Three cheers for gridlock!
Leader-worship is unbecoming a free people. But are we a free people today? I mean psychologically. Years of government impositions change people.At Obama’s celebration, people didn’t mention freedom, but they sure mentioned handouts, like taxpayer-financed higher education. It's as if their attitude is: What can government give me? They don’t realize that “free stuff” only seems free because the real cost is hidden.
“When you have a $3.6 trillion federal government, that money will absolutely benefit some businesses.
That's crony capitalism. It takes money from all of us and gives it to some,” said Boaz. “Maybe a clean-energy or green-jobs company that has not already gone bankrupt might get that money. Similarly, if you're a defense contractor, you'd be in favor of Mitt Romney getting elected, because that would be good for your business. But it's all bad for the American economy to tax some people and then dole the money back out.”
My hope for now: gridlock. People say they like bipartisanship, but bipartisanship usually means politicians conspire to take more of our money and freedom. Bipartisanship gave us the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, Import-Export Bank, war on drug users, ethanol subsides, TARP, "No Child Left Behind," foreign wars and an ever-rising debt. When Democrats and Republicans come together, they put us deeper in debt.
Let’s have more gridlock!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/14/three-cheers-for-gridlock/
Can Obama change?
Be prepared, America, for another $5 trillion dollars in debt. That means America would be over $20 trillion in debt, one half of it added by one man, Barack Obama.
Be prepared for higher taxes on those who are pulling the wagon, and more benefits for those who are sitting in the wagon.
Be prepared for further restrictions on hydraulic fracturing and oil drilling in America, even as President
Obama promotes and subsidizes oil drilling in developing nations.
Be prepared for transfers of wealth away from America and to the rest of the world.
This is what we as a country have voted for.
Be prepared, also, for the further diminution of American power and influence in the world. This involves our allies falling, one by one, in the Middle East, while the radical Muslims consolidate their power in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere.
Ultimately just as Reagan was largely responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, President Obama may be credited by history for helping to restore Islam as a global power, which it has not been for three centuries. By 2016 America could cease to be the world’s sole superpower, and have become rather a weak giant, a kind of second Canada. This, too, we have risked by giving President Obama a second term.
These predictions are not conjecture but rather projections out from what President Obama has been doing in his first term. As he suggested to Russia’s then-president Medvedev, Mr. Obama now has more flexibility to make the concessions and pursue the objectives that he really wants. He is, at least in foreign policy, untethered to public opinion, and answerable only to his own conscience.
For me, this is a scary prospect. I can see America in 2016 as a poorer, weaker nation, and this would make Americans frustrated and angry.
But why should President Obama care?
He would, as he cleared out his desk, feel the profound satisfaction of a man who had single-handedly rearranged the political and economic map of the world. He would have helped redistribute wealth and power globally, and thus restored the world as it was before colonialism. His reward would be that still, small voice inside his head telling him, “Well done thou true and faithful servant.”
Consequently you can imagine the amusement with which I watched pundits, including Democratic pundits like Lanny Davis, counsel President Obama to be like President Clinton in his second term. Sure, Mr. Clinton pivoted to the center, recognizing that he was governing a closely divided country. Clinton, however, was committed to American prosperity and American greatness; Obama isn’t. Clinton also wanted to be liked by his people, the American people. For Obama, to borrow a quotation from his mother, “These are not my people.” Obama’s commitments are global.
So I don’t expect Obama to change. I have argued in my book "Obama’s America," and implied in my film "2016," that he cannot change. He is like the toy soldier who walks into the wall and keeps going. That is the only Obama we can realistically expect for the next four years.
And yet.
I watched Obama closely on election night, recognizing the familiar hubris and bravado, I thought to myself: how brilliant he is, how he strides across America like a colossus, how he may have assembled a new and enduring majority, how this is his America now, how this man whose story is possible only in America has now twice been entrusted by America with the highest office in the land.
Isn’t that enough to make a man want to defend and advance the interest of his country? Isn’t it sufficient to make Obama seek to protect the economic welfare of his fellow citizens over that of the citizens of other countries? Ideology may not compel Obama to move in these directions, but his own self-image might. Obama has been raised on high by the American people, who are looking to him to lead them not down the hill but onward and upward, to greater and higher things.
How incredible it would be if Obama responded to this great trust by proving himself worthy of it. That would truly make him one of America’s great presidents. He would even, in this way, be helping the world, because a strong, thriving America is good for the security and prosperity of the world. Maybe this very smart man can rise above his past and figure that out.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/13/can-obama-change/
$1.6 Trillion? Obama Doesn't Want a Deal
Obama has responded to House Speaker John Boehner's gesture last week towards reaching a deal to avoid the Jan. 1 "fiscal cliff" of tax hikes and spending cuts, putting a specific demand on the table: $1.6 trillion in new tax revenues, reached by raising tax rates on the wealthy in addition to other "tax revenues." The offer is twice as high as a deal Obama scuttled last year, suggesting he may be prepared to let talks fail again.
Last week, Boehner proposed raising "revenues," but not "rates"--the same position he took during negotiations on raising the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011.Obama's actual offer, however, indicates that he is spoiling for a fight. He clearly hopes to use his re-election to assert greater leverage within the talks--though Boehner's Republicans, too, were returned to power by the same electorate. His goal is not merely to reach a compromise at a higher number than the $800 billion deal that fell through last time; rather, his aim is to force Republicans to agree to the higher tax rates necessary to reach that number.
Such an agreement would likely provoke a revolt within the Republican caucus that would end Boehner's speakership. Indeed, one of Boehner's goals last week--in addition to showing the public that Republicans are willing to make a deal--may have been to trigger conservative opposition, thus showing that his hands are tied and he has no room to budge. On cue, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed publicly not to allow tax hikes to pass.
But knowing that Boehner cannot accept tax hikes and remain
in charge of the House, $1.6 trillion seems less like a serious opening gambit
and more like the highest possible demand that would be guaranteed to prevent a
deal without seeming entirely unreasonable. Obama may prefer to go over the
fiscal cliff, which would raise taxes by default and cut defense spending and
entitlements with both parties sharing the blame. That's what $1.6 trillion
buys today.
Reid takes Social Security off the table
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will not allow changes in Social Security to be part of the negotiations to avoid a federal budget fiscal cliff, further narrowing the opportunities for savings that could be tapped to close the deficit.Republicans have insisted that big entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid be part of the end-of-year negotiations to head off tax-rate increases and the $110 billion in automatic spending cuts.
But Mr. Reid said Democrats have already made changes to Medicare as part of President Obama's health law, and said Social Security is solvent for the time being and shouldn't be tapped to pay for other government needs.
In Sandy response, some Red Cross, FEMA workers stayed in plush NYC hotel
For two of the biggest aid organizations, the solutions included government-owned ships floating in the harbor, storm shelters, friends' apartments—and a luxury hotel in Lower Manhattan.Representatives for the American Red Cross and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said they have placed workers at the Soho Grand since the storm, paying a discounted nightly rate of $310 a room.
By the time Red Cross staffers check out of 45 rooms at the Soho Grand, its tab at the boutique hotel will have run to about $181,000, said spokeswoman Laura Howe.
Most are staying at midlevel hotels such as the Hilton
Garden Inn or the Hampton Inn.
From Heritage Foundation: Do
You Trust the Government with Your Computer?
Do you trust the federal government to
keep your personal data safe? What about your business’s records and trade
secrets?
If you answered “no,” you have good reason—the federal government has had 13 breaches and failures of its own cybersecurity just in the last six months.
Yet the President and his allies in the Senate are pushing forward to regulate America’s cyber-doings, without any clues about how much this will cost us or how it will work.
It’s become the norm with this President—if Congress fails to accomplish his objectives, he goes around it with executive orders and federal regulations. He’s doing it again. Congress did not pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 before the election, so the President has issued a draft of an executive order to put much of that legislation in place without lawmakers voting.
Not to be left behind, though, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) may try to get another vote on the bill before the end of the year—some are saying as soon as this week.
If the idea of cybersecurity—trying to secure all of the country’s sensitive computer networks and data—sounds abstract, that’s because it is. It’s so abstract, in fact, that the legislation and executive order our leaders are pushing offer few details about what they would actually do, other than piling more confusing regulations onto businesses.
When you think about it, the idea of the federal government trying to be on the cutting edge of technological security is pretty laughable. As Heritage’s David Inserra notes:
If you answered “no,” you have good reason—the federal government has had 13 breaches and failures of its own cybersecurity just in the last six months.
Yet the President and his allies in the Senate are pushing forward to regulate America’s cyber-doings, without any clues about how much this will cost us or how it will work.
It’s become the norm with this President—if Congress fails to accomplish his objectives, he goes around it with executive orders and federal regulations. He’s doing it again. Congress did not pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 before the election, so the President has issued a draft of an executive order to put much of that legislation in place without lawmakers voting.
Not to be left behind, though, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) may try to get another vote on the bill before the end of the year—some are saying as soon as this week.
If the idea of cybersecurity—trying to secure all of the country’s sensitive computer networks and data—sounds abstract, that’s because it is. It’s so abstract, in fact, that the legislation and executive order our leaders are pushing offer few details about what they would actually do, other than piling more confusing regulations onto businesses.
When you think about it, the idea of the federal government trying to be on the cutting edge of technological security is pretty laughable. As Heritage’s David Inserra notes:
Simply put, government regulations
usually take 24–36 month to complete, but the power of computers doubles every
18–24 months. This means that any standards developed will be written for
threats that are two or three computer generations old.
A federal government that stays hopelessly behind the curve and can’t even secure its own networks doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. But oh, it can regulate!
The President’s executive order would give multiple federal agencies new power to regulate businesses. It would work much like Obamacare, which passed with few details but gave agencies like Health and Human Services a blank check to write regulations. One of the incentives it may use to keep businesses in line is favoritism in awarding federal contracts—businesses that met the government’s cybersecurity standards could be moved to the head of the line.
Heritage visiting fellow Paul Rosenzweig will explain in a new Issue Brief due out tomorrow that “this order will likely be very significant and very costly while not providing important cybersecurity solutions, such as effective information sharing.”
How much will it cost businesses to comply with all these new (yet perpetually outdated) regulations?
We don’t know.
Will the standards be voluntary or mandatory?
Also unknown.
Can companies share information about cyber-threats they have detected, with confidence that their sensitive information will be protected?
No guarantees.
With so many unanswered questions, the executive order—or the legislation—would create massive headaches for businesses and could hinder innovation. Just what the economy needs.
Read more:
The Alarming Trend of Cybersecurity Breaches and Failures in the U.S. Government Continues by Paul Rosenzweig
Cybersecurity Act of 2012 Is Back, but Same Problems and Questions Remain by David Inserra
No comments:
Post a Comment