraqis who have aided the Coalition-supported government of Iraq would be murdered. American prestige would suffer and our enemies would gain control of Iraq’s oil fields, further endangering the American economy.

Barack Obama is neither a moderate nor a consensus builder. His associates and his record portray him as an extreme leftist who is far from the American mainstream. His excellent public speaking skills are no substitute for experience and understanding of economics and diplomacy. Should we really expect the most liberal senator in the country to bring us together?

Sources:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/18/quotes-rev-jeremiah-wright/
http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=58&num=132576
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/michelle-obama-remarks-st_n_87346.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/14/america/LA-POL-Nicaragua-Ortega-Obama.php
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2825114320070829
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/obama_ranked_most_liberal_sena_1.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/9574
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Obama-s-gruesome-abortion-record.html&Itemid=99999999
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/03/obama_babies_ar.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3638710&page=1
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8266
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/930258/biofuel_problems_may_offset_benefits/index.html?source=r_science
www.barackobama.com

Clinton and Obama Realize the Truth About Taxes

WASHINGTON — Both Democratic presidential candidates, who promise to curb the influence of corporate lobbyists in Washington, helped enact narrowly tailored tax breaks sought by major campaign contributors.
-USA Today


USA Today is reporting that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both used their influence as senators to win tax breaks for companies in their home states. The revelation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama passed tax breaks for their contributors is proof of the fact that their desire to raise taxes would be harmful to the country.

Obama's campaign had it right when they said that tax breaks "lower costs for customers and create jobs." If they trule believe that to be the case, then why not allow the whole country to reap the benefits instead of select companies in their home states?

If tax breaks create jobs and lower costs, then tax increases must eliminate jobs, raise costs, and generally be bad for consumers. To raise taxes or let the Bush tax cuts expire would cause the economy to shrink and raise the chances of a recession.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm

The Problem With Clinton and Obama

The Democratic presidential primary is down to two leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The party is split almost evenly between the two and the competition for the nomination is fierce. The nation is focused on who would be better for the party and who would be better for the country.

The two candidates are remarkably similar. They both lack experience in leadership roles and both have short resumes when it comes to government service. Both were elected to the senate in 2000 and re-elected in 2006. More importantly, the platforms of both candidates share many of the same ill-advised planks.

There are several areas in which the proposed policies of Clinton and Obama would be disastrous for the United States. The most obvious is that both candidates have repeatedly voiced their intention to end the war in Iraq.

The Iraq War can end in only one of two ways. The first possibility is that the United States can defeat the terrorists and create a free and stable Iraq. The second is that the United States can unilaterally withdraw and leave Iraq at the mercy of Al Qaeda and Iranian backed Shiite extremists.

If US troops leave Iraq, the war would not end immediately. The terrorist groups, which today are largely defeated and demoralized, would regroup. Fighting would erupt between Sunni terrorists and Shiite militias for control of the country. The war would most likely spread throughout the region as Saudi Arabian forces intervene to protect Iraqi Sunnis, Iranian forces assist Shiites and Turkish troops attack Kurds. The probable outcome would be that Al Qaeda or Iran would gain control of Iraq and it huge oil reserves. This would put the United States economy at the mercy of Muslim extremists as well as providing financing for either terrorist attacks against US targets or Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Clinton and Obama’s second problem area is with their proposals for government mandated health care. A government takeover of the healthcare industry would mean that the government is taking control of 17% of the gross national product. This is an unprecedented government foray into the marketplace.

The plans for federalized healthcare are based on the mistaken assumption that the government can solve the problem when in reality, as Ronald Reagan said, the government is the problem. Government mandates for health insurers have been a prime reason that health insurance costs have increased. If insurers were given the freedom to tailor policies to consumer demands, prices would drop and more consumers would choose to buy health insurance. Instead, state governments pass laws that force costs to rise. Some of these laws require that Viagra be covered, that insurance pay for chiropractors and massages, and that pregnancy coverage be provided regardless of whether the consumer wants it. Simple policies with high deductibles for major medical coverage are increasingly hard to find.

Similarly, current tort law makes it extremely expensive to practice medicine. Rising malpractice insurance premiums and large punitive judgments have driven many doctors into other fields and have discouraged many students from pursuing medical careers. In several states, OB/GYNs have almost been driven completely out of business. Even if a doctor stays in business, they often choose to run more tests than necessary to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit.

People who see government action as a panacea usually do not think about the unintended consequences of government actions. To control healthcare costs, the government would have to impose price controls on the industry. When price controls are imposed, people will realize that they won’t be able to make as much money as a doctor and decide that the years of college and residency are not worth the low pay. When the supply of doctors decreases, it will inevitably lead to the rationing of healthcare and long waits for treatment. This scenario has occurred repeatedly in countries where the government provides free healthcare.

Nothing that the federal government does suggests that it would be able to provide healthcare more efficiently or more cheaply than private business. Instead, the opposite is true. Veteran’s Administration hospitals have been plagued by scandals of poor conditions and long waits for treatment. Other government organizations, from the post office to the DMV, are equally poor examples of customer service and efficiency.

The Democratic plans for the repairing the economy have a similarly utopian view of government action. There have been proposals for a freeze on mortgage interest rates, a moratorium on foreclosures, and a government bailout of homeowners and mortgage companies coupled with strict new regulations on lending. These plans again fail to realize that relaxed lending rules are partly the result of government desires to make home ownership available for more people.

The current economic problems are the result of a free economy in which mortgage companies made loans to people who were not likely to be able to repay them. The consumers who accepted the loans are equally at fault because they did not reconcile the terms of their mortgages with their ability to repay. In many cases, the mortgage problems are the end result of years of financing a lifestyle with debt. Both the mortgage companies and the consumers made bad decisions, but neither was forced to become a party to the mortgage.

This is what the free market is all about. If people and companies are given the freedom to choose, some will make bad choices. People and companies who make bad choices need to suffer the consequences of those choices so that they will learn not to make the same mistake in the future. To teach that the government will use the money taxed from people who made good choices to bail out people who made choices sends the wrong message. Such policies perpetuate bad behavior and cause problems in the economy rather than alleviating them.

Finally, Clinton and Obama are also alike in their desire to pay for their programs by instituting new taxes ostensibly on the rich. The problem here is that taxes hurt the economy as well. Over the past hundred years, taxes have been cut by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush. Each time tax revenues increased in spite of the fact that tax rates were reduced. When taxes are increased, the opposite is true. The reason is simple. Tax cuts allow people and companies to keep more of their earnings and encourage productivity and investment, while tax hikes remove money from the economy.

Countries around the world are moving toward free economies and lower tax rates so it is ironic that one of the major parties of the United States is advocating a move toward the types of polices that have been proven failures in numerous communist and socialist countries. Many former Soviet bloc nations in Eastern Europe are experiencing booming economies due to their low flat taxes. The difference can even be seen from state to state in the US among states with high tax rates, such as Michigan, California, and New York, when compared with states that have no income tax, such as Tennessee, Texas, South Dakota, and Nevada. The high tax states have sluggish economies, high costs of living, and many are experiencing a decline in population.

When Americans go to the polls, they should remember that change in itself is not a worthy goal. Democratic policies can lead to higher gas costs, global insecurity, rising healthcare costs and declining benefits, higher taxes, and a shrinking economy. The United States should not repeat the mistakes that communist and socialist countries have made over the last hundred years. Instead, we should renew our commitment to free markets, lower taxes, and personal freedom, including the freedom to make your own mistakes, The best thing that the government can do for the economy is to get out of the way.