Category Archives: constitution

ObamaCare vs. the Post Office – Should Government Handle Either?

There was a great, short post over at The Weekly Standard today that is certainly worth looking at.  So much was said in so little space.

“The problem is, America’s Founders wrote the following words (penned at Independence Hall) into our Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power…To establish Post Offices and post Roads.” Meanwhile, Obamacare may contradict the Founders’ vision of limited government and liberty more completely than any legislation ever passed in our nation’s history. The only good thing about Obamacare is the backlash against it, which has reignited national debate over the proper scope of government and has generated renewed interest in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and our founding principles. But it doesn’t help to advance those principles to suggest that Obamacare is like the Post Office.

It didn’t take 2,700 pages to found the Post Office. The Post Office doesn’t try to run what will soon be one-fifth of our economy. It doesn’t cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. It doesn’t compel Americans to buy health insurance.  It doesn’t consolidate heretofore unthinkable levels of power in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other unelected officials.”

As my readers know, I think the Post Office has become an unmanageable system for the federal government to handle.  The Post Office has not turned a profit in many years.  But, the larger points here are fantastic and it’s good to see validation for what I’ve been talking about here in previous weeks.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under constitution, mitt romney, obamacare, transformational change, us post office, weekly standard

>Congressman Paul Ryan Making Waves With Roadmap

>GOP Rep. Paul Ryan tackles Obama’s path to deficit disaster

By Michael Gerson
The Washington Post

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The new era of Democratic bipartisanship, like cut flowers in a vase, wilted in less than a week.

During his question time at the House Republican retreat, President Obama elevated congressman and budget expert Paul Ryan as a “sincere guy” whose budget blueprint — which, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), eventually achieves a balanced budget — has “some ideas in there that I would agree with.” Days later, Democratic legislators held a conference call to lambaste Ryan’s plan as a vicious, voucherizing, privatizing assault on Social Security, Medicare and every non-millionaire American. Progressive advocacy groups and liberal bloggers joined the jeering in practiced harmony.

The attack “came out of the Democratic National Committee, and that is the White House,” Ryan told me recently, sounding both disappointed and unsurprised. On the deficit, Obama’s outreach to Republicans has been a ploy, which is to say, a deception. Once again, a president so impressed by his own idealism has become the nation’s main manufacturer of public cynicism.

To Ryan, the motivations of Democratic leaders are transparent. “They had an ugly week of budget news. They are precipitating a debt crisis, with deficits that get up to 85 percent of GDP and never get to a sustainable level. They are flirting with economic disaster.” So they are attempting some “misdirection,” calling attention to Ryan’s recently updated budget road map (click here for Roadmap 2.0) — first unveiled two years ago (click here for the 2008 Roadmap) — which proposes difficult entitlement reforms. When all else fails, change the subject to Republican heartlessness.

From a political perspective, Democratic leaders are right to single out Ryan for unkind attention. He is among their greatest long-term threats. He possesses the appeal of a young Jack Kemp (for whom both Ryan and I once worked). Like Kemp, Ryan is aggressively likable, crackling with ideas and shockingly sincere.

But unlike Kemp — who didn’t give a rip for deficits, being focused exclusively on economic growth — Ryan is the cheerful prophet of deficit doom. “For the first generation of supply-siders,” he explains, “the fiscal balance sheet was not as bad. The second generation of supply-siders needs to be just as concerned about debt and deficits. They are the greatest threats to economic growth today.”

Fiscal Obamaism is not just a temporary, Keynesian, countercyclical spike in spending; it is deficits to infinity and beyond. “It is the interest that kills you,” Ryan says. In a few weeks, he expects the CBO to report that, in the 10th year of Obama’s budget, the federal government will “spend nearly a trillion dollars a year, just on interest! This traps us as a country. Inflation will wipe out savings and hurt people on fixed incomes. A plunging dollar will make goods more expensive. High tax rates will undermine economic growth. It is the path of national decline.”

But unlike other deficit hawks, Ryan courageously — some would say foolhardily — presents his own alternative. His budget road map offers many proposals, but one big vision. Over time, Ryan concentrates government spending on the poor through means-tested programs, patching holes in the safety net while making entitlements more sustainable. He saves money by providing the middle class with defined-contribution benefits — private retirement accounts and health vouchers — that are more portable but less generous in the long run. And he expects a growing economy, liberated from debt and inflation, to provide more real gains for middle-class citizens than they lose from lower government benefits. Ryanism is not only a technical solution to endless deficits; it represents an alternative political philosophy.

For decades, culminating in the Obama health reform proposal, Democrats have attempted to build a political constituency for the welfare state by expanding its provisions to larger and larger portions of the middle class. Ryan proposes a federal system that focuses on helping the poor, while encouraging the middle class to take more personal responsibility in a dynamic economy. It is the appeal of security vs. the appeal of independence and enterprise.

Both sides of this debate make serious arguments, rooted in differing visions of justice and freedom. But the advocates of security, including Obama, have a serious problem: They are on a path to economic ruin.

In his Kemp-like way, Ryan manages to find a bright side. “The way I look at it, we were sleepwalking down this path anyway. The Democratic overreach woke people up. It was a splash of cold water in the face of every voter. Now we have a new, more serious conversation. And I’m not going to back down.”

mgerson@globalengage.org

Leave a comment

Filed under conservatism, constitution, jack kemp, obama, paul ryan, vice president

>Dick Cheney Returns, Again

>

Just when I thought my Sunday was going to be boring, even after my Dunkin Donuts coffee, Vice President Dick Cheney shows up on Fox News Sunday and drops the hammer, again, on the left and in specific, on Herr Obama.


Wow, what an interview that was.


When asked about his opinion of Obama, Dick Cheney unleashed: “I wasn’t a fan of his when he got elected, and my views haven’t changed any. I have serious doubts about his policies, serious doubts especially about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation.” Ouch.



Politico has a good recap of the interview.

“The thing I keep coming back to time and time again, Chris, is the fact that we’ve gone for eight years without another attack,” Cheney said. “Now, how do you explain that? The critics don’t have any solution for that. They can criticize our policies, our way of doing business, but the results speak for themselves.”

He added: “It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well.”

Asked if he thinks “Democrats are soft on national security,” Cheney replied: “I do.”



FoxNews.com recaps the interview as well.



RealClearPolitics.com has 4 minutes of the video.

If you’re a serious addict, Real Clear Politics has posted the transcript of the interview here.

Vice President Cheney’s book is not due to be released until 2011, I’m going to have a tough time waiting that long.

Leave a comment

Filed under constitution, dick cheney, george w. bush

>Thoughts on the 4th of July

>This July 4th I have been thinking about the meaning of this country and how this country began. I recently completed a great book called The 5000 Year Leap, shortly after reading and then re-reading Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny.

Both of these books could not have been better timed, one is a new book and one was re-released after being originally published in 1981. Our new president (yes, with a lower case p) has us on a high speed bullet train to a form of government most of us will not recognize. The boiling frog concept will not do justice to what the president is doing.

The Tea Party movement is important, if they can turn their get togethers into a political movement that affects change. Only time will tell if this is going to happen. The July 4th Tea Parties will be sparsely attended compared to the previous efforts, this will be strictly because of the weather in some of the places where the weather was more tolerable on April 15th. So the Tea Parties will likely start to be discredited by those on the left, which includes the media.

November 2010 cannot get here soon enough, so that the people can properly elect a check and balance to watch over the president for the last two years of his presidency.

Leave a comment

Filed under constitution, declaration of independence, july 4th, mark levin, tea parties, tea party