Monthly Archives: March 2012

“But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving those who administer each department, the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.”– Publius, The Federalist No. 51

It is hard to remember an issue in our federal government that did not feed the beast of divisiveness.  We seldom hear the media cover a topic in politics where the hot button words of -right and left, red state and blue state, conservative and liberal- are not used ad nauseam.  While this writer has no stomach for politicians and pundits’ phony pleas for civility that once (but actually never) existed in American politics, I would like to see an issue in which people of both political spectrums come together to form an agreement over policy and implementation.  There is a chance, however slim, we may see such a miracle in the Supreme Court’s ruling on the case of Florida, et al., Petitioners v Department of Health and Human Services, et al.  This of course, is the case concerning the legality of Obamacare.

In writing this essay I must proceed cautiously.  First, there is no guarantee the law will be overturned, no less parts of the law such as the individual mandate, which has come under the most scrutiny of the court in the three hearings this week.  The Court overturning the law or just the individual mandate will be a victory for the conservative cause, but if it is done through a 5-4 majority along party lines, it will create an even more unstable situation for our currently frail country as it enters the heated presidential election season.

People rally as legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act take place at the Supreme Court in Washington. March 26, 2012. Reuters

The Justices of the Supreme Court are selected by the President when a seat on the Bench becomes available by the retirement of a sitting justice.  While there is no real “party line” for justices, each justice is usually selected by a President who shares the same ideals towards the Constitution and its role in the rule of law in the United States.    Conservatives like President George Bush choose men like Samuel Alito and John Roberts, judges who view the Constitution as a document that leaves little room for interpretation, no less imagination.  Federalism, the separation created by the Constitution in the power delegated to Federal and State governments, is usually a significant matter these justices apply to law when judging the overreach of the federal government.  President Obama and liberal presidents select justices like Sonya Sotomayor, whose interpretation of the Constitution is that of a “living document”; a school of thought that took hold at the turn of the 20^th century by the Progressives of that era such as Oliver Wendell Holmes.  Justice Sotomayor and others of her ilk feel the Constitution is up for interpretation (most notably in this case the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 3) and that of her own “life experiences” will provide a base to make more informed opinions on specific cases.  This ideology appears to stand in opposition of the traditional blindfold donned by Lady Justice in all legal disputes, regardless of circumstance and mitigating factors such as race and sex.  Through these two approaches, we see the ideological lines drawn in the Highest Court in the Land.

Our nine justices and their political tilt is obviously a serious issue in the decision of the case.  The central argument which has taken precedent over other issues regarding this massive law- a cruel and absurd 2,700 pages as noted by Justice Scalia– is the subject of the individual mandate: the all binding rule in Obamacare that the law is built upon.  The expected and predictable outcome of this law is that it will move the country closer to a single payer healthcare system, where healthcare coverage is subsidized by the federal government to the point that prices will drive employers to drop their existing plans and force insurers to go out of business.  This will ultimately leave the all-knowing and all mighty United States government to provide affordable and outstanding healthcare for 300 million people and counting.   As a result, healthcare for individuals in the United States will ultimately be subsidized by other citizens’ money.  The higher costs, usually applying to the older and sicker, will be supported by the younger and healthier.  And in order to keep this house of cards sturdy, at least until the debt crisis brings it all down, it is unsustainable unless all citizens are forced to partake in the system.  The Obama administration now realizes how ridiculous this sounds once said out loud in a courtroom, as Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argues that no one will be forced to buy healthcare insurance, but will have to pay a fine if they refuse to do so.  Leveling a fine against someone if he doesn’t do what you want him to do is a way of forcing him to do it in my mind.  And considering the way these arguments have gone over the last three days, it sounds the same to the justices as well.

I won’t rehash the skewering objections made by the conservative (as well as liberal) justices regarding the individual mandate as they have already been replayed throughout the week by the media – although my favorite is Justice Scalia questioning if the government can regulate the food market and force people to buy broccoli.  My concern for this space is over the final decision and the number of supporters.  The issue of Obamacare enveloped the country for the better part of a year, and though 2009-2010 would have been better spent by the Obama administration and a Democratic legislature crafting plans to fight the recession and the debt, it is an issue that can define the relationship between government and citizen for years to come.  The image of a partial or entire rejection of the law by a 5-4 majority, where conservative justices outvote the designated liberal justices, will paint the picture of disunity referred to above.

In December 2000, the Supreme Court issued a ruling almost as important as this one.  As the nation waited for a new President for over a month, the Court decided the Florida Presidential election re-count had gone on long passed the legal time period set by  Florida’s constitution, awarding Governor Bush Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the Presidency as a result.  Though the majority ruling was based on the law as it was written in the Florida constitution, it was a 5-4 vote split along “party lines.”  This kind of decision, where the majority bases their ruling on the existing law and the dissenters allowed their politics to play a role, is the exact opposite of what the Framer’s intended in granting Justices lifetime appointments.  Lifetime appointments for justices was a provision in the Constitution to shield them from the influence of power that may have nominated them to the bench in the first place.  The decision over Bush v. Gore set a tone of divisiveness for the coming decade, kicking Mr. Bush’s presidency off with the unmitigated hatred of the opposing party, something Democrats had forgotten about when President Obama was shown the same courtesy in 2008.  And now, we are again at an impasse.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while ambitious, is a frightfully bad law given the circumstances our country faces, most notably overwhelming debt as a result of unsustainable entitlement protections.  It was barely passed in Congress, reaching the maximum Democratic support and garnering barely any from Republicans .  If overturned, I only hope our Justices can come to an agreement in which constitutionally speaking, the government has no right to force people to purchase health insurance.  Once that is established by an encouraging and significant margin in the decision, we can move on to how the law needs to be broken down as to what is kept and what is not, barring the law is not overturned in its entirety.  But the Mandate is the ballgame.  If that is permitted to exist as written, then Federalism as we know it is no more.  Hopefully our Justices can see beyond their own political loyalties and vote on the legality of the law and nothing else.  If not, a 5-4 split will leave us entering the November elections no less healed than were are now, than we were in 2008 and even 2000.  Perhaps a court so often split down the middle can exemplify the unity this country desperately needs.

– John P. Burns

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”- Albert Einstein, formulator of the Theory of Relativity

If one were to think about the age old adage that politicians “campaign in poetry and govern in prose,” the image of President Obama would not escape you.   In 2008, then-Senator Obama’s campaign was well disciplined and ran on all cylinders, no part more so than his oratory on the stump which literally made voters swoon in his presence.  Few swoon in response now to President Obama, particularly because the divisive campaign rhetoric that the President employs is a much coarser approach than the politics of unity he championed only four years ago.  Though none of the current Republican contenders have Mr. Obama’s oratory skills, they can learn from a fellow Republican – one who, given the country’s dire fiscal situation, conveys the notion that it may be best to actually campaign in prose and leave the poetry at the door.  The Republican I speak of is Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI).

At only forty-two, the Wisconsin representative is perhaps the most mature amongst our elected officials in the nation’s capital; he is certainly one of the most serious.  Mr. Ryan chooses to recognize reality, and therefore he is able to acknowledge that there is a problem with a system that functions (for lack of a better word) while operating at an annual deficit of over one trillion dollars per year.  Mr. Ryan’s common sense approach to governance uses the statistics and actualities of the real world as evidence to the fiscal death spiral in which our country is caught.   Instead of employing empty speeches regarding the debt and making grand overtures to an always elusive remedy, Mr. Ryan has actually created a plan offering real change to confront the policies which have brought the Republic to this point, in what he deems the “the most predictable crisis we’ve ever had in this country.”

On Tuesday this week, Mr. Ryan unveiled the House Republican Budget Plan for the United States Federal Government for 2013.  The plan calls for a simpler tax code, breaking our current tax bracket system down from six brackets to just two, at twenty-five and ten percent.  It recommends a plan to reform the various problems of Medicare, arguably the biggest weight on the government’s sinking ship of insolvency, by proposing the use of the real market system to temper high costs without cutting the benefits to seniors or shifting the bill onto the shoulders of posterity.  The bill cuts discretionary spending throughout the autonomous agencies existing in our federal government which are currently run by faceless bureaucrats that function beyond the reproach of the voting citizenry.  These cuts also allow for more serious budget for Defense, which is currently being gutted for $600 Billion over the next ten years as a result of last year’s deficit reduction deal; these are the very cuts that Obama Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, along with other military dignitaries, admitted would have dire effects on the American military.  And most importantly, the budget cuts spending by five trillion over the next decade, and though this writer is no financial wizard, these remedies all sound like warranted changes for a country in debt for fifteen trillion dollars.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) unveils a budget plan Tuesday that actually begins to confront the fiscal problems facing the federal government.

But this is not what Democrats would have you believe.  For the party whose leader campaigned on confronting the lavish spending and irresponsibility of Washington D.C, these politicians seem to believe that the campaign poetry does not need to be backed up with the governing prose.  Why make the hard decisions to change the policies that have put our country on this fiscal path of self-destruction when you can rehash the same baseless attacks on your opponents who are making an attempt to do so:

From Jay Carney, White House Spokesman:  “What we see in this proposal is, again, much like its predecessor, essentially a shift of money from the middle class, seniors and lower-income Americans, disabled Americans, to the wealthiest Americans.”

From a statement released by House Democrats: “a vicious plot to destroy our nation’s promise to our seniors.”

Coincidentally of course, the largest bloc of voters in the United States is seniors, so what better way to win them over than by creating an environment of fear and panic over the bill?  Does anyone honestly think Mr. Ryan, a husband and father of three, has the sinister intentions of bankrupting senior citizens, or even worse, denying them the healthcare they need?  The most important part of this plan is in fact the Medicare reforms.  The public’s current despondence with the federal government is rooted in its failure to come together and confront the problems our country faces.  Entitlement reform is the whole ball game, and Democrats are paralyzed with fear to actually confront the problems of these programs in an election year.  The Washington Post displays the true colors behind this mindset in the very first sentence of its article describing the Ryan proposal:

“House Republicans laid down a bold but risky election-year marker Tuesday, unveiling a budget proposal that aims to tame the national debt by reshaping Medicare…”

 “Bold but risky.”   I imagine when facing fifteen trillion dollars in debt, a bold plan to change damaging policies is necessary to deviate from that course.  In terms of risk, it is only risky if democrats choose to politicize these remedies rather than attempt to meet Mr. Ryan half way, or God forbid actually move forward with his proposals.  It is only risky if Democrats choose to demonize Mr. Ryan by appealing to a nation already stricken with uncertainty with accusations of the Republican’s “vicious plot.”  It is only risky if Democrats refuse to acknowledge the reality of our situation in the public conversation, and remain steadfast with the Democratic-utopian view that everything will be fine as long as we tax the rich a little more, and then spend a little more.  Proposing actual solutions to save a debt ridden super power should never be considered “risky.”  The only risk is to treat the problem as it has always been treated: by acting with ignorance, hubris and ultimately self-destruction.

For Mr. Ryan, this reaction by Democrats came as absolutely no surprise.  He is prepared to back up his plan with the cold hard facts and grim reality we face if nothing is done to change our fiscal policies; Medicare reform, decreased discretionary spending and a simpler tax code is just the tip of the ice berg.  Anyone who truly believes we can continue to coast along without recognizing the damage already done, and the deluge coming our way, seems much more determined than Mr. Ryan to formulate a vicious attack not only on our seniors but on the future of the United States.  There are of course changes that can be made in this resolution to address its weaknesses and oversights- such as the two tax brackets and what will sure be an issue over the “cutoff” point bumping your income tax from 10% to 25%.  But considering the challenge in front of us, this certainly seems like a start towards the rebuilding of the United States and strengthening its position in the world.

Despite the coming back and forth over the resolution, which will occur between both parties as well as within each party, it is obvious now that the President’s Hope and Change of 2008 was left at the door by his party and administration once Mr. Obama took the oath in January 2009.  The proper prose to back up this poetry was never apparently written.  The only change we hear about now is from a Wisconsin congressman, and it is the best chance for hope we’ve got.

– John P. Burns

“Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.” —Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winning Economist

In my current reading of Theodore Roosevelt: Preacher of Righteousness by Joshua David Hawley,  I have reached the part of the Colonel’s life where he chose to make the ill-advised attempt to run for President for a third term, challenging his handpicked successor, incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft.  President Taft had just been delivered a “shellacking” at the polls, losing 53 seats in the House to Democrats in his midterm election in 1910.  While this was not as bad as the defeat handed to President Obama in 2010, it was a categorical public repudiation of a president and his party that left Colonel Roosevelt itching to throw his “hat in the ring”.

Juxtaposed in the book with this internal party strife is the ascent of Woodrow Wilson, which also began in 1910.  Wilson, the Godfather of modern day “progressivism”, sought to develop a stronger coalition of Democrats by breaking from the restraints of the William Jennings Bryan populism they had linked themselves to in the previous two decades, resulting in failed attempts to win the White House in four consecutive elections.  He was intent on developing a more modernized Democratic Party, one that could rival and ultimately defeat the Republicans who, though in power, were falling into complete disarray.  Wilson saw an opportunity, and he would not let the moment elude him.

 In reading about these century old circumstances, it dawned on me that there is another issue for Republicans to fault the President: the failure to transform and unite the weakened Republican Party. 

Four years ago, Clinton Campaign architect James Carville wrote about the coming Democratic dominance that would last for forty years with the ascendancy of President Obama.  Republicans had been in power in the White House for five of the previous seven presidential terms, and in his logic they had worn out their welcome.  While forty years is an overstatement, Democratic dominance would not be so surprising for a sustained period of time.  American politics is cyclical, and more often than not the American public becomes disenchanted with any party in power, such a Republicans for the last quarter century.   

At the end of President Bush’s term, Republicans were faced with exactly that kind of disenchantment.  The President never felt the need to explain his polices or defend attacks against them.  His rejection of the media and other outlets he could utilize to reach the American Public ultimately turned these institutions against him.  Congressional Republicans let their leadership slip into the coma of self-indulgence, oblivious to the corruption that was spreading in the Chamber.  Republicans were in power too long, and they let it show in their nonchalance toward massive spending ventures which helped dig the gigantic hole of debt that we are in today.  Democrats took advantage of that in 2006, and ultimately in 2008 when a fresh faced Barack Obama ran against the “politics as usual” caricature of Washington.  His charisma, youth and appearance (the first African American President) led people like Carville to believe there would be actual change in the Capital.  How wrong they were.

So wrong, in fact, that President Obama and the Democrats were challenged by the American citizenry within two years of their mandate.  Though it is not odd for a siting President’s party to lose seats in his first midterm election (again, the American inclination to reject the party in power), the extent to which Democrats lost in 2010 was historical.  The president overreached with his stimulus and Obamacare, allowing the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to drive their congressional supermajority off a cliff.  In two years Mr. Obama’s radical approach to government squandered the Democrat’s opportunity to take hold of the Federal government and run the show.  Their greed and hubris got in the way of responsible governance, ignoring the country’s growing awareness and concern over the national debt and an increasingly controlling nanny state.  Now as the President scrambles for re-election by essentially ignoring half of the “accomplishments” of his first term,  this good political fortune leaves Republicans dumbfounded.   

As odd as it may sound, the President’s weakness and ineptitude as a leader has created a problem for the Republican Party.  When parties are exiled from power it allows their members, and most importantly their leaders, to restructure their approach to government to fit the challenges facing the country.  In 1910 Woodrow Wilson understood his party’s plight, and therefor plotted accordingly to draw on the emotions of the progressive reform movement to gain favor with the American public.  Insofar, we have failed to see such advancements amongst the Republicans. 

We currently are viewing a Republican Presidential primary notable for its volatility in polling, fueled by increasingly negative propaganda from all sides.  This “he said, she said” approach to a Presidential campaign is not only undeserving of the public, but completely deconstructive for the Republican brand.  Despite the failures of the Democrats in the last three years, Americans still have a bad taste in their mouth from the end of the Bush years, as congressional Republicans currently poll at an approval rating of 23%.  Whether it is Mitt Romney speaking in platitudes about American exceptionalism or Rick Santorum’s angry tone on social issues, the candidates opposing our incumbent President do little to inspire the citizenry.  Four years ago I don’t think any Republican would have imagined beating President Obama after his meteoric rise leading to the White House, and if he accomplished even half of what he promised in his first term this Republican field would be fittingly weak for this Presidential election.  But without their time in exile from political power, a time that could have been spent formulating serious advancements in reconstructing the tax code, re-evaluating our Foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East, entitlement reform, expanding our energy resources, and so on- we put forward a Republican field to the American people that differs very little from the field in 2008.  Only now, instead of pushing the country forward, men like Romney and Gingrich are forced to address the policies of a President who has reached so far left that the Bush-era Republican platform looks like relief from the policies we see today.

Though in this essay I “blame” the President for what we are seeing in the Republican race, I hope this can be taken both facetiously and seriously.  Facetiously because the President is blamed for almost everything by conservatives like myself, and it is ridiculous to actually blame him for this weak roster of candidates we have trotted out before the American people for the last year.  Though at the same time, it is a serious critique of Mr. Obama’s record in almost four years of governance.  If he addressed the issues facing the country from the outset of his Presidency, like unemployment and the debt, as opposed to the Democratic love child of universal government-run healthcare, our country would be facing a much brighter future and most likely a smooth Presidential election for the incumbent.  Instead, his insistence to ignore the challenges facing the American people face leaves the country in far worse shape than 2008, with no leader ready to solve these problems on hand. 

– John P. Burns

“Please excuse any painful display of ignorance in this essay, as the subject of foreign policy to me is well… foreign.”- Editor, Tammany-Hall.com

On Monday in Washington, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered the keynote speech at AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), concentrating almost solely on the current standoff with Iran regarding its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Mr. Netanyahu’s speech was a powerful one, contrasting his sharp wit with a serious tone on a situation that is as deadly as any we have seen in the last quarter century.  He recognizes he and President Obama face inherent difficulties in this conflict with regards to military action againstIran.  Unfortunately for Mr. Netanyahu, these complications are unavoidable and sadly warranted.

One of problems facing PM Netanyahu and President Obama right now is the lasting image of Americans rallying against the “false pretense” used for conducting Operation Iraqi Freedom.  At the time when the decision was made to invade Iraq, President Bush was working with extensive intelligence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction in his country.  After the tragedy and horrors of 9/11, this was no longer a possibility theUnited Statescould let go unchecked.  As noted by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the United States based this information on our own intelligence as well as that of United Nations inspectors who reported Iraq was in the developing stages of these weapons as far back as the early 1990s.  President Bill Clinton, upon leaving office noted that something would have to be done about Hussein sooner or later- it apparently was sooner.

When the dust and rubble of invasion settled, it was revealed that the Hussein Regime was not developing such weapons.  This left the United States with a nation building project on its hands that it was not prepared to face.  Today, despite the late success inIraq, the American public shutters at the images of 2006 Fallujah and now more recently the “die foreigners die” chants of the citizens ofAfghanistan.  We are not only unwanted in the Middle East, but our soldiers are depicted as foreign invaders in countries we have tried to rebuild in the (perhaps foolish) hope of spreading democracy.  These lands native to religious zealots and Islamist extremists present a danger to our soldiers who are handcuffed to take serious action against them, and are now currently in danger working closely with the very Afghanis we have made our allies.

When we leaveAfghanistan, there is a good chance we will leave it with no lasting political effect, save for the decimation of al-Qaeda.  Though that was our initial and most important goal, our mission there grew out of control; spiraling into a hunkered down presence of occupation and nation building, leaving us in the longest conflict in American history.  Amazingly, considering the turmoil surrounding Iraq during the Bush years, Iraq will most likely be left in better condition than Afghanistan to move forward on the world at large.

In the wake of the murder, violence and outrage over the “decimation” of Korans, it has become evident that our attempts to transform Afghanistanfrom a terrorist hotbed never had a chance.  In actuality, these Korans were technically already ‘decimated’ per Muslim teachings, as messages were written in their pages by Afghani prisoners.  These messages were used as communiqués between the prisoners, putting our boys and Afghani soldiers responsible for their detention in danger of inmate reprisal.  This is no matter to the Afghani people though as they rage, burn, and murder their way to the perimeter of our bases to display their vociferous protest, leaving any inkling of common sense and human compassion at the door.  American citizens see all this through the wonders of a twenty four hour news cycle and the internet, and at this point they are finished with our expeditions in Arab lands.

Which brings us back to Iran.  Our military forces have been bogged down in war for a decade, and the amount of blood shed by our brave soldiers in these sand traps of the Stone Age has left the American people defiant of any attempt to save these corrupt countries from themselves.  ButIran, Mr.  Netanyahu tells us, is different:

“A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. Let me try to explain what that means, a nuclear umbrella.  It means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack the United States, Israel, and other countries because they will be backed by a power that has atomic weapons.  So the terrorism could grow tenfold.  A nuclear-armed Iran could choke off the world’s oil supply and make real its threat to close the Straits of Hormouz… And here’s the worst nightmare of all, with nuclear weapons, Iran could threaten all of us with nuclear terrorism.  It could put a nuclear device in a ship heading to any port or in a truck parked in any city, anywhere in the world.  I want you to think about what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in the hands of those who lead millions of radicals who chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

Mr. Netanyahu paints a bleak picture, but a seemingly accurate one.  A nuclear warhead and the capability to create more in the hands of Iran could easily lead to scenarios described above.  The Obama administration has led a valiant effort in their attempts to neutralize the threat by enforcing serious economic sanctions, but Iran remains undeterred.  Unfortunately, the cloud of Iraq casts a shadow over the accuracy of our intelligence, leaving the door open for the possibility that Iran is in fact not developing such weapons, and creating doubts about the necessity of a military strike.  These reservations are now only compounded by calls from other world powers for the U.S and Israel to continue their diplomatic efforts before considering any military action against Iran.

Regardless, Mr. Netanyahu remains determined to protect his people, the region, and indeed the world from the (dare I say it) domino effect that would be created by a nuclearIran.  A strike against Iran’s nuclear sites would be a tactical attack; hopefully with limited loss of life and conducted through a strategy sound enough to marginalize the danger Israeli forces will face in such an operation.

There is another matter as well, highlighted by the Prime Minister later on in his speech:

“Israel’s fate is to continue to be the forward position of freedom in the Middle East.  The only place in the Middle East where minorities enjoy full civil rights; the only place in the Middle East where Arabs enjoy full civil rights; the only place in the Middle East where Christians are free to practice their faith; the only place in the Middle East where real judges protect the rule of law.  And as Prime Minister of Israel, I will always protect Israel’s democracy – always.  I will never allow anything to threaten Israel’s democratic way of life. And most especially, I will never tolerate any discrimination against women.”

In our attempts to rid the Middle East of its dictators and repressive regimes that create the environments which serve as terrorist breeding grounds, we must recognize the importance of Israel described here by Prime Minister Netanyahu.  The Middle East is a region of instability and hatred, leaving Israel as the lone shining light in that dark corner of world.  Despite our misgivings about military action, we must recognize the long shadow cast over the Middle East by a nuclearIran, and put ourselves in the position of Benjamin Netanyahu and his people.  If the Venezuelan dictator and American hate monger Hugo Chavez was determined to develop nuclear weapons, would we not be inclined to act to protect our country?  And as noted by the Prime Minister, that is a conceivable outcome if Iran is to develop the technology for a smart bomb.

Looking up, we now see that the clock is ticking.  If Israel chooses to move forward with military action against Iran’s nuclear sites then the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with her in the aftermath; we must hammer Iran with sanctions after the strike, not only to cripple their nuclear ambitions, but to display an enduring alliance of dedication and resolve with Israel against the all too familiar face of terror in that part of the world.

– John P. Burns

“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

 Growing up, my parents claimed that my main and most important responsibility was my school work, and thereafter my sports engagements and whatever chores (often the bare minimum) I had to complete for the house.  Like any other teenager, despite my light workload I often put my responsibilities off for as long as I could.  This attitude would leave my father incensed, resulting one day in a blow out over my dereliction of landscaper duties.  “Everything with you is mañana” he asserted, as I had all the time in the world to cut the lawn but kept putting it off to the proverbial next day.  While this is typical characteristic of a teenager, it is a glaring deficiency of a Presidential administration.

 In his four years as President, Mr. Obama has chosen to kick the can down the road on spending, entitlement reform, and American fossil fuel options.  As demonstrated by the formation of the Tea Party, a majority of the American people have collectively come to the realization that our current fiscal trajectory will ultimately ruin us.  Unfortunately, the one man who has the power to spearhead reform in our spending seems content with putting it off until tomorrow. 

 In contrast, when Senator Obama campaigned for President in 2008, he took President Bush to task for his deficit sending:

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome.”

 Despite this attack, and a promise to halve the debt by the end of his first term, President Obama has amassed a total $5 Trillion of debt in four years.  #44 by his lonesome added more than #43, and in half the time.  In response to accusations regarding his debt run-up, Mr. Obama has insisted that the federal government needed to first spend money to keep the country out of another Great Depression.  Okay then.   If that were the case, and we believed in President Obama and his Keynesian approach to economics, one must ask when does that spending come to an end?  The $800B stimulus was not enough?  We are now in the President’s fourth year, and this is the fourth consecutive budget he has submitted in which the United States government is operating in the red.  Such spending is not sustainable, nor has it seemed to give the economy the much needed jolt for a full recovery.  The President refuses to address the spending problem, or at least has no intent on doing so any time soon. 

 Part of his refusal in correcting America’s fiscal situation is the inability to put forth real recommendations on reforming entitlement programs in the country.  Social security, Medicaid, and most importantly Medicare have become a weight on our federal government that will ultimately drown us in our own self-indulgence.  There are no calls on the right to do away with these benefits; quite the contrary, a joint reform plan for Medicare has been put forward by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI).  Agree with it or not, President Obama has done little to even acknowledge the plan, no less come up with one on his own.  There is no easy or quick fix to these problems, but a step has to be actually taken to get the ball rolling.  Again, the President seems content with putting it off.

 For President Obama, the problem with the entitlement issue is not only that he is not willing to confront it, but that his own Party holds him back from doing so.  Recently after an announcement for his plan regarding entitlement reform, Paul Ryan was depicted in a Democratic ad where the Congressman’s lookalike was literally pushing Grandma off a cliff.  The Democrats’ inability to address these issues is not only scandalously irresponsible, but serves as a calculated political strategy to scare seniors (the largest voting bloc in the country) that is nothing short of cowardly. 

 In his daily briefing Tuesday, Jay Carney proclaimed that the Republicans are politicizing high gas prices and the administration’s decision not to invest in the Keystone XL Pipeline.  First and foremost, it was the President who originally “politicized” the issue, siding with fringe environmental groups in hopes of shoring up a specific contingent of his base for re-election in 2012.  Secondly, the Republicans have been able and continue to make political hay over the issue because of how irrational a decision it was by the President.  Despite the missed opportunity to create more jobs for Americans in a time where employment is sought desperately, there is a larger issue.  Day after day, our foreign dignitaries and many American citizens stress over the prospects of an Iranian made nuclear bomb.  We would not be as limited as we are concerning Iran, or any other country in the increasingly turbulent Middle East, without our reliance on the oil produced in that region. 

 As noted by Dr. Charles Krauthammer last week, we are always told by Democrats that expanded drilling and exploration will not immediately pay dividends in oil production or prices, not even for five years.  Jay Carney did so on Tuesday, arguing gas prices would not be affected by such a decision to construct the pipeline.  But this argument has been hashed out for twenty years, which for those of you counting, at home is five years four times over.  We will never know the extent of the rewards reaped from our natural resources if we continually delay the attempt to actually utilize them.  There is no more of an egregious example of this ideology than the decision on the Keystone Pipeline, and no more of a vivid consequence than our compromised position in the Middle East.    

 To be fair, President Obama and his staff have tackled issues head on in his time in office: most notably producing an $800B stimulus package to combat the recession that did not work, and shortly thereafter crafting and passing a bill to establish state-run healthcare that no one wants.  Both items serve as the administration’s landmark legislative achievements, and simultaneously as its campaign Scarlet Letter (the President did not refer to either in his State of the Union address, nor subsequent campaign speeches since).  Conservative pundits condemn his record as one marked by arrogance; where the President ultimately believes his big government policies will be proven right in the end, as the State undoubtedly knows better than its citizens.  But in his record as President, it is the conscious choice to ignore the important issues I mentioned above that displays the definitive form of hubris; where President Obama fails to acknowledge the dire consequences of this ignorance, which will result in a deeply indebted, energy dependent and therefor increasingly weaker America.

 Last week in a campaign speech to the UAW, President Obama tried out a new campaign line to the applause of his union supporters: “5 years from now when I’m not President…”  It is nice to see the Mr. Obama looking ahead for once, but what about his actual plans for that second term?  Besides raising taxes on “the rich” and giving everyone their “fair share”, does he have a plan to solve the immense problems I’ve described above?  If so, he hasn’t told us yet- just make sure you understand that he will be elected to another four years.  We can hammer out the details mañana. 

– John P. Burns

On an rare 2-post Friday, I’d like to first extend my condolences to the family of Andrew Breitbart; the conservative journalist who tragically passed away yesterday at the young age of forty-three.  Breitbart advanced the conservative movement in America as well as any in recent memory.  His boundless passion served as a catalyst in his taking up the David vs. Goliath battle against left wing hypocrisy and its influence over Hollywood and the American media.  His happy wit and sharp instincts in the advent of the internet helped pave the road for a new medium in which Conservatives could influence the political discourse outside the airwaves of the liberal leviathan.

Anyone who hopes to effect change in the American political system, from the right or left, can admire and emulate Breitbart as a man who served his cause with dedication and determination.  This is evidenced by a heartfelt tweet from none other than Russel Simmons, who despite being a diametric opposite of Breitbart in the political sense, was still able to admire his commitment as a patriot.

A more meaningful remembrance for Mr. Breitbart was written Thursday by Michael Walsh in National Review.  Below is a Youtube clip of a Breitbart appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, and here is a link to my favorite website in his media Realm.

Breitbart is survived by his wife and four children.

– John P. Burns