Sen. Arlen Specter has received the endorsement of the Pennsylvania Democratic state committee, but he is far from assured of winning re-election this fall. In fact, he might not even have the Democratic nomination in hand, with U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak challenging him. Regardless of who the Democrats nominate, however, the only way to reverse the fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is to vote for the Republican candidate.
The endorsement that Specter received from the Democratic state committee normally is enough to put a candidate over the top for the nomination, especially in Pennsylvania, which rarely encourages contested primaries.
However, Specter long has been a Republican. Even though Specter has not been a model of fiscal discipline, many Democrats seem unconvinced that a former Republican is the best choice to lead their party.
The endorsement that Specter received from the committee can partly be attributed to the backing that he has secured from major party officials such as President Obama and Gov. Edward Rendell. Party officials are more likely to accept the dictates of these officeholders.
But the rank and file may not simply vote for Specter because the committee has recommended him. They may choose to vote for Sestak, who has run a visible campaign. Sestak remains an appealing choice for liberals and other regular Democrats.
Sestak is more liberal than Specter, however, and his presence in the race will force Specter to the left to secure the nomination. As a result, whether Specter wins the nomination or not, the Democratic nominee likely will be considerably to the left of the mood of the electorate.
The Republican Party is fortunate not to have to deal with Specter. He has been too far to the left for far too long. When he voted for President Obama’s wasteful stimulus bill, Specter went too far. He no longer had any real claim to being conservative at all.
With voters upset about the ballooning deficit, Republicans can offer a real choice for change in this election with former Rep. Pat Toomey. Toomey actually can credibly advocate lowering government spending, which is not a course of action that either Specter or Sestak could believably advocate.
February 17, 2010
OUR VIEW: HIT THE ROAD, ARLEN!
January 28, 2010
OUR VIEW: THE ECONOMY’S WORST ENEMY
President Obama in his State of the Union address tried to shift his focus more toward the economy. The economy really drives politics because it is what people care about, having jobs. But one of the main reasons the economy has not improved is because of Obama’s own policies that he pursued before his address.
However, the policies that he now proposes to help the economy likely will not have a major impact, either.
Before the State of the Union address, Obama’s main focus over the past year has been trying to change the health-care system. Obama made this item the top item on his agenda. No great clamor existed that forced Obama to put his energies into changing the health-care system, though, particularly because people were most worried about the economy.
But Obama focused on the health-care system anyway. Unfortunately, when he talked about health care, Obama actually hurt the economy. The specter of a government-run health-care company or a reasonable approximation seemed to forecast higher taxes and more stagnant economic growth. Businesses were afraid because they did not know how high their taxes would go to pay for whatever new health-care legislation might be passed.
The stimulus plan did not help, either. Obama got Congress to pass a bill appropriating almost $800 billion in stimulus money, but much of this money has not been spent. What money has been spent cannot be said to have had any major effect on boosting the economy.
In his State of the Union address, Obama has called for a spending freeze. Obama made this move to appear fiscally conservative. But what the spending freeze would cover is not clear. Spending might actually rise, even if Congress does pass the spending freeze.
The best way for Obama to help the economy would be to end these big spending policies. He should stop trying to pass pork barrel bills that are in the guise of creating jobs. He also should abandon any plans for government to run health care in any form.
These plans only create uncertainty among businesses and further prevent an economic recovery. Instead, Obama should scale back his requests for new programs, and let businesses create new jobs.
January 8, 2010
OUR VIEW: PROTESTERS MADE MARK
The person of the year this year actually is more than one person. This year’s person of the year is a group of people. This year’s person of the year is the Tea Party Protesters.
This group of people from around the country, including some high-profile protesters in Lebanon County, stood up to the government and called attention to out of control spending. Fiscal policy normally is written off as boring, an area that most people would like to leave to someone else to manage. But this group of protesters shined a light on the soaring deficits and seemingly limitless fiscal appetite of President Obama’s administration. As the Obama administration seeks to gobble up the health-care industry like Pac-Man, the protesters at least were able to stop some of the damage.
The protesters came to the fore after the so-called Stimulus Plan that Obama said would revive the economy. Congress passed this giant bill in a hurry to avoid debate. As people began to realize that the bill was nothing more than a bunch of ill-conceived, haphazard pork projects, and not a plan to revive the economy at all, they began fighting back, calling out the liberal politicians who passed this monstrosity.
Their momentum continued as Obama started to roll out his health-care plan, which seemed like a disguised attempt to create a government run health-care bureaucracy. This bureaucracy seemed like another government boondoggle that would make health care worse for most people while driving up the cost.
Thanks to the protesters and their strident confrontation of Congressional supporters of the bill, the most costly public option and expansion of Medicare portions of the bill have been dropped. Unfortunately, a health-care bill did pass the Senate, after the Democrats used pork barrel spending to buy off supposedly moderate members of their party.
Despite the passage of a bill in the Senate, the protesters accomplished quite a bit by defeating the public option. For people who call them hypocrites because they did not attack existing government programs, such as Medicare, this argument is off base. Once these programs are created, they are almost impossible to roll back because people rearrange their lives to depend on whatever the government is providing. The best way to prevent out of control spending is not to pass such programs in the first place.
In short, the protesters have served as the fiscal conscience of the nation. The goal of providing health care to everyone is a noble one, but when the government takes over, it drains money from the economy, hampering job creation, weakening the dollar, and putting the United States in a precarious position of having to borrow money from foreign countries just to pay our bills.
The protesters looked at Washington and saw nothing but irresponsibility. They demanded accountability, and actually were able to slim down portions of President Obama’s agenda, despite the fact that Democrats have large majorities in Congress. For their hard work and their success, the Tea Party Protesters are the Herald Person of the Year.
December 10, 2009
OUR VIEW: BOGUS PLAN
The supposed health-care compromise before the Senate is nothing more than a disguised government option. President Obama and liberals pushing for some type of health-care reform may say this new plan is not the same as a government-run health-care plan, but there is little difference. This compromise plan should be rejected by conservative Democratic senators, whose support is necessary to pass a health-care bill, because it likely would dramatically increase the deficit and the role that the government plays in making every day health-care decisions.
Under the supposed compromise, Medicare would be expanded to cover people between the ages of 55 and 64. Medicare already covers people age 65 and older, and the people covered under the new expansion plan would pay higher premiums than the people currently on Medicare. Additionally, nationwide private plans would be created and would be under the oversight of a government agency.
Despite the label of compromise, this plan is a bunch of gimmickry and word games trying to obscure the fact that if this bill passes, it would mean a large expansion of government’s role in health care and increased government involvement in people’s health-care decisions.
By expanding Medicare, which essentially is a government run health insurance plan, the government would be funding an enlarged public option, although it would be one for workers in the upper tier of middle age. Despite the age limit, this expansion of the health-care system could be a large fiscal expenditure. At a time when the deficit is out of control and threatens to harm the economy, taking on such a large increase in spending does not make sense, particularly if sustainable job growth is the goal.
The creation of new private plans under government oversight also is problematic. If the plans must adhere to government dictates, they do not seem like private plans to begin with. Additionally, government oversight could lead to increased government decision making in people’s health-care decisions. It cannot be denied that if government has the power to make insurance companies follow their directives, then government will have power over the treatment that people receive.
The increased cost and additional federal control that people feared in a government run health-care plan have not gone away with this compromise being considered in the Senate. These concerns have remained, but the federal health plan has been repackaged and renamed. People who want Congress to exercise fiscal discipline and who do not want government making health-care decisions should oppose this compromise. Conservative Democratic senators should oppose it as well, if they want to maintain credibility as fiscal conservatives.
November 19, 2009
OUR VIEW: PALIN’S POWER
Sarah Palin’s reemergence on the national stage for her book tour has shown that she could be a potential frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. If she wins the nomination, Palin could actually win the presidency. But a long time is stretching out between now and the election, and Palin still has a lot of work to do.
A key point to Palin’s appeal is that people are fed up with the federal government. Deficits are increasing, but government spending, specifically in the form of a government stimulus designed to create jobs, is not helping the economy. Many Democrats seem intent on ramming a health-care plan through Congress, even though many people do not support it, and such legislation likely would only add to the deficit.
Palin stands for less government and lower spending. Even though people may debate her record as Alaska governor, people identify her with these fiscally conservative principles, and she is a credible spokesperson for them.
As her book tour has shown, she commands attention, certainly more attention than any other Republican politician and potential Republican presidential nominee.
If Palin is to emerge as a serious contender for the presidency, though, she must use this publicity wisely. Even though she is a credible fiscal conservative, Palin must do more to articulate these principles. She must demonstrate that she can talk about the economy in a way that gives people confidence in her leadership.
A positive about Palin is that she compares favorably with Obama. While Obama seems polished, Palin seems real. Palin seems more able to connect with the average voter. Before he became president, Obama had about as much experience in government, arguably less, than Palin does. This fact could backfire against Palin, if voters decide they now want a more experienced candidate after Obama.
At this point, Palin shows promise. She must use her book tour as a springboard for her next step. Given the current situations facing the country, and Palin’s popular appeal, her political career may take off to an even greater extent.
November 5, 2009
OUR VIEW: SEEING RED
The recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey do not bode well for President Obama. By voting for Republicans in larger numbers than normal, voters in these two states have shown that they do not approve of Obama’s policies of more spending, higher taxes, and more bureaucracy. About a year after Obama’s speaking abilities helped him win the presidency, voters have shown that they expect results, which they have not received.
Particularly, voters have been upset about Obama’s plans for health-care reform. Obama has called for a government-run health insurance agency. Additionally, Obama has called for private insurance companies to cover more people. Various versions of the health-care legislation have called for higher taxes to pay for expanded government coverage, and if private companies are forced to cover additional people, those rates also are likely to climb. Although Obama has said private insurance would remain if a government-run health insurance plan is created, the most likely result would be the government plan crowding out private companies.
Many people do not want the government making health-care decisions for them and increasing their health-care costs. As a result, Obama’s health-care plans have not been favorably received. These negative feelings generated by health-care reform are amplified even more by the fact that the economy has struggled. People do not want to see their health-care costs go up when economic times are difficult.
Obama’s handling of the economy has not helped him, either. Obama’s main solution for the economy was a stimulus plan, which really appears to consist only of massive government spending on wasteful, pork barrel projects. If anything, the stimulus actually seems to be a hindrance to the economy because the government’s ineffectiveness only has increased uncertainty.
In foreign policy, Obama has not taken a decisive stand on whether to send additional forces to Afghanistan. In the beginning of his presidency, Obama went around the world and apologized for America’s past actions. But he only weakly criticized Iran’s government when its forces cracked down on protestors. Americans expect stronger leadership from the chief executive.
The disenchantment with Obama’s performance is shown in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell easily won in a state that Obama carried. Virginia had been Republican for many years, but Democrats had shown new strength there recently, until this gubernatorial election. In New Jersey, Republican challenger Chris Christie defeated incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine. Obama campaigned heavily for Corzine, but Christie won by a comfortable margin. Although state issues undoubtedly played a role in the race, Republicans rarely are competitive statewide in New Jersey, and Obama won this state easily. The gubernatorial results in New Jersey and Virginia show that voters there are leery of White House policies.
The reverses in Virginia and New Jersey are a message from the voters to Obama. The voters do not like the way the country is going. Obama should adjust his policies. They are too liberal, and the people have rejected them.
October 29, 2009
OUR VIEW: PATHETIC ATTACKS
The Obama administration’s attacks on Fox News likely stem from a combination of many factors, but this week, they appear to be a diversionary tactic. Democrats are trying to slip a government-run health insurance company into the so-called health-care reform legislation. By attacking Fox News in a ridiculous manner, some attention is being deflected from this Democratic legislative effort.
Diversion likely will be needed, or at least will be helpful, if the Democrats want to pass a bill that creates a public-run health insurance company. Out of all the bloviating done over health-insurance reform, a public-run health insurance company is perhaps the only portion of the debate that makes sense to people. Conservatives, regardless of their political affiliation, oppose the government running health care and making choices about treatments and doctors.
Moderates and independents likely also would be leery of the government running health care. The tea party protests were fueled most strongly by the opposition to a government health insurance company.
In Congress, Democrats from conservative states and liberal Republicans will be very reluctant to support a public health insurance company because of the possible backlash. For instance, Sen. Olympia Snowe, a liberal Republican from Maine, agreed to let a health-care reform bill out of committee because it did not have the public option. Now that Democrats are talking about putting the public option in the bill, Snowe has said she is against this move.
Obama has tried to get around this problem by saying opponents are using scare tactics, such as saying the government would be choosing doctors and treatments, and that private health insurance would be driven out of business. Obama contends that people will be able to choose their own doctors, and that private insurance will still exist. Moreover, Obama has tried to say a public health insurance company would not drive up costs and cause the deficit to balloon out of control.
The problem for Obama is that few people find these arguments plausible. Once the government has its own health-care company, nobody will be able to stop it from spending billions, telling people what treatments they can receive, and undercutting the private insurance market by charging whatever rates it wishes. The government does not run things cost effectively or efficiently.
Obama’s other tact has been to deemphasize his own support for a public option at times. But these statements also remain unconvincing. Why would Obama expend vast amounts of his political capital to possibly save a few dollars on health insurance reform that no one understands? The answer is that Obama probably does not want scaled down health-care reform. Liberals want the government to run the health-care industry, and Obama likely is fighting as hard as he is because he wants to achieve this goal.
With his health-care arguments flopping, Obama is trying to shift the focus by attacking Fox News. It does not seem to be a coincidence that just when the verbal war with Fox News is at its height that the public option has slipped back into the discussion. People should retain their focus on the health-care reform, which will cost billions, if not trillions of dollars, and most likely will lessen the quality of health care. They must continue to protest Obama’s plans for health-care reform.
October 22, 2009
OUR VIEW: NO COMPARISON BETWEEN NIXON-OBAMA
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., has compared President Obama to Richard Nixon. This statement is an outrageous insult.
To President Nixon.
Alexander compared Obama to Nixon because Obama is targeting media that are unfriendly to him and is thought to be making an enemies list. The similarities, however, end here. Nixon was a far more capable president, and he would not have made the myriad public relations and other gaffes that Obama already has committed.
When it comes to making policy, Nixon is better than Obama. Upon taking office, Nixon already had strategies to solve many of the country’s foreign policy problems. He implemented these strategies to improve relations with China and the Soviet Union. Even though the country was in a position of weakness because of the Vietnam War, Nixon actually turned the situation to his advantage. He appeared strong and decisive.
Obama, on the other hand, has appeared weak when conducting foreign policy. He has had trouble making a decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, and he has made his wavering public. Nixon never would have allowed such weakness to be projected to the rest of the world. Nixon stood up for America and praised the country’s greatness. Obama goes abroad and apologizes for the United States.
On domestic policy, Nixon actually achieved far-reaching environmental policies and got the economy turned around in his first term. Obama has yet to grasp the economic situation or articulate an economic policy that makes sense. Instead of letting the economy recover, Obama is still trying to pursue health-care legislation that only will drive up the deficit and weigh down job-creating businesses.
In public relations, Obama ran a great presidential campaign. Nixon ran three, and he won two of them. Once in office, though, Nixon has the upper hand in getting his message out. Obama overdoes it. He seemingly appears on every show, and is on television all of the time. People are tuning him out.
Nixon, on the other hand, realized that it is best to speak only when you have something to say. The most dramatic example was Nixon’s summit with the Chinese. He did not reveal his plans for a summit with China until this breakthrough had been achieved. As a result, Nixon received decisive momentum in the polls. The summit announcement would not have had the same impact if Nixon went on television every night and gabbed about it.
Getting to the substance of the current debate, Nixon and his administration, like Obama, did attack unfriendly media outlets. But Nixon’s attacks at least made sense. The mood in the country when Nixon was in office was hostile, and he felt that most of the media were against him. When he would make a speech, a news commentator would immediately criticize him. Nixon’s wariness of the media also was fed by the fact that he felt the media overwhelmingly favored John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election.
Criticizing the media made sense to Nixon. There were far fewer media outlets then, and people trusted the media more. Nixon had to point out that there was another side to the stories being written and broadcast.
Now, however, there are many media outlets, most of which are friendly to Obama. Obama’s own officials even acknowledge that most media run favorable stories about the president. Yet Obama is going after the one media outlet, Fox News, that is criticizing him consistently.
The Obama administration may have a point that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are not going to report favorably on the president. But who cares? These shows are opinion shows, and the opinion of the hosts is that Obama’s policies are harming America. The opinions of Hannity and Beck are legitimate. Not only that, many other shows favorable to Obama exist. It is not like people do not understand Obama’s point of view. They just do not agree with him on health-care reform.
When Nixon attacked the media, he was facing a near monopoly that was highly skeptical of him. When Obama has attacked the media, the monopoly no longer exists, although many powerful voices in the media appear to support him. Attacking the one outlet that is tough on Obama looks like weakness.
In surveying Nixon’s accomplishments, without taking into account Watergate, Nixon clearly was better than Obama. He better understood how the government works and how his policies would affect the country. Obama may be Nixon’s equal in campaigning, but when it comes to running the country, Nixon has the decisive edge.
—
For more on President Nixon, check out “Balancing Act: How Nixon Went to China and Remained a Conservative,” on amazon.com.
October 15, 2009
OUR VIEW: WHAT A JOKE!
The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama appears purely political. Obama has made speeches about peace, but he has yet to achieve concrete results. Under the logic used by the Nobel committee, many U.S. presidents could have received the prize, although few actually have.
The American public should receive the news of this award with at least a little skepticism. Because Obama has yet to achieve any lasting peace in any of the areas that were troubled when he took office, the move to give him the award likely is an endorsement of his rhetoric about peace, which is far more dovish than anything President Bush used.
Obama’s rhetoric, however, has contained passages blaming America and apologizing for America on the world stage. Obama has said this country is arrogant, and he has extensively detailed America’s faults. This type of language might be appealing to liberal Europeans, such as the people on the Nobel committee, but in the long run, America only will be able to effect positive change if its president discusses the country’s powerful virtues such as support of democracy and freedom.
So far, Obama’s policy of attempting to be nice to Iran and North Korea does not seem to actually have deterred these countries from abandoning their nuclear weapons programs. His conciliatory attitude toward Russia, which included taking the missile defense shield from Poland, may not yield any results either. Many of these rogue countries respect only a strong American foreign policy, and backing down will not help these situations.
Additionally, his policy toward the war in Afghanistan has been confusing when a clear strategy has been necessary.
An American president who truly did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize was President Theodore Roosevelt. He brokered an end to the Russo-Japanese War without firing a shot. In general, Roosevelt’s foreign policy consisted of projecting American strength, and the world largely was peaceful when he was in office.
We hope that Obama’s foreign policy succeeds. An American victory in Afghanistan is essential to the War on Terror. No one wants to see an Iran with nuclear weapons, or a more belligerent North Korea. Russian influence should be reigned in. But Obama’s foreign policy has not achieved these aims yet. The Nobel Peace Prize appears to have been awarded based on dovish rhetoric. Results, however, are more important.
October 8, 2009
OUR VIEW: TRAGEDY CAN’T BE EXPLOITED POLITICALLY
The deaths of Meleanie and Scott Hain are a tragedy. Not all of the details are yet known, but police believe at this time that no outside parties are involved in the shooting deaths. However, this story should not be used by gun control advocates to make a case for diminishing the right to bear arms.
The right to own guns is protected by the Second Amendment. This right should be considered fundamental. People have a right to protect themselves and their homes, and they have a right to hunt. These rights cannot be taken away.
Tragedies that involve guns occur because of the actions of gun owners. The owners themselves are the ones who use guns inappropriately. Their own individual circumstances, not the right to own a gun, should be analyzed.
Given Meleanie Hain’s prominence as a supporter of the right to own a gun, gun control advocates might say this situation shows that more gun controls are necessary. The deaths of Meleanie and Scott Hain are a tragedy, and their own circumstances must be examined. This situation does not mean that more gun controls must be imposed.
