Pay For It Yourself

Today, President Obama announced that the US Government would be throwing out the plans to create a missile defense shield in Europe and replacing it with an updated program. The President did not state what the new program would consist of, but he did state that the Joint-Chiefs of Staff were all in agreement over the change in systems.

This is once again an example of the President cutting out programs that President Bush worked so hard to get passed. Is this a bad thing? No it is not, but we need to keep a close eye on the actions of President Obama as he continues to cut programs in order to fund his own agenda. There has been too much waste on both sides of the aisle. There have been far too many Republican and Democratic projects that have been paid for by the Federal Government that are simply pork projects that need to be cut out of the Federal Budget. These projects, while helping the local areas, are more designed to keep politicians in office than they are to help the country as a whole. These projects should be paid for by the state and local governments. Only in those areas where there is not a substantial tax base, such as western Wyoming, should the Federal Government step in to take control.

This would not be a popular idea. The American people love it when others pay for their needs, but it should not be that way. This does not mean that we must raise taxes in order to pay for every new project, rather we should be spending the taxes in the area that they are being collected from. This would not only prevent wasteful spending and increase spending on the truly important projects, but it would also help the American people to have greater pride in the infrastructure of their communities. When you must pay for your own bridges and stop lights and libraries you are more likely to not only use these services, but also to take care of them.

The overall effect of this idea is that not only will we be wasting money on random projects, but the things that we use today will last longer. This only save the people more in taxes. President Obama should cut wasteful programs, but we must make sure that it is not so that he can just pay for his own "bridge to nowhere".

A Downsized Education

It has been clear for some time now that the bubble has burst. No longer is "flipping" a house considered a secure way to make a living. So many that passed up the steady career choice out of college are now struggling to get by as the companies that prospered in the time of abundant growth are now forced to cut the people that were hired hoping for the chance to become the next millionaire CEO. No one argues that the sub-prime lending extravaganza led directly to the current economic state. But how far are we willing to let the cash strapped government bodies take their spending cuts?

For years, hordes of people flocked to California as the gold rush of the exploding housing market promised to make a man rich in a year. As long as the people were continuing to make good money, they let the state government create government program after government program that were paid for by the seemingly unimportant taxes that were taken out of every workers paycheck. Programs were created that funded schools, employed workers, provided healthcare for many and others that did everything imaginable to provide for those who could not do so for themselves. Soon there was a second rush of people as those who counted on the government for support flocked to the coast in search of the never ending source of government help.

Things then took a turn for the worst. The housing market collapsed, bringing with it one of the largest banks in the world, starting a chain reaction that saw thousands lose everything and millions more lose close to it. As the dominos fell, incomes were slashed and with them, the tax revenue that so many states count on, in particular California. Face with a budget short fall that rivals the GDP of many small countries, California is now faced with finding a way to fund hundreds of government sponsored programs with no money to do such. They are unable to even pay their current obligations, being forced to send out "IOU" Checks that cannot be cashed until the next fiscal year. Being forced to trim the fat from the various programs, where does the state turn? Education.

With cuts to the Education budget, the California State University system is being forced to find way to save a buck. They started with tuition increases, which are to be expected. Almost every university raises their tuition a small percentage to keep up with inflation. There are few, however, that find it necessary to raise their cost of an education by 30% in less than three months. Even with this steep increase in tuition, teaches will be forced to take a 10% cut in pay by taking two day furloughs every month, resulting in two days of classroom education missed by the students enrolled.

Why is it that so often the immediate effects outweigh the long term results? We know that the only way for a society to grow is through the education of the people. It does not matter in what the people receive an education, be it a degree in marketing or a course in car repair, all that matters is that the people are given a chance to reliably provide for themselves. Californian has always seemed to understand this as they have made higher education in there state more affordable than almost any other place in the country providing a chance at an education to thousands more that may have had the opportunity otherwise. Why is it then that one of the very first things they cut funding too is the education system.

Times are hard. There is no room for waste of resources, but the only way to overcome the current situation is to educate the people in a way that will allow them to provide for their families for years to come. A taxpaying worker is far more helpful to a society as a whole then is the man who still uses government programs to get by because the state cut funding for his education. Yes we need to feed the children, and yes we need to care for those who are physically unable to care for themselves, but close behind is our responsibility to help others provide for themselves. You can give a man a fish, or you can teach him how to work. Downsizing education will only make it more difficult to learn how to cast a line.

Not So Fast

When President Obama took office last January, one of the very first promises that he made was to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before the end of January next year. This last Tuesday, under great pressure from the Republican Party, the democratically controlled Congress pulled funding for the closure of the base. The new "War Supplemental Bill," which provides funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was stripped of the $80 million to pay for the closing of the prison and was changed to include a ban on providing funding until the President provides Congress with a plan for closing the prison, and more importantly, what to do with the suspected terrorist that are now held there.

This move was a clear contrast with the near rubber stamping policy that the Congress has provided to the President since he has taken office, and may be a sign of the problems the Democratic Party has begun to face. From the recent backtracking of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Palosi, in regards to her being briefed about water boarding, to the slow decline of the President's approval ratings, there are signs that the Democrat controlled government may not have a free ride for the next 4 years. It is more likely that the American People have longer memories than some may have expected.

It is clear that the American People remember the last few years of having the government controlled by one party. Under the Bush Administration, law after law was passed that had no real input from the Democrats. While many viewed this as a productive government, others (usually democrats) felt that the very principle of democracy was in jeopardy. By not allowing both sides to have a say in the process, many felt that we were moving back to the Good ol' Boys system where only the elite had a say.

The American People changed their stance and shifted the power in Congress to the Democrats at election time. While this stopped the passage of many pieces of legislation, it also had the effect of slowing the government as a whole. Not only was the Republican agenda stopped, but any new legislation produced by the Democrats was vetoed by President Bush. This brought the process to almost a complete stop with the fight over the budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when the democrats fought with everything they had to force a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from the Middle East, while President Bush vowed to veto any budget that had a withdrawal requirement. The Democrats were eventually forced to give in and provide a withdrawal-free budget. Once the economy began to crash however, President Bush was left out in the wind as Republican Presidential hopefuls scrambled to distance themselves from the black hole that was President Bush. This ultimately played in Obama's favor as the country looked for someone to bring change.

The mistake that the Democrats have made is clear, they assume that because they now control both Congress and the Presidency, they can run the government the same way it was for the last eight years. Now, only a few months into the new administration, they are starting to see what will happen if they continue down this path. If they continue to do what they want simply because they can, the results will most definitely be as disastrous as it was for the Republican Party.

The American People remember what it was like to feel that the government did not care about them. As they begin to see past the excitement of "Yes We Can" and begin to see the "Because We Can" attitude of Congress, it will become much more difficult for Congress to do as they please. As Congress begins to tell the President "No", however, they are only strengthening their hold on the government for the next few years.

To Spend or Not To Spend?

Photo:President Obama address the press at the White House.

As more and more people compare our current national economic state to that of the Great Depression, the response of the Democrat controlled congress is clear to see… throw money at it. A Trillion dollars later, there is no true sign that the economy is turning around. So what does the President do? He takes a hard stand against over-spendin….ehr… inefficiency.

Today President Obama recommended to congress that 121 federal programs be cut from next year's budget. These cuts are not necessarily a bad thing. Spending millions on a long range navigation system that was made obsolete years ago by GPS technology is absurd, as is paying for two separate programs that provide the same services to the same people. What should concern us is the reason that President Obama wants to make the cuts, so that he can pay for his own programs. In a statement made by the President he states, "To put this in perspective, this is more than enough savings to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to protect the National Parks," both of these projects have been goals the President has been pushing for since the campaign.

I firmly believe that we need to control our spending. We must balance our budget and cut the programs that are a waste of money. The only way that we as a country can have a sound economy is to follow the same basic principles that ever fiscally secure person follows, make more than we spend and pay off our debt as soon as we can. We must not however, cut spending in one place so that we can simply spend it somewhere else. That would be like paying off some of our credit card, just so we can buy a new 57" flat screen TV. We still don't have the money to begin with, and when it comes time to pay, we are going to realize that maybe we could have gotten by with the 19" we had to begin with.

We need to focus on making do with what we have. Most new programs can wait. Sure, it's great to reduce our spending by $17 billion, but if we turn around and spend another $20 billion, was it really that great to begin with. Let's make cuts, but with the mindset that we are trying to live within our means and not that we simply are trying to free up some space on the MasterCard.

The Senate is not Parliament

There is a major difference between the US government and the Parliament in the United Kingdom. Both are two party systems with a conservative party and a liberal party. Both have different sides of the room to sit on, and the parties within each have very different ideas about how the government is supposed to run the country. Arguably the biggest difference between the US Senate and the UK Parliament is the power of the minority party. In the UK when one of the parties comes into power, all power is stripped from the opposing power. They are removed from any positions of power in the cabinet and are left to complain about how they would have done things differently if they were in power. The US is different, or at least it is supposed to be. In the US Senate, any decisions must be voted upon by the entire party and can only pass with a vote of at least 60, a clear majority over the 51 needed for a simple majority. While this measure may mean fewer things pass, it also provides for a certain amount of discussion that would not exist otherwise. Needing more votes means that there must be a level of compromise from both parties.

Well today that may have changed. In something as normal as passing the US Budget Outline, the Democrats in the Senate have managed to change some of the basic workings of our government. When the Democrats added a last minute change, they made it possible to pass the US Budget later in the year with a simple majority vote in the Senate. While some may think that is does not sound like a big deal, the truth is that there are some major repercussions that will follow. Part of the government process should always involve discussion. While I think that the use of filibusters on both sides of the isle are taken too far, it is far better to talk too long than not to talk at all. The ability for the Democrats to pass the Budget without having any input from the opposing party looks much more like the UK Parliament then the Founding Fathers had in mind.

We all want what is we feel is best for us. Some of us think that the answer lies in complete government control looking towards Canada and France as examples. Others believe that the less the government steps in, the more the economy will grow. The answer is clearly not to rely on one extreme or the other. Only through the compromise of both have we reached a system that, while it has its many problems, works for us here in the United States.
Why then are we allowing the system to be changed just because the President can say the word “antiquated”? We need to stop and take a step back, remembering that the only way we have survived this long as a country was on our ability to come together. We did it back in WWII, and again after the September 11th attacks. Why do we refuse to do such when it comes to the decisions that we really need to make together. If we allow for one party to take power with no control or restraint, we will undoubtedly follow in the path of so many others, complete socialism. This may be the goal of some, believing that the American people are so far gone that they cannot take care of themselves, but I have more faith than that. I believe that it is possible for the American People to take care of themselves. They simply need to be told that they can, and not told that the only way to overcome the problems that surround then is to let the government rule.

The System works because we have two parties, and they are always in competition, not just when elections role around. The answer to the problems lies in working together and taking the time to stop and consider what is going on in the world. It is simply wrong to make it possible to skip one of the most important steps and move on to simply getting whatever you want, regardless of what it may cost.

I'll admit it, Obama has me impressed... Sort of.

So if you were lucky enough to see the President speak last night, you might for a moment start to believe that he knows what he is talking about. That is, as long as you don’t ask him a question that he does not want to answer. When asked why it took so long for the Obama administration to respond to the AIG bonuses that we have heard about for the last few weeks. The President quickly responded with a firm stare and a quick retort about how he “likes to know what he is talking about.”
Mr. President, is that not the exact same thing that President Bush did that you were so critical of? When someone asked you a legitimate question about your actions, instead of admitting that you were hoping that it would blow over, or that you wanted to see how the American public felt about what you really did not have any control over to begin with, why did you see it fit to make it clear to the reporters that it was not alright to stray from your agenda. You made it obviously clear to everyone that you were the one in control of the conversation and that you would not be make to look like a fool.
I know that you have been criticized for you few slip-ups in the last week or so, but what you fail to realize it that the simple mistakes, while sometimes offensive, help us to see that you are doing the best that you can with what you were given. When you force the people to hear only what you want them to hear, it seems that you are no longer trying to fix the broken system that you were given, rather that you are focused on your own agenda and will do what you want with no regards to what others may think… now where have I seen that before.
On the other hand, there is one place that I am mildly impressed. The Associated Press reported yesterday that several major health insurance companies are offering to discontinue the policy in which they charge higher premiums for clients who have major health problems. Wow, Obama has the health industry scared. So scared, in fact, that they are willing to stop an age old policy to prevent the government from attempting to create its own insurance company, who would then directly compete in the health care industry. Is this the right reason for the change in policy? Of course not, but it’s a move that no other administration has been able to accomplish. Yes it may be because Medicare and Medicaid are the largest single source of income for the medical industry, and if all that money is give back to a government backed company, many others could go out of business, but the final outcome is the same, Change.
As hard as it is for me to admit… in this one case, it seems that Obama’s plan is working. Let’s hope that all of the President’s programs will work as well as this one appears to have started out.