George Demos kicked off his Hail Mary campaign to win the Republican nomination to challenge Congressman Tim Bishop in New York’s first Congressional District. As he did the last time around he boasts that he is the only true conservative in the race. His claims, though, are devoid of any facts to base them upon other than him saying so. His kickoff ad is either downright dishonest, or just sloppy. Either one hardly qualifies him to represent anyone.

Demos uses campaign material from incumbent Tim Bishop, an odd source for a Republican, to attack Randy Altschuler who was the Republican nominee against Bishop in 2010. Demos also ran in the primary that year and lost to Altschuler by a wide margin. In the general election Altschuler lost by a whisker, in the closest Congressional race in the country that year.

The video that Demos chose to use was selectively edited. The issue that both Demos and Bishop are trying to run on is Mr. Altschuler’s founding of a business, Office Tiger, that provided back office services to other companies. Some of the work was done overseas, some in the U.S. The video shows Mr. Altschuler talking about some overseas locations, but where he speaks of talent in the U.S. that is edited from the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9A8v8RdMgA

Neither Bishop nor Demos mention that when Altschuler started Office Tiger in 1999, the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 4.2%. That is not an environment with a lot of idle workers standing around. Bishop and Demos want to plant the seed in the minds of voters, who are suffering through the longest period of 8%+ unemployment since the Great Depression, that it is not Obama’s and Bishop’s dismal performance ruining the economy but “outsourcers” who are causing the problem. When Altschuler later sold the company in 2005, the unemployment rate was 5.08%, still rather low. Altschuler then went on to found Cloud Blue, creating more jobs in the U.S., by recycling old technology gear.

So what is Demos’ claim to fame as “the only true conservative?” He has worked as a government lawyer at the SEC. The SEC you may recall could not bring down Bernie Madoff although for ten years an individual named Harry Markopolous practically delivered evidence wrapped up with a bow that Madoff was a fraud. The SEC was also noted for staff that was spending their days looking at pornography on government computers. It was also alleged that Demos had outed a whistleblower at JP Morgan, although the third Judicial District  found an “insufficient basis for a finding of professional misconduct.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

So where is all the evidence of Demos’ conservative credentials? Has he created any jobs? Worked for any period of time in the private sector? In these tough economic times what experience does Demos have that indicates he has solutions to our problems? The Republican Party, the Conservative Party, the Independence Party, and many Tea Party groups have endorsed Randy Altschuler.

Demos on the other hand takes a doctored video from a Democrat and uses it to attack a Republican, a direct violation of Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment, thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. He calls himself a winner and Altschuler a loser. Replacing one government employee for another hardly sounds like bold thinking, when most of our issues are government created. However, replacing a government backbencher with someone who grew up in a household headed by a single mother, secured a good education, started a couple of companies, is the kind of breath of fresh air we need in Washington.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

At CPAC Marco Rubio showed some of the traits that make him a leading candidate for Vice President no matter who the Republican nominee happens to be. He mixed humor and personal narrative.

Rubio spoke with a degree of awe about arriving in the Senate. He wondered to himself, “How did I get here?” But after spending time in Harry Reid’s do-nothing Senate he looked around and wondered, “How did they get here?”

Getting more serious he talked about President Obama’s State of the Union address and how the president scrupulously avoided talking about his record. Why? Well, Rubio explained, for two years President Obama had a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate, which until the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy and the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace him, they had a filibuster-proof majority. So for two years he got everything he wanted and since then, everything has gotten worse.

So what did Obama say in the State of the Union address? He chose to pit Americans against each other. He is trying to sell the American people on a bill of goods that says we are a zero-sum society. That is, for someone to get ahead, someone has to get pulled down. But that is not true, but Obama needs us to believe it so that he can get people to vote for him.

Rubio then related to his own family saying that he felt his father and grandfather were better men than he, but Rubio has advanced as far as he has because he was born in the greatest country in the world.

He then made a telling point. He said that Republicans try to attract followers by arguing who is more like Ronald Reagan. Do you ever hear Democrats argue about who is more like Jimmy Carter?

What is government’s role, he asked? We should have an understandable tax code so that individuals and businesses can make decisions for business reasons not tax reasons. We need regulatory reform. Yes, we all want clean air and clean water but with sanity. We don’t have an energy policy, we have energy politics. While in office for three years President Obama had no plan for Medicare, but as soon as Republican Paul Ryan came up with a plan, he attacked it.

Summing up, Rubio said that President Obama seems to be a really good father; he seems to be a really good husband; but he is a terrible president. I couldn’t agree more.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Don’t pay attention to what you are hearing from Obama’s supporters. What they really want may be the opposite of what they are saying.

Let’s start with some basic math. Forty percent of Americans self-identify themselves as conservative, twenty percent as liberal, leaving forty percent in the middle. For a conservative to win, they have to hold their base (40%) and pick up twenty-five percent of those in the middle (25% of 40% equals 10%). That will give them fifty percent of the vote. Liberals, on the other hand, need to hold their base (20%) and pick up seventy-five percent of those in the middle. The last time the Republicans nominated a true conservative, Ronald Reagan it was two blow-out victories. Liberals will argue that the time before that Republicans picked Barry Goldwater and it was a blow-out the other way. This is true, but I believe there were some mitigating circumstances. First, if Goldwater was elected he would have been the third U.S. president in less than three years. America might not have been ready for that. Then there was the famous Johnson ad suggesting that Goldwater was ready to start a nuclear war.

What is different since then? America is ready for a new president, as they were when Jimmy Carter was in office. The is no threat of an all out nuclear war, although there are nuclear dangers. Last, I turn to a famous quote by Winston Churchill, “If you are twenty, and you are not a liberal you have no heart. If you are forty, and you are not a conservative, you have no brain.” We are a more conservative country now.

Mitt Romney

I believe Obama would prefer to run against Romney. Conservatives do not embrace Mitt Romney. So right out of the gate, he is at risk of losing part of his base. To succeed he has to pick up more of the middle. In an Obama vs. Romney match-up, don’t think the race card will not be played. It will be done in a subtle way. For example, the main stream media will probably run more stories about race in America, inequality, unemployment among minorities, suggesting it is racially motivated. If enough white guilt can be kept alive, Obama gets another shot. In a debate, Obama can go right after Romney and say I based ObamaCare on RomneyCare, and don’t deny it. Romney is immediately on the defensive. Obama will try to narrow the differences between him and Romney. As the governor of a blue state, Romney had to take some positions  to get elected. Obama will highlight those. If he can make the case of who do you want to vote for, the honest upfront liberal, or the pseudo liberal in Republican clothing, it will be another Obama-McCain match.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry has stronger conservative credentials, but has lost support over his immigration stance. That means an even tougher hill to climb, capturing more of the middle with stronger conservative credentials than Romney. The other negative is that Perry’s debate performances have been dismal. I don’t think Obama will have a hard time pushing Perry’s hot buttons in a debate and if he can bait him into an outburst, Perry’s done.

Herman Cain

I think Herman Cain is who Obama’s team fears the most. Conservatives are embracing Cain, so he seems to be in the best position so far to hold the base. The race card is out of play. Cain has been working on getting his positions down on policy, but when gets it, he knows his material. He does not need a teleprompter to deliver a speech. He has executive experience like Romney and Perry, but not in government. Which could be a bad thing, or it could be a good thing. The bad thing is that government experience helps in knowing what levers to pull. The good thing is that you don’t accept that’s the way it has always been, you ask why? If no one can give you a good reason, stop doing it. That could be huge with today’s bloated government. I have no concerns about a one-on-one debate between Obama and Cain.

The Abortion Issue

There is a big kerfuffle over what Cain said in response to a question on abortion. He said it was a personal decision. Here is the actual clip;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPKYYDefMV4

Cain makes a couple of points and Piers Morgan tries to set the usual trap. Cain clearly and emphatically says he is pro-life. He also talks about the federal government’s role in abortion since, after all, he is running for a federal office. Abortion is not in the Constitution, either for or against. There is no Constitutional right to kill your child. Prior to the disastrous Roe v. Wade decision, it was left up to the states, which is where it should be. So Morgan goes for the trap, find a difficult personal dilemma, put your guest in that role and try to get them to contradict himself. Cain didn’t bite, but he fell short in his explanation. What he later explained he meant by a personal decision was that when faced with such a dilemma, you are going to follow your beliefs, talk about it with your family, maybe get spiritual counseling, but the last thing you will probably do is a Google search on what the law is. As Reid Buckley wrote about his family in An American Family: The Buckleys,  “The solidarity that our parents fostered in their children was remarkable. God, Family, Country…and in that order.” You do what you believe is right and sort out the consequences later.

The Media

The media is attacking Cain because he is the front-runner and they see him as a big threat to Obama, mainly because they will lose the race card, their favorite tool. After all what can Janeane Garafolo say now? What can they attack the Tea Party about? Obama will be forced to run on his record, his healthcare, his immigration policy.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by reinvented

The stock market is bouncing up and down like Fatty Arbuckle on a bungee cord. The job numbers are just as dismal as they were last week. The CBO says we can expect unemployment to continue north of eight percent until 2016. Is it just me or is the honeymoon over?

The last few times I parked myself in front of the television to await the next important address from the president, I noticed an empty podium as I looked at my watch and wondered when the president would arrive. It felt a bit annoying. I don’t know why it should because I don’t remember how prompt President Reagan was, or President Clinton or either of the Presedents Bush, so why would it feel particularly annoying with this president? Maybe the main stream media is at fault. After all, wasn’t President Reagan an “amiable dunce”? He probably lost his notes. We all know President Bush, despite two Ivy League degrees was also an idiot. He probably got lost along the way. President Clinton, that sly devil, he was probably straightening his tie and making sure everything else was in place, if you know what I mean. But President Obama, we are told, is brilliant. He is also super cool There is also something about the super cool, they like to remind you that they are cool, so you wait for them. They get there when they feel like it. So with the press corps assembled, millions of television viewers listening to the pundits while the picture-in-picture at the top of the screen shows the vacant podium, the cool president is letting us cool our heels. He will saunter down the hallway toward the microphones when he is good and ready, because when you are cool, that’s how you do it.

When the work day is done it’s time for a little basketball or if it’s a weekend some golf. Vacations? We have to go the Vineyard, baby. People criticized Bush for his vacations and they may well have been longer than Obama’s, but Bush went home to Texas to do chores. Obama’s not going home to Chicago to paint the bathroom. Does the fact that America is hurting not bother him at all? If it does, he is too cool to show it.

President Obama said it was a hell of a mess he inherited and we needed to spend trillions of dollars to stimulate the economy or unemployment would rise to nine percent. When the program failed and all we had to look forward to was finding a way to pay the bill, President Obama laughed about “shovel ready” not being as shovel ready as we thought. Big joke, but the joke’s on us.

Do you remember a supposedly cool kid when you were growing up and how he bragged about either the things that he had or the places he had been or the championships he had won, where he used to live, only to find out it was all a crock? Do you also remember another kid who was suspicious of the new guy all along? Well, the first group that was enthralled with the new kid voted for Obama. The skeptical kids did not. The grumblings about this president are getting louder even from his supporters.

So what does Obama do? Well he tells us he has a super duper plan to create jobs that he will tell us about as soon as he gets back from vacation. It seems like he doesn’t want to come back. He’s just not that into us anymore. He has accumulated some gray hairs, and he would really rather be back on the campaign trail, with one reason being the re-runs of his old campaign criticisms of Bush are coming back to bite him. He enjoys the crowds, the adulation, winning the job, but when it comes to doing the job he neither has the skill, the experience, or the interest. He’s just not that into it anymore.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Mommy! Johnny Boehner didn’t return my phone call! Waaaah! Seriously? Is this what a president says in a press briefing? Good Grief!

Peggy Noonan wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, that captures the character of this president quite nicely.

For the longest time he wouldn’t engage, and now he’s engaged. For the longest time he didn’t care about spending, and now he cares about spending. Good, both in terms of policy and for him. But his decision to become engaged has become a decision to dominate, to have his face in front of the television cameras with his news conferences, pronouncements, and what his communications people are probably calling his “ownership” of any final agreement. He’s trying to come across as the boss, the indispensable man, the leader. And, of course, the reasonable one.

That’s all very nice and part of Political Positioning 101, but at this point it’s not helping. He’s becoming box-office poison. His numbers are falling. The RealClearPolitics composite job approval poll rating has him down six points since June 2, when the debt-ceiling crisis began. That fall, from 52% to 46%, exactly tracks his heightened media presence and his increased attempts to be seen as dominant. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said that if he ran for president today he’d lose, that his job-approval numbers are “worse than they appear,” and that he continues to have real trouble with undecided voters.

And if you’ve watched him lately, you know why. When he speaks on the debt negotiations, he is not only extremely boring, with airy and bromidic language—really they are soul-killing, his talking points—but he never seems to be playing it straight. He always seems to be finagling, playing the angles in some higher game that only he gets. In two and a half years he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren’t listening anymore.

The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: “I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we’re making.” We’re. He has “continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together.” What would those little devils do without Papa? “The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged.” I’ve urged. Me, me, me.

The Republicans have put forward plan after plan, the Democrats acting alone, none. Yes there is that gang of six or seven or whatever, but you will notice that the Democrats will not take a step into that minefield without a Republican at their side. But what have the Democrats done by themselves? President Obama puts forth a budget and when that is laughed off the air, he comes back a couple of weeks later with a new one. It’s unheard of for a president to do that, and then his budget is put up for a vote and it goes down 97-0. He couldn’t even find a single Democrat to vote for it? Do the Democrats in the Senate under Harry Reid vote for anything other than to block it?

Let’s recap the plans on the table:

While Obama, who shunned press conferences and briefings for months, now seems to hold one like Grace before meals, is all posturing all the time. He is also trying to paint the Tea Party patriots as unreasonably stubborn. Well, let’s revisit that one.

Do you remember a negotiation a few short months ago, after the 2010 election. The Republicans ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and were rewarded with the overwhelming support of the American people. So they set about to work cutting $100 billion from the current fiscal year. Through intense negotiations with the president, the $100 billion became $30 billion (it’s okay, because it’s less than a full year). Then when that onion got peeled back there were only about $300 million in real immediate spending cuts. Snookered?

It is a time honored Democrat tradition to negotiate a deal and then welsh on it if they can. Ronald Reagan negotiated with Tip O’Neill to raise $1 in taxes for every $3 in spending cuts. The tax increase was immediate, the spending cuts never came. George H. W. Bush, negotiated spending cuts and the Democrats insisted on tax increases. Bush went along and then the Democrats ran on a platform that Bush broke his “Read my lips…” pledge. Let’s see, you get what you want and then you beat up the other guy for giving it to you?

So does anyone wonder why the Republicans might be digging in their heels. I have a suggestion for Speaker Boehner. Go play golf. Start the August recess early. Send everyone home. When the Democrats and the president find enough of a spine to put their plan on paper and present it to the Republicans to accept or reject, then perhaps we can consider this a negotiation among adults. But for right now it is the Democrats who are blocking every effort to put our fiscal house in order.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

National Debt Clock A Long Time Ago When the Debt was Only $6 Trillion

Today the House of Representatives voted on a bill HR 2650, called the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill to get the runaway debt and deficit spending under control. The bill passed the house 234-190, will all but 9 Republicans voting for it and all but 5 Democrats voting against it. Tim Bishop voted no.

I had an opportunity to watch some of the floor debate and the Democrats wasted no time in going in to scare and distort mode. Almost every Democrat who rose to speak said the bill was an attack on Medicare and protecting the rich.

Medicare

But what are the facts on Medicare?

• Medicare is in dire need of reform. Medicare is the second largest federal program and is growing at a staggering 7% a year.  Its costing taxpayers nearly $500 billion a year, with long-term liabilities in excess of $38 trillion. Medicare spending is expected to double over the next decade.
• Conservatives have a plan to save Medicare. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has offered a plan, which passed the House on April 15th, that would save Medicare for current retirees and future generations without rationing or benefit cuts. The Ryan plan would inject choice and competition into the program, and thus save money by making Medicare more efficient. The plan would take effect  in 2021, and would not affect current seniors. Everyone born before 1956 could keep their current Medicare, exactly as it is.
• The Democrats’ Medicare plan is rationing and benefit cuts. Democrats vehemently oppose the Ryan plan. Instead, their plan is to cut $500 billion out of Medicare, in order to fund their massive new ObamaCare entitlement. They created a rationing board of 15 unelected bureaucrats, known as IPAB, to impose these cuts. IPAB will slash what Medicare pays doctors and hospitals to the  bone. As a result, seniors will have trouble finding a doctor who will take them. Mr. Obama’s own Medicare experts predict 15% of hospitals will go out of business.
• The Ryan plan will allow patients to choose their Medicare plan. Starting in 2021, the Ryan plan would enroll new Medicare seniors in the same kind of health care program that Members of Congress enjoy today. Seniors will be able to choose the coverage that best meets their individual needs from a list of competing high-quality health plans. Why do Democrats oppose giving seniors the same good health care Congress enjoys?

Congress gave themselves a handsome $174,000 salary. Does anyone believe they would skimp on their own healthcare? So why is it a bad idea if seniors have the same plan as Congress?

President Obama’s Plan

The Democrats also talked about Obama’s plan. What plan? As several Republican lawmakers said, “If you have a copy of that plan on paper, slide it over, we’d like to see it.” But there is no plan from the Democrats, just like there has been no budget for the last two years. They say Obama is proposing $3 in spending cuts for each $1 increase in taxes. Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, that was the deal Tip O’Neill negotiated with Ronald Reagan. They got the tax increases, but the spending cuts never happened. Reagan was lied to. So now President Obama is playing Lucy and he wants Speaker Boehner to be Charlie Brown. No thanks. If it’s not on paper, it doesn’t exist.

Even as they tried to demonize the Republican proposal they couldn’t help themselves; they had to keep talking about the need for “investment” which to Democrats is just a code word for spending. They don’t invest anything. Investing is what the evil rich do, the Democrats job is to take it from them and give it to their backers.

The Democrats also attacked the Republicans for wanting to change the Constitution. How it would be hard to spend money in an emergency or in a time of war. Which is just another lie. There are provisions in the bill to exceed the limits with a super majority. But leaving these lifetime politicians, many of whom never held a job in the private sector, to curb their own appetites to spend their way to reelection, reminded me of budgeting in the private sector. When the business was facing tough times the word came down for everyone to cut. Inevitably people would push back and say, “everything in my budget is critical, I can’t cut anything, you’ll have to get it elsewhere.” That response was typically met as follows. “You can cut it, or I will, but it will be cut. If you cut it, you can decide how it will least impact your responsibilities, but being further removed if I cut it you probably won’t like it.” That’s how it works in the private sector and that is how it will work with the Balanced Budget Amendment. Tough choices have to be made.

In 2007 after the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the Treasury took in more tax revenue than at any time in our history. This is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. Congress cannot tax their way out of this and trying to do so will kill the already moribund economy. Tim Bishop, are you listening?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddO5yMxicw&feature=player_embedded

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

President Obama believes he has found the model for steering the chaos in the Middle East to peaceful democratic rule. Poland. But Obama ignores the historical events and players that surrounded that transformation from communist rule to independence.

Pope John Paul II was a Pole, and after being elected by the college of cardinals to be the Vicar of Christ, he wanted to return to visit his homeland. The atheist communists leaders were terrified of such a visit. Poland is a solidly Catholic country and the populace were thrilled that the first non-Italian pope since the sixteenth century was one of their own. The communists feared that the pope could come to Poland and spark an instant revolution with just one word.

The communists were in a box. They couldn’t deny the pope a visit for that could also spark an uprising. They had to allow it and then try to contain it. They could do the former, but not the latter. The nine day visit in 1979, gave hope to millions of Poles. One third of the country saw him in person with many more seeing him on television. He inspired them. They responded. They took back their freedom. Citizens United produced a video of this dramatic visit. Here is a trailer of that film.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obR-__x4-uE

But Obama gets it wrong. He ignores the spiritual aspect of the peaceful revolution. He ignores the support that the Polish people received from President Ronald Reagan. Instead, President Obama cancelled the deployment of a missle shield in Poland to curry favor with the Russians, whom the Poles loathe and fear. Rather than schedule a one-on-one meeting with Lech Walesa, another Nobel Peace Prize winner who actually accomplished something in the realm of peace before winning his prize, President Obama invited Walesa to meet with him as part of a group. Lech Walesa said, “It’s difficult to tell journalists what you’d like to say to the president of a superpower. This time I won’t tell him, I won’t meet him, it doesn’t suit me.”

How does President Obama expect to transfer this historical event to the Middle East? There is no spiritual leader to inspire the people, and if there is, it will probably be to inspire them to kill non-Muslims. Let’s be frank. Quick, think of a name of a leader in the Muslim world who does not support jihad. When we think of leaders in the Muslim world the names that come to mind are bin Laden, Khomeini, Ahmadejinedad, et al. There are no doubt any number of peace loving Muslims leaders but they are either cowed into silence, or don’t have a strong following because their followers might fear for their lives.

Until peace loving Muslims, who want to coexist with people of other faiths around the world, step up and take back their religion and root out those who advocate death and jihad, the war on terror will continue. If such a leader would rise up, then perhaps President Obama might be onto something. The Poles, as courageous as their actions were, didn’t do it by themselves and the elements that were there for them, are not anywhere in Obama’s worldview.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The order in the Middle East has been crumbling, but it seems that the only place President Barack Obama knows where to lead is on the dance floor or when ramming through his socialist programs. When it comes to real solutions to fix the economy or on foreign policy he is utterly lost.

When students rose up against the mullahs in Iran, the Obama administration was strangely silent while demonstrators were murdered in the streets.  But Israel is condemned at the drop of a hat. When the Mubarak regime started to wobble so did the president’s position, for Mubarak, against Mubarak, for Mubarak, against Mubarak. In capitals across the Middle East and around the world our enemies rubbed their hands in glee, while our friends started looking for new friends.

When Khadafy rattled his saber at Ronald Reagan and bombed a discothèque in Berlin that killed two American servicemen, Reagan responded with a raid on Libya that landed 277 hits with 5 misses. Khadafy went back in his cage. When violence broke out from this terrorist slaughtering his own people, President Obama remained silent for days due to a “scheduling conflict.” The scheduling conflict concerned getting Americans out of the country. Between Reagan’s action and Bush’s taking out of Hussein in Iraq followed by Khadafy’s throwing in the towel on his nuclear program, it seems clear that Khadafy does not want a military conflict with the U.S. So a clear message to him that the fastest way to get into a military conflict with the U.S. would be to impede the evacuation of any U.S. citizens will give him pause. To back that up the Sixth Fleet should have been put on station in the Gulf of Sidra and Obama could then be a leader and speak out forcefully against this terrorist.

Instead our leader made it clear he was ready to follow the United Nations. So look out, Khadafy, we’re going to let you have it in Switzerland and kick you off the Human Rights panel. Take that! You can almost see Khadafy’s wrist getting red and starting to swell. I’ll bet that any American left in Libya is bursting with pride over that step. Now we are going to start applying sanctions. Am I the only one who thinks Libya will deteriorate to chaos, if it is not already there, before any sanctions can have an effect? How many people think, Khadafy is going to pull up short because we have frozen his assets like his mansion in New Jersey? With all due respect to the Garden State, I don’t think that is top of mind for Khadafy.

Budget Matters

On budget matters we are now kicking around $4 billion in cuts to prevent a government shutdown for two weeks. How about Harry Reid getting back to Washington and putting the Senate in session to consider the bill already passed by the House that cut $61 billion from the budget? We are running a $1.6 trillion single year deficit. A cut of $61 billion may change that number to $1.5 trillion after rounding. Let’s get serious! Where is the leadership from the White House. His budget was a joke, boasting of saving $1.1 trillion over TEN YEARS. We will be that much deeper in the hole by NEXT YEAR.

Meanwhile my congressman is out fighting the spending cuts that were included in the House bill that passed that chamber. Doesn’t anyone understand the urgency of the problem? We are hemorrhaging red ink and it is time to stop blaming Bush and start looking at the people who are doing the spending.

All the Democrats want to talk about is that the Republicans want to shut down the government, the Republicans want to shut down the government, while they pick up their fiddles and play a tune. If President Obama was a leader, the leader of the Democratic party, he would be on the phone to Harry Reid and tell him to get back to work. Put together the best deal you can, but this is a crisis. But President Obama doesn’t see any crisis. He is more focused on preventing  a solution in Wisconsin than in doing his duty.

The Ultimate Organizer

The president is organized, if nothing else. In this realm he shows his strength. He manages to play a round of golf about every other week. He has top union leaders to the White House about every other week and his White House is on the phone with them several times per week. He has hosted swell parties at the White House and today the New York Times introduces us to his personal trainer. But to show his community spirits, he shares his personal trainer with other White House staffers.

Instead of a President Obama with nice six pack abs, I would much prefer the leadership and waistline of Chris Christie.

That’s my opinion. I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

You have probably seen a lot of comparisons in the main stream media trying to compare President Barack Obama to President Ronald Reagan. Try to make this comparison to a conservative and they will look at you rather oddly. Tell it to a progressive and they lap it up, because they know that President Reagan was a leader and by comparing the two men, perhaps some of that leadership will rub off on the incumbent.

Leadership springs from some deep personal convictions. It is perhaps why, leadership is not common in politics. In politics, to be relevant you have to get elected and reelected. It is hard to take a stand on principles and get people to elect you time and again. It is easier, to get along, hand out some goodies, bribe the public with the public’s money and slide back into office. If they are adroit enough perhaps the individual can do some real good in the interval between elections. But over time, they tend to get sloppy and stay in the reelection mode and forget what public service means.

One of the challenges of the Republican party today as the field assembles on the starting line for the 2012 presidential sweepstakes is the lack of a leader in the declared field. Ronald Reagan was a leader. Chris Christie is a leader. Herman Cain is a leader. Alan West is a leader. But many whose names are mentioned are more politicians than leaders, with resumes filled with compromises to get along with the opposition. Some of those who are leaders, including a number of the above, are too new to their current jobs to start looking for the next one.

But what about President Obama? Even on his signature socialist programs like health care, cap and trade, increasing taxes on the wealthy, he didn’t lead. Sure, he drove them hard to get them through, but the finished products were awful, and it was ugly right down to the final passage of the health care program because he abdicated the writing of the legislation to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

On foreign policy, he has been outmaneuvered by almost everyone. When the people rose up against the mullahs in Iran, he didn’t say a thing in support of them, preferring to coddle the dictators in charge believing they would return measure for measure. They didn’t. In Egypt he was for Mubarak, then against Mubarak, than for him, against him, such that no matter who came out on top they would have reason not to trust us as a friend or ally. In Honduras, their president tried to become a dictator along the lines of Hugo Chavez and the government would have no part of it. Did this administration side with democracy? No, they sided with Chavez, Castro and their puppets.

We are now in the midst of a budget crisis and President Obama talks but he does not lead. He says nothing about entitlements, the most toxic part of the budget, because he didn’t want to go first. Isn’t that the definition of lead? The leader goes first and the rest follow. He appointed a budget commission, spending more tax dollars in the process, as a way to slide past the November elections appearing to be doing something. When the commission finished its work, the president ignored it. When a reporter asked him about it, he complained that the media is impatient and that the commission’s work is not dead, just not now. Well when, then? President Obama is in the third year of his term. He is proposing a budget for the next fiscal year that will end a month before the next election. Is he assuming he will be returned to office to implement the commission’s work? Judge for yourself in the following video. Is this the nature of a man firmly in charge of the reins of government? Or does it bring to mind a certain man from Plains, Georgia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Il_aoTYORM

Feel inspired? Do you feel like this man has a firm grasp of the problem and a concrete plan to resolve it? Neither do I.  In 2012, we can do better.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

The common themes in each presidential race turn on a hope and dream for the future, defining a common purpose and a call to action. Candidates usually win on the success of their ability to marshal these themes into a cohesive series of arguments for their nomination and eventually election to office. Few were as effective as Ronald Reagan at recruiting the support of the average listener. If he could get your ear, he could get your vote. Candidate Barack Obama frequently compared himself with Ronald Reagan during his campaign. His media cohorts happily aligned themselves with this maladapted relationship, with the centrist and even right leaning (business friendly and low/fair taxes) themes hinted by Obama’s vague comparisons.

He then has compared the first half of his first term to Ronald Reagan, again with the support of an eager media. They both inherited a terrible economy, with high unemployment, handed to them by unpopular presidents, and a world on the brink of disaster. That is basically where the comparisons end in real life and thus spurring a misunderstanding in comparing the two I call The Great Reagan Mistake. When Ronald Reagan was elected, interest rates were double digits, as a result of years of an economic condition known as “stagflation”, a term rarely used because Reagan’s economic policies essentially made the condition obsolete. Or so we thought. A couple more years of this recovery, especially if interest rates rise as they are predicted by many economists to do, and the term will come back into vogue sooner than one may think.

After a year and a half of the Barack Obama recovery (2009-2010), the results of his economic policies could not be more divergent from the results of the first 18 months of the Reagan recovery (1983-84). Unemployment is chronically high, even though interest rates are historically low and we are told to expect 8% unemployment as the “new normal”. We are also told to expect trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

According to Larry Kudlow, an economist in the Reagan administration, we have anemic 3% growth in GDP and a microscopic 121,000 new jobs created in the Obama recovery. Get ready for this: in the Reagan recovery, 5.3 million jobs were created by 7.7% GDP during the same period of recovery. Mr. Obama’s government centric high tax and suffocating business climate marked by presidentially led animosity for business in America, has stunted the very growth for which he longs, the absence of which is causing increasing frustration among the administration as well as the American people. Contrast that with the economic launch pad created by the then maligned “Reaganomics”. While his clueless Vice President Bush called it “Voodoo economics” to the howling delight of the liberal media, the business community knew better, and jumped on the rocket and rode it into unparalleled prosperity for the next twenty years. Reagan was the first president to shatter then accepted economic theory that low unemployment, low inflation and high GDP could NEVER exist at the same time. After the Reagan recovery began, those conditions coexisted continuously until 2008. Mr. Obama is turning back the clock, printing money and driving up inflation, while telling us to get used to high unemployment, leading us back into the “stagflation” era of Jimmy Carter.

While Reagan was accused of being an actor who was empty of substance and only made people feel good, this is the sadly unfolding truth about the Obama presidency. While they both had/have a gift for the rhetorical flourish, calling upon Americans to get in touch with their internal longing for a new vision for America, a dream and an awakening spirit, Mr. Reagan’s words were a separate and distinct tool for inspiration of the American people, guiding them through very tough times, while he took decisive action based on sound economic theory, with courage and conviction. Mr. Obama’s need to latch onto that legacy is resulting in the truly hollow rhetoric, lacking the substance so badly needed in the American domestic agenda today. Why can’t liberals just admit they were wrong and go back to what Reagan showed us worked? I always said it was the single most important thing Bill Clinton did to insure his presidential popularity: he didn’t mess with Reaganomics. He kept that his dirty little secret only supply side devotees like me would recognize. He never had to explain it to his liberal base because they were living in such nonchalant prosperity most Americans took for granted by then. He knew better than to make the Great Reagan Mistake. Mr. Obama is losing his window of opportunity to turn the tide and make actual changes. In two years, he will follow Jimmy Carter into oblivion. Hopefully the next President will not make the same mistake.

Please share your thoughts below.