Where has fiscal Conservativism gone? The actions in recent months of our President and Federal Legislators have unleashed a litany of outrage among the voting body. Moreover, contrary to our mass media’s insistence, Conservatives cannot boast a monopoly on the nation’s growing frustrations. The immense bi-partisan concern for our government’s outrageous spending has swelled to epic proportions. Our elected officials’ treatment of our hard-earned dollars have left many asking what has happened to fiscal responsibility. It has left most conservatives asking what has happened to the Republican Party. There is no denying the Democrats have not been known for their fiscal discipline but Republicans, at least during the Reagan years, had once been able to boast of a reasonable degree of spending restraint.
As we approach the sunset of 2009, a new era of monumental spending has erupted. Undoubtedly, our current Democratic leadership is to blame for much of our bloated budget but Republicans are not exactly free of guilt. That growing ambiguity between the spending habits of Democrats and Republicans segues nicely into Colorado’s 2010 Gubernatorial Republican buzz. Of particular interest is the state’s captivatingly diverse concoction of Republican Candidates. With current Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s approval rating plummeting as consistently as President Obama’s, the spotlight has begun to shift to the growing list of Republican contenders. Three names currently fill that list, two of which I will address in this article. In this climate of swelling government spending and subsequent voter outrage, I thought I would dedicate an article to the fiscal track records of Colorado’s three Republican Candidates vying for the party’s gubanertorial ticket.
Scott McInnis, former five-term Colorado Congressman from Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, announced his Gubernatorial Candidacy in May of this year. What McInnis brings to the political table is evident: experience. It should come as no surprise then that his campaign has chosen to build their message around the former Congressman’s proven track record. More specifically, the campaign has gone to great lengths to highlight McInnis’ record of fiscal discipline, something most voters will likely take into consideration as they cast their 2010 ballots. Colorado’s state budget deficit has been growing alongside its national counterpart for some time. Many feel that government program expansion in conjunction with rising unemployment and exorbitant tax increases are much to blame. McInnis has made consistent efforts toward linking the state’s rising unemployment with an executive leader whose fiscal experiences and disciplines are scant.
Running on the same message of return to fiscal conservatism but with a whole-heartedly new approach, State Senate Minority Leader, Josh Penry, threw his hat into the gubernatorial ring in July. Penry, a thirty three year old success story, has challenged McInnis’ call for more experience in our leadership by arguing the failure of that exact group of leaders to carry the torch of fiscal conservatism for the better portion of the last decade. According to Penry’s campaign message, only through the emergence of a fresh new generation of Republican leaders, will the solution to the party’s current identity crisis be resolved. Like McInnis, Penry promises an administration of fiscal Conservatism. Unlike McInnis, Penry asserts that only new guard Republicans can be trusted with the responsibility of a renewed commitment to Reagan Conservatism. Whether the solution to our party turmoil is found in the reinvigoration of experienced and proven leaders or by way of fresh new faces, one point is inarguable: Ritter’s support among Colorado voters is in serious jeopardy.
Both at the state level and nationally, Republicans have some monumentally important decisions to make in the coming months. Indeed, some have come to view Colorado’s current gubernatorial ticket as a reflection of the larger decision currently before the party. With our nation in fiscal peril, what path more likely guarantees a return to a Reagan policy of fiscal responsibility? With any degree of appreciation for the fiscal principals of our Founding Fathers, there is no denying Conservative ideals of limited government and a decreased burden on American taxpayers are the only roadmap to economic recovery. Thus the 2010 question before the Republican Party: will it turn to the wisdom of the past or forward to the wave of the future? Only time will tell.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
President Obama Speaks to the Nation's Youth: Why Many Parents are Disturbed
This coming Tuesday, President Barak Obama will stand before a televised audience, an audience not the American Voter. Not yet that is. On Tuesday, September 8th, the President will collectively address our nation’s children on what will serve for most, as their first day of school. His speech is expected to include such noble reminders as the importance of education and the virtues of working hard. In many respects, the idea of a Presidential Address to our children seems a reasonable means for educating our students in civic awareness. In fact, much of the anticipated content is in perfect keeping with many of our most basic Conservative principals. Why then the public outrage?
On his radio show last night, Mario Solis Marich encouraged anyone with an intelligent justification for the angry response to news of the President’s speech to please speak up. The answer is really quite simple. A growing number of Americans do not trust President Obama. The cult of personality that has grown to define this administration has left many Americans justifiably apprehensive about Barak Obama, the man. This paranoia is not restricted to the Right. On Progressive Talk Radio, talk show hosts such as Thom Hartmann have gone to great lengths to differentiate between Obama Policy and Obama celebrity. Since his inauguration in January, the president has acted upon a great many policy objectives he vowed just last year to actively campaign against.
His official policy decisions have run so contrary to “Candidate Obama’s” campaign promises that his ardent supporters have had to perform intellectual gymnastics in an effort to defend his administrative decisions. He has delivered countless speeches so inanely riddled with convenient ambiguities he has left even the most politically savvy scratching their heads in confusion. In doing so, he has exploited the American People’s trust. They can no longer boast confidence in an Obama Administration that means what it says and says what it means. It should come then as no surprise that some parents might be reticent about entrusting their children’s impressionable young minds to a leader who not only lacks integrity but seems at the same time dogged in his quest to revolution the United States. For all of his charm and inarguable charisma, President Obama has been praised neither for candor nor humility.
At the same time, do I fear that students will come home from school on the evening of the 8th pledging servitude to the great leader Barack Obama as Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher and so many other persons of little consequence have already done? No, I give our children far more credit than that. But I do respect their parents’ right to decline participation in the event and so should the school boards. Very likely, President Obama will deliver an undisruptive speech as regards staying in school and pursuing dreams. All the same, his mind-boggling sense of political invincibility, despite his plummeting poll numbers has many wondering where he will ever draw the line on his political invasiveness. So as a growing number of uneasy parents pledge to keep their children home or take them fishing on the 8th, I challenge the Administration to rethink their pre-conceived notions about the sort of the “change” the American People were looking for back in November. We will always, in keeping with our nation’s first presidential precedent, pledge our allegiance to an ideology of freedom and individual liberty and never to a man with a crown.
On his radio show last night, Mario Solis Marich encouraged anyone with an intelligent justification for the angry response to news of the President’s speech to please speak up. The answer is really quite simple. A growing number of Americans do not trust President Obama. The cult of personality that has grown to define this administration has left many Americans justifiably apprehensive about Barak Obama, the man. This paranoia is not restricted to the Right. On Progressive Talk Radio, talk show hosts such as Thom Hartmann have gone to great lengths to differentiate between Obama Policy and Obama celebrity. Since his inauguration in January, the president has acted upon a great many policy objectives he vowed just last year to actively campaign against.
His official policy decisions have run so contrary to “Candidate Obama’s” campaign promises that his ardent supporters have had to perform intellectual gymnastics in an effort to defend his administrative decisions. He has delivered countless speeches so inanely riddled with convenient ambiguities he has left even the most politically savvy scratching their heads in confusion. In doing so, he has exploited the American People’s trust. They can no longer boast confidence in an Obama Administration that means what it says and says what it means. It should come then as no surprise that some parents might be reticent about entrusting their children’s impressionable young minds to a leader who not only lacks integrity but seems at the same time dogged in his quest to revolution the United States. For all of his charm and inarguable charisma, President Obama has been praised neither for candor nor humility.
At the same time, do I fear that students will come home from school on the evening of the 8th pledging servitude to the great leader Barack Obama as Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher and so many other persons of little consequence have already done? No, I give our children far more credit than that. But I do respect their parents’ right to decline participation in the event and so should the school boards. Very likely, President Obama will deliver an undisruptive speech as regards staying in school and pursuing dreams. All the same, his mind-boggling sense of political invincibility, despite his plummeting poll numbers has many wondering where he will ever draw the line on his political invasiveness. So as a growing number of uneasy parents pledge to keep their children home or take them fishing on the 8th, I challenge the Administration to rethink their pre-conceived notions about the sort of the “change” the American People were looking for back in November. We will always, in keeping with our nation’s first presidential precedent, pledge our allegiance to an ideology of freedom and individual liberty and never to a man with a crown.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Something Worth Rebutting: David Axelrod's Message to the American People
On Friday, August 14th, a good friend of mine received an email from David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President. While unsure how I feel about the President of the United States disseminating mass political email messages to the American People, I have reasoned it incomparable to the poor taste of his appearance on George Lopez’ television show previews or his use of the word “wee wee” during a recent presidential speech on August 20th. Aside from his political modus operandi however, I find myself more perplexed by details of the message itself. In an effort to assure the American People that the President’s health “insurance” reform is not, as the Republicans have insisted, a veiled attempt at more government control, Axelrod inanely generates a list proving just that. The email details eight ways in which the government will regulate the manner in which insurance companies currently operate. Now, we all agree that some form of healthcare change must manifest soon if we are ever expected to emerge from this current system of exorbitant costs and defensive medicine. But what the President and Speaker Pelosi would have the American People believe is that their costly package is the only logical solution. The American People are not biting. If anything they are biting back, blind-siding the Democratic Leadership, in monumentally effective feet of grass roots citizen activism.
So what has the citizenry so restless? There are a number of problems with the President’s plan, a plan which evolves so regularly there now seems a swelling hostility on both sides of the isle. The Progressives’ frustrations aside, much of what has the Conservative camp up in arms can be found within the crux of Axelrod’s email. His message claims that the President’s package would end discrimination against pre-existing conditions. In his words, “Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.” At face value, this makes sense. Most Americans have either experienced this first hand or know someone else who has. That said Democrats have attempted to hijack this problem as a predominately Leftist concern though the reality is this has been an increasing concern among both political parties for some time. While the Right argue the immediate necessity of scaled back federal involvement, Axelrod insists on yet another government mandate. Just force the insurance companies to cover everyone. Problem solved, right? What the President is not saying is that forcing insurance companies to cover anyone at anytime will invariably raise premiums for all those currently insured. To add to the problem, insurance companies that will insure at any time and with more expensive premiums will also then discourage many from seeking coverage until the situation becomes absolutely imperative. This will invariably penalize the responsible insurance carrier who insures his/herself before the onset of an illness by increasing existing premiums to an even greater extent.
Axelrod continues. In the email’s second tenant, he promises an end to exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays. He explains that “Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.” First and foremost I find it preposterous that the President has the audacity to, at this financial juncture, fain any concern whatever for our out-of-pocket expenses. Our national deficit not withstanding, the laundry list of economic realities the Democrats insist upon ignoring is too exhaustive a catalog to detail in this article. Second, Democrats dismiss the reality, or right thereof, that Insurance companies are for-profit business who cannot be expected to operate in an organically free market capacity with even the current burdensome government involvement. Instead of allowing for an environment that fosters free market principals the Left insist upon incapacitating the insurance companies to an even greater extent with more regulation. Invariably, the companies will crumble under the pressure of exorbitant government mandates at which point the Progressives will decry the inadequacies of capitalism. It is what they have done to the oil companies, what they have done to the housing market and what they are attempting to do the automotive industry.
Axelrod goes on to claim that the President’s proposal will end cost-sharing for preventive care. He states that “Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.” It is an inarguable truth that early screening helps save lives. It is not however fact, nor even remotely a budgetary expectation that preventive screenings will save money. The Leftist argument goes that if it saves even one life we ought to do all that we can and from a purely moral standpoint any decent person would agree. But no where in the Constitution does it state that the Nation ought to bankrupt itself for the service of one life, nor would it make any good sense to do so. The Left often confuses the moral obligations of the individual with that of the governing obligations of the state, thus leading them and us down a never-ending rabbit trail of new and evolving government responsibilities. They insist that we cover all people for all problems at all times, utterly disinterested in the economic reality of an eventual insolvency crisis like that which exist in our current Medicare and Postal Programs. The budgetary consequences of the President’s healthcare plan seem lost even on those Democrats in my generation; a group of people currently and consciously paying into a Social Security System so badly in need of money they are very likely not to have access to it their old age.
In addition to the misinformation regarding preventive care costs, the President’s proposal assumes that all citizens would take advantage of regular check-ups and health screenings if only they had affordable access to them. But as it stands today, many insured do have access to fully covered mammograms and other preventive procedures. Does that mean they set the appointments and test for those problems? Most certainly it is does not and there are several more obvious reasons why. Some people do not want to be told to lose 40 pounds as a means for alleviating knee and joint pain. Others tend to ignore frightening realities by avoiding the necessary screenings and still others are simply too lazy to get around to it. Far too often, the Left get caught up in what ought to be rather than what is. Right or wrong, not all citizens care nearly so much about preventing serious illness as the Left would like to believe. To prove that point I need only reference the United States’ some 47 million current smokers. The reality is many costly medical conditions to include diabetes, chronic knee problems and lung cancer are the result of poor personal choices such as overeating, a lack of physical activity and smoking. If people are not interested in improving upon their existing bad habits, a free screening is not likely to miraculously compel interest in a healthier lifestyle. Moreover, using free preventive screenings to unearth all pre-cancerous warning signs would oblige every American to be tested. Unless Liberals are ready to round people up and drag them by gun point to their local clinic, the only exceptional feature of this mandate is going to be it’s price tag on yours’ and my premiums.
President Obama’s blast email is a feeble attempt to dispel the so-called “myths” surrounding his healthcare overhaul. The Democrats would like for the American People to believe that the only difference between the two parties is that one is for change and the other against it. In actuality, the principal divergence lies in the President’s desire for increased government control and the Conservatives’ determination to stand in defense of our founding principals of free market economics and individual liberty. Try as they may, there is no convincing the American People that the town hall protesters are organized mobs, a small faction of the population and not indicative of the national mood. The outrage over our leaders’ arrogance is palpable and the citizen outrage irrefutable. Moreover, endeavoring to dismiss the obvious citizen indignation with accusations of racism and Nazism is not only irresponsible, it is inherently unwise. As our Representatives return to the Hill in September and as President Obama’s word morphing continues, there is no doubt that the citizen activism will continue. If the President is as intelligent as even his opponents deem him to be, he will tune into growing national resentment lest he go down in history as America’s next one-term President.
So what has the citizenry so restless? There are a number of problems with the President’s plan, a plan which evolves so regularly there now seems a swelling hostility on both sides of the isle. The Progressives’ frustrations aside, much of what has the Conservative camp up in arms can be found within the crux of Axelrod’s email. His message claims that the President’s package would end discrimination against pre-existing conditions. In his words, “Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.” At face value, this makes sense. Most Americans have either experienced this first hand or know someone else who has. That said Democrats have attempted to hijack this problem as a predominately Leftist concern though the reality is this has been an increasing concern among both political parties for some time. While the Right argue the immediate necessity of scaled back federal involvement, Axelrod insists on yet another government mandate. Just force the insurance companies to cover everyone. Problem solved, right? What the President is not saying is that forcing insurance companies to cover anyone at anytime will invariably raise premiums for all those currently insured. To add to the problem, insurance companies that will insure at any time and with more expensive premiums will also then discourage many from seeking coverage until the situation becomes absolutely imperative. This will invariably penalize the responsible insurance carrier who insures his/herself before the onset of an illness by increasing existing premiums to an even greater extent.
Axelrod continues. In the email’s second tenant, he promises an end to exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays. He explains that “Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.” First and foremost I find it preposterous that the President has the audacity to, at this financial juncture, fain any concern whatever for our out-of-pocket expenses. Our national deficit not withstanding, the laundry list of economic realities the Democrats insist upon ignoring is too exhaustive a catalog to detail in this article. Second, Democrats dismiss the reality, or right thereof, that Insurance companies are for-profit business who cannot be expected to operate in an organically free market capacity with even the current burdensome government involvement. Instead of allowing for an environment that fosters free market principals the Left insist upon incapacitating the insurance companies to an even greater extent with more regulation. Invariably, the companies will crumble under the pressure of exorbitant government mandates at which point the Progressives will decry the inadequacies of capitalism. It is what they have done to the oil companies, what they have done to the housing market and what they are attempting to do the automotive industry.
Axelrod goes on to claim that the President’s proposal will end cost-sharing for preventive care. He states that “Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.” It is an inarguable truth that early screening helps save lives. It is not however fact, nor even remotely a budgetary expectation that preventive screenings will save money. The Leftist argument goes that if it saves even one life we ought to do all that we can and from a purely moral standpoint any decent person would agree. But no where in the Constitution does it state that the Nation ought to bankrupt itself for the service of one life, nor would it make any good sense to do so. The Left often confuses the moral obligations of the individual with that of the governing obligations of the state, thus leading them and us down a never-ending rabbit trail of new and evolving government responsibilities. They insist that we cover all people for all problems at all times, utterly disinterested in the economic reality of an eventual insolvency crisis like that which exist in our current Medicare and Postal Programs. The budgetary consequences of the President’s healthcare plan seem lost even on those Democrats in my generation; a group of people currently and consciously paying into a Social Security System so badly in need of money they are very likely not to have access to it their old age.
In addition to the misinformation regarding preventive care costs, the President’s proposal assumes that all citizens would take advantage of regular check-ups and health screenings if only they had affordable access to them. But as it stands today, many insured do have access to fully covered mammograms and other preventive procedures. Does that mean they set the appointments and test for those problems? Most certainly it is does not and there are several more obvious reasons why. Some people do not want to be told to lose 40 pounds as a means for alleviating knee and joint pain. Others tend to ignore frightening realities by avoiding the necessary screenings and still others are simply too lazy to get around to it. Far too often, the Left get caught up in what ought to be rather than what is. Right or wrong, not all citizens care nearly so much about preventing serious illness as the Left would like to believe. To prove that point I need only reference the United States’ some 47 million current smokers. The reality is many costly medical conditions to include diabetes, chronic knee problems and lung cancer are the result of poor personal choices such as overeating, a lack of physical activity and smoking. If people are not interested in improving upon their existing bad habits, a free screening is not likely to miraculously compel interest in a healthier lifestyle. Moreover, using free preventive screenings to unearth all pre-cancerous warning signs would oblige every American to be tested. Unless Liberals are ready to round people up and drag them by gun point to their local clinic, the only exceptional feature of this mandate is going to be it’s price tag on yours’ and my premiums.
President Obama’s blast email is a feeble attempt to dispel the so-called “myths” surrounding his healthcare overhaul. The Democrats would like for the American People to believe that the only difference between the two parties is that one is for change and the other against it. In actuality, the principal divergence lies in the President’s desire for increased government control and the Conservatives’ determination to stand in defense of our founding principals of free market economics and individual liberty. Try as they may, there is no convincing the American People that the town hall protesters are organized mobs, a small faction of the population and not indicative of the national mood. The outrage over our leaders’ arrogance is palpable and the citizen outrage irrefutable. Moreover, endeavoring to dismiss the obvious citizen indignation with accusations of racism and Nazism is not only irresponsible, it is inherently unwise. As our Representatives return to the Hill in September and as President Obama’s word morphing continues, there is no doubt that the citizen activism will continue. If the President is as intelligent as even his opponents deem him to be, he will tune into growing national resentment lest he go down in history as America’s next one-term President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
