By Austin Hill
A new poll shows that 73% of Americans think our country is on the wrong track.
Are you one of the seventy-three percenters?
The poll from Reuters/Ipsos Public Relations was conducted between August 4 and August 8. Given the turmoil over the federal government “debt deal,” the downgrade of federal government debt, and the dramatic shifts in the global stock markets during this period, it’s not surprising that the “wrong track” figure leaped ten percentage points – up from 63% - compared to the same poll conducted exactly one month prior.
What was a bit surprising, however, was that this relatively high percentage of Americans reported “wrong track” status for the country, despite the fact that there were slightly more registered Democrats surveyed than there were registered Republicans. Given that Democrat ideology rules the U.S. Senate and the White House, it would make sense that registered Democrats in America would be more pleased with the leadership of their fellow Democrats who hold elective office.
But if the United States is on the wrong track – if our nation has truly lost its way - then a couple of other questions should follow: A) what is the “right track” for America ? And B) How will we know when we’re “on” it?
Rather than try to quickly answer these two questions, I’m suggesting that we all should first contemplate several other questions. As the title of a famous sales training book once noted, “questions are the answers” – so here are a couple that can help move the process forward:
Who manages wealth the best – private individuals and groups, or politicians and government bureaucrats? For most of my adult life – that is, since the days of the Reagan presidency - the United States federal government has been fairly respectful of every American’s right to create, and possess monetary wealth, and has mostly avoided being punitive towards the wealthiest in society.
Additionally, our government’s leadership has been fairly accepting of the notion that when Americans are permitted to keep more of their own wealth, rather than less of it, they usually do productive things with it that ultimately benefit the overall economy. Even Democrat President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors noted in 1994 that "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."
Yet today our nation is afflicted with a terrible philosophical malaise – I call it “the politics of envy.” With a President who campaigned on a pledge to “spread the wealth around,” many Americans today make the assumption that the wealthiest among us achieved their earnings by questionable if not immoral means and deserve to have ever-increasing portions of it taken from them in the form of “higher taxes.” Likewise the assumption is made that when individuals possess large sums of wealth they only do “selfish” things with it, whereas politicians can force wealthy people to expand their businesses and “create jobs” and can spend people’s money in ways that benefit “everyone.”
This esteemed view of government seems terrific – but is it really accurate? The agenda of President Obama and his Democrat party has helped create an environment where roughly half of the population pays no income taxes, so presumably the President has spread at least some wealth “around.” But have the new controls and mandates and regulations placed on businesses – all in the name of the “collective good” – really been beneficial to anybody? As Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, LTD recently noted, “those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President…” Indeed treating business owners and “the wealthy” as though they are something less than dignified respectable human beings has produced a stagnant economy, and the constant threat from the President to raise taxes on the wealthy makes matters worse not better.
And here’s another soul-searching question for a nation that is on the “wrong track:” is America strengthened when growing portions of its citizens are content to live off of the largess of others? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the signature domestic agenda item of our current President – “Obamacare,” if you will – has led many of our fellow Americans to believe that they simply no longer need to work for a living because of all the “free” assistance they can get from our government.
This is not just political “spin” or partisan punditry. It comes directly from Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O. It was none other than Mr. Elmendorf himself who noted in late 2010 that, outside the healthcare sector of our economy, the greatest impact of the Obamacare agenda will be in the labor market as the program incentivizes people to not work. Is this really something that puts America on the “right track?” It may be helping to bring down the unemployment rate, but it is certainly not leading our country to prosperity and productivity.
The pain of a stagnant economy and high unemployment is quite evident, while the flaws of bad government policy are not always so obvious. Americans should be contemplating these, and lots of other questions, as we seek to get our nation back on course.
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Monday, August 15, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Boehner Must Champion Congressional Pay Cuts
By Austin Hill
You can’t say they’ve been slow to act.
Since the 112th Congress first convened on January 3rd of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives has been aggressively pursuing an agenda of cutting government spending. With the passage of bills that repeal Obamacare, de-fund NPR, and discontinue federal subsidies for special interest group Planned Parenthood (just to name a few), the House has demonstrated that it “got the message” in last year’s election.
And now it’s time for Speaker of the House John Boehner, the man who has led this frenetic charge, to take direct aim at the most obvious form of political self interest. It is time for Speaker Boehner to move forward on cutting the salaries of elected members of Congress.
Boehner’s leadership in the U.S. House has been front-and-center in a much larger story that has emerged nationwide. Led by state Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho, elected Republicans around the country have been getting back to doing what Republicans should have been doing for the entire last decade – cutting government spending, and reducing government intrusion in private sector business matters. As such, the Republican Party has initiated a very healthy and necessary debate about the proper role of government in society, and has also provided an attractive and distinct alternative to President Obama’s “the state above all else” vision.
And now, as he goes about the people’s business day-to-day in the national spotlight, Speaker Boehner can add a new level of depth and richness to this national debate, and demonstrate that real statesmanship is capable of real self-restraint and real self-sacrifice. If he would champion the idea of congressional pay cuts and make it a legislative priority, he would likely find that the idea has broad bipartisan support among the American electorate, would create lots of “good will” on behalf of the Republican Party, and – most importantly – would move the federal government further in the correct fiscal direction.
To be clear, there has been chatter on Capitol Hill about congressional pay cuts for quite some time. Last year for example, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Arizona) proposed the idea, but with her own party in charge in Washington the idea went nowhere. However, Kirkpatrick also pushed the Obamacare agenda on a less-than-agreeable Arizona electorate, while at the same time she pledged to forego the lavish healthcare plan afforded to her as a member of congress and agreed to instead participate in the President’s government-run health plan herself. While cuts in congressional salary and benefits were certainly noble ideas, Ms. Kirkpatrick nonetheless managed to get herself un-elected last November as she became one of the infamous one-termer Democratic freshmen who rode the Obama wave to victory in 2008, only to crash with him two years later.
But at the start of this year another Arizonan -and a much more moderate Democrat - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords took up the mantle. Introducing the “congressional pay cut act” on January 6th, Ms. Giffords attracted co-sponsorship of her legislation from such diverse House members as the big-spending Rep. Jim Costa (D-California), and the always-looking-for-leaner-government Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Giffords bill calls for a meager 5% decrease in congressional pay, yet seems to be stalled for the time being as Ms. Giffords herself continues her miraculous recovery from her own horrific shooting that occurred two days later.
And herein lies the opportunity for Mr. Boehner. If the Speaker of the House would take the baton and move forward while at the same time making cuts in both congressional pay and benefits even steeper, he could demonstrate that American statesmanship is capable of self-sacrifice, and truly operating in the interests of the “common good.”
And imagine the impact that Speaker Boehner could have on Republican leaders at the state level. If, for example, Governors across the country were inspired to self-impose their own salary and benefits reduction, it could go a long way to demonstrate that teachers and law enforcement officers are not the only government employees that are being asked to “do more with less.”
Owing to the reality that the U.S. Senate is still controlled by the Obama Democrats, many of Boehner’s legislative achievements have been dismissed as “merely symbolic” (the Senate, for example, will never agree to de-funding National Public Radio). To this, the House Majority has rightly offered a very succinct response: “give us more Republicans in the Senate, and we’ll make our spending cuts a reality.”
But Speaker Boehner has the power, right now, to demonstrate that recipients of some of the most lavish salaries and benefits in the world (all of which are funded with our tax dollars) are capable of self-sacrifice. Mr. Boehner, this is your time -are you ready?
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
You can’t say they’ve been slow to act.
Since the 112th Congress first convened on January 3rd of this year, the U.S. House of Representatives has been aggressively pursuing an agenda of cutting government spending. With the passage of bills that repeal Obamacare, de-fund NPR, and discontinue federal subsidies for special interest group Planned Parenthood (just to name a few), the House has demonstrated that it “got the message” in last year’s election.
And now it’s time for Speaker of the House John Boehner, the man who has led this frenetic charge, to take direct aim at the most obvious form of political self interest. It is time for Speaker Boehner to move forward on cutting the salaries of elected members of Congress.
Boehner’s leadership in the U.S. House has been front-and-center in a much larger story that has emerged nationwide. Led by state Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and C.L. Butch Otter of Idaho, elected Republicans around the country have been getting back to doing what Republicans should have been doing for the entire last decade – cutting government spending, and reducing government intrusion in private sector business matters. As such, the Republican Party has initiated a very healthy and necessary debate about the proper role of government in society, and has also provided an attractive and distinct alternative to President Obama’s “the state above all else” vision.
And now, as he goes about the people’s business day-to-day in the national spotlight, Speaker Boehner can add a new level of depth and richness to this national debate, and demonstrate that real statesmanship is capable of real self-restraint and real self-sacrifice. If he would champion the idea of congressional pay cuts and make it a legislative priority, he would likely find that the idea has broad bipartisan support among the American electorate, would create lots of “good will” on behalf of the Republican Party, and – most importantly – would move the federal government further in the correct fiscal direction.
To be clear, there has been chatter on Capitol Hill about congressional pay cuts for quite some time. Last year for example, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Arizona) proposed the idea, but with her own party in charge in Washington the idea went nowhere. However, Kirkpatrick also pushed the Obamacare agenda on a less-than-agreeable Arizona electorate, while at the same time she pledged to forego the lavish healthcare plan afforded to her as a member of congress and agreed to instead participate in the President’s government-run health plan herself. While cuts in congressional salary and benefits were certainly noble ideas, Ms. Kirkpatrick nonetheless managed to get herself un-elected last November as she became one of the infamous one-termer Democratic freshmen who rode the Obama wave to victory in 2008, only to crash with him two years later.
But at the start of this year another Arizonan -and a much more moderate Democrat - Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords took up the mantle. Introducing the “congressional pay cut act” on January 6th, Ms. Giffords attracted co-sponsorship of her legislation from such diverse House members as the big-spending Rep. Jim Costa (D-California), and the always-looking-for-leaner-government Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Giffords bill calls for a meager 5% decrease in congressional pay, yet seems to be stalled for the time being as Ms. Giffords herself continues her miraculous recovery from her own horrific shooting that occurred two days later.
And herein lies the opportunity for Mr. Boehner. If the Speaker of the House would take the baton and move forward while at the same time making cuts in both congressional pay and benefits even steeper, he could demonstrate that American statesmanship is capable of self-sacrifice, and truly operating in the interests of the “common good.”
And imagine the impact that Speaker Boehner could have on Republican leaders at the state level. If, for example, Governors across the country were inspired to self-impose their own salary and benefits reduction, it could go a long way to demonstrate that teachers and law enforcement officers are not the only government employees that are being asked to “do more with less.”
Owing to the reality that the U.S. Senate is still controlled by the Obama Democrats, many of Boehner’s legislative achievements have been dismissed as “merely symbolic” (the Senate, for example, will never agree to de-funding National Public Radio). To this, the House Majority has rightly offered a very succinct response: “give us more Republicans in the Senate, and we’ll make our spending cuts a reality.”
But Speaker Boehner has the power, right now, to demonstrate that recipients of some of the most lavish salaries and benefits in the world (all of which are funded with our tax dollars) are capable of self-sacrifice. Mr. Boehner, this is your time -are you ready?
Email Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, March 14, 2011
We All Must “Sacrifice” (Except The President’s Friends)
By Austin Hill
We live at a time when all Americans must sacrifice.
All, that is, except those of us who can be politically helpful to our President as he seeks re-election.
Last month, President Barack Obama addressed a gathering of the National Governor’s Association, wherein he suggested that “shared sacrifice” should become a new catch-phrase, of sorts, for America. “If all the pain is shared by one group,” the President noted, “that’s not good for anyone.”
In that same engagement, the President went on to address his healthcare “reform” legislation from last year. “I "I am not open to refighting the battles of the last two years or undoing the progress we've made," he noted, but then explained that he wanted a bipartisan group of Governors to work with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to make Obamacare “even better.” "I will go to bat for whatever works,” he claimed, “no matter who it comes from."
Before we move on to the broader issue – this insincere notion of “shared sacrifice” – let’s look carefully at some of the “straw man” arguments and erroneous insinuations that the President articulated to the Governors, just based on the portion of his speech recorded above. Why, for example, would the President suggest that the “pain” of the economic downturn is only being felt among “one group” of Americans?
The Great Recession has been felt in nearly every sector of the economy, among people from nearly every socioeconomic category. Even the wealthiest among us (a group President Obama so often disparages as being “greedy”) have had fewer opportunities in which to invest and with which to expand their wealth – and de facto that has meant fewer employment opportunities for others.
In reality, the “one group” of people that has been most successfully sheltered from the “pain” that the President wants us all to “share” is government employees, themselves. And on that matter, President Obama told the Governors that "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified.”
Here are the facts of the matter. In the state of Wisconsin, state taxpayers pay nearly 100% of the costs of government employee retirement pension contributions, and well over 90% of government employee’s healthcare insurance costs. The uproar in that state has not been about Wisconsin indiscriminately firing government workers or cutting the workers’ benefits, but about the necessity of government employees taking more financial responsibility for their own retirement and healthcare. This, of course, led to Wisconsin school teachers storming the state capitol and chanting “tax the rich – don’t cut our benefits…”
But never mind the disparity between the economic realities of the private sector, where most of us pay for a good bit of our healthcare and contribute our own earnings to private retirement accounts, and the comforts of the government sector where tax payers foot the bill for these things. According to our President, holding government employees responsible for modest portions of their own retirement and healthcare costs is “villifying” and “denigrating,” Sacrifice ought not be shared among “them.”
And now, back to Obamacare. From 2007 (when his presidential campaign began) to March of 2010 (when the bill was signed into law), Mr. Obama insisted that his plan for national healthcare “reform” would expand healthcare access. And it would save the federal government from going bankrupt. And it would produce a higher quality of healthcare. And it would save state governments money. And it would “bend the healthcare cost curve downward.”
Today there is no evidence that any of these things are even remotely on their way to happening. Over half the states in our union (26) have filed law suits to prevent the implementation of Obamacare. And over 1000 private organizations have been granted waivers from having to comply with the mandates of Obamacare,
And note the disingenuous essence of the “waivers.” While the President created this healthcare monstrosity that is supped to be good for all Americans, his Administration has been busy “waiving” groups that can be politically helpful to the President himself.
The list of waiver recipients includes hundreds of local labor unions; McDonald’s restaurants (a company that employs over 30,000 hourly workers nationwide who earn less than $11,000 a year), Carlson Restaurants (owners of “TGI Fridays” – again lots of low wage workers); and the General Electric Corporation, whose C.E.O. Jeff Immelt was a large cash contributor to the President’s first presidential campaign. Interestingly, Mr. Immelt also received another nice political favor from our President when G.E. was granted a waiver from complying with federal environmental regulations surrounding a G.E. power plant project in California.
So the call for “shared sacrifice” only applies to those of us who are not politically helpful to the President. Government employees enjoy the benefit of President Obama seeking to shelter them from economic reality, while private groups that can help with the 2012 campaign are now blessed with Obamacare exemptions.
America must make a better choice in 2012, and put an end to this corruption.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
We live at a time when all Americans must sacrifice.
All, that is, except those of us who can be politically helpful to our President as he seeks re-election.
Last month, President Barack Obama addressed a gathering of the National Governor’s Association, wherein he suggested that “shared sacrifice” should become a new catch-phrase, of sorts, for America. “If all the pain is shared by one group,” the President noted, “that’s not good for anyone.”
In that same engagement, the President went on to address his healthcare “reform” legislation from last year. “I "I am not open to refighting the battles of the last two years or undoing the progress we've made," he noted, but then explained that he wanted a bipartisan group of Governors to work with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to make Obamacare “even better.” "I will go to bat for whatever works,” he claimed, “no matter who it comes from."
Before we move on to the broader issue – this insincere notion of “shared sacrifice” – let’s look carefully at some of the “straw man” arguments and erroneous insinuations that the President articulated to the Governors, just based on the portion of his speech recorded above. Why, for example, would the President suggest that the “pain” of the economic downturn is only being felt among “one group” of Americans?
The Great Recession has been felt in nearly every sector of the economy, among people from nearly every socioeconomic category. Even the wealthiest among us (a group President Obama so often disparages as being “greedy”) have had fewer opportunities in which to invest and with which to expand their wealth – and de facto that has meant fewer employment opportunities for others.
In reality, the “one group” of people that has been most successfully sheltered from the “pain” that the President wants us all to “share” is government employees, themselves. And on that matter, President Obama told the Governors that "I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified.”
Here are the facts of the matter. In the state of Wisconsin, state taxpayers pay nearly 100% of the costs of government employee retirement pension contributions, and well over 90% of government employee’s healthcare insurance costs. The uproar in that state has not been about Wisconsin indiscriminately firing government workers or cutting the workers’ benefits, but about the necessity of government employees taking more financial responsibility for their own retirement and healthcare. This, of course, led to Wisconsin school teachers storming the state capitol and chanting “tax the rich – don’t cut our benefits…”
But never mind the disparity between the economic realities of the private sector, where most of us pay for a good bit of our healthcare and contribute our own earnings to private retirement accounts, and the comforts of the government sector where tax payers foot the bill for these things. According to our President, holding government employees responsible for modest portions of their own retirement and healthcare costs is “villifying” and “denigrating,” Sacrifice ought not be shared among “them.”
And now, back to Obamacare. From 2007 (when his presidential campaign began) to March of 2010 (when the bill was signed into law), Mr. Obama insisted that his plan for national healthcare “reform” would expand healthcare access. And it would save the federal government from going bankrupt. And it would produce a higher quality of healthcare. And it would save state governments money. And it would “bend the healthcare cost curve downward.”
Today there is no evidence that any of these things are even remotely on their way to happening. Over half the states in our union (26) have filed law suits to prevent the implementation of Obamacare. And over 1000 private organizations have been granted waivers from having to comply with the mandates of Obamacare,
And note the disingenuous essence of the “waivers.” While the President created this healthcare monstrosity that is supped to be good for all Americans, his Administration has been busy “waiving” groups that can be politically helpful to the President himself.
The list of waiver recipients includes hundreds of local labor unions; McDonald’s restaurants (a company that employs over 30,000 hourly workers nationwide who earn less than $11,000 a year), Carlson Restaurants (owners of “TGI Fridays” – again lots of low wage workers); and the General Electric Corporation, whose C.E.O. Jeff Immelt was a large cash contributor to the President’s first presidential campaign. Interestingly, Mr. Immelt also received another nice political favor from our President when G.E. was granted a waiver from complying with federal environmental regulations surrounding a G.E. power plant project in California.
So the call for “shared sacrifice” only applies to those of us who are not politically helpful to the President. Government employees enjoy the benefit of President Obama seeking to shelter them from economic reality, while private groups that can help with the 2012 campaign are now blessed with Obamacare exemptions.
America must make a better choice in 2012, and put an end to this corruption.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
