Archive for September, 2010

Obama & Co. are seeking to let the investment tax cuts expire. As a method for paying for their unsustainable government spending they are proposing to raise the tax on capital gains from 15% to 20% and see the dividend income tax jump to between 36% and 39.6%.  If Obama has his way, our economy will be turned into the Hindenburg – clumsy, slow, and likely to explode at a moment’s notice. Fortunately for Americans, 47 House Democrats have embraced sound fiscal policy over party ties and called on their party leaders to continue the Bush-era tax cuts on investment income.

If Obama’s proposed concoction of tax cuts and tax hikes gets passed Americans will face a $3.4 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years. Obama wants the US tax system to regress to the point where every dollar of investment income is hit by a 35% corporate tax rate (the second highest in the world) and a 20% capital gains tax. Given the double taxation is there really an incentive to be a shareholder? Better question: without shareholders how will companies get the capital they need to grow and hire? Even better question: if business growth stagnates how will we ever escape the recession? Well, if you take the Congressional Budget Office’s word for it (we do) then the tax increase will “leave most people less well off.” Just what we need right about now…to be less well off.

This is leading to a number of problems. First, to avoid being penalized for their productivity, corporations are allocating their capital to less productive areas. A stagnating and inefficient economy is not exactly the road to success. Second, it will reduce the size of the American economic pie. As the Wall Street Journal explains,

Think of the economy as a pie split among workers, savers and the government, with the government’s slice fixed. The savers’ slice will equal the after-tax return on each unit of the capital stock, and what’s left goes to workers as after-tax wages. The fairness advocates in effect claim that low tax rates on dividends and capital gains increase the share of the pie that goes to high-income savers. But the low tax rates increase the absolute size of the workers’ slice by making the entire pie bigger. That’s because low tax rates encourage capital accumulation, productivity and wage growth.

In 2003 Bush allowed a 50 percent write off of capital expenditures One year later, business spending on equipment had risen 30 percent, to $1.06 trillion compared to the 2002 levels. Employment grew for 46 straight months, creating 8 million new jobs. At the very least this shows that if we permanently rescind many of our taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations economic growth will follow.

Forty-seven percent of all interest income, 60 percent of all dividends, and 84 percent of all net capital gains are reported by the households that earn more than $200,000.  That is because these are the households that are heavily investing into new ventures and helping corporations raise new capital. These are the people carrying America. Not only does growth in the private sector rely on them, the government could not be supported without them. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans pays 40% of all income taxes collected, while 40 percent of income earners are exempt from paying the federal income tax.

If the US keeps stigmatizing these people and businesses and keep placing more and more taxes on them the US economy will never fully recover from the current recession. Obama is pro middle class tax cuts but anti- investment and upper class tax cuts. Americans must see this hypocrisy. If Obama was truly for the middle class he would extend Bush’s investment tax cuts to everybody. There is an inherent hypocrisy in claiming to be for the middle class then targeting the investments and incomes of the wealthy. The businesses and the individuals who are targeted in Obama’s tax plan keep America growing and prosperous that by default benefits the middle class.

Just as Herbert Morrison lamented “Oh, the humanity,” as he witnessed the violent demise of the Hindenburg, Americans must exclaim: “Oh, the hypocrisy,” to prevent our economy from becoming the next preventable heap of smoking wreckage.

by Justin Williams

Conservatism has always been the dominant ideology of the United States. Take 2008 for instance. President Obama was riding a progressive wave into office, dominating the competition, while Democrats coasted comfortably into Washington on his coattails. But even then, 37 percent of Americans identified themselves as conservative versus 22 percent who identified themselves as liberal.

Fast-forward to 2010 where conservatism is making a “comeback,” if you can call expanding on a 15 percent lead a comeback. Regardless of what you call it, the percentage of people calling themselves conservative has jumped 5 percent since 2008, while the liberal brand has fallen by 2 percent.

This leads to some very interesting electoral consequences. Lydia Saad of Gallup and Anne Kim and Jon Cowan of Third Way crunched the numbers to see what the electoral consequences of this ideological shift would be. Washington Post columnist David Broder explained their findings in a recent article:

Suppose Democratic candidates run as well as Obama did nationally in 2008, taking 20 percent of the conservatives, 60 percent of the moderates and 89 percent of the liberals. And suppose, too, that turnout rates are the same for all three groups.

With the updated Gallup figures, a 2010 Democratic candidate who matched Obama’s national percentages would still win Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon and Washington. But, with more conservatives and fewer liberals in the mix, the Democrat would come up short in 13 other competitive states and barely break even in California, Illinois and New Hampshire. Among the big states where the numbers now break against the Democrats are Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

This should come as disastrous news for Democrats. The shrinking pool of liberal votes means that Democratic candidates will have to be even more effective than President Obama at capturing liberal voters to have a chance in November. But with Democratic voter enthusiasm well below 2008 levels and a large number of liberal voters disenchanted by the performance of the White House this seems next to impossible.

This is a problem of Democrats own making. In 2008 they were granted an almost unprecedented chance to build the liberal brand by capturing moderate voters. Instead, their unpopular agenda drove away independents and left liberals unsatisfied. People are once again demanding a change of direction from Washington, and if these Gallup numbers show anything, it’s that they are likely to get it.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

HOT OFF THE PRESS!!!  Sen. John Kerry is a sore loser. Oh! We already knew this? He said he “couldn’t believe he [was] losing to this idiot” when he was losing to President Bush?  This is alarming news. I guess it shouldn’t be all that surprising when he recently described American voters as being politically dumb and blind.

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.”

Hmm. Sounds a lot like how President Obama won. “Yes we can” or “hope and change” anyone? Or how about a cool Shepard Fairey painting and an Oprah endorsement? Ya know, rather than facts or truth. The fact is, President Obama wasn’t just a candidate; he was an omnipresent pop culture icon. Everyone knew he was all about change, but not very many voters knew what exactly this meant.

So is the party who cruised into office on the backs of people “influenced by a simple slogan” really ready to throw stones at those same people? In short, yes.

Want proof? President Obama and Vice President Biden have been parroting similar criticisms of the electorate in recent days.

Biden recently told Democrats to “stop whining.” When asked to clarify what this meant he said, “Those who…didn’t get everything they wanted, it’s time to just buck up here, understand that we can make things better but not yield the playing field to those folks who are against everything we stand for.”

In other words, when the voters swung to the Democrats’ following their disillusionment with Republicans, that was all well and good. But now that Democrats face the same pressure from a similarly disillusioned base, it’s time to “buck up.”

President Obama had similar feelings of his own. In a recent Rolling Stone interview President Obama responded to a comment about the growing frustration among his supporters by saying, “I’ll tell them, ‘Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances imaginable.”

To which, I would say. YOU buck up. YOU wake up. We were promised fundamental change, not half measures. We understand that you were able to pass two historic pieces of legislation – the stimulus and healthcare reform – but neither of those is proving effective. The economy, for which he is mainly being judged, continues to trend the wrong way. The unemployment rate is forecasted to rise above 10 percent, consumer confidence is down, and the economy is growing at a measly 1.6 percent. This despite a $787 billion stimulus package that must inevitably be paid for by job killing tax increases. If this is the change that you were promising, you can have it back.

But instead of following his own advice and “bucking up” to the challenges our nation faces, we are getting excuses. Instead of rousing campaign promises we are left with these quotes from President Obama:

• “Getting something passed through Congress with 535 members is hard”
• “This isn’t single payer which some people wanted, this is a middle of the road bill”
• “Each of these issues is huge complicated issues”
• “Now you’ve got a financial system that is stable, it’s still not as strong as it was in 2006”
• “It’s not for lack of trying, it’s because the politics of it are difficult”

Why aren’t we telling him to “quit whining”? It seems to me that he, moreso than any voter, is the one providing more excuses than action. We understand that the politics are difficult. But do wanna know what is even more difficult? Trying to find a job. Attempting to pay off student loans. Keeping food on the table. And maintaining faith in Washington. We didn’t elect you to present us with excuses, we put you into office because you came out swinging with big promises.

Or maybe I’m just one of the dumb lemmings that John Kerry spoke of. Perhaps I’m just too ignorant to see all the great change that President Obama is bringing to America. Perhaps I just need to believe that ultimately he’ll fulfill his slogan of “hope and change.” Perhaps he just needs more time. Nah, I’d rather just look at the “facts” and “the truth” and “what’s happening.” And the fact is, President Obama hasn’t lived up to his promise.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

“This isn’t your father’s Republican party.” So said Joe Biden at a rally in State College, Pennsylvania this past week. He’s exactly right. A party often lambasted for being a bunch of old dudes has gotten a face-lift. The GOP’s Young Guns (and no we’re not talking about the Emilio Estevez movie) are a group of Republicans set on breaking with the past and ushering in a new, rejuvenated era of conservatism.

The Young Guns, led by Representatives Eric Cantor of Virginia, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Kevin McCarthy of California, are the new face of the GOP. And it’s giving Democrats fits. Rather than account for their own shortcomings, Democrats have taken to blaming President Bush for many of the nation’s ills. Looking to the past has also become their go-to campaign narrative, warning Americans that they may not like where things are, but think how much worse it would be if we go back to the Republican policies of the past.

In a surprising, and quite frankly, refreshing, move the Young Guns are happy to concede the point. Rather than argue the merits of past actions, they fully agree that we can’t go back. As Cantor, Ryan, and McCarthy wrote in a recent USA Today article,

“By the fall of 2006, it had become abundantly clear that Republicans had severely lost our way. Members who had previously won election promising to safeguard the best interest of the taxpayers grew consumed with self-preservation. A party that fancied itself as ethical champions of limited government became overwhelmed by corruption charges and the reality that we had significantly increased federal spending. We atrophied, lost our moorings, and lost our way. In hindsight, you can’t blame the voters for firing us.”

Say what? The public isn’t used to hearing honesty from their Representatives, especially when that honesty involves lamenting the direction of your own party. A new strategy for new leaders. They recognize the party’s mistakes, fully own up to and admit them, and are now ready to promise a better future.

This infusion of new conservative blood isn’t solely a top-down movement, it is also bubbling up across the nation. Groups such as the Tea Party are frankly fed up with both parties in Washington. They don’t want a Republican or a Democrat; they look beyond labels to the essence of the candidate.

The results are visible. Take a look at the conservative candidate in your district and he’s likely not a lifetime politician, he’s not going to Washington to bide his time for a plush committee job, and he doesn’t have any idea of using politics as a career. No, most likely you’ll find that the candidate is just like you – angry at the ridiculous spending that is going on in Washington. The reason he or she is running is because they know, with the help of their convictions, that they can fix it.

The personal commitment to fiscal responsibility and true change is embodied in the face of the movement – the Young Guns. As they wrote for the USA Today,

What unites the Young Guns movement is a conviction that the answer to our daunting economic problems does not lie in more government. The answer lies in innovation, economic growth, entrepreneurship, and individual opportunity and freedom. . .

America is a nation at a crossroads, and the choices that we make today will determine the quality of the country we leave our children tomorrow. We believe that it’s time for government to again start working for the people who pay for it. We believe that we must not leave our children a country more in debt and worse off than we found it. And we believe that elected officials need to start living up to the promises that they have made.

Young adults in particular should feel heartened by the emergence of this new Republican brand. Over the past several election cycles young adults have been consistently left out in the cold. We great weary of the Bush years which seemed closed off, insular, and stale. In 2008 we thought we would finally get the change we were looking for. Barack Obama was well spoken, energetic, and relatively young. He came promising to shake up Washington and bring real change to a nation in dire need of it. That too proved to be nothing more than a mirage. The Obama administration has only added to, not changed, Washington, frittering away our future with historic levels of spending.

Where were young adults, or the enormous number of disaffected independent voters, to turn next? The Young Guns seem to have given us an answer. They are a reunification of the conservative and Republican brands and a stark contrast from both prior administrations.

Their commitment to change is not evidenced by mere words, they have the records to back it up. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future is an honest and ambitious plan to reform government and get this nation’s finances back on track. Eric Cantor’s YouCut initiative is an innovative program that seeks to change the spending culture of Washington by allowing citizens input on ways to eliminate wasteful government spending. Finally, Kevin McCarthy took the lead on the America Speaking Out, an interactive tool that allows concerned voters input on how Washington should be run.

Together, these Young Guns are taking the lead on bringing true change to Washington. After all, this isn’t your father’s Republican Party and nothing could make us more hopeful.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

The recent defamation of big businesses by the Obama administration is nothing new. Since the Industrial Revolution, politicians have sought to attack and ostracize the industrious. And let’s face it, it is an easy sell. Whether it be David against Goliath, the Minutemen fighting the Red Coats, or Butler versus Duke, America is predisposed to want the little man to stand victorious against the oppression of Titans.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this either.  To rely on nothing but your own hands and your own intellect to create something new, something that is yours, that goes against the naysayers, the establishment that wrongly claims you can’t, is heroic. What is wrong is automatically penalizing David if he becomes Goliath. In the American mind there is an inaccurate correlation between “big” and “bad.”  Politicians and pundits exacerbate this idea. They do this because that if ‘’Goliath” is interchangeable with “bad”, then they, as leaders of government, have an authority, awarded to them by voters, to go after the Goliaths of the world. Restrictions and regulations are then created to limit big businesses, the Goliaths of modern America. These rules give the government more power and more authority, which always somehow seems to be a good thing.

Immediate and direct power for politicians and government is not the only beneficial thing that comes from targeting big businesses. When big businesses stumble or fail, as they often do when they are shackled by illogical regulations and arbitrary rules, the politician can swoop in and decry the evils of the businesses’ greed and self-interest. This is helped by the immediate reaction by most people to blame the business. After all, it is the business’ goals, policies, and decisions that ultimately and solely affect the company’s bottom line. Except, when the company is not the only one making decisions that affect both the day to day operations and long term outlook of the company. The government’s visible hand is often guiding and controlling variables, but that is a fact often swept away by politicians. When big businesses fail, politicians can claim that these regulations were designed to protect people and that the business executives were greedily seeking ways to circumvent these controls, and that a vote for them is a vote against these corrupt business that fail.

Americans must dispel these myths. Private enterprise is not evil, but is the realization of the American Dream. The private sector is what drives the American economy, it is what fuels innovation, and it is what creates sustainable employment.  Higher taxes against big businesses and increased rules and regulations of these businesses stifle economic growth and ultimately lead to higher unemployment.  Under the tyranny of excess rules, regulations and taxes, IPOs, capital investments, and stock values plummet. The competitiveness of companies is severely limited. Despite that, the Obama administration has recently expanded their attacks on big businesses to now include foreign businesses. The Obama administration believes that government intervention is what will save America.

To be blunt, America is desperate for jobs. The government plan to rescue employment has failed. Democrats predicted by the end of this summer, the same summer they touted as the “Summer of Recovery,” unemployment would drop to around 7%. It is currently at 9.6%, or 11% if you count all the people who were searching for jobs but have given up, and is expected to remain at that way until 2012.

Instead of creating 3.7 million jobs by summer’s end 2.5 million jobs have been lost with the private sector losing 2.4 million of those jobs. Almost as a testament to the futility of government interventionist policies, two Los Angeles departments that received $111 million to in stimulus money created/saved a whopping 55 jobs with the money.

Rather than fight the dire employment situation by extolling the virtues of businesses, the Obama administration has painted them as villains. He has derided them as “fat cat bankers” who have thrived by using only “reckless practices” who send “battalions of financial industry lobbyists” to “descend on Capitol Hill.” Such words left media and real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman to feel that this White House has “done something here that affects everybody’s confidence in the attitudes of this administration to the business community and to the economy. They have demonized the business world.”

Beyond hostile words, many job creators are lamenting the unfriendly business environment that is resulting from Democrats’ policies. As Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg said, Obama is nurturing “an increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.” Steve Forbes added that “not even the Franklin Roosevelt administration was as hostile to and ignorant about free enterprise as this administration is.” Intel CEO Paul Otellini feels similarly. As he explained at the Technology Policy Institute’s Aspen Forum, “The U.S. political environment has become so hostile to business that there is likely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth.” But the underlying problem as Otellini sees it is that “this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

The business bashing has not stopped with domestic firms. As Politico reported today, representatives of many multi-national firms are coming to Washington on Tuesday for a series of quiet meetings at the White House and on Capitol Hill to offer a counterargument — that the combination of tough presidential rhetoric and draconian administration policy could drive their firms away and, with them, thousands of jobs that the economy desperately needs.” Nancy McLernon, president of the Orginzation for International Investment, told Politico, “Over the last year, there has been some anti-foreign rhetoric that has painted these companies that employ millions of Americans with a foreign brush.”

The results could be terrible for a limping economy. A survey of these multinational firms found that 49 percent plan to increase employment in the next 18 months. Such exciting news is tempered by the fact that 72 percent of the firms said that the environment for their companies is worsening because of “proposed tax and trade policies.”

Americans must realize that anti-business rhetoric and regulation are crushing the American Dream, not protecting the average American. We must look past the rhetoric against big business and realize the Obama administration is asking us to essentially put limitations on how much we as creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs can achieve. Not only does it impede the growth of our economy, but it judges personal achievement as morally wrong. This is not the path to recovery. America needs all the business it can get. Whether businesses are foreign or domestic, they all lead to the same thing: jobs.

by Justin Williams and Brandon Greife

Just before halftime of the Green Bay and Chicago football game last night, Aaron Rodgers, quarterback of the Packers, heaved a Hail Mary pass into the endzone. The strategy of such a play is simple. You toss the football as long and as high as you can. It gives both the receiver and the cornerback ample time to get under the ball. If the receiver catches it, it is an easy 7 points. If the cornerback intercepts it, there is very little chance that he will return it for a touchdown, and the half will be over. High reward with very low risk.

As Election Day nears I see more and more liberal pundits tossing up Hail Mary’s in the hopes that something, anything sticks. If one of the partisan jabs lands, it could mean serious trouble for Republican momentum. If it misses, who cares, you’re in the exact same position you were already in – losing.

The latest desperate lob towards the election endzone was hurled by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich. In an article penned for the Huffington Post Reich attempts to argue that Republicans’ agenda is an “every man for himself” proposal in which the strong will survive and the weak will suffer. If only he had the facts to support his thesis.

His article gets off to an inauspicious start. He uses a quote from House Minority Leader John Boehner and his solution to the economic crisis – “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life.”

The trouble is Boehner never said those words. They were said by industrialist Andrew Mellon in 1929. In fact Boehner has said nothing of the sort. The only “purge” Boehner has even hinted at is squeezing the corruption and back-room dealing out of Washington.

But even then, would it have been so bad if Boehner had said it? There is a significant amount of “rottenness” in the system. The government is keeping housing prices artificially high. Enormous government debt is squeezing private investment out of the economy. Federal injections of synthetic money into the economy is perpetuating favored businesses at the expense of the efficient. And a redundant government bureaucracy is placing undue strain on the backs of taxpayers.

Seems to me there is a lot of rottenness that could be, should be, squeezed out of the system.

But none of those true-conservative laments are discussed in Reich’s article. Instead he conjures up the typical election year boogeymen – privatizing Social Security, evil “big business,” and destroying the social safety net. A series of Hail Mary attempts which he likely knows will fail but throws up in the hopes one will catch on.

Let’s address them one by one.

Social Security

Reich’s Claim: “Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935.”

The Truth: This one is easy. As nonpartisan Factcheck.org recently wrote:

“Few if any Republicans now in Congress have ever pushed for total “privatization” of Social Security. What President Bush proposed in 2005 was to allow workers under the age of 55 to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. Most of their taxes would have continued to go into traditional Social Security. . . There was so little support for Bush’s plan, even among members of his own party, that it died without ever being introduced as a formal piece of legislation. Furthermore, we’ve seen no evidence that Republicans are any more enthusiastic about the idea now than they were the last time they had control of Congress.”

Then again, Republicans, unlike Democrats, are at least willing to admit that there is a problem with the program. The program ran a deficit for the first time in its history this year. Moreover, the Social Security Trustees’ Report found that the program’s Trust Fund will begin to run a deficit by 2016.

Health Care:

Reich’s Claim: “Repealing the new health-care legislation would cause health-care costs to rise even faster. . . The new law could help control rising health costs.”

The Truth: Not even Democrats support Reich’s claim. A leaked memo to Democratic candidates urged them to abandon claims that it will reduce costs and instead focus on promises to “improve it.” In fact, listed under a section entitled “Do Nots” the memo includes “say the law will reduce costs and deficit.” Apparently Reich didn’t get the memo.

Perhaps that is not enough for Reich. Okay well how about a report issues by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which states that ““In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish [the] pressure of [rising health costs].” Such an assessment is backed by a separate investigation done by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services which found that “for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures] would increase by $311 billion, or 0.9 percent, over the baseline projection.”

In other words, the Democrats’ healthcare bill does exactly the opposite of what Reich says – it doesn’t help control costs, it actually accelerates them.

Unemployment Insurance:

Reich’s Claim: “Republicans also hate unemployment insurance. They’ve voted against every extension because, they say, it coddles the unemployed.”

The Truth: This should really get your blood boiling because it is not simply a case of misinformation, it is a boldfaced lie. Republicans never vote against an extension because it “coddled” the unemployed. Rather, Republicans (and some Democrats for that matter) voted against the extension because Democratic leadership refused to pay for the bill. Don’t take my word for it. Take Ben Nelson (D-NE) who explained why he voted no by saying,

“So, Congress should provide additional unemployment benefits but not as a bailout to the states that worsens the deficit and passes the bills onto our children.”

Or Democrat Betsy Markey (D-CO) who said that, “the [unemployment insurance] extension wasn’t paid for. The bill spent money without cutting somewhere else.” She was of course referring to the previously passed “pay as you go” legislation that requires spending bills be met with equal spending cuts elsewhere.

Quite the contrary to Reich’s “hate” narrative, Republicans were eager to pass unemployment extensions at the time. In fact Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “We’ve offered ways of paying for these programs, and we’ve been eager to approve them.”

History also doesn’t support Reich’s claim that Republicans hate unemployment insurance. As Politifact.com recently found,

Bush signed two general extensions in 2003 for 13 weeks each, with significant Republican support. He also signed extensions in 2008 with Republican support.

We were unable to find any instances when Bush asked for an extension of unemployment benefits and Congress refused him.

The Deficit:

Reich’s Claim: “Republicans want to cut the deficit and balance the budget at a time when a large portion of the workforce is idle.”

The Truth: Hey, he actually got one right! Republicans do want to cut the deficit. The problem comes when he begins explaining what will happen if federal spending is curtailed. “Cutting the deficit and balancing the budget any time soon will subject tens of millions of American families to unnecessary hardship and throw even more into poverty,” Reich claims.

This of course is one of the fundamental fallacies of Keynesian philosophy. As Nobel Prize winner wrote in “Economics in One Lesson,”

“There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending. Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea for all our economic ills. Is private industry partially stagnant? We can fix it all by government spending. Is there unemployment? That is obviously due to “insufficient private spending power.” The remedy is just as obvious. All that is necessary is for the government to spend enough to make up the ‘deficiency.’”

Of course, what stimulus peddlers fail to remember is that everything must eventually be paid for through taxes. To be sure, spending will create some jobs. However, to understand the devastating impact of spending you must look beyond immediate consequences and beyond those who are directly benefited. For instance, if $1 billion is spent on a green energy windmill today, taxpayers must eventually pay an additional $1 billion in taxes. That $1 billion taken away can no longer be spent on the things they wanted or needed most. Moreover, the jobs that would be devoted to building those things we wanted would be lost. As Hazlitt wrote,

“All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project.”

Running enormous deficits doesn’t actually benefit society in the long term. It only allows the government to choose who wins while hiding away the losers. But the losers are clear – it is the young adults, the next generations, who will be responsible for paying for today’s irresponsibility. It will be they who Reich suggests will suffer “unnecessary hardship” and “poverty.”

That is the sum total of Reich’s article. A series of political footballs tossed up in the hopes of scaring some unsuspecting reader into voting for a Democrat. Some of these footballs are misinformation, some are lies, but they all are nothing more than an election year ploy for votes. It is sad to see someone so accomplished reduced to such tricks.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

This is the third part in a series analyzing the Republicans’ “Pledge to America,” read HERE and HERE for more.

This election season there is no lack of voting cues. America is upset for a number of reasons – the persistently sluggish economy, profligate government spending, and an overreaching healthcare bill among them. But when you strip away the voter anger the uniting thread seems to be that people no longer trust Washington.

When it comes to the economy they see money being funneled to pet projects and friendly labor unions rather than toward true job creators. When it comes to government spending they see their lawmakers spending tons of money in hopes of buying votes, regardless of its long-term consequences. When it comes to the healthcare bill they see an administration that promises them one thing, but myriad reports that show them the law will do another.

They sit and wonder what happen to the promise that this would be the most open and transparent administration in history.

This is all reflected in a Gallup poll released this week which finds that a record low 36 percent of Americans trust the legislative branch of government. This is 9 percent lower than the previous record low set last year. Of course the other branches haven’t fared much better. Each has seen a downward trend in the past 7 years.

Republicans’ sense such restlessness and have made reforming Congress and restoring trust a key, and in my estimation most important, part of their Pledge to America.

I can hear the catcalls coming in from the back – “the Republicans are just as untrustworthy” and “why should we believe them.” That Republicans lost their way is even included in the Pledge which says, “the House of Representatives must operate differently – differently from the way Democrats do now, and differently from the way Republicans did in the past.”

Nevertheless, the answers to these questions are frightening because they require a degree of faith that hasn’t been rewarded in the past. Nevertheless, we’re seeing a new dawn of conservatism. In the past few years there has been an unnecessary rift between conservatism and the Republican brand.

In some sense, the landslide election of President Obama and Congressional Democrats in 2007, was a fortunate experience for Republicans. They were purified by their losses and reinvigorated by the disastrous consequences of Democratic control. Republicans, or should I say conservatives, are back. They are filled with fresh faces, emboldened with new ideas, and united behind a commitment to changing the course we are on.

But does their governing document live up to the promise of their movement?

In many ways, yes. And the power of their ideas lie in their simplicity.

Read the Bill – Obvious enough. But Americans would be shocked at how rarely it is done. Take for instance Max Baucus (D-MT), one of the authors of the healthcare bill, who said during the debate, “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every passage of the healthcare bill.” Or Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) who said, “I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because [it] is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life.”

Bills are notoriously difficult to read and are growing in length. Nevertheless, Congress should at least be given the time to comprehend the legislation before they are forced to vote on it. That is why Republicans proposal to publish the text of bills for three days before voting is a simple, yet necessary, procedure.

Adhere to the Constitution – Another “do we really have to do this” proposal. Yes, adhering to the Constitution is not only utter common sense, it is actually mandated by the Constitution. Nevertheless, our foundational document is growing faster than our national deficit. Washington has become prone to stretching the meaning of the Constitution in clever, if disingenuous, ways to allow them to do what they want. That is why Republicans’ Pledge forces authors to cite the Constitutional authority for their legislation.

If they’re going to expand the meaning of the Constitution let them at least explain it so as to inform the people how much we are diluting its meaning. As famed Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” By forcing transparency in our legislation we may find that we soon return to the proper bounds of Constitutional law.

Make it Easier to Cut Spending – Lowering spending will be necessary if we want to remain a viable economic power. Sadly, our legislative process makes cutting spending next to impossible. By allowing amendments on spending bills, the Republican Pledge provides the opportunity to slash wasteful government expenditures and programs.

Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time – The legislative process has become a joke. And a bad one at that. Just last week the Senate voted on a defense authorizations bill that contained an immigration provision that would grant citizenship to aliens that would graduate from college. Regardless of whether it was a good idea, it had very little to do with the underlying purpose of the legislation – to provide a budget for the Department of Defense.

This is the norm for Washington. In an attempt to gain votes for passage they tack questionable amendments onto popular bills in hopes of gaining support. Republicans’ Pledge promises to end this “packaging” and advance issues one at a time. This ensures that ideas actually enjoy wide support among legislators and allows citizens to better track where their Congressmen stand.

Admittedly some of these proposals are a play toward theatrics. Some of the proposals are more common sense than reform. Then again, a return to common sense may be the greatest reform movement this country has seen in a long time. And that is exactly what Republicans’ Pledge to restore trust is all about.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

As college students, it is often taken for granted that we will be liberal. You’ve probably heard the old political saw (often misattributed to Winston Churchill), “”If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” There are numerous theories as to why. Democrats have a more optimistic, open-hearted vision for America. Young adults tend to be socially liberal. They saw a lot of themselves in Barack Obama. Liberal indoctrination by college professors. The list could stretch for miles. But today’s young adults may not be pigeonholed the same way. This year Democrats’ cannot take their votes for granted.

That doesn’t mean Democrats aren’t trying. President Obama is kicking off a series of rallies on college campuses, designed to reinvigorate the young adults who carried him into the White House two years earlier.

But the message has drastically changed. Rather than ignite young adults with his hopeful brand of politics, the President is reduced to groveling. As the Washington Post reported today,

When Obama steps onto a grass quad at the University of Wisconsin on Tuesday, he will deliver a newly tailored, more personalized campaign appeal aimed at ginning up enthusiasm, according to White House and senior Democratic officials. Plouffe said Obama will remind students of the work they put into his 2008 campaign and warn them that if they don’t reengage now, “all that could be jeopardized.”

In 2008 he advocated for change. In 2010 he’s advocating for things to stay the same? Not exactly a winning message.

But it is made even more unpalatable given the general lack of change we have actually seen from Obama. It is easy to promise change, it is much more difficult to actually deliver it. And this has been Obama’s failing. As one previous Obama supporter said in a town hall recently,

“I’m one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I’m exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for. And deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people and I’m waiting sir.

Substitute “middle class” for “young adults” and you’ll understand the frustration that is being seen on many college campuses. We wanted something different. We were promised something different. We got more of the same.

More politics. More backdoor dealings. More big government. More spending. More wars. For young adults there really wasn’t much difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration from which they were so disenchanted.

All told, Democrats have a much tougher sell this time around if they want to recapture magic with young people. Meanwhile, Republicans are beginning to find traction on college campuses. Take college sophomore Edward Dooley, who told ABC News that just two years ago he was a “Kennedy-worshipping, stereotypical Massachusetts liberal.” But now Dooley, like so many other young adults, finds that his political ideology has shifted to the right after being turned off by Obama’s “glossy ideals” and “lack of concrete policies.”

Beyond a failure to live up to promises, Obama’s support among the youth vote has been eroded by his failed attempts to jump start the economy. The recession has been especially hard on young people. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics youth unemployment was at 19.1 percent in July – the highest July rate since statistics were first kept in 1948.

Unfortunately for the unemployed the Democrats’ stimulus policies have done little to budge the unemployment needle. In fact, the only thing they have really accomplished is trillions of dollars of additional government debt, money that younger generations will be responsible for paying back.

As College Republican Chair Bob Kosek told ABC News for their story Republicans Rising on College Campuses,

“Hope and change doesn’t put money in your bank account to buy textbooks or pay off your student loans. It doesn’t help you get a job after you graduate either, and I think a lot of students are realizing that now.”

The rampant unemployment and dismal economy that is the Democrats’ legacy of the past two years is perhaps no clearer than on the University of Wisconsin campus where Obama is beginning his college tour. As the Washington Post reports,

The students on this leafy, generally liberal campus once constituted one of the strongest battalions in Obama’s grass-roots army. Two years later, the political dynamic has changed. Across campus, stickers, signs or chalkings for any politician are scarce. The laundromat where Obama’s young volunteers once staged late-night phone banks and planned bus trips to neighboring Iowa has gone out of business.”

A one-time hub for pro-Obama students now out of business. What a fitting, if sad metaphor for this administration.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

In case you hadn’t heard, Democrats are facing an uphill battle this November. But as Election Day looms they are scrounging for ways to make Republicans look bad and Democrats look good. It makes for great politics. It may even help their November chances. But great politics often leads to bad policy, and what’s good for Democratic candidates is often bad news for average Americans.

To see how politics is trumping principle look no further than the debate over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts. Agreement between the parties has been rare over the past year. Fortunately, the sagging economy has brought bipartisan agreement on one issue – avoiding tax hikes at all cost. The economic realities of today have led to a growing number of Democrats who have come out in support of tax cuts for all Americans. For instance, Gerry Connolly (D-VA) has said that “I think there is a certain logic to leaving well-enough alone for now, given the fragility of the economy.” He is far from alone. Given unanimous Republican support, there is a majority of the House who favors extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, at least in the short term.

Unfortunately for Americans, Nancy Pelosi wants nothing to do with it. She has discussed the possibility of using the suspension process, which supplants the usual majority vote for a two-third vote requirement, to vote for the tax cuts. Talking Points Memo explains her strategy,

If Pelosi offered one bill to only extend the middle class cuts, Republicans could use procedural maneuvers to force a separate vote on extending tax cuts for the rich — a vote Pelosi might well lose.

Likewise, if she brought two bills to the floor — one to extend the middle-income cuts and, one to extend the cuts for the wealthy — both might pass. That’s an outcome she wants to avoid.

Fortunately for her, there’s a way out. The House rules allow the Speaker to offer legislation under what’s known as suspension of the rules. Under suspension, time for debate is limited and no procedural hijinks are allowed — but a two-thirds majority of members on hand is required for passage.

The goal of such a maneuver is to force Republicans into a corner and make it appear as if they are against extending tax cuts for the middle class. But don’t let Democrats’ procedural tricks fool you – Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone. During a recession, in which the top 2 percent of earners represent more than 33 percent of consumer spending, it doesn’t make economic sense to raise taxes on anyone. In the face of depressed wages and a lackluster hiring market we need to keep as much money as we can in the pockets of citizens. It is the government who must make the move to tighten their belt in response to declining revenues.

Sadly the economic realities of the recession haven’t put a dent in Democrats’ strategy. Right now, priority number one for Democrats is winning in November, even if that means Americans lose. And sadly, part and parcel of increasing their November chances is making Republicans look bad on tax cuts.

Even if Democrats do not attempt the procedural ploy there is mounting evidence that they will punt on the tax cut vote. As the Washington Post wrote today, “many vulnerable Democrats are uneasy about the economic impact, and political consequences, of letting anyone’s taxes go up right now.” This may be even more intellectually dishonest than Pelosi’s earlier plan. At least then they were showing their true colors, namely that the leadership supports raising taxes on the upper classes regardless of the economic impact. But punting the vote until after the midterm elections is another base political move, designed to avoid “tough” votes for their struggling members.

Once again, such a strategy could be disastrous for average Americans. First, citizens and investors need to know what the tax rates will be before making certain economic decisions. Economists and most notably CEO’s have been urging the Obama administration to provide some economic certainty. Sadly, Democrats agenda has done anything but. Between our growing budget deficit, enormous increases in regulations and red tape, and looming tax cuts, the amount of variables that an investor has to consider is dramatically impeding economic activity. Extending the tax cuts could provide at least some small measure of assurance to investors that they can begin to reenter the market.

Second, delaying the tax cut vote could lead to higher taxes for all Americans, not just the upper classes. As The Hill reported today, “If Democratic leaders fail to determine the tax rates by Dec. 10, it could be too late for payroll administrators to withhold the right amount of tax from workers’ paychecks, according to industry officials.” This only leaves about a two-week working window during which Washington can vote on the cuts before the IRS deadline for releasing withholding tax tables. In other words, unless Democrats set aside their egos and allow a bipartisan extension to pass soon, workers could be paying much more in taxes this April.

The politics of extending the tax cuts is trumping what is good for the country. As Joseph Lieberman has said about the Democratic stalemate, “[T]he politics ultimately triumphed. We didn’t get much of anything done. And that’s why I think, ultimately, members of the Senate have decided the best thing to do is go home, particularly those who are running.” That may be what is best for them. But is that is what is best for Americans?

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

This is Part II in a series, to see our analysis on the GOP’s Pledge to create jobs see HERE.

Republicans are looking ahead to one of the most promising election years in over a decade. There are many reasons for our rosy prospects, but they are encapsulated by a common theme – a perception that government has overstepped its bounds. This term has been marked by unprecedented growth in our government. Unsurprisingly then, it has also been marked by historic levels of spending that threaten to literally bankrupt our future.

Perhaps the single largest symbol in government’s growth is the Democrats’ healthcare plan. Although it is a significant retreat from their favored plan, a government run single-payor system, it nevertheless represents the growth of government in a traditionally private sector.

Facing steeply rising premium prices the public was, and remains, open to fundamental healthcare reform. Sadly, the Democrats’ plan focused on the wrong problem. Rather than enact changes that would address the growing cost of healthcare, the government turned its focus toward forced increases in coverage. They hoped that by mandating that people join government approved healthcare plans, healthy people would be able to subsidize the larger number of insured.

This strategy has been an utter failure. Studies conducted by the federal government have found that the Democrats healthcare plan will increase costs, government spending, and ultimately make it harder to balance the budget. In June 2009 the CBO said that “enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficit of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. In April 2010 the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that “we estimate the for calendar years 2010 through 2019, [national health expenditures] would increase by $311 billion, or 0.9 percent, over the updated baseline projection.” And on June 2010 CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf found that, “In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish [the] pressure of [rising health costs].”

Given the numbers, it is unsurprising that a majority of Americans (61 percent) now favor repealing the healthcare law while a mere 33 percent say it will be good for the country.

Based on that feedback Republicans have made repealing and replacing Obamacare a key component of their governing agenda. Realistically, repealing the healthcare law would be politically impossible. Even if the GOP retakes the House and/or the Senate, they would likely face a presidential veto which would then require support from 2/3 of both chambers to override. But this isn’t about politics, or even possibility, so much as a reflection of the voters’ values.

The plan shows that Republicans’ understand and embrace the need for reform, but accomplish it by focusing on lowering costs rather than mandating coverage. Among the Republican promises as part of their reform are:

• Enact medical liability reform
• Introduce free market competition by allowing people to purchase health care across state lines
• Expand health savings accounts
• Strengthen doctor-patient relationship
• Ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions
• Permanently prohibit taxpayer abortions

To be fair, Democrats and Republicans agree on quite a bit. They both focus on creating insurance exchanges that make it easy to comparison shop. They also focus on prevention rather than treatment, understand the importance of access for preexisting conditions, and have a goal of lowering costs. The true difference lies in what Republicans want to leave out. They want to reduce the government’s presence in the healthcare law by simplifying the law and eliminating the need for the 3,833 pages of federal regulations that have already been written and the hundreds of new departments and agencies tasked with carrying out the law.
Rather than focus on what the government can do, Republicans rely on the power of free markets and individuals to get costs under control. The nexus of their plan is removing the current (but dying) system of employer and government provided coverage. One of the main problems that insurers have been able to drive costs skyward is that the consumer has no idea what healthcare actually costs. With no concept of what they are paying for, consumers’ incentive to shop for lower costs is reduced to near nothing. By allowing individuals, supplemented by an advanceable tax credit, to purchase their healthcare they will be forced to spend wisely.

The upcoming elections shows the power of the people when united behind a common cause. By empowering people to make healthcare decisions, unchained from the current broken system, we can reinvigorate a free market where competition and lower costs reign. The result will not only be less government intrusion in our lives, but reduced premium prices and lower governmental costs.

The Republican “Pledge” is not perfect but it represents a necessary shift from Washington. One in which the government’s role is not to provide healthcare, but one in which the government uses its power to grease the wheels for the free market. If Republicans are elected, the politics of repeal remain difficult, but at least the Pledge shows that their hearts and minds are in the right place.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director